Opinion The National Draft... is not really a National Draft?

[Lsta062]

This is something that I have been thinking about for a bit. This year was an extreme example, but I’m just starting to think that the draft has become such a pseudo-national draft.

1. There are players already tied to academies based on zones (the Northern clubs). Players like Heeney have been recruited through such means.

2. There are the NGAs that are also based on allocated zones. As we all saw with Jamarra Ugle-Hagan, Western Bulldogs got access to the number 1 player of the draft after making finals and not needing to trade up to the number 1 pick. Adelaide finished last and basically got the second pick in the draft.

3. There are the father/son recruits. Gary Ablett Jr anyone?

4. There are players telling recruiters that they want to stay in their home state, leading to teams not from that state skipping on them because it is too much of a risk.

How is this a national draft? If the AFL is really wanting to work on equalisation, then why does the draft have so much inequality when it is arguably one of the most important measures for equalisation? Now, I am not saying everything should always be equal (because some equality measures are just too tough to implement) but it’s strange how they focus on nitpicking rules so much to achieve equality but let the draft get to a point where some bottom teams are pushed back in the draft order due to concessions.

If you ask me, I don’t think the father/son and the NGA academies are necessary concessions. Northern academy concessions may be somewhat necessary for the Northern teams to thrive.
- The father/son rule is actually not that common (if at all present) in other top-flight leagues. I believe that there is a reason why.
- The clubs put time and effort in NGAs, but why do they need to be compensated for that through draft concessions? Having teams get players cheaply because of the NGAs goes against the reason for having a national draft. Otherwise, teams may as well just start their own academies completely and just source young recruits from there.
- The Northern Academies I understand a bit more because of how important they are to keep the Northern teams strong as mentioned earlier, but their draft concessions compromise the draft a lot as well.

I’d say that the national draft would serve its purpose better if it wasn’t so compromised. If everyone has first dibs on some players in their state/zone and other players would expressly state that they don’t want to be recruited by interstate clubs, then we may as well make it official and have two sets of drafts that players can nominate for: a state draft and a national draft. It will result in inequality, but at least there is a degree of accurate representation of how players are recruited.

TL;DR: In my opinion, if the AFL wants a National Draft, then let them make it a true National Draft without unnecessary concessions. If not, then the AFL may as well split it into two drafts - the state draft and the national draft that players can nominate for to be more transparent with how players are recruited.

I want to be open-minded on this issue, so let me know what your thoughts are on the current state of the draft.

 

[mike123]

I’m of the opposite opinion the AFL should go for a more soft draft.

 

[Kwality]

This is something that I have been thinking about for a bit. This year was an extreme example, but I’m just starting to think that the draft has become such a pseudo-national draft.

1. There are players already tied to academies based on zones (the Northern clubs). Players like Heeney have been recruited through such means.

2. There are the NGAs that are also based on allocated zones. As we all saw with Jamarra Ugle-Hagan, Western Bulldogs got access to the number 1 player of the draft after making finals and not needing to trade up to the number 1 pick. Adelaide finished last and basically got the second pick in the draft.

3. There are the father/son recruits. Gary Ablett Jr anyone?

4. There are players telling recruiters that they want to stay in their home state, leading to teams not from that state skipping on them because it is too much of a risk.

How is this a national draft? If the AFL is really wanting to work on equalisation, then why does the draft have so much inequality when it is arguably one of the most important measures for equalisation? Now, I am not saying everything should always be equal (because some equality measures are just too tough to implement) but it’s strange how they focus on nitpicking rules so much to achieve equality but let the draft get to a point where some bottom teams are pushed back in the draft order due to concessions.

If you ask me, I don’t think the father/son and the NGA academies are necessary concessions. Northern academy concessions may be somewhat necessary for the Northern teams to thrive.
- The father/son rule is actually not that common (if at all present) in other top-flight leagues. I believe that there is a reason why.
- The clubs put time and effort in NGAs, but why do they need to be compensated for that through draft concessions? Having teams get players cheaply because of the NGAs goes against the reason for having a national draft. Otherwise, teams may as well just start their own academies completely and just source young recruits from there.
- The Northern Academies I understand a bit more because of how important they are to keep the Northern teams strong as mentioned earlier, but their draft concessions compromise the draft a lot as well.

I’d say that the national draft would serve its purpose better if it wasn’t so compromised. If everyone has first dibs on some players in their state/zone and other players would expressly state that they don’t want to be recruited by interstate clubs, then we may as well make it official and have two sets of drafts that players can nominate for: a state draft and a national draft. It will result in inequality, but at least there is a degree of accurate representation of how players are recruited.

TL;DR: In my opinion, if the AFL wants a National Draft, then let them make it a true National Draft without unnecessary concessions. If not, then the AFL may as well split it into two drafts - the state draft and the national draft that players can nominate for to be more transparent with how players are recruited.

I want to be open-minded on this issue, so let me know what your thoughts are on the current state of the draft.

Yeh, the heartland States with junior development systems going back to the State League days dont have a benefit over the development States - we are trying to develop the player pool & Heeney is a great example as is Callum Mills

14

Callum Mills

Age

27

Ht

188cm

Wt

86kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

18.2

5star

K

10.8

4star

HB

7.4

5star

M

5.3

5star

T

2.6

4star

CL

0.6

3star

D

18.4

4star

K

11.5

4star

HB

6.9

4star

M

5.4

5star

T

3.4

4star

CL

1.4

4star

D

17.0

5star

K

9.4

4star

HB

7.6

5star

M

4.4

4star

T

2.8

5star

CL

1.2

4star

.

Developing home grown heroes is a big part of growing the game, not FIFO carpetbaggers like Ablett & Sheedy.

 

[Dancing Dougy]

What’s your thoughts on a team like Richmond for arguments sake, who happened to be Premiers the year they recruited a top end talent like Tom Lynch for nix via free agency?

The AFL have made this mess, anyone who believe’s they’re not taking advantage is kidding themselves.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

I have always been a believer in growing your own but it does create problems in the AFL.
I like the idea that every club gets one priority pick yearly out of their own state done in the order from last to first how you finished on the ladder.
This however would Create fairness issues as the SA and WA teams would recruit the best two players each year out of their state. Meanwhile in non footy states the best two players in Sydney and Queensland may not be that high a caliber.
The Vics getting 10 priority picks out of their state suits them but again it’s not all fair.

What I would like to see is removing this trading of future picks, this has stuffed things up. You should have to deal with what you have and that’s it.

As for the kiddie draft, who really cares. It’s all a lottery with all of them an unknown.

 

[telsor]

I have always been a believer in growing your own but it does create problems in the AFL.
I like the idea that every club gets one priority pick yearly out of their own state done in the order from last to first how you finished on the ladder.
This however would Create fairness issues as the SA and WA teams would recruit the best two players each year out of their state. Meanwhile in non footy states the best two players in Sydney and Queensland may not be that high a caliber.
The Vics getting 10 priority picks out of their state suits them but again it’s not all fair.

What I would like to see is removing this trading of future picks, this has stuffed things up. You should have to deal with what you have and that’s it.

As for the kiddie draft, who really cares. It’s all a lottery with all of them an unknown.

I've been saying for a while, that if they're to have these imbalances, they already have the tools to control them with the points system and discounts.

Clubs get X points of 'discount' per year and after that, they need to pay full (bid) price for academy/father-son/whatever players they get. Clubs still get the advantage of being able to match bids, so they still 'win', just not as much. Points not used bank up (so if your pool of 'bonus players' isn't as good, it evens out to a degree over the longer term)

The discount points clubs get can be the same per club, or modified for factors like development states, FA pickups, or trades that specified your club (which does rather unbalance the trade system after all).

 

[CrowInFiji]

Anyone saying anything about where they want to be drafted should be banned for life.

 

[Wavvey]

What’s your thoughts on a team like Richmond for arguments sake, who happened to be Premiers the year they recruited a top end talent like Tom Lynch for nix via free agency?

The AFL have made this mess, anyone who believe’s they’re not taking advantage is kidding themselves.

Bad example, every team in the league had the same chance to convince him to go to their club. He chose Richmond.

 

[Lsta062]

What’s your thoughts on a team like Richmond for arguments sake, who happened to be Premiers the year they recruited a top end talent like Tom Lynch for nix via free agency?

The AFL have made this mess, anyone who believe’s they’re not taking advantage is kidding themselves.

I am not necessarily a fan of what free agency is now, but free agency wasn’t introduced for the sake of equality. It was introduced with player welfare in mind and to make it easier for players to play for the club they choose. That’s something you’d want to look at both the AFLPA and the AFL for because they both agreed with each other on the current terms.

The draft however is an equalising measure. That’s why it is not a random lottery and is inversely proportionate to a team’s finishing position post-finals. If it is an equalising measure, then I don’t get why it is so compromised.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

Anyone saying anything about where they want to be drafted should be banned for life.

If you don’t want an answer, don’t ask a question.

 

[Ghost of Punt Road]

What’s your thoughts on a team like Richmond for arguments sake, who happened to be Premiers the year they recruited a top end talent like Tom Lynch for nix via free agency?

The AFL have made this mess, anyone who believe’s they’re not taking advantage is kidding themselves.

Totally agree.

They have evolved a mess. Time for a review and start a new system, which provides clear balance. I suspect the reason it can't be a clear system is the players association having a lot of power in wanting free agency. Not sure how to get around that one.

 

[RUNVS]

Bad example, every team in the league had the same chance to convince him to go to their club. He chose Richmond.

It isn't a bad example at all. He chose Richmond because Richmond had just won a flag and Lynch wanted to win one too. If everything else was the same but Richmond finished 10th in 2017 then Lynch would not have joined Richmond.

 

[BF Tiger]

I like F-S so keep that, and I think the 100 game qualification and matching bids smooths it out a bit. Academies and zones are the real issue, and IIRC the draft came about so that players weren’t tied to clubs based on where they lived, or moved to.

 

[JayJ20]

What’s your thoughts on a team like Richmond for arguments sake, who happened to be Premiers the year they recruited a top end talent like Tom Lynch for nix via free agency?

The AFL have made this mess, anyone who believe’s they’re not taking advantage is kidding themselves.

It isn't a bad example at all. He chose Richmond because Richmond had just won a flag and Lynch wanted to win one too. If everything else was the same but Richmond finished 10th in 2017 then Lynch would not have joined Richmond.

It's not the same thing at all. It's completely irrelevant. Tom Lynch was not a draftee and Gold Coast could have matched to force a trade but they decided to accept the compensation.

The academy selections enabling exclusive access for certain teams to top end talent by collecting second and third rounders for points to match a bid is ludicrous. It allows teams who have access to a talented academy pool to rebuild and replenish their list quicker than other teams, which defeats the purpose of the national draft and draft picks based on ladder position.

 

[JayJ20]

I don't mind academies (Northern academies, NGAs) and father-son selections, but its application needs to be refined.
A bigger price needs to be paid for matching bids in the top 5.

For example, teams should only be able to match bids for academy/NGA players with their next pick. Using Bulldogs as an example, if the bid comes at number 1 and Bulldogs' next selection is number 14, then they must use pick 14 to match the bid and take on a deficit next year. No using 5 or 6 2nd, 3rd and 4th rounders to collect points. They actually need to figure out how to trade UP the draft to minimise the deficit rather than trading down. If they can get a top 5 pick by trading their first (14) with a future first, then that should do it. If they don't want to take on the deficit, then they can choose not to match the bid. If they match, then they'll be wiped out of next year's first round which is fair considering they are getting the best talent in this year's pool.

Another example is Sydney. If they select Logan McDonald with pick 4 and Hawthorn bid on Campbell with pick 5, then they must match the bid with their next pick even if it is in the 30s. if they match with a pick in the 30s, they basically have to sit out of next year's draft with the large deficit they accrue. If they want Campbell, they should be using pick 4 to select him so that they can avoid a deficit rather than selecting Logan at pick 4 and matching a bid at pick 5 with a collection of 2nd, 3rd and 4th rounders. If they rate McDonald higher than Campbell, then they select McDonald and Hawthorn select Campbell.

If the reason for the academy is having NSW players on your list, then Campbell should be requesting a trade to Sydney in a couple of years right?

Handing out top-end talent because they collected picks in the 20s, 30s and 40s is ridiculous.

 

[Lsta062]

It isn't a bad example at all. He chose Richmond because Richmond had just won a flag and Lynch wanted to win one too. If everything else was the same but Richmond finished 10th in 2017 then Lynch would not have joined Richmond.

It is not a bad example for inequality, but the free agency inequality is irrelevant to the draft inequality. Free agency is not introduced for the sake of equality across teams. Therefore, the fact that it is unequal for teams is neither here nor there.
The draft however is structured to be an equalising aspect of the game. The fact that it is unequal is going directly against the reason why it’s implemented the way it is in the first place.

 

[Slysh]

The AFL need to fix the Draft massively, so many things wrong with it.

Get rid of priority picks and concessions in the Draft.
All academies should be run and funded by the AFL with no Draft links
Unpopular one: Get rid of father sons... It is a 'nice' rule but it is a professional sport, not a feel good local league.

 

[GoEaglesGoSGIO]

Have zero draft at all and just go the NRL route of youth set ups

 

[RUNVS]

The AFL need to fix the Draft massively, so many things wrong with it.

Get rid of priority picks and concessions in the Draft.
All academies should be run and funded by the AFL with no Draft links
Unpopular one: Get rid of father sons... It is a 'nice' rule but it is a professional sport, not a feel good local league.

If you are going to do that then also get rid of 3rd party deals, or at the very least make them very public as that is a massive inequality. No way did Travis Cloke get a job on The Footy Show based on merit.

 

[Slysh]

If you are going to do that then also get rid of 3rd party deals, or at the very least make them very public as that is a massive inequality. No way did Travis Cloke get a job on The Footy Show based on merit.

Hey I am totally fine with that as well, the more transparency from the AFL the better!

 

[Wavvey]

It isn't a bad example at all. He chose Richmond because Richmond had just won a flag and Lynch wanted to win one too. If everything else was the same but Richmond finished 10th in 2017 then Lynch would not have joined Richmond.

As a free agent he had earned the right to be able to choose anyone he would like to sign with after providing his club 8 years of service. As a restricted free agent, the Suns also had every right to match the offer and force Richmond to trade for him. They chose not to.

Also, Tom Lynch joined Richmond after a preliminary final loss to Collingwood in 2018. Richmond were not premiers. He chose Richmond over a grand finalist and whoever else was interested.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Bad example, every team in the league had the same chance to convince him to go to their club. He chose Richmond.

I agree with this except one thing in regards to free agency, the club he is leaving sets the value not the AFL. In Lynch case Gold Coast should of been able to say we want 2 first round draft picks, it would then be up to Richmond to make it happen.
This ridiculous situation the AFL have created that FA players now have little or no value is a blight on the game.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

As a free agent he had earned the right to be able to choose anyone he would like to sign with after providing his club 8 years of service. As a restricted free agent, the Suns also had every right to match the offer and force Richmond to trade for him. They chose not to.

Also, Tom Lynch joined Richmond after a preliminary final loss to Collingwood in 2018. Richmond were not premiers. He chose Richmond over a grand finalist and whoever else was interested.

He may of earnt the right but it doesn’t change that he has value as a player and Gold Coast should be able to set that price.

 

[Wavvey]

He may of earnt the right but it doesn’t change that he has value as a player and Gold Coast should be able to set that price.

At that point he has no contract with the club though. How can Gold Coast be in control of his value as a player if they are unable to have him under contract? They had the chance to match Richmond or whoevers bid for the player under restricted free agency rules and force a trade much like GWS did with Jeremy Cameron

5

Jeremy Cameron

Age

31

Ht

196cm

Wt

94kg

Pos.

Fwd

Career

Season

Last 5

D

12.5

3star

K

9.0

3star

HB

3.4

3star

M

5.4

5star

T

1.6

4star

G

2.6

5star

D

10.0

3star

K

7.1

3star

HB

2.9

2star

M

4.6

4star

T

2.0

3star

G

1.9

5star

D

8.2

2star

K

5.0

2star

HB

3.2

3star

M

4.6

5star

T

2.4

4star

G

2.0

5star

this trade period. They chose not to.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

At that point he has no contract with the club though. How can Gold Coast be in control of his value as a player if they are unable to have him under contract? They had the chance to match Richmond or whoevers bid for the player under restricted free agency rules and force a trade much like GWS did with Jeremy Cameron

5

Jeremy Cameron

Age

31

Ht

196cm

Wt

94kg

Pos.

Fwd

Career

Season

Last 5

D

12.5

3star

K

9.0

3star

HB

3.4

3star

M

5.4

5star

T

1.6

4star

G

2.6

5star

D

10.0

3star

K

7.1

3star

HB

2.9

2star

M

4.6

4star

T

2.0

3star

G

1.9

5star

D

8.2

2star

K

5.0

2star

HB

3.2

3star

M

4.6

5star

T

2.4

4star

G

2.0

5star

this trade period. They chose not to.

Of course he is under contract, he did not have a new contract with a Gold Coast but until he signs with another club effectively he is still a Gold Coast employee I would think.

Anyway it’s not about Lynch it’s about all FA, they have value as players and the AFL have provided a system where they can leave to their club of choice. That the AFL see fit to provide some compensation says to me it is not the AFL that should be involved. The club they are leaving should be putting the price on them. It’s ridiculous to think otherwise.