Opinion Is father-son access going to heavily dictate the next decade of premiers?

[GC2015]

Brisbane has more first round f/s (which are honestly the only ones that matter, after r1 the draft is a total crapshoot) than most vic clubs.

Some have never had a 1st round f/s in their history.

Very misleading stat considering the way the rule used to work which delivered the consensus number 1 prospect in the country Tom Hawkins to Geelong for the extremely cheap price of pick 41 as well as another first round talent in Gary Ablett Jr for pick 40. Officially Geelong have had zero 1st round F/S picks - in reality they've had multiple. As a Hawthorn fan I'm sure you can appreciate the misleading nature of this by stating your club has officially had more 1st round F/S picks than Geelong! In fact, over half the league is yet to officially have a 1st round F/S pick but we know that's not really true through examples like Hawkins/Ablett. Anyway, here is the official list of 1st round F/S picks in history:

Bulldogs (4)
Ayce Cordy (Pick 14, 2008)
Mitch Wallis (Pick 22, 2010)
Sam Darcy (Pick 2, 2021)
Jordan Croft (Pick 15, 2023)

Brisbane (2)
Will Ashcroft (Pick 2, 2022)
Jaspa Fletcher (Pick 12, 2022)

Collingwood (2)
Darcy Moore (Pick 9, 2014)
Nick Daicos (Pick 4, 2021)

Adelaide (1)
Max Michaelanney (Pick 17, 2022)

Essendon (1)
Joe Daniher (Pick 10, 2012)

Hawthorn (1)
Will McCabe (Pick 19, 2023)

North Melbourne (1)
Luke McDonald (Pick 8, 2013)

Sydney (1)
Tom Mitchell (Pick 21, 2011)

Carlton (0)

Fremantle (0)

Geelong (0)

Gold Coast (0)

Greater Western Sydney (0)

Melbourne (0)

Port Adelaide (0)

Richmond (0)

St Kilda (0)

West Coast (0)

 

[Caligo]

Very misleading stat considering the way the rule used to work which delivered the consensus number 1 prospect in the country Tom Hawkins to Geelong for the extremely cheap price of pick 41 as well as another first round talent in Gary Ablett Jr for pick 40. Officially Geelong have had zero 1st round F/S picks - in reality they've had multiple. As a Hawthorn fan I'm sure you can appreciate the misleading nature of this by stating your club has officially had more 1st round F/S picks than Geelong! In fact, over half the league is yet to officially have a 1st round F/S pick but we know that's not really true through examples like Hawkins/Ablett. Anyway, here is the official list of 1st round F/S picks in history:

Bulldogs (4)
Ayce Cordy (Pick 14, 2008)
Mitch Wallis (Pick 22, 2010)
Sam Darcy (Pick 2, 2021)
Jordan Croft (Pick 15, 2023)

Brisbane (2)
Will Ashcroft (Pick 2, 2022)
Jaspa Fletcher (Pick 12, 2022)

Collingwood (2)
Darcy Moore (Pick 9, 2014)
Nick Daicos (Pick 4, 2021)

Adelaide (1)
Max Michaelanney (Pick 17, 2022)

Essendon (1)
Joe Daniher (Pick 10, 2012)

Hawthorn (1)
Will McCabe (Pick 19, 2023)

North Melbourne (1)
Luke McDonald (Pick 8, 2013)

Sydney (1)
Tom Mitchell (Pick 21, 2011)

Carlton (0)

Fremantle (0)

Geelong (0)

Gold Coast (0)

Greater Western Sydney (0)

Melbourne (0)

Port Adelaide (0)

Richmond (0)

St Kilda (0)

West Coast (0)

I agree completely. In my mind I was including players like Hawkins, Nathan Ablett and GAJ as first rounders (or at least first round adjacent). I should have been more specific.

But even if you do include anyone who could loosely be thought of as a first rounder in a fair draft, my statement is still true. Most Vic clubs haven't had as many as Brisbane.

 

[go_the_dockers]

Brisbane has more first round f/s (which are honestly the only ones that matter, after r1 the draft is a total crapshoot) than most vic clubs.

Some have never had a 1st round f/s in their history.

It still favours vic clubs at the moment. If 75% or 80% are from victoria, this shows a clear bias.

yes, Brisbane and Sydney now they have been in the league for a bit longer are catching up.

Once again WA and SA clubs are third rate citizens in the AFL.

 

[Elixuh]

I think it should be changed, but after next years draft cuz Levi Ashcroft looks like he will be another top pick for us.

 

[GC2015]

I agree completely. In my mind I was including players like Hawkins, Nathan Ablett and GAJ as first rounders (or at least first round adjacent). I should have been more specific.

But even if you do include anyone who could loosely be thought of as a first rounder in a fair draft, my statement is still true. Most Vic clubs haven't had as many as Brisbane.

I find it comical that we're finally seeing some non-Vic teams catching up/surpassing the Vics by using a rule designed to favour the Vics and now they want the rule changed. Next year Brisbane will get a top 5 pick in Levi Ashcroft and Adelaide will get a top 10 pick in Tyler Welsh. The best father-son prospects are heading to non-Vic teams and some people can't handle that.

 

[Caligo]

I find it comical that we're finally seeing some non-Vic teams catching up/surpassing the Vics by using a rule designed to favour the Vics and now they want the rule changed. Next year Brisbane will get a top 5 pick in Levi Ashcroft and Adelaide will get a top 10 pick in Tyler Welsh. The best father-son prospects are heading to non-Vic teams and some people can't handle that.

I don't think that is fair. F/S was not designed to favour Vic clubs. It was created in 1949. There were no non Vic clubs. Changes to F/S rules over time were intended to give opportunities to new clubs in footy states access, especially WC and Adelaide (although it didn't actually end up working very well). The discussions around changes now seem more directed at academy players than F/S, and the changes that we have seen recently have only impacted NGA not Northern academies, specifically because a Victorian team was seen to have unfairly benefited.

Brisbane has had (including the ones coming) an astonishing number of 1st round father sons in an incredibly short period. GC has had an extraordinary number of academy 1st rounders in the same period. Many Victorian clubs have never had any.

Tinkering is not unreasonable. A great catch all solution in my opinion would just be to increase the points value of top 5 or so picks, and you could supplement that with a requirement that one of the picks used for matching is within say 20 picks. I just don't think that is unreasonable.

 

[GC2015]

I don't think that is fair. F/S was not designed to favour Vic clubs. It was created in 1949. There were no non Vic clubs. Changes to F/S rules over time were intended to give opportunities to new clubs in footy states access, especially WC and Adelaide (although it didn't actually end up working very well). The discussions around changes now seem more directed at academy players than F/S, and the changes that we have seen recently have only impacted NGA not Northern academies, specifically because a Victorian team was seen to have unfairly benefited.

Brisbane has had (including the ones coming) an astonishing number of 1st round father sons in an incredibly short period. GC has had an extraordinary number of academy 1st rounders in the same period. Many Victorian clubs have never had any.

Tinkering is not unreasonable. A great catch all solution in my opinion would just be to increase the points value of top 5 or so picks, and you could supplement that with a requirement that one of the picks used for matching is within say 20 picks. I just don't think that is unreasonable.

It was a state league when the F/S rule was first introduced so that's completely irrelevant. What is relevant is the F/S interpretation that was introduced at each stage of expansion as non-Vic teams entered the league. 150 WAFL games for the WA teams and 200 SANFL games for the SA teams. Why? Why make it so difficult for expansion teams to utilise the same rule the Vics were using on 50 VFL gamers? West Coast get F/S access to Ben Cousins in 1995 because his father played 238 games for Perth but Carlton get F/S access to Lance Whitnall a year later because his old man played 66 games for the Blues. Do you see the inequality in the interpretation?

Then we get to the mid 2000s when enough time had passed to start seeing sons of inaugural Eagles/Bears/Crows coming through and eligible for the 50 game F/S rule and they decide to change the rule by raising the required games to 100. Up until 14/15 years of age Alex Rance was F/S eligible for West Coast - the rule changes and Richmond get a premiership winning AA key defender. Funny that. Now the rule is starting to favour teams like Brisbane/Adelaide and people want to change it again! The only thing the AFL has really done right in this space is allowing the Suns and Giants to establish northern academies to combat the fact that they won't have F/S access for at least 20 years but even that is about to be restricted.

The F/S rule has consistently been changed every time it looks like it's favouring non-Vic teams. You think that's a coincidence?

 

[Caligo]

It was a state league when the F/S rule was first introduced so that's completely irrelevant. What is relevant is the F/S interpretation that was introduced at each stage of expansion as non-Vic teams entered the league. 150 WAFL games for the WA teams and 200 SANFL games for the SA teams. Why? Why make it so difficult for expansion teams to utilise the same rule the Vics were using on 50 VFL gamers? West Coast get F/S access to Ben Cousins in 1995 because his father played 238 games for Perth but Carlton get F/S access to Lance Whitnall a year later because his old man played 66 games for the Blues. Do you see the inequality in the interpretation?

Then we get to the mid 2000s when enough time had passed to start seeing sons of inaugural Eagles/Bears/Crows coming through and eligible for the 50 game F/S rule and they decide to change the rule by raising the required games to 100. Up until 14/15 years of age Alex Rance was F/S eligible for West Coast - the rule changes and Richmond get a premiership winning AA key defender. Funny that. Now the rule is starting to favour teams like Brisbane/Adelaide and people want to change it again! The only thing the AFL has really done right in this space is allowing the Suns and Giants to establish northern academies to combat the fact that they won't have F/S access for at least 20 years but even that is about to be restricted.

The F/S rule has consistently been changed every time it looks like it's favouring non-Vic teams. You think that's a coincidence?

I don't think F/S is getting changed, I think it will be academies and points in general. Do I think that it is a coincidence that Brisbane, WB and Geelong have benefited most from top tier father sons? Pretty much yes.

My club has only ever had one truly elite F/S 17 year old (based on a top 10 draft definiton), the son of a two time premiership hero, but due to the rules of the time he plays for GC now because of some seriously dodgy priority picks. Is that anti Vic bias?

Brisbane are likely to get the son of a 300 game four time premiership captain for my club. Because apparently they introduced him to the game (when he had already been selected to represent his state before he even joined their academy).

As you can see, if you want to look at this from a fixed perspective, it isn't hard to make it look unfair.

 

[doppleganger]

It was a state league when the F/S rule was first introduced so that's completely irrelevant.

The relevance is the link to an actual established club. The premise being to build family legacy and have kids of fathers who played football for a club a chance of going to the same club.

What is relevant is the F/S interpretation that was introduced at each stage of expansion as non-Vic teams entered the league.
150 WAFL games for the WA teams and 200 SANFL games for the SA teams. Why? Why make it so difficult for expansion teams to utilise the same rule the Vics were using on 50 VFL gamers?

Because it was a joke that a team like Port Adelaide were given access to sons of North Adelaide or Central Districts players.

It was a stupid decision by the AFL to bastardise a rule just to appease the new franchises coming in that had no club history.

West Coast get F/S access to Ben Cousins in 1995 because his father played 238 games for Perth but Carlton get F/S access to Lance Whitnall a year later because his old man played 66 games for the Blues. Do you see the inequality in the interpretation?

Yep.

Ben Cousin's Dad played 0 games for the WC Eagles, ridiculous that they just basically made up a State concession rule.

Then we get to the mid 2000s when enough time had passed to start seeing sons of inaugural Eagles/Bears/Crows coming through and eligible for the 50 game F/S rule and they decide to change the rule by raising the required games to 100. Up until 14/15 years of age Alex Rance was F/S eligible for West Coast - the rule changes and Richmond get a premiership winning AA key defender.

Murray Rance was a Swan District champion, Swan Districts are aligned to Freo.

If he had played 10 more games for Swan Districts, he would have been eligible for Freo...despite no father link to Freo at all.

Funny that. Now the rule is starting to favour teams like Brisbane/Adelaide and people want to change it again! The only thing the AFL has really done right in this space is allowing the Suns and Giants to establish northern academies to combat the fact that they won't have F/S access for at least 20 years but even that is about to be restricted.

The F/S rule has consistently been changed every time it looks like it's favouring non-Vic teams. You think that's a coincidence?

The father son eligibility requirements and how you access the players has consistently changed.

Originally was outside the draft, then just a random 3rd round, they have constantly been trying to ensure clubs pay as close to "fair value" as possible whilst still encouraging the loyalty side.

For every N.Daicos there is a C.Brown.

 

[Caligo]

For every N.Daicos there is a C.Brown.

for every N.Daicos there are a dozen C.Browns. At least.

 

[doppleganger]

for every N.Daicos there are a dozen C.Browns. At least.

Yep and I think everyone agrees that it is great that the Brown boys had a chance to play for the same club as their dad.

And I think also everyone agrees that situations like Daicos where if a club bids on him with pick 4, that at a minimum Collingwood should have to use a first rounder (plus extra) to match the bid.

The current situation where a club plans ahead and trades out its first and second rounder for a glut of pick 40s isnt paying fair value for a star kid.

So just like they have done numerous times, the AFL will most likely tweak the rules to ensure clubs pay closer to fair value for a star father son.

 

[Caligo]

Yep and I think everyone agrees that it is great that the Brown boys had a chance to play for the same club as their dad.

And I think also everyone agrees that situations like Daicos where if a club bids on him with pick 4, that at a minimum Collingwood should have to use a first rounder (plus extra) to match the bid.

The current situation where a club plans ahead and trades out its first and second rounder for a glut of pick 40s isnt paying fair value for a star kid.

So just like they have done numerous times, the AFL will most likely tweak the rules to ensure clubs pay closer to fair value for a star father son.

That is exactly how I feel. Just tweak it a bit and it will be fine.

 

[Muddiemoose]

In 20 years it might be even, still advantage vics at the moment

Why turn it into a state thing tho?
It’s not like all the teams in the state share the advantage
All the sides in the comp now bar the expansion clubs essentially have the same chances re father sons (it’s purely a genetic lottery)

 

[LukeParkerno1]

No one can satisfy everyone just wait for them to give an answer just hope everyone is happy

 

[Lockyer24]

With father sons you never know how it’s going to go in future years. Collingwood and Geelong have done well but all of a sudden Brisbane becomes the new I Am Invincible . I think obviously clubs without any FS candidates should have access to academies at the same cost.

The key is just making sure clubs pay fair price - at least a draft pick the round the player was taken in, plus more if needed. Also next time Nick Daicos is in the draft, perhaps take him #1 instead of #4. One of the more bizarre things I’ve ever seen.

 

[doppleganger]

Why turn it into a state thing tho?
It’s not like all the teams in the state share the advantage
All the sides in the comp now bar the expansion clubs essentially have the same chances re father sons (it’s purely a genetic lottery)

Pretty simple, when a start-up club comes in they get special allowances and access to young talent outside of the draft.

For father son to apply, they need to wait a generation so that sons of Adelaide Crows or Fremantle Dockers players are eligible.

The AFL bastardised the rule to appease SA and WA sooks, providing "father son" access to sons of players who had no link to the actual club that they were being drafted to, because they wouldnt wait, so the AFL just gave them State based access.

And then the SA and WA nongs sooked that it was unfair that the SANFL games criteria was different...completely ignoring the point that the father played 0 games with the Adelaide Crows.

 

[go_the_dockers]

Why turn it into a state thing tho?
It’s not like all the teams in the state share the advantage
All the sides in the comp now bar the expansion clubs essentially have the same chances re father sons (it’s purely a genetic lottery)

No

Sa and wa had different rules, plus less players to choose from.

Eagles more than Crows and down the list based on starting year, bit vic clubs have a lot more chance of getting a father son.

 

[geelong_crazy26]

Very misleading stat considering the way the rule used to work which delivered the consensus number 1 prospect in the country Tom Hawkins to Geelong for the extremely cheap price of pick 41 as well as another first round talent in Gary Ablett Jr for pick 40. Officially Geelong have had zero 1st round F/S picks - in reality they've had multiple. As a Hawthorn fan I'm sure you can appreciate the misleading nature of this by stating your club has officially had more 1st round F/S picks than Geelong! In fact, over half the league is yet to officially have a 1st round F/S pick but we know that's not really true through examples like Hawkins/Ablett. Anyway, here is the official list of 1st round F/S picks in history:

Bulldogs (4)
Ayce Cordy (Pick 14, 2008)
Mitch Wallis (Pick 22, 2010)
Sam Darcy (Pick 2, 2021)
Jordan Croft (Pick 15, 2023)

Brisbane (2)
Will Ashcroft (Pick 2, 2022)
Jaspa Fletcher (Pick 12, 2022)

Collingwood (2)
Darcy Moore (Pick 9, 2014)
Nick Daicos (Pick 4, 2021)

Adelaide (1)
Max Michaelanney (Pick 17, 2022)

Essendon (1)
Joe Daniher (Pick 10, 2012)

Hawthorn (1)
Will McCabe (Pick 19, 2023)

North Melbourne (1)
Luke McDonald (Pick 8, 2013)

Sydney (1)
Tom Mitchell (Pick 21, 2011)

Carlton (0)

Fremantle (0)

Geelong (0)

Gold Coast (0)

Greater Western Sydney (0)

Melbourne (0)

Port Adelaide (0)

Richmond (0)

St Kilda (0)

West Coast (0)

Why does ablett keep getting quoted as a guaranteed first rounder?? He was a low accumulating flanker who had flashes at the time he was drafted. He was considered a late first to mid second rounder. Hawkins was the clear no 1 pick… outside of those two it literally ends their for geelong and first round FS.

Hawkins has barely any influence across 07-11, and ablett didn’t even play in the 11 flag… so let’s not make bs claims that geelongs success was due to highly touted FS picks.. because we had over 11AA’s and only ablett during that time was a first round possibility of a F/S out of those names.

Collingwood and bulldogs have nabbed much higher rated draft talent than geelong has

 

[Muddiemoose]

No

Sa and wa had different rules, plus less players to choose from.

Eagles more than Crows and down the list based on starting year, bit vic clubs have a lot more chance of getting a father son.

WA based clubs were granted to the sons of players who played 150 games from 3 different wafl clubs each and at this point both clubs have been around long enough to be the same chance of gaining a father son selection as any other vic club

No clubs have father sons to choose from it’s just something that occurs via chance and once again why turn it into a state thing

I couldn’t care less if any other vic clubs get a father son pick, it doesn’t benefit my own club or have any relevance to me as a Richmond fan

It’s all just luck, since west coast joined the comp they have had two less father son selections compared to Richmond in the same period despite being a generation behind and port have had like 4 in the past 5 years

 

[GC2015]

Why does ablett keep getting quoted as a guaranteed first rounder?? He was a low accumulating flanker who had flashes at the time he was drafted. He was considered a late first to mid second rounder. Hawkins was the clear no 1 pick… outside of those two it literally ends their for geelong and first round FS.

Even if Ablett was a mid second rounder like you say, it would have changed Geelong's list if they had paid a fair price for him. Do you know who was drafted with pick 24 in the 2001 draft? Stevie J. Do you think Geelong's last 16 years would have been as successful had they not been able to draft Joel Selwood and Stevie J? I don't.

Hawkins has barely any influence across 07-11, and ablett didn’t even play in the 11 flag… so let’s not make bs claims that geelongs success was due to highly touted FS picks.. because we had over 11AA’s and only ablett during that time was a first round possibility of a F/S out of those names.

Yes but Hawkins was very influential in the 2022 flag, as was Selwood who wouldn't have been a Cat had Geelong paid a fair price for Hawkins in 2006. Selwood also contributed a fair bit to the three flags in the 07-11 period so you have to take that into account when discussing the overall benefit of getting Hawkins for pick 41 because they are directly linked. The same can be said about Ablett's low price allowing the Cats to draft Stevie J.

Also, you're ignoring another Geelong F/S in Scarlett who was an AA key defender in 2007, 2008, 2009 & 2011. A fair bit has gone right for Geelong over the last 20ish years.

 

[Caligo]

Why does ablett keep getting quoted as a guaranteed first rounder?? He was a low accumulating flanker who had flashes at the time he was drafted. He was considered a late first to mid second rounder. Hawkins was the clear no 1 pick… outside of those two it literally ends their for geelong and first round FS.

Nathan was a massive prospect too. There were questions about his commitment, but he was the most talented young KPF in years.

That is three players who were at least first round adjacent at a minimum. Most clubs aren't that fortunate.

 

[Caligo]

Also, you're ignoring another Geelong F/S in Scarlett who was an AA key defender in 2007, 2008, 2009 & 2011. 4 GFs and 3 flags in those years.

Scarlett wasn't highly rated and Geelong probably would have gotten him regardless. Hawkins, GAJ and N.Ablett all probably end up elsewhere though.

 

[GC2015]

Scarlett wasn't highly rated and Geelong probably would have gotten him regardless. Hawkins, GAJ and N.Ablett all probably end up elsewhere though.

... or they lose access to Joel Selwood and Stevie J through the current F/S bidding system. Either way, their list would have changed a fair bit during that highly successful period.

 

[Engimal v3]

Yes - Luke McDonald will be a premiership winning captain

 

[geelong_crazy26]

Nathan was a massive prospect too. There were questions about his commitment, but he was the most talented young KPF in years.

That is three players who were at least first round adjacent at a minimum. Most clubs aren't that fortunate.

He was not a first rounder when we drafted him. He was 12 months out of the system as an 19yo and played modewarre fourths and played zero TAC cup prior… I agree he was a huge junior talent, but I question if he was still a first rounder at that point in time when we drafted him.