Tanking is an ugly word in the AFL. No one likes to hear it, but it is reality. And the time has come for the league to make some adjustments to its draft system.
Simply, it is not right for such heavy attention to be focused towards the fight at the bottom of the table.
Melbourne (currently three wins) and West Coast (four wins) are two teams that could benefit greatly this season if they each win four games or less.
The Eagles have no room to move, but if each team satisfy the requirement, they will gain a prized priority draft pick before the first-round.
Teams who win four games or less in two consecutive seasons are eligible for a priority draft selection.
Adding to the intrigue is the fact that, in 2010, the Gold Coast team will enter the draft. The new side will be given a number of concessions that will affect other clubs.
The Gold Coast will receive nine of the first 15 picks in 2010, making this year’s draft crucial for the competition’s bottom teams as they seek to bolster their lists.
What, then, is the motivation for Melbourne and West Coast to win?
They both can’t make finals and winning, apart from the two hours of joy after the final season, is insignificant given the positions of the two clubs.
Tom Scully is touted as this season’s No.1 draft choice. The best young kid in the country could further enhance the Demons’ chances of climbing further up the ladder. Ditto West Coast.
So, firstly, the priority pick must be banished. There is little doubt that it encourages teams to play for picks. And why wouldn’t they when the rules allow it to happen?
Whether teams say they are putting players in for surgery early or playing kids for their future, it all, sadly, relates back to the same thing.
The AFL must, as a result, remove the carrot. And not just the priority draft pick.
Currently the team that finishes in last position after the home-and-away season receives the first pick in the first-round of the draft (after the priority selections).
The team that finishes second-last receives pick two, and so on.
To put a stop to the tanking discussion at this time of the season, there needs to be no guarantees. As a result, the bottom-four teams should be placed in a hat and the first removed gets the No.1 selection.
It may be a team which finished in 14th position, but at least all debates and talk of tanking will be removed.
In essence, under this system, the team that finishes 12th will always receive pick five (as is the case now). But it is the early draft selections which cause the most controversy.
Regardless, the side lucky enough to receive the top-pick will need it.
The wooden-spoon team, at worst, receives pick four. But, in the second-round, the order will return to normal, according to ladder positions (as is the case now).
This minor change will ensure that winning becomes a priority for clubs.
Remember the farcical situation in 2007 when Melbourne and Carlton played a Round 22 encounter, dubbed the “Kreuzer Cup”, that no team wanted to win?
We can only hope there are no repeats of that day, because the game, and its fans, deserve better
Michael C
Guest
Hazey - the main thing these days is the top 4 or 5 it rarely makes that big a difference, adnd the dilemma of being pick 1 is almost too much pressure - - in that you'll only be accused of getting it wrong!! Now - Richard Lounder - a man mountain - 203 cm & 116 kg on debut, I will never forget that debut, as, of his 4 games, his only half decent one was in the 6 goal win over my Rooboys (rnd 5 1989), he played a total of 4 games for 9 kicks,..... ...6 of 'em this day vs North for 4 goals. Anthony Banik - the most famous recruit from Won Wron Woodside.
Pippinu
Roar Guru
Lazza - going back to an earlier question of yours about the relevance of the draft - I think MC has covered it off pretty well. It's a highly efficient model for both developing talent and talent identification and for giving all clubs access to the talent, especially young talent (by concentrating the talent, it means clubs spend far less themselves on talent spotting). The old VFL had the system of U19s and reserves, but the truth is that only a handful of players ever reached the senior squad via the U19s. Why? Because by the time your 17, if you're good enough to make it, you're good enough to be playing senior football in the reserves and maybe even knocking on the door of the senior team - so to kick around with a bunch of average 17/18 year olds in the U19s does absolutely nothing for your development. These days, the AFL teams don't have U19s, rather, the TAC U18 comp attracts the very best 16 year olds from all over Victoria (and in some cases, from beyond), and gets them ready for nominating in the draft as 17/18 year olds, where they then go straight onto a senior list and immediately earn something like $50,000 per annum - and clubs enter the draft safe in the knowledge that this represents the best 17/18 year olds in the country at that point in time - the number that slip through the cracks are very, very small. It's a pretty good model.
Hazey the Bear
Roar Rookie
Michael C, Absolutely I agree, the science of picking a #1 has improved dramatically over recent years, making the draft's job of 'making a more even competition' a lot more precise (although it's not a quick fix by any means). Still..... Clive Waterhouse?!?! Seriously, what were Freo thinking?
Michael C
Guest
Hazey - there was recently a study that showed that in the early days it was far more speculative across the board - - but, over time, the whole talent pathway has improved it's efficiency hugely, via draft camps and the under age national champs (i.e. know we used to have the Teal Cup), and most importantly via expanded 'football departments' including recruiters (with digital technologies) and better development coaching - - - -the result these days is that the top 10 is far, far less of a lottery. After that though, the study suggested the rookie lists were just a likely as regular draft selections once you got past about number 20.
Pippinu
Roar Guru
Dave yeh...but... Going back to Gardiner's gamebreaking grab - it's an object lesson in why you need big men to win big finals games - and why the bullies have failed for, well, forever.
Dave
Guest
Lealis did well he deferred moving to Brisbane until the end of the 1988 season . He played107 games for the Bears and twice won their best and fairest award, in 1990 and 1993.
Pippinu
Roar Guru
You go through the list - and my initial thought - almost right across the board is: what a waste of a numbuer one pick!! No wonder Richmond has endured 27 years of failure - two dud number ones in the space of three seasons!! I'm talking real duds here ladies and gentlemen!! Most really weren't much chop. Brisbane had Leslie and Hutton in the space of six years. Hooper and Gaspar, only so so. At least Banfield played in a premiership and had a long career. White never quite lived up to expectations (but he was ok). Gardiner wasted the first 12 years of his career, until he came crashing through a pack in the last minute of a game against Geelong a couple of weeks ago, sending three Geelong defenders to the turf like skittles, taking an almightly grab which broke the dead lock and ultimately delivered St Kilda an important win, as if to say: well folks, here I am, I've finally arrived. Am I a former number one pick - damn right I am!!!! And just in case anyone has forgotten - here it is - a sensational grab under the circumstances and a pressure kick to win the game, with the half the packed stadium going absolutely mental. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TyVQMK7Hiac Watch it from all angles, it gets better and better. He has run from about 30 metres away to take the mark, and from the reverse angle, you see him knocking over 3 cats like ten pins - sensational!!!! Quick men tire during a game - but tall men always stay tall.
Lazza
Guest
Dave, How have the Yankees won so many more World Series than the other teams? I also read a very good article where it was claimed that Baseball is rigged? All the new expansion teams in the last couple of decades have done really well and ensured that they would survive? It's an easy sport to rig since every pitch is decided by the umpire and not easy to see if it's right?
Dave
Guest
hazey.the.bear it looks like that by the late 90's teams were working out the top draft pick better Martin Leslie was a good player.
Dave
Guest
Pippinu How many high draft picks featured in the Swans’ premiership of 2005? It was a team of work horses. Paul Roos used the moneyball theory http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/news/hawks-strike-first-blow-for-draft-theory/2008/09/28/1222540247170.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moneyball:_The_Art_of_Winning_an_Unfair_Game The problem is that it was thought that steroids may have helped the team in Moneyball http://www.slate.com/id/2180070/
Hazey the Bear
Roar Rookie
Interesting to look at the number one picks: * 1986 - Martin Leslie (Brisbane Bears) * 1987 - Richard Lounder (Richmond) * 1988 - Alex McDonald (Hawthorn) * 1989 - Anthony Banik (Richmond) * 1990 - Stephen Hooper (Geelong) * 1991 - John Hutton (Brisbane) * 1992 - Drew Banfield (West Coast) * 1993 - Darren Gaspar (Sydney) * 1994 - Jeff White (Fremantle) * 1995 - Clive Waterhouse (Fremantle) * 1996 - Michael Gardiner (West Coast) * 1997 - Travis Johnstone (Melbourne) * 1998 - Des Headland (Brisbane Lions) * 1999 - Josh Fraser (Collingwood) * 2000 - Nick Riewoldt (St Kilda) * 2001 - Luke Hodge (Hawthorn) * 2002 - Brendon Goddard (St Kilda) * 2003 - Adam Cooney (Western Bulldogs) * 2004 - Brett Deledio (Richmond) * 2005 - Marc Murphy (Carlton) * 2006 - Bryce Gibbs (Carlton) * 2007 - Matthew Kreuzer (Carlton) * 2008 - Jack Watts (Melbourne) Clive Waterhouse in 1995 - Ultimate fail. Any other thoughts other than that?
Dave
Guest
Lazza American Baseball has a luxury cap http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salary_cap#Luxury_tax_in_Major_League_Baseball and a draft http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_League_Baseball_Draft
Dave
Guest
this is a good site for that http://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/td-fremantle-dockers
Redb
Roar Guru
onside, Certainly the draft picks 1-10 would be somewhere on the web, you'd have to track the players progress and then make a fairly subjective judgement of their success. Players such as Judd, Reiwoldt, Hodge, Roughhead, Deledio were all high draft picks. of course the high draft picks that failed to make an impact are off the radar. Redb
onside
Guest
Pippinu raised a point about the relative success or failure of top ten draft picks I would like to see some stats on draft pick success over the past decade Is this information readily available from AFL.
Michael C
Guest
Just remember why the AFL moved to this sort of system - it used to be relatively open slather - and that wasn't much good. Also, the AFL wanted a draft system to focus on their investment in the TAC under 18s as a funded and structured talent pathway. The AFL at various times have made it very difficult to be able to be eligible for the draft were you not part of that pathway (i.e. playing in the VAFA). The AFL then compell clubs to free up about 5 or 6 places prior to each draft to ensure that it won't be a non-event. It forces churn and it ensures they can go to each new batch of talented kids and offer x number of places (although, not a great deal of longevity). Do I like it now? I see the benefits of it - as, certainly in the 'old days', there were clubs that effectively ignored their under 19s and zone development responsibilities and simply saught to chequebook recruit. This sounds like certain soccer clubs. The AFL wanted greater control - they got it. Perhaps a tad authoritarian, but, being an independant commission is about the best scenario for that. Player movement is always a balancing act - and the restrictive trade period and potential free agency continues to be on the horizon of potential issues. The draft itself seems pretty set in stone now - however, I love the efforts of those clubs trying to work 'outside' the draft, via the NSW and International scholarships and rookie lists. A huge amount of quality has been found via the 'back door'. also - players like Cameron Bruce and Sam Mitchell are examples of players not initially drafted who had to do the hard yards and got there via persistance and rookie lists - - they to me, are the real stories and illustrate that all the natural gifts don't always out weigh determination.
Redb
Roar Guru
Lazza, TV money is also redistributed to clubs and players in the AFL. But as you've just admitted if the draft is bit of a lottery then the picks are not the be all and end all of winning premierships. I think the priority pick problem and alledged tanking is a bigger perception problem for the AFL than an actual problem. Nonetheless the AFL must ensure it is free of such allegations. Personally, I hate the way players can move so freely between clubs in the A League and overseas, I like loyalty from players but that's just me. Redb
Lazza
Guest
Pippinu, The A-League does have a salary cap and all the teams get an even share of the TV money. That was my point, you don't need a draft system? The draft system is a bit of a lottery so it doesn't really do what it was designed to do anyway? The first 2 or 3 picks might be sure things but after that you're just taking a chance.
Redb
Roar Guru
Pip, 79! - amazing. Agree there is so much more to a team's ultimate success than draft picks. Redb
Pippinu
Roar Guru
Hirdy was picked up at 79, according to wikipedia (which sounds about right). It's worth remembering that Chris Grant was picked up at 105. But these aren't isolated stories, the history of the draft is full of top ten picks how never played a senior game and low picks becoming champions. It shows that draft night is just one element of dozens of elements that go into producing a good team capable of challenging for the flag. Lazza nevertheless, the A-League does have a salary cap, so it doesn't pay to get on the high horse about the AFL's draft (which suits our context very well).