Discussion Does our club's current footy dept have a problem with aboriginal players?

[Yawkey way]

In the forthcoming draft, the only Indigenous boy that I know of is tied to North Melbourne by its Tasmanian scholarship plan or whatever you want to call it. And the Northern Territory is tied up by Collingwood, Essendon, Melbourne, Hawthorn and possibly other clubs, so it is going to be very hard for us to recruit young Indigenous players in the future.

I don't think the saints have a problem with recruiting indigenous kids, we have drafted talented kids from the NT and WA when we have had the chance.

You raise a good point about the zones borderbarry but I would remind people that this isn't new. If memory serves me correctly the lions and others have at times had first choice of players out of the NT.

I think that and the changing face of football has conspired against some east coast clubs selecting indigenous kids who don't come from what is now seen as the accepted pathway into the AFL.

The really obvious talent winds up as a zone selection or in a capital city at a private school and winds up being drafted into the system. The late bloomers aren't being picked up in large numbers no matter who they are or what their background is.

How many overage players are drafted each year?.

Back in the day clubs had metro and country zones and recruited out of the WAFL and the SANFL etc, these days you are behind the 8 ball if you don't get picked up as an 18 year old.

I haven't looked back at our teams but I remember other indigenous players like Bob Jones and Russell Jeffrey just to name 2 that haven't been mentioned.

I think the AFL and the clubs are doing a pretty good job to be honest, even my local club has a steady stream of kids from the NT and programs in place for schooling and host family's etc.

I guess that guys like Liam Ryan are always going to get picked up at a greater rate by the WA clubs simply because they have the players in the WAFL.

Now the development league is gone in the VFL how many places will there be in the VFL for non AFL listed players and who will want to fill them when most weeks you won't get a start or will take a back seat to the listed players.

Sorry if the post is a bit of a ramble I've got a plumber here working as I post, tree roots.

 

[austinnn]

I think that and the changing face of football has conspired against some east coast clubs selecting indigenous kids who don't come from what is now seen as the accepted pathway into the AFL.

By some do you mean the poor ones? Because the rich ones don't seem to have many problems in that regard.

 

[Yawkey way]

By some do you mean the poor ones? Because the rich ones don't seem to have many problems in that regard.

No I don't austinnn, I think it's just chance and circumstance.

If you go back to the X man and Raph we look pretty good, both high draft picks.

I really can't see how the saints being the biggest club in Melbourne would have changed our draft picks.

Wealth played no part in the carve up of zones, or I should say as far as I know it didn't. I don't know how the zones were drawn up but I wish we had access to zone selections from the NT.

I mean how many players are we actually talking about that other clubs have listed and who were avaliable and a fit for the saints at our picks?.

Let's also not forget that this is meant to be the pinnicale of Australian rules and a merit based system. The AFL don't allow you to take these young guys as project players outside of the established system.

I mean why would the saints or any other club bring across a player to develop at say Sandringham only to see them claimed in the draft by another club, it just doesn't make sense.

I think we just take the best kids avaliable at our picks, the fact that we often get it wrong just makes us the same as 17 other clubs. Tom lamb is the grandson of a saints great he has a ton of talent has just turned 21 and was training with us, it didn't do him any good and in all probability his afl career is over.

I use Tom as an example of what I'm talking about, the system at present has very few places for overage recruits rightly or wrongly.

 

[Strahany]

A lot of this perceived ‘lack’ of indigenous players being brought into the club is likely just a matter of a completely rational and fair decision making process. Imagine having three identical players, differing only in where they come from:

Player A from middle class Metro Melbourne
Player B from a remote indigenous community
Player C from middle class Metro interstate city

If you break it down, then you can differentiate these selections like this:

Player A required no cultural or geographical shift
Player B requires a cultural AND geographical shift
Player C requires only a geographical shift, no cultural

Player A will quite obviously have the lowest likelihood of leaving the club for non-footballing reasons, followed by Player C, and then Player B; this is especially true for the indigenous population where familial and community involvement is much higher than your typical “white community”. This isn’t a matter of racism, only trying to yield the greatest possible benefit with the lowest possible risk.

Having said this, there are plenty of things that clubs could do to help minimise the complications arising from the required geographical and cultural shifts when drafting indigenous players. Whether our club is doing enough (or any) of these things is unknown, and if not, whether they are incapable of doing it (e.g lack of funding) or unwilling to do it (potential racism?) is another question altogether. Regardless, you cannot fault a club for making rational decisions; but perhaps you could fault them for not taking the necessary steps to allow the selection of an indigenous player to be one of these said rational decisions.

 

[CursingFijian]

but perhaps you could fault them for not taking the necessary steps to allow the selection of an indigenous player to be one of these said rational decisions.

And herein is the heart of the matter.

Your logic is impeccable and you are right to say nobody can fault a rational decision. But you haven't stated your position, and this is where I think we are currently failing. It's one of those subjects that we all try to avoid having a position on. Because it's hard...I mean lots better people than us have tried and failed, right? And we don't want to be seen to be politically incorrect.

But because we have no position there is no murmur for change, and therefore we continue on our merry path of apathy.

My position is this. The AFL is a very important part of Australia's social and cultural identity. If you live in Australia and you're not emotionally invested in the game (and hating the game is an emotional investment) then you miss out on the ability to engage with ocker Australia in a big big way, and it can stunt your ability to grow within the broader community within which you exist.



Not all Australians have equal access to the football though. It requires real effort for regional Australians to go and watch a game live, and it costs a lot more than the outlay for a train fare and an entry ticket. Similarly, it is harder for regional Australians to map out a pathway that lets them get to a point where they are a genuine draft hopeful.

And (I am guessing) it's probably three times as hard if you are a person of color born in to a remote community. Because not only do you have to overcome the challenges associated with language, health, housing, education, and employment. But then you have to find your way to a regional hub, so that you can find your way to the big smoke.

So the question is this. Do those of us who have easy and ready access to all the wonderful social constructs that enhance our lives and reinforce our identity as ordinary Australians have an obligation to share that with regional and remote communities? And if you are leaning towards saying 'YES WE DO', then we need to ask whether the communities with which we identify (of which the St Kilda tribe is one) are doing everything they possibly can to ensure this sharing occurs.

I think the AFL and certainly ST Kilda could do a little bit more. That experience doesn't have to be laborious and full of drudgery either. The AFL coffers are swollen enough that just a little bit more of what gets diverted to city based initiatives could go towards engaging remote communities and creating clear pathways for young Australians living in regional and remote communities to find their way to the draft.

I certainly subscribe to the philosophy that any Australian's social circumstance should NOT prevent him from playing AFL. I suspect that clubs are precluding players, who are talented and strong enough, because rational calculations forecast a stronger probability of failure. Not because of their skin color but because of the socio-economic conditions of the communities from which they originate, and the special considerations that surround that.

The AFL has created structure and system to create a pathway for young Americans and Irish men. This includes special combine testing and talent identification. Do we do the same for remote Australians? Could we setup better structures to upskill and support remote Australians? I am leaning towards saying no we don't. And the proof for me is in the pudding. I just don't see it manifestly in our list.

EDIT: The biggest problem that we have created for ourselves is the notion that if players don't have a ten year long career then they have 'failed' and 'money has been lost'. Right? Because, it takes two years to get players to a level where they can physically compete. Then another two years to accumulate enough experience to be able to really understand how this caper works, and how your team wants to play. And if you're close to thirty you're too old. It's time to go. Surely it can't be as easy as running to the right places at the right time and executing the right skills perfectly? Can it? Not all Australian sports have this issue of requiring manicured, educated, marketable 17 and 18 year old kids to interview for access to a sport.

 

[austinnn]

And herein is the heart of the matter.

Your logic is impeccable and you are right to say nobody can fault a rational decision. But you haven't stated your position, and this is where I think we are currently failing. It's one of those subjects that we all try to avoid having a position on. Because it's hard...I mean lots better people than us have tried and failed, right? And we don't want to be seen to be politically incorrect.

But because we have no position there is no murmur for change, and therefore we continue on our merry path of apathy.

My position is this. The AFL is a very important part of Australia's social and cultural identity. If you live in Australia and you're not emotionally invested in the game (and hating the game is an emotional investment) then you miss out on the ability to engage with ocker Australia in a big big way, and it can stunt your ability to grow within the broader community within which you exist.



Not all Australians have equal access to the football though. It requires real effort for regional Australians to go and watch a game live, and it costs a lot more than the outlay for a train fare and an entry ticket. Similarly, it is harder for regional Australians to map out a pathway that lets them get to a point where they are a genuine draft hopeful.

And (I am guessing) it's probably three times as hard if you are a person of color born in to a remote community. Because not only do you have to overcome the challenges associated with language, health, housing, education, and employment. But then you have to find your way to a regional hub, so that you can find your way to the big smoke.

So the question is this. Do those of us who have easy and ready access to all the wonderful social constructs that enhance our lives and reinforce our identity as ordinary Australians have an obligation to share that with regional and remote communities? And if you are leaning towards saying 'YES WE DO', then we need to ask whether the communities with which we identify (of which the St Kilda tribe is one) are doing everything they possibly can to ensure this sharing occurs.

I think the AFL and certainly ST Kilda could do a little bit more. That experience doesn't have to be laborious and full of drudgery either. The AFL coffers are swollen enough that just a little bit more of what gets diverted to city based initiatives could go towards engaging remote communities and creating clear pathways for young Australians living in regional and remote communities to find their way to the draft.

I certainly subscribe to the philosophy that any Australian's social circumstance should NOT prevent him from playing AFL. I suspect that clubs are precluding players, who are talented and strong enough, because rational calculations forecast a stronger probability of failure. Not because of their skin color but because of the socio-economic conditions of the communities from which they originate, and the special considerations that surround that.

The AFL has created structure and system to create a pathway for young Americans and Irish men. This includes special combine testing and talent identification. Do we do the same for remote Australians? Could we setup better structures to upskill and support remote Australians? I am leaning towards saying no we don't. And the proof for me is in the pudding. I just don't see it manifestly in our list.

EDIT: The biggest problem that we have created for ourselves is the notion that if players don't have a ten year long career then they have 'failed' and 'money has been lost'. Right? Because, it takes two years to get players to a level where they can physically compete. Then another two years to accumulate enough experience to be able to really understand how this caper works, and how your team wants to play. And if you're close to thirty you're too old. It's time to go. Surely it can't be as easy as running to the right places at the right time and executing the right skills perfectly? Can it? Not all Australian sports have this issue of requiring manicured, educated, marketable 17 and 18 year old kids to interview for access to a sport.

One of best posts I've ever read on here. Thank you.

 

[Strahany]

And herein is the heart of the matter.

Your logic is impeccable and you are right to say nobody can fault a rational decision. But you haven't stated your position, and this is where I think we are currently failing. It's one of those subjects that we all try to avoid having a position on. Because it's hard...I mean lots better people than us have tried and failed, right? And we don't want to be seen to be politically incorrect.

But because we have no position there is no murmur for change, and therefore we continue on our merry path of apathy.

My position is this. The AFL is a very important part of Australia's social and cultural identity. If you live in Australia and you're not emotionally invested in the game (and hating the game is an emotional investment) then you miss out on the ability to engage with ocker Australia in a big big way, and it can stunt your ability to grow within the broader community within which you exist.



Not all Australians have equal access to the football though. It requires real effort for regional Australians to go and watch a game live, and it costs a lot more than the outlay for a train fare and an entry ticket. Similarly, it is harder for regional Australians to map out a pathway that lets them get to a point where they are a genuine draft hopeful.

And (I am guessing) it's probably three times as hard if you are a person of color born in to a remote community. Because not only do you have to overcome the challenges associated with language, health, housing, education, and employment. But then you have to find your way to a regional hub, so that you can find your way to the big smoke.

So the question is this. Do those of us who have easy and ready access to all the wonderful social constructs that enhance our lives and reinforce our identity as ordinary Australians have an obligation to share that with regional and remote communities? And if you are leaning towards saying 'YES WE DO', then we need to ask whether the communities with which we identify (of which the St Kilda tribe is one) are doing everything they possibly can to ensure this sharing occurs.

I think the AFL and certainly ST Kilda could do a little bit more. That experience doesn't have to be laborious and full of drudgery either. The AFL coffers are swollen enough that just a little bit more of what gets diverted to city based initiatives could go towards engaging remote communities and creating clear pathways for young Australians living in regional and remote communities to find their way to the draft.

I certainly subscribe to the philosophy that any Australian's social circumstance should NOT prevent him from playing AFL. I suspect that clubs are precluding players, who are talented and strong enough, because rational calculations forecast a stronger probability of failure. Not because of their skin color but because of the socio-economic conditions of the communities from which they originate, and the special considerations that surround that.

The AFL has created structure and system to create a pathway for young Americans and Irish men. This includes special combine testing and talent identification. Do we do the same for remote Australians? Could we setup better structures to upskill and support remote Australians? I am leaning towards saying no we don't. And the proof for me is in the pudding. I just don't see it manifestly in our list.

EDIT: The biggest problem that we have created for ourselves is the notion that if players don't have a ten year long career then they have 'failed' and 'money has been lost'. Right? Because, it takes two years to get players to a level where they can physically compete. Then another two years to accumulate enough experience to be able to really understand how this caper works, and how your team wants to play. And if you're close to thirty you're too old. It's time to go. Surely it can't be as easy as running to the right places at the right time and executing the right skills perfectly? Can it? Not all Australian sports have this issue of requiring manicured, educated, marketable 17 and 18 year old kids to interview for access to a sport.

You make very sound points, however I would have to suggest that you're overrating just how 'uniting' the AFL could possibly be on a matter such as this. The reality is that there is rather widespread distrust of Anglo-Australians ingrained into many Aboriginal Communities. Take my field of health care, for example, where it is extremely difficult to try to eliminate these barriers despite not only bringing a tangible benefit (improving health vs a sport), but also being backed by Governmental funding that clubs couldn't even begin to imagine.

In practically (if not literally) every individual example of Settler-Indigenous relations, the AFL included, there is not consistent effort being made to meet halfway. Do I blame indigenous individuals for their unwillingness when, not that long ago, they were treated as if they were animals by the descendants of settlers? Of course not. But there's only so much that can be done from one side, and until more time has passed or a better way of achieving proper inter-group trust and relations has been found, nothing will change. When you have a given player wanting to join the AFL and willing to commit, but their family and community oppose this idea, it makes things extremely difficult.

There's factors at play that go far deeper than the AFL, and until these can be addressed, the AFL will be left spinning tires.