Analysis Father Son Selections

[JohnnySteel]

The “some restrictions on those finishing in the top 8 or top 4” is the worry. Very vague.

 

[Bulldogs85]

 

[Foxman98]

Carlton are ****ed then for Walker

 

[Mojorisin]

Thats what i meant by making it technically impossible.
"The door will be left open if the club is willing"

 

[Mojorisin]

Carlton are ****ed then for Walker

Almost guarantees the need for them to move the TDK pick into next year.

 

[Foxman98]

Almost guarantees the need for them o move the TDK pick into next year.

But only to a shit team

 

[TheSportingEyes]

Smart teams will not let their NGA, northern club academy or father sons play at all in under 18s. There is no point when it becomes this expensive. Great rule introduction but clubs always find loopholes.

 

[VitalDread]

I really like the new draft ruling
Shocked AFL came to their senses

Makes trading more important and could see a few more players go to lower clubs for long term prospects

 

[VitalDread]

Smart teams will not let their NGA, northern club academy or father sons play at all.

Can confirm

That Ivel East won't be a first rounder

 

[Freshwater]

A recent photo of Jaxon Cooney looks likes he's enter the 190cm range now

I ran into Adam Cooney at the local chicken shop, I think he doesn’t live too far from me now. He is massive, he’s put on a few keggs, but way taller than I expected too. Put them both together and you have a big unit.

 

[weltschmerz]

Next year we tell Levi West to pick his nose and put his feet on the desk in meetings with recruiters

 

[GetDimmaBack]

Next year we tell Levi West to pick his nose and put his feet on the desk in meetings with recruiters

Nah, doesn't matter where he goes, he'll just ask for a trade to the Dogs at the end of his first contract (or sooner, a la JHF & Toyd).

There will be plenty of that going on if F/S become unworkable.

 

[iambrilliant]

you’ve got Brisbane Geelong hawthorn Collingwood and Sydney dominating the competition the last 20 years off the back of father sons and academys with Essendon and Carlton absolutely stinking it up and then they finally get a chance to get a leg up and the afl comes in and makes this stupid rule change that shafts Essendon and Carlton . Equalisation my ass

 

[Foxman98]

you’ve got Brisbane Geelong hawthorn Collingwood and Sydney dominating the competition the last 20 years with Essendon and Carlton absolutely stinking it up and then they finally get a chance to get a leg up and the afl comes in and makes this stupid rule change the shafts Essendon and Carlton . Equalisation my ass

Carlton and Essendon are both shit because they draft and develop shit

 

[iambrilliant]

Carlton and Essendon are both shit because they draft and develop shit

Yeh they do but they are gonna be shit for even longer now

 

[Foxman98]

Yeh they do but they are gonna be shit for even longer now

And it will still be all their own doing,

As annoying as it is 15/23 playing for Geelong the other night were drafted after pick 30/rookie draft/DFA/Cat B

Thats 2/3s of the side with late picks Essendon get 3 top 10 picks in a row and all 3 are either shit soft or injured

 

[geoffjennings79]

So this will complicate the coming years when/if we have more than one top F/S prospect?

Sam P will have to get off the banana lounge at the resort, stub out that Cuban, and get to work!

 

[weltschmerz]

So this will complicate the coming years when/if we have more than one top F/S prospect?

Sam P will have to get off the banana lounge at the resort, stub out that Cuban, and get to work!

We have two father-sons and two NGAs next year.

 

[bobs head soup]

Whoever put that tweet together doesn't like Cal Twomey much and has a sense of humour.

 

[dogwatch]

Yeh they do but they are gonna be shit for even longer now

That's the silver lining.

 

[dogwatch]

I really like the new draft ruling
Shocked AFL came to their senses

Makes trading more important and could see a few more players go to lower clubs for long term prospects

It sounds like it might address some of the things we've been complaining about.

As always the devil will be in the detail. What happens when clubs have multiple tied players in the one draft for instance?

There will be situations arise sooner rather than later that the new rules don't cater for and they will have to make some tweaks or just say stiff shit to whoever is adversely affected. However I'm tentatively on board at this stage.

The biggest threat will come from clubs putting into action strategies that evade or minimise the impact on them, as TheSportingEyes suggested.

 

[Mutt]

It's hard to hate a rule that shafts Carlton and Essington. Kudos to our AFL overlords.

 

[Claythesmiths]

I really like the new draft ruling
Shocked AFL came to their senses

Makes trading more important and could see a few more players go to lower clubs for long term prospects

I don't really agree with the proposed rule. I think there's a host of problems with it. If you're a team currently challening for finals, like us, how do you prepare for future drafts? We could trade our first round pick this year for a pick next year, but if we finish high next year and so does the other team we could be left with picks 15 & 16 as our two top picks, which would be adeuqate only to match a bid from 5 or later. It adds so much risk to team's list management. Clubs don't take risks and therefore they will devalue their NGA programs.

When a club develops their academy, father sons and NGA players they're not doing it to get the next Buku Khamis or Cody Raak. Notwithstanding his off-field issues, getting access to a Jamarra or a Quaynor is the holy grail and the reason you put resources into the program to begin with. This rule would make it virtually impossible to match a pick 1 bid without trading away your top-end talent, which clubs simply should not and will not do. Imagine if we'd traded away one of our stars in 2020 to get Jamarra?

I agree that clubs have been taking the piss by matching bids with 5+ later picks but I think the more realistic solution to this was to a) remove the matching discount, then b) readjust the value of late picks. Clubs were too easily trading in bulk picks in the 30s and 40s and using those to match. The points system should be reevaluated to recognise how valueless clubs actually believe those picks are.

 

[Mojorisin]

I don't really agree with the proposed rule. I think there's a host of problems with it. If you're a team currently challening for finals, like us, how do you prepare for future drafts? We could trade our first round pick this year for a pick next year, but if we finish high next year and so does the other team we could be left with picks 15 & 16 as our two top picks, which would be adeuqate only to match a bid from 5 or later. It adds so much risk to team's list management. Clubs don't take risks and therefore they will devalue their NGA programs.

When a club develops their academy, father sons and NGA players they're not doing it to get the next Buku Khamis or Cody Raak. Notwithstanding his off-field issues, getting access to a Jamarra or a Quaynor is the holy grail and the reason you put resources into the program to begin with. This rule would make it virtually impossible to match a pick 1 bid without trading away your top-end talent, which clubs simply should not and will not do. Imagine if we'd traded away one of our stars in 2020 to get Jamarra?

I agree that clubs have been taking the piss by matching bids with 5+ later picks but I think the more realistic solution to this was to a) remove the matching discount, then b) readjust the value of late picks. Clubs were too easily trading in bulk picks in the 30s and 40s and using those to match. The points system should be reevaluated to recognise how valueless clubs actually believe those picks are.

They did adjust the points index and reduced the discount to 10%, they haven't even waited one season to gauge an outcome. I agree they should've scraped the discount entirely, aswell increase the top 10 more but surely when you make changes you at least let it run once.

 

[Munnez]

The “some restrictions on those finishing in the top 8 or top 4” is the worry. Very vague.

Would be happy with a sliding scale on the Top 4 and Top 8.
1st attracts 20% Premium to match and can match 1 only
2nd 15% Premium to match and can match only 1
3rd 10%
4th 5%
5=8 No Premium applies but can match only 1
All others can Match a maximum of 2
Just a quick thought on a possible system