It says a lot about the standard of Shield cricket that Ricky Ponting was easily the highest run scorer last season and when he was last in the test team he could barely make runs. The competition seems to be a long way off being world class.

Any potential advantage that Essendon could have got would have been lost during the off-season before pre-season training began and due to the horrific injury run. It is more likely that the Bombers started 2013 pre-season behind the curve due to the way they finished 2012.

Pre-seasons are cumulative only to the extent that they can be maintained, the number of soft-tissue injuries the Bomber players experienced during 2012 would have surely offset any potential gains.

You may very well be correct about your scenario but I just don’t think that a team full of injured or semi-injured players could maintain any advantages from the 2012 pre-season.

It would be naive to think that the results this season are based on PEDs.

Most of the drugs mentioned during the investigation so far have minor performance enhancing properties and would not be affecting the players in 2013. Not to mention the fact that to the best of my knowledge, no Essendon player has tested positive to PEDs which indicates that biologically nothing is at an unusual level. Despite what some might want to believe, Essendon is not on steroids of HGHs which have an identifiable effect on performance.

Harming of reputation would be almost impossible for the AFL to prove given the game is about to have its most successful season on record. The AFL would be unable to do it quite simply because they do not have the analytical ability to do so.

If conduct was unbecoming or prejudicial to the interests of the AFL then it would all appear in the KPIs that I have discussed briefly in my article. This saga has arguably been beneficial to the AFL given the amount of coverage that has been generated. Indeed, it is widely believe that the AFL has leaked information that has created additional coverage, which is a strange action to undertake if one is trying to preserve the damage done to one’s reputation or interests.

Personally I find it highly disturbing that the AFL commission only needs to form the ‘opinion’ that the ‘conduct was unbecoming’ rather than prove that it was so. I am glad that most workplaces do not work by those principles.

Finally, Peter Ryan’s article was excellent, it was how I found the list of quite laughable applications of 1.6 in the past.

Essentially yes. The ‘disrepute’ charge is always reliant on the media’s role so if the AFL has increased the coverage by leaking the information then they could certainly be viewed as ‘bringing the game into disrepute’. However, unfortunately that would involve them charging themselves and then acting as judge, jury and executioner at their own trial.

It shouldn’t be viewed in a black or white manner. Both parties can share some fault, and Essendon certainly was not the only club that was engaged in widespread injection of players. Essendon may deserve a majority of fault but that does not mean that another party cannot share some fault.

The AFL were certainly negligent in regards to their understanding of sports science. Doping was the inevitable end to the AFL’s ‘arms race’ where each club spends more and more trying to find the smallest of competitive edges. If it hadn’t been Essendon it would’ve been someone else and it would’ve happened fairly soon. Either they didn’t understand it or they didn’t care; both are fairly damning.

But the AFL has always put their head in the sand and pretended that problems don’t exist. They were adamant that tanking did not exist in the AFL, despite massive incentives to lose, everybody else knowing that tanking was happening and tanking being widespread in basically every competition in the world where there is a draft or other incentives to lose.

I definitely believe there is an issue with the AFL charging Essendon and then also acting as judge, jury and executioner. Demetriou’s role in this is about as clear as mud.

The conflict on interest present for the AFL is one of the reasons that I hope that the situation goes to court, even though personally I’d prefer the saga to be finished.

The AFL probably thought that no one would ever do it?

You are suggesting that in a professional sport the AFL did not have the foresight to believe that any team could use PEDs? If that is so then that is a massive failure of governance on behalf of the AFL. It would, quite frankly, be extraordinary.

It is particularly extraordinary given Brisbane’s use of intravenous drips in 2001 and the fact that clubs using injections was hardly a surprise when the Essendon situation was announced earlier this year:
http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/hawks-set-the-pace-in-injection-science-20120924-26hhg.html

Finally, the reputation charge should exist for situations when the AFL’s reputation has been materially harmed. We do not know that this is the case because nobody bothered to quantify what effect this saga has had on the AFL. What we do know though is that the AFL is about to conclude what is financially its most successful season in history.

You’ve offered nothing but speculation.

The history of this charge can be mapped out quite clearly and there is no evidence that any individual or team charged with it has had a noticeable impact on the reputation or success of the AFL. In February, Melbourne were fined for not tanking and we are about to have the most successful season on record according to a range of metrics.

The AFL does not know the effect that the saga has had on its reputation. Of course it doesn’t because there is no evidence. There is plenty of speculation, you’ve even shown yourself capable of that, but no actual evidence.

People might disagree with me but as far as I’m concerned if a person is charged with something then the accuser better be sure that the actual ‘crime’ was committed. It is doubly important when the accuser also gets to be be judge, jury and executioner.

As I wrote in my article, there is very real evidence that Essendon should be punished for its governance and we have already seen a number of key figures resign. But the Bombers are not being charged for those failures they are being charged with something entirely different and something which may not have happened. I find that problematic.

Traditionally championships were determined by dominant big men. A key reason for this is, I believe, that a great centre can have a far greater effect on the defensive end – far more than even the best perimeter defenders. Until Jordan came along there were not too many examples of teams winning a championship with a leading centre or power forward.

This trend has changed somewhat with defensive rules adjusted to make perimeter scoring more palpable. Not to mention the greater reliance on the three-point shot. Nevertheless, since 2000 Shaq and Duncan won eight championships between them and Kobe didn’t look likely to win numbers four or five until Pau Gasol came to town.

The last time a team won a title with a PG as their best player was with Magic Johnson, although some might argue that LeBron effective plays the PG role (in addition to most other positions as well).

The main thing to note is that the NBA is a superstar driven league. Magic / Bird won eight between them, Jordan won six, Shaq / Duncan won eight and now LeBron has two. That is 24 titles since 1980. If you don’t have the best player (or the next best player) you are highly unlikely to win a title and PGs are rarely the best player in the league.

But I think it should be said that ‘championships’ are too narrow a definition of success. Only one team per season achieves that. And yet there is countless examples of fantastic PGs having a material impact on their teams success. An injury to Westbrook completely derailed the Thunders season, the Clippers would not have made the playoffs without Chris Paul. Steve Nash at the Suns had an incredible effect on his teams performance, as did Jason Kidd at the Nets. It isn’t that they are not important it is simply that they haven’t quite been good enough.

A very good point.

The stronger the global talent pool the less dominant Australian should be in a given sport. Sports such as swimming and tennis and to a lesser extent cricket have become more globalised and it is not a surprise that we are less dominant than we once were. We are a tiny nation that continues to punch above its weight in global sports.

I’m also not sure that Australian football is taking more talented sportsman than they have been doing for decades. Certainly it did not seem to effect the cricket team during the 90s and early 2000s when we not only had the best cricket team but possibly could’ve fielded the second best team. And I’d say that the current weak period has more to do with poor development and the focus on hit & giggle cricket (T20s) than it does the AFL.

There’s a lot of great Indigenous talent but it does not run very deep due to sheer numbers. Any injuries would really deplete their lineup.

Plus look at some of the names you have mentioned: Johncock just retired, Lovett-Murray will likely retire, Jurrah will never get back in the AFL.

Well I wouldn’t know about that but I doubt it matters a great deal :p

Plus practically every type of advanced statistics in basketball favours the likes of Shaq and David Robinson over Kobe Bryant. For example, Shaq and Robinson have the 3rd and 4th highest PERs in NBA history, while Kobe is ranked 20th.

And it makes sense because bigmen tend to have far more influence defensively than guards or forwards. Lists such as the one in this article seem to focus primarily on offence – though to give Ryan credit he obviously considers the defensive side to Pippen in that selection and rightly so.

But I think on a whole the list is probably too offensively focused for my liking and that leads to some suggestions that I find difficult to justify.

Of course you should be ruthless. But I’d start with cutting players who are vastly less productive first and then worrying about which player is the best at playing ‘hero ball’ and who was lucky enough to play with Shaq.

Lets have a look at the NBA Final runs for Kobe:

1999/2000: Kobe – 2.1 WS (19.3 PER); Shaq – 4.7 WS (30.5 PER)
2000/01: Kobe – 3.8 WS (25.0 PER); Shaq – 3.7 WS (28.7 PER)
2001/02: Kobe – 2.6 WS (20.3 PER); Shaq – 3.6 WS (28.3 PER)
2003/04: Kobe – 2.9 WS (21.0 PER); Shaq – 3.9 WS (24.8 PER)

So in four runs to the finals Kobe has 11.4 WS compared with Shaq’s 15.9 WS so Shaq was roughly 40 per cent more productive over those four final runs – and it becomes 60 per cent more productive if you exclude 2000/01. Kobe was not a role player but he was not close to being the best player on those championship teams and his legacy should reflect that.

For comparison, Kobe was 17 per cent more productive than Pau Gasol over their three NBA Final runs. And yet most people would erroneously believe that Kobe was a more important part of the first three titles than Gasol was in the last two.

Shaq was fat, unfit and uninterested for probably most of his career but he was still a more productive and valuable player than Kobe. The statistical difference between the two players is significant and should not be ignored.

A return to the old format might do that but obviously I am not proposing a system that just caters for Vic, SA and WA fans.

I want to highlight the growth of the game in NSW and Qld, I would like more people to know that there is almost 100 players on an AFL list in 2013 that grew up in NSW or Qld.

I agree that a three state Origin format would be awful and would alienate supporters from other states but I see no reason why you cannot be inclusive and derive a system involving all states. And that should only promote the game in non-traditional football states and that can only be a good thing.

I think any format would struggle to take off in the pre-season. Most of the gun players are either not fully fit or are just easing into the beginning of the season. Football during the NAB Cup and even in round 1 is usually fairly substandard.

For any format to take off I think you need players to be at their best to provide a good game of football and I’m not sure that would be the case in the pre-season. Although you are right, I wish we could ditch the NAB Cup.

I think the AFLPA would agree if there was financial compensation for the players and I think their should be. Always hard to know how much interest there is among the players and fans given the AFL’s paralysis on the issue.

Only problem with an Indigenous team is that it would completely gut a Northern Territory team. There would be significant crossover. Plus I’m not really sure I like the visual of an all white team wiping the floor with an Indigenous team, which is what would happen if the Indigenous team played against Victoria, WA and SA.

An international team would certainly be something that the league should aspire to but I imagine it would be some way off. At least at the moment they’d have a fantastic ruck division (Natanui and Pyke).

Biggest omission from the list is David Robinson. Just to put into perspective how productive The Admiral was, he has more Win Shares than Kobe Bryant despite playing 11k less minutes over his career – it took Kobe almost four additional seasons worth of minutes and 252 extra games and he was still less productive than Robinson.

While Pippen is certainly underrated, The Admiral is the most underrated superstar in NBA history and given you didn’t include him as an honourable mention it probably isn’t even close. Jason Kidd for example played 16k more minutes to be 3/4 as productive as Robinson and don’t get me started on how overrated Isiah Thomas was.

Also Shaq behind Kobe is extremely hard to justify since the entire basis of Kobe’s rankings on such lists involves Shaq dragging him to three titles early in his career. His numbers and efficiency do not stack up to the best players of the last 30 years so the championships presumably push him over the line.

I’m not sure they’d do it.

If you combined more players with a interchange cap, then you could guarantee that most players would get a solid rest throughout the match.

Well that’s always possible. I’m not sure whether Australians have really embraced the idea of an All-Star game in the past.

Thanks James. Appreciate it.

Something will eventually break regarding the work load of players and I suspect it will be coaches changing their game plans to reduce the load on players.

Remember that it was not all that long ago that there were only one or two players on the interchange bench and those players rarely came on to the field. The added workload for players is due to coaches pushing them to an unsustainable level and if something is unsustainable then obviously it will not last.

As for including Origin on top of that, well I would make it so that each team had 25 players rather than the normal 21 players and a sub. I would hope that this would lead to the coaches of the state teams using their players in a more intelligent manner (longer breaks and not making 200 interchange rotations).

What exactly about this plan would take the league 25 years backwards? I have heard such things discussed about a return to the Vic / SA / WA system but this plan is notable because it embraces the national competition and the AFL’s push into non-traditional football states. If anything such a format might actually grow the sport rather that take it back 25 years.

Or Vic Metro and Vic Country for the SA / WA anger!