The draft myth?

[QuietB]

When you refer to top five picks and the decade to 2006, it must be noted that not a single top five pick since the 2005 draft (which netted Thomas, Ellis and Pendlebury) has played in a premiership, whereas the decade from 1996-2005 drafts averaged around one-two top five picks per year going on to play in premierships. Those being:

1996: Heffernan
1997: Ottens, Croad, Power
1998: Headland, Fosdike
1999: Brown
2000: Didak
2001: Hodge, Judd
2002: McVeigh
2003: none
2004: Roughead, Franklin
2005: Thomas, Ellis, Pendlebury

2006-2014 drafts: none

And while it may be that we haven't had enough time to see all the top five draft cohort get a chance to win a premiership, for the draftees taken between 1996-2005, the median length of time to win a premiership for those who did was five years.

That implies something is going wrong with the draft, because at least one player from each of the top five taken in drafts from 2006-2010 should have played in a premiership by now. Instead we've seen none.

This is not entirely surprising when you consider Geelongs era was built on the 1999 and 2001 drafts - it took 8 years after 1999 to win their first premiership and Hawthorns dynasty is built on the 2001 and 2004 drafts and while they snagged 2008 it really took 12 years since 2001 until they became a dominant side.

The draft is not a myth. Its just that it takes a long time and you have to get everything else right as well.

 

[Pessimistic]

The demons obviously screwed it up, as did Carlton. But many more clubs who went through the period with priority picks came out the other side with teams that made the top four.

Its not a matter of punishing good sides. Its about helping teams' with poor lists.Its recognising that with 22 man teams (and really a core of 25 players) that a single extra good player is not going to seriously impact a team's ability. You need multiple good picks, probably coming through together. It won't help if you then stuff up every other pick (Carlton) or have crap development (Melbourne), but it gives the team a shot and fans something to get behind. It gives them some hope.

Its also not just about the picks, but the quantity of picks. Look at Geelong's 1999 draft, that's (rightfully) talked about as one of the top ones ever. Look at how many picks in the top 30 they blew on nobodies. Hawthorn's drafting included Thorpe, Dowler, Ellis, Muston and other blown top 25 picks - but between priority picks and trading they had enough that the ones that didn't work didn't outweigh the ones that did. So part of priority picks is giving teams with poor lists more picks to give them more shots at getting it right.

And yes, you do get a little bit of a race to the bottom. But plenty of teams finished on 4-5 wins even after priority picks were stripped out and with compromised drafts. At least the fans having to face that know they'll get a big boost at the end of the year, and it wasn't all for nothing.

But if the same cople of teams are continually getting low and priority picks, yet continually screwing them up, why should they get even more? Not fair on the other teams or the yougsters whos careers are being crueled

It doesnt help that the clubs (yes its carlton and melbourne) are so entitled anpig headed that they cant see they need to change, just mouth the appropriate words publicly and carry on.

 

[FlowersByIrene]

The only way to improve the draft is to attempt to reduce drafting busts.

One possible way to do that is by having a superior second tier system, where kids can play and develop for a longer period of time till, say 19 or 20.

-Move the draft age to 19.
-Establish a second tier competition where kids mix with mature aged players and play "AFL" style football.

This would be very hard to establish, but if you could, it would result in far higher success rates. Which means the number one pick would more likely be the best player in the draft, they'd come in and make an immediate impact and there would be less cases of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer.

A Reserve competition could function by combining an AFL teams fringe players with affiliated mature players and local youngsters. A reserves team would function by splitting the roster between mature players designed to keep the competition at a strong standard, and to open players to AFL scouts, with 18, and 19 year old kids. The roster would have minimum and maximums, for example Minimum 4 Mature Age players (over 19) and therefore Maximum 10 Juniors, and vice versa, maximum 6 Mature Age players and minimum 8 Juniors.

Juniours would play 16's and 17's similarly to the current under 18's system, allowing them to show off their talents, develop their skills as big fish in little ponds much in the same way they do now. However instead of going directly to an AFL list from their junior seasons they would move into the Reserves competition for two years where they mature and learn the AFL system. It doesn't matter where they play, as no club would have rights to a player and they would go into the open draft, be it by traditional zones, or establishing zones would determine where each player went. (The only problem would be the SA and WA clubs would be stacked with talent and other WA and SA juniors would have to either be picked up by Eastern States Reserve sides or play WAFL and miss the same level of exposure) Here you might find that the kid who dominated at juniors doesn't adapt well to the AFL style or alternatively does. After two seasons in the AFL reserves they go into the draft and are drafted at 19 years of age.

The AFL Reserves competition would work as such;

AFL Team (44 Listed Players, excluding Cat B Rookies)
AFL Reserves Team (14 Listed Players)

Each week for example

Carlton vs Richmond @ MCG Sat 10.30 Reserves, 1.30 AFL
22 Main List vs 22 Main List
(1-2 Emergencies)
22 Reserves vs 22 Reserves
(X amount Injuries)
0-14 play State-level football

You'll have your main side playing in the afternoon, then as a curtain raiser you'll have your clubs reserves, including a smattering (depending on injuries) of 18 & 19 years olds playing AFL style football, coached by AFL assistant and major coaches, on AFL grounds, hopefully televised on Fox Footy 2, and seen by 5-7000 supporters who rock up early. It would develop the nations young talent in AFL conditions and reduce the draft busts, meaning bottom AFL teams can get guaranteed guns.

Imagine seeing a Jesse Hogan playing for the West Coast Reserves for two years, dominating AFL defenders, winning the "Reserves Coleman" two years in a row and being the lock and loaded number one pick. Or imagine Jack Watts playing for (wherever he is from's club) for two years, being chopped up by AFL defenders and being subsequently taken at pick 30 or so in the draft during his draft year.

 

[ItsAllAboutMe]

The AFL draft is meant to even out the talent between the teams but it looks to be a complete failure. The NRL has been operating without a draft and the results since 2000 seem to back this up. The NRL has had 12 different teams win the competition as compare to 8 in the AFL. The AFL has had 3 dynasties since 2000 (Hawthorn, Geelong and Lions) whereas the NRL has had none (if you exclude Melbourne for cheating the salary cap). It also feels like the AFL has more clubs mired in mediocrity with no hope of winning the competition in the foreseeable future.

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?

Because with GWS & GC coming in it has ruined the draft for over a decade, ontop of that we had Geelong clean up with father son selections that was the backbone of there premiership teams.

 

[mike123]

I love the 'compromised drafts make it harder for other teams to catch Hawthorn' one, it's a killer.

From last year's premiership team, Hawthorn has managed to acquire the following players since the AFL announced that Gold Coast & GWS were coming in:

- Josh Gibson in a trade (available to everybody).
- Ben McEvoy in a trade (available to everybody).
- Taylor Duryea at pick 69 in the 2009 National Draft (available to everybody).
- Shaun Burgoyne in a trade (available to everybody).
- Brad Hill at pick 33 in 2011 National Draft (available to everybody except Collingwood and Melbourne).
- James Frawley via free agency (available to everybody).
- Isaac Smith at pick 19 in the 2010 National Draft (available everybody except Collingwood, Fremantle, St Kilda, Sydney and the Dogs).
- Brian Lake in a trade (available to everybody).
- Jack Gunston in a trade (available to everybody).
- David Hale in a trade (available to everybody).
- Luke Breust at pick 47 in the 2009 Rookie Draft (available to everybody).
- Ben Stratton at pick 49 in the 2009 National Draft (available to everybody).
- Paul Puopolo at pick 66 in the 2010 National Draft (available to everybody).

That's well over half of a premiership team acquired since 2009, all players that were pretty much available to anyone.

Not included in that list are premiership players Will Langford (available to everybody), Matt Spangher (available to everybody) and Jonathan Simpkin (available to everybody). Hawthorn has managed to pick up sixteen premiership players in the time that other clubs can't rebuild effectively.

The bolded aren't available to everybody. They are only available to where they want to go. Players through trade and free agency don't count.

You're also not seriously counting Isaac Smith.

As for the rest, they're role players that can be filled by any AFL standard player, they're not the reason you're successful. They aren't going to make any bottom team better.

 

[Pessimistic]

The bolded aren't available to everybody. They are only available to where they want to go. Players through trade and free agency don't count.

You're also not seriously counting Isaac Smith.

As for the rest, they're role players that can be filled by any AFL standard player, they're not the reason you're successful. They aren't going to make any bottom team better.

The importance of smith and hill to hawthorn cannot be underestimated

 

[legend166]

The lower teams need to get more picks. I've argued this on here many times.

The nature of the sport means that being given access to draft one player before other teams is almost pointless. Probably more than any other sport in the world, one player cannot catapult a team from bad to good. See Gary Ablett in the first year of the Suns.

 

[Furn2]

The more you give the lower teams the better they will be if they get to the top and the whole thing goes round again.

 

[TheFourPillars]

The bolded aren't available to everybody. They are only available to where they want to go. Players through trade and free agency don't count.

You're also not seriously counting Isaac Smith.

As for the rest, they're role players that can be filled by any AFL standard player, they're not the reason you're successful. They aren't going to make any bottom team better.

The best winger in the game or close to is a star

 

[coerced]

This is not entirely surprising when you consider Geelongs era was built on the 1999 and 2001 drafts - it took 8 years after 1999 to win their first premiership and Hawthorns dynasty is built on the 2001 and 2004 drafts and while they snagged 2008 it really took 12 years since 2001 until they became a dominant side.

The draft is not a myth. Its just that it takes a long time and you have to get everything else right as well.

Or maybe, the efficacy of the draft system reached its peak in 2001? No draft since has yielded talent to the degree that one did, and going back through the years, each draft before then yielded more than most of those since did. Yes, 2004 was a good one, but for Hawthorn alone. Meanwhile 2001 delivered for Geelong, Hawthorn, West Coast and Collingwood (all taking Brownlow medallists and Norm Smiths in that group).

It took 6-8 years for Geelong to win a premiership from 1999/2001 and a smaller distance (4-7) for Hawthorn to do the same. It's been 10 years since the last productive draft in terms of premierships won by those who were drafted and ended up being consequential players for the team they were drafted to.

What gives?

 

[Pessimistic]

If gcs or gws rise up to the top the ositive side of the ledger is proven true, that yo need multiple draft picks to rise up

 

[mike123]

The importance of smith and hill to hawthorn cannot be underestimated

Would your side be any different if it was Clinton Young instead of Hill or any other soft outside runner with shaky skills.

No doubt they are important structurally and their roles are importance but that why they are called role players.

Smith was taken high and a fair few teams didn't have access to him. He shouldn't count in the teams had access to him argument.

The best winger in the game or close to is a star

Up there with the best wingers of the comp, but not my point.

 

[MarkT2]

The lower teams need to get more picks. I've argued this on here many times.

The nature of the sport means that being given access to draft one player before other teams is almost pointless. Probably more than any other sport in the world, one player cannot catapult a team from bad to good. See Gary Ablett in the first year of the Suns.

Why do the lower teams more picks?
Why do they need to be pushed up the ladder faster?
When they get there they will be pushed back by the next lot of lower teams getting more players. What's the point?

 

[Pessimistic]

Would your side be any different if it was Clinton Young instead of Hill or any other soft outside runner with shaky skills.

No doubt they are important structurally and their roles are importance but that why they are called role players.

Smith was taken high and a fair few teams didn't have access to him. He shouldn't count in the teams had access to him argument.



Up there with the best wingers of the comp, but not my point.

Sounds like youscrewed up poor clint

 

[legend166]

Why do the lower teams more picks?
Why do they need to be pushed up the ladder faster?
When they get there they will be pushed back by the next lot of lower teams getting more players. What's the point?

Because dynasties are boring. Being able to count out 2/3 of the competition at the beginning of the year is boring.

 

[Furn2]

Whatever system you have, if team A gets it very right and team B gets it very wrong then A is going o have success and B won't.

If you give teams at the bottom too much and they get it right then they are going to be dominant down the road.

Then what do you do ? Give the bottom teams even more ?

People just have to except that the nature of footy is that once you get a good team together it's going to be good for a while. This has always been the case in footy.

 

[Furn2]

Because dynasties are boring. Being able to count out 2/3 of the competition at the beginning of the year is boring.

So every sport ever is boring then.

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

Because dynasties are boring. Being able to count out 2/3 of the competition at the beginning of the year is boring.

In many ways, the current Geelong and Hawthorn dynasties have been caused BECAUSE of the

Ok, let's apply that increased (lets say x2 PP) under the context to Hawthorn, who DID have a bad patch through 04-06 (but have gone rather well since)

You've now given that team an extra couple of bites at the 05/06 drafts (Ellis, Dowler, Thorp), along with Blues and Pies.

Take Hawthorn, add another couple of players (say Pendlebury and a drug-free Ryder) and you have the effect that change would make.

The issue is NOT the number of picks or new players - the issue is that the AFL is not an ELITE competition - it's a development league.

Player introduction should either be related to finishing position, OR should be for player development - it should not be for both.

I would like to dramatically reduce lists (30 is a good number), increase the draft age to 21 and pour substantial funding into a national reserves competition, filled by the "almost" and those 18/19/20yo kids developing.

THEN, the #1 pick is truly valuable and will have a substantial effect on the "rebound" potential of clubs at the bottom of the list.

 

[MarkT2]

Because dynasties are boring. Being able to count out 2/3 of the competition at the beginning of the year is boring.

I don't agree but in any case we don't get many dynasties.

 

[Vintage]

There may have been 4 teams that won the premiership over the past 9 years but each of those teams have been outside the 8 in that period.

Hawthorn - '09
Sydney - '09
Geelong - '15
Collingwood - '14 & '15

Of the 4 runners-up that have not won a GF in that period they have also spent time outside the top 8.

P Adelaide - '08, '09, '10 '11, '12, '15
StKilda - '12, '13, '14, '15
Fremantle - '07, '08 '09, '11
West Coast - '08, '09, '10, '13, '14

This is the uneveness that I don't like... the amount of time teams spend outside the 8.

Since 2010 (ie the last 6 years) 4 of the top 8 spots have been held by Hawks, Sydney, Freo and Geelong EVERY years except for 2011 (Freo) and 2015 (Geelong), and we're expecting the same 4 to be in this year as well. So we efffectively have 14 teams fighting for 4 spots, which means teams spend far too long outside the 8 for my liking.

Being outside the 8 - and often well outside the 8 - for 5 years or more like most teams are doing these days is crap for supporters and the competition. For the supporters of good teams there are at least half a dozen teams that you know you'll beat, not that much fun to watch, or even worse for the league people won't bother watching.

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

This is the uneveness that I don't like... the amount of time teams spend outside the 8.

Since 2010 (ie the last 6 years) 4 of the top 8 spots have been held by Hawks, Sydney, Freo and Geelong EVERY years except for 2011 (Freo) and 2015 (Geelong), and we're expecting the same 4 to be in this year as well. So we efffectively have 14 teams fighting for 4 spots, which means teams spend far too long outside the 8 for my liking.

Being outside the 8 - and often well outside the 8 - for 5 years or more like most teams are doing these days is crap for supporters and the competition. For the supporters of good teams there are at least half a dozen teams that you know you'll beat, not that much fun to watch, or even worse for the league people won't bother watching.

Not that I disagree with your emotion, but your point is completely unfounded

18 teams. Final 8. All things equal, you will be in finals 8 out of any 18 years period. (44% seasons in finals, 56% chance of missing). To miss finals for 5 consecutive years would be (56% x 56% x 56% x 56% x 56%) = 5.51% chance. 18 teams = 99% chance at least one team has missed finals for five years heading into any season.

Currently Brisbane, Gold Coast, GWS, and Melbourne have missed five consecutive seasons - which seems excessive, until you consider GWS and GC are still in their first decade and Brisbane (Voss) and Melbourne (everyone) have had the issues they have.

Recent Finals/Non Finals Streaks (Finals in Bold):
Adelaide: 1/2/1/2/5/1/3/2
Brisbane: 6/1/4/7
Carlton: 2/1/1/3/7/3
Collingwood: 2/8/2/2/8
Essendon: 1/1/2/1/1/1/4/7
Fremantle: 4/1/1/3/1/2/1/9
Geelong: 1/8/1/2/3/1/2
GWS: 5
GC: 4
Hawthorn: 6/1/2/5/2/3/1/1/27!
Melbourne: 9/3/1/1/1/1/1/1
North: 2/1/1/3/2/1/1/2/1/1
Port: 1/2/5/1/1/5/1/1/2
Rich: 3/11/1/5
St.K: 4/4/1/3/5
Syd: 6/1/6/1/1/1/4
WCE: 1/2/2/3/6/2/10
Western: 1/4/3/1/1/5/4

What does that tell us?

 

[Judd2Sewell]

Would your side be any different if it was Clinton Young instead of Hill or any other soft outside runner with shaky skills.

No doubt they are important structurally and their roles are importance but that why they are called role players.

Smith was taken high and a fair few teams didn't have access to him. He shouldn't count in the teams had access to him argument.



Up there with the best wingers of the comp, but not my point.

Pick #19

 

[RUNVS]

This is the uneveness that I don't like... the amount of time teams spend outside the 8.

Since 2010 (ie the last 6 years) 4 of the top 8 spots have been held by Hawks, Sydney, Freo and Geelong EVERY years except for 2011 (Freo) and 2015 (Geelong), and we're expecting the same 4 to be in this year as well. So we efffectively have 14 teams fighting for 4 spots, which means teams spend far too long outside the 8 for my liking.

Being outside the 8 - and often well outside the 8 - for 5 years or more like most teams are doing these days is crap for supporters and the competition. For the supporters of good teams there are at least half a dozen teams that you know you'll beat, not that much fun to watch, or even worse for the league people won't bother watching.

I don't disagree and even though I love the Swans I agree it is probably not quite fair that the Swans have only missed the 8 once in 13 years.

Basically Hawthorn, Geelong, Sydney and Fremantle have been up for a very long time and it looks like after missing the 8 for the first time since 2007 Geelong will be back inside it in 2016. What happened to Collingwood a number of years ago is ideally what should happen to all top clubs. They are really strong for a year or two before they start going backwards, having to rebuild their list for another tilt but in the meantime giving other clubs a crack. The problem is Collingwood is not the norm anymore for the top teams.

 

[pinot]

Another Americanism from the dopes that ran the game 20 years ago. Saints, Bulldogs, Melbourne when are they to win a flag?

 

[Since 2001]

The AFL draft is meant to even out the talent between the teams but it looks to be a complete failure. The NRL has been operating without a draft and the results since 2000 seem to back this up. The NRL has had 12 different teams win the competition as compare to 8 in the AFL. The AFL has had 3 dynasties since 2000 (Hawthorn, Geelong and Lions) whereas the NRL has had none (if you exclude Melbourne for cheating the salary cap). It also feels like the AFL has more clubs mired in mediocrity with no hope of winning the competition in the foreseeable future.

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?

The draft is failing simply because of one reason. Players are drafted at too young of an age. Teams are drafting 18 year olds and having to spend 4 years of development, to gett them to become afl players. Then the higher up clubs like hawthorn and co swoop and get them for cheap and not have to spend time developing them, this then keeps teams at the bottom and teams at the top.