Oppo Camp Non-Essendon Football Thread XIV

[yodellinhank]

But the aim was equalisation. I think moving forward it's going to be even harder for non-destination clubs to move up the table if top players continue to nominate top clubs. The average AFL career is 5 years. Top draft picks will go to the bottom teams and likely move after 4 years. As an investment, there's not much incentive for clubs to develop these players before they are picked off by the more successful clubs.

The aim was allowing players to move where they wanted. Players didn't want to walk to the PSD where a bottom side picks them up for nothing.

 

[Phone]

No, restraint of trade allowed players who wanted to move to move before FA. In my opinion, team sport without loyalty is less interesting. There's less emotional investment. We're just cheering for clothes, as Seinfeld said:

per the footyindustry article you posted, the last player to push restraint of trade was in 1987. perhaps not coincidentally, the pre-season draft was created in 1988, and as openly said in 1998, was solely there to prevent the restraint of trade challenge:

Theoretically, the opportunity, however small, cannot disappear. The AFL needs the pre-season draft to protect itself from courtroom restraint-of-trade action.

"To overcome some of the problems with restraint we do need an opportunity for players who can't come to terms with their club to be able to earn money. That opportunity is given to them by the pre-season draft," says AFL operations manager Ian Collins.

Money killing draft - FOOTBALL
January 19, 1998 | Age, The/The Sunday Age (Melbourne, Australia)

So in the era I'm focused, the early 1990s to the mid 2000s where player movement increasingly went into the doldrums, players would have been extremely unlikely to go down the restraint of trade path, as the AFL had worked to ensure they were just on the right side of the ledger. therefore, back to my same old point - forced loyalty due to lack of realistic alternatives for player and club, which isn't a good thing.

 

[sameolds33]

per the footyindustry article you posted, the last player to push restraint of trade was in 1987. perhaps not coincidentally, the pre-season draft was created in 1988, and as openly said in 1998, was solely there to prevent the restraint of trade challenge:



So in the era I'm focused, the early 1990s to the mid 2000s where player movement increasingly went into the doldrums, players would have been extremely unlikely to go down the restraint of trade path, as the AFL had worked to ensure they were just on the right side of the ledger. therefore, back to my same old point - forced loyalty due to lack of realistic alternatives for player and club, which isn't a good thing.

I'm not familiar with that period as I was overseas in that pre-internet time. My dad used to send me video recordings of games. I'm not saying player movement isn't necessary or desirable or that litigating in court was all that great. My only point was that movement of top players to top clubs perpetuates the imbalance in the competition. Players naturally want to play finals so a top team is more desirable than the teams which get the high draft picks and, after they have been developed by the low ranked team the players with options (top players) move to a higher ranked team for team success.

 

[owen87]

I do not think it is the coach. The issue has been too many top end picks which sounds odd but they keep drafting kids from the top end that are used to being the number 1 players as juniors. There are limited good ordinary players to get in and do the team stuff.
I think injury has hurt them as well. Premiership sides do not have the injury list the Giants have had. GWS have also been raided every year.
Personally I think they have done reasonably to do what they have done to date. They may have only made it to one GF in that time but no other Premiership club has gone through what they have.

No doubt they've had some unique challenges, but I just don't think Cameron is a good coach.

Would Clarkson have won at least one premiership with that list? I believe so. Someone like Lyon likely would have too. Cameron seems to have been unable to get them to play team-first football at any point in his time there.

 

['51 Bewick]

Haha AFL site so funny. Lead story about how there might be some surprise changes for the GF.
Washup: No Changes.

 

[ant555]

No doubt they've had some unique challenges, but I just don't think Cameron is a good coach.

Would Clarkson have won at least one premiership with that list? I believe so. Someone like Lyon likely would have too. Cameron seems to have been unable to get them to play team-first football at any point in his time there.

Disagree . Reason they do not consistently play team footy is the fact they have drafted very few team players. Their list has been overloaded with first round draft picks . These kids have played their junior years as players that have been the “main go to “ players. They like to play their game rather than always doing the team things.
I think our list proves that you can not simply turn players into team players. You have to draft the players who already have that team first mentality . I can say 100% that during my time looking at under 18 players watching who did the team stuff was very high on how we marked players.

 

[11kgm]

Haha AFL site so funny. Lead story about how there might be some surprise changes for the GF.
Washup: No Changes.

Said the same thing last week

Just clickbait

 

[owen87]

Disagree . Reason they do not consistently play team footy is the fact they have drafted very few team players. Their list has been overloaded with first round draft picks . These kids have played their junior years as players that have been the “main go to “ players. They like to play their game rather than always doing the team things.
I think our list proves that you can not simply turn players into team players. You have to draft the players who already have that team first mentality . I can say 100% that during my time looking at under 18 players watching who did the team stuff was very high on how we marked players.

Wouldn't Richmond prove otherwise? They turned it around in an off-season or two with largely existing personnel.

Obviously it's easier if you simply draft players that naturally tend to do the team-first things, but I disagree that it's completely uncoachable in players. You yourself have said that Zaharakis has actively tried to do more of the team stuff, and that's a guy in the latter stages of his career. You bring in players to help drive that standard, and as a coaching group you force the expectations upon the side.

Cameron has been GWS' head coach for 6 years now, it's not like this is his first season or two in charge. The GWS team has had similar issues for years. Sure their recruitment might help that, but you don't think the head coach bears some responsibility for the kinds of players being drafted?

On the sample we've seen thus far, I just think Cameron isn't the right coach for them, and nothing I've seen would see other teams falling over themselves to pick him up if he left.

 

[Mercurial89]

Disagree . Reason they do not consistently play team footy is the fact they have drafted very few team players. Their list has been overloaded with first round draft picks . These kids have played their junior years as players that have been the “main go to “ players. They like to play their game rather than always doing the team things.
I think our list proves that you can not simply turn players into team players. You have to draft the players who already have that team first mentality . I can say 100% that during my time looking at under 18 players watching who did the team stuff was very high on how we marked players.

How much weight is put into the makeup of a person these days? There seems to be a bit of a Essendon thing of going for "nice" players.

In todays role centric AFL world where the amount of talent on your list isn't what makes a great team (though it can carry you) Could you ever approach the building of a team focusing on types of people and player.
For example, could you approach a draft and try and swoop up a bunch of 2nd round talent that is obviously physically gifted but that showed certain personality traits or mindsets that can be moulded in today's AFL. Should that be a focus?

I get that "are you a team player?" is the most generic question ever, not everyone is. You know it when you see it though.
Just like most footballers are committed, but then there is someone like Walla who moved across a country, learned a language and worked on his fitness to make it. That type of internal drive is what you need to seek out, and i dont think its always found in the first round of a draft.

 

[ant555]

Wouldn't Richmond prove otherwise? They turned it around in an off-season or two with largely existing personnel.

Obviously it's easier if you simply draft players that naturally tend to do the team-first things, but I disagree that it's completely uncoachable in players. You yourself have said that Zaharakis has actively tried to do more of the team stuff, and that's a guy in the latter stages of his career. You bring in players to help drive that standard, and as a coaching group you force the expectations upon the side.

Cameron has been GWS' head coach for 6 years now, it's not like this is his first season or two in charge. The GWS team has had similar issues for years. Sure their recruitment might help that, but you don't think the head coach bears some responsibility for the kinds of players being drafted?

On the sample we've seen thus far, I just think Cameron isn't the right coach for them, and nothing I've seen would see other teams falling over themselves to pick him up if he left.

Richmond turned it around on the back of a game plan adjustment and the 4 players who came in at the end of 2016. There where already a lot of the team types drafted, they just had to fine tune it to suit their list. The biggest turn around for them was to give away trying the Hawthorn team style and create the Richmond pressure version.

 

[GUMBLETRON]

Richmond turned it around on the back of a game plan adjustment and the 4 players who came in at the end of 2016. There where already a lot of the team types drafted, they just had to fine tune it to suit their list. The biggest turn around for them was to give away trying the Hawthorn team style and create the Richmond pressure version.

I reckon Cotchin and Riewoldt dramatically shifted their games too though, to a far more team-focused style. And even if Martin isn't sacrificing his game, he's certainly working very hard to be in the right position to capitalise on his teammates' pressure.

"You can not simply turn players into team players" sounds like a cop-out for poor culture and coaching. Every Premiership team in this era, and most of the teams they beat, has been well-stocked with high-end talent playing disciplined footy, and they certainly didn't all start out that way. That's the ethos of the Roos/Clarkson/Malthouse/Lyon coaching revolution isn't it? Whole-team defensive systems, even if particular players are given licence to free-wheel within that.

 

[BrunoV]

Re the Free Agency discussion. I'm not sure the purpose of FA had anything to do with equalisation.

The whole scheme seemed to me to be designed to get bigger pay days for the best players. That it could assist equalisation always struck me as incidental.

As for equalisation generally, St Kilda has snapped up Hannebery, Ryder, Hill, Jones, Howard and now it looks like Crouch on the back of an 8 or 9 year period of mediocrity.

Brisbane has been there (after being a total basket case) and now it looks like GCS is too.

These things are cyclical. Clubs get their sh*t together, or can at least sell the idea they have, and they will be able to attract players.

Big players will always factor winning premierships into their decision making. No amount of legislation is going to influence their decision making.

 

[Mercurial89]

I reckon Cotchin and Riewoldt dramatically shifted their games too though, to a far more team-focused style. And even if Martin isn't sacrificing his game, he's certainly working very hard to be in the right position to capitalise on his teammates' pressure.

"You can not simply turn players into team players" sounds like a cop-out for poor culture and coaching. Every Premiership team in this era, and most of the teams they beat, has been well-stocked with high-end talent playing disciplined footy, and they certainly didn't all start out that way. That's the ethos of the Roos/Clarkson/Malthouse/Lyon coaching revolution isn't it? Whole-team defensive systems, even if particular players are given licence to free-wheel within that.

I think people forget how Cotchin especially was viewed. Riewoldt it seems to be acknowledged how much he "grew up" but with Cotchin he was seen as one of the worst captains, not hard enough etc.
You would be hard pressed to even imagine that being the case with him now.

That's the buy in that everyone is seeking. Definitely one of the bigger transformations and they are reaping the benefits now.

 

[BrunoV]

I think people forget how Cotchin especially was viewed. Riewoldt it seems to be acknowledged how much he "grew up" but with Cotchin he was seen as one of the worst captains, not hard enough etc.
You would be hard pressed to even imagine that being the case with him now.

That's the buy in that everyone is seeking. Definitely one of the bigger transformations and they are reaping the benefits now.

Yep. Pretty ineffective stat merchant became selfless wrecking ball in 2017. That momentum has died a bit but he changed a lot and became a more effective player. Heppell showed signs of a similar thing before he broke down and now I can't remember whether that was already 2 years ago in 2018.

 

[andleanback]

Re the Free Agency discussion. I'm not sure the purpose of FA had anything to do with equalisation.

The whole scheme seemed to me to be designed to get bigger pay days for the best players. That it could assist equalisation always struck me as incidental.

As for equalisation generally, St Kilda has snapped up Hannebery, Ryder, Hill, Jones, Howard and now it looks like Crouch on the back of an 8 or 9 year period of mediocrity.

Brisbane has been there (after being a total basket case) and now it looks like GCS is too.

These things are cyclical. Clubs get their sh*t together, or can at least sell the idea they have, and they will be able to attract players.

Big players will always factor winning premierships into their decision making. No amount of legislation is going to influence their decision making.

FA was brought in to allow players to move to clubs of their choice more freely. It was actually brought in to help out the mid range players, I don’t know how they didn’t think it would be the stars that would use it the most though.

 

[BrunoV]

FA was brought in to allow players to move to clubs of their choice more freely. It was actually brought in to help out the mid range players, I don’t know how they didn’t think it would be the stars that would use it the most though.

I know what they said about FA and how it was sold but when compensation enters the fray, its real intention looks pretty clear. Afterall, this is coming from an industry that wouldn't quash rumours of huge list reductions, as another other than the most desperate last resort.

 

[Mercurial89]

I know what they said about FA and how it was sold but when compensation enters the fray, its real intention looks pretty clear. Afterall, this is coming from an industry that wouldn't quash rumours of huge list reductions, as another other than the most desperate last resort.

It was win win for the AFL and AFLPA.

Big names get big money and good players play on good teams which is good for AFL and TV rights.
Much easier to sell Friday night games when then have superstars of the game playing on good teams.

 

[andleanback]

I know what they said about FA and how it was sold but when compensation enters the fray, its real intention looks pretty clear. Afterall, this is coming from an industry that wouldn't quash rumours of huge list reductions, as another other than the most desperate last resort.

Rather than bring in FA they should’ve just allowed clubs to trade 2 years of future picks. Would then allow more players to move freely and not hamstring clubs. They didn’t quash rumours because there was never going to be huge list reductions, that was just a media beat up. AFLPA was never going to allow lists to be cut by 10-15%

 

[ant555]

I reckon Cotchin and Riewoldt dramatically shifted their games too though, to a far more team-focused style. And even if Martin isn't sacrificing his game, he's certainly working very hard to be in the right position to capitalise on his teammates' pressure.

"You can not simply turn players into team players" sounds like a cop-out for poor culture and coaching. Every Premiership team in this era, and most of the teams they beat, has been well-stocked with high-end talent playing disciplined footy, and they certainly didn't all start out that way. That's the ethos of the Roos/Clarkson/Malthouse/Lyon coaching revolution isn't it? Whole-team defensive systems, even if particular players are given licence to free-wheel within that.

So if it is a cop out why did I spend 10 years watching under 18 footy looking for players who where doing the team stuff at that age group?
I give people an insight into some of the stuff that goes in and you still want to argue the point.

 

[owen87]

So if it is a cop out why did I spend 10 years watching under 18 footy looking for players who where doing the team stuff at that age group?
I give people an insight into some of the stuff that goes in and you still want to argue the point.

You're making this a black and white thing, when it's not, and you know it's not.

Yes, it's desirable for players to naturally do the team-first stuff, especially if they're not absolutely elite to the point where it doesn't matter (e.g. Martin / Dangerfield / Fyfe / Ablett). But it's also teachable, especially when players are in an environment where team-first play is an expectation. Not every player will learn it, yes, but many will.

 

[ant555]

You're making this a black and white thing, when it's not, and you know it's not.

Yes, it's desirable for players to naturally do the team-first stuff, especially if they're not absolutely elite to the point where it doesn't matter (e.g. Martin / Dangerfield / Fyfe / Ablett). But it's also teachable, especially when players are in an environment where team-first play is an expectation. Not every player will learn it, yes, but many will.

I really do not know why I bother .

 

[GUMBLETRON]

So if it is a cop out why did I spend 10 years watching under 18 footy looking for players who where doing the team stuff at that age group?
I give people an insight into some of the stuff that goes in and you still want to argue the point.

No one's saying a team-oriented attitude isn't a desirable trait to come into the system with - but to say it can't be improved by whatever degree once they're in the system seems about as productive as Alan Richardson deciding he couldn't coach players to be better kicks.

 

[owen87]

I really do not know why I bother .

The problem is that you're making a black & white statement.

Yes, we all believe you that a team-first attitude is a very desirable trait in potential draftees, and that it is something you would look for when scouting. This is interesting insight in to the scouting and recruitment process.

You're then going one step further and saying it can't be taught though.

 

[ant555]

No one's saying a team-first attitude isn't a desirable thing to come into the system with - but to say it can't be improved by whatever degree you're in the system seems about as productive as Alan Richardson deciding he couldn't coach players to be better kicks.

So explain why we have imploded because our coach wants us to play team footy?
There are players that never get it. Going back to GWS which is who I made the comment on , they simply have too many top end players who like to play their own game. They have never been like Richmond who had more like a 30 / 70 spread top line and players doing their thing to your average role players .

 

[ant555]

The problem is that you're making a black & white statement.

Yes, we all believe you that a team-first attitude is a very desirable trait in potential draftees, and that it is something you would look for when scouting. This is interesting insight in to the scouting and recruitment process.

You're then going one step further and saying it can't be taught though.

I am making it black and white as have watched hundreds of kids come through the system I have seen that the percentage that change is not high.