News AFL overhauls Academy and FS bid matching, discussing draft lockout

[go_the_dockers]

Changing subjects a bit, listening to Scott Cummings on hard ball gets, he said WA players are 12 months behind (development wise) than Vic clubs (and I assume NSW and QLD clubs as well).

He said a big reason was the TAC cup sides have better facilities than WAFL (and I assume SANFL) clubs, and they are 100% dedicated to u18 development.

I am guessing that WA and SA clubs either don't get enough money from the AFL, or are spending it poorly (would really like to know how much money the TAC and VFL clubs get vs the SANFL and WAFL), and there is no insensitive for the clubs to invest in u18 development.

 

[sr36]

Not my words mate, I've quoted you two articles on where the bid came and how the draft went. If all you got is it doesn't make sense - can't help you. Happy for you to research and let me know.

The articles are wrong. It was a low 30s pick at the time of the bid that became 36 after FA compensation picks. North rated him.

But I tend to think it's not worth looking at the actual players taken. It was essentially a bonus second round pick for the Lions. You got 2 of them that year. You got a bonus first round pick last year. A bonus first round pick the year of Hipwood. The effect of the academy scheme is an ongoing assistance package that will recur more and more frequently, as that's the purpose of the academies. And an assistance package that you receive regardless of ladder position.

 

[bzparkes]

Changing subjects a bit, listening to Scott Cummings on hard ball gets, he said WA players are 12 months behind (development wise) than Vic clubs (and I assume NSW and QLD clubs as well).

He said a big reason was the TAC cup sides have better facilities than WAFL (and I assume SANFL) clubs, and they are 100% dedicated to u18 development.

He stole that from Simmo the other week

 

[Scotland]

If you've read the last two pages, you'll know I'm not a supporter of a compromised draft, academies or player movement power. But they are part of the AFL, which is full of inequities throughout the competition.

However I do like discussions to be based on facts, or as close to.

Blakey, Heeney, Tom Green.. didn't all go to the same team.

There isn't an endless stream of top end talent going to each of the Northern teams.

There isn't an endless stream of talent going to the Southern teams either.

WC's top 10 picks on the list are Ginbey (9, 2022) and Reid (1, 2023). That's it. Two players which would've been three if we didn't split pick 3 last year and four if we didn't split pick 6 12 years ago. We had no access from 2014-2021 because we were a finalist 6 years in a row bookended by two 9ths. That is OK, that is how the draft is supposed to work.

Sydney have 5 since 2015 and have missed the finals twice in 10 seasons. It would be 6 had they not traded Dylan Stephens to North.

In 13 years, we (the Lions) have had 2 first round academy selections. One in 2015, the other in 2024. Neither in the top 10. Hardly top end talent there.

Suns had 1 kid in 2016 (who now plays for Geelong), before getting 4 in 2023, which was an outlier year amongst all 4 clubs. And another in 2024.

Swans have had 4 in 15 years.

GWS have had 1 top end kid since the Riverina was taken away from them after 2015. Of those Riverina kids drafted in 2015, only 1 was a top 10 pick and he now plays for Richmond. Another plays for Footscray, his third club. Only one is still at GWS, and he was the last of the Riverina kids drafted.

OK?

No one is saying there is going to be an Isaac Heeney or Tom Green every year for every Northern club.

The issue is that every time there is those players are off the board. And every time there isn't those clubs just pick another Cadman, Callaghan, Rowell etc.

QLD and NSW account for just over 51% of the nations population. By rights, we should be producing more draftable talent per year, than Victoria.

Except most talented kids play Rugby League or Rugby Union.

What a weird argument. 51% of the population and 4 AFL teams which is arguably still 2 too many to support. Victoria, SA and WA combined have about 44% of the nation's population and a grand total of one NRL team and one Super Rugby team between them. If playing/supporting footy was determined by population share then half the teams in the AFL would be in Qld/NSW.

The whole point of the Northern Academies were/are to grow the game in non football States, and to counter balance the pillaging that occurred during the teens of this century, which your team was apart of.

Every AFL premier from 2016 to 2023, except for Geelong in 2022, contained players pulled out the Northern clubs before those players reached free agency after their 8th season. Including your team.

OK?

Where did Callum Ah Chee, Lachie Neale, Joe Daniher, Josh Dunkley, Charlie Cameron, Darcy Fort and Connor McKenna come from?

Why do fans in Northern states live in this weird reality where their clubs don't recruit players from other clubs?

How many nga kids do West Coast currently have on your list? Following the discussion on your board, in your nga/draft thread, it look likes it's going to take you only two or three drafts to have about the same number of nga academy kids on your list as the Lions have academy kids on our list.

WC currently have Malakai Champion and Coen Livingstone who are Cat B rookies. Lance Collard was drafted pick 28 to St Kilda.

If the Northern club academies had to comply by the same NGA rules as the other clubs, there would have been 5 players drafted in the last 14 years under nga rules; Keidean Coleman, Blake Coleman, Alex Davies, Jake Rogers and Leo Lombard. No kids out of NSW. And Rogers was in a draft when top 40 draftees couldn't be matched, so really it's 4 kids.

OK? In that scenario GWS can have Tom Green or Lachie Ash. Sydney can have Braeden Campbell or Logan McDonald. Is there something wrong with that? If Northern clubs want to game the system to double dip that is their prerogative and the rules allow it, but don't cry if the rules get changed.

Almost every fan only looks out for the best interests of their own team.

We the Lions were heading down to the bottom of the draft during the last expansion drafts, then had the go home 5 right after, and other young early draftees raided from us. No other teams had any sympathy for our predicament. Your team was one of the beneficiaries of the player exodus from my team.

We waited 21 years between flags. Didn't read any West Coast fans advocating about the unfairness of our plight from 2011 to 2018. Or Gold Coasts plight when they were raided year after year by the Vic and SA clubs. Same for GWS.

Academies have nothing to do with Brisbane's 2024 success. What annoys people about Brisbane specifically is two top 5 father-son picks in 3 years coinciding with back to back GF appearances. Which has nothing to do with academies.

Why would WC fans (or any other) care about Brisbane's plight after 2004? You are one of two clubs that are trying to sign our captain as a free agent. I don't see a single Brisbane person saying 'better not sign this good player that will help our team so WC can hold on to some WA talent while they are down'. Who has sympathy for our predicament? No one, why would they? We were good, now are bad. One day we will be good again. That is footy.

You won 3 flags then made a few poor list management decisions. Freo, GC and GWS have never won a flag. Most St Kilda fans weren't alive in 1966. Dogs, Dees Cats, Swans fans waited decades. Carlton, Adelaide, North haven't won since the 90s. Essendon are up to 25 years, Port 21, even Hawthorn are up to 10 years and their 3peat was 5 minutes ago.

I have sympathy for Brisbane that their down period coincided with the AFL introducing Gold Coast and having a new shiny toy to play with instead of the Lions, but the same thing happened in NSW and Sydney made 3 GFs in 5 years from 2012. My own team finished last in the year of the first expansion draft and got pick 4 and then a 'priority' pick ay 26. Port finished second last and got pick 6 in 2011 due to GWS entering, then 14th in 2012 and watched GWS end up with 1-2-3 due to mini draft concessions. Have to play with the cards you are dealt.

 

[briztoon]

There isn't an endless stream of talent going to the Southern teams either.

WC's top 10 picks on the list are Ginbey (9, 2022) and Reid (1, 2023). That's it. Two players which would've been three if we didn't split pick 3 last year and four if we didn't split pick 6 12 years ago. We had no access from 2014-2021 because we were a finalist 6 years in a row bookended by two 9ths. That is OK, that is how the draft is supposed to work.

Sydney have 5 since 2015 and have missed the finals twice in 10 seasons. It would be 6 had they not traded Dylan Stephens to North.

There will be a lot more nga kids being produced in the southern and western states now that the draft restrictions have been lifted.

More so, because Aussie Rules is the number one code in those states, that almost every kid is exposed to it from a young age.

West Coast already have the second highest rated WA prospect in their academy for 2026.

And you only have to look at the WA teams asking to be able to have the same access to their kids, as the northern academies have to theirs, in their submission to the AFL.

Sydney have put a lot of $$$ and human resources in to their academy for 15 years to get the players they have.

Gold Coast appointed Rhyce Shaw as academy manager in 2021, and that saw them change a lot and really start producing kids.

OK?

No one is saying there is going to be an Isaac Heeney or Tom Green every year for every Northern club.

The same goes for the NGA’s as of last year though.

The issue is that every time there is those players are off the board. And every time there isn't those clubs just pick another Cadman, Callaghan, Rowell etc.

This argument doesn’t hold.

All Gold Coasts draft concessions came at the end of the last decade, before their academy started producing higher end kids this decade, when they were constantly being raided for their young Vic talent.

They’re not getting high draftees and good academy kids at the same time.



GWS was partly due to smart list management, aided by the fact they had excess draft capital because Jeremy Cameron, Jacob Hopper, Tim Taranto all left and they were able to trade up to the top of the draft to draft highly rated kids.

And again GWS has only had one high end academy kid, Tom Green.


West Coast current situation is almost solely due to poor list management on several fronts.

Poor public relations about the Covid hub, which led to an entitlement setting in to the playing group.

Over rating the list, and handing out long term contracts to permanently injured and cooked flag hero’s.

Over rating the list and not committing to a rebuild sooner.

Poor draft identification and strategy. Venables was an athlete, not a football player, with poor footy IQ (this comes from your board btw, from an ex recruiter).

Brander was a known flight risk when you drafted him. He was also a “soft” player, which was known in his draft year.

And sometimes there’s just bad luck, Venables concussion, Chesser’s ankle. Every club experiences this.

And sometimes you’re the victim of Victorian mummies boys who don’t want to leave home.


WC have finally started to use some of the draft and trade mechanisms to get extra picks, and RFA’s in.

But the messaging and the way the club has gone about it has been poor. That’s been the difference as to how it’s been played out in the media.

And the fact that it involves two WA players who didn’t/don’t want to leave WC, but are being pushed out the door for draft capital.

They’re not interstate players returning home after putting in 8 years at the club that drafted them.

What a weird argument. 51% of the population and 4 AFL teams which is arguably still 2 too many to support. Victoria, SA and WA combined have about 44% of the nation's population and a grand total of one NRL team and one Super Rugby team between them. If playing/supporting footy was determined by population share then half the teams in the AFL would be in Qld/NSW.

This was just to point out that we’re not producing many draftable kids, let alone a lot of high end talent.

Just like the Melbourne Storm don’t produce many Vic NRL players, because their academy is up here in QLD, full of QLD kids. Funny thing, the QLD nrl clubs and fans don’t whinge about this.

OK?

Where did Callum Ah Chee, Lachie Neale, Joe Daniher, Josh Dunkley, Charlie Cameron, Darcy Fort and Connor McKenna come from?

Why do fans in Northern states live in this weird reality where their clubs don't recruit players from other clubs?

Sydney and Brisbane have had reasonable success recruiting players.

GWS and GC not so much.

Who was GWS’s most notable recent recruit? A player they got for a pick in the 50’s or the other player they got for a pick in the 60’s!

Gold Coast, sheesh! They’re an example of a club with a successful recruiting history.

But the point was, we’re not continually pillaging multiple players each year, from one or two clubs.

Which is what has been happening to GC and GWS. The ledger balance is firmly in the red for both clubs, when looking at the outs v ins during the trade period for more than the last decade.

There was a reason why WC fans on the WC board referred to GC and GWS as Vic feeder clubs, and the only whinges were that it’s only benefiting the Vic clubs and when would WC get its turn.


As for the Lions recent trades. Well we had to sort out our sh!t off the field, and thanks to the AFL for parachuting in Greg Swan, David Nobble and Chris Fagan.

WC currently have Malakai Champion and Coen Livingstone who are Cat B rookies. Lance Collard was drafted pick 28 to St Kilda.

Read your board’s nga draft thread about the kids you have coming in the next 3 years.

You have the Banfield brothers this year and next year. Then a heap of NGA’s. Two of your NGA’s are in this years national academy squad, Walley and Evans.

You’re about to get your lick of the icecream, while you double dip with top end draft picks.

And the draft watchers on your board are already starting to froth over Garrison Kenh in next years draft.

OK? In that scenario GWS can have Tom Green or Lachie Ash. Sydney can have Braeden Campbell or Logan McDonald. Is there something wrong with that? If Northern clubs want to game the system to double dip that is their prerogative and the rules allow it, but don't cry if the rules get changed.

As I mentioned above GWS was able to trade up for Ash. They actually used 3 first round (one was a future pick) picks to trade up. One of those picks came from the Dylan Shiel trade to Essendon.


Sydney finished 16th that year. If another club wanted to stop Sydney from double dipping, they should have bid on Campbell before Sydney’s pick.

Academies have nothing to do with Brisbane's 2024 success. What annoys people about Brisbane specifically is two top 5 father-son picks in 3 years coinciding with back to back GF appearances. Which has nothing to do with academies.

Father sons are luck of the draw.

Nothing to do with academies, so shouldn’t be mentioned here.

p.s. West Coast has a father son in each of the next 3 drafts.

Be p!ssed off at the laws and romance and heritage of the game, not Brisbane.

Why would WC fans (or any other) care about Brisbane's plight after 2004? You are one of two clubs that are trying to sign our captain as a free agent. I don't see a single Brisbane person saying 'better not sign this good player that will help our team so WC can hold on to some WA talent while they are down'. Who has sympathy for our predicament? No one, why would they? We were good, now are bad. One day we will be good again. That is footy.

Why should fans of 17 other teams care about West Coast?

Take your turn down the bottom. Be thankful your not a Carlton or Essendon fan.

Oh, and if West Coast really want to keep Allen, offer him the contract Nesbitt promised him in 2023.

Or does West Coast really want the compensation pick?

You won 3 flags then made a few poor list management decisions.

Just as WC has done since it’s flag.

Freo, GC and GWS have never won a flag. Most St Kilda fans weren't alive in 1966. Dogs, Dees Cats, Swans fans waited decades. Carlton, Adelaide, North haven't won since the 90s. Essendon are up to 25 years, Port 21, even Hawthorn are up to 10 years and their 3peat was 5 minutes ago.

I have sympathy for Brisbane that their down period coincided with the AFL introducing Gold Coast and having a new shiny toy to play with instead of the Lions, but the same thing happened in NSW and Sydney made 3 GFs in 5 years from 2012. My own team finished last in the year of the first expansion draft and got pick 4 and then a 'priority' pick ay 26.

But you had the core of your next flag team by then.

It takes 5 or 6 years after drafting at the very top of the draft, before really starting a flag push.

Rowell, Anderson and Flanders were drafted in 2019, 6 years ago. King 7 years ago. GC are only just now entering their finals window.

Rebuilding through the draft isn’t a quick fix. It takes time and patience.

Port finished second last and got pick 6 in 2011 due to GWS entering, then 14th in 2012 and watched GWS end up with 1-2-3 due to mini draft concessions. Have to play with the cards you are dealt.

True.

Or you can see the compromised drafts coming from 5 years away, and get in and load up while you can, as Richmond did last year, and will do again this year.


Getting back to what ever your original point was, or wasn’t.

Every team has academies now. The AFL is listening to what the clubs want, as per today’s article about them.

As I’ve been saying since last year, the compromised nature of the drafts will get worse and worse as clubs fully invest in their academies.

And the two WA teams should benefit more than any other club due to your recruiting zones and the fact it’s just two clubs sharing the whole state.

Fremantle benefit this year, having one of the top WA kids in their academy.

And WC benefit having one of the top WA kids next year. Plus there’s already talk that the youngest Banfield might be the best of the lot (from the 2026 WA draft thread on the draft board).

 

[Monsterdarlz]

There will be a lot more nga kids being produced in the southern and western states now that the draft restrictions have been lifted.

More so, because Aussie Rules is the number one code in those states, that almost every kid is exposed to it from a young age.

West Coast already have the second highest rated WA prospect in their academy for 2026.

And you only have to look at the WA teams asking to be able to have the same access to their kids, as the northern academies have to theirs, in their submission to the AFL.

Sydney have put a lot of $$$ and human resources in to their academy for 15 years to get the players they have.

Gold Coast appointed Rhyce Shaw as academy manager in 2021, and that saw them change a lot and really start producing kids.

The same goes for the NGA’s as of last year though.

This argument doesn’t hold.

All Gold Coasts draft concessions came at the end of the last decade, before their academy started producing higher end kids this decade, when they were constantly being raided for their young Vic talent.

They’re not getting high draftees and good academy kids at the same time.



GWS was partly due to smart list management, aided by the fact they had excess draft capital because Jeremy Cameron, Jacob Hopper, Tim Taranto all left and they were able to trade up to the top of the draft to draft highly rated kids.

And again GWS has only had one high end academy kid, Tom Green.


West Coast current situation is almost solely due to poor list management on several fronts.

Poor public relations about the Covid hub, which led to an entitlement setting in to the playing group.

Over rating the list, and handing out long term contracts to permanently injured and cooked flag hero’s.

Over rating the list and not committing to a rebuild sooner.

Poor draft identification and strategy. Venables was an athlete, not a football player, with poor footy IQ (this comes from your board btw, from an ex recruiter).

Brander was a known flight risk when you drafted him. He was also a “soft” player, which was known in his draft year.

And sometimes there’s just bad luck, Venables concussion, Chesser’s ankle. Every club experiences this.

And sometimes you’re the victim of Victorian mummies boys who don’t want to leave home.


WC have finally started to use some of the draft and trade mechanisms to get extra picks, and RFA’s in.

But the messaging and the way the club has gone about it has been poor. That’s been the difference as to how it’s been played out in the media.


This was just to point out that we’re not producing many draftable kids, let alone a lot of high end talent.

Just like the Melbourne Storm don’t produce many Vic NRL players, because their academy is up here in QLD, full of QLD kids. Funny thing, the QLD nrl clubs and fans don’t whinge about this.

We do. But it’s not the continual rampant pillaging of multiple players each year, from one or two clubs.

There was a reason why WC fans on the WC board referred to GC and GWS as Vic feeder clubs, and the only whinges were that it’s only benefiting the Vic clubs and when would WC get its turn.


As for the Lions recent trades. Well we had to sort out our sh!t off the field, and thanks to the AFL for parachuting in Greg Swan, David Nobble and Chris Fagan.

Read your board’s nga draft thread about the kids you have coming in the next 3 years.

You have the Banfield brothers this year and next year. Then a heap of NGA’s. Two of your NGA’s are in this years national academy squad, Walley and Evans.

You’re about to get your lick of the icecream, while you double dip with top end draft picks.

And the draft watchers on your board are already starting to froth over Garrison Kenh in next years draft.

As I mentioned above GWS was able to trade up for Ash. They actually used 3 first round (one was a future pick) picks to trade up. One of those picks came from the Dylan Shiel trade to Essendon.


Sydney finished 16th that year. If another club wanted to stop Sydney from double dipping, they should have bid on Campbell before Sydney’s pick.

Father sons are luck of the draw.

Nothing to do with academies, so shouldn’t be mentioned here.

p.s. West Coast has a father son in each of the next 3 drafts.

Be p!ssed off at the laws and romance and heritage of the game, not Brisbane.

Why should fans of 17 other teams care about West Coast?

Take your turn down the bottom. Be thankful your not a Carlton or Essendon fan.

Oh, and if West Coast really want to keep Allen, offer him the contract Nesbitt promised him in 2023.

Or does West Coast really want the compensation pick?

Just as WC has done since it’s flag.

But you had the core of your next flag team by then.

It takes 5 or 6 years after drafting at the very top of the draft, before really starting a flag push.

Rowell, Anderson and Flanders were drafted in 2019, 6 years ago. King 7 years ago. GC are only just now entering their finals window.

Rebuilding through the draft isn’t a quick fix. It takes time and patience.


True.

Or you can see the compromised drafts coming from 5 years away, and get in and load up while you can, as Richmond did last year, and will do again this year.


Getting back to what ever your original point was, or wasn’t.

Every team has academies now. The AFL is listening to what the clubs want, as per today’s article about them.

As I’ve been saying since last year, the compromised nature of the drafts will get worse and worse as clubs fully invest in their academies.

And the two WA teams should benefit more than any other club due to your recruiting zones and the fact it’s just two clubs sharing the whole state.

Fremantle benefit this year, having one of the top WA kids in their academy.

And WC benefit having one of the top WA kids next year. Plus there’s already talk that the youngest Banfield might be the best of the lot (from the 2026 WA draft thread on the draft board).

You are going way out of limb here we’ve had zero to no success with true f/s and ngas

Lost Collard and Erasmus due to the matching rules club was particularly filthy with collard exclusion spent significant resources assisting him in junior days glad he’s having success however.

Alex waterman, Jake Waterman and Jacob Brennan only ones to make the list. Jake is the only one that’s done anything of significance it’s taken 6/7 years to hit his straps.

NGA wise it’s been slim pickings Watson, Dewar, Baker, Livingston, Bayok, and champion. Dewar is the only one that’s done anything looks to have a set place on the list.

Fremantle lost Motlop to Carlton had some luck with Henry apart from that Draper and Walker who’ve developed well.

WA is absolutely massive the costs involved to run these programs is huge. And the adjustment for a lot of these boys is quite significant. Both clubs spend close to or if not more then circa 1mil on the nga programs and outreach clinics.

It’s finally possibly starting to reap some rewards for the investment in the next few years and if both wa clubs can’t afford to have the prospects on there list then it’s still a win for football that they get drafted. No discounts are needed priority access is reward enough

 

[briztoon]

You are going way out of limb here we’ve had zero to no success with true f/s and ngas.

I’m not going out on a limb here. Read your own NGA draft thread on the WC board, or read some of the recent posts on the draft board.

Lost Collard and Erasmus due to the matching rules club was particularly filthy with collard exclusion spent significant resources assisting him in junior days glad he’s having success however.

Alex waterman, Jake Waterman and Jacob Brennan only ones to make the list. Jake is the only one that’s done anything of significance it’s taken 6/7 years to hit his straps.

NGA wise it’s been slim pickings Watson, Dewar, Baker, Livingston, Bayok, and champion. Dewar is the only one that’s done anything looks to have a set place on the list.

Fremantle lost Motlop to Carlton had some luck with Henry apart from that Draper and Walker who’ve developed well.

WA is absolutely massive the costs involved to run these programs is huge. And the adjustment for a lot of these boys is quite significant. Both clubs spend close to or if not more then circa 1mil on the nga programs and outreach clinics.

Little difference to the Northern academies, particularly Gold Coasts, as it spreads from northern NSW, right up to northern Queensland (their QLD zone is split in two, with Lions academy zone in the middle) and in to Darwin.

It’s finally possibly starting to reap some rewards for the investment in the next few years and if both wa clubs can’t afford to have the prospects on there list then it’s still a win for football that they get drafted. No discounts are needed priority access is reward enough

Lions academy has had a more than a few players drafted to other clubs. Granted, we’ve always matched the players we wanted.

 

[Scotland]

This argument doesn’t hold.

Yes, it does.

What did Sydney do in 2020? What did GWS do in 2019?

Mills and Heeney went to Sydney as top 5 picks. Ladder position irrelevant.
Rowell, Anderson, McCluggage, Rayner, Callaghan etc. went to Northern clubs as top 5 picks. Ladder position relevant.

It really isn't that complicated. You want a system where you get the best available talent from Qld/NSW and also the best available talent from everywhere else.

No one wants to hear about how much much "the Northern clubs" have spent given how much money has spent on the Northern clubs and how much money is spent in Vic, SA and WA from which the Northern clubs benefit.

Every team has academies now. The AFL is listening to what the clubs want, as per today’s article about them.

This is not what the clubs want. It's a response to the AFL watering down the draft. When the first round is 29 picks long and 7 of the players picked are off the board 'going to the draft' becomes a bit of a joke.

Here is a tally of all the top 10 picks from the WAFL the last 5 drafts:

2024: 0
2023: 1 (8)
2022: 1 (9)
2021: 2 (8, 10)
2020: 2 (4, 6)

So 6 out of 50 picks were from WA. Freo and WC had no priority access to any of them. You reckon clubs in WA and SA want to see the Talent League draft pool watered down?

Either have academies, zones etc. or have a draft. Pick a lane.

 

[mpal6]

Yes, it does.

What did Sydney do in 2020? What did GWS do in 2019?

Mills and Heeney went to Sydney as top 5 picks. Ladder position irrelevant.
Rowell, Anderson, McCluggage, Rayner, Callaghan etc. went to Northern clubs as top 5 picks. Ladder position relevant.

It really isn't that complicated. You want a system where you get the best available talent from Qld/NSW and also the best available talent from everywhere else.

No one wants to hear about how much much "the Northern clubs" have spent given how much money has spent on the Northern clubs and how much money is spent in Vic, SA and WA from which the Northern clubs benefit.



This is not what the clubs want. It's a response to the AFL watering down the draft. When the first round is 29 picks long and 7 of the players picked are off the board 'going to the draft' becomes a bit of a joke.

Here is a tally of all the top 10 picks from the WAFL the last 5 drafts:

2024: 0
2023: 1 (8)
2022: 1 (9)
2021: 2 (8, 10)
2020: 2 (4, 6)

So 6 out of 50 picks were from WA. Freo and WC had no priority access to any of them. You reckon clubs in WA and SA want to see the Talent League draft pool watered down?

Either have academies, zones etc. or have a draft. Pick a lane.

I'd be all for making first round pure. I've said it in this thread long back.

No Father Son, No Academy, No Priority Pick and No NGA.

First 18 picks go where they picked. Rest can start later.

 

[giantroo]

 

[TheGong]

Can someone explain why indigenous are included in the NGA category. There doesn’t seem to be a problem with indigenous representation in AFL. Indigenous make up roughly 3% of the population but 10% of AFL players. Considering that most Indigenous live in NSW or Queensland where Rugby League is the code most play, the 10% number would likely be higher for the other states.

 

[Scotland]

Can someone explain why indigenous are included in the NGA category. There doesn’t seem to be a problem with indigenous representation in AFL. Indigenous make up roughly 3% of the population but 10% of AFL players. Considering that most Indigenous live in NSW or Queensland where Rugby League is the code most play, the 10% number would likely be higher for the other states.

The main reason is because the AFL can sell it.

But, there are a higher % of indigenous people outside the cap cities. Perth for example has 42k indigenous people but WA has 89k. Around 80% of people in WA live in Perth but less than half of the indigenous population. And WA is basically the size of Western Europe. Black, white or other it requires different resources to develop players from the Kimberley, Pilbara, South West etc. compared to the latest crop of private school kids in the city. You can go out to a community in the Gibson Desert and kids will be playing footy but most of them won't go to school in the city, play in Colts programs etc.

TBH I am not sure how much benefit it provides. WA has a long history of producing indigenous players going back long before WC joining the VFL. Pathways already exist via local and regional zones for the WAFL clubs.

 

[sr36]

Better yet, every Vic club plays all the non VIC clubs away. So that’s 8 guaranteed genuine away games.

Then on a 2 year rotation, each non Vic clubs plays half the Vic clubs in Victoria. That means, over a 2 year period, each non VIC club will play all 10 Vic clubs in Victoria.

Similarly non VIC clubs play each other in a home and away series every 2 years.

Means only one trip a year to SA, WA and NSW for the QLD teams.

Then the AFL can work out the double ups for the Non VIC teams against Vic teams to balance out the home and away season.

Problem with this plan is that it creates a different imbalance.

There's two factors that would ideally be balanced. Travel and games with an advantage vs disadvantage. At the moment the latter is pretty balanced If we pretend gather round doesn't exist. Eg. Collingwood and Carlton who don't sell home games do 5 interstate travels with a disadvantage vs roughly 5 games where we are at an advantage due to non-Vic clubs travelling to play us. The rest are neutral travel games. The number is usually 10 and 10 for non Vic teams with only 2 neutral games.

The easiest way to level up both aspects is for the Vic teams to have a secondary interstate ground in a grow the game area and play 2 of their home games against vic teams there and thus 2 of their away games against vic teams interstate. This would result in 9 travels for Vic teams versus 10 for non-Vic and maintain equal numbers of advantage vs disadvantage games

 

[briztoon]

Yes, it does.

What did Sydney do in 2020? What did GWS do in 2019?

Mills and Heeney went to Sydney as top 5 picks. Ladder position irrelevant.
Rowell, Anderson, McCluggage, Rayner, Callaghan etc. went to Northern clubs as top 5 picks. Ladder position relevant.

I don't get your point here.

Mills and Heeney were drafted under the old, old bid matching system. The same system that saw Geelong get Hawkins, and Collingwood get Moore. The AFL then changed the bid matching system after Heeney's draft, because of Collingwood's whining.

Rowell & Anderson went to a 18th placed Gold Coast.

GWS got Callaghan due to an astute trade with Collingwood the year before.

It really isn't that complicated. You want a system where you get the best available talent from Qld/NSW and also the best available talent from everywhere else.

See this is a fallacy, perpetuated by fans/media who haven't looked in to it.

We (the Lions) haven't had a chance to double dip. When we have had high end father sons and one academy kid, we've traded out our first and second round picks for more points later in the draft, then any other kids have been drafted at the back of the draft.

We didn't get a top 10 draftee plus Will or Levi. Yes, we got a second father son or academy kid in the first round of both drafts, but our list management team traded hard to accrue extra draft points.

Gold Coast hasn't either. They accrued enough points to match their academy kids, and just drafted their academy kids. They got most of those extra points, because they traded out other younger players who requested to be traded home.

Sydney never got the best available talent, plus Heeney and Mills under the old system. They just got Mills in one draft, and Heeney two years later.

Sydney and GWS have got top end draft talent plus top academy kids, because they have lost good players back south for good draft picks, then done the smart thing to trade up to the top of the draft. Being able to double dip wasn't achieved in isolation, it came at a cost. Losing good players.

It isn't complicated. We'd rather not lose good players in their 3rd or 4th year, and we've never pushed a player out for a high compensation pick. Sydney didn't want to lose Jordan Dawson. GWS didn't want to lose Dylan Shiel, Jeremy Cameron, Jacob Hopper or Tim Taranto. Gold Coast didn't want to lose Steven May, Tom Lynch, Isaac Rankine or Jack Lukosius.


Northern clubs have lost a lot of good players back home, and received draft picks or compensation picks back, that enabled them to trade up for high end talent, or trade for extra draft points. That's just good list management.

Same as Melbourne continually trading future picks to get a second high end draft pick over multiple drafts.

Same as Carlton trading 3 first round draft picks to move up to get a high end pick in last years draft, or Bulldogs doing it a couple of drafts ago.

Good list management teams maximise their draft hand.

This is the system the AFL created. It's available to every team to utilise and maximise. Good and creative list management teams help move their club forward.

No one wants to hear about how much much "the Northern clubs" have spent given how much money has spent on the Northern clubs and how much money is spent in Vic, SA and WA from which the Northern clubs benefit.

Well this money comes from the media deals, that have grown because the AFL has expanded in to the Northern markets.

Good academies don't just happen, it takes a lot of investment. These kids don't appear from nowhere. Otherwise the WA clubs wouldn't be asking to be able to run their nga academies the same way.

This is not what the clubs want. It's a response to the AFL watering down the draft. When the first round is 29 picks long and 7 of the players picked are off the board 'going to the draft' becomes a bit of a joke.

Yes it is a joke. As I mentioned in my first reply to you, I hope you had read my post on the previous page, where I said I don't actually believe in academies or father sons or compensation picks. That I'd rather a fully uncompromised draft, and longer and stricter draftee contracts that benefit the club that drafted them. I'd also like 5 of the Victorian clubs to fold, and we have a full home and away season.

Here is a tally of all the top 10 picks from the WAFL the last 5 drafts:

2024: 0
2023: 1 (8)
2022: 1 (9)
2021: 2 (8, 10)
2020: 2 (4, 6)

So 6 out of 50 picks were from WA. Freo and WC had no priority access to any of them. You reckon clubs in WA and SA want to see the Talent League draft pool watered down?

What's this got do with anything?

It's only relevant if you want a state based draft system. You are just as stuck in the same parochialism that permeates the vAFL. We're supposed to be a notional competition. Not a competition that focuses on "bringing our kids home".

You want more talent out of WA, ask the WAFL and the richest club in the land to put more money in to WA junior footy, streamline the WAFL Colts system to have a stronger junior competition.

Either have academies, zones etc. or have a draft. Pick a lane.

While we have this system, we'll wring every advantage we can from it. Just as other clubs do, when they poach kids we have drafted before they reach free agency. Or when clubs get in the ear of draftees and tell them to play the stay at home card, so we can't draft the best kids in the draft, but have to trade back for local kids, while the AFL turns a blind eye to this draft tampering.

 

[briztoon]

I'd be all for making first round pure. I've said it in this thread long back.

No Father Son, No Academy, No Priority Pick and No NGA.

First 18 picks go where they picked. Rest can start later.

The whole draft, don't limit it to the first round.

 

[briztoon]

Problem with this plan is that it creates a different imbalance.

There's two factors that would ideally be balanced. Travel and games with an advantage vs disadvantage. At the moment the latter is pretty balanced If we pretend gather round doesn't exist. Eg. Collingwood and Carlton who don't sell home games do 5 interstate travels with a disadvantage vs roughly 5 games where we are at an advantage due to non-Vic clubs travelling to play us. The rest are neutral travel games. The number is usually 10 and 10 for non Vic teams with only 2 neutral games.

You can't see that the less travel for Collingwood, benefits them in the win loss column. Pull the other one. We travel 10 times, that's 10 harder games due to travel fatigue, etc. While Collingwood only face half this.

Every team should travel as an equal amount as possible. As long as the Vics are protected by the vAFL, it will always be an imbalanced competition, skewed in favour of the Vic teams.

The only thing not skewing the ladder more, is the incompetence of a couple of the "big" Vic clubs management, list management teams, and Coteries influence, who are still stuck in the VFL.

Oh, and NSW and QLD teams don't have neutral games either.

The easiest way to level up both aspects is for the Vic teams to have a secondary interstate ground in a grow the game area and play 2 of their home games against vic teams there and thus 2 of their away games against vic teams interstate. This would result in 9 travels for Vic teams versus 10 for non-Vic and maintain equal numbers of advantage vs disadvantage games
the AFL to bin 5 of the Vic clubs and introduce a full home and away season.

 

[sr36]

You can't see that the less travel for Collingwood, benefits them in the win loss column. Pull the other one. We travel 10 times, that's 10 harder games due to travel fatigue, etc. While Collingwood only face half this.

Every team should travel as an equal amount as possible. As long as the Vics are protected by the vAFL, it will always be an imbalanced competition, skewed in favour of the Vic teams.

Oh, NSW and QLD don't have neutral games either.

What are you talking about.

You suggested a plan to an alternate draw that reduces the travel advantage a bit, but makes it so Vic teams will have a significant disadvantage in terms of the number of games where they have an advantage vs the number of games where they'd have a disadvantage - I don't think it would work mathematically anyway.

I suggested a plan which equalises travel and maintains a balance of advantage vs disadvantage games that would work mathematically.

And then you've gone on a strange strawman.

 

[briztoon]

What are you talking about.

This bit.

"Collingwood and Carlton who don't sell home games do 5 interstate travels with a disadvantage vs roughly 5 games where we are at an advantage due to non-Vic clubs travelling to play us."

Most of your neutral games in Victoria, aren't really a disadvantage for you.

And as an aside, when was the last time you played Geelong in Geelong, or how many times in the last 15 years? Or Hawks or North in Tassie, or Bulldogs in Ballarat?

You suggested a plan to an alternate draw that reduces the travel advantage a bit, but makes it so Vic teams will have a significant disadvantage in terms of the number of games where they have an advantage vs the number of games where they'd have a disadvantage - I don't think it would work mathematically anyway.

Yeah I edited that bit.

Every Vic club could play every non Vic club away. That math works. It just reduces the amount of Melbourne/Victorian "away" games all Vic clubs would play. But it doesn't reduce your Melbourne/Vic home games.

I suggested a plan which equalises travel and maintains a balance of advantage vs disadvantage games that would work mathematically.

But it doesn't equalise disadvantage non Vic clubs face when they travel. It's just moving some of the Vic away games to a neutral ground. That doesn't equalise things for the non Vic clubs who are still travelling to 10 true away games at a disadvantage. Nor does it equalise the ladder, it should theoretically mean the stronger Vic club wins the neutral game.

And then you've gone on a strange strawman.

How is it a straw man? It's been something I've mentioned for years to make the AFL a true national competition and lessen the vAFL inherent biases in the competition.

I can only think of one other national sporting competition that has more clubs in one city/state than it has spread out around the country. That's the NRL. It's just inherently wrong for a national sporting competition.

 

[sr36]

This bit.

"Collingwood and Carlton who don't sell home games do 5 interstate travels with a disadvantage vs roughly 5 games where we are at an advantage due to non-Vic clubs travelling to play us."

You're missing my point.

There's two aspects in terms of travel

1. overall number of travels - we're advantaged in that.

2. Games where teams traval to us versus games where we travel to other teams - that's neutral for us with about 5 each way - the rest of our games neutral in terms of travel.

Your proposal would make number 2, disdvantageous for Vic teams, with 8 travels away and it would have to be a lot less teams than 8 travelling to us if we play every team once.

The solution that works is Vic teams all having a second interstate home ground like Hawthorn do and playing two home games against Vic teams interstate and 2 away games against Vic teams interstate.

Would make it pretty even in terms of both travel and travel/home ground advantage games.

 

[briztoon]

You're missing my point.

There's two aspects in terms of travel

1. overall number of travels - we're advantaged in that.

2. Games where teams traval to us versus games where we travel to other teams - that's neutral for us with about 5 each way - the rest of our games neutral in terms of travel.

Your proposal would make number 2, disdvantageous for Vic teams, with 8 travels away and it would have to be a lot less teams than 8 travelling to us if we play every team once.

We travel interstate 11 games a season (plus one in state game for 12 away games). We could play 1 game each in SA, WA and NSW each season, and the same would work for each non Vic state. That then sees us play 8 games in Vic.

That balances to me.

The solution that works is Vic teams all having a second interstate home ground like Hawthorn do and playing two home games against Vic teams interstate and 2 away games against Vic teams interstate.

Would make it pretty even in terms of both travel and travel/home ground advantage games.

Still believe getting rid of 5 Vic teams is a better solution.

 

[sr36]

We travel interstate 11 games a season (plus one in state game for 12 away games). We could play 1 game each in SA, WA and NSW each season, and the same would work for each non Vic state. That then sees us play 8 games in Vic.

That balances to me.

In terms of travel:

You play 10 with a disadvantage. 10 with an advantage and 3 neutral games (2 derbies and gather round). That works out even. You're not disadvantaged in that regard. And the Vic teams aren't advantaged in that regard - the ones who don't sell home games play 5 advantage 5 disadvantage and 13 neutral

Where you're disadvantaged is in cumulative travel due to travelling more often.

I don't think your plan is actually fixturable mathematically without removing the stipulation that everyone plays everyone once, but if it was it would result in Vic teams playing 8 disadvantage games and significantly less advantage games, creating a different and possibly stronger bias.

Just get vic teams travelling more to play other Vic teams at a secondary home ground. It balances travel and keeps the adv/disadv games balanced too

 

[My_Username]

In terms of travel:

You play 10 with a disadvantage. 10 with an advantage and 3 neutral games (2 derbies and gather round). That works out even. You're not disadvantaged in that regard. And the Vic teams aren't advantaged in that regard - the ones who don't sell home games play 5 advantage 5 disadvantage and 13 neutral

Where you're disadvantaged is in cumulative travel due to travelling more often.

I don't think your plan is actually fixturable mathematically without removing the stipulation that everyone plays everyone once, but if it was it would result in Vic teams playing 8 disadvantage games and significantly less advantage games, creating a different and possibly stronger bias.

Just get vic teams travelling more to play other Vic teams at a secondary home ground. It balances travel and keeps the adv/disadv games balanced too

Have Vic clubs get on a plane and fly in circles for most of their 'neutral/home' games.

Sure, it'd be expensive and stupid, but it'd reduce the whinging.

 

[Ross]

Have Vic clubs get on a plane and fly in circles for most of their 'neutral/home' games.

Sure, it'd be expensive and stupid, but it'd reduce the whinging.

Also when Vic teams have home games they need to stay outside in their granny flats during the week instead of being able to sleep on their own mattresses.

 

[briztoon]

In terms of travel:

You play 10 with a disadvantage. 10 with an advantage and 3 neutral games (2 derbies and gather round). That works out even. You're not disadvantaged in that regard.

As I said before, some of our derbies aren't neutral, unless you consider playing Geelong in Geelong a neutral game as well.

And the Vic teams aren't advantaged in that regard - the ones who don't sell home games play 5 advantage 5 disadvantage and 13 neutral

Where you're disadvantaged is in cumulative travel due to travelling more often.

I don't think your plan is actually fixturable mathematically without removing the stipulation that everyone plays everyone once, but if it was it would result in Vic teams playing 8 disadvantage games and significantly less advantage games, creating a different and possibly stronger bias.

Just get vic teams travelling more to play other Vic teams at a secondary home ground. It balances travel and keeps the adv/disadv games balanced too

There has to better option than two Vic teams playing a game interstate. The AFL doesn't want that, as they'd be concerned about ticket sales.

I do know most non Vic teams want either less travel, or equal travel competition wide. And most non Vic teams want more MCG games as well.

As I keep coming back to, the fairest competition is less Vic teams.

 

[briztoon]

Also when Vic teams have home games they need to stay outside in their granny flats during the week instead of being able to sleep on their own mattresses.

You could just keep a spare away mattress, that's either super hard or super soft, under the bed for home "away" games.