Opinion Are we on the verge of another period of dominance from teams not based in Melbourne?

[Freomaniac]

Yes Daicos won the rising star.

Another award that WA wowsers think is biased to Melbourne clubs.

It doesnt matter that majority of winners come from non-Melbourne teams.

Back to FS, what are your thoughts that in last 5 drafts it is a non-Melbourne side that has selected the most kids under FS rules? What are your thoughts on Lions getting 2 kids in the top 12 of 2022 through FS, despite finishing top4.

I like the Paul Medhurst theory.....

Paul Medhurst kicked 166 goals from 99 games for freo from 2002-6.

He then goes to Collingwood. 108 goals from 69 games from 2007-10.

In 2003, he kicks exactly 50 goals for the dockers and doesnt get a look in at the All Australian side. However, he played for Collingwood in 2008. He kicks exactly the amount of goals at freo in 2003: 50 goals. Guess what? He gets in the AA squad.


Now you ask me about my Thoughts on Lions getting 2 kids in the top 12 because of the Father son selections. Guess what? Heres my question....

Will Brisbane win multiple flags in the next 5 years off the back of it? Just like Geelong winning the 2007, 2009 and 2011 flags off the back of the 1999 and 2001 picks they had with the father son selections?

It would be an injustice if Clive waterhouses son doesnt play for the dockers. lol

 

[doppleganger]

I like the Paul Medhurst theory.....

Paul Medhurst kicked 166 goals from 99 games for freo from 2002-6.

He then goes to Collingwood. 108 goals from 69 games from 2007-10.

In 2003, he kicks exactly 50 goals for the dockers and doesnt get a look in at the All Australian side. However, he played for Collingwood in 2008. He kicks exactly the amount of goals at freo in 2003: 50 goals. Guess what? He gets in the AA squad.

2008 372 disp, 176 marks, 52 tackles, 50 goals

2003 234 disp, 108 marks, 20 tackles, 50 goals

2008 Medhurst was a much more complete player, evidenced by coming 2nd in Pies BnF.

WA wowser alert.

Now you ask me about my Thoughts on Lions getting 2 kids in the top 12 because of the Father son selections. Guess what? Heres my question....

Respond to a question with a question...

Will Brisbane win multiple flags in the next 5 years off the back of it? Just like Geelong winning the 2007, 2009 and 2011 flags off the back of the 1999 and 2001 picks they had with the father son selections?

Brisbane had 2 FS selections back in 99/01, Geelong just 1.

It seems your FS theory is as bad as your Medhurst theory.

 

[GC2015]

Any potential would be barely 5 years old...a bit early to have any thoughts.

I do think that Brisbane would be pretty happy with father son and jagging Ashcroft and Fletcher in 2022.

And in the last 5 drafts it is Port Adelaide that have taken the most F&S selections.

Another Melbourne biased rule I guess

Hard to argue the F/S rule hasn't favoured Victorian teams more than non-Vic teams. St Kilda and Hawthorn are the only Victorian teams that have had less father-son picks than any other non-Victorian team.

Father-son picks since 1987 when the league expanded

Club​	F/S picks​	Players​
Collingwood​	17​	1988: H.Shephard (#109) 1989: E.Hug Jr (#106) 1998: N.Davis (#19), B.Oborne (#35) 1999: R.Shaw (#18) 2000: J.Cloke (#19) 2002: C.Cloke (#43) 2003: B.Shaw (#32) , H.Shaw (#48) 2004: T.Cloke (#39) 2007: J.Barham (#61) 2014: D.Moore (#9) 2016: C.Brown (#35) , J.Daicos (#57) 2017: T.Brown (#50) 2018: W.Kelly (#29) 2021: N.Daicos (#4)​
Geelong​	14​	1995: S.Fletcher (Pre-draft) 1997: M.Scarlett (#45), M.Woolnough (#29) 1998: D.Clarke (#21) 2001: G.Ablett Jr (#40) 2002: T.Callan (#36) 2003: M.Blake (#38) 2004: N.Ablett (#48) 2006: T.Hawkins (#41) 2007: A.Donohue (#60) 2011: J.Bews (#86) 2016: S.Simpson (#53r) 2018: O.Brownless (#74) 2022: Osca Riccardi (#32r)​
Carlton​	10​	1988: M.James (#96), C.Mulcair (#110) 1992: D.Walsh (Pre-draft) 1995: D.Walls (Pre-draft) 1996: L.Whitnall (Pre-draft) 2001: J.Waite (#46) 2004: L.Blackwell (#41) 2011: D.Buckley (#62) 2015: J.Silvagni (#53) 2018: B.Silvagni (#70)​
Essendon​	9​	1992: D.Fletcher (Pre-draft) 2002: J.Watson (#40) 2005: J.Neagle (#39) 2007: D.Daniher (#39) 2012: J.Daniher (#10) 2014: J.Long (#47r) 2015: T.Wallis (#54r)​
Bulldogs​	9​	1992: L.Darcy (Pre-draft) 1995: D.Round (Pre-draft) 2008: A.Cordy (#14) 2010: T.Liberatore (#41), M.Wallis (#22) 2012: L.Hunter (#49) 2014: Z.Cordy (#62) 2018: R.West (#26) 2021: S.Darcy (#2)​
Richmond​	8​	1988: S.Bowden (#103) 1992: M.Richardson (Pre-draft) 1994: D.Bourke (Pre-draft) 1995: J.Bowden (Pre-draft), N.Jewell (Pre-draft) 2003: T.Roach (#37) 2017: P.Naish (#34) 2020: M.Rioli Jr (#51)​
Melbourne​	7​	1988: T.Kavanagh (#111) 1992: B.Campbell (Pre-draft), G.Molloy (Pre-draft) 2003: C.Johnson (#36) 2012: J.Viney (#26) 2014: B.Stretch (#42) 2021: T.Woewodin (#62)​
North Melbourne​	6​	2004: J.Smith (#42) 2014: L.McDonald (#8) 2018: J.Crocker (#69), B.Scott (#49) 2021: J.Archer (#59) 2022: C.Harvey (#56)​
West Coast​	6​	1989: A.McIntosh (#112) 1995: B.Cousins (Pre-draft) 2004: M.Morton (#44) 2010: J.Brennan (#62) 2014: A.Waterman (#76) 2016: J.Waterman (#77)​
Brisbane​	5​	1999: J.Brown (#30), S.Morrison (#44) 2014: J.Clayton (#86) 2022: W.Ashcroft (#2), J.Fletcher (#12)​
Port Adelaide​	5​	2002: B.Ebert (#42) 2019: J.Mead (#25), T.Burgoyne (#22r) 2020: T.Schofield (#37r) 2021: J.Burgoyne (#60)​
Sydney​	5​	1988: G.John (#106) 1998: H.James (#28) 1999: S.Doyle (#26) 2002: S.Dempster (#34) 2011: T.Mitchell (#21)​
Hawthorn​	4​	2000: S.Greene (#28) 2005: T.Tuck (#38) 2006: J.Kennedy (#40) 2019: F.Maginness (#29)​
Adelaide​	3​	2016: B.Jarman (#45r) 2017: J.Edwards (#41r) 2022: M.Michalanney (#17)​
St Kilda​	3​	1989: S.Annand (#105) 1995: D.Sierakowski (Pre-draft) 2015: B.Rice (#49)​
Fremantle​	1​	2003: B.Peake (#43)​

 

[Saab NLAW]

The Malbun is growing faster than anywhere is such a dumb argument in AFL terms. All it means is you'll have a s**t load more Toyota Camrys clogging your highways. Your Sheild team should improve though.

Racist much?

 

[Saab NLAW]

The Swans have no retention issues? Do you remember Jordan Dawson requesting a trade home to the Crows in 2021? What about Tom Papley's request to go home to Victoria the year before? Zak Jones asking to be traded home to Victoria the year before that? Hannebery and Rohan requesting trades home to Victoria the year before that? Mitchell and Nankervis requesting trades to Victorian teams 2 years before that? Jetta requesting a trade home to WA the year before that?

To say the Swans don't have retention issues is ridiculous.

I can't be bothered replying to your wall of text but this one is a joke.

Every single club has players who request to leave for various reasons, and the fact that you've used a player who didn't even leave shows just how pathetic your argument is.

Your arguments are as slippery as an eel, one minute you're claiming that they're doing a wonderful job building a team and keeping ther talent, the next you're using players who didn't even leave them as evidence that they have retention problems. lol. Sydney were also happy to see most of those players leave, Jones, Hannebery, Nankervis and Rohan. All C grade talent. And of course you conveniently leave out the fact that they were able to attract the best forward of the modern game.

Make up your mind champ and stick to the one argument.

Don't bother replying, I can't be bothered with you any more

 

[demondavey]

Sydney - should be strong for a few years based on making a GF last year and with fairly significant youth and a great coach

Port - Feel they will do very well this year

Fremantle - No excuses not to do well but who knows, they never really have. Need to win on the road.

WC - Won’t be as bad 2022 but won’t be threatening for a few years yet, depending on draft and development

GWS - Talented and by all reports making strides under Kingsley. Who knows.

GC - No excuses not to improve, sustained dominance? Hard to tell. Would want to play finals in 23 or 24.

Brisbane - 23 & 24 are the years to win a flag

Adelaide - fair way off

Only way I see sustained non Victorian success is if Sydney, Port, Brisbane, GWS, Fremantle and GC improve so much more over the next 2-3 years that they overtake Geelong, Richmond, Collingwood, Carlton, Melbourne. It’s going to be really hard to curtail at least four Victorian sides whilst not accounting for improvements in Essendon and maybe St Kilda. Who knows about the WB.

Hawks and NM are way off.

Carlton, Richmond, Melbourne, Collingwood will improve and Geelong isn’t going away. You’d say likely will all play finals. That’s 3 more spots left that should be obtained by non Vic sides plus competing with the rest of the Victorian contingent, particularly WB and St Kilda who are well truly in the same category as GC, Fremantle, GWS, Port. So 7 sides vying for 3 spots.

 

[demondavey]

This century we’ve seen powerhouse teams in Geelong, Hawthorn and Richmond enjoy sustained success. Bar Brisbane, no non Victorian side has enjoyed that success. It’s been 20 years. Winning multiple flags or back to back flags if you’re a non Vic club is virtually impossible unless you’re Brisbane levels of elite. WC have arguably been the most successful club outside Victoria over a 35 year period and have never won back to back.

There’s a fair bit to read into that.

 

[Freomaniac]

2008 372 disp, 176 marks, 52 tackles, 50 goals

2003 234 disp, 108 marks, 20 tackles, 50 goals

2008 Medhurst was a much more complete player, evidenced by coming 2nd in Pies BnF.

WA wowser alert.

Respond to a question with a question...

Brisbane had 2 FS selections back in 99/01, Geelong just 1.

It seems your FS theory is as bad as your Medhurst theory.

Are you telling me that in the cats 2007 flag where they belted port by 119 points, only one player in that 22 was a father son pick?

Your serious about this?

 

[Freomaniac]

Hard to argue the F/S rule hasn't favoured Victorian teams more than non-Vic teams. St Kilda and Hawthorn are the only Victorian teams that have had less father-son picks than any other non-Victorian team.

Father-son picks since 1987 when the league expanded

Club​	F/S picks​	Players​
Collingwood​	17​	1988: H.Shephard (#109) 1989: E.Hug Jr (#106) 1998: N.Davis (#19), B.Oborne (#35) 1999: R.Shaw (#18) 2000: J.Cloke (#19) 2002: C.Cloke (#43) 2003: B.Shaw (#32) , H.Shaw (#48) 2004: T.Cloke (#39) 2007: J.Barham (#61) 2014: D.Moore (#9) 2016: C.Brown (#35) , J.Daicos (#57) 2017: T.Brown (#50) 2018: W.Kelly (#29) 2021: N.Daicos (#4)​
Geelong​	14​	1995: S.Fletcher (Pre-draft) 1997: M.Scarlett (#45), M.Woolnough (#29) 1998: D.Clarke (#21) 2001: G.Ablett Jr (#40) 2002: T.Callan (#36) 2003: M.Blake (#38) 2004: N.Ablett (#48) 2006: T.Hawkins (#41) 2007: A.Donohue (#60) 2011: J.Bews (#86) 2016: S.Simpson (#53r) 2018: O.Brownless (#74) 2022: Osca Riccardi (#32r)​
Carlton​	10​	1988: M.James (#96), C.Mulcair (#110) 1992: D.Walsh (Pre-draft) 1995: D.Walls (Pre-draft) 1996: L.Whitnall (Pre-draft) 2001: J.Waite (#46) 2004: L.Blackwell (#41) 2011: D.Buckley (#62) 2015: J.Silvagni (#53) 2018: B.Silvagni (#70)​
Essendon​	9​	1992: D.Fletcher (Pre-draft) 2002: J.Watson (#40) 2005: J.Neagle (#39) 2007: D.Daniher (#39) 2012: J.Daniher (#10) 2014: J.Long (#47r) 2015: T.Wallis (#54r)​
Bulldogs​	9​	1992: L.Darcy (Pre-draft) 1995: D.Round (Pre-draft) 2008: A.Cordy (#14) 2010: T.Liberatore (#41), M.Wallis (#22) 2012: L.Hunter (#49) 2014: Z.Cordy (#62) 2018: R.West (#26) 2021: S.Darcy (#2)​
Richmond​	8​	1988: S.Bowden (#103) 1992: M.Richardson (Pre-draft) 1994: D.Bourke (Pre-draft) 1995: J.Bowden (Pre-draft), N.Jewell (Pre-draft) 2003: T.Roach (#37) 2017: P.Naish (#34) 2020: M.Rioli Jr (#51)​
Melbourne​	7​	1988: T.Kavanagh (#111) 1992: B.Campbell (Pre-draft), G.Molloy (Pre-draft) 2003: C.Johnson (#36) 2012: J.Viney (#26) 2014: B.Stretch (#42) 2021: T.Woewodin (#62)​
North Melbourne​	6​	2004: J.Smith (#42) 2014: L.McDonald (#8) 2018: J.Crocker (#69), B.Scott (#49) 2021: J.Archer (#59) 2022: C.Harvey (#56)​
West Coast​	6​	1989: A.McIntosh (#112) 1995: B.Cousins (Pre-draft) 2004: M.Morton (#44) 2010: J.Brennan (#62) 2014: A.Waterman (#76) 2016: J.Waterman (#77)​
Brisbane​	5​	1999: J.Brown (#30), S.Morrison (#44) 2014: J.Clayton (#86) 2022: W.Ashcroft (#2), J.Fletcher (#12)​
Port Adelaide​	5​	2002: B.Ebert (#42) 2019: J.Mead (#25), T.Burgoyne (#22r) 2020: T.Schofield (#37r) 2021: J.Burgoyne (#60)​
Sydney​	5​	1988: G.John (#106) 1998: H.James (#28) 1999: S.Doyle (#26) 2002: S.Dempster (#34) 2011: T.Mitchell (#21)​
Hawthorn​	4​	2000: S.Greene (#28) 2005: T.Tuck (#38) 2006: J.Kennedy (#40) 2019: F.Maginness (#29)​
Adelaide​	3​	2016: B.Jarman (#45r) 2017: J.Edwards (#41r) 2022: M.Michalanney (#17)​
St Kilda​	3​	1989: S.Annand (#105) 1995: D.Sierakowski (Pre-draft) 2015: B.Rice (#49)​
Fremantle​	1​	2003: B.Peake (#43)​

Well there you bloody go....

Freos horrible Recruiting and trading from 1994-2006 has proved that theres bugger all father son picks coming.

 

[doppleganger]

Hard to argue the F/S rule hasn't favoured Victorian teams more than non-Vic teams.

​

No shit that when you go back to 1980s to a time when there was 11 vic teams and just a couple of non-vic teams that didnt have a proper heritage it was Vic teams that dominate.

Now that more of the expansion sides are into next generation, they too are starting to see FS selections.

Brisbane the big winner of FS in 2022 draft, and Port selected most players using FS in last 5 drafts.

 

[doppleganger]

Are you telling me that in the cats 2007 flag where they belted port by 119 points, only one player in that 22 was a father son pick?

That isn't what you asked.

2007 there were 3 FS players - Scarlett, Gaz and Nablett.

Only Gaz was from 99/01 drafts, the drafts when Geelong built their dynasty.

Guess what? Heres my question....

Will Brisbane win multiple flags in the next 5 years off the back of it? Just like Geelong winning the 2007, 2009 and 2011 flags off the back of the 1999 and 2001 picks they had with the father son selections?

The Lions themselves jagged J.Brown through FS in 99, and they won 3 flags soon after.

Your serious about this?

Serious about challenging your inane WA wowser myths - yep.

Just like your Medhurst theory, absolute crap basically.

 

[Freomaniac]

That isn't what you asked.

2007 there were 3 FS players - Scarlett, Gaz and Nablett.

Only Gaz was from 99/01 drafts, the drafts when Geelong built their dynasty.

The Lions themselves jagged J.Brown through FS in 99, and they won 3 flags soon after.

Serious about challenging your inane WA wowser myths - yep.

Just like your Medhurst theory, absolute crap basically.

Well Marc Murphy could of joined Brisbane as a father son pick. But Carlton got him with that pick 1

 

[GC2015]

I can't be bothered replying to your wall of text but this one is a joke.

Every single club has players who request to leave for various reasons, and the fact that you've used a player who didn't even leave shows just how pathetic your argument is.

Your arguments are as slippery as an eel, one minute you're claiming that they're doing a wonderful job building a team and keeping ther talent, the next you're using players who didn't even leave them as evidence that they have retention problems. lol. Sydney were also happy to see most of those players leave, Jones, Hannebery, Nankervis and Rohan. All C grade talent. And of course you conveniently leave out the fact that they were able to attract the best forward of the modern game.

Make up your mind champ and stick to the one argument.

Don't bother replying, I can't be bothered with you any more

Of course every club has players that request trades but you don't think 7-8 best 22 players requesting a trade away from the Swans in a matter of 7 years is a bit excessive when compared to an average Victorian team? When did I state they're doing a good job of keeping their talent? If anything, I stated the opposite by pointing out that retention was very much a real issue for the Swans. Their academy has allowed them to offset those retention issues and remain competitive though.

I didn't conveniently leave out the fact that they recruited Buddy Franklin. The post you quoted was a response to an earlier post from you in which I pointed out to you that the Swans were able to recruit Buddy Franklin through the use of COLA and that was taken away from them shortly after. We had already established that the Swans were able to recruit Buddy with the help of COLA when you wrote that response. No point in repeating that when you've already read it. Go back through the thread if you don't believe me.

Now, are you going to respond to the other parts of the post? Where is the source on the Melbourne Storm losing their grant? I was able to find a source that stated the Storm received extra funding as recently as 2018. What do you think about the difference between GWS and Gold Coast's list build and the idea that the early success of the Giants' academy allowed them to offset their retention issues where as the Suns weren't able to follow suit because the talent didn't come through their academy when needed? How about your outrageous statement that the management of 3 of the 4 northern clubs "have been a failure" when highly regarded management staff such as David Matthews, Greg Swann and Mark Evans are running the ship and it takes time for these guys to turn things around? What about you stating that Brisbane no longer has retention issues but have still lost best 22 players like McStay, Martin, Taylor, Mayes, Beams and Schache over the last 5 years?

I'll restrict my response to that because you seem to struggle with reading more than a few paragraphs.

 

[GC2015]

No s**t that when you go back to 1980s to a time when there was 11 vic teams and just a couple of non-vic teams that didnt have a proper heritage it was Vic teams that dominate.

Now that more of the expansion sides are into next generation, they too are starting to see FS selections.

Brisbane the big winner of FS in 2022 draft, and Port selected most players using FS in last 5 drafts.

It's probably more a reflection that the AFL's attempt to create an equal set of father-son rules for the WA & SA teams was a failure. We know the famous example of Bryce Gibbs who would have been father-son eligible for the Crows if the AFL had not set an arbitrary number of SANFL games required to 200 (before a certain date) as opposed to the VFL's standard 100 games. Plus Gibbs' father did actually notch up the required 200 SANFL games but he hadn't hit the 200 before the Crows entered the AFL so his remaining 70 odd games for Glenelg didn't count. Now I understand someone might argue the SANFL was a lower standard than the VFL but it's still extremely difficult for any play to reach 200 games, regardless of which league they are playing in. For example the SANFL played 20 home and away games in 1990 so if you were lucky enough to play finals throughout that period then that would take 9-10 straight years of not missing a single game to become eligible for SANFL father-son status, as opposed to the 4-5 years it would take in the VFL. The same argument can be made about the arbitrary number of 150 WAFL games that the AFL chose to implement in order for a player to be father-son eligible for West Coast or Freo.

It just seems like it was a rule that was set up to look fair on paper but really it mostly benefitted the Victorian clubs and hardly anyone else at the time. Now most of the non-Vic teams are on level pegging and we're seeing far more father-son picks come through for them. Funny that.

 

[Saab NLAW]

Of course every club has players that request trades but you don't think 7-8 best 22 players requesting a trade away from the Swans in a matter of 7 years is a bit excessive when compared to an average Victorian team? When did I state they're doing a good job of keeping their talent? If anything, I stated the opposite by pointing out that retention was very much a real issue for the Swans. Their academy has allowed them to offset those retention issues and remain competitive though.

I didn't conveniently leave out the fact that they recruited Buddy Franklin. The post you quoted was a response to an earlier post from you in which I pointed out to you that the Swans were able to recruit Buddy Franklin through the use of COLA and that was taken away from them shortly after. We had already established that the Swans were able to recruit Buddy with the help of COLA when you wrote that response. No point in repeating that when you've already read it. Go back through the thread if you don't believe me.

Now, are you going to respond to the other parts of the post? Where is the source on the Melbourne Storm losing their grant? I was able to find a source that stated the Storm received extra funding as recently as 2018. What do you think about the difference between GWS and Gold Coast's list build and the idea that the early success of the Giants' academy allowed them to offset their retention issues where as the Suns weren't able to follow suit because the talent didn't come through their academy when needed? How about your outrageous statement that the management of 3 of the 4 northern clubs "have been a failure" when highly regarded management staff such as David Matthews, Greg Swann and Mark Evans are running the ship and it takes time for these guys to turn things around? What about you stating that Brisbane no longer has retention issues but have still lost best 22 players like McStay, Martin, Taylor, Mayes, Beams and Schache over the last 5 years?

I'll restrict my response to that because you seem to struggle with reading more than a few paragraphs.

Welcome to ignore

 

[doppleganger]

It's probably more a reflection that the AFL's attempt to create an equal set of father-son rules for the WA & SA teams was a failure.

No shit, there were no fathers who played for West Coast Eagles or Adelaide Crows when they started.

We know the famous example of Bryce Gibbs who would have been father-son eligible for the Crows if the AFL had not set an arbitrary number of SANFL games required to 200 (before a certain date) as opposed to the VFL's standard 100 games. Plus Gibbs' father did actually notch up the required 200 SANFL games but he hadn't hit the 200 before the Crows entered the AFL so his remaining 70 odd games for Glenelg didn't count.

So he never played for the Crows, and was actively playing for a different club in a different competition whilst the Crows were in the league.

Yep, no father son link there.

Now I understand someone might argue the SANFL was a lower standard than the VFL but it's still extremely difficult for any play to reach 200 games, regardless of which league they are playing in. For example the SANFL played 20 home and away games in 1990 so if you were lucky enough to play finals throughout that period then that would take 9-10 straight years of not missing a single game to become eligible for SANFL father-son status, as opposed to the 4-5 years it would take in the VFL.

Who cares what standard it is, father son is set up to promote strong club culture from the past.

The Adelaide Crows have no heritage prior to the 90s, so a nonsense to even create a bastardised FS rule.

The same argument can be made about the arbitrary number of 150 WAFL games that the AFL chose to implement in order for a player to be father-son eligible for West Coast or Freo.

Yep a ridiculous decision, how can you be father son eligible when the father never playyed for the club?

It just seems like it was a rule that was set up to look fair on paper but really it mostly benefitted the Victorian clubs and hardly anyone else at the time. Now most of the non-Vic teams are on level pegging and we're seeing far more father-son picks come through for them. Funny that.

Yeah...there are now sons of fathers who have played for Adelaide Crows, West Coast Eagles, Brisbane Lions, Port Power...and they are being selected by those clubs.

Only a nuffie would think that start up clubs who receive draft and academy bonus picks should ALSO have the opportunity to receive father son selections.

 

[GC2015]

No s**t, there were no fathers who played for West Coast Eagles or Adelaide Crows when they started.

Correct but there were plenty of fathers of future AFL players who played for the clubs that combined to create the Adelaide Crows and the same can be said about the WAFL clubs. Of course it's not a father-son in the traditional sense but it was the solution that the AFL came up with at the time in an attempt to create a level playing ground for the expansion clubs.

So he never played for the Crows, and was actively playing for a different club in a different competition whilst the Crows were in the league.

Yep, no father son link there.

We're arguing two different points here. I'm stating that the AFL shouldn't have set the bar so high for father-son prospects from the SANFL and WAFL clubs because it prevented the SA & WA teams from drafting a similar amount of players to the Victorian clubs and you appear to be arguing that they should have never access to any SANFL or WAFL players in the first place. That's a completely separate discussion point to the one I brought up.

I'll meet you in the middle. Should Port Adelaide have had father-son access to Brett Ebert? His father Russell Ebert played 392 SANFL games for the Port Magpies and everyone just assumed his son Brett would be father-son eligible under the 200 SANFL game rule so no one bothered to check and it went through. In a true sign of just how ridiculous the rules were, Brett Ebert wasn't technically father-son eligible to be drafted by Port Adelaide . So I ask you, should the Port Adelaide Football Club, which is a club that has existed since 1870, should they have had father-son access to Brett Ebert? The AFL rules at the time stated they shouldn't have access to the son of a 392 gamer who played for the same club.

Who cares what standard it is, father son is set up to promote strong club culture from the past.

The Adelaide Crows have no heritage prior to the 90s, so a nonsense to even create a bastardised FS rule.

Funnily enough, a lot of people care about the standard of each league. Hence the reason that the 200 SANFL and 150 WAFL game criteria was accepted.

You're showing how little you know about South Australian football history with this comment. Nine of the ten SANFL clubs combined in 1990 to take legal action against Port Adelaide who had secretly attempted to enter the AFL behind their back and this led to the creation of the Adelaide Football Club. The Adelaide Crows were literally created by the 9 SANFL clubs not named Port Adelaide.

Yep a ridiculous decision, how can you be father son eligible when the father never playyed for the club?

Refer to above.

Yeah...there are now sons of fathers who have played for Adelaide Crows, West Coast Eagles, Brisbane Lions, Port Power...and they are being selected by those clubs.

Funny how we see a lot more father-son picks come through when the criteria reverts to the standard 100 game mark. How many of them would have still been eligible if the rule had remained at 200 games?

Port Adelaide - Jackson Mead (not eligible), Trent Burgoyne (eligible), Taj Schofield (not eligible), Jase Burgoyne (eligible)
Adelaide - Ben Jarman (not eligible), Jackson Edwards (eligible)

Half the father-son prospects they've drafted would no longer eligible. Are you starting to see why the original rule was a problem?

Only a nuffie would think that start up clubs who receive draft and academy bonus picks should ALSO have the opportunity to receive father son selections.

So you must be really mad about the Lions and Swans getting the best of both worlds, right?

 

[JackOutback]

Typical Vic arrogance that only Vic clubs should have access to father-sons for ‘club culture’. Like it wouldn’t have fast-tracked club culture to see WAFL or SANFL legends in the clubs that came out of those leagues. It should have been all in or nothing.

 

[LoungeLizard]

Typical Vic arrogance that only Vic clubs should have access to father-sons for ‘club culture’. Like it wouldn’t have fast-tracked club culture to see WAFL or SANFL legends in the clubs that came out of those leagues. It should have been all in or nothing.

Typical whataboutmeism, why should you get access to a whole league, when Vics only get access to their club?

It was as fair as they could think of, but it would not matter what they did, you would cry about it anyway.

 

[JackOutback]

Typical whataboutmeism, why should you get access to a whole league, when Vics only get access to their club?

It was as fair as they could think of, but it would not matter what they did, you would cry about it anyway.

They could have grandfathered it at 20 years, at which point some kids would have started coming through. The number of players they would have had access to would have been fairly small.

Look at that, I thought of something fairer than ‘the fairest they could think of’ in less than 20 seconds.

 

[LoungeLizard]

They could have grandfathered it at 20 years, at which point some kids would have started coming through. The number of players they would have had access to would have been fairly small.

Look at that, I thought of something fairer than ‘the fairest they could think of’ in less than 20 seconds.

OMG, so you have tickets on yourself do you?

Anything you say is fairer compared to what the AFL do.

It's just Vic arrogance remember.

 

[doppleganger]

Correct but there were plenty of fathers of future AFL players who played for the clubs that combined to create the Adelaide Crows and the same can be said about the WAFL clubs. Of course it's not a father-son in the traditional sense but it was the solution that the AFL came up with at the time in an attempt to create a level playing ground for the expansion clubs.

Which SANFL clubs combined to create the Crows?

The SANFL clubs remained in the SANFL.

We're arguing two different points here. I'm stating that the AFL shouldn't have set the bar so high for father-son prospects from the SANFL and WAFL clubs because it prevented the SA & WA teams from drafting a similar amount of players to the Victorian clubs and you appear to be arguing that they should have never access to any SANFL or WAFL players in the first place. That's a completely separate discussion point to the one I brought up.

Yeah, why should Adelaide have access to an entire State for F/S?

None of the fathers played for the Crows, so why create an nonsense F/S eligibility for people who played for Sturt or Glenelg?

I'll meet you in the middle. Should Port Adelaide have had father-son access to Brett Ebert? His father Russell Ebert played 392 SANFL games for the Port Magpies and everyone just assumed his son Brett would be father-son eligible under the 200 SANFL game rule so no one bothered to check and it went through. In a true sign of just how ridiculous the rules were, Brett Ebert wasn't technically father-son eligible to be drafted by Port Adelaide . So I ask you, should the Port Adelaide Football Club, which is a club that has existed since 1870, should they have had father-son access to Brett Ebert? The AFL rules at the time stated they shouldn't have access to the son of a 392 gamer who played for the same club.

Who cares, he ended at Port under the F/S rule.

I dont care for the Port being two different clubs at the time, or that Ebert may not have played enough games in the window.

He was a Port star, and it ia a good thing his son got the chance to follow in his footsteps and also play for Port under the F/S rule.

You're showing how little you know about South Australian football history with this comment. Nine of the ten SANFL clubs combined in 1990 to take legal action against Port Adelaide who had secretly attempted to enter the AFL behind their back and this led to the creation of the Adelaide Football Club. The Adelaide Crows were literally created by the 9 SANFL clubs not named Port Adelaide.

I am well aware of the history.

Adelaide Crows arent Glenelg, Norwood, Sturt or Centrals.

They are a completely seperate new club meant to "represent" SA football in the VFL.

A nonsense to give Adelaide access to an entire league worth of offspring under the guise of F/S.

Funny how we see a lot more father-son picks come through when the criteria reverts to the standard 100 game mark. How many of them would have still been eligible if the rule had remained at 200 games?

Port Adelaide - Jackson Mead (not eligible), Trent Burgoyne (eligible), Taj Schofield (not eligible), Jase Burgoyne (eligible)
Adelaide - Ben Jarman (not eligible), Jackson Edwards (eligible)

They are actual F/S combinations.

Jarman and Edwards are Adelaide Crows champions.

Are you starting to see why the original rule was a problem?

Yes, idiotic to the Adelaide thought they should get access to a guy like Gibbs.

Ross Gibbs was playing SANFL football when the Crows were playing AFL, and he had absolutely nothing to do with the Adelaide Crows.

F/S rule is about ensuring club heritage and culture.

Adelaide didnt have any pre establishment and joining the league in 1991.

So you must be really mad about the Lions and Swans getting the best of both worlds, right?

No the F/S rule is great.
It is great that Lions fans get to see the son of 300 gamer and club champion Marcus Ashcroft in the Lions colours.

Just like Adelaide fans got to see Jarman's kid on the list.

It aint a Melbourne based rule.

But as usual, the rule was botched by WA and SA wowsers and their "what about me bullshit" their beleif that they deserved access to an entire league...just because.

****ing ridiculous.

 

[GC2015]

Which SANFL clubs combined to create the Crows?

The SANFL clubs remained in the SANFL.

The AFL approved the entry of a "composite" side after the SANFL clubs successfully blocked Port Adelaide from negotiating with the AFL and put forward their own proposal for a composite team. All 9 SANFL clubs not named Port Adelaide combined together to create the Crows. The Adelaide Football Club literally exists because 9 clubs combined together to convince the AFL to allow them entry. This isn't disputable, it's historic fact.

Yeah, why should Adelaide have access to an entire State for F/S?

None of the fathers played for the Crows, so why create an nonsense F/S eligibility for people who played for Sturt or Glenelg?

The entire state? Only 237 players reached 200 SANFL games in the 130 years of South Australian football before the Crows entered the AFL. Up until last year, there wasn't a single son of a 200 SANFL gamer that fulfilled the criteria set out by the AFL. That goes for both the Crows and Port. Does that not prove that the rule the AFL got the criteria wrong when you have a team like Collingwood getting 15 father-son picks over the same period by comparison?

The reason they created the "nonsense" F/S rule, as you put it, is because they wanted the non-Victorian teams to enter the league under conditions that could be reasonably argued as fair. You seem very hung up on this even though I've explained it a few times already...

Who cares, he ended at Port under the F/S rule.

I dont care for the Port being two different clubs at the time, or that Ebert may not have played enough games in the window.

He was a Port star, and it ia a good thing his son got the chance to follow in his footsteps and also play for Port under the F/S rule.

I'll tell you who cares. The fans of the South Australian clubs. Just because you don't care doesn't mean it's not an issue. That's typically Vic mentality.

So you acknowledge that it's a good thing for Brett Ebert to follow in the footsteps of his father and play for the same club... but you don't seem to care that he was actually F/S ineligible and could have easily ended up at another club had anyone bothered to research the rules? Seems like you only like the F/S rule when it's convenient for you. How would you feel if the AFL decided to change the F/S rules two years ago and you missed out on drafting Nick Daicos while he became a star for another club?

I am well aware of the history.

Adelaide Crows arent Glenelg, Norwood, Sturt or Centrals.

They are a completely seperate new club meant to "represent" SA football in the VFL.

A nonsense to give Adelaide access to an entire league worth of offspring under the guise of F/S.

Again, using the words "entire league worth" is really misleading when there were so few players who were actually eligible for the 200 SANFL game criteria. You make it out like they were going to get sons of guns coming through every year when in reality there was maybe five players over 30 year period if you included guys like Bryce Gibbs. Certainly nothing compared to the 15 father-son picks Collingwood has had since 1990.

They are actual F/S combinations.

Jarman and Edwards are Adelaide Crows champions.

Darren Jarman only played 121 games for the Crows. Had the 200 game criteria been in place, the Crows would have missed out on him but the 109 games he played for Hawthorn would have been good enough for him to go to the Hawks as a father-son pick. Are you getting it yet? I'm saying the 200 game criteria was too high.

Yes, idiotic to the Adelaide thought they should get access to a guy like Gibbs.

Ross Gibbs was playing SANFL football when the Crows were playing AFL, and he had absolutely nothing to do with the Adelaide Crows.

F/S rule is about ensuring club heritage and culture.

Adelaide didnt have any pre establishment and joining the league in 1991.

Is it idiotic for Port to think they should have access to Brett Ebert? Because it's the exact same rule that should have seen Port lose access to Ebert. Even if you don't agree with the Gibbs situation, the Ebert scenario falls under the same rule.

So why not give these new clubs without heritage and culture the opportunity to fast track it by allowing them to draft in players with famous links to local clubs in their city? Ben Cousins was drafted as a father-son player for West Coast as was Ashley McIntosh. Do you think that may have helped the Eagles to further their links within the local footy scene and create a sense of belonging to their potential future fanbase?

No the F/S rule is great.
It is great that Lions fans get to see the son of 300 gamer and club champion Marcus Ashcroft in the Lions colours.

Just like Adelaide fans got to see Jarman's kid on the list.

It aint a Melbourne based rule.

But as usual, the rule was botched by WA and SA wowsers and their "what about me bullshit" their beleif that they deserved access to an entire league...just because.

******* ridiculous.

Once again, you're using words like "access to an entire league" as if they were just going to be handed the keys to every single player from their state. We're literally talking about less than 10 players across the entirety of SA & WA over the course of 30+ years.

 

[doppleganger]

The AFL approved the entry of a "composite" side after the SANFL clubs successfully blocked Port Adelaide from negotiating with the AFL and put forward their own proposal for a composite team. All 9 SANFL clubs not named Port Adelaide combined together to create the Crows. The Adelaide Football Club literally exists because 9 clubs combined together to convince the AFL to allow them entry. This isn't disputable, it's historic fact.

Exists because of...not a part of any of those clubs.

A new creation.

The entire state? Only 237 players reached 200 SANFL games in the 130 years of South Australian football before the Crows entered the AFL.

As of 1990, the Pies had less than 20 players who had played 200 games in the history.

So you acknowledge that it's a good thing for Brett Ebert to follow in the footsteps of his father and play for the same club... but you don't seem to care that he was actually F/S ineligible and could have easily ended up at another club had anyone bothered to research the rules?

Why would I care about some nonsense technicality from 20 years ago that wasnt even applied at the time?

Port got first access to a son of club champion...rule working as designed.

Seems like you only like the F/S rule when it's convenient for you. How would you feel if the AFL decided to change the F/S rules two years ago and you missed out on drafting Nick Daicos while he became a star for another club?

??
I am in favour of the F/S rule for ALL clubs.

But only when involving fathers and sons who actually BOTH played for the SAME club.

Glenelg isnt the Adelaide Crows.

Perth Demons aint the West Coast Eagles.

Again, using the words "entire league worth" is really misleading when there were so few players who were actually eligible for the 200 SANFL game criteria.

It isnt misleading....

Adelaide Crows didnt have father son based on games played for the Adelaide Crows, it was games played for all number of clubs in a different league.

It was a nonsense.

Darren Jarman only played 121 games for the Crows. Had the 200 game criteria been in place, the Crows would have missed out on him but the 109 games he played for Hawthorn would have been good enough for him to go to the Hawks as a father-son pick.
Are you getting it yet?

I dont think you are getting it.

If you play games for the Adelaide Crows you should meet criteria for a potential Adelaide Crows F/S.

If your Dad played 0 games for the Adealide Crows, it is a nonsense that Adelaide have rights to him under F / S rules.

So why not give these new clubs without heritage and culture the opportunity to fast track it by allowing them to draft in players with famous links to local clubs in their city?

Why not create a "famous links to local clubs in their city rule" for all clubs?

Should Footscray have been given access to sons of Williamstown or Werribbee VFA players....of course they fecking shouldnt.

Ben Cousins was drafted as a father-son player for West Coast as was Ashley McIntosh. Do you think that may have helped the Eagles to further their links within the local footy scene and create a sense of belonging to their potential future fanbase?

It would have had absolutely 0 impact.

WC just cherry picked the best WA kids upon entry, and brought some other WA locals back...they effectively were a State team.

The F / S rule is in place and it benefits established clubs.

So in 2023, Brisbane are favoured compared to the Suns...because Brisbane actually have a history in league, and kids of guys who actually played for Brisbane are coming through now.

But as per usual, the WA and SA wowsers had a bastardised rule created that they then spent time sooking about how unfair it was, that they "deserved even more".

 

[JackOutback]

OMG, so you have tickets on yourself do you?

Anything you say is fairer compared to what the AFL do.

It's just Vic arrogance remember.

Oh, I’m very humble, just ask me.

And I didn’t say anything I posit is fairer than the AFL. But this was.