All AFL clubs should make at least five interstate trips
Roar Guru 
2,775 reads
Darren Jolly of Collingwood celebrates a goal during the 2010 Toyota AFL Grand Final replay between the Collingwood Magpies and the St Kilda Saints at the MCG, Melbourne. Slattery Images
Related coverage
Every year we hear the same gripes about Collingwood not travelling enough when the AFL fixture is announced. Well, with the 2012 AFL regular season draw to be revealed on Friday morning, there’s already some of the familiar grumblings.
The AFL has deliberately leaked parts of their draw for 2012 ahead of the official announcement, including news that the Pies won’t be required to make the long trip to Perth at all during next year’s regular season.
However, what has been overlooked in all this is that Collingwood will actually make five inter-state trips next year.
Indeed, as the AFL becomes more of a national competition with the introduction of Gold Coast and GWS, clubs will need to get used to travelling interstate. As a West Australian, it’s a topic which has long been close to me (pardon the pun).
The fact that West Coast and Fremantle have had to make 10 interstate trips per season in comparison to some clubs who’ve previously only made three, has often seemed incredibly unfair. Ex-Dockers coach Mark Harvey was one who voiced his dissatisfaction with the situation in the past, although his grievances were mostly ignored as there’s no simple solution to the discrepancy.
While the AFL say publicly their number one aim with the fixture is ‘fairness’, they unashamedly admit that ‘maximising crowds’ plays a huge influence and as a result the AFL will always want to schedule the big-drawing Victorian clubs predominantly in Melbourne.
The likes of Collingwood, Carlton or Essendon will never be sent to trial games in Darwin, Tasmania, Canberra or Cairns for this very reason, hence the majority of their fixtures will be in their home state. In 2011, the Pies and Blues made only four interstate trips (Collingwood’s first in Round 14), while the Bombers made five.
However, there is a strong argument that for the AFL’s fixture to actually meet the supposed top criteria of ‘fairness’, then all clubs should be required to have five interstate trips per season. That would be a non-negotiable.
And with 10 non-Victorian clubs in the AFL in 2012, that makes a lot of sense.
Of course, there’s sure to be several other talking points of the 2012 AFL draw, including who faces expected easybeats GWS and Gold Coast twice, thrice or even four times.
According to those who’ve been privy to a glance at the fixtures, Adelaide are the lucky side who get four cracks at the newboys, which should result in 16 points.
On the topic of GWS, there’s also the discussion about the AFL’s newest franchise opening the 2012 season with a stand-alone fixture – up against the NRL’s opening round – where they would face city rivals Sydney Swans.
I’ve previously stated I don’t think the idea is a sound one, but all will be revealed when the AFL makes public the draw on Friday.
Looking to join The Roar team? We're searching for an experienced Group Sales Manager to lead our team in Sydney. Yes, this does mean you get to work with the site all day long! If you're a digital media sales star, we want to hear from you. Apply now.
Passionate about your AFL? Then sign up to The Roar's brand new daily AFL email, delivering Roaring articles directly to you day-in, day-out. You'll love it!
Click here to join now!
- Explore:
- 2012 AFL season, AFL, Collingwood Magpies
October 27th 2011 @ 8:18am
Lucan said | October 27th 2011 @ 8:18am | Report comment
The AFL have advised that all Victorian clubs will travel a minimum of 5, and maximum of 8 times. Collingwood travelling 5 times is still the bare minimum.
Another “travel” aspect that needs to be addressed are the Tasmanian games. It is massively unfair when the WA teams only get a handful of games away to Melbourne sides, that these matches are actually played even further away.
Like the “minimum/maximum” travel claim from th AFL, I’d like to see them introduce a minimum number of MCG games for each club. 5 of 22, would be a fair minimum, IMO. Afterall, this venue is the jewel in the AFL crown, and the home of Finals football. All clubs should get a decent crack during the home & away season.
October 27th 2011 @ 10:27am
The Cattery said | October 27th 2011 @ 10:27am | Report comment
I agree with the view that it is unfair to expect WA teams to get to Tassie when they are travelling so much during the year.
October 27th 2011 @ 7:20pm
Timmuh said | October 27th 2011 @ 7:20pm | Report comment
When the AFL live up to their promise and charter a flight to Tasmania (never seems to happen for Freo) the extra time in the plane is minimal; almost made up for with less time on the bus once on the ground. Not ensuring direct flights are available to any game is a complete dereliction of duty on behalf of the AFL. Its not like the league is at immediate risk of running at a loss.
October 27th 2011 @ 8:55am
TomC said | October 27th 2011 @ 8:55am | Report comment
I agree with the principles of this article, but there’s a couple of things that need clarifying.
‘The likes of Collingwood, Carlton or Essendon will never be sent to trial games in Darwin, Tasmania, Canberra or Cairns for this very reason, hence the majority of their fixtures will be in their home state.’
In almost all instances, the games in those venues are played between Melbourne teams who sold hold games to them and other interstate teams. Very rarely is a game between two Melbourne teams played outside Melbourne. Never (so far as I’m aware) are teams forced by the AFL to play home games outside of their city.
‘The fact that West Coast and Fremantle have had to make 10 interstate trips per season in comparison to some clubs who’ve previously only made three, has often seemed incredibly unfair.’
Perhaps it goes without saying, but interstate teams have the luxury of facing opponents that have to travel interstate more often. ‘Incredibly unfair’ seems like an overstatement.
‘On the topic of GWS, there’s also the discussion about the AFL’s newest franchise opening the 2012 season with a stand-alone fixture – up against the NRL’s opening round – where they would face city rivals Sydney Swans.’
Iagree that is a poor decision. The AFL runs the risk of making the new team look like a laughing stock.
October 27th 2011 @ 9:23am
Chris said | October 27th 2011 @ 9:23am | Report comment
In regards to the last point about GWS playing the Swans in their first game of the season being a poor decision – why?
GWS will get thrashed by almost every team in the AFL, so why not try and maximise the crowd? I think its a good idea.
October 27th 2011 @ 9:32am
stabpass said | October 27th 2011 @ 9:32am | Report comment
Yep, get the crowds and ratings before they turn belly up, ……. maybe that is the AFL’s thinking.
Although GWS seem to have gone for far more experience than the GC, it will be interesting.
They could suprise early , but you can guarantee that by the end of the season that they will be struggling to the finish line.
October 27th 2011 @ 10:28am
Ben Carter said | October 27th 2011 @ 10:28am | Report comment
Hi Ben – I don’t care which club we’re talking about (in this case Collingwood’s no need to go to WA in 2012), but I seriously cannot believe that there are footy die-hards who still blindingly accept the “fix”-ture every year as-is. It is simply unfair, and never is. It’s impossible for it to be so with 18 teams across 22 weeks. Yet this is the same sport whose controlling bodywould love to have everyone believe is the top-flight domestic professional competition in Australia (and in the eyes of some fans, the greatest thing in the known universe).
And before I get verbally lambasted from pillar to post – I am not (yet again, NOT) here to have a go at footy as a game in itself. What the players do on the field to put the ball through the sticks is perfectly fine, fun, skillful, etc, etc). I am merely debating the administrative framework within which such games are held and presented to the paying public.
Either 18 teams with each playing the other once, or everyone plays each other twice. It’s NOT that hard. The EPL manage it with 20 teams every year (and some clubs play ECL games as well). And no I am NOT stating that the world game is any better or worse as a game than footy. I’m talking about the administration aspect. Just saying that obviously an equal and fair set of matches can be organised.
Or you go the US route, with conferences/divisions etc – where everyone knows you may not play against some teams for years on end, but at least its clearly stated as such.
I would just be intrigued to know from the AFL HQ what their thoughts are on WHY they think people accept an unfair schedule every single season. Not “cos footy is simply the greatest thing ever”, but WHY, as sports fans, is it accepted? If it’s the best thing in the country (nay, the world supposedly), then why couldn’t its own fans demand that it be improved?
October 27th 2011 @ 10:32am
The Cattery said | October 27th 2011 @ 10:32am | Report comment
From the moment we moved to 14 teams in 1987, we were forced to move away from a draw that had everyone play everyone else home and away.
The footy season has to be completed in 27 weeks, with four weeks for finals – and that’s that, there ain’t no point in crying about it – footy is squashed in by cricket, but even without cricket, the players’ bodies can only handle about 26 games per annum.
October 27th 2011 @ 10:47am
stabpass said | October 27th 2011 @ 10:47am | Report comment
ATM it is a impossibility for every team to play each other twice, without a huge re-jig of how the game is played (timeof game/contact etc), without even mentioning cricket grounds, it is also stupid to play only 18 games a season.
So we have what we have, you have a point, but !!, why shouldn’t the AFL have a right to maximise crowds, and should we not have 2 derbys a year in Perth, Adelaide, Brisbane and now Sydney etc etc.
Would you like to go and see GCFC V Nth Melbourne twice a year or GCFC V BL twice a year ?.
Pretty easy answer for fans and sponsors and TV.
October 27th 2011 @ 11:51am
Ian Whitchurch said | October 27th 2011 @ 11:51am | Report comment
“Or you go the US route, with conferences/divisions etc – where everyone knows you may not play against some teams for years on end, but at least its clearly stated as such”
Speaking as a Seahawks fan, strength of schedule and strength of divisioncan give you a very easy run to the playoffs in the NFL. We made the playoffs last year with seven wins, and we went 4-2 inside the division, and 3-7 outside it.
Actually, any NFL team that got to play SF, Arizona and the Rams twice would probably have made the playoffs last year. It was a totally unjust schedule.
October 27th 2011 @ 10:28am
The Cattery said | October 27th 2011 @ 10:28am | Report comment
All vic teams playing a minimum of 5 interstate games per season, with some one or two more, is certainly a step in the right direction to getting a fairer draw (at least fair as is possible with 18 teams and 22 rounds).
October 27th 2011 @ 11:27am
Tom said | October 27th 2011 @ 11:27am | Report comment
Collingwood will be travelling to wa according to their website.
–
Comment left via The Roar’s iPhone app. Download The Roar’s iPhone App in the App Store here.
October 27th 2011 @ 11:33am
stabpass said | October 27th 2011 @ 11:33am | Report comment
I dont have a problem ( to a degree) with the AFL attempting to maximise crowds, and growing the game off the back of huge weekly derby’s, in particular with Coll, Ess, Car Rich, etc in Victoria.
Its what the fans, sponsors, TV want, it’s not like Collingwood V Carlton every week, but you can guarantee that every state will now have 2 derby’s a year, and the big 4/5 Vic clubs will play each other twice.
Like any good business, you play your longest and strongest when you need to, and you play to win.
Would other sporting comps around the world do the same thing, if they were in the same position. (hamstrung by venues/length and type of game)
October 27th 2011 @ 11:50am
Australian Rules said | October 27th 2011 @ 11:50am | Report comment
I agree.
Every advantage should be given to GWS in the first few seasons. They do not have the benefit of other clubs with 100+ years of history and fan base. The AFL should rightly “minimise the pain” for fledgling clubs by structuring a draw that, not necessarily favours them, but at least provides a platform to host games of interest (i.e. derbies) and thus maximise crowds, media exposure and commercial interest.
October 27th 2011 @ 11:54am
Ian Whitchurch said | October 27th 2011 @ 11:54am | Report comment
After their win against Port Adelaide and their derby win against Brisbane, the most important games for Gold Coast were the ones against the top sides, the games you would expect to “maximise the pain”. They stuck with Geelong for a half, beating them for contested footy, and failed to get destroyed by Collingwood.
Similarly, I hope GWS plays Sydney twice each year, as the thumpings in the early years will build up a nice bank of hatred and resentment that will make these games classics in years to come
October 27th 2011 @ 12:00pm
stabpass said | October 27th 2011 @ 12:00pm | Report comment
On the other hand, sometimes it is hard for teams such as Collingwood, Geelong to get up for games against the lowly GC/GWS, who may be pumped for the game of their life, so, yes it may work both ways.
October 27th 2011 @ 12:03pm
Lazza said | October 27th 2011 @ 12:03pm | Report comment
The EPL doesn’t minimise the pain for newly promoted clubs? They just have a fair and equitable draw. I’m starting to wonder if AFL is a serious sport, the top 5 clubs will only play the new boys once so they don’t get embarrassed?
The difference between 4th/5th can mean playing in a Grand Final or not. The difference between 8th/9th can mean the sacking of a coach but we have to pretend that the lopsided draw doesn’t effect your final position on the ladder?
October 27th 2011 @ 12:09pm
Ian Whitchurch said | October 27th 2011 @ 12:09pm | Report comment
Lazza,
Uneven draws happen all the time in Association Football, where you have group stages going into a knockout. There is even a phrase for it – “Group of Death”.
October 27th 2011 @ 1:06pm
Lazza said | October 27th 2011 @ 1:06pm | Report comment
They’re CUP tournaments not a LEAGUE. A league by definition means a fair and equitable draw for most sports anyway.
October 27th 2011 @ 1:14pm
stabpass said | October 27th 2011 @ 1:14pm | Report comment
Really … the EPL may have a fair and equitable draw ……. i really dont know, as i dont follow it closely, but i do know that as a whole, the EPL is not fair and equitable as only a couple of teams end up winning it, and most teams know they will never have a shot, unless they are bought by a billionaire.
What are the bulk of the EPL teams playng for ?, can a draft and salary cap used through good management be used to climb the ladder, and have a shot at the title.
People in glass houses …….
October 27th 2011 @ 2:14pm
Lucan said | October 27th 2011 @ 2:14pm | Report comment
Such a “Group of death” occurs with an actual “draw”, where teams are RANDOMLY selected. Everyone has equal chance of being selected in the “group of death”, or avoiding it.
The AFL fixture is done behind closed doors, with each club’s wishlist presented and taken into account to maximum attendances and gate takings.
Accepting the AFL is handicapped by the 22 week season, they could still choose to go with a truly random draw, it would be much more fair than what we have, but would still be short or true “equality”.
October 27th 2011 @ 12:09pm
The Cattery said | October 27th 2011 @ 12:09pm | Report comment
Lazza
Perhaps you should be on the soccer boards advocating that the A-League follow the EPL model closely.
The AFL follows its own model.
October 27th 2011 @ 1:09pm
Lazza said | October 27th 2011 @ 1:09pm | Report comment
However flawed? Even AD has admitted the draw is not right but can’t do anything about it till the next round of TV rights comes up. Why it wasn’t addressed for this round is beyond me since we’ve known about this problem for years.
October 27th 2011 @ 12:12pm
stabpass said | October 27th 2011 @ 12:12pm | Report comment
Yep, different sports, different amounts of scoring, as the saying goes in soccer ‘park the bus’, in Australian football you cant do that, you cant play for a draw, you are found out, you cannot hide.
Also ground constraints, the physicality and time of game constraints, soccer does not really have these.
Everyone would love a fair draw,where everone plays everyone twice, but ATM is it just not possible.
October 27th 2011 @ 12:22pm
Ben Carter said | October 27th 2011 @ 12:22pm | Report comment
I suppose essentially, Lazza should be free to question whether the match schedule format used by the AFL is the best it can possibly be. This doesn’t need to be turned into a “which game is the best” if we’re supposed to be just discussing the controlling body’s collation of fixtures. As for the A-League following the EPL’s model Cattery – I’d love to see that happen. Either play each other twice (a la the EPL) or four times. Three at the moment in the A-League is a tad weird I’ll admit…
October 27th 2011 @ 12:30pm
The Cattery said | October 27th 2011 @ 12:30pm | Report comment
It’s pointless mentioning the EPL though. They run a championship format, the team that finishes top at season’s end is the champion team.
The AFL has never been run on a championship format, it has always determined the premier via finals after the regular season – so you can’t make the comparision between the EPL and AFL – it’s pointless.
In the AFL, if you can’t make the top 8, then it’s impossible arguing that that was due to an unfavourable draw – you’re clearly nowhere near the requisite standard to challenge for the premiership, period.
Once you make the top 8, you beat the team before you to progress – the draw has absolutely nothing to do with anything.
Last year the bulldogs and lions played the Suns twice and finished near the bottom.
How many times did the grand finalists play the Suns? Once each.
The draw had absolutely zero bearing on who made the grand final – zero.
People overstate the argument – they have nothing.
October 27th 2011 @ 12:42pm
stabpass said | October 27th 2011 @ 12:42pm | Report comment
Lazza says “I’m starting to wonder if AFL is a serious sport”
Of course he is free to question, he is quite free to take pot shots, which is quite clearly what he was doing, the reasons for the draw being what it is are IMO, quite clearly answered, and pretty easy to understand.
October 27th 2011 @ 1:18pm
Lazza said | October 27th 2011 @ 1:18pm | Report comment
Did you see our magnificent Wallabies upset South Africa in the RWC? That’s impossible in AFL, you just get embarrassing blowouts. State of Origin died because one dominant State used to win all the time. AFL may be different but I don’t think this is an advantage at all.
Yes I do understand about ground constraints. Those 25 people that follow State cricket need the ovals to be free so a conference system is the only viable option. Not truly fair and equitable but certainly an improvement on the current joke concept.
October 27th 2011 @ 1:21pm
Ian Whitchurch said | October 27th 2011 @ 1:21pm | Report comment
Like the embarresing blowouts Port Adelaide, Brisbane and Richmond inflicted on Gold Coast, right ?
October 27th 2011 @ 1:25pm
stabpass said | October 27th 2011 @ 1:25pm | Report comment
Dont agree with your post, SOO died because there was no real need for it, as WA and SA had their own teams in a national comp, blowouts can be embarrasing, no doubt about it, but the underdogs can also win.
I dont think the wallabies winning was that great a suprise, it would not have been embarrasing if they had lost.
There is a great synergy and respect between Australian football and Australian cricket, from grass roots levels up, and historically they have 6 months each.
October 27th 2011 @ 12:33pm
Australian Rules said | October 27th 2011 @ 12:33pm | Report comment
GWS are a very different animal to newly promoted EPL Clubs, which have history, fans and a culture to take to the Big Dance.
The AFL is different – the draft and salary cap, plus more picks for new teams, are deliberately in place to make the competition more even (or potentially even). The EPL may have 20 teams but it’s only ever the same 3 or 4 that can ever win it.
October 27th 2011 @ 12:38pm
Ben Carter said | October 27th 2011 @ 12:38pm | Report comment
Hi AR – again I stress I’m not entering a discussion here about who may win the EPL (or any other competition), only whether the AFL’s present weekly match format is really the best it can be, perhaps even given its obvious calendar constraints… Could it be improved? Yes, I think it could. As stated above, an agreement that everyone must/should travel outside their own state ‘x’ times a year would be a start…
October 27th 2011 @ 1:26pm
Lazza said | October 27th 2011 @ 1:26pm | Report comment
Where’s the equivalent of little Bolton or Wigan in the AFL? These small clubs may not win the EPL title but under an AFL or NFL system they wouldn’t even exist. They’re too small, have too few fans and wouldn’t get a start in those leagues. At least they can play in the big time and may win a cup competition if they’re lucky.
All systems have pros and cons. The discusion here is about the draw though. Those small clubs that get promoted don’t get special deals with the draw to help them be competitive.
October 27th 2011 @ 1:34pm
stabpass said | October 27th 2011 @ 1:34pm | Report comment
That would be GC, GWS, Port Adelaide, Nth Melbourne, WB, etc they are quite small clubs, who dont have great fan bases, generous benefactors, but they will have a genuine shot at the flag, through good management, drafting etc.
By all rights the WB should have done a lot better with the team they had a couple of years ago, but went backwards.
Will Bolton/Wigan ever really have a realistic shot
October 27th 2011 @ 1:37pm
Ian Whitchurch said | October 27th 2011 @ 1:37pm | Report comment
Lazza,
They are called Port Melbourne, and they are happily playing in the VFL.
Alternatively, they are called the Northern Territory Thunder, and are happily playing in the NEAFL.
You’re forgetting the major special deal the AFL gives all the smaller and poorer clubs – everyone has the same salary cap and the same list size. Its part of why the AFL isnt like that degenerate pretense of a league that is the EPL, where I can tell you, a year in advance, five of the six top sides.
Similarly, in breaking news, Barca and Real will be slugging it out in next years La Liga, and in the SPL Celtic and Rangers will be fighting it out for the title.
October 27th 2011 @ 11:57am
DanielS said | October 27th 2011 @ 11:57am | Report comment
Ben Somerford, you may as well know that the AFL has said that the top 5 teams are only playing GWS and Gold Coast once each. Thats Gellong, Collingwood, Hawthorn, West Coast and Carlton, and they have said that no team will have both teams scheduled twice across the season. That puts your prediction that adelade will play both teams twice, not correct. GWS and GC are both being offered a gentle beginning this season, with the view of preventing the top 5 teams having percentage boosted seasons.
And by the way if what you said about adelade wound up true, they would wind up with 6 opportunities to jack up there percentage, it would be so ridiculously high
October 27th 2011 @ 12:50pm
Ian Whitchurch said | October 27th 2011 @ 12:50pm | Report comment
DanielS,
Port and Adelaide are pretty much always 50:50 in a Showdown.
Adelaide against Gold Coast, at three quarter time last year, it was 8 goals 8 to 10 goals 11 … yes, Adelaide kicked away in the last quarter, but Im expecting fewer last goal fadeouts by Gold Coast next season.
Therefore, you can probably pencil in four games for Adelaide, but I certainly wouldnt pencil in six.
October 27th 2011 @ 1:44pm
Lazza said | October 27th 2011 @ 1:44pm | Report comment
Ian,
“degenerate pretense of a league”. ManU and Barcelona play to a 500m global audience for their big games. All those small AFL teams you mentioned have NO chance of ever playing or competing with the big boys. This is better?
October 27th 2011 @ 1:49pm
Ian Whitchurch said | October 27th 2011 @ 1:49pm | Report comment
Lazza,
You may or may not have noticed that the AFL is expanding, and Darwin is one of the long-term potential sites, so the NT Thunder are potentially looking at promotion, in the same way Port Adelaide did.
As to degenerate pretense of a league … would you like to make a small wager on me getting four of the top five sides of the EPL next year correct ? I will solely basing it on the one thing that matters in that degenerate pretense at a competition, which is total salary spend available.
October 27th 2011 @ 1:54pm
Lazza said | October 27th 2011 @ 1:54pm | Report comment
It matters to you perhaps. All that matters to the EPL and AFL is how many fans they have and how much money they’re making.
October 27th 2011 @ 2:15pm
Ian Whitchurch said | October 27th 2011 @ 2:15pm | Report comment
Lazza,
If we’re looking to make money, the EPL is the last model I’d follow. EPL clubs lost 484m pounds last year, on turnover of 2.1 billion.
This. Is. Not. Sustainable.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/may/19/premier-league-finances-black-hole
October 27th 2011 @ 2:38pm
Lazza said | October 27th 2011 @ 2:38pm | Report comment
Ian, that’s why UEFA have brought in their ‘Financial Fair Play” rules starting next season. If you make a huge loss you’ll be banned from playing in the European Cup competitions.
All those American, Arab and Russian billionaires are buying EPL clubs because they can see the huge potential in Global brands like EPL clubs. The coming overseas TV rights are expected to be worth more than the domestic UK rights for the first time and are growing larger with each round.
October 27th 2011 @ 9:17pm
The Cattery said | October 27th 2011 @ 9:17pm | Report comment
Lazza
You are misreading why the millionaires are coming in to buy EPL clubs.
They foresee a future where the bigger EPL clubs will mimic what the likes of Real, Barca, Juve and the Milan clubs already do – take the bulk of the TV money and leave dregs for the rest.
October 27th 2011 @ 1:52pm
stabpass said | October 27th 2011 @ 1:52pm | Report comment
OK, very clear on your motives Lazza, bad day at the office !!.
It’s fine if you dont like Australian football Lazza, really it is, but to use the pretence of a inequitable draw to do so, when it is patently obvious that the EPL has the very same problems and some, unless you are a club owned by Russian oligarchs, stinks of a double standard.
Australian football is doing very nicely thanks, even with a inequitable draw, and a couple of drunken players stumbling around in Phuket.
October 27th 2011 @ 1:59pm
Lazza said | October 27th 2011 @ 1:59pm | Report comment
I’ve grown up with AFL here in Adelaide, played the game in my youth and still follow the Crows. Pointing out that the draw is flawed means you hate AFL?
AFL is doing well here in Australia but the EPL is the world’s most popular sporting league so they must be doing something right.
October 27th 2011 @ 2:08pm
stabpass said | October 27th 2011 @ 2:08pm | Report comment
Lazza, nope plenty of people have pointed out the draw is flawed, that certainly does not make you hate the AFL, but from my observations, over a period of time on this board, reading your posts, you are using the inequalites of the draw to directly sling crap at the AFL, not in the hope of a better outcome, but as a way to prove to yourself and others, that your sport of choice is better.
That would be a fair observation, and i reckon people would agree with that.
October 28th 2011 @ 7:57am
DanielS said | October 28th 2011 @ 7:57am | Report comment
all you need to read in my post is the stuff about no team playing Against both GWS and GC twice this season.
I do agree that Gold Coast are going to put up a fight next season. how ever they are still going to have some big margins. They proved one thing, the side did not have any endurance last year, and i still predict it to remain a problem.
My last sentence is just to remind ben, that the Crows are also going to play Port, a team that was lucky to not of won the spoon last year, twice any way, they are the AFL will most likley not give them 6 games against the worst 3 teams
October 27th 2011 @ 12:36pm
Ben Carter said | October 27th 2011 @ 12:36pm | Report comment
Hi Cattery – yes, it’s different but not necessarily pointless (otherwise why bring up comparisons for a sporting topic debate?). Yes, the EPL championship model is different to a “finals series”, and yes, the best teams should end up winning the title regardless of the match schedule in front of them, and no, there’s no point actually having a club argue that it was ‘unfavoured’ in the fixture list as such if it loses, but there is a sense in which every single club’s lead-up to the AFL finals (i.e. the combination of teams that they meet in the home-and-away rounds) IS different and not necessarily equal.
Could that make a difference as to which teams make the top eight? It’s possible. Not always likely, but possible. Again, it’s not about which sport is inherently better to watch/play etc or anything, I’m just a sports fan who ends up occasionally wondering why it is that everyone seemingly accepts that it’s perfectly fine for what is presumably the most well-known-of domestic professional sporting competition in the entire country.
October 27th 2011 @ 12:51pm
stabpass said | October 27th 2011 @ 12:51pm | Report comment
There is a big difference between accepting something without questioning, and accepting something because there is nothing really you can do about it.
For EX: WCE, Freo fans etc are always questioning the draw, …they travel lots, Vic teams dont.
Where does equality stop ?, the AFL has a draft, salary cap and other equalisation rules, to attempt a level playing field.
October 27th 2011 @ 1:26pm
Lucan said | October 27th 2011 @ 1:26pm | Report comment
That’s one of the bugbears. The AFL spruiks “equalisation”, but continually provides this manipulated fixture, salary cap concessions, draft concessions and debt bail-outs.
We’re not surprised by the inequity in the “draw”, but that doesn’t mean we should just accept it.
Hopefully the next TV rights deal allows for the fixture inequality to be addressed.
October 27th 2011 @ 1:42pm
stabpass said | October 27th 2011 @ 1:42pm | Report comment
Seriously, what are your suggestions ?.
October 27th 2011 @ 1:50pm
Lazza said | October 27th 2011 @ 1:50pm | Report comment
A fair and equitable draw and a fair and equitable league. Everyone operates by the same rules, that’s fair.
October 27th 2011 @ 2:02pm
stabpass said | October 27th 2011 @ 2:02pm | Report comment
Give me an example of a league in the world that operates like this .
October 27th 2011 @ 2:05pm
Lucan said | October 27th 2011 @ 2:05pm | Report comment
Obviously nothing can happen until the next TV deal comes around as the AFL has already sold X number of games over X number of years, so any changes will need to wait ’til then.
Idea #1
17 match season. You play everyone once either home or away, the following year the home/away is switched. Not ideal, but is at least equitable over a two years period.
To keep TV happy, perhaps schedule a State of Origin/Teal Cup Carnival/All Star Break.
Idea #2
34 match season. Play everyone home and away. Include mid-week matches where required. In a league that is becoming ever more professional with coaching lineups as long as my arm the idea of “list management” shouldn’t be too difficult to grasp. Increase the number of players on each list if necessary.
October 27th 2011 @ 2:15pm
stabpass said | October 27th 2011 @ 2:15pm | Report comment
Can see where you are coming from, but sorry mate, i just can’t see it happening for a myriad of reasons, most of which have been touched upon here.
Idea 1 is never gunna happen, idea 2 is a long way off if ever.
I sound like the 9′s guru, but i can see a midweek 9′s comp played one day, with maybe a different list of players.
October 27th 2011 @ 2:28pm
Lazza said | October 27th 2011 @ 2:28pm | Report comment
I think a conference system is the only viable solution. Play everyone in your conference twice (16 games) and every team in the other conference once (9 games) with alternating home and away games over two seasons. You can easily accommodate 25 rounds even if it means getting rid of the NAB cup.
Not perfect, only a 34 round season would be, but much better than what we have now.
October 27th 2011 @ 2:29pm
Lucan said | October 27th 2011 @ 2:29pm | Report comment
Examples of leagues with fair draws, fixtures:
Football/Soccer, most competitions in the world
Sheffield Shield cricket
NBL basketball
ABL, Australian Baseball league
AIHL, Australian Ice Hockey League
Is it really that difficult to understand playing everyone home and away an equal number of times is fair???
October 27th 2011 @ 2:33pm
The Cattery said | October 27th 2011 @ 2:33pm | Report comment
The ABL and AIHL – stop the press!!
October 27th 2011 @ 2:45pm
stabpass said | October 27th 2011 @ 2:45pm | Report comment
A fair and equitable draw, does not mean a fair and equitable comp, in fact a inequitable draw may be benificial in creating a equal comp.
And a fair and equitable draw, without a salary cap means diddly squat.
October 27th 2011 @ 2:38pm
stabpass said | October 27th 2011 @ 2:38pm | Report comment
If you are referring to Lazza’s comment ” A fair and equitable draw and a fair and equitable league. Everyone operates by the same rules, that’s fair”.
Then i would again ask the question, show me a league that operates like this, many comps may have fair and equitable draws, but do they all operate under the same salary cap, do they have a draft, do they have the same size list, rules etc, if not it becomes a free for all, and money wins out.
I dont think you can compare the Australian ice hockey/baseball league to the AFL, and if those leagues were quite big, what rules do you think they would have in place about foreign players, salary caps etc.
October 27th 2011 @ 2:52pm
Lucan said | October 27th 2011 @ 2:52pm | Report comment
Keeping the discussion to the draw/fixture, these leagues do what was asked.
In recent years the NBL has gone as are far as implementing a cap on the quality of players in each squad, beyond the $$ cap.
Even in the AIHL current semi-pro format there is a cap on the number of imports permitted.
When the NBL was huge in the ’90′s they had a cap on the number of imports also.
Caps and fair draws needn’t be mutually exclusive.
The AFL could silence a heap of knockers by addressing the fixture issue.
October 27th 2011 @ 2:59pm
stabpass said | October 27th 2011 @ 2:59pm | Report comment
I agree with a equitable draw, i dont think anyone doesn’t, i just cannot see it happening.
BTW, i know a little bit about ice hockey and Canadians getting naturalised quickly, there are ways and means around everything, one rule leads to another, and the bigger your league becomes, the more complex your rules become.
October 27th 2011 @ 2:39pm
The Cattery said | October 27th 2011 @ 2:39pm | Report comment
People – it’s very simple:
The AFL has 27 weeks to play around with a full season. It spreads 22 rounds over 23 weeks, and has 4 weeks of finals – there are no other free weekends, and in any event, the players are quite adamant that 26 games is the maximum that they will play, and they need a minimum of 6 days recovery between games.
So talk of 17 rounds, or 34 rounds, or even 25 rounds, are pointless discussions.
Also, worrying about what soccer and baseball does is just as pointless. I mean fair dinkum people, in baseball you can play two games in one evening – a bit of a difference don’t you think??
But here’s the killer point, you can look carefully at last year, analyse it to the nth degree, and it’s very clear that the two best teams made the grand final, regardless of the draw – did not impact things one iota – the case is way, way overstated.
October 27th 2011 @ 2:45pm
Lucan said | October 27th 2011 @ 2:45pm | Report comment
Why do we so readily accept the AFL only has 27 weeks to fit the season?
This is the biggest and richest sport in the land. By the time the next rights comes around they may have even greater pull with venue availability.
October 27th 2011 @ 2:49pm
The Cattery said | October 27th 2011 @ 2:49pm | Report comment
Why?
Because the AFL deal with the MCG goes till 2038; about one third of all AFL games are played there; and cricket has the lease on it from 1 Oct till the 3rd week in March.
There would be similar leasing deals with the SCG and the Gabba.
And, most importantly – players are glad of it because they can’t physically play any more games. How many marathons do marathon runners run per annum?
And in truth, the fans probably prefer it as well.
That’s the cycle of life in Australia.
October 27th 2011 @ 2:58pm
Lucan said | October 27th 2011 @ 2:58pm | Report comment
Player fatigue can be addressed by list management, and smarter game plans. Remember there was a time we played with no bench, then a single substitute, before a 2 player interchage system came in.
Money talks to the MCC, we’ve had back-to-back October Grand Finals which the MCC happily pocketed large wads of cash from.
The AFL has even floated a third Melbourne stadium at E-Gate for the smaller drawing matches, which it would own exclusively and operate.
October 27th 2011 @ 2:53pm
Lazza said | October 27th 2011 @ 2:53pm | Report comment
What if you have 4 or 5 strong teams in one season? Playing most of the top 8 sides twice and the bottom 8 only once is going to be a serious disadvantage. What about the make up of the final 8? If you got an unlucky draw and miss out on the finals then coaches, players get sacked. Is that fair?