The game is great. The current model is working, but that doesn't mean we shouldn’t question any aspects of the current model. In fact every year we do question other aspects of the current model. We see rule and policy changes everywhere. The only part of the model that doesn't seem to be questioned is the need for never ending growth.
I feel like you're just asking questions for the sake of asking, despite being shown numerous time that what the AFL are doing is working. If you keep going, people are going to label you a bitter Collingwood fan who misses the old days when the Pies would make a GF every third or fourth year on average.
Is the Blakey situation any different to Carlton drafting Marc Murphy in '05 though? His old man was a Fitzroy legend and the Lions had father-son access to him but Marc decided to decline his father-son opportunity because he wanted to stay in his hometown of Melbourne and knew Carlton were going to take him with pick 1. You're right about Heeney and Mills though. They would 100% be lost to the rugby codes if the Swans academy didn't exist.
Probably right about Mills and Heeney being lost to AFL.
he declined his fs rights and entered an open draft different to having priority access
The AFL is currently engaged in an aggressive expansionary model. We've expanded already and thus we need to grow our supporter bases, but do we need to continue to expand. Is there an optimal size or are we so locked into the expansionary model that we need to and should aim to continually grow forever.
How would you create a rule which enabled Heeney, but didn't enable kids like Blakey to be taken as an academy kid?
Set a predetermined criteria that allows them exclusive access under the assumption that x club is responsible for player y being an AFL prospect.
Same way the AFL do anything difficult - don't write anything down and leave it at the discretion of a suit at head office on a per-case basis.
Has merit in theory, but would be bloody hard to do in practice. Most players would be influenced and developed by a huge range of factors, including and excluding the academy.
It must be frustrating for a team like Freo to watch Sydney getting recruiting concessions in order to grow their supporter base, when Sydney are actually dead centre in the AFL in terms of number of members and have been one of the more successful teams of the last 20 years.
It's not like Freo will ever get reparations for how it entered the competition compared to GCS/GWS, and Freo will still be told how privileged we are now, and we are, but ignoring the years and years of struggle to build.
As is the case in our game, certain body types/natural abilities are more suited to particular positions on the field. For example, speed is a very valuable asset for those who play on the wing in rugby league/union just like it is in our game. Isaac Heeney played on the wing for his high school in a rugby league tournament and scored five tries in a grand final to give you an idea of his ability in that sport. In fact, Heeney was also a gun cricketer and soccer player as well. You remember that one kid in high school that just seemed to be good at every sport he tried? That was Isaac Heeney.
Would Betts have done well in either rugby code? It's a difficult question to answer but one player I can think of that is reminiscent of Eddie is Preston Campbell, who predominately played as a fullback during his NRL career. Campbell was 167cms and 73kgs and Eddie is 174cms and 74kgs. Similar sized indigenous players who are capable of doing freakish things on the field. Campbell lasted 14 years in the NRL and played 267 games. Would Eddie have been able to make it in either rugby code? It's difficult to answer but his size wouldn't have been a determining factor.
They should reduce the points discount to 10%, if somebody has a father to have played more than say 10 afl-vol matches make the discount 0%. Also make the matching bids include a pick within 18 of the bid, otherwise 0% discount.
So would I, but Sydney are always going to have to travel more than the Victorian teams, have to bring in and retain more interstate players than most teams, and don't get a guaranteed home Grand Final if we make it. You make do.
Not arguing with any of that, except for retention - you seem to have done OK on that front and are also probably an attractive destination for those players who aren't enamoured by the limelight. The Vic teams are doing well. A club like Freo though, which is still a developing club that hasn't tasted much success, was comparatively screwed on inception and is still getting screwed on all fronts. They've become my poster boys for hard done by underdogs. I'd love to see them have some success, just not at the Pies expense.
Again, agreeing with you that Sydney have worked hard to counteract the inherent disadvantage of having to build teams over decades from mostly interstate players, the fact that they have done so does not mean the disadvantage is not there.
