List Mgmt. AFL to consider bringing back recruiting areas for South Australia’s two clubs

[mattymac]

2017 Draft 3 of the top 20 were SANFL players
2016 Draft 0 of the top 20 were SANFL players
2015 Draft 3 of the top 20 were SANFL players

In the same 3 drafts 39 were from the TAC


It makes a very thin spread of players to choose from for both SA clubs.

Umm

6/2 = 3 each for SA clubs

39/10 = 3.9 each for VFL clubs

It's not an earth shattering difference.

It would also improve in our favour if development here was run by the AFL clubs rather than the SANFL, which has zero to gain from its youngsters being drafted to the AFL...

 

[mattymac]

Oh, forgot to mention, if Murray Bridge is in the Crows zone, there goes Wingard.

I would want to see proof of the standard lifting before I would accept any such proposal. Bidding doesn’t need to be in force if development shifted to the clubs.

Would happily trade the lower Murray for westie's old Riverland zone!

 

[GremioPower]

Nope that isn't a main driver of why we are building it, but it is a potential bonus.

KT told me that initially he wanted to make it just for girls given they have less opportunities, but Pauly V and others convinced him to change his mind to be co-ed. Education not Football is the main qualification to get a spot. Although 10 to 20 years down the track that could all change.

"The measure of love is to love without measure." (St. Augustine)

We are doing this because it is the right thing to do. We love our community. We love football. We love our club. So, we do things that are beneficial to all. The expected "unexpected consequence" of such an initiative would be the generation of happy successful footy-loving Port supporters.

 

[Hellgood]

I like the concept of the NGA's and the NSW/QLD academies as they are successful ways of improving the quality and quantity of young footballers developing through growth areas or from backgrounds where they may not have got a look in.

Less keen on the idea of zones, which I suppose is a bit contradictory. My preference though is that zoning / academy selections remain a secondary means of bringing players onto your list with the draft still the overall leveller. Right now I think the balance is pretty reasonable, but the clubs are pushing for it to become the underlying basis again which I don't think will result in the best outcome for the game.

 

[briztoon]

Draft bidding/trading for points will smooth that a bit.

“Equalisation” of the zones by number of kids of footy age and participation is the big issue for SA.

It will favour Vic clubs moderately, WA clubs more so, two SA clubs will be screwed moderately, and the Northern Four it should be business as usual. That adds up to clear support from the majority which Gil will use to get something else more contentious over the line, eg letting mid season trading include future picks so that clubs can stockpile points with some semblance of planning for that year’s draft/bidding.

The best the SA entities can hope IMO for is a re-alignment of NT towards SA, away from the Eastern States clubs, on the vague and arguable population grounds poorly described above.

So yes, I agree. It’s complicated and needs many fairly oiled moving parts. Gil has more than a fair chance of screwing it all up for us particularly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This will kill the Northern clubs inside a decade. GC and GWS first, Brisbane not to long after and the Swans last.

Either you do not understand the article or the concept of matching a bid.

The northern clubs do not produce enough elite talent to relay on drafting top end talent from with in. If this system was brought in, every Vic club would match a bid on the elite talent from their zone, before they ran out of points. Brisbane could have pick 1 and bid on a succession of players before a bid was successful with their 37th bid, thus turning pick 1 in to pick 37.

 

[Portology]

This will kill the Northern clubs inside a decade. GC and GWS first, Brisbane not to long after and the Swans last.

Either you do not understand the article or the concept of matching a bid.

The northern clubs do not produce enough elite talent to relay on drafting top end talent from with in. If this system was brought in, every Vic club would match a bid on the elite talent from their zone, before they ran out of points. Brisbane could have pick 1 and bid on a succession of players before a bid was successful with their 37th bid, thus turning pick 1 in to pick 37.

If “matching bids” was the only thing going on, maybe.

You want higher priority on your access to, because smaller numbers of, locally grown elite talent, the formulas will get adjusted and re-adjusted just like COLA, Academy rules, et al. You know as well as I do the AFL is all of part incompetent, part beholden to vested (=more Vic bias than other) interests, and also knows deep down it HAS to make NSW and QLD footy-first or at least footy-equal-with-soccer states in the next few decades - it’s all these cognitively dissonant states at the same bloody time. It’s why the game is up there. Well ok that’s a half truth. It’s not why the game landed there, that was originally about $-per-content-hours to save arses but the penny has now dropped. Even Gil may “get it”.

Check how many “elite” are being/were drafted from SA over the last few years. You may be surprised. This year shapes as one in a few decades thanks to the peculiarities of the SANFL system, “developing” on behalf of the AFL, with AFL money, but producing very few KPP prospects.

Individual Vic zones are going to be a lot “skinnier“ than they were historically which is why the big threat IMO is “family based poaching, by job offer”. But if junior participation in the northern states grows along with the general population trends (aside from the outlier of Melbourne metro) you’ll be pleasantly surprised in a decade or so.

Now the OP was this claim that a completely free market was more naturally just than a regulated one.

My point was that it isn’t, we tried that in my living memory, the system nearly ate itself. The opposite, too much regulation for a bit too long, is not quite as bad. You’ve got 3 flags and a legendary era to show for it, Swans had time to build “culture” out of it, and GWS have assembled quite a list of talent out of it. 3 our of 4 is not a bad hit rate in terms of viable, have-some-credibility clubs in formerly foreign soil.

As long as the system is prepared to evolve and get better, **** will happens, and that’s ok. Because in a mythical, pure, dog eat dog world, we don’t all get “fitter”. We all become someone else’s *pet*.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Fizzler]

* academies and recruiting zones, kills what the draft is for. Lower clubs should get the priority for better prospects. Player locations shouldn’t have anything to do with where they go.

 

[dirty2]

I love the thought of it... would expect the afl to * it up.