- On the move: The state of play
- Coaches have their say on player power
- 2015's free agency list as it stands
- How the northern football academies work
IT IS said of the NAB AFL Draft that it is best left to the experts.
But from the moment the draftees have their names called out, they come under the charge of their senior coaches, so there is little wonder that the coaches spoken to by AFL Media in recent weeks have strong views on the workings of the draft.
The issue with the sharpest divide is the draft age. Just as it is becoming increasingly common for students who have just finished high school to take a 'gap year' ahead of their tertiary studies, there is an increasing groundswell among football types for the draft age to be raised by a year, so that elite junior players can devote themselves to football for the year leading up to the draft.
"As an industry, we expect kids to go through the most important year of their lives – year 12 – and play footy," said Melbourne coach Paul Roos. "It's a tough year and I can't understand why we don't change."
The counter-argument is that there are players who are clearly ready – physically and emotionally - for the AFL as soon as they turn 18. Port Adelaide coach Ken Hinkley nominated Ollie Wines as an obvious example.
There is also a belief among some coaches that the club environment is precisely the right place for young men, and the sooner they enter the AFL system, the less likely they are to be lost to the game and potentially, lead fulfilling and successful lives.
Meanwhile, the four mechanisms by which players can change clubs – free agency, trade, the national draft and pre-season drafts are all done and dusted by the end of the November.
The pre-season draft is a misnomer; it takes place before players at some clubs have even resumed training and it means that playing lists are finalised several months before the first ball is kicked in anger.
There is a belief among some coaches that the playing lists should instead only be finalised just before the season. Certain players, they argue, will prepare for the season better knowing their spot on the list is not guaranteed.
The combine is the week after the Grand Final and the draft is in late November. Are these the right times?
Alan Richardson (St Kilda): It can be frustrating when a guy is injured and he’s at the combine where they do this important testing but he can’t test. What if they're fit two weeks later? What do we do then? If we think that information is important, and it must be because we do it, then why not allow them to test some time later, but before the draft?
Paul Roos (Melbourne): There is so much to squeeze in. I think the draft camp (combine) should be just before the draft rather than at the end of the season. Get the kids ready for the draft, and test them because the day after the draft they're going to start life at their new clubs. Give them a rest from footy after the season, finish their exams and then prepare for the draft.
Would you support the live swapping of picks and players during the draft?
Brad Scott (North Melbourne): Yeah I would. The drama that would be created would be fantastic for fan engagement. The critics say there is a danger clubs would trade their futures away but that's why we have boards and we're accountable to them.
Nathan Buckley (Collingwood): It's a long way from what we've known, and it would be hard to do but I can see us becoming a bit more Americanised and that's what they do over there. I'm not sure how much of a difference it would make.
Ken Hinkley (Port Adelaide): It sounds exciting in theory to be able to move your draft picks around. It works well in the US, I’m not sure how well it would work here.
John Longmire (Sydney Swans): I don't mind the US system. It's something to be looked at where you can do that. You wouldn't actually attend the draft, but work out of your club on draft night.
Who would be swapping shirts if live draft picks had been up for grabs last year? Picture: AFL Media
What about the trading of future draft picks?
Scott: Yes, but within certain parameters. I support it in principle.
Roos: Yes, because in an 18-team competition, trading for, say a second round pick could be anywhere from pick 19 to 37. It's a vast difference. Trading for future picks adds to the market.
Buckley: I think that goes hand in hand with live picks. It's about where you sit in the scheme of things and whether you draft for now or a few years down the track.
Hinkley: Just make sure you're not trading too far along. It should be kept to the next 12 months.
Longmire: I'd like to see us go down that path.
Should the draft age remain at 18 as it is?
Scott: I have always said it should go up by a year. The most important thing for players that age is school; I know some players don't approach it that way and those that do are behind in their football development. But I would like to see them come into the system when they're ready to play. Too much development is left to clubs and that's not their role. The role of the club is to put out the best product possible on the weekend with the best available players.
Roos: Without question, it should be raised. I've been saying that for years and it is mind-boggling that it hasn't been changed. As an industry we are expecting kids to go through the most important year of their lives – year 12 – and still play footy for their club, school and the under-18 championships. It's a tough year.
Lyon: I wouldn't have thought so. We need to get them into the system and develop them.It's important not to get in the way of their education too much but we're professional sporting bodies and we need talent.
Buckley: I like the idea of raising it. I'm an advocate for giving them a gap year and turning our pathway focus around a little because we ask and demand so much of them when they get to the club. It takes a level of maturity that not every player has got.Increase the draft age by 12 months and they can prepare for their life in footy while having some other things going on their lives.
Hinkley: I don't reckon it's fair to put an age limit on some players and it's not fair to draft some players at their current age. Ollie Wines has played 49 games in two years and he was a young player for his year. Mentally and physically he was ready. Look at Tim Watson. The US college system works well because 80 per cent of players aren’t ready, but I wouldn't want to be the one to tell Ollie Wines he's not ready.
Richardson: A gap year would be much healthier in terms of letting them finish their schooling. It's a future market and an extra year before the draft would be helpful, particularly for the bigger, less coordinated types. My only reservation is that there are some players from disadvantaged backgrounds, for which footy provides the correct environment and opportunity right away. It might not be conducive to make them wait another year or two. If you couldn't grab them right away, that would worry me.
Longmire: I'd be a bit concerned if we raised it that we'd have to put an enormous amount into our development system, certainly more than we do now. I see kids that if they had to wait another year would just be marking time. Some of them would even be ready at 17, so why would we hold them back. I understand 'Roosy' is strong on holding them back, but I'm not with him on that.
Some are ready for AFL football, some need to wait a little longer. Picture: AFL Media
Playing lists are finalised by the middle of December ahead of the following season once the rookie and pre-season drafts are completed. Should clubs have longer to finalise their lists?
Scott: No. Part of the challenge in the game is the risk and if you decide to only take two ruckmen because you want two extra midfielders, if you then have injuries to those two ruckmen, then you shouldn't complain because that's the calculated risk you took.
Roos: I think so. There has to be an onus on players in the off-season. Right now, when you set your list and if a player wants to take a holiday and just doesn't want to play AFL football, you're hamstrung. That's a minority, but it would be nice to be able to push some players, who might be on the edge, a bit harder in that period.
Lyon: Contract law is pretty simple – offer and consideration. We'll offer this in exchange for the consideration of preparing like a professional. That's fair for both parties. If either party isn’t delivering, then it would be great to have some flexibility.
Nathan Buckley: There needs to be a system whereby a player can't get there or a club can't make it work then he can be let go.
Ken Hinkley: It all happens too early. Pre-season is the time of year when you get injured players…that's what you in the media are writing about. At this time of the year (February), we just about get them playing the equivalent of a game every Monday, Wednesday and Friday. In season, it's once a week. At the end of the pre-season you look at your list and you might need more players, look at those outside the system or players delisted from other clubs at the end of the pre-season and think, 'They might be able to help us now." Perhaps you have training squads at this time of the year that you can draw from if needed.
Longmire: I wouldn't mind going into the pre-season with a couple of list spots still available. Players could train for them and try to make an impact. There would be some players who would make the most of that opportunity.
Should the veterans list be scrapped or retained?
Scott: Retained. We retire our players too early. There needs to be incentive to carry players on your list who still have something to offer.
Roos: I don't mind it. It is great to see players finish at the same club, which will happen less and less with free agency.
Lyon: I understand why it exists, but the more variables you can get rid of to make things less complicated the better.
Buckley: It works well but it's almost forgotten about in this free agency era.
Hinkley: It's a bit of assistance to the salary cap and helps promote rookies, but it doesn't do a whole lot.
Longmire: Retain it because it makes it easier for clubs to retain their older players.
What is the ideal list size?
Scott: I'd like to see it reduced because as an industry we spend a massive amount of money funding reserves teams, which should instead be spent on the pathway. You should have 35 players on your list who are there to play AFL football.
Roos: I don't mind the list size, as long as there is a rookie or supplementary list.
Buckley: Based on our last few years I'd say it is too small. If you had a mid-season draft or access to players outside your list then it doesn't need to be any bigger. But there are times when we have been running skinny.
Hinkley: You go through about 35 or 36 players in a normal season, so at least that many plus a couple more. And then you might have a young ruckmen who's not quite ready to play, so I guess the ideal final number is close to what we have now.
Longmire: I'd like the list size to go up a bit. I find it is a very demanding game and at various points in the season it can be challenging to get enough numbers to play AFL football.
