What They're Saying - The Bulldogs Media Thread - Part 3

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
I meant in terms of academies, but yes that is true.

I like the way we do father son for the sentiment, but I get the argument against.
I like to think in some small way the father son rule rewards teams that keep players loyal. More players you have reaching 100 games at your club, more chance one of them will have a kid that ends up eligible to play for you.
 
I like to think in some small way the father son rule rewards teams that keep players loyal. More players you have reaching 100 games at your club, more chance one of them will have a kid that ends up eligible to play for you.
That's probably why GWS desperately need their generous academy zone. Their high-turnover list management strategy doesn't result in many 100 gamers.
 
I may be against the grain here but I think the NGA and Father Son programs are fine and should be left as they are.

I have hated the AFL establishment (especially since 1989) but AFL is trying to strike a balance between:

- capturing talent in non-AFL heartlands (I am in Sydney and they have really whacked rugby union - kids want to play AFL)

- attack migrant:immigrant community talent that would not traditionally choose AFL

- then making sure this didn’t disadvantage traditional teams,

- not create a situation where wealthy clubs will own junior talent pathways (see Soccer) and cement themselves at the top of the ladder

- get AFL clubs to invest both time, effort and just as importantly hope to young kids - particularly indigenous kids but not make it so wide that some clubs can’t afford to benefit as much as others (like full zones)

- for indigenous kids in particular- those that want to play footy are commonly from disadvantage backgrounds - having something as prestigious as an AFL club investing in you - showing you a path helps enormously for all kids - even if they don’t play AFL the support, skills and team environment will pay dividends

- what SHOULD happen is - stars emerge out of this system that make every other club jealous and treat the pathway seriously

- these are just kids who may look brilliant but not turn out to be the stars the clubs want it fear - so this should not be about JUH or Heaney but about a balanced way of developing young talent

So hate your guts AFL but will give you this one.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

I may be against the grain here but I think the NGA and Father Son programs are fine and should be left as they are.

I have hated the AFL establishment (especially since 1989) but AFL is trying to strike a balance between:

- capturing talent in non-AFL heartlands (I am in Sydney and they have really whacked rugby union - kids want to play AFL)

- attack migrant:immigrant community talent that would not traditionally choose AFL

- then making sure this didn’t disadvantage traditional teams,

- not create a situation where wealthy clubs will own junior talent pathways (see Soccer) and cement themselves at the top of the ladder

- get AFL clubs to invest both time, effort and just as importantly hope to young kids - particularly indigenous kids but not make it so wide that some clubs can’t afford to benefit as much as others (like full zones)

- for indigenous kids in particular- those that want to play footy are commonly from disadvantage backgrounds - having something as prestigious as an AFL club investing in you - showing you a path helps enormously for all kids - even if they don’t play AFL the support, skills and team environment will pay dividends

- what SHOULD happen is - stars emerge out of this system that make every other club jealous and treat the pathway seriously

- these are just kids who may look brilliant but not turn out to be the stars the clubs want it fear - so this should not be about JUH or Heaney but about a balanced way of developing young talent

So hate your guts AFL but will give you this one.
You can do all that and still have them not linked to a team in the draft.
 
You can do all that and still have them not linked to a team in the draft.
It's worth listening to Bevo's presser comments (from 6:50 to the finish) about the need for academies tied to clubs.
 
Classic Bevo smack down. Went straight into editorial mode instead of waiting for media to ask. They seemed reluctant and he said stuff that I’m telling you how p&@#ed off we are that article happened. Jay Z and the anonymous recruiters may need to hire Damo’s bodyguards this year.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
It's worth listening to Bevo's presser comments (from 6:50 to the finish) about the need for academies tied to clubs.
I think Bevs strongest point is that it's no different to other situations like Mills etc. Clubs can still be involved and there be other incentives. Maybe points concessions or something similar. The AFL media just need to realise it is not from one extreme to the other.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

There is an article in herald sun about Gary Dempsey and his farming.

At the end of the Article he says something that sums up Aaron Naughton the best way possible better than any media person has put it and speaks volumes

“I’m too busy with the cattle” referrring to watching AFL these days.
“But if I know that young Aaron Naughton is playing, I will turn the TV on because he will win a few matches for the Bulldogs”

Enough said I won’t add or detract any thing.
 
The crux of the matter is that the NGA system as is the way of the AFL is a typically ill conceived and poorly implemented program that is prone to manipulation.

That a potential number 1 draft pick is being used as an exemplar of this to shine a light on the matter shouldn't really come as a surprise to anybody.

Im staggered that it has taken as long as it has to finally come to a head.
Wait till the draft time to see the heads explode. Even more so in 5 years time
 
We chose to keep Hrovat and Honeychurch instead of delisting and licking him up. He would have developed more with us.

yep bad decision.
only explanation , they drafted them and put work into them and wanted to give them every chance.
i can sort of understand that , but blind Freddy could see neither had the potential of McPherson.
i whined like a EH diff at the time.
 
yep bad decision.
only explanation , they drafted them and put work into them and wanted to give them every chance.
i can sort of understand that , but blind Freddy could see neither had the potential of McPherson.
i whined like a EH diff at the time.
So did I. They won't make the same mistake as his younger brother who I've been told is going to be better.
 
yep bad decision.
only explanation , they drafted them and put work into them and wanted to give them every chance.
i can sort of understand that , but blind Freddy could see neither had the potential of McPherson.
i whined like a EH diff at the time.

Darcy wasn’t much chop in his U18 year. At the time it wasn’t a tough decision to not draft him. He was pick 21 in the rookie draft for a reason.
 
Darcy wasn’t much chop in his U18 year. At the time it wasn’t a tough decision to not draft him. He was pick 21 in the rookie draft for a reason.

dont agree looked ok to my eye.
2 short people retained now playing suburban footy , were never going to make it.
thats the context of my argument at the time.
no ones wanting to hang people over it.
 
dont agree looked ok to my eye.
2 short people retained now playing suburban footy , were never going to make it.
thats the context of my argument at the time.
no ones wanting to hang people over it.

Honey wasn’t much chop either but Hrovat was a better prospect than Darcy at the time.
Unfortunately, since being drafted, ones footy ability has grown hugely while the other two have dropped off the face of the earth.
One things for sure though, Darcy was a bees dick off playing local footy the year after he was picked up by GC, and for good reason.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top