-
AFLW 2024 - Round 10 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Father - Son's
- Thread starter opng
- Start date
- Tagged users None
I agree. The father son rule is great and should stay as it is. It is interesting if once in a while a club can get a really good player for practically nothing even if they are already a good side. It change to the otherwise predictable draft system. I have no problem with Geelong getting Hawkins and the Kangaroos getting Jesse Smith.
I can think of a number of probelms that could arise if a bidding system was put in place. Say for example SOS junior was available and Carlton had the number 4 draft pick. What if St Kilda had the number 15 pick and bid it even if other Clubs didn't rate SOS junior that high. As the number 15 pick is a first round pick would Carlton be forced to give up the number 4 pick as it is there only first round pick even though SOS junior is not worth pick 4?
Why is it any more ridiculous than, say, Geelong getting a player ranked by those in the know as a top 5 player in his draft for the cost of a 3rd round pick?
And no club would be obliged to match the bidding club's offer if they didn't think they were getting value for money. For all the romanticism of having the sons of legends (or even just good servants) playing for a club, very few clubs seem to let emotion get in the way of an honest assessment of a player's worth - eg both Sydney and Carlton ignoring Jake Williams this year, despite the fact his father won a Brownlow with each club and is in each clubs's team of the century.
And no club would be obliged to match the bidding club's offer if they didn't think they were getting value for money. For all the romanticism of having the sons of legends (or even just good servants) playing for a club, very few clubs seem to let emotion get in the way of an honest assessment of a player's worth - eg both Sydney and Carlton ignoring Jake Williams this year, despite the fact his father won a Brownlow with each club and is in each clubs's team of the century.
It would depend on how the rule was set. It would need to be matched by either a first round or a second round pick.
I support the Father-Son rule as well. However, in its current form it is an anomaly that undermines the draft's function.
Club's can get really good players for practically nothing anyway. Dean Cox came through the rookie-draft, for instance. So did Mal Michael, Tadhg Kennelly, Russell Robertson, Chad Fletcher, Brett Kirk, Aaron Davey, Danyle Pearce and Ben Rutten. It's called good drafting.
Oh, and making the draft 'interesting' is the single worst reason for supporting the FS rule in its current form that I can think of.
Well, yes. Because clearly SOS junior wouldn't be around at pick 20 when Carlton gets another chance. So they either decide that it's worth using the higher pick to get another Silvagni at the club, or they regretfully pass on him.
As Liz mentioned, clubs think nothing of overlooking a player at the moment if they don't think he is worth a third-round pick.
The issue of the possible future of the Roos boys was discussed on Redandwhiteonline in June last year.
At the time I pointed out (and appeared to continue the habbit of being a thread killer) that the AFL website stated the following regarding the current Father/Son rule:
"Sons of former AFL players can play with the same club their father played or officiated with under the father/son rule. The main eligibility requirements is that the sons father must have played 100 games for that club".
But of course there is no obvious explanation of what the "officiated" requirements are, but I would assume that head coaching is sufficient official involvement with a club to qualify.
Lets hope the Paul Roos had dropped a couple of good ones.
Cheers
Justice
At the time I pointed out (and appeared to continue the habbit of being a thread killer) that the AFL website stated the following regarding the current Father/Son rule:
"Sons of former AFL players can play with the same club their father played or officiated with under the father/son rule. The main eligibility requirements is that the sons father must have played 100 games for that club".
But of course there is no obvious explanation of what the "officiated" requirements are, but I would assume that head coaching is sufficient official involvement with a club to qualify.
Lets hope the Paul Roos had dropped a couple of good ones.
Cheers
Justice
Re the roos thing, i also think if you are an official of a club re coach. You are also came under the Father - son. I know the crows have always wished kept graham cornes for one extra year as coach as both his boys would now being playing for the crows.
Shake down the thunder
Rookie
To change tack - isn't Anthony Daniher's son already being feted by the Bombers heavily having trained with them. Does anyone know what Anthony sees himself as - Swan or Bomber and whether he would push him either way. I think his son supports the Bombers.
I'm also fairly certain coaching record "counts" in terms of F/S rule. Pagapn's boy ended up at North, did he not, tho that may not have been F/S (just nepotism).
- Banned
- #36
No, the coaching record doesn't count. Roos' son is only eligible for the Brisbane Lions because Roos only played 87 games for the Swans.
Not under the FS rule. He was given a chance as a rookie, earned promotion to the senior list and got to play a handful of games. There was then some discussion in the media about the nepotism angle - probably unfairly, since most fathers in a situation like that would be harder on their sons than on others, and he wouldn't have been selected unless the whole coaching panel thought he was worth it.
If Roos' boys really want to be Swans (assuming they are any good) I suspect the NSW rookie scheme provides a clear path if FS doesn't. But if Roos is still at the club when they reach the appropriate age, they'd probably be better off going somewhere else.
- Thread starter
- #40
But we are talking about a kid that will have spent most of his life living in sydney we're not talking about a situation like marc murphy, at that young an age you'd think like most draftees that they'd want to stay in their home state. Anyway does anyone know of anymore potential FS's
Not good for a young footballer trying to make his way in the game to have his father as coach.
- Thread starter
- #42
But depends on the person wouldnt you agree weve really only seen the pagan situation and we didnt know the background to it, for some kids it would be normal to follow their father into the buisiness, i think you'll find this would be one that comes under the horses for courses situation, and yes i do agree that some wouldnt want or be in their best interests to have their father as coach but youd probably find that some might be just be as happy preform even better having their father as coach.
- Banned
- #43
Most times in this situation the father is more tougher on the son than the rest of the players. That could have been the situation with Ryan and Denis Pagan and that's why he was hardly played. If he was at another club other than North Melbourne then he might have had a better shot at it.
But how old is Roos' son anyway? I don't think he'll be playing when Roos is coaching somehow.
Interesting reading on this subject.
One important factor though. Being a good footballer doesn't automatically make a son a gun.
The way some posters talk, they are a must draft proposition.
As for the excitement of young scholarship players.
Bird has it, no matter what others say. Was under age this year, in fact still eligible for Under 18's again.
Swans are protective of him though. Was taken off at half time in game 1 for the Northern Heat at the recent under 18's titles at Coffs Harbour.
All the scouts would have been there and he never played another of the games, maybe protecting their investment.
Scott Reed = very very injury prone over the last two years or so.
Bootin-Noonan, will be interested to see his development. From all reports from many of the young guys that played against him at NSW CHS last year (under 15's) they felt he was very over rated. Lets hope he really comes on this year.
One important factor though. Being a good footballer doesn't automatically make a son a gun.
The way some posters talk, they are a must draft proposition.
As for the excitement of young scholarship players.
Bird has it, no matter what others say. Was under age this year, in fact still eligible for Under 18's again.
Swans are protective of him though. Was taken off at half time in game 1 for the Northern Heat at the recent under 18's titles at Coffs Harbour.
All the scouts would have been there and he never played another of the games, maybe protecting their investment.
Scott Reed = very very injury prone over the last two years or so.
Bootin-Noonan, will be interested to see his development. From all reports from many of the young guys that played against him at NSW CHS last year (under 15's) they felt he was very over rated. Lets hope he really comes on this year.
Similar threads
- Poll
