Swans academy - purpose and results

[Steve]

Sorry what cancels out everything you've said is that without the academy they are not playing Australian rules footy. They more than likely would have been identified by league, union or soccer academies & ended up taking one of their offers. Good example is Bell I have read somewhere that he could have been in a soccer academy but chose Aussie rules as we had an academy n he could possibly stay in nsw if good enough. The scenario your talking about is similar to the old nsw scholarship system n it was a dismal failure. You can't just try n cherry pick top end talent without laying a good foundation in junior footy.

That's not correct though.

They were already playing Australian Rules when we identified them (we weren't scouting junior rugby codes or soccer to identify kids to convert). It's true our academy gave them the support and resources to develop, and the pathway to get straight on to our list if they were good enough at 18 - which makes a compelling offer if/when other codes try to entice them to sign with their sports.

But my whole point is that we could have done exactly the same thing in the beginning (ie. identify them as talent already trying out the game) and then offered them a personal resource to develop to AFL standard. Include in that access to our facilities etc and that would be better than any other code's offers of inclusion in development squads etc.

The same AFL rules still apply re: having a direct pathway onto our list, so that matches what other sports can offer in terms of signing directly with whoever you want.

Maybe it's a slightly cynical view, and perhaps limiting it to only 1-2 players is a bit extreme, but IMO we could have had set up an 'elite academy' and we would still have Heeney and Mills, but at a fraction of the cost. And still provide such talent with the support and pathway to compete with other codes. True we wouldn't have benefited from the goodwill our contribution makes to all the individual kids that come through our academy, but realistically our financial investment has to deliver quality players, not goodwill.

We didn't add Heeney or Mills to our academy because of our "laying a good foundation in junior footy". It feels and sounds good to offer a larger academy to provide an environment for a wide range of talented athletes to develop etc etc - but the harsh reality (so far) has been that the only two to come through of note would have done so and been stars in any other era or recruiting model.

If we start getting late first, early second round quality players every couple of years, and then maybe third round or a few decent rookie prospects every other year, maybe that turns things in a more positive direction. But it has definitely been a feast then famine so far.

[Meg]

That's not correct though.

They were already playing Australian Rules when we identified them (we weren't scouting junior rugby codes or soccer to identify kids to convert). It's true our academy gave them the support and resources to develop, and the pathway to get straight on to our list if they were good enough at 18 - which makes a compelling offer if/when other codes try to entice them to sign with their sports.

But my whole point is that we could have done exactly the same thing in the beginning (ie. identify them as talent already trying out the game) and then offered them a personal resource to develop to AFL standard. Include in that access to our facilities etc and that would be better than any other code's offers of inclusion in development squads etc.

The same AFL rules still apply re: having a direct pathway onto our list, so that matches what other sports can offer in terms of signing directly with whoever you want.

Maybe it's a slightly cynical view, and perhaps limiting it to only 1-2 players is a bit extreme, but IMO we could have had set up an 'elite academy' and we would still have Heeney and Mills, but at a fraction of the cost. And still provide such talent them with the support and pathway to compete with other codes. True we wouldn't have benefited from the goodwill our contribution makes to all the individual kids that come through our academy, but realistically our financial investment has to deliver quality players, not goodwill.

We didn't add Heeney or Mills to our academy because of our "laying a good foundation in junior footy". It feels and sounds good to offer a larger academy to provide an environment for a wide range of talented athletes to develop etc etc - but the harsh reality (so far) has been that the only two to come through of note would have done so and been stars in any other era or recruiting model.

If we had done that we would not have had drafting rights to them - the AFL would not allow the current bidding system if we limited the 'academy' the way you propose.

So both Heeney and Mills would be playing for other clubs. What would be the point of that?

[Mug Punter]

That's not correct though.

They were already playing Australian Rules when we identified them (we weren't scouting junior rugby codes or soccer to identify kids to convert). It's true our academy gave them the support and resources to develop, and the pathway to get straight on to our list if they were good enough at 18 - which makes a compelling offer if/when other codes try to entice them to sign with their sports.

But my whole point is that we could have done exactly the same thing in the beginning (ie. identify them as talent already trying out the game) and then offered them a personal resource to develop to AFL standard. Include in that access to our facilities etc and that would be better than any other code's offers of inclusion in development squads etc.

The same AFL rules still apply re: having a direct pathway onto our list, so that matches what other sports can offer in terms of signing directly with whoever you want.

Maybe it's a slightly cynical view, and perhaps limiting it to only 1-2 players is a bit extreme, but IMO we could have had set up an 'elite academy' and we would still have Heeney and Mills, but at a fraction of the cost. And still provide such talent them with the support and pathway to compete with other codes. True we wouldn't have benefited from the goodwill our contribution makes to all the individual kids that come through our academy, but realistically our financial investment has to deliver quality players, not goodwill.

We didn't add Heeney or Mills to our academy because of our "laying a good foundation in junior footy". It feels and sounds good to offer a larger academy to provide an environment for a wide range of talented athletes to develop etc etc - but the harsh reality (so far) has been that the only two to come through of note would have done so and been stars in any other era or recruiting model.

Sorry, I think boddo is on the money.

Callum Mills was poached from rugby union quite late (around 14 I think) pretty much straight into the Academy. Isaac has repeatedly stated that he would be playing league if not for the Swans. So both those cases kind of work against your statement.

Also so many kids are late developers, you really don't know who is going to make it until 14 or 15 and maybe not even then and if you wait until then they have lost the crucial development years. You have to cast your net wide and just play the numbers game.

The pathway and junior development programmes in Sydney AFL that were existence before the Swans Academy were dreadful to non-existent. There is no way that the Swans could have just cherry picked what was available and added a bit of polish. My personal view is that the fully integrated model was the only way forward and it is only confirmed by just how hard a job it is proving to be.

[Mug Punter]

As well as developing AFL players the Academy also plays a wider role IMO, it facilitates a huge amount of community engagement in the Swans and also develops the football IQ in the Sydney region which is still sadly lacking.

Over time you'd hope there is a flow on to the local comp but the terrible number for the U19 comps at present shows there are some major problems in clubland in Sydney

[Boddo]

That's not correct though.

They were already playing Australian Rules when we identified them (we weren't scouting junior rugby codes or soccer to identify kids to convert). It's true our academy gave them the support and resources to develop, and the pathway to get straight on to our list if they were good enough at 18 - which makes a compelling offer if/when other codes try to entice them to sign with their sports.

But my whole point is that we could have done exactly the same thing in the beginning (ie. identify them as talent already trying out the game) and then offered them a personal resource to develop to AFL standard. Include in that access to our facilities etc and that would be better than any other code's offers of inclusion in development squads etc.

The same AFL rules still apply re: having a direct pathway onto our list, so that matches what other sports can offer in terms of signing directly with whoever you want.

Maybe it's a slightly cynical view, and perhaps limiting it to only 1-2 players is a bit extreme, but IMO we could have had set up an 'elite academy' and we would still have Heeney and Mills, but at a fraction of the cost. And still provide such talent with the support and pathway to compete with other codes. True we wouldn't have benefited from the goodwill our contribution makes to all the individual kids that come through our academy, but realistically our financial investment has to deliver quality players, not goodwill.

We didn't add Heeney or Mills to our academy because of our "laying a good foundation in junior footy". It feels and sounds good to offer a larger academy to provide an environment for a wide range of talented athletes to develop etc etc - but the harsh reality (so far) has been that the only two to come through of note would have done so and been stars in any other era or recruiting model.

If we start getting late first, early second round quality players every couple of years, and then maybe third round or a few decent rookie prospects every other year, maybe that turns things in a more positive direction. But it has definitely been a feast then famine so far.

I totally disagree. Like I said your basically suggesting the reintroduction of the old nsw scholarship system n it was an abject failure. It didn't work n would never work. The tac cup works because it provides a foundation for junior development throughout the state not just for elite talent but talent through the state of Victoria, where a system like that would fail ATM is that afl in Victoria does not have to compete with union, league & soccer. We all know afl lost the battle to retain Sutherland in the game as he chose cricket. This is the same for Sydney except it's not one sport but three that we compete with n when it comes to nsw kids choosing which sporting pathway to follow its fourth in line. Your idea would undo 10 years of work in a very short space of time. They choose Aussie rules because they get to stay in their home state that's why the academy works. We might benefit a very small amount but the game as a whole benefits enormously as most academy players only make it to state league level which lifts the games standard and popularity in the most populous state in Australia. Thus improving tv viewership and thus increasing tv rights. More money for all clubs. And all this is exactly the same for NGA's as most parents of multicultural backgrounds have no interest in our great game. Lastly id be prepared to bet my home that if Heeney & Mills didn't have an afl academy to join they'd be lost to another sport.

[Boddo]

If we had done that we would not have had drafting rights to them - the AFL would not allow the current bidding system if we limited the 'academy' the way you propose.

So both Heeney and Mills would be playing for other clubs. What would be the point of that?

Yes they'd be playing for other clubs n those clubs would be the Waratahs, Newcastle knights, Newcastle jets, the Rabbitohs, wanderers etc I'd bet anything they wouldn't be playing Aussie rules

[Steve]

If we had done that we would not have had drafting rights to them - the AFL would not allow the current bidding system if we limited the 'academy' the way you propose.

Are you sure? GWS (even after the recent changes) still operate an 'academy' predominately listing elite kids who go to boarding school in VIC.

Sorry, I think boddo is on the money.

Callum Mills was poached from rugby union quite late (around 14 I think) pretty much straight into the Academy. Isaac has repeatedly stated that he would be playing league if not for the Swans. So both those cases kind of work against your statement.

Was Callum Mills actually in any elite rugby union pathway though? It's easy for people to use throwaway lines like "he could have been / had potential to be a Wallaby", but he clearly has natural talent more suited to AFL. No doubting Heeney might not be on our list without our investment in him, but that was my original point, we could have invested in him (and not so many others) with the same end result, he'd be saying exactly the same thing. Funnily enough, if we had the system I suggested, Heeney would probably be even more effusive about what personal tuition and development we provided.

As well as developing AFL players the Academy also plays a wider role IMO, it facilitates a huge amount of community engagement in the Swans and also develops the football IQ in the Sydney region which is still sadly lacking.

Absolutely, but it is a significant cost to be generating some extra engagement. Would we be seeking the same engagement, generating the same goodwill if we didn't think we could get direct access to elite players though? That's what I was arguing - it still all comes back to the quality of the return in terms of players.

I wasn't arguing for the abolition of our academy, even my reference to what it could look like under an 'elite model' was really just playing devil's advocate. Personally I'm happy the club has gone the way it has, but each year the club have to sign off on the amount we spend on it, and if in a few years time we are still saying we only got Heeney and Mills out of it (which I still think would have been the case if we had invested far less our academy, like a GWS), it has to be a consideration moving forward 'how else could we do it'.

[Boddo]

Are you sure? GWS (even after the recent changes) still operate an 'academy' predominately listing elite kids who go to boarding school in VIC.



Was Callum Mills actually in any elite rugby union pathway though? It's easy for people to use throwaway lines like "he could have been / had potential to be a Wallaby", but he clearly has natural talent more suited to AFL. No doubting Heeney might not be on our list without our investment in him, but that was my original point, we could have invested in him (and not so many others) with the same end result, he'd be saying exactly the same thing. Funnily enough, if we had the system I suggested, Heeney would probably be even more effusive about what personal tuition and development we provided.



Absolutely, but it is a significant cost to be generating some extra engagement. Would we be seeking the same engagement, generating the same goodwill if we didn't think we could get direct access to elite players though? That's what I was arguing - it still all comes back to the quality of the return in terms of players.

I wasn't arguing for the abolition of our academy, even my reference to what it could look like under an 'elite model' was really just playing devil's advocate. Personally I'm happy the club has gone the way it has, but each year the club have to sign off on the amount we spend on it, and if in a few years time we are still saying we only got Heeney and Mills out of it (which I still think would have been the case if we had invested far less our academy, like a GWS), it has to be a consideration moving forward 'how else could we do it'.

Steve I get your point. You basically would like an elite academy set up with only top end talent that costs a lot less than it does to run the academy now. But how long do you think Victorian clubs would allow this to happen? And after the complaints you would expect the afl to buckle n then all clubs would be allowed to have a certain zone of nsw to do what your proposing for Sydney only. Basically back to the nsw scholarships system, a complete failure. A lot of the money for the academy comes through sponsorship mainly from QBE. On mills I think it is a stretch to say he'd be a wallaby but I've got no doubt he'd be a union player. He basically said as much in his afl 360 interview after winning his rising star award. He had George Gregan posters his wall. I've got no doubt he would have continued with union. Do you seriously think he would have gone "nah stuff rugby I'll go to afl n then hopefully I'll get drafted to Adelaide away from my family & friends". Now your system works perfectly if every club had an academy like I would prefer. Not zoning but academies that still get taken in a draft like now with bidding.

[S.S. Bleeder]

To the contrary the "success" of GWS has nothing at all to do with junior footy at all.

Their position is solely due to their draft concessions and their shrewd list management to date. But that gravy train is about to come to a halt and I believe that without a real commitment to junior footy they will struggle long term and they will need to take a similar approach academy wise that the other three clubs have.

The lack of depth in their list as evidenced by their NEAFL position, their cultural issues and their impending salary cap squeeze all point to some serious growing pains there. They're still my bet to win the flag this year but it will be interesting to see how they sit in five years time.

I wasn't referring to their results. I was referring to the number of GWS academy players they're recruited in comparison to their investment. They invest less than us and simply pick the ripe cherries from the crop. Of course having the zones they have makes a big difference.

[Boddo]

I wasn't referring to their results. I was referring to the number of GWS academy players they're recruited in comparison to their investment. They invest less than us and simply pick the ripe cherries from the crop. Of course having the zones they have makes a big difference.

I've heard this before many times from people who support Melbourne clubs. Go have a look at how much recent top end talent was drafted out of their Murray/Riverina area before they started their academy. It wasn't a lot. Now it's a fairly regular amount of players. They improved that area. The failure from the afl wasn't the academy zone it was the large amount of first round picks given in their start up. You take away all those picks n they can't trade players out to gain high end picks to match bids on them and then you'd get players going to other clubs.

[liz]

Steve I get your point. You basically would like an elite academy set up with only top end talent that costs a lot less than it does to run the academy now. .

Is Steve saying this? I think he's just pointing out that, at the moment, the rewards the Swans have reaped from its investment in the academy are quite meagre compared to the financial and time outlay. And questioning how sustainable this is in the long term.

My thoughts are:

- the Swans are probably a little disappointed that a few more clearly AFL standard players haven't yet emerged. Not necessarily Heeney/Mills level but the kind who would warrant a 2nd or 3rd round pick in an open draft. If Blakey chooses the Swans at the end of next year, that increases the return, though he's hardly a poster boy for attracting kids from alternate sports

- notwithstanding the above (guess), they'd be looking at the academy as a long term investment. They'd also recognise the purpose is broader than recruiting gun AFL players.

- the Swans seem to be good at attracting a certain kind of athlete, based on my observations of the U18 side. It was chock-a-bloc of players in the 180-184 cm height range, with excellent endurance, modest speed and the discipline to play a team oriented brand of footy. Kids like that are pretty common in any state, and not many get drafted. You have to be pretty exceptional skill wise to do so. AFL in Queensland has been successful for a long time now (way before the academies) of attracting taller, more athletic types and retaining them in the sport. In metropolitan NSW, these kids must be predominantly choosing basketball, soccer or one of the rugby codes because very few seem to be sticking to AFL even to U18 level.

[Boddo]

Is Steve saying this? I think he's just pointing out that, at the moment, the rewards the Swans have reaped from its investment in the academy are quite meagre compared to the financial and time outlay. And questioning how sustainable this is in the long term.

My thoughts are:

- the Swans are probably a little disappointed that a few more clearly AFL standard players haven't yet emerged. Not necessarily Heeney/Mills level but the kind who would warrant a 2nd or 3rd round pick in an open draft. If Blakey chooses the Swans at the end of next year, that increases the return, though he's hardly a poster boy for attracting kids from alternate sports

- notwithstanding the above (guess), they'd be looking at the academy as a long term investment. They'd also recognise the purpose is broader than recruiting gun AFL players.

- the Swans seem to be good at attracting a certain kind of athlete, based on my observations of the U18 side. It was chock-a-bloc of players in the 180-184 cm height range, with excellent endurance, modest speed and the discipline to play a team oriented brand of footy. Kids like that are pretty common in any state, and not many get drafted. You have to be pretty exceptional skill wise to do so. AFL in Queensland has been successful for a long time now (way before the academies) of attracting taller, more athletic types and retaining them in the sport. In metropolitan NSW, these kids must be predominantly choosing basketball, soccer or one of the rugby codes because very few seem to be sticking to AFL even to U18 level.

Yes I think he is. What he is proposing is exactly what the nsw scholarship system was.

[Steve]

Yes I think he is. What he is proposing is exactly what the nsw scholarship system was.

You seem pretty adamant that's what I was proposing, so I'll defer to your better judgement and assume I was.

Just remind me, how did that NSW scholarship system work? My recollection was that every club across the country could nominate kids from certain areas, but the 'scholarship' was basicalky just an invite to spend a week or two in school holidays to visit the club and join in some training.

Or if you were a Taylor Walker, take a bit more interest along the way.

That's quite different to having an academy of our own, just a smaller version focussed more specifically on certain talent.

I think you'd find the GWS, Brisbane and Gold Coast academies actually run closer to what I was (very hypothetically) proposing. Actually, I don't think I ever 'proposed' any of it anyway - I can't be bothered retreading the whole thread, but IIRC I think I said 'we'd probably be better off if ...'.

VIC clubs couldn't care less how we run the academy, how much we spend etc etc - it is solely how good the graduates are.

In any case, there's no doubt the a AFL will change the current system over time anyway. So if they do, and in a few years we look back on the millions spent and Blakey is the only other graduate of note, any sane Director would be asking whether the investment is producing an adequate return (and whether there are other options).

I still think Heeney and Mills would have come through to us in any setup from the past 20 years, perhaps other than the periods either side of the time we recruited LRT.

Liz makes a really good point and does tie into my hypothetical, devil's advocate comments re: our academy - if not simply focussing on absolute elite talent, should it still be more focussed to certain needs (eg. poaching young basketballers as potential ruckmen etc).

I understand those responders saying the academy is great, should continue as-is etc - no worries, you have a good point. Personally I can't see it staying the same for much longer though, regardless of all the points made in this thread. As soon as the AFL waters down the benefit we (potentially) get I think that will prompt the club to seriously review our investment.

[Boddo]

You seem pretty adamant that's what I was proposing, so I'll defer to your better judgement and assume I was.

Just remind me, how did that NSW scholarship system work? My recollection was that every club across the country could nominate kids from certain areas, but the 'scholarship' was basicalky just an invite to spend a week or two in school holidays to visit the club and join in some training.

Or if you were a Taylor Walker, take a bit more interest along the way.

That's quite different to having an academy of our own, just a smaller version focussed more specifically on certain talent.

I think you'd find the GWS, Brisbane and Gold Coast academies actually run closer to what I was (very hypothetically) proposing. Actually, I don't think I ever 'proposed' any of it anyway - I can't be bothered retreading the whole thread, but IIRC I think I said 'we'd probably be better off if ...'.

VIC clubs couldn't care less how we run the academy, how much we spend etc etc - it is solely how good the graduates are.

In any case, there's no doubt the a AFL will change the current system over time anyway. So if they do, and in a few years we look back on the millions spent and Blakey is the only other graduate of note, any sane Director would be asking whether the investment is producing an adequate return (and whether there are other options).

I still think Heeney and Mills would have come through to us in any setup from the past 20 years, perhaps other than the periods either side of the time we recruited LRT.

Liz makes a really good point and does tie into my hypothetical, devil's advocate comments re: our academy - if not simply focussing on absolute elite talent, should it still be more focussed to certain needs (eg. poaching young basketballers as potential ruckmen etc).

I understand those responders saying the academy is great, should continue as-is etc - no worries, you have a good point. Personally I can't see it staying the same for much longer though, regardless of all the points made in this thread. As soon as the AFL waters down the benefit we (potentially) get I think that will prompt the club to seriously review our investment.

I'll give you a link from Hawthorn in regards to the scholarship program

NSW Scholarship Scheme - hawthornfc.com.au

As outlined it was more than a week of school holidays.

LRT is very similar to how Heeney & Mills got to Sydney. He was drafted as a zone, selection guaranteed to stay in nsw. Take that away n I've got no doubt parents would encourage their children to choose the sports I spoke about. Some will point blank tell their children what sport they will play.

Lewis Roberts-Thomson

I do agree that it will continually be tinkered with. It's to important to footy development in the northern states. The afl know this n quietly will want it to continue.

[Steve]

That Hawthorn article didn't say what they did though. It was a fluff piece on their website, and self-proclaiming to be "one of the most active participants" I'd suggest whatever they did, most other clubs did a hell of a lot less.

Everyone's responses have seemed to include the premise that without the (exact current setup of the) academy, Heeney and Mills wouldn't be on our list.

I just have a different view - that if we had a more elite academy (which again I think you could argue is what the other 3 northern clubs have, to an extent), they would have been included and on our list.

If we had an academy when LRT came through, everyone would have said "without the academy he wouldn't have been playing AFL". But the reality is we would have still identified them, supported their development, and used the rules of the time to put them straight on our list.