Academy uproar rears again

[KSAS]

It's rather interesting how nobody's looking Geelong's way. They are the only club that hasn't finished in the bottom 25% of the ladder for over 40 years. The last time they finished near the bottom of the ladder (11th out of 12), North Melbourne hadn't won a premiership yet (they won their first a few weeks later).

The AFL should be taking a very close look at Geelong, to see how they're gaming the system. They're recruiting an awful lot of players form other clubs lately, so a two-year ban on recruiting more players from other clubs is warranted.

I know this is getting a bit off topic but you can also add how Geelong were able to take advantage of the F/S system back when they were able to get the likes of Ablett, Scarlett & Hawkins with their 3rd or 4th round picks, which enabled them to still access high end draft talent with their first two picks. These players were the backbone of Chris Scott's only premiership win as coach, which is why I thought of him having the nerve to whinge at us getting Nick Blakey (having to match a pick 10 bid in comparison).

[Aprilbr]

Scott's argument that the Swans have exclusive access to the biggest city and therefore lots of talent neglects three major facts:

1. Most youngsters in Sydney do not play AFL but other codes.
2. NSW produces very few AFL standard players when compared to other States. More than 50% of drafted players come from Victoria on average with 5% at best coming from NSW.
3. The Victorian Clubs already have their own Academy - its called the Northern Clubs. All of the strong Vic clubs are full of ex-Gold Coast, GWS players. As an example, St Kilda's best player and captain is Jack Steele. He was drafted with a first round pick by GWS and played the minimum 2 years with them before leaving because he was "homesick" . In return, GWS received a princely future second round pick. This is just typical of the type of deals that have being going on for years. Nobody talks about this in Victoria. Moreover, the players the Northern Clubs manage to keep demand "overs" to stay which helps explain the GWS salary cap issues to some extent.

[bloodspirit]

I guess the VFL people feel we're a different case to the Giants and Sunshine in particular, because we're more established and have had success.

I can see how it creates an inequality - but they conveniently overlook the other inequalities it's meant to (kinda) balance out.

[Steve]

I thought Chris Scott’s comments were fine - I don’t like him but thought he was completely reasonable. My interpretation of his comments were:

- with Sydney being having such a large population, of course the AFL should have a strategy to attract young sporting talent to our sport

- the Academy setup is fine, it should be in place and as part of that we would have first access to the players it develops

- the only question about the Academy is what price is fair in terms of the draft (I didn’t take it as him saying what we were paying was unfair - just that the only aspect that should be up for debate was ‘the price’)

On the issue of ‘what price should the Swans have paid’, the reality is there is a bidding system so we pay what other clubs decide. I don’t see how people are suggesting it has been too low:

Mills = pick 3
Campbell = pick 5
Blakey = pick 10

It’s not our fault no-one bid on Gulden earlier, or Wicks at all, etc etc.

I think it is more the uneducated (in terms of the intricacies of the whole Academy thing) rival supporters who throw up the ‘yeah they pay a draft price but they shouldn’t have exclusive access’ argument.

[Bloods05]

I thought Chris Scott’s comments were fine - I don’t like him but thought he was completely reasonable. My interpretation of his comments were:

- with Sydney being having such a large population, of course the AFL should have a strategy to attract young sporting talent to our sport

- the Academy setup is fine, it should be in place and as part of that we would have first access to the players it develops

- the only question about the Academy is what price is fair in terms of the draft (I didn’t take it as him saying what we were paying was unfair - just that the only aspect that should be up for debate was ‘the price’)

On the issue of ‘what price should the Swans have paid’, the reality is there is a bidding system so we pay what other clubs decide. I don’t see how people are suggesting it has been too low:

Mills = pick 3
Campbell = pick 5
Blakey = pick 10

It’s not our fault no-one bid on Gulden earlier, or Wicks at all, etc etc.

I think it is more the uneducated (in terms of the intricacies of the whole Academy thing) rival supporters who throw up the ‘yeah they pay a draft price but they shouldn’t have exclusive access’ argument.

A bit of good sense.

[HeeneyIsAGun]

I think the compromise will come where they leave the system in place for the first pick, but will add some sort of loading/penalty for subsequent picks. So we can get a future Campbell, but will not be able to as easily add a future Gulden to it too.

I suspect the other clubs were not that upset with us finding the occasional diamond, but are getting concerned when we find two. Reality is that the Academy will start to spit out 2, 3 or more players each year soon, and the AFL wont want to have us simply draft all of our players from there!

[liz]

I think the compromise will come where they leave the system in place for the first pick, but will add some sort of loading/penalty for subsequent picks. So we can get a future Campbell, but will not be able to as easily add a future Gulden to it too.

I suspect the other clubs were not that upset with us finding the occasional diamond, but are getting concerned when we find two. Reality is that the Academy will start to spit out 2, 3 or more players each year soon, and the AFL wont want to have us simply draft all of our players from there!

I think the outcry is stronger over priority access to those at the very top end of the draft, rather than the later players. (Most of the time. Not when they win RS nominations or score 10 coaches' votes in a game.)

The other clubs are completely to blame for the fact we were able to draft Gulden without eating into our 2022 draft points. Either they (collectively, the other clubs) thought he belonged at the Swans or they just weren't paying attention.

[giant]

I think the outcry is stronger over priority access to those at the very top end of the draft, rather than the later players. (Most of the time. Not when they win RS nominations or score 10 coaches' votes in a game.)

The other clubs are completely to blame for the fact we were able to draft Gulden without eating into our 2022 draft points. Either they (collectively, the other clubs) thought he belonged at the Swans or they just weren't paying attention.

It now seems almost impossible he got to that point (pick 32) given the quality of football he's playing and the immediate impact he's having. Either they were asleep at the wheel or he's been doing one hell of a sandbagging job these last few years. As I've said elsewhere, I get this incredible sense of anticipation and excitement whenever the ball is in his hands, not because he'll do some Rankine-style magic, but because he'll likely turn the game on its head with his vision and skill - that's remarkable for a kid with 3 games under his belt.

[Old Yella]

The problem with the “Academy” is its elitist name. A nurturing place where intensive AFL skills are taught by qualified experienced coaches happens all through footy mad Victoria. Private schools like Assumption College, the Geelong Falcons and lots of after school workshops develop kids like our Academy does. This is how Gary Rowan learnt to play the game at a high level and this is why he wanted to go home. We are not building a super human we are simply replicating the established Victorian system in a state where little exists.

Either the AFL pays for it or we pay for it and get priority access as compensation. Move on..... Nothing to see here.......


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Steve]

Reality is that the Academy will start to spit out 2, 3 or more players each year soon, and the AFL wont want to have us simply draft all of our players from there!

I don’t really see that doomsday happening, where we’re a top team and producing multiple gun Academy players each year.

If we are a top team (ie. only have draft picks late in the first and subsequent rounds), we’ll barely have the points to cover matching a bid for one top player each year anyway.

I don’t have a lot of faith in the AFL, but they do understand ‘commercial realities’, and they know having guys like Heeney, Mills, Campbell and Gulden playing for the Swans is the equivalent of millions (probably tens of) that would otherwise have to be spent promoting the game at grass roots and teenage levels in NSW.

They will always have pressure on them to keep it fair, but there’s just no way the AFL would relent completely and devalue the Academy system, even if only for the reason above. They also have to keep it appealing to the other 3 northern clubs, which is to our benefit.

Although in a way it would be satisfying to produce gun kids in the Academy, have the other clubs get their way and we lose access to them, and we then prey on those 14 VIC/SA/WA clubs with the go-home factor and trade for them with third round picks, after they’ve done a couple of years work experience elsewhere.

[Thunder Shaker]

I think the outcry is stronger over priority access to those at the very top end of the draft, rather than the later players. (Most of the time. Not when they win RS nominations or score 10 coaches' votes in a game.)

The other clubs are completely to blame for the fact we were able to draft Gulden without eating into our 2022 draft points. Either they (collectively, the other clubs) thought he belonged at the Swans or they just weren't paying attention.

A particular "problem" with Gulden last year was his height. With a listed height of 171 cm, he was considered too short by many. There is an article of faith among many recruiters that a player must attain a particular height to be of AFL standard, as if top-level AFL is a carnival ride with a strict height limit.

What escaped the notice of the recruiters was Gulden had a little growth spurt so his listed height was out of date. Another thing to note is that Gulden was very good regardless of his height.

Brent Harvey (North Melbourne) was also considered too short (at 168 cm) when he was recruited in 1995. "They've recruited a jockey", Pagan said. Harvey played 432 games in the AFL, more than any other player and had a listed height of 177 cm at retirement.

[Rod_]

Currently they know who we have trained up and have access if they choose to bid on our academy players. Only benefit is that we just get the ability to match bids and have a discount if they are in the system..

Solution, close the academy and hide players in the NEAFL / ACT or other zone approved areas (like the Victorians, SA and WA teams)

Or we could auction the best young players on draft night. (with points not $)

[Thunder Shaker]

Although in a way it would be satisfying to produce gun kids in the Academy, have the other clubs get their way and we lose access to them, and we then prey on those 14 VIC/SA/WA clubs with the go-home factor and trade for them with third round picks, after they’ve done a couple of years work experience elsewhere.

The days where the northern clubs are expected by the other clubs to part with required players for lower draft picks may be over.

Look at what happened with GWS, Geelong and Jeremy Cameron. GWS got three first-round draft picks out of Geelong. Once one first-round draft pick is deemed insufficient, the other clubs will eventually learn that using the northern clubs as "work experience" may come with a very heavy draft price, as it should.

[Markwebbos]

I’m sure someone has already made this point but I couldn’t find the post.

Michael Gleeson made the point that the Swans academy, because it starts from 10yo, turns out draftees with exceptional skills potentially better than those who go through the VIC, WA, SA systems.

Now that other clubs realise this, I suspect they will be much more likely to draft our graduates than they have been in the past. Errol Gulden is exhibit A

[liz]

A particular "problem" with Gulden last year was his height. With a listed height of 171 cm, he was considered too short by many. There is an article of faith among many recruiters that a player must attain a particular height to be of AFL standard, as if top-level AFL is a carnival ride with a strict height limit.

Even at 171cm I think he would have been good enough for an AFL career. Caleb Daniel has shown that if you're good enough, you are tall enough, albeit you may be limited in the roles you can play.

Gulden and Daniel are a little different to the likes of Brent Harvey and most of the other small (eg low 170cm height range players) who have played senior football in that pace isn't a particular attribute. Neither is snail like - and indeed, Gulden says he's been working on his speed - but they aren't the prototype small forwards who rely on their agility and pace to dodge and weave amongst other players.

But both read the game exceptionally well, have great vision and decision making ability, and the skills to execute.