GWS and GC - A stark contrast.

[blitzer]

I think in hindsight coming in second for GWS was actually a really good advantage. Because they were a year behind they got the better picks in the early years each draft year. This allowed them to stockpile more talent. Plus they played it smart by not really getting too many star senior players at day 1. The ones they did get were either aging veterans that were only really their to protect/teach their youngsters and importantly they got two great young leaders in Ward and Davis.

GC in contrast tried to be competitive earlier on and they were but it meant they couldn't exploit their unique position to get unlimited top draft picks which will carry value for a long time. GWS will be able to exploit their unfair advantage over a 15 year period. If you think about it - 26 first round draft picks. Every time one leaves they probably get a replacement first rounder (mostly) and then they keep getting a first rounder every year. Some of the guys they are drafting this year 2016 (where they are in the prelim) will be stars for the next 10+ years. They will keep losing players to salary cap (where they still have a massive advantage) but they will get top draft picks and have top draft picks developing to replace them the entire time.

The single most important thing GWS did was commit to being really crap for their first 3 years. They did lots of other things right too but they exploited the timing of their lists development to get an unassailable draft/trade advantage for the future. There was always going to come a point where all that drafted talent reached maturity and they suddenly had years of stockpiled draft picks behind them. Its not dissimilar to the argument that Essendon don't deserve pick #1 because of the players we have coming back. Except in GWS's case they had years of top draft picks on top of generous concessions in every area. They even gave them rubbish like the mini-draft (as if they needed a further way to get more draft picks).

Does anybody really believe that one team deserves to have such a disproportionate number of top picks compared to the rest of the league?

In hindsight the AFL should have spread out the expansion years further (not 2 clubs in 2 years), given some draft picks to the expansion teams but given other special use draft picks to them which were required to be traded. This would have forced them to acquire some decent players and be competitive. Then they would have a list resembling an AFL list from day one. Clubs would have come to the party if they could have got some great draft picks and GWS/GC would part with them if they had to be traded and couldn't be used. It still would have required careful design to not screw over the bottom clubs at the time too much though.

 

[Bokonon]

He is definitely not a natural leader. He doesn't like confrontation and doesn't call a spade a spade.
But he has been a great on field leader. Brownlow medalist and would have bolted another one in if not for injury. He is squeaky clean so l'm not sure about not a good influence. But l agree not a great leader /captain.

I didn't mean to imply he wasn't squeaky clean. It's strange how it works. I have no doubt Buddy would have been bad for us, beyond taking up salary cap space we need to pay the young guys fairly.
Maybe we were lucky. Shaw was cut from Coĺlingwood for character issues and yet he has been a wonderful influence with us, encouraging the young guys to believe and stay together if they want success. Also gave a kick up the pants early this year publicly to focus them on the hard work.
Haven't seen that from Ablett, but you would know better.

 

[Lensen]

That's absolute rubbish. How could a club not have the ability to dominate through proper administration and talent development? You're forgetting what talent development is, it's not just drafting kids from 1-10 in a draft, it's development of players fitting your blueprint for success. Let's look at Hawthorn;

Stuart Dew - Came out of retirement
Gunston - Recruited from Adelaide
Lake - Recruited from the WB
Breust - No.47 in the Rookie Draft
Puopolo - No.66 in the National Draft
McEvoy - Recruited from St Kilda
Gibson - Recruited from NM
Burgoyne - Recruited from Port
Mitchell - No.36 in the National Draft
Stratton - No.46 in the National Draft
Smith - No. 19 National Draft
Guerra - Recruited from St Kilda
Hale - Recruited from NM
Hill - No.33 in the National Draft
Shiels - No.34 in the National Draft
Dureya - No.69 in the National Draft
Frawley - Recruited from Melbourne

Top 10 picks:
Hodge
Lewis
Roughead
Franklin (didn't play 14&15)

17 players I just mentioned either were drafted from pick 19-69 or were recruited from other clubs.

How do you argue top draft picks are more important or give a bigger advantage? It's a lottery at best.

Now you're just making up things to argue against.
Nowhere did I say other sides are unable to dominate.
I said that if they were just as well run as GWS they'd not be as successful. Yes, if they are better run they can do even better - but are coming from a position of handicap. That's my point, not that only top 10 picks are important

Again if you seriously believe more top picks provide no advantage at all then let another club have the same hit at a draft this year that GWS got in 2012. If it's no advantage at all then it'll make no difference to the comp

 

[TiggerMan22]

GWS received so much more. Not even close to even ground.

 

[Boomerfan99]

Giants got more

Also if you give two clubs a massive leg up and one is too putrid to take advantage it doesn't make it less of a leg up

Nobody is saying the Giants haven't been very well run, just that they were given a massive opportunity to turn well run into an empire that others have not been given the chance to

Is that you Eddie?

(I do agree with you)

 

[AGC]

Can't be understated how much luckier GWS got with their under 17s.

GC got Mckenzie, Shaw, Matera, Russell, Mav Weller, Josh Toy, Alex Keath, Jack Hutchins, Taylor Hine, Hayden Jolly, Piers Flanagan. The only players that GC really overlooked in picking up those players were Brodie Smith and Ben Jacobs.

GWS got Shiel, Cameron, Treloar, Hombsh, Bugg, Wilson, Golds, Darley, Growden, Harding, Tunbride, Ugle.

Whilst there were some average players also drafted by GWS, i'd argue Shiel and Cameron would be arguably GWS #1 and #2 player, Wilson is a solid best 22 contributer, and they've reaped a lot from Trealoar, and somewhat for Hombsh for a 2nd rounder, and Bugg for a little as well.

Purely luck, but just because of timing - GWS already had a large leg up on GC!

 

[Colonial]

Giants got more

Also if you give two clubs a massive leg up and one is too putrid to take advantage it doesn't make it less of a leg up

Nobody is saying the Giants haven't been very well run, just that they were given a massive opportunity to turn well run into an empire that others have not been given the chance to

You mean like getting marque games, non stop friday nights? No travel? A few decades head start?

 

[Ron The Bear]

Gold Coast got drug-****ed.

 

[demondavey]

GWS received so much more. Not even close to even ground.

Like what?

 

[demondavey]

Now you're just making up things to argue against.
Nowhere did I say other sides are unable to dominate.
I said that if they were just as well run as GWS they'd not be as successful. Yes, if they are better run they can do even better - but are coming from a position of handicap. That's my point, not that only top 10 picks are important

Again if you seriously believe more top picks provide no advantage at all then let another club have the same hit at a draft this year that GWS got in 2012. If it's no advantage at all then it'll make no difference to the comp

Why wouldn't they be as successful? I just proved to you that the talent from Hawthorn & Geelong hasn't come from high draft selections. I haven't made anything, facts are facts.

 

[Lensen]

You mean like getting marque games, non stop friday nights? No travel? A few decades head start?

I have argued against those (well not the head start) at length in relevant threads for those items.
Unlike people like yourself I want genuine equity, not one that just benefits the club I support

 

[Colonial]

I have argued against those (well not the head start) at length in relevant threads for those items.
Unlike people like yourself I want genuine equity, not one that just benefits the club I support

Oooh doubt that.

 

[Lensen]

Why wouldn't they be as successful? I just proved to you that the talent from Hawthorn & Geelong hasn't come from high draft selections. I haven't made anything, facts are facts.

You keep ignoring the question
If draft picks are completely irrelevant to success why can't they be allocated even more disequally than they currently are?


You seem to have a very simplistic view that something is either completely the reason for success or completely not the reason. There are degrees

 

[footyfanatic09]

There not that far apart, add ablett omeara swallow ect and the other injuries and they would be top 8 for sure.

 

[living_in_syd]

Always best to come second, you learn from the first club coming through and can finish lower in the first few years always getting the better draft picks

 

[Andre the Giant]

The amount of discussion, more so whingeing and complaining actually, about GWS and the concessions they've received to establish their club is something I constantly find amusing. Establishing an AFL club is not an easy thing to do, and if you want that club to succeed, well you have to help it up at the start.

Gold Coast and GWS were introduced a year apart, and they've both received assistance from the AFL in the form of Priority selections and financial resources, but, the argument these mechanisms work alone is nothing short of false. Take the contrasting success of each expansion club into consideration.

1. GC have never played finals. GWS are a game away from a GF.
2. Both clubs received the same amount of assistance to become as best prepared for the AFL.
3. GC are a year older than GWS.

Are both clubs equal? Far from it. What does this show?

1. Draft picks are just an underage ranking system for the best youth. Once they get to AFL it's a different story.
2. Senior recruits are critical for success.
3. Culture is critical.
4. Coaching is critical.

Both GWS and GC had great draft selections, but you can't just dump a heap of draft picks together and say give me a flag. GWS have recruited far better with senior players; Shaw, Patfull, Mumford, and Johnson. The GWS culture is simply better than that of GC. The Sun's have had issues documented throughout the last few years that have most certainly hampered them.

And finally, coaching. GC have sacked their initial coach and gone the recycled option, whilst GWS went for, surprise surprise, a Hawthorn assistant.

And to all the whingeing supporters out there who feel their clubs are missing out due to not having access to the draft for a few years? Well not only is it a once off, but your clubs were unsuccessful before the expansion clubs were introduced. Yes that's Melbourne, the WB, Richmond, Carlton, and Essendon.

I speak from watching my club introduce a tanking culture back in the dark days and can't help but feel we created a disgusting losing mentality that's only just getting better. I also know that above and beyond any concession or draft pick is something that comes first; club culture.

GWS have done it right, GC haven't, and it's evident to all the whingers who have the blinkers on.

The best thing I've ever seen written on Big Footy, well done.

Balanced, fair, and reasonable. The Herald Sun and its scumbag hack "journalists" could learn a lot from you.

Jealousy is a curse.

 

[Andre the Giant]

Giants received more concessions than Gold Coast plus Gold Coast have had injuries to their best 4 players who have hardly played for 2 years. When they did play they were knocking on the door of finals.

If GCFC have a better run with injuries next year they will be the biggest improves next season. They have had a wretched run.

 

[Vankri]

People are pretty harsh on GC. They looked good when they didn't have their entire midfield out injured (a midfield of Ablett, Omeara, Swallow, Rischitelli and Prestia is close to the best in the league). Add Lynch, Wright and May as KPPs to that and you've got another super team in the making. They have now been derailed and it's hard to see them getting to the heights of GWS without a proper rebuild but for a while they looked just as threatening.

And as other have said GWS had more concessions, came in second to the GC experiment and also were terribly uncompetitive at the start meaning they doubled up on early draft picks from finishing low in addition to the concessions. What they did better is build the right culture and they also had a better coach from the get go.

It seems however that GC is targeting mostly mature players in this trade period. Personally I think it's the wrong way to go, they've got so many early picks and will get more with Omera and Prestia which is a golden opportunity to rebuild. They should definitely bring in veterans to help build the right culture but the AFL gave GC and GWS multiple changes to smash the draft in a given year which is huge advantage over other rebuilding teams and it's something they should try to make the most of.

 

[Andre the Giant]

I agree with the OP. I know that some are against GWS and Gold Coast to be in the AFL altogether, but for those who don't mind their introduction, what do they expect the AFL to do? Introduce them and do little to help them out?

It doesn't make sense. If the AFL is going to introduce teams, they will give them what they need to build a foundation. They want them to be viable, not struggle from the beginning, get belted by 100+ often and then fold after a couple of years.

GWS did a fantastic job with their concessions and Gold Coast didn't.

If the likes of Richmond, Carlton, Melbourne and Essendon are complaining, then they need to have a look at their own drafting in that time and see how much talent they missed that GWS and Gold Coast didn't get but teams with later picks like Adelaide and Sydney got.

One concerning thing for me though is the Riverina zone, which seems to produce a heap of talent.

In the years to come you will realise the issue isnt the Riverina, if anything it's the initial set up concessions that have aided us.

In some respects I think the Academy thing can hurt us because our recruiters can be guilty of being Academy obsessed.

Also I'm yet to see a strong tie with "locals" wanting to stick it out. Our two most disloyal players to date who were given opportunity and gave us the bird anyway were Josh Bruce and Jack Steele who are both "locals" from Canberra.

I don't think there is anywhere near the same tie for our players as there are for kids from footy obsessed states. Our blokes have always been sporting outsiders and have had to fight hard to forge a career, many of them probably yearn the adulation they can get elsewhere.

This year the kids we are looking at look talented but are not necessarily what we need.

Again we are looking at highly skilled slow mids of which we have a jar full of when what we need is a talented small forward to take over from Stevie J and a backup ruckman.

Anyways I just think his whole Riverina obsession is completely over the top.

Be careful what you wish for, the alternative could be worse!

 

[Armchair Critic]

Gold Coast is just a doomed Wasteland in Australian sport. The place is cursed

 

[raskolnikov]

Who wouldn't want to live on the Gold Coast ?

Me. Horrible place. If they'd wanted to make the lifestyle appealing the Sunshine Coast would have been a much better choice.

 

[Ichabod Noodle]

Me. Horrible place. If they'd wanted to make the lifestyle appealing the Sunshine Coast would have been a much better choice.

Well, there is that - but you get my point. At the time, everyone was like... The Gold Coast will have no problem in keeping its players - sun, surf, pretty girls to etc. while at the same time disparaging Western Sydney thinking it was all like Mt Druitt.

It's not, and you don't even have to live in Western Sydney to play for us - I mean, how many St Kilda players live in St Kilda, or Collingwood players live in Collingwood. Western Sydney is a big place - and Greater Western Sydney is even bigger. With lots of variety.

But the original thinking was that we would have player retention issues while Gold Coast would not. Go back to the big footy threads of the time - it was all "mass exodus" and "doesn't matter who they draft, we'll get them back in two years with a bit of development under their belt" That's why we were allowed a larger list for longer, because everyone thought it would take longer to settle down with players coming and going.

That the mass exodus never happened and the Vic clubs didn't get all the talent back, is not our problem. But people will continue to winge about it for years to come.

 

[vide0n]

It seems however that GC is targeting mostly mature players in this trade period. Personally I think it's the wrong way to go, they've got so many early picks and will get more with Omera and Prestia which is a golden opportunity to rebuild. They should definitely bring in veterans to help build the right culture but the AFL gave GC and GWS multiple changes to smash the draft in a given year which is huge advantage over other rebuilding teams and it's something they should try to make the most of.

If we don't go for mature players I think we are looking down the barrel of losing guys like May and Lynch

And if that were to happen we're basically Brisbane

 

[robbieando]

Would of been interesting if GWS were kept to the same time-table to cut their list size and get back to 100% of the salary cap (minus COLA) that the Suns were forced upon. That was an extra two years to clear out their COLA and still get the likes of Stevie J, Griffin and Patfull to the club in a push for the flag, while the Suns saw their sins get exposed with the exits they have suffered the past two years.

Its never been a like for like set up for both clubs but it was always intended to make sure GWS weren't disadvantage by coming in a year late. Not their fault and they have built their list perfectly, taken advantage of players leaving and the Suns have had 2 horror years with injuries.

End of the day it is what is.

 

[Adz]

There not that far apart, add ablett omeara swallow ect and the other injuries and they would be top 8 for sure.

No they wouldn't.