Neighbours is predictable, sport is not

Spiro Zavos said  | October 23rd 2008 @ 9:15am | Report comment

Nicely done Benjamin, very enjoyable. The unpredictability of sport is the main reason why Kerry Packer was so insistent that sport on Channel 9 should be played live, as often as it was possible to do so. And where would sports journalists like myself be if we couldn’t use the cliche ‘the glorious uncertainty’ of name your sport?

Add a note on why the comment is inappropriate, and click the button below to confirm

Enter the text shown:

Michael C said  | October 23rd 2008 @ 1:37pm | Report comment

Nice article - -

but :
“I personally dislike any tampering by administrators attempting to engineer unpredictable results because it doesn’t work and usually has the opposite effect. ”

This seems a bit of a throw away line,

I speak at least for the AFL - one of the primary reasons behind the salary cap was to protect clubs from themselves and their over spending.

It remains to be seen how ’safe’ Chelsea will be with their half billion dollar debt effectively carried should Abramovich decide he want’s to move on. What responsibilities do league and club administrators have to the ’spiritual owners’ of a club - - i.e. the fans.

I believe your view point on salary caps, and probably regulated player markets via drafts - - might be a soccer viewpoint - - reality is that boutique sports in particular need certain ‘protective’ regulatory structures. The sharp end of soccer thus far can get away without such……..but……….only fools, Reagan and Thatcher believe in infinite growth.

btw -
AFL - - clubs consistantly winning - - club dominance prior to salary caps and drafts took real effect, consider 1967 to 1989 23 GFs. Most of that time a 12 team comp. Only 4 separate clubs tasted premiership glory. Carlton 6, Rich 5, Haw 4 and NM 2. NM ONLY because of the short lived 10 year rule.

Since ‘92, we’ve had 10 different teams win premierships, and most of that time in a 16 team competition.

There are still teams that dominate particular seasons, but, gee - in 2000, Essendon looked the team of the century (they’d also have a golden run of luck re injuries etc that year), and yet, that was the only premiership that group won. Brisbane - - just exceptional to get up for 3 in a row, mentally, a superb effort, whereas Geelong - looked set to have a little ‘era’ that, already being challenged by Hawthorn may yet only yield a single premiership.

Note - for the AFL - with 2 prelim finals - over the last 3 seasons, 11 different teams have made the 2nd last week of the finals, i.e. one win from a GF. ONly Geelong has been there twice. In fact, 2000 and on, every single club has made a prelim final. Not bad for a 16 team competition.

Add a note on why the comment is inappropriate, and click the button below to confirm

Enter the text shown:

Michael C said  | October 23rd 2008 @ 2:59pm | Report comment

Millster -

oh come now - - what a banal argument. We aren’t talking sporting evolution. We’re talking football leagues.

If you think it’s a fair competition that a league can be completely demeaned by a couple of overseas billionaires having their way with a couple of clubs - - - by jove……..showing what is possible!!!! (how sustainably? and hardly the result of ‘natural evolutionary pathways’) whilst the rest look for a Hull style fairytale as their sole hope (let’s speculate now just how long Hull can sustain it, how much depth have they got? what debt are they carrying and how many players will they have to off load to pay for it?)

It’s all artificial when business invades sport.

Don’t be so precious about so called levelling devices. They are as ‘artificial’ as what you seem to parade as ‘real competition’.

Real competition is everyone get’s on a fairly equal bike and the best rider wins………..not that the 3 richest competitors have motor bikes whilst the rest are peddling.

So, Millster - - yes, give me ‘real competition’ anyday………not that EPL style artificially contrived cheque book ‘dominance’……….hardly an example of nurtured development within a club, showing how good you can use the standard means available.

Let me put it another way - - to me, either every swimmer should be wearing a body suit (if they are that good), or none. You seem to suggest that if the poor swimmer can’t afford a body suit, then they just have to lump it.

THe thing about your argument is it falls flat…….chequebook dominance is not permitted on the field, then, chequebook dominance comes to the fore off the field - - - which is exactly where the high level coaching, training, analysis kicks in (now, you’d have a point about cave-wall painting vs internet were there an off field salary cap).

To me, sport is about a level playing field - - but training better, harder, smarter - - preparing and recovering better, harder, smarter. Because, really, anyone can buy a premiership……….the VFL had Carlton…….we know……….and sadly my NOrth Melb bought it’s first 2 ever premierships. It was the only way!!!!!! Thank god we’ve moved on to some real competition.

Add a note on why the comment is inappropriate, and click the button below to confirm

Enter the text shown:

dasilva said  | October 23rd 2008 @ 4:34pm | Report comment

Millster
I don’t mind the idea of success buying more success. Clubs like Arsenal and Manchester United earnt the right to have more money due to good coaching getting results. Its their success that allowed them to have more money for them to maintain success.

However clubs like Chelsea and Manchester City has no previous history and no track record of championship success. Then a rich billionaire comes in and buys the club which then makes them immediately (or almost) immediate success. It kinds of cheapens the achievement of the likes of Arsenal and Man. U over the years (although nowadays Man. U sold out anyway).

The thing is sports is different to the rest of society. There’s always a bit of romance about sport that you can’t equate with business. One thing is the idea that this is first a local team and it’s primary achievement is to win trophies and money is just a means to an end and not the point of the clubs existance (that’s why I’m pro-member only clubs like barcelona and madrid rather then private ownership).

Also I don’t believe in rewarding mediocrity so that’s why I oppose salary cap. However having billionaire taking over a club is also rewarding mediocrity. The club achieve nothing to reach any height and rewarded by a billionaire investor as the club isn’t that expensive to buy which then buy success. I don’t believe that is meritocratic either. There has to be balance between laissez faire and a socialist system.

I support 60% of turnover cap that countries like Germany have where its almost unheard of for a club to go down and go bankrupt. You still reward success but limit spending of billionaires taking over. In any case in England you see sides in a lot of debt. I think we can expect there will be a fair amount of clubs going bankrupt in the near future especially in these economic uncertain times.

Add a note on why the comment is inappropriate, and click the button below to confirm

Enter the text shown:

Midfielder said  | October 23rd 2008 @ 10:17pm | Report comment

Different models require different structures ………. AFL & NRL as is US footie and many other US sports need a structured model of some kind to ensure they are still around in future years. There is a huge difference running a domestic sport to running an international sport …….. both have weakness & strengths.

In RU & Football where there is demand on a world stage for the best players a local competition needs to get the best players it can on whatever budget it has ………. however they also have more to pick from. Domestic competitions (US Footie) and semi domestic (AFL / NRL) do not have to protect their players from being picked up overseas …… but need to develop models that will provide support to key parties within them as replacing key players can be hard. If say Manly fell over tomorrow who would take their place on Sydney’s Northern peninsular.

So I find it silly Football people telling local domestic competitions how they should be modelled …….. but more so its sillier for a local domestic competition to tell a international sport their virtues and they should adopt local ideas ………..as both need totally different models.

To the general theme of the thread, spot when played with heart and a will to win inspires many and even to fail but fail with pride and glory is reward in itself. The only spot I am aware of that is almost individually driven and essentially equal in the contest is boxing (and yes money can buy good coaches and managers here as well).

The upset, the underdog victory, Balmain in the 1969 Lay Down grand final win over South’s (RL folk should watch this game next time they say footballers act) Canberra in the win over Balmain 1987 I think Karma maybe for 1969……. Greegins tackle late in the match against the All Blacks, the famous over head backward without looking Campo pass sheer arse actually …….. but remembered with plenty of ale as class and inspirational ! ! ! ! ! Sunderland’s victory over Leeds in the FA Cup, the come from behind America’s cup win by Australia 2.

Ben a question do you think there is to much sport played ….. cricket they never seem not to be playing and thus it can dull the senses, football essentially 52 weeks of the year if you count international weeks, as I said only Boxing IMO requires the sportsman or women to come to each contest fully committed and give of there best as there is always next week or a better tournament to play in for most other sports.

Add a note on why the comment is inappropriate, and click the button below to confirm

Enter the text shown:

dasilva said  | October 27th 2008 @ 2:50am | Report comment

Michael C

Sometimes people views of the world is reflected in there view in how sports should be run. However there are a lot of people who otherwise have laissez faire economist view of the world but when it comes to sport make an exception and recognise it as something different and something sacred. They may believe in survive of the fittest in the cut throat business world but then lament the dominance of a few oligarchs in the sporting field. That’s why sometimes people do romanticised and have sporting as something separate to there normal pragmatic views on society (the same also applies with social views such as relationship etc)

Now about the salary cap

My belief is the 60% of turnover/revenue/income salary cap instead of a fix monetary rate for all clubs. Successful clubs that earn more income are allow to spend more. If they win the premiership the cost of players will increase but the revenue will increase and they’ll be able to keep the players and therefore not punish for being successful like you see what happen in the salary cap (Newscastle Jets was gutted because of this. THey won the premiership and was punish for it). The 60% cap also protects the club from itself as its put a restraint/cap to spending. you don’t spend more then what you earn.

However if the club is bought by a billionaire. The club is still only allowed to spend 60% of income. So this will prevent big sugar daddy coming in and immediately outspend every other club and automatically join the top teams. This is what happen with Chelsea and Manchester City and I don’t believe it is good for the game where club with no history of success take a shortcut to the top.

So this system will still have a few clubs who generally expect to see at the top of the ladder. However other clubs still once in a while fight aboves its own weight and shake the league status quo with good coaching and buying and billionaires can’t expect to buy clubs and expect immediate success. I do believe it is a good balance

Add a note on why the comment is inappropriate, and click the button below to confirm

Enter the text shown: