- Video
-
Club Roar
Captured a great grassroots sporting moment? We want to see it!Content Collections
The Roar Community
- Join
- Login
I’m going to say something that I really don’t say too often – good move, AFL. There was no need to give top-up players to the other clubs affected by the Essendon bans.
After the announcement that 34 past and present Essendon players would receive twelve months bans for the use of prohibited substances, the Bombers were granted access to ten top-up players to replace the twelve players now missing from their senior list.
However, those other clubs affected by the bans – Port Adelaide (Paddy Ryder and Angus Monfries), St Kilda (Jake Carlisle), Western Bulldogs (Stewart Crameri) and Melbourne (Jake Melksham) – were given only the option of upgrading rookies to their senior lists, as if the relevant players were absent through long-term injuries.
While the Bombers have been busy scouring recent retirees and their own VFL squad for replacements, picking up the likes of Ryan Crowley, James Kelly and Mathew Stokes, those four clubs asked the AFL if they too might receive top-up replacements for their missing players.
On Friday, the AFL confirmed that the answer was a flat ‘no’. This was the right decision.
A lot of the reaction to this has been that if Essendon deserves to replace banned players with top-ups, why don’t the other clubs?
However, it’s not a matter of clubs ‘deserving’ top-ups because they have banned players. There’s no precedent for that. St Kilda never received a top-up for Ahmed Saad, and neither did Collingwood for Lachie Keefe and Josh Thomas.
That was the case even though the respective clubs had no involvement in the circumstances that led to their players being banned.
Instead, the logic the AFL is applying to this situation is that if a significant proportion of your list is wiped out for whatever reason, you need – rather than deserve – top-up players in order to function.
Missing one or two players for the year is not a team-killer – in fact, it’s virtually inevitable given teams will likely sustain at least a small handful of long-term injuries in any given season.
But missing twelve players for an entire year is something the AFL has decided a team cannot endure. Not only does that massively reduce the competitiveness of the starting 22, but it puts serious strain on the list as a whole, significantly increasing the risk of injury for the remaining players.
Think of it as a socialist, rather than capitalist decision – Essendon is not getting top-up players because they deserve to, but because they need to. The AFL can be a pretty socialist organisation, so this should come as no surprise.
Port Adelaide have been the most vocally upset about the decision, with chief executive Keith Thomas saying on the radio that the call “just doesn’t make a lot of sense.”
The AFL spoke with the other clubs in the league before making their decision and they have copped a lot of flak for doing so from Thomas and other pundits.
My suspicion is that the AFL never wanted to give out top-ups beyond Essendon, but considered it as the likes of Port Adelaide and St Kilda, in particular, began to make waves in the media about the idea, just to keep them happy.
However, they have a need to keep all clubs happy, and agreeing to top-up players in the case of any and all drug bans would’ve set a seriously dangerous precedent. They were quite right to survey the other clubs in the league and get their opinions.
Port Adelaide have more right to be upset about the decision than any other club. They have two banned players rather than one, in Monfries they have the only banned player who moved clubs before the investigation came to light, they will actually have one less player on the list than Essendon this season, and in Ryder they have lost a player more essential to their team than is the case for any of the other affected clubs.
However, they cannot put the blame on others here. Their recruiting decisions are their own. When you sign a player you accept them entirely, including the problems you know about, and the ones you don’t.
Don’t get me wrong, they might have a case for some legal recourse against Essendon regarding the Monfries trade, but that doesn’t equate to also deserving a top-up.
The only reason they are going to be a player shorter than Essendon is because the Bombers have a ‘category B’ rookie, Conor McKenna, on the list – an opportunity that has not been denied to Port Adelaide.
Given that both clubs can still only have 40 players available on the senior list at any given time, it’s a non-issue.
Ryder is going to be a significant loss for their team. While his absence might remove some headaches about how to fit so many tall players in the side, it will also leave them woefully short of ruck depth.
Matthew Lobbe will step into the number one ruck role and no doubt will do an outstanding job, but if he goes down then Port will have only one recognised ruckman left on their list, untested 19-year-old Billy Frampton, who himself missed most of last year due to compartment syndrome.
My answer to that? Too bad. They probably should’ve had more than two mature ruckmen on their list, especially when they knew that one of them was a chance to be banned like this. It’s unfortunate, but it’s a failing of their own list, not of the AFL.
Why am I taking such a hardline stance on Port, but not Essendon? Because losing one or two players is only a serious issue for clubs that fail to plan for it. Losing twelve players – nearly a third of the senior list – is something you cannot adequately plan for.
Did the AFL make the right call in allowing Essendon top-up players? That’s something we could debate until the cows come home, but I think that if you are putting the long-term welfare of the competition ahead of all other priorities – as does the AFL – the answer has to be yes.
Did the AFL make the right call in not allowing other clubs to do the same? Definitely.