Opinion Competitive balance - The AFL's most divisive topic

[GC2015]

This is full commitment, yes

Well done.

Prior to the recent success of Brisbane, and the more relatively modest recent success of GWS and GC - these clubs were feeding grounds for southern clubs. Players like Bobby Hill, Steven May, Tom Lynch, Jeremy Cameron and others were courted by southern clubs as they came into their prime and helped their new clubs to Premiership success.

Collingwood and Geelong built sustained opportunities for success in part to f/s concessions in Darcy, Daicos, Ablett, Scarlett, Hawkins and others.

The current benefit enjoyed by a couple of northern clubs is not out of the ordinary, nor is it indicative of the AFL increasing inequity. The concessions provided to the northern clubs are inlace to address other inequities in the competition.

Well said, mate. Should probably add the Dogs in there as well since they got lucky with priority access to pick 1 JUH in 2020, pick 2 Darcy in 2021 and then pick 15 Croft in 2023. Three first rounders in four years and two of them were top 2 picks. However, they hadn't really had anything significant in the way of priority access since Luke Darcy in 1992 and haven't had anything noteworthy in the three years since.

Like you pointed out, Geelong had their go with Scarlett, Ablett and Hawkins but haven't really had anything since and Collingwood had their go with Moore, Dacios and Quaynor. We're seeing Carlton get their turn now with pick 3 Dean last year and pick 1 Walker and we're going to see Port fall into the same boat over the next two years with their several first round F/S + NGA players coming through. You can probably throw Essendon in there as well with recent access to Kako and Bewick next year.

There's really no indication that any club will continue to have a sustained period of priority access after a good run like the ones we've seen above. It's essentially always short bursts preceded/followed by years of little to nothing. There's no real reason to think the QLD clubs are going to continue getting priority access to high end draft talent beyond their recent strong period.

 

[Purple Suit]

Well done.


Well said, mate. Should probably add the Dogs in there as well since they got lucky with priority access to pick 1 JUH in 2020, pick 2 Darcy in 2021 and then pick 15 Croft in 2023. Three first rounders in four years and two of them were top 2 picks. However, they hadn't really had anything significant in the way of priority access since Luke Darcy in 1992 and haven't had anything noteworthy in the three years since.

Like you pointed out, Geelong had their go with Scarlett, Ablett and Hawkins but haven't really had anything since and Collingwood had their go with Moore, Dacios and Quaynor. We're seeing Carlton get their turn now with pick 3 Dean last year and pick 1 Walker and we're going to see Port fall into the same boat over the next two years with their several first round F/S + NGA players coming through. You can probably throw Essendon in there as well with recent access to Kako and Bewick next year.

There's really no indication that any club will continue to have a sustained period of priority access after a good run like the ones we've seen above. It's essentially always short bursts preceded/followed by years of little to nothing. There's no real reason to think the QLD clubs are going to continue getting priority access to high end draft talent beyond their recent strong period.

Libba ring any bells? Wallis?

The issue is that for all the problems 15 years ago with the Queensland teams, the priority solutions have created the same problems in other parts of the AFL and they do nothing about it. It makes it seem that the AFL have a different agenda to equalization and are trying to rig flags for certain markets and their bonus targets.

Time to wind it back or risk losing some of the biggest fan bases who are perpetually bad with little help.

 

[Viceregal]

Brisbane has been the most succesful AFL team on and off field the past half decade.

In that time, they're become a destination club for players around the country.

Success breeds culture. Culture brings attraction. What am I missing?

If clubs are shit and cant retain talent, well guess what - bad luck?

I would switch that around ... culture breeds success and both culture and success are attractive.

What you are missing is that if people don't want play for you, stay with you, join with you, believe in you or care whether you live or die then you are not developing, retaining or attracting players, fans, sponsors and even the designated footy god with your colours will be ashamed to wear your jumper on the weekends.

 

[FreoMonocle]

The F/S thing.

A player get's bid on, you can't just match the bid and it be fair, as in theory the cuckolded bidding team, bid from what's left in the pool, they get a slightly lesser talent.

Keep the romance of F/S, sure. But it needs to be fairer to other teams. Pay more in a mix of points, or maybe lose access to the next round of bidding for the privilege or whatever. It's made up for with the marketing that F/S gives the team - and if it doesn't go well, well no one forced you to bid on them when it wasn't your turn.

 

[Kappa]

should be a penalty for teams who finish in the top 4 3+ years in a row

 

[ReturningHawk]

should be a penalty for teams who finish in the top 4 3+ years in a row

There is one already. It’s called the draft.

Then there’s FA, F/S and academy selections which have diluted that penalty into more of an inconvenience.

 

[GC2015]

Libba ring any bells? Wallis?

Neither Libba or Wallis were highly rated leading into the draft and were bid on after the first round. It's the same issue with using Josh Daicos to criticise the F/S rule. J.Daicos simply wasn't highly rated leading into his draft and every club had the opportunity to bid on him multiple times so you can't really get angry that Collingwood developed him from a fourth round pick into an AA player. The same goes for Brisbane's third round academy pick Harris Andrews being developed into an AA defender.

It's the highly rated first round draft prospects that people should care about i.e. pick 2 Darcy, pick 1 Ugle-Hagan & pick 15 Croft.

 

[Purple Suit]

Neither Libba or Wallis were highly rated leading into the draft and were bid on after the first round. It's the same issue with using Josh Daicos to criticise the F/S rule. J.Daicos simply wasn't highly rated leading into his draft and every club had the opportunity to bid on him multiple times so you can't really get angry that Collingwood developed him from a fourth round pick into an AA player. The same goes for Brisbane's third round academy pick Harris Andrews being developed into an AA defender.

It's the highly rated first round draft prospects that people should care about i.e. pick 2 Darcy, pick 1 Ugle-Hagan & pick 15 Croft.

The rules were different in 2010. You just needed to use your next pick, Wallis & Libba were the Bulldogs first and 2nd pick so could have been chosen at pick 1 & 2 and would have still been pick 22 & 40 (GC had a lot of picks). I can’t remember when they were bid on but it wasn’t their draft spot.

 

[Mr Meow]

Neither Libba or Wallis were highly rated leading into the draft and were bid on after the first round. It's the same issue with using Josh Daicos to criticise the F/S rule. J.Daicos simply wasn't highly rated leading into his draft and every club had the opportunity to bid on him multiple times so you can't really get angry that Collingwood developed him from a fourth round pick into an AA player. The same goes for Brisbane's third round academy pick Harris Andrews being developed into an AA defender.

It's the highly rated first round draft prospects that people should care about i.e. pick 2 Darcy, pick 1 Ugle-Hagan & pick 15 Croft.

Why do people group Ablett and Scarlett in with Hawkins for Geelong then?

Ablett was a peripheral talent in the 2001 superdraft and Scarlett was a nobody outside of his surname. Hawkins was obviously the huge steal, but people always group Ablett and Scarlett in just because their careers ended up being 100x better than their teenage years suggested they would be.

 

[Sentinel]

The rules were different in 2010. You just needed to use your next pick, Wallis & Libba were the Bulldogs first and 2nd pick so could have been chosen at pick 1 & 2 and would have still been pick 22 & 40 (GC had a lot of picks). I can’t remember when they were bid on but it wasn’t their draft spot.

Wallis was bid on by Port at 16 and Libba by Sydney at 39.

 

[Tasmanian saint]

The mechanism we have rorted to be successful in the last few years has been father son not academies.

If people are getting mad about the academy players - almost all of who are late picks and over agers than at a point that’s on them.

What about the top 5 rated academy player you brought in this year after winning the premiership

 

[Elixuh]

What about the top 5 rated academy player you brought in this year after winning the premiership

1 great talent identification by the lions
2 I don’t think Annable has contributed to our success, which is what we’ve been talking about
3 how good was our game last weekend?

 

[GC2015]

Why do people group Ablett and Scarlett in with Hawkins for Geelong then?

Ablett was a peripheral talent in the 2001 superdraft and Scarlett was a nobody outside of his surname. Hawkins was obviously the huge steal, but people always group Ablett and Scarlett in just because their careers ended up being 100x better than their teenage years suggested they would be.

Let's get this one clear because I've seen a number of Geelong fans claim neither Ablett or Scarlett were highly rated in their draft year. Here is a quote from Leigh Montagna who played on Ablett in the TAC Cup that year as well as playing against him in a Vic Metro v Vic Country trial match and Joey had this to say:

“The word was he [Ablett] would’ve been around about pick 20, late teens. Especially with this draft, he wasn’t a top ten pick.”

As for Scarlett, he was named at fullback in the 1997 TAC Cup team of the year (source) and most of the players named in the spine of that team were taken in the top 10 selections of the draft that year. So that would suggest Scarlett was pretty highly rated in his draft year and was at least considered a top 2 key defender in Victoria once the 1997 season came to an end. For context, the other key defender in that TAC Cup team of the year (Bolton) was taken with pick 4 in the draft.

So based on the evidence above, my read on it is Scarlett was rated in the 5-15 range and Ablett was rated in the 10-20 range. So potentially as many as three first rounders (at worst an early second round pick for Ablett) and likely two top 10 picks from the F/S rule with Hawkins being the obvious standout who would've unequivocally been taken as the number 1 pick if he had not been F/S tied. Ablett also happened to come through in the 2001 super draft so based on Montagna's comments, he probably would've gone higher in the draft order if he had been born in a different year.

I've also read in the past that Nathan Ablett was rated as high as a top 10 pick talent wise in his draft year, but was seen as a risk due to his unwillingness to play TAC Cup footy in his draft year and obviously those fears ended up being realised several years later with his early retirement. Regardless, Nathan Ablett did become a premiership player for the Cats so it all factors into the advantage that the F/S rule has provided Geelong in the past. There was also access to early second round F/S picks for Geelong like Woolnough, Clarke and Blake in that 1997-2006 period.

So it's pretty obvious that the F/S rule has been very kind to the Cats and the access to high end talent was highly concentrated in that 1997-2006 period. You could certainly argue that 10-year period of access to high end F/S talent set them up well for the following 15 years of dominance in which we saw them win four premierships from 2007-2022. For the record, 6 F/S players took part in those Geelong premiership teams between 2007-22 and we know most of them were very influential in those GF wins.

 

[ReturningHawk]

I don’t get annoyed by academy and father son access. I really don’t mind as long as the right price is paid. I really don’t understand why there was ever a discount. If you’re matching a bid at pick 1 then you should be giving up something roughly equivalent: 2 top 10 picks or three later firsts.

Another solution is to make it impossible to match bids in the first round. If you want the player, just trade for the pick. You have months to organise it and with live trading you have until the last second to organise a swap.

 

[Mr Meow]

Let's get this one clear because I've seen a number of Geelong fans claim neither Ablett or Scarlett were highly rated in their draft year. Here is a quote from Leigh Montagna who played on Ablett in the TAC Cup that year as well as playing against him in a Vic Metro v Vic Country trial match and Joey had this to say:


As for Scarlett, he was named at fullback in the 1997 TAC Cup team of the year (source) and most of the players named in the spine of that team were taken in the top 10 selections of the draft that year. So that would suggest Scarlett was pretty highly rated in his draft year and was at least considered a top 2 key defender in Victoria once the 1997 season came to an end. For context, the other key defender in that TAC Cup team of the year (Bolton) was taken with pick 4 in the draft.

So based on the evidence above, my read on it is Scarlett was rated in the 5-15 range and Ablett was rated in the 10-20 range. So potentially as many as three first rounders (at worst an early second round pick for Ablett) and likely two top 10 picks from the F/S rule with Hawkins being the obvious standout who would've unequivocally been taken as the number 1 pick if he had not been F/S tied. Ablett also happened to come through in the 2001 super draft so based on Montagna's comments, he probably would've gone higher in the draft order if he had been born in a different year.

I've also read in the past that Nathan Ablett was rated as high as a top 10 pick talent wise in his draft year, but was seen as a risk due to his unwillingness to play TAC Cup footy in his draft year and obviously those fears ended up being realised several years later with his early retirement. Regardless, Nathan Ablett did become a premiership player for the Cats so it all factors into the advantage that the F/S rule has provided Geelong in the past. There was also access to early second round F/S picks for Geelong like Woolnough, Clarke and Blake in that 1997-2006 period.

So it's pretty obvious that the F/S rule has been very kind to the Cats and the access to high end talent was highly concentrated in that 1997-2006 period. You could certainly argue that 10-year period of access to high end F/S talent set them up well for the following 15 years of dominance in which we saw them win four premierships from 2007-2022. For the record, 6 F/S players took part in those Geelong premiership teams between 2007-22 and we know most of them were very influential in those GF wins.

Nice essay.

Ablett and Scarlett were both 2nd round talents. Very different to picking up clear top 3 players.

N.Ablett, Bews and Blake were not influential in any Geelong premiership finals. A couple of 2nd round talents (Ablett, Scarlett) were in 2007 and 2009 (Scarlett was veering towards cooked for the 3rd flag) and then Hawkins (the one big star draftee steal) had his big day in 2011 (2009 bit part, 2022 a nice swansong in a romp).

 

[Tasmanian saint]

People need to stop using the draft &/or fixture as a way of equalising, its simply to much of a gravy train for the AFL to actually do it right. We can lie to ourselves all we want but the real "equalisation" needs to be off field.

Supporting a club who has perennially had poor development, why not increase the soft cap tax for poor teams?
why cant additional list concessions be allowed? similar to what Brisbane got when they were poor and lost those top picks two years running? Give extra rookie spots? or give veterans list a shake up again and re introduce?

I dunno, the measures they pretend to use are simply not working thats all I know

1 great talent identification by the lions
2 I don’t think Annable has contributed to our success, which is what we’ve been talking about
3 how good was our game last weekend?

I’m sure he will make great contributions to your club in future seasons that’s what you generally draft players for , so you see no problem whatsoever with a club that has won the last two premierships and also added two high level free agents being allowed to add one of the best young talents from the draft? Every other major sport that has a draft system would absolutely laugh at the incredibly compromised and unprofessional afl draft, why even continue to have one when half the top 10 rated players were unavailable before the draft started

 

[Elixuh]

I’m sure he will make great contributions to your club in future seasons that’s what you generally draft players for , so you see no problem whatsoever with a club that has won the last two premierships and also added two high level free agents being allowed to add one of the best young talents from the draft? Every other major sport that has a draft system would absolutely laugh at the incredibly compromised and unprofessional afl draft, why even continue to have one when half the top 10 rated players were unavailable before the draft started

We’re growing the game and adding value to the talent pool.

The devils will have an academy. Will you be switching over to the devils when they enter the comp? Unburden yourself from following the Saints.

 

[SleepingGiant]

Before delving into this topic, it's important to point out that people will have differing opinions on what is and isn't fair when it comes to striking a competitive balance throughout the AFL because we're all conditioned to prioritise what we see from our own lense. So just keep in mind that there's always going to be different perspectives and opinions on a topic like this. Just because someone doesn't agree with you, doesn't mean they are wrong or vice versa.

Some call it 'equalisation' and it has been at the forefront of the AFL's priorities for many decades now (even before the league expanded outside of Victoria with the old zoning system) and it remains a big priority to this day as the AFL attempts to run a highly competitive national league in which every club has a realistic / fair chance of building a premiership list, despite any disadvantages they may face. The AFL formally refers to it as 'competitive balance' these days and they categorise it into 27 separate projects that aim to address inequities across the league such as club wealth, fanbase size, geographical or historical advantages / disadvantages, draft access, list retention, second tier football, facilities / stadia, travel requirements, growth opportunities, state of grassroots footy etc.

A few years ago, the AFL asked clubs to submit suggestions and ideas to consider during their competitive balance review (see link below). We've seen several new concepts suggested or implemented over the last few years that are likely designed to help improve competitive balance among other things. For example:

• It was reported on Footy Classified tonight that the AFL is considering clubs with top 5 picks that are pushed down the draft order due to F/S or NGA/Academy bids will be awarded an end of first round pick on top of their natural pick that's been pushed down the order.
• Gather Round offers an extra home game to South Australian clubs every year, while also forcing Victorian clubs to travel interstate more.
• Another example would be the AFL replacing North Melbourne's home games in Hobart with two in WA to help reduce the travel requirements for the West Australian teams. Having said that, North fans may make the argument that being required to play three games in WA (on top of their seven other interstate games) is unfair and that's a perfectly reasonable position to hold if you're a Roos supporter given no other non-WA team is required to play so many games in WA each year.

So what are your thoughts on the current state of 'competitive balance' in the AFL? Do you believe every club in the AFL currently has the means to build a premiership team in the short-to-medium term if they get things right or should more issues be addressed and what issues would you fix if you were in charge?

https://www.nine.com.au/sport/afl/news-2024-competitive-balance-review-what-each-club-wants-revealed-exclusive-20240528-p5jhfb.html

• Scrap academies
• Make Collingwood travel
• Stop giving Geelong such a beneficial draw with so many KP games.
• Priority picks were not that bad and worked.
• Revert rules back to 2008.
• Make a retrospective father son register and grandfather the old rules for clubs who have not yet had the father son cream.

 

[M Malice]

I just watched Footy Classified from last night, they were discussing the new draft matching rules.

Not one mention of the Daicos brothers, Moore and Quaynor, or for that matter the Cats with Ablett Jnr, Tom Hawkins

26

Tom Hawkins

Age

37

Ht

197cm

Wt

105kg

Pos.

Fwd

Career

Season

Last 5

D

12.2

3star

K

7.9

3star

HB

4.4

3star

M

5.5

5star

T

1.9

4star

G

2.1

5star

D

12.7

3star

K

8.6

3star

HB

4.1

3star

M

5.1

5star

T

2.1

3star

G

1.6

5star

D

7.8

2star

K

5.6

3star

HB

2.2

2star

M

4.2

4star

T

1.0

3star

G

2.2

5star

and Matthew Scarlett

Matthew Scarlett

Age

46

Ht

192cm

Wt

94kg

Pos.

Def

Career

Season

Last 5

D

14.8

4star

K

9.5

4star

HB

5.3

4star

M

5.0

5star

T

1.5

3star

No current season stats available

D

3.8

1star

K

3.2

2star

HB

0.6

1star

M

2.0

3star

T

0.8

3star

, just a massive bagging session of the Lions and Suns.... who recruited their players within the rules at the time.

I have been a fan of Twomey but he is just as bad as Eddie following the Victorian narrative, not a genuine unbiased pundit like most of the rest in footy journalism, they manipulated to suit their agenda by omission which is a tacit lie, they didn't come out and directly say it but the clear inference was the Lions and Suns have been cheating.

 

[ReturningHawk]

I just watched Footy Classified from last night, they were discussing the new draft matching rules.

Not one mention of the Daicos brothers, Moore and Quaynor, or for that matter the Cats with Ablett Jnr, Tom Hawkins and Matthew Scarlett, just a massive bagging session of the Lions and Suns.... who recruited their players within the rules at the time.

I have been a fan of Twomey but he is just as bad as Eddie following the Victorian narrative, not a genuine unbiased pundit like most of the rest in footy journalism, they manipulated to suit their agenda by omission which is a tacit lie, they didn't come out and directly say it but the clear inference was the Lions and Suns have been cheating.

So, as a Lions fan you would like:
1. To make the grand final three years in a row
2. Pick up a top 5 player in the draft three years in a row
3. Have nobody complain about it.

I’ll tell you what, you can have any 2 out of the 3, but you can’t have all of them.

 

[M Malice]

So, as a Lions fan you would like:
1. To make the grand final three years in a row
2. Pick up a top 5 player in the draft three years in a row
3. Have nobody complain about it.

I’ll tell you what, you can have any 2 out of the 3, but you can’t have all of them.

YES! to question 1 & 2, Meh to question 3.

Got no problem with people complaining just don't bag/blame the Lions and Suns for the system bought in by the governing body of the game.

If you check my post history I am for getting rid of the club run academies and having the players in the open pool. But the clubs will refuse to run them if they do not get first dibs on them so the AFL will have to.

Father/Son has been open to all clubs and within the same rules guidelines, it is an accident of genetics not a stud farm for producing talent... apart from the Giants and Suns as they have not been around long enough.

I like the tradition of Father/Son but could not care less if they were also in the open pool.

 

[Purple Suit]

YES! to question 1 & 2, Meh to question 3.

Got no problem with people complaining just don't bag/blame the Lions and Suns for the system bought in by the governing body of the game.

If you check my post history I am for getting rid of the club run academies and having the players in the open pool. But the clubs will refuse to run them if they do not get first dibs on them so the AFL will have to.

Father/Son has been open to all clubs and within the same rules guidelines, it is an accident of genetics not a stud farm for producing talent... apart from the Giants and Suns as they have not been around long enough.

I like the tradition of Father/Son but could not care less if they were also in the open pool.

By combining Fitzroy and Brisbane, you got two teams worth of F/S access so it's not the same. New clubs never got the same access.

Clubs will still run academies for late pick access, they do everywhere else.

Brisbane are not innocent bystanders in the AFL's rules. They complained louder than anybody in 2024 when the league was going to bring in rule changes immediately. You had already made plans and it was unfair to change it only 1-2 years out when you had cream F/S and academy products coming through. Now that no kids are standing out coming through for the queensland clubs for the rules change right after the horse has bolted.

 

[M Malice]

By combining Fitzroy and Brisbane, you got two teams worth of F/S access so it's not the same. New clubs never got the same access.

Clubs will still run academies for late pick access, they do everywhere else.

Brisbane are not innocent bystanders in the AFL's rules. They complained louder than anybody in 2024 when the league was going to bring in rule changes immediately. You had already made plans and it was unfair to change it only 1-2 years out when you had cream F/S and academy products coming through. Now that no kids are standing out coming through for the queensland clubs for the rules change right after the horse has bolted.

So every other club can complain.... but the Lions can not?

FWIW this afl administration is hopeless, any change to matching bids/FatherSon/academies rules and processes should be announced at least 18 months in advance as clubs plan this sort of recruitment years into the future, totally unfair on the likes of Port/Blues who have some guns coming through currently.

The afl is such a reactive body, no long term planning whatsoever, incompetent.

 

[Purple Suit]

So every other club can complain.... but the Lions can not?

FWIW this afl administration is hopeless, any change to matching bids/FatherSon/academies rules and processes should be announced at least 18 months in advance as clubs plan this sort of recruitment years into the future, totally unfair on the likes of Port/Blues who have some guns coming through currently.

The afl is such a reactive body, no long term planning whatsoever, incompetent.

No, they can complain but it looks worse coming from a spoiled rich kid.

Fagan complained about the Saints buying a few players when the Lions also brought two free agents, one that netted a 1st round draft pick. It's nice being on easy street but the nice rich people usually don't whine about the cost of living while eating steak and caviar for dinner most nights.

 

[ReturningHawk]

YES! to question 1 & 2, Meh to question 3.

Got no problem with people complaining just don't bag/blame the Lions and Suns for the system bought in by the governing body of the game.

If you check my post history I am for getting rid of the club run academies and having the players in the open pool. But the clubs will refuse to run them if they do not get first dibs on them so the AFL will have to.

Father/Son has been open to all clubs and within the same rules guidelines, it is an accident of genetics not a stud farm for producing talent... apart from the Giants and Suns as they have not been around long enough.

I like the tradition of Father/Son but could not care less if they were also in the open pool.

If you get an advantage that people perceive is unfair, they will resent you. Of course any club in Brisbane’s shoes would’ve taken what was on offer