Opinion Commentary & Media VIII

[Black Diamond]

Alright…

 

[Gasometer]

In that era, Lmac was is the least of our issues draft-wise.

2011 Brad McKenzie
2012 Taylor Garner
2013 Luke McDonald
2014 Sam Durdin
2015 Ben McCay

He stands out as the best first round pick of five years in terms of positive output for the club.

2011 Bread*

 

[DuckYeah]

Yeah, you're spot on. Every whinge rebounds awkwardly in this way. Just when you think you're finally going to game the system, years of complaining sees the system change just at the wrong moment.

We already were shafted by rule changes. The change of father son from 50 to 100 games when Josh Kelly was 17 was clearly manipulated that he would end up at GWS. **** other clubs and their father sons. If they’re good enough, we’ll pay the price.

We aren’t entitled to our father sons because of bullshit academies superseding the “grand ol tradition unique to our game” its flat out rigged.

I wont be holding my breath of gaining access to our next Father son “future star” Mccartney. End up playing footy in Sydney.

Its a joke where we have been royally screwed, no lube, not even a lousy drink before we were ****ed.

 

[see see]

Clubs should be careful complaining about father-sons. Swings and roundabouts. Saints might be unlucky but it isn’t as if Peter Daicos had some crazy power others don’t to teach his kids.

Geelong drafted Hawkins with a third rounder, which resulted in the system changing. If the system didn’t change we could have picked up McDonald for a third instead of a first.

While I agree with the substance of your post, I don't agree with the bolded. If you ever saw Peter Daicos play, there's a good argument that he indeed does possess some crazy football powers. He was an absolute freak - elite vision, play reading ability and off the charts ball skills. In 1990, he kicked 97 goals playing mainly as a pocket/flanker.

The article below has some interesting insights as to how he went about it with Josh and Nick. Would be fair to say that while the Daicos boys were out practicing their wet weather skills with dad, DMac was probably looking out the window before turning around to Luke and saying "Too rainy today, have a flick through this instead" while throwing him a copy of How To Make Friends And Influence People (which Luke promptly fumbled to the most dangerous spot on the floor).

Football master class: How a Collingwood legend taught his sons the Daicos way

In football, it’s all about the touch, says Collingwood legend Peter Daicos. And it’s a lesson his rising star sons Josh and Nick have been learning in the backyard and nearby parks for many years.

www.theage.com.au

 

[Masked Avenger]

The odds of a son being good enough to play at the highest level is so low it's ridiculous - yet we have all these mind numbing rules.

For starters, what's this silly 100 games rubbish?

The joy in following in your father's footsteps is no less because he only played 99 games instead of 100.

What's wrong with unpredictability.

 

[Marstermind]

The odds of a son being good enough to play at the highest level is so low it's ridiculous - yet we have all these mind numbing rules.

For starters, what's this silly 100 games rubbish?

The joy in following in your father's footsteps is no less because he only played 99 games instead of 100.

What's wrong with unpredictability.

Should make it one game.

Watch some club identify a top notch 15yo, draft his 45yo Dad, pick the dad once as an unused sub and then claim the kid as father son. It'd be awesome.

 

[sheridan]

is there any reason why if a player who qualifies as father son, the AFL make it so they are not eligible as an academy pick with current rules.
This makes more sense to me.
I just think the AFL cant have it both ways in this scenario.
If the AFL continue to allow both options for a player in this scenario then imo makes father son rule is obsolete, which I would prefer to keep for history the game.
just interested in others thoughts here.

 

[lockheed]

is there any reason why if a player who qualifies as father son, the AFL make it so they are not eligible as an academy pick with current rules.
This makes more sense to me.
I just think the AFL cant have it both ways in this scenario.
If the AFL continue to allow both options for a player in this scenario then imo makes father son rule is obsolete, which I would prefer to keep for history the game.
just interested in others thoughts here.

Brilliant idea, but common sense and logic are the flaws in the argument. Our transparent AFL will never do it.

 

[Devington]

is there any reason why if a player who qualifies as father son, the AFL make it so they are not eligible as an academy pick with current rules.
This makes more sense to me.
I just think the AFL cant have it both ways in this scenario.
If the AFL continue to allow both options for a player in this scenario then imo makes father son rule is obsolete, which I would prefer to keep for history the game.
just interested in others thoughts here.

From the AFL's perspective Academies are for expansion clubs to get cheap talent in and those club's have an inherent issue with obtaining father-son recruits due to how recently they joined the competition. Hence, father sons can be drafted as an academy pick. The AFL can and does have it both ways, and they try to have it both ways with as many things as inhumanly possible.

Societally friendly taxpayer funded game, and balls deep with gambling and drinking partners.

Player welfare and protecting the head is of utmost importance, but knees to the back of the head in a marking contest look ****ing awesome in marketing material so we can't remove that aspect.

Umpires abuse makes recruiting and retaining umpires difficult so we'll lie about how good they are and instruct the media not to go hard on them, but **** NO we are not going to do anything to ensure there are less reasons to be upset with the umpires. Making them full time to try and improve standards and make it a career path? Make the rules easier to interpret? Even just have the rules be the same for 3 years in a row so punters actually understand what they're talking about when criticising the umpires is a bridge too far.

 

[lockheed]

From the AFL's perspective Academies are for expansion clubs to get cheap talent in and those club's have an inherent issue with obtaining father-son recruits due to how recently they joined the competition. Hence, father sons can be drafted as an academy pick. The AFL can and does have it both ways, and they try to have it both ways with as many things as inhumanly possible.

Societally friendly taxpayer funded game, and balls deep with gambling and drinking partners.

Player welfare and protecting the head is of utmost importance, but knees to the back of the head in a marking contest look ****ing awesome in marketing material so we can't remove that aspect.

Umpires abuse makes recruiting and retaining umpires difficult so we'll lie about how good they are and instruct the media not to go hard on them, but **** NO we are not going to do anything to ensure there are less reasons to be upset with the umpires. Making them full time to try and improve standards and make it a career path? Make the rules easier to interpret? Even just have the rules be the same for 3 years in a row so punters actually understand what they're talking about when criticising the umpires is a bridge too far.

I'd have thought that Sydney and Brisbane have been around long enough that they can generate their own father-son picks.

 

[Devington]

I'd have thought that Sydney and Brisbane have been around long enough that they can generate their own father-son picks.

Sure, but they're also expansion markets so if they could be winning more than losing the AFL would really appreciate that.

 

[lockheed]

Sure, but they're also expansion markets so if they could be winning more than losing the AFL would really appreciate that.

As you've said, and as we know, favoritism and the desire to maximise the game easily outweighs equalisation.

 

[North1411]

From the AFL's perspective Academies are for expansion clubs to get cheap talent in and those club's have an inherent issue with obtaining father-son recruits due to how recently they joined the competition. Hence, father sons can be drafted as an academy pick. The AFL can and does have it both ways, and they try to have it both ways with as many things as inhumanly possible.

Societally friendly taxpayer funded game, and balls deep with gambling and drinking partners.

Player welfare and protecting the head is of utmost importance, but knees to the back of the head in a marking contest look ****ing awesome in marketing material so we can't remove that aspect.

Umpires abuse makes recruiting and retaining umpires difficult so we'll lie about how good they are and instruct the media not to go hard on them, but **** NO we are not going to do anything to ensure there are less reasons to be upset with the umpires. Making them full time to try and improve standards and make it a career path? Make the rules easier to interpret? Even just have the rules be the same for 3 years in a row so punters actually understand what they're talking about when criticising the umpires is a bridge too far.

It's not just that, NRL has no drafts so the clubs develop regions. The junior players in those regions know that if they are good enough they can stay in state. The academies are so junior players are more likely to chose to play AFL safe in the knowledge that if they are good enough they can stay in the state

 

[ferball]

I'd have thought that Sydney and Brisbane have been around long enough that they can generate their own father-son picks.

One of them just the Norm Smith Medal!

 

[Samsquanch]

For starters, what's this silly 100 games rubbish?

Conveniently allows for franchises in the northern states to gain an advantage in recruiting that is less able to be countered by the club of the father.

 

[Samsquanch]

From the AFL's perspective Academies are for expansion clubs to get cheap talent in and those club's have an inherent issue with obtaining father-son recruits due to how recently they joined the competition. Hence, father sons can be drafted as an academy pick. The AFL can and does have it both ways, and they try to have it both ways with as many things as inhumanly possible.

Societally friendly taxpayer funded game, and balls deep with gambling and drinking partners.

Player welfare and protecting the head is of utmost importance, but knees to the back of the head in a marking contest look ****ing awesome in marketing material so we can't remove that aspect.

Umpires abuse makes recruiting and retaining umpires difficult so we'll lie about how good they are and instruct the media not to go hard on them, but **** NO we are not going to do anything to ensure there are less reasons to be upset with the umpires. Making them full time to try and improve standards and make it a career path? Make the rules easier to interpret? Even just have the rules be the same for 3 years in a row so punters actually understand what they're talking about when criticising the umpires is a bridge too far.

Bloody hell Devington. Did you get a knock on the head or something last night? It's the friggin' AFL.

 

[Roo202]

is there any reason why if a player who qualifies as father son, the AFL make it so they are not eligible as an academy pick with current rules.
This makes more sense to me.
I just think the AFL cant have it both ways in this scenario.
If the AFL continue to allow both options for a player in this scenario then imo makes father son rule is obsolete, which I would prefer to keep for history the game.
just interested in others thoughts here.

Logically it makes sense, if a draft prospect is F/S eligible, it means his dad played at least 100 games of footy, so hard to see how they would be lost to the game. Cynically, it seems if they can be declared eligible to one of the non-AFL state northern clubs, the AFL sees that as a good thing.

The other issue is because the academies are club run, if prospective kids weren't going to be eligible to the aligned club, there would be no incentive for that club to select them, meaning any F/S prospects who happen to live in those states would likely miss the opportunity and it seems that the academies are the only decent pathway in NSW/QLD to elite footy.

Which makes a pretty good argument for a NSW/QLD academy with no club alignment. But if the worst that happens under the current system is Nick Blakey (and potentially Aidan McCartney) plays for the Swans rather than us, the AFL most likely sees it as a non issue. Need Luke Hodge's son to pick the Lions over the Hawks, then watch things change super quick!