Opinion Sydney Swans Academy and Rebuild

[Sphynx]

Shows how well the Hawthorn/North ATM ventures, coupled with the AFL's "management" of the game there, has worked.

Erm yeah....

The Tasmanian state government (who pays for North and Hawthorns sponsorships) doesn't fund AFL TAS.

I think you meant to say, it shows what happens when you funnel a few hundred million dollars into two developing states for 15 years, how a state requiring funding, assistance and AFL development programs gets left behind because of said budget re-directions and priorities.

 

[Elton Johns Wig]

. 90% of most VIC club lists are all VIC based players. If you don't see the massive advantage other clubs have in that then there's no helping ya.

Factually incorrect statement.

Broad, sweeping assumption to try and paint a picture.

Richmond. 17 players on list from interstate.
Carlton 12
Pies at least 13
Essendon 11
Geelong 14
Hawks 12
Melbourne 13
North 11
Saints 10
Bulldogs 11

Now on a list size of 45 the highest amount I can get to is 75.55% Victorian.
Richmond are at 62.2%

Facts matter.

 

[SM]

Factually incorrect statement.

Broad, sweeping assumption to try and paint a picture.

Richmond. 17 players on list from interstate.
Carlton 12
Pies at least 13
Essendon 11
Geelong 14
Hawks 12
Melbourne 13
North 11
Saints 10
Bulldogs 11

Now on a list size of 45 the highest amount I can get to is 75.55% Victorian.
Richmond are at 62.2%

Facts matter.

For arguments sake, what is the equivalent percentage of NSW born players at the Swans/GWS, SA born for PTA/ADE, etc.? Presumably they're at a similar level? (At least, for Adelaide and Perth I assume so).

 

[Sphynx]

For arguments sake, what is the equivalent percentage of NSW born players at the Swans/GWS, SA born for PTA/ADE, etc.? Presumably they're at a similar level? (At least, for Adelaide and Perth I assume so).

Adelaide = 44%
Port = 34%
West Coast = 59%
Fremantle = 46%
Sydney = 25%
GWS = 27%

 

[SM]

Adelaide = 44%
Port = 34%
West Coast = 59%
Fremantle = 46%
Sydney = 25%
GWS = 27%

Wait, so the highest portion of home grown talent on a list at Adelaide is not only lower than the lowest portion on a Vic list*, but about 18% lower??

Stats do matter indeed.

*I'm assuming Richmond were the lowest based on the way EJW framed that post.

 

[Rioli8217]

- We can pay our players millions more
- Kill off three Melbourne clubs
- Have the GF in Sydney
- We aren't allowed to lose a player to outgoing trades, ever
- Remans until the NSW talent pool mirrors the VIC talent pool so we are guaranteed the #1 pick equivalent every year via our academy

No one said any of what I bolded. except for "kill off three Melbourne clubs" which is bs and the AFL wouldn't do it.

 

[Sphynx]

Wait, so the highest portion of home grown talent on a list at Adelaide is not only lower than the lowest portion on a Vic list*, but about 18% lower??

Stats do matter indeed.

*I'm assuming Richmond were the lowest based on the way EJW framed that post.

It surprises you that Victorian clubs have a higher proportion of homegrown talent when 75% of the talent pool is made up of Victorian players? OK.

 

[RUNVS]

It surprises you that Victorian clubs have a higher proportion of homegrown talent when 75% of the talent pool is made up of Victorian players? OK.

Where did you get that 75% figure from?

Last I heard it was around 55%.

 

[SM]

It surprises you that Victorian clubs have a higher proportion of homegrown talent when 75% of the talent pool is made up of Victorian players? OK.

Should I have put a sarcasm tag? Not your best moment.

 

[Kwality]

For arguments sake, what is the equivalent percentage of NSW born players at the Swans/GWS, SA born for PTA/ADE, etc.? Presumably they're at a similar level? (At least, for Adelaide and Perth I assume so).

Maybe you could start a thread, do the work yourself?
Where players are born is largely irrelevant, even on occasions where they were drafted from.

 

[BloodySwan]

Wait, so the highest portion of home grown talent on a list at Adelaide is not only lower than the lowest portion on a Vic list*, but about 18% lower??

Stats do matter indeed.

*I'm assuming Richmond were the lowest based on the way EJW framed that post.

Fun fact: in 2010 (the last year before academies) Swans and Brisbane had 17% of talent from their home states.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Lol. fu** you lot are rich.

Do something about it?

We aren't allowed to.


You know there are rules around approaching, training, coaching players under the age of 19, right?



Do Sydney fund the entirity of AFL NSW?


No.

Hang on, I'm not doing it right - "Where's the incentive to train, invest and if we can't have top 5 picks and they are only pick 22... whinge whinge".


When the AFL abolishes the Tasmanian state side, abolishes the Tasmanian Nab League side, pumps a few hundred million into grass roots in schools and junior programs, sets up the North Academy in their place and funnels all 12+ year old registered male footballers in the state into it, readmits it into the Nab League yeah, we can probably do something about it.

I told you what to do about it. Go to the AFL. Offer to move to Tassie. Make it conditional on exclusive access to Tasmanian talent. Develop that talent.

Save your club.

 

[Sphynx]

I told you what to do about it. Go to the AFL. Offer to move to Tassie. Make it conditional on exclusive access to Tasmanian talent. Develop that talent.

Save your club.

Yeah, awesome.

We need saving from what?

 

[SM]

Maybe you could start a thread, do the work yourself?
Where players are born is largely irrelevant, even on occasions where they were drafted from.

Sorry? I was responding to EJW who quoted the stats for Victorian teams to refute an earlier point, as if the percentage being 70% instead of 90% made a difference to the point when for all non-Vic clubs the % is significantly lower.

 

[BloodySwan]

Yeah, awesome.

We need saving from what?

From the scurge of the academies

 

[BloodySwan]

If the academies didn't exist, Essendon, North & Carlton would still be a basket case

 

[SM]

If the academies didn't exist, Essendon, North & Carlton would still be a basket case

Probably more so as we'd have drafted some of the top end talent they ended up with.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Yeah, awesome.

We need saving from what?

Extinction mate.

 

[HairyO]

When was the last time a player wanted to go home to NSW?

Buddy wanted to go home to NSW with Jacinta.

 

[Sphynx]

Extinction mate.

Oh right.

Last time I checked Sydney made an operating loss of $6m last year and are $1.5m in debt to the AFL.

Not poor old North.

 

[SM]

Oh right.

Last time I checked Sydney made an operating loss of $6m last year and are $1.5m in debt.

Not poor old North.

It's that damn Academy dragging us down. Curses!

 

[Tedeski]

"kill off three Melbourne clubs" which is bs and the AFL wouldn't do it.

Let me guess why!
Because of tradition?

 

[Sphynx]

Let me guess why!
Because of tradition?

No, because they can't?

 

[BloodySwan]

Probably more so as we'd have drafted some of the top end talent they ended up with.

Carlton have 11 players who were top 10 selections, Essendon and North have 9, Swans have 6. Not getting access to talent isn't the reason these clubs suck, similarly Swans getting access to too much isn't the reason for their recent success

 

[boncer34]

Probably more so as we'd have drafted some of the top end talent they ended up with.

And we'd have taken some of the players you got.... making it a nil all draw.