I agree as a general rule, but the academy system is definitely improving the talent coming out of NSW and QLD. I haven't got the exact figures handy, but players drafted from the northern states have risen exponentially since we were given the opportunity to work with them from a young age and draft them.I don't think there's any funny business here. But the GWS talent cycle continues, another elite kid(s) gotten for a good price, sooner or later some other elite players will be forced out or ask for a trade, they will get in more first rounders and the cycle continues.
They really do have a ridiculously talented list.
I'm not a big fan of these academies for any club, don't feel it's improving anything.
Why should Melbourne have bid on a player that they don't want or need just to let GWS not match and take Jackson instead?Well don't blame us, Melbourne could (and should) have bid on Green, probably the Swans as well.
Don't think it's a conspiracy so much as clubs wanting to be in the Giants good books next time one of their decent young players who are probably surplus to requirements up there, want to return home for.more opportunity.
I'd argue Melbourne had more of a need to draft a big bodied mid than a ruckman. Particularly when they already have the best ruckman in the league (or top 2 at the very least).Why should Melbourne have bid on a player that they don't want or need just to let GWS not match and take Jackson instead?
Myth. How many players have the swans and Freo landed from gws? Or picks? Crows got a sweet deal but no players from memory..With my tinfoil hat... I think clubs are wanting to stay in the Giants good books to increase the chance they can trade with them in the future given how many juicy assets they have (picks and underpaid/underutilised players). Thus they wouldn't make a bid when they knew the Giants would match - just no benefit for them.
I don't know how you'd argue that given we absolutely don't have a need for a big bodied mid.I'd argue Melbourne had more of a need to draft a big bodied mid than a ruckman. Particularly when they already have the best ruckman in the league (or top 2 at the very least).
Didn't your mob get the best FA on the market just after winning the flag?All year we've been hearing about how good Tom Green is, and how he's just as good as the top two picks Matt Rowell and Noah Anderson. GWS spent a ton of draft currency just to trade their way up ahead of Sydney and Adelaide just to ensure they could select a player before a bid came through for Green.
So why did he last all the way to pick 10?
Considering the sacrifices GWS had to make just to get pick 4, there is no way they weren't going to leave tonight without Green + a top 5 pick. A simple bid from Sydney or Adelaide, who were perpetually linked to Green, would've 100% resulted in GWS matching, leaving them with a deficit next year, which would've been a first.
Yet somehow, this superstar junior who plays like Patrick Cripps drifts all the way out to 10. How exactly? It's not like Sydney, Adelaide and Fremantle wouldn't have loved a player like Green, and even if they didn't, it's a free swing that forces GWS to pile on the points debt. So it begs the question: did the AFL step in behind the scenes to provide leeway for their project again? Going into deficit would've heavily compromised GWS's offseason in 11 months time, especially after already trading their future first to Adelaide, and naturally, this wouldn't please the AFL.
I mean, Fremantle selected Caleb Serong, an inside midfield who is almost universally rated lower than Green. How can such a decision be explained outside the notion of the AFL asking them not to bid on Green, or else...
I actually agree. If the Swans matched Green I'm sure the Giants will still do fair business with them in future.
Don't agree. This thread is interesting though:When this ruckman can move the way Jackson can, yes we do.
We have an abundance of big bodied mids, it's the last thing we need.
The only interesting thing about it is that it starts off being blatantly wrong given GWS would've just taken Jackson.
Are you arguing that that's what they would have done? If so, that's exactly what the OP was suggesting. If not, how do you know they wouldn't have? I fail to see how it can be "blatantly wrong".The only interesting thing about it is that it starts off being blatantly wrong given GWS would've just taken Jackson.
It is funny. When gws stood there ground over cam trade it was ugly from both teams yet fast forward a year and the trade gets done ..I think there is an element to it. Maybe not as large as what some think.
GWS wanted Jackson hence them trying to trade up with us so they could get both.Are you arguing that that's what they would have done? If so, that's exactly what the OP was suggesting. If not, how do you know they wouldn't have? I fail to see how it can be "blatantly wrong".
Either way, it's not really the point of the thread.
Lol You know more about Carlton than Port.It is funny. When gws stood there ground over cam trade it was ugly from both teams yet fast forward a year and the trade gets done ..
Like suns with the blues this year. Can't agree on trade for Martin yet trade two weeks later lol .. even the head list manager came out and said they didn't want to play games over the green bid
Brown’s interviews were an embarrassment to Fox and showed lack of respect for the teams who just draftedHow many times did Thomas or the interviewer say 'richmond'?
i wonder if he will end up at tigerland