Damning truth over AFL Draft feud; rule ‘staining the game’ must be changed: Talking Pts

As the AFL prepares to make changes to the draft and trade period, one thing is clear – we’ll never make everyone happy.

Plus the undersold fall of the Giants as well as the game’s former No.1 player, along with why the sub rule simply has to go.

The big issues from Round 16 of the 2024 AFL season analysed in Talking Points!

Watch every game of every round this Toyota AFL Premiership Season LIVE with no ad-breaks during play on Kayo. New to Kayo? Start your free trial today >

IMPOSSIBLE PROBLEM AT CENTRE OF AFL’S GREAT DRAFT DEBATE

The Victorian and non-Victorian clubs will never, ever stop arguing. But sometimes the debate just gets ridiculous.

The AFL’s attempt to review competitive balance, which saw the league seek input from the clubs on where they think the game is going wrong, has only sparked more furore as a constant drip-feed of complaints leaked through the media.

Late last week, it was the debate over the northern Academies which heated up, thanks to GWS CEO Dave Matthews’ comments to the Herald Sun.

“Victorian clubs were happy to play the homesick card and feast on Tom Lynch, Steven May, Dion Prestia and Jaeger O’Meara, but when the Suns develop talent in their own backyard, there is suddenly outrage,” the former AFL GM of national and international game development said.

“We need a far bigger national talent pool, we are aiming to be a national game not just a national competition. That’s the reality now and even more important with the Tasmanian team to come.

“We’re supposed to be a national competition yet we talk about ‘interstate’ clubs. Interstate from where?

“Grow the game nationally for the betterment of the whole competition and stop worrying about noisy southern clubs who have no interest or role to play in developing talent. Stop complaining when you’re not going to take on the responsibility to be part of the solution.”

It’s worth noting Steven May and Jaeger O’Meara aren’t from Victoria but the point still has some validity; part of the reason for the NSW and Queensland academies is to ensure those clubs aren’t so frequently raided, because the heartland footy states simply produce more talent and have an advantage in that regard.

But herein lies the dilemma at the centre of this debate – both sides are right.

The northern states clubs are self-interested, of course, but their academies are important both to produce more talent from those areas, and to fight rugby league.

It’s in everyone in the footy industry’s interest for more kids to be playing footy, and more fans to be created in the historically NRL-friendly states, because it just brings in more talent and money.

But the other 14 clubs are right that, as the system currently exists, the Academies funnel talent too easily and too cheaply into the northern teams. The price is not right.

Remember, the Suns got four first-round players last year, and yes they had to do plenty of deals to get there but the system is not working as intended. The unintended consequence of the Draft Value Index was the creation of two separate currencies – the draft picks teams want to use to pick players, and the draft picks teams want to use to match bids.

This discrepancy makes those third- and fourth-round picks which the Suns vacuumed up last trade period too easy to obtain, because their value when matching a bid is much greater than their perceived value from clubs seeking to simply draft a player.

This imbalance is likely to be resolved when the AFL’s competitive balance review is completed – recent reports suggest picks will still have a value up to pick 54 (the end of the third round), though we would prefer a top-40 cut-off.

This fix won’t end the debate. The northern clubs will keep getting talented kids; the Suns’ Academy had as many players (five) in the 2023 under-16 All-Australian team as the entirety of Vic Metro, while the Lions, Swans and Giants all had two each.

You can understand why the SA and WA clubs are unhappy with all of this, too. They don’t have the same dedicated pathways funnelling players into their lists and in particular, WA’s development is looking questionable right now – they have just a handful of draft-worthy prospects in 2024.

This is also one of those arguments where you can’t win because you can always one-up your opponent, like the travel debate – where you can go around in a circle saying ‘travel is a disadvantage, but not getting true home ground advantage as often is a disadvantage, but the Grand Final always being in Victoria is a disadvantage, but not getting true home finals when you’re not an MCG tenant is a disadvantage’, and so on.

So changes need to be made to the draft system. But, at its core, it can never satisfy everyone because there are vested interests.

The northern clubs want what they perceive as fair value for the enormous amount of work they put into running their Academies – but what exactly is ‘fair value’ for years of training and development? Especially when the other 14 teams cannot possibly compete in this category because they don’t have a comparable system; they think it’s unfair that the system exists in the first place.

Ideally the AFL would completely fund and run these academies, removing the vested interest of the clubs involved… but would the academies be as successful if they were generic state-based entities, without a footy club attached? Being part of the club is part of the draw for the kids – plus because the club wants to find great players, they’re more invested in the kids’ success.

That’s probably not going to change. And really, there’s a bigger problem at the core of all this: the AFL itself.

After all, the AFL is both a sporting league and the governing body of the sport. Running both means what’s good for one sometimes isn’t good for the other, and the academies are the perfect example.

What’s in the best interest of Australian rules football (in this case, more players in non-traditional states) may not be in the best interest of the Australian Football League’s attempt to be a fair competition.

But all of these difficult issues are about finding a balance, not a solution; an unhappy medium where there is less collective anger, not complete harmony.

It’s almost like tuning a video game. The AFL needs to come out with new patch notes, because the 2023 version of the academy system was OP.

CALL TO REMOVE ‘BLIGHT ON THE GAME’ SUB

An AFL legend has called for the sub rule to be removed as a “blight on the game” and for the league to replace it with a fifth player on the bench.

Coaches have largely pushed to remove the sub and clubs are expected to push for the idea for 2025 and extend the interchange to five players.

Because sure, it adds a layer of tactical nous … but would anyone really miss it?

The AFL reintroduced the tactical sub ahead of the 2023 season after a two-year run where a player could be subbed out for medical reasons only.

The tactical sub had been in effect from 2011 to 2015, where unlike current rules, interchanges were reduced from four players to three plus a substitute to replace another player at any given time.

It was initially implimented to combat injuries, specifically amid increased protection of head knocks. But is there any point having a 23rd player as a sub when it could simply be an extra interchange?

For one, it’s both deflating and anticlimactic for young players making their debuts or otherwise trying to break onto the AFL scene to be the sub, or to get subbed out.

Take Melbourne’s Kynan Brown for example — he played 13 and seven per cent game time in his first two AFL games respectively over the past fortnight in what should’ve been his dream opportunity to show what he can do.

“It’s a stain on the game, that’s a strong word to call something,” Essendon great Matthew Lloyd said on Channel 9’s Sunday Footy Show.

“But I just despise it and think there’s nothing good that’s come from it. Yes, there’s concussion and all that sort of thing.

“We change academies and we’re looking to change father-son rules on the run and holding the ball. And yet we have the most petty thing.

“I’d hate to be a player. (Brown’s time on ground in his first two games is) just terrible. Just (change it to) five players on the bench.”

Port Adelaide 300-gamer Kane Cornes “couldn’t agree more” with Lloyd’s opinion.

“We hated it back when it was first introduced, so they got rid of it, then brought it back,“ he added.

It’s simply a role no one wants to play nor a role a coach wants to give out and thus creates unnecessary anxiety internally at club land.

Of course, there’s also the general argument from coaches that it creates more problems than answers — including the weekly predicament of who to use in the role, who to sub out of games and when to do it.

Not to mention the possibility that a team uses its sub then suffers an injury and thus is heavily disadvantaged, with a healthy player unable to return in an already brutally tough and taxing game.

And externally, fans don’t like it either (particularly fantasy players).

One thing the footy fraternity can collectively agree on, please AFL, amend the sub once and for all.

ARE ‘NONPLUSSED’ GIANTS TRENDING TO BE SEASON’S MOST DISAPPOINTING TEAM?

GWS is trending towards finishing as this season’s biggest underperformer.

Sure, clubs like Melbourne, Adelaide and St Kilda don’t seem close to achieving their lofty pre-season goals.

But, after winning six of their first seven games, the Giants — who were whisker away from a grand final berth last year — have lost six of their past eight matches and will enter Round 17 in ninth spot on the ladder.

Adam Kingsley’s Giants lost in uninspiring fashion to the Adelaide Crows on Saturday night, following a rather disenchanting 27-point loss to cross-town rivals Sydney the weekend previous.

“Nonplussed is about the best I could come up with to describe the look in that Giants room — they’re out of the eight now — it’s not a particularly easy road from here on in with the footy they’re playing at the moment,” Fox Footy’s Anthony Hudson said after the siren on Saturday.

They’re a far cry from the preliminary finalist they were last season in Kingsley’s first year in charge — causing turnovers and transitioning in waves.

“We’re far from as consistent as we need to be to be a good team, that’s for sure,” Kingsley told reporters post-game on Saturday night.

“We (have) moments where it looks good and we can use the ball well, we defend well, our stoppage is good, but then we have too many moments at this point in time where it’s not.

“Unfortunately, we’re conceding runs of goals that we’re unable to minimise at this point in time, so we’ve got to continue to work on trying to fix it.

“I didn’t think we maximised our entries at all … We’ve got to be more efficient going forward. We’re not going to win too many games scoring 78 points.

“Five weeks in a row we’ve scored in the 70s, and we’ve got to be more efficient going forward — that’s a bit of a theme in particular over the last three weeks.”

GWS has gone eight-straight games scoring less than 80 points, with its last 80-plus-point outing coming in Round 7 when it registered 113 points in a win over Brisbane.

So, is Kingsley’s side’s downturn in form a reflection of injury absences or poor individual form?

“It’s a combination of both,” he declared. “We’ve had a few injuries, we got three back tonight, (they were a) bit rusty but I don’t think it’s an injury thing.

“I think we’ve got guys who are just a little bit out of form who are being beaten in the contest a little bit too much and a little bit too more regularly than what they were last year.

“So, we’ve got work to do, and we’ll attack that head-on.”

Of course, Kingsley didn’t expose the names of those underperformers, but he maintained full faith in them returning to form.

“I’ll stick with these guys,” he said. “I have full trust in them, I have full faith that they’ll turn it around. We’ll stick with the guys, and, again, I’m confident we’ll turn it around, but it’s not happening as quick as what I’d like.

“We’ve seen glimpses of it, but it’s not at this point in time consistent or sustainable, so we need to address that. That’s the biggest thing.”

Kingsley added his playing group was “disappointed”, both with individual efforts and “as a collective”.

With the finals race growing hotter by the week, the Giants need to capitalise on their remaining fixtures, with four games left at ENGIE Stadium.

However, those home matches come against tough opposition in Carlton, Gold Coast, Hawthorn and Fremantle.

Further, their away fixtures present no easy tasks either, with two more trips to the MCG, one to The Gabba and one to Ballarat.

They couldn’t miss the finals, could they?

WHERE DOES THE FORMER NO.1 PLAYER IN THE GAME NOW SIT?

What does the future hold for Melbourne onballer Clayton Oliver?

It’s hard to find an official way to determine the No.1 player in the AFL – the Brownlow isn’t quite right because of how heavily it values midfielders, and there are peak performances in finals which contribute to the debate but that medal ignores.

One option is the AFL Player Ratings, which has a rolling ranking system based on a player’s performance over their last 40 matches. For example Patrick Dangerfield peaked in 2017, then trading the No.1 title with Dustin Martin over 2018, before Max Gawn rose to prominence in Melbourne’s fight for a flag.

For most of 2022, Oliver sat No.1. He didn’t win a Brownlow but his ability to accumulate and hurt opponents was unmatched, until Marcus Bontempelli claimed the crown in mid-2023 – and the Bulldog has not relinquished it since.

And while Bontempelli has been rising, Oliver has been falling.

Injuries and off-field issues have cruelled him, undoubtedly, and a limited pre-season have hurt his ability to impact the game in 2024. Heading into Round 16, he was averaging just 24 disposals, a far cry from the 31.5 and 32.7 per game he recorded in 2021 and 2022 respectively.

Friday night’s narrow loss to Brisbane was a welcome return to form, with Oliver stepping up when the Demons needed him, collecting 29 disposals and a goal – though he did not do as much damage as those numbers suggest.

It left Hawthorn great Dermott Brereton pondering where Oliver now stands in the game.

“If you’re going to be completely and utterly honest, Clayton Oliver’s game last night was good,” he said on SEN Crunch Time.

“What we know of him, his best, he’s exceptionally good. He’s not an exceptionally good player now.

“That’s great, and I think it’s wonderful given I think we know, no one’e ever really come out and said what his trials and tribulations have been, but it sounds like a pretty rocky path and good luck to him.

“He was an awesome, awesome player two years ago. Last night was a good, good performance, not an awesome performance.

“He used to take the ball, win the ball, take it away and take ground. Last night, he won the ball again — that’s a start, but he’s not taking ground like the way Clayton Oliver does.

“So, that moment has passed. I don’t know if Clayton can win that back again, because he had raw tearaway power, not incredibly quick but tearaway power, and that’s how he took ground. He doesn’t do that anymore.”

Brereton compared Oliver — who he deemed previously an ‘A-A-A grader’ — to Jack Viney, who he called an ‘A-grader’.

“I think Viney’s better than Oliver now,” he continued.

“I heard ‘Goody’ (Simon Goodwin) say people are being critical of Clayton Oliver — no, I’m just assessing where he’s at, leave all the other stuff aside.

“Good luck to the man with life and what he’s doing — that’s fantastic — and it looks like he’s making a good fist of it, but he’s not the player he was.”

It remains to be seen whether a full off-season, potentially longer than he’s had in years if the Demons miss the finals, can help Oliver find his best.