AFLW AFLW 2023 - Geelong & the greater league

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #26
The draft order below was accurate as to 9am AEDT on March 14, with some clubs having already been involved with pick swaps through trades in the opening days of the Sign & Trade period.

Indicative AFLW Season Eight Supplementary Draft order

ROUND ONE

1. Sydney
2. Port Adelaide
3. West Coast
4. Hawthorn
5. Carlton
6. St Kilda
7. Fremantle
8. Greater Western Sydney
9. Essendon
10. Gold Coast
11. Western Bulldogs
12. Geelong
13. Collingwood
14. St Kilda (traded from Richmond)
15. Collingwood (traded from North Melbourne)
16. Adelaide
17. Brisbane
18. Melbourne

ROUND TWO

19. Sydney
20. Port Adelaide
21. West Coast
22. Hawthorn
23. Carlton
24. St Kilda
25. Fremantle
26. Greater Western Sydney
27. Richmond (traded from Essendon)
28. Gold Coast
29. Western Bulldogs
30. Geelong
31. St Kilda (traded from Collingwood)
32. Richmond
33. North Melbourne
34. Adelaide
35. Brisbane
36. Melbourne

ROUND THREE

37. Sydney
38. Port Adelaide
39. West Coast
40. Hawthorn
41. Carlton
42. St Kilda
43. Fremantle
44. Greater Western Sydney
45. Essendon
46. Gold Coast
47. Western Bulldogs
48. Geelong
49. Collingwood
50. Richmond
51. North Melbourne
52. Adelaide
53. Brisbane
54. Melbourne
 
I know nothing about the Port player, but good outcome I feel as that Keryk was cooked and had done as much as she could in our side so no loss
 

Log in to remove this ad.

  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #31
I've read that Surman is more of a forward/midfielder type and will help in our forward line

It really seems over the last 12/18 months that the coaching & recruiting team have put a focus into that strengthening that area - acknowledgement that it's been a weakness that needed addressing
 
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #32
Don't sound like a good deal pick 12 and Keryk for a 31yr old

Obviously depends on the player/s that are be available at pick 12 on draft night, but it's actually not a bad deal when you factor in the compromised nature of this draft

There may not be as many selections at the up coming draft as it's purely an over-age draft, when compared with a standard draft - if anything it may be a few of those newer teams such Port who are more interested in acquiring players via the draft

On the other hand, we may be happier to bring in new player/s via the trade table, with the draft a secondary option

Draft picks in 12 months time are likely to hold much greater value
 
I've read that Surman is more of a forward/midfielder type and will help in our forward line

It really seems over the last 12/18 months that the coaching & recruiting team have put a focus into that strengthening that area - acknowledgement that it's been a weakness that needed addressing

Maybe she can rotate with Scheer as a mid and forward.

Not overly concerned that we're parting ways with Keryk though.
 
Obviously depends on the player/s that are be available at pick 12 on draft night, but it's actually not a bad deal when you factor in the compromised nature of this draft

There may not be as many selections at the up coming draft as it's purely an over-age draft, when compared with a standard draft - if anything it may be a few of those newer teams such Port who are more interested in acquiring players via the draft

On the other hand, we may be happier to bring in new player/s via the trade table, with the draft a secondary option

Draft picks in 12 months time are likely to hold much greater value

I agree this is a very diluted draft picks are not worth much and you are seeing this with all the player for player trades being done this week.

Really pick 12 this year is worth like a r2/3 most years. Given keryk is really largely depth for us now and while i love her workrate she plays a position thats quite replaceable, keryk and a diluted pick for a very good forward is an ok deal. I would have preferred we traded in a 25yo player not a 31yo purely for the age profile of the list but surman is a good player.
 
Obviously depends on the player/s that are be available at pick 12 on draft night, but it's actually not a bad deal when you factor in the compromised nature of this draft

There may not be as many selections at the up coming draft as it's purely an over-age draft, when compared with a standard draft - if anything it may be a few of those newer teams such Port who are more interested in acquiring players via the draft

On the other hand, we may be happier to bring in new player/s via the trade table, with the draft a secondary option

Draft picks in 12 months time are likely to hold much greater value
Just can not keep up with W/AFL nothing is ever the same
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #39
Maddy's retired

mail




 
as much as it is a shame that Maddy didn't want to come back after a year away, the other side for that is that Gunjaca had a great year and thrived in the role down back so effectively we have already replaced Maddy anyway

The other 2 are no loss really, same as Keryk... I reckon she would have been delisted if not traded anyway
 
Surman looks like a nice kick. Think she will probably take gardiners spot.
Plummer will slot into the backline or Featherstone.
McDonald could earn her stripes too.
 
Another trade...

Sad to see Laura go, as she hadn't seemed to really hit her straps at AFLW level compared with what we saw from her at VFLW... But pick #1 in return is nice




Agreed - she didn't seem to be more than a good ordinary player, at least at AFLW level. Would pop up and do some good things every now and then, but from a team / list perspective, nothing we probably can't cover? And #1 - even in a supplementary draft - is very useful.
 
It's a tough one - never like losing young talent, but there's others I'd be more frustrated to lose compared with Gardiner

Agreed.

To get the #1 pick, even in a comprimised draft, for a player who can't break into our starting midfield is a great result.
I honestly though Gardiner was a prime candidate to leave under the PSP.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #50
Agreed.

To get the #1 pick, even in a comprimised draft, for a player who can't break into our starting midfield is a great result.
I honestly though Gardiner was a prime candidate to leave under the PSP.

And she could have done so to Sydney during that period and even though the compo would have been for a non-compromised draft, I'm not sure it would have been a first round pick
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top