Region Specific Draft Picks

[bumsonseats]

I think it could be a similar system to the father son style bidding system and limited to one club. Each state can be divided up into regions in both the city and country assigned to each club. I also think this will have a positive effect on all young kids coming through because clubs will be investing heavily in the best kids from these areas trying to fast track their development. These kids will take their lessons back to their clubs and representative sides. On top of this it'll see the clubs and their players out in the communities much more which is a good thing for both the local footy clubs and for membership growth for all clubs.

I'd also like to see something similar done with all the remote indigenous communities. If they were zoned to clubs then they were be encouraged to spend more time developing kids out there. Especially if there was some sort of special rookie list, similar to NSW scholarship or international rookie list, where they could pick them up as a 16 year old and fund them to study or do a trade in the city of that club as well as work on things like diet and other life skills. The work in the indigenous communities could go hand in hand with state level softball as this is the most popular sport amongst the women. Yes I am a bit biased and would like to see Essendon get rewarded for their time and effort in Wadeye and Tiwi Islands.

18, or 36 if clubs get first pick in both their metro and country zone, kids across the country would not be disastrous or too lopsided for competition. A handfull of kids from the remote indigenous communities would definitely not effect equity either. These would obviously be sporadic and the positive effects of dreams, improved health and a feeling of being wanted by the broader outside community would be fantastic for a gaping wound on the soul of this nation.

If you used the father/son methodology, but I think potential first rounders could be excluded from the zone selections. All it would take is for one club to nominate their first round pick, and that player would be deemed ineligible as a zone selection. That way, every club gets access to the best talent around the country, but the also-rans can stay at home if the local club wants them.

You could do the same for father/son selections, but at least their is a connection to the club under f/s.

 

[Slattery_20]

I wouldn't be against it, but you couldn't have it compromising the top end of the draft, and you shouldn't necessarily cover *all* of the country.
Like what the **** do Essendon have to do with Ringwood, opposite side of the city, or all the way up the Wimmera or Dimboola etc - nothing.

If you ran it as, every club would only have their actual council/government seat that their HQ is listed as;
and it'd either be done by some sort of bidding system, or only guys who've missed out on the draft.

It would be OK.
But you'd barely get any players who qualify, so that sort of defeats the purpose.

 

[DangerSloane]

You forgot NT and Tasmania. Throw them to NSW & QLD and it might prop them up occasionally to have a tilt for 9th.

Richmond would fume!

 

[bumsonseats]

I would also ask the question: WTF association does GWS have with the NT.
Is there a kid out there in the NT that aspires to play for GWS..........cant say I would call that his local club.
The whole zone thing is a farce.....just another way to favour some over the others.

It should be a level playing field for all

 

[dlanod]

I would also ask the question: WTF association does GWS have with the NT.
Is there a kid out there in the NT that aspires to play for GWS..........cant say I would call that his local club.
The whole zone thing is a farce.....just another way to favour some over the others.

It should be a level playing field for all

They've got the same link GC did - that the AFL, for some reason, figured the NT was a good area to give away as a zone. Bit of a head scratcher all round.

 

[bumsonseats]

I wouldn't be against it, but you couldn't have it compromising the top end of the draft, and you shouldn't necessarily cover *all* of the country.
Like what the **** do Essendon have to do with Ringwood, opposite side of the city, or all the way up the Wimmera or Dimboola etc - nothing.

If you ran it as, every club would only have their actual council/government seat that their HQ is listed as;
and it'd either be done by some sort of bidding system, or only guys who've missed out on the draft.

It would be OK.
But you'd barely get any players who qualify, so that sort of defeats the purpose.

Adelaide would be shifting all of the hot SA prospects to Charles Sturt City Council area. Port Adelaide to the Port City Council area etc etc.....bit like the old days of VFL Zones as I understood it

 

[fishardansin]

Haha, well at least you've put some honesty in that answer. The old VFL "Screw the rest, we want built-in advantages!" attitude.

I've also suggested that they should be up for bid like the father son currently is. If you can't see that clubs being more involved in the local area being a good thing, including your club working harder to sell the game interstate then no point arguing anymore with you.

Personally if you guys can't build enough interest in the game up there than there really isn't any justification in having sides in Brisbane or Sydney. I mean the EPL doesn't have sides in New York does it.

 

[dlanod]

I've also suggested that they should be up for bid like the father son currently is. If you can't see that clubs being more involved in the local area being a good thing, including your club working harder to sell the game interstate then no point arguing anymore with you.

Personally if you guys can't build enough interest in the game up there than there really isn't any justification in having sides in Brisbane or Sydney. I mean the EPL doesn't have sides in New York does it.

All NSW and Qld teams already academies that are basically what's being described. I'm against the handing of free first rounders to clubs. If and when Qld and NSW get to a point where the academies are providing that, I expect them to be removed. But congrats on continuing the VFL > all sentiment.

 

[fishardansin]

I dont believe in zones......all clubs should have equal opportunity to the available talent based on the draft order. Zones are just another form of selective favouritism that only some clubs get. Its a National competition. If you dont want to go interstate, then dont nominate for the draft. If you really want to go home, them request a trade at the end of your first 2 year contract.

The rules should be the same for every club where humanly possible............end of story.
The only inequality I see being difficult to overcome is the draw, because as we all know......some clubs get to play more of the weaker sides, whilst some (Melbourne) clubs dont travel perhaps as much as they should. But I think these things can be overcome with a bit of intent, so why advocate just another inequality.

I also don't think kids should be forced to play where they don't want to. Caddy should have been able to walk if he wanted to.

 

[bumsonseats]

I also don't think kids should be forced to play where they don't want to. Caddy should have been able to walk if he wanted to.

Written and authorised by J.Hird, Essendon Football Club

 

[fishardansin]

All NSW and Qld teams already academies that are basically what's being described. I'm against the handing of free first rounders to clubs. If and when Qld and NSW get to a point where the academies are providing that, I expect them to be removed. But congrats on continuing the VFL > all sentiment.

As I said this will give your club more incentive to invest in the development of the game in their region. At most 12 kids will be selected like this outside of NSW and Qld and clubs will be forced to give up first round picks if they're that good. Get that chip off your shoulder and encourage your local populations to earn a local team. Personally I don't think having second teams in non traditional states was a good long term plan, not to mention the problem of watering down the talent of a supposedly elite competition by having too many teams.

 

[fishardansin]

Written and authorised by J.Hird, Essendon Football Club

Is that an attempt at humor?

 

[Turbocat]

Briefly.. Yes if a club has not has a FS in the last 3 years , you should be entitled to a zone pick. FS is great for tradition but there is an element of luck to it. This would give a club the chance at least get a bite of the cherry.
But as a regular , every year. NO
Geelong wouldn't be as bad of as some but the distorted benefit to SA and WA would have clubs in Vic baying for other changes ... Basically the system we have give everyone a relatively fair chance of building a list.

 

[Slattery_20]

Adelaide would be shifting all of the hot SA prospects to Charles Sturt City Council area. Port Adelaide to the Port City Council area etc etc.....bit like the old days of VFL Zones as I understood it

You could easily work the rules to avoid that - guys would have to have been living in the area for 3 years, or something along those lines.

The AFL has massive resources to keep an eye on these things. Bunch of people looking after integrity full-time. VFL not so much - everyone was part time, and I doubt there was a single person looking after integrity.

 

[thedaz47]

I've also suggested that they should be up for bid like the father son currently is. If you can't see that clubs being more involved in the local area being a good thing, including your club working harder to sell the game interstate then no point arguing anymore with you.

Personally if you guys can't build enough interest in the game up there than there really isn't any justification in having sides in Brisbane or Sydney. I mean the EPL doesn't have sides in New York does it.

Clearly, you've never been to Queensland. Would you suggest that the Storm don't involve themselves enough in the community to lure Lachie Whitfield away, or that it's just how it is in an AFL state? You insinuate that simply offering Queensland athletes a chance to maybe play for the Lions is enough to have them give up on their NRL dream. Rugby League is deeply entrenched up here, and to claim that it's our own fault that youth development is difficult is both ignorant and offensive, but also shows what a clueless git you are. You then corroborate this with your painfully loose analogy about the professional league of one country not including the team of another. Why aren't Bendigo in the WAFL, by your reasoning? You really are an A-grade twat!

 

[spotthedog1]

Is that an attempt at humor?

"Attempt" implies it wasn't funny...

 

[fishardansin]

Clearly, you've never been to Queensland. Would you suggest that the Storm don't involve themselves enough in the community to lure Lachie Whitfield away, or that it's just how it is in an AFL state? You insinuate that simply offering Queensland athletes a chance to maybe play for the Lions is enough to have them give up on their NRL dream. Rugby League is deeply entrenched up here, and to claim that it's our own fault that youth development is difficult is both ignorant and offensive, but also shows what a clueless git you are. You then corroborate this with your painfully loose analogy about the professional league of one country not including the team of another. Why aren't Bendigo in the WAFL, by your reasoning? You really are an A-grade twat!

You are a git, based upon your insults due to your inability to grasp the concept, which also makes you clueless. Clearly Whitfield is a bad example. As far as the NRL is concerned then they wouldn't be looking at an endurance based athlete. The kid who Richmond drafted late with a man's body is a good example or even someone like Rodan who is a stocky build and quick. So for the AFL in Qld and NSW they would be looking to get a talented ball user who may even be a bit of a kicker for their side but clearly are an endurance style athlete who'll probably struggle to put the weight on required for NRL. Of course there will be a threshold met at some point where lots of young guys start looking to the AFL as a game that they should play as juniors to keep their options open.

On top of this if the AFL clubs take a scattergun approach to their area they will fast track the development of 5 to 10 kids. Seeing they can only select one this means that there will be 4 to 9 kids fast tracked by each southern footy club which adds up to a lot of talent available for all clubs. Finally, the kids will go in a bidding system so that clubs will be giving up their first rounder if they are a super talented kid. I'd also suggest that all of their "local kid" or zone selections would be forced to be taken by the second round at the latest considering the development that they'd have put in.

You over reaction to what would be a good thing to the game because there might be an advantage to clubs from Victoria, SA and WA is ridiculous.

 

[Miss Vanessa]

It'd be pretty simple. Have a look at the pick number of the first draftee from each TAC team, first two from SA and first two from WA. Then have a look at the first four from a combination of NT, Tasmania, NSW, ACT and Queensland. Average it out over a decade. Find that the average for most of the first lot is probably less than pick 20 (barring some of the worse TAC teams). The average of the last lot is probably around pick 40 to 50. Imagine you're giving a free first round pick to all teams from footy states and only a second to third rounder to the other teams. QED.

Funny you should say that, have been working on this...

For the purposes of this exercise, I’ve assigned each of the ten Victorian clubs and Sydney and Brisbane directly with a team from the TAC Cup. Sydney and Brisbane would have also had a priority pick directly from NSW and Qld.

For the teams from SA and the WA, they have been allocated teams from the SANFL and WAFL respectively.

As for the Gold Coast and GWS, well they throw a spanner in the works and as such, perhaps priority picks from NT (for GC) and Tasmania (for GWS) would even things up slightly.

Who finishes higher on the ladder between the two NSW clubs and the two Qld clubs would determine the order for their priority picks from the two states in question (NSW and Qld)

Perhaps also, a pick from the best of the rest might even things up too, at least until these regions have developed sufficiently to provide adequate “local” picks.

Wasn’t entirely sure how the club allocations would work. Victorians and West Australians let me know if these club assignments are kind of on the money

Anyhow, other than the Fremantle anomaly, this actually seems to me to be pretty even across the board... Also, the talent that would slip through to the draft proper is still pretty darn good and I can’t see how the integrity of the draft itself would really be upset.

Adelaide - South Adelaide, Glenelg, Sturt, Norwood
Port Adelaide - Port Adelaide, Centrals, West Adelaide, North Adelaide, Woodville/West Torrens

Fremantle - Swan Districts, East Fremantle, South Fremantle, Peel Thunder and Claremont
West Coast - East Perth, West Perth, Perth, Subiaco

North Ballarat - Saint Kilda
Gippsland - Bulldogs
Dandenong - Hawthorn
Sandringham - Melbourne
Oakleigh - Carlton
Calder Cannons - North Melbourne
Geelong Falcons - Geelong
Western Jets - Collingwood
Northern Knights - Essendon
Eastern Ranges - Richmond

Bendigo - Brisbane
Murray Bushrangers - Sydney

These are the players each team would have received since 2005.

Adelaide (aligned with South Adelaide, Glenelg, Sturt and Norwood)

In - Darren Pfieffer (17), Bryce Gibbs (1), Tom McNamara (66), Ryan Schoenmaker (16), Jack Trengove (2), Sam Day (3), Chad Winguard (6)

Average Pick No: 16

Top Ten Picks: 4

Brisbane (aligned with Bendigo and first choice of best of Queensland)

In - N/A, Joel Selwood (7), Robbie Tarrant (15), N/A, Dustin Martin (3), Ariel Steinberg (31), Sam Kerridge (27

Average Pick No: 17

In via Queensland pick (up to 2009): Courtney Dempsey (19), David Armitage (9), Brendan Whitecross (29), Dayne Beams (29), Jason Tutt (31)

Average Pick No: 23

Total Top Ten Picks: 3

Carlton (aligned with Oakleigh)

In - Marc Murphy (1), Todd Goldstein (37), N/A, Luke Shuey (18), Jamie MacMillan (37) Andrew Gaff (4), Dom Tyson (3)

Average Pick No: 17

Top Ten Picks: 3

Collingwood (aligned with Western Jets)

In - Jake Edwards (36), Bachar Houli (42), Callan Ward (19), Jayden Post (26), Jack Fitzpatrick (50), N/A, Will Hoskin-Elliot (4)

Average Pick No: 30

Top Ten Picks: 1

Essendon (aligned with Northern Knights)

In - Ben McKinley (29), Daniel Currie (49), Matthew Kreuzer (1), Michael Hurley (5), Sam Grimley (39), Josh Caddy (7), Billy Longer (8)

Average Pick No: 20

Top Ten Picks: 4

Fremantle (aligned with Swan Districts, East Fremantle, South Fremantle, Peel Thunder and Claremont)

In - Jack Kennedy (3), Scott Gumbleton (2), Chris Masten (3), Nic Naitanui (2), Anthony Morabito (4), David Swallow (1), Stephen Coniglio (2)

Average Pick No: 2

Top Ten Picks: 7

Geelong (aligned with Geelong Falcons)

In - Shaun Higgins (11), Travis Boak (5), Lachlan Henderson (8), Luke Rounds (46), Ben Cunnington (5), Billy Smedts (15), Taylor Adams (13)

Average Pick No: 15

Top Ten Picks: 2

Hawthorn (aligned with Dandenong)

In - Nathan Jones (12), Andrejs Everitt (11), Jarrad Grant (5), Thomas Gillies (33), Tom Scully (1), Tomas Lynch (11), Matt Buntine (5)

Average Pick No: 11

Top Ten Picks: 3

Melbourne (aligned with Sandrignham)

In - Robert Warnock (42), Chris Dawes (28), N/A, Jack Watts (1), Jack Gunston (29), Ben Jacobs (16), Liam Sumner (10)

Average Pick No: 21

Top Ten Picks: 2

North Melbourne (aligned with Calder Cannons)

In - Richard Douglas (16), Jarryd Allen (59), Addam Maric (21), Nackson Trengove (22), Jake Melksham (10), Dion Prestia (9), Barandon Ellis (15)

Average Pick No: 22

Port Power (aligned with Port Adelaide, Central Districts, West Adelaide, North Adelaide and Woodville/West Torrens)

In - Shannon Hurn (13), Paul Stewart (23), Brad Ebert (13), Hamish Hartlett (4), Daniel Menzell (17), Jared Polec (5), Cameron Ellis-Yolmen (64)

Average Pick No: 20

Top Ten Picks: 2

Richmond (aligned with Eastern Ranges)

In - Matthew Spangher (34), N/A, Matthew Lobbe (16), Sam Blease (17), Andrew Moore (9), Kieran Harper (27), Jonathan Patton (1)

Average Pick No: 17

Top Ten Picks: 2

Saint Kilda (aligned with North Ballarat)

In - Stephen Owen (35), Nathan Brown (10), Clayton Hinkley (24), Nic Suabn (24), David Astbury (35), Lucas Cook (12), Sebastian Rowe (25)

Average Pick No: 24

Top Ten Picks: 1

Swans (aligned with Murray Bushrangers and first choice of best of NSW)

In - Marcus Drum (10), Ben Reid (8), Ben McEvoy (9), Jack Ziebell (9), Sam Reid (38), Shaun Ately (17), Patrick Wearden (47)

Average Pick No: 20

In via NSW pick (up to 2009) - Dylan Addison (27), N/A, Taylor Walker (*75 SP), N/A, N/A, Trent Stubbs (77), Jarrod Witts (67)

Average Pick No: 62 (though skewed via scholarship picks)

Top Ten Picks: 4

West Coast (aligned with East Perth, West Perth, Perth, Subiaco)

In - Jarrad Oakley Nicholls (8), Matthew Leunberger (4), David Myers (6), Stephen Hill (3), Mitch Duncan (28), Reece Conca (6), Fraser McInnes (28)

Average Pick No: 12

Top Ten Picks: 5

Western Bulldogs (aligned with Gippsland)

In - Dale Thomas (2), Lachlan Hansen (3), Myke Cook (38), Nicholas Heyne (48), John Butcher (8), Dyson Heppell (8), Sam Docherty (12)

Average Pick No: 17

Top Ten Picks: 4

Top 2 Picks from Tasmania (from 2005) - Grant Birchall (14), Mitchell Thorp (6), Tom Collier (25), Liam Jones (32), Mitch Robinson (40), Marcus Davies (43), Ryan Harwood (47), Josh Green (32), Jeremy Howe (33), Henry Schade (24), Jimmy Webster (42)

Average Pick No: 31

Top 2 Picks from NT (from 2005) - Nathan Djerrkura (25), Cyril Rioli (12), Marlon Motlop (28), Stephen Motlop (39), Troy Taylor (51), Zephaniah Skinner (88)

Average Pick No: 41

Best of the Rest:

2005 - Xavier Ellis (3), Scott Pendlebury (5), Beau Dowler (6), Patrick Ryder (7)

2006 - James Frwaley (12), Jack Riewoldt (13 - Tassie Mariners), James Sellar (14), Daniel O’keefe (15)

2007 - Trent Cotchin (2), Cale Morton (4), Rhys Palmer (7), Patrick Dangerfield (10)

2008 - Chris Yarran (6), Daniel Rich (7), Tyron Vickery (8), Phil Davis (10)

2009 - Gary Rohan (6), Brad Shephard (7), Jordan Gysberts (11), Kane Lucas (12)

2010 - Harley Bennell (2), Daniel Gorringe (10), Seb Tape (13), Brodie Smith (14)

2011 - Nick Haynes (7), Adam Tomlinson (9), Toby Greene (11), Devon Smith (14)

 

[Miss Vanessa]

I would also ask the question: WTF association does GWS have with the NT.
Is there a kid out there in the NT that aspires to play for GWS..........cant say I would call that his local club.
The whole zone thing is a farce.....just another way to favour some over the others.

It should be a level playing field for all

No real association except the opportunity to play Australian Rules Football at the highest level. The same thing could be asked of any number of Victorian and South Australian kids. But they might end up playing for GWS anyway. Until such a time that Qld and NSW could adequately support their own local picks why not associate the GC with The NT and GWS with Tasmania? At least it would provide a core group of players with similar backgrounds and a special camaraderie.

And if you look at my breakdown of the draft since 2005, assigning AFL teams to local TAC teams etc, or offering priority picks for Qld and NSW teams actually delivers a pretty fair spread across the board. Hell, if Brisbane had priority picks to Queenslanders from 2005-2009 they would have had some freaking guns on their list. And I think that would be super. Added to which, the talent that wouldn't get picked up via these picks would still go through to the draft proper and provide huge benefits to those teams who had struggled the year before.

Personally, I'd still love to see something like this happen.

 

[thedaz47]

You are a git, based upon your insults due to your inability to grasp the concept, which also makes you clueless. Clearly Whitfield is a bad example. As far as the NRL is concerned then they wouldn't be looking at an endurance based athlete. The kid who Richmond drafted late with a man's body is a good example or even someone like Rodan who is a stocky build and quick. So for the AFL in Qld and NSW they would be looking to get a talented ball user who may even be a bit of a kicker for their side but clearly are an endurance style athlete who'll probably struggle to put the weight on required for NRL. Of course there will be a threshold met at some point where lots of young guys start looking to the AFL as a game that they should play as juniors to keep their options open.

*clip*

You over reaction to what would be a good thing to the game because there might be an advantage to clubs from Victoria, SA and WA is ridiculous.

I understand the concept better than you, evidently.

Firstly, the kids with good ball use and foot skills up here all have high school scholarships and NRL youth contracts from thirteen. They're exactly what every NRL team wants, so Whitfield is a perfect example.

Secondly, which of Grundy and Toumpas do Adelaide get at #19? Any system that continually provides a discount on home-grown talent is patently favourable to the four SA and WA teams, who have much higher player-to-team ratios.

 

[thedaz47]

Added to which, the talent that wouldn't get picked up via these picks would still go through to the draft proper and provide huge benefits to those teams who had struggled the year before.

At least all of the hyperbole surrounding tanking would disappear when the first overall pick gets you the nineteenth player.

 

[bumsonseats]

No real association except the opportunity to play Australian Rules Football at the highest level. The same thing could be asked of any number of Victorian and South Australian kids. But they might end up playing for GWS anyway. Until such a time that Qld and NSW could adequately support their own local picks why not associate the GC with The NT and GWS with Tasmania? At least it would provide a core group of players with similar backgrounds and a special camaraderie.

And if you look at my breakdown of the draft since 2005, assigning AFL teams to local TAC teams etc, or offering priority picks for Qld and NSW teams actually delivers a pretty fair spread across the board. Hell, if Brisbane had priority picks to Queenslanders from 2005-2009 they would have had some freaking guns on their list. And I think that would be super. Added to which, the talent that wouldn't get picked up via these picks would still go through to the draft proper and provide huge benefits to those teams who had struggled the year before.

Personally, I'd still love to see something like this happen.

I guess you have to defend your own thread but your logic is flawed and delusional........That same opportunity to play at the highest level exists in the draft. Clubs arent going to go for the dregs that might not otherwise get drafted. They are going to cherry pick the best players.......thereby thinning the remaining talent in the draft. Those players were very likely to get drafted anyway, so why introduce another inequity which can be open for exploitation. The whole idea of the draft is to even out the competition and you want to take it backwards.

All you are doing is proposing yet another inequity, but I can see how this might favour a club like Adelaide so I guess you will continue to argue its benefit for all it is worth.

la la land

 

[Freo Dr]

Presently WA teams provide via the WAFC all money for footy development in WA but players are drafted all over the place and of course all the best ones recently outside WA. Similar in SA. VFL however is funded by the AFL (not sure on TAC) so player development in Victoria is also partially funded by the very profitable WA and SA teams as well as those states paying for our own juniors but getting no concessions for it.

Present system of funding development is inequitable. There is no net benefit for WA teams to spend extra money on local junior development and indications are that it is suffering as a result. Some type of at least partial zone concession would fix this but the best thing to do would be to get rid of/merge three Melbourne clubs and put an extra team into WA, SA and maybe Tas. More even competition, sensible geographic basis for partial zone concessions.

 

[Collingwoodity]

So now that all the Melbourne teams play out of the MCG and half of them train out of the MCG precinct how exactly do we allocate their zones? Based on suburbs they no long represent? Or based on their origins from 50 years ago.

If we do it on that basis arent wce representing ross oakley loins?

 

[Jonts]

I'd be for a partial zone not a complete one

Ie you can nominate one player and where you pick him goes under the same rules that current FS goes under