North's introduction to the AFLW - how it was handled, and what we can learn

[Tas]

North and Geelong should have been limited to signing 2 players each per original club and 8 players in total. Extras could happen through trade, then fill the list from the draft. There's hundreds of female players out there at State League level good enough to play AFLW and at least contribute.

Sadly for St Kilda etc there will no doubt be restrictions put on that will stop what North appears to have created from happening in their first season.

It wouldn't have made much of a difference imo. If we could only poach 6 players then North and Geelong would have to fill the majority of the remaining 24 spots from the draft and you probably would have seen a mens GWS-like chunk of the early talent in the first two to three rounds end up with North and Geelong.

We would most like have taken Garner and King from Collingwood, Kearney and Bruton from the Dogs. Ashmore and Stanton from Brisbane. These are basically the players that would end up being too expensive to trade for and would hold the majority of the Tier 1 and Tier 2 positions.

We wouldn't have taken Duffin and Hope from Collingwood, Randall and Gibson from Brisbane, Hardiman and Gillespie-Jones from Carlton or Bannister and O'Connor from the Dogs.

Duffin would have been the only one I think that would have required a decent trade, I think we would have been able to end up with the same core players plus ended up with a bunch of first and second round picks with fewer lesser knowns from other clubs. You are basically advocating for the AFL to repeat the same mistake with the men's GWS expansion. All the other clubs would have been jettisoned way down the draft order and got significantly inferior players via the draft.

 

[The_Wookie]

My first reaction to that is that 8 players with AFLW experience - less than a quarter of the list - is too low, and given that the only tradeable asset expansion teams have is draft picks, you can't trade for extra players and hit the draft at the same time. 12 seems the minimum, and I don't even think 15 is necessarily too high.

Id argue that no one had more than 14 AFLW games experience at the time, and given the quality of those 8 would have been plenty. The gap between the very good AFLW players and many of the others is huge in many cases.

But then I realised I don't know what outcome you want. Are AFLW expansion teams allowed to be competitive or not? If not, and the original teams should be entitled to the spoils of success just because they were there first, ok I guess turning the screws is fine.

Competitive is one thing, all out dominant is another.

Even allowing for my North bias, I don't actually think "they're too good, this shouldn't be allowed" is a very convincing premise to start from.

I dont think you've really allowed for that North bias after all.

What did North do that is reproducible by other clubs, and what was unique to their circumstances? What's wrong with them setting an example to other clubs on how to build a women's footy department?

its an example that CANT and couldnt be followed by any other club. The original clubs couldnt have done it if they wanted to because of the nature of the draft, and expansion clubs coming in wont be allowed to do it the same way as North because of how North did it.

 

[Dan]

If I’m a new team coming in next year....you should build a list out of moral fairness to the competition.

Fairness first....winning second.

Otherwise you’ll upset supporters of other sides because their team is s**t or that their favourite player wanted to leave to play at another club.

 

[The_Wookie]

If I’m a new team coming in next year....you should build a list out of moral fairness to the competition.

Fairness first....winning second.

Otherwise you’ll upset supporters of other sides because their team is s**t or that their favourite player wanted to leave to play at another club.

No one is bothered that North did what they felt was right for themselves, the entire issue is that it was allowed in the first place.

 

[Oscarman]

No one is bothered that North did what they felt was right for themselves, the entire issue is that it was allowed in the first place.

Yep, it's all on the clowns at head office.

 

[Dan]

No one is bothered that North did what they felt was right for themselves, the entire issue is that it was allowed in the first place.

Strongly disagree....there are a lot people that are bothered.

If the shoe was on the other foot....you’d see the hilariousness that I see.

Some here forget that this will happen to north later in the year with more teams coming in.

Allowed.....lulz.

Bradman should have only been allowed to use a smaller bat.

 

[The_Wookie]

Yep, it's all on the clowns at head office.

Clubs share equal culpability here. If the original points system had been stuck to, then this wouldnt havent been possible either.

 

[ivan rassmussen]

Slightly random disconnected thoughts:

Scott Gowans' interview with Whateley the other day was very interesting on this topic. His starting position was that it was all about building relationships - 18 of the 30 players on the list either had a previous connection to him from MU, Diamond Creek, Vic Country or Carlton, or were from Tassie. In hindsight, North's appointment of Gowans a long way out and arranging for him to move from DC to MU was a big factor.

It's only a single data point, a whole other sport and at a different level, but that is the same as my own experience in women's sport - relationships matter. A core of players taking the initiative to change clubs or sports can quickly snowball into a real influx of talent.

In the end, what this really comes down to is Collingwood and Brisbane. From the other clubs, north got:

Dogs - Kearney and Bruton. Both came because of personal connections, and it didn't exactly rip the heart out of their side. They still have Blackburn and Brennan and a strong supporting cast. Also Bannister who is Tasmanian and had only played 1 game thanks to injury.

Melbourne - Jas Grierson and Emma Humphries. Grierson was a decent player but not a star at Melbourne. Humphries is Tasmanian and was traded for, not poached.

Carton - Kate Gillespie-Jones and Dani Hardiman. Both were good without being stars at Carlton and both have probably improved this year.

Brisbane - OK so this is where the fun starts.
Gibson - Tasmanian, lifelong North tragic, new mum moving closer to home.
Ashmore - MUGAR, high profile because she's fast and has a good highlight package but didn't get a ton of the ball. Now having watched her more closely I have been more impressed than I expected to be about her ability to stay involved even when the ball isn't finding her. (Also she's our BF board's sponsored player and the guys who have met her say she's awesome).
Randall, Stanton. Yeah, I can see Brisbane being miffed about those two, especially since they're expecting a raid from GC next year. On the other hand, they hung on to Tassie girl Wuetschner and I'm pretty sure they have another MUGAR. Call it even?

Collingwood - Yeah, we basically took their forward line. But I'm a bit surprised how little of the talk has been about Collingwood's role in their own demise. Seems to me that some of the natural advantages they have to sell to recruits in the men's game - big crowds, high profile, post-footy opportunities - don't have as much sway here and relationships and culture matter more. Is it possible that the Collingwood mindset wasn't ideal for running a successful AFLW program and they need to adjust a bit to get better?

So ... what should have been different? How many AFLW-experienced players should North have started with? is half the list too many? A fair few of those 15 weren't exactly superstars. Should we have been limited to 2 or 3 per existing club? Should there have been some kind of bidding system with Geelong so we didn't swoop in and get our first choice players first?

Just on the bolded bit, Kearney moved, I can live with that. Not a fan of her recent comments, so actually glad she ****ed off.
But, we lost the reigning competition bnf, and a vital cog in our side. If that happened in the men’s via free agency, the compensation we received, plus Bruton going as well, would have caused uproar. The AFLW/AFL have completely ****ed up the entry of expansion clubs... but then that’s par for the course.

 

[The Warlord]

Dees coulda shoulda had us today, killing the notion we "poached" some "super team".

 

[The Warlord]

No one is bothered that North did what they felt was right for themselves, the entire issue is that it was allowed in the first place.

I honestly don't think they thought so many good players, topline players, would want to go to us.

 

[Tas]

No one is bothered that North did what they felt was right for themselves, the entire issue is that it was allowed in the first place.

I am not phased about what we did as it can't be undone and it was within the rules. However, it is fine to explore what was put into place and see if it is good or bad, it is all moot unless someone can conjure a better system. AFL didn't want to dilute the quality of the games by introducing 6 teams over two years that had no hope against existing sides.

The AFL's intention criteria was for expansion teams to be competitive with the existing teams, so they need to have enough talent to be competitive against teams that had 10-13 All-Australians in the side. I am not sure that it is possible to achieve that or be able to shuffle that much talent around and making sure it doesn't have the capacity to be too strong.

I haven't seen anyone suggest an alternative system that would have allowed them to achieve the competitive criteria that wouldn't have potentially been the same or better for expansion clubs. There are just far too many variables.

 

[Teen Wolf]

Dees coulda shoulda had us today, killing the notion we "poached" some "super team".

Daisy-less Dees, at that. Yes we are 4-0 but it still seems to me like there are between six and eight teams with a legitimate shot at the flag. And of course, Fremantle were 3-0 then got smashed by 40 points (by the team we play next week, ooh). The conference system is weird, prelim and grand finals can be weird, injury and form fluctuations happen, the competition isn't anywhere near as predictable or ruined as many suggest.

----

Regarding another widely-held belief that I'm not so sure about: This idea that the 2020 expansion teams will have to put up with tougher recruiting rules now, what are we basing that on? AFL haven't given any indication to suggest this, have they? Reckon at best they'll pull some behind-the-scenes strings to avoid another Collingwood situation happening. But even though Geelong will be fine in the long-term, are any league decision-makers really looking at the Cats' current style of football favourably?

 

[1972championsofaust]

Won’t North and Geelong lose quality players in the Expansion Draft to the 2 new teams Richmond and St.Kilda next season?

 

[Teen Wolf]

Won’t North and Geelong lose quality players in the Expansion Draft to the 2 new teams Richmond and St.Kilda next season?

If the rules stay the same, not that likely in Geelong's case but maybe.

There would be a greater possibility of it happening for North, a number of our players (at least six, off the top of my head) have ties to those clubs.

 

[The Warlord]

Won’t North and Geelong lose quality players in the Expansion Draft to the 2 new teams Richmond and St.Kilda next season?

I don't think we will lose our core stars like Kearney, Garner, Duffin, King etc.

But say Courtney Munn, St Kilda VFL player, if they are smart they'll get her over with the promise of a senior role and as much cash as they can afford.

 

[RobZombie]

If the rules stay the same, not that likely in Geelong's case but maybe.

There would be a greater possibility of it happening for North, a number of our players (at least six, off the top of my head) have ties to those clubs.

Six? Drennan, Munn, Bruton, Lynch off the top of my head. Mo Hope was at St Kilda before spending a year at MU but I would think very unlikely to move. Georgia Nanscawen is from WA.

 

[Couch Coach]

Six? Drennan, Munn, Bruton, Lynch off the top of my head. Mo Hope was at St Kilda before spending a year at MU but I would think very unlikely to move. Georgia Nanscawen is from WA.

Georgia is from victoria. She and her mum played for MHSOB women's team.

 

[RobZombie]

Competitive is one thing, all out dominant is another.

See, I don't think they're all-out dominant. They had a game against GWS where the two teams had equal numbers of scoring shots, though GWS's inaccuracy was due partly to score effects and taking low-percentage shots in the 4th quarter. They squeaked past Melbourne. Adelaide's top 5 players are the envy of the league, and ahead of North's top 5 on a bunch of statistics.

its an example that CANT and couldnt be followed by any other club. The original clubs couldnt have done it if they wanted to because of the nature of the draft, and expansion clubs coming in wont be allowed to do it the same way as North because of how North did it.

But North did a lot of different things, some of which new expansion clubs could emulate:
- Build a dedicated AFLW locker room with all the players' names and numbers on their lockers.
- Get the men's team to buy in and get involved in recruiting and training
- Make sure the women know they're an important part of the club and welcome to use the facilities all year round
- Target players who want to be part of the culture, starting with the ones who will be attractive to others to play with
- Since you're building a list from scratch, build one that suits your game plan.

Sure, some things they did are harder to replicate:
- Have a decade's worth of women's footy involvement (feel free to roll your eyes at this, but you can bet "we know and support women's footy and here is the proof" would have been part of the club's pitch to players).
- Hire a coach who is well loved by players from the two dominant pre-AFLW state teams.
- Move fast on raiding Brisbane and Collingwood, so their 4 players were taken before Geelong got in (I actually have my doubts about this one - King, Hope, Ashmore were announced quite a bit later in the recruiting period, and I think Geelong focused on their regional talent pool).

Some things you could even say Richmond and St Kilda have an advantage: North won't play at Arden St until next year and will split games with Tassie for the foreseeable future. Richmond has a bigger latent supporter base.

 

[RobZombie]

Georgia is from victoria. She and her mum played for MHSOB women's team.

My mistake. She must have spent some time based in WA with the hockeyroos then? She played in the women's WAFL last winter.

 

[Teen Wolf]

Six? Drennan, Munn, Bruton, Lynch off the top of my head. Mo Hope was at St Kilda before spending a year at MU but I would think very unlikely to move.

I forgot about Drennan. Garner played at St Kilda with Bruton and Hope, while Emma King played last VFL season with Richmond. Who really knows what the intentions are of any of those players, but guaranteed the 2020 clubs are trying to get them across (which they should be able to do without coaches crying foul to the media).

 

[Couch Coach]

My mistake. She must have spent some time based in WA with the hockeyroos then? She played in the women's WAFL last winter.

You are probably correct.

Almost all hockey players relocate to WA when they get to national teams as all the pre comp camps are WA based.

Georgia and her mom played for Caulfield which then merged with MHSOB when Georgia was 12ish. I believe she then played for Essendon Ladies when she was a bit older.

 

[Tas]

Just on the bolded bit, Kearney moved, I can live with that. Not a fan of her recent comments, so actually glad she ****ed off.
But, we lost the reigning competition bnf, and a vital cog in our side. If that happened in the men’s via free agency, the compensation we received, plus Bruton going as well, would have caused uproar. The AFLW/AFL have completely ****ed up the entry of expansion clubs... but then that’s par for the course.

I don't think we will get the same result with Richmond or St Kilda because to the best of my knowledge they haven't been involved in the development of women players until they were awarded a provisional licence. The only real threat are the players who support one of these club who wants to play for them. I am not sure about most of the players, but I only know of Gillespie-Jones who was a North supporter who wasn't associated with MUWFC or Tasmanian who wanted to play for us that we recruited. There were a large number that have links with MUWFC or are Tasmanian. I don't think the other clubs will have the same kind of connection.

It was silly for the AFL to have left us out at inception and the Bulldogs president said it was a mistake that clubs like Carlton and Collingwood got licences ahead of us. As far as I am aware, no club has approached Darebin to form a strong alignment with them similar to what we have with MU, Darebin has been in Carlton's back yard since 1990 and they haven't given two shits about women's football, even after they were granted an AFLW licence. Some clubs are not welcoming as they should be of the AFLW teams, it is no surprise some women want to leave the teams that they were recruited by at AFLW level.

We will likely lose players to new clubs, that is fine. it is probably important for the competition going forward that some really good players leave us. We wont be losing anyone because they haven't felt welcome or treated with the respect they deserve.

 

[FlyHigh18]

I'm tired of all the whinging and whining on the media about all the players who wanted and came back home to North.

The sport is part time, low pay and overly criticized in its infancy stages, just let the ladies bloody play wherever makes them comfortable. They will play better if they're happy and promote the sport to juniors.

However, when the time comes for AFLW to become full time high paid sport then trading should tightly regulated and they should be forced to play wherever they're drafted.

 

[Dogs_r_barking]

If I’m a new team coming in next year....you should build a list out of moral fairness to the competition.

Fairness first....winning second.

Otherwise you’ll upset supporters of other sides because their team is s**t or that their favourite player wanted to leave to play at another club.

I think Kearney will be grateful she won a Premiership at the Bulldogs, despite your soft draw, and building a team with experienced players other clubs developed, you didn’t make finals.

I hope your club wasn’t counting on the prize money to pay all those wages for those players who got jobs at your club.

 

[Tas]

I've noticed the super team rhetoric has died down, do people still feel we made a super team capable of storming the season undefeated and taking the premiership?

I still think we had a good season, we probably were lucky in the end to win 5, a few could have gone either way.

Should the new knee-jerk reaction be the danger of allowing a team like Adelaide to go through expansion without losing good quality players or sharing players in SA because Port are so far off the radar with their own team?