Completely agree that the draw is another massive distortion no one talks about enough. You can’t have a serious conversation about equalisation while some clubs play 3–4 extra games against bottom sides and others get stitched with contenders twice.
Fixing the fixture and cleaning up the draft should be the two biggest equalisation priorities — not handing out compo picks to cover up the AFL’s own mess.
Father/sons are not the problem.
Most clubs will Be lucky to have 1 father-son ranked in the top 5, Every 10 years.
Meanwhile the northern clubs will have a top 5 player come through their academy, every second year.
People should not be lumping the 2 things together. They are not the same, and not equitable.
The AFL convincing everyone that academy players and F/S players should be handled the same way is one of the great propaganda wins in football history.
I get what you’re saying, but I reckon father sons have been a massive driver of inequality. It’s not just about how often a club gets one — it’s about who they get and how much those players change a team’s trajectory.
Geelong don’t have their dynasty without Scarlett, Ablett x2, Hawkins and Blake. Brisbane don’t win one flag, let alone two, without the Ashcrofts and Fletcher. Collingwood’s premiership doesn’t happen without the Daicos brothers.
Meanwhile, St Kilda have had three father son picks in their entire history who combined for 148 largely forgettable games. That’s the definition of unequal opportunity — some clubs get generational players gifted through lineage, others get nothing for half a century.
You are eating up the AFL’s propaganda.
Every club has access to father-sons….. how well you develop them, is each club’s prerogative.
Yet we have Brisbane and Sydney, who have been in the competition for close to 40 years, have access to father-sons & Northern academy kids.
Father-son is one of the most equitable rules going around, because every club has exactly the same access.
Sure, every team has equal access — but not equal opportunity. How can something based on genetics ever be equal? It’s hardly St Kilda’s fault most of their 100-game players produced daughters.
It is absolutely their fault…. They haven’t developed their talent and haven’t the academy seriously.
Sounds like you’re a nurture-over-nature guy. I’m not sure even the best development program can teach a 100-gamer how to have a son.
Correct me if I’m wrong but doesn’t Brisbane have access to Fitzroy and Brisbane father sons?
I’m not about to start looking up the gender of every St Kilda players kids, but there’s a big difference between not having sons, and not having sons good enough to play AFL.
You seem pretty certain it’s the first one, I assume you have details to back it up?
Ross Lyon’s said it — he’s lamented that most of St Kilda’s greats had daughters. That’s the point I was making: it’s luck, genetics and timing, not development.
What exactly have Geelong done differently to St Kilda or West Coast to produce so many elite father sons? At what age are clubs supposed to start “developing” them? Recruiters say the formative years are six to twelve — unless clubs are meant to start coaching toddlers, it’s not nurture, it’s genetics and good fortune.
Oh I fully agree there’s far more luck than anything else involved. Was just curious on that particular claim (not that I’d believe much of what Ross Lyon whines about anyway).
Between 1990 & 2005, St. Kilda have had 36 players who have played over 100 games.
You’re telling me none of them have had boys?
Absolutely ridiculous argument.
Using that logic then every club should be stripped of its recruiters, and it should all be done centrally by the AFL. After all, differences in recruiter abilities aren’t equal opportunity, and not all the best recruiters will go to any club, so we should just scrap that. Have a single recruiter doing it for everyone.
Yep. And Sydney to Sydney and South Melbourne ones (unlikely the later). Both teams also have Northern Academies …
What a sterile game AFL would be without Father-Sons.
I think we should just scrap each club’s guernseys aswell…. And just make the home team where black, and away team wear yellow.
Why not just ditch the training facilities also, and every club trains at the same location. So it’s fair.
You can choose to take that comment to the extreme if you want. St Kilda themselves have publicly said they’ve been unlucky — most of their 100-game champs haven’t produced eligible sons.
What “development” was Geelong running in the 80s to produce Scarlett, Ablett x2, Hawkins and Blake?
Collingwood nailed the two Daicos boys — funny how the program stopped right there. If it’s development, why isn’t their whole 22 father-sons from the same pipeline?
Brisbane’s the best example: what was their “development program” five to ten years ago that magically produced the Ashcrofts and Fletcher, when you wouldn’t have trusted their AFL coaches back then to develop a photo, let alone a kid?
This isn’t nurture. It’s genetics, luck and timing.
So the draft also isn’t equitable either, because each draft isn’t the same quality.
It’s unfair for one team to have the no. 1 pick in 2024 and another to have the no. 1 pick in 2025.
How far do you want to take this “equitable” argument?
What a ridiculous comparison. The draft order is based on ladder position — everyone plays under the same system and accepts that some years are stronger than others.
What’s having a father-son eligible kid with the athletic profile of Sam Darcy based on? Pure luck. One is merit-based, the other is genetic fortune.
Or they could just rework the draft. The first 2 rounds are solely for teams finishing 9-18
Teams finishing in the 1-8 bracket enter the draft in the 3rd round.
That makes sure all the talent goes to the ■■■■ teams and the teams at the top would either have to trade in the good players or inevitably bottom out due to lack of quality youth.
The whole draft system ATM is completely Farked and needs to be reworked.