Opinion Sydney Swans Academy and Rebuild
- Thread starter Number37
- Start date
- Tagged users None
SM
Bigfooty Legend
Where have I done so before?
Correct. Sydney posters have an inability to grasp this simple concept, that the problem isn't actually isolated to them, despite them getting their back up.
Fremantle did it the year before with Young/Serong/Henry.
GWS did it with Green and Ash in the same year.
NGA has since been fixed, so the only ones now able to rort the system in this manner are Northern Academies and F/S.
- Oct 2, 2016
- 12,630
- 26,354
- AFL Club
- Sydney
Wow you really don't get it.....
SM
Bigfooty Legend
And for a gajilion times Swans fans have agreed that the bidding process should be looked into?
Vics seem to be flailing wildly between complaining about the double dipping, to the Academy existing at all because as soon as Swans fans appear reasonable, they find some other excuse to be outraged.
I still note that Taylor hasn't come back to me after she thought she'd caught me out by suggesting Sydney and GWS should combine academies, which I think is a great idea to reduce costs and combine resources between the two clubs. I suspect Victorians might look on that as collusion though.
SM
Bigfooty Legend
Well she's the one who suggested it as a gotcha. Don't think it quite worked out as much as she hoped when she thought it through.
Exactly what am I not getting? This perceived notion that we can pay Danger less because we have some sort of 'Geelong utopia' that exists, that acts as a tool to supplement what others would have to pay?
Clubs always have the choice whether they pay a high salary, or whether they pay up in draft picks. Some will go with the former, some will go with the latter. You brought up Danger and what we paid in draft picks, not me. You did this when you knew full well that all you gave up was salary to get Buddy across.
At any point, did you go the other route of offering all of your draft collateral, so that you wouldn't compromise your salary cap down the road? No. You chose to structure a 10 Million dollar contract over 9 years, because your club didn't want Hawthorn being able to match your offer.
You didn't offer them your 1st and 2nd and a fringe player, lol - you gave them nothing. You could have easily said 'we're not paying that, but Buddy has still chosen us as his club so we'll act in good faith and trade with you in order to have his contract be shorter/salary be split differently.'
In any case, I didn't bring up Danger - you did. I simply pointed out your hypocrisy with Franklin, and now it's all 'you don't get it', as if Sydney is just this impossible to place to get players to come to - when your retention rate is very high and you always attract players too (see Joe Daniher in 2019).
SM
Bigfooty Legend
Got Sphinx to thank for that I reckon.
- Jul 11, 2019
- 7,076
- 8,411
- AFL Club
- Richmond
No. These teams would be weaker and small market teams like North, St Kilda and possibly Melbourne which have limited supporter bases and there already existing supporters would most likely be estranged to the club. Also of note is that North and St Kilda are rolling in debt and its not like that's going to be solved instantly, the AFL won't just hand out 20 million to each team to pay off debt and help them set up. So it's not tradition but I see where your coming from.
This isn't the thread to discuss this so lets leave it.
I don't think any reasonable Swans fan would argue that getting Campbell on top of McDonald for the cost of just one of them effectively isn't a leg up. I can understand opposition fans feeling that's not 'fair'. As many have stated, the current points/bidding etc system the AFL has implemented needs to be changed. It's an overly engineered, needlessly complex system that, as far as I can tell, is unlike anything else in the professional sporting world. Typical AFL then I suppose. That's what really needs to change - if you're going to have bids and matching and all that nonsense, clubs like Sydney or whoever have to give up more to retain those academy players.
It's a bit laughable to me though the extent of the reaction, and the many claims of this 'massive advantage' that the Swans are benefiting from. Since 2010 when the academy was started, we have Heeney (pick 18), Mills (3), Blakey (10) and Campbell (5) who are first round academy picks. That's 4 players. Obviously too early for Campbell, but none have made an AA team, none have won our B&F, no high Brownlow finishes. I don't think even Swans fans would say they are truly stars of the comp or anything close. Mills and Heeney are (in my opinion) terrific players at their best, but I'm, not sure they're match winners, especially Mills. Blakey honestly has been a bust so far so IMO he's pretty irrelevant to this discussion. Would we even be talking about this if the Swans didn't start 3-0. Of course not.
For the last couple of years, we Swans fans have been talking ourselves into guys like Dawson, Rowbottom or McCartin being stars, when the reality was our young talent pool was far below other clubs. Now we beat Richmond and our endless (and unfair) talent pipeline is a threat to the fabric of the competition. Things are looking a bit better right now because Campbell, McDonald and Gulden are more AFL-ready than we expected, and because guys like Wicks and Warner have taken a next step that not many Swans fans would have predicted. We've benefited from being able to blood them early last year when we were terrible.
The reality is that we're not getting a free first rounder every year or even every other year really. Heeney and Mills were back to back, but we didn't have any other first rounders in those years. Blakey was 3 years later.
Not really relevant to the academy issue, but I would note that since we picked McVeigh in 2002, we have actually had a real dearth of high end draft talent come through the ranks - pretty much nothing for quite a while out of the first round if you look at our history - anyone remember Daniel O'Keefe, Patrick Veszpremi and Lewis Johnston? A lot of the sustained success the club has had was due to hitting on later (or rookie) picks and some good list management generally.
Overall, the impact of the academy has actually been fairly minimal in terms of on-field to this point. I understand that, given it was only set up in 2010, you might not start to truly see the benefits until now and a lot of this hand wringing is over some fear that suddenly we will have (high) first rounders all over the place being picked up for peanuts. If that happens in the future (it won't because the AFL won't allow it), and we have a top 5 pick seemingly every year while also being a top 4 team, then there's an issue, but that's not where we are at the moment. IMO the reaction to this is completely disproportionate to the actual impact in terms of players coming through and really shifting competitive balance.
It's a bit laughable to me though the extent of the reaction, and the many claims of this 'massive advantage' that the Swans are benefiting from. Since 2010 when the academy was started, we have Heeney (pick 18), Mills (3), Blakey (10) and Campbell (5) who are first round academy picks. That's 4 players. Obviously too early for Campbell, but none have made an AA team, none have won our B&F, no high Brownlow finishes. I don't think even Swans fans would say they are truly stars of the comp or anything close. Mills and Heeney are (in my opinion) terrific players at their best, but I'm, not sure they're match winners, especially Mills. Blakey honestly has been a bust so far so IMO he's pretty irrelevant to this discussion. Would we even be talking about this if the Swans didn't start 3-0. Of course not.
For the last couple of years, we Swans fans have been talking ourselves into guys like Dawson, Rowbottom or McCartin being stars, when the reality was our young talent pool was far below other clubs. Now we beat Richmond and our endless (and unfair) talent pipeline is a threat to the fabric of the competition. Things are looking a bit better right now because Campbell, McDonald and Gulden are more AFL-ready than we expected, and because guys like Wicks and Warner have taken a next step that not many Swans fans would have predicted. We've benefited from being able to blood them early last year when we were terrible.
The reality is that we're not getting a free first rounder every year or even every other year really. Heeney and Mills were back to back, but we didn't have any other first rounders in those years. Blakey was 3 years later.
Not really relevant to the academy issue, but I would note that since we picked McVeigh in 2002, we have actually had a real dearth of high end draft talent come through the ranks - pretty much nothing for quite a while out of the first round if you look at our history - anyone remember Daniel O'Keefe, Patrick Veszpremi and Lewis Johnston? A lot of the sustained success the club has had was due to hitting on later (or rookie) picks and some good list management generally.
Overall, the impact of the academy has actually been fairly minimal in terms of on-field to this point. I understand that, given it was only set up in 2010, you might not start to truly see the benefits until now and a lot of this hand wringing is over some fear that suddenly we will have (high) first rounders all over the place being picked up for peanuts. If that happens in the future (it won't because the AFL won't allow it), and we have a top 5 pick seemingly every year while also being a top 4 team, then there's an issue, but that's not where we are at the moment. IMO the reaction to this is completely disproportionate to the actual impact in terms of players coming through and really shifting competitive balance.
Last edited:
- Banned
- #1,314
I didn’t say they did. I said that at the very top end, the lifestyle offered by Sydney, which I characterised as “Bondi” would be attractive. The point was there was a far more broad lifestyle attraction offered by Geelong.
By the way, there really is nowhere proximal to the SCG where players could live at cheap cost.
- Oct 2, 2016
- 12,630
- 26,354
- AFL Club
- Sydney
Being able to target a player like Danger and offer him a smaller salary is the advantage.
Swans can't go after NSW talent every year and do the same. Feels like every second year Geelong target a former Geelong Falcon.
That's an advantage Swans don't have. We can't target local talent like Vic clubs do. Instead we grab players like Jones, get them AFL level then lose them a couple years later.
Or we get players like Papley and need to lock them into massive contracts to keep them here. Geelong doesn't need to do this.
Swans must offer larger contracts to be competitive - this is why the COLA was introduced in the first place. Offering budget contracts to future Brownlow medalists isn't a luxury we can afford.
Last I checked, Parker, JPK, Rampe, Mills, Heeney and Lloyd weren't all on million dollar contracts.
This conversation is getting very 'woe is me' though, and is detracting from the discussion at hand.
Let's leave it there, as bringing Danger into this conversation hasn't really added anything to the convo - and is just going off on a different tangent.
Very reasoned and well thought out assessment - kudos.
The McDonald/Campbell part, and limiting the first round access for all academy, F/S and NGA's is really all I care about tbh - as I've reiterated throughout this thread. Anything else is just piling on IMO
SM
Bigfooty Legend
Fantastic post.
- Banned
- #1,319
Yeah but I don’t get that you keep dodging the fact you were able to get Danger on the cheap. Why is it only our advantage that’s a problem?
SM
Bigfooty Legend
Natural advantages are OK but any equalisation measures are unfair I guess.
- Oct 2, 2014
- 1,335
- 2,731
- AFL Club
- Richmond
I just find it nauseating when the media gushes about their rebuild or the fact they rarely miss finals.
Pretty hard to stay shit when you get a top end priority pick every couple of years.
Otherwise I can understand the AFL's desire to grow the game in NSW.
Pretty hard to stay shit when you get a top end priority pick every couple of years.
Otherwise I can understand the AFL's desire to grow the game in NSW.
I don't understand why WA and SA clubs don't have priority access to their academy within the top 30, but Sydney for reasons, do.
Unfair! No one is suggesting getting rid of the academies because they are producing players that may have not elected to play AFL. Just that the clubs should have rules aligned with the rest of the competitions NGA academies. Sydney fans are defending it because they know it currently is a leg up.
Unfair! No one is suggesting getting rid of the academies because they are producing players that may have not elected to play AFL. Just that the clubs should have rules aligned with the rest of the competitions NGA academies. Sydney fans are defending it because they know it currently is a leg up.
Let's just keep winning!
Then this thread will be fun reading going forward week by week.
I think we have an advantage in player development.
We shouldn't be allowed to have that. How on earth were we able to get Jordan Dawson at pick 57 & turn him into a "weapon"?
Same with Sam Wicks. Cat B rookie to small forward in a top two team.
How are we allowed to have such development in our players when well credentialled players like Jack Ziebell are still floundering?
Then this thread will be fun reading going forward week by week.
I think we have an advantage in player development.
We shouldn't be allowed to have that. How on earth were we able to get Jordan Dawson at pick 57 & turn him into a "weapon"?
Same with Sam Wicks. Cat B rookie to small forward in a top two team.
How are we allowed to have such development in our players when well credentialled players like Jack Ziebell are still floundering?
- Oct 2, 2014
- 1,335
- 2,731
- AFL Club
- Richmond
You can cherry pick late draft steals at any club. Like how did North get Todd Goldstein at Pick 37? What a powerhouse!
The regular priority pick Academy talent in addition to Jordan Dawson types is where the Swans have the edge over the rest.
Similar threads
