10 Vics teams = No more Vic flags?

[Catnip]

In that six year period, Adelaide, Sydney, West Coast and Fremantle didn't manage to win a premiership either. Perhaps there are too many fish in this "interstate pond".. or perhaps this interstate v victorian divide is a load of crap, and it's really one side against the other.

On the field this much is true, off the field is a different matter entirely. I also think you need to watch last year's grand final again

 

[ok.crows]

I’d love to see what you base that on other than your theories on Craig who has been there basically only two years and when he was an assistant his club gave up mpick 2 for Carey. No doubt Ayres' decision but your memory semms short nonetheless. Surely you don't base your theory on the Jarman premierships, the Brownlow midfield Lions hat trick, the Judd fired Eagles near miss, the Hall/Williams/Lockett/Schwass/etc/etc Swans or the Pickett/Hardwick/Wanganeen fed Tredrea year? Honestly, what a lot of self righteous tripe.

Adelaide are well run and well coached. Good luck to them. They might snag a flag this year and if so they will deserve it.

The decision to "get Carey" didn't work out too well, did it?

The decision OTOH to try to scrap the notion of "second tier" and instead have a "backbone group" seems to have done wonders for the team in terms of getting them all on-side, working together, all empowered, all contributing, all pulling in the same direction.

I think Trigg summed it up very well. He said the AFC was pleased to extend Craig's contract because Neil was such an outstanding "people manager". The team spirit has soared since Craig took over as coach.

Giving half the available salary cap to one hasbeen ex-star wasn't really a good move to engender team spirit now, was it? Believe me, team spirit had sunk pretty low by mid 2004.

Yes, it was Ayres' decision. But then again, Ayres recruited a good many of the players that Neil Craig is now working into a strong team, so kudos to Ayres for that. But brickbats to Ayres for his "star system" thinking.

 

[McBain]

The second is that where other states have trimmed the broken football clubs, there are still a bunch of teams in Victoria that haven't a clue. Its hard to run a rational club when clowns like Richmond and St Kilda throw massive amounts of money at your uncontracted players, and when your players don't even have to move house to change clubs, its going to come up more frequently.

Can I please have an example, or have I missed somthing here ?

 

[Portia]

Aaron Hamill.

 

[McBain]

Aaron Hamill.

Is that it ?.

 

[Papa G]

Is that it ?.

Aaron Fiora - Involves both clubs

 

[MarkT]

Yes, it was Ayres' decision. But then again, Ayres recruited a good many of the players that Neil Craig is now working into a strong team, so kudos to Ayres for that. But brickbats to Ayres for his "star system" thinking.

IMO, which is all it is, like yours, you need a balance of age groups and when you don’t have that balance either theory won’t work. However if you are missing at some level you can supplement via trades. If those trades are high profile players I don’t see why that is an issue. The fact is, in spite of how well the Crows are going right now, Craig hasn't won a flag whereas teams that have recruited profile players have.

If you look at Collingwood of 2002/3 that had Buckley and Rocca who were profile trades and Clement and Licuria who were low profile gets and they would have bee the close to the 4 most important players in back to back GF sides. I know they didn't win it but you could hardly say Brisbane went the no stars route either in beating them. They had a mixture of good draft gets and good trade wins from higher and lower profile deals/players. Ditto Port Adelaide and Sydney.

 

[rick James]

IMO, which is all it is, like yours, you need a balance of age groups and when you don’t have that balance either theory won’t work. However if you are missing at some level you can supplement via trades. If those trades are high profile players I don’t see why that is an issue. The fact is, in spite of how well the Crows are going right now, Craig hasn't won a flag whereas teams that have recruited profile players have.

If you look at Collingwood of 2002/3 that had Buckley and Rocca who were profile trades and Clement and Licuria who were low profile gets and they would have bee the close to the 4 most important players in back to back GF sides. I know they didn't win it but you could hardly say Brisbane went the no stars route either in beating them. They had a mixture of good draft gets and good trade wins from higher and lower profile deals/players. Ditto Port Adelaide and Sydney.

Agree, too many teams are basically not even coming to the table in trade week thinking that JUST going after youth will work. I reckon that's a doomed philosophy as young blokes need older, steadying influences to learn from. Not just about footy, but about their priorities off-field, how to go about training etc.

I haven't seen a team of players all aged the same win anything.

 

[McBain]

Aaron Fiora - Involves both clubs

I don't get it again ?
Are you saying we threw ridiculous amounts of coin at Fiora ?

 

[rick James]

I don't get it again ?
Are you saying we threw ridiculous amounts of coin at Fiora ?

You would sincerely hope not.

 

[McBain]

You would sincerely hope not.

amen to that.
he should be paying us if anything...

 

[Papa G]

amen to that.
he should be paying us if anything...

Surely you pay top dollar for a top 4 draft pick

 

[Exe Gesis]

IMO...

1. Interstate teams are essentially one-city teams. Have all the resources of a city, money, fanbase, and corporate management pulling in the one direction.

2. On field success (flags) isn't achieved singularly by either a) great list of players young/old, b) great coach, c) home ground advantage, d) corporate backing, e) afl assistance, f) huge membership fanbase, g) management, h) draft picks, i) senior on-field leaders, j) club culture.....but, by the synergy of all those things. Swans, Port, Brisbane had that synergy in their premiership years, as did Essendon in 2000. Currently, WCE and the Crows have that too. They are the "most likely" Flag winners for this year due to this. Teams like St Kilda and Geelong have a combination of those 'a' to 'j' factors, but not all of them. There's always still internal tug-o-wars going on inside those two clubs, people pulling in different directions, for them to be Flag winners at the moment.

3. Culture, for instance. For teams like Essendon, Carlton, Collingwood and Port Adelaide (historically) there's always a great sense of winning culture about them - not just Flags per se, but Finals appearances, dominance among other teams. All those teams have had and/or still have a culture of dominating other teams in W-L ratios, of having high expectations of being mighty Finals combatants.

4. Hawthorn had that culture thru the 70's-80's but have gone haywire mainly due to the amount of internal tug-o-wars, not all pulling in the one direction, on and especially off-field. Due to this, even with a bevy of young players and some senior leaders, throw in a great coach, or a true home ground in Waverley, and they still wouldn't necessarily achieve dominance, Finals regular Finals appearances, etc. Because there's still it seems a lot of internal power-plays and ego clashes etc.

5. Add to this the fact there are 9 Melbourne-based teams, and only the very elite teams like Carlton, Essendon, Collingwood, with huge membership base, corporate backing and support from other high ranking officials and corporate players, and they really do become the 'one-city' teams of Melbourne in amongst the 9 that exist there at the moment. They all have that culture too, something which Geelong historically lacks. Geelong being the only other 'one-city' Vic team.

6. Currently there are problems inside Essendon and Carlton, either financial or coach/player, to be genuine Flag winners any time soon. At Collingwood, however, they are in a strong position to achieve this due to the likes of McGuire, Malthouse, player list, huge membership, parochial fanbase, expectations of success or dominance, and the sense everyone's pulling in the right direction.

7. St Kilda may squander their golden opportunity to win a Flag, an AFL flag at that, with so much talent available, due to the culture, the lack of a 'great' coach, internal strifes, etc. I have a feeling that Carlton will return to being Flag winners before St Kilda will due to all this. They are down now, Carlton, and struggling, and St Kilda has the world at their feet, but their culture etc will unfortunately see them squander it all at the jibes of Carlton fans one day. History may never repeat, but I think it does to a certain extent. It's what "culture" is all about...history repeating.

8. The reality is that out of all the 10 Vic clubs, the only teams who have a realistic capacity (not chance, but capacity) to win the Flag will be in order - Carlton (they wont be down for long and usually win flags), Collingwood (theyre dominant usually, but often fail to win flags), Essendon (they should bounce back fairly soon but are a little behind Cwood at the moment)...then Geelong (one-city), Richmond (wallace and united effort, on the rise again to the powerhouse they used to be), Hawthorn (a lot of internal strife, but can achieve the dominance of the 70's-80's again).

9. Meanwhile, every year only keeps cementing Wce, Fremantle, Adelaide as powerhouses, with huge membership, support, finances, resources, etc. Port Adelaide has the culture, list, coach, internal unity, etc, to make another runs for the Flag every 5 years or so.

10. Brisbane and Sydney, while worthy Flag winners, still got a big boost by the amount of AFL assistance. In Brisbane's case, the merger netting them great talent...add Leigh Matthews and the one-city unity thing, and they were always going to win multiple Flags. Without that AFL support and the concessions that netted them so much Fitzroy talent, they may not have won any Flags even with Matthews as coach. Sydney has been a 20+ years of AFL assistance and concessions and just didnt have the same unity as the city of Brisbane gave the Lions. Too much RL interest and other city of Sydney factors meant the Swans would take longer to develop into a Flag winner.

11. The AFL deep down wants to tip the scale towards Brisbane/Sydney/GC. Cities like Melbourne, Adelaide, and Perth are so historically strong (financially and talent) in AR that they can help themselves to Flag success, but I truly believe the AFL tried hard to influence the competition to allow the Lions and Swans to be successful before other teams. Not a conspiracy, not cheating, because the on-field still had to occur, but just weighed in the favor to help their chances more.

12. Port Adelaide in 2004 and Essendon in 2000 were the last of the truly achieved Flag wins. Port were by far more disadvantaged than any other expansion team, and only their culture, great recruiting, and a 'great' coach immersed in that PAFC culture, got them that success. Not AFL assistance. They helped themselves.

13. Another factor is that WA and SA traditionally aspire to rub it in the Vics faces on-field. It means a lot to them to be the best, or better than Vics. This is why almost every year since their inceptions, a SA team(s) have been dominate in the AFL comp. SA especially so more than WA. That trend is likely to continue. When the Power are down the Crows will fly the SA flag. When the Crows are down the Power will fly the SA flag.

14. WCE are the flagship WA team. Fremantle has a mediocre culture already, but their potential and strength for growth is probably higher than a team like Port Adelaide. If they can re-write their culture, then they should become another perennial force like WCE and Adelaide are. Then there will also be that thing of, when eagles are down the dockers will dominate. When the dockers are down the eagles will dominate.

15. The future of AFL is basically that at all times, the final 8 will consist of a SA and WA team that is dominant just above the next of the best Vic teams in the 8. In a final 8 there'll always be at least one SA/WA team, and a grab of 4 Vic teams, then from year to year depending, a Brisbane/GC team and/or a Sydney team. If those 4 vic teams ARENT Carlton, Collingwood, Essendon, and one of Hawthorn/Richmond/Geelong, then the chances of a Vic Flag are reduced. The trend being that a GF is being played between two interstate teams or one too strong interstate team against the best 'most likely' vic team (ess, car, cwood).

16. To back this up....In 2001-2003 Essendon and Cwood played off against Brisbane. Cwood very close in 2002. Cwood failed as they are prone to. If in the next few years of interstate Flag dominance, the Vic team in the GF is Essendon or Carlton, they might 'steal' one or two against an interstater like WCE, Crows, Power, Dockers, Lions, or Swans. It might take Cwood another 2 or 3 GF losses before they can win one, as their historical GF average suggests. Meanwhile, with continued AFL assistance, Lions and Swans should continue to be regular Finals teams, and WCE, Adelaide, Power, Dockers will continue to help themselves and not need assistance etc to maintain dominance in the competition. Every 5 years or so, a team like Richmond, Hawthorn or Geelong will bounce back up and make a strong Finals showing, perhaps falling just short on a few occasions before spinning back down the ladder again. Teams like Western Bulldogs and St Kilda will have great talent and potential but somehow continue to fail. I'm not sure what the Melbourne Demons will do. They always used to be a force like Carlton etc, and they seem strong last few years, strong chance of being a GF combatant, but have somehow failed to achieve consistency. Teams like Kangaroos did wonderfully well against all odds in the 70's and 90's to become Flag winners, but their future looks uncertain and possibly a GC based team. In which case, they will immediately become another interstate force in the competition that will regularly see Finals and GF appearance....due to the one-city unity thing and AFL assistance, as well as their "shinboner" culture.

 

[zero]

I can see how the number of teams would make it more difficult to make money but not how it can make it more difficult to win a premiership if everyone has the same salary cap and operates in the same draft under the same rules. This is where you should look for any disparity.

no, there is significant spending differences between rich and poor clubs outside of the salary cap. the eagles, adelaide and collingwood spend the most on recruitment, and they reap the benefit with deep lists.

in the last 16 years of the AFL, only hawthorn 1 (on the end of a VFL dynasty), and the roos 2 (with the greatest CHF of all time) have managed to pinch a premiership off the rich victorian and interstate clubs.

never say never, but the chances of richmond or the western bulldogs winning a premiership are small to none. there are effectively 6 rich interstate clubs and 3 rich victorian clubs. the vast majority of the time, it seems, the premiership will be one by one of these 9 clubs.

 

[zero]

In that six year period, Adelaide, Sydney, West Coast and Fremantle didn't manage to win a premiership either. Perhaps there are too many fish in this "interstate pond".. or perhaps this interstate v victorian divide is a load of crap, and it's really one side against the other.

er, sydney won one mate, and adelaide and west coast will push hard for one this year.

should one of those two take it out (and you'd be mad not to tip adelaide), that will mean that 4 of 6 interstate teams have won a total of 6 premierships since a victorian team has won one. should they play off for it, it will be the third straight all interstate grand final

if thats not dominance, i dont know what is. (maybe hawthorn in the 80s)

 

[Tuco]

er, sydney won one mate, and adelaide and west coast will push hard for one this year.

should one of those two take it out (and you'd be mad not to tip adelaide), that will mean that 4 of 6 interstate teams have won a total of 6 premierships since a victorian team has won one. should they play off for it, it will be the third straight all interstate grand final

if thats not dominance, i dont know what is. (maybe hawthorn in the 80s)

We had two all interstate finals in a row. So what? We had two all Victorian finals in a row as well in 99 and 2000. Didn't hear any screams from South of the border then, did we?

 

[Honest John]

Victoria has been represented by collingwobble a couple of times

 

[Crow-mo]

I can see how the number of teams would make it more difficult to make money but not how it can make it more difficult to win a premiership if everyone has the same salary cap and operates in the same draft under the same rules. This is where you should look for any disparity.

because there is more to it that just the salary cap and draft.

the size of the footy operations and recruiting depts shows this as well.

 

[glengowan]

It's time for the Victorian clubs to go back to the VFL and play at their suburban homes and 4 new Victorian entities be brought in to join the 6 powerful interstate clubs in a high class 10 team competition.

We will then have 16 coaches who have not played at the highest level.

 

[Exe Gesis]

It's time for the Victorian clubs to go back to the VFL and play at their suburban homes and 4 new Victorian entities be brought in to join the 6 powerful interstate clubs in a high class 10 team competition.

We will then have 16 coaches who have not played at the highest level.

Something like this could have been done a long time ago (60's-70's) that by now (2006) Vic people would have grown accustomed to barracking for the newly formed elite teams that now represent them.

Of course, the AFL is an extension of the VFL, and all the vfl teams had a birth right into the league, but it would have been more visionary if they had left them in the vfl and created 4 super-power teams out of merged financial interests between clubs.

 

[relapse]

I have no idea how you established that link. Nearly all of the Vic clubs are paying the full salary cap.

There are always going to be struggling clubs, being that there's a higher percentage of Vic clubs, you would expect they would make up the majority of strugglers - as the cost of running a club here is also much higher than in rural centres like Perth or Adelaide.

The interstate dominance is a bit exaggerated too, for example, Brisbane and Sydney account for 4 of the last 5 premierships, both clubs received susbstantial assistance from the AFL to give them an unfair advantage in retaining or attracting players - take away that assistance and it's highly debatable whether they'd have won a premiership at all. Port Adelaide also had the advantage of the fruits of their priority picks upon entering the league.

Give it ten years and have another look, it's still really too early to tell.

There are a few flaws in what you have written

Firstly all clubs must spend at least 97% of the salary cap anyway so of course all Victorian teams all nearly using up all of their salary caps.

Rural centres ???? Get real mate

As for the unfair advantage with Brisbane and Sydney, doesnt Melbourne receive money from the equalisation fund ? All cases have a vaild argument as to why the assistance is in place. The same could be argued that if a team that is receiving the equalisation fund wins a flag that they coulld only have done with help from the AFL.

I agree we will just have to wait n see, but I think the interstate teams will now be the more dominant teams in football. The facts over the last 15 years speak for themselves.

1991 West Coast made the GF
1992 West Coast won the flag
1994 West Coast won the flag
1996 Syndey made the GF
1997 Adelaide won the flag
1998 Adelaide won the flag
2001 Brisbane won the flag
2002 Brisbane won the flag
2003 Brisbane won the flag
2004 Port Adelaide won the flag Brisbane made the Grand Final
2005 Sydney won the flag West Coast Eagles made the Grand Final

I think is it going to be rare to see many Grand Finals in the future contested by two Vic teams, it will happen from time to time, but not regularly.

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

They should be sent to the bottom of the ****ing ocean!

Would you please get over it! If you hate the place so much, why don't you move? Your incessant whining is pathetic

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

IMO...
They all have that culture too, something which Geelong historically lacks.

weak statement. define culture?

 

[Exe Gesis]

weak statement. define culture?

Pardon my laziness in wording that inappropriately.

I meant a winning culture. Every team has a culture. Some winning, some losing, some fighters, some cry-babies, etc.

In Geelong's case they merely do not have the same culture of drive towards success and high expectations met as clubs like Essendon, Carlton, Collingwood.

Geelong are by far more competent and competitive than a St Kilda (no disrespect, just the history). Not on the same threshold. Tiered with 3 perennials (car, col, ess), 3 just below (ric, mel, haw), then 3 below that (gee, nor, fit), then 2 below that (stk, foo).

In the current AFL, wce and ade have always been perennials.

Is this ok? Or have I made it worse?

 

[Hawkk]

Something like this could have been done a long time ago (60's-70's) that by now (2006) Vic people would have grown accustomed to barracking for the newly formed elite teams that now represent them.

Of course, the AFL is an extension of the VFL, and all the vfl teams had a birth right into the league, but it would have been more visionary if they had left them in the vfl and created 4 super-power teams out of merged financial interests between clubs.

Agree, it would have worked if they went down that path when they renamed the 'VFL' the 'AFL', because the clubs have been involved in the competition for so long, it would impossible to do this now without creating a new competition with fewer Victorian fans.