Finalists deserve draft reward: Roos

[ScottH]

Finalists deserve draft reward: Roos (http://sydneyswans.com.au/tabid/7106/default.aspx?newsid=66913)

Swans coach Paul Roos says clubs should be given concessions for consistently strong performances

[snappy]

"Everyone will be watching Carlton to see if they can win a premiership by going down the bottom three or four years in a row," he said.

"In a way that may be dangerous because, if they do, teams will strategise and try and put that (practice) into place."


West Coke any body..

[AnnieH]

Roosey's getting awfully chatty all of a sudden.:eek:

[swanage]

While I don't know how such a system would work, I've always thought it ludicrous that we have a system that rewards poor play. I understand why it is done, but the fact that you had a game last year (Carlton v Melbourne) in which loser stood to gain significantly to me is pretty ridiculous.

Talk of teams tanking will always exist while it is in some way beneficial to perform poorly throughout a season.

[Legs Akimbo]

Honestly - I wish he would shut the @@@@ up...

Fact is that rewarding well performed teams would perpetuate the tendency for good teams to get better and @@@@ teams to get worse. He may be a good coach, our Roosy, but sometimes I wonder about his basic intellect.

Just comes across as whining.

[Matty10]

...I've said it before and I'll say it again - the AFL should simply introduce a rotational draft (i.e. in a full 16 year period each of the 16 clubs gets the #1 pick in one of those years).

Having a system based on performance is flawed and only rewards poor performance (and can create club tanking), plus it is also no guarantee for success - so why not just eliminate it.

More than anything else a draft system should be in place to produce equitable opportunity, not simply to even out the poor performers with the good performers. It is up to the systems in place at each of those clubs to capitalise on those opportunities - after all isn't that why you go to the footy and barrack for your club?

All supporters should want to see is a relatively even playing field, where each club pits their best against the opposition's best week in, week out, each and every year. Competition is after all the name of the game.

[Damien]

I like that he is talking.

It is ridiculous that a team that has made two grand finals and won a premiership and is in their 6th straight finals series is talked down in the media so badly - so often.

Richmond, Carlton etc have been horrendus and their players proved nothing at all, yet are praised for having youth. I imagine it is very frustrating for Roos, we haven't even got to play our final in 2008 yet our 2009 season is done and dusted according to the media!

[NMWBloods]

Rewarding finals with draft picks is absurd. Tanking for draft picks is too. Strangely, Chas from the Chasers had a very sensible and workable solution a few months ago in one of the papers.

[Thunder Shaker]

Maybe Roos' rotational idea would work for the second or third round of the draft, but not the first round.

It's also true that the Swans have been consistently successful in the last 13 years, earning only a few single-digit picks in that time. No wonder Roos is making these suggestions. Other coaches are known to do the same, such as Sheedy wanting more on the bench so he could rotate more players.

There should be a lottery for the first three picks, similar to the lotteries in US sport (basketball?). With a lottery, finishing on the bottom gives a higher chance of getting that pick but no guarantee of getting it, and first pick could go to any club that missed the finals. Under that system, the bottom club would be guaranteed no worse than fourth pick.

[royboy42]

Knocking Roos goes through cycles on here like fashion. Flavour of the month when we win, rubbish when we don't. My attitude is that he talks more sense more often than almost anyone in the game..from Demetriou down. He thinks about what he says, doesn't shoot from the hip and shows regard and courtesy to most. Go Roosy!

[DeadlyAkkuret]

Honestly - I wish he would shut the @@@@ up...

Fact is that rewarding well performed teams would perpetuate the tendency for good teams to get better and @@@@ teams to get worse. He may be a good coach, our Roosy, but sometimes I wonder about his basic intellect.

Just comes across as whining.

His intellect is fine. I think you missed the key point in his idea.


"If you reward teams for that consistency of performance that would be a really positive step," Roos said.

"That would certainly be one way to make sure teams stay consistently competitive.

"There's not much reward for continually maintaining a high standard. We tend to reward teams that go down the bottom of the ladder.

"I can understand that system, I'm fine with that, but possibly there could be a way of helping teams that are consistently competitive.

"I haven't sat down and worked out how that system would work, but there is definitely some merit in it being discussed."

He's not saying that Geelong should get the number one pick, he's simply suggesting that teams who have consistently been finishing in the top half of the ladder should get some type of reward.

How you can think this is whining is baffling. It's a perfectly logical and fair idea, which should be looked at.

[Legs Akimbo]

Knocking Roos goes through cycles on here like fashion. Flavour of the month when we win, rubbish when we don't. My attitude is that he talks more sense more often than almost anyone in the game..from Demetriou down. He thinks about what he says, doesn't shoot from the hip and shows regard and courtesy to most. Go Roosy!

He is not consistent...

Check this out

Sunday 24th of August and he says the Swans have run their race...

Swans have run their race, says Roos - realfooty.com.au (http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/news/swans-have-run-their-race-says-roos/2008/08/24/1219262636938.html)


"You would have to say from a neutral point of view that this group has run out ? it's hard to go back to the well all the time. There's guys there that have just given everything over the last five-and-a-half years and at the moment other teams are lifting, and obviously we're playing some young kids as well, but our group as we know it, that's been so good, is just not capable of producing the performances they once were."

Monday the 25th, he notes that we cannot afford to bottom out.

Ailing Swans in need of fresh Bloods - realfooty.com.au (http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/news/ailing-swans-in-need-of-fresh-bloods/2008/08/24/1219516264183.html)


SYDNEY coach Paul Roos has long held the philosophy, which he repeated again before and after Saturday night's clash with Collingwood, that the Swans simply cannot afford to "bottom out".

The northern market is fickle and unforgiving. Roos believes, and he's hardly alone, that even one poor return in the chase for longer-term success could be very costly in terms of support, membership and the corporate dollar.

Then Wednesday 3rd,

Roos stays, takes swipe at Carlton - realfooty.com.au (http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/news/roos-stays-takes-swipe-at-carlton/2008/09/02/1220121235255.html)


Denying his club had ever felt the need to remain in the top half of the ladder because of marketing pressures in a non-traditional AFL city, Roos said he had been genuinely excited by the progress of his six debutants this year, along with youngsters Jarred Moore, Kieren Jack and Heath Grundy.


"We're certainly not gloom and doom up here," Roos said. "We're in the finals and eight teams are not. I find it funny in Melbourne that you're reading about how exciting teams out of the eight are and that we're coming to the end of an era. It sounds catchy, I know, and (before last Saturday night's win over the Brisbane Lions) our win-loss ration was two and six but the fact is we've made the finals again and it's six years in a row and I'm very proud of what this group has achieved.


"I don't think we could finish on the bottom three years in a row like Carlton did. Or was it four? I certainly think, however, that we could sell a rebuilding program and philosophically, I do think we need to take some kids in the next draft.

Even allowing for journalistic license and lack of context, I cannot fathom that chopping and changing.

[Legs Akimbo]

His intellect is fine. I think you missed the key point in his idea.



He's not saying that Geelong should get the number one pick, he's simply suggesting that teams who have consistently been finishing in the top half of the ladder should get some type of reward.

How you can think this is whining is baffling. It's a perfectly logical and fair idea, which should be looked at.

Perhaps my intellect is at fault here, but rewarding consistently high performing teams will also tend to maintain that performance or what is the point. The draft is designed to benefit the competition rather than individual teams by ensuring each team has the opportunity for success over an extended period, notwithstanding gross imcompetency of the Fremantle variety. We are supposed to have some dud years so that somone else can have a go in the eight. That's the point.

[DeadlyAkkuret]

Perhaps my intellect is at fault here, but rewarding consistently high performing teams will also tend to maintain that performance or what is the point. The draft is designed to benefit the competition rather than individual teams by ensuring each team has the opportunity for success over an extended period, notwithstanding gross imcompetency of the Fremantle variety. We are supposed to have some dud years so that somone else can have a go in the eight. That's the point.

I don't think rewarding a few of the most consistent teams would damage anything. No one is suggesting the top 5 picks get shared between the top 5 teams, just that consistent teams should be moved up in the pecking order.

I doubt we'll go on a rampaging threepeat just because we get an extra first rounder.

[Nico]

Honestly - I wish he would shut the @@@@ up...

Fact is that rewarding well performed teams would perpetuate the tendency for good teams to get better and @@@@ teams to get worse. He may be a good coach, our Roosy, but sometimes I wonder about his basic intellect.

Just comes across as whining.

What you're suggesting is that maybe if a club gets an extra pick say in the 20's out of whack with the rotaional system they have now, is tantamount to cheque book recruiting that kept Carlton at the top for decades.

The man thinks outside the square and perhaps that has a bit to do with us winning a flag and staying near the top.

Perhaps an IQ comparison between you and he might settle the argument as to his intellect.

[ScottH]

I got the feeling he was just taking pot shots at the idiots in media, and the nutters that run this circus we follow.

[liz]

I don't think it's about rewarding consistent teams and I suspect that's not what Roos was talking about. I think it is more about not penalising them by denying them access to the best talent in the land.

The AFL's view is that it wants an even competition and it does that, in part, by using the draft to let the poor teams get better. That way every fan thinks they might see their team win a premiership - eventually. But there is another concept of an even competition - one where most years every single club is competitive. So fans go to games believing they might be a chance.

Melbourne were a blight on the game this year, and West Coast not much better. To be fair to Melbourne I don't think they tried to be this bad. I am less convinced about West Coast. I am certain that the Hawks deliberately spent a couple of years down the bottom knowing they would get rewarded for being crap. Meanwhile, clubs like Sydney and Adelaide (and probably the Roos) who do their darnedest to be the best they can each year not only have no access to those elite few players at the top of the draft, they spend year after year having the media rub it in their faces and tell them they will soon be rubbish unless they accept the inevitable and agree to be uncompetitive for a year or two.

Unlock the draft order from ladder position, or at least find some other tangible way to induce clubs to be as competitive as they can every single year. You'd be surprised how many of them would manage to field competitive teams if they knew there was no long term benefit of accepting their crapness in the short term.

There probably is still a place for the odd priority pick when a club falls so far down that it can't climb up. Carlton were probably in that position for a while, but gifting them 3 consecutive first picks is OTT. A better solution would be to give them better access to mid-aged, decent players via free agency and a deeper pre-season draft. Players who can come in and shore up a team while allowing youngsters to develop in a competitive environment.

[Darren Thomson]

Well, this is a load of something. Roosy took a list that ALL the "experts" said would finish last, and won a flag with the same list. The afl, in it's infinite wisdom, has changed the rules to try to change our style of play, and we have to adapt, which means getting some leg speed into the team, as well as quick thinkers. The draft is almost irrelevant. The Bryce Gibbs cup hasn't produced a flag for Carlton, and by the time he hits his peak years, a;long with the other draft picks, Judd and Fev will be in wheelchairs at the old folks home. List management folks. I understand Roos' point of view, he's a smart bugger, but he knows this will never happen, must have been a swipe at someone. I saw mentioned that Brett Ratten had a go at us earlier in the year. Well, the years not over yet, and the blokes who run our club have done wonders with a list that, on paper, does not compare with other GREAT teams who finished - where? Keep talking Roosy, luv every word:D

[BSA5]

In order to reduce the temptation to tank, how about a lottery, with weighted chances for each side?

This is how it might work:

Basically, it is done like a raffle. For each round (1-16, 17-32, etc), each team has a chance of winning the first, then second, then third, etc pick. How likely they were to win depended on where they finished on the ladder.

1. 7
2. 7
3. 8
4. 8
5. 9
6. 9
7. 10
8. 10
9. 11
10. 11
11. 12
12. 12
13. 13
14. 13
15. 14
16. 14

The red numbers are the number of entries into the draw each team has for each round. After each pick is drawn, the team that won is no longer in the draw, meaning that each team is guaranteed one pick from each round. The picks are drawn in order (from 1st to 16th in round 1), so that the team with the most entries is the most likely to get pick 1. If you're wondering why I chose 7 as the lowest, it's because if you go up by one every second team down, you end up with 14, meaning that the lowest two teams are exactly twice as likely to get pick 1 as the top two teams. It's just neater that way.

So, doing the maths and getting the probabilities for the first pick:

Pick 1:

1st and 2nd: 7/168 = 1/24 chance.
3rd and 4th: 8/168 = 1/21 chance.
5th and 6th: 9/168 ~ 1/18.67 chance.
7th and 8th: 10/168 = 1/16.8 chance.
9th and 10th: 11/168 ~ 1/15.27 chance.
11th and 12th: 12/168 = 1/14 chance.
13th and 14th: 13/168 ~ 1/12.92 chance.
15th and 16th: 14/168 = 1/12 chance.

So you can see that the lower the team, the higher the chance, so the system still helps the worse teams. However, it doesn't help them so much that they might be tempted to tank.

I could continue on and do the probabilities for each draft pick for the first round, but given I'd have to 8 different scenarios for pick 2, depending on who won pick 1, 64 different scenarios for pick 3 depending on who won the first two, 512 scenarios for pick 4, etc, etc, and then have to merge these scenarios to find out the overall probability, and I don't have a spare three weeks on my hands, I won't. But you get the idea.

Then, if a team makes finals 5 years in a row or something, they then get an extra second rounder or something like that.

[Nico]

Well, this is a load of something. Roosy took a list that ALL the "experts" said would finish last, and won a flag with the same list. The afl, in it's infinite wisdom, has changed the rules to try to change our style of play, and we have to adapt, which means getting some leg speed into the team, as well as quick thinkers. The draft is almost irrelevant. The Bryce Gibbs cup hasn't produced a flag for Carlton, and by the time he hits his peak years, a;long with the other draft picks, Judd and Fev will be in wheelchairs at the old folks home. List management folks. I understand Roos' point of view, he's a smart bugger, but he knows this will never happen, must have been a swipe at someone. I saw mentioned that Brett Ratten had a go at us earlier in the year. Well, the years not over yet, and the blokes who run our club have done wonders with a list that, on paper, does not compare with other GREAT teams who finished - where? Keep talking Roosy, luv every word:D

Well said Thommo. Hey did you know there is a Thommo in every crowd just like there is a Nico and a Smiddy and a Brownie and a Jonesy and Greenie etc.etc.etc. It was only a matter of time before a Thommo lobbed.

[hot potato]

In order to reduce the temptation to tank, how about a lottery, with weighted chances for each side?

This is how it might work:

Basically, it is done like a raffle. For each round (1-16, 17-32, etc), each team has a chance of winning the first, then second, then third, etc pick. How likely they were to win depended on where they finished on the ladder.

1. 7
2. 7
3. 8
4. 8
5. 9
6. 9
7. 10
8. 10
9. 11
10. 11
11. 12
12. 12
13. 13
14. 13
15. 14
16. 14

The red numbers are the number of entries into the draw each team has for each round. After each pick is drawn, the team that won is no longer in the draw, meaning that each team is guaranteed one pick from each round. The picks are drawn in order (from 1st to 16th in round 1), so that the team with the most entries is the most likely to get pick 1. If you're wondering why I chose 7 as the lowest, it's because if you go up by one every second team down, you end up with 14, meaning that the lowest two teams are exactly twice as likely to get pick 1 as the top two teams. It's just neater that way.

So, doing the maths and getting the probabilities for the first pick:

Pick 1:

1st and 2nd: 7/168 = 1/24 chance.
3rd and 4th: 8/168 = 1/21 chance.
5th and 6th: 9/168 ~ 1/18.67 chance.
7th and 8th: 10/168 = 1/16.8 chance.
9th and 10th: 11/168 ~ 1/15.27 chance.
11th and 12th: 12/168 = 1/14 chance.
13th and 14th: 13/168 ~ 1/12.92 chance.
15th and 16th: 14/168 = 1/12 chance.

So you can see that the lower the team, the higher the chance, so the system still helps the worse teams. However, it doesn't help them so much that they might be tempted to tank.

I could continue on and do the probabilities for each draft pick for the first round, but given I'd have to 8 different scenarios for pick 2, depending on who won pick 1, 64 different scenarios for pick 3 depending on who won the first two, 512 scenarios for pick 4, etc, etc, and then have to merge these scenarios to find out the overall probability, and I don't have a spare three weeks on my hands, I won't. But you get the idea.

Then, if a team makes finals 5 years in a row or something, they then get an extra second rounder or something like that.

Works for me BSA number 5, wot does that stand for? Bloody Smart (with) Arithmetic??

Have you got a trouble and strife, kids , morgage, job etc or do you have a backer and time to meditate.?? :eek:

[Legs Akimbo]

What you're suggesting is that maybe if a club gets an extra pick say in the 20's out of whack with the rotaional system they have now, is tantamount to cheque book recruiting that kept Carlton at the top for decades.

The man thinks outside the square and perhaps that has a bit to do with us winning a flag and staying near the top.

Perhaps an IQ comparison between you and he might settle the argument as to his intellect.

In the vein of Liz's earlier post, the system may be defunct and encourage tanking, which is not a good thing, however, suggesting teams that perform well get rewarded in the draft is nonsense. For what it is worth, I think Roos knows that and is making a different point entirely, which is more about himself. In any case, he sounds shrill.

Oh and Nico, I guess being an ex AFL player and current coach, he must be really smart huh. Good on you for defending him though.

[ernie koala]

In order to reduce the temptation to tank, how about a lottery, with weighted chances for each side?

This is how it might work:

Basically, it is done like a raffle. For each round (1-16, 17-32, etc), each team has a chance of winning the first, then second, then third, etc pick. How likely they were to win depended on where they finished on the ladder.

1. 7
2. 7
3. 8
4. 8
5. 9
6. 9
7. 10
8. 10
9. 11
10. 11
11. 12
12. 12
13. 13
14. 13
15. 14
16. 14

The red numbers are the number of entries into the draw each team has for each round. After each pick is drawn, the team that won is no longer in the draw, meaning that each team is guaranteed one pick from each round. The picks are drawn in order (from 1st to 16th in round 1), so that the team with the most entries is the most likely to get pick 1. If you're wondering why I chose 7 as the lowest, it's because if you go up by one every second team down, you end up with 14, meaning that the lowest two teams are exactly twice as likely to get pick 1 as the top two teams. It's just neater that way.

So, doing the maths and getting the probabilities for the first pick:

Pick 1:

1st and 2nd: 7/168 = 1/24 chance.
3rd and 4th: 8/168 = 1/21 chance.
5th and 6th: 9/168 ~ 1/18.67 chance.
7th and 8th: 10/168 = 1/16.8 chance.
9th and 10th: 11/168 ~ 1/15.27 chance.
11th and 12th: 12/168 = 1/14 chance.
13th and 14th: 13/168 ~ 1/12.92 chance.
15th and 16th: 14/168 = 1/12 chance.

So you can see that the lower the team, the higher the chance, so the system still helps the worse teams. However, it doesn't help them so much that they might be tempted to tank.

I could continue on and do the probabilities for each draft pick for the first round, but given I'd have to 8 different scenarios for pick 2, depending on who won pick 1, 64 different scenarios for pick 3 depending on who won the first two, 512 scenarios for pick 4, etc, etc, and then have to merge these scenarios to find out the overall probability, and I don't have a spare three weeks on my hands, I won't. But you get the idea.

Then, if a team makes finals 5 years in a row or something, they then get an extra second rounder or something like that.

Talk about convoluted...I agree with Matt10....take chance out of it, and don't reward performance, good or bad...it only muddies the waters.