Don’t forget (or maybe you should) Hiscox and Abe Davis. And how about the ones who have ended up at other clubs Ben Davis and Luke Parks
Let’s not count Blakey as one. We got kissed on the arse by a rainbow with that arrangement.
But overall, it has been a success. I guess it’s maybe a question of the club assessing the quantum of investment. A bit like when Roos was asked to take a 50 percent pay cut.
'Delicious' is a fun word to say
Thanks for the suggestions all, though outside the arbitrary 8 year paramenter, still interesting.
As deja noted, we curently have 4 ex rookies from the academy on the list, and 4 first rounders from the academy from the list - and only Errol taken outside of those two extremes. It's a donut not a bell curve, is the point. I don't know what it means, it's just odd.
Last edited by Ruck'n'Roll; 21st July 2022 at 11:05 AM.
Loose translation from the Latin is - I am tall, so I hit out.
This comment - when it comes from supporters of other clubs on BF - annoys me intensely.
It takes hours of training and development for young boys to turn into draftable AFL players. Sure genes, and early family activities, and parental encouragement play a part. But only a small part.
Without the academy, there is no pathway for young boys in NSW to get access to the training and development required to get them to an elite level.
Sure, it is possible that Blakey jr would have been sent to boarding school in Melbourne so that he did have access to requisite development opportunities but that doesn't take away from the fact that it was actually the Swans Academy programme that provided him with this.
In my view , its due to a number of factors -
1. The academy boys only get a few games a year to impress at the highest level and are otherwise unseen. Neither recruiters or the swans themselves place much emphasis on club albeit they do seek feedback from people in the clubs.
2. The swans identify a few at about 16s level that they consider absolute standouts who they go all in on. ie Heeney , mills, gulden, campbell etc. Everyone around them is effectively then used to help them develop, often to their own detriment.
3. There is still a lot of "old boys" network and unspoken favouritism going on , even at academy level.
4. The recruiters seem to me to pretty much discount anyone from the academy if the swans themselves arent interested in them. Hence the few players to be taken by other clubs. This to me is pretty unfair considering the above but the reality of the situation.
5. The southern kids are in front of the recruiters at club , school , TAC cup and then nationals level. Therefore they are seeing more of those kids then just the few swans games where the kid may be played totally out of position to where they might normally shine at club level , often due to some of the factors above.
6. Therefore , the swans themselves (and the other clubs) are far more likely to take a chance on that "next level" kid from interstate as he has been able to show a much bigger body of work then the academy boys.
I might be wrong but its just my view of things having watched the academy a fair bit.
Thanks for your analysis Magoo.
I always hope we'd give academy players a chance as a rookie although there's often not a lot of spare rookie places free at draft time. Mark Sheather is from the academy and on the rookie list. Anderson is playing with our VFL side I believe, which gives him a chance.
You'd reckon with the amount of kids the recruiters have seen from everywhere from U16 up that they would have a fairly good idea of the template for likely AFL standard players. There's always late bloomers of course.
Given no academy player undrafted by us has ended up as a long term player elsewhere probably indicates our recruiters know what they're doing.
Bookmarks