How long should a rebuild take?

[Tarkyn_24]

That was a uniquely young premiership team though. Basically a 5 year rebuild might be a 1 in every 30 year thing.

It was young but I don’t think it’s necessarily an outlier. Using 2002’s losing Grand Final side as another trough to peak example:

Players that played in the Grand Final (and games played prior to the start of 1998): 107, 57, 43, 18.

Players acquired via drafting 1998 onwards:
1998 - 2 (Tarrant, Lockyer)
1999 - 4 (Freeborn*, N Davis, Scotland, Betheras)
2000 - 4 (O’Bree*, Fraser, Johnson, L Davis)
2001 - 3 (Didak, Wakelin, Lonie)

Players acquired via trading picks (ie. utilisation of draft selections available to them):
1999 - 1 Licuria
2001 - 1 Clement
2002 - 1 Steinfort

Players acquired with picks + players
2001 - 2 Molloy (for Michael, commenced 1998), McKee (for King, acquired by Collingwood in 1998)

Five year turnaround, albeit even with a clearish cut one like this it’s hard to determine the starting point of the “rebuild”, as although the personnel present for the GF only largely commenced after 1998, the Pies had missed finals every year starting 1995 and were conceivably down.

Would love if others with better knowledge over their own lists were positioned to make similar adjudications!

 

[Rotayjay]

Everyone knows that different clubs have different cultures when it comes to list management. Sydney and Geelong do extremely well in refreshing their lists all the time so that they never drop far, or drop for long before they're back in serious contention.

We've seen Collingwood willing to go in hard and make big changes to their list makeup in short spans of time. In recent years, Hawthorn and North have been criticised for gutting their lists too deeply and not having enough experience to support the kids.

Experience around the kids is important, but I think my club is far too willing to give out gold passes to mediocre or cooked established players at the expense of blooding youth.

Overall I think clubs 'should' strike a balance between recruiting youth and keeping some veterans on as mentors, aiming for a 5-8 year rebuild. Striking that balance is much easier said than done.

 

[gungho]

A proper rebuild should take about 7 years. I know that seems like a bloody long time.

3x years of hardcore drafting.
4x years of hardcore development

 

[Ricky Vaughn]

Hard one to answer, but if you’re one of the worst teams of all time when starting the rebuild, and remain one of the worst teams of all time 5 years later, you’ve made some errors.

 

[pie chucker]

Interesting question. I look at a few teams that have rebuilt and won premierships:

Collingwood 2010. We bottomed out in 2005 and got a priority pick. 5 years later won a premiership
Hawks bottomed out in the same year. Won in 2008 but some say that was early. 2012 is probably the right time so 7 years.
Richmond got Martin in 2009 and Cotchin in 2007. Reiwoldt was 2006. They were the backbone of their premiership team which was about 10 years later.

Priority picks made it much easier so I'm going to say the Richmond model is about right. Players peak around 26-27 so that's 8 years in the system.

They should be playing finals in about year 5.

Most teams that have had sustained success rebuild via the draft. Free agency/trades are good to fill a need.

 

[go_the_dockers]

Hard one to answer, but if you’re one of the worst teams of all time when starting the rebuild, and remain one of the worst teams of all time 5 years later, you’ve made some errors.

It depends on your list.

If you start with no quality 20 to 27, then you need to build depth. Good Free agents don't go to bottom sides.

After 5 years , your oldest player is 22.

 

[go_the_dockers]

I would support a extra 2nd rounder for all clubs out of finals for 5 years that must be traded for a player.

This would improve depth of bottom clubs, while maintaining there picks.

 

[Dangerousfield]

Sydney don't count. They have had the luxury of top 5 picks when finishing in the top 4. Most clubs can't do that.

Geelong is the real benchmark since all they've got over anyone else is "lifestyle".

and the dodgy property deals off the books they lure and reward players with. It's known as the Geelong Costa Living Allowance

Easier for big clubs to rebound as they are attractive as destinations for FA and trade ins. Look at the large number of players clubs like Carlton and Essendon have managed to lure in recent times even when they were down the ladder. Compare their hauls with Norths.

If you're a small club then the task is becoming increasingly more difficult, which is why North the smallest club may never get out of the doom loop they've entered, even with draft pick largesse from HQ, they'll just become a permanent feeder club for others as players look elsewhere for success.

 

[Joao]

and the dodgy property deals off the books they lure and reward players with. It's known as the Geelong Costa Living Allowance

Easier for big clubs to rebound as they are attractive as destinations for FA and trade ins. Look at the large number of players clubs like Carlton and Essendon have managed to lure in recent times even when they were down the ladder. Compare their hauls with Norths.

If you're a small club then the task is becoming increasingly more difficult, which is why North the smallest club may never get out of the doom loop they've entered, even with draft pick largesse from HQ, they'll just become a permanent feeder club for others as players look elsewhere for success.

I'm not including anything off-field because
A - if they do it, I am sure they are not the only ones
B - I have no idea how much it is

I honestly think their biggest POD over the long term is the ability to keep quality 30+ players on the park and playing well.

 

[MadMaxx]

Petrol tank analogy.

If the tank gets empty, it take a long time to fill. If you top it up every few days, you are in and out quickly.

Take it to recent examples..

Hawthorn, and now Richmond, spend sustained 10 years at the top, getting poor draft picks, and trading in support players to win all those flags.

By the end of the run, the champs all retire, and there is no outstanding youth to replace them.. The list is pretty thin. The Tank is bone dry. The Hawks arrived at the servo a few hours before the Tigers and are more full.

The Cats and Sydney, despite good success in the same period, managed to find dodgy petrol suppliers (NGA and Father sons, Go Home factor, and Savvy Trades), and got some fuel in on the sly. Credit to them.

The biggest fear for me is that OPEC (AFL) are going to restrict supply of the petrol in a few years, and give it all to their new mates in Tassie.

And you don't wanna be pulling up to the servo in2027 seeing the "Outta Gas" sign up. Might be a really long wait to fill that tank.

 

[rapidfire7]

Honestly, it's hard to put a number on it, as there are so many variables.

Bottoming out and doing a full rebuild (with next to no senior players) like North has been trying to do is fraught with danger.

They sometimes don't work out at all.

 

[faible]

I agree and Geelong have managed their team well but look at clubs that bottomed out, Brisbane 3 flags in 3 years, Hawthorn 4 in 8 years and Richmond 3 in 4 years.

Hawthorn's last premiership was one of the oldest Premiership sides of all time, and they tried to top-up to continue things.

Obviously decisions like that matter in terms of how long a turnaround is, currently they're looking a fair way off being in Top-4 contention and haven't won a final since 2015. You'd probably say their 'rebuild' started with the 2019 draft and Will Day?

 

[Joao]

Honestly, it's hard to put a number on it, as there are so many variables.

Bottoming out and doing a full rebuild (with next to no senior players) like North has been trying to do is fraught with danger.

They sometimes don't work out at all.

The main thing is you need to hit more than you miss in the draft, especially near the top. You also need to improve enough that the draftees can see the light.

Avoid shipping out all of your experience and you're a chance.

 

[Tippett2Goal]

Good Free agents don't go to bottom sides.

Which is why rebuilds now take longer, poor sides are more likely to lose good talent, extending their rebuild times.

 

[daniel_4tw]

Fix the draft. No Father/Sons or academies.

The fact that the first round went into 30s last year was ridiculous. How many times have the bottom team not had access to the best player?

I’m not saying teams can’t draft a F/S, but why should every club suffer for a ‘feel good story’. If a club wants the tradition, go get the draft picks to get the player. Allow clubs to trade on draft day after a team has picked the player. It would mean lower clubs actually get decent value when clubs want to draft someone with family ties, vs top clubs getting the best players at a discount over everyone else.

The next step is clubs being able to trade players without players approving it. No superstar wants to go to a lowly club, so the same clubs keep getting propped up while lower clubs lose their best players and have to head to the above mentioned flawed draft.

So how long should a rebuild take? It depends on the team. Your destination clubs should never have to rebuild, and the feeder clubs may never end rebuilding.

If we had a level playing field, rebuilds should take 3-4 years but that’s not the world we live in.

 

[Black Diamond]

More mercenary behaviour and free agency would fix this.

If every player chased top-dollar every single time you would very quickly even out the talent.

Then it would be up to clubs to run themselves properly.

Impossible to enforce though, and would also require a complete ban on extra endorsements or third party contracts.

 

[Ricky Vaughn]

It depends on your list.

If you start with no quality 20 to 27, then you need to build depth. Good Free agents don't go to bottom sides.

After 5 years , your oldest player is 22.

No it doesn’t.

no list is in bad enough shape that you expect to be terrible for 5 years. Culture, development, coaching, drafting, you’ve pretty much cooked the lot if you are still in the same place 5 years on.

 

[Footy Smarts]

No it doesn’t.

no list is in bad enough shape that you expect to be terrible for 5 years. Culture, development, coaching, drafting, you’ve pretty much cooked the lot if you are still in the same place 5 years on.

Of course you've messed up if you're bad for 5 years but often the mistakes with drafting and development happened before that 5 year period.

If Richmond lose a couple of their better middle aged players this year it's hard to see how they escape the bottom 6 by 2027 (only the 3rd year for any draftees this year). Barring a miracle this year that would be 5 consecutive years in the bottom 6. Not saying they'll be North or West Coast bad but even if Yze does a pretty good job from here going forward they're likely to be pretty ordinary for a while with what they're losing and what's coming through.

 

[Farang83150]

Realistically a rebuild should take 2-3 years, pushing four at a maximum.

You don’t expect sides to stay up much longer than four years consistently; so why would we accept sides missing the eight for such a prolonged period of time.

Three bottom end cycles where your opportunity to draft a second round player of the same quality of the best player available on draft day to the premiers should be enough to bring you back into contention. Every single one of your picks is a quality 20 picks higher than what that team gets to select, it’s a huge advantage.

A club’s own negligence shouldn’t come in to it.

A pity the drafts so compromised then isn't it.
Compo picks, FS, priority....

 

[Tiger2709]

Hawthorn's last premiership was one of the oldest Premiership sides of all time, and they tried to top-up to continue things.

Obviously decisions like that matter in terms of how long a turnaround is, currently they're looking a fair way off being in Top-4 contention and haven't won a final since 2015. You'd probably say their 'rebuild' started with the 2019 draft and Will Day?

I was more commenting on the bottom out pre their 2008 flag, I think most clubs that win a few flags in a close period try and get one more out of the team, rarely works though.

 

[Tiger2709]

The main thing is you need to hit more than you miss in the draft, especially near the top. You also need to improve enough that the draftees can see the light.

Avoid shipping out all of your experience and you're a chance.

Yeah you need some experience left to teach the kids or you can end in the wilderness for years, look at Carlton and Melbourne with their 5 year plans every 5 years.

Of course the real key to any flag is a period of good luck, you could keep drafting the best players available for 10 years and still fail if they were to run into an extended spell of injuries, personnel problems, concussion protocol etc.

 

[Purple Suit]

No it doesn’t.

no list is in bad enough shape that you expect to be terrible for 5 years. Culture, development, coaching, drafting, you’ve pretty much cooked the lot if you are still in the same place 5 years on.

North and WC are proof that this can occur. GC have been building for 14 years so far if Finals is considered a pass mark.

Lists take a long time if you go over the cliff. Geelong have managed to escape this surprisingly but maybe not forever.

 

[Farang83150]

North and WC are proof that this can occur. GC have been building for 14 years so far if Finals is considered a pass mark.
.

About as hypothetical as it gets.

 

[Freomaniac]

Well GWS made finals from scratch in their 5th season.

Melbourne also took 5 years taking their rebuild from the start of the Roos years.

It should be 3 years to finals for most clubs though. We should be in the mix for finals by 2026 and competing in 2027.

funny you brought up GWS. Mind you, giants used those 1st rounders well

West coast eagles only had 35 players in 1987.

those 18–22-year-olds the eagles had in 1987 were 24–28-year-olds in 1992.

 

[Black Diamond]

funny you brought up GWS. Mind you, giants used those 1st rounders well

West coast eagles only had 35 players in 1987.

those 18–22-year-olds the eagles had in 1987 were 24–28-year-olds in 1992.

Why is that funny?