Tweet
I don't buy the conspiracy theories around the timing of the change. The difference between our first pick and the perceived draft value of Heeney was much greater than that between Moore and the Pies' first pick. So we would have been far more affected had they rushed in some new system for the 2014 season.
I also think it makes sense that any adjustment affects both. No other club really gives a toss about Moore playing for the Pies or Heeney for the Swans. What they care about is that a club might have got a draft bargain. (I would also argue that clubs care far less about having sons of past players playing for their club than they do scoring a draft bargain, but that's another discussion.) What both schemes share is that they potentially deliver a player to a club for substantially below his draft value. The current scheme attempts to address this but it is a blunt tool, especially at the very pointy end of the draft.
The importance of coming up with an alternative scheme depends largely on two things:
a) how significant a distortion it is for clubs to access top 10 or top 20 talent when it's not really their turn (ie they aren't crap enough). If access to top picks - and a concentrated amount of top draft picks - was a major factor in success, Melbourne would be world-beaters. The Swans, who have had two top 10 picks in the last 13 drafts would be favourites for the wooden spoon. Clearly early access to the better talent each year is of some benefit but I think it's significantly valued by many. Including many clubs.
b) whether the academies are going to produce players worthy of being picked at the very top of the draft on a regular basis. If they are doing their job, there is no reason why they shouldn't. After all, the populations of NSW and Queensland account for more than half the population of the country. Even if you allow for the fact that these states are competing for talent with the rugby codes in a way that SA, Vic and WA aren't, you would still expect two or three first round picks, at least, every year to emerge from NSW and Queensland if the development opportunities are roughly equivalent. Of course, they are coming from a long way back and it will take time. No-one yet has any idea whether Heeney and Mills (and Keys and Steele) are indicative of what talent does exist if only it were properly developed, or if they are short term statistical blips, skewing the picture of how much ground there is still to be made up.
If these players are an indication of what we might see on a regular basis, it is probably better than the AFL does take over running of the academies sooner than later. So long as the programmes aren't diluted, I doubt many of us would have too much of an issue. The AFL could even keep the four separate academies and make use of the brands of the four clubs. They could even keep the clubs managing them, but pay all the costs and find some financial way to motivate the clubs to continue to manage them - ie not just bear the all the direct costs, but also pay the clubs for their know-how and time.
I also think it makes sense that any adjustment affects both. No other club really gives a toss about Moore playing for the Pies or Heeney for the Swans. What they care about is that a club might have got a draft bargain. (I would also argue that clubs care far less about having sons of past players playing for their club than they do scoring a draft bargain, but that's another discussion.) What both schemes share is that they potentially deliver a player to a club for substantially below his draft value. The current scheme attempts to address this but it is a blunt tool, especially at the very pointy end of the draft.
The importance of coming up with an alternative scheme depends largely on two things:
a) how significant a distortion it is for clubs to access top 10 or top 20 talent when it's not really their turn (ie they aren't crap enough). If access to top picks - and a concentrated amount of top draft picks - was a major factor in success, Melbourne would be world-beaters. The Swans, who have had two top 10 picks in the last 13 drafts would be favourites for the wooden spoon. Clearly early access to the better talent each year is of some benefit but I think it's significantly valued by many. Including many clubs.
b) whether the academies are going to produce players worthy of being picked at the very top of the draft on a regular basis. If they are doing their job, there is no reason why they shouldn't. After all, the populations of NSW and Queensland account for more than half the population of the country. Even if you allow for the fact that these states are competing for talent with the rugby codes in a way that SA, Vic and WA aren't, you would still expect two or three first round picks, at least, every year to emerge from NSW and Queensland if the development opportunities are roughly equivalent. Of course, they are coming from a long way back and it will take time. No-one yet has any idea whether Heeney and Mills (and Keys and Steele) are indicative of what talent does exist if only it were properly developed, or if they are short term statistical blips, skewing the picture of how much ground there is still to be made up.
If these players are an indication of what we might see on a regular basis, it is probably better than the AFL does take over running of the academies sooner than later. So long as the programmes aren't diluted, I doubt many of us would have too much of an issue. The AFL could even keep the four separate academies and make use of the brands of the four clubs. They could even keep the clubs managing them, but pay all the costs and find some financial way to motivate the clubs to continue to manage them - ie not just bear the all the direct costs, but also pay the clubs for their know-how and time.
Comment