where is Hamish speaking Wayne? Link?
Game Day 2023 AFL DRAFT
- Thread starter dogs105
- Start date
- Tagged users None
That's the WA Colts grand final, the game that was being discussed.
I’m just referencing things he’s said in interviews and pressers, can all be found in his dedicated thread:
I find it strange how Gaelic football hasn't gone professional.
It's literally hurting their sport as the good ones are being plucked by AFL.
Scorpus
Moderator
- Apr 16, 2014
- 62,341
- 166,488
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Moderator
- #1,355
The way I see it is that Gold Coast have had a dozen talented players walk out on their club, and over the years have only had a handful of decent Academy players back in the other way.
Yes they get in four players this year, but they lost some of their best players to Victoria for unders
I mean look at this between 2010 (Gold Coast entrance to league) and 2022 in terms of first and second round drafting
Adelaide - Michalanney (F/S)
Brisbane - Fletcher (F/S), Ashcroft (F/S), Coleman (A), Coleman (A), Hipwood (A), Keays (A), McFadyen (A)
Carlton - Nil
Collingwood - Daicos (F/S), Daicos (F/S), McInnes (A), Quaynor (A), Kelly (F/S), Brown (F/S), Moore (F/S)
Essendon - Eyre (A), Daniher (F/S)
Fremantle - Henry (A)
Geelong - Nil
Gold Coast - Bowes (A)
GWS - Rowston (A), Green (A), Briggs (A), Setterfield (A), Perryman (A), Cumming (A), Hopper (A), Kennedy (A), Himmelberg (A), Steele (A)
Hawthorn - Downie (A), Maginness (F/S)
Melbourne - Viney (F/S)
North Melbourne - Thomas (A), McDonald (F/S)
Port Adelaide - Jones (A), Mead (F/S)
Richmond - Naish (F/S)
Sydney - Campbell (A), Gulden (A), Blakey (A), Mills (A), Heeney (F/S), Hiscox (A)
St Kilda - Owens (A)
Western Bulldogs - Darcy (F/S), Ugle-Hagan (A), West (F/S), Wallis (F/S), Liberatore (F/S)
West Coast - Cameron (A)
Clubs benefitting from go home trading (good players/high draft picks)
Adelaide - Rankine, Dawson, Gibbs, Betts, Jacobs
Brisbane -
Carlton - Cerra, Marchbank, Plowman, Jaksch, Docherty, Martin
Collingwood - Hoskin-Elliott, Treloar, Adams
Essendon - Caldwell, Shiel, Smith, Saad
Fremantle - Jackson, Clark, Hogan, Lobb, Wilson, Hill, Bennell
Geelong - Bruhn, Cameron, Rohan, S. Selwood, Dangerfield, Caddy
Gold Coast - Weller
GWS -
Hawthorn - Scrimshaw, Mitchell, O'Rourke, Gunston
Melbourne - Langdon, Lever, Tyson
North Melbourne - Amon, Corr
Port Adelaide - Horne-Francis, Lycett, Polec, Ebert
Richmond - Taranto, Lynch, Prestia
Sydney -
St Kilda - Crouch
Western Bulldogs - Keath, Schache, Boyd, (Smith)
West Coast - Kelly, Yeo, Wellingham
Clubs losing players to home trading (good players/high draft picks)
Adelaide - Crouch, Keath, Lever, Dangerfield, Gunston
Brisbane - McStay, Schache, Docherty, Yeo, Polec
Carlton - Gibbs, Betts, Jacobs
Collingwood - Wellingham
Essendon -
Fremantle - Cerra, Langdon, Weller
Geelong - Clark, Kelly
Gold Coast - Rankine, Lynch, Scrimshaw, Saad, Prestia, Bennell, Martin, Caddy
GWS - Bruhn, Taranto, Corr, Caldwell, Cameron, Lobb, Shiel, Smith, Wilson, Hoskin-Elliott, Marchbank, Plowman, Treloar, O'Rourke, Jaksch, Boyd, Tyson, Adams
Hawthorn - Hill
Melbourne - Jackson, Hogan
North Melbourne - Horne-Francis
Port Adelaide - Amon
Richmond -
Sydney - Dawson, Rohan, Mitchell
St Kilda -
Western Bulldogs -
West Coast - Lycett, S. Selwood, Ebert
Last edited:
Scorpus
Moderator
- Apr 16, 2014
- 62,341
- 166,488
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Moderator
- #1,356
So basically:
- GWS have gained 10 Academy players, but lost 18 good or high drafted players to go home
- Gold Coast now have 5 Academy players and gained a go home trade, but lost 8 to go home trades
- Sydney have lost 3 to go home, and gained 6 through Academy
- Brisbane have gained 5 Academy players and 2 F/S, but lost 5 through go home
And the biggest winners?
- Collingwood gained 7 academy or F/S players, gained 3 go home trades and lost just 1 player to go home
- Carlton gained 6 to go home trades and lost 3
- Geelong gained 6 to home trades and lost 2
- Essendon gained a F/S, gained 4 from go home trades, and lost 0
- Hawthorn gained a F/S, an Academy player, 4 from go home trades and only lost 1
- Western Bulldogs gained 5 from academy or F/S, gained 3 from go home trades, had one player drafted because he refused to leave, and lost 0
- Fremantle gained an academy player, gained 7 from go home trades and lost 3
Last edited:
- May 16, 2015
- 15,437
- 21,767
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- WWTFC,Chelsea,Glasgow Celtic,Lech Poznan
Funny that. Biggest winners all Victorian.
Scorpus
Moderator
- Apr 16, 2014
- 62,341
- 166,488
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Moderator
- #1,359
Yeah well the system has a lot of talent located in Victoria and not much in other states, especially the northern states
It's no surprise that teams like Gold Coast and GWS have lost lots of players returning to their home state (mostly Victoria), and they have no recourse to do the reverse because little to no talent from those places is at the Victorian teams. The expansion teams also have no father-sons as they are too young as a club.
The Victorian teams generally benefit significantly from players returning, but ALSO benefit from father-son and Next Generation Academy picks. So despite (say) Gold Coast having an academy, for some reason Western Bulldogs and Collingwood also have them
Of course some players who are born in Victoria do leave the Victorian teams for other states, but that doesn't counteract the general flow of player movement is into Victoria and benefits Victoria
The issue is not the academies themselves, or the clubs having access to them. It's only reasonable that clubs like Gold Coast should get access to some "home-grown" talent (even if the net is pretty damn wide) that might actually choose to stick around instead of leaving.
The issue is that the pick matching system is broken. First of all, the pick values are completely out of whack - this could easily be fixed if the AFL had any appetite to do so. But more importantly, the idea that multiple picks are worth the sum of their values is nonsensical. List spaces are a commodity themselves, so it doesn't make sense to say that five crappy picks are worth one good pick. Hell, Ugle-Hagan was matched at pick #1 by giving six picks in the 30s and 40s, but no list manager in their right mind would make that trade because there are only so many spots on the list. You don't want to fill them with six list-cloggers when you could have one elite talent and then still fill the other five with other picks anyway.
The AFL should do something along the lines of saying that when you match with picks, the first pick is worth 100% of its value, the next pick is worth (say) 66% of its value, then the next 33%, and then nothing. That way you need to match bids with picks that are at least close to where the bid came in. A bid comes in at #3 and you don't have sufficient picks to match it? Better do some live trading. You have four players in the first round that get bids and can't possibly trade in enough to match them all? Tough luck. Choose carefully which ones you want to match.
Or, if the AFL really wanted to ensure that clubs had the ability to match bids, then get the point values right, and subtract the leftover points from the best pick next year. A bid comes in worth 2400 points and you only have 1500 points worth of picks? Then next year your first pick is going backwards 900 points, whatever that ends up working out to.
I don't even mind the AFL applying a discount for matching bids - 10% or 20%, fine - as long as the bids are then meaningful. Right now, the difference between matching a bid at #1, and a bid at #20, is a couple of picks out in the 40s.
The issue is that the pick matching system is broken. First of all, the pick values are completely out of whack - this could easily be fixed if the AFL had any appetite to do so. But more importantly, the idea that multiple picks are worth the sum of their values is nonsensical. List spaces are a commodity themselves, so it doesn't make sense to say that five crappy picks are worth one good pick. Hell, Ugle-Hagan was matched at pick #1 by giving six picks in the 30s and 40s, but no list manager in their right mind would make that trade because there are only so many spots on the list. You don't want to fill them with six list-cloggers when you could have one elite talent and then still fill the other five with other picks anyway.
The AFL should do something along the lines of saying that when you match with picks, the first pick is worth 100% of its value, the next pick is worth (say) 66% of its value, then the next 33%, and then nothing. That way you need to match bids with picks that are at least close to where the bid came in. A bid comes in at #3 and you don't have sufficient picks to match it? Better do some live trading. You have four players in the first round that get bids and can't possibly trade in enough to match them all? Tough luck. Choose carefully which ones you want to match.
Or, if the AFL really wanted to ensure that clubs had the ability to match bids, then get the point values right, and subtract the leftover points from the best pick next year. A bid comes in worth 2400 points and you only have 1500 points worth of picks? Then next year your first pick is going backwards 900 points, whatever that ends up working out to.
I don't even mind the AFL applying a discount for matching bids - 10% or 20%, fine - as long as the bids are then meaningful. Right now, the difference between matching a bid at #1, and a bid at #20, is a couple of picks out in the 40s.
Last edited:
There’s two problems - freebies at draft time, and freebies at FA.
You can’t have a few clubs regularly getting a huge leg up through academies/nga. It won’t be long before all nsw and qld clubs are where the swans are - a quarter of their best 22 and some truly elite players acquired for cheap and/or when their actual own picks wouldn’t get it done in the open draft. It’s a huge, persisting advantage that means those clubs are meaningfully more likely to become good and stay good. Swans are every-year finalists but still can get top 5 players like Heeney and Mills under the current system. It was bad that the suns got so many this year but imagine if they were coming off a flag, or even top four! There’s nothing to stop it happening.
It can be fixed by the AFL itself paying scholarships directly to promising juniors in nsw and qld. They can train in the clubs academies, fine. Those clubs can access them at a max of 1 per round of the draft, and only from the second round onwards, and with no discount. Also, no ability to use points from more than 1 pick in each round.
Scrap the father-son discount too. The ability to pick above your actual pick is advantage enough.
Then there’s FA which advantages Vic clubs as a group and the big ones especially. There are more Vic kids interstate, so more Vic kids wanting to go home. There is no good reason for a club getting a FA to get them for free, as happens in all but truly exceptional cases. They should pay full value in draft points, according to contract size (and no ability to renegotiate a la Daniher). The points get transferred to the club losing the player. This would remove the distortions in trading too and make clubs pay more like fair value (because they’ll know that they can’t get a freebie by waiting another year or two for FA).
No chance this happens of course.
More likely the AFL will give away some new freebies which disproportionately benefit the vic clubs instead.
Actually, this is a simple and good idea. If a bid comes in, you can use your next pick’s points, and only those points, to match it. No combos. Any deficit comes off your first pick the following year.
The one challenge with that idea is that clubs could easily just trade their F1 away before the draft, anticipating they need to match a bid on the night. So then I guess it comes off their first available pick next year, but then clubs could just trade it all away. "Take 900 points off my future fourth round pick, I don't care."
As with anything, there are potential issues but it can be managed with some thought.
Edit: I suppose if you trade away too much of next year's picks in advance, then you just don't get to match the bid?
It already works that way. Clubs can go into deficit when matching bids.
For example: if a club goes into deficit by X points, matching a bid in the 2nd round, then their 2nd round pick goes backwards by X points the following year.
Fremantle's 1st pick in the 2020 ND was shuffled back for this very reason, resulting in them having pick #10 instead of pick #7.
It's applied to the pick in the round where the bid was made, before the start of trade week.
Scorpus
Moderator
- Apr 16, 2014
- 62,341
- 166,488
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Moderator
- #1,369
An ideal system would be radically changed from where it is now, including the ability to trade players without consent.
But that's not the system we have.
The current system is skewed in favor of Victorian clubs which means the northern teams need an equaliser, currently the Academies. If the AFL weakens the academies they will strengthen the Victorian teams more.
And the reality is that even with these equalizers the northern teams still aren't successful
It's also the case that WA and SA teams get shafted because we don't benefit from go home to the degree of Victoria, but also don't have priority access to build teams from local talent.
I would argue the best solution is to weaken the benefits flowing into Victoria which would equalize the competition, and then adjust the northern academies. You can't nerf the academies without also nerfing Victoria which seems to be what the whining clubs want. Suddenly something isn't benefitting Victoria like it usually does so they're all up in arms
Scorpus
Moderator
- Apr 16, 2014
- 62,341
- 166,488
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Moderator
- #1,370
The pick matching system is broken on purpose to ensure the clubs with priority access never miss out on their player. This ensures the club gets the advantage the system is supposed to bring, including the benefits associated with shuffling picks back.
Any attempt to make it harder for these clubs to access their local players will have the effect of strengthening Victoria. Either because Victorian clubs will draft the interstate talent, or because the non-Vic teams will not have bonus picks associated with trading down for points, thus giving Victorian teams a greater portion of picks
This means any attempt to correct the system must be accompanied with something to weaken the advantages to Victorian clubs
I agree that Vic clubs are the current biggest problem, but I’d say single the biggest problem club is the swans and in five years there will probably be four of them just as bad.
Also, northern clubs not picking all their local players doesn’t mean only Vic clubs will pick them, any club can pick them according to their draft capital, which is how it should work.
Anyway, I’d say the biggest problem is top 5 players, but also top 5-15 players. Beyond that there’s much more risk and it’s much less of a problem.
Sadly the major losers in all of this were always going to be the non-Victorian foundation states of WA & SA. Maintaining the status quo in Vic + growing the game by any means necessary in the rugby states = both of us being at the bottom of the pecking order forever
Mr MysteryGuest
Norm Smith Medallist
- Apr 4, 2015
- 9,070
- 9,515
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
last year was meant to be a shallow draft too
jenny61_99
Premium Platinum
To be fair, after Curtin AND Edwards, there was ALWAYS going to be a Hamish special. I saw port folk laugh at us taking him at pick 25 or whatever he was, when he was listed at pick 57 and I'm like, you know we only had one pick left, right?
- Jul 6, 2017
- 32,037
- 46,413
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
They might chuckle, but they know us getting Curtin was a big big get and he is the sort of guy that could wreck them in showdowns and we have started to accrue a number of those type of player that can do that.. just a shame Jonas has retired as I was really looking forward to a Jonas Rankine rematch in the next showdown
Similar threads
