Don’t augment the AFL season, reduce it
Roar Guru By Ben Waterworth, 31 Aug 2011 Ben Waterworth is a Roar Guru
- Tagged:
- AFL, Hawthorn Hawks, Jeff Kennett
Related coverage
Hawthorn club President, Jeff Kennett, claps his players off the ground. (AAP Image/David Crosling)
‘Less is more’. It’s such a well-known proverb. Whether you’re writing an article, designing a website, or hosting a wedding reception, content seems more efficient when it’s produced succinctly. Now the AFL must employ the same approach to its home-and-away season structure.
On Saturday, outgoing Hawthorn president Jeff Kennett told SEN radio that the AFL should extend the home-and-away season to 30 rounds to even up the competition.
Huh? Thirty rounds? He was kidding, surely?
Kennett’s exhaled many outlandish statements during his time as Hawks chairman, but his most recent one was plain silly. Yes an even competition is crucial to its long-term future, but a 30-round season in today’s era would border on suicidal.
In fact, the 2011 season has given us numerous reasons why the AFL shouldn’t extend its home-and-away fixture.
One week out from the finals and a large portion of players can give no more. They’re either spent, injured or both. In 2011, they’ve been pushed to new limits, going harder and higher for longer periods of time.
And it’s beginning to take its toll.
Ahead of Round 23, Fremantle had 17 players on its injury list. Some of the names included Matthew Pavlich, David Mundy, Hayden Ballantyne and Greg Broughton – all top ten players at the club.
The Dockers could barely walk against Collingwood last Friday night. If they were still playing in six weeks, not too many players would be able to stand up.
This year’s 24-round season has turned into an anti-climax.
As the season has progressed, margins have increased, the chasm between clubs has grown and crowds have thinned. Collingwood, Geelong, Hawthorn, West Coast and Carlton cemented their spots in the top five back in Round 16 and haven’t been challenged since. While the lower placed teams have bottomed out faster than Ben Elton’s Live From Planet Earth program.
So what’s the solution? How do we avoid this in the future?
Don’t increase the number of games in a season. Rather, decrease it.
AFL fans would think they would be the biggest losers from a shortened season. After all, we follow the game like a religion and want to absorb as much footy as possible.
But supporters wouldn’t lose.
Yes we’d witness fewer games, but the matches would be of higher quality. Players would be fresher and fitter come the end of the season. The best talent would be available for selection.
Dead rubbers, like the clash between finals-bound Hawthorn and exhausted Western Bulldogs last weekend, would diminish. The gulf between teams on the ladder would close in and teams would play with the motivation they could still feature in the top eight. Late-season contests would be as entertaining as ever and, for once, more than pride would be on the line.
But what’s the magic number? How many weeks should there be in an AFL home-and-away season?
A 17-round season would be ideal.
When the AFL’s newest team, Greater Western Sydney, is introduced into the competition next season, it will create an eccentric draw. Each team will play one another once, plus five random others, over the course of the 22 rounds. A handful of teams will be advantaged, because they’ll take on a number of bottom sides twice.
But by decreasing the season to 17 rounds, it would dispense any unfairness. Every team would play each other once a year and the home/away titles would be swapped the following year.
No nonsense. An even playing field for all teams.
There are, as always, obstacles.
This season, the AFL just a $1.25 billion broadcast rights deal. Therefore, broadcasters would argue to keep the 22-round structure to get full value for money.
However, arguing for a shorter season and an extended finals series might be just as beneficial.
Adding an extra two or three weeks onto the finals series would mean the networks would show more games with significant ramifications. AFL finals are a TV ratings hit, so the more finals matches, the more viewership for networks.
If broadcasters are still not satisfied by that, there’s always room for a State of Origin return. You just never know.
The shorter season would also mean the game wouldn’t receive as much media spotlight during the year.
These days, footy is in our faces from the NAB Cup in February to the Grand Final in late September. Therefore, if you reduced the season, the AFL’s best selling point – the game itself – wouldn’t receive full treatment.
But if you look at the NFL, a league with a 17-week regular season, it’s still the most watched popular sport in the USA, despite having far fewer games than baseball, basketball or ice hockey.
AFL wouldn’t lose publicity or popularity. In fact, the longer breaks would not only allow players more time to recover in the off-season and to prepare in the pre-season, it would also allow the league and broadcasters build anticipation amongst fans and commentators.
Given the AFL has reaffirmed its commitment to 22 games for the next two years, there can be no change to the number of rounds per season until 2014.
But hopefully, during that time, the AFL will realise it needs a ‘less is more’ approach.
With the game heading the way it is, the shorter the season, the better the spectacle.
- Explore:
- AFL, Hawthorn Hawks, Jeff Kennett
August 31st 2011 @ 7:56am
The_Wookie said | August 31st 2011 @ 7:56am | Report comment
Could not disagree more. maybe 24 rounds is too long, but 22 is just fine and has been for DECADES. This really has been the season for knee jerk responses by the media, and this has been the latest one that has them all jumping up and down. I know of no none media “expert” who follows the footy who thinks less footbal is a good idea. And Im in friggin Adelaide. of all the things Ive heard to fix footy, LESS is not one of them. Dropping the NAB to accomodate more rounds or state of origin has been brought up a lot, but never LESS football.
Sure four of the top 5 were fairly settled early, but the eagles came from nowhere mid season, and as late as last round the teams in the bottom part of the top 8 STILL werent settled, the race was open down to as low as 10th. Of the rest – Brisbane, adelaide have had a bad run with injuries and retirements. Port are a basket case administratively and with the media constantly harping on about them, Gold Coast are a brand new team that is still developing. Way too early to hit the panic button.
August 31st 2011 @ 6:55pm
JdaJawk said | August 31st 2011 @ 6:55pm | Report comment
Get back to basics folks.
Players are getting inlured more because they are now required to be on the ground in fatigued states in an ever-more faster and physically demanding environment. Efforts to make the game faster and thebeby push players’bodies beyond normal human capacity is showing its effects in the injury lists being carried by AFL clubs.
Get rid of the NAB cup or revamp it. As it is, it is a bore and most teams (and fans) don’t take it seriously. Jack up the prize money (siginfcanty) for 1st, 2nd, and 3rd placegetters and allow only the top 8 or 10 teams from the previous season to compete. 4 shortened quarters of say 15 minutes per quarter.
For fairness, teams should play each other twice otherwise the ladder is not truly representative of team’s standing for the season. Is it fair if a struggling team plays a competition leader twice while 2 top four teams only meet up once?
I am football mad and will not mind seeing more football. I think genuine football fans are with me on this. TV coverage should not be a determining factor for managing the AFL schedule but, unfortunately, the reality is that it is. A balance approach to this trend is needed with crowd attendances to be increased or other means for clubs to increase revenues.
Jeff Kennett may irk some people with his frankness but he says what is needed to be said and what is already on a lot of people’s minds. Its just that his public standing allows the massege to be heard.
GO THE HAWKS!!!
Increase the numberof
August 31st 2011 @ 8:30am
Chris said | August 31st 2011 @ 8:30am | Report comment
Agree completely. The NFL has managed to increase its number of teams without increasing the length of the season.
Advantages
- Season doesn’t start until the weather starts to cool down – better for players.
- Less wear and tear on grounds – playing surfaces will be better.
- Less strain on players – better quality playing standards for the whole season, and careers will almost certainly be extended.
- More of an ‘event’ feel for each game – reduced sense of ‘I’ll miss this round, because there are so many other games throughout the season to go to’.
- Reduced costs for clubs.
- Fairer draw.
Disadvantages
- Less content for media companies
- Less income for the game.
Of course, my first point under the Disadvantages heading means it will never happen.
August 31st 2011 @ 8:47am
The Cattery said | August 31st 2011 @ 8:47am | Report comment
We can all agree that the season will never be longer than 22 rounds, it’s impossible, and that’s a good thing too I might add.
But clearly, the home and away season can’t be as little as 17 rounds, not for the next five years at least.
I mentioned on another thread of the possibility of a 20 round season, with five weeks of finals (still one week short of where we are now).
There was a 20 round season in 1993, and it worked quite well, in fact, it was one of the most competitive seasons on record.
The advantage of the extra 3 home and away games is that the WA/SA teams could all play each other twice, the Northern teams could play each other twice, and the big Melbourne four could play each other twice – so I’d be in favour of a 20 round season.
August 31st 2011 @ 3:50pm
JamesP said | August 31st 2011 @ 3:50pm | Report comment
“The advantage of the extra 3 home and away games is that the WA/SA teams could all play each other twice, the Northern teams could play each other twice, and the big Melbourne four could play each other twice – so I’d be in favour of a 20 round season.”
From a commerical point of view that is a good thing. Don’t know how fair it is though.
Why not adopt a conference like system…
August 31st 2011 @ 8:55am
TomC said | August 31st 2011 @ 8:55am | Report comment
My preference would be an 18 round season. That would allow for two Adelaide, Perth, Brisbane and Sydney derbies each year, in the first and last rounds. Great way to kick off the season, and would reduce the concerns about ‘meaningless’ games in the last round. Derbies are rarely meaningless.
August 31st 2011 @ 11:16am
The Cattery said | August 31st 2011 @ 11:16am | Report comment
Yes, that’s not a bad idea either, but it does reduce the season by 4 rounds – which might have commercial consequences.
August 31st 2011 @ 9:08am
The_Wookie said | August 31st 2011 @ 9:08am | Report comment
“meaningless” games and “tanking concerns” are relatively new phenomena. Times past, you could rely on clubs like North and Richmond to really try and stuff up teams qualifying positions for the finals if they didnt make it themselves.
One can only wonder how meaningless these games might have been with a few less injuries, a few less draws here and there, and some close matches won instead of lost (and vice versa). look at the ladder, only the bottom 3 had no chance this year.
August 31st 2011 @ 9:09am
Fauntleroy said | August 31st 2011 @ 9:09am | Report comment
The eventual response will be to shorten the length of games. Of course the stated reasons will be mitigating injury tolls, ensuring endurance over the season etc. The real reason, will be that with the AFL wanting to expand into ever new markets, they’ll find the way to make the game more palatable to the new converts is to make it shorter. To the unengaged or even casual aussie rules fans, the game is simply too long….especially if this trend of lopsided games continues.
Absolutely, it will happen.
Perhaps with shorter games – say 20 min quarters – a 26 or 27 week season is feasable??
August 31st 2011 @ 2:16pm
Football Fan said | August 31st 2011 @ 2:16pm | Report comment
To be annoying and pedantic – According to the laws we already have 20 minute quarters Fauntleroy!
There’s just too much time on/off for stoppages and out of bounds and so on.
I agree with you that the quarters will get shorter. the AFL have commented about having long quarters all year. The issue will be weighing up shorter games against the advertising revenue drawn from those longer quarters…
August 31st 2011 @ 3:53pm
JamesP said | August 31st 2011 @ 3:53pm | Report comment
Agreee with this. i recokong the answe might be shorter games. Shorter games means less chance for injury, and less chance of big score blowouts.
Obvious change: change back the rule that allows for the clock to be stopped at a ballup. In todays congested game with all the stopppages, this would reduce actual playign time by about 5 mins a quarter…It would also appease the traditionalists…becuase it would not be a new change – merely rolling back to the way it was…
August 31st 2011 @ 5:49pm
The Cattery said | August 31st 2011 @ 5:49pm | Report comment
To add to this, with the stricter out of bounds deliberate rule, and the rushed behind rule, I wonder whether the clock needs to be stopped for these events, that might reduce the amount of time on
August 31st 2011 @ 7:25pm
Ian Whitchurch said | August 31st 2011 @ 7:25pm | Report comment
James,
If you think shorter quarters of halves will stop blowouts, you havent been watching footy.
Man U can put three goals on you in five minutes, and if you stand still and dog it, Souths can put twenty points on you in twelve.
August 31st 2011 @ 9:33am
Jason said | August 31st 2011 @ 9:33am | Report comment
I think an 18 week season would be best. 22 rounds is a magical number with no significance (unless there is 21 or 12 teams). Open and close the season with local derbies, WA, SA, NSW, QLD and Coll v Carl, Haw v St K, Melb v Rich, Ess v North, WB v Cats. Reverse the fixture every year so it is even and you have an un biased draw.
August 31st 2011 @ 10:48am
Redb said | August 31st 2011 @ 10:48am | Report comment
Ess v North is not a local derby.
August 31st 2011 @ 11:55am
TomC said | August 31st 2011 @ 11:55am | Report comment
What a brilliant, original idea.
August 31st 2011 @ 11:57am
The Cattery said | August 31st 2011 @ 11:57am | Report comment
Tom – you’re influencing people’s opinions already!
August 31st 2011 @ 9:42am
Redb said | August 31st 2011 @ 9:42am | Report comment
I’m growing to like the symmetry of playing each other once, expanding the pre-season with a short 2 x 20 min format, some form of Origin game(s), and then a 8 team finals series with 2 wildcards.
Could the Grand Final become a best of 3?
This could all supplement the lost income from reducing the H & A rounds.
Then again, we could leave the season as it is .
August 31st 2011 @ 12:54pm
Vic said | August 31st 2011 @ 12:54pm | Report comment
The season should have everyone playing everyone twice. Everything else is farcical.
People are so obsessed(like the author of this topic) with apeing American sports. Please, ENOUGH! This is not America and their system is inappropriate and contrived.
To go to a full and proper season people need to get around the fact players do not have jobs anymore. They are not working for 6 MONTHS OF THE YEAR. Guess what they are doing for 6 months, either holidaying or practicing(mainly screwing girls I seem to note). 2 months out of their holidaying is not going to kill them(but will reduce their love life and partying time). Also, the 6 month season is to do with in the olden days they did not have floodlights, it was too hot to play during the warmer months, and most of all under state laws the grounds they played on had to share with cricket. Footy has from April to the end of September. Cricket has October to the end of March.
It is possible, just reduce quarter lengths to 20 minutes and increase squad sizes. And it seems to be okay for ice hockey in the NHL to play 100 odd matches a season, same with basketball, soccer in England about 50.
With your ‘reduced’ format. Stadiums get less money(therefore stadiums cannot be built to a good standard any longer), less tv money, less gate money = LESS PAYMENTS FOR PLAYERS AND COACHES. Guess what they all need to do then, GO BACK TO REAL WORK!
Your plan is just plain not thought out.
August 31st 2011 @ 2:19pm
Lorry said | August 31st 2011 @ 2:19pm | Report comment
soccer is a non-contact sport…
And, despite moments of brutal contact, ice hockey is ostensibly a non-contact sport too, is it not?
AFL and other footballers (in Australia at least – Im sure this isnt the case in South America) have such unfairly strict conditions placed on their lifestyles, that to increase the time they are in-season would definitely be unappreciated.
Can you imagine having 7 (or more months) of your year (not at the age you are now, but a a 20 year old) being told you can’t have a beer except for this, this and this time, being subjected to invasive recreational drug tests, being made to ‘admit’ you have an ‘alcohol problem’ when you don’t, being arrested for urinating in the street (when no other 20 year olds do),etc etc….
Now, admittedly these guys get paid alot, we all know that, however personally as a 20 year old there is no way I would have accepted all those excessive restrictions… And, I think if most people are honest, nor would they have!
August 31st 2011 @ 2:23pm
Titus said | August 31st 2011 @ 2:23pm | Report comment
“soccer is a non-contact sport”
Tell that to Didier Drogba…….if he’s awake yet.
August 31st 2011 @ 2:59pm
Creek said | August 31st 2011 @ 2:59pm | Report comment
The occasional gross tackle or kick to the body/head is not really calling it a contact sport. Soccer is classed as a non-contact sport because you aren’t physically tackling the player, but taking posession of the ball. I do understand there are times when there is contact, I did play the sport some time ago. (I also play field hockey which is classed as a non-contact sport, but I have been sent to hospital a number of times, and seen many others sent as well, due to contact to the head via stick and/or ball.)
August 31st 2011 @ 3:34pm
Nathan of Perth said | August 31st 2011 @ 3:34pm | Report comment
“Ref, look over there! *WHACK*”
August 31st 2011 @ 2:31pm
The Bush said | August 31st 2011 @ 2:31pm | Report comment
“And, despite moments of brutal contact, ice hockey is ostensibly a non-contact sport too, is it not?”
If Ice Hockey is a “non-contact sport” then Aussie Rules is tiddely-winks. Ice Hockey has at least as much contact as Aussie Rules. Players are “pushed” of the puck in a physical way, they fall oto hard ice (not the springy MCG), but more brutally they are smashed into the side-barrier as often as an all in occurs in Aussie Rules. Lets not even get into the fact that fighting is legal and occurs nearly ever match…
The reason that Ice Hockey teams in North America play so many games is because;
(a) An Ice Hockey player only stays on the rink for a period of about one (1) to two (2) minutes before being subbed off again. They do not stay on the field (unless you’re the goalie), for anything like the time frame of an Aussie Rules player;
(b) Ice Hockey games only go for an hour (three (3) periods of twenty (20) minutes); and
(c) They have larger squads.
If Aussie Rules reduced their quarters to twenty (20) minutes, making an eight (80) minute game, and slightly increased squads, then you could get more games in. Problem is that this system is disliked by the Australian public. We want to see Big Nick, Swanny and Ablett play every minute of every game, or we wont tune in or turn up. In America, they accept that the superstars don’t play every game.
“Can you imagine having 7 (or more months) of your year (not at the age you are now, but a a 20 year old) being told you can’t have a beer except for this, this and this time, being subjected to invasive recreational drug tests, being made to ‘admit’ you have an ‘alcohol problem’ when you don’t, being arrested for urinating in the street (when no other 20 year olds do),etc etc….”
This old chestnut. It’s a matter of personal opinion. But if you ask me, it’s not a big ask to keep your penis in your pants (in public) and don’t go to bars for a few years if it means you get to live the dream of being a pro-athlete in a sport, presumably, they love.
If the beautiful wives and bundles of money aren’t enough, then give it away and go live the life of a “normal” young person. No ones forcing them to be pro-footballers. I’ll put it to you this way, I’m still of an age to be reckless and I’d trade it all in to be a pro-footballer.
August 31st 2011 @ 2:41pm
Nathan of Perth said | August 31st 2011 @ 2:41pm | Report comment
Spot on regarding the reasons for Ice Hockey being able to put in so many games.
There are only five on-ice positions bar the goalie and they rotate furiously, with unlimited interchange and squads considerably larger than their on-ice cadres. You’ll often replace most of a team at a stroke!
August 31st 2011 @ 4:35pm
The Bush said | August 31st 2011 @ 4:35pm | Report comment
It’s actually mind boggling how rapidly they interchange. Some games players will spend on average as little as forty-five (45) seconds on the ice…
August 31st 2011 @ 4:40pm
Lorry said | August 31st 2011 @ 4:40pm | Report comment
geez that aspect of american sports is silly.
How can you call yourself, or be called, an athlete if you are on the field/rink for a matter of minutes or even seconds?!
Those guys must have zero match fitness!
August 31st 2011 @ 5:07pm
Nathan of Perth said | August 31st 2011 @ 5:07pm | Report comment
That’s rather missing the point, Lorry. In a lot of American sports the point isn’t being the best all around athlete, its about having your role and your speciality and your instructions from the coach and doing what only you can do for the team in that circumstance.
If the player accomplishes, in the 45 seconds The Bush mentions, what his coach has assigned for him to do, then that’s a good day at the office.
August 31st 2011 @ 5:15pm
Lorry said | August 31st 2011 @ 5:15pm | Report comment
nathan,
I understand that is the way that the concept of sport has been interpreted in the US…
But, don’t you think that it means that the athletes do not reach their true potential as athletes.
If you only play for a few minutes each weekend, it seems that all that training and practice is a little wasted…
For example, wouldn’t one be able to say that a running back who played for the majority of the game was a greater player than one who is substituted constantly? Or a guy who played both offense and defense, as used to happen in american football?
I think all those american sports are, in their way, great games, but It just seems that they have lost some of the magic along the way, in their quest to mico-manage everything….
August 31st 2011 @ 5:22pm
The Bush said | August 31st 2011 @ 5:22pm | Report comment
Lorry,
I think you’re being a little harsh on the Ice Hockey blokes for a few reasons;
1) As we’ve discussed, they play eighty-two (82) games a season. So even if you only spend a total of about ten or twenty minutes per game on the ice, you’re still playing in a season that is about four (4) times as long, therefore you play about as much as our athletes do;
2) Ice Hockey is a sport played on skates in heavy padding – you try moving around in all that gear, on ice, for more than a few minutes at the speed they play at;
3) Speaking of speed, it is considered, by many however I won’t fight you on the point, to be the fastest sport on earth – maybe it’s just not physically possible to play at the speed they do for too long.
I think to call any athlete playing in the Majors (i.e. any of the Big Four) anything less than the pinnicle of their sport and a supreme athlete is a failure to understand the scope and professionalism of these sports.
Ice Hockey is a sport followed religiously in Canada, a country larger and richer than our own, it is also huge in America and Russie, two (2) countries with sporting traditions second to none. It is also a major European sport and followed keenly in Sweden, Finland, Czech Republic, Slovakia and the Ukraine. I can tell you know that they are serious, serious athletes.
As for the other major sports, lets just say that College Basketball and Football has more money, a larger following and definately better athletes than any sport played and followed in Australia – and theyre amateurs.
August 31st 2011 @ 2:42pm
Lorry said | August 31st 2011 @ 2:42pm | Report comment
I guess it comes down to principle..
Do you think it’s right for any company, and the AFL is just that – a company, to dictate the way it’s employees live their lives, in such a total way?
Re. ice hockey, I stand corrected, admittedly I don’t know that much about it, was just basing it on the little i’d seen.
August 31st 2011 @ 3:35pm
Nathan of Perth said | August 31st 2011 @ 3:35pm | Report comment
Its a sport whose law book includes detailed instructions to linesmen on the process of breaking up fist fights, suffice to say there’s probably a contact element involved
August 31st 2011 @ 5:15pm
The Bush said | August 31st 2011 @ 5:15pm | Report comment
“I guess it comes down to principle..
Do you think it’s right for any company, and the AFL is just that – a company, to dictate the way it’s employees live their lives, in such a total way?”
Short answer, yes.
Long answer, without giving away what I do
, for a living, I can tell you now that I’m expected and required to abide by an incredibly high professional standard that can see my right to practice terminated if I did even half of what these idiots do. One criminal charge and it’s all over. And I’m not alone.
Think about what your employer would say if you behaved the way Brendon Fevola did at your end of year Christmas party? Maybe you wouldn’t get fired, but you’d be joking if you thought a promotion was around the corner…
And what about people that require “Blue Cards” to work, think teachers, lecturers, child care workers etc. You get charged with a criminal offence and you can have that taken away. Contrast that with pro-athletes who frequently get to play on after criminal convictions – or have those charges reduced because they’re famous.
Let’s not even get into dangerous jobs like mining or highrise construction, were I know for a fact that they are drug tested.
Admittedly I got to enjoy five (5) years at uni whereby I urinated on walls and got kicked out of bars, but so what, at the money a rookie Aussie Rules player is paid, I don’t think it’s a big ask.
August 31st 2011 @ 5:59pm
Nathan of Perth said | August 31st 2011 @ 5:59pm | Report comment
“Think about what your employer would say if you behaved the way Brendon Fevola did at your end of year Christmas party? Maybe you wouldn’t get fired, but you’d be joking if you thought a promotion was around the corner…”
Well, from a certain point of view, that IS what happened to Fevola!
August 31st 2011 @ 3:41pm
Vic said | August 31st 2011 @ 3:41pm | Report comment
Agreed about ice hockey. Aussie rules is a pussies game by comparison and I played our footy for years. Hockey is a real man’s game.
August 31st 2011 @ 3:42pm
stabpass said | August 31st 2011 @ 3:42pm | Report comment
Why don’t they remove the pads then !!, real men don’t wear them !.
August 31st 2011 @ 4:33pm
Nathan of Perth said | August 31st 2011 @ 4:33pm | Report comment
Cause real men don’t skate at 40km/hr into a collision?
August 31st 2011 @ 5:23pm
The Bush said | August 31st 2011 @ 5:23pm | Report comment
A real men are allowed to tackle – but the AFL will soon remove that from the game entirely. Looking at the citings from the weekend, the bump is so dead that the sport is on the verge of changing permanently.
August 31st 2011 @ 8:13pm
Vic said | August 31st 2011 @ 8:13pm | Report comment
The skates are like super sharp knives. They can cut you in half.
Man up AFL. You have taken the biffo, the bumping, the tackling is airey fairy now.
September 1st 2011 @ 2:55am
amazonfan said | September 1st 2011 @ 2:55am | Report comment
How nice that you measure masculinity based on violence.
September 1st 2011 @ 3:01am
amazonfan said | September 1st 2011 @ 3:01am | Report comment
To say that a sportsman shouldn’t go to bars for a few years, essentially that they shouldn’t live their lives, is absurd. It’s also ignorant. It’s ignorant because you look at the lives of pro-footballers from the outside, and you see only the good things; the fun of playing sport, the money, the fame etc.., however you don’t see the bad things (the lack of privacy, the injuries, the pressure) and you also don’t realize that ultimately playing football is a career. It’s not a hobby, it’s a career, and to expect them to give up the rights of anyone else (to go to bars and to live a normal life) is ridiculous.
Also, regarding Fevola and co, don’t forget that unlike you, if they stuff up at a party, you know about it. If you stuff up, whether you get fired or not, remains private. The same with criminal convictions. Unless you commit a particularly serious crime, your being criminally convicted won’t appear in the papers. You also can’t compare footballers with teachers or childcare workers. Being a childcare worker is slightly more important. Additionally, I would be curious as to which footballers get charges reduced because they’re famous.
September 1st 2011 @ 8:51am
The Bush said | September 1st 2011 @ 8:51am | Report comment
amazonfan,
Whilst this is probably hijacking the thread a little, I will respond to your posts;
1) “To say that a sportsman shouldn’t go to bars for a few years, essentially that they shouldn’t live their lives, is absurd.”
No one is saying that can’t live their lives. Why is drinking some sort of “right of passage”, aren’t they living perfectly rewarding lives without going out and making jerks of themselves over a few beers? As constantly noted, they’re paid plenty to make this “sacrafice”.
2) “It’s also ignorant. It’s ignorant because you look at the lives of pro-footballers from the outside, and you see only the good things; the fun of playing sport, the money, the fame etc.., however you don’t see the bad things (the lack of privacy, the injuries, the pressure) and you also don’t realize that ultimately playing football is a career.”
There’s nothing ignorant about it. You don’t have to be a genius to work out that there are some down sides to being famous, as you point out; lack of privacy is one.
However, out of those you’ve mentioned, I’ll only admit to privacy. As to pressure, they’re under no more pressre to perform than anyone else in a high powered job. They need to make the finals, I need to do my job or else, like them, I wont get promoted and instead could risk being made redunant, fired etc. So I certainly don’t accept pressure. In fact I’m under pressure nearly seven days a week for forty-eight (48) weeks of the year. I wish I only had to perform with my “game face” once a week for twenty-two (22) to twenty-six (26) times a year.
As to injuries, that’s like anything in life. Difference is, when they get injured they don’t have to work and get the best possible treatment and care imaginable. When I breakdown and take a day off work no one is looking after me.
3) “Also, regarding Fevola and co, don’t forget that unlike you, if they stuff up at a party, you know about it…”
This is just a continuation of the privacy argument above. As pointed out, really that is the only downside to the job and they are paid handsomely to compensate. I’ll take their money, their fame, their beautiful wives, their set up for life at 30, over losing my privacy. Bugger it, thanks to facebook, I’ve lost it anyway.
P.S. As a final note, you mention that “it’s a career, and to expect them to give up the rights of anyone else (to go to bars and live a normal life) is ridiculous”. This misses the point completely. They don’t have normal careers – therefore they aren’t entitled to normal lives. Just as we don’t expect our politicians to be drinking in bars, neither should athletes be allowed to go around glassing people or having sex in toilets. It’s a career, not a lifestyle. If they don’t like it, don’t particpate. That is the point of a career – it’s a choice, not a job. If they want normality, I’m sure there is some other kid who is willing to make the sacrafic to play pro sport.
September 2nd 2011 @ 6:19am
amazonfan said | September 2nd 2011 @ 6:19am | Report comment
“No one is saying that can’t live their lives. Why is drinking some sort of “right of passage”, aren’t they living perfectly rewarding lives without going out and making jerks of themselves over a few beers?”
But you ARE saying they shouldn’t live their lives. By saying they shouldn’t have a few drinks, and questioning whether drinking is some sort of “right of passage” (which is irrelevant), you are absolutely saying they shouldn’t live their lives.
Look, I’ll be honest. My ideal night out involves dinner and a film, and it mightn’t involve any alcohol at all. However not many people agree with me. While I dislike night clubs, and I spend very little time in bars, I’m not in the majority. Ultimately, for good or for bad, going for out a few beers is part of life for most people. Additionally, even when they make fools of themselves, they don’t necessarily break the law; regardless, they should be treated like anyone else. This means being allowed to drink.
“As constantly noted, they’re paid plenty to make this “sacrafice”.”
Money isn’t everything. In Michael Jordan’s book, he notes the extreme downsides of being ‘Michael Jordan.’ While I’m not comparing Australian footballers to MJ (and I should note that he talks about a lot of things, so don’t take it as a sporting legend having a whinge), I think that being a professional sportsman is more complex than you make it out to be.
“In fact I’m under pressure nearly seven days a week for forty-eight (48) weeks of the year. I wish I only had to perform with my “game face” once a week for twenty-two (22) to twenty-six (26) times a year.”
Their pressure is unique though. You may be under pressure for longer, but if you stuff up, we don’t read about it in the papers. You don’t go to a pub and hear someone say ‘John Smith was horrible at work last week, and if (insert company name) had any common sense they would sack him’ (language modified for a family website.)
Anyway, I don’t think it’s good to compare pressures. Just as you perhaps wouldn’t want people to lessen the pressure you’re under, you shouldn’t lessen the pressures players are under.
“When I breakdown and take a day off work no one is looking after me.”
I don’t know what work you do, but all I say is, that some of the injuries they receive are horrendous.
“As pointed out, really that is the only downside to the job and they are paid handsomely to compensate. I’ll take their money, their fame, their beautiful wives, their set up for life at 30, over losing my privacy. Bugger it, thanks to facebook, I’ve lost it anyway.”
We’re clearly not going to agree on this, as I disagree that lack of privacy is the only downside to the job and that money and fame (which is not all it can be cracked up to be( can compensate for it.
I also think that, while you may not be ignorant, you don’t really have an understanding of just how severe the lack of privacy can be. Players have made the news for doing things that were not illegal, family members have been targeted by the media, medical documents have been stolen, players who have retired have ended up in the news for minor reasons, players have been targeted whilst in rehab, and often when players go out, they have to deal with idiots.
“This misses the point completely. They don’t have normal careers – therefore they aren’t entitled to normal lives.”
I think you miss the point. Players are not priests, or monks in seclusion. Their careers are not particularly extraordinary. They are simply sportsmen, and they are absolutely entitled to normal lives.
“Just as we don’t expect our politicians to be drinking in bars, neither should athletes be allowed to go around glassing people or having sex in toilets.”
Two comments. One, you can’t compare footballers to politicians. Politicians have actual influence. Politicians are much more important. I suppose you think that politicians should stop going out for a drink?
Two, nobody has said that athletes should be ‘ glassing people or having sex in toilets’ (although the latter is presumably legal), and that is not what we are talking about. You said “and don’t go to bars for a few years if it means you get to live the dream of being a pro-athlete in a sport, presumably, they love.”
You can’t change the terms of the debate halfway through, as all I am suggesting is that a footballer should be allowed to go out for a night on the town, or to have a few beers.
“It’s a career, not a lifestyle. If they don’t like it, don’t particpate. That is the point of a career – it’s a choice, not a job.”
It’s not that simple. What you are asking of professional sportsmen (not politicians, priests or monks in seclusion) is completely absurd. If I was in the AFL, I wouldn’t stand for it, and neither would anyone who are actually playing in the AFL. Nor should they.
“If they want normality, I’m sure there is some other kid who is willing to make the sacrafic to play pro sport.”
Three comments. One, they do have the right to normality. All they do is play professional sports. You make it seem as if the job is so outside the norm or so extraordinarily unique that they don’t have the right to normality. I would strongly contest that.
Two, what you are asking (don’t go to bars for a few years) is simply unreasonable, and that you call it a sacrifice (as if it’s a good thing) is absurd.
Three, there may be kids who may be willing to play pro sports for next to nothing. It doesn’t make it right.
September 2nd 2011 @ 8:48am
The Bush said | September 2nd 2011 @ 8:48am | Report comment
amazonfan,
I’ll make this my last response because, as you’ve said, we’re never going to agree.
“But you ARE saying they shouldn’t live their lives.”But you ARE saying they shouldn’t live their lives.
As stated, I don’t think drinking should be considered a human right, therefore it is prefectly acceptable to expect someone to live fully rewarding life without drinking. As I’ve said, if they want to be “normal” and drink, then don’t be a pro-athlete. I’ve already listed one (1 profession (politicians) where drinking in public or too excess wouldn’t be accepted and I’m sure there are more.
“Money isn’t everything.”
No, but if they wee doing it for the “love of the game”, then they would play amateur sport and not have to put up with this. At the end of the day money is everything. All pro-athletes do is look for the next big contract (and good on ‘em, they’re the ones we pay to see). If they want some sort of inner peace, then I suggest they think of another career path.
“Their pressure is unique though.”
All pressure is unique. The difference here is that they are paid better than most to deal with it. Again, you say money isn’t everything, but in our society it is about the only way to compensate someone – and they are compensated better than most.
“you don’t really have an understanding of just how severe the lack of privacy can be.”
No I probably don’t, but I do think that too much is made of it by our stars. Why is that you only hear about it being an issue from the players who do stuff wrong? I don’t here Hindmarsh et al complaining….
” think you miss the point. Players are not priests, or monks in seclusion. Their careers are not particularly extraordinary. They are simply sportsmen, and they are absolutely entitled to normal lives.”
Trust me, I have not missed the point. No one is suggesting they live in seclusion. Personally, I don’t care if they go out and make dicks of the themselves, but they can’t then turn around and whinge after they’re caught. As stated, this is a special profession, which they recieve numerous levels of compensation (money, women, fame) to partake in it. LIke all other high profile, and likely rewarding, professions, if you can’t stand the frying pan, get out of the kitchen.
“Two comments. One, you can’t compare footballers to politicians. Politicians have actual influence. Politicians are much more important. I suppose you think that politicians should stop going out for a drink?”
You CAN compare Politicians and Sportsman in this way. Just because something doesn’t suit your argument, doesn’t mean it isn’t relevant.
They are two (2) examples of professions whereby, for whatever reason, we expect both to maintain a high level of moral code (higher for pollies). Ths means, at the end of the day, both should avoid the pub whilst playing/in politics.
You say politicians have “actual influence”. You’re comment is actually rather ironic in that pollies are usually the ones who are influenced by public opinion, whilst footballs actually do have massive influence in a number of areas (though mainly socially – trend setting comes to mind). I’m not saying it’s right – but it is a fact.
As for you’re next part, no one is changing the argument. I was simply adding that in for the flavour of the conversation. They’re extreme examples that were fun too use (don’t take this all so seriously). On a final note, yes having sex in public, which a toilet in a bar is, is very, very illegal and you can absolutely get in trouble with the police.
“You make it seem as if the job is so outside the norm or so extraordinarily unique that they don’t have the right to normality.”
Are you serious? Their job’s are so extraordinary and unique that they don’t ahve a right to normality. There is less than 800 professional AFL players in Australia. There would be even less League players (600) and only a handful of Cricket (200) and Union (150) players. I guarantee you that even if you throw in our Olympic athletes (most being rather low profile), we would have less than 3,000 professional athletes in this country. It is a job that is about as unique, high profile and financially rewarding as we have in this country.
If you think that this is “normal” then I’m shocked. I’m not sure why you think staying out of bars is something so shocking that it is more than a sacrafice, but we as we’ve established, we’ll never agree and you’re entitled to your opinion. For mine, like I’ve said, it seems like a small price to pay for everything else they recieve.
September 3rd 2011 @ 2:27am
amazonfan said | September 3rd 2011 @ 2:27am | Report comment
Sorry that this is such a long post. I had no idea it would be so long until after I posted it.
“I’ll make this my last response because, as you’ve said, we’re never going to agree.”
Fair enough. There are a few things I want to address though. If you don’t want to respond, I understand.
“As stated, I don’t think drinking should be considered a human right, therefore it is prefectly acceptable to expect someone to live fully rewarding life without drinking. As I’ve said, if they want to be “normal” and drink, then don’t be a pro-athlete. I’ve already listed one (1 profession (politicians) where drinking in public or too excess wouldn’t be accepted and I’m sure there are more.”
It’s not a human right (I never said it was) however it is presumptuous to expect others to live life the way you would or the way you think they should. For many people, they can not live a fully rewarding life without drinking. Being a pro-sportsman does not mean that one has to give up drinking in public, regardless of whether you think someone can lead a rewarding life without doing so.
“No, but if they wee doing it for the “love of the game”, then they would play amateur sport and not have to put up with this. At the end of the day money is everything. All pro-athletes do is look for the next big contract (and good on ‘em, they’re the ones we pay to see). If they want some sort of inner peace, then I suggest they think of another career path.”
That’s just silly. I mean, come on, what a simplistic way to think about it. There is nothing contradictory about loving your work (such as sport) and wanting to be paid for it. Especially since the money which goes to sportsmen wouldn’t go to charity instead, if the sportsmen turned their backs on it.
As for inner peace, maybe they want the same rights as you do?
“No I probably don’t, but I do think that too much is made of it by our stars. Why is that you only hear about it being an issue from the players who do stuff wrong?”
I think that’s ignorant. You may not want to hear this, but that is extremely ignorant. The lack of privacy does not only extend to those who have done things wrong, and it is incredibly severs. Quite frankly, the stars don’t make enough of it. I already listed examples of violations of privacy, however to say that it’s overstated is just plain wrong.
“I don’t here Hindmarsh et al complaining….”
Who?
”Trust me, I have not missed the point. No one is suggesting they live in seclusion.”
But you are when you say they should stop drinking in public and should stop visiting bars. It’s essentially what you’re talking about when you talk about how one fully enjoy life without drinking and other such things.
“Personally, I don’t care if they go out and make dicks of the themselves, but they can’t then turn around and whinge after they’re caught.”
But this isn’t about that, although I disagree that making a dick of themselves (as opposed to non-sportsmen?) is such a big deal. This is about going out full stop.
“As stated, this is a special profession, which they recieve numerous levels of compensation (money, women, fame) to partake in it. LIke all other high profile, and likely rewarding, professions, if you can’t stand the frying pan, get out of the kitchen.”
That’s pretty easy for you to say, considering that you can go out, have a few drinks, and nobody will know.
Bush, you keep on talking about how it’s a special profession, but it’s not! It’s no different to being a well-paid actor or any other famous person. Are you suggesting that once someone becomes famous, they should stop going to bars and drinking in public?
“You CAN compare Politicians and Sportsman in this way. Just because something doesn’t suit your argument, doesn’t mean it isn’t relevant.”
No, it’s not relevant because it’s simply not relevant. It has nothing to do with my argument.
Comparing footballers, who are insignificant in the grand scheme of things, to politicians who enact laws is like comparing apples with pizza. The only connection is that both professions are public, however if you don’t football, your life will be unaffected by them. You may not follow politics, however your life will be affected by politicians regardless.
“They are two (2) examples of professions whereby, for whatever reason, we expect both to maintain a high level of moral code (higher for pollies). Ths means, at the end of the day, both should avoid the pub whilst playing/in politics.”
I find that’s extraordinary. Your expectations of both professions is both unreasonable, and incredibly unfair. I mean, here’s a thought, why not allow politicians and footballers to go to pubs and to behave like decent people. You’ve mentioned glassing and public urination. Nobody, regardless of what career they have, should be doing either of those things (especially glassing, which horrifies me.)
“You say politicians have “actual influence”. You’re comment is actually rather ironic in that pollies are usually the ones who are influenced by public opinion, whilst footballs actually do have massive influence in a number of areas (though mainly socially – trend setting comes to mind). I’m not saying it’s right – but it is a fact.”
When I refer to actual influence, I should have said real power. Footballers might be more influential, however politicians are more powerful. They create law, which is what I was referring to. As I said, I should have said real power.
“As for you’re next part, no one is changing the argument. I was simply adding that in for the flavour of the conversation. They’re extreme examples that were fun too use (don’t take this all so seriously). ”
Sorry, I guess it may come across that I take this very seriously. However, that is not my intention.
“On a final note, yes having sex in public, which a toilet in a bar is, is very, very illegal and you can absolutely get in trouble with the police.”
Didn’t know that (not that I would have any reason to
).
“Are you serious? Their job’s are so extraordinary and unique that they don’t ahve a right to normality. There is less than 800 professional AFL players in Australia. There would be even less League players (600) and only a handful of Cricket (200) and Union (150) players. I guarantee you that even if you throw in our Olympic athletes (most being rather low profile), we would have less than 3,000 professional athletes in this country. It is a job that is about as unique, high profile and financially rewarding as we have in this country.”
What is unique about it is the skill set and the low numbers. However the demands are not unique, unlike priests who specifically can not marry or have sex, or monks who sometimes live in seclusion, and may take vows of poverty or celibacy. Footballers are not required to take such vows. Nor are they required to give up drinking (although some may choose to do so.)
When you speak of giving up a right to normality, you’re right in terms of them being stars. But when you speak of drinking in public, I think it crosses the line.
“If you think that this is “normal” then I’m shocked. I’m not sure why you think staying out of bars is something so shocking that it is more than a sacrafice, but we as we’ve established, we’ll never agree and you’re entitled to your opinion.”
If you are honestly shocked, you must have a low threshold for shock.
I personally rarely visit bars, and I’m not a regular drinker. However many people routinely visit bars and enjoy drinking in public. As such, this is normal, in the same way as drinking coffee- which I don’t drink- is normal.
While not going to bars may not be a sacrifice for you or me, it is presumptuous to presume that others must feel the same way. I mean, I don’t know what your favourite pastime is, but imagine if someone said that it’s not much of a sacrifice to go without it, and one can lead a perfectly rewarding life without it?
“For mine, like I’ve said, it seems like a small price to pay for everything else they recieve.”
As I said, to expect sportsmen to give up something that is afforded to most other people is IMO extremely unreasonable. It’s also quite arrogant, considering that for so many people it is not a small price, and there is nothing contradictory about enjoying a few drinks out every now and again, and being a professional sportsman.
There are tools in the football codes, however there are also tools in all industries. The idea that footballers should stop visiting bars is not only unreasonable but punishes the majority based on the behaviour of a few. Instead of proposing bans, which is unfair and unreasonable, and blithely dismissing concerns, simply because you don’t drink much in public, which raises the question of how you would feel if I proposed preventing you from doing something you love; how about we just expect everyone to act like decent human beings, and allow sportsmen the opportunity to enjoy life like any other citizen?
September 3rd 2011 @ 2:37am
amazonfan said | September 3rd 2011 @ 2:37am | Report comment
Mods, that was a very long post (I had no idea just how long it was until after I posted it), and it was probably unnecessary. If you don’t want to publish it, I will completely understand.
August 31st 2011 @ 3:37pm
Vic said | August 31st 2011 @ 3:37pm | Report comment
Aussie rules is pretty much contact less now, it is very much a running game no doubt. A lot of the contact has been removed. It is discussed on here often about that. So the excuses have also been removed.
August 31st 2011 @ 1:37pm
Ian Whitchurch said | August 31st 2011 @ 1:37pm | Report comment
Dont shorten the season – enlarge the squads. The AFL can afford plenty more minimum-wage players. … and more rounds equals more televised games, and State of Origin is a great idea if you want to turn your week-to-week competition into secon-rate games people dont want to see.
ALternatively, introduce an N player “reserves squad”. You can go from the reserve squad to the main squad at will, and other clubs can sign you from a reserve squad for a low-round compo pick – and, yes, I’ve stolen this idea from the NFL.
August 31st 2011 @ 2:40pm
Creek said | August 31st 2011 @ 2:40pm | Report comment
Enlarging the squads reduces quality. You end up with more guys that couldn’t get drafted playing. Yeah, sure, a few are going to come through and be out-of-nowhere superstars, but more often than not you get mediocre or worse players just filling spaces.
August 31st 2011 @ 3:46pm
Ian Whitchurch said | August 31st 2011 @ 3:46pm | Report comment
Creedk,
The bigger squads are to cover injured players. Otherwise, you’re playing people who should be getting physio … and if there is anything worse than a space filler, it’s someone playing on one leg.
August 31st 2011 @ 7:17pm
The_Wookie said | August 31st 2011 @ 7:17pm | Report comment
You hear this time and time again. The only reason quality is reduced is clubs continue to focus on undeveloped talent. There are hundreds of great talents out there in the SANFL/WAFL/VFL that werent good enough at the under 18 level, but developed into great state league players later on. There is PLENTY of talent out there, just get rid of youth recruitment policies. The AFL would do well to limit under 20 recruiting to like 1 or 2 players per club a year.