2015 academy discussion thread (with some FS thrown in for good measure)

[Auntie.Gerald]

pM

I tend to agree that some of the kids I have seen go thru the gws academy also show the benefits of intense regular skill and fitness training over and above local level training

I wonder how good the skill and fitness training is at the top schools like a Geelong college / grammar in comparison to the academies

My suspicion is that the level of coaching would be very high like in schools such as a kings or joeys in rugby Nsw

Any thoughts ?

[Mug Punter]

pM

I tend to agree that some of the kids I have seen go thru the gws academy also show the benefits of intense regular skill and fitness training over and above local level training

I wonder how good the skill and fitness training is at the top schools like a Geelong college / grammar in comparison to the academies

My suspicion is that the level of coaching would be very high like in schools such as a kings or joeys in rugby Nsw

Any thoughts ?

AFL, under the "management" (and I use that term very loosely) of the NSWAFL has failed to make any significant inroads into the Private School system in Sydney.

As far as i am aware only one school, Riverview St Ignatius, run a decent AFL program. It is an insanely poor result from a development point of view.

Given the athletic talent in this system this is surely a gold plated opportunity for the Swans to succeed where the AFL has failed. In fact I'll back that in 10 years we'll have a GPS AFL comp in place . A little star quality plus some coaching resources and a little cash and the retirns could be phenomenal

[Conor_Dillon]

I think people will be surprised with what comes out of the academy over the next couple of years. We are now starting to see the results of a lot of hours of coaching and training.
There may not be a Mills or a Heaney in the next batch but there are solid group of 5-6 talented kids who currently as 17y/o hold their own in the NEAFL.

Any names we should be keeping an eye out for?

[barry]

If Carlton do finish bottom they would be silly not to bid on Mills, they know that we will certainly match that bid and it means they (and the rest of the draft) gain a small advantage on us in terms of our drafting ability in 2015 and maybe even 2016.

And that's the problem with this system

[WauchopeAnalyst]

I can only comment from what I have seen but I have previously mentioned Jake Brown U17 player in another thread. B.O.G in first NSWACT Rams game and then a few more games. B.O.G. in his first Sydney Seniors Premier League game. Has another year in the system and have spoken to people at AFL NSWACT who think he will be drafted. By which team??? The rest depends on the next 18 months. 10 disposals in 1st Swans Reserve game but dont know how many minutes. I am sure there are others but I have seen Jake for 4 years. A great kick, fit and fast on the outside and good marking and tackling. A bit light for inside but might develop later. Lets see what happens if he gets a game in the U18 champs.

[Ludwig]

If Mills is bid pick 1 we have to be prepared to let him go. It's the only way to make a point about vexatious bidding and will bode well for the future of the system. It might seem like a loss, but chances are that we will pick him up in 2 years with a single first round pick. Let Carlton put 2 years of training into him and assume the risk of injury.

The way the system works, it would cost the equivalent of a Zak Jones, George Hewett, Jack Hiscox and James Rose. It's simply too much even if we can't get Mills down the track.

We should let it be known that we won't take Mills if he is bid in the first 3 picks and that he has a desire to eventually play in Sydney. Then let's see who is willing to take the risk. I can't imagine that Carlton, with all their recent drafting blunders, would jump on another risky prospect.

[Mug Punter]

I can only comment from what I have seen but I have previously mentioned Jake Brown U17 player in another thread. B.O.G in first NSWACT Rams game and then a few more games. B.O.G. in his first Sydney Seniors Premier League game. Has another year in the system and have spoken to people at AFL NSWACT who think he will be drafted. By which team??? The rest depends on the next 18 months. 10 disposals in 1st Swans Reserve game but dont know how many minutes. I am sure there are others but I have seen Jake for 4 years. A great kick, fit and fast on the outside and good marking and tackling. A bit light for inside but might develop later. Lets see what happens if he gets a game in the U18 champs.

That's the thing with young players, you never know how they will develop in their last year.

I'd like to see us be able to draft at least one first rounder each year if we want to - as a result I think that digging deep into the following year's well is very dangerous. I think we will probably have to trade one decent player to be able to accomodate both Mills and Heeney and still have some control the next year

[The Big Cat]

If Mills is bid pick 1 we have to be prepared to let him go. It's the only way to make a point about vexatious bidding and will bode well for the future of the system. It might seem like a loss, but chances are that we will pick him up in 2 years with a single first round pick. Let Carlton put 2 years of training into him and assume the risk of injury.

The way the system works, it would cost the equivalent of a Zak Jones, George Hewett, Jack Hiscox and James Rose. It's simply too much even if we can't get Mills down the track.

We should let it be known that we won't take Mills if he is bid in the first 3 picks and that he has a desire to eventually play in Sydney. Then let's see who is willing to take the risk. I can't imagine that Carlton, with all their recent drafting blunders, would jump on another risky prospect.

We MUST take Mills, otherwise what is the use of an academy if we let the best kids get away? It would be tantamount to saying "we'll develop them and you just step in and take them." And if we let him go then what do we say to the next gun academy kid? "If we don't get you cheap then forget about playing with your idols at the Swans mate, you're off to St Kilda!" And what, we just let him slip through and hope that someone at pick 17 or 18 is half as good? If he turns out a dud then he will be our dud. I'd prefer him to be a dud for us than him to be a gun somewhere else. Besides it will scare off any hankie pankie next time.

[Ludwig]

We MUST take Mills, otherwise what is the use of an academy if we let the best kids get away? It would be tantamount to saying "we'll develop them and you just step in and take them." And if we let him go then what do we say to the next gun academy kid? "If we don't get you cheap then forget about playing with your idols at the Swans mate, you're off to St Kilda!" And what, we just let him slip through and hope that someone at pick 17 or 18 is half as good? If he turns out a dud then he will be our dud. I'd prefer him to be a dud for us than him to be a gun somewhere else. Besides it will scare off any hankie pankie next time.

Why would he be a dud for us, yet be a gun if he went to another club? It doesn't make sense.

I wanted to make the point that it's important to establish our position on vexatious bidding. The only way to make sure we don't get screwed is to take a stand and not back off, which would involve letting a player go to the bidder if we feel it would be paying overs, or is at least considered vexatious. It has to be made clear that an academy draftee is not worth bidding for just to force us into using a slew of draft picks to get him. We can also let the bidder take the player and lose him in 2 years to the "go home factor" like the traditional footy states do to NSW and QLD draftees.

There's a limit to how much the MFL can take away from us without us fighting back. Now the go home factor can be a weapon in our favour. But it's not a weapon unless others believe you are prepared to us it. In the modern era players get to the destination they want to go, contract or not. It's just a matter of price. If Mills wants to get to Sydney in 2 years, there is no way it would could us what we would pay to match a pick 1 bid.

[Pmcc2911]

True, Riverview have a strong AFL program but this largely due to fact of having a school full of country borders with nothing to do on a Sunday supported by a enthusiastic AFL minded master.
St Gregories at Campbelltown used to have a strong AFL program many many years ago but now it is a rugby league nursery.
I suspect a lot of it has to do the enthusiasm of the sports master.

The AFL are working hard and throwing lots of money at private schools now.
They have established programs at Shore, Waverly, Knox and Barker ( there may be others). These schools have rugby traditions over 100 years old.

They have been smart in how they have gone about it. They have data matched junior players who are going to a private school and sent their parents an email notifying them of the program.
AFL were offering to pay for 50% of uniform costs, all of ground rentals, umpire and st johns costs for a MINIMUM of 3 years.

It is early days but if the growth continues you will have a strong private school comp across multiple age groups with in 10 years

[S.S. Bleeder]

I think people will be surprised with what comes out of the academy over the next couple of years. We are now starting to see the results of a lot of hours of coaching and training.
There may not be a Mills or a Heaney in the next batch but there are solid group of 5-6 talented kids who currently as 17y/o hold their own in the NEAFL.

Apparently the next batch, I think the 12-15 year olds are really promising.

[S.S. Bleeder]

If Mills is bid pick 1 we have to be prepared to let him go. It's the only way to make a point about vexatious bidding and will bode well for the future of the system. It might seem like a loss, but chances are that we will pick him up in 2 years with a single first round pick. Let Carlton put 2 years of training into him and assume the risk of injury.

The way the system works, it would cost the equivalent of a Zak Jones, George Hewett, Jack Hiscox and James Rose. It's simply too much even if we can't get Mills down the track.

We should let it be known that we won't take Mills if he is bid in the first 3 picks and that he has a desire to eventually play in Sydney. Then let's see who is willing to take the risk. I can't imagine that Carlton, with all their recent drafting blunders, would jump on another risky prospect.

I agree with your philosophy but don't think that Mills is the player we should call their bluff on. Mills is too important for our future and we've invested too much into him. Dunkley on the other hand"...........

[Mug Punter]

We MUST take Mills, otherwise what is the use of an academy if we let the best kids get away? It would be tantamount to saying "we'll develop them and you just step in and take them." And if we let him go then what do we say to the next gun academy kid? "If we don't get you cheap then forget about playing with your idols at the Swans mate, you're off to St Kilda!" And what, we just let him slip through and hope that someone at pick 17 or 18 is half as good? If he turns out a dud then he will be our dud. I'd prefer him to be a dud for us than him to be a gun somewhere else. Besides it will scare off any hankie pankie next time.

Couldn't agree more.

I think that the system is fundamentally sound. And for the system to work other clubs need to bid for our players. And I think over time they will be genuine bids and that from time to time academy kids will go to other clubs - and that should be something we applaud as it will mean the system is working for the game as well as us.

I think the Swans will pick Mills at whatever it takes as he is that highly rated. Plus we need to make a stand on this - no point saying how important it is and then not provide the AFL opportunity.

The economics of the draft and the Swans' hard headed approach means we won't be giving away any draft slots to academy kids.

It's simple really, the Swans will make a call and what they think Mills and Dunkley are worth taking into account any trade currency we get from player trades etc. We'll make a sound case on where we'll pick the player from and go from there. I'd think that if we rated Mills top 4-5 (similar to Heeney) then we'll take him regardless.

Dunkley we may pass on I feel if he costs too much.

It also depends on how we feel about giving away the following year's picks and also on our trading stance.

If we want Mills and he goes at #1 then if we don't take Dunks too then we either have our first rounder in 2016 slip back about 20 places (depending on where we finish) or trade a player for a late second round pick (e.g a Bird).

I think that getting Dunkley probably depends on two factors
(a) If he picked at 12 or lower we will pass
(b) Jetta not re-signing and us getting a late first round pick from either the Eagles or Freo which will effectively fund the trade

If Mills somehow can somehow last until 5 then we can probably afford both without a Jetta trade and cop the slight setback in the 2016 draft order.

[Auntie.Gerald]

Just so I get this right

If mills went to Carlton
At the end of two years mills was offered $650k pa
Sydney could only offer $450k pa

What would happen ?

[Pmcc2911]

I agree that taking Mills is critical but if we have to forgo Dunkley ( due to him costing too much) then so be it. I just dont think we can compromise this years draft and potentially next years to take both.