Hats Off To Carltank

[MagpieJoel]

I don't like him as much as the next Collingwood supporter, but he was one of a few who actually put in for the entire game and wasn't a disgrace. Gibbs is the one who needs to come under massive scrutiny, not Murphy.
Anyway I cant feel sorry for a team that has done everything they possibly can to put together one of the worst lists in the AFL.

At the game I didn't notice him at all.

I watched a replay and he played well in the first, but he was completely ineffectual for the rest of the game. Even the commentators said he had faded out of the game after his decent first quarter.

 

[Tippy78]

I noticed this and I haven't before. Is Bruce Carlton?

I'm not sure. He definitely has a big man crush on Juddy though

 

[The Royal Sampler]

Didn't want to start a new thread...

http://m.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news...elbourne-coach-paul-roos-20150511-ggzad4.html
"... it made me uncomfortable the way we parade them out and set them up to fail.

"There are so many examples. There's Gibbs, there's Murphy, there's Kreuzer...."
- Paul Roos

 

[Ricky90]

Didn't want to start a new thread...

http://m.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news...elbourne-coach-paul-roos-20150511-ggzad4.html
"... it made me uncomfortable the way we parade them out and set them up to fail.

"There are so many examples. There's Gibbs, there's Murphy, there's Kreuzer...."
- Paul Roos

He knows more Carlton players than Mick does!

And as a side note, good find. Although Roos is wrong, the draft isn't setting the kids up for failure the club is.

 

[Cousin of Daicos]

He knows more Carlton players than Mick does!

And as a side note, good find. Although Roos is wrong, the draft isn't setting the kids up for failure the club is.

I know what he means though.

I've always thought the draft age should be 21. These kids go from sheltered boys by their parents to sheltered boys by the footy club, but then they're given more money than they've ever seen and more attention than they've ever had. Not a good mix. Which is why so many footballers misbehave. They don't actually know what it is to be in the real world. Yet you RARELY see the mature age recruits misbehave. Why? Because they've been in the real world before getting to a footy club.

While they're not exactly going to have huge life experience by 21, they'll have had SOMETHING. They will have had to work a real job by then, they'll be more mature mentally as well as physically which should actually give them longer careers than being recruited at 17 would have.

 

[Kirby]

Shpeshal Ed

What happens to the players between 18 and 21? Where would they play?

Would it be in the VFL system and other state leagues?

 

[Kilmo]

Shpeshal Ed

What happens to the players between 18 and 21? Where would they play?

Would it be in the VFL system and other state leagues?

They'd play in the game of life. And lose. And be better off for it. Send them to the coal mines.

 

[Kirby]

They'd play in the game of life. And lose. And be better off for it. Send them to the coal mines.

 

[Cousin of Daicos]

Shpeshal Ed

What happens to the players between 18 and 21? Where would they play?

Would it be in the VFL system and other state leagues?

Yeah why not?

 

[Dynamics]

Some have suggested the reintroduction of an under 19s competition. Not sure how it would work in terms of the draft etc but you have to wonder if delaying their entry to the fully fledged world of senior footy might be a good idea.

Some kids like, say, Tim Watson back in the day, or Jordan De Goey today, are mentally ready to go in that first year. Plenty clearly aren't though. Harley Bennell has the potential to be a top 5 midfielder but he clearly has NFI how to behave as an adult in an adult world.

My selfish, gut reaction is that we lose out on seeing the best young talent for a year or two. But on the flip side that's time put into a degree or a trade, or work, or travelling our whatever you like. A bit of time to grow the hell up before you're handed a bag of cash and a spotlight.

Edit: Getting back on topic, suck it Carlton.

 

[didaksrightfoot]

I know what he means though.

I've always thought the draft age should be 21. These kids go from sheltered boys by their parents to sheltered boys by the footy club, but then they're given more money than they've ever seen and more attention than they've ever had. Not a good mix. Which is why so many footballers misbehave. They don't actually know what it is to be in the real world. Yet you RARELY see the mature age recruits misbehave. Why? Because they've been in the real world before getting to a footy club.

While they're not exactly going to have huge life experience by 21, they'll have had SOMETHING. They will have had to work a real job by then, they'll be more mature mentally as well as physically which should actually give them longer careers than being recruited at 17 would have.

I agree with the idea, but think 21 might be a bit old... I'd suggest around 19-20.
Give them a couple of years out of high school playing at the VFL/WAFL/SANFL/NEAFL level, with life experience before they enter the AFL system and everything, good and bad, that comes with it.

In addition the individual benifits you mentioned above, I think there are also some extra benefits for the AFL and state leagues.

A big part of the disparity between good and bad teams is when you get teams full of young players who, though exciting, can be very inconsistent, and can often struggle against the top teams. It also means that weakers teams will feel less inclined to do a wholesale clearout of their experienced players and just trot out youngsters to give them more experience. (this also might give fringe players longer careers).

It also makes the draft a much more effective tool for equalisation, because you teams can now make a more informed decision when drafting. I reckon it would be a lot easier scouting a 19-20 year old who has played a couple of years against men, than it is scouting a 16-17 year old in the juniors. (Also, it gives you more time to assess how someone's body is developing)

And it would hopefully add a bit more excitement to the state leagues as well.

 

[Hardas]

They'd play in the game of life. And lose. And be better off for it. Send them to the coal mines.

LMAO!!!

 

[Hardas]

I agree with the idea, but think 21 might be a bit old... I'd suggest around 19-20.
Give them a couple of years out of high school playing at the VFL/WAFL/SANFL/NEAFL level, with life experience before they enter the AFL system and everything, good and bad, that comes with it.

In addition the individual benifits you mentioned above, I think there are also some extra benefits for the AFL and state leagues.

A big part of the disparity between good and bad teams is when you get teams full of young players who, though exciting, can be very inconsistent, and can often struggle against the top teams. It also means that weakers teams will feel less inclined to do a wholesale clearout of their experienced players and just trot out youngsters to give them more experience. (this also might give fringe players longer careers).

It also makes the draft a much more effective tool for equalisation, because you teams can now make a more informed decision when drafting. I reckon it would be a lot easier scouting a 19-20 year old who has played a couple of years against men, than it is scouting a 16-17 year old in the juniors. (Also, it gives you more time to assess how someone's body is developing)

And it would hopefully add a bit more excitement to the state leagues as well.

There's a lot to like about the general idea, but I imagine there would be restraint of trade legal issues for players [and managers] that don't want to wait to make the big bucks.

 

[didaksrightfoot]

There's a lot to like about the general idea, but I imagine there would be restraint of trade legal issues for players [and managers] that don't want to wait to make the big bucks.

Yeah the AFLPA would have a big say in it.

However, you need to remember that list sizes and the salary cap will remain the same, so the average player will still have the exact same earning potential... It just starts 2 years later. (but also lats 2 years longer than current).

If you look at the NBA when they brought in a minimum age rule for their draft (to 19 - so have to play at least 1 year of college... Which might increase further at their next CBA) the players association wasn't (oops had typed this wrong) against it because it basically meant veterans would stay in the game another year longer.

 

[Hardas]

Yeah the AFLPA would have a big say in it.
However, you need to remember that list sizes and the salary cap will remain the same, so the average player will still have the exact same earning potential... It just starts 2 years later. (but also lats 2 years longer than current).
If you look at the NBA when they brought in a minimum age rule for their draft (to 19 - so have to play at least 1 year of college... Which might increase further at their next CBA) the players association wasn't (oops had typed this wrong) against it because it basically meant veterans would stay in the game another year longer.

I see what you're saying, and you might well be right for all I know.
I'm very aware of the NBA situation as it's my other sport of choice, but the realities are different, on a sporting level, for a start:
Fewer AFL players extend their careers into their thirties now due to the physical demands these days [of course, there are exceptional athletes but these blokes are rare] whereas many NBA 'vets' are role players or play limited minutes in ways not really possible in AFL.
In any case, the AFLPA, and especially agents and their lawyers would pull out stats about average career length for the threat of a restraint of trade case.
Also, the realities for the young 'pre-AFL' players would be very different to the States. If the youngsters were able to get the kind of national and regional exposure that US college athletes get, leading to equipment sponsorship etc for young players straight out of college, then there would be less pressure for a restraint of trade scenario. But the argument would be that if you are a star youngster, like a Dustin Martin or a De Goey, why do you have to wait for the AFL money and accept the 'VFL' money because of a rule that doesn't apply to other young members of society?
Even the salary cap itself could be challenged at some point if the AFL doesn't give the players a bigger share of the pie.

 

[Hardas]

Blues make seven changes with only one an injury...things looking rock solid down there...

 

[spartan-magpie]

Blues make seven changes with only one an injury...things looking rock solid down there...

Pick 1 here we come. Surely they won't pluck this one up also.


Wonder which soft silky skilled chicken they'll pluck this time. Colonel sanders got any roosters running around in the TAC cup?