Quote Originally Posted by Mug Punter View Post
I think that this is a good decision that will take much of the heat out of the academy debate. The idea that they could use that area was ridiculous long term but it has also enabled them to be able to build the list they have now.

If this forces them to start to properly look at their Western Sydney development zone with some respect then it will be a good thing. Only 4 of the GWS U18 zone are from Sydney and that is a disgraceful statistic
I think its a wise decision from the AFL. I don't think you deserve two first round academy prospects if you make top 4. You may argue that you will need to trade to pay the points, but I think two 1st round selections is too much planned and secured talent for a top 4 side.

It may be unfair to those guys, but I think the reverse academy argument of busts such as Hiscox and Davis need to be argued against the Mills and Heeney argument.

Hiscox was a poor selection by the Swans in the 2nd round and was primary done to protect the integrity of the academy. It would have been a bad look if the Swans had not matched the Fremantle bid for Hiscox and send a Glebe boy to Fremantle (although he would have loved the coffee strip and the famous Sunday sessions in Fremantle). This would have eroded confidence in the Academy and the Swans knew this and wasted the 2nd round selection. Fremantle as a top 4 competitor at the time did well to make the Swans burn a 2nd round selection.

The AFL should know that Hiscox and Davis cost more than their fair value because of the need to protect the hope of future prospects. This should offset the Heeney and Mills argument.