Author Topic: Acquisition of talent to help clubs propel up AFL ladder needs addressing (H-S)  (Read 1431 times)

Offline one-eyed

  • Administrator
  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 98248
    • One-Eyed Richmond
Acquisition of talent to help clubs propel up AFL ladder needs urgent addressing, writes David King

    David King
    Herald Sun
    June 27, 2014


THE AFL has become an elitist competition.

Forget the irrational discussions about equalisation and the waffle from AFL House regarding football department spends.

The only area that needs to be equalised is on-field. Only then will the financial benefits flow.

We don’t need to analyse what the NFL, NHL or MLB are doing to level the finances across their codes.

The AFL is a completely different beast and the acquisition of talent to help propel clubs up the ladder is something that needs addressing — urgently.

The salary cap, national draft and trade period are barely scratching the surface.

The AFL has become the EPL. Currently, the top five teams on the ladder have a staggering 32-1 win-loss record against the bottom 10 clubs.

Last season only 23 per cent of games were won by less than 12 points.

The premiership contenders lie somewhere between one and six. Positions seven to 12 is the black hole as clubs juggle positions year to year without any genuine spike into flag contention.

Sides in the irrelevant zone — 13-18 — can hunt for small morsels, but the reality is they won’t be beating any elite teams and their project is long term.

Very long term.

If the AFL are looking for a reason for diminishing crowds — with the exception of Adelaide Oval — then this is it. Supporters aren’t dumb, they know the reality of their club’s situation.

The notion that the draft will correct this, is a nonsense.

If so then why would Paul Roos strike a deal that included trading pick 2 for Dom Tyson? Simple, he knows one elite player isn’t enough and what if that single decision proves a poor one?

It’s a numbers game. Multiple picks inside the top 20 gives your team a chance to rebuild and climb again, but there’s no guarantees.

What is guaranteed is one first-round pick isn’t enough and particularly when the only advantage may be a pick just six or seven selections before that of the current finalists.

Do we really think St Kilda will fly up the ladder quicker with pick No. 1 this year instead of North Melbourne with No. 10?

The Gold Coast and Greater Western Sydney have secured most of the elite talent over the last four to five years, so something would have to go significantly wrong for them not to jump into the top echelon of the ladder.

What hope does that give the rest? None under the current system.

Victorian teams like Richmond, Carlton, St Kilda, Essendon, Melbourne and Western Bulldogs will find it extremely difficult to climb the ladder in the foreseeable future while this supposedly cyclical system fails to offer avenues to supreme talent.

We’ve seen what the “Moneyball” strategy delivers — competitiveness, but not premiership opportunities. Refer to Richmond, circa 2012-14. Melbourne will be same. Factor in the annual vulture-like swooping of elite talent by the top sides and it’s becoming impossible.

What if Trent Cotchin is lured to Hawthorn? Might as well start another five-year plan at Tigerland. It’s just not what we’ve designed.

Free agency is a failure. No, it’s worse. It’s a disaster. It’s great for the individual players as they hold their club to ransom over dollars or contract length, throwing list management into chaos while we’re supposed to laud them for their loyalty. If they leave, the strong get stronger. Hardly cyclical.

With the exceptional circumstances of the two new franchises, which bottom 10 club has benefited via free agency from a top eight team, let alone contender? We were sold a pup.

The salary cap clearly works, but how many players has it really forced clubs to move on? It hasn’t given the bottom clubs any advantage as they generally spend less on their playing list.

The elite clubs preach the notion that their players must take pay cuts to keep the group together and achieve success. Therefore they don’t really lose players they want to keep.

Refer to Geelong over the past six years where Joel Selwood, James Bartel, Tom Hawkins, Matthew Scarlett and co. all took unders to achieve the ultimate prize.

This will happen at the Suns and Giants too, so don’t hold onto to any glimmer of hope that these youngsters will leave for more cash.

Sydney chose to free up salary cap space to obtain Lance Franklin, but they only sacrificed expendable talent and it still remains a sizeable gamble.

The AFL has an issue and it needs to be fixed. This competition has too many blanket rules and not enough tailored ones available to the lower clubs.

Here are some ideas:

CLUBS that have missed the finals have the ability to trade future draft picks with a maximum four-year projection. For example, club A trades a player to club B for club B’s first round pick. Club A can use Club B’s first round pick in any of the next four years.

TEAMS that finish in the top four can’t engage in free agency.

ALL non-finalists must spend 100 per cent of the salary cap. They can choose to front-end some contracts initially, but the following season must spend the entire cap to encourage free agency acquisitions.

CLUBS have the ability to trade contracted players without the players’ consent, but contracted payments transfer to the new club.

BRING back priority draft concessions — possibly after Round 1 — for the terminally underachieving clubs that have finished two consecutive years in the bottom four. Those who spend four years trapped in the bottom four receive two priority selections.

INTRODUCE “in-draft” trading to elevate selections when clubs are vying for a particular player.

LOCK in the draft order at Round 15 and be done with the tanking discussion and Kreuzer Cups. We all accept the ladder will only shuffle by one, maybe two, positions from this time and if your team loses more than it should on the way home, bad luck.

The current system is far too slow and demands those rebuilding to be absolutely perfect with their decisions on talent. Richard Tambling and Brett Deledio over Lance Franklin and Jarryd Roughead shouldn’t hurt a club for a decade.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/acquisition-of-talent-to-help-clubs-propel-up-afl-ladder-needs-urgent-addressing-writes-david-king/story-fni5ezm8-1226967855499

Offline Chuck17

  • The Shaun Grugg of OER
  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 13305
Good to see Tambling brought into the article

Offline Smokey

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 9279
Bloody good article.  Just what's needed to provoke discussion and thought about a system that's clearly not working for the betterment of the league and game.

Offline Diocletian

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 19433
  • RWNJ / Leftist Snowflake - depends who you ask....
Let's get him back to the club.
"Much of the social history of the Western world, over the past three decades, has been a history of replacing what worked with what sounded good...."

- Thomas Sowell


FJ is the only one that makes sense.

Offline WilliamPowell

  • Administrator
  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 40317
  • Better to ignore a fool than encourage one
    • One Eyed Richmond
Bloody good article.  Just what's needed to provoke discussion and thought about a system that's clearly not working for the betterment of the league and game.

Agree, made a lot of sense did Kingy
"Oh yes I am a dreamer, I still see us flying high!"

from the song "Don't Walk Away" by Pat Benatar 1988 (Wide Awake In Dreamland)

Offline Eat_em_Alive

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 4858
Good article Kingy
Its a pity it makes too much sense it would get overlooked by the ivory  tower
The anywhere, anytime Tigers.
E A T  E M  A L I V E  M O F O S

Rampstar

  • Guest
the draft is flawed. In basketball 1 draft pick plays in a team of 5 so that player can make a huge impact. In AFL that 1 pick takes the field with 17 others in a team of 22. The impact is much much less IMHO. In order to help every club achieve success the AFL needs to look at the draft order and to give the bottom 4 or 5 clubs 3 picks each before any of the other clubs get a pick.

Offline Penelope

  • Internet nuffer and sooky jellyfish
  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 12777
that actually makes some sense, ramps.
“For My thoughts are not your thoughts,
Nor are your ways my ways,” says the Lord.
 
“For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
So are my ways higher than your ways,
And my thoughts than your thoughts."

Yahweh? or the great Clawski?

yaw rehto eht dellorcs ti fi daer ot reisae eb dluow tI

Offline Yeahright

  • Moderator
  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 9394
Yep, but would that increase tanking?

Rampstar

  • Guest
Yep, but would that increase tanking?

theoretically yes but the aim of every club is that they succeed  you cant succeed by staying at the bottom of the ladder. If a club gets say 2 years of 3 early picks then in effect you could get 6 A graders and you should quickly go up the ladder whilst clubs finishing around the middle should fall down the ladder so they can get their turn at the early picks.

Offline Yeahright

  • Moderator
  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 9394
Yeah and I guess they could fine tune it how they supposedly are now with PP determined on how long you been down the bottom

Offline Penelope

  • Internet nuffer and sooky jellyfish
  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 12777
very hard to eliminate tanking, percieved and real.

If in ramp's case the first picks were last and up, but then the second picks went in reverse order, so last would have pick 1 and 8, rather than 1 and 5, it would go some way.

The other thing they could do is have the draft order decided on a randomly picked round say from rnd16 to 22, decided after the season is finished.
“For My thoughts are not your thoughts,
Nor are your ways my ways,” says the Lord.
 
“For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
So are my ways higher than your ways,
And my thoughts than your thoughts."

Yahweh? or the great Clawski?

yaw rehto eht dellorcs ti fi daer ot reisae eb dluow tI

Offline Stripes

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 4264
You make a great deal of sense there Ramps. I always like the theory of awarding additional picks for teams that finish in the bottom 9 over three to five years (tending towards 5 but would need to see some long term stats first). They would be awarded two consecutive picks and if they finish in the bottom half of the ladder for five years and an additional compensation pick the following year, if they still do not make the finals,  at the end of the 1st round.

Teams like us who will ( :pray) only finish down near the bottom of the ladder for a year should not be given additional picks imho but for those teams that never seem to jump that hurdle and play finals should be given the players they need to push up the ladder quickly.

The other idea is that they are given a pick that they must trade off, similar to what the news teams were awarded, to secure a quality free agent.

Just my take of course  :thumbsup

Offline lamington

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 2873
  • For We're From Tigerland
Give the #1  and #2 pick to 9th and 10th so the teams can make a charge the following year. That would disincentivise tanking ;)

Offline Phil Mrakov

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 8213
  • They said I could be anything so I became Phil
bring back zoning
hhhaaarrgghhh hhhhaaarrggghhh hhhhaaaarrrggghh
HHAAARRRGGGHHHH HHHHAAARRRGGGHHHH HHHHHAAAAARRRRGGGGGHHHHH