Kurt –

how many publicy funded stadia are there to start with?? only one. The new soccer/rugby stadium.

Melbourne doesn’t NEED anything for once every 2 years game of soccer or rugby.

And the ARU, NRL and FFA have about a zero sum history of contributing to major stadia funding,

whilst the AFL is contracted to pay for the MCG and Docklands.

Reality right now is that if E-Gate is not part of a proposed WC bid array of stadiums,….then there’ll be no federal funding no matter how good any idea it is. Why? Because half a dozen games for the benefit of FIFA in 12 years time is seemingly more important than on going economic justifications. The sooner this bid either wins or loses, the better – as, normal economic principles could once again apply.

However, in the state of Victoria, the AFL has a heap of trouble unlocking state funding – – – so, perhaps their best chance is a multi purpose venue!!

btw – not sure why this article is on the AFL tab??

good one, I hadn’t seen that yesterday, and only with the link up a bit higher to the Martin Flanagan story from 12 months ago did I note he’d been embedded at Melbourne for 2009,…….and seeing this now that he’s doing the book/story explains why.

It should be a good read.

I wonder if Mr.Football has a copy of “Southern Sky, Western Oval”.

btw –

the pride returning to MFC as well as the AFL community regaining pride IN MFC is important. It would be an absolute tragedy for the ‘founding’ club to be lost. Thankfully MFC has managed to increase membership – – but, I think it was still pointed out recently that with about 20,000 of MCC members nominating that they ‘support’ Melbourne FC- – the MCC vs MFC arrangement is still an issue. It’s getting better though, it seems. For 2010, about 10,000 held ‘dual memberships’, and MFC membership options were included in the MCC renewal forms sent to MelbFC supporting MCC members.

This is a good article about Jimmy Stynes family,

including talking about his father Brian (senior),

and brother Brian (junior),

and how the 5 siblings now all live in Australia,……a net gain for the nation me thinx.

This article includes some interesting stuff about University, as well as a nice reflection on Ray ‘Slug’ Jordan.

MVDave –

re the Galahs, yep, here’s a link to a pretty good pdf article about Harry (Beitzel) and the Galahs..

Barassi was selected and made captain coach.

That was back to 1967.

Interesting that this Irish lad is a 10 year follower of the game from afar and had his own Essendon jumper.

Small steps?

a sign for the future?

reasonable question – – not sure of official attendances as there weren’t in enclosed fields or charging admittance, but, more matches were reporting attendances of a few to several hundred, i.e. around 300 to 700 range.

Just how that was made up……who knows.

But, for a first go at the tournament – – quite possibily by it’s 3rd or 4th iteration, it might be starting to hold a bit more gravitas…….especially once you get a chance to develop rivalries within the structure of an annual (or however often) European championships. Previously, full scale internationals b/w nations tended more to the ad hoc and were more likely in the lead up to an IC tourney in Australia. I guess that’s one question – – will these European Championships be annual, or every year prior to an IC or what?? The reference to the tourney as EC2010 has been very much as a lead in to next years IC……so, I’m not sure that the next installment won’t be EC2013.

crystal balls can be as useless as glass jaws.

Fussball –

why does it matter??

if I’ve said nothing wrong – – then, the message is not at issue.

So, you’d rather attack the man??

Tut tut.

If you want your say – visit the AFL website for the survey on the proposals.

Daren –

Soccer at inception had no x-bars, allowed fair catches and hadn’t nutted out corners until they merged with the lads from Sheffield. Since then – – they haven’t tinkered much, a bit of stuff around passive off side, direct and in-direct free kicks etc but they resolutely refuse to do anything about goal-line technology, refuse to do anything about taller, fitter, more athletic goalies guarding the same size goal mouth, or do anything about only a single ref on the pitch with a watch to be both judge and juror on the game, it’s adjudication and it’s timings. As an example of ‘stability’ – – soccer is more an example of having been bogged down………..that said, we can understand that the confliction of the global games various confederations and national political agendas makes it hard to effect change.

The other ‘global’ game of Rugby Union – – – they don’t change much……oh, except the Stellenbosch ELV’s and the way both RU and RL have transformed over the years from games focussed on scoring goals as the major point winner to now where in RL the goal is an after thought, the try is the major point scorer and kicking is a niche skill of absolute specialists.

RL is the altimate example – – create a whole new code!!! Adapt and change the rules, get rid of a couple of players. RL in the 4 tackle rule and 5 metre rule, and then a couple of years on the 6 tackle rule…….designed to counteract the negative influence of the coaches and to ensure the opportunities for negative play were eradicated. Over the years they’ve tinkered constantly with interchange or not and how many, with golden point and extra time or not etc around drawn matches.

NOW – – all this said – I’m not saying I support any or many of the current AFL ideas for comment. However – I do assert that the AFL is not on it’s own at review the laws of it’s game. That doing so is NOT a bad thing. That the AFL ought be commended for opening up it’s website on a very regular basis for feedback……..go take the survey on the AFL website.

What has happened here (re AFL) is that widespread public discussion has been sparked. That’s not a bad thing. Far better than a bunch of university academics behind closed doors!!

And I agree about leaving the scoring as is. The interchange though – – deserves review. Mainly because it needs to be reviewed as per it’s intended purpose. Is it primarily a source of cover for injured players?? It’s gone from a single sub (19th man) to 2 subs who then became interchangeable and then Sheedy ensured we got to 4 I/C players and now people have figured that high rotation of those 4 players is a good way to gain a competitive advantage. I guess – – now is the time to work out for sure – – is the great game of Australian football supposed to be about on field rotations in the main?? Resting rover in a frwd pocket on a small defender, resting ruckman in a forward pocket on a tall defender, ruck rovers off the forward flank……….or do we get a more dynamic array of players with 4 free I/C players? Or should it be some mix of free I/C and subs…………

I reckon it’s a debate worth having. Better now than not at all.

That all

Hitting the post on the way through is deemed to be effectively clipping the boundary because the posts give the ‘boundary’ a vertical component.

It may be pedantic – but, the posts are there.

The posts aren’t there to say the ball didn’t ‘cross’ the boundary – – – simply to say that they represent the thick margin b/w a goal and a behind or a behind and out of bounds.

Now – consider for a minute a driving test to pass through a gate way…….hitting the gate posts is deemed a failure, the post represents failure…..not success. You may just bush the gate, and get the car through, but, the bent mirror and scratched paint work says you failed. That’s because, it’s not a touching exercise!!!!! There’s a qualitative compoent.

Think of an AFL goal as a scoring gate. Hitting the post represents failure.

Actually on the qualitative aspect – that’s why I’ve always loved the 9 pt goal in the NAB cup,……and similar to the 3 pt shot in basketball. NAB cup perhaps needs a 9 pt also for a goal kicked from a set shot from starting over the boundary line………at any rate, these sorts of qualitative measures can encourage style and flair rather than total pragmatism…….i.e. torpies from 60 out, actually, on that front, ’twas great to see Goldsack attempting to unleash torpies for the Pies on Sat night, he got one, mungrelled a couple. Just great to see,…..that and some contested 1 on 1 play in recent weeks and speccies and………ah the footy is going okay.

Good to see the smiley’s on there………

‘cos,

as if your self portrait from the upper thighs down isn’t enough to ensure reading the comments in jest, then, the smiley’s ensure that no offence is taken.

Nice pins btw!

😉

1013 now.

Fussball –

point out where I was wrong??

alas Tom, there are some using these other codes as the reference point on this.

That I don’t like.

The premise needs to be entirely an AFL specific imperative. As you refer to – – the ‘internal logic’…..

And frankly I don’t see a need for change. If discernable, then the ball hitting the post is declared the less value of the shared boundaries of that post. The assertion can simply be that to achieve the higher value, the ball needs to fully and entirely clear the boundary, just as, a ball is only ‘out on the full’ when it fully exceeds the boundary line,……not landing on the line.

To retain the integrity and consistancy of the laws of the game – – this change ought not be instituted as, in my opinion it defies the ‘internal logic’ of the game.

btw – I’m no fan of the rebounding. The game has enough ‘chaos’ theory as it does largely due to no off-side, no ‘knock on’ and the shape of the ball. We don’t need to rely on something like a goal mouth rebound off wood work or players as for example soccer does on occassion to too often be the only way in which a goal is scored to break the defensive grip on a game. Australian Football is plenty dynamic enough as is.

“Get your facts right ” you say ICF!!!!

only 3 AFL clubs recorded operating losses in season 2009. 3 of 16. And you’re claiming 3 of 10 HAL clubs making a profit is a better percentage than 13 of 16??? If you’re going to bring other codes into the discussion, then I’d seriously urge you to do your research and perhaps even provide some supporting evidence (a link??).

btw – your claim of HAL crowds up 16% (after 1 round) is a little premature wouldn’t you think??

after all, the sub 11,000 per match first round attendance is by a fair way the worst in HAL history.
Rnd 1 avgs:
V1 : 17,552
V2 : 15,741
V3 : 14,554
V4 : 13,331
V5 : 13,631

so, I’d hardly be jumping up and down proclaiming Rnd 1 V6 as a great result!!!! However, for overall attendance figures, it’s surely very, very premature to be proclaiming anything good or bad. I’m not about to, and you’d argue yourself blue in the face to counter me if I did.

it’s part of the degree of difficulty.

Okay – – there’s no x-bar to get over or under,

BUT, that ball has to go through ‘clean’,

far cleaner than a soccer goal and likewise cleaner than a Rugby/Grid Iron ‘goal’.

It THEREFORE provides a level of distinction (as I’ve said before), but, ALSO, a unique vernacular, which is as important as anything.

The ‘poster’, or ‘hit the post’ is a unique and identifiable element and terminology.

I’m not saying to change laws to increase distinction to other codes………that’s not a great reason. But, don’t change laws just for the sake of it that decrease the distinction because, the world don’t need another code of soccder or rugby/grid iron.

sorry – – that should read

However, to have a substantial decrease of 10% or 16% once the major competition both from other codes and from Soccers grass roots local leagues is finished for the year

in excess of 1 million registered players in Sydney??

I draw your attention to this Football-NSW missive that states 220,000 registered players and 40,000 volunteers as quoted by Michelle Hanley from the Football-NSW office.

(btw – Paul Wade back in Feb spoke of 500,000 registered players in Australia.)

Now – – whether that’s more than the other 3 codes combined I really don’t know or necessarily care. Just want to ensure that a little dose of reality is retained!!!!

Mega –

no, I didn’t miss the point. You and Adrian are talking about rising the average. I’m talking about sustaining it!!

Adrian’s argument would hold if the attendances were pretty well levelled out, i.e. explaining away that there was no increase.

However, to have a substantial increase of 10% or 16% once the major competition both from other codes and from Soccers grass roots local leagues is finished for the year – – – that is not just about the people not watching the soap half way through……..that’s indicating 10-15% of those who started out watching it have exhausted their attention span!!!!

I’m not talking about a ‘magical rise’ – – my point is 3 of 5 seasons have had a mid season slump in attendances by 10-15%. It’s the slump that I’d suggest is a concern……not the lack of a rise. ‘

You gotta hold those attendance levels before you can start worrying about growing them!!

Again though – – the why’s and why nots. I wouldn’t pretend to know.

Adrian notes the ‘intrusion into AFL and NRL seasons’ as a reason for poor crowds as if it’s a given fact.

It might ‘feel’ right to suggest this, but, if you check the numbers – – it’s not supported.

For crowd averages of the first 5 seasons splitting the season into 3rds; there are 3 seasons where the middle third of the season (post AFL and NRL seasons finishing AS WELL as local soccer leagues finishing up) was 10% of more DOWN on the first third of the season where ‘intrusion’ was at it’s ‘worst’ due to finals.

V1 and V4 both more than 10% in middle third, and V5 was around 16% down. V2 was up 11% but was greatly assisted by the MVFC move to Docklands. And V3 was up just 2%. The general trend and the trend of the last 2 seasons (therefore the most current trend) is of a pretty significant (10% and 16%) drop at just the time that you’d expect the numbers to be ‘steadying’ or increasing.

The why’s and why nots…….that’s not my area. HOwever, I’d hope that theRoar editors understand that this is purely a fact based challenge of an assertion that whilst it might ‘sound right’ actually is not supported.

I’d’ve thought managing ‘expectations’ is one of the biggest issues……..has been all along.

Some people seemed to put the cart before the horse with unbridled enthusiasm (or outright zeal).

If permitted by theRoar editors, I’d like to challenge an assertion by Adrian that is in no way being ‘anti’ but is very much based on fact based discussion.

Heard a comment on SEN this morning sent in by people who saw the Casey-Suns game and they’re very impressed by K.Hunt and reckon he’ll be fine.

I more reckon 3 plus 2 subs or 2 plus 2. Reducing the number of players available for rotation, but, not reducing the capacity to cover for injuries.

I like it – – – although, re ‘specialist bowlers’, why not in 50/50 cricket allow perhaps one bowler to bowl up to 12 overs or even 15. So, on a given day, if a particular bowler is on fire, he can be used a little more extensively,

because, after all, batsmen aren’t forced to retire at 50,……it just seems unfair that a bowler who is sitting on 4-15 off 10 overs is then forced out of the game but that batters can go all innings if able.

I know it’s the juggling of bowlers that tests the captain and the teams depth. It just seems the bowlers have the indoor cricket style restrictions whilst the batters don’t. Perhaps it should all be played as per the Ch.10 beach cricket series!!