Horse was on Footy Classified

[KSAS]

I remember during one of Eddie's Academy rants he said the swans would unfairly have access to 200 players. ????

I also recall him saying we'll have access to equivalent of 500 father/sons with the academy! As mentioned above, idiotic statements!

[Doctor J.]

The problem with the good games from the current era is they would be considered poor games in the 80s and 90s. I was at the MCG on grand final day in 2018, and there was plenty of adrenaline having just watched a very tight contest with a thrilling finish. But over the four quarters of that match, I was never impressed by the football on display. There were still as many missed targets, wasted opportunities, rolling scrums and bad decisions as any other match. Were it not a grand final on the G in front of 100k, I have no doubt it would've faded into obscurity, save for Sheed's remarkable goal. Instead it is hyped up as one of the best grand finals ever.

People who say that were obviously not there in 84, 89 or even 94, which despite being a blow-out was one of the most awesome displays of might ever by the WCE. Or 07, which was the biggest blow-out in grand final history but was still a pleasure to watch that Geelong team armed with supreme skills and chemistry as a team.

It has become too much about the contest and not enough about the football. Fans will excuse three quarters of rubbish if the last quarter ends in a tight finish with a singular highlight.

Talk about over hyped. The 1989 grand final is the most over-hyped game of all time. It was a snooze fest for 3 quarters with Hawthorn holding a 6 goal plus lead for most of the day. It only got mildly exciting in the last quarter as Hawthorn began to run out of foot soldiers and Geelong started to take advantage of their greater number of fit players. I know they got within 6 points, but they were always going to run out of time in the end.

[Mr Magoo]

If we equate the academies to the equivalent strength of a TAC cup team - and recent results would suggest that they are more than competitive in that Comp ( even in the so called “weak” year from last year when none were drafted ) , then I think it is reasonable to expect more than one to be drafted , at least in some years . This is where I think the bias exists except when it comes to the odd gems like Blakey , Heeney.

As to those type of kids being absolute standouts , I didn’t get a chance to watch them at junior level but I have watched a fair amount of gulden and Campbell and while i definitely think they are good players , what I do not see is them actually being that much better than many of their peers around them in the academy - yet they are being discussed at top ten level not just as draft able , while the rest barely get a mention .

[Ruck'n'Roll]

I have watched a fair amount of gulden and Campbell and while i definitely think they are good players , what I do not see is them actually being that much better than many of their peers around them in the academy - yet they are being discussed at top ten level not just as draft able , while the rest barely get a mention .

Interesting point, it's almost as if those doing the discussing of draft prospects just put in a token effort when it comes to NSW kids - whereas they're far more exhaustive when it comes to the TAC kids.
Self fulfilling group think then takes effect south of the border - there's only on 1 or 2 worthwhile NSW kids, the Swans and Giants have them, therefore no-one else is worth drafting.
That shouldn't affect the Swans drafting though.