The draft myth?

[Pessimistic]

In discussing the draft, worth mentioning that in the US sports, draftees are ready made and can impact a teams performance immediately.

not much sign of that here because the 2nd tier is so far behind

 

[Pessimistic]

Also, since 2001, how may grand finals have not contained one of Brisbane, Sydney, Geelong or Hawthorn?

afaik, just one: 2010 Coll v StK

15 grand finals for 12 flags with port, eagles, coll left over

 

[MarkT2]

In discussing the draft, worth mentioning that in the US sports, draftees are ready made and can impact a teams performance immediately.

not much sign of that here because the 2nd tier is so far behind

Isn't the draft age the main reason?

 

[StonesThrow]

A lot of clubs only have themselves to blame due to poor selections or poor development.

The crows have managed to remain at least competitive (not that I agree with it) for a long time now (since the early 2000s) with hardly any top 10 draft picks. There are many things the club has done wrong in recent years but draft selection at later picks, development and list management have actually been very good.

If the bottom clubs nailed these departments more often using to end talent, they would see themselves to the top end of the ladder. Imo

 

[garlic munchers]

How many Vic, WA or SA kids would want to go to QLD or NSW if they had a choice at 17/18 years old.

Sunny Gold Coast, bigger salary cap, sex, drugs, R & R and perhaps a GF or two thrown in for the next few years. Almost a year long schoolies.

Should be attracting all 17/18 years old and a couple of toolies!

 

[Randy Campbell]

It is not the drafts fault that some clubs are no good.

Why, when things go wrong, does it always have to be because someone or something else is the fault?

 

[Mr_Moogle]

It is not the drafts fault that some clubs are no good.

Why, when things go wrong, does it always have to be because someone or something else is the fault?

I think the draft itself is not the problem here. What is the point of having a draft or equalisation when the whole system is so easily undermined by FA?

For me it's not really a matter of punishing the Hawks or any other top 4 side. It's about recognising the fact that Free Agency by it's very nature creates an endless sea of opportunities for clubs at the top end of the ladder. Whatever the other sides get will always ultimately be leftovers and the odd player heading home. Marquee players will always find themselves in marquee sides. If you can't see how FA creates a caste system within the league, I'm going to put that down to wilful ignorance on your part. There's clearly no reason for you to reject a system which advantages your own side.

 

[Debris]

Then don't play football if the burden of leaving family is so awful. You can't have your cake and eat it too, it's life grow the fk up.

I see that the answer is yes. Let's just make up random purposeless requirements for other occupations. Accountants are not allowed to own cars, IT professionals have to pay an extra 10 percent in tax, child care workers are not allowed to marry, teachers must live at least 20 km from the school. This is great. They can't have their cake and eat it too, it's life grow the fk up.

 

[flamingEMBERS]

It is. They go to where they are drafted.

Still a lot of kids demanding trades 1 year or 2 years in and not for lack of opportunity. IT's getting better but still.

 

[Furn2]

When are people going to understand that Free agency isn't an equalisation measure.

It was a player driven demand that the AFL and clubs fought against for years.

There is no shutting the door on FA or restricting it. It is just going to get easier and easier for players to move.

It's a myth anyway that FAs mostly go from bottom to top teams. The majority go the other way.

 

[beta_condition]

I see that the answer is yes. Let's just make up random purposeless requirements for other occupations. Accountants are not allowed to own cars, IT professionals have to pay an extra 10 percent in tax, child care workers are not allowed to marry, teachers must live at least 20 km from the school. This is great. They can't have their cake and eat it too, it's life grow the fk up.

Huh talk about being random, what you said has nothing to do with anything.

 

[Sttew]

T

Why is the draft failing to even out the competition? Is it time to get rid of the draft and let players play for whichever team they want if the club can afford them under the cap?

And end up with an EPL haves and have-nots competition dominated by a few clubs? No thanks.

 

[Sttew]

Three Dynasties didn't happen because of the draft, Brisbane had extra salary cap, Geelong had good luck with father sons, and Hawthorn peaked when GWS and Gold Coast had a monopoly on the draft and halted other teams from developing to challenge them.

That is a myth. Yes the father sons contributed but Geelong's "dynasty" can be traced back to two drafts where the club netted the core of its premiership teams + very good management

 

[mike123]

That is a myth. Yes the father sons contributed but Geelong's "dynasty" can be traced back to two drafts where the club netted the core of its premiership teams + very good management

Not saying you didn't have good management or that you wouldn't have won atleast one premiership, but you where basically being gifting extra first rounders with some of your f/s which made it allot easier maintaining a side over a long period of time.

 

[Messenger]

I see that the answer is yes. Let's just make up random purposeless requirements for other occupations. Accountants are not allowed to own cars, IT professionals have to pay an extra 10 percent in tax, child care workers are not allowed to marry, teachers must live at least 20 km from the school. This is great. They can't have their cake and eat it too, it's life grow the fk up.

That is not really your answer, surely.

The system is fairly transparent. You go in a draft you're available to any club.

 

[Randy Campbell]

I think the draft itself is not the problem here. What is the point of having a draft or equalisation when the whole system is so easily undermined by FA?

For me it's not really a matter of punishing the Hawks or any other top 4 side. It's about recognising the fact that Free Agency by it's very nature creates an endless sea of opportunities for clubs at the top end of the ladder. Whatever the other sides get will always ultimately be leftovers and the odd player heading home. Marquee players will always find themselves in marquee sides. If you can't see how FA creates a caste system within the league, I'm going to put that down to wilful ignorance on your part. There's clearly no reason for you to reject a system which advantages your own side.

I am not a fan of free agency.

But I think it is still too early in the AFL to make calls on who it favours. Not sure how it has favoured my club?

A marquee team will beat a team of marquee.

 

[flamingEMBERS]

I am not a fan of free agency.

But I think it is still too early in the AFL to make calls on who it favours. Not sure how it has favoured my club?

A marquee team will beat a team of marquee.

It favours the players not the clubs. Though clubs can use it to their advantage or disadvantage. Players shouldn't be trapped in poorly run organisations for their whole career.

 

[dickballsack]

It favours the players not the clubs. Though clubs can use it to their advantage or disadvantage. Players shouldn't be trapped in poorly run organisations for their whole career.

That's exactly right and is the reason it's been brought in, to assist players in changing employer of they wish. FA is fair for every club just like the draft is, it's all list management in fitting an optimum balance of players under the same salary cap. Some clubs are just better than others at this.

 

[MarkT2]

Still a lot of kids demanding trades 1 year or 2 years in and not for lack of opportunity. IT's getting better but still.

That's life. The draft and contracts are two entirely different issues. Contracted player don't have to be traded. Uncontracted players don't have to stay somewhere just because a club drafted them. The AFL doesn't exist in a vacuum. Free agency is a concession to reality without which the restraints would probably be removed by a court eventually. The AFL didn't concede on FA to help top or bottom clubs it conceded to protect it's player restraining rules.

All of that is somewhat beside the point. If you are well run you deserve success. If you aren't you don't.

 

[Rotayjay]

I doubt that abolishing the draft would make the competition more even. There are only so many equalisation measures that a league can implement, and if certain teams can form dynasties, it leads boring eras but good on them. There are no two ways about it and there are no more real ways to increase equalisation (except abolishing free agency or capping footy department spending).

 

[coerced]

4 clubs in 16 years is what then ?
Pre-draft era we had from 1968 to 1983 only Carlton, Richmond, Hawthorn of North Melbourne win the premiership.
Essendon became a 5th club in 1984 and took until 1990 when draft and salary cap had been in place a few years for a another club to win a premiership.

Since 1990 there were 7 different clubs won premierships from 1990 to 2001 in that time. Port become a 8th in 2004 and Swans 9th a few years later and Geelong 10th in 2007.

10 different clubs winning premierships between 1990 and 2007 is quite telling in terms of equalisations polices having an effect.

Pre-draft era was also pre-salary cap with rigidly enforced zones and other sets of byzantine rules about player transfer.

The AFL has never been a free market, and the league establishes increasingly bizarre rules about how clubs can build their lists. There's the national, the rookie list, the PSD (what purpose does this serve) as drafts, then free agency, father son, academies, and then complex formulas based on those to determine 'fairness' in the forms of draft picks.

The assertion is made that bad clubs just have to get better, but with this complex set of rules, how does a club truly plan to build a list? How much of it is just dumb luck?

There hadn't been a team that won three in a row since the 1950s, and all of a sudden in the draft era and salary cap there are two. Yes, there was an explosion of teams that won in the 90s and 00s, but that coincided with those teams being new and receiving concessions. Only one new Victorian club has won a premiership since Collingwood did in 1990. And of the teams that were admitted in the 90s, only one has managed to go back to the well: West Coast.

Adelaide hasn't made a GF in 17 years, Port nearly went broke and disappeared, Brisbane is irrelevant, and Fremantle have achieved nothing.

 

[gbatman]

Seems really hard for sides to get off the bottom and really easy for sides to stay up the top, more than ever perhaps.

Free agency has helped sides stay up and create dynasties. No doubt there would have been gaps in the hawks flags if not for free agency.

Perhaps a kind of priority draft system needs to come into place for the first round. Perhaps a draft order where after pick 14, the bottom 4 sides go again, then the top 4 follow. So pick 1-4 would be as usual then teams that finished 18th, 17th, 16th, 15th go again then the teams that finished 4th 3rd, 2nd and 1st go. I think this would help turn things over, I think it could create aggressive trading as the futures picks system did this year as well.

If you really wanted to balance the competition you'd excluded the grand finalists from receiving free agents.

The problem is, because of the extra sides and lack of talent depth to chose from and the number of players on a team we have in our games it takes a very long time to build a good side from the bottom up. We need to accelerate the process of bottom sides accelerating up the ladder and top sides falling back down.

A problem the AFL has that the NRL doesn't is that the AFL is a national comp whereas the NRL is a few states so the go home factor is less. You also need only 17 good players to build a gun rugby league side compared to 22 which is a big problem when it comes to building a side. It's why Aussie rules can't be compared to other sports who field significantly less players.

Our equalisation system and draft system do not match the size of the job, it doesn't match the amount of players required to build a good side. Bottom sides don't need a real early draft pick, they need heaps.

 

[Furn2]

Seems really hard for sides to get off the bottom and really easy for sides to stay up the top, more than ever perhaps.

Free agency has helped sides stay up and create dynasties. No doubt there would have been gaps in the hawks flags if not for free agency.

Perhaps a kind of priority draft system needs to come into place for the first round. Perhaps a draft order where after pick 14, the bottom 4 sides go again, then the top 4 follow. So pick 1-4 would be as usual then teams that finished 18th, 17th, 16th, 15th go again then the teams that finished 4th 3rd, 2nd and 1st go. I think this would help turn things over, I think it could create aggressive trading as the futures picks system did this year as well.

If you really wanted to balance the competition you'd excluded the grand finalists from receiving free agents.

.

 

[Pessimistic]

Seems really hard for sides to get off the bottom and really easy for sides to stay up the top, more than ever perhaps.

Free agency has helped sides stay up and create dynasties. No doubt there would have been gaps in the hawks flags if not for free agency.

Perhaps a kind of priority draft system needs to come into place for the first round. Perhaps a draft order where after pick 14, the bottom 4 sides go again, then the top 4 follow. So pick 1-4 would be as usual then teams that finished 18th, 17th, 16th, 15th go again then the teams that finished 4th 3rd, 2nd and 1st go. I think this would help turn things over, I think it could create aggressive trading as the futures picks system did this year as well.

If you really wanted to balance the competition you'd excluded the grand finalists from receiving free agents.

The problem is, because of the extra sides and lack of talent depth to chose from and the number of players on a team we have in our games it takes a very long time to build a good side from the bottom up. We need to accelerate the process of bottom sides accelerating up the ladder and top sides falling back down.

A problem the AFL has that the NRL doesn't is that the AFL is a national comp whereas the NRL is a few states so the go home factor is less. You also need only 17 good players to build a gun rugby league side compared to 22 which is a big problem when it comes to building a side. It's why Aussie rules can't be compared to other sports who field significantly less players.

Our equalisation system and draft system do not match the size of the job, it doesn't match the amount of players required to build a good side. Bottom sides don't need a real early draft pick, they need heaps.

Well the Magpie fourpeat did come just after the admission of Hawthorn, North and Footscray

 

[footyfan1978]

Seems really hard for sides to get off the bottom and really easy for sides to stay up the top, more than ever perhaps.

Garbage.
Such an over reaction to recent seasons and narrow minded view.
Was a lot harder for sides at bottom like St.Kilda in early to mid 1980's when no salary cap or draft.
On the flipside, as a Carlton supporter around same time I never seen our side miss the final five until the 12th season I watched. From 1978 to 1988 we were never any lower than 5th.

There was a time around turn of century where North, Essendon, Carlton and Brisbane were all up near top or in preliminary finals. In fact in 1999 they were the four clubs taking part in preliminary finals. Well short of a decade later in 2006 those four clubs filled the bottom four spots on ladder.