AFL changes academy rules and shafts Giants and Swans

[mcs]

I doubt it will be 10 years (2018 is my guess, unless FS politics derails his availability) but I agree that the club getting Heeney and Mills in successive years is far from the current "normal". For the Swans, at least. The Giants' zone has proved to be so rich that they have picked up a stream of under-20 draft picks in the last couple of seasons, and the pipeline doesn't look to be slowing down. Even the removal of part of the zone won't entirely stem the flow.

I am passionately supportive of the NSW and Queensland academies and what they are trying to achieve. And there does need to be some incentive to the four clubs to continue to invest their time into these schemes. But there needs to be a balance with the aims of draft equalisation (unless one is against the whole concept of draft equalisation). It would be a massive advantage to have access to players of Heeney and Mills' calibre every year (even without a draft discount). While it is some way off before that happens, it should be expected that, if the participation numbers are sustained, one or two of the best dozen players each year will start to consistently emerge from the major population centres along the NSW coast. I don't think that limiting the Swans to matching a bid for just one of these very best players each year is that unreasonable in the context of the entire competition and the draft.

As always Liz, you hit the nail on the head. That is exactly my view as well.

I hate the short-termism of the VFL clubs in particular 'what's in it for us - they are just rorting the system (GWS zone issue aside)' - when clearly there is an issue, at the current time, that NSW and QLD are not contributing anywhere near the amount of AFL quality players coming through than they should I saw a stat today - just 14 players were drafted from NSW in the period 2004-2014, and 7 of them were compulsory GWS zone selections. That is from an area with roughly a third of the country's population. That alone should be ample evidence to suggest the need for a lot better efforts to develop the talent pool in those areas -and the academies can take a leading role.

But if the AFL wants clubs to fund and run them - then they should get incentives to do so. When we get to a point that a Heeney or Mills is rolling off the production line every year, its either time for limits to be placed (As the afl appears to be doing) or for the AFL to take control of the academies, fund and run them, and the players to go into the draft pool. But its a long way off that point as it is.

[Velour&Ruffles]

Hopefully we are now at the end game with any tinkering and we can have certainty going forward.

And bloated Magpie presidents might fly.

[mcs]

I watched Gill on AFL 360 and I was impressed with him actually. he just said that from a big picture strategic point of view he didn't see how concessions could apply to kids who already had an existing pathway via an elite Victorian competition (i.e. the Murray Bushrangers in the TAC Cup) and he said frankly he wondered why it was ever allowed in the first case. It does not affect the Riverina so GWS still have a golden patch, who knows they might start giving a damn about the game in Western Sydney.

I just hope this whole debate can now be put to rest but I suspect you'll hear the squealing any time we recruit anyone good, just waiting for the dirty shin-boners to have a cow when we select Nick Blakey

That is exactly the point we've all been making about the GWS zone stuff down there - where there are already established pathways, it makes no sense for GWS to have concessions. Where their academy is doing the job as it should and developing talent independently itself, in areas without pathways, then it makes every sense to get concessions.

I also agree we will hear squealing every time we pick up anyway good, or indeed GWS does - and the shinboners will cry like a bunch of 4 years olds if Blakey ends up coming through our academy.

[jono2707]

I also agree we will hear squealing every time we pick up anyway good, or indeed GWS does - and the shinboners will cry like a bunch of 4 years olds if Blakey ends up coming through our academy.

As would we if the eligible son of say a Nick Malceski ended up playing for the Suns instead of us...

[mcs]

As would we if the eligible son of say a Nick Malceski ended up playing for the Suns instead of us...

If Malceski is still coaching at the suns t rhat stage and his kid comes through their academy, i would have no problem with it - as malceski would have given the suns just as much service (in a different role) to the suns as he gave to us.

[Mug Punter]

There's still real benefits from this system for us and I think we can now hope that the academy system has some certainty. But I would add that if I was at the Swans I'd be saying to Gill, "we accept the changes and the way the system is now but if you water it down anymore then we'd be expecting the AFL to fund the program in full".

As an example, based on finishing fourth, which is where we have been roughly for a while we could get the current equivalent picks 10, 25, 39 and 56. That's arguably better than what we got the last draft ( 11, 21, 45 and 48) and we had to trade away Tom Mitchell to get to those picks.

Of course there will be a real squeeze should Nick Blakey be as good as many of us predict. Let's say he is rated top 5 and goes at Number 4. In that instance if we finished 4th we'd get picks 4, 39, 56 and 57. The only time we'd go into a points deficit would be if he went at number 1.

There are also the other benefits already mentioned. All kids are in a pretty demanding football programme for four years, any ratbags will be weeded out. It would pretty hard to fool the club that long.

Plus there is the community engagement factor which I also think is massively understated

[Boddo]

The one thing I've picked up this week is how much talent would go through the draft as a next generation academy pick in previous years. Just one example is Jason Johannisen who would have went through the Fremantle academy. There is a lot more. Just as an exercise when watching games pick out players and look at who they could possibly go to via the afl website. It's a massive change. I think Adam Goodes would have been in the Bulldogs academy

[liz]

The one thing I've picked up this week is how much talent would go through the draft as a next generation academy pick in previous years. Just one example is Jason Johannisen who would have went through the Fremantle academy. There is a lot more. Just as an exercise when watching games pick out players and look at who they could possibly go to via the afl website. It's a massive change. I think Adam Goodes would have been in the Bulldogs academy

The AFL has created a bit of a problem for itself in respect of the Next Generation academies with its rationale for taking the Albury and Murray regions away from GWS. Gil's argument was that players in these areas already have access to existing talent pathway development programmes via the TAC Cup. It's hard to see how they can then justify giving the southern clubs priority access to players from a multicultural background who live in non-remote parts of those states, since these players also have access to established talent development pathways.

I am all for attracting those from non-traditional backgrounds to take up the game but I am not sure that an academy system that overlaps, geographically, with existing infrastructure is defendable. I also suspect (though haven't done an exercise to support this assertion) that if you lined up an All-Stars multicultural team against a NSW SOO team from current AFL playing stocks, the multicultural team would win quite comfortably (especially if you exclude NSW players from the regions now taken out of the Giants' academy zone).

[Meg]

AFL changes academy rules and shafts Giants and Swans

Like Boddo above, I suspect NGAs are going to allow non-Northern State clubs to draft highly talented players who didn't need academy assistance to be attracted to play AFL or to develop to a top prospect (because of the areas in which they live and the schools they attend).

As long as NGAs also do bring some kids into AFL whom otherwise might never have played the game, then that is the 'price' the competition has to wear. But clubs will then need to stop complaining about the Swans academy!

[Boddo]

The AFL has created a bit of a problem for itself in respect of the Next Generation academies with its rationale for taking the Albury and Murray regions away from GWS. Gil's argument was that players in these areas already have access to existing talent pathway development programmes via the TAC Cup. It's hard to see how they can then justify giving the southern clubs priority access to players from a multicultural background who live in non-remote parts of those states, since these players also have access to established talent development pathways.

I am all for attracting those from non-traditional backgrounds to take up the game but I am not sure that an academy system that overlaps, geographically, with existing infrastructure is defendable. I also suspect (though haven't done an exercise to support this assertion) that if you lined up an All-Stars multicultural team against a NSW SOO team from current AFL playing stocks, the multicultural team would win quite comfortably (especially if you exclude NSW players from the regions now taken out of the Giants' academy zone).

Best example of this is the highly rated Tarryn Thomas from Tasmania. Aboriginal boy who already has a pathway and is allowed in the norf next gen academy due to his aboriginal heritage. Why is he allowed in the academy when their is a pathway already there and why is he eligible being from a large city and the WA clubs can't allow aboriginal juniors from their large city. Tarryn is expected to go top 10 easy. Google him and you'll see exactly what I'm saying.

[Boddo]

I should have added Tarryn is draftable in Blakeys year next year

[707]

Best example of this is the highly rated Tarryn Thomas from Tasmania. Aboriginal boy who already has a pathway and is allowed in the norf next gen academy due to his aboriginal heritage. Why is he allowed in the academy when their is a pathway already there and why is he eligible being from a large city and the WA clubs can't allow aboriginal juniors from their large city. Tarryn is expected to go top 10 easy. Google him and you'll see exactly what I'm saying.

He's allowed because the VFL clubs whinged long and hard about the northern academies, that's the only reason.

It was a pity that Heeney and Mills came along so early in the academy but what was really bad was the huge advantage GWS got which magnified the perceived advantage to northern clubs.

VFL as always caved in to pressure from the noisy power brokers in Victoria and we now have the situation that a whole lot of kids already with pathways will get funnelled into Vic clubs.

Tarryn Thomas a possible top 20 pick for Norf next year, same year as Nick Blakey will be a top 20? Looks like a free kick for Norf who will have done bugger all to develop either player! Over to you VFL!

[Mug Punter]

He's allowed because the VFL clubs whinged long and hard about the northern academies, that's the only reason.

It was a pity that Heeney and Mills came along so early in the academy but what was really bad was the huge advantage GWS got which magnified the perceived advantage to northern clubs.

VFL as always caved in to pressure from the noisy power brokers in Victoria and we now have the situation that a whole lot of kids already with pathways will get funnelled into Vic clubs.

Tarryn Thomas a possible top 20 pick for Norf next year, same year as Nick Blakey will be a top 20? Looks like a free kick for Norf who will have done bugger all to develop either player! Over to you VFL!

I think that's an overly emotional view tbh.

I think it's fair enough for the kid in question to be allowed to decide, certainly the F/S should not over-ride the academy.

Whilst the academies surely benefit the F/S kids I'd suggest those kids would be draft prospects wherever they grew up due to a combination of parental involvement and genetics. My understanding is that kids need to reside in the academy region for five years to be eligible (it's why Gold Coast couldn't select Mav Weller) and that is fair enough to.

But if you look at the situation where a kid come to Sydney at the beginning of Year 8 then he can have some pretty strong ties and football education in place already that relate to his father's club.

Also in the instances where the father is a coach at the academy club the young lad may prefer to make his own way and not be coached by his father.

Having said all that, I'd be pretty confident Nick Blakey is locked in to select the Swans and no nominate for F/S. He's been in Sydney for over 10 years, has played all his junior footy here, all his schooling and is a Sydney boy through and through.

If he chose Norf I'd be gutted and disappointed but ultimately I'd respect his decision.

[Meg]

We've been discussing the Blakey situation over on the Under 18s thread. Several of us believe that under current rules academy draft rights take priority over F/S. If we are correct , if Swans want to draft Blakey, and Swans match any bid for him on draft night, then Blakey can't opt for North under F/S instead.

However I know the media are continuing to report that Blakey will have a choice.

[Boddo]

707 the VFL clubs were so worried about the big bad northern clubs that they totally misread the situation & now they have given a massive leg to the 2 WA clubs, another example is petresvki-seeton. And they'll be a lot more like him.

- - - Updated - - -

Meg the media in regards to AFL are very Melbourne centric they will push this lie to sell more papers n drive up the hysteria to sell even more newspapers