Opinion Is father-son access going to heavily dictate the next decade of premiers?

[The Punter]

So by "we've never tried it" did you mean "we don't do it as well as we used to do?". While I agree with that statement, having at least a sprinkle of jeopardy for clubs who consign themselves to the doldrums (and let's face it, tanking was rewarded so heavily that some degree occurred quite often to good success) isn't the worst thing. Gravity pulling top teams down is now likely but not absolutely inevitable.

Your idea of a golden age is more just a perspective that bottom teams should be guaranteed a period of contending as a reward. That version is too extreme. What actually sucks is that teams stuck 6th-12th for extended periods get the worst of both worlds. If I was a Saints supporter I would be frustrated at the constraints of a recent no man's land existence.

Well, some of those constraints are imposed on the club by external factors.

Richmond had priority picks in the mid-2000s and didn't rebound, so it's no guarantee, but at least they had the access to the talent their poor performance should provide them if you believe a draft is the way to go.

To be clear, I've never suggested that one can legislate incompetence away. Twenty teams is going to make the process longer, and Tasmania will be given their chance to succeed.

But we've never really cleared the decks of the things that stop the draft doing what it is designed to do. We've added makeweights, and posters on this thread believe the draft should be used as a makeweight for geographical disadvantage. I don't agree with that. It's just that it has never been harder to come from the bottom, demonstrated by the struggles of North Melbourne and 1-win West Coast, and we could make it easier if we wanted. But romance.

 

[The Punter]

Sure it was gamed a bit (what isn't!) but I didn't have an issue with the win less than five games once equals x and win less than five games twice gives a better y ... the folks that focussed too much on that ended up with a destroyed culture anyway (the tankers vs the just sucks)

The only clubs IMO where it was attempted (tanking) and worked were Collingwood (2005) and West Coast (2008-2010). And those were two very strong organisations (maybe West Coast not so much now).

Others who actually tanked had the culture issue. And others got priority picks because they were poor, rather than they were tanking.

 

[SC_Power]

I hope so, along with NGA, selfishly.
Unless the rules change, which they are, and will, also for others’ selfish reasons.

 

[Mr Meow]

Sure it was gamed a bit (what isn't!) but I didn't have an issue with the win less than five games once equals x and win less than five games twice gives a better y ... the folks that focussed too much on that ended up with a destroyed culture anyway (the tankers vs the just sucks)

Brisbane - Leppitsch, Lappin + C.Cameron (trade)
St Kilda - Riewoldt + Ball
West Coast - Judd, Shuey + Darling
Bulldogs - Cooney + Griffin
Collingwood - Fraser + Thomas
Richmond - Deledio + Rance
Hawthorn - Roughead + Ellis
Gold Coast - Rowell

Sure you had a couple of dud tanking clubs, but the above priority pick players were crucial in those sides contending (and often winning flags).

 

[Mr Meow]

Well, some of those constraints are imposed on the club by external factors.

Richmond had priority picks in the mid-2000s and didn't rebound, so it's no guarantee, but at least they had the access to the talent their poor performance should provide them if you believe a draft is the way to go.

To be clear, I've never suggested that one can legislate incompetence away. Twenty teams is going to make the process longer, and Tasmania will be given their chance to succeed.

But we've never really cleared the decks of the things that stop the draft doing what it is designed to do. We've added makeweights, and posters on this thread believe the draft should be used as a makeweight for geographical disadvantage. I don't agree with that. It's just that it has never been harder to come from the bottom, demonstrated by the struggles of North Melbourne and 1-win West Coast, and we could make it easier if we wanted. But romance.

Deledio and Rance were important for Richmond becoming a finals team that then build (Rance remained crucial until 2019, by which time others stepped up).

NM and WCE are special cases I think. They have seriously bungled or prolonged their rebuilds and it can't simply be explained away by equalization methods failing.

 

[The Punter]

Deledio and Rance were important for Richmond becoming a finals team that then build (Rance remained crucial until 2019, by which time others stepped up).

NM and WCE are special cases I think. They have seriously bungled or prolonged their rebuilds and it can't simply be explained away by equalization methods failing.

We will never know because they couldn't access the asset that was Riley Thilthorpe (Adelaide would have picked Ugle-Hagan), Sam Darcy, Nick Daicos or either Ashcroft.

Those guys don't have to play for North in a fair system. The clubs that want them would just have to satisfy North in a trade. You know, market value (not arbitrary points).

The current arrangement cannot be fair if the parent clubs have exclusive access. It can be fairer, but it can't be fair.

Another unanswerable hypothetical: would West Coast have traded away high picks if they had proper access to the draft? Bad decisions maybe, but also playing the cards they were dealt. Unfortunately in this poker game, because of the father-son rule, West Coast only got dealt four cards.

 

[Mr Meow]

We will never know because they couldn't access the asset that was Riley Thilthorpe (Adelaide would have picked Ugle-Hagan), Sam Darcy, Nick Daicos or either Ashcroft.

Those guys don't have to play for North in a fair system. The clubs that want them would just have to satisfy North in a trade. You know, market value (not arbitrary points).

The current arrangement cannot be fair if the parent clubs have exclusive access. It can be fairer, but it can't be fair.

Another unanswerable hypothetical: would West Coast have traded away high picks if they had proper access to the draft? Bad decisions maybe, but also playing the cards they were dealt. Unfortunately in this poker game, because of the father-son rule, West Coast only got dealt four cards.

Yes we probably avoided NM becoming a super club capable of a dynasty starting right now (if they could have held onto players...see JHF). Being a bottom team for 5+ years in the current system just gives slightly lower odds that they'll catapult into an outstanding side. You see that as a really bad thing while my feelings are much more mixed.

 

[mpal6]

Brisbane - Leppitsch, Lappin + C.Cameron (trade)
St Kilda - Riewoldt + Ball
West Coast - Judd, Shuey + Darling
Bulldogs - Cooney + Griffin
Collingwood - Fraser + Thomas
Richmond - Deledio + Rance
Hawthorn - Roughead + Ellis
Gold Coast - Rowell

Sure you had a couple of dud tanking clubs, but the above priority pick players were crucial in those sides contending (and often winning flags).

C.Cameron wasn't directly via priority pick though. We traded the 2016 PP (pick 19) and Hanley - which became pick 22 (cedric cox) and port future first which landed at pick 12 at the end of 2017 season.

The Brisbane method: How to turn a priority pick into a serious flag contender

David Noble's time at Brisbane may shed light on how the Kangaroos would use a priority pick - if they get one

www.afl.com.au

Hanley joins Suns after complex three-way trade

Port Adelaide joins three-way deal to move Lions defender to Gold Coast

www.afl.com.au

 

[Mr Meow]

C.Cameron wasn't directly via priority pick though. We traded the 2016 PP (pick 19) and Hanley - which became pick 22 (cedric cox) and port future first which landed at pick 12 at the end of 2017 season.

The Brisbane method: How to turn a priority pick into a serious flag contender

David Noble's time at Brisbane may shed light on how the Kangaroos would use a priority pick - if they get one

www.afl.com.au

Hanley joins Suns after complex three-way trade

Port Adelaide joins three-way deal to move Lions defender to Gold Coast

www.afl.com.au

Exactly. Without the priority pick it can't happen. Very astute list management to leverage it into what would be an elite prime aged forward for the next 7 years. Superb timing too. The years at the bottom, mixed with good drafting, excellent FA/trade additions (correctly timed), FS, academies and the right coach has been a brilliant mix. A couple of factors helped boost the list but it is still an example of the bottom to top equalization catapult working.

 

[The Punter]

Yes we probably avoided NM becoming a super club capable of a dynasty starting right now (if they could have held onto players...see JHF). Being a bottom team for 5+ years in the current system just gives slightly lower odds that they'll catapult into an outstanding side. You see that as a really bad thing while my feelings are much more mixed.

If they had proper access they would have bounced back earlier.

I can understand how a Geelong supporter would have little appreciation for the issues with clubs being structurally incapable of rising to actual contention. It's a situation Geelong never seem to encounter, being well run with a ground that all political parties love and a lifestyle that seems to appeal to almost every good footballer.

Perpetual structural mediocrity runs a real risk of fans of those clubs walking out on the game.

 

[Mr Meow]

If they had proper access they would have bounced back earlier.

I can understand how a Geelong supporter would have little appreciation for the issues with clubs being structurally incapable of rising to actual contention. It's a situation Geelong never seem to encounter, being well run with a ground that all political parties love and a lifestyle that seems to appeal to almost every good footballer.

Perpetual structural mediocrity runs a real risk of fans of those clubs walking out on the game.

I remember when nobody wanted to come to Geelong. It is staggering in hindsight that Ottens even agreed to it. The club still seemed pretty shambolic as late as round 5, 2007. Things can change.

 

[The Punter]

I remember when nobody wanted to come to Geelong. It is staggering in hindsight that Ottens even agreed to it. The club still seemed pretty shambolic as late as round 5, 2007. Things can change.

Geelong made a prelim in 2004. Where do I sign up? New stand on the outer side was already built, you had Selwood (in part because you didn't need to use your first rounder on Hawkins because of...)

Geelong haven't spent three years in a row outside of finals since 2001-2003. It's nice and warm where you are. Exceedingly well run, helped by government support and the ability of past players to sire sons.

 

[Mr Meow]

Geelong made a prelim in 2004. Where do I sign up? New stand on the outer side was already built, you had Selwood (in part because you didn't need to use your first rounder on Hawkins because of...)

Geelong haven't spent three years in a row outside of finals since 2001-2003. It's nice and warm where you are. Exceedingly well run, helped by government support and the ability of past players to sire sons.

St Kilda did too, after tanking + priority picks (Geelong required neither). They wasted their chance to become a have rather than have not when they were up and about. The well run bit would have likely been enough, regardless of whether they put you back at Moorabin in your own world class 80,000 seat stadium.

The Saints now have a chance to rise from no man's land to contending like Geelong did 22 years ago. There are obstacles to overcome but 2001-2006 Geelong were fighting against clubs with FS and priority + top 5 picks (Brisbane, West Coast etc). Well managed clubs find a way to at least be competitive. Hawkins (the one true steal) became important later. It was one lucky lever among 20 self controlled ones.

The Brisbane levers (FS, acamedies, priority pick converted to Cameron) you could argue cost the Cats 2 premierships the past 2 years, but there are plenty of things the club could've done better to be the best anyway. That should be the focus.

 

[The Punter]

St Kilda did too, after tanking + priority picks (Geelong required neither). They wasted their chance to become a have rather than have not when they were up and about. The well run bit would have likely been enough, regardless of whether they put you back at Moorabin in your own world class 80,000 seat stadium.

The Saints now have a chance to rise from no man's land to contending like Geelong did 22 years ago. There are obstacles to overcome but 2001-2006 Geelong were fighting against clubs with FS and priority + top 5 picks (Brisbane, West Coast etc). Well managed clubs find a way to at least be competitive. Hawkins (the one true steal) became important later. It was one lucky lever among 20 self controlled ones.

The Brisbane levers (FS, acamedies, priority pick converted to Cameron) you could argue cost the Cats 2 premierships the past 2 years, but there are plenty of things the club could've done better to be the best anyway. That should be the focus.

We did things poorly post 2010, but a premiership in 2009 makes everything afterwards different like the 2007 one did for Geelong. The Moorabbin point is a fantastical straw man. There was no opportunity for us to have our own stadium, and that's fine but we paid for Docklands for 25 years. It doesn't bother me.

Geelong, at the longest possible judgement, took 7 years to return to contention: from the old group in 1997 (you finished 2nd) to 2004. Skip over the 2000 blip: that season makes little sense. In this instance 2000 equals 2020 and 2023 for us, so we are at 16 years and counting between contention (top 4 ladder finish or prelim).

And finally one of the classics: just focus on being better. As if the club cannot walk and chew at the same time. Somehow we recruited TDK and Silvagni and Flanders and Ryan, and re-signed NWM while our President did not change his tone on these important issues one iota. The proof will come when we play, but just like Collingwood did when they were winning premierships while at the same time advocating for the abolition of COLA, we can do two things at once. St Kilda are done with being quiet about structural issues that need fixing.

 

[Warwick]

The Brisbane levers (FS, acamedies, priority pick converted to Cameron) you could argue cost the Cats 2 premierships the past 2 years, but there are plenty of things the club could've done better to be the best anyway. That should be the focus.

And the Cats were the biggest benefactors from FS when they were winning flags in the mid 2000s. Ablett x2, Scarlett, Hawkins. They’ve had 14 father sons to BL’s 7. Are you giving any of those flags back?

You state a lot of your FS weren’t rated. We’ve got one academy selection taken before pick 25 on our list - and he hasn’t played a game.

I’d say having to play a preliminary final against Geelong at the MCG when we earned the right to play at the Gabba may have cost us 2004. Can we have that flag instead if we’re retrospectively giving 2025 to Geelong?

 

[Mr Meow]

We did things poorly post 2010, but a premiership in 2009 makes everything afterwards different like the 2007 one did for Geelong. The Moorabbin point is a fantastical straw man. There was no opportunity for us to have our own stadium, and that's fine but we paid for Docklands for 25 years. It doesn't bother me.

Geelong, at the longest possible judgement, took 7 years to return to contention: from the old group in 1997 (you finished 2nd) to 2004. Skip over the 2000 blip: that season makes little sense. In this instance 2000 equals 2020 and 2023 for us, so we are at 16 years and counting between contention (top 4 ladder finish or prelim).

And finally one of the classics: just focus on being better. As if the club cannot walk and chew at the same time. Somehow we recruited TDK and Silvagni and Flanders and Ryan, and re-signed NWM while our President did not change his tone on these important issues one iota. The proof will come when we play, but just like Collingwood did when they were winning premierships while at the same time advocating for the abolition of COLA, we can do two things at once. St Kilda are done with being quiet about structural issues that need fixing.

I'm not sure what a "fantastical straw" is, but please refrain from calling me "man".

I'm merely pointing out that all clubs, including my own, have suffered (not simply benefited) from any measure in question - FA (Lynch Richmond 2019 wins them the flag), priority picks, FS, academies, home venue factors (no finals allowed there), undesirable destination (until around 2016), rule changes (no third man up cancels Blicavs POD) or lack thereof (rushed behind rule comes a year too late. Often the difference between being a contender and actually winning the premiership. Shit happens.

Northern clubs getting a good ride is the price we pay to have them in the comp, while FS is just dumb luck (thousands of dumb luck factors affect every club every season). Being well run is the best medicine against any perceived disadvantage, or to strike when it benefits you.

 

[The Punter]

I'm not sure what a "fantastical straw" is, but please refrain from calling me "man".

I'm merely pointing out that all clubs, including my own, have suffered (not simply benefited) from any measure in question - FA (Lynch Richmond 2019 wins them the flag), priority picks, FS, academies, home venue factors (no finals allowed there), undesirable destination (until around 2016), rule changes (no third man up cancels Blicavs POD) or lack thereof (rushed behind rule comes a year too late. Often the difference between being a contender and actually winning the premiership. Shit happens.

Northern clubs getting a good ride is the price we pay to have them in the comp, while FS is just dumb luck (thousands of dumb luck factors affect every club every season). Being well run is the best medicine against any perceived disadvantage, or to strike when it benefits you.

If dumb luck can be avoided, you avoid it. We've binned the bounce for exactly that reason.

The fact that stuff happens is not an argument to avoid working towards fairness.

 

[Mr Meow]

If dumb luck can be avoided, you avoid it. We've binned the bounce for exactly that reason.

The fact that stuff happens is not an argument to avoid working towards fairness.

Why is being rewarded for being a bottom club fair to begin with? Should I be promoted if I skip work 20 days in a row?

The extreme advantage rewarding poor performance is just slightly more diluted and less of a sure thing than it used to be - that's all.

 

[The Punter]

Why is being rewarded for being a bottom club fair to begin with? Should I be promoted if I skip work 20 days in a row?

The extreme advantage rewarding poor performance is just slightly more diluted and less of a sure thing than it used to be - that's all.

For most teams, failure is not a conscious choice. And that pesky point about what the draft is designed to do. If you don't like it, suggest a non-draft alternative for players entering the league.

Yes, a club should not receive a better draft pick if it forfeits 20 consecutive games.

 

[Mr Meow]

For most teams, failure is not a conscious choice. And that pesky point about what the draft is designed to do. If you don't like it, suggest a non-draft alternative for players entering the league.

Yes, a club should not receive a better draft pick if it forfeits 20 consecutive games.

I tolerate any system in place. You can quite easily argue against practically any measure being "fair" though - now, 10 years ago, 20 years ago and so on. The one exception is probably the salary cap and of course even that can be gamed.

All other factors (including everything draft related) are flawed, all can be exploited or wasted, all have pros and cons. Levers exist to propel terrible clubs higher and to keep successful clubs contending. There isn't one universally "correct" method for the flux of team success in the league. Good fortune meeting good management remains key as it always has.

 

[The Punter]

I tolerate any system in place. You can quite easily argue against literally any measure being "fair" though - now, 10 years ago, 20 years ago and so on. All are flawed, all can be exploited or wasted, all have pros and cons. Levers exist to propel terrible clubs higher and to keep successful clubs contending. There isn't one universally "correct" method for the flux of team success in the league. Good fortune meeting good management remains key as it always has.

But we entrench or embrace the good fortune (fortune being the antithesis of behaviour) with the father-son rule. You can do everything right and someone else gets lucky.

Why don't we try an unencumbered, uncompromised draft for a few years and see what happens?

And there remains no offered, cogent argument for the father-son rule other than romance. It doesn't win over a single fan but only serves to turn on field success, which should be based on competence and ability as much as is possible, into something somewhat (and unacceptably so IMO) based on the ability (luck) of past players to sire sons. It defies my understanding.

 

[Mr Meow]

But we entrench or embrace the good fortune (fortune being the antithesis of behaviour) with the father-son rule. You can do everything right and someone else gets lucky.

Why don't we try an unencumbered, uncompromised draft for a few years and see what happens?

And there remains no offered, cogent argument for the father-son rule other than romance. It doesn't win over a single fan but only serves to turn on field success, which should be based on competence and ability as much as is possible, into something somewhat (and unacceptably so IMO) based on the ability (luck) of past players to sire sons. It defies my understanding.

The draft rewards incompetence and lack of ability though, so the premise of a meritocracy is cut off at the knees to begin with. FS luck merely muddies that water a little, much like FA does, or whatever other factor you look at (Geelong's special stadium...but not getting to play finals there...Marvel tenants not getting any home finals OR a special H&A stadium...VicBias...academies....COLA yes/no?...facilities...staff). The myriad of factors do mean the odds are lowered of a catapult from joke to dominant premier....yet 4 of the past 5 dynasties still successfully used that catapult. Just because NM and WCE are getting stuck, like Carlton did, doesn't mean the draft equality measures prevent these meteoric rises. They simply aren't guaranteed.

 

[The Punter]

The draft rewards incompetence and lack of ability though, so the premise of a meritocracy is cut off at the knees to begin with. FS luck merely muddies that water a little, much like FA does, or whatever other factor you look at (Geelong's special stadium...but not getting to play finals there...Marvel tenants not getting any home finals OR a special H&A stadium...VicBias...academies....COLA yes/no?...facilities...staff). The myriad of factors do mean the odds are lowered of a catapult from joke to dominant premier....yet 4 of the past 5 dynasties still successfully used that catapult. Just because NM and WCE are getting stuck, like Carlton did, doesn't mean the draft equality measures prevent these meteoric rises. They simply aren't guaranteed.

It addresses lack of ability by distributing talent to where it is most needed, avoiding a La Liga situation where the same teams are always dominant. If one is an elitist, the argument against the draft would look a lot like the one above.

Five dynasties this century, right? Lions #1, Cats, Hawks, Tigers, Lions #2? Too many dynasties. Three since GC/GWS were introduced (also around when the automatic priority picks were abolished). Dynasties are proof of excellence. They also are proof that the system is broken.

 

[Mr Meow]

It addresses lack of ability by distributing talent to where it is most needed, avoiding a La Liga situation where the same teams are always dominant. If one is an elitist, the argument against the draft would look a lot like the one above.

Five dynasties this century, right? Lions #1, Cats, Hawks, Tigers, Lions #2? Too many dynasties. Three since GC/GWS were introduced (also around when the automatic priority picks were abolished). Dynasties are proof of excellence. They also are proof that the system is broken.

A meritocracy would actually involve complete randomisation of draft picks while retaining the salary cap, randomising the GF venue each year, allowing every club to have its own stadium and to play home finals there, the fixture to be every side playing each other twice (once home and away). It will never be anything close to a simple ability = success metric. You are fantasising about a version of the league that never existed and is impossible to ever exist. Modifying the benefit of one of thousands of elements of dumb luck (FS) does not change any of that.

There isn't a correct amount of dynasties, of bottom to top club draft-aided catapulting, time period contending for premierships, of Vic vs non-Vic flags. The system wasn't "correct" in 1925, it wasn't in 1990, or 2005, or 2025. Any measure changed now will merely shift one of thousands of levers in 1 slightly different direction and it will still not be "fair" or "perfect".

 

[The Punter]

A meritocracy would actually involve complete randomisation of draft picks while retaining the salary cap, randomising the GF venue each year, allowing every club to have its own stadium and to play home finals there, the fixture to be every side playing each other twice (once home and away). It will never be anything close to a simple ability = success metric. You are fantasising about a version of the league that never existed and is impossible to ever exist. Modifying the benefit of one of thousands of elements of dumb luck (FS) does not change any of that.

There isn't a correct amount of dynasties, of bottom to top club draft-aided catapulting, time period contending for premierships, of Vic vs non-Vic flags. The system wasn't "correct" in 1925, it wasn't in 1990, or 2005, or 2025. Any measure changed now will merely shift one of thousands of levers in 1 slightly different direction and it will still not be "fair" or "perfect".

Again, we can't fix everything so don't try to fix anything. Because it cannot be perfect, let's not attempt improvement. The ball is oval, lets give top teams exclusive access to the best kids because their dad played here.

BTW, randomisation and meritocracy are not synonyms. The meritocracy of the AFL is the team that wins the Grand Final gets the Premiership.