St Kilda President Andrew Bassat tees off on the AFL draft system, specifically father/son and the Northern Academies

[Bont the Lord]

Of course it's changed .When Jon Brown got drafted by the Lions there was an uproar. The eligibility rules were 50 games by the father, his dad played 51. The AFL subsequently changed it to 100 games.

Geelong then got Hawkins and there was an uproar, led by the Western Bulldogs. So the bidding system was introduced. Ironically, the first club affected by this was the Dogs when they drafted Liberatore and Wallis.

It may be too late but St Kilda could potentially have an awesome AFLW side because all their stars of the 80s, 90s and 00s had heaps of daughters.

Serious question. Where was this uproar led by the Western Bulldogs? First I've heard of it and happy to be proven wrong.

 

[Wargreymon90]

Its one of those concession to nostalgia and the old days of club loyalty.
It probably has no reason to exist in terms of "fairness", but it is at least luck of the draw rather than actually rigged like much else is.

I do agree. The rules are the same for each club and I don’t think St kilda should feel hard done by. Unlucky sure.

But I would say that for individual draftees, it is ridiculously unfair. Player X from rural WA who’s never lived anywhere else is told to pack up and move interstate where he knows no one.

Daicos and Darcy are given the option to play for the club they support because of daddy.

How anyone can see this as “romantic” is beyond me.

 

[bergholt]

And that's why I'm saying that way of looking at it is wrong because there is no way to manipulate the conditions that exist to create F/S selections*. Players just play their careers > reach 100 games for a club > have kids at some point > hopefully get out 1-2 males > try and get them to be interested in footy > get them to a point where they're playing a high enough level of footy > then, and only then after all that does F/S even come into play.

No, because more successful clubs are more likely to have 100 gamers. See the stats I posted up the thread. So that entrenches generational inequality.

*The only way I can think of, and not sure what other clubs do regarding this, but Collingwood run events exclusively for Collingwood-playing fathers to bring their young kids to for a run around and hopefully get them on the path to playing footy (and hope they are gifted!). This is open for all clubs to operate without restriction so there is effectively no manipulation, just maximising yield which is probably what you're talking about with the "tickets in the lottery" analogy. There is no unfairness whatsoever in that.

Except that richer clubs have more money to run these sorts of events, whereas shoestring clubs like the Saints and Kangas might not be able to spare the cash for it. So again that entrenches generational inequality.


I mean, it's fine, if you don't believe in equalisation and think we should move towards an EPL-style "cash buys flags" system then that's a perfectly valid belief. But just say that. Believing in equalisation and also father-son should produce cognitive dissonance because they're exactly at odds with each other.

 

[Frank Grimes]

Not to sound like a broken record, but people need to accept the AFL is an entertainment product, not a competitive sporting league.

It creates a better product to have sons play at the clubs their father's did - in a competitive league, no way would these concessions exist.

Just like it creates a better product to play the grand final in front of 100,000 people every year. Or have big clubs play in prime time. Or any of the other myriad iniquities.

I don't have a problem with clubs having access to F/S in the draft. What I do have a problem with is clubs not paying fair price for the F/S.

It scenarios like with Daicos where a club only has to hand over 3 or 4 early-mid 40's picks to get a top 2 player in the draft that is the problem.

Firstly the 20% discount needs to go. Just having rights to that player is advantage enough.
Secondly there has to be some sort of restriction to the pick used (e.g. one of the picks in the bid needs to be within 10 picks of the bid; or no more than 3 picks can be used to select the player).

 

[blueboy25]

No, because more successful clubs are more likely to have 100 gamers. See the stats I posted up the thread. So that entrenches generational inequality.



Except that richer clubs have more money to run these sorts of events, whereas shoestring clubs like the Saints and Kangas might not be able to spare the cash for it. So again that entrenches generational inequality.


I mean, it's fine, if you don't believe in equalisation and think we should move towards an EPL-style "cash buys flags" system then that's a perfectly valid belief. But just say that. Believing in equalisation and also father-son should produce cognitive dissonance because they're exactly at odds with each other.

If a club can't afford to have kids of former players spend some time at the club then they really are in trouble.

 

[bergholt]

If a club can't afford to have kids of former players spend some time at the club then they really are in trouble.

Correct! Clubs who don't have much money really don't have much money. The AFL needs them to stay around so that they can keep churning out huge TV rights deals (because otherwise there aren't enough games and fans). You either try to make them competitive - which is in everyone's interests because it makes the comp better to watch - or you ignore that and end up with the EPL where only a handful of clubs can actually win. As a supporter of a historically terrible club, do I deserve the chance to see a flag in my lifetime? Or should I just switch to supporting Carlton?

 

[Bont the Lord]

Ugle Hagen has no right to be at the WB.

Jed Walter and Ethan Read have no right to be at the GC. Am I doing this right?

 

[The Jack]

It's just a bit rich for the club with probably the best access to the draft over the last 25 years to start complaining about fairness.

You sure about that? Maybe do some research.

 

[SeaOfFire]

If Levi Ashcroft was a draft smoky who had sat out the last 12 months after serious injury, this thread doesn't happen.

I'm guessing all the hours of backyard training that went into the Ashcroft brothers should now be declared in the Lions' coaching salary cap.....

 

[Hollow Knight]

I wasn’t aware that St Kilda has some systemic disadvantage that prevents them from procreating.

What a weak-ass salty melt. Absolute loser energy.

As us Lions fans were repeatedly told through the 2010s… “fix ya culcha”.

 

[Toump Ass]

we haven't had any father sons until now, say hi to jack for me you pelican

The audacity to call me a pelican while not even knowing one of your greatest ever players in Jonathan Brown is a father-son selection.

Congratulations on outing yourself as a bandwagon-jumping moron lmao.

 

[caloschwaby]

No, because more successful clubs are more likely to have 100 gamers. See the stats I posted up the thread. So that entrenches generational inequality.

Frankly, that is nobody's issues except for St Kilda. Even the list you produce there bares little correlation to that fact. Melbourne don't strike me as the pinnacle of success in any period after the 60s despite the odd GF here and there, and yet there they are at the top of the board.

Except that richer clubs have more money to run these sorts of events, whereas shoestring clubs like the Saints and Kangas might not be able to spare the cash for it. So again that entrenches generational inequality.

Again, that just a personal club issue. Not enough money to run what's essentially a glorified Auskick session at Moorabbin/Arden St? Looks like there are bigger issues internally than worrying about F/S system.

I mean, it's fine, if you don't believe in equalisation and think we should move towards an EPL-style "cash buys flags" system then that's a perfectly valid belief. But just say that. Believing in equalisation and also father-son should produce cognitive dissonance because they're exactly at odds with each other.

Complete strawman lol. F/S is a move towards an EPL-style "cash buys flags" - despite F/S not involving cash and the EPL not possessing a F/S selection system?

Also equalisation. St Kilda have been prime benefactors of "equalisation" having access to the best parts of the draft for the better part of a decade, on top of that the league giving literal free picks to GC and North for being cellar dwellers. Cash can't buy flags, but just having slightly above-average list management over any period of time really helps.

"Equalisation" is literally less equal than any element of the F/S system by definition - it is not random, it is biased toward teams that are worse (by design) and at the best of times the league can sprinkle some magic beans to teams in need like a benevolent god.

Nobody restricted the amount of 100-game players St Kilda have had, nobody manipulated St Kilda fathers to not have as many sons. Nobody has done anything to "keep" St Kilda out of this system.

 

[Nvent]

Jed Walter and Ethan Read have no right to be at the GC. Am I doing this right?

Given that JUH was basically a once off then the league realized they gifted the WB the number one pick its not close.

 

[Rotayjay]

Yet there's been 9 different premiers (half the comp) in the past 12 years.

All fans should have hope their club can win a flag if their club is run properly.

I think equalisation isn't doing too badly (and we certainly had our chance in 2017), but I also don't think the academies have had their full effect yet. If clubs keep getting access to players cheaply, the effecr will be cumulative.

Same goes for increased player power and increased player movement. The scales are tipped too far in favour of already-successful clubs and equalisation is under threat, not dead.

 

[Toump Ass]

Cash can't buy flags.

It really does help win them though.

 

[Sentinel]

Bassat (perhaps inadvertently) tying father-sons into his argument as part of the disadvantages of smaller clubs is a huge red herring, but I don't disagree with his broader point.

It's impossible to argue that father-sons and all academies don't distort the fairness of the draft, particularly with the points discount added on top to allow clubs (mine included) cheap access to top talent that they wouldn't otherwise have. I don't think this is a big club/small club thing at all though. It is however further exacerbated by free agency and the trade period (both of which are a big club/small club thing) with the pull of big clubs playing in front of big crowds compared to smaller clubs like St Kilda playing Sunday twilight in front of 15k at Marvel.

If F-S, academies and free agency are going to exist, which is fine if we want to look at other elements and accept the draft needs to be somewhat compromised as a result, as Bassat says then clubs at the very least should be made to pay a fair price. How they can achieve that is hard to say but the current system for both bid matching and free agency compensation is ridiculous.

It's disingenuous to say clubs give up absolutely nothing to match top picks, but with the current points system they definitely come with a heavy discount on top of the 20% (soon to be 10%) discount already handed to them by the AFL, and clubs finishing towards the bottom of the ladder who don't have access to these players are punished disproportionately.

 

[bergholt]

Frankly, that is nobody's issues except for St Kilda. Even the list you produce there bares little correlation to that fact. Melbourne don't strike me as the pinnacle of success in any period after the 60s despite the odd GF here and there, and yet there they are at the top of the board.

Yeah, it's obviously not going to be perfectly correlated, although Melbourne were up around the mark through the late 80s early 90s, the Stynes + Healy + Wilson + Lovett days.

Again, that just a personal club issue. Not enough money to run what's essentially a glorified Auskick session at Moorabbin/Arden St? Looks like there are bigger issues internally than worrying about F/S system.

I mean, this is exactly my point. You either say "you've been historically unsuccessful so you're doomed to the same going forward", or you say "it matters that every club gets a fair shot at a successful period every ten years or so". If you don't believe historically unsuccessful clubs should have a shot in the future then that's fine, it's not wrong to believe that. But if you believe everyone should have a chance at a shot then a level playing field is the only way to achieve that.

Complete strawman lol. F/S is a move towards an EPL-style "cash buys flags" - despite F/S not involving cash and the EPL not possessing a F/S selection system?

Whether or not it's specifically cash makes no difference, it's just a physical manifestation of power. There's no fundamental reason that Man U + Arsenal + Liverpool + Man C + Chelsea should be the big 5 clubs except that they were run well enough over a long period of time, and got lucky enough over that time, to be the biggest.

But in their system, there's no way for anyone else to challenge that without just putting in a huge amount of cash (which Abramovich did to bring Chelsea back up and Abu Dhabi did for Man City). Leicester can pop up and win a lucky title but then still get relegated a few years later. The cartel at the top never really changes.


The same would clearly be true in the AFL without equalisation. Instead, we have a salary cap and a draft.

The salary cap is mildly effective at keeping teams solvent but does minimal amounts for equalisation - very few players leave a good club for more money at a poor club.

The draft is ok for equalisation. But the team that finishes bottom gets one great pick (call it "priority"), and then every other pick they get is one worse than the pick the premiers get. Because aussie rules is a team game, only maybe two #1 picks ever have been good enough to really change the fortunes of their clubs: Hodge and Riewoldt. Harley should probably be the same. That's not many in 40 #1 picks over the years.

And then the draft's equalisation measures are diluted by father-son and academies. At various times priority picks have been given, and I think they should still exist because they were the most effective measure ever seen for equalisation. More shots at a great player is more likely to actually change the fortunes of a club. And currently free agency compo picks are given, and they're ok for equalisation.

If we want a competition with equalisation, we should have a level playing field.

Also equalisation. St Kilda have been prime benefactors of "equalisation" having access to the best parts of the draft for the better part of a decade, on top of that the league giving literal free picks to GC and North for being cellar dwellers. Cash can't buy flags, but having slightly above-average list management over any period of time really helps.

I don't think anyone's arguing against any of this? But also it wouldn't be surprising if richer clubs could afford better list managers, would it?

 

[bergholt]

Nobody restricted the amount of 100-game players St Kilda have had, nobody manipulated St Kilda fathers to not have as many sons. Nobody has done anything to "keep" St Kilda out of this system.

Right, it's not biased, it's just completely random, which by definition will lead to unfair results. I thought we already discussed that?

So if you believe in equalisation, why not remove that source of guaranteed unfair results, and just have an open draft for all players regardless of who their fathers are?

 

[Elixuh]

It's easy to attack a clubs drafting that hasn't had the luxury of buying in players such as Daniher, Dunkley and Neale. Then to be handed a Ashcroft.

Seems he has a very valid point.

I'm not attacking St Kilda. Brisbane had the same issues. We fixed out back office and coaching, went to the draft in successive years with a strategy to build a nucleus of a team. Once that was done, THEN we could sell a message to bring in players like Daniher, Dunkley and Neale. You think players of that ilk would come to a basketcase? It is why St Kilda can't attract any talent.

 

[WeeBlake]

Didn’t he say the system was unfair? How is it unfair if everybody operates under the same system?

What he’s actually saying is it needs to change because it’s not currently benefiting the Saints.

Apartheid was fair then I guess

 

[bergholt]

I'm not attacking St Kilda. Brisbane had the same issues. We fixed out back office and coaching, went to the draft in successive years with a strategy to build a nucleus of a team. Once that was done, THEN we could sell a message to bring in players ilk Daniher, Dunkley and Neale. You think players of that ilk would come to a basketcase? It is why St Kilda can't attract any talent.

Completely agree, which is why the Saints (and other small Melbourne clubs) need the playing field to be as level as possible outside that. There's enough unfairness already in historical inequities, no need to have more with father-son and similar.

 

[joe444]

1. It's the points which annoy me. Completely inscrutable.
2. Academies annoy me second because they should be run by the league for the overall good of the game, not to harvest talent for particular teams.
3. If you win the flag, you've achieved the ultimate, so I'd happily accept a system which denied them access to a first round and academy picks for the subsequent draft.

 

[The Jack]

Right, it's not biased, it's just completely random, which by definition will lead to unfair results. I thought we already discussed that?

It's really not that hard to understand is it? Add the absurd discount given, on top of the already random good fortune, and the system is an absolute mess.

 

[Elixuh]

Equalisation doesn't mean every club has to be up at the same time. It's zero sum so that's impossible. It means everyone has approximately equal chance to get there.



Bassat acknowledged historical incompetence in his speech. You don't have to remind Saints fans of that, we can enumerate the **** ups in far more detail than you can.

But is your argument that if you ****ed up historically then you should never be allowed to be successful? The only ask here is for a level playing field.

I understand what equalisation means. This competition is never going to be equal, especially with half the comp residing in the same city. St Kilda fans weren't in tears when they were benefiting from the Brisbane players wanting to come back to Victoria a decade ago. I remember Saints fans telling us that they were bending us over a barrel giving us a second rounder for a top10 ruck and that there was nothing we could do because the players wanted to come home. It is very St Kilda though that the one you took was the spud.

I think the points your president is making would hold much more weight if St Kilda wasn't such a basketcase in every area, including having a poor list due to terrible drafting and trading.

Did he go through the Saints strategy of how they're going to get out of this rather than just complaining? My worry with the Saints is that you need to hit the draft but by the time those players are ready your current A graders like Sinclair and Steele will be done. They're both 30 next year. The Saints have a really odd list profile and a lack of genuine talent coming through across all the lines.

 

[Nvent]

I'm not attacking St Kilda. Brisbane had the same issues. We fixed out back office and coaching, went to the draft in successive years with a strategy to build a nucleus of a team. Once that was done, THEN we could sell a message to bring in players ilk Daniher, Dunkley and Neale. You think players of that ilk would come to a basketcase? It is why St Kilda can't attract any talent.

StKilda are in the mix with Collingwood Carlton Richmond etc for players. Brisbane are contending with GC.