Gold Coast Suns - Scott Clayton

[Dogs 24/7]

When compared to the way Greater Western Sydney set up their list management the Gold Coast Suns have failed miserably. We can blame injuries, Guy McKenna, The AFL, a less than satisfactory culture or even Karmichael Hunt but I'm constantly amazed why Scott Clayton and Dom Ambrogio escape the level of scrutiny they should.

Clayton has had a wealth of early selections since the Suns arrived and just isn't performing at an acceptable level. They have missed on so many selections and list management decisions I'm wondering why he still has a job?

There must be a reason why he has survived but it's lost on me. Does anyone have any insight to why he is still at the Suns?

[bulldogtragic]

I couldn't agree with you more. I was explaining this to the Mrs just yesterday in comparing the new plastic teams. The culture issues can be blamed on McKenna and Hunt's influence, but that's as far as it goes. But their recruiting looks inept compared to GWS, and now the issue has been raised on WOOF expect to see an article in the media this week!

[Flamethrower]

You can't compare the 2 franchises. While the Suns got a good head start, especially compared to the way the Bears were set up, the Giants have gifted "instant" success. They were gifted 4 extra pre draft selections (Jesse Hogan, Jack Martin, Jaeger O'Meara and Brad Crouch) which they converted into 7 first round picks. That allowed them to dominate consecutive drafts.
Since then they have traded former top picks Tom Boyd and Adam Treloar for further 1st round selections.

Fortunately for the rest of the competition they had 2 huges misses - Marcus Bontempelli & Jake Stringer could have also been Giants.

[Twodogs]

You can't compare the 2 franchises. While the Suns got a good head start, especially compared to the way the Bears were set up, the Giants have gifted "instant" success. They were gifted 4 extra pre draft selections (Jesse Hogan, Jack Martin, Jaeger O'Meara and Brad Crouch) which they converted into 7 first round picks. That allowed them to dominate consecutive drafts.
Since then they have traded former top picks Tom Boyd and Adam Treloar for further 1st round selections.

Fortunately for the rest of the competition they had 2 huges misses - Marcus Bontempelli & Jake Stringer could have also been Giants.


Different drafts too.

[bornadog]

It is not just about picking the right guys for the team, surely the coaching and development plays an important role as well.

[bulldogtragic]

You can't compare the 2 franchises. While the Suns got a good head start, especially compared to the way the Bears were set up, the Giants have gifted "instant" success. They were gifted 4 extra pre draft selections (Jesse Hogan, Jack Martin, Jaeger O'Meara and Brad Crouch) which they converted into 7 first round picks. That allowed them to dominate consecutive drafts.
Since then they have traded former top picks Tom Boyd and Adam Treloar for further 1st round selections.

Fortunately for the rest of the competition they had 2 huges misses - Marcus Bontempelli & Jake Stringer could have also been Giants.

GWS overlooked Chad Wingard too. They also traded up in numerous drafts (Jaksch, O'Rourke etc). But they seemed to have targeted different types of players in their recruitment compared to GCS. They got gifted GAJ and a string of decent players (Bock, Harbrow etc) and a heap of picks up the top end of the draft and got good compo from Caddy, Dixon and others too. I can't give them a pass, and especially their recruiting because GWS got a bit more. They were given all the components to succeed, and 'win a premiership within 3 years' so their CEO said. I always thought GWS would be the first to teeter to the brink of closure, but GCS look on the fast track to doom. Not even Jarrad Grant could turn the place around, and that's saying something :D

[GVGjr]

It is not just about picking the right guys for the team, surely the coaching and development plays an important role as well.

I think that point and a couple of others were addressed in the opening post. I guess the question is do you think Clayton has done well with the picks he has had and compare that to GWS?

There has to be some questions about how effective the GC recruiting team have been. There is no doubt they have selected some great players but a few too many of them have fallen short in the good character assessment and some just never measured up.

Clayton will have a job for life if the blame simply lays at the coaches etc which is fine by me but if I supported the Suns I'd be asking the question of how effective he has been. I know I questioned his list management approach with us leading into the compromised drafts and the fact we had some early pick father son commitments. I'm still convinced he got a lot wrong for us in his last 2 or 3 seasons.
He has received plenty of trade currency and early draft picks since being at the Suns so has he really done enough?

[Throughandthrough]

GWS could win 5 of the next 7 premieships

GC could win a spoon or two in that time

[soupman]

Just a quick analysis of the first 4/3 drafts for each club. Very different recruiting models, GC look to have had just as many talented pickups but unlike GWS they haven't come on as hoped. Also GC haven't cashed in on their trade value nearly as much as GWS have managed to. GWS though had a huge headstart, the mini draft effectively gave them pick 2 and 4 from GC alone, and allowed them to dominate drafts. I think GWS have had the worse misses, O'Rourke and Plowman at picks 2 and 3 is criminal, especially when they were soon followed by Stringer, Macrae and Wines who are all guns.

Here's a brief analysis, keep in mind when I was comparing to players the club missed i tried to be lenient after the top few picks as draft boards change drastically. ie. Parker was pick 40 in 2010, but I don't count him as a miss because it is unlikely GC were making the call between him and Taylor. In other words i am crediting late picks to the club that found thems good recruiting instead of blaming clubs for missing them.

Gold Coast:
2010 (initial): 1 Swallow, 2. Bennell, 3. Day, 7. Caddy, 9. Prestia, 10. Gorringe, 11. Lynch, 13. Tape, 39. Taylor, 49. Gilbee.
Most are sufficiently talented players now with only the two late picks not on a list, and a couple at different clubs now, although attitude and development issues have held back a few. Didn't miss out on much, just Heppell (who went at 8).
2011: 24. Schade + O'Meara (mini draft)
Nothing draft, just one mediocre player. O'Meara is a quality addition though that cost pick 4. Players around the mid 20's mark were Ross, Yeo and Brad Hill, although Schade seems ok.
2012: 13. "Lonergan, 58. Cameron + Martin (mini draft)
Martin cost pick 2, Lonergan could have been Corr but otherwise didn't really miss much.
2013: 5. Koladjashnij, 20. Leslie, 27 Lemmens
Did pretty well, KK the best available in his zone, not sure about Leslie and he was followed by M Crouch, McStay and Z Merrett who all look good, so maybe a miss. Lemmens could have been Taylor but Lemmens looks alright so not a big loss.

Actually a pretty good group of picks, almost always picking the best talent available at the picks they had. Unlike GWS lacked the sheer quantity of picks to dominate drafts aside from their first year, but tbf they were never in a position to get those picks once GWS came in with their headstart. Hard to dominate drafts when GWS already have picks 1,2,3 and are receiving more high picks for their high picks that have yet to come on.

GWS:
2011 (Initial): 1. Patton, 2. Coniglio, 3 Tyson, 4. Hoskin Elliot, 5. Buntine, 7. Haynes, 9. Tomlinson, 10. Sumner, 11. Greene, 13. Adams, 14. Smith, 56. Downie
Almost all are quality now either at GWS or elsewhere . Pretty awesome draft haul but it should be with 8 top 10 picks. Big miss on Wingard at 6 (although I remember rumours of him telling them he'd go home at the first opportunity). Otherwise they didn't really miss out on anything.
2012: 1. Whitfield, 2. O'Rourke, 3. Plowman, 12. Jaksch, 14. Corr, 27. Stewart,
Aside from their first and last two picks shit draft. Missed out on the 5,6,7 trio of Stringer, Macrae and Wines but Corr and Stewart were good picks for their parts of the draft.
2013: 1. Boyd, 2. Kelly, 14. McCarthy, 29. Lobb
First two picks are excellent but Bontempelli is a miss and Billings is pretty interchangeable with Kelly really. Nailed the McCarthy pick despite the homesickness, and Lobb a great get looking one of the best in his zone now.

Dominated drafts and generally picked the best player available, which is the idea when you have the picks they had. I think more credit for the list build goes to their trading team though, their ability to keep the players that are performing while trading away the "potential" guns for almost original value allowed them to strong arm other clubs out of the draft and just keep churning through high end talent.

In each of their first three drafts GWS only picked one player after pick 14, compared to GC who in the 2nd and 3rd draft had just 3 picks after the mini drafts with pick 13 being the highest.

I think part of the reason for GC's struggle has been that despite getting talent in, they have failed to develop it for whatever reasons. Also and this is a major difference, GC have given their players every chance to succeed with them before trading them, while GWS were happy to trade them out before any prolonged exposed form lessened their value. It is reasonable to assume that if GWS had the likes of Bennell, Gorringe and Dixon on their list they may have been gone years ago instead of last year for a much better return, while GC may have retained Tyson, Jaksch and Boyd until their value had've dropped. Sure many of those players initiated their move from GWS but GWS did not fight hard to keep them and instead set about getting great deals. Unfortunately they have also nailed the Treloar trade and look likely to get something awesome for McCarthy.

In summary GC stuffed up their recruiting because they were too heavily dependant on nailing the picks and developing the 2010 class, as every draft after that they faced the same issues as the rest of the comp, in that they couldn't get access to the more than one quality pick. This meant they had to have nailed their free agent and trade pickups, but unfortunately for them they targeted ready to go players that had little scope for improvement or are either retired or approaching it now in Bock, Brennan, Ablett, Harbrow etc.

GWS were given the world and have rather effortlessly turned one dominant draft into an indefinite amount by starving the rest of the comp of elite talent for two years, then drip feeding it back to them at exorbitant prices and continuing the cycle. They nailed their free agent pickups, getting players that would grow with the club like Ward, Davis and Scully who is finally playing as hoped. It says a lot about how good a club can have it when they can lose 5 top 10 picks from 3 of their 5 drafts and not appear to have even felt the hit, while we have had to nail the measly 4 top 20 picks we have had in that time to be talked about as talented enough to contend with them.

[soupman]

Double post

[Twodogs]

Just a quick analysis of the first 4/3 drafts for each club. Very different recruiting models, GC look to have had just as many talented pickups but unlike GWS they haven't come on as hoped. Also GC haven't cashed in on their trade value nearly as much as GWS have managed to. GWS though had a huge headstart, the mini draft effectively gave them pick 2 and 4 from GC alone, and allowed them to dominate drafts. I think GWS have had the worse misses, O'Rourke and Plowman at picks 2 and 3 is criminal, especially when they were soon followed by Stringer, Macrae and Wines who are all guns.

Here's a brief analysis, keep in mind when I was comparing to players the club missed i tried to be lenient after the top few picks as draft boards change drastically. ie. Parker was pick 40 in 2010, but I don't count him as a miss because it is unlikely GC were making the call between him and Taylor. In other words i am crediting late picks to the club that found thems good recruiting instead of blaming clubs for missing them.

Gold Coast:
2010 (initial): 1 Swallow, 2. Bennell, 3. Day, 7. Caddy, 9. Prestia, 10. Gorringe, 11. Lynch, 13. Tape, 39. Taylor, 49. Gilbee.
Most are sufficiently talented players now with only the two late picks not on a list, and a couple at different clubs now, although attitude and development issues have held back a few. Didn't miss out on much, just Heppell (who went at 8).
2011: 24. Schade + O'Meara (mini draft)
Nothing draft, just one mediocre player. O'Meara is a quality addition though that cost pick 4. Players around the mid 20's mark were Ross, Yeo and Brad Hill, although Schade seems ok.
2012: 13. "Lonergan, 58. Cameron + Martin (mini draft)
Martin cost pick 2, Lonergan could have been Corr but otherwise didn't really miss much.
2013: 5. Koladjashnij, 20. Leslie, 27 Lemmens
Did pretty well, KK the best available in his zone, not sure about Leslie and he was followed by M Crouch, McStay and Z Merrett who all look good, so maybe a miss. Lemmens could have been Taylor but Lemmens looks alright so not a big loss.

Actually a pretty good group of picks, almost always picking the best talent available at the picks they had. Unlike GWS lacked the sheer quantity of picks to dominate drafts aside from their first year, but tbf they were never in a position to get those picks once GWS came in with their headstart. Hard to dominate drafts when GWS already have picks 1,2,3 and are receiving more high picks for their high picks that have yet to come on.

GWS:
2011 (Initial): 1. Patton, 2. Coniglio, 3 Tyson, 4. Hoskin Elliot, 5. Buntine, 7. Haynes, 9. Tomlinson, 10. Sumner, 11. Greene, 13. Adams, 14. Smith, 56. Downie
Almost all are quality now either at GWS or elsewhere . Pretty awesome draft haul but it should be with 8 top 10 picks. Big miss on Wingard at 6 (although I remember rumours of him telling them he'd go home at the first opportunity). Otherwise they didn't really miss out on anything.
2012: 1. Whitfield, 2. O'Rourke, 3. Plowman, 12. Jaksch, 14. Corr, 27. Stewart,
Aside from their first and last two picks shit draft. Missed out on the 5,6,7 trio of Stringer, Macrae and Wines but Corr and Stewart were good picks for their parts of the draft.
2013: 1. Boyd, 2. Kelly, 14. McCarthy, 29. Lobb
First two picks are excellent but Bontempelli is a miss and Billings is pretty interchangeable with Kelly really. Nailed the McCarthy pick despite the homesickness, and Lobb a great get looking one of the best in his zone now.

Dominated drafts and generally picked the best player available, which is the idea when you have the picks they had. I think more credit for the list build goes to their trading team though, their ability to keep the players that are performing while trading away the "potential" guns for almost original value allowed them to strong arm other clubs out of the draft and just keep churning through high end talent.

In each of their first three drafts GWS only picked one player after pick 14, compared to GC who in the 2nd and 3rd draft had just 3 picks after the mini drafts with pick 13 being the highest.

I think part of the reason for GC's struggle has been that despite getting talent in, they have failed to develop it for whatever reasons. Also and this is a major difference, GC have given their players every chance to succeed with them before trading them, while GWS were happy to trade them out before any prolonged exposed form lessened their value. It is reasonable to assume that if GWS had the likes of Bennell, Gorringe and Dixon on their list they may have been gone years ago instead of last year for a much better return, while GC may have retained Tyson, Jaksch and Boyd until their value had've dropped. Sure many of those players initiated their move from GWS but GWS did not fight hard to keep them and instead set about getting great deals. Unfortunately they have also nailed the Treloar trade and look likely to get something awesome for McCarthy.

In summary GC stuffed up their recruiting because they were too heavily dependant on nailing the picks and developing the 2010 class, as every draft after that they faced the same issues as the rest of the comp, in that they couldn't get access to the more than one quality pick. This meant they had to have nailed their free agent and trade pickups, but unfortunately for them they targeted ready to go players that had little scope for improvement or are either retired or approaching it now in Bock, Brennan, Ablett, Harbrow etc.

GWS were given the world and have rather effortlessly turned one dominant draft into an indefinite amount by starving the rest of the comp of elite talent for two years, then drip feeding it back to them at exorbitant prices and continuing the cycle. They nailed their free agent pickups, getting players that would grow with the club like Ward, Davis and Scully who is finally playing as hoped. It says a lot about how good a club can have it when they can lose 5 top 10 picks from 3 of their 5 drafts and not appear to have even felt the hit, while we have had to nail the measly 4 top 20 picks we have had in that time to be talked about as talented enough to contend with them.

Yep. Far from being the savior of the competition GWS will drag the AFL down if we let them.

[F'scary]

Yep. Far from being the savior of the competition GWS will drag the AFL down if we let them.

The AFL just doesn't understand this stuff. It is like the effect termites have.

[bulldogtragic]

Just a quick analysis of the first 4/3 drafts for each club. Very different recruiting models, GC look to have had just as many talented pickups but unlike GWS they haven't come on as hoped. Also GC haven't cashed in on their trade value nearly as much as GWS have managed to. GWS though had a huge headstart, the mini draft effectively gave them pick 2 and 4 from GC alone, and allowed them to dominate drafts. I think GWS have had the worse misses, O'Rourke and Plowman at picks 2 and 3 is criminal, especially when they were soon followed by Stringer, Macrae and Wines who are all guns.

Here's a brief analysis, keep in mind when I was comparing to players the club missed i tried to be lenient after the top few picks as draft boards change drastically. ie. Parker was pick 40 in 2010, but I don't count him as a miss because it is unlikely GC were making the call between him and Taylor. In other words i am crediting late picks to the club that found thems good recruiting instead of blaming clubs for missing them.

Gold Coast:
2010 (initial): 1 Swallow, 2. Bennell, 3. Day, 7. Caddy, 9. Prestia, 10. Gorringe, 11. Lynch, 13. Tape, 39. Taylor, 49. Gilbee.
Most are sufficiently talented players now with only the two late picks not on a list, and a couple at different clubs now, although attitude and development issues have held back a few. Didn't miss out on much, just Heppell (who went at 8).
2011: 24. Schade + O'Meara (mini draft)
Nothing draft, just one mediocre player. O'Meara is a quality addition though that cost pick 4. Players around the mid 20's mark were Ross, Yeo and Brad Hill, although Schade seems ok.
2012: 13. "Lonergan, 58. Cameron + Martin (mini draft)
Martin cost pick 2, Lonergan could have been Corr but otherwise didn't really miss much.
2013: 5. Koladjashnij, 20. Leslie, 27 Lemmens
Did pretty well, KK the best available in his zone, not sure about Leslie and he was followed by M Crouch, McStay and Z Merrett who all look good, so maybe a miss. Lemmens could have been Taylor but Lemmens looks alright so not a big loss.

Actually a pretty good group of picks, almost always picking the best talent available at the picks they had. Unlike GWS lacked the sheer quantity of picks to dominate drafts aside from their first year, but tbf they were never in a position to get those picks once GWS came in with their headstart. Hard to dominate drafts when GWS already have picks 1,2,3 and are receiving more high picks for their high picks that have yet to come on.

GWS:
2011 (Initial): 1. Patton, 2. Coniglio, 3 Tyson, 4. Hoskin Elliot, 5. Buntine, 7. Haynes, 9. Tomlinson, 10. Sumner, 11. Greene, 13. Adams, 14. Smith, 56. Downie
Almost all are quality now either at GWS or elsewhere . Pretty awesome draft haul but it should be with 8 top 10 picks. Big miss on Wingard at 6 (although I remember rumours of him telling them he'd go home at the first opportunity). Otherwise they didn't really miss out on anything.
2012: 1. Whitfield, 2. O'Rourke, 3. Plowman, 12. Jaksch, 14. Corr, 27. Stewart,
Aside from their first and last two picks shit draft. Missed out on the 5,6,7 trio of Stringer, Macrae and Wines but Corr and Stewart were good picks for their parts of the draft.
2013: 1. Boyd, 2. Kelly, 14. McCarthy, 29. Lobb
First two picks are excellent but Bontempelli is a miss and Billings is pretty interchangeable with Kelly really. Nailed the McCarthy pick despite the homesickness, and Lobb a great get looking one of the best in his zone now.

Dominated drafts and generally picked the best player available, which is the idea when you have the picks they had. I think more credit for the list build goes to their trading team though, their ability to keep the players that are performing while trading away the "potential" guns for almost original value allowed them to strong arm other clubs out of the draft and just keep churning through high end talent.

In each of their first three drafts GWS only picked one player after pick 14, compared to GC who in the 2nd and 3rd draft had just 3 picks after the mini drafts with pick 13 being the highest.

I think part of the reason for GC's struggle has been that despite getting talent in, they have failed to develop it for whatever reasons. Also and this is a major difference, GC have given their players every chance to succeed with them before trading them, while GWS were happy to trade them out before any prolonged exposed form lessened their value. It is reasonable to assume that if GWS had the likes of Bennell, Gorringe and Dixon on their list they may have been gone years ago instead of last year for a much better return, while GC may have retained Tyson, Jaksch and Boyd until their value had've dropped. Sure many of those players initiated their move from GWS but GWS did not fight hard to keep them and instead set about getting great deals. Unfortunately they have also nailed the Treloar trade and look likely to get something awesome for McCarthy.

In summary GC stuffed up their recruiting because they were too heavily dependant on nailing the picks and developing the 2010 class, as every draft after that they faced the same issues as the rest of the comp, in that they couldn't get access to the more than one quality pick. This meant they had to have nailed their free agent and trade pickups, but unfortunately for them they targeted ready to go players that had little scope for improvement or are either retired or approaching it now in Bock, Brennan, Ablett, Harbrow etc.

GWS were given the world and have rather effortlessly turned one dominant draft into an indefinite amount by starving the rest of the comp of elite talent for two years, then drip feeding it back to them at exorbitant prices and continuing the cycle. They nailed their free agent pickups, getting players that would grow with the club like Ward, Davis and Scully who is finally playing as hoped. It says a lot about how good a club can have it when they can lose 5 top 10 picks from 3 of their 5 drafts and not appear to have even felt the hit, while we have had to nail the measly 4 top 20 picks we have had in that time to be talked about as talented enough to contend with them.

Clicking thanks isn't enough, really great post. Please also thank your employer for freeing you up to do a heck of a lot of research. :D

[ledge]

GWS are smart get the best talent in then trade for positions you need, a little like the Hawks did with Lake and Geelong have done with Dangerfield.
If you have a heap of the same player you can trade for what you need, I believe we have done a bit the same with Honeychurch Hrovat, we will trade some to get a CHF or CHB

[Ozza]

Recruited Grant TWICE!

[bulldogtragic]

Recruited Grant TWICE!

An Omni Poll released tonight said two thirds of Australian voters would do the same thing if given the opportunity.

[Twodogs]

The AFL just doesn't understand this stuff. It is like the effect termites have.


The AFL's Operation Barbarossa.

[mjp]

Great post Soupaman. I think the pre-draft picks (access to the 17yo's) also favoured the Giants...again, this is even more of a chook raffle because trying to figure out how 18yo's will react to being moved interstate is hard enough, let alone 17yo's.

GC didn't really stuff up except in one area - they picked mature age players with a flawed idea that having Ablett etc would enable them to play finals 'quickly' based on surrounding a few experienced heads with the best kids. The Giants watched and learned and spent their money 'less wisely' in many ways, betting on some kids (such as Ward) who were young and had shown 'something' but had hardly proved they were ready to play a key role in a premiership team (arguable with Ward I guess). They have also been pretty happy to 'trade out' players (Tyson etc) who had shown a bit in limited time to go back to the draft well again and again in order to find a pot of gold.

I am not as worried about the scourge of the Giants as everyone seems to be. It is very (very) hard to win a flag, they play bugger all games at the 'G, there is no guarantee they will get a home final at Spotless (ANZ anyone?) and the McCarthy situation will be played out (not to the same level I admit) with more players as time goes by...yes, they have a bigger salary cap but it wont be big enough to keep them all...and whilst that probably means trades and more draft picks replacing 23 year old 'guns' with 18 year old unproven kids has never, ever been a recipe for premierships.

[Twodogs]

Yep. GWS is there to develop players for the proper clubs.

[Twodogs]

Clicking thanks isn't enough, really great post. Please also thank your employer for freeing you up to do a heck of a lot of research. :D


I expect it to appear pretty much word for word in the paper soon claimed by some journalist as their work.

[Remi Moses]

Double post

Great post soupaman

[Remi Moses]

Clicking thanks isn't enough, really great post. Please also thank your employer for freeing you up to do a heck of a lot of research. :D

Outstanding work . I bet one of those lazy hack immensely untalented Afl writers picks this up

[LostDoggy]

Not even Jarrad Grant could turn the place around, and that's saying something :D
I'd no idea things were that dire.

Just a quick analysis

Can you please run us up a detailed one? :P

[F'scary]

The AFL's Operation Barbarossa.

What will the Stalingrad be?

[Twodogs]

What will the Stalingrad be?

It's happening already. The zones and academies.

[Ozza]

It's happening already. The zones and academies.

I am surprised at how low key the introduction of the development zones scheme has been and how little we've heard about it.

I'm not sure exactly how it works, but what I do know is that Luke Ball is co-ordinating it from the AFL's perspective, and that the Bulldogs have a part time resource in Dalrymple's team working on it.

[ledge]

It's time zones came back . At least so people of the area can support people of the area and have some recognition of the club and its origins.
We go on about having the biggest area and supporter base but means nothing if the kid that people watched play go to GWS.
We need some sort of zone rule where you get first choice on two players in your area first.

[mjp]

Yeah, but the western suburbs of Melbourne isn't going to be a zone...they are talking about regional areas particularly ones in non-footy areas. This is why there is so much controversy over the Giants as the Riverina could (and prob should) be considered a 'footy' area and they have full access to it.

[Drunken Bum]

Yeah, but the western suburbs of Melbourne isn't going to be a zone...they are talking about regional areas particularly ones in non-footy areas.

My understanding was that we would have a fair chunk of the western suburbs as well as some regional zones and the academies are more for developing indigenous and recent arrivals to the country etc? I could be wrong but that was how i understood it.
Without knowing all the intricacies and cost etc i thought we were one of the better positioned clubs to take advantage of it


This is why there is so much controversy over the Giants as the Riverina could (and prob should) be considered a 'footy' area and they have full access to it.

There's really no could or should about it as far as i'm concerened, the Riverina is and always has been a footy area, it's an absolute disgrace that it is included in gws academy zone so about par for the course for the AFEL

[Twodogs]

Yeah, but the western suburbs of Melbourne isn't going to be a zone...they are talking about regional areas particularly ones in non-footy areas. This is why there is so much controversy over the Giants as the Riverina could (and prob should) be considered a 'footy' area and they have full access to it.


My understanding was that we would have a fair chunk of the western suburbs as well as some regional zones and the academies are more for developing indigenous and recent arrivals to the country etc? I could be wrong but that was how i understood it.
Without knowing all the intricacies and cost etc i thought we were one of the better positioned clubs to take advantage of it



There's really no could or should about it as far as i'm concerened, the Riverina is and always has been a footy area, it's an absolute disgrace that it is included in gws academy zone so about par for the course for the AFEL

They had the suburban zones mapped out when they released the country zones. I can remember seeing it in the Herald Sun.

[mjp]

They had the suburban zones mapped out when they released the country zones. I can remember seeing it in the Herald Sun.

Yeah but aren't the metro areas for the multi-cultural kids? That's how it is structured over here anyway.

[Eastdog]

It is not just about picking the right guys for the team, surely the coaching and development plays an important role as well.

Yes I agree. That is very important.

[Twodogs]

Yeah but aren't the metro areas for the multi-cultural kids? That's how it is structured over here anyway.


All kids and you get to bid for two a year was how I understood it. In return the club helps out with development and support. I could be wrong.

[soupman]

All kids and you get to bid for two a year was how I understood it. In return the club helps out with development and support. I could be wrong.

Nah pretty sure the academies everywhere other than QLD and NSW are for kids with a foreign background or indigenous kids.

[Twodogs]

Oh OK, I misunderstood them then.

[Drunken Bum]

Yeah but aren't the metro areas for the multi-cultural kids? That's how it is structured over here anyway.


Nah pretty sure the academies everywhere other than QLD and NSW are for kids with a foreign background or indigenous kids.

Yeah that was my understanding.
Am i wrong to assume that the AFEL will be covering a fair chunk of the costs involved in the acadamies? If that's the case, from the outside looking in it would seem we could be one of the bigger beneficiaries of of this situation given the number of new Austalians in the western suburbs, i do realise we don't get the whole western suburbs but we certainly wouldn't be lacking in numbers of potential players to develop and convert to Aussie Rules.