NGA - A complete rort

[Isaac Cumming No 1]

A couple of years ago, Josh Dunkley, eligible as a Sydney FS, spend a lot of time at Richmond rehabbing from injury, training and even played a few VFL games. Why? Because he needed the rehab help and lived in Melbourne, so Richmond did Sydney a favor and for the good of the game.

Clubs do do such things. History, tradition, camaraderie...These things do matter, even in a competition.

Yes, in the end, WB bid on him and Sydney passed, but the point remains. AFL clubs (in Vic anyway), do a lot of things to help kids along, usually with little or no real benefit to them.

Suggest it's much more likely the Tigers wanted a good look at him. It's irrelevant any. The Swans academy always knew Blakey could nominate as a father son if he chose.

Our academy usually nominates twice as many players to the draft as we bid on. This year was thin and we nominated 5, took one and the Hawks took one. Walker is a win for the academy as he's made an AFL list.
We definitely use the academy to our advantage but it's stated aim of developing AFL players isn't a lie. So far it's 16 afl debutants and 5 of them for other clubs.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

thats what happens when you try to set up back door ways to help teams get free talent. I do note that while the article does try to bash non nsw/qld teams, it makes no mention of how sydney and gws (mostly gws) were originally given access to afl heartland talent in the same way.

if the afl want to develop talent in qld and nsw then they should set up their own training academies, instead of essentially trying to bribe the local teams to do it and unbalancing the competition as a result.

Exactly - the issue isn't northern vs NG academies, the issue is zoning vs San uncompromised draft. The AFL can set up academies to help.kids from areas/backgrounds that struggle with elite pathways to the draft/AFL, these do not have to be and should not be linked to particular clubs giving them priority pick access to kids some of whom would have been drafed regardless.

Making these compromises in the draft system makes a farce if the competition and yeah I'm happy to include father sons in that. It's nice to have it but it's a relic of an amateur competition that shouldn't be in place in a professional national competition.

The fact the AFL considers kids with one parent born overseas (is there an age restriction on this? Some people come here as infants and live their whole lives as Aussies, does that count?) as not having access to junior footy/elite pathways shows how far off the pulse of modern Australia they really are.

The AFL created a problem with northern academies and instead of rectifying that problem they exacerbated it by expanding these draft compromises across the entire league. Classic AFL.

 

[JackFlash]

Perfectly sound article by the "claw"....

 

[SSSSSS]

The Hawks spent millions on developing Irving Mosquito and we just stole him. #rort

Just you wait. He's our multi-million dollar sleeper agent designed to destroy you from the inside as part of Operation Delicious.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Why does it matter if his parents are Vietnamese? Australia has 1/3 of the population born overseas, there are a lot of migrant groups.

If a Footscray born but 2nd generation Australian is a top junior they will end up at the Western Jets. That pathway exists. If he grows up supporting the Dogs then great but players grow up supporting clubs, nominate for the draft and miss out on playing for the team they support most of the time.

The point of any academy should be to create a pathway where there isn't one or get players pathways that otherwise wouldn't or couldn't. You could go to a junior club in Footscray in an area that is full of Vietnamese families and find 0 Vietnamese players. If the Bulldogs presence in the community encourages Vietnamese kiddies to play and then one becomes a TAC Cup star then you could mount a case that the club contributed to getting him into the AFL system, but clubs are active in the community all the time with the purpose of getting kids to play and support the game.

We just got Jarrod Cameron because he is indigenous and from the Pilbara. His brother plays in the AFL, we didn't hand him a footy for the first time like some visiting foreign dignitary. He was playing for Swan Districts, that pathway from the country zones to the WAFL Colts already exists. If you completely remove West Coast from the equation then he probably grows up playing footy, is offered a place at Swans and gets drafted. Yet he's an NGA selection for us. It's a farce.

But that's my argument. That the academies, both northern and multicultural, are about more than just development pathways and are tied into the marketing/promotion of the sport and the clubs.

The AFL wants kids up north having access to pathways. But they also want to saturate the states with branding for the four clubs, and have kids feel "part" of the club and have the clubs associated with all levels of footy and junior footy in the state. It's why, in addition to the academies in themselves, if you go to a state high school in NSW and your school is one of the few that puts together a footy team, you're playing for the "Swans Cup" or the "Giants Cup".

That's also true with the NGA academies. For the same reason that we have a multicultural round and multicultural ambassadors to appeal to Australia's recent migrant population, an element of these academies is part of a marketing strategy. It is a lot easier to market the club of Western Bulldogs to the Footscray Vietnamese community if a player from that community plays for the Western Bulldogs, even at the cost of undermining the "pure" purpose of the draft to some extent to make that happen. It would be kind of silly to invest in wanting this community to support the Dogs and all of the Dogs' community work to be undone, should that player get drafted to another Melbourne club and swathes of that community stop supporting the Dogs in spite of all their previous work. It's not just about making it easier for this Vietnamese kid who might play in a team with no other Vietnamese players (the development angle, although it is a part of it), its to also be part of the AFL's multicultural marketing strategy.

 

[Isaac Cumming No 1]

But that's my argument. That the academies, both northern and multicultural, are about more than just development pathways and are tied into the marketing/promotion of the sport and the clubs.

The AFL wants kids up north having access to pathways. But they also want to saturate the states with branding for the four clubs, and have kids feel "part" of the club and have the clubs associated with all levels of footy and junior footy in the state. It's why, in addition to the academies in themselves, if you go to a state high school in NSW and your school is one of the few that puts together a footy team, you're playing for the "Swans Cup" or the "Giants Cup".

That's also true with the NGA academies. For the same reason that we have a multicultural round and multicultural ambassadors to appeal to Australia's recent migrant population, an element of these academies is part of a marketing strategy. It is a lot easier to market the club of Western Bulldogs to the Footscray Vietnamese community if a player from that community plays for the Western Bulldogs, even at the cost of undermining the "pure" purpose of the draft to some extent to make that happen. It would be kind of silly to invest in wanting this community to support the Dogs and all of the Dogs' community work to be undone, should that player get drafted to another Melbourne club and swathes of that community stop supporting the Dogs in spite of all their previous work. It's not just about making it easier for this Vietnamese kid who might play in a team with no other Vietnamese players (the development angle, although it is a part of it), its to also be part of the AFL's multicultural marketing strategy.

Pffft

Amateurs, we're way ahead of you

https://www.google.com.au/maps/uv?h...yksRH7Qw3p6wCEI673p9DFkVdu7wi&viewerState=ga#

The naughty corner at each centre is red and white themed I believe.

 

[Alphonse_]

You can argue that North paid (slight) overs for Taryn Thomas, so i don't really see the problem here.

 

[Tom14]

As with all of these threads there is incredible ignorance about the realities of AFL in NSW/QLD.

While the swans and more recently the giants have been successful, that doesn't translate to the development pathways/pool of talent improving significantly - to the extent that it has, I think the academies have had a really big impact on that. People also get annoyed at Sydney because they have been successful, which doesn't change the fundamental facts and is mainly just jealousy/refusal to admit that footy exists outside of the Melbourne city limits.

For Brisbane, the Academies have helped build the pool of talent and increase the proportion of home grown players to help mitigate the nearly yearly loss of 1st-4th year players back to their home state. That trend has been consistent since the merger too, so even when we were successful and winning premierships we still lost players. A supporters group did an analysis of this back in 2014 that really highlights these issues (though I admit it is not the most up to date): http://thelionsroar.net/the-lions-roar/2014/6/23/brisbane-the-afls-forgotten-frontier. The academy will hopefully help correct this issue in the long run.

Even with the academy Brisbane and Gold Coast have had exactly two first round academy players - Hipwood in 2015 and Bowes in 2016. Harris Andrews received a second round bid under the old system in 2014, so he was picked up very cheaply, but other than those three no academy player has managed to get consistent games in two clubs that have been very very bad in that period.

The Riverina zone was questionable, though not as bad as people make out, and the rest of the concerns expressed basically boil down to people not wanting Sydney/GWS to be successful. Growing the game isn't just a short-term objective though, and the academies for those two are necessary to build up the local talent base so that Sydney/SE QLD can support two AFL teams. There certainly isn't enough to support two Qld teams at the moment!

 

[Scotland]

The Riverina zone was questionable, though not as bad as people make out, and the rest of the concerns expressed basically boil down to people not wanting Sydney/GWS to be successful. Growing the game isn't just a short-term objective though, and the academies for those two are necessary to build up the local talent base so that Sydney/SE QLD can support two AFL teams. There certainly isn't enough to support two Qld teams at the moment!

Horseshit. Brisbane won 3 flags, Sydney 2. GC & GWS are AFL projects that were given very generous start up concessions and have been given more AFL support than any other team could dream of. People are just sick of the endless victim act. You can have all the draft picks and all the money in the world and it is no guarantee of anything, just ask Melbourne and Carlton of the 2000s and 2010s.

How many Victorian players do the Storm/Rebels have? What are the make up of the NBL and A-League teams? How many Queenslanders are there in the NRL with 3 teams out of 16?

We get it, the depth of talent in NSW/Qld isn't what it is in WA, SA and Vic. It's been repeated about 1,000 times and measures to improve it are supported my the majority of people. But let's be realistic, the Northern clubs wouldn't contribute to academy programs if there wasn't a clear advantage in it for them.

 

[Raineman]

It shows a lack of understanding of the NGA. Anyone saying that West Coast didn't teach Jarrod Cameron how to play football and that they/we were only able to pick him up because he was in the right 'zone" is naïve. Jarrod Cameron has spent one day a week every week this year training with the Eagles under the guidance of Drew Petrie. Potential AFL players are identified through training and development camps and programs. Then they are invited to attend further development with clubs where they learn about what it takes to become an elite athlete through all facets including diet, training, sleep, study. It's not just a matter of he's in our zone we can pick him.

 

[Daniltchenko You Beauty]

Make the academies AFL-controlled, then players are available to all clubs. Problem solved.

 

[Ancient Tiger]

The NGA is a good idea. It's how it's implemented that is the problem. Isaac Quaynor has played footy since he was three and played for a TAC cup side. Just because his dad was born in Ghana should not mean he is eligible as an NGA member.

 

[sr36]

The NGA is a good idea. It's how it's implemented that is the problem. Isaac Quaynor has played footy since he was three and played for a TAC cup side. Just because his dad was born in Ghana should not mean he is eligible as an NGA member.

There is a lot of criticism about the eligibility rules, but has anyone suggested any better eligibility rules.

 

[Scotland]

There is a lot of criticism about the eligibility rules, but has anyone suggested any better eligibility rules.

If they want to go down the multicultural path then it really should be limited to kids who take up the game late.

If you're born in Australia and take up Auskick the pathway to the top is the same whether you look like Majak Daw or Bernie Vince.

 

[Great8]

As happy as I would be to snare Lachlan Johnson away from Brisbane I don’t agree with the current set up

 

[Scotland]

You can argue that North paid (slight) overs for Taryn Thomas, so i don't really see the problem here.

How would you argue that?

Thomas went at "pick 8". North got him for picks in the 20s. No way Adelaide would have taken what North gave up in points for pick 8. The whole criticism of the academy bidding system is that clubs get players for less than others value them.

 

[76woodenspooners]

They also get all of NT, Tasmania.

So instead they give us a remote corner of WA and call it fair.

Collingwood’s region in NT has a total population of around 8500. Not a huge pool to draw upon. But it’s been great for the club (great experience for players and coaches to get out into the bush) and great for the community (meeting idols, getting coaching clinics by AFL coaches, getting equipment). It looks like it’s a pretty good development program.

 

[76woodenspooners]

Surely the obvious solution to this whole issue is that the AFL itself should be investing in the development pathways, and the kids in remote areas or from vulnerable backgrounds, and then have them enter an uncompromised draft. I know it’s beyond the AFL to actually execute anything properly itself but that doesn't mean it’s acceptable for the AFL to abdicate responsibilities to the clubs and compromise the draft.

The clubs do a much better job of it than the AFL ever could.

Ask a bunch of kids from an outback school - would they rather get a visit from a few AFL players, or a visit from a few AFL bureaucrats?

 

[76woodenspooners]

What happened to all clubs having equal access to all Australian draft talent? These complex academy/bidding/matching systems are just messing up and compromising the whole point of the draft, which is equalisation. It's a complete mess.

The AFL is (not unreasonably) more interested in expanding the game and being the dominant code, than they are about equalisation.

The number of folks from an Asian heritage playing AFL / AFLW is not at all representative of the wider Australian population - why not create opportunities for folks of an Asian heritage (which the academies strive to do) to get opportunities to get into AFL? The clubs would do a better job of it than the AFL ever could, but they need to be incentivised.

Ditto folks of African heritage.

The indigenous players are a different thing (indigenous folks are over-reprentated in the AFL) but the practice of supporting indigenous talent is in line with general social standards.

Not sure why there is so much hangup on the ‘equalisation’ thing. As long as there are the same number of players on the field and on the bench for both teams, and the goals at either end are the same width apart, why is it so important to have any more equalisation than that?

It doesn’t matter how much the AFL interferes with the competition to strive for ‘equalisation’ - there will always be teams that are consistently successful and teams that are consistently unsuccessful.

 

[Tom14]

Horseshit. Brisbane won 3 flags, Sydney 2. GC & GWS are AFL projects that were given very generous start up concessions and have been given more AFL support than any other team could dream of. People are just sick of the endless victim act. You can have all the draft picks and all the money in the world and it is no guarantee of anything, just ask Melbourne and Carlton of the 2000s and 2010s.

How many Victorian players do the Storm/Rebels have? What are the make up of the NBL and A-League teams? How many Queenslanders are there in the NRL with 3 teams out of 16?

We get it, the depth of talent in NSW/Qld isn't what it is in WA, SA and Vic. It's been repeated about 1,000 times and measures to improve it are supported my the majority of people. But let's be realistic, the Northern clubs wouldn't contribute to academy programs if there wasn't a clear advantage in it for them.

Of course they wouldn't. My very obvious point is that the advantage they get helps overcome other disadvantages lol - that's literally what my post says. The point is that other measures to improve the talent base (including ones where the AFL runs development) haven't worked and wouldn't be as good at building up the talent base and that small advantage out of the academy is justified.

If you want to whinge about concessions/victim mentality then you should have a big problem with the AFL as a whole - from the fixture, to the draft there are efforts to equalise things and try get relatively even competition. If the AFL wants to be a national competition and get the extra tv money for having QLD/NSW teams then there needs to be a recognition of the unique challenges teams in those states face.

But as a West Coast fan I don't expect you to agree as you are by far the biggest non-victorian team so of course attempts to equalise the competition represents a 'victim mentality'.

 

[Isaac Cumming No 1]

The AFL is (not unreasonably) more interested in expanding the game and being the dominant code, than they are about equalisation.

The number of folks from an Asian heritage playing AFL / AFLW is not at all representative of the wider Australian population - why not create opportunities for folks of an Asian heritage (which the academies strive to do) to get opportunities to get into AFL? The clubs would do a better job of it than the AFL ever could, but they need to be incentivised.

Ditto folks of African heritage.

The indigenous players are a different thing (indigenous folks are over-reprentated in the AFL) but the practice of supporting indigenous talent is in line with general social standards.

Not sure why there is so much hangup on the ‘equalisation’ thing. As long as there are the same number of players on the field and on the bench for both teams, and the goals at either end are the same width apart, why is it so important to have any more equalisation than that?

It doesn’t matter how much the AFL interferes with the competition to strive for ‘equalisation’ - there will always be teams that are consistently successful and teams that are consistently unsuccessful.

I agree with your post. I dont believe people look at the good academies do for the game, and some of the bitching is petty.


People will say this tweet is just marketing bullshit but it's not entirely. There is kind of a degree of separation between the club and the academy. Saddington has done his job and got Walker onto an AFL list for example.

I'm just a bit suspicious of a supporter of a big powerful club wanting less restrictions though.

 

[Scotland]

Of course they wouldn't. My very obvious point is that the advantage they get helps overcome other disadvantages lol - that's literally what my post says. The point is that other measures to improve the talent base (including ones where the AFL runs development) haven't worked and wouldn't be as good at building up the talent base and that small advantage out of the academy is justified.

All teams face relative advantages and disadvantages. We have to travel 3,000 km and back every other week. And the AFL does what about that exactly? Filed firmly under 'deal with it'.

'The past system didn't work' isn't a particularly good argument for 'our advantage is justified'. Would the academy system suddenly stop producing AFL standard players if all graduates were required to just enter the draft like everyone else? I doubt it.

If you want to whinge about concessions/victim mentality then you should have a big problem with the AFL as a whole - from the fixture, to the draft there are efforts to equalise things and try get relatively even competition. If the AFL wants to be a national competition and get the extra tv money for having QLD/NSW teams then there needs to be a recognition of the unique challenges teams in those states face.

I do. The fixture is a joke, and the draft becomes more of a joke each year. The salary cap is a joke, too.

If the AFL wants to be a national competition there needs to be a recognition of the unique challenges all teams face.

But as a West Coast fan I don't expect you to agree as you are by far the biggest non-victorian team so of course attempts to equalise the competition represents a 'victim mentality'.

LOL.

'As a West Coast fan...', OK. Well as a West Coast fan I'm aware that with an unrestricted comp my team would end up like Manchester City or PSG and just buy up talent, leading to a one sided and inevitably smaller competition. I support a draft system even though it means great WA players end up interstate and we can't just sign any gun 18 year in the country because we want to. I support a salary cap even though it means revenue my club generates can't be reinvested back into signing players.

Life isn't fair. Brisbane aren't in the same boat as my team but then which teams are? Try telling a Western Bulldogs fan that WC and WB are pretty much the same club and should play by the same rules but it's OK to have different rules North of the border.

I quite like Brisbane and the team they are building but the fans do remind me a bit of farmers. When things are going well it's all them, when things aren't going well it's all someone else's fault and they need help.

 

[Cripptonite]

The whole concept of the NGA and academies are flawed. The draft is supposed to be uncompromised otherwise we might aswell go back to the VFL zoning days. The AFL as usual had a knee-jerk reaction and have implemented this system which is currently a mess. A few issues that NEED to be addressed:

1) This discount is way too generous. Having "first dibs" on a player is already too much of an advantage let alone a 25% discount which for some reason I'm pretty sure is way more than the 10% given to father-sons. Why?

2) The points value of draft picks are flawed. All these academy teams purposely trade out of the first rounds because in reality no team would prefer 3 junk picks in the 30s or 40s compared to a first rounder. Sydney benefited this year with the trade they did with Blues/Crows. North and Pies picked up Polec/Beams for "unders" when you consider they were still able to take first round talents without any picks in the Top 40.

3) As predicted when the AFL anounced live trading of picks, teams are smart enough to manipulate the bidding system even more. The trades that Sydney made with WCE whilst smart and "within the rules" (Good on them) it shows what a farce this is. Now these clubs are making a mockery of the system and even worse the AFL are allowing this to happen having ticked off on the trade.

4) A point that has already been covered I'm sure, but these academies are for the most part not "introducing new untapped talent to the game" which is apparently what they were designed to do. I'm sure without "academies" guys like Blakey, Quaynor, Thomas, Heeney, Mills, Setterfield etc. would have still gone through the ranks & been drafted into the AFL. It's not like these guys had no idea what a football was until they joined an academy. Especially with NGA in Victoria where pretty much everyone follows or knows about footy.

 

[Tas]

The whole concept of the NGA and academies are flawed. The draft is supposed to be uncompromised otherwise we might aswell go back to the VFL zoning days. The AFL as usual had a knee-jerk reaction and have implemented this system which is currently a mess.

The problem is there is usually lag time between when you bottom out and get talent to the point they mature enough to be able to get you back up the ladder. You still have to make good recruitment decisions and you need to develop well, but the draft is a poor system of talent distribution because most successful sides really only have a few exceptional players that you can build a side around, the rest comes from a depth of mature players that typically not very difficult to acquire. The problem is clubs that attempt to build a premiership team strip the club of the mature depth and stay in the bottom four for an extended period of time in the hope they acquire too many elite players. The AFL reward this self-sabotage and we saw a problem with numerous clubs that were shithouse at development end up just becoming talent sponges.

Too many clubs roll the dice and too many other clubs are penalised by not having access to enough talent to have a fair crack based on merit.

1) This discount is way too generous. Having "first dibs" on a player is already too much of an advantage let alone a 25% discount which for some reason I'm pretty sure is way more than the 10% given to father-sons. Why?

Without the discount clubs will go back to the halcyon days of holding them back. The problem with the bidding system is that you need to have the pick early enough to bid on someone, as we saw with Blakey, the early bid didn't come because clubs with early picks were too focused on the talent within reach, clubs typically feel like they are more gatekeeping to prevent other clubs getting players too cheaply instead of it being a realistic bidding system. I think ever club should be able to bid a number of picks for any player in the draft, if other clubs had the ability to bid multiple second and third round picks and say they were bidding 2000 points for player X or Y then it doesn't matter where they ended up on the ladder.

Once more realistic bids can be made on player, the discount will be fine.

2) The points value of draft picks are flawed. All these academy teams purposely trade out of the first rounds because in reality no team would prefer 3 junk picks in the 30s or 40s compared to a first rounder. Sydney benefited this year with the trade they did with Blues/Crows. North and Pies picked up Polec/Beams for "unders" when you consider they were still able to take first round talents without any picks in the Top 40.

The values aren't necessarily the flaw, it is being forced to use particular picks that forces the hand of clubs. Is 3,000 points worth of picks equivalent to the #1 pick? Perhaps? If you analysed how well clubs did with their first three picks in a draft and compared it to the player available had they pooled all those points instead, would the clubs have been better or worse off talent wise? To some extent it is going to be a lottery no matter where your picks are. Quite often, very early picks wash out and clubs have done better with more value picks. For all the hype surrounding Carltons very early picks over the last decade or so, it hasn't really done a whole lot for the club. Every year is like Groundhog day.

I think people get caught up too much in the dramatics of it. No club has any idea which kid in this draft is going to extract the digit and become a star. How often has the guy taken first been the best player that year? How often have recruiters nailed the top 5 or the top 10? It has never happened.

The system is a mechanism to distribute talent but whatever system you make is going to be flawed.

3) As predicted when the AFL anounced live trading of picks, teams are smart enough to manipulate the bidding system even more. The trades that Sydney made with WCE whilst smart and "within the rules" (Good on them) it shows what a farce this is. Now these clubs are making a mockery of the system and even worse the AFL are allowing this to happen having ticked off on the trade.

I think the AFL made a mistake in not forcing the equivalency requirement for each individual trade that exists during the trade period, I would be surprised if they would not correct that for next year.

4) A point that has already been covered I'm sure, but these academies are for the most part not "introducing new untapped talent to the game" which is apparently what they were designed to do. I'm sure without "academies" guys like Blakey, Quaynor, Thomas, Heeney, Mills, Setterfield etc. would have still gone through the ranks & been drafted into the AFL. It's not like these guys had no idea what a football was until they joined an academy. Especially with NGA in Victoria where pretty much everyone follows or knows about footy.

I think the AFL should run the academies themselves and all the talent should go into the draft, it is not desirable to have individual clubs involved in the development process as it is in part an indoctrination exercise. I don't see why the AFL can't reproduce what is being done at present or do it better.

Whatever system is in place, it will be flawed and some will exploit those faults.

 

[Cripptonite]

The AFL reward this self-sabotage and we saw a problem with numerous clubs that were shithouse at development end up just becoming talent sponges.

I don't think any clubs in the modern game self-sabotage as "tanking" is proven to not work. Bad teams like Carlton, Melbourne 07-15, Brisbane, GC do tend to become talent sponges because of poor performance and recruiting. The hit to a club's reputation is motivation enough to move up the ladder ASAP.

clubs typically feel like they are more gatekeeping to prevent other clubs getting players too cheaply instead of it being a realistic bidding system.

I can understand this perception, but I think that the only reason it exists is because the "bidding" clubs know that there is no way they will have access to the player as seen with Blakey & Thomas this year. There was no chance those bids were ever getting passed on as they were genuine top 10 talents. In this regard the bidding system is fair IMO as it represents "market value" or as close to market value as possible. If a club bids on an academy player, they have to be prepared for the bid to be passed as they would not risk sabotaging their own recruiting strategy just to "gatekeep".

I think people get caught up too much in the dramatics of it. No club has any idea which kid in this draft is going to extract the digit and become a star. How often has the guy taken first been the best player that year? How often have recruiters nailed the top 5 or the top 10? It has never happened.

The system is a mechanism to distribute talent but whatever system you make is going to be flawed.

Obviously there will always be a factor of uncertainty with drafting but history proves that there is more chance of drafting a successful player with higher picks. I would say that a top 10 pick would be approximately 30% stars, 50% average player, 20% busts. With a pick 40 about 5% star, 40% average player, 55% bust. Since there are limited spots on lists and the need for "star" players to be successful, high picks are much more desirable. In saying that I agree any system will be somewhat flawed, just want to see improvements where possible.

Would be interesting though to see what a top club would do with access to a high pick. I would imagine they would succeed from day 1. I truly believe that the growth of high picks get stunted from playing in poor teams and losing most weeks.

I think the AFL should run the academies themselves and all the talent should go into the draft, it is not desirable to have individual clubs involved in the development process as it is in part an indoctrination exercise. I don't see why the AFL can't reproduce what is being done at present or do it better.

Whatever system is in place, it will be flawed and some will exploit those faults.

Agree 100%