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

[Sweet Jesus]

I'm slightly confused. If you give the current bottom clubs assistance then other clubs finish bottom for a period of time until they are given assistance and another set of clubs sit on the bottom for a while.

Isnt this what we are seeing anyway?

Suck it up and get better managers.

It's meant to be cyclical. But the cycle is slower if you draft badly.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Hawthorn had picks 1,2,3,5,6,6,7

Geelong nailed two drafts

Both clubs also had once-in-a-lifetime wins in the 2001 draft.

Sam Mitchell at #36. Gary Ablett Jr at #40.

Handy.

 

[Chism]

It's meant to be cyclical. But the cycle is slower if you draft badly.

Are McCartin / Weitering / Boyd / Schache and many other top draft selections who are not quite humming along right now although being clear high picks by EVERYONE from all clubs classified as drafting badly??

No one has a Crystal ball regarding how players adapt at the highest level regardless of junior level form.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

So if you guys have the chance to draft the best widely acclaimed kid in the country at No.1 and do so like every other team would of done but he busts is that not just pure bad luck or being unlucky in that draft season is a blight on your recruiters etc when EVERY other team in the comp was taking the same player that year with he No.1 selection.

The AFL draft is never a certainty regardless of their junior level form and raps on them.

That would be unlucky. That's why you need more than one bite of the cherry.

Hawthorn built their premierships at least partially around maximising early draft selections. But if you look back, they also had a shitload of misses. But they had enough early picks and nailed maybe half. And that was the core that took them through.

 

[demondavey]

No one is saying the #1 pick is a silver bullet. But making the most of a cluster of earlyish picks in consecutive drafts is a pretty solid predictor of success.

They got Roughead, Franklin and Lewis with top 10 picks in the same year, three years after taking Hodge at #1 and Mitchell at #36 in the same draft. They added Rioli with #12 a few years later.

Look how they acquired their best players:

Jack Riewoldt #13, 2006
Trent Cotchin #2, 2007 draft
Alex Rance #18, 2007 draft
Dustin Martin #3, 2009 draft

Of course you still need to develop players and build an atmospheres where the good players stick around. But loading up on earlyish picks and making them count over a period of 3-4 years seems to be one of the non-negotiables.

If you draft badly, focusing on "culture" isn't going to cut it.

Well if you look at how many times Melbourne and Carlton have gone to the draft to rebuild then it shows that there’s been very little success that has stemmed from those selections. I am acknowledging that you need to go there, but there’s enough proof that a rebuild over the timeframe Melbourne and Carlton have endured is worthless because the culture is toxic.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Well if you look at how many times Melbourne and Carlton have gone to the draft to rebuild then it shows that there’s been very little success that has stemmed from those selections.

And that's the problem.

I am acknowledging that you need to go there, but there’s enough proof that a rebuild over the timeframe Melbourne and Carlton have endured is worthless because the culture is toxic.

Or have they drafted poorly?

I think the expectations for Melbourne have gone up because their drafting has actually improved.

 

[These 4 Walls]

Martin and Kelly never left and most likely never wanted to leave as their clubs are going through windows of winning premierships. No one on big footy rates North, mentioned earlier in this thread people in the media are saying North won't play finals for 10 years. Why would Kelly and Martin want to go there?

But with the money that they had lined up for those players they spread across recruiting 5 of the top 15 talented 18 year olds to build around, they suddenly become young and exciting in one off season and don't look like they are missing finals for the next 10 years.

Richmond and GWS rightly spent money retaining their star players and those players rightly stayed as they are wanting premierships now, I'm saying let the lower clubs spend money on building a list for the future.

North drafted Luke Davies-Uniacke in the 1st rnd

GWS drafted Aiden Boner in the 1st rnd

Richmond drafted Jack Higgins in the 1st round

How is this system allowing North to close the gap on GWS and Richmond and become attractive on field.

Then do you not end up with feeder clubs ala EPL?

I do like the completely different approach to the problem, though think it ends up creating a less even competition than we have now & just trades one problem (slow-ish rebuilding) for another (teams that don't exist to win)

 

[GreyCrow]

It's meant to be cyclical. But the cycle is slower if you draft badly.

Then isnt that on the club? I can appreciate the point that drafting is luck but its also development of the player.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Then isnt that on the club?

Yes.

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

The AFL draft doesn't have a big enough affect on playing lists for a few reasons - many have been pointed out already (# of players on field, inability of one player to change fortunes, etc).

The biggest issue however is the lack of development. The #1 pick is 18, undersized and almost regardless of talent level will take 2-4 years to be in a position to improve his side. There is a far greater chance of being a bust as there is a massive amount of development (emotional and physical) that comes with the maturity from 17-19.

Increasing the draft age will dramatically reduce the number of 'busts'. Players will have finished growing, early maturer's will be weeded out, undersized KPP/Rucks given time to grow into their bodies, etc.

I would do three things to 'fix' the issue of competition turnover.

1. Decrease active list size to 30 (forces teams to run more mature, competent squads to cover injuries, etc).
2. Unlimited "rookie" 1-yr contracts (set salary - cannot play unless activated)
3. Increase draft age to 19, replace ladder position with "years since finals". No team will tank out of a finals opportunity.

Now all teams will run a mature side - far greater competition as all teams focusing on the same goal.
Elite talent 19yo is going to be physically mature, able to come in and be a dominant force = #1 pick is now far move valuable and likely to be a champion.

 

[GUMBLETRON]

Replace ladder position with "years since finals". No team will tank out of a finals opportunity.

This will slow rebuilds for a couple of reasons. Teams legitimately at the nadir pf performance and talent would be held back by both those already on the up but still on the fringes of finals (like Melbourne last year) and basketcases that have been shit for years for entirely non-draft-related reasons.

Decrease active list size to 30 (forces teams to run more mature, competent squads to cover injuries, etc).

Or teams will further gut their senior core to squeeze more talent kids in - particularly when they've been out of finals long enough to continually qualify for top picks regardless of performance.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

replace ladder position with "years since finals". No team will tank out of a finals opportunity.

You could then have a club soaking up a lot of #1 picks without necessarily being the worst side in the comp.

The central premise of the draft is that the worst-performed side gets first go at that year's talent. This premise doesn't necessarily need to be reformed. I think it remains valid.

Whether sides that have been shit for several years get more subsequent access to the draft is up for debate.

 

[beta_condition]

Were Hawthorn rewarded for losing in 2004?

Yes doesn't mean I agree with it, they shouldn't happen.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Yes doesn't mean I agree with it, they shouldn't happen.

But in any draft where the worst team gets first crack, isn't that "reward for losing"?

 

[Anja_Nees]

Luck is the main factor.

McCartin / Weitering / Schache and many others were CLEAR top picks in their class and every team was taking them if they had the chance but some just do not come on at AFL level regardless of the raps and heaps of luck is needed regarding the draft and having multiple picks in the right year.

History is littered with Top 10 draft picks that go nowhere and no team is immune from selecting them hence the luck factor that comes back to the question is just 1 1st Rd draft selection enough for teams that go years on end in the bottom 4 rebuilding when the reigning premiers are not that far behind them waiting to also select??

The drafts are just to even these days regarding the Top 20 kids in the country available to draft and the Suns and GWS needed half of the whole 1st round themselves and are still yet to even make a GF let alone win one after most are approaching the 50-70+ game range and in their prime.

1 draft selection no matter how high it is just does not automatically turn a team around from bottom 4 to finals and like the OP suggested it is not enough to remain competitive against the better teams that also are attractive to UFA's.

Once FA came in it was the death of the lower teams unless the heavens opened and you hit the lottery with lower picks as just the 1 first Rd selection and little to no interest from big name FA's spells disaster and years at the bottom of the ladder as the top clubs stay entrenched in the finals window.

Between 2007 and 2012 Melbourne drafted the following with first round/priority selections: Morton, Grimes, Watts, Blease, Scully, Trengrove, Gysberts, Tapscott, Cook and Toumpas.

That’s a lot of top end talent for little reward. All of those players were highly rated. I think it goes beyond bad luck. Perhaps they didn’t develop them right or perhaps they had bad attitudes.

Some were a bit unlucky but one shouldn’t have that sort of strike rate so early.

 

[GreyCrow]

I would do three things to 'fix' the issue of competition turnover.

1. Decrease active list size to 30 (forces teams to run more mature, competent squads to cover injuries, etc).
2. Unlimited "rookie" 1-yr contracts (set salary - cannot play unless activated)
3. Increase draft age to 19, replace ladder position with "years since finals". No team will tank out of a finals opportunity.

Now all teams will run a mature side - far greater competition as all teams focusing on the same goal.
Elite talent 19yo is going to be physically mature, able to come in and be a dominant force = #1 pick is now far move valuable and likely to be a champion.

You had a good think about it and have come up with some ideas so kudos.
1. Decreasing the list doesnt take into account the reserves comp that is said to come in, it also doesnt help new player development if there is no 2nds.
2. Even though point 2 covers the shortfalls it can be manipulated to the point of making the 30 man list a joke ie Scott Thompson for the Crows would become a rookie every year after he turns 30 and activated round 1. Gary Ablett a rookie?

3. On the 19 year olds I do agree on and for all the reasons you raised. The ladder draft position stays

 

[Blackas87]

And this is my point. Even in an atmosphere of more fluid player movement, it's not that easy for a club in North Melbourne's position to attract proven talent.

You are arguing that making player movement even more fluid - by abolishing the draft and making everyone a free agent - this will somehow help less powerful, less successful clubs.

But it won't. Rather, it will simply reinforce the advantages already enjoyed by more powerful, more successful clubs.

Firstly, spending big money on draftees is fraught with obvious risk.

Secondly, if you abolish the draft and kids can go anywhere, how do you think that is going to benefit the likes of Brisbane or GC?

You'll have a situation where all the best kids can simply pick their club of choice. How many of them will choose to go to a non-AFL state or to a struggling club?

You are positing this is as a "solution" but it would make life even harder for teams that are struggling or rely on draftees moving interstate.

They are already free to do that.

Well, at least North were guaranteed getting LDU. If you have no draft and kids can go where they choose, North probably wouldn't have got him. Another more powerful, more successful club could have swept in and persuaded him to join them instead of North.

You logic is that by stripping back equalisation measures, you achieve greater equalisation. It's arse-backwards. By stripping back equalisation measures, the advantages enjoyed by more powerful, more successful clubs will simply become entrenched. This is why we brought in equalisation measures like the draft in the first place, rather than simply allowing Carlton to go across to SA and buy the best players like Kernahan and Bradley. How would a return to that situation help the less powerful, less successful clubs when it did the opposite in the past?

I can see we are just going to go round in circles all night here.

Take my club, small club, our rebuild has taken ages, we lost players such as Frawley and Rivers to successful clubs because it looked like there was no hope for us. We now have a young list that looks like there is a good future, now instead of players leaving they want to play for us such as Hibberd and Lever. It just took a very long time to get into that position. North similar sized club, if they can get a young exciting list then players will want to come and join them. Players also if in a good inviroment won't want to leave there mates, player movement is very small in our sport espeacially the top talented players. Trading doesn't stop players getting to their destination anyway.

As for GC and Brisbane, one of the main reasons I want to get rid of the draft, it isn't working for them. They are selecting players that don't want to go there. They're are better off recruiting players that agree to go there. Further more it gives them a bigger incentive to grow their academies and the game in the region. Currently to select an academy player they then have to weaken their later draft positions, missing out on other players to build a team.

I used to be a fan of the draft as it gave smaller clubs a chance, but in recent years I've changed my mind, I believe smaller clubs can recruit players without a draft. The NRL and A league don't need drafts to spread the talent, salary cap and list sizes keep those leagues with a good balance across the board.

 

[demondavey]

So if you guys have the chance to draft the best widely acclaimed kid in the country at No.1 and do so like every other team would of done but he busts is that not just pure bad luck or being unlucky in that draft season is a blight on your recruiters etc when EVERY other team in the comp was taking the same player that year with he No.1 selection.

The AFL draft is never a certainty regardless of their junior level form and raps on them.

2003 - Colin Sylvia (3) / Brock McLean (5)
2007 - Cale Morton (4)
2008 - Jack Watts (1)
2009 - Tom Scully (1) / Jack Trengove (2) / Jordan Gysberts (11)
2010 - Lucas Cook (12)
2012 - Jimmy Toumpas (4)
2013 - Christian Salem (13)
2014 - Petracca (2) / Brayshaw (3)
2015 - Oliver (4)

4 out of 12 top 10 picks still on the list.

We have had our fair share and about 70% of the time it hasn’t worked out.

No coincidence that the 4 that did were coached predominantly by Roos.

 

[Blackas87]

Then do you not end up with feeder clubs ala EPL?

I do like the completely different approach to the problem, though think it ends up creating a less even competition than we have now & just trades one problem (slow-ish rebuilding) for another (teams that don't exist to win)

The EPL has no salary cap, the AFL does which will keep the Comp even. The NRL and A league don't have drafts but have a salary cap, those comps a fairly even.

 

[demondavey]

And that's the problem.

Or have they drafted poorly?

I think the expectations for Melbourne have gone up because their drafting has actually improved.

How many times can it be wrong though? Can’t just be bad drafting. We had the same go with Salem, Petracca, Brayshaw and Oliver and it’s worked. Maybe Paul Roos had an influence?

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

The idea that clubs should win Premierships as some sort of quasi-participation award is ****ing dumb.

It’s competitive sport.

“Competitive.”

Get your house in order and compete.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

I can see we are just going to go round in circles all night here.

Perhaps. If you keep insisting that removing equalisation measures would lead to more equalisation. That strikes me as a self-evidently flawed proposition.

We have the historical record of what happened before we had these equalisation measures. The result was not a more even competition. Rather, it was a competition that favoured the more successful, more powerful clubs who were better positioned to recruit players with the promise of money and success. There's no reason to think reverting to this system would produce a different outcome.

You'll also open the door for SA and WA teams to build quasi state teams.

Take my club, small club, our rebuild has taken ages, we lost players such as Frawley and Rivers to successful clubs because it looked like there was no hope for us. We now have a young list that looks like there is a good future, now instead of players leaving they want to play for us such as Hibberd and Lever. It just took a very long time to get into that position. North similar sized club, if they can get a young exciting list then players will want to come and join them. Players also if in a good inviroment won't want to leave there mates, player movement is very small in our sport espeacially the top talented players. Trading doesn't stop players getting to their destination anyway.

But if we followed your path and abolished the draft, you wouldn't have acquired those young players.

At the end of 2014, Hawthorn could have approached Christian Petracca and said "come play for us". You think he would have chosen Melbourne instead after you've finished 16th, 17th, 17th?

Do you think Jesse Hogan would have landed at Melbourne instead of staying at home to play for WC or Fremantle?

The draft guarantees clubs down the bottom first access to the best young talent. Without that, you wouldn't have rebuilt anywhere near as effectively.

As for GC and Brisbane, one of the main reasons I want to get rid of the draft, it isn't working for them. They are selecting players that don't want to go there. They're are better off recruiting players that agree to go there. Further more it gives them a bigger incentive to grow their academies and the game in the region. Currently to select an academy player they then have to weaken their later draft positions, missing out on other players to build a team.

The solution is not abolishing the draft. The solution is for those clubs to draft more astutely, improve their player retention systems and become more effective at developing local talent.

I used to be a fan of the draft as it gave smaller clubs a chance, but in recent years I've changed my mind, I believe smaller clubs can recruit players without a draft. The NRL and A league don't need drafts to spread the talent, salary cap and list sizes keep those leagues with a good balance across the board.

Abolishing the draft won't give smaller clubs a better chance. It will do the opposite. We know this because we didn't used to have a draft and the competition was less even without it.

 

[demondavey]

The idea that clubs should win Premierships as some sort of quasi-participation award is ******* dumb.

It’s competitive sport.

“Competitive.”

Get your house in order and compete.

Any tips?

 

[Craze]

A good discussion point.

I would have 2 points to make. Firstly, in most cases it is the club's own poor decision-making leading to long periods at the bottom of the ladder. My club is a classic case in point. And the success at the end is all the more satisfying if you don't get concessions (even though Richmond did get one priority pick in the Deledio/Tambling draft).

Second, I think the Queensland clubs face an obstacle not faced by the other clubs. Players overwhelmingly come from Victoria, SA and WA, and the 'go home' pull is significant, as most players are in the 18-25 age group. Therefore I'd argue that Brisbane and GC get extra cap space to retain players. We cannot have Brisbane and GC perpetually in the bottom 5-6 clubs. Having said that, the AFL need to do this carefully as providing the two Queensland clubs with salary cap space should not come at the expense of a Melbourne or St Kilda winning a premiership (since they haven't achieved that in 50+ years).

 

[These 4 Walls]

The EPL has no salary cap, the AFL does which will keep the Comp even. The NRL and A league don't have drafts but have a salary cap, those comps a fairly even.

But you will essentially get the good teams picking and choosing the proven talent from the feeder teams and offering a bigger contract to them as they become the "known quantity"

You will get some players who want to play for the biggest amount of coin but I feel you would run through the same problems with the "rich getting rich" but with the added bonus of 18yo's choosing to play for the current winning team with the best players for 100k rather than a basketcase on the other side of the country for 200k.

I think that while the production of talented kids is not representative of the location of the teams, a draft (in some format) will always be required.