2023 List Management

[ugg]

Gerard Healy and Kane Cornes interview Will Green

https://overcast.fm/+G8Vic7VAs

[Ruck'n'Roll]

"The more ruckmen the better" - Kane Cornes

[Auntie.Gerald]

Do I have our squad numbers for 2024 correct? 44 players

Heeney, Amartey, Hayward
Paps, McDonald, Wicks

Adams
Parker
Rowbottom
Campbell
Gulden
Grundy

Lloyd, Blakey, McInerney
Rampe, McCartin, Cunningham

ChadWarner
Mills
Florent
McLean
Jordon

24.Sheldrick
25.Konstanty
26.Francis
27.Melican
28.Fox
29.Roberts
30.Buller
31.Hamling
32.Warner Jnr
33.Arnold
34.Ladhams
35.Edwards
36.Vickery
37.Magor
38.McAndrew
39.Mitchell
40.Reid
41.Green
42.Cleary
43.Snell
44.Kirk

[lwjoyner]

i have it at 46, 39 main,6 rookies and kirk cat b. aslo further to my comments regardinga need to find a replacvement for rampe in the next ouple of year, someone replied saying mat roberts could do it ,surprised dont think he has shown this trait in games played be they low.

[Auntie.Gerald]

IwJ mate who am i missing?

[lwjoyner]

my apologies have just chexked y numbers u are right with 44

[Auntie.Gerald]

So ressies if everyone is fit in Snrs and with loosely allocating the positional groups below.........that is a serious amount of depth in our talls !!!

2024 VFL team

Magor, Buller, Konstanty
Reid, Francis, Kirk

Sheldrick
Roberts
Cleary
Mitchell
Warner Jnr
Ladhams

Snell, Arnold, Melican
Vickery, Hamling, Fox

Bench:
McAndrew
Green
Edwards

[i'm-uninformed2]

So the Hun has gone into full overdrive this morning in declaring war on the Academies. Apparently a batch of the club's were preparing not to bid on any of the GC's academy players as a form of protest. Self-sabotaging idiocy and I wish it had happened, but Norf's determination to bid on Walter quashed it. It's largely the big Melbourne clubs, but even West Coast has joined the whingeing after losing access to Collard from the (haha) NGA. Some seem to want all academy (and I assume father-son) discounts scrapped; some want the threshold for accessing their NGA talent taken back to include the second round.

They ignore the fact this is cyclical. As, for example, Gold Coast rises on the back of hot academy players, it's access to the next round is more limited. They won't be splitting pick 4 in future. Eventually, they'll be trying to rustle up points by using pick 18 and 36 - and guess what, good kids from their Academy will become available to other clubs.

We know how this will end however with the AFL caving, as they always do - when the answer should be go do rude things to yourself; or, here's a deal: we'll tweak those discounts if we scrap Melbourne teams automatically getting to play the grand final on their home ground.

[mcs]

So the Hun has gone into full overdrive this morning in declaring war on the Academies. Apparently a batch of the club's were preparing not to bid on any of the GC's academy players as a form of protest. Self-sabotaging idiocy and I wish it had happened, but Norf's determination to bid on Walter quashed it. It's largely the big Melbourne clubs, but even West Coast has joined the whingeing after losing access to Collard from the (haha) NGA. Some seem to want all academy (and I assume father-son) discounts scrapped; some want the threshold for accessing their NGA talent taken back to include the second round.

They ignore the fact this is cyclical. As, for example, Gold Coast rises on the back of hot academy players, it's access to the next round is more limited. They won't be splitting pick 4 in future. Eventually, they'll be trying to rustle up points by using pick 18 and 36 - and guess what, good kids from their Academy will become available to other clubs.

We know how this will end however with the AFL caving, as they always do - when the answer should be go do rude things to yourself; or, here's a deal: we'll tweak those discounts if we scrap Melbourne teams automatically getting to play the grand final on their home ground.

We know the AFL will bend over to the VFL mafia. But I hope the damage can simply be limited to something like reducing the ability to use junk picks late in the draft packaged up to jump up the queue quite as much - effectively making (in some form or the other) teams find a way to trade into that round to be able to secure a player. I suspect the discount will be on the chopping block in some form as well (or limited for instance to a first player in any given year.

The ignorance of a large amount of fans about the academies, how they operate, who funds them, and why they are critical shouldn't surprise me, but it still does. Saw more than a few suggesting there should be a premium (in terms of points) put on academy players, not a discount.... But oh no, don't touch father/son picks, how can you know that they are 'good for the game'.... insert vomit emoji here.

[dejavoodoo44]

So the Hun has gone into full overdrive this morning in declaring war on the Academies. Apparently a batch of the club's were preparing not to bid on any of the GC's academy players as a form of protest. Self-sabotaging idiocy and I wish it had happened, but Norf's determination to bid on Walter quashed it. It's largely the big Melbourne clubs, but even West Coast has joined the whingeing after losing access to Collard from the (haha) NGA. Some seem to want all academy (and I assume father-son) discounts scrapped; some want the threshold for accessing their NGA talent taken back to include the second round.

They ignore the fact this is cyclical. As, for example, Gold Coast rises on the back of hot academy players, it's access to the next round is more limited. They won't be splitting pick 4 in future. Eventually, they'll be trying to rustle up points by using pick 18 and 36 - and guess what, good kids from their Academy will become available to other clubs.

We know how this will end however with the AFL caving, as they always do - when the answer should be go do rude things to yourself; or, here's a deal: we'll tweak those discounts if we scrap Melbourne teams automatically getting to play the grand final on their home ground.

Yes, it's such a crock, isn't it? And it's also a good example, of how things that are technically true can also be bull@@@@. For instance, the main trigger for the outrage is the Suns getting four first round picks: 3, 9, 13 and 26. But the only times that pick 26 has been in the first round this century, was in the two years when the Suns and the Giants entered the competition, and they had plenty of picks at the top of the draft.

The main reason why pick 26 was in the first round this year, was that North had 5 first round picks. But is there any outrage about that and are there any inquiries into how the hell that happened? I'm guessing not from the Victorian based AFL media establishment?

And how did they get those picks? Firstly there was pick 3 for the Ben McKay compensation. Which somehow is supposed to be an appropriate balm for the trauma that North suffered, when after playing 8 hit or miss seasons, the guy that they originally got for pick 21, decided that he didn't want to play a ninth. Then there was the assistance package that they got, largely because their messiah coach didn't do much coaching last season. I mean, I'm not a huge fan of Clarkson, but I suspect that with his proven winning record and the talent that's already at North, that he would have got enough wins on the board, to nullify any calls for them to receive assistance picks.

And on those picks: maybe one end of first round pick was fair enough, but I think even the AFL management may have realised that they made a mistake with the other two? That is, the AFL mumbled something about perhaps reviewing the picks originally slated for the 2024 draft, if North did well in the 2024 season. Hearing that, North rapidly traded those picks into this draft. Again, where is the outrage?

There's also the issue of what the Suns actually got. Essentially, the Suns traded picks in order to take advantage of the academy discount. When added up, the 20% discount on their 4 picks is 1265 points. Which is roughly the equivalent of pick 16 or 17. However, without looking at the trades that the Suns did, I suspect that they lost a few points along the way. If so, knocking off a few hundred points, brings the value of the discount to the equivalent of a pick in the mid twenties. Which is probably not that much of a return on the time and money that they've put into competently developing players in largely rugby league obsessed Queensland. Certainly a whole lot less than what North got for being a shambles.

There's also the matter of the outrage merchants treating the exception as a rule. That is, acting like this will be a regular thing for the Suns, when the only other first round pick that they've had in their history, is Jack Bowes at pick 10. And this year has actually been slim pickings for the northern academies. Our pick of Snell was the only Lions academy player taken in the main draft. GWS also only took one academy player, whose name escapes me, but I think he was taken at pick 59? Who along with our pick of Cleary, was one of only 4 NSW players taken in the main draft; along with O'Sullivan and Gothard, who are both from Albury and were largely developed by the Murray Bushrangers.

So, if the academies were to be valued on the top line players that they generate, they probably wouldn't be worth the investment put in by the clubs. They're certainly not the relentless production line, that has supposedly been placing the Victorian clubs at cruelly unfair disadvantage.

[barry]

Gold Coast have done the AFL world a solid by developing and drafting the only 4 players they've added to their list this week. We only took one player (well arguably two) out of the general player pool. So all the other clubs have had better access to the great majority of players, with fewer teams competing for that pool of players.

Very good point. The net effect is that it was if GC didn't participate in the draft, because the players they chose wouldn't have even nominated if not for the academies.

[BRS328]

Buller and Arnold

[707]

Big Vic clubs leading the whinging, no surprise there. Vicmedia doing their bidding, no surprise there. VFL making adjustments in the future to appease them? no surprise there.

Which clubs have been the biggest recipients of the relentless plundering of Gold Coast and GWS? That's right, the ones whinging loudest now! Looking at you protected species Collingwood

I've always thought the discount was too much, being able to match should be sufficient. It would apply to all bid matching including the Vic loved F/S. Making some simple stronger rules around matching, like no more than two picks can be used to match, evens it right up. If those rules were in place from the start then we wouldn't have the junk pick rorts we see now.

A watch on the VFL to see how they handle this crisis

dejavoodoo, nice post

[i'm-uninformed2]

Big Vic clubs leading the whinging, no surprise there. Vicmedia doing their bidding, no surprise there. VFL making adjustments in the future to appease them? no surprise there.

Which clubs have been the biggest recipients of the relentless plundering of Gold Coast and GWS? That's right, the ones whinging loudest now! Looking at you protected species Collingwood

I've always thought the discount was too much, being able to match should be sufficient. It would apply to all bid matching including the Vic loved F/S. Making some simple stronger rules around matching, like no more than two picks can be used to match, evens it right up. If those rules were in place from the start then we wouldn't have the junk pick rorts we see now.

A watch on the VFL to see how they handle this crisis

dejavoodoo, nice post

All fair.

And yes, if there were going to be amendments, the three in contention should be:

- Maybe raising the NGA access point back to second round and beyond, which stops the Ugle-Hagan style rort, but still gives clubs some reward
- Your suggestion re two pick use maximum to stop the junk picks, or
- Amend the discounts for FS or Academies to something like 10 percent first round, 20 percent second and 30 percent third. It better weights the real talent, and gives clubs some reward for more speculative player choices later in the draft.

Personally, I think there should be zero change as clubs will have success and price themselves out of the ability to 'exploit' their academies. But if they're going to do it, something akin to above.

[Nico]

Gold Coast have done the AFL world a solid by developing and drafting the only 4 players they've added to their list this week. We only took one player (well arguably two) out of the general player pool. So all the other clubs have had better access to the great majority of players, with fewer teams competing for that pool of players.

Maybe what some Melbournites are moaning about is that they don't have a crop of players drafted by a team like the GC that can be given a few years development, allowing the Melbourne clubs to assess the wheat from the chaff, then lure the pick of them 'home'.

The northern clubs are getting smarter. I would be surprised if we see the mass poaching of players that we have seen from GWS and the Suns. Some of these Melbourne clubs will have to start developing their own, so targeting the northern clubs players when they are in the premiership window may very well be a thing of the past.

Geelong's pillage last year came to nought. Richmond is on the slide even though they picked up two handy players from GWS. North couldn't attract northern mature players.