List Mgmt. GWS Giants Academy News & Discussion

Joined
Nov 1, 2012
Posts
1,951
Likes
1,953
AFL Club
GWS
That's fair but you have to admit six top 20 academy picks in two years is a bit excessive.
Not really.

I find it hard to believe that Matt Kennedy and Harry Himmelberg would have been Top 20 if they were just country footy kids. Hopper and Setterfield yes because they were attending school in Ballarat and Melbourne respectively and therefore already competing in an elite system, bring them into the Academy and there’s more exposure to recruiters and better level competition than you’d get from just playing Club footy; even at Seniors level.

As Ichabod Noodle said, there is inflation on Academy picks. There is absolutely no risk for a club to bid on an Academy kid if they believe they are first or high second round. You game the system by forcing the Academy Club to use up several draft picks to get someone that the Academy Club has, very likely, already invested into to get them to draft standard. If they don’t call your bluff, you may pay a bit of overs but you’ve thought enough to risk your first or second round pick on them. You will get a first or second round pick either way.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Joined
Nov 23, 2015
Posts
3,095
Likes
3,781
AFL Club
GWS
Moderator #527
Hmmm, thread is drifting here. My comment was simply that I don't believe the southern media & BF shouters will lay off just because we draft western Sydney kids. The shouting over Hopper, Kennedy & HH in 2015 - effectively the first return from the academy that was noticed by the southerners (and yes I agree/believe that Bam Bam & HH were inflated by the anti-academy hype) - plus the media trashing over Swans' Heeney & Mills (very much selections in accordance with academy aims to entice kids from non-AFL sports) amply demonstrate my point IMHO.

I'd hope that we see another kid from western Sydney develop as a draft prospect this year - Baily McParland seemed to be heading that way back in 2016 but appears to have plateaued in 2017. Still, he's in the U18 academy so fingers crossed for him. I'd be happy with a guy who's around second or third round worthy - therefore not overhyped and more content to spend some time developing with us in NEAFL.
 

Ichabod Noodle

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Sep 13, 2011
Posts
7,909
Likes
10,507
Location
The Riff
AFL Club
GWS
Other Teams
Raiders, Brumbies, Wanderers
I'd hope that we see another kid from western Sydney develop as a draft prospect this year - Baily McParland seemed to be heading that way back in 2016 but appears to have plateaued in 2017. Still, he's in the U18 academy so fingers crossed for him. I'd be happy with a guy who's around second or third round worthy - therefore not overhyped and more content to spend some time developing with us in NEAFL.
One of the three kids invited to spend a week at the club for pre-season was a WS kid. I haven’t done any research or anything but an off-the-top-of-my-head vague recollection would put most of those that get the invite each year on a list somewhere.
 

fridgeman

Club Legend
Joined
Jan 26, 2014
Posts
1,624
Likes
891
AFL Club
GWS
In the article I quoted the squad was said to be the 'NEAFL Under-19 Academy lists for the 2018 season' so I suspect they are just top ups for the our NEAFL but unlike the top ups that might turn up just before game day, these 19 year olds get to spend regular time at the club. While the likes of Jack Powell & Nathan Richards are over ages for the u18 squad who are still eligible for the u18 champs.
Another name I thought was a prospect to be drafted was Myers and I had a look and couldn't see his name in any of the u18 lists so if he is playing elsewhere?
 
Joined
Nov 23, 2015
Posts
3,095
Likes
3,781
AFL Club
GWS
Moderator #530
Another name I thought was a prospect to be drafted was Myers and I had a look and couldn't see his name in any of the u18 lists so if he is playing elsewhere?
Brendan Myers, a midfielder from Wagga Wagga. Was one of only 5 NSW/ACT players invited to the AFL Draft Combine last year. My thought would be that his lack of speed was held against him - IIRC he was the second slowest for the 20m sprint. I haven't seen anything on what he's going to do in 2018.
 
Joined
Nov 23, 2015
Posts
3,095
Likes
3,781
AFL Club
GWS
Moderator #531
One of the three kids invited to spend a week at the club for pre-season was a WS kid.
James Peatling, a small forward. I'd agree that most of those invited to date made a list somewhere. The other major academy name for the 2018 Draft that wasn't spending time with GWS is Matt Walker - a goalkicking medium-sized forward who is probably the best credentialed of this year's prospects.
 

Matchu

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Apr 12, 2007
Posts
7,607
Likes
6,672
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Cumming was only top 20 because he was in the academy. If he had have grown up in Vic or SA he would have been mid 2nd to late 3rd round at best.

You saw how far Brander and Spargo fell in draft consideration after they were taken out of the Academy (and Marshall last year)

We have to pay a premium to keep players from the academy.
I understand the circumstances but whether Cumming ended up at Essendon or GWS, he would have been a top 20 pick. A hypothetical prediction of where he would have fallen in the draft if he grew up in Vic or SA is just subjective and not really worth discussing because your opinion is just as valid as someone else who says he would have been taken with pick 18. Fact is, he's a top 20 pick and that won't change.
How so? If it wasn't academy members they still would have drafted highly rated talent due to draft picks from players leaving.
I think you'd have a hard timing proving that when you look at the 2016 draft. Four top 20 picks (two top 5, three academy matches) would be very difficult to pull off with the players they were trading out that off season.
Would any of the academy players from 15 or 16 been ineligible after the zoning adjustment?
Pick 5 - Will Setterfield (Albury).
Would you mind expanding this? Not sure I follow, do you mean parity is closer to one academy graduate?
I should have been more specific. I mean on par with the other northern clubs and the amount of academy talent they are producing each year.
Not really.

I find it hard to believe that Matt Kennedy and Harry Himmelberg would have been Top 20 if they were just country footy kids. Hopper and Setterfield yes because they were attending school in Ballarat and Melbourne respectively and therefore already competing in an elite system, bring them into the Academy and there’s more exposure to recruiters and better level competition than you’d get from just playing Club footy; even at Seniors level.

As Ichabod Noodle said, there is inflation on Academy picks. There is absolutely no risk for a club to bid on an Academy kid if they believe they are first or high second round. You game the system by forcing the Academy Club to use up several draft picks to get someone that the Academy Club has, very likely, already invested into to get them to draft standard. If they don’t call your bluff, you may pay a bit of overs but you’ve thought enough to risk your first or second round pick on them. You will get a first or second round pick either way.
You guys keep bringing up hypothetical situations for some reason. Fact is Matt Kennedy and Harry Himmelberg were top 20 picks. If GWS didn't feel they were worth that pick and were better off using their next best pick on another player then they wouldn't have matched those bids.
 
Joined
Nov 1, 2012
Posts
1,951
Likes
1,953
AFL Club
GWS
You guys keep bringing up hypothetical situations for some reason. Fact is Matt Kennedy and Harry Himmelberg were top 20 picks. If GWS didn't feel they were worth that pick and were better off using their next best pick on another player then they wouldn't have matched those bids.
You can’t say that it isn’t fair how we got 6 top 20 Academy draftees without looking at the system that allowed it to happen... and why it was so.

IIRC there have been three systems in place for drafting Academy kids:

In the earliest days we rookied two Academy kids - one was Zac Williams - I think this was direct, not through rookie draft.

Then there was the pre draft bidding system where you matched the other clubs bid with your next bid. We got Jack Steele for our second round pick. We were also able to use our last selection on Jeremy Finlayson.

Now it’s the match the draft pick with the value of other picks.

So because the Victorian clubs were peeved that Isaac Heeney was taken with Pick 19 or so they changed the draft system so clubs would pay “fair value”, they created a system that allowed for GWS to get six top 20 Academy picks in two years, rather than only two. It has driven the trading of picks not players and converting high picks into lower picks.

Anyway I doubt we’ll see such concentration on GWS again. Sydney’s Academy with the sons of Swans coaching staff is going to drive the next change... maybe.
 

Matchu

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Apr 12, 2007
Posts
7,607
Likes
6,672
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
You can’t say that it isn’t fair how we got 6 top 20 Academy draftees without looking at the system that allowed it to happen... and why it was so.
I accept the circumstances in which those players were taken but, hypothetically, had GWS chosen not to match any of those bids then this is what would have happened:

Pick 7, 2015 - Jacob Hopper (Gold Coast)
Pick 13, 2015 - Matthew Kennedy (Richmond)
Pick 16, 2015 - Harrison Himmelberg (Adelaide)
Pick 5, 2016 - Will Setterfield (Carlton)
Pick 14, 2016 - Harry Perryman (Adelaide)
Pick 20, 2016 - Issac Cumming (Sydney)

The end result? Six top 20 picks in two years. Now I know GWS traded down in the draft order to secure points for those players but I still think those players would have been bid on around the same time so I don't think it would have made a big difference.
Now it’s the match the draft pick with the value of other picks.

So because the Victorian clubs were peeved that Isaac Heeney was taken with Pick 19 or so they changed the draft system so clubs would pay “fair value”, they created a system that allowed for GWS to get six top 20 Academy picks in two years, rather than only two. It has driven the trading of picks not players and converting high picks into lower picks.

Anyway I doubt we’ll see such concentration on GWS again. Sydney’s Academy with the sons of Swans coaching staff is going to drive the next change... maybe.
No doubt Heeney was the trigger for the introduction of the points system and we saw the 4th placed Swans give up a fair bit to get Mills at the 2015 draft. Their next highest pick was 51 that year so the public would have felt that was fair enough given the steal that got away with the previous year when they got Heeney at pick 18. Then it started to become pretty obvious that GWS were the biggest beneficiaries of the new points system so the AFL had to find a way to make the system seem fair, knowing full well that Brander (Wentworth) and Spargo (Albury) were coming through in 2017 and could both be taken as top 20 picks as well. So it's no coincidence that those areas, along with other cities around the Murray region, were removed from the GWS zone.

Then we saw the 2017 draft roll around and no one complained about GWS's academy system. So until it becomes obvious that one of the northern clubs is benefiting greatly from the current academy system, it will stay the way it is.
 

dlanod

Moderator
Joined
Sep 14, 2006
Posts
38,902
Likes
47,210
Location
Sydney
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
GWS; CCMariners; NQCowboys; Ravens
Moderator #535
Then we saw the 2017 draft roll around and no one complained about GWS's academy system. So until it becomes obvious that one of the northern clubs is benefiting greatly from the current academy system, it will stay the way it is.
Ironically that hits the nail on the head. It's not about benefiting unfairly, its about benefiting at more than a trivial level. No top 40 players == no complaining. Of course, the fact that clubs like NM are now getting gifted top 5 players like Thomas as part of the response to the academies while the actual academies have dried up... status quo, really.
 

Matchu

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Apr 12, 2007
Posts
7,607
Likes
6,672
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Ironically that hits the nail on the head. It's not about benefiting unfairly, its about benefiting at more than a trivial level. No top 40 players == no complaining. Of course, the fact that clubs like NM are now getting gifted top 5 players like Thomas as part of the response to the academies while the actual academies have dried up... status quo, really.
I think most fans are ok with one top 10/20 player coming through an academy in any given year (see Bowes with the Suns & Hipwood with Brisbane) but once you start to go beyond that and you get 2-3 first round picks in one year as a direct result of the academy system, that's when people start to question if it's fair.

The Thomas example is a pretty rare one because you're talking about an indigenous player from Tasmania who looks to be a top 5-10 talent. I think it's pretty unlikely we'll see that happen again for at least a few years but if it does then you can bet your bottom dollar people will begin asking questions. I'd be more concerned about the constant flow of indigenous talent Collingwood, Essendon, Geelong, Hawthorn or Melbourne might get through their next generation academy zones in the Northern Territory.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

dlanod

Moderator
Joined
Sep 14, 2006
Posts
38,902
Likes
47,210
Location
Sydney
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
GWS; CCMariners; NQCowboys; Ravens
Moderator #537
I think most fans are ok with one top 10/20 player coming through an academy in any given year (see Bowes with the Suns & Hipwood with Brisbane) but once you start to go beyond that and you get 2-3 first round picks in one year as a direct result of the academy system, that's when people start to question if it's fair.
It depends where you consider "most fans" to be coming from. Off BF, most fans couldn't care less about academies or stuff like that. On BF, most fans were considering Brisbane getting Conway and Tickner to be a massive rort of the academies. Just to put it in perspective.
 

Matchu

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Apr 12, 2007
Posts
7,607
Likes
6,672
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
It depends where you consider "most fans" to be coming from. Off BF, most fans couldn't care less about academies or stuff like that. On BF, most fans were considering Brisbane getting Conway and Tickner to be a massive rort of the academies. Just to put it in perspective.
I won't profess to have followed the draft that closely back in 2012/13 so I'll take your word for it. I think that was back even before the pre-draft bidding system so it was pretty different and relatively new back then so I guess it was natural for people to question a system that would deliver two highly rated players to the one club without using any national draft picks. I assume Conway and Tickner were both highly rated at one point otherwise it would have been pointless for you to bring that up and for people to consider it a rort.

Last year was actually one of the worst years for the northern academies when you compare it to recent years:

Brisbane
#43 - Connor Ballenden

Gold Coast
#52 - Brayden Crossley
#55 - Connor Nutting
Rookie - Jacob Dawson
Rookie - Jacob Heron

Greater Western Sydney
#64 - Nick Shipley
Rookie - Jack Buckley

Sydney
Rookie - Jake Brown
Rookie - James Bell

Not one peep out of fans about that system being unfair. As you said, people are ok with a system that benefits another club more than theirs as long as it doesn't go beyond a trivial level. People even seem to be fine with one top 10/20 pick but once you start talking about multiple top 20 picks it gets questioned, as it should be.
 

Ichabod Noodle

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Sep 13, 2011
Posts
7,909
Likes
10,507
Location
The Riff
AFL Club
GWS
Other Teams
Raiders, Brumbies, Wanderers
I won't profess to have followed the draft that closely back in 2012/13 so I'll take your word for it. I think that was back even before the pre-draft bidding system so it was pretty different and relatively new back then so I guess it was natural for people to question a system that would deliver two highly rated players to the one club without using any national draft picks. I assume Conway and Tickner were both highly rated at one point otherwise it would have been pointless for you to bring that up and for people to consider it a rort.

Last year was actually one of the worst years for the northern academies when you compare it to recent years:

Brisbane
#43 - Connor Ballenden

Gold Coast
#52 - Brayden Crossley
#55 - Connor Nutting
Rookie - Jacob Dawson
Rookie - Jacob Heron

Greater Western Sydney
#64 - Nick Shipley
Rookie - Jack Buckley

Sydney
Rookie - Jake Brown
Rookie - James Bell

Not one peep out of fans about that system being unfair. As you said, people are ok with a system that benefits another club more than theirs as long as it doesn't go beyond a trivial level. People even seem to be fine with one top 10/20 pick but once you start talking about multiple top 20 picks it gets questioned, as it should be.
And last year St Kilda got 2 top ten Victorian kids and so did Carlton. Two top 10 picks of home grown Victorian talent, without ever having put any time or effort whatsoever into their development and guidance.

But it’s oh so very wrong for us to get anything similar in our state. Not only do we have to put the time and effort and resources into the growth of the game and these homegrown kids that we do bring through, but we have to put up with every s#*t-filled grumble from those with the silver spoon inheritance of a century and more.

Cry me a f#&*en river.
 

Matchu

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Apr 12, 2007
Posts
7,607
Likes
6,672
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
And last year St Kilda got 2 top ten Victorian kids and so did Carlton. Two top 10 picks of home grown Victorian talent, without ever having put any time or effort whatsoever into their development and guidance.

But it’s oh so very wrong for us to get anything similar in our state. Not only do we have to put the time and effort and resources into the growth of the game and these homegrown kids that we do bring through, but we have to put up with every s#*t-filled grumble from those with the silver spoon inheritance of a century and more.

Cry me a f#&*en river.
That is a terrible comparison. Both the Saints and Carlton traded for those specific top 10 picks and didn't jump the draft order purely because those kids were from Victoria. If you're going to be hostile when you quote me, at least come up with a good argument.
 

Ichabod Noodle

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Sep 13, 2011
Posts
7,909
Likes
10,507
Location
The Riff
AFL Club
GWS
Other Teams
Raiders, Brumbies, Wanderers
That is a terrible comparison. Both the Saints and Carlton traded for those specific top 10 picks and didn't jump the draft order purely because those kids were from Victoria. If you're going to be hostile when you quote me, at least come up with a good argument.
We traded for the picks to get our kids too. And two guaranteed top ten picks raised in the very cruicible of all things football - all without any investment whatsoever. far outweighs two from the frontiers paid for at market value.

When we started up every club and every supporter was pi$$ed we were trying to take their players. Keep your hands off anyone but a spud, go get you’re own players.

Well we did and you’re still pi$$ed.

You don’t want us to take “your” players? Fine. Don’t take ours or at the very least don’t complain when we do.
 

Big Stinky Monk

All Australian
Joined
Aug 26, 2004
Posts
648
Likes
852
Location
Sydney
AFL Club
GWS
That is a terrible comparison. Both the Saints and Carlton traded for those specific top 10 picks and didn't jump the draft order purely because those kids were from Victoria. If you're going to be hostile when you quote me, at least come up with a good argument.
And what do you think we traded Treloar, Bugg, Plowman, Marchbank, Steele, McCarthy, Ahern plus a few others for ?

To say we got those academy picks for nothing is absurd.
 
Joined
Nov 23, 2015
Posts
3,095
Likes
3,781
AFL Club
GWS
Moderator #543
Thread is well off track, but to address your comments Matchu, while I'd agree that Ichabod's comparison does have flaws, your own comments reflect the critical flaw that the southern media & BF shouters continually regurgitate - that were the academy system not in place that GWS would be hugely worse off in its draft picks. I'd agree that we would have slightly less first rounders - but as seen we end up just losing some of those, so the overall outcome of having less would be simply to lose less. The point that is usually ignored is that GWS lost players to get those extra first round draftees - and trading down for lots of low picks was only done because the system allowed it. The loss of significant numbers of first round-worthy players such as Treloar, Plowman, Marchbank & second round worthy players (Bugg, WHE) would have still provided GWS with multiple first & second round draft picks without question. And I would also question whether GWS would have traded so poorly in some cases as they did if not for the security of being able to get the academy kids. In short, without the guarantee of NSW kids, we'd have bargained harder & done what we did in the 2017 draft by trading up the order not down the order. Would we have gotten exactly the same first round picks as we did in 2015 & 2016 - no; but that's where I'd assess that the overblown (IMHO) value paid for some players (Kennedy, Himmelberg, Perryman & Cumming) skews the issue.

To exemplify this, of the 2015 trades I'd suggest no change to the Hampton, Townsend & Treloar trades (Treloar alone netted GWS an extra first round pick each year in 2015 & 2016); that the Bugg trade & pick swap with Collingwood would not have occurred as such; & I'd query whether the Plowman trade would have occurred in the form that it did. In the latter case I'd suggest that GWS would not have swapped pick 8 for the Geelong future first rounder. That would have still seen GWS hit the draft with picks #7, 8, 27 & a pick for Bugg: I'd suggest #29 from Melbourne would be reasonable. Hence, GWS would have 2 first rounders & 2 mid second rounders minimum - perhaps more palatable to southerners but probably a better outcome for GWS than we actually got! (Essentially losing HH for someone else, which might have meant not taking Kennedy but perhaps Harry McKay & a later midfielder.) With a bit more trading we could have reasonably ended up not too far away from the draft order that occurred. i.e. a top 10 + two in the teens.

That would have seen GWS start the 2016 trade period with two first & two second round picks (#7, #15, #32 & #33) - the extras being 2015 future pick trades. Again some 2016 trades would have still occurred (Steele, Ahern, Stewart, WHE) and some wouldn't have been the same (McKenna, Swans pick swap); while I'd query whether we would have bargained harder or at least differently with McCarthy - and I doubt the subsequent Brisbane trade would have occurred. Even if the McCarthy trade occurred for #3 and not the subsequent Brisbane trade. I'm sure we would still have gotten Taranto. There would have been a second first rounder too - perhaps Perryman. So the difference would have been Setterfield & Cumming - in the latter case I think his draft position was overblown from being academy. (You can then get into the whole argument of whether he would have even been drafted without academy assistance; my view being that he wouldn't.)

Just to reiterate - my comment that you originally replied to was an offhand comment that I doubt the southern media would lay off even if we recruited western Sydney kids. I hold by that view, given that no southern media have ever made a reasonable and logical assessment of the differences as I have, while not raising a whimper against NM's potential cheap pickup of a top 5/10 draftee. If they were fair dinkum about draft equality, they would be smashing out articles on that inequity - but they are not. Simple double standards. Not unexpectedly, the only discussion is in regard 2018 draft inequity is that North Melbourne have to compete with academy clubs Sydney & Gold Coast for Nick Blakey & Bailey Scott - as in, how dare those verminous northern clubs dare compete with a Victorian club for someone who should be theirs by right of father-son privilege!!! As if Swans & Gold Coast had done anything to develop those kids, in comparison to Norths' extensive development!!
 

Matchu

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Apr 12, 2007
Posts
7,607
Likes
6,672
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
We traded for the picks to get our kids too. And two guaranteed top ten picks raised in the very cruicible of all things football - all without any investment whatsoever. far outweighs two from the frontiers paid for at market value.

When we started up every club and every supporter was pi$$ed we were trying to take their players. Keep your hands off anyone but a spud, go get you’re own players.

Well we did and you’re still pi$$ed.

You don’t want us to take “your” players? Fine. Don’t take ours or at the very least don’t complain when we do.
Your players? No one is "your" player until you draft them. Is Kobe Mutch "your" player? The answer is no. Was your club involved in his development? Yes. Is he "your" player? No. He's an Essendon player. Same goes for Macreadie with Carlton.

There's a big difference between developing a junior and drafting him/her.
And what do you think we traded Treloar, Bugg, Plowman, Marchbank, Steele, McCarthy, Ahern plus a few others for ?

To say we got those academy picks for nothing is absurd.
I didn't say GWS got those picks for nothing. I said they were able to jump the draft order to get them.
Thread is well off track, but to address your comments Matchu, while I'd agree that Ichabod's comparison does have flaws, your own comments reflect the critical flaw that the southern media & BF shouters continually regurgitate - that were the academy system not in place that GWS would be hugely worse off in its draft picks. I'd agree that we would have slightly less first rounders - but as seen we end up just losing some of those, so the overall outcome of having less would be simply to lose less. The point that is usually ignored is that GWS lost players to get those extra first round draftees - and trading down for lots of low picks was only done because the system allowed it. The loss of significant numbers of first round-worthy players such as Treloar, Plowman, Marchbank & second round worthy players (Bugg, WHE) would have still provided GWS with multiple first & second round draft picks without question. And I would also question whether GWS would have traded so poorly in some cases as they did if not for the security of being able to get the academy kids. In short, without the guarantee of NSW kids, we'd have bargained harder & done what we did in the 2017 draft by trading up the order not down the order. Would we have gotten exactly the same first round picks as we did in 2015 & 2016 - no; but that's where I'd assess that the overblown (IMHO) value paid for some players (Kennedy, Himmelberg, Perryman & Cumming) skews the issue.

To exemplify this, of the 2015 trades I'd suggest no change to the Hampton, Townsend & Treloar trades (Treloar alone netted GWS an extra first round pick each year in 2015 & 2016); that the Bugg trade & pick swap with Collingwood would not have occurred as such; & I'd query whether the Plowman trade would have occurred in the form that it did. In the latter case I'd suggest that GWS would not have swapped pick 8 for the Geelong future first rounder. That would have still seen GWS hit the draft with picks #7, 8, 27 & a pick for Bugg: I'd suggest #29 from Melbourne would be reasonable. Hence, GWS would have 2 first rounders & 2 mid second rounders minimum - perhaps more palatable to southerners but probably a better outcome for GWS than we actually got! (Essentially losing HH for someone else, which might have meant not taking Kennedy but perhaps Harry McKay & a later midfielder.) With a bit more trading we could have reasonably ended up not too far away from the draft order that occurred. i.e. a top 10 + two in the teens.

That would have seen GWS start the 2016 trade period with two first & two second round picks (#7, #15, #32 & #33) - the extras being 2015 future pick trades. Again some 2016 trades would have still occurred (Steele, Ahern, Stewart, WHE) and some wouldn't have been the same (McKenna, Swans pick swap); while I'd query whether we would have bargained harder or at least differently with McCarthy - and I doubt the subsequent Brisbane trade would have occurred. Even if the McCarthy trade occurred for #3 and not the subsequent Brisbane trade. I'm sure we would still have gotten Taranto. There would have been a second first rounder too - perhaps Perryman. So the difference would have been Setterfield & Cumming - in the latter case I think his draft position was overblown from being academy. (You can then get into the whole argument of whether he would have even been drafted without academy assistance; my view being that he wouldn't.)

Just to reiterate - my comment that you originally replied to was an offhand comment that I doubt the southern media would lay off even if we recruited western Sydney kids. I hold by that view, given that no southern media have ever made a reasonable and logical assessment of the differences as I have, while not raising a whimper against NM's potential cheap pickup of a top 5/10 draftee. If they were fair dinkum about draft equality, they would be smashing out articles on that inequity - but they are not. Simple double standards. Not unexpectedly, the only discussion is in regard 2018 draft inequity is that North Melbourne have to compete with academy clubs Sydney & Gold Coast for Nick Blakey & Bailey Scott - as in, how dare those verminous northern clubs dare compete with a Victorian club for someone who should be theirs by right of father-son privilege!!! As if Swans & Gold Coast had done anything to develop those kids, in comparison to Norths' extensive development!!
I hear you but I think this is a perpetual issue that will continue as long as the northern academies exist. It's unavoidable because there are four clubs in the AFL with special academies and 14 clubs without.

If western Sydney were to develop into a hotbed of talent and GWS had three top 15 picks from WS coming through every year then I think you would find the AFL would adjust the academy rules once again. It's not an issue until it's perceived to be one by the public/media.
 
Joined
Nov 23, 2015
Posts
3,095
Likes
3,781
AFL Club
GWS
Moderator #545
I hear you but I think this is a perpetual issue that will continue as long as the northern academies exist. It's unavoidable because there are four clubs in the AFL with special academies and 14 clubs without.

If western Sydney were to develop into a hotbed of talent and GWS had three top 15 picks from WS coming through every year then I think you would find the AFL would adjust the academy rules once again. It's not an issue until it's perceived to be one by the public/media.
I'll agree with you on the bolded bits - and add the word 'southern' between 'the' & 'public/media'.
 

Matchu

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Apr 12, 2007
Posts
7,607
Likes
6,672
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
I'll agree with you on the bolded bits - and add the word 'southern' between 'the' & 'public/media'.
That's just the nature of the industry. Like it or not, Aussie rules is more popular in Victoria, South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania than it is in other states and territories. Having said that, this article (Greater Western Sydney's 'generous academy zone' comes under attack) was published in the NT News so to try and make it entirely about the geographical location of certain publications/journalists isn't entirely accurate.
 
Joined
Nov 23, 2015
Posts
3,095
Likes
3,781
AFL Club
GWS
Moderator #547
That's just the nature of the industry. Like it or not, Aussie rules is more popular in Victoria, South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania than it is in other states and territories. Having said that, this article (Greater Western Sydney's 'generous academy zone' comes under attack) was published in the NT News so to try and make it entirely about the geographical location of certain publications/journalists isn't entirely accurate.
I agree that it's the nature of the industry & that it's dominated by the traditional states - but that's a big chunk of the point being made by the GWS supporters here: that anything to their favour is described as 'traditional' or 'normal', but anything to redress the northern states' inherent deficiencies is seen as inequitable to Victorian sides! BTW - the NT News article is just a straight copy of a Sam Landsberger Herald Sun article, so you can hardly claim it's 'independent' NT journalism - it certainly doesn't derail my point about being led by southern media.

I think this discussion has run its course. I appreciate that you are by and large not one of the 'BF shouters' and that you take an interest in Queensland & NSW sides, numbers of locals playing in their sides etc, but we still take different perspectives on the academy situation. In respect of the changes to date to make the academy system more equitable, I can live with most of them because ultimately I agree that the draft should be an equitable outcome and that continued largesse would have been counterproductive. The biggest angst was/is the repeated changes to the rules seemly whenever Eddie & his ilk made a hullabaloo, whereas there should have been a more comprehensive, far-sighted assessment in the first place. Additionally, the double standards given the developing situation in regards North Melbourne is obvious & frustrating.

That's all folks!
 

Ichabod Noodle

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Sep 13, 2011
Posts
7,909
Likes
10,507
Location
The Riff
AFL Club
GWS
Other Teams
Raiders, Brumbies, Wanderers
Your players? No one is "your" player until you draft them. Is Kobe Mutch "your" player? The answer is no. Was your club involved in his development? Yes. Is he "your" player? No. He's an Essendon player. Same goes for Macreadie with Carlton.

There's a big difference between developing a junior and drafting him/her.

I didn't say GWS got those picks for nothing. I said they were able to jump the draft order to get them.

I hear you but I think this is a perpetual issue that will continue as long as the northern academies exist. It's unavoidable because there are four clubs in the AFL with special academies and 14 clubs without.

If western Sydney were to develop into a hotbed of talent and GWS had three top 15 picks from WS coming through every year then I think you would find the AFL would adjust the academy rules once again. It's not an issue until it's perceived to be one by the public/media.
Are you still here?

Want to talk about our current list and how they’ll play this year, not where they played their junior footy? Want to talk about the women’s team (which is absolutely chocked with local NSW - and more importantly Western Sydney - talent)? I invite you over to the other threads but you can talk ‘til you’re blue in the face about academies, and their worth, and their cost, but I’m right and you’re not and it will always be thus.
 

Matchu

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Apr 12, 2007
Posts
7,607
Likes
6,672
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
I agree that it's the nature of the industry & that it's dominated by the traditional states - but that's a big chunk of the point being made by the GWS supporters here: that anything to their favour is described as 'traditional' or 'normal', but anything to redress the northern states' inherent deficiencies is seen as inequitable to Victorian sides! BTW - the NT News article is just a straight copy of a Sam Landsberger Herald Sun article, so you can hardly claim it's 'independent' NT journalism - it certainly doesn't derail my point about being led by southern media.
Sure and i understand the situations in QLD and NSW are problematic. Once upon a time in the 90s Brisbane and Sydney were given extra salary cap room in order to increase their chances of player retention and it was only removed once the Lions had captured their third consecutive premiership. Once again proving - it's only an issue when the public/media perceives the outcome to be unfair. What followed was the introduction of the COLA for Sydney and complete salary cap parity for the Lions. Is it a coincidence that Sydney maintained competitiveness post-2004 while Brisbane struggled? I don't think so.

It wasn't until Buddy's massive contract that the AFL decided to restructure the COLA situation so it just further reinforces the point that most of the AFL media/public is ok with unequal situations as long as it doesn't go beyond a certain level.
I think this discussion has run its course. I appreciate that you are by and large not one of the 'BF shouters' and that you take an interest in Queensland & NSW sides, numbers of locals playing in their sides etc, but we still take different perspectives on the academy situation. In respect of the changes to date to make the academy system more equitable, I can live with most of them because ultimately I agree that the draft should be an equitable outcome and that continued largesse would have been counterproductive. The biggest angst was/is the repeated changes to the rules seemly whenever Eddie & his ilk made a hullabaloo, whereas there should have been a more comprehensive, far-sighted assessment in the first place. Additionally, the double standards given the developing situation in regards North Melbourne is obvious & frustrating.

That's all folks!
Having a difference of opinion isn't a bad thing, provided both sides are making reasonable arguments. The Victorian media is always going to have a certain level of bias towards their own teams and Eddie is quite a powerful man in that state so I think it's just something you'll have to live with. My club has constantly bumped heads with Eddie over our heritage jumper and the AFL has often been on our side in recent years, which I certainly appreciate.

The North Melbourne situation with Thomas is a curious one but as I stated earlier in the thread, I don't think the public/media are overly bothered by one top 20 picks coming out of an academy in any given year.

You quoted me. Were you not expecting a response?
Want to talk about our current list and how they’ll play this year, not where they played their junior footy? Want to talk about the women’s team (which is absolutely chocked with local NSW - and more importantly Western Sydney - talent)? I invite you over to the other threads but you can talk ‘til you’re blue in the face about academies, and their worth, and their cost, but I’m right and you’re not and it will always be thus.
Despite what you may think, I do have an interest in GWS related matters. In fact, I started the original contract status thread on your board. However, this thread is specifically for academy matters and I have tried to stay on topic in that regard.
 
Joined
Jan 9, 2012
Posts
6,629
Likes
5,694
Location
Baulkham Hills
AFL Club
GWS
Other Teams
St Kilda, Dragons, Bucks
Moderator #550
That is a terrible comparison. Both the Saints and Carlton traded for those specific top 10 picks and didn't jump the draft order purely because those kids were from Victoria. If you're going to be hostile when you quote me, at least come up with a good argument.
That is a main board statement, it doesn't belong a club board coming from an opposition supporter.
 
Top Bottom