Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
LIVE: Richmond v Melbourne - 7:25PM Wed
Squiggle tips Demons at 77% chance -- What's your tip? -- Team line-ups »
Port get the Barossa, Northern Hills, Mid North and West Coast of SA.
Crows get the Riverland, Southern Hills, South Coast and South East of SA.
There is a thread specifically about Port father sons a bit further down the Port's board's main page ie this threadSurjan has had twin boys, did he play enough? Love hearing ex players have had sons!
there's a 20% discount for Academy and Father Son, so therefore, 2234 x 0.8 = 1787 points Sydney need to spend
1787 - 563 (Pick 33) = 1224 points, not enough, Pick 33 to back of the draft
1224 - 502 (Pick 36) = 722 points, not enough, Pick 36 to back of the draft
722 - 483 (Pick 37) = 239 points, not enough, Pick 37 to the back of the draft
239 - 362 (Pick 44) = -123 points, Pick 44 becomes Pick 63 on points value as it's now worth 123 points
One of my major concerns with the northern academies is that it's quite possible we've already hit that flashpoint and we're just 5 years away from feeling it's full effect. Sydney added a top two pick last year and look set to receive a top 3 pick again this year. Clubs that regularly play finals simply shouldn't have access to that kind of talent.The quality and quantity of genuine draft hopefuls from New South Wales and Queensland is certainly appearing to be on the increase each year.
Excellent for the game to have this additional influx in talent, but obviously it will lead to a flashpoint where the whole academy/zones thing becomes too much of an unfair advantage.
Taking a step back and looking at things from a neutral point of view, I can see why it is important for the QLD/NSW clubs to be strongly represented by locals and believe that this will have the subsequent effect of bringing new talent to the game that otherwise we may not have had access to. So I understand and accept what the AFL has been trying to achieve here, but it will in all likelihood get messy when the flashpoint inevitably arrives. Sydney/GWS/Bris/GC will have a fair argument that they have invested big money into systems that have actually been successful, everyone else will validly point out that it is an unfair advantage. So the AFL essentially has the option of re-introducing zones to bring it all into line (which IMO opens a huge can of worms) or abolishing the programs and running the risk of the pathways drying up. Someone much smarter than I am will hopefully find a solution that ensures the pathways become self sustaining but mitigating the advantage of the respective clubs.
I think on the whole, clubs are open to taking a collaborative approach to developing the game at the grassroots even if the benefits are eventually shared. Not wanting to get drunk off our own bathwater, but I think we do an outstanding job with the community programs we run and are genuine in our engagement. Over here in WA, both clubs through the WAFC are pretty active and whilst there are always people who say they need to do more, I think they do have an impact.
Problem is that the best scenario would involve GWS getting lots of Academy players, just not first rounder equivalents.It could easily be fixed by allowing only one zone/Academy pick per team pee year.
Allowing teams to recruit multuple players using a quantity equals quality system just doesn't sound right.
GWS should not be able to draft 2 academy players in one year by bundling up multiple lower picks.
Unfortunately I agree. I do mean unfortunately as the current strategy is to give GCS and GWS a solid foundation. And perhaps a good strategy that will work in the long term.Problem is that the best scenario would involve GWS getting lots of Academy players, just not first rounder equivalents.
My question is does 33, 36, 37 and 44 become 34, 37, 38 and 44 as the Inside Footy writers Brett Anderson and Ben Casanella reckon. Below in the graphic is how I reckon the first round and next 3 picks move under the system. Yellow highlighting means picks exchanged in trade period.
Their calculation is
Melb at 3 bids for Mills, Sydney give up 34, 37, 38 and 45
Ess at 5 bid for Hopper GWS give up 12, 35
Melb at 9 bid for Kennedy GWS give up 41, 50, 52, 55 and 60
Adel at 12 bid for Hipwood Bris give up 37, 38, and 39
GC at 19 bid for Keays Bris give up 38, and 39
The above shows that the picks move but are the points needed calculated on the starting draft pick value or the new adjusted pick value???????????
I was wondering the same. I thought I read somewhere this week that the selections would be presented by the AFL as, for eg
1. Carlton
2. Brisbane
Sydney Academy matched bid
3. Melbourne
If that's right then clubs will retain the original value of their picks.
I believe thats incorrect. If Mills is bid on at pick 3, then he officially becomes pick 3, Melbourne then officially become pick 4 and if they were to bid on a player, then the points attributed to pick 4 is used.
So say a bid comes in for Matthew Flynn at pick 50 and he's the 8th player bid on. The pick and points used to determine whether they match the bid will be pick 57
Ha. Thanks to this post I think that I have finally understood why picks get shuffled.I believe thats incorrect. If Mills is bid on at pick 3, then he officially becomes pick 3, Melbourne then officially become pick 4 and if they were to bid on a player, then the points attributed to pick 4 is used.
So say a bid comes in for Matthew Flynn at pick 50 and he's the 8th player bid on. The pick and points used to determine whether they match the bid will be pick 57
We can bid/select Cornell but points are irrelevant for us because we dont have to match the bid with equivalent points as we dont have an academy.Fair enough, good to have that cleared up. I may have been mislead by the article or imagined I read it!
So if we bid for Cornell for example with what was pick 32 we can only use the points of pick (say) 38. Don't know if that seems to sit that well with me but it appears them's the rules.
We can bid/select Cornell but points are irrelevant for us because we dont have to match the bid with equivalent points as we dont have an academy.
I believe thats incorrect. If Mills is bid on at pick 3, then he officially becomes pick 3, Melbourne then officially become pick 4 and if they were to bid on a player, then the points attributed to pick 4 is used.
So say a bid comes in for Matthew Flynn at pick 50 and he's the 8th player bid on. The pick and points used to determine whether they match the bid will be pick 57
So I read all that and good in theory but it doesnt answer the basic question I have as per bold below.It's exactly that kind of explanation that initially made the system seem so baffling to me. For me, imagining the picks shuffling in real time as players are picked makes the workings of the system a little more comprehensible.
Take the simplest case as you have, where academy & FS players are bid on with single picks and all matched, ie Mills, Hopper and 5 others et al are already bid and matched by their academy clubs, and therefore already drafted by the time when a bid for Flynn comes in at the worth of and at pick 57 because Flynn is simply the 57th player picked. The pick bid on Flynn may have originally been 50 before the draft started but got shuffled down to 57 in real time as the draft rolls forward. Once the draft starts, the initial value of a pick is of minor historical interest ... compared to it's value when it is actually used.
I guess if clubs are expecting a lot of shuffling back, and therefore some "loss" of value in real time, they may be tempted to add 50 to a higher pick to make a bid earlier in the draft before "50" loses too much value.
Sure there are plenty of other cases where the shuffling becomes less predictable (unmatched bids using multiple picks to make up points) The implicit analogy to a deck of cards doesn't help much when the values are changing mid hand
Take the simplest case as you have, where academy & FS players are bid on with single picks and all matched, ie Mills, Hopper and 5 others et al are already bid and matched by their academy clubs, and therefore already drafted by the time when a bid for Flynn comes in at the worth of and at pick 57 because Flynn is simply the 57th player picked. The pick bid on Flynn may have originally been 50 before the draft started but got shuffled down to 57 in real time as the draft rolls forward. Once the draft starts, the initial value of a pick is of minor historical interest ... compared to it's value when it is actually used.
I guess if clubs are expecting a lot of shuffling back, and therefore some "loss" of value in real time, they may be tempted to add 50 to a higher pick to make a bid earlier in the draft before "50" loses too much value.
Sure there are plenty of other cases where the shuffling becomes less predictable (unmatched bids using multiple picks to make up points) The implicit analogy to a deck of cards doesn't help much when the values are changing mid hand
The only way I can imagine it working is based on the "real time" value of all picks at the point in time when a specific pick/bid is are made.