What a weird few weeks in footy: the Adelaide Crows suffer a heavy defeat against St Kilda and coach Neil Craig walks away. Port Power suffer a heavy defeat against Collingwood and Matty Primus stays in charge. Figure that out.
The Melbourne Demons suffer a heavy defeat against Geelong and Dean Bailey gets the chop, and then vaguely admits to playing in a certain manner to ensure a good set of draft picks for the following year. Cripes.
No mention of player responsibility, though.
The Gold Coast Suns suffer a heavy defeat against Geelong and Guy McKenna stays in charge. Please explain?
What’s the difference – a single loss or a coach’s overall record?
Then to cap it all off, the Adelaide Advertiser points out that the ABC is considering pulling the plug on SANFL coverage in 2012. What hope is left for the administration of the sport then?
Now, before anyone shouts me down for suggesting that:
(a) Aussie Rules footy isn’t the greatest thing in the known universe
(b) Collingwood is clearly the most incredible entity in the cosmos,
(c) that there aren’t possibly better ways to run a sporting organisation, or
(d) that the sky is falling in a the entire space-time continuum will be vaporised if we don’t stick our fingers in our ears… let’s consider this zany action-packed period with a bit of a genuine critical eye.
Not slavishly negative, just a lingering, proper good look into what could be done to redress the issues at hand.
The sky ain’t falling in, just moving sideways (as Scottish progressive outfit Porcupine Tree would say).
Michael Lynch in the Sydney Morning Herald on August 7 put it simply.
“Footy prides itself on being the most equal competition, the one in which a salary cap and draft is specifically designed to ensure the teams are evenly-matched to produce close encounters.”
We then read from Collingwood boss Mick Malthouse that the scoreboard blow-outs in recent weeks are a worrying trend – and that the suited ones at AFL headquarters should be “concerned”, he told The Age‘s Ash Porter on August 7.
“I think consideration has to be given as to how the draw is operated – who plays who,” he added.
Bingo. That to me is still the biggest sticking point for the national competition – not so-called “tanking”.
I’ve never seen any AFL player drive onto a ground in a restored Panzer IV or M4 Sherman and blast a super-goal from outside the 900-metre line somewhere in the vicinity of the car park.
It’s the fixtures that are the focus here.
We like to pride ourselves in Australia on the supposed fact that the AFL elite series is absolutely even, fair and totally spell-bindingly giddy entertainment, week-in, week-out.
Have we become slowly deluded? It is plainly not even, nor fair, nor always as exciting as footy fanatics would have us believe.
Yet nobody ever seems to ask why or what steps should be taken to do something about it.
Why, for example, is it the controlling body’s fault if teams lose a lot?
Is it the job of the AFL (as said governing body) to ensure teams are competitive? Heck no! That’s the job of the clubs, those running them, the coaches and players.
Like any contest, you have to beat the best to be the best – assemble a better roster of players, don’t ask for a handout from the governing body.
Collingwood president Eddie McGuide – and I don’t always agree with him – told the Herald Sun‘s Sam Edmund on August 9 that the AFL shouldn’t simply prop up ailing teams.
“If you’ve got clubs who think the only way they can prosper is to meekly put their hands out and maybe get a few crumbs off the table of the AFL, they’re never going to fight their way to the top,” McGuire said.
Yet woebetide anyone daring to ever even hint that a fair and equal fixture list would be at least one problem out of the way and return a bit of integrity to the competition.
Does it not matter simply because there’s nothing else to really compare it to? Surely the principle holds true regardless?
I am not saying that the AFL must turn itself (as in, the game as played out on the field) into any other sport. All I am asking is why it is seen as strangely perfectly acceptable every single year to have a lop-sided fixture list?
And this includes me not saying the AFL must transform entirely into the EPL, although the question is a valid one.
Is the fact that there may be only a few teams capable of winning a title a reason to avoid a fair fixture?
Sure, if there was promotion and relegation in Australian Rules footy, you’d have more interest at the lower end of the ladder. True. But again, just because the AFL is the apparent be-all and end-all, shouldn’t it still matter?
Fairness is when there are six cans of Coke in a box and I give two to each of my two friends nearby.
Fairness is not team A meeting team B, then C, D, E, A, F, G, H, B and probably completely missing out on seeing I, J and K again for another year and a half.
Fairness is not a team like Collingwood (as good as they may be) getting over half their season’s matches at home, nay, probably the same stadium.
Fairness is not about using terms like “my team had an easy draw this year”. There should be no such thing as an “easy” or “hard” draw if it’s truly fair. Either it is fair or it is not.
The solution is simple – either everyone plays everyone once and there’s room for extra play-offs, State Of Origin (remember that?) and IRF Tests, etc. Or scrap the pre-season and everyone plays everyone twice. Why, oh why is it so hard to grasp?
As Patrick Smith put it so eloquently in The Australian on August 6 – the AFL continues to pick and choose the issues it thinks are worth dealing with.
Players betting on own team? Check. Horrendously lop-sided fixture list? Nah, we’ll keep letting that one pass, for years and years.
“The league’s integrity is a stick-on transfer,” Smith wrote.
“And it only plonks it on issues where it best suits the league…Australian rules is a wonderful sport but as a business it truly stinks.”
He added three days later that “as long as the AFL’s stated aims are to increase attendance and ratings, the big clubs must be favoured…”
Collingwood – Smith’s example, not necessarily mine here – gets to play on Friday nights, a blockbuster opponent every second weekend, is favoured in the fixture and as a result can attract the dollars to make it grow even more powerful.
Hardly the picture of fairness those running the competition would like us to dearly hold to, is it? No, it’s called success – and as a club, good on the Pies if they play well with the resources they have.
But again, success shouldn’t be able to be built on the back of an unfair fixture.
“The AFL chief executive Andrew Demetriou continues to brush aside any criticism of his administration,” said Smith.
“The lop-sidedness of the competition should be of no concern to anyone…there is naught to worry your little minds about. Hush now.”
Brilliantly put. Maybe at the close of season 2011, there will be some at AFL headquarters who will take note and help everyone to wake up to the inequity of it all.
And for the nth time, none of this is meant to be me having a go at the sport itself. I believe there’s little wrong at all with the game – as in the players running around passing a pill and trying to get it through the big sticks at either end. Perfectly fine there.
It’s the other guff outside every Saturday (or Friday night or Sunday twilight) that irritates the public – and that includes me. Like this.
Contrary to what you may have been told, people – high-scoring matches don’t turn fans off. Plainly inequitable fixture lists do. Find a way to get it right, please!
ManInBlack
Guest
For a team like North, the major blight currently is the non scalability of 'home grounds'.
The Cattery
Roar Guru
The age of the team tells me that this could be one last hoorah for a while.
Bayman
Guest
Cattery, "there should be no guarantees of success, just a relatively even spread of opportunity". I could not have put it better myself. P.S. And I, for one, hope the Catterys get up this year!
The Cattery
Roar Guru
I agree with the gist of the argument, and personally I am glad of that. The policies create a more even competitive environment, but there remains much which club administrations can influence. That's a good thing, there should be no guarantees of success, just a relatively even spread of opportunity, at the end of the day, it remains a competition, and you still have to line up a lot of ducks.
Bayman
Guest
Ben, You're right about cricket and the ICC regarding Australia's domination but they are not the same circumstances as those that exist in football. The AFL DOES have an equalisation policy (through the draft and the salary cap) and this IS why people are concerned. I agree, the odd blow-out will happen and it may not mean much in the end. I once saw Glenelg beat Central Districts by 238 points at Glenelg and, from memory, Centrals won the next three games played between the two at Glenelg. The problem now seems to be that two teams, Collingwood and Geelong, are streets ahead of most of the others. Certainly the likes of Hawthorn, West Coast and Carlton may be competitive against them (and jag the odd game) but the rest are outclassed. We can accept the Suns getting hammered because we know their situation and also know they have talent which will come through with more experience. Melbourne and Port, however, are a concern. Those efforts were simply unacceptable in a professional game. When Centrals lost to Glenelg people commented that they never gave up - they were simply outclassed - and it was just a "one-off". Melbourne and Port just gave up. As someone pointed out in a comment here it is difficult to accept that the combined player salaries of Collingwood and Port were so close because nothing else was remotely close. Same with Geelong and Melbourne. It would be a brave man to argue that Melbourne's follow up effort was a vast improvement. I await with interest to see how Port Adelaide respond to the Collingwood debacle. The game may not be kaputski because of a 100 point blow-out. But several 100 point blow-outs may indicate a problem. That problem may not be cured by time either. When, and if, Collingwood dramatically fall and Port again rises we may see that Port beat the Maggies by 100 points. The question is, "Has the basic problem been solved by the two teams reversed circumstance?" Footy may be a "funny game" but only the Maggie fans were laughing the other night.
Bayman
Guest
Cattery, You make an interesting point regarding the premiership winners in the two eras. However, as you suggested, the two eras operated under different conditions. Clearly, the "equalisation policy" has been more successful, as we would have hoped, in sharing the wealth (ie premierships). The old days of Collingwood, Carlton etc attracting the best players based on their wealth and history are gone. Having said that, of course, we now find Collingwood and Carlton back where they would always expect to be - at or near the top. It wasn't that long ago (1986) that Carlton recruited Kernahan, Bradley and Motley in the same season. They were then, along with Platten, arguably the four best young players in Adelaide and the Blues got three of them (and were trying to get Platten!). Of course, they won flags in 1987 and 1995 and were a good team throughout that period. In those days it might be argued that the teams with the best administration were the most successful. North Melbourne's rise was on the back of some astute recruiting and smart management. Today we have "equalisation" through the draft and the salary cap and I, for one, have no problem with it. The basic idea is that every team wins the flag in the cycle then waits (now) seventeen years for the next one. In truth, teams like Geelong (and, perhaps, Collingwood this year) mess that up with multiple flags which theoretically condemns a team or two to miss their turn. Perhaps, good management still wins flags even in this era. It is difficult to criticise Geelong and Collingwood for their off-field performance when you see the result of the teams they've put together. Father/son rules may have helped but that doesn't explain the young guys coming in and being good players straight away - Menzel, Vardy, Beams, Fasolo etc. Not to mention Podsiadly. Good luck or good management? We now have talk of some teams having an advantage through their football department. This equates, no doubt, to additional income and spending based on a number of factors (success, history and management among them). I suspect that while 1975 and 1977 were golden years for North Melbourne it is equally true that now is not the time to be a Kangaroos supporter. Nor next year or the year after that. Regardless of the era, and the off-field systems in place, teams like Collingwood, Essendon and Carlton have relatively few "down eras" and when they do it doesn't last long. Other teams, like the Doggies, Saints, Roos, Demons, Tigers seem to have relatively few "up eras" and when they do it doesn't last very long. Why is it so? It has to be management (which includes recruiting, of course) and the difficulties of generating income in a city when the traditional powers have a huge advantage based on what has gone before. An obvious example is Collingwood's huge fan and member base which exists largely on the back of four flags in a row in the 1920s which is nearly a century ago. Certainly the Maggies have been seriously competitive since then but the fact remains they've only won four flags since 1936 (mind you, they've lost a few GFs they might have won on another day). As George Orwell might have said (had he been an Aussie Rules fan), "All teams are equal - but some are more equal than others!" I imagine it will always be so.
The Cattery
Roar Guru
The concept has intuitive appeal, but I still think the case is overstated. For instance, until 1986 the VFL had a balanced draw with all 12 teams playing each other H&A. In the 20 seasons from 1967 till 1986 inclusive, five different teams won premierships (Rich, Carl, North, Haw, and Ess). What has happened in the last 20 seasons, from 1991 till 2010 inclusive where there has been an unbalanced AFL draw but with an equalisation policy in operation? 12 different teams have won a premiership during those 20 seasons (there were 16 teams through most of those seasons). So which was "fairer"? The perfectly balanced fixture of the VFL, or the current modus operandi of the AFL? How are we measuring "fairness"? By gut feel or are we pursuaded by the greater opportunity extended to teams to compete. Is there a point to a balanced draw if you're only making up the numbers with a salaries budget a sixth the size of the big clubs that will win the comp? Under which criteria is that deemed fair?
Ben Carter
Roar Guru
Hi Cattery - tricky but worthy point. If the AFL was a league-only first-past-the-post system (a la the EPL, and again, fellow Roarers, I'm stressing the format of the competition, not one sport as better than another) - then yes, a complete home and away fixture would arguably matter more as there is only one singular aim for every single team. With a "finals series" (however it's structured), does a perfectly balanced fixture matter? I'd still say yes, to a degree it does. At the very least it would be preferable, as it would mean every team has been given an equal chance to meet the same opponents the same number of times in an attempt to gain the best possible post-season position.
The Cattery
Roar Guru
Well...yes, no and maybe. How are we to deduce what fair means? Is it more important that teams play each other twice (as opposed to one, three, four or six times)? Should a champion be declared after one, two or four seasons? Maybe even after half a season? (as happens in Argentina with the apertura and clausura). Or is it more important that each team that participates in the competition has the same opportunity of devoloping a list capable of winning as many games as it loses (just for starters)? As soon as you have a top 8 finals system, with the champion being the winner of the grand final - to what extent does a perfectly balanced fixture matter?
The Cattery
Roar Guru
stabpass It's a bit strange that anyone would view the AFL as being like WWE. There was a very good reason why Hunt was cramping up by half time - something tells me he wasn't putting it on. Elsewhere, a few are likening tanking to match fixing, with a straight face. In the same context, some poster decides to mix up the issue of performance enhancing drugs with the AFL's recreational drug use policy, just for something new. Someone else put up an honest assesment that the true value of the AFL TV rights is $500 million over 10 years. Naturally all of these considered conclusions have been derived at with full understanding and knowledge of the issues and in a completely objective manner. Absolutely none of these people would have a motive for mixing up all of these disparate issues, no siree. How could you possibly think otherwise?
Ben Carter
Roar Guru
Hi Stabpass - perhaps slightly paranoid in this case. There's certainly no agenda (as I've made clear in my post, more than once. An opinion, yes - that's what The Roar is for. An opening for discussion, yes). I just thought the line from Matthews was a light-hearted way of describing the present debate about inequity, etc. Yes, the injuries in footy can be terrible, and wouldn't wish those setbacks on any players' career at all. I'm not writing with the intent of rubbishing the physical effort of AFL players. There was just a silly, fun playfulness about the way Matthews put his view across - call it an apparent touch of the nudge-wink...as if there are a few people connected with the national competition who might be all in on the fixture-list caper... :-)
Stabpass
Guest
Yep sure Ben, The AFL is equivalent to WWE, ...... everyone who gets injured playing football, just gets back up. like WWE. The poor melbourne player who broke his leg on the weekend, will be playing next week, just like John Cena coming back from Randy Orten breaking a chair on him on him ....... maybe i am paranoid, but do you have some sort of agenda here ?.
Ben Carter
Roar Guru
Thanks for your input Stabpass :-)
Stabpass
Guest
Good post, and some truth about Collingwood, but remember (if you may) that at the start of the year, there was a whole stack of draws. .... a lot can change in a little while !. I too watched a bit of the Port/Collingwood game, and what Port lacked in skill, can be made up in desperation (to a degree) , the big problem Port had was a lack of heart, and if you play with a lack of heart, you are gunna get flogged. Blowouts will happen, next week it will be something different.
Ben Carter
Roar Guru
Hi Searly - perhaps that's a part of it too - the venues available rather than the team success. Collingwood and eight other sides (not counting Geelong) share two venues (MCG and The Dome) in one city. Therefore, because there's so many games in Melbourne each week, it feels like it's less balanced. If every team had their own home venue, there would be a genuine road-trip feel (and away-fans feel) every round. The same could even be said of the WA/SA/QLD teams - should both Freo and the WEagles be at Subiaco? Should one move elsewhere to the nearest biggest WAFL ground? Ditto SA - Crows at Adelaide Oval, Power at Footy Park (etc)...
Searly
Guest
If the AFL and all the other Melbourne clubs are inherently keen to maximise the number of blockbusters Collingwood plays in Melbourne against other Melbourne teams (which is the case) then it stands to reason that there will, as a result, be less space in the fixture for Collingwood to play elsewhere. It's hardly Collingwood's fault that everyone wants to play against them at the MCG in front of 70k + fans each week and that the draw is then organised accordingly. Does the number of North Melbourne games played interstate include all the home games they've sold to places like Tassie etc?
Ben Carter
Roar Guru
Hi Jason - if that's true, then the Pies have played outside Victoria an average of barely three times per season over the last three decades.... Definitely food for thought. Less than one game a year in Western Australia... Hmmm.....
Jason
Guest
A bit more statistical analysis: - Number of games Collingwood has played interstate since 1982: 101 - Number of games North Melbourne has played interstate since 1982: 146 - Number of games Collingwood has played in WA: 23 - Number of games North Melbourne has played in WA: 31 - Number of games Collingwood has played at Kardinia Park: 41 - Number of games North Melbourne has played at Kardinia Park: 54 Just some food for thought...
Trev
Guest
Simply the fairest draw would be all teams play each other twice, one at home one away.
Ben Carter
Roar Guru
Just read a brilliant line from Leigh Matthews on AFL.com, posted today. "Maybe we all have to adjust quicker to the fully professional era and accept the AFL is firstly an exercise in sports entertainment and only secondly a fair competition with an equal playing field for every club." That would put the AFL on the same level as WWE. Next questions that follow - who is the "most electrifying man in sports-entertainment" (the AFL kind) and who owns "the people's eyebrow" as a signature move?... :-)