Is it too hard / take too long to rebuild in the AFL? (compared to other sports, or not)

[Luv_our_club]

Basketball, NBA, soccer etc have less positions to fill to field a competitive team.

And most other sports also recruit ready made mature age players.

Should the current AFL system change for the benefit of every club so rebuilds are not 5-8 year projects.

And are we now suffering the legacy of tanking teams.

 

[Football Tragic]

No its not. It only takes too long if you continue to try and draft and trade your way to success. You just need to develop your youth, support your coach to evolve and create a game plan that suits your list rather than what is successful for other teams.

In other sports players move teams depending on who will pay them the most money. There is no club loyalty. Teams in other sports appear to bounce back so quickly because they can just go out and buy a whole new list. In the AFL it is much more difficult to do that. In other sports its difficult to become attached to any player because they'll probably be out the door the next year. While that might win you the title for a year, I'd rather see a team develop together and win for the club they fought for during the good times and bad.

Developing a list and recycling players is how you stay in contention. Geelong is a prime example. They have played finals for years now without dropping down. I think its a balancing act. The idea of rebuilding causes too much pain. Richmond had to suffer for decades to begin to play finals where they could have achieved the same with careful management of their youth.

For me its about development. Developing the talent you bring through the gates. Teaching them a clear game plan. Indoctrinating them into a strong team first club culture. If you do this, you end up with an embarrassment of riches and depth to cover injuries and changes in rules. Sydney is a great example of a strong culture first club - they dropped down for a relatively small amount of time and now they are springing back up. They didn't get rid of all their senior players, they just developed beneath them.

 

[Engimal v3]

Nah, anything can happen. In 2016 Richmond had just been knocked out of week 1 finals by an average North side, and Dimma was a joke. The next year they were premiers. West Coast finished dead last in 2010, and finished top 4 in 2011. When people say shit like "Team X won't be competing in finals for Y years" you just have to roll your eyes a bit. No one really has a clue.

 

[Mofra]

Very few other sports have the equalisation measures that the AFL has, so I'll say no.

 

[faible]

No its not. It only takes too long if you continue to try and draft and trade your way to success. You just need to develop your youth, support your coach to evolve and create a game plan that suits your list rather than what is successful for other teams.

In other sports players move teams depending on who will pay them the most money. There is no club loyalty. Teams in other sports appear to bounce back so quickly because they can just go out and buy a whole new list. In the AFL it is much more difficult to do that. In other sports its difficult to become attached to any player because they'll probably be out the door the next year. While that might win you the title for a year, I'd rather see a team develop together and win for the club they fought for during the good times and bad.

Developing a list and recycling players is how you stay in contention. Geelong is a prime example. They have played finals for years now without dropping down. I think its a balancing act. The idea of rebuilding causes too much pain. Richmond had to suffer for decades to begin to play finals where they could have achieved the same with careful management of their youth.

For me its about development. Developing the talent you bring through the gates. Teaching them a clear game plan. Indoctrinating them into a strong team first club culture. If you do this, you end up with an embarrassment of riches and depth to cover injuries and changes in rules. Sydney is a great example of a strong culture first club - they dropped down for a relatively small amount of time and now they are springing back up. They didn't get rid of all their senior players, they just developed beneath them.

The common thread is that all the clubs to have done it have their house in order off-field, so that they can effectively develop players. Sydney has been solid for a while, but a good 2020 draft and the addition of Don Pyke to their coaching panel seems to have revitalised them, Richmond had massive club-wide buy-in to start 2017 that they didn't have previously, Geelong has been well run (and fortunate with Dangerfield), Hawthorn has fallen away now but the players still clearly play for and respect Clarkson. Brisbane has got their coaching staff right and drafted players that weren't from Melbourne to try to help keep them there.

 

[Nostradumbass]

Nah, anything can happen. In 2016 Richmond had just been knocked out of week 1 finals by an average North side, and Dimma was a joke. The next year they were premiers. West Coast finished dead last in 2010, and finished top 4 in 2011. When people say sh*t like "Team X won't be competing in finals for Y years" you just have to roll your eyes a bit. No one really has a clue.

We didn't even make the finals in 16, we finished 13th and lost our last game by over 100 points.

 

[Engimal v3]

We didn't even make the finals in 16, we finished 13th and lost our last game by over 100 points.

Yep, was thinking of 2015. From missing finals with a dud coach, to the first of 3 flags within a year.

That's why I don't take it heart when the BigFooty experts make predictions about North's rebuild lol

 

[Power Raid]

yes during the expansion years but no ordinarily

 

[sydney_gws]

yes during the expansion years but no ordinarily

The problem is players are drafted so young, but that means you stay up for longer when you are up ( e.g. it is possible to finish say 18th, 17th, 16th,15th in successive year but the next year you have pick1,19 who are 4th years, picks 2,20 who are 3rd years, picks 3,21 in second year.You should then be able to improve a fair bit, compare 2006 hawthorn to 2008 hawthorn, 2005 Collingwood yo 2007 Collingwood as examples).

 

[Taper]

Gold Coast have been rebuilding for years.
GWS have already gone past them after having to rebuild following Richmond destroying them in the grand final.
Sydney rebuilt pretty quickly after 2018 as they bounced back and made a grand final in 2022.

I don't think it should take too long to rebuild in this day and age.

 

[Blue1980]

Gold Coast have been rebuilding for years.
GWS have already gone past them after having to rebuild following Richmond destroying them in the grand final.
Sydney rebuilt pretty quickly after 2018 as they bounced back and made a grand final in 2022.

I don't think it should take too long to rebuild in this day and age.

GWS kept getting good picks the whole way through, and still have a core of gun experienced players. They have just had to regenerate a bit and get the younger ones to get a bit more consistent to compliment the existing experienced core, a bit like the pies now.

I could see Giants challenging for a flag for the next few years.

GC have never had as many gun experienced players as GWS, at the same time I don’t think they are that far off.

About rebuilding taking a long time though you are correct. If a side falls away badly (like we did, Melbourne did, WC currently, north currently) it can mean 8 years plus in the wilderness.

I think it’s more extreme now than 15-20 years ago due to a few factors: free agency, players getting to their destination club easier than in the past (ability to use future year picks to trade adds to this) and generally the best players playing longer into their 30s (especially if they are at a successful side).

 

[The 747]

Errrrrr

 

[Freomaniac]

Yep, was thinking of 2015. From missing finals with a dud coach, to the first of 3 flags within a year.

That's why I don't take it heart when the BigFooty experts make predictions about North's rebuild lol

You noticed why I don't kick North Melbourne when they have been down? LoL.

Because some of your fellow North Melbourne mates on here will unleash their uncontrollable fury and vengeance on the main board and bay 13 LoL.

 

[Borussia Teeth]

NO.

 

[kreuze_missile]

Very few other sports have the equalisation measures that the AFL has, so I'll say no.

This is the only answer.

If the AFL didn't have equalisation smaller clubs would be stuck on the bottom of the ladder indefinitely.

 

[Taper]

This is the only answer.

If the AFL didn't have equalisation smaller clubs would be stuck on the bottom of the ladder indefinitely.

Do you think North could be stuck on the bottom indefinitely?
12 wins from 92 games and no light at the end of the tunnel.

 

[Freomaniac]

Errrrrr

I know

 

[PerthBoy86]

Well the pundits said we'd be in the wilderness for many years, maybe a 10 year rebuild...we shall see..

 

[Bunk Moreland]

Biggest issue is the draft. You are drafting actual children in a sport where most don’t mature until their early-mid 20s, at the earliest.

Therefore the draft, even at the pointy end, is a crapshoot.

As a rebuilding tool it’s an incredibly blunt instrument as (a) the players you’re getting won’t make a difference for many years, and (b) plenty won’t make it at all - you just don’t have the exposed form to judge them properly, so many picks are wasted.

Yet the answer to any rebuild or assistance package is “draft picks!”

Increasing the draft age to 19 (then to 20) would be a hugely beneficial move across the board, not least to struggling clubs who can actually nail their picks and get an instant return for them, rather than taking a chance then waiting years to see if it pay off.

It’s a complete no-brainer.

 

[Anja_Nees]

Well the pundits said we'd be in the wilderness for many years, maybe a 10 year rebuild...we shall see..

I see this kind of thing all the time. Plenty of clubs get stuck in the wilderness a long time but it should never take 10 years to rebuild.

You should always have a few ok kids and some mid aged players on your list, and draftees should start to hit their straps after, say, five years.

Then you have free agency and mature state league recruits.

The traditional gut and start from scratch approach doesn’t work and hasn’t for a long time. It made sense when there were so many limits on trading and drafting and priority picks etc. Now clubs can address deficiencies quick.

The clubs that have gone on a hard ‘play the kids policy’ in recent years seem to have found themselves moored to the bottom of the ladder.

 

[Freomaniac]

Well the pundits said we'd be in the wilderness for many years, maybe a 10 year rebuild...we shall see..

Well I sat through freos 6 year rebuild

 

[Saab NLAW]

yes during the expansion years but no ordinarily

And since then with elite talent taken through recruiting zones that some clubs have access to

 

[Kobe Gryant]

Biggest issue is the draft. You are drafting actual children in a sport where most don’t mature until their early-mid 20s, at the earliest.

Therefore the draft, even at the pointy end, is a crapshoot.

As a rebuilding tool it’s an incredibly blunt instrument as (a) the players you’re getting won’t make a difference for many years, and (b) plenty won’t make it at all - you just don’t have the exposed form to judge them properly, so many picks are wasted.

Yet the answer to any rebuild or assistance package is “draft picks!”

Increasing the draft age to 19 (then to 20) would be a hugely beneficial move across the board, not least to struggling clubs who can actually nail their picks and get an instant return for them, rather than taking a chance then waiting years to see if it pay off.

It’s a complete no-brainer.

You're right, but we're hardly alone.

League & Union are the same. Unless you're a freak, you're not going to be the key piece of a successful side until you're 23/23+.

Basketball & to a lesser degree Soccer, likewise, as again you're playing straight out of high school or one year of University/College.

The only real outlier is the NFL in terms of a large percentage of players dominating from year one...and they're the only ones who have the age cap due to the college system.

You're getting players who are at minimum 21, and more often than not 23-24.

As you mention, it's a huge difference...but we're not dissimilar to any of the other huge sporting codes

 

[nahnah]

Nope, one team is just to doing a particularly bad job of it

 

[skinnyP]

Rebuilds do not exist.