A workable alternative to raising the draft age that benefits all
Something that we have covered in conjunction with the junior development theme – and the transition from junior to senior footy (a big physical jump at any level of the sport), is the benefit to be gained from raising the draft age at AFL level.
This is not another ‘lets raise the draft age’ discussion, rather it is another alternative to the issue.
What issue?
-Underdeveloped players entering the system
-Low success rate of draftees (especially outside the first round) – particularly when considering how much goes into the scouting networks
-Junior clubs losing players before experiencing any benefit what so ever from developing them
-AFL high performance departments operating as development systems, trying to fill in all the gaps, whilst simultaneously prepare players to play now.
That issue. And it is an issue – for all involved. Unfortunately, we are stuck in this draft kids at 18 paradigm, and I don’t see it changing. Well ok, how about coming at the issue from another angle.
What if a courageous club out there decided to give all their new draftees 4-year contracts, no questions asked? Or if it become the AFL directive.
Again, highly unlikely, just as raising the draft age is. But what would this approach allow? Lets look over the key things.
Essentially what giving an 18 or 19 year old a 4 year contract does (factoring in that 2 years is the norm – by which time teams want to see something on field to look to extend) is it allows juniors coming in effectively 2 years to focus almost exclusively on development (especially physical), without the pressure of playing games.
Physical development takes time – especially when the foundation that most 18 year olds come into the system with is so poor – or in many cases – non-existent. It is not simply a case of getting 18 year olds ‘as fit and strong as possible’ over a 12-14 week pre-season, and bringing them up-to-speed over the course of the summer, or even 2 summers. This development must be balanced in a way that they aren’t being rushed in this development too quickly where they start to break down. Furthermore, this breaking down may not appear in the immediate term like the current pre-season, but rather be lurking below the surface as weakness and dysfunction, and popping up with little niggles that gradually build up and progressively chew into playing time, training time, and of course overall development.
“Get them mechanically efficient. Get them mechanically consistent. Get them mechanically resilient.”
Kelvin Giles
So there is finding a balance between physical development, whilst continuing also to develop resilience or robustness (the base of the pyramid.) This wouldn’t be too complex to achieve for players working with high performance/strength and conditioning coaches, IF they were focusing entirely on the gym. However, they obviously aren’t doing this.
“You must have the physical competence to do the technical stuff and the technical qualities to do the tactical stuff…..in that order.”
Kelvin Giles
Naturally we are physical-focused on this site, so there is a bias in this direction. However, fundamentally, it is the physical foundation upon which all else – sport specific movements, skills and tactics - are built.
This strength and power work must also be balanced together with the on-field training and running load. However, aided by GPS and closely monitored high speed running amounts (etc), once again, a high performance coach/coaches, these competing training modes can be balanced (a lend of the art and science for performance coaches). Particularly if the on-field loading is largely running-based, or drill-based and positioning -based, minus the full body contact of tackling.
However, for the young players new to an AFL list, it isn’t just the balancing of these, and getting their bodies used to training at an AFL level week in week out (already a larger challenge than most comprehend). Rather we must also see the integration of them into full training, full match simulation, and of course playing matches just about every week, unless injured (be it AFL or state league level). Because in among all the training and preparation and reassuring words about ‘development’ to the young players, is the implicit/unspoken understanding on the part of both parties that unless they show something, they may not have a contract, or may only be able to rely on a potential 1-year extension (for example). It hardly is the ideal scenario for development – even though that is exactly what they are doing.
“But this is a professional competition, it can’t be a soft development league.”
I know. And I agree. That’s why I said it earlier in the discussion. But the reality is, that a large chunk of it is, under the current system.
A 4-year initial contract essentially makes year 3 of that contract like year one. However, this 3rd year comes on the back of 2 years of solid physical development (where physical development has been allowed to be the primary focus above all else), and a far better developed and robust (and mature) 20 year old is in the system, with 2 years to prove themselves. Mind you, the development physically continues through this period, it is just no longer the main priority that is was for the 2 previous years. The full football training load, match simulations and playing every single game can begin. And on a case-by-case basis, certain players may even still be managed in regards to playing time.
Year 1 and 2 aren’t ‘write-offs’ football wise, nor are the young players not integrated into the group fully. They still take part in all the meetings, perform a large chunk of the on field work, and are grouped with older players for various elements of the week (prep-to-train sessions, line-meetings, gym groups, etc.) Additionally, all the elements that go into the role/roles that the coaches have earmarked for them also remain, such as craft work, positioning sessions, etc. It is merely a much slower burn in the actual match-loading and pressure placed on them to show something at the same time as needing to develop physically.
In truth this is probably a similar sort of set up to what a national under-20 set up would look like – an idea that has been floated, similar to the idea of a national reserves set up. However, any chance of these happening has taken a big hit in recent times in light of recent events. This provides a much cheaper (and far more realistic) option.
So short of a fully fledged under 20’s competition, with a raised draft age, a very workable solution is a longer minimum contract for 18 year olds, and the understanding that the first 2 years will largely be about physical development, before then layering the other stuff, and becoming fully-fledged players in years 3 and 4. Such an approach would likely mean very few guys are playing at all at AFL level before the age of 21 or 22 (with the exception of man-children who are absolutely banging the door down). But importantly, clubs can start getting their hands on the best the juniors at 18 years old (the primary reason for the young drafting age), and start molding them early, without necessarily feeling the pressure to roll them out quickly. We can do better than the current model, and given the constraints that we face in the game, this above option ticks a fair few boxes.
