Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 25 to 36 of 71

Thread: AFL changes academy rules and shafts Giants and Swans

  1. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by liz View Post
    The AFL has created a bit of a problem for itself in respect of the Next Generation academies with its rationale for taking the Albury and Murray regions away from GWS. Gil's argument was that players in these areas already have access to existing talent pathway development programmes via the TAC Cup. It's hard to see how they can then justify giving the southern clubs priority access to players from a multicultural background who live in non-remote parts of those states, since these players also have access to established talent development pathways.

    I am all for attracting those from non-traditional backgrounds to take up the game but I am not sure that an academy system that overlaps, geographically, with existing infrastructure is defendable. I also suspect (though haven't done an exercise to support this assertion) that if you lined up an All-Stars multicultural team against a NSW SOO team from current AFL playing stocks, the multicultural team would win quite comfortably (especially if you exclude NSW players from the regions now taken out of the Giants' academy zone).
    Best example of this is the highly rated Tarryn Thomas from Tasmania. Aboriginal boy who already has a pathway and is allowed in the norf next gen academy due to his aboriginal heritage. Why is he allowed in the academy when their is a pathway already there and why is he eligible being from a large city and the WA clubs can't allow aboriginal juniors from their large city. Tarryn is expected to go top 10 easy. Google him and you'll see exactly what I'm saying.

  2. #26
    I should have added Tarryn is draftable in Blakeys year next year

  3. #27
    Senior Player
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Crowland :-(
    Posts
    2,789
    Quote Originally Posted by Boddo View Post
    Best example of this is the highly rated Tarryn Thomas from Tasmania. Aboriginal boy who already has a pathway and is allowed in the norf next gen academy due to his aboriginal heritage. Why is he allowed in the academy when their is a pathway already there and why is he eligible being from a large city and the WA clubs can't allow aboriginal juniors from their large city. Tarryn is expected to go top 10 easy. Google him and you'll see exactly what I'm saying.
    He's allowed because the VFL clubs whinged long and hard about the northern academies, that's the only reason.

    It was a pity that Heeney and Mills came along so early in the academy but what was really bad was the huge advantage GWS got which magnified the perceived advantage to northern clubs.

    VFL as always caved in to pressure from the noisy power brokers in Victoria and we now have the situation that a whole lot of kids already with pathways will get funnelled into Vic clubs.

    Tarryn Thomas a possible top 20 pick for Norf next year, same year as Nick Blakey will be a top 20? Looks like a free kick for Norf who will have done bugger all to develop either player! Over to you VFL!

  4. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by 707 View Post
    He's allowed because the VFL clubs whinged long and hard about the northern academies, that's the only reason.

    It was a pity that Heeney and Mills came along so early in the academy but what was really bad was the huge advantage GWS got which magnified the perceived advantage to northern clubs.

    VFL as always caved in to pressure from the noisy power brokers in Victoria and we now have the situation that a whole lot of kids already with pathways will get funnelled into Vic clubs.

    Tarryn Thomas a possible top 20 pick for Norf next year, same year as Nick Blakey will be a top 20? Looks like a free kick for Norf who will have done bugger all to develop either player! Over to you VFL!
    I think that's an overly emotional view tbh.

    I think it's fair enough for the kid in question to be allowed to decide, certainly the F/S should not over-ride the academy.

    Whilst the academies surely benefit the F/S kids I'd suggest those kids would be draft prospects wherever they grew up due to a combination of parental involvement and genetics. My understanding is that kids need to reside in the academy region for five years to be eligible (it's why Gold Coast couldn't select Mav Weller) and that is fair enough to.

    But if you look at the situation where a kid come to Sydney at the beginning of Year 8 then he can have some pretty strong ties and football education in place already that relate to his father's club.

    Also in the instances where the father is a coach at the academy club the young lad may prefer to make his own way and not be coached by his father.

    Having said all that, I'd be pretty confident Nick Blakey is locked in to select the Swans and no nominate for F/S. He's been in Sydney for over 10 years, has played all his junior footy here, all his schooling and is a Sydney boy through and through.

    If he chose Norf I'd be gutted and disappointed but ultimately I'd respect his decision.

  5. #29
    Go Swannies! Site Admin Meg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    In the Brewongle
    Posts
    2,925
    We've been discussing the Blakey situation over on the Under 18s thread. Several of us believe that under current rules academy draft rights take priority over F/S. If we are correct , if Swans want to draft Blakey, and Swans match any bid for him on draft night, then Blakey can't opt for North under F/S instead.

    However I know the media are continuing to report that Blakey will have a choice.

  6. #30
    707 the VFL clubs were so worried about the big bad northern clubs that they totally misread the situation & now they have given a massive leg to the 2 WA clubs, another example is petresvki-seeton. And they'll be a lot more like him.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Meg the media in regards to AFL are very Melbourne centric they will push this lie to sell more papers n drive up the hysteria to sell even more newspapers

  7. #31
    There seems to be a misunderstanding of the next generation academies. Clubs can only select players from these academies as category B rookies. This means that players need to be overlooked in the national and preseason drafts before they can be selected from the academies.

    This is different to the Swans academy selections who can be selected in the national draft.

    There is next to no chance of a Petrovski-Seton being drafted as a category B rookie.

  8. #32
    Go Swannies! Site Admin Meg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    In the Brewongle
    Posts
    2,925

    AFL changes academy rules and shafts Giants and Swans

    Quote Originally Posted by TheGong View Post
    There seems to be a misunderstanding of the next generation academies. Clubs can only select players from these academies as category B rookies. This means that players need to be overlooked in the national and preseason drafts before they can be selected from the academies.

    This is different to the Swans academy selections who can be selected in the national draft.

    There is next to no chance of a Petrovski-Seton being drafted as a category B rookie.
    No, that's not correct. You are confusing two aspects of the rules re drafting from NGAs.

    The original announcement and ongoing intent is that the draft rules will be the same as those of the northern academies, to start from the 2017 draft. Then in July 2016 the AFL announced that clubs could use the category B rookie draft option at the 2016 draft. As the article at the attached link says, that is expected to be a one-off circumstance.

    I don't know if any club used that option in the last draft.

    "The next generation academies, which were announced earlier this year, have seen every club (outside of the four northern clubs) allocated different regions to develop multicultural and indigenous talent."

    "If the talent is deemed good enough to be picked by a club in their respective draft season, they will be up for grabs under the points-based academy and father-son bidding system on draft night."

    "Originally the AFL had planned to fully introduce the next generation academy system for next year's draft, with the category B option for this year's prospects considered likely to be a 'one-off' in 2016."


    Academy rules tweaked for overlooked talent - AFL.com.au

  9. #33
    Gong it's the 2017 draft that the next gen academies are exactly like the northern academies in regards to drafting, I used SPS as another example of how NGA will change the draft into the future. The overlooking cat B/rookie thing was only for the 2016 draft. I know this because as my son as he gets older will be eligible for Freo's next gen academy so I contacted FFC to confirm most of what I wrote.
    Last edited by Boddo; 27th March 2017 at 03:23 PM.

  10. #34
    Go Swannies! Site Admin Meg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    In the Brewongle
    Posts
    2,925
    This is the original announcement in February 2016 re Next Generation Academies.

    "If a club develops a young Australian from an Asian or African background and wants to draft them, then they will receive a discount on a basis similar to the current bidding system. Clubs will be able to apply for draft discounts on other youngsters from non-English speaking backgrounds if they develop the player in a similar manner."

    "For indigenous players from under-represented areas such as the Pilbara, incentives will also exist for clubs to develop and nurture talent in those areas."

    Victorian clubs handed AFL funding for academies - AFL.com.au

  11. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by Boddo View Post
    Best example of this is the highly rated Tarryn Thomas from Tasmania. Aboriginal boy who already has a pathway and is allowed in the norf next gen academy due to his aboriginal heritage. Why is he allowed in the academy when their is a pathway already there and why is he eligible being from a large city and the WA clubs can't allow aboriginal juniors from their large city. Tarryn is expected to go top 10 easy. Google him and you'll see exactly what I'm saying.
    Isn't it funny how we are banned from having two first round draft picks from our academy, yet the southern states aren't? Part of the reason the academies were started was to reduce the go-home factor because we were at a significant disadvantage to all the other clubs in AFL states. Now every club has an academy yet the NSW and Qld clubs are the only ones with this restriction. We are now back at the point of being disadvantaged again.

  12. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by S.S. Bleeder View Post
    Isn't it funny how we are banned from having two first round draft picks from our academy, yet the southern states aren't? Part of the reason the academies were started was to reduce the go-home factor because we were at a significant disadvantage to all the other clubs in AFL states. Now every club has an academy yet the NSW and Qld clubs are the only ones with this restriction. We are now back at the point of being disadvantaged again.
    The stupid thing about the 2 1st round draft pick thing is that it does not include F/S. So again it punishes GWS & GC even more as its not possible atm for them to have a F/S. So hyperthetically norf could finish 1st next year & take Blakey/Thomas in the first round. But GWS/GC would not be aloud if finishing in the top 4 to match 2 first round academy players. Double standards. I'll also add if Shayden Close was a 1st round pick from our academy next year we would not be allowed to take him & Blakey but the issue that sticks in my mind is that Close is aboriginal so realistically he should be classed as a NGA pick just like Tarryn Thomas from norf.

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO