success cycles

[mauriesy 7,299]

I can see the effects of free agency, expansion clubs, the 'fixture', lack of TV appearances etc. on lower clubs, and there are some reasonable arguments in favour of being caught in a cycle that makes it hard to drag yourself off the bottom.

But I think they are grossly over-stated, and they risk pervasion of a 'woe-is-us' attitude that's as self-defeating as it is annoying.

There's only one main reason that we are where we are, and that is our recruiting up to 2012 was deplorable. Certainly it wasn't helped by losses to free agency and permanent injury, but if we'd drafted contestable, hard, skilled players with a strong will to win, we wouldn't be down the bottom and fearing losing players to clubs in the premiership window. The situation developed well before free agency and expansion clubs were in existence, going back as far as 2003.

[rjay 24,939]

I can see the effects of free agency, expansion clubs, the 'fixture', lack of TV appearances etc. on lower clubs, and there are some reasonable arguments in favour of being caught in a cycle that makes it hard to drag yourself off the bottom.

But I think they are grossly over-stated, and they risk pervasion of a 'woe-is-us' attitude that's as self-defeating as it is annoying.

There's only one main reason that we are where we are, and that is our recruiting up to 2012 was deplorable. Certainly it wasn't helped by losses to free agency and permanent injury, but if we'd drafted contestable, hard, skilled players with a strong will to win, we wouldn't be down the bottom and fearing losing players to clubs in the premiership window. The situation developed well before free agency and expansion clubs were in existence, going back as far as 2003.

That's true but the problem is now it is so much harder to get off the bottom than before. We stuffed up badly and it's why the previous club management have so much to answer for.

[Tony Tea 2,809]

I still don't understand the AFL's eagerness to introduce GWS and GC. Benefit of the doubt me thinks it will pay off in the long run. Cynical me (my dominant side) thinks it was a vanity play by Demetriou to spike North after the Roos knocked back Queensland.

[mauriesy 7,299]

That's true but the problem is now it is so much harder to get off the bottom than before. We stuffed up badly and it's why the previous club management have so much to answer for.

The only successful first-round draft picks we've had in the decade prior to 2012 have been Nathan Jones and, ironically, James Frawley. All the others have been underachievers relative to their selected position. The two high priority picks we got (Sylvia, Scully) were largely wasted, partly because they were bad drafts anyway (we'd be lamenting Scully like we do Watts if he'd stayed).

There's not one single player left from the 2003 ND (and 2011 by the way). There's one left from 2004 (Dunn), 2005 (Jones), 2006 (Garland, if Frawley leaves) and 2007 (Grimes). These were the drafts that should have left us with established, quality, experienced players in the 25-28 age group showing leadership.

Talk of cycles is irrelevant when you look at what we've done.

[rjay 24,939]

The only successful first-round draft picks we've had in the decade prior to 2012 have been Nathan Jones and, ironically, James Frawley. All the others have been underachievers relative to their selected position. The two high priority picks we got (Sylvia, Scully) were largely wasted, partly because they were bad drafts anyway (we'd be lamenting Scully like we do Watts if he'd stayed).

There's not one single player left from the 2003 ND (and 2011 by the way). There's one left from 2004 (Dunn), 2005 (Jones), 2006 (Garland, if Frawley leaves) and 2007 (Grimes). These were the drafts that should have left us with established, quality, experienced players in the 25-28 age group showing leadership.

Talk of cycles is irrelevant when you look at what we've done.

We couldn't afford to get it wrong and we did. That's put us in a very precarious position now.

I'm not sure what your argument is, there is no cycle now, that's gone. We now have a 2 tier competition, we had our chance to be in the top tier and blew it.

[WhyAlwaysMe 237]

thanks everyone for there input, heres mine for what its worth. i split them to 2 groups Vic & Interstate, Starting from being a low ranked interstate side you will always have the advantage of 11 home games of which you will be very likely to beat the side with a similar list at home plus the usual unexpected victories as we did this year will leave you with aprox 7 wins , a nice platform from where you can start to build, and not likely you will have multiple years of 4 wins or less due to these circumstances, alternatively a Vic side would not have this advantage and that 7 win season more likely be 4 or less, once the 7 win season is achieved by a Vic team it must be maintained, any slip back to a 4 win season and the hard work will be undone. its very rare to see a interstate side rock bottom for more than 1 year, yet its taken an eternity for teams like WB, Carlton, Richmond to crawl up the ladder and currently Us & Saints.

This theory works all the way up the ladder, a interstate team that should have the quality of a 7win season becomes 10 wins beat the bottom teams in your away games and beat the teams around you in quality in you home games and there you go.

Once you have a list of high quality, win the majority of your home games, half your away games, you will finish top 4, win 2 home finals & your in the GF WITH A 50/50 shot at it.

Geelong, Collingwood & Saints had success thru the same period, Saints have fallen hard due to Ross Lyon failure to look after the club while chasing success, yet Cats & Pies remain solid teams while adding something to the cabinet, The draft & FA killed 1 club yet the other 2 have been able to remain solid due to it.

Bottom line Hawks, Cats, Pies will all fall 1 day and it will be no different it will take them an eternity to recover aswell, yet they will blame something else culture, attitude, effort, whatever.

Syd, Freo will also fall but they will be back in top 4 around 10 years average or less, they will tell us they have great culture, where was the great culture when they were Fitzroy or Sth Melb.

When North fall they will not be able to recover under the current format.

Edited September 2, 2014 by budge

[Webber 10,468]

Good reading all. I grew up with the post-64 dees, and until 1987 was pretty convinced the worm would never turn. I'm not convinced I see the worm turning now, but I hope like I did back then. The circumstances now are completely different however. National draft, salary cap, and interstate clubs are transformative to the idea of an 'even' competition.

The AFL are however talking equalisation while doing sweet FA about it. A few issues. Firstly, the draft IS a lottery to some degree. Statistically this is so. Draft compensation for free agency is NOT equalisation, it is an ATTEMPT at equalisation, and it clearly favours the top clubs. Secondly, the draft running as a pick 1 to 18 ordered sequence to the 18 clubs is a feeble stab at equalisation. Give the first 12 picks to the bottom 4 teams every year ( last gets 1,5 and 9), and things would even out very quickly, then stabilise after a decade or so, where the top 4 rotate through the 18 clubs much more readily. The father/son rule can be very uneven. It shouldn't be, but it has proven to be.

Until the AFL use the draft properly, the comp is going to struggle for balance.

[monoccular 17,432]

The only successful first-round draft picks we've had in the decade prior to 2012 have been Nathan Jones and, ironically, James Frawley. All the others have been underachievers relative to their selected position. The two high priority picks we got (Sylvia, Scully) were largely wasted, partly because they were bad drafts anyway (we'd be lamenting Scully like we do Watts if he'd stayed).There's not one single player left from the 2003 ND (and 2011 by the way). There's one left from 2004 (Dunn), 2005 (Jones), 2006 (Garland, if Frawley leaves) and 2007 (Grimes). These were the drafts that should have left us with established, quality, experienced players in the 25-28 age group showing leadership.Talk of cycles is irrelevant when you look at what we've done.

One would have to say, despite the fact that drafting is an inexact science, that statistically in the hands of most other clubs, picks in the first 10 or so usually end up better than lower ones. We have been gifted more than most have in the top 10 and have seriously either got the picks wrong, or failed to make the most of those drafted for whatever reason (poor coaching, poor fitness management, poor "culture" and lack of leadership on and off the field). I just hope that our current off field team can turn this around, and do it in time for us to survive. We cannot afford another "ground up rebuild": we need to buy some established good players, as we did to an extent this year.