2019 Swans academy and U18 discussion

[bloodspirit]

Thanks for the update Mr Magoo.

[liz]

Too much or too little? AFL to review Academy, father-son draft discount - AFL.com.au

Not surprising this is on the agenda, given the amount of whingeing the academy system generates right across the competition and in the media.

I doubt it will happen (because it will disadvantage the powerful southern clubs), but I'd love to see the size of the discount somehow linked to the amount of time and effort a club has invested in developing a player. After all, the northern academies were created because the AFL had thrown its arms up in the air regarding providing effective elite development pathways in NSW and Queensland, and decided to effectively outsource this to the four local clubs. As we all know, the academy system in the northern states isn't one of cherry-picking developed talent once it reaches age 18, but rather involves hundreds of boys (and now girls) from U11 onwards. Those who make it to the AFL system are a tiny minority of those who benefit from participating in the academies throughout their teenage years.

Shortly before the NGA academy concept was introduced (but while it must have been in the pipeline), the AFL even went so far as to deem Todd Marshall ineligible for priority academy access (by the Giants) because they hadn't contributed sufficiently to his development (largely because he'd been overseas for a large part of his teenage years, IIRC). While it was probably somewhat of a knee-jerk reaction to the Victorian complaining, that move seemed to reinforce the purpose of the academies in actively developing the talent to which they had access, and didn't seem unreasonable (even if backdated to "disadvantage" the Giants).

Yet when the NGAs were born, that whole principle seemed to fly out of the window. Clubs now had priority access, at discounted draft cost, to players they had invested very little time into, and with questionable eligibility criteria. I do hold misgivings about those eligibility criteria, but otherwise don't have an issue with the concept of the NGAs. But only if they serve to develop talent and expand the overall talent pool, the core purpose of the northern academies. There's not much visibility on what clubs do - how much they invest in time and money, and how many youngsters are involved - from the clubs with NGAs. I imagine there's much variation. But I'd be amazed if any of them have set up a system remotely akin to those operating in NSW and Queensland.

If the AFL is serious about developing additional talent from non-traditional sources and thinks that the AFL clubs can be instrumental in that, they should motivate them to actually do some development work by linking the size of the discount available to the amount of work done. This could be via a link on a club-by-club level to the total amount spent each year, but that disadvantages those with smaller zones or fewer resources.

An alternative way would be to apply the discount at the player level, but linked to how much work the club has invested in them and over what period of time. A club could set up an U11 and onwards academy with just a handful of boys, and strike it lucky if several of them develop to elite standard. But a sheer numbers game suggests that the more they invest in from age 11, the more chance they have of developing a couple to the elite level by age 18. And by properly motivating clubs to do this, the total number of boys (and girls) from non-traditional backgrounds that benefit from the pathway will be much greater, thus contributing to the future 2nd, 3rd and 4th tier talent pools, and to the overall AFL supporter base too.

[Mr Magoo]

Too much or too little? AFL to review Academy, father-son draft discount - AFL.com.au

Not surprising this is on the agenda, given the amount of whingeing the academy system generates right across the competition and in the media.

I doubt it will happen (because it will disadvantage the powerful southern clubs), but I'd love to see the size of the discount somehow linked to the amount of time and effort a club has invested in developing a player. After all, the northern academies were created because the AFL had thrown its arms up in the air regarding providing effective elite development pathways in NSW and Queensland, and decided to effectively outsource this to the four local clubs. As we all know, the academy system in the northern states isn't one of cherry-picking developed talent once it reaches age 18, but rather involves hundreds of boys (and now girls) from U11 onwards. Those who make it to the AFL system are a tiny minority of those who benefit from participating in the academies throughout their teenage years.

Shortly before the NGA academy concept was introduced (but while it must have been in the pipeline), the AFL even went so far as to deem Todd Marshall ineligible for priority academy access (by the Giants) because they hadn't contributed sufficiently to his development (largely because he'd been overseas for a large part of his teenage years, IIRC). While it was probably somewhat of a knee-jerk reaction to the Victorian complaining, that move seemed to reinforce the purpose of the academies in actively developing the talent to which they had access, and didn't seem unreasonable (even if backdated to "disadvantage" the Giants).

Yet when the NGAs were born, that whole principle seemed to fly out of the window. Clubs now had priority access, at discounted draft cost, to players they had invested very little time into, and with questionable eligibility criteria. I do hold misgivings about those eligibility criteria, but otherwise don't have an issue with the concept of the NGAs. But only if they serve to develop talent and expand the overall talent pool, the core purpose of the northern academies. There's not much visibility on what clubs do - how much they invest in time and money, and how many youngsters are involved - from the clubs with NGAs. I imagine there's much variation. But I'd be amazed if any of them have set up a system remotely akin to those operating in NSW and Queensland.

If the AFL is serious about developing additional talent from non-traditional sources and thinks that the AFL clubs can be instrumental in that, they should motivate them to actually do some development work by linking the size of the discount available to the amount of work done. This could be via a link on a club-by-club level to the total amount spent each year, but that disadvantages those with smaller zones or fewer resources.

An alternative way would be to apply the discount at the player level, but linked to how much work the club has invested in them and over what period of time. A club could set up an U11 and onwards academy with just a handful of boys, and strike it lucky if several of them develop to elite standard. But a sheer numbers game suggests that the more they invest in from age 11, the more chance they have of developing a couple to the elite level by age 18. And by properly motivating clubs to do this, the total number of boys (and girls) from non-traditional backgrounds that benefit from the pathway will be much greater, thus contributing to the future 2nd, 3rd and 4th tier talent pools, and to the overall AFL supporter base too.

The linking to how much work the academy has put into someone would work well for the Swans . In general all of their picks including Blakey have been in their system since at least under 12s and even those currently highly considered have done same.

Its very unfortunate that the AFL keeps listening to the whinging. Melbourne clubs have a wide network of Father sons along with TAC Cup and school teams to obtain talent from. I cant think of one Melbourne club thats drafted a Swans academy kid (other than making a bid for the big three of Heeney, Mills and Blakey). In fact I can only think of one kid thats been drafted by any other club in the competition so clearly they still think that the talent pool from the swans academies isnt that great. They just want to whinge when one does come along.

The thing that's not being considered in the arguments or the reporting thereof is the level of talent that now exists in the Sydney and other non traditional NSW aussie rules area competitions as a result of the Swans and Giants academies. The Div 1 Under 17 grand final this year in Sydney had around 8 NSW Rams players on the field and around 15-20 swans academy kids and the standard as a result is fantastic. This permeates all the way down from Premier Division where you had probably a similar or larger number of academy players , ex academy players and ex afl players in the grand final. Others who have watched the seniors for a longer period would notice if the standard has lifted but there is no doubt in my view that the junior ranks have increased in standard and we now see swans academy players making up half or more of the NSW rams teams .

I can guarantee that if the Academys were not in place , there is no way we would see any of this occurring at the rate it has and many of those kids would go to either soccer, rugby league or rugby union if that pathway was taken away and we went back to a half arsed series of rep weekend games each year and a competition that requires kids to travel to all corners of Sydney each weekend due to the lack of teams.

[707]

Absolute can of worms Liz, the NGA's have so far proven to be a rort as I reckon all of the players recruited under that banner were already in elite footy systems, they weren't lured from other sports and developed by the clubs into AFL recruits.

I'd actually be in favour of halving the discount to 10%, the ability to match a bid and pay for it with later picks is enough incentive without the generous discount.

[Mr Magoo]

Absolute can of worms Liz, the NGA's have so far proven to be a rort as I reckon all of the players recruited under that banner were already in elite footy systems, they weren't lured from other sports and developed by the clubs into AFL recruits.

I'd actually be in favour of halving the discount to 10%, the ability to match a bid and pay for it with later picks is enough incentive without the generous discount.

Yes and no on the lowering of the discount . I think you should get a better discount for academy players v father son. Father son is just a quirk of the old boys network. I imagine there isnt too many father sons where the son just had to play for his old mans club. The academies have to sink a lot of money , time and resource into them and that should attract some sort of discount from the zero dollars invested in father sons.

The NGAs are a joke and should have criteria that prevents them taking players that are already in rep level competition. That would then at least make them a meaningful exercise rather than just another way for melbourne clubs to get a legup to another stream of talent.

[liz]

The linking to how much work the academy has put into someone would work well for the Swans .

I wrote my post fully aware of (but not explicitly acknowledging) my bias on this topic. Clearly it would suit the four northern clubs, who already have such systems in place. Not acknowledging that bias (or the effect on my proposal) does weaken the proposal.

"In my defence", the vision is not a system whereby the four northern clubs have an entrenched advantage that the other clubs can't bridge, but rather to motivate the other clubs to invest in developing the overall size of the talent pool in a way that the existing talent development programmes don't.

Whether there are large enough pools of potential talent not being tapped by the existing pathways, but which can be tapped by clubs individually, is, of course, a reasonable question to ask. But that's the premise underlying the whole NGA system. (Less so the northern academy systems, given they were introduced on a regional - not an ethnic background - basis into areas where there were effectively NO effective talent development pathways.)

The whingeing about the NGA system doesn't seem to be coming from the four northern clubs, even though they would be well aware of the different goal posts that exist. Or not publicly, at least. Rather it seems to be coming from the media, maybe whipped up behind the scenes by club officials who are happy to benefit but not to see their other draft options compromised. Indeed, at last year's Swans AGM I asked Harley what the club's attitude towards the NGAs was, specifically the different levels of investment required for the same benefits, and he answered with a very straight bat. I can't remember his exact words, but the gist of his response was "we're pretty happy about them if they get the other clubs and the AFL off our back and let us get on with our own academy". For the Swans (and Giants, Suns and Lions), the benefits go way beyond draft access and concessions, something they will be well aware of. The academies are also about investing in the future supporter base of the code (and directly the clubs) in NSW and Queensland.

So on one level, I don't much care if they don't make changes to the eligibility or discounts for the NGAs. I just think that by not tying either to the amount invested in the players the clubs have access to, the whole purpose of academies is watered down and an opportunity missed.

[S.S. Bleeder]

Does anyone know whether the funding for the academies is included within the soft cap? If so, we are severely disadvantaged.

Logic would tell me that they aren't but given how incompetent the AFL is I wouldn't be at all surprised.

[mcs]

Too much or too little? AFL to review Academy, father-son draft discount - AFL.com.au

Not surprising this is on the agenda, given the amount of whingeing the academy system generates right across the competition and in the media.

I doubt it will happen (because it will disadvantage the powerful southern clubs), but I'd love to see the size of the discount somehow linked to the amount of time and effort a club has invested in developing a player. After all, the northern academies were created because the AFL had thrown its arms up in the air regarding providing effective elite development pathways in NSW and Queensland, and decided to effectively outsource this to the four local clubs. As we all know, the academy system in the northern states isn't one of cherry-picking developed talent once it reaches age 18, but rather involves hundreds of boys (and now girls) from U11 onwards. Those who make it to the AFL system are a tiny minority of those who benefit from participating in the academies throughout their teenage years.

Shortly before the NGA academy concept was introduced (but while it must have been in the pipeline), the AFL even went so far as to deem Todd Marshall ineligible for priority academy access (by the Giants) because they hadn't contributed sufficiently to his development (largely because he'd been overseas for a large part of his teenage years, IIRC). While it was probably somewhat of a knee-jerk reaction to the Victorian complaining, that move seemed to reinforce the purpose of the academies in actively developing the talent to which they had access, and didn't seem unreasonable (even if backdated to "disadvantage" the Giants).

Yet when the NGAs were born, that whole principle seemed to fly out of the window. Clubs now had priority access, at discounted draft cost, to players they had invested very little time into, and with questionable eligibility criteria. I do hold misgivings about those eligibility criteria, but otherwise don't have an issue with the concept of the NGAs. But only if they serve to develop talent and expand the overall talent pool, the core purpose of the northern academies. There's not much visibility on what clubs do - how much they invest in time and money, and how many youngsters are involved - from the clubs with NGAs. I imagine there's much variation. But I'd be amazed if any of them have set up a system remotely akin to those operating in NSW and Queensland.

If the AFL is serious about developing additional talent from non-traditional sources and thinks that the AFL clubs can be instrumental in that, they should motivate them to actually do some development work by linking the size of the discount available to the amount of work done. This could be via a link on a club-by-club level to the total amount spent each year, but that disadvantages those with smaller zones or fewer resources.

An alternative way would be to apply the discount at the player level, but linked to how much work the club has invested in them and over what period of time. A club could set up an U11 and onwards academy with just a handful of boys, and strike it lucky if several of them develop to elite standard. But a sheer numbers game suggests that the more they invest in from age 11, the more chance they have of developing a couple to the elite level by age 18. And by properly motivating clubs to do this, the total number of boys (and girls) from non-traditional backgrounds that benefit from the pathway will be much greater, thus contributing to the future 2nd, 3rd and 4th tier talent pools, and to the overall AFL supporter base too.

As always Liz you talk oodles of sense. The bit in bold is the key part I would also love to see - but we know that will never happen, now the VFL old boys have their quasi zones through the NGA pathway. They want maximum rewards for minimal effort, while we know the northern academies need substantial effort to garner decent rewards.

[707]

It's started, Hawks supporter started a BF thread on the Draft/Free agency forum complaing about our 2020 academy players and what a rort it is. I expect this will grow in volume if Campbell and Gulden continue their U17 game form into next year.

[dejavoodoo44]

It's started, Hawks supporter started a BF thread on the Draft/Free agency forum complaing about our 2020 academy players and what a rort it is. I expect this will grow in volume if Campbell and Gulden continue their U17 game form into next year.

I suspect that he's ignoring the actual rorts of the NGAs.

[Boddo]

I suspect that he's ignoring the actual rorts of the NGAs.

It’s only a rort if it’s outside Victoria. If it’s in Victoria they call it “tradition”. Like the traditional go home factor ie third party deals.

[Boddo]

For anyone interested U17 NAB all stars game

U17S GF CURTAIN RAISER TEAM BROWN V TEAM DAL SANTO 2019 - YouTube

[Scottee]

For anyone interested U17 NAB all stars game

U17S GF CURTAIN RAISER TEAM BROWN V TEAM DAL SANTO 2019 - YouTube

You are a marvel. Thanks.

Sent from my SM-T805Y using Tapatalk

[Auntie.Gerald]

It was great to watch

Campbell has a real spring in his step athletically and could be a find.

Gulden works hard

Both have good left foot kicks

Very hard to say where they are at just yet vs other players and the draft but gut feeling Campbell 10-20 and Gulden 30-40 if at all ?

There were good players out there in the game who will fill out even more

[troyjones2525]

After Campbell and Gulden does anyone know if we have anymore really exciting talent coming through who'll be bottom age next year? I noticed we didn't have anyone named in the U16 national championships All Australian side with a Giants Academy player (Sam Stening) the only NSW representative.

Sent from my SM-G977B using Tapatalk