Are the Non Victorian Clubs too powerful?

[Bill James]

Non Victorian clubs have more money. They don't get better players because of the draft but they do have a better chance of keeping them due to equalisation or simply facilities.

Strangely they think they are disandvantaged by travelling. In reality they get to practice it every second week so when it comes to the finals its not a big deal for them to travel. A melbourne club may only travel 3-4 times a year and may not go to Subiaco at all, this is a huge disadvantage.

The money side of the equation will not even up until there are less clubs in Melbourne.

I personnally have always liked the sound of a two conference idea. A melbourne and interstate conference each with 8 teams (Second sydney team, Tassie, ACT: Bulldogs, Kangaroos, Hawthorn to relocate). Each team plays their own conference twice and the other conference once. 21 rounds. Each conference has a final four with a grand final followed by the premiership match. Always means you have a melbourne team and an interstate team playing off.

Advantages: Evens up the money, less one crowd games in Melbourne, Melbourne clubs play each other more often always have return matches against melbourne clubs in the season, always have polarised interstate spite in the final game of the year.

Weaknesses are the abilitity of Tassie and ACT to financially support an AFL club.

 

[23.21.159]

On the money BJ. But your idea would be 22 games, not 21. Playing teams in your own division twice gives you 14 games and playing the other division once is another 8.
But I think there should be a bit of a mix. WCE and Freo should of course be in the same division, same with PAP and Crows, so they always play each other twice. The rest of the divisions could be padded out with the Melbourne teams on a different basis each year. But the basic premise of the draw would make it even within the divisions because each team is being ranked only against teams who have the same draw.
I'd like to see North to Canberra, Hawks to Tassie and the Bulldogs to either NT or West Sydney. That would allow the various pieces of the pie to go around a bit better.
I would also mix the finals. First in one division plays second in the other etc. Better chance of mixing it up because they've only played each other once.

 

[GoodOne]

It would be interesting to know in each team, how many actually originate from interstate ie away from home.

I think this is one of the major factors in inequality. We talk about drafts and salary caps putting an evener on the competition, and to an extent this is true, and is why on any given day one team appears to be able to beat another. However, depth of players is the key to winning premierships. And that is where the interstate teams have an advantage. Players are inclined to want to play in their own state. Even when they have been drafted elsewhere a certain percentage long to go back home and subsequently do not perform to their capabilities. So over a period of time, the interstate teams tend to keep a higher proportion of skilled players (depth) because they have less to compete with for player services.

Other factors to consider and I think have all been mentioned:

government concessions, there is no way Brisbane would have won 3 premierships without major concessions. The concessions were required but I think went on for too long

sponsorship, definitely alot harder to maintain strong sponsorship for Victorian teams, and remember the cost of fielding teams now is infinitely higher than the past.

home games, real home-ground advantage. How many Melbourne clubs now have any real home ground advantage....maybe Geelong

I cant see the AFL continuing on with so many Victorian clubs. A truly national competition wouldnt contain 10 Victorian clubs. And the cold hard fact is teams will have to go. This will happen, and if its a Richmond, then you would have to seriously consider turning back to a local club and giving your support there. It would probably provide a huge boost to the VFL.

Cheers

 

[TOT70]

Perth and Adelaide are traditional Aussie Rules cities and the AFL has got it right in both states.  They have two teams each , an establishment side which appeals to the upwardly-mobile, chardonnay set and and a side for the scrubbers from the boondocks- both natural markets and both clubs are successful because they do not compete for support.  Everyone loves one team and hates the other: perfect synergy.

Sydney and Brisbane can't really support an Aussie Rules team but are large markets and the AFL is prepared to throw money at them.  HAving them at or near the top of the ladder is not negotiable so they must be supported with money, players, consessions, you name it, they need it.  Just bottomless pits really.

Then we have Melbourne.  Ten teams.

The natural market exists for an establishment team.  Melbourne, Carlton?  The support is diluted.

The boondocks team is Collingwood, probably should be Port Melbourne, but thats another issue.

What about the rest?  Teams like Geelong, Richmond (nearly a boondocks team), Essendon and St Kilda have geographical or traditional support which gives them some sort of natural market.

Footscray, HAwthorn and North Melbourne lack traditional support and have no natural market.  All they can succeed in achieving is cutting every one else's lunch.

Merge Carlton and Melbourne together and demote Hawthorn, Footscray and North back to the VFL where their real fans can watch them play every Saturday afternoon.

This will ensure that September will always be contested by the Big 4 and the interstate infidels, leading to bumper support .  LAst week's KAngaroos-Port game was a total disgrace and the surest sign that there are too many teams in Melbourne. 

Does anyone other than a handful of Shinboners care at all about this team?  Would the Bulldogs have fared any better?

I will pay to see Richmond play finals, but I won't shell out hard-earned to watch these other teams.  If there were fewer teams in Melbourne, Richmond might just be competitive on the field and we would all be happy.

 

[bairdy380]

To the actual thread query....No they are not too "powerful". Have they had the stategic foresight on and off the field to become successful clubs...yes.
Collingwood is a perfect example of a less successful club (Generically speaking) but weilds enourmous political clout...thus is a "powerful" victorian side.
Richmond is delusional if we think we are a power...keep in mind folks we were talking competetive balance fund access only 9 months ago!
Reality is these sporting club entities are now a business...as in any business world the well managed (In all departments) will thrive, those that are not...in the AFL will survive due only to a parochial system that will generally not allow any iconic stalwarts to dissappear.
Can victoria support 10 clubs...basic needs:YES, can all 10 prosper...NO.
Lets not begrudge teams because they are now successes...we should look and learn from these...the real world is not an even playing field...the successful will manage these areas accordingly.
I'll step down from my soapbox now.....

 

[Anduril]

I would be a lot happier if we could play ALL our home games at home, just like the interstate teams do, in fact the SA and WA teams play 12 home games in reality.

 

[Rosy]

IMO money is not the issue - playing talent is - look at the Victorian teams - especially Richmond - and you can see they have too many AFL fringe Players regularly playing - whereas the Interstate teams only have one or two that get rotated through the team when injuries occur. Too many clubs - too few talent means mediocre teams because the fringe players make up the numbers.........

I think I'm missing something there Remote. Don't clubs all pick from the same list so in effect all have access to the same players?

I think money is a big issue and in Melb it gets spread a bit thin with so many teams. It would be wonderful to be able to afford a full complement of players and rookies.

A team should be far more competitive if there's depth and pressure for spots.

 

[AngryAnt]

IMO money is not the issue - playing talent is - look at the Victorian teams - especially Richmond - and you can see they have too many AFL fringe Players regularly playing - whereas the Interstate teams only have one or two that get rotated through the team when injuries occur. Too many clubs - too few talent means mediocre teams because the fringe players make up the numbers.........

You do know there are no such things as recruiting zones anymore right?

 

[eight ace]

Bairdy, I would not say that a team like the Eagles necessarily needed a lot of 'strategic foresight'. They had a number of years to establish themselves with no competition whatsoever, and by the time Fremantle came along they were a very strong club. This is a club that can garner 40,000 members without trying too hard, and for whom sponsors are lining up.

This happy position for that club exists because it was the first WA side in the national competition - a position created for it by a Victorian based organisation. It has saturation media coverage.  Business comes to it, not the other way around. I would say the licence fee paid by the Eagles to join the competition was an absolute bargain for that club.

 

[RemoteTiger]

IMO money is not the issue - playing talent is - look at the Victorian teams - especially Richmond - and you can see they have too many AFL fringe Players regularly playing - whereas the Interstate teams only have one or two that get rotated through the team when injuries occur. Too many clubs - too few talent means mediocre teams because the fringe players make up the numbers.........

I think I'm missing something there Remote. Don't clubs all pick from the same list so in effect all have access to the same players?

I think money is a big issue and in Melb it gets spread a bit thin with so many teams. It would be wonderful to be able to afford a full complement of players and rookies.

A team should be far more competitive if there's depth and pressure for spots.

I did not communicate my argument very well - another way of saying it is - there are 16 clubs who have aproximately 40 players on their lists that equals 640 players in total on AFL Playing lists - it is my opinion that about 400 to 450 of those players are AFL standard the remaining 190 to 240 players are "fringe players" by that I mean very good VFL players but not really consistent regular AFL players - guess which teams have the most "fringe players" - correct those teams from position 12 on the ladder down to last.

If there was only 12 teams in the AFL - 6 interstaters and 6 Victorian then there would only be a need for 480 AFL players - of which there are about 400 to 450 - this would even the comp out and lift the standard as well - for every game would be a bloody good close affair. Victorian teams would be much stronger because they would not be burdened with dare I say it duds in their line up.

Whilst ever there is not enough talented footballers around there will be second rate performances on the field by teams who have a majority of second rate players - is it a coincidence that the the clubs with second rate players are also the finacially poor clubs - yes and no - Collingwood is not financially poor but they have an abundance of second rate players - Essendon the same - yet Hawthorn and ourselves who have struggled financially of late have our share of second raters too.

The simple answer is there are too many clubs and not enough talent - but then who in the AFL Administration has the "balls" to say to a Victorian Club you must merge or slip back to the VFL. Thus it will never change. This is all the opinion of a RFC supporter who tries to take a view from a different angle.

To me it is hard to disprove this theory because there are not 640 AFL standard players in Australia - this years competition has yet again proved that.

 

[GoodOne]

Can victoria support 10 clubs...basic needs:YES, can all 10 prosper...NO.
Lets not begrudge teams because they are now successes...we should look and learn from these...the real world is not an even playing field...the successful will manage these areas accordingly.

Thats a nice theory. True the world is not an even playing field, and actually in truth those with the advantages often end up on top. The only reason 10 Victorian clubs has survived so far is because the AFL has been pumping money to the clubs when needed, this money coming from rights such as cable TV.

I don't begrudge teams for being successful, if you're given something make the most of it, but it is worthwhile comprehending why interstate clubs have had much more success in the last 10 years than Victorian clubs, and in many cases its got little to do with their aptitude to get the job done and more to do with the advantages they have been afforded. Move 8 Victorian teams to South Australia and see how well teams in both states are doing in 10 years time.

Cheers

 

[craig]

CORRECT GOODIE

BY THE WAY YUP they are better served and are too powerful.

 

[Ridley]

Whilst the interstate teams are currently very powerful, it hasn't always been the case. Arguably the poorest team in the AFL, the Kangaroos, were the most dominant team of the mid-late 90s. And all four teams in the preliminary finals in 2000 were Victorian. No doubt the interstate teams have more money but they are also a hell of a lot better managed, on and off the field. Remember all clubs have access to the same player pool and have the same amount of money to spend on player payments (excepting Sydney & Brisbane). Collingwood and Essendon are as wealthy as, and have facilities to rival, any interstate club. It means jack if you ain't got the cattle. Recruiting and player development through coaching is what makes great teams. Maybe the wealth of the interstate clubs could give them an advantage with being able to develop a greater recruiting network but again that hasn't helped Collingwood. IMO the best list at the moment is that at St.Kilda, traditionally one of the poorer teams.

The Victorian clubs just need to get better people in on and off field positions, and they will do it better. Unfortunately our club has been hopelessly mismanaged on field, off field or both for the better part of 25 years. That's why we are where we are.

 

[Ghost Who Walks]

Interstate teams are at a disadvantage due to travel.
How often did Collingwood or the Tigers travel interstate this year, compare that to the crows for example.
There is evidence that constant airtravel does shorten a players career.
Also look at how many interstate teams get to play at the G during the year

 

[GoodOne]

Interstate teams are at a disadvantage due to travel.
How often did Collingwood or the Tigers travel interstate this year, compare that to the crows for example.
There is evidence that constant airtravel does shorten a players career.
Also look at how many interstate teams get to play at the G during the year

That is about the only disadvantage, the travel. I'd be interested in seeing the evidence that proves air travel shortens your career. Where can I find that info? Home ground advantage far outweighs the travel disadvantage.

Cheers

 

[Ghost Who Walks]

West Coast have stated that on average their players will have shorter careers due to constant air travel
as it impacts on recovery time due to injuries.

It also means that players are away from their families longer due to travel involved.

 

[poppa x]

When we play the crows at the dome - we are playing a team who plays at the dome nearly as often as we do.  Hence our home advantage is diminished.  Only when ALL Victorian teams play their home games at their home venues will Vic clubs regain some of the home ground advantage.  Also the scenario of RFC playing a home game against a Vic club at the dome has to stop because it weakens what little home advantage Vic clubs have.
Sooner or later the AFL will have to put crowd numbers lower in priority to giving Vic clubs an even playing field.

 

[GoodOne]

West Coast have stated that on average their players will have shorter careers due to constant air travel
as it impacts on recovery time due to injuries.

It also means that players are away from their families longer due to travel involved.

Well of course West Coast would state that, but where is the proof?

 

[CarnTheTiges]

There's no proof, because it's not true.

 

[Bill James]

I think the travel is an advantage for interstate teams firstly because they all get 11 home games that have distinct home ground advantage 95% of the time ( allowing for Port-Adelaide, Freo-Weagles), that is enough to get into the finals most years.

Home games for Melbourne teams are only an advantage when playing interstate teams which is less than 50% of home games.

Because the interstate teams travel more often they have a good routine and while travelling interstate is a disadvantage it is a bigger disadvantage to the Melbourne teams that are not practised in the art.

When it come to finals time, a home final is almost always an advantage for an interstate team (Crows-Port is the first one that wasn't) whereas for Melbourne teams they are likely to play a Melbourne team more than 50% of the time where there is no advantage.