Blowout margins a worry for AFL: Mick Malthouse

I fear that with free agency the big clubs will get bigger with 3rd party legal and illegal deals and the clubs in non AFL heartland will be the losers...

Isnt this guy the afl equivilant of Wayne Bennett? Must be worth listening to...

pete no, you don't get big margins, the game is such that it naturally keeps scores low and close, but what Malthouse is referring to is what we see in England and Spain, where two or three teams monopolise the championship for years, sometimes even decades. With the Australian game, the tiniest discrepancy in quality between the teams immediately translates on the scoreboard, so we have a focus on trying to share the playing talent across all clubs via a draft and salary cap, as do the four big American sports. I notice that the A-League also runs a salary cap, and the reasons for doing so are clear: 1. you can't start a new league with new clubs and risk that 2 or 3 clubs will win everything for the next 15 years, it won't fly. Already, in six A-League seasons, there have been four champions - that's precisely what the salary cap is all about. 2. clubs need to be forced to run themselves in a financially responsible way, if you leave it to them, history shows that they will send themselves broke chasing silverware.

Don't agree with Malthouse re shortening the game. That's already been done once. Ridiculous response to a point in time issue.

Yep agree with Malthouse those European soccer scores 10, 15 and 20 goal winning margins those ones

This does make the very best that our code supposedly has to offer appear farcical, especially when you compare the closeness of any given contest within competing leagues. How many of the blow outs featured GC? Next season the League will have to sustain GWS, who will suffer even heavier defeats over ensuing seasons. I still say the AFL are running before they can walk in terms of expansion and this is just one indicator. Of course other codes are approaching their growth with the same frenzy i.e. a top down methodology, however these codes are generally low scoring so this disparity is no where near as evident as it is in ours and gets absorbed in that respect. Perhaps the scoring needs to be looked at although this goes against the grain since I am not an advocate of tinkering too much with our game. This evolution has been going on so much over recent years that footy is a very different animal to what I grew up with in the 50's through 80's anyway so why stop now? Something needs to change to ensure equity throughout the league I believe. Despite this growing polarization of clubs, many reputable footy heads are already talking up the next expansion. and what makes this even more incredulous is that this would include somewhere as ridiculous as NZ. You would hope sanity prevails given the the challenges that lie ahead for GC and GWS. This should surely rule out ever embarking on such an irresponsible folly as NZ. Honestly the bankers who dictate the future of our game seem incapable of distinguishing the trees from the forest. They really need to slow down take up yoga and meditate a bit to begin to start implementing some responsible governance. This means working more with what they have rather than always having to make everything bigger. Bigger is hardly ever better it simple creates the illusion of more choice for the consumer, compromising much quality to this end.

I read in yesterday's news that the rumour that DT was about to announce re-signing was just that, a rumour, which he has since denied. He did say that his preference was to stay at CFC, but it had to be at an "acceptable wage". I hope you are right and they were wrong, however.

daisy is said to have recently agreed to a 2-year extension

Never, ever thought I'd say it, but i think I'd like St Kilda to regain some competitiveness to help bolster flagging interest.

Yeh, I agree with that last point, in terms of game results, looking across the ladder, it's the most predictable season I can recall since pre-equalisation. In most seasons, you can count on, say, 3rd last pushing the 3rd top team, but definitely not this season. The bottom 4 haven't given a yelp against anyone (I think we can ignore the suns defeating the tiges), although the 13th placed dogs had a good win against the blues, but that's about it.

I wouldn't underestimate Hawthorn and Carlton for quality, or for that matter St Kilda when it comes to finals time.

Mick shouldn't spend too much time regretting his advantage at the moment. The salary cap will begin to weave its magic at Collingwood soon enough. Just ask DT.

Agree. Too early for conclusions and not discounting the two standouts, but it doesn't seem to be isolated to them. I've gotten used to being able to settle in to watch almost all matches, comfortable that I'd likely see a hard, fast and close contest. This season, unless a couple of the top five teams are playing each other that just doesn't seem likely and matches have seemed a boring prospect before they've even started. I've got zero way of explaining this one, but could the interchange rule have brought out something that has been there previously, but not able to be expressed on the scoreboard? I'm just throwing it out there, cos I certainly can't articulate it clearly.

Thanks for the response Cattery. I agree I dont get the sense it's permanent. I haven't seen that Age article yet, so will take a look, but I wonder sometimes whether stats tell the whole story. From relatively early on this season Ive been thinking this season lacked something, and it seems to be emerging in these high profile results. But if you remove the big margins, there still seems to be a predictability widespread throughout the season that has emerged very quickly. And that's not to disagree with the factors you highlight either.

It is a bit early to draw definite conclusions regarding huge margins.A few years ago many people thought that the interstate teams would dominate for decades but that hasn't happened.Being a Geelong supporter i am biased obviously but over the last five years i dont think there has ever been a more formidable side than the Cats at Geelong.Amazingly Collingwood are probably one of the best teams ever as evidenced by only two losses and a draw in thirty odd games.If the cats and pies combined they would beat a combined AFL team.Obviously the main difference between these two clubs and the other teams is that they have stand alone Vfl clubs where team structures are inculcated more easily in ever player on the list.Perhaps it is an unfair advantage that should be abolished.

Easy fix, bring in NRL ref Shane Hayne video ref Steve Clark and Refs boss harrigan who Roy Masters in print desribed " as a low penalty ref who kept scores close by making sure teams didnt run away with games" Harrigan didnt sue - wonder why?? Masters also said " the current refs are clones of harrigan"

Chris - far too early to conclude this is a permanent feature, except to say that with the Giants likely to replicate some of the Suns poorer efforts this year, means the current average loss of around 38 points will continue. A few things worth remembering: 1. there were actually three draws in the first four round this season, which wouldn'd have happened for a century (if it has ever happened); 2. there are two stand out teams this year - one wasn't predicted to be there because of their old list, so that has taken everyone by surprise; 3. on top of the Suns, Port and the Lions have bottomed out severely, but haven't been able to get their hands on the best young talent because of the Suns, and next year it will be because of the Giants. However, the teams from 4th (Carlton) to 13th (Bulldogs) have been relatively competitive between each other. It's possible that the preponderance of big margins the last few weeks, fresh in our memories, makes us think the very worst - but in fact, looking at the stats in The Age this morning, where they dedicate a full middle page spread on this "issue", the difference between this season, and some seasons from 2006 to 2009, for various metrics, are marginal. E.g. Winning margin 60+ points: 2008 - 36 2011 - 33 (season to date) 100+ pt margins are at their highest point at 7, with the Suns contributing two of those, but in 2007 and 2008 there were 5 respectively. Average winning margin is at 38.7 pts, the last highest was 35.9pts in 2008, it was 32.6 pts in 2007 - so we're talking, on average, one goal more. The last thing to remember is that despite the equalisation policies having worked well over the course of 25 years, the modern game has produced some of the very best team efforts ever: 1995 Carlton 20 wins 2 losses (H&A) 2000 Essendon 21 wins 1 loss 2007 to 2011, Geelong became the first team in the history of the comp to win 17 games or more in five consecutive seasons, and no doubt, Collingwood is heading to some sort of record if they keep going the way they're going. In other words, if you take a long term view, I doubt there is a big issue there (although this trend might continue for another season, unfortunately).

Just watching Offsiders. Plenty of observations, but not a single potential cause suggested. Can we start by recognizing that this wasn't happening last year or the years before that, which should give us some clues as to what's driving this.

This hasn't been a slowly evolving feature though. It's been rapid and isolated to this year. The last couple of years I've literally been amazed at how many close games (1 goal margin or less) there have been.think back to last year and the headlines were almost a polar opposite with draws and thrilling finishes week after week after week. That's evaporated this year and has been replaced by what we're seeing. So what's driving this? I don't buy suggestions relating to club financials and economic drivers or anything else that would take a number of years to work through the system. Whatever's causing these results has been driven by something that has changed this season.