2020 trading, drafting and list management: players and personnel

[Ludwig]

I'm trying to recall my calculations at the time of the draft. IIRC, I figured that we could keep our 2021 picks intact if Gulden held on to the early 20s. So our calculations were quite good leading into the draft and we should have felt confident that we could get both academy kids with the 2020 points we had on hand. Campbell went early, eating up more points than expected, but Gulden's bid evened things out by going late. I felt at the time that the early bid on Campbell would suppress an early bid for Gulden as well, even though there was no obligation to do so. Just a psychological thing, by not appearing to be picking on the poor lowly 16th place Swans.

[liz]

Is it a stretch to suggest this trade also helped us to secure points to match bid for Gulden at pick 32, without going into debt next year?

Hard to say definitively. In addition to giving away what we got for Aliir, we traded out picks 58 and 62 and got pick 60 back - a net reduction in 2020 points of 147. But then we swapped our future 3rd round pick for the 2020 pick 34, which contributed 542* points for the 2020 draft (which were undoubtedly valuable in securing Campbell and Gulden). It's impossible to know what that really cost us but were we to finish 2021 in the same spot as 2020, that future 3rd would be worth a maximum of 446 points. In reality it would be less, due to FA compensation picks. And because we're not going to finish 16th in 2021...

So while we certainly increased our 2020 draft points as part of this trade, it's hard to know whether this was somehow linked to the perceived value of Hickey to each club or whether we might have done a similar trade swapping out our 2021 3rd round pick for 2020 points independently of the trade for Hickey.

* Even the points value of 542 isn't really accurate because the bidding system means live picks become devalued as they are pushed back by bids and matches. It's all a bit fluid.

[KSAS]

Yes it hurts to watch Aliir at Port but I try to reassure myself by the fact that Hickey is with us due to the Aliir trade. We all know how important Hickey is to our revitalisation this season.

Is it a stretch to suggest this trade also helped us to secure points to match bid for Gulden at pick 32, without going into debt next year?

[mcs]

More so than the closing of clubs in Tasmania, I thought that was a terrible indictment. The decline of the game in Canberra made a complete nonsense of the idea that the AFL is the guardian of the games welfare.

For a city that has contributed a hell of a lot of good footballers over the years, its sad to see the relative decline in footy in this town overall - papered over by the visits a few times a year by the Giants.

There was a wonderful article not long ago on one of the local websites when the 'ACT' team beat a VFL rep team back in 1980 - here is an article from the time: 07 Jul 1980 - AUSTRALIAN FOOTBALL ACTAFL defeats VFL by two goals - Trove . There were some serious names in the ACT team (i.e. those making it big in the VFL), but a large chunk were local first graders, and they beat a fairly strong VFL side to say the least. Those hey days seem a long way off these days sadly.

[dejavoodoo44]

Yes it hurts to watch Aliir at Port but I try to reassure myself by the fact that Hickey is with us due to the Aliir trade. We all know how important Hickey is to our revitalisation this season.

Yes, seems a win/win trade. I don't intend to feel any angst, no matter how well Aliir plays. And of course, if anyone wants to judge trades, it's better to do so after a few years, not a few rounds.

[Aprilbr]

Yes it hurts to watch Aliir at Port but I try to reassure myself by the fact that Hickey is with us due to the Aliir trade. We all know how important Hickey is to our revitalisation this season.

[giant]

Aliir Aliir was very good for Port tonight.

He was outstanding. It hurt to watch.

[Ruck'n'Roll]

Even the NEAFL proved to be too hard for Canberra eventually, and the second non-AFL aligned side in NSW only lasted a couple of seasons.

More so than the closing of clubs in Tasmania, I thought that was a terrible indictment. The decline of the game in Canberra made a complete nonsense of the idea that the AFL is the guardian of the games welfare.

[DeadlyAkkuret]

I didn’t know Rowell was born in Sydney. Any chance of a lure "home" in a year or two or did he grow up in Victoria?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[liz]

We may have less quantity but what about Quality? By the way, the fact that the new ECVFL can include two Queensland Stand Alone Teams (from NEAFL) and none from NSW and ACT can be an indication that NSW is far behind Queensland in terms of foundation support.

Queensland had a far more solid track record of producing AFL talent before the academies were formed than NSW, at least outside the traditional AFL regions in the southern part of the state. There was a steady trickle of draftees coming through the ND, compared to close to none in the populous NSW regions between McVeigh in 2002 and Heeney in 2014. The scholarship scheme, and the NSW concessions that the Swans had, gave some NSW players a shot at a rookie list spot but few carved out an AFL career of any description from such a lowly start. Bird. Jack x 2 (ish for the second one). Barlow, Breust, Rowe if you bring in the southern regions of the state (albeit Bega was never really an AFL stronghold. Not sure about Temora, from where Breust hails.)

I think the participation of two Queensland teams in the new second tier competition reflects the relative strength of the QFL - financial as well as footballwise - compared to its equivalents in NSW and the ACT. Even the NEAFL proved to be too hard for Canberra eventually, and the second non-AFL aligned side in NSW only lasted a couple of seasons.

[Aaron]

That article also shows that the Lions' and Giants' academies have been significantly more successful than ours in producing AFL players - judged by sheer number - than the Swans' when you take account of the number inhabiting spots on other clubs' lists. Though, in the case of the Giants, that is likely attributable to the already developing players in the border areas that were initially in their zone.

We may have less quantity but what about Quality? By the way, the fact that the new ECVFL can include two Queensland Stand Alone Teams (from NEAFL) and none from NSW and ACT can be an indication that NSW is far behind Queensland in terms of foundation support.

[liz]

That article also shows that the Lions' and Giants' academies have been significantly more successful than ours in producing AFL players - judged by sheer number - than the Swans' when you take account of the number inhabiting spots on other clubs' lists. Though, in the case of the Giants, that is likely attributable to the already developing players in the border areas that were initially in their zone.

[stevoswan]

The Hun has come to our defence, talking about our unearthing another steal in JMac

No Cookies | Herald Sun

No one can argue the Academy hasn’t helped us

“However, too often ignored is just how well Beatson and co. sniff out a draft gem readily available to every other AFL club.”

This following article also articulates quite well how the Northern Academies help the league and the game as a whole. It is interesting to note that out of the 4 northern clubs, the Swans have the least number of their own Academy players on their list, that number being 9. The other 3 northern clubs have 10 each......so why is the Victorian 'academy whinging' always aimed at us??

This adds up to 39 Northern Academy players playing for the teams whose Academy they attended. There are 14 players from the northern academies now on the lists of the non northern clubs plus two playing for another 'northern' team, Harry Cunningham for us, who was originally part of the GWS Academy and GWS's Jack Buckley, originally from our Academy.

Academy defectors: Who's reaping rewards from your club's work?

[SwanSand]

Wasn’t a perfect game, but plenty of times where he stopped Reiwoldt one on one or had important intercept marks.

But geez the Port Adelaide team is bereft of ideas at times. They have very good players but probably lack some game plans. Richmond defence looks different than how they did against us. They had number of players circling the kicker at around 20 m and a second circle at 30 m. They were playing Port a lot tighter too. This is the exact problem that everyone was worrying about when the stand on the mark rule came about that the defence structure will just shift a little bit and the game will be down to the defensive slog.
I think we did a lot better because we were doing both of the things well, short and long kicks against tigers. I am sure our game plan will evolve to play some running game along with the kicking game.

[Blood Fever]

Aliir Aliir was very good for Port tonight.

Agree and good luck to him.