Expansion teams cost us quality finals
Roar Guru By Macca, 7 Aug 2012 The Crowd is a Roar Guru
- Tagged:
- 2012 AFL season, AFL, AFL expansion, AFL finals
101 Have your say
As the finals series rapidly approaches, it appears that we lack many sides of real quality to contest this year’s premiership decider. And the reason for this lays squarely at the feet of the expansion teams.
If we go through the top eight as it stands, we see Sydney sit nicely on top, but at almost full strength they were less than impressive in defeating a Carlton side missing the likes of Judd, Robinson, Walker, Laidler and Henderson with the returning Waite and Simpson playing their first games after extended layoffs.
Adelaide are next and this young side is showing the signs of a long AFL season. They got beaten convincingly by Geelong last week and struggled to beat a below strength Essendon at home; hardly the signs of a premiership threat.
Collingwood sit third and given their dominance of previous seasons actually benefit from the dilution of talent the new teams have caused as it restricts contenders’ abilities to top up and challenge, but they are hardly setting the world on fire, just getting past 10th placed St Kilda, beaten twice by 11th placed Carlton, and being brushed aside by a Buddy-less Hawthorn.
Hawthorn to me are the real deal and are the exception to the norm.
West Coast are fifth and have finally succumbed to injuries; won’t be a contender unless they get a lot of players back quickly.
Geelong sit sixth and as with Collingwood have had their period of dominance extended by the Suns and Giants taking all the premium talent.
North are seventh and are one of the form sides of the comp but will owe their finals spot as much to the easiest draw, which includes six games against the bottom four sides as it does to their potent forward setup.
And questions are still to answered as to whether this inexperienced side can maintain their form and compete against the likes of Hawthorn, who demolished them in Tassie. The signs against the Bulldogs weren’t great, either.
And finally we have Essendon, who could possibly go into finals losing their last seven games and only beating Port Adelaide since Round 14; hardly the strongest eighth team in recent history.
So while this season has been incredibly even, it has lacked top-class teams and the fact that it has come about after two compromised drafts is no coincidence.
- Explore:
- 2012 AFL season, AFL, AFL expansion, AFL finals
August 7th 2012 @ 3:30am
brendan said | August 7th 2012 @ 3:30am | Report comment
Yes Macca the creation of the expansion teams has weakened the competition but the fault isn’t with these teams per se.Rather some of the Melbourne based teams who steadfastly refuse to re-locate or merge.North Melbourne were offerred a great deal to go to the Gold Coast but there 30,000 members refused and given the Afl’s desire to develop new markets a 17th and 18th team naturally followed.Interesting how many ” champion” Carlton players you mentioned in your article and whilst you proclaim Hawthorn the great white hope you dismiss there nemesis Geelong with the line ” along with Collingwood they have had there period of dominance extended by the Suns and Giants taking all the premium talent”.For the record Geelong this year have played 10 first gamers with four of them coming off the Rookie list , hardly a result of benefiting from the expansion teams.Geelong’s performance this year isn’t given the credit it deserves Menzel,Vardy,Varcoe and Cowan have all sufferred long term injuries and along with Wocjinski ,who has had a bad run with suspension and injury, to be in a position where they are challenging for a top four position should be applauded.
August 7th 2012 @ 9:15am
Macca said | August 7th 2012 @ 9:15am | Report comment
Brendan -My point with Geelong isn’t to dismiss them, they have a good shot, I meant that in other years the fact they have played 10 first gamers and aging stars would of seen them slide further, however as the mid tier teams have not been able to top up with the talent they would of other wise. Geelong hasn’t directly benefitted from the expansion teams, more the other teams have been negatively effected more.
Take Carlton, they finished 6th last year and got pick 22 and 8th the year before and got pick18 with both drafts already having the best players removed as 17 year olds. Without the expansion teams the blues would of had picks in or around the top 10 but instead effectively had picks around 30.
August 7th 2012 @ 12:13pm
micka said | August 7th 2012 @ 12:13pm | Report comment
That is a good point MAcca but we had half a decade of early picks before that and recruited a multiple Brownlow medalist… We should be contenders by now regardless of who was in the last 2 drafts. Finishing 6th last year we wouldn’t have been picking up Coniglio or Patton etc. I think we have plenty of mediocre youth already.
August 7th 2012 @ 1:10pm
Macca said | August 7th 2012 @ 1:10pm | Report comment
Micka – Firstly look at where we started from and second have a look at the injuries we had this year, Waite, Casboult, Mitchell, Hampson and Walker all missed long stretches and is pretty much the entire marking forward dept.
Laidler, Henderson, Jamison, White and Davies have also missed significant portion of the season so there is the tall defender options gone, then Judd, Murphy, Carrazzo, Robinson and Simpson have all missed a minimum 3 three weeks (and rarely all played together so there is a good chunk of the on ball brigade. Throw in Yarran missing what 4 games and I don’t think any side would be a contender with that many injuries.
The good thing is next year we will have games and another preseason into Bell, Casboult and Mitchell which will make a massive difference.
And we might not have got a Coniglio or Patton (although had the 17 year olds already taken been in who knows what the draft would of looked like) but we may of had a Greene or Smith.
August 7th 2012 @ 1:57pm
Ian Whitchurch said | August 7th 2012 @ 1:57pm | Report comment
Macca,
In a normal team, as a circa 15 draft pick, Greene wouldnt have been played week in week out.
Similarly, you wouldnt have seen Cameron thrown in at the deep end to lead an attack.
Jonathon Giles would still be at Centrals.
You also would have seen the players from the last two evenly spread between the six or eight very even teams, so they’d all get that little bit better … and you’d still get to whine about a final series where any of about six sides can legitimately win it.
August 7th 2012 @ 2:20pm
Macca said | August 7th 2012 @ 2:20pm | Report comment
Ian – “In a normal team, as a circa 15 draft pick, Greene wouldnt have been played week in week out.” Says who? Brandon Ellis went pick 15 and has played week in week out, and as I said if you throw in all the picks taken out prior to the draft Greene might of actually been a pick 20! And given Carlton’s and Essendon’s injuries a high draft pick would of got their chance.
I doubt a young side like North would of had an issue bringing in an early draft pick either.
And Ian I am not whining about the number of sides that can win the comp just their quality, and if they were all a little bit better that issue would be resolved.
By the way when was the last time your man Karmichael got 15 possessions in a game?
August 8th 2012 @ 2:54pm
Opinion Peace said | August 8th 2012 @ 2:54pm | Report comment
Dead right Ian.
Its a silly article. Very few 18 year olds get to play 22 games in their first year these days. Blaming the evenness of the top 8 (rather than the boring predictability of the past 3-4 years) on GWS and GC is laughable and few of the top teams would have had access to the top GWS/GC players in any case. Is Macca a Carlton supporter(or maybe Bombers??) because he reads very much like one – bitter and twisted, blaming the world for his problems.
August 8th 2012 @ 3:05pm
Macca said | August 8th 2012 @ 3:05pm | Report comment
Opinion Piece – ” Very few 18 year olds get to play 22 games in their first year these days.” Very few players play 22 games these days mate but there are plenty of first year players who play the majority of games. And even if they are only used as depth players they still improve the depth.
And I am not against evenness, but if it is achieved by reduced quality i don’t see the point in it.
And are you seriously suggesting that taking the best draft picks away from the existing teams for 2 years straight has no impact on the quality of those teams?
August 8th 2012 @ 3:20pm
Opinion Peace said | August 8th 2012 @ 3:20pm | Report comment
“very few players play 22 games these days”. OMG!!
Also, can you give me a list of first year 18 year olds that have played the “majority of games” this year please (minus GWS and GC, and any team below say position 13 on the ladder)?
August 8th 2012 @ 3:42pm
Macca said | August 8th 2012 @ 3:42pm | Report comment
Opinion Piece – Before you get to outraged at my statement that not many players play all 22, have a look at the top 8 sides and see how many have players playing every game.
And while by excluding the expansion teams you are kind of making my point for me because they have all the best players most likely to play but over the past few years North have had the likes of Bastinac and Cunnington, Heppell for the bombers, Wallis and Liberatore, Clay Smith has played quite a few from Memory, Watson and McInnes from the blues, Martin & Ellis from Richmond to name just a few from the past few years. If I had time I could name quite a few more.
August 8th 2012 @ 4:03pm
Macca said | August 8th 2012 @ 4:03pm | Report comment
Opinion Piece – How about Morabito, Fyfe and Hill for Freo? Or Melksham for the Bombers? Selwood of Geelong? Gaff & Darling fro the Eagles? Dan Hannebury for Sydney? Patrick Dangerfield for the Crows? Gee when you start thinking about it there are quite a lot aren’t there?
August 8th 2012 @ 8:16pm
Opinion Peace said | August 8th 2012 @ 8:16pm | Report comment
You’re talking rubbish Macca….as usual. Hannebury is in his third year. Dangerfield is in his 3-4th year (at least, I am sure). Your article suggests “this year” only, that is, if all these 18 year olds werent playing at GWS or GC they’d be at Collingwood, Hawthorn, Geelong and the quality of the finals would have been as good as last year. If not talking about these clubs, then you have got to be kidding if you think Melbourne, the team that would have picked up a few of these guys if GWS werent around, would be in the finals this year AND lifted the quality of the finals. That is what you are saying no, because you write “As the finals series rapidly approaches, it appears that we lack many sides of real quality to contest this year’s premiership decider. And the reason for this lays squarely at the feet of the expansion teams.”
Most, if not all the “first year” players you cited have all been around for several years.
And I “know” the majority of players in the top 8 have have played all 22 games by round 22, if not, missing one or two. 1st year recruits don’t play these numbers “in their first year”, repeat “in their first year”.
Your article and subsequent arguments are laughable. Face it – you are just a bitter Victorian supporter. If your team doesnt win the premiership then its the world’s fault.
August 9th 2012 @ 9:00am
Macca said | August 9th 2012 @ 9:00am | Report comment
Opinion Piece – I know those players aren’t in their first years but have a look at their first and second years (yes second years because those drafted by the suns are in their second year now), look at how many games they played- it demonstrates that players in their 1st and second years can play a lot of games and have an impact.
It is almost impossible to point to top first year draft picks playing for someone other than GCS & GWS as there aren’t many but Chad Wingard and Brandon Ellis are 2 who have played a majority of games this year. Harley Bennell would walk into any top 8 side and make a difference.
And again it’s not about these players necessarily being a Selwood but they improve the depth, as I have said it is the last 6 picked that win premierships.
August 7th 2012 @ 2:17pm
brendan said | August 7th 2012 @ 2:17pm | Report comment
Macca i understand your point that the extra teams have diluted the talent pool particularly for the mid range teams.However to focus on the expansion teams is IMO misrepresentation of the fundamental problem in the AFL too many teams in the one city.North are jumping up and down about there arrangement with Ballarat when they could have been a superpower on the Gold Coast with about as many games in Melbourne. If this had occurred maybe the Bulldogs could have done likewise in Greater Western Sydney and the natural alliance with the Canterbury Bulldogs could of occurred.Look at the decision making of some Melbourne based clubs Stkilda , the only club south of the Yarra situauted in Moorabin up and go to Seaford reportedly over the local councils refusal to grant more Poker machines.Richmond , a team within a drop punt of the MCG sell a home game to the Suns in Qld which will probably cost them a spot in the finals.Outside of Victoria leaving aside the expansion teams Port Adelaide are the only basket – case.The reality is that the eight is now like the Australian Cricket team harder to get into then out of and all the hoo-hah about the draft and the salary cap equalising Afl football is a myth.Please feel free to correct any grammatical or spelling mistakes.
August 7th 2012 @ 2:27pm
Macca said | August 7th 2012 @ 2:27pm | Report comment
Brendan – How does the number of teams in Melb effect the quality of the players they can draft? And without checking figures I would be confident that North and the bulldogs have more members and better attendance than both the expansion teams.
And if they are struggling financially well maybe the AFL could of pumped the miilions they are blowing on the expansion teams into the existing clubs?
August 7th 2012 @ 5:31pm
brendan said | August 7th 2012 @ 5:31pm | Report comment
Simple maths Macca two less teams equates to about 100 less players obviously increasing the quality of those chosen.
August 8th 2012 @ 9:05am
Macca said | August 8th 2012 @ 9:05am | Report comment
Brendan – So you believe the addidtion of two new teams casuing an extra 100 odd player to be drafted is a misrepresentation of the dillution of the talent pool but the existing teams in Melbourne needing 100 odd players is the real problem?
I could follow your thought process possibly if you were arguing that too many clubs in Melb meant not enough money to go around (although teams in brisbane and sydney aren’t exactly flush) but if all you are saying is that the AFL should expand into areas where no one cares about footy at the expense of Melbourne clubs then frankly I don’t see the point.
August 8th 2012 @ 12:21pm
brendan said | August 8th 2012 @ 12:21pm | Report comment
Macca my contebtion in my initial post was that North could have re-located to the Gold Coast as offerred by the Afl maintained a strong presence in Melbourne via 7 games at Etihad or the Mcg as the deal stated .If this had happened and the Bulldogs had struck a similar deal in Western Sydney we would have only 16 teams which is a more equitable competition.Unfortunately you dont follow through in your contention rather try to seize on a supposed inconsistency to satisfy yourselve.In terms of membership given the affordability of air – tickets IMO North missed a golden oppurtunity to take themselves from a suburban backwater to one of the most powerful clubs in the game .Surely the Afl would have offered a duel memership of about 12 games over two venues .Imagine the marketing advantages a team known as North Melbourne could have capitalised upon if they had played half there games “” up North”". Qantas and its famous insignia could have been synonimous with the club, particularly given once from memory they did sponsor the club.As i stated two less teams means 100 less players and obviously they would be the latter players selected satisfying your criticism of the depth of the competition.If Sydney win this years flag they will have won one less flag than South Melbourne did in its 80 odd year history and Brisbane who won three flags as the lions have tripled the number of premierships Fitzroy won under the McIntyre system of a genuine non challenge grand final first introduced in 1931.
August 8th 2012 @ 5:23pm
Macca said | August 8th 2012 @ 5:23pm | Report comment
Brendan – So you think it would of been financially affordable for North supporters to fly to the Gold Coast, pay for accommodation and go to the game? How much would that run the average family?
And north playing 4 home games in Gold Coast is not much different to what they are doing in Tassie, except the Tassie games are packed out and people actually want to watch AFL football.
In short you support my theory that the addition of 2 new teams is responsible for a drop in quality but like other GCS & GWC fans on this site can’t bear to have the new boys blamed for anything so it must be North and the Bulldogs fault.
August 7th 2012 @ 2:58pm
Ozy Battler said | August 7th 2012 @ 2:58pm | Report comment
One Roar article says: “Best season ever” then this one says “…. lack of quality”.
It ain’t the best ever season thats for sure. Too many sides with players spread a mile wide and an inch deep.
August 7th 2012 @ 7:51am
checkside said | August 7th 2012 @ 7:51am | Report comment
Lets not blame the expansion clubs for everything bar climate change. All footy clubs start somewhere, all it takes is time to get established and they will both become competitive (remember the Sydney Swans and Brisbane – 3 flags in a row wasnt a bad effort). At the moment the AFL would be more concerned about Port Adelaide and Melbourne – clubs that have been around for a fair few years.
August 7th 2012 @ 9:20am
Macca said | August 7th 2012 @ 9:20am | Report comment
Checkside – My article was talking about the quality of the expansion teams but the negative impact they have had on the finals sides.
Everyone expected the expansion teams to struggle early (some more than others) and everyone expected the existing bottom teams to struggle becasue they were denied the access to the top draft picks, I think what was overlooked was the effect it would have on the quality of the top sides.
August 7th 2012 @ 8:21am
Australian Rules said | August 7th 2012 @ 8:21am | Report comment
“Expansion teams cost us quality finals”…?
Huh?
This year, every team in the top 8 is capable is beating each other. It’s arguably the closest finals series in years…the injury toll to some clubs notwithstanding.
You may argue that the SEASON has been compromised by the 2 baby teams (due to fixture inequities)…but the finals? You must be watching a different AFL to the rest of us.
August 7th 2012 @ 9:18am
Macca said | August 7th 2012 @ 9:18am | Report comment
Australian Rules – Close games don’t necessarily equal quality games. To me Hawthorn is the only team that comes close to the quality of the Geelongs, Collingwoods or Brisbanes we have come to expect in the last decade.
If you read the lat line of the article you might better understand the point I am making.
August 7th 2012 @ 1:41pm
Australian Rules said | August 7th 2012 @ 1:41pm | Report comment
To say that the quality of football being played by the top teams, has been affected by the Suns and Giants, is a pretty long bow to draw I think.
Style or ‘quality’ of footy comes down to 2 things: the coach, and the elite players in the comp.
Hawthorn have a very innovative coach who actually invents new game plans and has his players execute them.
Collingwood have a new coach. Geelong have a 2nd year coach. WCE have been smashed by injuries, as have Essendon, Carlton and other teams.
August 7th 2012 @ 1:54pm
Macca said | August 7th 2012 @ 1:54pm | Report comment
Australian Rules – “Style or ‘quality’ of footy comes down to 2 things: the coach, and the elite players in the comp.” I would say DEPTH is the key to a quality side, all teams have their stars but it is the last 6 picked not the first 6 that are the difference between a good side and a great side.
If the mid tier teams could of got rid of some of their serviceable plodders and replaced them with quality kids the difference could be enormous. Imagine if Essendon hadn’t got Heppell but instead had to stick with a Pevrill type.
August 7th 2012 @ 8:22am
Australian Rules said | August 7th 2012 @ 8:22am | Report comment
I’ve just seen another article entitled: “Is this AFL’s best season ever?”
Horses for courses I guess…
August 7th 2012 @ 9:43am
checkside said | August 7th 2012 @ 9:43am | Report comment
Macca – I see what you mean and I do agree that 2012 will not be remembered as a year of legend sides. Hawthorn is probably the side when they are “on” are deemed by some as brilliant, but Geelong the current premiers did the job again on Friday. Adelaide are a young side and the future does look bright as their window opens for them. Sydney didnt impress last week against Carlton but will probably sit on top of the ladder and will be hard to beat at home during the finals. Collingwood has done well considering injuries, West Coast however are slipping due to injuries but if both sides can get those players back for the finals, who knows?. North Melbourne might cause damage but I dont consider them as a top four side – yet. Fremantle are my dark horse as long as the “Pav” stays on the field. My point is that I agree that some team lists have been diluted due to the priority drafts given to the expansion clubs, but I disagree that it really has effected what promises to be cracker of a final series in September. Forget about the “Dons” as their gone!
August 7th 2012 @ 9:51am
Macca said | August 7th 2012 @ 9:51am | Report comment
Checkside – Geelong did do the job again on Friday night – But without the expansion teams would a side who has contested 4 of the last 5 Grand FInals and has lost the likes of Halrey, Ling, Ottens and Ablett in the last few years and has players like Chapman, Enright and Scarlett past their best be in premiership contention if the likes of Carlton Freo North and Richmond had got the quality draft picks of previous drafts in the last 2 years?
I am not doubting the closeness and unpredictability, just the quality.
August 7th 2012 @ 3:16pm
Ian Whitchurch said | August 7th 2012 @ 3:16pm | Report comment
Macca,
The cap space freed by Ablett going let Geelong keep other players.
August 7th 2012 @ 3:21pm
Macca said | August 7th 2012 @ 3:21pm | Report comment
Yes that is correct Ian but he is also one of the best players in the league, and if you take him out plus the likes of Harley, Ottens & Ling and add on the diminished abilities of Chapman, Enright and Scarlett it is pretty clear Geelong are not as good as they were.
If your point is that the expansion teams have helped Geelong then I refer you to my above article “Geelong sit sixth and as with Collingwood have had their period of dominance extended by the Suns”
August 7th 2012 @ 10:00am
checkside said | August 7th 2012 @ 10:00am | Report comment
Macca – fair call – play on.
August 7th 2012 @ 10:04am
Matt F said | August 7th 2012 @ 10:04am | Report comment
I can see where you’re coming from. There isn’t a side that is going to be remembered in years to come as one of the greats but I think it’s nice to have a finals series where 5-6 teams actually appear to have a chance of winning. The past 5 years or so there’s only been 1-3 teams that might have won the flag in a given year and the first 2 weeks of the finals were rather pointless. That doesn’t look like it will be the case this year.
Personally I prefer a close season like this one than a season like the last few where there have had some truly great teams, but no depth of contenders. The Grand Final and prelim finals might be better when there are a small number of great sides but, overall, this years 4 weeks of finals (and the 8 weeks leading up to them) have been and will be far more interesting as teams jostle for positions.
August 7th 2012 @ 10:11am
Macca said | August 7th 2012 @ 10:11am | Report comment
Matt F – Everyone likes a close season but do we want it by making everyone worse or by making everyone better?
Put a couple more top 10 draft picks into the mid tier teams (instead of the pick 30′s they got) of the last couple of years like North Carlton, Richmond, Sydney, Essendon & Adelaide and I would suggest you would have a very close season but the quality would be much higher.
August 7th 2012 @ 10:38am
Matt F said | August 7th 2012 @ 10:38am | Report comment
Has there ever been a season of like that though? You just don’t get 5-6 teams of superstars in the one competition. There’s not enough talent for that and the draft itself is designed to stop that from happening. You only have to look over the past 15-20 years (the draft era) to see that it just doesn’t happen. You either have a period with a truly great team like Brisbane or Geelong who basically sweep all before them (bar one or two occasional challengers who might pinch one) or you have periods like 05-06 and probably 96-98 where you have a bunch of good but not great teams competing for the flag.
You only have to look at teams like Richmond and Melbourne over the last 5-10 years (longer for the Tigers) to see that top draft picks don’t guarantee anything anyway. It’s remarkable how many superstars were drafted with late picks.
Besides, picks in the last 2-3 seasons (expansion drafts) probably wouldn’t be playing much in the top sides right now anyway. Kids take time to break into established, top 4-8 teams.
August 7th 2012 @ 10:52am
Macca said | August 7th 2012 @ 10:52am | Report comment
There may not have been as season like it before but that doesn’t mean there will never be one, the draft is making it more likely (or would be without the expansion teams corruption of it)
As far as top draft picks not playing if you look at North & Richmond I am sure they could of squeezed in another quality midiflelder, or Richmond would of loved a key forward? look at Carlton & Essendon, both have been hit hard by injury and would loved a second year high top 10 draft pick to make his mark? Toby Greene went at 11 & Devon Smith at 14 and that is without the likes of Jeremy Cameron pushing them further down, who knows Coniglio could have got to Richmond.
And as for superstars being drafted late that is true but again the number 60 pick is really a number 80 due to the removal of the 17 year olds like Cameron the year before
August 7th 2012 @ 11:56am
Matt F said | August 7th 2012 @ 11:56am | Report comment
The draft is designed to give the weker clubs better access to the best talent which should spread the talent around and make the competition more even. By it’s very nature it is supposed to the exact opposite of what you think it will do.
Sure North and Richmond might have drafted a gun (though given we’re only talking about the last 2 drafts it’s unlikely they’d be a significant factor in a premiership push anyway) but so could have Sydney, Hawthorn, Collingwood etc which would have meant the gap might actually increase, not decrease.
Besides there’s no guarantee that Richmond (or a similar club) would have drafted a gun player with a better pick. They may have picked a dud and wasted the pick. It happens quite a bit. Yes the quality of sides may increase (though it would increase further if we cut 4-6 teams) but the gap between the teams would probably widen which would mean a competition that’s not as open as this year.
There was no truly great team in 2005-06 and we can’t blame that on a compromised draft. I certainly don’t think that the 05-06 Swans, Eagles and Crows are better than this year’s top few sides. It’s cyclical. Every great team has an era that eventually comes to an end. More often than not there is a gap between when one great team ends and another begins. (Again 2004/5-2006 fell between Brisbane and Geelong.)
August 7th 2012 @ 1:13pm
Macca said | August 7th 2012 @ 1:13pm | Report comment
Matt F – Yes the draft is designed to make the comp more even and everyone would of got better picks so by logical extension every team would be better and the comp would still be as even.
And yes Richmond could well have wasted their pick but do you think all of Richmond, Carlton, North Essendon, Freo, Adelaide and Sydney would of wasted theirs?
And my argument isn’t that they wold suddenly be premiership contenders but that they would be better quality finalists.
August 7th 2012 @ 10:53am
Nathan of Perth said | August 7th 2012 @ 10:53am | Report comment
If we want super-high quality teams at the pointy end, then just drop the draft and the salary cap. You’ll see really amazing West Coast, Collingwood, Hawthorn and Essendon teams each year, every year. You’ll also see some of the cellar-dwellers be cellar-dwellers for eternity.
August 7th 2012 @ 11:00am
Macca said | August 7th 2012 @ 11:00am | Report comment
Nathan – Over the past 10 year we have seen to very high quality teams at the pointy end with a draft, and we would of again this year with a normal draft, but you can’t take out 60 of the best kids over 2 years and not see a drop in talent
August 7th 2012 @ 12:09pm
micka said | August 7th 2012 @ 12:09pm | Report comment
Everyone is subject to the same pressures so I don’t see it as an issue. I have seen no marked drop in talent. I don’t know how you could even prove that. The fact that the teams who poached all this “talent” aren’t going well would suggest the finalists aren’t missing out on anything seeing as they wouldn’t have been getting early round draft picks to begin with.
The likes of North, Richmond, Carlton and Essendon were being hailed as contenders at the start of the year. Their drop in quality is just the fact that they aren’t playing to their potential (North are going pretty well though). Can’t blame Richmond being massive chokers on expansion clubs taking 1 or 2 POTENTIALLY good players… possibly none, as I heard no one raving about the quality of the last couple of drafts…
Draft picks don’t make a super team. Carlton have certainly proven that to me.
August 7th 2012 @ 1:15pm
Macca said | August 7th 2012 @ 1:15pm | Report comment
Micka – The quality of the drafts for the last couple of years has been down, but that is because the Suns and Giants got to take the best players out before the draft, Jeremy Cameron didn’t get drafted, Patton could of only been number 3 or 4, Coniglio could of been 5 or 6
August 7th 2012 @ 1:32pm
checkside said | August 7th 2012 @ 1:32pm | Report comment
Macca – I think we all get your drift but there was no alternative. To start the expansion clubs the AFL had to come up with the priority draft. I dont think it hurt the other clubs or the competition overall in a permanent way. Me thinks you are not too keen on GWS or Gold Coast. Its not over yet – wait for Tasmania.
August 7th 2012 @ 1:40pm
Macca said | August 7th 2012 @ 1:40pm | Report comment
Yes there was an alternative, not go ahead with the expansion teams.
And you are right I am not too keen on them, I fail to see why we should put 2 new teams into regions that don’t really care about AFL and that will have to be financially supported for decades and it will not only put pressure on teams that were on the bottom when they came in like Melb, Port, the Bulldogs and Brisbane but dillute the top end as well.
August 7th 2012 @ 2:09pm
checkside said | August 7th 2012 @ 2:09pm | Report comment
Macca – I was in Sydney when the Sydney Swans started and a lot of people didnt care about Australian Rules in NSW and I can imagine it was the same in Queensland. It takes time. The AFL will never overtake Rugby League in the northern states and thats not its objective. We both agree how great our Australian game is and a lot of us are confident that the expansion clubs will get there and will become a force. I personally would have preferred the Tasmanian Devils and maybe a club based out of Canberra that also played a few games in Darwin – call them the Territorians – pie in the sky stuff, I know. Anyway it is what is and Mr Andrew Demetriou and crew with the AFL clubs backing agreed that this was the way ahead. You dont have to like mate. So go the GIANTS and go the SUNS!!
August 7th 2012 @ 2:13pm
Ian Whitchurch said | August 7th 2012 @ 2:13pm | Report comment
Checkside,
Never is a long time. If you’d asked in 1970 if rugby league and rugby union would overtake Australian Rules in canberra, the answer would have been “Never !”.
But the NRL and rugby union put professional teams there, and then Australian Rules slipped back.
August 7th 2012 @ 2:23pm
Macca said | August 7th 2012 @ 2:23pm | Report comment
And how are teh Swans and Brisbane travelling financially after being established for some time and having had success?
And is Mr Demetriou the pope now? Is it good for the game just because he wanted it?
August 7th 2012 @ 2:37pm
clipper said | August 7th 2012 @ 2:37pm | Report comment
Macca – that’s not really a good indication of how well they’re travelling. Just look and see how many league or Football clubs are making money – not too many. Melbourne is still being heavily subsidised by News Ltd after staying near the top for most of their time.
August 7th 2012 @ 3:23pm
Macca said | August 7th 2012 @ 3:23pm | Report comment
Clipper you make my point for me, putting expansion teams into areas where no one really cares about the sport means long terms subsidies. I believe that money is better spent elsewhere.
August 7th 2012 @ 6:50pm
clipper said | August 7th 2012 @ 6:50pm | Report comment
Yes, I see your point re GWS and the Storm – but the other point I was making is that not that many clubs make money, be they established or expansion. The Swans did make a profit this year, albeit smallish.