Current Drafting Situation

[bodazoka]

I have a bit of a gripe with the current drafting system, and it has nothing at all to do with tanking.

Currently the only way to get quality A grade players into your club is through the draft. Generally a club will "bottom out" and spend 1-3+ years at the bottom of the ladder, stocking up on talent, new coaches, new staff before putting it all together and starting to make a charge towards the top end of the ladder.

Once said club has reached the top, spent 1-3+ years at the top, challenged for a flag and mabye won 1 or 2 there A grade stars start to age. This aging of A graders coupled with the lack of talent drafted due to higher picks over the years the club was in "premiership mode" leads to said club starting to fall towards the bottom of the ladder.

And then the cycle repeats.

My two major issues with this are:

1. If you take the ladder as it stands and put all teams within this current cycle does it mean that over the course of 30+ years the same teams will generally follow each other up and down the ladder so that the same teams will end up playing each other in finals. If this occurs does it mean we will never get to see teams like Geelong and St Kilda take on teams like Fremantle and Melbourne in a final or grand final?

2. If you understand that cycle and you agree with it you must then admit that in a 10 year period your club will only have the means to realistically challenge for a flag for 2-3 of those 10 years. During the time your club is rebuilding 7-8 years your club will have no chance whatsoever of ever challenging for a premiership.

Isnt that all a little stale? you can pretty much predict within a 2 year + or - time frame which teams will be capable of winning a flag and who that team is likely to face in finals, for example Melbourne, West Coast, Richmond and Fremantle are likely to face off in finals in 3-4 years whilst Geelong, StKilda, Collingwood, Sydney are likely to finish bottom 4.

I think there needs to be more options for teams to be able to recruit talent. It would create a better overall competition with allot more fluctuation and more reliant on the performance of the clubs coaches, board and recruitment staff. Rather then the current clubs relying on talent garnered from the draft.

Any agree?? or think im full of it???

 

[bunsen burner]

1. If you take the ladder as it stands and put all teams within this current cycle does it mean that over the course of 30+ years the same teams will generally follow each other up and down the ladder so that the same teams will end up playing each other in finals. If this occurs does it mean we will never get to see teams like Geelong and St Kilda take on teams like Fremantle and Melbourne in a final or grand final?

There's lots of other variables:

1. recruiting ability
2. timing of recruiting
3. develop time frames of playing groups (hawks 3 years, Saints 8)
4. Coaches
5. Clubs hovering midtable or in the 8 for years

I'm sure there's 1000s more but this gaurantees there is no uniformity.

If you understand that cycle and you agree with it you must then admit that in a 10 year period your club will only have the means to realistically challenge for a flag for 2-3 of those 10 years.

2-3 years is pretty good. Bulldogs have won won flag in their history. Then look at EPL - a good 15 of the club will never compete.

During the time your club is rebuilding 7-8 years your club will have no chance whatsoever of ever challenging for a premiership.

That's the reality of it. Have to laugh when I see so many supporters sitting there going "yeah, bairdy, harding, petrie, these guys will takes us to the next flag. We'll be in the mix next year".

On the bright side I think perennial losers such as Saints and Bulldogs can have as much optimism as carlton and Collingwood to winning a flag. it's not like the old days when the rich clubs ruled.

Isnt that all a little stale? you can pretty much predict within a 2 year + or - time frame which teams will be capable of winning a flag and who that team is likely to face in finals, for example Melbourne, West Coast, Richmond and Fremantle are likely to face off in finals in 3-4 years whilst Geelong, StKilda, Collingwood, Sydney are likely to finish bottom 4.

True, but better than the old alternatives. I also think there are enough variables to put some mystery ie Richmond's poor injury run, Saints come back after they failed with a draft packed list, Swans flag without bottoming out.

I think it's pretty easy to see a fair bit of it - Eagles, Brisbane, Hawthorn, Carlton (soon), while Swans and Geelong surprised. And Adelaide in 06.

I think there needs to be more options for teams to be able to recruit talent. It would create a better overall competition with allot more fluctuation and more reliant on the performance of the clubs coaches, board and recruitment staff. Rather then the current clubs relying on talent garnered from the draft.

Any agree?? or think im full of it???

I'd like to see more mature age recruits. It's hard to believe that quality players don't get looked over in the draft. Some players peak later. Ballantyne looks lively. Priddis is worth a game. I'm sure there's a player or two in the VFL or SANFL who's worth a gig.

 

[UpForGrabs]

I think there a couple of options;

1) Teams can recruit players if they've previously nominated for the draft and not been picked up.

or

2) Teams can recruit players over the age of 24 without having to go through the draft.

 

[bodazoka]

West Coast:
90 - 3rd
91 - 1st
92 - 4th
93 - 6th
94 - 1st
95 - 5th
96 - 4th
97 - 5th
98 - 7th
99 - 5th
00 - 13th
01 - 14th
02 - 8th
03 - 7th
04 - 7th
05 - 2nd
06 - 1st
07 - 3rd

Geelong:
90 - 10th
91 - 3rd
92 - 1st
93 - 7th
94 - 4th
95 - 2nd
96 - 7th
97 - 2nd
98 - 12th
99 - 11th
00 - 5th
01 - 12th
02 - 9th
03 - 12th
04 - 4th
05 - 6th
06 - 10th
07 - 1st

Red indicates the years in which Geelong and West Coast have finished inside finals within 3 positions of each other. Blue indicates the year where both teams finished outside of finals yet still within 2 positions of each other... Geelong started a re-build after 1997 we started ours after 1999. Other then that both our teams because of the draft system have stayed remarkably close to each other.

With the extrenuating circumstances that have been created with Judd and Cousins leaving, forcing an early re-build our club has fallen at a stage where we should of been strong. Hence I did not include the last two years.

 

[bodazoka]

Hawthorn:
90 - 5th
91 - 2nd
92 - 5th
93 - 4th
94 - 6th
95 - 15th
96 - 8th
97 - 15th
98 - 13th
99 - 9th
00 - 8th
01 - 6th
02 - 10th
03 - 9th
04 - 15th
05 - 14th
06 - 11th
07 - 5th
08 - 2nd

Collingwood:
90 - 2nd
91 - 7th
92 - 3rd
93 - 8th
94 - 8th
95 - 10th
96 - 11th
97 - 10th
98 - 14th
99 - 16th
00 - 15th
01 - 9th
02 - 4th
03 - 2nd
04 - 13th
05 - 15th
06 - 5th
07 - 6th
08 - 8th

Whilst not remaining quite as close as we have with Geelong Hawthorns years have mirrored Collingwoods. Both were successfull for 5 years making finals before having to re-build, during the re-build they both spend 4 of 5 years together towards the bottom of the ladder. Between 00 and 03 they were erratic before getting there Sht together and both starting to continuosly make finals between 04 and 08 and 09 as it seems this year.

*EDIT* I have added purple for years where the two teams are within 3 ladder positions of each other.

 

[bodazoka]

There's lots of other variables:

1. recruiting ability
2. timing of recruiting
3. develop time frames of playing groups (hawks 3 years, Saints 8)
4. Coaches
5. Clubs hovering midtable or in the 8 for years.

Whilst I agree there are slight variables from year to year I believe that overall teams stay relatively close to others on the ladder and fall and rise with certain other teams. Unless there are major mitigating factors like what we have been through lately, loosing two captains and brownlow medalists not to mention other handy players (Chich, Rojo, Braun).

I doubt that many teams within each decade would go through a shift major enough to severely effect there ladder positions for more then 1-2 years like we have now. And in effect all this has done is shunt us with teams like Melbourne and Richmond of which we will probably stick with now in ladder positions.

 

[swingdog]

I suggested on another thread that clubs could shorten that time period if, when they hit their peak (say 2 years into the 3 year window) and have won a flag, they off-load stars, get high draft picks and good trades in return and start the re-build much earlier than the cycle would suggest.

That's essentially what happened to us with Judd and Cousins leaving, dropping from the 3rd year of our window to bottom, but expecting to climb again sooner than if we'd gradually slid down the ladder, traded with a weak hand, got average picks and bottomed out after 5-7 years.

If our youngsters do start to challenge in 4 years (when they have roughly 100 games in them), that'll be 2013, which is a lot earlier than the cycle would suggest is normal.

I should say I don't ever expect a club to do this because of the howls of anguish, but it's an option.

 

[Lucev23]

Those ladder position indicators are absolutely interesting.

Anyone care to do some more?

 

[Ochre]

Isnt that all a little stale? you can pretty much predict within a 2 year + or - time frame which teams will be capable of winning a flag and who that team is likely to face in finals, for example Melbourne, West Coast, Richmond and Fremantle are likely to face off in finals in 3-4 years whilst Geelong, StKilda, Collingwood, Sydney are likely to finish bottom 4.

doesnt this completely ruin your argument

we and sydney played off in 2 grand finals and yet your saying next time we will be up the top of the ladder sydney will be down the bottom

also geelong have a very old list while hawthorns is very young, so geelong will go down the ladder sooner

 

[bodazoka]

doesnt this completely ruin your argument

we and sydney played off in 2 grand finals and yet your saying next time we will be up the top of the ladder sydney will be down the bottom

also geelong have a very old list while hawthorns is very young, so geelong will go down the ladder sooner

With the Sydney thing that is because we went through very extrenuating circumstances. We lost two captain and brownlow winning midfielders, not to mention Chick, Braun and Rojo from the midfield and we have had guys like Hunter and Waters injured for basically the whole last two seasons.

What happened to us does not happen often to many (if any) clubs and its on par with the Carlton salary cap breach in terms of radically changing the clubs fortunes.

Geelong will go down the ladder sooner but they also got to the top of the ladder quicker then Hawthorn. Harley, Scarlett, Mooney (aka spud), Milburn, Ottens will retire in the next 1-2 years, but the rest of them are still very young (especially the midfield). Conversly Hawthorn has Dew, Croad, Bateman retiring in the next few years whilst the rest are all still young.

Now if Geelong were to go towards the bottom in say 3+ years I believe that Hawthorn will follow in 4+ years. Both teams would match each others fortunes due to players retiring but they are a little bit out of sink as well. Think back to when we won our premierships though, who did we face off when we won them (Geelong) and which team was able to win a premiership around that time as well??? Hawthorn.

 

[Clay Davis]

It's more than just the draft and salary cap. The cycle is perpetuated by a few more things:

1. A fixed number of players on the list. Off the top of my head it's around 35, aside from rookies. If a club wants to have only 30 players on the list, and pay a bit more (within the cap) to keep or recruit guns, why shouldn't they be allowed to. Why must they keep duds on the list and pay them?

Opposite to that, if Melbourne wants to load up on 40 young blokes and pay them the minimum salary, why can't they? So long as it fits in the cap it should be OK.

2. Lower limit on the salary cap. This is around 92.5% (off the top of my head). Combine this with the player number requirement, and you have clubs at the bottom paying their list 90% of what Geelong pays theirs. Completely stupid, it means absolute crabs are on cushy wages. If Freo, for instance, wants to cut hack senior players and stack up with young blokes on lower wages, with the incentive they'll get paid more if they improve, why are they prevented from doing so?

3. The requirement to take three players each year in the draft. The upshot of this and point one is that three players are required to be delisted or retired each year. They could be perfectly capable players, who are now seen as having little expected future value versus possible 10 year players coming in at the young side that have greater prospective upside

---

All these rules work against keeping players that might take time to develop, picking up more mature recruits, and taking bigger chances on project players. While small deviances within this model produces success (like Geelong), I think with the competition becoming more cutthroat, we will see more drafting of players that fit the model (18 years old, 192 cm, good athleticism, can take coaches orders) rather than footballers, and more clubs looking and playing like Adelaide.

Ultimately all there should be is a salary cap, minimum salary for young blokes, and a draft system. These other rules seem interfere with list management strategies unnecessarily.

 

[bodazoka]

Stripping away the mimimum payments when free agency is introduced would be a good idea. Basically I think we need something to facilitate clubs being able to construct premiership winning sides without having to rely heavily on the draft, even rookie picks and late picks are comprimised as the lower you finish the better late pick you get.

2. Free agency
3. Get rid of the minimum salary cap payments or lower it as sudgested gravy

We have the NSW's scholarship holders and the international rookies now which helps a little but I rekon we need something more. Its got to the point where you see Carlton and StKilda playing each other with something like 6 no.1 draft picks, its rediculous.

 

[Clay Davis]

Stripping away the mimimum payments when free agency is introduced would be a good idea. Basically I think we need something to facilitate clubs being able to construct premiership winning sides without having to rely heavily on the draft, even rookie picks and late picks are comprimised as the lower you finish the better late pick you get.

2. Free agency
3. Get rid of the minimum salary cap payments or lower it as sudgested gravy

We have the NSW's scholarship holders and the international rookies now which helps a little but I rekon we need something more. Its got to the point where you see Carlton and StKilda playing each other with something like 6 no.1 draft picks, its rediculous.

The only limit on list management that should exist, in my view, is the salary cap. Purely with the intention of making sure the super wealthy clubs don't buy up all the best players.

The draft is fine, but the priority pick system sucks.

The other limits are fiddling on behalf of the AFLPA that ensures footy is run like a closed shop and that middle range hacks earn more coin than they deserve.

 

[KamakazeSalami]

While theoretically the OP's argument sounds plausible, in reality it just isn't the case. As Bunsen Burner said, there are way to many variables involved in getting to, and sustaining, a decent challenge at multiple premierships within your time 'at the top of the cycle'.

The Hawks this year are the perfect example. Sure, they probably snagged one a bit earlier than they had planned, but they showed last year that they were well and truly in that 'up-cycle' even if they hadn't won it all (and may well be in contention for it over the coming years), but look at them this year, same/similar list and languishing at 10th with half a dozen rounds to go. They may still make the finals (and at a very long stretch the top four... highly unlikely) but I personally think their chances were shot around round 12 or 13. Another example is Port, Grand Finalists in 07, basket cases in 08. Sure, 08 might have been an abberration, but thats the whole point. Its unpredictable and there'll always be a half dozen teams either playing better or worse than expected for 1000 different reasons.

 

[bodazoka]

While theoretically the OP's argument sounds plausible, in reality it just isn't the case. As Bunsen Burner said, there are way to many variables involved in getting to, and sustaining, a decent challenge at multiple premierships within your time 'at the top of the cycle'.

How do you then explain the close correlation between Hawthorn and Collingwood and the extremely close relationship between us and Geelong untill 08. I agree that some years might be abborations with teams finishing at different scales but over the course of 20 years Collingwood and Hawthorn and Geelong and West Coast have been remarkably close.

Even with the different drafting strategies, players, coaches, game styles etc... all the variables BB was talking about.

IMO the variations account for the difference between the clubs finishing 16th and 12th but they do not account for the overall direction clubs head in relation with each other, and that is either up or down.

 

[KamakazeSalami]

How do you then explain the close correlation between Hawthorn and Collingwood and the extremely close relationship between us and Geelong untill 08. I agree that some years might be abborations with teams finishing at different scales but over the course of 20 years Collingwood and Hawthorn and Geelong and West Coast have been remarkably close.

Even with the different drafting strategies, players, coaches, game styles etc... all the variables BB was talking about.

IMO the variations account for the difference between the clubs finishing 16th and 12th but they do not account for the overall direction clubs head in relation with each other, and that is either up or down.

Coincidence. You're pointing to four teams in a sixteen team comp (over the last decade) who've had a somewhat similar cycle (even this I'd argue is not quite correct, Hawks finished 10th and 9th respectively in 2002/2003 when Pies were in GFs those years).

You can take any starting point you like, and team at the top and bottom of the ladder will mabye start to move in the other direction together, however all the other variables come into play to determine at which rate this will happen. Once that rate of change is out of sync the teams are going to start moving away from each other's cycles.

I just don't buy into the theory that now we're all at the bottom of the ladder together in similar rebuilding phases we're going to be moving up and down the ladder over the next couple of decades with Melbourne, Freo, Tigers and North Melbourne.

 

[bodazoka]

Coincidence. You're pointing to four teams in a sixteen team comp (over the last decade) who've had a somewhat similar cycle (even this I'd argue is not quite correct, Hawks finished 10th and 9th respectively in 2002/2003 when Pies were in GFs those years).

Seriously coincidence??? Geelong and West Coast have never been more then 3 spots away from each other from 12 of the last 18 years. And we have played off in two grand finals and a number of finals against each other.

Hawthorn and Collingwood spent 5 years at the top together, then they spent 5 years at the bottom together. 4 years the clubs were apart before once again coming together recently to both be in a position to play finals and win flags. Thats being in the same situation as each other for 15 of the last 19 years!

Im sorry but im not convinced.

I will do some more as I get time, but seriously I picked these teams because they were round a bouts when we won our first premierships but I didnt "scout" around for the best fit to suit my argument. It was all fairly random.

 

[bodazoka]

Once that rate of change is out of sync the teams are going to start moving away from each other's cycles.

This I agree with, however what is the rate of change??? 10 years? 20 years? 30 years?. Whatever it is I think its a bloody long time and over the course of 30+ years starting now IMO you would be lucky to see Melbourne and Geelong play a final against each other or even be in the finals at the same time!!

Grand Final.. Geelong v Melbourne (tell him he's dreaming!)

 

[tesseract]

I suggested on another thread that clubs could shorten that time period if, when they hit their peak (say 2 years into the 3 year window) and have won a flag, they off-load stars, get high draft picks and good trades in return and start the re-build much earlier than the cycle would suggest.

That's essentially what happened to us with Judd and Cousins leaving, dropping from the 3rd year of our window to bottom, but expecting to climb again sooner than if we'd gradually slid down the ladder, traded with a weak hand, got average picks and bottomed out after 5-7 years.

If our youngsters do start to challenge in 4 years (when they have roughly 100 games in them), that'll be 2013, which is a lot earlier than the cycle would suggest is normal.

I should say I don't ever expect a club to do this because of the howls of anguish, but it's an option.

I agree with you there. It's only a good idea after 1 premiership, if we can't realistically envisage another.

ATM, Kerr is the most expendable of our A-graders. This is especially true if we pick up a PP this year and get 2 midfielders from the top 5 to replace him with.

Cox and Glass would be harder to part with than Kerr. I'd do it though if the price was right and if we were planning on keeping guys like Embley and Hunter playing for perhaps 2 years longer.

The negative aspects that comes from trading our A-graders for picks comes in the losses and the drop in form and confidence that could possibly come from that.
A young rebuilding side needs experienced leaders to show the way and lead from the front. They need to set the standards of professionalism for the youngsters to aspire too.

We could part with 1-2 experienced good players, but getting rid of them all would backfire and end up a disaster for the club.

 

[philibuster]

there are faults with the draft, in my opinion too many 17 18 yr olds are drafted on potential ,not on what they have achieved, thats why you see kids getting drafted staying on a list for two years and then getting delisted. it's a flawed system players should have to prove themselves at the wafl,sanfl or vfl before getting drafted.
the draft is based on the NFL model from america, but over there, the players drafted are all in their 20's and have been proved at college level .
it just seems to me that many young footballers are thrown on the scrap heap too early.

 

[tesseract]

there are faults with the draft, in my opinion too many 17 18 yr olds are drafted on potential ,not on what they have achieved, thats why you see kids getting drafted staying on a list for two years and then getting delisted. it's a flawed system players should have to prove themselves at the wafl,sanfl or vfl before getting drafted.
the draft is based on the NFL model from america, but over there, the players drafted are all in their 20's and have been proved at college level .
it just seems to me that many young footballers are thrown on the scrap heap too early.

Clubs already have the choice to do as you've mentioned if they so desire.

It should be left up to the clubs to decide as to whether they wish to draft 18 year old's or proven mature age players.

 

[KamakazeSalami]

Seriously coincidence??? Geelong and West Coast have never been more then 3 spots away from each other from 12 of the last 18 years. And we have played off in two grand finals and a number of finals against each other.

Hawthorn and Collingwood spent 5 years at the top together, then they spent 5 years at the bottom together. 4 years the clubs were apart before once again coming together recently to both be in a position to play finals and win flags. Thats being in the same situation as each other for 15 of the last 19 years!

Im sorry but im not convinced.

I will do some more as I get time, but seriously I picked these teams because they were round a bouts when we won our first premierships but I didnt "scout" around for the best fit to suit my argument. It was all fairly random.

Mate I've seen enough of your posts to know you're not likely to just put up the stats to fit your argument.

The thing is though its only a 16 team comp. I reckon if you'd look hard enough there'd be plenty of other correlations you could draw from the ladder position stats.

Three ladder positions represents a large amount of teams on the ladder. Also, if we were 6th, Geelong could be 9th, this doesn't necessarily mean they're near us in terms of development. I'm not sure whether this happened but, I hope you get my point.

Seperation in ladder position doesn't really tell you which way they're moving in either does it? I'm not a mathematician, certainly not a statistician and I'm sure your analysis on the numbers would possibly bring other teams into it, but its not really surprising given there is such a small amount of teams.

I mean we're three positions from Freo (16th) at the moment and three positions from Hawthorn (10th) (as it stands) but who are we closer to in terms of development? I know, its only round 16 but even if it was Essendon or Port or Carlton, our development is still a way off those guys who would end up in 10th position.

I can't be stuffed going through the stats mate, so my apologies. Intuitively though, I think we have too many variables on each team for over the course of their development/fall to point to ladder positions to prove that they will generally rise and fall together because there are so few teams, you're going to be within striking distace of 6 other teams (both ways). Thats almost half the teams on the ladder, including yourself.