Sorry for my ignorance but Blake Scott is the son of who?Hope not. Our draft hand will be decimated with him and Blake Scott.
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.
Sorry for my ignorance but Blake Scott is the son of who?Hope not. Our draft hand will be decimated with him and Blake Scott.
NGA kid that may fall our way!Sorry for my ignorance but Blake Scott is the son of who?
Thanks for that. I was thinking he must be a father son rather than NGANGA kid that may fall our way!
Thanks for that. I was thinking he must be a father son rather than NGA
Sam’s grandfathers both played vfl I believe. David Shaw played for the bombers and is a premiership player. Should be no dilution of the gene pool.I know zero about the kid but they were discussing him on SEN and said he is moving up towards top 20.
Nick Cox type but nowhere near the tank is what they said.
Sounds promising
Why did I have to be the one with circus freak genes?Sam’s grandfathers both played vfl I believe. David Shaw played for the bombers and is a premiership player. Should be no dilution of the gene pool.
Time for a ten month holiday to SiberiaAnother 5 goals for Sam Darcy today
The father son system is an absolute rort. I love that it benefits us, but Jesus it's unfair. I know it's just school footy but his upward projection is massiveAnother 5 goals for Sam Darcy today
I love the Father-Son rule and I hope it staysThe father son system is an absolute rort. I love that it benefits us, but Jesus it's unfair. I know it's just school footy but his upward projection is massive
That's fine. I enjoy it largely because it gives us a leg up. But that doesn't change the fact that it's grossly unfair. Similar to how Sydney gets the perpetual advantage of their academy, giving them access to Heeney, Mills, Blakey, Campbell, Gulden, etc. I'm sure they love it too, but it's still clearly an unfair systemI love the Father-Son rule and I hope it stays
It doesn’t give us a leg up at all, we’ve been lucky, another club will be lucky too. Like Pies getting the number 1 pick this year, it’s not systematically unfair like the academy’s. It’s greatThat's fine. I enjoy it largely because it gives us a leg up. But that doesn't change the fact that it's grossly unfair. Similar to how Sydney gets the perpetual advantage of their academy, giving them access to Heeney, Mills, Blakey, Campbell, Gulden, etc. I'm sure they love it too, but it's still clearly an unfair system
It is though. Many clubs never get access to father sons at all, it's completely random and there's no legitimate argument behind it existingIt doesn’t give us a leg up at all, we’ve been lucky, another club will be lucky too. Like Pies getting the number 1 pick this year, it’s not systematically unfair like the academy’s. It’s great
I’d say the legitimate argument behind it existing is the beautiful nostalgia it delivers and is a great grounding tool to remind us as supporters that it’s just *ing footy and these are people with beautiful families. It allows for connection and stability and doesn’t need to make logical sense like the rest of the robotic corporate world.It is though. Many clubs never get access to father sons at all, it's completely random and there's no legitimate argument behind it existing
That's largely correct.It is though. Many clubs never get access to father sons at all, it's completely random and there's no legitimate argument behind it existing
That's not bad DW.That's largely correct.
However there is a legitimate argument, whether we agree with it or not. That's to preserve the "romance" of having the sons of famous players play with the same club their Dad was associated with. Originally it was a 50 game qualification but that was changed to 100 games a long time back (maybe 30-40 years ago?)
That argument is not about equity or fair access to the talent pool. It's more about maintaining a sense of tradition and romance in the game.
For those who think it's unfair and that there are too many players in this category every year, rather than advocate abolition of the rule altogether they could perhaps push for a change in the threshold to 200 games. Only 5% of players get to 200 whereas about 17% of players reach 100 games. It would reduce the number eligible (especially as not all 200 gamers have sons who play footy and are of AFL standard) and it would mean that the father would have to be a true icon of the game, not just a handy seniors player.
So for illustrative purposes, the WB have 25 players who have played 200 or more games. 17 of them are currently under 50 years old so they are in the age range where they might still have kids approaching draft age.
View attachment 1116693
I was thinking about this after my earlier post. Those 5% (actually only 4.7%) include players who played for multiple clubs so by the time you narrow it down to 200 games with the one club my guess is it'd be close to 3.5%. Also the relatively recent advent of free agency opens a door for players to swap clubs after about 150-200 games.That's not bad DW.
What about 150. That's 6 years on a list playing every game plus finals. 7 years and a few weeks off for injury and few finals or an ACL.
That's a good first choice player generally playing every game available for 6 or 7 seasons in a game of high attrition.
Macca and Bont need to get busy during the off-season....I was thinking about this after my earlier post. Those 5% (actually only 4.7%) include players who played for multiple clubs so by the time you narrow it down to 200 games with the one club my guess is it'd be close to 3.5%. Also the relatively recent advent of free agency opens a door for players to swap clubs after about 150-200 games.
Here are the percentages of players reaching the respective milestones - more accurately calculated than my earlier estimates. The 18.1% includes the 9.6% who went on to reach 150 games, ie they aren't mutually exclusive.
100 or more games 18.1%
150 or more games 9.6%
200or more games 4.7%
Here's the additional list of Bulldog players to have played 150-199 games.
View attachment 1116737
It would be ironic if Cooney had a son we father son drafted. Would have to start liking the club again.That's largely correct.
However there is a legitimate argument, whether we agree with it or not. That's to preserve the "romance" of having the sons of famous players play with the same club their Dad was associated with. Originally it was a 50 game qualification but that was changed to 100 games a long time back (maybe 30-40 years ago?)
That argument is not about equity or fair access to the talent pool. It's more about maintaining a sense of tradition and romance in the game.
For those who think it's unfair and that there are too many players in this category every year, rather than advocate abolition of the rule altogether they could perhaps push for a change in the threshold to 200 games. Only 5% of players get to 200 whereas about 17% of players reach 100 games. It would reduce the number eligible (especially as not all 200 gamers have sons who play footy and are of AFL standard) and it would mean that the father would have to be a true icon of the game, not just a handy seniors player.
So for illustrative purposes, the WB have 25 players who have played 200 or more games. 17 of them are currently under 50 years old so they are in the age range where they might still have kids approaching draft age.
View attachment 1116693
It would be ironic if Cooney had a son we father son drafted. Would have to start liking the club again.
What about 150 games (smaller pool) but only requires a 2nd rounder as opposed to currently having your hand forced in first.Outside of Gold Coast and GWS, every club has access to father sons. And even they will have them soon enough. 100 games is about right. It is such a minuscule amout as it is, why tamper with it?
Also, it's not necessarily blind luck either. Our development systems are pretty decent, you only need to look at our list to see that. Every club had a father-son system/academy where clubs put in work to help them develop. It's basically NGA with a footy romance touch.
If clubs don't want to prioritise it as much, then that's on them. Leave it as is.
I'd prefer more father sons in footy and happy for clubs to pay a fair price. The fact Pies are gonna get the #1 pick with late picks is dodgy, just like when we got Hunter and Libba cheap.What about 150 games (smaller pool) but only requires a 2nd rounder as opposed to currently having your hand forced in first.
I'm not too cut up either way. 100 is still a fair effort but 150 puts a bit more of a premium on it and we'd only have wasted a second on Ayce.I'd prefer more father sons in footy and happy for clubs to pay a fair price. The fact Pies are gonna get the #1 pick with late picks is dodgy, just like when we got Hunter and Libba cheap.
Besides, not all father sons are equal. Just look at Ayce Cordy compared to Libba. I think market price is fair.
100 games is at least five seasons on a list. That's nothing to sneeze at in its own right.