Analysis The go home factor, equalisation, draftees requesting trades
- Thread starter Superstar swan
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Nov 18, 2017
- 2,161
- 5,718
- AFL Club
- West Coast
In the space of 6 years Richmond have been able to bring in Dion Prestia (pick 9), tom lynch (pick 11), Tim Taranto (pick 2) and likely Jacob hopper (pick 7)
Carlton has the following players on its list it didn’t draft: Cerra (5), kennedy (13), plowman (3), Martin (mini-draft), marchbank (6), setterfield (5).
The reigning premier is staring down the barrel of having a pick 7 to utilise while bringing in a 20 year old pick 12 and 20 year old pick 17 and 24 year old pick 10.
Which SA/WA club has had the same opportunity to this level of afl-experienced young talent?
I feel like Non Victorian sides have been able to attract good talent too. Brisbane have brought in Lachie Neale, Charlie Cameron, Joe Daniher, Josh Dunkley, Jack Gunston, Luke Hodge, Grant Birchall all in the last few years (not mentioning other role players they didn't draft like Linc McCarthy, Nakia Cockatoo, Mitch Robinson, etc).
Just this year and last, Aliir Aliir, Jordan Dawson, Izak Rankine and JHF are among those going to SA and all 4 would be the in the top 5 most sought after young players available.
IN the case of Richmond and Geelong, the players you mentioned were mostly seeking success, rather than looking to 'go home'. Same with Brisbane going from losing players to everyone coming - it's because they are a contending team instead of bottom 4, not because of where they are located.
Carlton, admittedly, are not a success but Kennedy, Plowman, Marchbank and Setterfield were average players that garnered little interest outside of Silvagni, who originally selected them. They were basically pushed out the door as GWS didn't want them on their list anymore.
- Nov 18, 2017
- 2,161
- 5,718
- AFL Club
- West Coast
Henry and Bruhn are both ex-falcons kids so I’m not 100% buying the just chasing success point of view.
I don’t want to cherry pick and I do accept your point around brisbane being able to bring in talent, whilst not thinking bringing in 30+ year
olds overly relevant, my concern is moreso the SA/WA clubs as they don’t have the same academy accesses to fall back on.
If we look forward I think Rankine coming to Adelaide, JHF to port and Jackson to Fremantle is that start of things evening out with multiple top end talents coming back to those clubs in a short window of time.
I don’t think historically any of these four clubs have had the opportunity to add such highly regarded talent in the such close proximity, in particular from the expansion clubs, in the same way Essendon were able to add shiels/smith, Collingwood Adams/treloar and Richmond Prestia/lynch and now Taranto/Hopper all within two or three years (or one). Not all of these have worked out but it doesn’t change the fact they were highly regarded talent acquired at the time they were traded.
From my view the SA/WA teams haven’t had the same benefits from high-end prime talent leaving expansion clubs as the Victorian clubs have however this year will go a decent way to fixing that which is why any negative media around these movements is fairly laughable.
Ultimately I think the league will be much better off once GWS and Gold Coast make enough mistakes to the point their draft capital is diluted to that of any other club.
Players nominating their club after 1 year of a rookie contract doesn't feel right to me..... I would advocate to bring FA forward to year 6, but those first 5 years much less power for the draftee. What's the point of a high draft pick if they are walking on their terms before they can contribute. The system doesn't work and the AFL don't seem prepared to acknowledge this.
Fair enough - I appreciate your contributions.
FWIW (in case it wasn't clear), I'm not saying there isn't a trend - I just haven't seen the proper analysis that evidences this trend and given how quick people are to say "Vic Bias" about everything, I was keen to make sure it was actually true (as many other Vic Bias claims - such as AA selection, etc have been shown to be a myth).
My engagement around this has mostly been in relation to the idea that Sydney and Brisbane need the very significant advantages that come from academies because of the difficulty they have in attracting players and the amount of players they lose to the "go home" factor that supposedly advantages Victorian clubs significantly.
My research to date shows that not to be the case. Sydney and Brisbane have no trouble whatsoever attracting talent (in fact I would argue they trade in more high profile players than most clubs) and do not lose a disproportionate amount of players either (yes, they lose some but most clubs lose a similar amount or more).
Perhaps my argument is better placed in a different thread though. I certainly agree that crying foul now (when SA and WA talent are returning home) is a bit rich given how long these issues have been occurring. However, I do recall similar criticisms of players doing it when it has advantaged Victorian clubs and being used as the argument for the likes of Gold Coast receiving additional assistance.
I also believe (perhaps controversially?) Gold Coast is not disadvantaged because of their location but because they are poorly run and are poor performers. If they were top 4, I have no doubt they would be retaining players. Guys like Tom Lynch and Steven May didn't leave to "come home" but because they wanted to play in finals and for premierships. Players were lining up to go there when they started because people thought they would be a good side. Once Brisbane came good, everyone is staying and are happy to go there. I expect the same to be the case for Gold Coast.
Also, yes, Geelong are in a unique position to attract talent "home". They offer a point of difference in being regionally located and are able to foster a sense of community and belonging within their region long before players are even drafted. This doesn't apply to any other Victorian club though.
- Nov 18, 2017
- 2,161
- 5,718
- AFL Club
- West Coast
Yeah I definitely agree with you there's an emotive response that does inflates the impact, particularly when grouping multiple teams as the Victorian football conglomerate from a non-vic point of view and the 2022 proposed movements are a nice change of pace.
I agree with you on Lynch and May, Lynch took a pay cut going to Richmond, but I do think there's at least some Gold Coast location disadvantage. I think the childhood dream of alot of footballers playing weekly football on the big stage of the MCG in front of big crowds would hold some allure vs playing in a half filled stadium with a 27,500 capacity regularly. Perhaps if they were better run this would change but it's a big ask to think they could have gotten attendances to a point that would be competing with what Melbourne has to offer.
Judd deal was good for all involved. He more than did his duty with WC, we wanted him & paid u guys handsomely for it. His deal is actually the odd one out as both sides won from itCan't believe no one has mentioned Chris Judd, which was the biggest go home deal so far in the draft era and will take something extraordinary to top it. The Vic media couldn't line up to give a wristy quick enough to get the scoop on that one.
The system was fine a few hours ago when the Tim Taranto trade just got announced. but now it has a problem because two SA kids and one WA kid want to go home. Give me a ******* spell.
.
I'd have no drama if the AFL added 20 or 25% onto a player's contract if he is still at the same club he is drafted at after four years.
The system needs work but clubs also need to be smarter.
North “took a punt” knowing there was a big go home factor- they were offered a kings ransom & turned it down. Shit happens- don’t be so stupid next time, bad things happen when u “take a punt” & slip when u go to kick!
North “took a punt” knowing there was a big go home factor- they were offered a kings ransom & turned it down. Shit happens- don’t be so stupid next time, bad things happen when u “take a punt” & slip when u go to kick!
It's amazing how the media narrative changes when it's a non-victorian player wanting to return home vs a vic player wanting to get back to Melbourne.
The AFL media landscape is mostly full of one eyed c*nts
The AFL media landscape is mostly full of one eyed c*nts
In my opinion I believe that in the draft during the first round players should be able to nominate if they wish to stay in their home state or whether they are prepared to nominate into an open pool. Clubs in the first round can only take players from their home state or the open pool. Once you hit Round 2 it becomes open for all players to all clubs.
You still have the ability to trade picks so if one state has a dearth of players they can trade picks out.
I think it will prevent a lot of this go home issue for top end players. As for NSW & Qld they maybe adversely affected but maybe rules would be made about Academy picks.
You still have the ability to trade picks so if one state has a dearth of players they can trade picks out.
I think it will prevent a lot of this go home issue for top end players. As for NSW & Qld they maybe adversely affected but maybe rules would be made about Academy picks.
Any other wild ideas that will guarantee every flag goes to WA? Because that would be a disaster.
3 year deals for first round picks with performance bonus structure. Maybe even a trigger for a 4th year deal. That immediately cuts the opportunity to pay silly money for 20 year olds.
Tampering rules that stop managers and clubs committing to deals so far out from the end of the season. No more meeting with clubs and getting huge 800k a year offers in April.
And if necessary 1 franchise tag per club per year or every 2 years.
Open unrestricted free agency to 6 years post draft with drastically less compo.
The go home factor is real but it’s overwhelmingly money driving trades and a lot of crazy contracts given to 20-22 year olds.
Currently free agency gives crazy deals to 26 year olds too. All very silly because clubs should be aggressively targeting 24 year olds who are fully developed and will give 6 years of prime service.
Tampering rules that stop managers and clubs committing to deals so far out from the end of the season. No more meeting with clubs and getting huge 800k a year offers in April.
And if necessary 1 franchise tag per club per year or every 2 years.
Open unrestricted free agency to 6 years post draft with drastically less compo.
The go home factor is real but it’s overwhelmingly money driving trades and a lot of crazy contracts given to 20-22 year olds.
Currently free agency gives crazy deals to 26 year olds too. All very silly because clubs should be aggressively targeting 24 year olds who are fully developed and will give 6 years of prime service.
In the case of Henry, Collingwood low balled him with a contract offer that was rejected, they then don't play him in the last part of the season? At the same time they go and trade for McStay and are successful? They have offerred him a one year deal that was also unsatisfactory. He wants to go home and there is a family connection down at Geelong where it won't just be all about the size of the contract? He got picked at 17 in 2020, Cats have pick 18, not sure if they want to use that on Henry unless things fall into place elsewhere? I suspect this deal will depend on whether the Bowes trade sees him land at Geelong along with pick 7? Pies might get pick 18 yet, which would be fair enough? Bruhn wants to go to Geelong also, not sure how any of this happens either? Somehow these things get done and i'm sure they will.
Did you just say there is no Vic bias in All-Australian selection. I think my sides just split from laughing so hard.
Sigh...I'm not going over this all again (you can go back through my posting history if you wish) but if you go through every All Australian selection and the club they've been selected from, it reveals that playing for a Victorian side does not make you any more likely to be selected. In fact, if anything, the data shows a (slightly) greater likelihood of being selected if you play for a non-Victorian side. Given the greater success rate of Victorian sides during the AA era (1990-2022) that is actually remarkable.
and before you say that this doesn't mean anything, we are talking about 726 selections to date. if an inherent bias exists, you would see some sort of trend in any way by now. IN fact, it is a very big and statistically significant sample size and it is guaranteed a trend would emerge if "Vic Bias" was real.
Absolutely. Player choice dilutes the compensation a club can extract for an asset by shopping them to an open market and taking the top bid. I really don't think it's a massive deal breaker given that AFL careers are extremely limited that you can be traded without your permission for the first 5 years. If someone doesn't want to move they can sit out their contract and that'll give a state league player who really wants it a go.
The degree of entitlement with some of these players is extreme. People move for work and opportunity all the time and while it might not be your home town, support is only ever a flight away. Some kids however never want to leave their home towns while still demanding to be paid top dollar and hold underperforming clubs to ransom.
It's holding the sport in back, because every time you have a JHF type situation it fundamentally pushes back a side like North being competitive by a factor of years and harms the competition as a product leading to less money in TV/Sponsorship etc. We all sit here knowing that North are at least half a decade away and that could very well threaten their existence. The flow on effects are that whoever gets them twice in the fixture is better placed than most to chalk up two wins in bad games where less people will go to the game etc.
For mine the players get a significant chunk of increases in the CBA and clubs are made to pay 92%+ of the salary cap, which perversely means North pay everyone within 8% of what Geelong does and their list is significantly less than 8% of the value of Geelong's, so now my view is the players need to take a hit for the game to be in a better spot.
Why should a club not seek the best deal for them?
Would you be happy to get a packet of chips for someone you put hundreds of thousands of dollars into?
We did. We got a mid-first round pick and a late first-round pick for the GOAT.
What did we get out of him, though? Just two flags and a Brownlow.
I'd be interested in your methodology for this conclusion you make.
Here are a couple stats (and by the way I am a Sports Data Journalist and I have previously worked for the ABS)
In the last 10 years these are the average number of spots in the team you can expect by position you finish at the end of the minor round
| Ave Vic Spots | Ave Non-Vic Spots | |
| 1st | 4.6 | 3.3 |
| 2nd | 3.0 | 2.5 |
| 3rd | 1.9 | 1.5 |
| 4th | 2.0 | 2.0 |
| 5th | 2.7 | 2.5 |
| 6th | 1.3 | 1.2 |
| 7th | 2.2 | 1.5 |
| 8th | 0.9 | 3.0 (outlier only 1 piece of data) |
So from that I think you can see you are much more likely to get a spot in the AA team if you are from a Victorian team and finish toward the top of the ladder.
Your myth has been busted. VIC BIAS is alive and well.
shintemaster
Brownlow Medallist
Minimums and match payments should go up.
Free agency entitlement should be easier to achieve.
The return from this should be clubs having more control over trading and extension options prior to the earlier FA qualification.
100% agree. The AFL can't have it both ways, clubs need more control over player movement and trades in the first few years otherwise early draft picks become irrelevant. Players dictating a move and nominating a club shouldn't happen until free agency.
No, ultimately they still need to agree. This is key because it prevents clubs receiving maximum value for departing non FAs. They should've tightened all this up when FA was introduced imo.
Similar threads
