The draft is not a complete lottery but it is somewhat of a lottery or a bit of a lottery ... or it's a lottery sometimes and sometimes it's not. It's impossible to define and it varies from year to year. I've always recognised that the top 5 or 10 picks are going to better than the next 10 and so on and so forth.

It is largely flawed of course otherwise all the top end picks would be top players and all first round picks would at least be good to very good players. We know that has never happened so it remains a flawed system and is a bit of a lottery ... unless of course all the recruiters are completely incompetent - as recently as 2009 nearly all the recruiters overlooked Fyfe.

Fyfe was not an impressive junior though so what are the recruiters supposed to do?

The facts speak for themselves and the Toumpas bust* is further proof that a number of top juniors just can't cut it in the big time. Like all flawed systems like these there is an element of luck involved and other major factors like development, coaching, culture and being surrounded by poor leaders or excellent leaders.

However, I still maintain a top player drives himself to the top. Raising the draft age is a real option but then they'd have to restructure the feeder leagues and make sure that top talent is not lured away to other sports. The other option is to leave it as it is and put up with a flawed system.

*At least at our club Toumpas is a bust - he may go on and be at least a reasonable player elsewhere.

The issue isn't that the best kids invariably get picked at the pointy end of the draft.

Duh.

The issue of the AFL Teenage Lottery Draft is the T word - they are kids, just removed from high school (or sill in it).

Recruiters have made mistakes that I think they would not make of we had a rule similar to the NFL where kids have to be 3 years removed from high school.

I would prefer 2 years of whatever competition we want to create for these juniors and then the top picks become even more clear and evident as players that WILL help the worst teams, because the draft as a force of equalisation is purely defined by the early picks the only difference between what Carlton and Hawthorn start with at the draft is the Number 1 pick that they have to get right.

You eff it up a few years in a row - how much will that cost you?

Hey, Dees fans, how much did that cost us?

The draft is not a complete lottery but it is somewhat of a lottery or a bit of a lottery ... or it's a lottery sometimes and sometimes it's not. It's impossible to define and it varies from year to year. I've always recognised that the top 5 or 10 picks are going to better than the next 10 and so on and so forth.

It is largely flawed of course otherwise all the top end picks would be top players and all first round picks would at least be good to very good players. We know that has never happened so it remains a flawed system and is a bit of a lottery ... unless of course all the recruiters are completely incompetent - as recently as 2009 nearly all the recruiters overlooked Fyfe.

Fyfe was not an impressive junior though so what are the recruiters supposed to do?

The facts speak for themselves and the Toumpas bust* is further proof that a number of top juniors just can't cut it in the big time. Like all flawed systems like these there is an element of luck involved and other major factors like development, coaching, culture and being surrounded by poor leaders or excellent leaders.

However, I still maintain a top player drives himself to the top. Raising the draft age is a real option but then they'd have to restructure the feeder leagues and make sure that top talent is not lured away to other sports. The other option is to leave it as it is and put up with a flawed system.

*At least at our club Toumpas is a bust - he may go on and be at least a reasonable player elsewhere.

The benchmark of a draft pick needs to be - has he provided value for being a top 10 pick,a 11- 20 pick etc etc.

The minute you start comparing your pick 4 with some others club pick 6 it will inevitably end in grief. If a posters idea on measurement of draft pick success hinges on whether our pick turns out better than the 3 players taken after him - then I am calling lottery.

The issue isn't that the best kids invariably get picked at the pointy end of the draft.

Duh.

The issue of the AFL Teenage Lottery Draft is the T word - they are kids, just removed from high school (or sill in it).

Recruiters have made mistakes that I think they would not make of we had a rule similar to the NFL where kids have to be 3 years removed from high school.

I would prefer 2 years of whatever competition we want to create for these juniors and then the top picks become even more clear and evident as players that WILL help the worst teams, because the draft as a force of equalisation is purely defined by the early picks the only difference between what Carlton and Hawthorn start with at the draft is the Number 1 pick that they have to get right.

You eff it up a few years in a row - how much will that cost you?

Hey, Dees fans, how much did that cost us?

going with this...and I agree 100% is that element as you rightly highlight...'teenage" So much happens around this time ..An aspect though , for mine , which goes all but hand in hand with this period of their lives/careers is where ARE they on their respective journeys. Some may be playing very well but nearing their effective ceilings. Others are the converse and only just starting to grow as players. There's any number of variables which seem somewhat camouflaged at this time. Give them another year at least and better yet , two to work out the unknowns.

The issue isn't that the best kids invariably get picked at the pointy end of the draft.

Duh.

The issue of the AFL Teenage Lottery Draft is the T word - they are kids, just removed from high school (or sill in it).

Recruiters have made mistakes that I think they would not make of we had a rule similar to the NFL where kids have to be 3 years removed from high school.

I would prefer 2 years of whatever competition we want to create for these juniors and then the top picks become even more clear and evident as players that WILL help the worst teams, because the draft as a force of equalisation is purely defined by the early picks the only difference between what Carlton and Hawthorn start with at the draft is the Number 1 pick that they have to get right.

You eff it up a few years in a row - how much will that cost you?

Hey, Dees fans, how much did that cost us?

I did not take into account the equalisation issue and that is 100% correct and does give force to the argument that the draft age should be raised so there is more certainty in what you are drafting. The issue has been raised that there does need to be incentive for youth in whatever competition is created to continue playing football for the extra years without being lured to other sports.

I can absolutely be swayed - I am going to clarify what i mean by a complete lottery. It is patently obvious that the averages will show that the best footballers come from the top ten draft picks. No argument

However history will show you that there has been vast differences in the outputs from footballers picked 1-10.

Oversimplifying - many posters believe that whoever you take at 1 should be better in ability than who is taken at 2 and who is taken at 2 should be better than taken at 3. The constant postings we took Toumpas at 4 and could have had Wines, we took Watts at 1 and could have had NicNat.

Recruiters are working from very limited information - how will the players bodies mature, how will a player go in open company, will a player develop more defensive traits (absent in the TAC), will the player mature into producing good playing and training habits, will a player who is gun in same age comp continue to develop.

Watts, Toumpas and Sylvia were not mistakes at being drafted where they were - it has just been unfortunate that they have not produced as others of their draft class have.

It is not a complete lottery that you will get a good player in the top 10 - the odds are certainly better. It is a complete lottery and nonsense that the expectation is that we will get the 3rd and 7th best players just because we have picks 3 and 7 in the draft.

( and for a person who had no doubt that I cant be swayed, couldn't care less and doesn't need to expand on inane proposition - you certainly gave expansion a damn fine shot - cheers back !)

The only contention was that it was not a "complete lottery". You said it was, hence my response.

There is a strong argument to say that games played is not the best way of comparing because more time is given to high draft picks to come good. Watts is maybe a good example. Its hypothetical of course but if Watts was pick 52 I doubt he would have lasted at Melbourne.or any club.

There will always be a bit of that, but overall the numbers don't lie.

If you have a better way of comparing I'm all ears.

The only contention was that it was not a "complete lottery". You said it was, hence my response.

hence my clarification- cheers again.

Interestingly, the odds of winning first prize in Australian Powerball is 1 in 76,767,600. In an amazing coincidence, mathematicians call that number a "Prendergast".

The benchmark of a draft pick needs to be - has he provided value for being a top 10 pick,a 11- 20 pick etc etc.

The minute you start comparing your pick 4 with some others club pick 6 it will inevitably end in grief. If a posters idea on measurement of draft pick success hinges on whether our pick turns out better than the 3 players taken after him - then I am calling lottery.

I think a number of us are looking at it from different perspectives.

The bottom line is that the way the draft is structured, there are no guarantees. However, there isn't a structure that will guarantee successful outcomes, all the time.

We could have a fully fledged Australia wide under 20/ 21 comp with every conceivable resource thrown in and there would still be busts, aberrations, late bloomers and gun players who were picked late. Almost certainly not as many as we have now but there would still be issues.

We've gone from a largely amateur game to fully pro but we still often pluck kids out of high school as the main thrust of building a premiership list. At least, that's often the thinking. My opinion is that it's a medium to high risk strategy that may or may not work.

Is there another strategy? Now there is with free agency and/or swapping picks for established talent at other clubs. Clubs can do all that and still be a major player in the draft.

The Hawthorn strategy is interesting - of late, drafting kids doesn't seem to be their default way of doing things - because they haven't had top end draft picks recently, they've had to be more creative. Previously, we were draft obsessed and weren't creative enough.

hence my clarification- cheers again.

I skimmed over your response, so decided to have a closer look.

I doubt I've ever seen anyone say pick 4 should be better than pick 6 and 6 better than 9, etc. Clearly there are plenty of variables. A top 10 draft pick gives you a chance to get a terrific player. It allows you to cherry pick from what you consider to be the top end of the draft pool. The best recruiters have plenty of fails, but they also have solid records.

Despite plenty of failures, if you said to Stephen Wells, who's been doing this for 20 years, that the draft is a "complete lottery" I can't imagine he'd agree. While a chimp with a dartboard could have emulated Prenderghast's success, or lack thereof, I don't consider that the norm.

There's a reason that plenty within the industry consider the head recruiter one of the most important people in the club. Despite our clubs failings, there are a string of champions drafted within the top 5- Riewoldt, Pavlich, Hodge, Judd, Franklin, Roughead, Pendlebury. Most supporters know it's not a certainty to land one with a top 5 pick, but we dream of that chance, because that's how premierships can be won.

I also don't like your premise as it's way to soft on an underperforming recruiter. Afterall, how can anyone hope to succeed when it's a complete lottery ?

I accept you've gone some way to retract your original comments and you're right to say the order of the top 10 will never pan out as selected, but given a good draft I expect a bloody good player in the top 10 and won't accept lame excuses for failures. If it's a crap draft, like 2003 then naturally one is more forgiving. I'll end it here as we've had this discussion before and I recognise how pointless it is.

Still somewhat staggered that the theme of certain posters and media pundits is to overlook our near third world midfield. I don't care what Petracca, Brayshaw, Tyson, Salem and Viney could be, we can't rest on our laurels with these kids. I'm confident they will come on, but 5 mids aren't going to win you a flag. Top midfielders often come from the top picks. Use your top two picks to add to those 5 and suddenly we're getting somewhere. Keep it simple, stupid.

The issue isn't that the best kids invariably get picked at the pointy end of the draft.

Duh.

The issue of the AFL Teenage Lottery Draft is the T word - they are kids, just removed from high school (or sill in it).

Recruiters have made mistakes that I think they would not make of we had a rule similar to the NFL where kids have to be 3 years removed from high school.

I would prefer 2 years of whatever competition we want to create for these juniors and then the top picks become even more clear and evident as players that WILL help the worst teams, because the draft as a force of equalisation is purely defined by the early picks the only difference between what Carlton and Hawthorn start with at the draft is the Number 1 pick that they have to get right.

You eff it up a few years in a row - how much will that cost you?

Hey, Dees fans, how much did that cost us?

Personally, I think an academy system is a much better idea than an alternate competition. Your kids are drafted into your academy system. They are assimilated into the culture and game style of the club in their first year or two, with the opportunity to play in the big league if they're deemed ready, otherwise they play in the VFL.

I coach soccer/football and I was talking with a co-coach of mine who coaches in the Barcelona Youth System. He and I were discussing how far behind the AFL system is with the football system. They're different sports, there's no cap (as such) in the European competitions, so there's a difference, but the way soccer players are developed in comparison to AFL players is world's apart.

We could learn something from the Europeans.

Everyone is worried about FA - well not everyone, I am ambivalent - we are doing fine with it at the minute...

But here is a compromise let's players have FA sooner but their production remains near the same: FA after 6 years but they have to 2 years removed from school to enter the game.

Teams are (effectively) assured of a player from 20-26 and then they are free to make a decision in the best interests of their wallet (the crux of a well functioning FA system).

I would have them then be FAs after every subsequent contract is up if they relinquish their trade veto.

These compromises are necessary and inevitable in my opinion - and I would endure a lock out for a season to get it done but 'Good 'ol Gil' is in charge, so what will happen?

So probably nothing will happen...

Personally, I think an academy system is a much better idea than an alternate competition. Your kids are drafted into your academy system. They are assimilated into the culture and game style of the club in their first year or two, with the opportunity to play in the big league if they're deemed ready, otherwise they play in the VFL.

I coach soccer/football and I was talking with a co-coach of mine who coaches in the Barcelona Youth System. He and I were discussing how far behind the AFL system is with the football system. They're different sports, there's no cap (as such) in the European competitions, so there's a difference, but the way soccer players are developed in comparison to AFL players is world's apart.

We could learn something from the Europeans.

Since the AFL started in the late '87 - there have been 29 seasons of La Liga.

In an 18 team league with relegation they have provided spectators with 5 different clubs winning La Liga.

24 of those 29 Championships were won by Real Madrid or Barcelona.

Yeah, a lot to learn...

Since the AFL started in the late '87 - there have been 29 seasons of La Liga.

In an 18 team league with relegation they have provided spectators with 5 different clubs winning La Liga.

24 of those 29 Championships were won by Real Madrid or Barcelona.

Yeah, a lot to learn...

There's no salary cap. As I mentioned... oh and those two clubs are notorious for having excellent youth systems or 'academies'. Given the AFL funds all of its clubs, our league should have the financial resources to establish these systems. I like hearing that the MFC are considering the establishment of an academy. Just a pity it's been so long coming.

The draft is a lottery - and the further down the draft you go, the more of a lottery it becomes.

Or probably more significantly: the higher up the draft you go, the less of a lottery it becomes.

Since the AFL started in the late '87 - there have been 29 seasons of La Liga.

In an 18 team league with relegation they have provided spectators with 5 different clubs winning La Liga.

24 of those 29 Championships were won by Real Madrid or Barcelona.

Yeah, a lot to learn...

Those 24 teams do it better Gutnick wanted to buy Olympic park it's decisions from the top is the reason MFC are cellar dwellars .

Those 24 teams do it better Gutnick wanted to buy Olympic park it's decisions from the top is the reason MFC are cellar dwellars .

Not sure I know what you mean Middy. I thought we were offered olympic first and Gutnick refused. he would have had to put he money up himself of course so, I guess, I could understand why. But Ive always been of the belief that that was THE big oppurtunity this club had to really change our destiny. He was a billionaire after all. Im not sure how we get out of the bigger issue of having no set suburb and no solo training ground.

Still somewhat staggered that the theme of certain posters and media pundits is to overlook our near third world midfield. I don't care what Petracca, Brayshaw, Tyson, Salem and Viney could be, we can't rest on our laurels with these kids. I'm confident they will come on, but 5 mids aren't going to win you a flag. Top midfielders often come from the top picks. Use your top two picks to add to those 5 and suddenly we're getting somewhere. Keep it simple, stupid.

Hawthorn just won a flag with 6 genuine mids; namely, Hodge, Mitchell, Lewis, Shiel, Hill and Smith. I'm happy to throw in Roughead to make it 7, although he spends more time in the forward-line than a typical mid. Burgoyne def/mid, Rioli for/mid, and Duryea def/mid help make up the numbers/rotations.

Forming our core rotations over the next 2-3 years will be Jones, Vince, Tyson, Viney, Brayshaw, Petracca, Salem, vandenBerg, Stretch, ANB, Melksham, Kennedy, Bugg and perhaps Harmes and Trengove with some luck. I accept that not all are proven, but that is 15 names of varying degrees who will rotate through the midfield and I have no doubt some A-graders will emerge.

We need to find a core 6 or 7 from that lot with other role players from defence and the forward-line. Kent and Garlett are also capable of taking turns.

I don't believe the picture is as bleak as you paint it and while I'm happy to pick a mid plus forward with 3/7 I wouldn't be displeased with 2 talls.

In my opinion, your view is far too bleak. If those I've bolded become genuine A-graders we're well on the way to developing a formidable midfield unit. And I'm not capping some I haven't bolded.

Not sure if this footage has been uploaded on demonland but I found this through the Sydney FC website. In short, we want this kid wearing the red & blue next year

http://m.sydneyswans.com.au/video/2015-10-30/draft-prospect-darcy-parish

Not sure if this footage has been uploaded on demonland but I found this through the Sydney FC website. In short, we want this kid wearing the red & blue next year

http://m.sydneyswans.com.au/video/2015-10-30/draft-prospect-darcy-parish

Class is class. Really good off both feet and a very good mark.

Parish and Curnow would be a dream outcome.

Not sure if this footage has been uploaded on demonland but I found this through the Sydney FC website. In short, we want this kid wearing the red & blue next year

http://m.sydneyswans.com.au/video/2015-10-30/draft-prospect-darcy-parish

Interesting that the Swans have uploaded it

Not sure I know what you mean Middy. I thought we were offered olympic first and Gutnick refused. he would have had to put he money up himself of course so, I guess, I could understand why. But Ive always been of the belief that that was THE big oppurtunity this club had to really change our destiny. He was a billionaire after all. Im not sure how we get out of the bigger issue of having no set suburb and no solo training ground.

I'm pretty sure wells I thought it was the opposite I know the Hawks bought Waverly off the AFL for $1 I mean that's ridiculous that land out there would be worth $ 15 million to Mirvac the saints want to bail on Seaford and get more grants from the AFL and the government the only time I will bow to PJ is when he finds us a home we are the only club in Australia without out own facilities it's a joke.

Not sure if this footage has been uploaded on demonland but I found this through the Sydney FC website. In short, we want this kid wearing the red & blue next year

http://m.sydneyswans.com.au/video/2015-10-30/draft-prospect-darcy-parish

Jesse could love this kid.