Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 13 to 24 of 30

Thread: Swans Academy Talent

  1. #13
    Veteran Site Admin
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,210
    Quote Originally Posted by Meg View Post
    The whinging part doesn't surprise me at all (but pleased to hear there is one Essendon supporter providing some balance).

    I've had exactly the same sort of exchanges on 'The Roar' a few times with posters complaining about the Swans' Academy. I've generally given up on posting comments there (waste of time, sadly not a true discussion site). But I will be back with a few choice comments when the NGAs' start flowing through with priority picks!
    The match autopsy thread on the Bombers board was unusual in several ways:

    - a handful of Swans fans contributed (cordially and diplomatically) and were mostly welcomed. Usually it doesn't matter how cordial an opposition fan is in one of those threads. They are usually either told to piss of or they are mocked;
    - quite a number of Bombers fans were defending the Swans' academy, and subscribing to the view that Heeney and Mills wouldn't even be playing AFL if it weren't for the academy
    - a handful were even defending COLA, pointing out that there was no evidence that the Swans had ever misused the allowance, and that since it has been phased out, the Swans have not had any apparent difficulty not only fitting in Buddy's salary but also resigning pretty much every other player they wanted to resign. Some (Sydney residents) even defended its "fairness" based on the cost of living in Sydney
    - a couple went even further, pointing out to their fellow Bombers fans that the clubs from the traditional states, especially the bigger Melbourne clubs, have inherent advantages arising from their size, media focus, participation in marquee games etc, and that some forms of equalisation were inherently reasonable for the northern clubs.

    Overall it was a bizarre experience reading the thread.
    Last edited by liz; 14th September 2017 at 08:37 PM.

  2. #14
    Go Swannies! Site Admin Meg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    In the Brewongle
    Posts
    3,153
    Wow Liz! Amazing, I wish there were more constructive and civil discussions of that ilk amongst fans of different clubs.

  3. #15
    Senior Player dejavoodoo44's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Gold Coast
    Posts
    2,121
    Quote Originally Posted by liz View Post
    The match autopsy thread on the Bombers board was unusual in several ways:

    - a handful of Swans fans contributed (cordially and diplomatically) and were mostly welcomed. Usually it doesn't matter how cordial an opposition fan is in one of those threads. They are usually either told to piss of or they are mocked;
    - quite a number of Bombers fans were defending the Swans' academy, and subscribing to the view that Heeney and Mills wouldn't even be playing AFL if it weren't for the academy
    - a handful were even defending COLA, pointing out that there was no evidence that the Swans had ever misused the allowance, and that since it has been phased out, the Swans have not had any apparent difficulty not only fitting in Buddy's salary but also resigning pretty much every other player they wanted to resign. Some (Sydney residents) even defending its "fairness" based on the cost of living in Sydney
    - a couple went even further, pointing out to their fellow Bombers fans that the clubs from the traditional states, especially the bigger Melbourne clubs, have inherent advantages arising from their size, media focus, participation in marquee games etc, and that some forms of equalisation were inherently reasonable for the northern clubs.

    Overall it was a bizarre experience reading the thread.
    Are you sure that it wasn't just a dream? That doesn't sound at all like an autopsy thread, to me. Actually, I would've found it slightly disapppointing, as the main reason why I occasionally venture to a losing opponent's autopsy thread, is to merrily chuckle at all the bitter, twisted and deranged angst on display.

  4. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by liz View Post
    And if you hang out on the Draft and Trading forum over on BF, barely a month goes by without someone starting a new thread whinging about why every club can't have their own academy. One Essendon fan, who clearly is fairly knowledgeable, commented that the Bombers are likely to get far more "hits" from their Tiwi Islands zone than the Swans have gotten, to date, from their NSW zone (in response to a fellow Bombers fan complaining how advantaged we've been to secure Heeney and Mills and how our academy will be an ongoing structural advantage to the Swans).
    I'm a huge fan of the Academy system as anyone on here would know but I also recognise that the system is for the good of the game first and foremost.

    The Academies first and foremost are there to grow the player talent and fan engagement of the GAME.

    With the two new teams the AFL needed to find an extra 90+ players ready for the AFL system. With an average player life of 4 years that is an extra 22 players of AFL standard per year in addition to what was being produced before. Quite a huge increase required for the quality of the product to not be affected.

    Now let's assume the wells in the TAC Cup, WAFL etc are being drained to full capacity. That means we need to find 22 new players a year from new areas which from my perspective are from one of the four following areas:

    * Non AFL regions - NSW from the Riverina up and all of Queensland
    * Minority groups that currently feel not engaged with the game (e.g Indians, Asians, Sudanese)
    * Areas that are massively unprivileged from a socio-economic view (e.g. they may be football areas but there are social and economic reasons that stunt football development)
    * Overseas

    Remember we are talking incremental here. Based on the drafting to date we are getting nowhere near that number of extra kids from the academies

    Point 1 is covered by the Academies. Now I suspect the AFL would like to keep the clubs out of it and fund it completely (thus not giving us any direct advantage) but they know that in the short to medium term for the Academies to work there must be a pathway to local clubs. If there isn't then they won't win the talent war for good young kids. So they have to give us that advantage which of course has been watered down (fairly IMO) but still is worthwhile. I also think the AFL recognised that the additional teams would place a huge strain on the new markets (as has been graphically shown in Qld as I believe the Suns have taken huge chunks out the Lions) and that the Academies needed to produce local kids for community engagement etc but fundamentally I think increasing the player pool is the main driver behind their existence.

    Ignoring Point 4, Points 2 and 3 are covered by the NGA imo. Now there isn't any real reason why the AFL couldn't fund these areas directly and there is no reason why the clubs should get access. But I think, and I am sure it is a minority view here, that I am happy for those clubs to have access to their zones, for the following reasons
    (1) They will be benefitting the game;
    (2) They'll be paying for it; and most importantly
    (3) it gets the other clubs off our backs re the Academies

    I'm sure there will be howls of protest on here re my post. And that's fine because I get the paranoia in here, but the only provision for the NGAs I'd have would be that I think there should be a minimum limit of investment so that, for instance, Essendon don't just use the Tiwi Islands as a recruitment zone. I also believe that they should be subject to the same points system as our Academy kids I actually think the NGAs have great potential to improve the game - one of the things we do not really grasp here in Sydney is what a elitist sport the game is in the traditional states. Go through any list and the vast majority of lists , waaaay out of proportion to the general population, are white middle class highly expensively privately educated kids. And when you look at who is actually running the game it becomes ridiculous.

    My point is that the AFL is in desperate need of some diversity and to me the NGAs are a good vehicle to provide it. And those of you on here that resent them because a Victorian club can benefit from them is really just as narrow minded as the muppets down there that want to our Academy torn down the moment they produce a decent player.

    Finally I don't think any of the NGAs have anywhere near the potential of our Academy zone.
    Last edited by Mug Punter; 14th September 2017 at 10:58 PM.

  5. #17
    Go Swannies! Site Admin Meg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    In the Brewongle
    Posts
    3,153
    Just a minute MP, I for one am not opposed to the NGAs in principle, provided they do increase AFL engagement and develop some young kids who would otherwise not have taken up Aussie Rules. And to achieve those aims I accept some of the players coming through the NGAs probably would not need NGA support (or priority picks) to get drafted (just as with the Swans Academy). (I suspect however the looseness of the eligibility conditions will mean that there might be a predominance of boys who didn't need the NGAs who will get drafted - Boddo is the one with knowledge in this area - but we will see.)

    What I resent are the never-ending attacks on the Swans Academy from people who never recognise any of your excellent points in support of academies. And I am sure those same people will jubilantly claim and defend NGA priority picks when it is the clubs they support which benefit. Hypocrisy really annoys me.

    Ps: there is an NGA thread we should resurrect if others want to continue this discussion as it is off the topic for which this thread was created.

  6. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by Meg View Post
    Just a minute MP, I for one am not opposed to the NGAs in principle, provided they do increase AFL engagement and develop some young kids who would otherwise not have taken up Aussie Rules. And to achieve those aims I accept some of the players coming through the NGAs probably would not need NGA support (or priority picks) to get drafted (just as with the Swans Academy). (I suspect however the looseness of the eligibility conditions will mean that there might be a predominance of boys who didn't need the NGAs who will get drafted - Boddo is the one with knowledge in this area - but we will see.)

    What I resent are the never-ending attacks on the Swans Academy from people who never recognise any of your excellent points in support of academies. And I am sure those same people will jubilantly claim and defend NGA priority picks when it is the clubs they support which benefit. Hypocrisy really annoys me.

    Ps: there is an NGA thread we should resurrect if others want to continue this discussion as it is off the topic for which this thread was created.
    I don't want to keep repeating myself so yes I agree re-open that thread.

    I actually think we'll end up with full academies with drafting eventually. Academies provide a lot better grounding for young players to be given the chance to be drafted. The eagles have already pushed earlier in the year to expand their academy for their zoned area to take in all indigenous kids not just for remote areas. Freo already have a young player who was under 16 all Australian in 2016. Their zoned indigenous areas are an untapped gold mine in WA.

    NGA uncovering the next big thing - fremantlefc.com.au


    West Coast Eagles push for access to academy recruits

    Of course bomber supporters are going to not argue about academies as the Tiwi islands have a very rich history of producing norm smith medalists.

    The big issue for me comes from one rule for one but not for others. E.g Shepparton is classed as a "remote" area. My a$$ it's a remote area,Also a limit to first round depending on ladder position but not for F/S or NGA's etc
    There's more but I suggest read that thread on NGA's.

    And lastly it's easy to allow clubs via academies to pick up players and develop that would have a pathway/background to get drafted anyway, players like Thomas, Blakey & Penrith. When these kids are signed to the academy you have stringent guidelines that are FOLLOWED, that's for you Eddie, that if it is determined that their is already a pathway or that he/she most likely would have played footy anyway you take away the 20% discount when matching a bid. So for example Blakey/Thomas/Penrith would get no discount as they would most likely have followed a footballing path but the academy more than likely has helped Heeney/Jiath (Hawthorn academy)as they wouldn't have come from a non footy background or an area with a lower standard pathway. This would have been the way I'd go in the changes to GWS academy as it continues the excellent development they have put in. Not rip apart a good system, go look at what was drafted recently, not decades ago cause people will point out players like Crawford who was drafted in the 90's, before their academy came in.

    A lot of the issues can be fixed very easily but I'm not holding my breat. Christ we don't even get an even draw so I don't expect any change apart from winding back of the big bad northern academies from Melbourne clubs via their media mouthpieces, that's for you Eddie, Jason, Luke & David.

  7. #19
    Senior Player
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Crowland :-(
    Posts
    3,203
    I'm waiting to see the reaction if Nick Blakey chooses us next year, David King will go mental!

  8. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by 707 View Post
    I'm waiting to see the reaction if Nick Blakey chooses us next year, David King will go mental!
    Who cares of he does, he can piddle in the wing for all I care.

    Fact is Nick Blakey has a choice, he can choose North if he wants to, in fact he still may. The Academy system does not prevent him selecting North. The idea that a kid who has spent his entire life in Sydney in the Swans Academy with his father as a Swans coach can't select the Swans in good faith is crazy and I'd hope Healy would for once take a stand on OTC and stand up to him when he takes his cheapshots.

    And North really should have better things to worry about then Nick Blakey. Their list is appalling and they cannot get near a target no matter how much cash they throw around. I actually wonder if they could have a nibble to Tippett given how much money they have. It's hard to see them going anywhere but down the ladder next season, perhaps all the way

  9. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by Mug Punter View Post
    Who cares of he does, he can piddle in the wind for all I care.

    Fact is Nick Blakey has a choice, he can choose North if he wants to, in fact he still may. The Academy system does not prevent him selecting North. The idea that a kid who has spent his entire life in Sydney in the Swans Academy with his father as a Swans coach can't select the Swans in good faith is crazy and I'd hope Healy would for once take a stand on OTC and stand up to him when he takes his cheapshots.

    And North really should have better things to worry about then Nick Blakey. Their list is appalling and they cannot get near a target no matter how much cash they throw around. I actually wonder if they could have a nibble to Tippett given how much money they have. It's hard to see them going anywhere but down the ladder next season, perhaps all the way
    Not on the wing

  10. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Boddo View Post
    I put this link in the trading/list/drafting thread but I'll add it here

    https://m.facebook.com/plugins/video...xt=0&width=560

    They had Rayner at pick 20.

    The top 20 as Future Stars put it:

    1. Noah Anderson (Oakleigh)
    2. Emerson Jeka (Western Jets)
    3. Matthew Rowell (Oakleigh)
    4. Hayden Young (Dandenong)
    5. Deven Robertson (Perth)
    6. Jack Mahony (Sandringham)
    7. Kysaihah Pickett (WWT Eagles)
    8. Liam Delahuntly (Coolamon)
    9. Jamieson Rossiter (Eastern Ranges)
    10. Luke Jackson (East Fremantle)
    11. Cameron Taheny (Norwood)
    12. Sam Flanders (Gippsland)
    13. Karl Finlay (Norwood)
    14. Mitch Fitzpatrick (GC Academy)
    15. Anthony Davis (Claremont)
    16. Dylan Stephens (Norwood)
    17. Caleb Serong (Gippsland)
    18. Jared Dakin (Launcestin)
    19. Dylan Williams (Oakleigh)
    20. Josh Rayner (Willougbly)

    Unsure who else is an academy as information about NGA's is hard to find
    What Sam Flanders would look like if he came to Sydney.1t76HWV.jpg

  11. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by S.S. Bleeder View Post
    What Sam Flanders would look like if he came to Sydney.1t76HWV.jpg
    Very good SSB, and he can line up alongside Big Bird if we draft Joel Garner this year. I soooo much want to be able to yell "Go Big Bird" at the SCG

  12. #24
    Blakley has been injured a lot of this year with a dodgy back. He does seem a little fragile.
    With regards to Rayner he has the goods and he is a well grounded young man as well. His Dad is 6'6" plus so Josh has plenty of growing to do.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 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