Same, but also indigenous and country zone
Official Club Stuff Carlton Academy - Next Gen & Father/Son/Daughter Discussion
- Thread starter Aphrodite
- Start date
- Tagged users None
sweethoney
5 time premiership player
Same. I’ve wondered how Luke hodge’s son is in the Lions academy
WildmanOfCarlton
Draftee
- Mar 19, 2019
- 13
- 239
- AFL Club
- Carlton
Here is an archive link if the one above is behind a paywall:
I stumbled across this report from the Leader Newspaper about the Schools Sports AFL Championships played in Geelong during August this year.
Got interested when a Harvey Betts was one of the first players described, but was disappointed to find he wasn't one of Eddies boys. Further down there was info about Nason Lovett-Murray who is described as the nephew of Nathan, no mention of his father Jeff Garlett.
It's good to know he's rated as a good player in his age group even a long way off being draft aged. Harry Pearce is also mentioned, pretty sure he attended the Carlton Academy with his sister Phoebe, they are Brad Pearce's children.
Under the current rules Phoebe can be Father/Daughtered, but Harry cannot be Father/Soned as Brad only managed 77 games for the Blues. Sounds like someone we could use, not only is his first name Harry, but is described as the quickest player in the team and good at hitting targets.
If everyone accepts that the Bidding system on Father/Son and Academy players is now fair, maybe the Blues should start lobbying for a drop in the number of games required for Father/Sons to 50 games. It is disappointing to see Hotton who was keen to play for the Blues, miss out because father Trent only managed to play 60 odd games for Carlton.
Finally, I recall a fairly positive social media message from Jeff Garlett, when Eddie hung up the boots. Something along the lines of him looking forward to the pair of them watching their son's playing together for Carlton.
Bletch
Premium Platinum
- Dec 8, 2020
- 3,967
- 12,628
- AFL Club
- Carlton
I did wonder if I would end up on some list when researching this...
Bletch
Premium Platinum
- Dec 8, 2020
- 3,967
- 12,628
- AFL Club
- Carlton
It used to be 50 games. Can't see it going back.
Great news…
November birthday, hopefully he keeps shooting up some more…
ferrisb
Brownlow Medallist
Wonder who has the bigger ponytail.... Brad or Phoebe?
Hard to believe Pearcey only played 77 games, he was so awesome in 95
Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
He was awesome in 95, the perfect foil for Kernahan and Spalding, brilliantly quick on the lead and more importantly you never saw him where Kernahan and Spalding were on the field.
His hamstrings caught up with him and he was gone by 1999.
Jimmae
Brownlow Medallist
Players of a First Nation background are automatically eligible for a next-gen academy if they are within a club's zone. That's Walker and his boy.
There's no means or disadvantage testing involved - nor should the AFL be doing such things beyond scholarship programs - to determine any of this. On the whole, it's likely that people from First Nation or non-English speaking background are less likely to be integrated into elite junior pathways.
In the case of someone like Walker, it has no impact on his access, and zero impact on his draft prospects.
This falls under the zone academies in Queensland and NSW, designed to invest in prospects who might otherwise be drawn to rugby or soccer in those states. I think Gold Coast also get limited access to the NT this way too.
Nothing to do with Father-Son or Next-Gen, and will likely start to get wound down in terms of discount and opportunity unless there's more expansion teams in those regions (and ACT).
Last edited:
WildmanOfCarlton
Draftee
- Mar 19, 2019
- 13
- 239
- AFL Club
- Carlton
Have to agree with agro, I have fond memories of Pearce going flat out and clunking a bullet pass in front of his face from the likes of Bradley, Diesel, etc. without slowing down. Beautiful left foot kick at goal as well.
Hodge's boy situation is not new, pretty sure Nick Blakey has the option to go Father/Son to North or Brisbane, or join Sydney as an Academy pick. His father John played over 100 games for Fitzroy (Brisbane) and then over 200 with North Melbourne. On retirement became part of the coaching panel in Sydney, so Nick grew up in Sydney and joined the Swans Academy. Which is where he choose to play.
Hodge's boy situation is not new, pretty sure Nick Blakey has the option to go Father/Son to North or Brisbane, or join Sydney as an Academy pick. His father John played over 100 games for Fitzroy (Brisbane) and then over 200 with North Melbourne. On retirement became part of the coaching panel in Sydney, so Nick grew up in Sydney and joined the Swans Academy. Which is where he choose to play.
Can not get on board with this. I'm sure it's an unpopular opinion, but if anything I'd be in favour of extending it out to 150 games these days. 100 games used to be a huge achievement and a sign of longevity and servitude to a club. These days 100 games is just a check mark on the career journey that 23/24 yr olds are getting to. Players are playing longer more frequently than ever and just so-so, bang average players can clear 100 games fairly regularly. In 24 game seasons it's barely 4 seasons of football. I'm not sure that warrants legacy selections 15-20 yrs down the line.
To me the rule in philosophy was around high-level players who offered great service over a period of time having a lasting legacy at the club allowing their children to continue that legacy.
While accurate, it's not really what the rule was or is supposed to be about. It's about non-traditional backgrounds and drawing kids into footy who otherwise wouldn't have. Walker doesn't fit into that and he's not the target of the NGA system. He's not the first, though, it's just a small flaw with it.
I'm curious to see where Hodge actually ends up playing. If I had to guess I'd say Brisbane. He's already in the club and would be building relationships internally already. It's hard for the Hawks to get their ropes onto him and bring him in from so far away. His heart could well lie with the Hawks, though, so none of that may matter.
I actually feel like these days, listening to coms etc, that Luke Hodge is more invested in the Lions group than he is the Hawks, which I never thought would be the case. It could well just be that the Lions group, and HC, is more or less the same as the one he played with and was part of building the leadership and culture of, while the Hawks have transitioned nearly everyone he played with and under, so the people connection is stronger with the current Lions squad than with the Hawks. But I wonder if that will also impact Hodges lad.
I don't know that it should be restricted to the kids of "high-level players who offered great service". Whilst they obviously are the pin-ups I think there is romance in a kid playing for the club his or her father (and one day mother) played for regardless of the longevity of service. If may father has played just 1 game for Carlton I'd have become a complete Carlton tragic.
Hold on. I did anyway. Bad example.
But even if my father had played at another club or even played seconds or whatever I reckon I'd have been likely to have given my allegiance to the club he played for. Hell Jagger Smith was a Collingwood fan and his father never cracked a senior game. T
he first ever father-son was Harvey Dunn Jnr whose father managed 71 games for the club - an honourable feet especially in light of having had a delayed start to his footy career by reason of spending a few of his teenage years putting that dashed Kaiser back in his place - but scarcely "great service over a period of time having a lasting legacy at the club" . Harvey only manged 9 games in the firsts, but that is scarcely the point, there is something special about it and if there is little or no discount to be had then I wouldn't have a problem if the qualification was 1 game like in the AFLW. Maybe you could have the option without discount for sons of low game fathers and a sliding scale of increasing discount up to a modest discount for children of long-serving players.
I don't know, but I think apart from plain old envy when an opposing club lands a father-son gem, the only reason anyone has a beef with the father-son/daughter rule apart from those who just want to see a completely uncompromised draft (dare to dream) is the bargains that clubs get from time to time matching with much less capital than a fair price. But that is a criticism of the system rather than of the basic concept of seeing the child who grew up with a special connection to the club Dad played for getting the chance to play there.
Long-live he father-son/daughter! At least long enough to get us Sophie McKay, a couple of Walkers, Jeffy Garlett's lad and at least another generation of Silvagnis.
My family are still generally Carlton supporters and my Great Great Uncle played for us in 1868 - 1872!
I can thoroughly understand why a son or daughter would want to follow their parent and think it is a very good thing. It is one of the very few things in this modern age that connect youngsters to the past. I think 100 games is a pretty high fence to jump, I just don't see the AFL lowering it.
I can thoroughly understand why a son or daughter would want to follow their parent and think it is a very good thing. It is one of the very few things in this modern age that connect youngsters to the past. I think 100 games is a pretty high fence to jump, I just don't see the AFL lowering it.
ferrisb
Brownlow Medallist
GeoCoulthard
Debutant
- Nov 18, 2018
- 114
- 568
- AFL Club
- Carlton
I have been reading comments on the Father/Son rule and the Academy selections.
I love the idea of father/sons and the way it links players with the history and traditions of the club. I just want to strengthen the father/son but not give clubs a free hit at the same time.
Father/Son first:
The concern I see with Academy players is that clubs, especially the northern ones, can easily have multiple players in the same draft year. Taking the same approach that I have taken for Father/Sons, there should be a lessening of the discount for each successive player selected. I would suggest something like a 10% discount for the first picked, 5% for the second pick, 0% for the third pick, 10% penalty for the fourth pick, 20% penalty for the fifth pick.
The clubs with Academy players will still get what they want but the lessening of the discount/addition of a penalty for additional players makes it less enticing the more players they take.
For the AFLW a similar system could be reached but will appropriate adjustments to games played etc.
More ‘out-there’ is the potential for a Grandfather/grandson rule. Would love this but think it is not the right time to bring this in as most of the expansion clubs would still not have been in place long enough to benefit. In a few years I would like to see this brought up as a possibility. I just think that often there is a family tradition of following a club because someone in the past played for the club. A grandfather/grandson rule could strengthen this bond (and given the way many AFL players intermarry probably give a few grandsons a difficult choice of several clubs to choose).
I love the idea of father/sons and the way it links players with the history and traditions of the club. I just want to strengthen the father/son but not give clubs a free hit at the same time.
Father/Son first:
- Any son of a player that has played senior AFL football should be eligible to be a Father/Son pick.
- There should be a grading system so that the number of games indicates the points discount awarded for Father/Sons, e.g.
- 1 – 49 games Eligible for Father/Son but club must pay a penalty of 10% extra to pick up the player. This means if they are selected by another club before being selected by the ‘home’ club then the home club can take the player but only if they pay 10% more than the pick points value. This means if the son is wanted enough then they get to their father’s club but it is no free ride.
- 50 – 99 games Eligible Father/Son club must pay the full points value for the player if that player is selected by another club before the ‘home’ club selects them.
- 100 – 149 games Eligible Father/Son club gets a 10% discount (the same as what happens in the current system).
- 150 – 199 games Eligible Father/Son club gets a 15% discount.
- 200+ games Eligible Father/Son club gets a 20% discount (the same as what it was prior to this year).
- There should be a lessening of the discount for subsequent Father/Sons in the same draft e.g. take a farfetched scenario where a club could claim 5 Father/Sons in the same draft. This is to lessen the incredible benefit of multiple Father/Sons in the same draft. Yes they should be able to do so but the discount/penalty should be reduced by 5% for each pick-up. Using the above figures, an example of the 5th Father/Son having a father who played 42 games would still be eligible for selection but at a significant penalty of 10% + 25% i.e. 35% more points than the rival clubs points selection value.
The concern I see with Academy players is that clubs, especially the northern ones, can easily have multiple players in the same draft year. Taking the same approach that I have taken for Father/Sons, there should be a lessening of the discount for each successive player selected. I would suggest something like a 10% discount for the first picked, 5% for the second pick, 0% for the third pick, 10% penalty for the fourth pick, 20% penalty for the fifth pick.
The clubs with Academy players will still get what they want but the lessening of the discount/addition of a penalty for additional players makes it less enticing the more players they take.
For the AFLW a similar system could be reached but will appropriate adjustments to games played etc.
More ‘out-there’ is the potential for a Grandfather/grandson rule. Would love this but think it is not the right time to bring this in as most of the expansion clubs would still not have been in place long enough to benefit. In a few years I would like to see this brought up as a possibility. I just think that often there is a family tradition of following a club because someone in the past played for the club. A grandfather/grandson rule could strengthen this bond (and given the way many AFL players intermarry probably give a few grandsons a difficult choice of several clubs to choose).
It's a tad strange for me, especially in this era
You get access to an academy or NGA player, without a parent playing a game (I understand the reasons why), yet father sons need to play 100
Perhaps 50 is the better limit
You get access to an academy or NGA player, without a parent playing a game (I understand the reasons why), yet father sons need to play 100
Perhaps 50 is the better limit
Firstly, love the username.
Secondly, agree with the sentiment of a sliding scale both in terms of correlating games played with extent of discount and with the benefit reducing for second and subsequent picks in the same year. However I cannot reconcile myself to the view that a club should ever pay a penalty for access to a father-son, I think it should start at zero discount for minimal games and slide up from there. Academy picks I can see perhaps a penalty being appropriate if there is a big bounty in the one year, perhaps teams could get brownie points for resources poured into the academy to offset the points needed to secure players thus rewarding those that do develop the talent rather than simply reap the spoils of being in the right place at the right time. I would leave it to others with more interest in crunching the numbers to work out the size and shape of the discount/penalty curves.
Wouldn’t work at all, John Lloyd played like thirty nine games and produced the Velvet Sledgehammer.
SOS played over three hundred and produced Ben…
Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
SOS played over three hundred and produced Ben…
Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
- Aug 16, 2015
- 12,314
- 21,331
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- Arsenal
Can we back date it so we don’t miss out on Mathew Lloyd?
- Aug 16, 2015
- 12,314
- 21,331
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- Arsenal
If anything, I’d say it would push out further to 200 games, 50 games seems pretty low for me
50 is low, but when you compare it to 0 games to qualify for academy and NGA it's bizarre
Systems where most of the talent were playing footy from a young age
Taryn Thomas, JUH, Quayner, and many of the academy kids
Imagine 2 players recruited at the same time by a club and end up contracted by the club for 5 years. One player has a great run and plays 115 games, the other cops a few injuries and only gets to play 99 games.
The club looks after both players the same, pays them whether they’re fit or injured. Both players are committed to the club, do all the preseason training etc. and love the club that’s looked after them.
Seems a little unfair and discriminatory in a sense that the player that misses a few games isn’t eligible - even though in every other aspect he is no different to the other player having served the club for the same period.
The F/S idea is supposed to be about recognition of long serving past players. It shouldn’t just be about the number of games played - it should also include the duration a player is contracted to a club.
Similar threads
