Josh Dunkley

[Ludwig]

He doesn't have to play permanently as a midfielder. He could be a HBF or HFF with a bit of time in the midfield. People keep saying he will be behind Hewitt. What evidence is there of this? Hewitt was drafted late in the draft and hasn't troubled the selectors in two years. Dunkley will probably go top 20. Plus our depth is very thin. I would see him probably starting in our best 25 or 26.

It's really hard to judge Dunkley because he started the year as a probable top 10 pick, but dropped down the ratings due to injury and indifferent performances when he did play. But I wouldn't be surprised if he turned out to be a very good footballer.

Hewett was an underager in a what is turning out to be a very strong draft (2013). If he was a few days older he would have slipped into last year's draft and I think would have likely been a top 10 pick. His skills on both sides of his body are exceptional for someone his age. He made the NEAFL all star team at age 19, which is not bad either. I think he was not far from selection, but just when there were opportunities he got concussed in a game and missed a week.

Whether we are talking Mills, Dunkley or Hewett, at this stage of their careers you can only go by what they've shown so far. It may only be due to injury, but so far Dunkley has shown the least of the three. But Dunkley seems to be bright and a good leader, both valuable qualities and would love him to join the Swans. But it just may be that he can kick start his career a lot faster somewhere else.

[Auntie.Gerald]

Hewett agree ludwig except he will struggle to rotate thru the forward just now compared to his immediate competition
this rotation of roles is still very important especially with the reduced subs etc

[Ludwig]

Hewett agree ludwig except he will struggle to rotate thru the forward just now compared to his immediate competition
this rotation of roles is still very important especially with the reduced subs etc

Usually the best midfielders at lower levels play on ball, but when they make it to senior level they are given other assignments, either tagging or running down a wing. Lloyd and Robinson were both inside midfielders in the NEAFL, but outside players at senior level. Even the speedy Cunningham played a lot on the inside before solidifying his spot as an outside player at senior level. The same I suspect will hold true for Hewett. We know he has good skills and although not fast, is an evasive runner and he's a good shot at goal as well. I haven't heard anything negative about his aerobic capacity, so can't comment. It's a big step up to senior level and only time will tell how quickly he adjusts.

[Snork]

I am confused that there is so much negativity about young Dunks on this thread. To be honest, I have confidence in the club to do the right thing by both JD and the Swans. I can't see any reason why, other than that a commitment has already been made by JD to us, otherwise we have totally unhinged one draft year with the middling picks we have traded in and given our slim pickings in the past couple of drafts this makes absolutely no sense unless both him and Mills are coming to the Swans. You don't pass up a potentially top 10 talent regardless.

[Velour&Ruffles]

He didn't sound too keen, especially when he used the word opportunities. In reality, he would have a hard time cracking into our midfield. If you compare him to Mills and Hewett, who also have yet to play senior footy, you would have to put him last of the 3. It doesn't mean he won't turn into a good football player, but it may be more attractive to teams like Carlton and Essendon, where he would almost certainly get opportunities next year.

We don't have a midfielder that looks like retiring in the next 3 years, so I wouldn't blame him if he didn't nominate us. I think we should have at least a pick in the low 40s and might find mature age KPDs like Mitch Brown or Michael Hartley available at that time. There are others as well. We really don't need another inside midfielder. As much as I would like to see son of Dunks play for the Swans, perhaps the timing is not right.

This for me too. I loved Dunks Snr more than perhaps any other Swans player (really, more than Teaser, Kelly, Plugger, Tadghrdgrdrh and others), so I want his son to succeed and I'd love it to be with us. But based on all the reports of his skillset, I'm not sure how he can possibly get a spot in our likely best midfield in the next 4-6 years ('tho' I freely admit I haven't seen him meownself). Perhaps if the reports said he was an incredibly brilliant defensive mark who, despite being a crap kick, could blanket the best and most athletic forwards - from Wayne Carey to Matthew Richardson - then I'd be more interested. But he reads like a poor man's Josh Kennedy. Still, I'd love it if he came to us because I want him to be a gun and his father was all heart and hands and those are two very useful things in footy. But if he has to go elsewhere for opportunities then I'll wish him well because it will mean we are very well off for ticker, which is the greatest commodity of all.

[707]

Not sure if this has been posted but Inside Footballs Phantom Draft has Dunkley going at pick 35, that's almost give away territory.

If he nominates as F/S, can't see how we won't take him. Thinking here how Hawthorn gave away JPK because they had too many inside mids. Take him and sweat the small things later.

[Primmy]

For what its worth (nothing) I remember going to a night training/fan thingy in 1997? and watching the players and their kids interact. Young Dunks went toddling at newly acquired pace over to Cressa and he was swung up high by a delighted man, and then they went looking for dad. It was a dark and rainy night........ but of all things that is a memory that has stuck.

[The Big Cat]

Just reading Emma Quale's book and how Heeney was informed he would be taken by the Swans but was told by the club to say nothing to anybody. Given that everyone knew the Swans would use pick 18 to get him this seems strange. Maybe the same advice has been given to Dunkley.

[bloodspirit]

Maybe it's a bit too dodgy to be the Swans' style but I couldn't help wondering when we basically gave Bird to Essendon for nothing (instead of pick 25 as was being reported the day before) whether there was an unwritten part of the deal that they wouldn't bid on Mills at 4 or 5. Is this just crazy thinking? Or might clubs do something like that? Obviously some clubs are prepared to bend the rules some of the time because sometimes they have been caught - hello Adelaide etc. And surely something like this would be less risk of being caught. Just a bit of trust and a handshake. It costs Essendon nothing because whoever bids on Mills won't get him anyway, and it sees us effectively gain more points than whatever pick 25 would have cost Essendon.

Also, if this didn't happen - do people think we should have attempted something like this??

Here's some related news from today. I think if the Swans were aware that the AFL has specifically warned against colluding, it is much less likely to have happened. And it makes me much less tolerant of the notion also. Apart from principles, just from a pragmatic point of view it becomes too risky.

"The AFL's head of competition integrity Brett Clothier, also one of the leading forces behind the new points-based bidding system, told AFL.com.au's Road to the Draft podcast the League did not believe clubs would do deals that encouraged no early bids.

"Obviously we have a real problem with collusion and if any clubs were colluding not to bid on players, we would come down terribly, terribly hard on that. The question is whether you can prove that obviously," Clothier said."

Of course the issue of proof is critical to this issue. That said, and despite previous scandals I think the clubs are mostly pretty professional and likely to be trying to abide by the rules.

Unfortunately there is less protection for us against specious bids. While there could be the risk of a club with priority on a player not matching a bid,in the case of this draft we have absolutely no room to move. There is no way we could feasibly not match any bid on Mills even if it were way "overs".

[ernie koala]

As usual, it's all one way traffic with the AFL.

No mention of the issue of a club bidding on a player they don't want, just to improve their draft position in later rounds.

[Ludwig]

The AFL website article states: Many recruiters rate midfielders Mills, Hopper and Kennedy inside the first five or six players in this year's draft pool, but a number of clubs fear bids may not be placed on the highly rated players until deeper into the draft. (Read: Collingwood and Hawthorn.)

I was really disappointed how skewed the discussion was, without recognition of the cost of running the academies and how much the go home factor has negatively impacted some clubs.

There should likewise be a strong statement from the AFL about possible loss of future draft picks for any vexatious bids. As far as collusion goes, would it look suspicious if Melbourne bid pick 3 for Mills instead of Hopper when they did a favourable deal with GWS to get that pick. So an anti-collusion draft might look like:

Pick 3 to GWS for Hopper.
Pick 4 to Melbourne for (say) Parish.
Pick 5 or 6 bid by Essendon for Mills.

I've got no problem with Mills going at pick 3 as we have the points to cover with ease and is unlikely to have much affect on the remainder of our picks. At least picks 1 and 2 are looking as a lock for Weitering and Schache.

The Road to the Draft broadcast team is conveniently staffed by Collingwood and Hawthorn supporters. They keep pushing Mills at pick 3, when he's barely played this year and Hopper has had a stellar season and should probably be rated higher all things considered.

[stevoswan]

As usual, it's all one way traffic with the AFL.

No mention of the issue of a club bidding on a player they don't want, just to improve their draft position in later rounds.

Had the exact same thought after I read this article this morning, mumbled to myself, "so vexatious bids on academy stars are no problem then........"

[lwjoyner]

I will make the same comments as I did under thread Draft. Again it appears there are some clubs out to get the northern clubs.

[Ajn]

[QUOTE=bloodspirit;687224]Here's some related news from today. I think if the Swans were aware that the AFL has specifically warned against colluding, it is much less likely to have happened. And it makes me much less tolerant of the notion also. Apart from principles, just from a pragmatic point of view it becomes too risky.

"The AFL's head of competition integrity Brett Clothier, also one of the leading forces behind the new points-based bidding system, told AFL.com.au's Road to the Draft podcast the League did not believe clubs would do deals that encouraged no early bids.

"Obviously we have a real problem with collusion and if any clubs were colluding not to bid on players, we would come down terribly, terribly hard on that. The question is whether you can prove that obviously," Clothier said."

Of course the issue of proof is critical to this issue. QUOTE]

Easiest fix would be to ask clubs who they ARE likely to bid on as opposed to who are you not bidding on. This happens a lot in the lead in to a draft and there could be an element of "if you know what I mean" to it. Not a new thing to the draft process and achieves the same result.

I'm guessing Melbourne may be the likely bidder at 7, but I am sure there is internal pressure to maybe bid 3 to ensure the weird StK Ess Syd trade where we lost out, doesn't come into play(apparently is the driving force behind this article).

[churry]

No CookiesHerald Sun apparently Dunkley won't nominate thr swans.