List Mgmt. 2024 AFL Draft

[Ford Fairlane]

Thanks to Lore for this great resource

 

[all seeing eye]

Watching the champs so far, been reasonably impressed with the depth of quality. Seems like the kids this year have sound fundamental skillsets, doing most things at a afl transferrabe level. Could be needs based quality late in draft.

 

[davesnothere]

Grundy?

Grundy was only ever going to Sydney.

If not he'd have been at Port.

 

[noobermensch]

We love a good "basketball background" in the AFL, and Dodson's is so strong that we're still unsure which sport he's going to pick. This was the most impressive ruck performance so far this Champs series, and Dodson seems to have all the attributes you'd want in a ruck. Competes strongly and follows up on the ground with clean hands, positions himself well around the ground and takes intercept marks, long penetrating kick (although his technique could use some work).

 

[Holden Hillbilly]

Brisbane, Carlton and Gold Coast will lobby the AFL to retain its current bidding system for father-son and academy players as the league prepares to rule on changes to November’s national draft.

The AFL has told clubs it will summon them for a June 25 day of feedback on its competitive balance review, which will focus on three key areas — football performance, football operations and talent pathways.
South Australian clubs are desperate to escape the SANFL, while the Lions, Blues and Suns have access to elite kids in this November’s national draft.
The AFL has foreshadowed changes to the 2024 draft that could see clubs forced to pay more to match bids on elite first-round talents. Clubs are hopeful they will have a decision from the AFL on the draft system within the month.

Gold Coast was last year able to use pick 4 to trade for a vast collection of later selections that helped it secure four early academy picks – Jed Walter, Ethan Read, Jake Rogers and Will Graham.
This year, the Lions have the possible No. 1 overall pick – Levi Ashcroft – as a father-son and another first-rounder in midfielder Sam Marshall as an NGA selection.
Gold Coast has likely top-15 midfielder Leo Lombard as an academy selection and next year’s likely No. 1 overall pick is Suns academy player Zeke Uwland, the brother of current Suns defender Bodhi.
The Lions have told the AFL they have done extensive planning on this year’s draft, including what they will need to match any bids. They believe it is too late in the AFL season to make drastic changes, with Carlton in the same boat given they have father-son selections Ben and Lucas Camporeale. One possibility is that clubs will need a live selection in the round they are matching a bid in to stop them trading out of early picks when they are likely to bid

 

[philthy05]

They’re going to **** it right up aren’t they.

I’ve said for years, the answer is staring us in the ****ing face and so simple it’s moronic it hasn’t been adopted.


If the problem is the bundling of late picks to match bids, only allowing picks in the round and following round to be used solves it. There’s no loopholes to exploit, no grey area. And it still allows teams to pickup their players, they’re just not using late picks to make up a bunch of the points. (Also just **** off NGA, it’s a ****ing rort and while every club gets different access it’s absolute bullshit)

 

[Wargreymon90]

I dont have a problem with them changing the bidding system. I do have a problem with them changing it immediately. Clubs have planned for this year based on the current system.

 

[TeeKray]

I dont have a problem with them changing the bidding system. I do have a problem with them changing it immediately. Clubs have planned for this year based on the current system.

How terrible would it be if their plans to take part in a total unfair rort were derailed.

 

[davesnothere]

How terrible would it be if their plans to take part in a total unfair rort were derailed.

In fairness clubs have made plans in good faith under current rules. Nothing sneaky or manipulative about it. They have been operating as the system allows them to operate. You change the rules effective today you are punishing clubs for operating within the rules.

 

[Nemisis]

Would we have a crack at one of the Camporeale boys?

 

[Holden Hillbilly]

Would we have a crack at one of the Camporeale boys?

We do not have the draft picks - 35 & 53 and he would be gone by pick 10.

 

[Ford Fairlane]

In fairness clubs have made plans in good faith under current rules. Nothing sneaky or manipulative about it. They have been operating as the system allows them to operate. You change the rules effective today you are punishing clubs for operating within the rules.

That would be good if you could convince me the AFL does anything in fairness or good faith.

Let's change the holding the ball rule in the middle of the season.

Let's fine Port $100K for letting concussed players on the field but have a beer with Melbourne who let a player back on the field who could have legitimately died of internal bleeding. Or turn a blind eye to Geelong leaving a concussed Jeremy Cameron on the field.

Reports and suspensions are just a spin of the Wheel of Fortune, depending on your name and club.

The Academies have become an absolute rort that has thrown the draft completely out of kilter. If the AFL changes the rules, so be it, they do it all the time. We all get punished by their rule changes.

 

[1954]

Were all the free settlers short-arses and the convicts tall?

SA has never been a production line of genuinely tall rucks and KPPs. We could kill you with rovers though.

I saw something on either the ABC or SBS quite a few years back where immigration to specific areas of the country was discussed, not sure it was particularly scientific but WA got a mention for (apparently) having a higher percentage of eastern european migrants than the other states.

Whether that resulted in bigger descendants than for eg SA is is something only a resident of WA could probably answer, but I suspect it could be argued WA has had more key position types with eastern european surnames than the other states over the years.

 

[Jonts]

We do not have the draft picks - 35 & 53 and he would be gone by pick 10.

Only one on draft centrals first top 25 power rankings for the year
Same with no Welsh because as always it was a little Vic bias but still

 

[davesnothere]

Only one on draft centrals first top 25 power rankings for the year
Same with no Welsh because as always it was a little Vic bias but still

Welsh could be the best forward in the draft.

I'm hoping he goes high enough he stops the Crows getting a gun mid with their 1st pick.

 

[Long live PAFC]

Father sons are a unique part of the game and I don’t think we want a situation where a club can’t select a player who has nominated them.

Imagine if Port, without its first pick, had to watch Rome, Louie and Ky surge up the boards after amazing draft years and then be unable to match bids for them. We expected them to be second rounders or later and had planned accordingly.

However, father sons have been a huge part of Geelong, Collingwood, Footscray, etc recent success with minimal draft impact for those clubs. Another issue is that bids rarely come at a player’s worth - why bid if you aren’t getting them?

Maybe you need a pick in that round or face a 20% extra draft point penalty?

The academies are a real issue. They aren’t producing the extra indigenous or non typical background players that they have been created to do. Equally there are numerous rorts - Blakey, Borlase, GWS Riverina kids, etc. There is also a difference between Sydney fighting against rugby union and league and Gold Coast recruiting from relative AFL strongholds. Non Victorian clubs could benefit from greater local engagement by having academies that they can directly draw from. There is also a great need to develop players in areas that aren’t directly linked to a club - Darwin, North WA, central Aus, rural Vic/SA/NSW and overseas Ireland, USA, PNG, etc.

Realistically, if they tightened the criteria (how does John Blakey’s kid qualify for Sydney’s academy!?), removed the point discount if the player is taken in the first round and increased funds available to clubs to develop talent and expanded the cat B numbers so that players could be retained for longer without an impact on the list or cap, it would solve a lot of the issues. Also a reward for number of players drafted from your academy, be it financial or draft capital, may encourage clubs to focus more on building talent.

 

[philthy05]

Macca19

What do you know about dougie Cochrane? What’s he like athletically?

I haven’t watched any under 16’s games this year but stats wise he’s been dominant week in week out, was one of the best in an under 16s state match earlier (from memory) and he’s something like 192cm tall I think?

That all sounds like an intriguing prospect. Is he 2026 draft?

 

[Andre]

Father sons are a unique part of the game and I don’t think we want a situation where a club can’t select a player who has nominated them.

Imagine if Port, without its first pick, had to watch Rome, Louie and Ky surge up the boards after amazing draft years and then be unable to match bids for them. We expected them to be second rounders or later and had planned accordingly.

However, father sons have been a huge part of Geelong, Collingwood, Footscray, etc recent success with minimal draft impact for those clubs. Another issue is that bids rarely come at a player’s worth - why bid if you aren’t getting them?

Maybe you need a pick in that round or face a 20% extra draft point penalty?

The academies are a real issue. They aren’t producing the extra indigenous or non typical background players that they have been created to do. Equally there are numerous rorts - Blakey, Borlase, GWS Riverina kids, etc. There is also a difference between Sydney fighting against rugby union and league and Gold Coast recruiting from relative AFL strongholds. Non Victorian clubs could benefit from greater local engagement by having academies that they can directly draw from. There is also a great need to develop players in areas that aren’t directly linked to a club - Darwin, North WA, central Aus, rural Vic/SA/NSW and overseas Ireland, USA, PNG, etc.

Realistically, if they tightened the criteria (how does John Blakey’s kid qualify for Sydney’s academy!?), removed the point discount if the player is taken in the first round and increased funds available to clubs to develop talent and expanded the cat B numbers so that players could be retained for longer without an impact on the list or cap, it would solve a lot of the issues. Also a reward for number of players drafted from your academy, be it financial or draft capital, may encourage clubs to focus more on building talent.

I'll go on my rant, that the problem is the AFL system is a shit bits of everything, that doesn't work together well. Just piss off draft picks and give the equivalent points to clubs. Use points to bid on players for the draft. F/S and Academy, the clubs linked to get a 20% discount.

Trades could involve points, either with or without players (E.g. points from one year for points from another).

Restricted Free Agents and Free Agents, give points from the club who gets them to the club they are taken from (player value determined by the average of 3 non-involved random club draft teams), with RFA half of that value. Clubs poaching can then either pay or not. No more every club not-involved gets screwed over by draft picks pushed back.

Of course the main thing against it, is it's not so easily manipulated as the current system, and the AFL loves to be able to advantage or disadvantage clubs, depending on whether they are favoured (cough VFL cough).

 

[philthy05]

Were all the free settlers short-arses and the convicts tall?

SA has never been a production line of genuinely tall rucks and KPPs. We could kill you with rovers though.

Can’t speak to the breeding practices of the colonial era but SA does seem to struggle to produce talls.

Wonder if it’s a development issue?

I saw something on either the ABC or SBS quite a few years back where immigration to specific areas of the country was discussed, not sure it was particularly scientific but WA got a mention for (apparently) having a higher percentage of eastern european migrants than the other states.

Whether that resulted in bigger descendants than for eg SA is is something only a resident of WA could probably answer, but I suspect it could be argued WA has had more key position types with eastern european surnames than the other states over the years.

Money. 100% it all comes down to money.


Have a look at all the kids coming through the system and where they come from. It’s no coincidence that they always bring up which private school so and so kid went to.

The eastern states and Wa have more rich people than Adelaide. They have more flush private schools.

And if your kid is tall and good at sport the more likely one of those schools will poach them if they’re not already there. Not too mention there’s already proven links between money and health = more chance of producing healthy fit tall offspring.

 

[philthy05]

I'll go on my rant, that the problem is the AFL system is a shit bits of everything, that doesn't work together well. Just piss off draft picks and give the equivalent points to clubs. Use points to bid on players for the draft. F/S and Academy, the clubs linked to get a 20% discount.

Trades could involve points, either with or without players (E.g. points from one year for points from another).

Restricted Free Agents and Free Agents, give points from the club who gets them to the club they are taken from (player value determined by the average of 3 non-involved random club draft teams), with RFA half of that value. Clubs poaching can then either pay or not. No more every club not-involved gets screwed over by draft picks pushed back.

Of course the main thing against it, is it's not so easily manipulated as the current system, and the AFL loves to be able to advantage or disadvantage clubs, depending on whether they are favoured (cough VFL cough).

The ‘we shouldn’t have draft picks we should have points and bidding’ idea gets brought up often and it just wouldn’t work.

The bottom team would never get the best player ever again.

A good team that doesn’t need to rebuild and need lots of players , take Geelong over the last decade for example, could just bid all their points for the best players in the draft and add a gun every year. Especially if you suck a team into paying high for a disposable player like esava.

It’s entirely conceivable that under that model Geelong could have Brayshaw , Sam Walsh serong and Horne Francis running around for them.

The alternative is that teams like Geelong drive the price of top picks up so high that bottom teams have to use all their points for them and don’t get to add enough other players.

 

[Andre]

The ‘we shouldn’t have draft picks we should have points and bidding’ idea gets brought up often and it just wouldn’t work.

The bottom team would never get the best player ever again.

A good team that doesn’t need to rebuild and need lots of players , take Geelong over the last decade for example, could just bid all their points for the best players in the draft and add a gun every year. Especially if you suck a team into paying high for a disposable player like esava.

It’s entirely conceivable that under that model Geelong could have Brayshaw , Sam Walsh serong and Horne Francis running around for them.

The alternative is that teams like Geelong drive the price of top picks up so high that bottom teams have to use all their points for them and don’t get to add enough other players.

If the current points for picks went over then the bottom side would have around 6000points and a team 10th around 3500. Top teams wouldn’t be able to outbid the bottom 4 for the best handful of players, or drive the price sky high. Drafts wouldn’t change that much, given the points allocated, except F/S and academies, clubs would have to pay something closer to true value (or at least 80%) of it, rather than a bunch of late picks. And even with a discount no club is going to be able to nab multiple F/S and/or academy picks that are top tier in one year, as has happened numerous times under the current system.

 

[philthy05]

If the current points for picks went over then the bottom side would have around 6000points and a team 10th around 3500. Top teams wouldn’t be able to outbid the bottom 4 for the best handful of players, or drive the price sky high. Drafts wouldn’t change that much, given the points allocated, except F/S and academies, clubs would have to pay something closer to true value (or at least 80%) of it, rather than a bunch of late picks. And even with a discount no club is going to be able to nab multiple F/S and/or academy picks that are top tier in one year, as has happened numerous times under the current system.

Well what if that team got a bunch of points for trading out a fringe player , say pick 25 worth of points for a player like esava ? Maybe moves some other fringe players for more points?


If the problem you’re trying to solve is late picks being used to make up points on high bids, isn’t the obvious answer to .. not allow late picks to be used to match for high bids?

 

[Interstater]

WATCH LIVE: SA v WA in U18 Champs from 10am ACST

SA and WA face off in the 2024 Marsh AFL U18 Boys National Championships on Sunday

www.afl.com.au

 

[Holden Hillbilly]

SOUTH AUSTRALIA 1.2 3.6 4.9 6.12 (48)
WESTERN AUSTRALIA 6.3 9.4 12.6 18.7 (115)

Goals
South Australia: Bowman 3, Bradley 2, Newton
Western Australia: Rohr 4, Gerreyn 3, Evans 2, Davis 2, Burke 2, Angove, Banfield, Champion, Hayes, Kelly

WA tall forwards star in thrashing of SA

Max Rohr and Kayle Gerreyn combined for seven goals in WA's big win over SA

www.afl.com.au

 

[Andre]

Well what if that team got a bunch of points for trading out a fringe player , say pick 25 worth of points for a player like esava ? Maybe moves some other fringe players for more points?


If the problem you’re trying to solve is late picks being used to make up points on high bids, isn’t the obvious answer to .. not allow late picks to be used to match for high bids?

That'd add around 800 points, they still aren't getting to top players. And if they trade out so many they can grab a top 3 player, then they've just gutted the middle of their list, that if they did that each year, they'd have half a dozen stars, then the rest being complete shit fringe players / late draft picks. That wouldn't make a juggernaut.

 

[philthy05]

That'd add around 800 points, they still aren't getting to top players. And if they trade out so many they can grab a top 3 player, then they've just gutted the middle of their list, that if they did that each year, they'd have half a dozen stars, then the rest being complete shit fringe players / late draft picks. That wouldn't make a juggernaut.

Lol what.

Your maths is completely wrong. How does the bottom team have that many points? Under current points (which I’m assuming your using cause otherwise what?) pick 1 is 3000 and the 2nd 3rd and 4 rounders don’t add up to 3000 lol. Approx around 1600 but in reality compo pushes those back so it’s gonna be much less.


Absolutely under a points draft system teams with less need for as many players can just big big on the best players. Either snapping them up or driving the price up so bottom teams pay through the nose for them.