Awesome, thank you. Completely missed the whole compo thing. Still madness, but as you say not the strongest draft by any means.The answer was largely on the page you were on. Pretty much our pick ended up being shuffled back, from pick one, due to Port Adelaides introduction to the league, and then further back as the result of compensation picks awarded to teams who had players poached.
Port Adelaide zone selections
As part of Port Adelaide's entry to the AFL they were entitled to recruit some uncontracted players from other AFL clubs and players from the SANFL prior to the national draft. Clubs that lost players were entitled to compensation selections before both the first and second rounds of the 1996 national draft.
Uncontracted player selection
- Ian Downsborough (West Coast): compensation selections #1 (Michael Gardiner) and #24 (Josh Wooden)
- Gavin Wanganeen (Essendon): compensation selections #2 (Chris Heffernan) and #25 (Andrew Bomford)
- Matthew Primus (Fitzroy): compensation selections #3 (Rory Hilton) and #26 (Tim Notting) to Brisbane Lions
- Adam Heuskes (Sydney): compensation selections #4 (Mark Kinnear) and #27 (Troy Cook)
- Scott Cummings (Essendon): compensation selections #5 (Daniel McAlister) and #28 (Jason Johnson)
I'm assuming Port Adelaide were given the first four picks in the draft, in the same way GWS and GC were given a kick start. Following Port signing Uncontracted players from other clubs, those clubs were given compensation picks for the uncontracted players lost that Port were given access to, as mentioned above, in the form of picks before the first and second rounds. Thus Port Adelaide's picks 1-4, were bumped up to 6-9 in the draft order after the compensation picks were given, 5 players were picked from other teams. They then traded pick 8 to Geelong for contracted players. In the end Bulldogs original pick 5 ended up becoming pick 10.
In the end, we ended up with arguably the best player in that draft in Nathan Brown. So it worked out okay in the end.
Notwithstanding all we've said this week about the hypocrisy of the AFL gambling revenues ...
The flag odds do give us a bit of an insight into how the rest of the world views our chances. That can be informative when most of what you read here is a very subjective view from inside the BF echo chamber (either way too optimistic or way too pessimistic, depending on the style of the particular poster). As they say, if you want to know what's really happening, follow the money.
We are quoted at $151 for the flag which is in the right ball park as far as I'm concerned. (Another way to look at those odds is it means a side will win the flag from our situation only once every 150 years).
Anyway what I found interesting is that the bookies rated us a better chance than a number of clubs that are mostly above our 16th position on the ladder, namely:
St Kilda (11th) $501Hawthorn (12th) $201Norf (13th) $251Melbun (17th) $251
Carlton and Gold Coast have dropped out of betting for the flag.
In other words the bookies are keeping us safe despite our low ladder position, poor percentage, hard run home and the 5-8 record so far. They rank us 12th out of 18. Now clearly we aren't going to win the flag this year but it does show there's a bit more respect out there than we sometimes give our club credit for.
Well, to be more precise it actually means that if you had 150 teams in our position only one would ever go on and win the flag. As you can probably have several teams in our position each year it might be that it happens ... say ... once every 50-75 years.Of course!
It was the 150 year bit I was shocked by
Yep, cos Hawthorn are 200sWell, to be more precise it actually means that if you had 150 teams in our position only one would ever go on and win the flag. As you can probably have several teams in our position each year it might be that it happens ... say ... once every 50-75 years.
Is that any better?
Not sure if it's a thing. Or at least that it's a major differentiator. I expect most clubs would have good systems and programs in place. However there could be some exceptional cases of both good and bad practice.Interested in others thoughts about player development in general and our player development in particular.
Is player development an actual thing? Or is a good player always going to be a good player and advances due to “ player development “ will be minuscule only and succes is due more to the coaches tactics systems and having more good players than the other mob.
In my opinion only, Wood, Cordy and JJ, have gone backwards in the last couple of Years despite what’re player development we have in place. The Bont and Macrae showed they were special early on before being exposed to PD for long. It looks to me that good players improve with experience and no amount of PD will turn Hrovat, HoneyC, Webb etc into very good players.
Interested in others views.
There was a moment a game or two back where I thought he had a bit of the Clay Smith eyes about him. We can only pray...From Naughton’s pocket profile on the Dogs’ website:
“What scares you: Bailey Smith”
Wonder if it’s the training program, the tackling, or the hair that does it