Jump to content

Talk:2011 AFL draft

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GWS prelisted candidates

[edit]

To remove clutter and uncomplicate the trade table, I think it would be better to clarify the GWS pre-listed trades, like Marty Clarke et al, in the body of the article, and just leave the table columns to the actual AFL clubs. Thefourdotelipsis (talk) 01:34, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should leave it as is for now and review it at the end of trade week when we know how many trades there are. The-Pope (talk) 02:10, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't really like the current split table design. Either way we should add a explanatory statement to let people know what it all means. The-Pope (talk) 05:06, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the best way to do it would be to have the separate table, and have the text above that detailing how the pre-listings work. And do the same thing for the eventual mini-draft. The actual draft table columns should really be reserved for the clubs doing the actual trades, with the precedent being every single other AFL Draft article. Down GAA and West Adelaide aren't actually even remotely involved in these trades - at a glance, it's very misleading. Thefourdotelipsis (talk) 23:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Down, West Adelaide and Murray Bushrangers have a lot more to do with Clarke, Morris and Elliot than GWS. You made a comment (about the original clubs below) about precedent from previous years. I recently checked last's years page and thought - Tendai isn't shown as coming from Perth, I'll have to fix that one day. Precedents are only good when they are good and can't be improved. Like I said before, lets see how many of these there are, and then make a call as to how confusing or cluttered it makes it look. The-Pope (talk) 14:30, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Those clubs might have more to do with the actual players, but they have nothing to do with the actual trade period itself, and have no say in the matter. That's what is misleading - to say that Marty Clarke was traded to Collingwood in a deal between Collingwood, GWS, and Down is incorrect. The deal was done purely between GWS and Collingwood. Clarke's management obviously has something to do with it, but Down is irrelevant. It would be like later going back to the trade table when the draft is done, replace all the traded draft picks with the players selected, and then putting the clubs that they came from into the club columns. It's fatuous. Thefourdotelipsis (talk) 23:09, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A thought occurs - we can have the separate table of pre-listed players under the GWS concessions, which also allows us to specify the relevant leagues, which brings it into line with the other draft tables, and we can list the uncontracted signings in a table as well, with the compensation for each outlined as well (something to this effect is already on the relevant Greater Western Sydney page). The benefit of this is that the compensation also comes into play during trade period (as we've just seen), and allows the information to be presented in a cleaner and ultimately more extensive fashion. Thefourdotelipsis (talk) 00:49, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree about the uncontracted player table - mainly to help keep track of the compensation picks (as an example, I'm pretty sure every pick from last year has now been traded except for the one Bris is going to use this draft), but I still don't think a list of "pre-listed" players is worthwhile, as it implies that they were on the GWS list, which they weren't. The-Pope (talk) 15:08, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, they are on the GWS list in order for the trade to take place. It's not like the mini-draft, where they had to trade them on - they could have just kept any of those pre-listed players (and they still might). Thefourdotelipsis (talk) 23:05, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, just like you are correct in saying the player's WAFL/SANFL/GAA clubs weren't involved in the trade, the players would never have signed a contract with GWS, only with the new club. GWS was just given the right to list or trade these players - the players would have only agree with their destination, not GWS, who only really acted as an agent. 3 days to go, I'm not going to make any changes today, I think that we should just wait until Monday afternoon and then work out whether a separate table, GWS only or GWS (orig state team) or State team via GWS is the best option. I still think we should show both the actual original team and GWS in the single trade table.The-Pope (talk) 23:26, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe a suitable alternative would be listing the original club of the pre-listed players in parenthesis after their names, which would be both cleaner in presentation and allow the club tables to work (better) when sorted. Thefourdotelipsis (talk) 00:13, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just as an addendum to this issue, GWS have actually kept one of their pre-listings in James McDonald. Since this falls under a form of player recruitment, I'd think that it qualifies for coverage on this article. Thefourdotelipsis (talk) 07:22, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The zone/prelisted players are always a problem as the official draft lists often don't show them. Maybe an official list will be published soon. Folou is another one that hasn't actually been drafted at all. Back to the original issue, I quite like the way you've put the original club next to the players name. The-Pope (talk) 15:22, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you like it. I just thought that ultimately, with so many trades, that it was ultimately going to be useful to be able to sort the table by club. Thefourdotelipsis (talk) 06:33, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Listing who previously held draft picks

[edit]

Something else that just needlessly clutters up the table. What if a draft pick passes through 3 or 4 clubs hands? Yet again, looking back to previous draft articles, who previously held a draft pick isn't specified in the draft table, and for good reason - it's irrelevant and redundant, since the draft picks are all listed in the trade table. Thefourdotelipsis (talk) 02:15, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I have often tried to work out how each club get's which ever pick they end up with. Last year (to use your precedent idea) is an absolutely impossibility to work out how each club got its picks (without a detailed line by line assessment), as the addition of the compensation pick pushed all of the numbers out of whack. Again, I'm strongly considering adding an additional column to link the picks back to the trades table. Not sure how to make it work, but I think we need something. I agree entirely that we don't want to see Geelong (via Adelaide via Gold Coast via Fremantle via GWS), but until a complicated exchange of picks occurs, we should leave it in. Precedents are only good if they are best practice, lets not be afraid to try to improve all of the draft articles, not just put up with the status quo. The-Pope (talk) 14:30, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think that for one, the draft tables in previous years were poorly laid out, but by breaking them onto separate lines like we've done for this year's draft table, it's much easier to read, and much easier to follow. This also ties back to the use of purely the clubs involved in the trade in the table - since it's a sortable table, you could sort the clubs in one column, then the other (Otherwise having a sortable table isn't much chop), and then you would be able to see exactly who traded what for whom. Once the draft picks are switched, who owned them in the first place ultimately becomes trivial at best anyway - it's already outlined on the trade table. Thefourdotelipsis (talk) 23:14, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on 2011 AFL draft. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:42, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on 2011 AFL draft. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:13, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2011_AFL_draft&oldid=1196584828"