PRIORITY PICK - RULES

[dee-luded 2,958]

Priority pick rules tightened

By Michael Gleeson and Stephen Rielly

November 18, 2005

Under changes to the rules governing priority picks, elite talent such

as highly rated midfiedler Marc Murphy will be much harder for poorly

performed sides to draft.

Photo: Sebastian Costanzo

ONE poor season no longer will be sufficient for a double dip at the

best talent in the country under a radical revamp of the eligibility

criteria for AFL priority picks.

The extravagant reward for failure currently conferred on clubs

enduring one poor year has been all but abolished under the changes

announced by the AFL yesterday.

Clubs winning no more than four games in a season from next year will

be eligible for a priority pick taken after the completion of the

first round of the national draft. If the club has successive poor

years of no more than 16 points in each of those seasons — not

averaged over the course of those seasons — the priority pick will be

taken, as it is now, before the national draft.

The AFL was troubled by a range of factors about the current system,

not the least of them being the widespread perception — even from

within clubs — that some clubs deliberately lost games or "tanked" in

order to secure a priority pick.

AFL chief executive Andrew Demetriou said clubs also were concerned

that the existing system, which gives the priority pick to clubs that

win 20 premiership points or fewer in a season, unfairly disadvantaged

middle-ranking clubs, over-compensated poorly performing clubs and

unfairly advantaged clubs who endured only one poor year.

"The rationale behind this decision is a two-year time frame is more

reflective of poor performance," Demetriou said. "Moving to a second

round (priority pick) reduces the over-compensation effect. Thirdly,

(we) will retain the quite significant compensation for two years'

poor performance.

[Jerry Lundergard 388]

Can you imagine if we go the season winless, but Carlton win 4 games only and get their 4th successive No.1 pick? How would that be deemed fair?

[Freak 100]

it wouldn't. sh!t happens. At the end of the day, there are apparently 2 standouts in next years draft, daniel rich and nicholas naitanui. So if we are winless, we are guaranteed 1 of them.

[Yencks 8]

but naitanui will go no. 1 and we want him

[Ballarat Demon 0]

did the AFL say that the new club would be in with the draft this year ?

if so what picks will they get as the AFL wants them to start building a team as of this year ?

[Miracle 89]

it wouldn't. sh!t happens. At the end of the day, there are apparently 2 standouts in next years draft, daniel rich and nicholas naitanui. So if we are winless, we are guaranteed 1 of them.

If Richmond and Carlton both win only 4 games we miss out

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

If Richmond and Carlton both win only 4 games we miss out

Correct. If we finish bottom with less than 16.5 points, then our first pick is No 3. Our 2008 priority pick is pick 19.

[Miracle 89]

Correct. If we finish bottom with less than 16.5 points, then our first pick is No 3. Our 2008 priority pick is pick 19.

I did not realise how big a loss that win against carlton might be

[Jerry Lundergard 388]

I know it is perverse to be talking about this stuff so early, but as we are referring to both the Hawks and Saints as models, it should be noted that the rules were different for them when they were tanking, and it will be much harder for us to gain alot of high picks, especially considering we will have nobody to offer up as trade to get another player in the top 20.

[Pepe Dee Pew 0]

I know it is perverse to be talking about this stuff so early, but as we are referring to both the Hawks and Saints as models, it should be noted that the rules were different for them when they were tanking, and it will be much harder for us to gain alot of high picks, especially considering we will have nobody to offer up as trade to get another player in the top 20.

Totally agree and the Hawks traded Hay and Thomson as well.

So we will need a little luck with drafting. So much depends on Sylvia, McLEAN, Bate, Newton, Dunn, Frawley, Jones and the 2007 draftees coming good.

[Eastie Boyz 0]

In all reality, if your recruiting manager/people/whatever, are any good pick number 3 (for example) shouldn't be too far behind the pick #1 (or not at all).

It's only when you stuff up that you look . . . well, out and out stupid.

[Jerry Lundergard 388]

In all reality, if your recruiting manager/people/whatever, are any good pick number 3 (for example) shouldn't be too far behind the pick #1 (or not at all).

It's only when you stuff up that you look . . . well, out and out stupid.

I would say in some cases it is not the recruiter who stuffs up, but the player himself.

In other cases, injury can make a recruiter look bad.

The top ten players usually pick themselves, but hindsight is always a wonderful thing.

All i know is, the year we got the priority pick(2003 i think), is quickly going down as the worst draft ever in the AFL's history.

[grazman 6,544]

Most estimations are that the top three picks will be a raffle between a ruckman: Naitanui, a midfielder: Rich, and a KPP:, Hurley. There are also a number of other (about six) very talented KPP options that will all be available. If Melbourne were to pursue the Hawthorn model, then we'd want to trade one or more likely two players to get another pick inside the top ten to ensure we have four picks in the top twenty.

[sylvinator 96]

Most estimations are that the top three picks will be a raffle between a ruckman: Naitanui, a midfielder: Rich, and a KPP:, Hurley. There are also a number of other (about six) very talented KPP options that will all be available. If Melbourne were to pursue the Hawthorn model, then we'd want to trade one or more likely two players to get another pick inside the top ten to ensure we have four picks in the top twenty.

great idea to trade for 1st round picks!

only 1 problem, we no longer have any players worth a top15 draft choice.

we could'v done so in Bruce, Green and Yze, but we have to pay for the lack of foresight of past administrations.

the fact that so many of our draftees in the last 4 yrs are starting to look like spuds doesn't help

[Bruce Almighty 0]

if melbourne win less then 4 games and carlton and richmond win more then 4 games we will get picks 1 and 2 providing no else finishes below us

[Freak 100]

no we wont..coz we won too many games last year..thats my understanding

[red&blue&true 0]

if melbourne win less then 4 games and carlton and richmond win more then 4 games we will get picks 1 and 2 providing no else finishes below us

Wrong

It amazes me howmany Melbournes supporters think this is true.........

[rpfc 27,590]

The top three or four are always so even that what we will get doesn't worry me so much. Examples are Judd, Pav, and Morton (hopefuly).

My problem is that in the St.Kilda/Hawthorn models they had the testicular fortitude to move on players that were talents, had value and that were fine servants of the club. It was brave, if a little lacking in loyalty, to get rid of Smith, Everitt, Lappin, and Hall (Saints) and Hay, Thompson, and Everitt (Hawks).

But they want a flag more than a great yarn at a testimonial dinner after another season where they got close.

If we move into Rd.6 and have 0 or 1 win(s) we should slowly but surely retire Neitz, Yze, Holland, White, and Whelan.

Green should go to a pocket and Bruce to the backline and when trade week comes they should be top 20 picks. Although maybe they aren't worth that anymore.

Don't talk to me about the leadership qualities of either, it's negligible for both and neither will be around for our next tilt.

Wheatley, Jamar, C.Johnson, Miller, and Warnock should be mainstays at Sandy for the rest of the year to make way for Cheney, Meesen, McNamara, Martin, Maric, Grimes, Valenti, Wonaeamirri, and Frawley.

I don't care about winning 8 games in our 150th if it means we aren't ready to attack our 151st year in the best possible way.

And it includes retirements of players with a little bit more to offer, playing senior players in less important roles, and moving on decent players in favour of untried kids.

In basic terms, I am imploring Melbourne to tank for its future. And I hate it. But I want a flag.

[Jarka 767]

The top three or four are always so even that what we will get doesn't worry me so much. Examples are Judd, Pav, and Morton (hopefuly)....

Yeah, I agree rpfc. To add weight to your argument we lack elite talent with our list and grabbing a Rich or Naitanui at the end of the year would definitely be a benefit. Now people are complaining about playing the guys like Garland and Weetra but I don't mind too much, it's obvious we aren't going to play finals this year and it's also obvious that the majority of our senior just aren't up to it.

[occo 2]

great idea to trade for 1st round picks!

only 1 problem, we no longer have any players worth a top15 draft choice.

we could'v done so in Bruce, Green and Yze, but we have to pay for the lack of foresight of past administrations.

the fact that so many of our draftees in the last 4 yrs are starting to look like spuds doesn't help

Brock Mclean would b. I honestly think we should trade this kid. I just cant see him being worthy of a top 5 pick and apart from Cooney the others have proved a joke. He is immiture off field and struggled not only last year but at times in 2006. Jones is a better player and we could actually get a better player for mclean

[Freak 100]

thats just stupid occo. nathan jones is not better than Brock Mclean. Jones' foot skills will never get close to Brocks and comparing them is just ridiculous.

[occo 2]

thats just stupid occo. nathan jones is not better than Brock Mclean. Jones' foot skills will never get close to Brocks and comparing them is just ridiculous.

Is it? Brock has had so many issues during the off season and there have only been a couple of games where he has played blinders. This club needs to rebuild and the emphisys should be on looking at KPP's like FB, CHB, CHF and FF all of which we dont have.

[dee-luded 2,958]

thats just stupid occo. nathan jones is not better than Brock Mclean. Jones' foot skills will never get close to Brocks and comparing them is just ridiculous.

Thanks freak.

[Bruce Almighty 0]

Wrong

It amazes me howmany Melbournes supporters think this is true.........

If it is wrong tell how it works?

[Demon Disciple 11,066]

If Richmond and Carlton both win only 4 games we miss out

I'd prefer Rich ahead of Naitanui. However we desperately need another decent KPP (preferably a backman). I wouldn't mind drafting Michael Hurley. Is a very good KPD, and can be quite damaging as a KPF.

I figure, if we get a priority pick (which can only be after the first round) and we trade the likes of Green, Bruce, etc for another first rounder, we could be looking at a very high draft pick (1-3), another first rounder (10-16), priority pick (17), second rounder (18) and maybe even another second rounder if we trade aggressively.

Depending on the way results go for the year and who finishes where with x wins, we could potentially be looking at 4 picks in the first 20, and possibly 5 in the top 30 (in a draft that said to be pretty good). We could quite easily pick up a very good mid-fielder with our possible 2nd 1st round pick.

I guess what i'm trying to say is, i am rather keen on Hurley.

Hurley for MFC president!!!