The biggest problem with the draft is......

[Maggie Greg]

that the draft age is too low.

Players should be 20 or 21 years old before they are eligible for the draft. There are several advanatages:

1. Less guess work about whether a player has the skills and ability required so no more Cloke type discussions.

2. If they have to move interstate they are more mature and more likely to make the move successfully at that age than as a teenager and so enhances the integrity of the draft.

3. They are well and truly past VCE year so that pressure is removed.

4. They are more physcially mature and this ties in with point 1.

5. Under 18s could become Under 17s so if they show any ability in the U 17s they can move into the VFL/SANFL/WAFL etc and play against men but under less pressure.

6. In the end it may be less physcially demanding on thier bodies so they last longer.

7. Later developers who are lost to the system at age 18 or 19 have a chance to still make it.

8. With more surety about the player to be drafted more efficient recruiting is possible as not turning over and spitting out players at the same rate.

Disadvantages, you miss out on the occasional Tim Watson early type but lets face it, they are pretty rare.

I definitely think this is the way to go.

 

[Portia]

I like a young draft, because it gives clubs an opportunity to fight the effects of the draft (imposed mediocrity through poor draft picks) through clever recruiting.

Also, have a look at our league. Quite often the best players in a given team start being very good very young....take Ben Cousins, Nick Stevens, Luke Power, Adam Ramanauskas, Justin Koschitzke, Adam Goodes...the list goes on. What benefit would it really be for them to wait 4 years to play in the AFL? And what benefit would it be to the league?

 

[speedy]

I agree with you Porthos, but maybe increasing it by one year would be ideal IMO.

 

[roowatch]

Agreed Porthos!

Many are ready to perform at the elite level, and should not be held back because some find the transition difficult.

At the same age, teenagers from all walks of life move all over the country (world?) to start university, jobs, see the world, and yet those who CHOOSE football as a pathway are supposed to be unable to cope.

The support mechanisms are much better at AFL Clubs now, in fact, probably better than any other field of endeavour.

Those who aren't ready can still develop at other levels, and be added by later drafting, and/or progressing via the rookie list.

In relation to Josh Fraser and being overburdened in junior football, M. Malthouse needs to be reminded of some facts.
Fraser had glandular fever in his final year in U.18 comp, and did not play. Being guaranteed first selection, theMurray Bushrangers chose not to wear him out and rush him back late in the season.
However, the magpies had him competing in the first ruck as a 17 yo, then complain of other clubs overtaxing him. HMMM.

(And no, this does not go against my argument. Clubs generally mange youngsters pretty well these days.)

 

[Maggie Greg]

Well it doesnt get over the problem of the majority of footballers drafted interstate wanting to return home almost as quickly. Being drafted at an older level means that they are more likely to have matured emotionally to be able to cope without their family support and network of friends.

Also there are some players who are able to play at 18, but the vast majority of those drafted dont and many of them never make it. By being drafted at an older age you will be able to grab some of these players after they have matured physically and improved skill wise so there is less guesswork and the draft becomes less of a lottery which it definitely is at the moment.

There is more to gain holding some of the players who can play at 18 back than sticking with the costly and inefficient draft system we have today.

 

[Maggie Greg]

By the way Speedy the phrase is "andare andare"

 

[Portia]

Originally posted by Maggie Greg
Well it doesnt get over the problem of the majority of footballers drafted interstate wanting to return home almost as quickly. Being drafted at an older level means that they are more likely to have matured emotionally to be able to cope without their family support and network of friends.

The majority? Sure, players might get homesick, but have a look at how many -really- get so homesick so much of the time that they go home. Not the majority.

What can cause homesickness is being drafted by an AFL club, but not playing at AFl level....it would suck, for example, to be a Port/Crows players left to play with North Adelaide all year (not so much now because a few are there).....it would cause homesickness.

What could be done by clubs is to tag a player, have them do the preseason, and then play on with their local club if they're expecting them to be a development player. But that'd be a big concession from clubs, and would also likely make that player less interested in perfomring well enough to play for their interstate club....when they could be traded at the end of the year.

Also there are some players who are able to play at 18, but the vast majority of those drafted dont and many of them never make it. By being drafted at an older age you will be able to grab some of these players after they have matured physically and improved skill wise so there is less guesswork and the draft becomes less of a lottery which it definitely is at the moment.

I'd say that what you'd lose is the player being intimately familiar with the team plan, ethos, etc. Also, its a fact that often talented juniors need certain skills corrected to be suitable for the big league. Its OK to take a 17 year old and do this, but by the time a player is 21....do clubs really want to spend two years correcting this?

There is more to gain holding some of the players who can play at 18 back than sticking with the costly and inefficient draft system we have today.

There is one important point that has been missed......a player can choose not to nominate for the draft.

Matthew Pavlich nominated for the 98 draft, but declared that he wanted to finish high school in SA (at Sacred Heart, I believe). So, he said to non-SA clubs that they could draft him, but they'd have to wait a year until he was ready to move. Port and Adelaide neglected to pick him up, so he went to Freo in at the end of the next year and is doing fine.

Players can already do this. The mechanism is already there....if they're highly rated potential draftees, they'll still be highly rated in two years time...if they've got the goods. But restricting the ones that are ready? Seems harsh.

 

[speedy]

Originally posted by Maggie Greg
By the way Speedy the phrase is "andare andare"

Matthew Hunter's unofficial Looney Tunes Page
Beginning with a cartoon entitled "Cat-Tails for Two," (directed by Robert McKimson, 1953) Speedy Gonzales was always a target of cats. Of course, the cats did not seem to realize that Speedy had supersonic speed. Speedy looked quite different from the Speedy we recognize today. He had big, buck teeth and a gold tooth in front, with a very Mexican look to him. But the character was in there. With his trademark call of "Arriba! Arriba! Andale! Andale! YEEHAH!"

incorrecto senor greg,

Andale! Andale! YEEHAH!

 

[FIGJAM]

Originally posted by roowatch
In relation to Josh Fraser and being overburdened in junior football, M. Malthouse needs to be reminded of some facts.
Fraser had glandular fever in his final year in U.18 comp, and did not play. Being guaranteed first selection, theMurray Bushrangers chose not to wear him out and rush him back late in the season.
However, the magpies had him competing in the first ruck as a 17 yo, then complain of other clubs overtaxing him. HMMM.

Hmmm indeed...I think r. watch needs to be reminded of some facts!

In last weeks article Malthouse, wasn't referring to Josh Fraser when complaining about the amount of football the young kids play. He was referring to Collingwood's five 2001 draftees three of which have been struck down by injury as a result of overplay in the juniors, including young gun Richard Cole and Murray Bushranger (well I'll be jiggered!), Mark McGough.

Have the "facts" been adequately reminded to you yet son???

 

[MarkT]

MM said they interviwed some potential draftee's who claime to have played 40 to 50 games during the year. It was a general comment in that regard and his point was that something needs to be done about the injury risk. I hardly think that is a debatable point.

Would the draft age make a difference? The answer is maybe.

The demands on the under age players may be uneffected by the starting age to any great extent. School, club and rep. footy don't vary with AFL age requirements but things like draft camps etc. do.


The draft age is too young for some and not for others. That is then problem. Paul Haselby was not too young to be drafted and neither was Josh Fraser. Player management is an issue that the clubs should take more responsibility for. Overtaxing a young body is irresponsible and regular assessments should be made. Increasing the draft age would certainly reduct the risk of young bodies being overtaxed in matches however.

The draft would be lees a lottery if the age was higher but I am not convinced that is a good thing. It would make the list management for clubs a lot simpler but that is good and bad too.


I would have sympathy for a proposal to increas the age by a year or so but no more than that. Perhaps we should err on the side of caution with young men who have a lot to deal with and sometimes no family support to assist.

 

[Grendel]

Originally posted by speedy




incorrecto senor greg,

Andale! Andale! YEEHAH!

And still they cant catch SPEEDY!!!

I wonder how a motor mouse, speedy race would go!?!.....

 

[Rohan_]

I remember the scouts who watched our games (APS) would always make comments about the maturity of a player. Although it was a form of senior football, junior competitions (i.e. TAC) do not prepare players for senior football.

It would make a huge difference and would raise the standard of draftees if they were recruited at 20.

I know a number of players who went straight from the TAC (i.e. Ryan O'Keefe, Luke Penny) and ones that went in the system before getting drafted (i.e. Merrington).

Because they played senior football before getting drafted, they were better prepared than the ones who came straight from the junior competition.

 

[WCE2000]

can someone explain the logic of why the draft age should be moved up.

If your good enough, your old enough.

If a person is not fully matured, and not big enough to take on the big boys, then a club can still draft him because they can see talent, however, he can just sit on the team list for a couple of years before they think he is ready to take on AFL football. How is it harming him to sit on the list and not play, simply be a future prospect for the club, that may or may not work out. If it does work out, a brilliant spotting of talent from the club, if it doesnt work out, the kid has a bit of money to play with, and its only gonna be about 50 000 over a couple of years to the club.

And there are some 15 or 16 year olds who are big enough to play AFL football. Some of the sizes of these kids these days just astounds me.

Of course there has to be a limit for the draft, but it should be lowered to 15 years i believe.

 

[liz]

Originally posted by WCE2000
can someone explain the logic of why the draft age should be moved up.

If your good enough, your old enough.

If a person is not fully matured, and not big enough to take on the big boys, then a club can still draft him because they can see talent, however, he can just sit on the team list for a couple of years before they think he is ready to take on AFL football. How is it harming him to sit on the list and not play, simply be a future prospect for the club, that may or may not work out. If it does work out, a brilliant spotting of talent from the club, if it doesnt work out, the kid has a bit of money to play with, and its only gonna be about 50 000 over a couple of years to the club.

And there are some 15 or 16 year olds who are big enough to play AFL football. Some of the sizes of these kids these days just astounds me.

Of course there has to be a limit for the draft, but it should be lowered to 15 years i believe.

Problem with this suggestion is that it could severely disrupt players' schooling. Most players drafted won't make it as a career footballer and need other skills. Shifting 15 year olds into a professional football environment won't do anything to encourage them to complete school.

 

[Port01]

Originally posted by liz


Problem with this suggestion is that it could severely disrupt players' schooling. Most players drafted won't make it as a career footballer and need other skills. Shifting 15 year olds into a professional football environment won't do anything to encourage them to complete school.

Matthew Lloyd was drafted at 16.

Although admittedly no amount of schooling was going to do that kid any good.

 

[Docker_Brat]

Increasing the draft age is not the solution. Many players have made it at young ages prior to the draft system.

What is a shame about the present draft is that if a player isn't picked up by 21, it is all but over for him, the club recruiters are rarely interested in looking at such players unless they have proven AFL experience.

 

[roowatch]

Originally posted by FIGJAM

Hmmm indeed...I think r. watch needs to be reminded of some facts!

In last weeks article Malthouse, wasn't referring to Josh Fraser when complaining about the amount of football the young kids play. He was referring to Collingwood's five 2001 draftees three of which have been struck down by injury as a result of overplay in the juniors, including young gun Richard Cole and Murray Bushranger (well I'll be jiggered!), Mark McGough.

Have the "facts" been adequately reminded to you yet son???

Thanks for that........Dad!

BTW, would that be the Richard Cole who played very few games over the last two years due to a variety of shoulder and other non-overuse injuries?

 

[Portia]

Originally posted by Docker_Brat
What is a shame about the present draft is that if a player isn't picked up by 21, it is all but over for him, the club recruiters are rarely interested in looking at such players unless they have proven AFL experience.

Thats what happens when senior lists go from 52 down to 38, I guess. Less room for a punt, or for a good `average' player to come in for injured players.

 

[WCE2000]

Originally posted by liz


Problem with this suggestion is that it could severely disrupt players' schooling. Most players drafted won't make it as a career footballer and need other skills. Shifting 15 year olds into a professional football environment won't do anything to encourage them to complete school.

If they think that it will disrupt their schooling, then they dont nominate themselves for the draft. simple.

Say for instance, a team spots a young talent whos about 15 years of age, and they look at him as a possible future draft pick.

In the current senario, they are at a disadvantage, as by the team he is eligible to be drafted, all other 15 clubs would've seen him, and he may go before they get the chance to pick him up.

If the draft age were lowered, they can pick him up at 15 (if he wants to be nominated into the draft) and he can sit on the player lists, without playing AFL football, for a couple of seasons until he matures and is big enough to play AFL football. And if he turns out to be an absolute gun player, then it is a brilliant piece of recruiting.

 

[Maggie Greg]

Someone else (Pieman) has said this on another board and it is true

You are quite right MG. But we couldn't just raise the drafting age, we would have to put a whole new system in place.

We would need a semi-professional, national Under 20 or Under 21 League (like the American college system) to provide these guys with the training, education and money to keep them happy.

American gridiron teams draft players to BECOME THEIR STARTING QUARTERBACK!!!

The draft should be a way to fill holes immediately. So this season Collingwood would have drafted a ruckman, a tall defender and a quality midfielder with the full expectation that they would all play 22 games (unless injured).

The other objections relate mainly to what we are used to. We are used to 17 and 18 year olds playing firsts footy, so we expect that it will continue. Although we all love Josh, we really are all waiting until he is a couple of years older before he becomes a truly great player - after he learns the tricks of the trade and fills out a bit etc.

I don't think anyone running football thinks that far ahead, MG. So I doubt if we will ever see it happen.

But it should!
.

And the point is that the way the system is now, too many players are drafted HOPING they will become good. The too many get turfed out the other end not having made it. By pushing back the drafting age it will overcome the waste of time ands resources drafting player who will never make it. It is a waste putting those people in the AFL and spitting them out. It will still happen of course with my proposal, but no to the same extent.

 

[WCE2000]

Originally posted by Maggie Greg

The draft should be a way to fill holes immediately. So this season Collingwood would have drafted a ruckman, a tall defender and a quality midfielder with the full expectation that they would all play 22 games (unless injured).

I dont agree that is what the draft should be. I think the draft should test clubs for the skill to be able to see how good a player is a few years in advance. Obvioubsly, there is some guesswork (even more when lowering the age), however, alot of the time it is good recruiting and good spotting of talent.

There is no skill going into an under 21 competition and just picking the best player who you know will be good. Like the game itself, recruiting should require skill as well.

 

[Portia]

Why would younger players being chewed up by an under 21 competition be any better for them than being chewed up in the AFL?

 

[Maggie Greg]

Originally posted by WCE2000


I dont agree that is what the draft should be. I think the draft should test clubs for the skill to be able to see how good a player is a few years in advance. Obvioubsly, there is some guesswork (even more when lowering the age), however, alot of the time it is good recruiting and good spotting of talent.

There is no skill going into an under 21 competition and just picking the best player who you know will be good. Like the game itself, recruiting should require skill as well.

It never did before drafting. Everyone knew who the good players were. The skill was which of the good player does your team need. The CHF, the mid-fielder, the on-baller, the ruckman, the backman etc. There would be a skill in that and you would have a better idea with their more mature bodies if they can play or not. Apart from the first round draft picks the rest are usually a lottery and there is no skill in that.

 

[Maggie Greg]

Originally posted by Porthos
Why would younger players being chewed up by an under 21 competition be any better for them than being chewed up in the AFL?

Because the players who were drafted were the ones more likely to be able to play, whihc i snot the case now. If you miss out at 21 then you are less likely to develop later anyway.

It also means club resources are less likely to be wasted by getting rid of 80% of each years intake via the draft b/c they actually cant play. It is a waste of coaching time, development time, recruitment time and admin time.

 

[Portia]

Originally posted by Maggie Greg
Because the players who were drafted were the ones more likely to be able to play, whihc i snot the case now. If you miss out at 21 then you are less likely to develop later anyway.

Nonono, you're missing the point. The answer you give is great if you forego the whole pretext of `player welfare' mentioned previously.

If the kids are getting lumped into a national u21 competition, aren't they just as likely to be moved interstate and get homesick; to struggle under increasing pressure to perform; to stress themselves through injury to show that they're good enough to be drafted (unlike an AFL 18 year old who has at least -some- security).

I'm sure we all saw the example of Brad in Home Improvement who ****ed his knee up to impress a college soccer scout.

It also means club resources are less likely to be wasted by getting rid of 80% of each years intake via the draft b/c they actually cant play. It is a waste of coaching time, development time, recruitment time and admin time.

Ah, I see. So this is sour grapes from clubs that can't recruit then.

As far as the health of the competition goes......how would it be better if every player under 21 was removed, right now?