Preview AFLW 2017 R3 - vs Brisbane (@ Brisbane) Game Day starts #20 ON NOW

[Scodog10]

Full disclosure I'm not "supporting" Collingwood in the AFLW competition so I post this as a neutral. It sounds to me more like a failure off field thus far more than anything else.

The Saints had put everything in place 18 months before the competition was announced and they didn't even get a franchise. Whereas reading above Collingwood hadn't appointed a coach when the marquee players were signed...

It may be over for 2017, but things can turn quickly in an 8 team competition (look at the Sydney Thunder) a shrewd off-season and they'll bounce back!

 

[76woodenspooners]

Full disclosure I'm not "supporting" Collingwood in the AFLW competition so I post this as a neutral. It sounds to me more like a failure off field thus far more than anything else.

The Saints had put everything in place 18 months before the competition was announced and they didn't even get a franchise. Whereas reading above Collingwood hadn't appointed a coach when the marquee players were signed...

No clubs had appointed a coach when the marquee players were signed. IIRC the marquees were announced at much the same time as the teams were given a licence.

 

[Scodog10]

No clubs had appointed a coach when the marquee players were signed. IIRC the marquees were announced at much the same time as the teams were given a licence.

That's not correct the Saints had everything in place that was why I referrenced them they were just ripped off not getting a franchise. Debbie Lee was involved in the setup at Melbourne so no doubt had a say in bringing Pearce in.

 

[Dead Eye Didak]

To be fair, marquee signings were made before we even had a coaching panel (thus even a game plan), before it was known that AFLW would be 16 a side, before the size of the bench was known, before even the size of the footy was known.

The marquee signings were pretty much a lottery.

IMHO, we've done well out of Mo Hope. She's made a wonderful contribution towards building the profile of AFLW amongst the Collingwood supporter base and competition wide. Yeah, she's failed to meet expectations this year, but it's due in part to her that people have an interest and have expectations.

Yes thats fine the players were picked before a coaching panel or the setting up of onfield rules were applied, l was just pointing out why the failure of the franchise at this point of time, and that is we have selected the wrong type of players. Hopefully they can get some quick athletic types next season.

 

[TradeDraft]

Full disclosure I'm not "supporting" Collingwood in the AFLW competition so I post this as a neutral. It sounds to me more like a failure off field thus far more than anything else.

The Saints had put everything in place 18 months before the competition was announced and they didn't even get a franchise. Whereas reading above Collingwood hadn't appointed a coach when the marquee players were signed...

It may be over for 2017, but things can turn quickly in an 8 team competition (look at the Sydney Thunder) a shrewd off-season and they'll bounce back!

We just a Team as we are the Biggest Team with the Most Supporters

 

[Scodog10]

We just a Team as we are the Biggest Team with the Most Supporters

I'm not so sure that's the case. I think "you" got a franchise because of the significant investment in womens sport through the recent glasshouse re-development. Jeez that was weird to type!

 

[76woodenspooners]

I'm not so sure that's the case. I think "you" got a franchise because of the significant investment in womens sport through the recent glasshouse re-development. Jeez that was weird to type!

+ a club that has been actively working on its equal opportunity credentials (eg: 50% of management are female)

 

[Scodog10]

+ a club that has been actively working on it's equal opportunity credentials (eg: 50% of management are female)

Do you happen to know if that's now a mandate of the club? For instance like the quota system in South African sport.

It would have played a role no doubt and its great to see the club actively working on it in a general sense, but I'm a big believer in employing the best person. Mandates and quotas can get in the way of what's best sometimes, IMO.

 

[barrackers]

There's three issues I see with St Kilda's bid.

1.) That Melbourne like the 'dogs were guaranteed a team. Melbourne are focusing their women's team around the Casey area. Even though women's footy is strong out that way perhaps the AFL didn't want 2 women's team in the south east at the launch of the women's league

2.) St Kilda's return to Moorabbin is a couple of years away, which means they didn't have an edge over Olympic Park or Casey. With no VFL played at Seaford both Olympic Park and Casey could be ahead. Carlton with Princes Park and WB with Whitten Oval had ready made grounds.

3.) The AFL wanted a blockbuster rivalry, which couldn't be met by either WB or Melbourne. Therefore 2 big Victorian teams were required
​

In terms of our bid no doubt being a big club helped, but I'm sure there was more to it (glasshouse change facilities and a coaching academy are 2 off the top of my head).

 

[76woodenspooners]

Full disclosure I'm not "supporting" Collingwood in the AFLW competition so I post this as a neutral. It sounds to me more like a failure off field thus far more than anything else.

The Saints had put everything in place 18 months before the competition was announced and they didn't even get a franchise. Whereas reading above Collingwood hadn't appointed a coach when the marquee players were signed...

That's not correct the Saints had everything in place that was why I referrenced them they were just ripped off not getting a franchise. Debbie Lee was involved in the setup at Melbourne so no doubt had a say in bringing Pearce in.

St Kilda have Peta Searle (ex-Darebin player & coach) on staff who has always been a strong advocate for a major women's comp. Sure, by virtue that St Kilda recruited her in the first place as 'the best person for the job' is an indication that they've been proactive.

A similar argument could be made to support that Collingwood have been proactive too. Here's an article that was written 4 years ago when the then Federal Sports Minister, Kate Lundy, toured the then Westpac Centre when construction was beginning on what would become the new Glasshouse ...

http://www.collingwoodfc.com.au/news/2012-10-05/federal-minister-kate-lundy-tours-the-westpac-centre

Key excerpts:

[The new Glasshouse] "... having as a major focus the provision of safe and secure facilities for the participation of women in active recreation and sport."

"Key features include ... secure and managed public locker rooms and training facilities for women;"

(ps. I'm just spitballing with you here for the sake of the discussion ... I could just as easily argue your side )

 

[Dead Eye Didak]

+ a club that has been actively working on it's equal opportunity credentials (eg: 50% of management are female)

Yes totally agree, eventhough success will be nice in the AFLW and the Netball franchises, it is not the end all and be all. I admire our club for investing in womens sports and promoting the alliance with our mens AFL team the womens teams have, and the equalisation in the recognition these female athletes get at Collingwood.

 

[76woodenspooners]

There's three issues I see with St Kilda's bid.

1.) That Melbourne like the 'dogs were guaranteed a team. Melbourne are focusing their women's team around the Casey area. Even though women's footy is strong out that way perhaps the AFL didn't want 2 women's team in the south east at the launch of the women's league

2.) St Kilda's return to Moorabbin is a couple of years away, which means they didn't have an edge over Olympic Park or Casey. With no VFL played at Seaford both Olympic Park and Casey could be ahead. Carlton with Princes Park and WB with Whitten Oval had ready made grounds.

3.) The AFL wanted a blockbuster rivalry, which couldn't be met by either WB or Melbourne. Therefore 2 big Victorian teams were required
​

In terms of our bid no doubt being a big club helped, but I'm sure there was more to it (glasshouse change facilities and a coaching academy are 2 off the top of my head).

St Kilda had engaged with their supporter base and captured their hearts and minds.

Sure, we had the bricks and mortar, but that's proven to be of not much benefit for anything more than a training base. St Kilda would have surely been able to offer their girls an appropriate training base.

 

[Scodog10]

St Kilda have Peta Searle (ex-Darebin player & coach) on staff who has always been a strong advocate for a major women's comp. Sure, by virtue that St Kilda recruited her in the first place as 'the best person for the job' is an indication that they've been proactive.

A similar argument could be made to support that Collingwood have been proactive too. Here's an article that was written 4 years ago when the then Federal Sports Minister, Kate Lundy, toured the then Westpac Centre when construction was beginning on what would become the new Glasshouse ...

http://www.collingwoodfc.com.au/news/2012-10-05/federal-minister-kate-lundy-tours-the-westpac-centre

Key excerpts:

[The new Glasshouse] "... having as a major focus the provision of safe and secure facilities for the participation of women in active recreation and sport."

"Key features include ... secure and managed public locker rooms and training facilities for women;"

(ps. I'm just spitballing with you here for the sake of the discussion ... I could just as easily argue your side )

That wasn't the only move they made.

https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/amp...or-a-womens-team-in-2018-20160616-gpksn0.html

They have also provided support to the St Kilda sharks prior to the announcement.

I'm not actually putting forward a side either. Only suggesting that Collingwood may have been behind the 8 ball from a football structure POV and that Idon't believe St Kilda would have been.

 

[76woodenspooners]

Do you happen to know if that's now a mandate of the club?

I don't 'know', but I have heard club officials refer to it being the case (whether by merit or affirmative action).

For instance like the quota system in South African sport.

It would have played a role no doubt and its great to see the club actively working on it in a general sense, but I'm a big believer in employing the best person. Mandates and quotas can get in the way of what's best sometimes, IMO.

IMHO the affirmative action debate is an extremely complex one.

Sure, the attitude can be taken of employing the best person for the job, but what criteria is used to decide 'best person'? And does the criteria used to decide 'best person' influenced by long term systemic discrimination?

For example, it could be argued that the 'best person' was decided upon because they had 30 years of relevant experience. That might seem completely valid and reasonable - but if that kind of criteria is applied universally then it will take generations for barriers of discrimination to be broken down. And would that be in the best interests of the big picture?

IMHO this one is a very inexact science.

 

[76woodenspooners]

That wasn't the only move they made.

https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/amp...or-a-womens-team-in-2018-20160616-gpksn0.html

They have also provided support to the St Kilda sharks prior to the announcement.

Totally agree

When we received our licence and I saw all the fuss that the St Kilda supporters were making, I did a bit of exploring and was amazed by the community led campaign that St Kilda had behind their bid. They had a mascot, they got their high profile supporters involved in a social media campaign, they got thousands of signatures on a partition, etc, etc.

By contrast we had Pert telling us "We got this, just leave it to the club <wink wink>".

My gripe is more about the lack of supporter engagement (as part of a wider problem), rather than lack of preparation for the women's comp.

 

[Scodog10]

Totally agree

When we received our licence and I saw all the fuss that the St Kilda supporters were making, I did a bit of exploring and was amazed by the community led campaign that St Kilda had behind their bid. They had a mascot, they got their high profile supporters involved in a social media campaign, they got thousands of signatures on a partition, etc, etc.

By contrast we had Pert telling us "We got this, just leave it to the club <wink wink>".

My gripe is more about the lack of supporter engagement (as part of a wider problem), rather than lack of preparation for the women's comp.

That's a whole of club issue that's developed under Pert. Taking the focus group the other week. Two groups of 7 fans as representative for 70,000? Token effort at its best.

On the affirmative action debate. I would take the value added perspective. Forget all else and concentrate wholly on what they have added to the organise they were last with and what value they can provide to the club. Only consider what they will provide to take us to 16! I don't believe that sort of decision making does that.

FWIW I'm a Crows AFLW supporter in much the same way I support the Victory, Vixens and Storm.

 

[Mkcaptain]

I think people have to remember this is going to be a 100+ year competition (hopefully). Sure it would have been great to be better prepared for the first year. But this is a long-term endeavour. We will learn what we need to do better for next season and can plan accordingly for the 2018 season over the months ahead. Disappointing to be talking about this three rounds into the season, but I can't see Eddie and the board let us going into next season without a review of what went wrong this year.

The AFL hasn't even announced how many players clubs get to keep for next season.

 

[76woodenspooners]

On the affirmative action debate. I would take the value added perspective. Forget all else and concentrate wholly on what they have added to the organise they were last with and what value they can provide to the club. Only consider what they will provide to take us to 16! I don't believe that sort of decision making does that.

An organisation can't just consider 'the best person for the job' in isolation. Extrapolating it to a draft analogy - what's the point of drafting 6 'best available' players if they all happen to be ruckmen?

Organisations need to take a holistic approach to these things. The 'best person for the job' needs to take into consideration culture (how they fit in, how they contribute), how the individual contributes to the capability / performance of the whole.

Using this criteria it's not unusual to conclude that sometimes a lesser experienced / lesser qualified person from a minority group ends up being 'the best person for the job'.

FWIW I'm a Crows AFLW supporter in much the same way I support the Victory, Vixens and Storm.

There is no rule that says you have to follow the same team from the same club. Magpies netball would be in a bit of trouble if that were the case.

 

[barrackers]

St Kilda had engaged with their supporter base and captured their hearts and minds.

Sure, we had the bricks and mortar, but that's proven to be of not much benefit for anything more than a training base. St Kilda would have surely been able to offer their girls an appropriate training base.

St Kilda were unlucky to miss and undoubtably had strong support I just don't think we were their major competitor for a licence.

I see it as:

2 of: Collingwood/Richmond/Carlton (blockbuster and city/inner north)
1 of: Melbourne/St Kilda (south east)
1 of: North Melbourne/Western Bulldogs (west/north)

with Geelong in the mix between Melb/St K/NM/WB
​

With Melbourne and Western Bulldogs all but guaranteed a licence the only way St Kilda/North Melbourne/Geelong were going to get a licence was if the AFL increased the number of Victorian teams. St Kilda were vocal that more than 4 Victorian teams should get licences, which suggests they had thoughts around this difficulty.

In terms of grounds I was more thinking about the Seaford's ability to host visiting teams, crowds and the inability to host night matches (which would impact on fixturing and TV).

​

 

[loki04]

Its funny that the 3 sides that were predicted to be right in contention this year Freo, Bulldogs, and Collingwood have 1 win between us after three weeks.

How good do the crows look!

Much more skilled team, quicker and well structured.

Our qirls team looks like watching a bunch of yanks that have never played the game in comparison.

 

[loki04]

To be fair, marquee signings were made before we even had a coaching panel (thus even a game plan), before it was known that AFLW would be 16 a side, before the size of the bench was known, before even the size of the footy was known.

The marquee signings were pretty much a lottery.

IMHO, we've done well out of Mo Hope. She's made a wonderful contribution towards building the profile of AFLW amongst the Collingwood supporter base and competition wide. Yeah, she's failed to meet expectations this year, but it's due in part to her that people have an interest and have expectations.

She was picked to resonate with pies supporters as a D.Swan female lookalike minus the actual ability to perform like D.Swan (in a comparative AFLW way).

 

[Cousin of Daicos]

She was picked to resonate with pies supporters as a D.Swan female lookalike minus actual ability(in a comparative AFLW way).

Fixed that for you

 

[76woodenspooners]

Our qirls team looks like watching a bunch of yanks that have never played the game in comparison.

Just sayin' ...

 

[76woodenspooners]

She was picked to resonate with pies supporters as a D.Swan female lookalike minus the actual ability to perform like D.Swan (in a comparative AFLW way).

Fixed that for you

C'mon, compare M. Hope 3 games into her professional career versus D.Swan 3 games into his.

 

[Cousin of Daicos]

C'mon, compare M. Hope 3 games into her professional career versus D.Swan 3 games into his.

You're right...under normal circumstances.

But Dane Swan didn't come into the AFL with a reputation already preceding him in the lower competition, wasn't hyped up as arguably the best player in the competition either.