Rotations will be more about who you name

[TOT70]

wrong thread, but how is this any different to how things work now?

Good question. I just make this stuff up off the top of my head, in between the phone ringing or while I am on hold, like everybody else does. It is not as if I have thought any of it through.

 

[Mac]

This all makes sense.

And while we're makeing stuff on the run, I don't have stats to back this up but I've felt that footballers have gone from men to boys over the last 20 years (the average footballer age decreasing gradually).

Or maybe it's just because I'm getting older.

But the player longevity seems to have left the elite field too. A bunch of man-childs hit the scene in an explosion of raw energy, then hobble off as 'old men' 30 years old (or even late 20s) never to run again.

Player welfare issue that also drives up the contract amounts.

 

[Dyer'ere]

I'm really enjoying the drafting notions, Phanto. I was trying to put a handle on drafting policies. Nice work from you and Tottie. You're right - the drafts have to change.

The whole thing has been precipitated by issue one - the issue I've put aside here. I'll start a new thread for that.

 

[pahoffm]

This all makes sense.

And while we're makeing stuff on the run, I don't have stats to back this up but I've felt that footballers have gone from men to boys over the last 20 years (the average footballer age decreasing gradually).

Or maybe it's just because I'm getting older.

That's exactly it!

The current system makes it mandatory for a club to draft at least 3 junior players on your list each year.

So, simple arithmetic, 3 years of 3 boys aged 18yo each year, means a minimum of 9 players aged between 18 to 21yo.

That means that a quarter, minimum 9 of 35/36 players on your list are 18 to 21yo, and are forced into playing AFL prematurely.

Because, as we know, clubs use 35 players in the regular course of a season.

Ergo, the high injury rate of juniors forced to play AFL prematurely.

As Timmy Watson loves saying, "The fish stinks from the head down." That is, the system stinks.

And, now, due to another loophole in the AFL system, AFL clubs are manipulating the rookie system to expand their list of senior players.

Something the rookie list was never intended.

 

[pahoffm]

Absolutely, only the expensive stuff will do for me.

BTW, on your point about the three rookies and their contracts going up, I reckon they are already contracted and it won't matter whether they are upgraded or not, they will receive the same money. A couple of years ago, the AFL changed the rookie rules to allow players to be placed on a rookie list but negotiate their own pay if they could. Their is a small benefit to a club if it leaves a couple of spots empty on their list and contracts a couple of rookies instead and that is that the basic rookie salary is outside the cap.

So, if Petterd is on $120K and they put his on the list, then $120K counts towards to cap. By putting him on the Rookie list, only the balance between his contract and a basic rookie salary ($35K-ish) counts. That is why clubs are falling over themselves to shift contracted players onto the Rookie List. That is why most clubs now have a number of more mature rookies. Ed Curnow, for example, enters his third year on Carlton's rookie list and basically plays every week, if available. He'll be contracted and earning a decent wage.

Maybe.

But it still doesn't account for the many 18yo boys who are immediately placed on senior lists and handed 2 year contracts, when many will not play regular AFL footy in their first or even second year.

And being paid "on the overs" to do so.

 

[tigersnake]

That's exactly it!

The current system makes it mandatory for a club to draft at least 3 junior players on your list each year.

So, simple arithmetic, 3 years of 3 boys aged 18yo each year, means a minimum of 9 players aged between 18 to 21yo.

That means that a quarter, minimum 9 of 35/36 players on your list are 18 to 21yo, and are forced into playing AFL prematurely.

Because, as we know, clubs use 35 players in the regular course of a season.

Ergo, the high injury rate of juniors forced to play AFL prematurely.

As Timmy Watson loves saying, "The fish stinks from the head down." That is, the system stinks.

And, now, due to another loophole in the AFL system, AFL clubs are manipulating the rookie system to expand their list of senior players.

Something the rookie list was never intended.

Plenty of rules get used for unintended ends, KB and dropping the ball, Sheeds and the 15M, the interchange bench being used as a relay station. The rookie list is becomeing a rookie/ emergency backup list. Is that bad? I dunno. It will either get changed or they'll go with it. I would have thought the hardened known-quantity backup player would help solve the injured teen problem.

 

[TOT70]

Maybe.

But it still doesn't account for the many 18yo boys who are immediately placed on senior lists and handed 2 year contracts, when many will not play regular AFL footy in their first or even second year.

And being paid "on the overs" to do so.

I agree with that. Too many 18 year-olds are being drafted, full stop. The better talents, like Deledio, Cotchin etc etc are ready to go straight away and rightly so, nothing should stop them playing AFL. A larger number are drafted but take years to achieve anything. They should be on State club lists until they are closer to being ready, not AFL lists. The AFL is the premier competition, not a nursery for gaining weight in the gym and learning how to kick.

 

[pahoffm]

I agree with that. Too many 18 year-olds are being drafted, full stop. The better talents, like Deledio, Cotchin etc etc are ready to go straight away and rightly so, nothing should stop them playing AFL. A larger number are drafted but take years to achieve anything. They should be on State club lists until they are closer to being ready, not AFL lists. The AFL is the premier competition, not a nursery for gaining weight in the gym and learning how to kick.

Exactly!

Senior players & AFL-ready juniors for senior lists.

Other juniors for rookie lists.

Logically, that's how it should be.

 

[Carter]

Rest rotation.

Why don't we play Jacko at coburg and promote him for a handful of senior games as long as he is rested?

 

[doherz]

Exactly!

Senior players & AFL-ready juniors for senior lists.

Other juniors for rookie lists.

Logically, that's how it should be.

List spits and contracts aside I feel this is why we are seeing more clubs (amongst other reasons) float their own vfl side.
Gives control and management without having a junior in the best 22 to develop.
This all started when the afl did away with the seconds thirds and under 19s.
And don't get me started in rule changes to speed up the game only to try and slow it down with more rule changes.

I agree with all that us said about early exposure. Expanding lists back to 80 players with applicable salary exemptions is the way forward for mine. Back to the future

 

[pahoffm]

This all started when the afl did away with the seconds thirds and under 19s.

Funny!
I was thinking about the same thing on Friday.

The old VFL U19s / Reserves / Senior system was an excellent way to develop junior players.
Of course, some teams did it much better than others.

It gave an opportunity for clubs to develop the 17/18yos within the U19s system.
The juniors could then transition for a year or two in the Reserves.
Then they could debut in the normal course at 20/21yo.

But this is only in Victoria!

In WA & SA, WAFL & QAFL, they have managed to hold their U19 / Reserve / Senior systems intact.
And, the WA & SA AFL teams use these systems to farm their junior players.

In Victoria, we've pushed the U19s down to the U18s.
Then we immediately place these boys into a position where they may have to play AFL still U19.
No wonder so many injuries!

I suppose this affects the interstate AFL clubs too.

Here's a suggestion!
I know it's far from perfect, but for years I've contemplated a pre-season rookie competion

Why don't the AFL stand alone teams get together and create an U23s competition?
And the AFL clubs that list these U23s can have first "dibbs" at their own boys, if they are not already listed.
The idea still needs a lot of work.

As is, the current VFL is far from perfect and has too many byes anyway.

 

[FitenFitenWin]

You'll have to expand on that last point about an U/23's comp a bit more for me to understand it Phanto. But I do remember when you first floated the idea of junior recruits going onto a rookie list and being developed in the lower levels before being upgraded to the main list when ready - and being very supportive of it. I still think the idea's a winner.

But could it be (contracts aside) that the way the lists are being structured - the situation could be taking care of itself? That in a few years time - most juniors will be given the grace to develop in the two's (at least for the first 2-3 years) and the seniors will be made up of experienced players and journeymen AFL and State League players? That if the current trend of bringing experienced players into the AFL through the RD when multiplied over a few years could see some sort of 'market correction'. Current contract conditions would follow suit.

I have no problem with our comp moving in this direction. Overseas soccer, basketball, gridiron and rugby codes all work by mixing experienced journeymen with their homegrown stars to create winning teams. The key in those examples is to choose for need and to have a gameplan and a balance of players which work in a complementary fashion.

I have no problem with the club recruiting a Lonergan type – so long as that is perceived to be where our needs are. The game plan and the balance of the team should be structured in a way which derives the most from his assets and minimises his deficiencies. Just like the Chicago Bulls did with Luke Longely.

 

[pahoffm]

Sorry, been quite busy the last week.

The U23 pre-season comp is an idea that I've had for decades.
Back in the 1970s/80s, I originally thought of an U25s pre-season comp, because the average age of players on club senior lists was older.
Today, because lists seem generally younger, I have chosen U23 because it takes in juniors and early development players that are generally considered for rookie listing.

AFL clubs would initially list their own U23 players on their various lists then, if they had room, could arbitrarily add some more, if needed, much in the same way that clubs add players to their pre-season lists.
The AFL clubs would not hold any obligation to these added players, but they could have "first dibbs" on them if they chose to rookie them later.

This goes hand-in-hand with my greater plan of of running this pre-season comp as a pre-lude to a final pre-season Rookie Draft that would be held at the end of March, before the premiership season.

Currently, some AFL clubs do run stand alone Reserves teams, and will have a greater number of players on their various lists; although this may not necessarily translate into U23yo players, if many of these stand-alone VFL players are 23yo or over.
Other AFL clubs don't don't have stand alone teams, and may need to add U23yos.

As said, the current NAB adds little to the AFL season.
1. The senior pre-season and H&A premiership season is too long.
2. Mature players generally avoid the pre-season until the last week or two.
3. An U23 pre-season comp, with a final rookie draft at the end, adds something to the overall competition.
4. A proper pre-season, February & March, will shorten the AFL Premiership H&A season to a more desirable 18/19 H&A games, so each team plays each other once only, adding balance to the fixture.

If you have more specific questions please ask.

I must find that post where I detailed my plan for an amended AFL season / drafting schedule.

 

[Mac]

Sorry, been quite busy the last week.

The U23 pre-season comp is an idea that I've had for decades.
Back in the 1970s/80s, I originally thought of an U25s pre-season comp, because the average age of players on club senior lists was older.
Today, because lists seem generally younger, I have chosen U23 because it takes in juniors and early development players that are generally considered for rookie listing.

AFL clubs would initially list their own U23 players on their various lists then, if they had room, could arbitrarily add some more, if needed, much in the same way that clubs add players to their pre-season lists.
The AFL clubs would not hold any obligation to these added players, but they could have "first dibbs" on them if they chose to rookie them later.

This goes hand-in-hand with my greater plan of of running this pre-season comp as a pre-lude to a final pre-season Rookie Draft that would be held at the end of March, before the premiership season.

Currently, some AFL clubs do run stand alone Reserves teams, and will have a greater number of players on their various lists; although this may not necessarily translate into U23yo players, if many of these stand-alone VFL players are 23yo or over.
Other AFL clubs don't don't have stand alone teams, and may need to add U23yos.

As said, the current NAB adds little to the AFL season.
1. The senior pre-season and H&A premiership season is too long.
2. Mature players generally avoid the pre-season until the last week or two.
3. An U23 pre-season comp, with a final rookie draft at the end, adds something to the overall competition.
4. A proper pre-season, February & March, will shorten the AFL Premiership H&A season to a more desirable 18/19 H&A games, so each team plays each other once only, adding balance to the fixture.

If you have more specific questions please ask.

I must find that post where I detailed my plan for an amended AFL season / drafting schedule.

So, is the intention that most of these U23's are not already playing seniors, effectively making it a different comp?

Or would you get a mix of say Geelong fielding a raw 'junior' side, but say a Richmond or Bulldogs may field a side that still resembles the side that will participate in the H&A just by virtue of having a young team? I think the latter would still be boring.

To have the most interest, would you need to limit senior games played as well as age, so the comp is truly separate and as intentioned a development and recruitment tool.

Dunno, it would almost be good to see an "U24 Rookie Pre Season Super Comp" where each team (ie AFL team) fields a group made up from all the players knocking on the door NOT already on the list. This would take some organisation! You'd need a pre-preseason Super Comp rookie draft to sort out which 25 rookies go to which club for the sake of the comp. Could be done though. And the stakes being high for these players, the competition would be fierce!

 

[Brodders17]

clubs already had the opportunity to add rookies to their list just before the season started.
from memory the hawks were the only club to take this opportunity.

the clubs voted with their actions. they want players on their list through the pre-season, not being added in March.

 

[pahoffm]

So, is the intention that most of these U23's are not already playing seniors, effectively making it a different comp?

Or would you get a mix of say Geelong fielding a raw 'junior' side, but say a Richmond or Bulldogs may field a side that still resembles the side that will participate in the H&A just by virtue of having a young team? I think the latter would still be boring.

To have the most interest, would you need to limit senior games played as well as age, so the comp is truly separate and as intentioned a development and recruitment tool.

Dunno, it would almost be good to see an "U24 Rookie Pre Season Super Comp" where each team (ie AFL team) fields a group made up from all the players knocking on the door NOT already on the list. This would take some organisation! You'd need a pre-preseason Super Comp rookie draft to sort out which 25 rookies go to which club for the sake of the comp. Could be done though. And the stakes being high for these players, the competition would be fierce!

Some excellent ideas there yourself.

I have some ideas that I've stated, but as we know, the more ideas compacted together, the better the end product.

In my mind, the composition of U23 teams would vary, depending on the maturity of their lists.
One might argue that an AFL team with a young senior list might be rewarded in the pre-season, against other AFL clubs that have mature senior lists but have to add more junior outsiders in their U23 team.

Brodders makes his point.
Although, I argue that clubs make their current decisions based on current formats.
If an unlisted junior/s had a "rip-roaring" set of performances in this new U23 comp format, AFL clubs would certainly be tempted to list him/them, knowing that this immediate form would continue into the premiership season.

 

[Mac]

Some excellent ideas there yourself.

I have some ideas that I've stated, but as we know, the more ideas compacted together, the better the end product.

In my mind, the composition of U23 teams would vary, depending on the maturity of their lists.
One might argue that an AFL team with a young senior list might be rewarded in the pre-season, against other AFL clubs that have mature senior lists but have to add more junior outsiders in their U23 team.

Brodders makes his point.
Although, I argue that clubs make their current decisions based on current formats.
If an unlisted junior/s had a "rip-roaring" set of performances in this new U23 comp format, AFL clubs would certainly be tempted to list him/them, knowing that this immediate form would continue into the premiership season.

Thanks Phantom.

I like your mindset on this.

- gives the rookies a pretty good crack in a televised comp
- allows for some age appropriateness back into the system
- adds interest to the pre season comp which is currently a yawn fest

 

[pahoffm]

Pleasure!

 

[Dyer'ere]

Ross Lyon rested ten in round 23.

Maybe next year we should rest a few.

 

[Total Tiger]

Ross Lyon rested ten in round 23.

Maybe next year we should rest a few.

Reckon Vlad's going to change the rules on that so it can't be done again. He wasn't pleased.