They say all’s fair in love and war but when it comes to sport, we teach our kids to play fair. Be nice.

But, in recent times, I’m reading about the AFL draft about expectations that clubs should play by some unwritten rule that requires them to be nice to each other. To play fair.

A Herald Sun article last week referred to St Kilda Next Generation Academy midfielder Mitch Owen (Sandringham Dragons) who has shown great improvement over the year. Some said he was “exploding” before the NAB league shut down and that he could even be nominated in the top 20 which would preclude the Saints from matching a bid for him. The same would happen if Melbourne’s NGA Mac Andrew was nominated that highly. 

Dragons’ talent manager Mark Wheeler said that Covid gave Owens time to erase his weaknesses as he grew 15cm over two years to his current height of 191cm. In July, he was a late inclusion in the Vic Metro team against VIc Country and starred with 29 disposals, seven marks and a goal. Wheeler said: “We have heard rumours he is in those picks before 20, but it just depends if recruiters want to play nice or if they don’t want to play nice.”

I don’t understand why Wheeler considers there to be an obligation in the draft for clubs to “play nice”. Surely, if a player is worth taking when a club’s pick comes, he should get taken - otherwise, the club might be dereliction of its duty. I have no qualms about the prospect of another club selecting Mac Andrew in the top 20. The main thing from the Demons’ perspective is that they’ve had plenty of time to get used to such a prospect.

A similar situation applies with North Melbourne which has pick number 1 and has flagged its intention to take South Adelaide midfielder Jason Horne-Francis with that selection. However, there is a view that North should first nominate Collingwood father-son Nick Daicos to force the Pies to spend the maximum number of draft points to snare their father-son player who they have already indicated they will take no matter what. North can also cause similar inconvenience to the Western Bulldogs over their father-son prospect, Sam Darcy. The idea would be that North are h to the football world their intent to be competitive in every aspect of the game.

But is this fair and does “fair play” come into the equation when it comes to matters such as the draft?

I think if possible clubs should always force other clubs to upbid IF they are willing to take the player. If North would genuinely prefer Daicos or Darcy then they should bid.

There is one other factor though: I think the no. 1 pick gets stuff (a share portfolio from NAB, maybe other things). Do NMFC want their player to get that, or Collingwoods player?

Conversely, is it better to bid on others so that those players have the pressure of being number 1, and the NMFC player flies under the radar?

In a podcast I listened to with Jason Taylor he alluded to thinking Daicos is the best player in the draft. He has proven to be a pretty good judge. I hope North bids on him.

Melbourne have been very easy to deal with in the lead up to our first premiership in 57 years. I think there is argument to say getting deals done for needs is more important to a club than scrambling to get what looks like a win on paper.

Essendon and Freo seem to have the opposite strategy thinking they need to win deals at all costs.

AFL trading is a village market where everyone knows everyone and knows they'll be dealing with each other for decades to come. As opposed to a ruthless metropolitan share trade floor or the like.

The relationships matter. In the end the big value will be the accumulated win-win deals you can make with people who will listen and even come to you with ideas, not the occasional deadline staredown.

Very easy question to answer . . . 

Bid up if it's any interstate club, Colinwood, Carltank, Horethorn, Essendrugs, Jeelong.

All other clubs play fair. 

I wonder how far you have to go in defining what it means to “playing nice”?

Is it “playing nice” for clubs to spread misleading information about their draft intentions in order to force opposition clubs into second guessing and taking unnecessary precautions to protect their own draft ambitions? 

I can picture some reverse psychology used with repercussions leading to clubs scrambling to trade up in draft picks when not entirely necessary. I’d be disappointed if clubs didn’t get up to all sorts of skullduggery at this time of year. After all, it’s a competitive industry.

 

22 hours ago, Little Goffy said:

AFL trading is a village market where everyone knows everyone and knows they'll be dealing with each other for decades to come. As opposed to a ruthless metropolitan share trade floor or the like.

The relationships matter. In the end the big value will be the accumulated win-win deals you can make with people who will listen and even come to you with ideas, not the occasional deadline staredown.

Absolutely agree with this. To uphold the integrity of a system  that is village-like, each club should simply be trying to draft the best available player according to their plan. That way the player managers, players, list managers etc... can look each other in the eye and not end up with future trading blocks based on narky nasty carp from years earlier.

If North think Daicos is the best player in the draft, try and get him. If the gap between him and Horne-Francis is really narrow, go for either etc...

@rumpole Is Bayley Fritsch your favourite player?

Fair? Fair is for the field, and that’s for the umpire to decide. Off field it’s all about who is best for the club.

Sure there are ‘I won’t step on your toes with that if you don’t step on mine with this’ handshake deals, but even those have the club first approach 

If standing back and letting someone take someone coz of feelings of doing the right thing happens then that club deserves to struggle for decades

Edited November 7, 20213 yr by Uncle Fester