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

[LoungeLizard]

Because they are fairer competitions. They invented the draft, we adopted a draft but keep adding qualifiers that negate the reason one has a draft.

And I can follow more than one competition.

The 34 years ropes in the period from 2000-2009 when we had:

• 16 teams in the competition
• automatic priority picks for poor teams
• every team make a preliminary final

Go from 2012 when GWS (and their concessions) came in, and the equalisation picture is less rosy. With 18 teams automatic priority picks (based on on-field performance and not bedroom performance) are even more needed.

Adelaide - no finals since 2017
Carlton - no GF this century
Essendon - no finals win in 20 years
Fremantle - no premierships, no prelim since 2015
North Melbourne - no finals since 2016
St Kilda - no prelim since 2010

All of those teams except Freo have finished last since 2010.

Teams finishing last from Port entering the comp (and there first prelim appearance after)

Melbourne 1997 (Prelim 1998)
Brisbane 1998 (Prelim 1999)
Collingwood 1999 (Prelim 2002)
St Kilda 2000 (Prelim 2004)
Fremantle 2001 (Prelim 2006)
Western Bulldogs 2003 (Prelim 2008)

I've excluded Carlton from that period because they didn't have the full draft capital due to their salary cap penalties.

There is no reasonable denial that the AFL has an equalisation problem and has had one for over a decade. The Father-Son rule only exacerbates that problem.

Oh my, another who just picks and choices where to start and finish.

I chose the whole of the AFL, 34 years, every club bar 1 has played in a Grand Final, every club bar 4 have won a Grand Final.
Now if you want to compare with these "fairer comps" show us these "fairer comps" that have better strike rates?

 

[werdna78]

Getting cheap access to a young gun so good that he won the Norm Smith medal helped that along.

Just like Alex Rance helping you win the 2017 flag. Swings and roundabouts.

 

[The Punter]

Oh my, another who just picks and choices where to start and finish.

I chose the whole of the AFL, 34 years, every club bar 1 has played in a Grand Final, every club bar 4 have won a Grand Final.
Now if you want to compare with these "fairer comps" show us these "fairer comps" that have better strike rates?

I was making the point that the competition got less fairer when GWS came in, roughly the same time as the effects of the abolition of the automatic priority picks started to be fully felt.

The system would be fairer, and the father-son rule would have less effect, if poor teams had access to automatic priority picks. But tanking.

Our draft started in 1986: why not start there? Everyone makes judgements about what best to quote to make their argument, so I do not assume anyone (including myself) spotless in this regard. But it's been structurally harder to go from bottom to top since 2012.

Also, not for nothing, but arguments for the Father-Son rule are weak. No supporter would stop following football if it was abolished. Our game didn't used to have interchange either: that move was made to make the game fairer.

 

[LoungeLizard]

I was making the point that the competition got less fairer when GWS came in, roughly the same time as the effects of the abolition of the automatic priority picks started to be fully felt.

The system would be fairer, and the father-son rule would have less effect, if poor teams had access to automatic priority picks. But tanking.

Our draft started in 1986: why not start there? Everyone makes judgements about what best to quote to make their argument, so I do not assume anyone (including myself) spotless in this regard. But it's been structurally harder to go from bottom to top since 2012.

Also, not for nothing, but arguments for the Father-Son rule are weak. No supporter would stop following football if it was abolished. Our game didn't used to have interchange either: that move was made to make the game fairer.

I don't care if the father son rules are changed or stopped.

I like the idea of having sons of greats playing for the same club, but if it doesn't happen, well meh.

The VFL/AFL have been changing rules forever, in the eyes of some (mainly losers) they will never get it right.

But IMO clubs lose GF's not the AFL, St.Kilda have 1 flag, mainly from their own doing, you couldn't win in the VFL days and can't win in the AFL days, nothing has changed.

St.Kilda did something bad to the gods, i'm sure of it.

 

[The Punter]

St.Kilda did something bad to the gods, i'm sure of it.

I have a sneaky suspicion what comes next.

From a Collingwood supporter, it's usually a mention of John Greening.

 

[Iago]

Barry Mitchell, yeah? Carlton and Sydney.

Yeah that's the fella, Carlton and Sydney. And Collingwood.

 

[iameviljez]

I don't care if the father son rules are changed or stopped.

I like the idea of having sons of greats playing for the same club, but if it doesn't happen, well meh.

The VFL/AFL have been changing rules forever, in the eyes of some (mainly losers) they will never get it right.

But IMO clubs lose GF's not the AFL, St.Kilda have 1 flag, mainly from their own doing, you couldn't win in the VFL days and can't win in the AFL days, nothing has changed.

St.Kilda did something bad to the gods, i'm sure of it.

St Kilda hasn’t been well run, but the VFL - particularly post-war - did favour clubs with deeper coffers. Some clubs were playing with a stacked deck

 

[LoungeLizard]

St Kilda hasn’t been well run, but the VFL - particularly post-war - did favour clubs with deeper coffers. Some clubs were playing with a stacked deck

And before the war won nothing.

It's been going on forever, blame others for your mistakes, it's easy to do isn't it.

The only way the AFL can make this league as fair as can be, as some want, is to start culling clubs.

Do you want that to happen?
I don't.

 

[iameviljez]

And before the war won nothing.

It's been going on forever, blame others for your mistakes, it's easy to do isn't it.

The only way the AFL can make this league as fair as can be, as some want, is to start culling clubs.

Do you want that to happen?
I don't.

Oh look, “fairness” is always a balancing act, I agree.

F/S I would keep. Academies too, but I think the points system need serious work.

I do think there is good reason to start moving the GF around the country but I acknowledge that it’s just not do-able.

Priority picks are too much, IMO. They turbocharged a lot of clubs; it was overkill.

 

[LoungeLizard]

Oh look, “fairness” is always a balancing act, I agree.

F/S I would keep. Academies too, but I think the points system need serious work.

I do think there is good reason to start moving the GF around the country but I acknowledge that it’s just not do-able.

Priority picks are too much, IMO. They turbocharged a lot of clubs; it was overkill.

So, do exactly the same as now except take away the points system?

That's fair enough, but I would guess, this will not help St.Kilda one iota.

Moving the Grand Final also will not help St.Kilda.

The only thing that will help St.Kilda is St.Kilda.

 

[Red Black and Blue]

And before the war won nothing.

It's been going on forever, blame others for your mistakes, it's easy to do isn't it.

The only way the AFL can make this league as fair as can be, as some want, is to start culling clubs.

Do you want that to happen?
I don't.

Culling clubs obviously not on the table. It's barbaric.

Culling access father sons and academies is not, and would not change the fabric of the game for all the current supporters.

 

[Lingsface]

I reckon his old man played for Collingwood as well. So he got the success by going to his old man's club and leaving the one where his old man never played. The opposite of your theorem.

father son sydney left brownlow at Hawks.

 

[LoungeLizard]

Culling clubs obviously not on the table. It's barbaric.

Culling access father sons and academies is not, and would not change the fabric of the game for all the current supporters.

Seriously though, imo, changing it is not going to help St.Kilda win a premiership.

Brisbane are going to get extra lucky with the Ashcroft lads, no-one would say a word if these 2 came in while Brisbane was last.
I can understand that some clubs are pissed because it never seems to be them that get the advantage others get.

I like the idea of the sons of club greats playing for the same club, but if they stop or change it, so be it, but it is not going to help St.Kilda, one day they might even regret the change.

 

[dean33]

Just like Alex Rance helping you win the 2017 flag. Swings and roundabouts.

 

[iameviljez]

So, do exactly the same as now except take away the points system?

That's fair enough, but I would guess, this will not help St.Kilda one iota.

Moving the Grand Final also will not help St.Kilda.

The only thing that will help St.Kilda is St.Kilda.

Oh I couldn’t give two shits about StKilda specifically.

 

[iameviljez]

Culling clubs obviously not on the table. It's barbaric.

Culling access father sons and academies is not, and would not change the fabric of the game for all the current supporters.

Academies are, for now, the one major asset GWS and Gold Coast have against the Go Home factor. Until they are old enough to get the father-sons, they should be able to keep them.

 

[iameviljez]

They might as well be. They are banned from playing at their home states in grand finals lol

Brisbane famously banned from recruiting Ashcrofts and Fletchers, eh?

 

[BF Tiger]

Just like Alex Rance helping you win the 2017 flag. Swings and roundabouts.

Not quite. Rance was an end of first round priority pick (pick 18) for a long-term underperforming team. An equalisation measure.

Both Ashcrofts are F-S gifts to finals/premiership Brisbane who would otherwise have been snapped up in the top 5 by underperforming teams as an equalisation measure.

See the difference?

 

[Red Black and Blue]

Seriously though, imo, changing it is not going to help St.Kilda win a premiership.

Brisbane are going to get extra lucky with the Ashcroft lads, no-one would say a word if these 2 came in while Brisbane was last.
I can understand that some clubs are pissed because it never seems to be them that get the advantage others get.

I like the idea of the sons of club greats playing for the same club, but if they stop or change it, so be it, but it is not going to help St.Kilda, one day they might even regret the change.

Regardless of where they were taken F/S is a mess of rule. If Brisbane was last they would get an extra top 2 kid on top of that too, completely disadvantaging the other teams around them. This inevitable scenario just highlights the true cancerous nature of the beast. Ned Guy's complete bastardizing and mismanagement of the 2020 trade period, before taking Nick Daicos a year later,, also highlights that the list management perfection others need to achieve for success does not apply to teams getting these high talent father sons.

The whole point of the draft is for teams to be responsible in making their own success, absolutely impossible to do in this environment. Not only are rebuilding teams unable to have access to the best young talent, they have to compete against seasoned successful teams perpetually extending their windows.

Essendon have had plenty of terrible father sons over the years, we have Bewick kids coming who is supposedly very very talented. We have 2 NGA this year, one a first rounder. Likely another next year. After 20 years of no final wins, I am desperate for success; Do I want these players on our list? Yes. But I believe the system is immoral and will happily forsake that for the fairness of the competition.

 

[LoungeLizard]

Regardless of where they were taken F/S is a mess of rule. If Brisbane was last they would get an extra top 2 kid on top of that too, completely disadvantaging the other teams around them. This inevitable scenario just highlights the true cancerous nature of the beast. Ned Guy's complete bastardizing and mismanagement of the 2020 trade period, before taking Nick Daicos a year later,, also highlights that the list management perfection others need to achieve for success does not apply to teams getting these high talent father sons.

The whole point of the draft is for teams to be responsible in making their own success, absolutely impossible to do in this environment. Not only are rebuilding teams unable to have access to the best young talent, they have to compete against seasoned successful teams perpetually extending their windows.

Essendon have had plenty of terrible father sons over the years, we have Bewick kids coming who is supposedly very very talented. We have 2 NGA this year, one a first rounder. Likely another next year. After 20 years of no final wins, I am desperate for success; Do I want these players on our list? Yes. But I believe the system is immoral and will happily forsake that for the fairness of the competition.

If it's just a fair comp you dream of, I have some very bad news for you, this comp will never be fair.

If you really want fair, then all clubs need to be equal in every way, the fixture needs every team plays every team home and away.

Timeslots, primetime etc. all need to be shared equal.

Now when/if this happens, you do know that the AFL then loses millions on TV rights?
They are not paying to have GC V GWS in the prime time slot.

So now we have lost millions to make it fairer, what do you think happens next?
Yes we can't pay clubs the extra $$, so then we start culling.

Do you really want a fair comp?

 

[Red Black and Blue]

If it's just a fair comp you dream of, I have some very bad news for you, this comp will never be fair.

If you really want fair, then all clubs need to be equal in every way, the fixture needs every team plays every team home and away.

Timeslots, primetime etc. all need to be shared equal.

Now when/if this happens, you do know that the AFL then loses millions on TV rights?
They are not paying to have GC V GWS in the prime time slot.

So now we have lost millions to make it fairer, what do you think happens next?
Yes we can't pay clubs the extra $$, so then we start culling.

Do you really want a fair comp?

Slight inequities are impossible to erase so lets not work at erasing the most significant one? Most of that list is purely capitalistic, which is determined by long term success. This rule is preventing a fair market so teams cannot make their own future. All of that is downstream of talent acquisition. Just because pure equity isn't achievable doesn't mean we shouldn't move towards it whenever we can.

 

[LoungeLizard]

Slight inequities are impossible to erase so lets not work at erasing the most significant one? Most of that list is purely capitalistic, which is determined by long term success. This rule is preventing a fair market so teams cannot make their own future. All of that is downstream of talent acquisition. Just because pure equity isn't achievable doesn't mean we shouldn't move towards it whenever we can.

The trouble is, what you think is fair, someone else will say it's not fair.

Take academies for instance, you may think it's not fair some have them and others don't, but then you have others that think they equalise in other ways, you just need to look on threads about them to see both sides of the arguments.

Like distributions of funds, some people are ok with it, but some think if clubs can't fund themselves should be culled.

Some people like the idea of F/S's, whether they are fair or not, there is an argument that they are just random and all clubs can get them.

We could go on all day about things that are not fair.

 

[iBeng]

The idea they all have to be successful for the argument against this unfair, anachronistic rule to wash is disingenuous at best.

Brisbane won the flag and are about to get unfettered access to the best player in the draft and will get him for no cost and won't have to compensate the team on the bottom of the ladder (who should be getting the best player in the draft).

This is patently ridiculous.

Well this is just blatantly false.

 

[12Parks]

Could the system be better, probably. But when you look at the number of players that have played this great game, and then the % of them who were F/S picks; is it really that much of a factor. Do we really think that roughly 120 F/S picks since 1986 are making that much difference/impact to the draft and the chances of teams being premiers. Not to mention the % of those F/S picks that have actually turned out to be good players (maybe 50/50). If Brisbane loses to GWS or Geelong, does this discussion have the same connotations?


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Freomaniac]

Brisbane famously banned from recruiting Ashcrofts and Fletchers, eh?

Marcus Ashcroft played 300 games for Brisbane Bears/Lions.

Adrian Fletcher is an interesting one.

23 games for Geelong from 1989-91

86 games for Brisbane bears in 1993 to 1996

21 games for Brisbane Lions in 1997.

So Technically 107 games for Brisbane

79 games for the dockers from 1998 to 2001.

Pity Freo didnt give him one more season for 2002. 21 more games and he gets 100 games.

I am Glad Clancee Pearce got 100 games for the dockers.