AFL panic on blowouts a storm in a teacup
By Ben Somerford, 11 Aug 2011 Ben Somerford is a Roar Expert
- Tagged:
- AFL, Collingwood, Gold Coast Suns, Mick Malthouse
Related coverage

Mick Malthouse talks to Heath Shaw during the AFL Round 15 match between the Collingwood Magpies and the Hawthorn Hawks at the MCG, Melbourne. Slattery Images
He may supposedly be in his final year of coaching but when Mick Malthouse speaks, people in footy circles still take note and that was never more evident than this week after comments made by the Pies coach following Saturday’s 138-point thrashing of Port Adelaide.
“The scorelines at the moment in AFL football, I think, has to be a worrying trend for the AFL, it has to be,” Malthouse said.
“This is not going to bring people to the football. Do you get any delight out of it? No … we’re entertainers not masochists.”
And I must admit after watching the first quarter of the brutally lopsided Port-Collingwood game, I switched over to Essendon-Sydney for a better contest and duly found one.
Of course, the AFL can’t simply just ignore this problem with the flick of a switch like I did.
Indeed, Malthouse has a point, particularly when you consider there’s been nine 100-plus point thrashings in 2011. That’s the most since 1991, when there were 10 such results.
And the Pies coach made a good case for the AFL to act on the issue, when he added: “Believe me, it’s going to get worse when free agency comes in.
“History just shows in any sport, players who want to change clubs don’t change clubs necessarily for money, they change for success. It makes the top sides stronger and the bottom sides weaker.
“We have seen that in European soccer, we have seen that with other codes, and unfortunately I think we are going to create something that is not what is ideal for the competition… This is not isolated … we are seeing far too much of this.”
Intriguing stuff, particularly when you combine Malthouse’s perceived effect of free agency, with the obvious effects of expansion and the introduction of more clubs with the talent pool becoming diluted. It’s a bit of a concern?
Perhaps… perhaps not.
A poignant question to ask in this whole issue is, is it actually a trend?
The fact of the matter is we’ve seen six 100-plus defeats in the past six rounds which has essentially brought the issue to the fore.
However, prior to Round 15 this year, we’d only seen three! And two of those came from the league’s newboys Gold Coast.
And how quickly we forget this season was supposed to be the ‘year of the draws’ after three drawn games in the first four rounds.
It’s arguable this is just part of the swings and roundabouts of sport and there’s no reason for alarm.
However, it is a discussion worth having just to ponder where AFL footy is heading, but suggestions of rule tinkering, such as shortening the length of quarters – as proposed by Paul Roos on Fox Sports’ On The Coach – is a half-measure and a step too far in my opinion.
The pertinent question is, if the AFL expands to 18-20 clubs can they maintain a competitive gap between the top clubs and those at bottom?
The modern game’s issues with differing levels of football department spending suggest there’s
more to it than just shortening quarters.
At the moment financial powerhouse Collingwood have a yawning gap on the strugglers and their current percentage of 186.06 highlights that fact. But, of course, this is a once in a generation side of genuine quality.
Then again, maybe with the resources at Collingwood’s disposal this is a club who will be hard to budge from the top for a long, long time as Malthouse suggests.
Then again, how quickly we forget Collingwood finished 15th only six years ago. And the club currently sitting 15th, Brisbane, won three consecutive premierships at the start of the last decade.
Perhaps this is just part of the natural cycle of footy, perhaps not.
But realistically, the best way to assess this isn’t in light of the past six rounds thrashings but the season as a whole and as 1991 shows, this has happened before.
Now is the time for the AFL to observe and ponder the situation, but not act.
Recommend this story.
The Turkey 10
The Turkey 10 teams have now been selected, as Wild Turkey Bourbon's sport sponsorship kicks into the next exciting phase.
Choose which side you're going to support and get in the running to win $2,500!
Simply visit Wild Turkey Australia on Facebook for your chance to win.
Find out more.
The Crowd Says (24) | Page 1 of Comments
Have Your Say
- Explore:
- AFL, Collingwood, Gold Coast Suns, Mick Malthouse


August 11th 2011 @ 8:26am
Stabpass said | August 11th 2011 @ 8:26am | Report comment
When you play with no heart, like PA did, the scoreline will reflect that, no matter how bad your skills are, if you play with desperation, and determination you will not be beaten like that.
GC are a different matter, and simply run out of strength, but they usually have a go.
August 11th 2011 @ 8:26am
Chris said | August 11th 2011 @ 8:26am | Report comment
Two points:
1. Malthouse is just trying to deflect the ongoing commentary about his own position. It’s Media Skills 101 that if you want to stop publicity about one topic you create an even bigger story about something else. And Mick’s a pretty cagey media operator.
2. His point about free agency – “Believe me, it’s going to get worse when free agency comes in” – would only be valid in a competition that doesn’t have a salary cap (e.g. EPL or MLB). Once the Suns and GWS get bedded down the AFL will be fine.
Now, back to the REALLY interesting topic… What does everyone think about Collingwood shafting a coach who will almost certainly have just won two premierships in a row?
August 11th 2011 @ 3:24pm
davelee said | August 11th 2011 @ 3:24pm | Report comment
yes, i thnk Malthouse’s point on the free agency is highly contentious. add to that AFL’s culture of loyalty and i dont really envisage such a majr issue.
August 11th 2011 @ 8:37am
Ralphy Boy said | August 11th 2011 @ 8:37am | Report comment
The NRL has free agency but has the most even competition in Australia. This is due to a strongly policed salary cap only. No draft of any kind. I think Mick might be a bit off target with this one.
August 11th 2011 @ 5:20pm
Ian Whitchurch said | August 11th 2011 @ 5:20pm | Report comment
The logic of the salary cap – evening up the competition while stopping clubs going broke to win a flag – is that football department spending has to fall under it.
The most horrific example of salary cap on players but not the football department is the NCAA, where the actual players are paid nothing (*) but coaches pull down millions.
That said, we’ve just got some very good sides running around this year, and some sides in the middle of badly failed rebuilds.
(*) Go read this. http://stanford.scout.com/2/952555.html
August 11th 2011 @ 8:43am
Redb said | August 11th 2011 @ 8:43am | Report comment
The fact is 2-3 rounds ago I recall there was a round where every match was decided by less than 4 goals, I dont think that has happened in awhle either.
2 games last round were 1st v 17th and 2nd v 16th – of course at end of the season with nothing to play for they would be blowouts. The Geelong v Gold Coast (without Ablett), was men v boys. That will change. Geelong have been blowing teams away at the Cattery for a few years and elsewhere.
Collingwood’s fitness is the result of a regime (high altitiude training) that has taken the game to another level. Their last quarters see them as fresh as the first, I beleive some catch up by other teams is required. Collingwood have taken a quantum step in front of other clubs.
New teams are always going to be exploited in the early years, Freo & Port were on the end of a few in the mid 1990s.
August 11th 2011 @ 3:23pm
davelee said | August 11th 2011 @ 3:23pm | Report comment
its interesting to note in 2011, there’s been a variety of clubs to cop 100+ floggings. not just the suns, but also adelaide, WB, NM, richmond, melbourne, port adelaide. i thnk back in 1991, it was mainly brisbane bears, the struggling fitzroy and the newboys adelaide.
i dont know what to take from that, but its an interesting side note.
August 12th 2011 @ 6:05pm
Nick Bencorelli said | August 12th 2011 @ 6:05pm | Report comment
MayBe it shows teams who dont turn in the modern game get flogged. You gotta be Switched on.
August 11th 2011 @ 9:45am
The Cattery said | August 11th 2011 @ 9:45am | Report comment
There are an array of stats that one can analyse, if people wish to get serious about it rather than submit to knee jerk reactions. The smartest thing Angry Anderson has said is that for meaningful trends, you dont’ look over weeks, but over decades.
Having said that, there’s no denying that nine 100+ pt games in one season is pretty high. Interestingly, 50+pt margins at half time for this season are bang on the average for the past 20 years. This basically tells us that there are a few teams out there who have been incapable of putting in better second halfs, and have got worse as the game went on it – we’ve seen a bit of that this season.
AFL360 put up another interesting stat, and this one is the one that stands out the most for me. In three of the last four seasons, including this one (assuming Collingwood and Geelong continue on their merry way), sees all time records for the most aggregate wins by the top two teams in a season.
In the age of equalisation, this is worth investigating. Related to that is the fact that Carlton in 1995 and Essendon in 2000, reached brand new heights for wins in a single home and away seasons (20 and 21 respectively), once again, completely at odds with the equaliation policies of the past 25 years.
On the whole, the historical record shows that the policies have produced a greater array of premiers than would have been possible otherwise, but the great paradox is that teams have managed to produce small bursts of recrod-breaking dominance on a few separate occasions. Why that has happened is a bit unclear, and warrants some further study.
August 11th 2011 @ 12:22pm
Richard said | August 11th 2011 @ 12:22pm | Report comment
Good article, although I don’t think it’s the AFL who are panicking. Seems to me its the media commentators who are whipping up this nonsense. Gold Coast are new, but with plenty of potential for improvement. They are investing now for future prosperity. The problems at Port Adelaide and Melbourne stem from poor management, not a fundamental flaw in the model. Mick’s getting way too generous in his old age in excusing the failures of others. Signs of a man who has now achieved what he wanted to in his career?
August 11th 2011 @ 4:48pm
GrantS said | August 11th 2011 @ 4:48pm | Report comment
Richard I actually thought I was going to agree with something you said until you put your Collingwood management hat on at the end there.
Do you get paid by the club or were you brainwashed at an early age?
I thought Redb was one eyed but he doesn’t compare against you.
August 11th 2011 @ 8:31pm
Richard said | August 11th 2011 @ 8:31pm | Report comment
Thank you
August 12th 2011 @ 6:03pm
Nick Bencorelli said | August 12th 2011 @ 6:03pm | Report comment
haha
August 11th 2011 @ 3:26pm
davelee said | August 11th 2011 @ 3:26pm | Report comment
imagine being a port power supporter on saturday and turning up and watching your sides kick 3.3 (21) and get belted by 138 points. you’d be tempted to never go back
August 11th 2011 @ 6:06pm
The Cattery said | August 11th 2011 @ 6:06pm | Report comment
Those of us who have followed the game for 30 years or more have all seen our club torn to shreds by 15+ goals at one point or another.
As recently as 2006, only 5 short years ago, Geelong scored 8.7 (55) and were thrashed by Adelaide by 92 points.
As recently as 2005, Collingwood scored 10.8 (68) and were thrashed by Freo by 112 points.
August 12th 2011 @ 6:07pm
Nick Bencorelli said | August 12th 2011 @ 6:07pm | Report comment
six scorign shots for a home team in the AFL is pretty awful
August 11th 2011 @ 7:12pm
The Cattery said | August 11th 2011 @ 7:12pm | Report comment
Just watching the replay of AFL360.
Kingy arguing strongly about the need to retain the priority pick, especially with teams that have been in the bottom quartile for so long.
I love his suggestion of determining the priority pick after round 16, because teams won’t tank for the last 6 to 8 rounds of the year.
Kingy says determine the order of the draft after round 12, priority picks after round 16, and that’s it for the season, no advantage gained regardless of what happens for the remainder of the season.
The beauty of this idea is that for first half of season, teams are at the maximum of their motivation to win – so the teams filling out the bottom at that point are genuinely showing poor form, and history shows that very, very few recover from that position. The picks determined on the genuine form of the first half of the season – no complaint can be had about tanking for the remainder of the season, because ladder positions won’t matter thereafter.
August 12th 2011 @ 12:07am
amazonfan said | August 12th 2011 @ 12:07am | Report comment
But what if it does? What if round 22 determines who will finish top four? I can’t really agree with these types of suggestions, because if the last 6 rounds don’t matter, then why have them? We have 22 rounds, and I don’t want any of them to become meaningless. We can discuss having a lottery, or getting rid of them, or whatever, however I don’t think that a scenario where the latter stages of the season become meaningless, is the way to go.
August 12th 2011 @ 5:31am
GrantS said | August 12th 2011 @ 5:31am | Report comment
amazonfan the last six rounds are never meaningless and that is the whole point of Kingy’s argument. ie. Teams wont tank for most of the season but WILL tank for the last few rounds to pick up a higher draft pick.
Of your two choices I would rather dump the pick than have a lottery.
August 12th 2011 @ 6:04pm
Nick Bencorelli said | August 12th 2011 @ 6:04pm | Report comment
I’ve read the suggestion of an independent panel to decide on priority picks, taking into account performance, injuries, suspensions etc..
August 13th 2011 @ 2:31am
amazonfan said | August 13th 2011 @ 2:31am | Report comment
That’s true, however I question whether in order to determine who gets the priority pick, we should take the last 6 rounds out of the ladder race. Yes, it’s absolutely true that teams which tank, will tank in those 6 rounds, however I just wonder if there is another way to do it without excluding any rounds from the ladder race.
“Of your two choices I would rather dump the pick than have a lottery.”
They were simply two of the most popular choices people bring up. I’m not suggesting that these be the only two choices considered.
August 12th 2011 @ 6:10pm
The Cattery said | August 12th 2011 @ 6:10pm | Report comment
amazon
When I say that’s it for the season, I mean to say the rest of the season doesn’t impact where you end up for the order of draft picks, that’s determined in the earlier rounds.
August 13th 2011 @ 2:39am
amazonfan said | August 13th 2011 @ 2:39am | Report comment
Sorry, my mistake.
August 14th 2011 @ 3:36pm
steve sharpe said | August 14th 2011 @ 3:36pm | Report comment
And Hawthorn go and thump Port Adelaide by 160 points.
Does seem alot of the good sides are giving the poor sides some serious beatings.