Analysis Improving the bidding system

Remove this Banner Ad

The 747

Brownlow Medallist
Jan 19, 2008
17,249
20,372
Melbourne
AFL Club
Geelong

25% of Victorians drafted interstate get traded home

The biggest talent pool in the AFL, a quarter of the players go home. This doesn't take into effect the players who just don't make it - minimum a quarter of the players drafted.

I don't think a 20% reduction in points is enough
Just thought I would add in the context which you left out:

"Breaking it down by state, Victorians have the highest attrition rate. 25% of Victorians drafted interstate in this time have eventually been traded home – while WA, SA, NSW and Queensland are all somewhere around the 10-15% mark."

Another interesting point from the article that you cherry picked - GWS lost the most players to trades, the three next highest clubs are Hawthorn, Geelong and Sydney. So following your argument, Geelong and the Hawks are hard done by here and we deserve a points discount right?

Screen Shot 2020-12-15 at 1.18.26 pm.png
 

BloodySwan

Norm Smith Medallist
Oct 2, 2016
5,326
9,470
AFL Club
Sydney
Just thought I would add in the context which you left out:

"Breaking it down by state, Victorians have the highest attrition rate. 25% of Victorians drafted interstate in this time have eventually been traded home – while WA, SA, NSW and Queensland are all somewhere around the 10-15% mark."

Another interesting point from the article that you cherry picked - GWS lost the most players to trades, the three next highest clubs are Hawthorn, Geelong and Sydney. So following your argument, Geelong and the Hawks are hard done by here and we deserve a points discount right?

View attachment 1028582
I was never against the NGA. I think the biggest issue was the criteria for which it took players to be accepted into the NGA. Rather than removing it I felt the club should just need to show they've done more to the players growth.

So yes, Geelong & Hawthorn should get a 20% discount for players they've grown
 

Suma Magic

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 22, 2009
23,298
25,372
AFL Club
West Coast
What if we just said that first rounders could only be matched if you have a pick in the next 18 picks.

So if you have Ugle-Hagan coming through you need to keep your first rounder as part of the matching (or at least trade it for a late first rounder + extras).

If you have a Lachy Jones coming through you might need to keep your first and 2nd just to be sure (or trade out your first and upgrade your 2nd).

It isn't perfect but it makes the matching team pay a more reasonable price whilst still having a degree of flexibility.
Why not just give picks a points amount that is equal to their value?

That way clubs wouldn’t want to match with late picks, any more than they would want to match with early picks.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

penga

Debutant
May 17, 2012
76
30
AFL Club
Sydney
Just thought I would add in the context which you left out:

"Breaking it down by state, Victorians have the highest attrition rate. 25% of Victorians drafted interstate in this time have eventually been traded home – while WA, SA, NSW and Queensland are all somewhere around the 10-15% mark."

Another interesting point from the article that you cherry picked - GWS lost the most players to trades, the three next highest clubs are Hawthorn, Geelong and Sydney. So following your argument, Geelong and the Hawks are hard done by here and we deserve a points discount right?

View attachment 1028582
But that only shows all draftees traded out and not only the ones traded out interstate back home right?
What about this graph?
1608000655999.png
 

Simon_Nesbit

Brownlow Medallist
Sep 26, 2001
11,021
6,394
Tasmania
AFL Club
Hawthorn
From 2019 - Origin of AFL players

Vic - 468 players, 10 clubs = 46ppc
WA - 119 players, 2 clubs = 59ppc
Qld - 41 players, 2 clubs = 20ppc
NSW/ACT - 46 players, 2 clubs = 23ppc
SA - 121 players, 2 clubs = 61ppc
Tas - 19 players, 0 clubs = :(
Other - 19 players, 0 clubs

The above suggests QLD/NSW should have strong incentives for drafting local players over interstaters, WA/SA don't need it, Tas still deserves a club (but numbers dropping alarmingly). Another generation (2040?) and we should see those numbers stabilise around the 40ppc across the league. (Adding in 3rd WA and SA teams too).

The problem seems to be that the 'northern' clubs are getting preferential access to elite talent, but are not selecting much depth of talent from their local areas.

Perhaps NSW/QLD teams can automatically list any player from their State not selected in the first round?
 

The 747

Brownlow Medallist
Jan 19, 2008
17,249
20,372
Melbourne
AFL Club
Geelong
I was never against the NGA. I think the biggest issue was the criteria for which it took players to be accepted into the NGA. Rather than removing it I felt the club should just need to show they've done more to the players growth.

So yes, Geelong & Hawthorn should get a 20% discount for players they've grown
I am all for that, since our local region produces lots of AFL footballers.

Being serious though, the NGA is a great idea as a concept it just needs to be refined so it is not ridiculous like it is now.
 

JayJ20

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 28, 2016
13,852
19,395
AFL Club
Essendon
From 2019 - Origin of AFL players

Vic - 468 players, 10 clubs = 46ppc
WA - 119 players, 2 clubs = 59ppc
Qld - 41 players, 2 clubs = 20ppc
NSW/ACT - 46 players, 2 clubs = 23ppc
SA - 121 players, 2 clubs = 61ppc
Tas - 19 players, 0 clubs = :(
Other - 19 players, 0 clubs

The above suggests QLD/NSW should have strong incentives for drafting local players over interstaters, WA/SA don't need it, Tas still deserves a club (but numbers dropping alarmingly). Another generation (2040?) and we should see those numbers stabilise around the 40ppc across the league. (Adding in 3rd WA and SA teams too).

The problem seems to be that the 'northern' clubs are getting preferential access to elite talent, but are not selecting much depth of talent from their local areas.

Perhaps NSW/QLD teams can automatically list any player from their State not selected in the first round?
So much this. That's the problem. It's not even a big issue with the QLD clubs (except Gold Coast this year).
The big problem lies with the two Sydney clubs having disproportionate access to elite talent and giving away the scraps they don't want.

How does GWS who are already stacked with talent have exclusive access to Tom Green after playing in a grand final?
People are suddenly outraged by Bulldogs having access to JUH after playing finals, but GWS and Sydney have been doing that for years. Not only after playing finals, but also after grand finals.

They can continue having their academies, but any talent good enough to be selected in the first round should be accessible to anyone without the need to bid.
 

RUNVS

Hall of Famer
Feb 28, 2007
39,383
42,112
Sydney
AFL Club
Sydney
So much this. That's the problem. It's not even a big issue with the QLD clubs (except Gold Coast this year).
The big problem lies with the two Sydney clubs having disproportionate access to elite talent and giving away the scraps they don't want.

How does GWS who are already stacked with talent have exclusive access to Tom Green after playing in a grand final?
People are suddenly outraged by Bulldogs having access to JUH after playing finals, but GWS and Sydney have been doing that for years. Not only after playing finals, but also after grand finals.

They can continue having their academies, but any talent good enough to be selected in the first round should be accessible to anyone without the need to bid.
GWS lose good to great players almost every year at the trade table, mostly players wanting to go back home. Tom Green might be one of the few young players on their list that is reasonably safe from the go-home factor.
 

penga

Debutant
May 17, 2012
76
30
AFL Club
Sydney
That graph has too many variables to be of any use, but happy for you to explain to us what this graph is showing.
It shows what it shows in the title of it. The 4 Northern clubs have the lowest % of local drafted players staying in their home state. Your graph on the other just merely indicates player trades in general which has even more variables which are irrelevant to the main argument that is Northern states produce less talent and are therefore more likely have more player retention issues due to the "go home factor".
 

BloodySwan

Norm Smith Medallist
Oct 2, 2016
5,326
9,470
AFL Club
Sydney
From 2019 - Origin of AFL players

Vic - 468 players, 10 clubs = 46ppc
WA - 119 players, 2 clubs = 59ppc
Qld - 41 players, 2 clubs = 20ppc
NSW/ACT - 46 players, 2 clubs = 23ppc
SA - 121 players, 2 clubs = 61ppc
Tas - 19 players, 0 clubs = :(
Other - 19 players, 0 clubs

The above suggests QLD/NSW should have strong incentives for drafting local players over interstaters, WA/SA don't need it, Tas still deserves a club (but numbers dropping alarmingly). Another generation (2040?) and we should see those numbers stabilise around the 40ppc across the league. (Adding in 3rd WA and SA teams too).

The problem seems to be that the 'northern' clubs are getting preferential access to elite talent, but are not selecting much depth of talent from their local areas.

Perhaps NSW/QLD teams can automatically list any player from their State not selected in the first round?
The clubs would be very comfortable with that. The Swans even offered to leave the draft entirely and recruit exclusively from NSW. The AFL rejected this on the basis that the Swans would not be competitive enough

 

JayJ20

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 28, 2016
13,852
19,395
AFL Club
Essendon
GWS lose good to great players almost every year at the trade table, mostly players wanting to go back home. Tom Green might be one of the few young players on their list that is reasonably safe from the go-home factor.
They can focus on building a culture people want to stay in just like Brisbane did after the "go home 5" and Gold Coast are currently doing. I know Gold Coast received handouts, but they were in a different position to GWS. Maybe look at bringing in a coach that actually inspires his players. Giving them handouts like Tom Green on top of some of the best Vic/SA/WA talents they select in the national draft every year 'just because' is not the way to go.

They already get reasonably compensated on the trade table for the good-great players they lose. They don't need more top end talent as compensation. They've already created a revolving door of first rounders who want to leave because they don't get the opportunity to play. First rounders naturally expect to get an opportunity earlier because they are highly rated. If they don't get the opportunity, then why stay when another club can actually realise their potential?

We'll be having the same conversation when they cannot fit Bruhn into that midfield in two years, which is a wasting his development. Maybe players like Hately, Caldwell and Bruhn would stay if they received an opportunity to play in their preferred position, just like Coniglio, Whitfield, Toby Greene and Phil Davies did.
 

penga

Debutant
May 17, 2012
76
30
AFL Club
Sydney
Northern State disadvantages vs rest of comp:
- Higher living costs especially in housing (mainly Sydney)
- Less media and endorsement opportunities
- Significantly lower local talent production = more draftees want to go home
- Higher % of draftees e.g. Perkins preferring not to be picked up interstate
- No home GF (also for SA/WA clubs)
- More travel through regular season (also for SA/WA clubs)

Victorian disadvantages vs rest of comp:
- No "true" home games when facing other VIC clubs
- Players wanting to leave "the bubble" (quite clearly a lesser % than go home factor)

So how do you propose to balance that considering COLA has already been taken away? Northern academies are the only sort of equalizer, doubling as an incentive for the clubs to develop local talent (who may only join because they have a bigger chance to be drafted locally) and turn them to AFL ahead of other sports which is good for the game. A club being run well or creating a better culture to retain players is not a systemic equalization solution and is irrelevant to this argument IMO. The fact that you have to create a great culture to retain players from going home in the first place is a disadvantage (sure you can create one to retain good players in general but the additional factor will always be there for interstate clubs). NGAs further removed this equalization until the recent change. The only change that I could probably support is the reduced discount to match a high draft pick for Northern Academies.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

penga

Debutant
May 17, 2012
76
30
AFL Club
Sydney
From 2019 - Origin of AFL players

Vic - 468 players, 10 clubs = 46ppc
WA - 119 players, 2 clubs = 59ppc
Qld - 41 players, 2 clubs = 20ppc
NSW/ACT - 46 players, 2 clubs = 23ppc
SA - 121 players, 2 clubs = 61ppc
Tas - 19 players, 0 clubs = :(
Other - 19 players, 0 clubs

The above suggests QLD/NSW should have strong incentives for drafting local players over interstaters, WA/SA don't need it, Tas still deserves a club (but numbers dropping alarmingly). Another generation (2040?) and we should see those numbers stabilise around the 40ppc across the league. (Adding in 3rd WA and SA teams too).

The problem seems to be that the 'northern' clubs are getting preferential access to elite talent, but are not selecting much depth of talent from their local areas.

Perhaps NSW/QLD teams can automatically list any player from their State not selected in the first round?
I get your point...but there is maybe one 1st round talent per draft from NSW - still lucky to have that as QLD haven't developed such talents yet but it is reward for effort put into the academies. Anyway that means either GWS/Sydney would have 1 chance between them to draft a local 1st rounder who they helped developed where as 10 Victorian clubs will have probs 10+ chances to draft a local first rounder who they mostly likely didn't even help develop - make that 0 if another club did decide to take that NSW boy like Hawks bid intended. So whoever GWS/Sydney/Bris/GC draft always has a higher go home factor than VIC clubs by default unless they also choose take the risk of drafting interstate as well (usually less of a problem for SA/WA players as they are more mentally prepared to be away as backed up by the stats). Also what if there are no high end academy products available that year, should they just spend the picks on a talent pool of about 2 players because they're local?

If Northern clubs used most of their picks to match the bid for a high end local draftee and there is no local within the talent level they rate at their available picks then it makes sense not to pick the scraps left from their local area. How many NSW and QLD boys got drafted this year? Less than 5? If Campbell was snapped up by the Hawks which other NSW boy would the Swans or GWS take in the draft besides Gulden? Did another interstate club pick a NSW boy in the draft? Why would you handicap yourself to a talent pool that is rated lower than the actual 60 odd draftees lol? The main difference is a VIC club can pick up a VIC player at nearly any range of the draft and spread the risk at whatever point they choose.

It's also probably more worth the risk for a Northern club to draft interstate players from the lower end of the draft if you think they are higher level than local talent as they might be grateful just to get an AFL chance and the chances of a lower end draft pick making it to the 1st team in general is lower. So makes little sense to draft a player ranked 70 over one ranked 50 for example - would only make sense if they were rated closer like say Thiltorpe vs Mcdonald for Crows.
 
Last edited:

Red Black and Blue

Brownlow Medallist
Oct 1, 2006
21,478
12,926
Melbourne
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Everton, Storm, Victory
If that was the case then only Gcs and GWS should have academies and no other clubs.

The FS is another rule in itself which needs changing to have consistent and a uniform approach.

The fact the WA clubs eligibility is at 150 games; SA clubs at 200; others at 100; just makes a mockery of another system which breeds inequality across the league.

I would be more than happy to remove academies and instead set FS eligibility at 100 games across the country and only keep the GWS and GC academies for 15-20 years until they start being eligible for some FS picks.
No other clubs should have them. The only reason they do is because the academies produce talent far more often than father sons do.

F/S should be 100 games across the comp, except for unaffiliated SNAFL and WAFL teams used to cover the gap. It’s been 23 years now. Long enough for it to be pure afl affiliated talent. You’ve had the most father sons in the competition in the last two years and set to get Tex next year.

It’s easy to fix the balance with academy picks. Just put a two first round a decade limit on it that can be taken at any time and is more representative of father son prevalence.
 

BloodySwan

Norm Smith Medallist
Oct 2, 2016
5,326
9,470
AFL Club
Sydney
No other clubs should have them. The only reason they do is because the academies produce talent far more often than father sons do.

F/S should be 100 games across the comp, except for unaffiliated SNAFL and WAFL teams used to cover the gap. It’s been 23 years now. Long enough for it to be pure afl affiliated talent. You’ve had the most father sons in the competition in the last two years and set to get Tex next year.

It’s easy to fix the balance with academy picks. Just put a two first round a decade limit on it that can be taken at any time and is more representative of father son prevalence.
So the issue is the academies work? The club's who spend years developing top end talent miss out on them because they succeeded in their goal?!?

The academies are not a problem, they're a solution to a problem
 

Suma Magic

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 22, 2009
23,298
25,372
AFL Club
West Coast
Sydney and gws still get a cola of sorts. Each player earning under $300k gets $15,000 a year to help with the cost of living. $300 towards weekly rent is nothing to sneeze at.

So that’s maybe $400k a year across the team?
 

Suma Magic

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 22, 2009
23,298
25,372
AFL Club
West Coast
Academies are great, it’s just a problem when clubs routinely get 30-40% discounts on players. I think from memory the discount for mills was around 50%.

That’s made up of the 20% discount and the indirect discount clubs can get from trading picks for lower draft picks of greater value.

I think a discount closer to 10% is as high as you can go. Doing that would ensure that support for the academies is sustainable.
 

Red Black and Blue

Brownlow Medallist
Oct 1, 2006
21,478
12,926
Melbourne
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Everton, Storm, Victory
So the issue is the academies work? The club's who spend years developing top end talent miss out on them because they succeeded in their goal?!?

The academies are not a problem, they're a solution to a problem
Before you needed them, you made 6 grand finals in 11 seasons. The problem didn’t exist.
 

Simon_Nesbit

Brownlow Medallist
Sep 26, 2001
11,021
6,394
Tasmania
AFL Club
Hawthorn
I get your point...but there is maybe one 1st round talent per draft from NSW - still lucky to have that as QLD haven't developed such talents yet but it is reward for effort put into the academies. Anyway that means either GWS/Sydney would have 1 chance between them to draft a local 1st rounder who they helped developed where as 10 Victorian clubs will have probs 10+ chances to draft a local first rounder who they mostly likely didn't even help develop - make that 0 if another club did decide to take that NSW boy like Hawks bid intended. So whoever GWS/Sydney/Bris/GC draft always has a higher go home factor than VIC clubs by default unless they also choose take the risk of drafting interstate as well (usually less of a problem for SA/WA players as they are more mentally prepared to be away as backed up by the stats). Also what if there are no high end academy products available that year, should they just spend the picks on a talent pool of about 2 players because they're local?

If Northern clubs used most of their picks to match the bid for a high end local draftee and there is no local within the talent level they rate at their available picks then it makes sense not to pick the scraps left from their local area. How many NSW and QLD boys got drafted this year? Less than 5? If Campbell was snapped up by the Hawks which other NSW boy would the Swans or GWS take in the draft besides Gulden? Did another interstate club pick a NSW boy in the draft? Why would you handicap yourself to a talent pool that is rated lower than the actual 60 odd draftees lol? The main difference is a VIC club can pick up a VIC player at nearly any range of the draft and spread the risk at whatever point they choose.

It's also probably more worth the risk for a Northern club to draft interstate players from the lower end of the draft if you think they are higher level than local talent as they might be grateful just to get an AFL chance and the chances of a lower end draft pick making it to the 1st team in general is lower. So makes little sense to draft a player ranked 70 over one ranked 50 for example - would only make sense if they were rated closer like say Thiltorpe vs Mcdonald for Crows.
Perhaps I wasn't clear. I didn't mean the NSW/QLD clubs could ONLY pick local players - just that they would have essentially unlimited access to them (say after the 2nd round prior to which they have bid matching rights like now).

Ie, all clubs would have two chances to bid on a FS/Academy player (using their 1st or 2nd pick) - which the NSW/QLD sides could match under the current bidding process.

After the end of the 2nd round, (and before the rest) the NSW/QLD clubs could then 'pre-list' anyone from their catchment area - no points or picks lost. (Old fashioned Zone selection as rookies). Same could be true for FS and NGA at this point too.

I'd have no issue with the Swans having an expanded rookie list of say 10 NSW players that weren't good enough to get drafted in the top 40 of their draft year.

Worst case - 10 blokes that were likely not going to get drafted get 1-2 years in a professional system, make decent coin and go back and play in their respective local leagues, bringing a new level of experience, coaching and expectation - lifting the overall standard.
 

JayJ20

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 28, 2016
13,852
19,395
AFL Club
Essendon
So the issue is the academies work? The club's who spend years developing top end talent miss out on them because they succeeded in their goal?!?

The academies are not a problem, they're a solution to a problem
So are you fine with Bulldogs getting JUH while competing for finals? Geelong and Bulldogs helped develop him so Bulldogs should have access right? Because they succeeded in their goal?

With the NGA changes introduced next year, Victorian teams developing players through their academy will no longer be able to match bids should the bid come in the first round. So that's fine for Victorians but not Northern academies?

Give me a spell. Any team can develop talented players if given the same catchment area as the Northern clubs. Let's not pretend the northern teams are doing anything special with these players.
 

BloodySwan

Norm Smith Medallist
Oct 2, 2016
5,326
9,470
AFL Club
Sydney
So are you fine with Bulldogs getting JUH while competing for finals? Geelong and Bulldogs helped develop him so Bulldogs should have access right? Because they succeeded in their goal?

With the NGA changes introduced next year, Victorian teams developing players through their academy will no longer be able to match bids should the bid come in the first round. So that's fine for Victorians but not Northern academies?

Give me a spell. Any team can develop talented players if given the same catchment area as the Northern clubs. Let's not pretend the northern teams are doing anything special with these players.
Yes I'm all for the NGAs and think the fix is to have clubs more involved in the players development. If a club puts in time and money they should get priority to those players
 

JayJ20

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 28, 2016
13,852
19,395
AFL Club
Essendon
And since they've been introduced its just been a wave of dominance from the NSW & QLD clubs. No one can beat them due to their unfair advantage of local talent
Or maybe Sydney reached the end of a 22 year period (from 1996-2018) where they missed finals only three times (2000, 2002 and 2009).

But of course when they miss finals, they can replenish their side very quickly by stocking up on top end talent under the guise of an academy without trading players out to get those high picks.
 

JayJ20

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 28, 2016
13,852
19,395
AFL Club
Essendon
Yes I'm all for the NGAs and think the fix is to have clubs more involved in the players development. If a club puts in time and money they should get priority to those players
So you think the AFL's introduced rule change regarding the NGA is unfair towards Victorian clubs then?

I think it's common sense for someone playing finals not to receive the number one pick. It defeats the purpose of the draft.
Same thing with Northern academies. Playing a grand final and picking a top 3 player in the draft isn't great. Any player bid on in the first round should be untouchable. I'd let the expansion clubs slide only because they don't have access to father-sons, but sides like Brisbane and Sydney shouldn't be receiving exclusive access to top 5 talent.
 

Remove this Banner Ad