Melbourne’s Michael Newton and Lynden Dunn look dejected at the finish of the AFL Round 02 match between the Collingwood Magpies and the Melbourne Demons at the MCG, Melbourne.
The AFL seem intent on removing priority picks as a way to end tanking, or the perception of tanking, as they put it. Many in the media are supportive of this approach, too. There’s just one problem – it’s not that simple.
Firstly, because the priority pick system still has a place in the game.
Just look at Port Adelaide. In a season with no incentive to tank due to the compromised draft ahead, they are on track to win two games. The outlook for next year isn’t much better.
If ever a club was in need of a priority pick, Port would be it – but the scrapping of priority picks would deny them that.
Secondly, it isn’t the right approach because the basic premise behind it – that removing priority picks would end tanking talk – is flawed.
Even without the priority pick on offer, there is still incentive for clubs to finish lower on the ladder and improve their draft position. Recent history even provides an example of a club that did exactly that.
Two years ago former Richmond coach Terry Wallace admitted his effort levels during the Round 22, 2007 game against St Kilda were minimal. “We decided the best way to operate was just to let the players go out,” Wallace said. “I didn’t do anything. I just let the boys play. There weren’t any miracle moves in the last couple of minutes.”
And why did the Tigers adopt this plan? A loss in that game would have ensured the team would finish last and thus be able to draft a player they’d had their eyes on for a while, Trent Cotchin.
Now, in the interests of full disclosure, the Tigers were also in line for an end-of-first-round priority pick by not winning. However, Wallace made it clear that Cotchin was the reason for backing off in that game against St Kilda.
So even if the priority pick was taken away, the notion that any and all tanking talk would suddenly disappear is ridiculous. A different solution is needed.
Enter, Mark Stevens from the Herald Sun.
Stevo had a fantastic suggestion yesterday, which would go tackle the issue at its heart by ensuring less weight is given to “junk matches” late in the season, such as the mentioned Richmond game in 2007, Melbourne’s two bizarre late 2009 games and of course the infamous ‘Kreuzer Cup’.
His plan would see the system that uses ladder position at the end of the season to determine the draft order ditched. Instead, a club’s ladder position after each round of the entire season would be taken into consideration.
Using Port Adelaide as an example, Stevens writes: “Take Port Adelaide’s ladder position at the end of each round this season and divide by 20. You arrive at an average ladder position of 15.75.”
Now, using this system, Gold Coast’s average ladder position would be 16.15, meaning they would be in line for the first pick. So it’s bound to have its critics.
However, if the aim is to kill off any tanking talk forever, a different solution is needed. Up until now, an NBA-style draft lottery has been the best alternative anyone can come up with – a system which could potentially see a side finish as high as ninth end up with the first overall pick (depending on how you structure it).
As Stevens says, “the mooted lottery system has the potential to throw up far greater injustices”.
Using ladder position from across the whole season would also make it incredibly unlikely one late season game, or even a couple of late season games, would be the difference between a club getting the No. 1 or No. 2 pick – or the difference between Trent Cotchin or Chris Masten, as the case may be.
The final upside here is that the priority pick may be able to live on after all, just by applying the same system.
“In an 18-team competition next season, if your ladder position average is more than 17, you get a priority pick at the end of the first round,” Stevens writes.
“Average a ladder position of 17 or more two years running and that team would then receive a pick at the start of the draft. A team would have to be insanely poor to execute that dirty double. It might be a once in a 20 years event and if it happened, there would be no accusations of tanking.”
Sounds like Stevo is on to a winner. Let’s hope the AFL is taking notes.
simonjzw
Roar Pro
I think something has to be done about and so I'll throw my suggestions out there for ridicule.... 1. Bottom 6 teams go into a ballot to determine draft picks 1 - 6. 2. Priority Picks remain but are given out after pick 6 in the first round 3. At the conclusion of R17 the bottom 6 clubs compete for significant, tiered cash prizes over the last 5 rounds. They receive 1 point for every team below them that that they beat and 2 points for every team above them that they beat. Cash prize for 1st to 6th in this late season competition to partially replace AFL $$ assistance packages to sturuggling clubs. Now I'm sure you all have problems with that.....
Cotchinsoda
Guest
Using a team's median (rather than mean) ladder position would be even better, and eliminate the anomalies caused by the uneven draw.
brendan
Guest
i read that comment that was in response to the catterys assertion regarding only one no one draft pick playing in a flag.I think the entire drafting system is flawed i do agree that the present priority system is open to manipulation but dont think there is enough evidence to categorically prove this.One thing is certain we need a drafting system above reproach and to my mind the American lottery method or an open first round drafting system with priorities as well may work.interesting that Kevin Sheedy who has often questioned whether taking young lads away from there families via interstate drafting is ideal and now he has first crack at moving many boys to Gws.You are right in that Wce and Carlton are the litmus test of the priority system and it would be interesting to re-visit this discussion in a few years to see there results.
Michael DiFabrizio
Expert
Brendan, just on this comment: "I am yet too be convinced tanking helps clubs as i cant name a team that has had final success on players supposedly recruited via manipulated results" I wrote the following in a comment earlier in the week... The big carrot in relation to tanking has been the priority pick, and it’s worth noting Hawthorn won a flag with two priority picks in their team (Jarryd Roughead and Xavier Ellis) and Collingwood won with one in their team (Dale Thomas) too. (Not suggesting these teams tanked to get these players, just highlighting what's on offer by tanking.) Looking forward, priority picks have given Andrew Walker, Marc Murphy and Matthew Kreuzer to Carlton, and end-of-first-round priority picks have sent Luke Shuey and Jack Darling to West Coast – these are two teams that might land a premiership in coming years.
Michael DiFabrizio
Expert
That's a point worth raising, Timmuh. Any solution that pretty much kills off any speculation of tanking is going to have other consequences (such as the draft order maybe not being 100% reflective of performance or the issue you've raised). So each solution has to be weighed up against the current system, as well as the half-assed solution of removing of priority picks, which would not kill all tanking speculation. I guess it all boils down to which goals are we actually trying to achieve.
Michael DiFabrizio
Expert
Pete, not a bad idea as I agree "percentage is a more accurate guide to performance than games won and lost" - in a lot of cases, anyway. The issue would be that if you're in charge of a club with six or so games left in the season and your percentage ain't crash hot, you could let opposition teams run up the score for those last six or so games, which would impact your percentage. Now, that (losing heavily) is more difficult to pull off than just trying to lose, so it's a step in the right direction at least.
Handles O'Love
Guest
I don't understand why they can't have a discretionary pick, granted by a neutral panel appointed by the AFL. Truly, any system that relies on the season results is unreliable. Look at Collingwood's priority pick in the 2005 draft. (I know that this led to a change in the rules). Factors such as the age of the list, any injuries to key players, the uneven draw, the number of close games compared to the thrashings, and of course, if they looked like they played every minute of every game at full potential - could all be taken into account. The draft and the picks do a reasonable job of keeping a competition free of behemoths and generational superteams, but it needs help. Certainly we are not too cynical to let some human judgement help out the stats?
brendan
Guest
Last year and this years draft have been compromised by the introduction of the suns and giants so the concept of tanking goes back a few years.With the free agency provision about to be introduced it will alter the draft again .The solution in the article is a bit too complicated bear in mind the average Afl supporter cant work out how the final system works.I am yet too be convinced tanking helps clubs as i cant name a team that has had final success on players supposedly recruited via manipulated results.The lottery system in American sport seems to ensure teams compete on there merit.
AFL Is The Best
Guest
Someone had a great idea the other day. To prevent teams from tanking, ensure that the last 17 weeks weeks of the competition, every team plays each other once. That way if a team isn't in finals contention towards the end of the season, you just cancel their remaining matches.
Pete from adelaide
Guest
Another idea would be to structure the draft selection order according to percentage rather than ladder position. When you think about it, percentage is a more accurate guide to performance than games won and lost. You may have a team with a poor percentage win a lot of close games, with the result that their ladder position exagerates their real strength. Another point is the percentage movement near the end of the season is very small and a team would have to have 30 to 40 goal results to acheive a percentage ladder shift. Also the percentage shift are sublime. It depends on what you score, what your opponent scores and other teams. It is impossible to predict. Hence, the end of the TANK.
Timmuh
Roar Guru
An easy, or hard, draw in the early rounds would affect the average position, if taken on a week by week basis. Assume, for the moment, that Richmond had drawn Gold Coast, Port Adelaide, Brisbane and Melbourne in the opening four weeks this year. They could have been first or second four weeks in, dramatically lowering their "average" position. If someone who finishes one spot above them on the ladder started with Collingwood, Geelong, Carlton and a trip to Perth they could conceivably have been sitting winless after four rounds and by virtue of a harder first up draw - not necessarily overall - get a much higher draft pick. It might reduce the temptation to tank, but increase the already bizarre inequities resulting from the fixture. Maybe it could work for deciding whether a club gets a priority pick, but for the overall draft order I don't necessarily see it as a improvement. (Then again, I'm in favour or just scrapping the draft.)