Does it take too long for clubs to rebuild their lists?

[demondavey]

How many times did Hawthorn really go into the draft though from 08 onwards?

 

[demondavey]

So many hawthorn fans on social media claiming they have rebuilt already.

Funny that they still have the 2nd oldest list in the comp

They’ve never rebuilt. They are the silly ones.

 

[Golumless]

I was listening to SEN this morning and I heard one of the more intriguing discussions between David King and Rohan Connolly about the time it takes for teams to rebuild their lists. They had quite a fiery disagreement and I think both made some reasonable points. I'll paraphrase.

David King was I think responding to a call from a Carlton fan who was ready to throw in the towel, and it prompted him to argue that it simply takes too long for teams to rebuild. According to King, you can't have sides down the bottom for five or even seven years. The effect, according to King, is that you'll have younger fans simply tuning out because they're not as invested as the older fans who are willing to endure such a lengthy lean period. He argued that we need even more fluid player movement to avoid the likes of Carlton, St Kilda and Melbourne (for example) being down as long as they have been.

Rohan Connolly acknowledged the point about young fans but disagreed that there should be any specific mechanism to expedite these rebuilds. He argued that if clubs make bad decisions off-field, there should be a price to pay. He also pointed out that in the AFL era, there have been 11 teams win premierships, which he said was actually pretty good. He also made the point that for the first time in 20 years, there is no undefeated team after four rounds, suggesting that some of the quality at the top has eroded and that further equalisation would actually be undesirable.

I can see both arguments. I think King is right about younger fans tuning out, although I don't accept we should tailor the competition according to the attention spans of eight-year-olds. I think Connolly is right in saying there must be a price paid for getting it wrong off-field, but I'm not sure the competition is actually as even as everyone says. It might be even on a micro level, in that any team can beat another on their day. But on a more macro level, look at the disparity in finals appearances over the past 10 years. It's not that even. Since 2007, Geelong have played finals 11 out of 12 seasons. Melbourne haven't played finals since 2006. Is that "even"?

But even if the competition isn't truly even, should it be? Surely there should be a difference in outcomes and attempts to over-engineer evenness are not necessarily desirable. If Hawthorn are good enough to win three flags in a row, why should we invent a mechanism to prevent that?

So with all that in mind, does it take too long for teams to rebuild their lists? Should there be further mechanisms in place to help it happen quicker? Or is the five- or six-year rebuild a reasonable price to pay for getting it wrong off-field?

The competition is even in the sense that how a club is ran (Staff/Coaches/List managers etc) dictates success. Not a situation that some zones are just simply more dominant then others.

The well ran clubs will rise to the top, the poor ones will stay rooted to the bottom. No amount of AFL intervention that is healthy to the league will stop that.

 

[Kwality]

Comps been diluted because so much great talent went to gws and Gold Coast. These rebuilds wouldn’t have been as long if you had some of those draft picks running around for the struggling clubs. Not using it as an excuse or saying I don’t want expansion but it’s hurt the competition from a quality standpoint.

What is staggering is how few accept this reality, fair dinkum unbelievable & they were kids.

 

[bungalow_bill]

Birchall and?

A bunch of spuds but point is Hawthorn bottomed out for a number of years,got a couple of priority picks and won a flag. So it can work if executed properly.

 

[Kwality]

A bunch of spuds but point is Hawthorn bottomed out for a number of years,got a couple of priority picks and won a flag. So it can work if executed properly.

Relax Bill, you guys went close to 4 in a row, so did the Hawks.
You guys were let down by the likes of Fev, I'm a fan off Vossy. 5hit sandwich for you blokes ... dems da breaks.

 

[Art Corvelay]

I don’t think forcing a minimum spend of 95% cap helps - why should clubs be forced to spend so much on bad lists? Just makes it harder for them to bring in established talent.

 

[Obeanie1]

s**t thing is a generation of good players have wasted their careers at clubs like Carlton & Melbourne - Murphy, Kreuzer & Jones come to mind. they were unlucky to be very good players selected by clubs who've struggled for a decade.

Add Saint Kilda to that list.

Go check out their board. Even their own supporters are posting how the club has wasted careers of good players.

A sad place to be.

 

[Blue1980]

A bunch of spuds but point is Hawthorn bottomed out for a number of years,got a couple of priority picks and won a flag. So it can work if executed properly.

Saying rebuilds never work is a fallacy.

Thing is they don’t always work, and quite often the road to success is punctured by potholes along the way.

Also if we didn’t call what we have done from 2015 onwards a rebuild would of that made it ok?

End of the day if your side is near the bottom of the ladder it seems people on here will claim every decision the club has made since whenever your last premiership was led to this moment and the club has been terrible since that moment.

 

[Blue1980]

Add Saint Kilda to that list.

Go check out their board. Even their own supporters are posting how the club has wasted careers of good players.

A sad place to be.

Well their an interesting one as they have arrived at a stage where they have a lot of somewhat established players, so in theory should be a lot better.

Seems in recent times they have lost guys like Riewoldt, Montagna and Dempster and they haven’t been adequately replaced and a few of the existing guys have either stagnated or gone backwards.

It could be Richardson has taken them as far as he can or they just have to hold the line and work through a rough patch.

Either way their list is at a stage where a few canny draft selections and trades could see them move up pretty quick.

 

[bungalow_bill]

Saints will have access to a high end pick this year. If McCartin comes good and the likes of Coffield and Clark do as well they will be heading in the right direction.

 

[Kwality]

Seems in recent times they have lost guys like Riewoldt, Montagna and Dempster and they haven’t been adequately replaced and a few of the existing guys have either stagnated or gone backwards.

Not critical of the Saints here, but the Hawks were proactive, Mitch did a year for my mob, Lewy & Hodge werent missed (yep genuine flag winners all) - Clarko leading again, how hard will it be for the Dogs to say no more for the premiership team ...

 

[pablo668]

I reckon Freo have been rebuilding for 20 of the 23 years or so they've been in the comp.

 

[Kwality]

I reckon Freo have been rebuilding for 20 of the 23 years or so they've been in the comp.

Thats where a bit of luck sucks ... GFs, you cant win them all / any !

 

[LordLucifer]

I don’t think forcing a minimum spend of 95% cap helps - why should clubs be forced to spend so much on bad lists? Just makes it harder for them to bring in established talent.

Totally agree & always have.

If a club can keep all of their players happy & content yet only pay 75% of the cap why should they be penalised ??

Besides, the club has to raise that 95% revenue in the first place which is not always easy for some of them.

 

[Blue1980]

I reckon Freo have been rebuilding for 20 of the 23 years or so they've been in the comp.

Weren’t rebuilding at any point from 2003-15 really.

Being crap isn’t the same thing as rebuilding.
You are often crap while rebuilding, but also crap outside of them too.

We were crap 2014/15, certainly weren’t rebuilding.

Dockers are currently rebuilding but in this fickle big footy world is their rebuild complete because they have won a couple of games?

 

[Blue1980]

Not critical of the Saints here, but the Hawks were proactive, Mitch did a year for my mob, Lewy & Hodge werent missed (yep genuine flag winners all) - Clarko leading again, how hard will it be for the Dogs to say no more for the premiership team ...

We will see how hawks go with some injuries mounting.

But yes Clarko from mid last year seems to have got things tweaked and working well again. Had to get some synergy with the new guys coming into the team, and having a fit JOM this year is a massive bonus.

 

[Ron The Bear]

So many hawthorn fans on social media claiming they have rebuilt already.

Funny that they still have the 2nd oldest list in the comp

Oldest senior 22 quite comfortably.

1st Haw 26.40
2nd Syd 25.90

Similar age after four rounds to recent seasons:

2018 26.40 (1st)
2017 26.99 (2nd WC)
2016 26.40 (3rd NM, Fr)
2015 26.51 (4th Fr NM Sy)

All good so far and obviously fine if they're contending for the flag, but that's the minimum requirement for a team this old (ranked #57/1496).

 

[Ants]

There are really two types of rebuild.

The one where you still have a core of quality, and it’s a matter of tinkering around the edges. St Kilda between Thomas and Lyon would be an example, Hawthorn after the 2008 grand final, Collingwood after 2002, etc. Sydney are masters of this type. You van extend how long you can put off a full rebuild if you can also get in a genuine star. Buddy and Dangerfield are good examples.

There is no doubt for teams near or at the top, this kind of rebuild is easier than ever. Free Agency has reduced player acquisition costs, and players see moving to top teams for success as not having the old stigma. Getting guys like Dangerfield, Tuohy, Henderson, Frawley, Rivers, Lake, etc. extended Hawthorn and Geelong’s period of dominance near the top.

Even if you haven’t won the big one, having and keeping that core of quality can allow a quick jump. Adelaide have stayed up around due to brilliant drafting and having a core of quality. Richmond spent 5-6 years on the cusp and tinkering as they had such a great 4 top players.

The second rebuild type is a full rebuild. Where your core of quality either wasn’t good enough to begin with, or have aged out together. These used to be (relatively) quick. But still 4-6 years. WCE bottomed our 2000-2002. Collingwood and St Kilda large 90’s and early 2000’s respectively. Geelong 1999-2002. Bulldogs had a few bad stints. Hawthorn 2004-2007. This was an extremely successful model.

This kind of rebuild has become tougher. Prior to the new teams, with no FA and priority picks, a bad team could have 3 top 20 picks, including two top 5 ones. Older players traded out had more value at the trade table, getting you even more picks. The PSD had decent players in it. Any F/S selections only cost a 3rd rounder, letting you keep your top picks. Higher teams are now poaching more younger talent, especially across state lines.

Many of the rule changes over the last 10 years have hurt the ability of clubs in a full rebuild to do it quickly. And of course there were 3-4 years where the draft was weakened by the new teams and increasing the draft eligible age.

So it’s slower to get talent in, you get less for talent sold and it’s easier for teams to poach from you. It’s not a good recipe for a team facing a true rebuild, or their supporters.

For mine, a full rebuild has become tougher and longer, and the system rewards teams that already are near the top far more than in the decades prior. I agree with those who say more support needs to occur for bottom teams. Although I’m a fan of priority picks, less controversial solutions would be removing list maximums so bottom clubs can go to the well more, higher development coaching team caps for teams near the bottom, longer first contracts, etc.


Now, just to be clear, terrible decision making (cough Carlton, cough Melbourne) will derail you. And there are exceptions like the Bulldogs, who given their ladder position in 2016 and since arguably did a bit of a Leicester. Bui I don’t think that outliers should dictate policy.

 

[didaksrightfoot]

I think rebuilds work fine for clubs that manage the recruitment and development well - but for those that make mistakes, even if its one or two drafts, can be set back for years.
You could leave the system as it is, but I think over time you will continue to see the rich getting richer and the "poor" (not always financially) continuing to struggle.

I think the current drafting system (which is really the main tool for rebuilding) is too much of a hit-and-miss to consistently allow clubs to rebuild.
It has been suggested multiple times, but raising the draft age to 19 or 20 would make a massive difference. (This would require the AFL to invest in the state leagues to assist development of those players, maybe by having 2-3 spots per team, paid for by the AFL, so these kids can get a part-wage to keep them on the AFL pathway: say pay 40-50 identified players, $20-25k each - $1m/yr total is easily manageable). This allows more scouting of players, for a longer period of time, against adult competition, allows you to see who's body holds up, and allows guys to be more AFL ready, both physically and emotionally, when drafted (rather than currently when probably the top 5-10 guys might be, but most require at least 1-2 years of development before being able to really compete).
(I'd also argue that this would also boost interest in the state leagues - because you'd definitely have more fan and media attention if you got future number 1 picks running around in the VFL and all the speculation that come with that).
You could also combine this with longer garaunteed rookie contracts (I'd suggest 3yrs+1 for 1st rounders, 2+1 for 2nd, and then 1+1 for others) to allow clubs to get more out of their top picks without the worry of them demanding a trade after 2 years.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

The competition is even in the sense that how a club is ran (Staff/Coaches/List managers etc) dictates success.

But hasn't that always been true?

I think that when people now talk about an "even competition", they're talking about on-field performance.

And I'm not sure the outcomes are that even. But should they be?

I don't think there's a magic principle that dictates that every team should win a flag at least once every 20 years just to keep people interested. * that. If Brisbane are good enough to win 3 flags in a row, good for them. If Hawthorn are good enough to do the same, good for them. I don't think we should do anything to make that feat harder out of some fetish with equal outcomes. Success should be validated; if you're good enough, you deserve it. But we do need measures to ensure that every team has the equal ability to compete, off-field and on-field.

I think that's as concisely as I can put it.

 

[tigerdan]

We were s**t for decades and the only time we did full rebuilds were circa 1987 when we were broke and again when Hardwick came and we were the worst side since fitzroy.

In my opinion it takes balls to go full rebuild but is worth it. I would argue it was the foundation of Geelong's success, as well as Richmond last year.

We tried top ups under Frawley because we were terrified of losing supporters, and the results were disastrous. Geelong might just make it this year because they have a good core, but they might have sold the farm.

The worst scenario is you end up with a s**t team and hardly of the players have finals experience That is the vicious circle that's almost impossible to break out of (I think it's where Carlton and Brisbane are at now). Hawthorn and previously Essendon were able to have some s**t years but still retain finals winning experiencee and bounce back quickly.

I would go full rebuild again.

 

[blitzer]

If the AFLPA weren't so greedy and would accept 90% cap minimum there wouldn't be an issue. Teams like Brisbane, Carlton, Melbourne (years ago) etc wouldn't get stuck at the bottom as they would be able to lure senior players of sufficient quality to go with drafting talented youngsters during their time at the bottom.

 

[Isaac Cumming No 1]

How many times did Hawthorn really go into the draft though from 08 onwards?

No doubt after 08 they changed strategy but that's not the point. Clarkson showed he could though, Beveridge and Hartwig haven't shown that capacity to adapt yet.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Does it take too long for clubs to rebuild their lists?

No time at all when you get a free hit at Heeney, Mills and Blakey.