Message to Mr. Roos, Barham & the hierarchy.

[originalswan]

But, like a man famously asked over a century ago: What is to be done? What do we actually learn from these examples?

West Coast: They were basically just as awful in 2000 as in 2001. In 2000, their first pick was Andrew McDougall. A worse than usual #5 pick in the same way that Judd is a better than usual #3 pick. The fact that someone won the lottery (Weagles getting Judd) doesn't recommend buying lots of lottery tickets as a good way to get rich. In any event, a man called Ben Cousins departing in 2007 (plus a bunch of other players falling apart), showed that Judd (who played 19 games for an increasingly less-intimidating Weagles that year) was not the sole dividing line between flag and failure.

Port Adelaide: Never received any of the ultra-high draft picks that are associated with proponents of the 'bottoming out' theory. Their highest draft pick before they were minor premiers was #5 used on Michael Stevens-- scarcely a star. The fact that they were in the bottom 8 (while still competitive) while starting to build a minor-premiership winning and ultimately premiership winning list, is just how it was for a new entrant in the comp. There's no evidence of any causative relationship between one and the other.

Brisbane: The opposite of the bottoming out theory, albeit tracing their premiership history is complicated by the Fitzroy culling/'merger'. The Bad News Bears were well and truly in a position to take a stab at a flag by the time of the 'merger'. 1998 was the worst underperformance by a quality list in the AFL era. The core of their premiership winning group was there in 1998. And their #1 draft pick from being crap that year produced Des Headland. Yes, a 2-time premiership player, but scarcely the kind of guy you build a premiership-winning club around.

So, back to: What is to be done?

Well, on this issue people are badly prone to confuse events and intentions. Which is like confusing history with the future. Port Adelaide missed the 8 for a few years after kick-off because they weren't yet quite at the mark. Brisbane had a horror year under a very ordinary coach in 1998. The Weagles were poor, and also suffered coaching-wise, in 2000 and 2001. While I think it's nonsense to draw a strong causative link between these unsuccessful years and their later flags, it's especially
nonsense to say that they intended to be bad in these years because they believed that being bad would improve their chance of winning flags later.

So no, we do not want to deliberately plummet down to the bottom, in the dream that this strategy is the best way to win our next flag.

And how about Hawthorn? 6 of their 22 players on the ground today were top 10 draft picks (inc Croad who left and came back). Two of those 6 were effectively gained through trade (those geniuses Freo deciding to give away pick #1 in 2001 for Croad, a year the Hawks finished 6th; and the Hawks' #7 pick in 2004 used on Jordan Lewis being derived from the trade where they gave away Nathan Thompson), and one of them (2004) was under draft priority rules that no longer exist. Under current rules and excluding trades, there are 3 top 10 players.

Not a remarkable number for any club across the AFL. In fact, less than many. So leaving aside trading good players for high draft picks (which any side, up the top or down the bottom, can do), or dreaming of creating a time machine to an era of more generous priority picks, the Hawks scarcely deliver the message 'be really, really s*** for 2 years and then 3 or 4 years later you'll win a flag'. If they did, Melbourne would be montys for the premiership in 2011-12. I'm not putting my money on them.

1. Port Adealide: It is well known that Port "hoarded" players and specifically told up and coming star players not to nominate for the draft just prior to their entry into the AFL eg. Burgoynes - They always had an advantage over a non football state such as NSW.

2. Hawthorn: Regardless of how you try to use the facts, that is exactly what they are - The hawks had 9 players that were picks inside the top 16, whether they obtained them by trading or directly as a result of relative failure is irrelevant in this argument.

We are simply saying that the Swans by either directly drafting or simply trading for a better draft pick must start planning for the future rather than simply being fixated on the present.

Smart planning is what is required and remember the whole reason for the draft is so that one or two teams don't dominate as the Hawks, Essendon and Carlton did in the 1980s.

[melbloods78]

no way is "bottoming" out a formula for sucess. richmond had the same chance hawthorn did. play as a team = winning formula, be ruled by individuals = lose consistantly

[satchmopugdog]

no way is "bottoming" out a formula for sucess. richmond had the same chance hawthorn did. play as a team = winning formula, be ruled by individuals = lose consistantly

Add in a coach with a team attitude as well.

[Industrial Fan]

WC finished in the bottom four and picked up Judd. They were out of the eight for two years. Port were out of the eight for three of their first four years before being good enough to become a genuine challenger. My point is that virtually all teams spend some time out of the eight, often in the bottom four, while rebuilding.

At what point did we bottom out prior to winning in 05?

[Robbo]

Worked wonderfully well for StKilda.

They've drafted poorly.

[ScottH]

They've drafted poorly.

Got some of the best AFL talent in their team, and have been there abouts for the last few years or so, but haven't had the X factor to get them to a GF and win one.

[NMWBloods]

At what point did we bottom out prior to winning in 05?

In 2000 and 2002 we finished 10th and 11th. The team Eade had in 2002 had only 7 players from the '96 GF. The team Roos had in '05 had 14 players from the 2002 team.

[desredandwhite]

I would never support the concept of "we must bottom out so we can rebuild". The team that runs out on the field MUST do their best to win every week, and indeed, must be selected for that purpose, for the most part.

Some others have made the point that finishing low on the ladder CAN happen as a result of major rebuilding, but I think one does not necessarily have anything to do with the other.

If you do a major clearout, you are basically saying that pretty well the whole team is of no more value. So what would you do? Trade away any player left of value so that you can take a punt in the draft? That's fraught. I'm not sure what with, but it's definitely fraught.

What we should be doing is trimming out some of the deadwood, keeping the good players and really testing out some of our depth. I reckon there would be enough quality left to keep us in the hunt for finals for a few years yet. Sure, we MIGHT drop a couple of rungs, but if we finish in the bottom four next year, I think something horribly wrong has happened. The worst possible thing that could happen would be to keep good players AND somehow contrive to finish low enough to score good picks. Would leave a really bad taste in my mouth if there was even the slightest suggestion of tanking.

And if you finish last? Okay, you get pick # 1. And then you might get pick # 17. Hold the phones fellas, reserve the space in the trophy cabinet.

[Big Al]

They've drafted poorly.

2000
Nick Riewoldt
Justin Koschitzke

2001
Luke Ball
Xavier Clarke
Nick Dal Santo

2002
Brendan Goddard

Seems alright to me...

[Robbo]

Goddard is a dud. Xavier Clarke isn't in their best 22. Ko@@@@zke plays one good game out of 5.

[Lohengrin]

Goddard is a dud.

Yeah right!

[Robbo]

For a number 1 pick he is very very ordinary. He isn't in the top 10 from the 2002 draft, therefore he was a bad draft choice.

[Lohengrin]

For a number 1 pick he is very very ordinary. He isn't in the top 10 from the 2002 draft, therefore he was a bad draft choice.

Who is better? Wells? McVeigh? Either Brennan? Laycock?
He's not as good as most other number one picks, but he's neither a dud nor is he "very very ordinary".

[573v30]

2000
Nick Riewoldt
Justin Koschitzke

2001
Luke Ball
Leigh Montagna
Nick Dal Santo

2002
Brendan Goddard

2003
Sam Fisher

Seems alright to me...

Edited for accuracy...

I wouldn't call that poor drafting, although some say that Dal Santo is a front-runner.

[Triple B]

Goddard is a dud.

You're joking Robbo. If you think that u truly have NFI.

Goddard is a star. He had an outstanding season this year coming off a reco and will probably get better with this season under his belt.