Swans Academy and player watch

[ernie koala]

I will spew if Collingwood only have to use their second rounder (late 20s) to snare Moore. That's the only possible downside to Collingwoods late season slide down the ladder.

The article says that one recruiter with a top 7 pick says he will nominate him. If this is the case, doesn't it mean The Wobbles will have to use their 1st pick?

[Meg]

The article says that one recruiter with a top 7 pick says he will nominate him. If this is the case, doesn't it mean The Wobbles will have to use their 1st pick?

Yes, which would be pick 8.

[R-1]

No mention of Roos for the Lions.

[Conor_Dillon]

Mills season stats in the reserves,

G K H P M I50 R50 Clrncs HO T FF FA G B

4 63 48 111 29 20 15 12 2 15 3 0 0 2

impressive.

[Meg]

The following re Academy comes from Andrew Ireland's interview posted on Swans site.

"SS: Another area of the club which has attracted attention this year is the QBE Sydney Swans Academy. We�ve just seen that the bidding system for the 2014 National Draft will not change this year; what are your thoughts on that decision and any criticism the Academy has received?

AI: If you talk about it in a general sense, I thought the criticism of the Academy was pretty pathetic. The reality is that there was no sense that the development of football, or of players to come into the national draft, had improved one bit for all the money that was being spent in New South Wales. While there were a number of really good programs, the numbers just didn�t show improvement. We had always argued that if you really wanted to make an impact in NSW and Queensland, then you needed the AFL clubs to have a vested interest in trying to drive the outcomes. With that in mind, we�ve been really happy with the programs we�ve been able to put together with Dennis Carroll as the Director of our Academy and Chris Smith running it, and initially Paul Roos coaching and now Michael O�Loughlin, driving a really intense and great program. We get kids as young as nine or ten trialling for it and we�ve always had a view that it would take a number of years before we would see players benefitting from the programs and come out the other end as potential draftees.

We have been willing to invest an awful lot of money into the programs, but the AFL established the rules, and although we do lobby for them, at the end of the day they approve them. The fact that the first time a boy of potentially high quality was seen to be coming through, we have people complaining about it, and that�s why I say it�s pathetic. Most of that was coming out of Melbourne, where they don�t know or don�t care about how hard the game is to develop in the northern states. With that in mind, I�m really pleased that there have been no changes made this year. It would have been an abysmal decision by the AFL to try and change things so late in the year. It�s never occurred before with the rules, so that�s a sensible decision, and now we�ll just see where it goes in the future.

I was very much involved with the introduction of the bidding system, because we always felt that the father/son rules were too skewed and it was ridiculous to see the case of Tom Hawkins, being the best player in the under-18 competition at the time, able to go to Geelong as a round three selection. The bidding system has changed that dramatically, and there may well be a better way to make it even closer, but the thing that the AFL has always accepted even if they do bring in a new system, is that they will have to provide compensation or an ability for clubs who run Academies to get a benefit from doing it.

The other thing is, as much as you might try and rate what a draft pick is worth, which is the complicated thing they are trying to do, no two drafts are the same and no two players are the same. There have been great first round picks and there have been lesser first round picks. It�s never guaranteed and to try to micromanage every bit of that when there are so many unknowns about the outcome would be a mistake."

[dimelb]

The following re Academy comes from Andrew Ireland's interview posted on Swans site.

... The other thing is, as much as you might try and rate what a draft pick is worth, which is the complicated thing they are trying to do, no two drafts are the same and no two players are the same. There have been great first round picks and there have been lesser first round picks. It�s never guaranteed and to try to micromanage every bit of that when there are so many unknowns about the outcome would be a mistake."

Them's my sentiments too. I hope reason prevails.

[mcs]

Any idea to try and 'value' players in the draft on the basis of some formula is bound to be a dismal failure, in which some teams get absolute bargains, and other teams lose out badly. Much like the current draft.

[ShockOfHair]

The following re Academy comes from Andrew Ireland's interview posted on Swans site.

AI: If you talk about it in a general sense, I thought the criticism of the Academy was pretty pathetic. The reality is that there was no sense that the development of football, or of players to come into the national draft, had improved one bit for all the money that was being spent in New South Wales.

...The fact that the first time a boy of potentially high quality was seen to be coming through, we have people complaining about it, and that�s why I say it�s pathetic. Most of that was coming out of Melbourne, where they don�t know or don�t care about how hard the game is to develop in the northern states. With that in mind, I�m really pleased that there have been no changes made this year. It would have been an abysmal decision by the AFL to try and change things so late in the year. It�s never occurred before with the rules, so that�s a sensible decision, and now we�ll just see where it goes in the future.

My favourite bits.

Longish but interesting interview from one of the best administrators in the game. Well worth reading.

Link: State of Play - Andrew Ireland finals eve - sydneyswans.com.au

[Conor_Dillon]

In the 'trades' thread quite a few people are talking about the likelihood that a decent percentage of our future draft choices will be taken straight from the Academy.

My question is -aside from Mills- who should we be keeping an eye out for in 2015? Any other potential guns in the mix?

[Swanstubbs]

Isaac Heeney highlights - AFL.com.au

On AFL website, not sure if posted already. Looks the goods(e).

[Mug Punter]

The following re Academy comes from Andrew Ireland's interview posted on Swans site.

"SS: Another area of the club which has attracted attention this year is the QBE Sydney Swans Academy. We�ve just seen that the bidding system for the 2014 National Draft will not change this year; what are your thoughts on that decision and any criticism the Academy has received?

AI: If you talk about it in a general sense, I thought the criticism of the Academy was pretty pathetic. The reality is that there was no sense that the development of football, or of players to come into the national draft, had improved one bit for all the money that was being spent in New South Wales. While there were a number of really good programs, the numbers just didn�t show improvement. We had always argued that if you really wanted to make an impact in NSW and Queensland, then you needed the AFL clubs to have a vested interest in trying to drive the outcomes. With that in mind, we�ve been really happy with the programs we�ve been able to put together with Dennis Carroll as the Director of our Academy and Chris Smith running it, and initially Paul Roos coaching and now Michael O�Loughlin, driving a really intense and great program. We get kids as young as nine or ten trialling for it and we�ve always had a view that it would take a number of years before we would see players benefitting from the programs and come out the other end as potential draftees.

We have been willing to invest an awful lot of money into the programs, but the AFL established the rules, and although we do lobby for them, at the end of the day they approve them. The fact that the first time a boy of potentially high quality was seen to be coming through, we have people complaining about it, and that�s why I say it�s pathetic. Most of that was coming out of Melbourne, where they don�t know or don�t care about how hard the game is to develop in the northern states. With that in mind, I�m really pleased that there have been no changes made this year. It would have been an abysmal decision by the AFL to try and change things so late in the year. It�s never occurred before with the rules, so that�s a sensible decision, and now we�ll just see where it goes in the future.

I was very much involved with the introduction of the bidding system, because we always felt that the father/son rules were too skewed and it was ridiculous to see the case of Tom Hawkins, being the best player in the under-18 competition at the time, able to go to Geelong as a round three selection. The bidding system has changed that dramatically, and there may well be a better way to make it even closer, but the thing that the AFL has always accepted even if they do bring in a new system, is that they will have to provide compensation or an ability for clubs who run Academies to get a benefit from doing it.

The other thing is, as much as you might try and rate what a draft pick is worth, which is the complicated thing they are trying to do, no two drafts are the same and no two players are the same. There have been great first round picks and there have been lesser first round picks. It�s never guaranteed and to try to micromanage every bit of that when there are so many unknowns about the outcome would be a mistake."

I think if we are fair dinkum about wanting the Academy long term we need to offer some downside risk to the table.

I'd really like to see us offer to withdraw from the first three or four rounds of the draft permanently provided we get the first four picks from the draft. If we finish last and the best academy pick is rated 20 plus we lose. If we finish first and get three first rounders in a bumper crop we win. If the opposition is so worried about this happening limit it to two picks (one is meaningless).

At the moment we have a bet each way - if the academy doesn't produce then we still recruit a Victorian kid but if we do produce we get upside. I can see why this is seen as unfair.

Let's roll the dice and back our local lads and opt out!!!

[ernie koala]

I think if we are fair dinkum about wanting the Academy long term we need to offer some downside risk to the table.

I'd really like to see us offer to withdraw from the first three or four rounds of the draft permanently provided we get the first four picks from the draft. If we finish last and the best academy pick is rated 20 plus we lose. If we finish first and get three first rounders in a bumper crop we win. If the opposition is so worried about this happening limit it to two picks (one is meaningless).

At the moment we have a bet each way - if the academy doesn't produce then we still recruit a Victorian kid but if we do produce we get upside. I can see why this is seen as unfair.

Let's roll the dice and back our local lads and opt out!!!

I'm sure I read somewhere Andrew Ireland saying that we did offer exactly what you suggest . ie drop out of the ND and grow our own. But the AFL wouldn't go for it.