- Dec 2, 2014
- 18,582
- 31,303
- AFL Club
- Essendon
So early but you can see the quality from this draft is super strong.
Review Winners and losers 2022 draft
- Thread starter Wild Bill
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- May 24, 2011
- 4,982
- 12,798
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
They said it was a weaker draft too.
- Dec 2, 2014
- 18,582
- 31,303
- AFL Club
- Essendon
I heard next years draft is a ripper...
- Jul 6, 2017
- 28,611
- 38,153
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
And bless Jim for having sons - there is another Michalanney coming through next year that seems to be starting to catch the eye at junior level
We might not have 'won' the 2022 draft, but Max looks a super talent
Elmer_Judd
Everyone's favourite grouch
- Jul 25, 2019
- 53,234
- 78,495
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- Leeds United
- Banned
- #405
And bless Jim for having sons - there is another Michalanney coming through next year that seems to be starting to catch the eye at junior level
We might not have 'won' the 2022 draft, but Max looks a super talent
You won the trade period with Rankine who has had by far the biggest impact at his new club than anyone else.
Ready made and developed AA calibre player who has fitted in like a glove at West Lakes.
- Jul 6, 2017
- 28,611
- 38,153
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
Always had the talent did Izak..just needed to harness it consistently. But with Izak and Max, we have done well from that trade / draft period and young Dowling has looked good in the SANFL so far but will be a slow burn..so 2022 looks good for us
Elmer_Judd
Everyone's favourite grouch
- Jul 25, 2019
- 53,234
- 78,495
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- Leeds United
- Banned
- #407
You guys arguably now have better young talent than Port Adelaide (least development wise)
I think you will knock us off on Thursday Night ...
- Jul 6, 2017
- 28,611
- 38,153
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
TradeDraft
Premium Platinum
Mitchell/Hill having a Big Influence at Collingwood so far
- Jul 6, 2017
- 28,611
- 38,153
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
Might be the pieces to a grand final contesting side whereas Rankine and young Max M have helped push our rebuild along, so very different places where the 2 clubs are at but both players for each have been great
Kangaroos4eva
TheBrownDog
Veteran
North Melbourne - Bella Eddey and Vicki Wall Player Sponsor - Season 7
North Melbourne - 2023 Aaron Hall and Flynn Perez Player Sponsor
10k Posts
30k Posts
Chocolate
North Melbourne AFLW - 2021 Aileen Gilroy and Kaitlyn Ashmore Player Sponsor
North Melbourne - 2021 Taylor Garner and Flynn Perez Player Sponsor
Still a few weeks off fitness wise, but his defensive intensity stands out. Almost manic.
- Oct 14, 2016
- 2,530
- 3,127
- AFL Club
- Sydney
So, does everyone still think the Swans went early on Michalanney and Rowston??
They both look very promising and valid 1st round picks/bids to me...
They both look very promising and valid 1st round picks/bids to me...
- Jul 6, 2017
- 28,611
- 38,153
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
Not at all and i will bet that the swans would have loved michalanney in their back 6..lad is going to be something special
Honestly I think it's a bit of a joke Michalanney qualified as father son given his dad never played a single game for Adelaide, in fact the rules for both SA clubs are just weird. Port should have access to 100 game players from Port Adelaide in the Sanfl, Adelaide should have just had to wait until their father sons qualified, or at the very least some sort of combination of say 50 games for their AFL side then 50 for a Sanfl side.
I read somewhere Jim Michalanney didn't even technically play the required amount of games for father son under the current law, but the AFL just gave a special allowance, but I haven't looked in to it enough to know the full story.
Anyway, it doesn't matter now and fair play to the Crows, he was made available to them and they have definitely snagged a good one, he plays like he's played 100 games already.
I read somewhere Jim Michalanney didn't even technically play the required amount of games for father son under the current law, but the AFL just gave a special allowance, but I haven't looked in to it enough to know the full story.
Anyway, it doesn't matter now and fair play to the Crows, he was made available to them and they have definitely snagged a good one, he plays like he's played 100 games already.
Last edited:
- Jul 6, 2017
- 28,611
- 38,153
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
Mate..if jim didn't play the required 200 games for norwood, rucci etc would have been all over it like a rash. Finally we benefit from a rule that looked like it would have come and gone without yielding anything of note....and Max has a younger brother
Luckily he kept a low profile otherwise it would have been Gibbs 2.0 again
Why should Port get access to players from their SANFL side yet Crows need to have senior players play 100 games?
That would make zero sense.
Dockzy
Debutant
- Nov 5, 2019
- 147
- 365
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- North Whyalla Football Club
Said on the night that Beatson and Dalrymple are the best in the business which shows how highly they’re rated
- Oct 14, 2016
- 2,530
- 3,127
- AFL Club
- Sydney
He is super impressive. Only injury will stop him playing 200+ games
- Jul 14, 2022
- 1,534
- 2,534
- AFL Club
- West Coast
Eagles the clear winners
- Jul 13, 2015
- 36,519
- 40,708
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
Sheezel doing more in a terrible team than Ashcroft in a good team. So far is also well ahead of where Daicos was when in an even better team.
Roos need to sign him up long term now because everyone will be after him.
Roos need to sign him up long term now because everyone will be after him.
Because it was our Sanfl side and Adelaide didn't have one?
And?
If one club in SA can get father sons from their affiliated lower-league side, then the other should also.
They already had the benefit of being first to join the AFL in the state, therefore having first access to SA players.
I dont know, I guess I'm in the minority. I just don't understand how you can have a father son from a guy that had no affiliation to your club at all. Like I said, they could have made it more lenient if it's absolutely necessary in that they at least played 50 games for Adelaide.
This goes for Port too, the current law states we have access to anyone who's father played 200 games with Port Adelaide Magpies, North Adelaide, West Adelaide, Central District, Woodville or West Torrens. I would honestly just rather 100 game Port Adelaide players and drop the other teams.
They probably shouldn't have an affiliation now, they've been in the comp long enough. That I can agree with.
WCE, Freo, Port and Adelaide should all only have access to FS players whose dad's played for the AFL side these days.
