Opinion Are we on the verge of another period of dominance from teams not based in Melbourne?

Is the AFL about to be dominated by teams based outside of Melbourne?

  • Yes

  • No


Results are only viewable after voting.

Remove this Banner Ad

Exists because of...not a part of any of those clubs.

A new creation.
You said Adelaide have no history prior to 1990, which isn't actually true because the SANFL registered the 'Adelaide Football Club' back in 1986, but the point is the realisation of the Adelaide Crows occurred because 9 SANFL clubs combined to create a "composite" side. The definition of the word composite is "made up of several parts or elements". Virtually all the best football people in South Australia that weren't employed by Port Adelaide came together to create this club. It was almost like a merger of the 9 clubs to create a new club in an attempt to really unite the city (with the exception of Port people) behind the the Crows. The father-son rule that the AFL created was in some way a recognition of football history in SA & WA but it was also a reflection of what they felt the standard of those leagues were when compared to the VFL/AFL competition. I'm simply stating that I think, retrospectively, that the benchmark the AFL set for SA & WA teams was too harsh and the evidence appears to back that up when compared to the number of father-son picks the Victorian teams were able to secure over the same time period.

As of 1990, the Pies had less than 20 players who had played 200 games in the history.
How many father-son picks would Collingwood have missed out on if the F/S criteria had been changed from 100 games to 200 games? I'll save you the time and tell you the answer - they would have lost 12 of their 17 father-son picks to date. How would you feel if Collingwood had missed out on father-son picks like Darcy Moore, Travis Cloke and Heath/Rhyce Shaw? Now before you take this out of context again, I'm simply stating that 200 games was too high of a benchmark for the rule to be considered fair and used Collingwood as an example of the father-son picks they wouldn't have had access to if the 200 game criteria had been applied to the Pies.

Why would I care about some nonsense technicality from 20 years ago that wasnt even applied at the time?

Port got first access to a son of club champion...rule working as designed.
Except the rule didn't worked as designed. In fact, the rule was designed to NOT give Port Adelaide F/S access to Brett Ebert. It's just no one bothered to actually read the rules because everyone just assumed 392 SANFL games would fulfil any criteria. The fact that 392 games wasn't enough just proves the complications of the rule itself.

??
I am in favour of the F/S rule for ALL clubs.

But only when involving fathers and sons who actually BOTH played for the SAME club.

Glenelg isnt the Adelaide Crows.

Perth Demons aint the West Coast Eagles.
I understand what you're saying but the AFL felt it was fair to award non-Vic teams access to the sons of notable players from their corresponding local leagues in order to keep up with the Victorian teams who had access to a drafting mechanism that wasn't possible for new teams. It was purely an attempt to create a fair(ish) playing field for the new teams and perhaps create deeper links within the local footy circles. Can we move on from this point now? I understand that you don't think they should have had access but the AFL did.

It isnt misleading....

Adelaide Crows didnt have father son based on games played for the Adelaide Crows, it was games played for all number of clubs in a different league.

It was a nonsense.
You're still hanging on this point. Firstly, it is misleading because using the word "whole" implies access to every club which isn't true because the clubs were split between the two SA teams, as was the case with the WA teams as well. Secondly, it making it out like the amount of players they had access to was ridiculously high when it's already been established that the number was in fact quite low. Particularly when compared to a team like Collingwood. So yes, your use of words is misleading.

I dont think you are getting it.

If you play games for the Adelaide Crows you should meet criteria for a potential Adelaide Crows F/S.

If your Dad played 0 games for the Adealide Crows, it is a nonsense that Adelaide have rights to him under F / S rules.
Still hung up on the same point. Read above for the response to this.

I will quickly add that I'm curious to know your thoughts on Fitzroy players that Brisbane were allowed to draft with the F/S rule. Jonathan Brown, for example, was drafted as a father-son pick to Brisbane. His father Brian Brown played 51 games for Fitzroy (a separate club based in a different state) and played 0 games for the Brisbane Lions. Jonathan Brown doesn't appear to fit your F/S criteria... thoughts?

Why not create a "famous links to local clubs in their city rule" for all clubs?

Should Footscray have been given access to sons of Williamstown or Werribbee VFA players....of course they fecking shouldnt.
... because the Bulldogs already had history in the league prior to the new father-son rules being introduced. They were able to draft the likes of Luke Darcy in the early 90s because his old man played for them in the 60s & 70s. There was no need to grant F/S access to Werribee players. The non-Vic teams didn't have that luxury back then so the AFL granted them F/S access to players from local clubs instead. This really isn't that complicated to understand.

It would have had absolutely 0 impact.

WC just cherry picked the best WA kids upon entry, and brought some other WA locals back...they effectively were a State team.

The F / S rule is in place and it benefits established clubs.

So in 2023, Brisbane are favoured compared to the Suns...because Brisbane actually have a history in league, and kids of guys who actually played for Brisbane are coming through now.

But as per usual, the WA and SA wowsers had a bastardised rule created that they then spent time sooking about how unfair it was, that they "deserved even more".
How can you say it would have zero impact? Ben Cousins would likely have been drafted to Geelong under the F/S rule and Ashley McIntosh probably would have been draft to St Kilda under the F/S rule. You can't possibly say losing those two champion players would have had zero impact on the the West Coast Eagles. Both premiership players and one was a Brownlow Medallist; they clearly both had a massive impact on the club.

You're right, the F/S rule benefits established clubs and the Victorian clubs happen to be the most established clubs in the league. Therefore it's not surprising to see the F/S rule has been benefitted the Vic clubs the most. Now ask yourself, is that purely coincidental or was it designed that way on purpose?

Brisbane is unique in the sense that they essentially benefitted from every rule possible because they were a merged team based in a northern state. They had unrestricted access to any Queensland player which allowed them access to players like Marcus Ashcroft, Michael Voss, Jason Akermanis etc until 2000 when Nick Riewoldt came on the scene and Eddie got his knickers in a knot, they had father-son access to local players who had a father that played at least one game for a local club and manipulated that rule to their advantage (48 year old Barry Lawrence rode the Southport bench for one game so the Bears could get access to his highly rated son who should have gone F/S to St Kilda instead), they assumed Fitzroy's 100 year league history which gave them father-son access to their players and that allowed them to recruit the likes of Jonathan Brown, they had access to NT players in the 90s which allowed them to draft players like Darryl White, they had pre-draft access to South Australian players in the 80s which allowed them to recruit players like Richard Champion and these days they have the academy which has fed them players like Harris Andrews and Eric Hipwood. There has been no shortage of help for Brisbane over the course of their existence. So yeah, pretty difficult to compare them to the Suns when we've only had an underfunded academy with the lowest zone population of all the northern academies which is spread across the largest amount of land. We were only just recently given zone access to Darwin players (although the F/S rule still trumps this access, otherwise we would have had access to Maurice Rioli Jr two years ago) but I suspect our Darwin access will be removed soon.

I think you're framing the point the wrong way. You're looking at it as the SA & WA teams "sooking" whereas I'm looking at how uncommon it is for a player to reach 200 games (in any league) AND THEN having a son that is good enough to be drafted. The evidence clearly shows the 100 game benchmark renders more father-son picks, hence the conclusion that the F/S rule benefitted Vic teams more than non-Vic teams.
 
You said Adelaide have no history prior to 1990, which isn't actually true because the SANFL registered the 'Adelaide Football Club' back in 1986, but the point is the realisation of the Adelaide Crows occurred because 9 SANFL clubs combined to create a "composite" side. The definition of the word composite is "made up of several parts or elements". Virtually all the best football people in South Australia that weren't employed by Port Adelaide came together to create this club. It was almost like a merger of the 9 clubs to create a new club in an attempt to really unite the city (with the exception of Port people) behind the the Crows.
Bahahaha

It was almost like a merger, except it wasnt.

The club was "made up", it was founded in 1990 and none of the SANFL clubs were merged into it.

The father-son rule that the AFL created was in some way a recognition of football history

It was purely an attempt to create a fair(ish) playing field for the new teams and perhaps create deeper links within the local footy circles. Can we move on from this point now? I understand that you don't think they should have had access but the AFL did.
It was like the old "heritage" rounds.

Adelaide have no heritage, so just roll out old SA State jumpers.

A botched attempt to appease the SA and WA wowsers is what it was.
You're still hanging on this point. Firstly, it is misleading because using the word "whole" implies access to every club which isn't true because the clubs were split between the two SA teams, as was the case with the WA teams as well.
So in 1994, Adelaide and West Coast were sharing F/S access with other clubs?

Port were given F/S access to other SA clubs...and you cant see how iditiotic that was?
I will quickly add that I'm curious to know your thoughts on Fitzroy players that Brisbane were allowed to draft with the F/S rule.
A merger of two clubs.

If your Dad played for either the Brisbane Bears or Fitzroy Lions you should be eligible...keeping history to both clubs for a generation...and then it becomes Brisbane Lions only.
... because the Bulldogs already had history in the league prior to the new father-son rules being introduced. They were able to draft the likes of Luke Darcy in the early 90s because his old man played for them in the 60s & 70s. There was no need to grant F/S access to Werribee players. The non-Vic teams didn't have that luxury back then so the AFL granted them F/S access to players from local clubs instead.
Exactly, it is a rule to promote history.

You dont have a history yet, wait 25-30 years.
How can you say it would have zero impact?
The Eagles were basically a WA State team...when started, getting access to WA kids and seeing plenty of WA talent who had been in VFL come back.

They didnt need additional F/S access to more players to help forge any link with the WA public.
You're right, the F/S rule benefits established clubs
Yep, start up clubs get their own different perks....some more than others.

Now that clubs like WC, Port, BL, Adel are established clubs they benefit from F/S like all clubs.

But you still have WA and SA wowsers sooking about it.
Brisbane is unique in the sense that they essentially benefitted from every rule possible because they were a merged team based in a northern state.
Na, the SA and WA wowsers decide it is the Melbourne clubs who benefit from every rule possible.

They had unrestricted access to any Queensland player which allowed them access to players like Marcus Ashcroft, Michael Voss, Jason Akermanis etc until 2000 when Nick Riewoldt came on the scene and Eddie got his knickers in a knot, they had father-son access to local players who had a father that played at least one game for a local club and manipulated that rule to their advantage (48 year old Barry Lawrence rode the Southport bench for one game so the Bears could get access to his highly rated son who should have gone F/S to St Kilda instead), they assumed Fitzroy's 100 year league history which gave them father-son access to their players and that allowed them to recruit the likes of Jonathan Brown, they had access to NT players in the 90s which allowed them to draft players like Darryl White, they had pre-draft access to South Australian players in the 80s which allowed them to recruit players like Richard Champion and these days they have the academy which has fed them players like Harris Andrews and Eric Hipwood.
Add in access to N.Buckley due to his Dad being posted to NT for a while too.

Dont waste your time though, the WA and SA wowsers wont believe that the AFL props up QLD and NSW teams...the only clubs that they look after are Melbourne based clubs.
The evidence clearly shows the 100 game benchmark renders more father-son picks, hence the conclusion that the F/S rule benefitted Vic teams more than non-Vic teams.
The 100 game benchmark is for ANY players who actually played for the SAME club.

Fair for ALL clubs.

What isnt fair, is SA clubs trying to claim F/S rights to any SA player, just because they are from SA.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Adelaide is a catch-all SA club to represent the state in the AFL but they're not a merger of any club.
Didn't state they were a merged club, just that it was "almost like a merger of 9 clubs" in the sense that they acquired most of the best players, coaches and administrators the SANFL had to offer at the time. To give you an idea, the top 10 players in the 1990 Margarey Medal count were Scott Hodges (Port), Simon Tregenza (Port), Eddie Hocking (Central District), Scott Lee (Central District), David Marshall (Glenelg), Matthew Robran (Norwood), Nigel Smart (South Adelaide) and Chris McDermott (Glenelg). 9 of those 10 players would be a part of Adelaide's inaugural list and the only reason Robran didn't join them was because he was drafted to Hawthorn in 1989 and they still had his rights, however he would join the Crows in 1993 once his contract ended with the Hawks.

The formation of the Adelaide Crows was very much a compilation of the very best people the SANFL could offer at the time, with the possible exception of a few Port Adelaide people like coach John Cahill. So although it will never officially be referred to as a merger, it had all the telltale signs of a merged team.
 
Didn't state they were a merged club, just that it was "almost like a merger of 9 clubs" in the sense that they acquired most of the best players, coaches and administrators the SANFL had to offer at the time. To give you an idea, the top 10 players in the 1990 Margarey Medal count were Scott Hodges (Port), Simon Tregenza (Port), Eddie Hocking (Central District), Scott Lee (Central District), David Marshall (Glenelg), Matthew Robran (Norwood), Nigel Smart (South Adelaide) and Chris McDermott (Glenelg). 9 of those 10 players would be a part of Adelaide's inaugural list and the only reason Robran didn't join them was because he was drafted to Hawthorn in 1989 and they still had his rights, however he would join the Crows in 1993 once his contract ended with the Hawks.

The formation of the Adelaide Crows was very much a compilation of the very best people the SANFL could offer at the time, with the possible exception of a few Port Adelaide people like coach John Cahill. So although it will never officially be referred to as a merger, it had all the telltale signs of a merged team.
Were Port, Glenelg, Norwood, South Adelaide, Central District all still playing in 1991?

Missing the biggest component of a merger, the actual merging of any clubs.

No actual telltale signs of any merger.

Just a brand new club created for SA.
 
Absolutely no way. Yeah various non Vic sides will compete for premierships but I cannot see a repeat of 2003-2006 happening very often where most of the top 8 were non Vic sides.
 
Bahahaha

It was almost like a merger, except it wasnt.

The club was "made up", it was founded in 1990 and none of the SANFL clubs were merged into it.


It was like the old "heritage" rounds.

Adelaide have no heritage, so just roll out old SA State jumpers.

A botched attempt to appease the SA and WA wowsers is what it was.

So in 1994, Adelaide and West Coast were sharing F/S access with other clubs?

Port were given F/S access to other SA clubs...and you cant see how iditiotic that was?

A merger of two clubs.

If your Dad played for either the Brisbane Bears or Fitzroy Lions you should be eligible...keeping history to both clubs for a generation...and then it becomes Brisbane Lions only.

Exactly, it is a rule to promote history.

You dont have a history yet, wait 25-30 years.

The Eagles were basically a WA State team...when started, getting access to WA kids and seeing plenty of WA talent who had been in VFL come back.

They didnt need additional F/S access to more players to help forge any link with the WA public.

Yep, start up clubs get their own different perks....some more than others.

Now that clubs like WC, Port, BL, Adel are established clubs they benefit from F/S like all clubs.

But you still have WA and SA wowsers sooking about it.

Na, the SA and WA wowsers decide it is the Melbourne clubs who benefit from every rule possible.


Add in access to N.Buckley due to his Dad being posted to NT for a while too.

Dont waste your time though, the WA and SA wowsers wont believe that the AFL props up QLD and NSW teams...the only clubs that they look after are Melbourne based clubs.

The 100 game benchmark is for ANY players who actually played for the SAME club.

Fair for ALL clubs.

What isnt fair, is SA clubs trying to claim F/S rights to any SA player, just because they are from SA.
The FS rule was not fair for all clubs as it has a 20-30 year lead time. WC & Adelaide got a lot of other concessions so it balanced out. Freo got half as much, Port a bit more.

The draft was only started in 1981 & was closer to todays by 1986. The FS rule was like a zone so an advantage to Vic clubs.

If the AFL wanted to make it fair, it would have had the FS games the same for zoned WAFL / SANFL or at least within 20 games max. It would have also allowed a combo of games between WAFL & AFL etc as players like Andrew McGovern started their career late but were Freo people thru and thru. Bootsma was another elder pickup who didn’t play enough WAFL games as they were playing AFL. It was a disgrace.

GWS / GC missed out too but they were shielded from Free Agency at the time for 8 season and had a lot of concessions to balance it out.
 
The FS rule was not fair for all clubs as it has a 20-30 year lead time.
But it is fair now.
WC & Adelaide got a lot of other concessions so it balanced out.
A ridiculous amount, that they also wanted an even more improved FS rule just highlights the usual woe is us WA and SA fans starting point.
Freo got half as much, Port a bit more.
Yep Freo dudded compared to WC
If the AFL wanted to make it fair, it would have had the FS games the same for zoned WAFL / SANFL or at least within 20 games max.
For it actually to be fair, Adelaide and WC would have had to nominate one single club as their only feeder FS club.
GWS / GC missed out too but they were shielded from Free Agency at the time for 8 season and had a lot of concessions to balance it out.
How have they missed out?

They just dont have any sons of players who played for the Suns or Giants yet?

New clubs recieve start-up zone and draft concessions.

Why do SA and WA fans think they should get all of those start-up concessions AND FS eligibility for entire competitions?
 
Were Port, Glenelg, Norwood, South Adelaide, Central District all still playing in 1991?

Missing the biggest component of a merger, the actual merging of any clubs.

No actual telltale signs of any merger.

Just a brand new club created for SA.
Did the Fitzroy Football Club compete in the VAFA while the 'merged' Brisbane Lions were competing in the AFL? Yes.

Is it still considered a merged venture? Yes.

Did I state the Adelaide Crows were a merged team? No.

Did I state it was 'like' a merger? Yes.

The telltale sign being that they recruited almost all of the best football people involved in the SANFL at the time. Very different to the way Port Adelaide's AFL side was formed.

How have they missed out?

They just dont have any sons of players who played for the Suns or Giants yet?

New clubs recieve start-up zone and draft concessions.

Why do SA and WA fans think they should get all of those start-up concessions AND FS eligibility for entire competitions?
It's incredible that you're still not getting this. Every Victorian club has had the least strict access to F/S prospects since the introduction of the rule. Adelaide, Port Adelaide, Fremantle and West Coast have all drafted at least one F/S player out of their state league whose father did not play for them. Brisbane and Sydney have both drafted multiple players from their Fitzroy/South Melbourne days. Gold Coast and GWS are the only clubs to have not drafted at least one F/S player to date and both won't do so for at least another 10 years. By comparison, West Coast got their first father-son pick after two years in the league, Port Adelaide had one after five years, Fremantle had one after eight years etc etc. Mind you, if I had the choice of father-son access to QAFL players from the Gold Coast or the current northern academy then I'm definitely choosing the academy. It's just unfortunate that we missed out on the feel good stories that come with father-son access that every other non-Victorian club was afforded upon entering the league.
 
Last edited:
It's incredible that you're still not getting this. Adelaide, Port Adelaide, Fremantle and West Coast have all drafted at least one F/S player out of their state league whose father did not play for them.
It is incredible that you dont get that the above statement is hilarious.

SA and WA fans think a father son rule was unfair, despite them getting access to sons of fathers who had nothing to do with their clubs.
Brisbane and Sydney have both drafted multiple players from their Fitzroy/South Melbourne days.
They are the same club, with the actual father son link.
Gold Coast and GWS are the only clubs to have not drafted at least one F/S player to date and both won't do so for at least another 10 years.
No shit.

How can a club that is just established have father son players?

Need to wait a generation.

Instead, Gold Coast and GWS received start-up concessions, mini drafts and access to additional kids and others start-up benefits not afforded to the remaining established clubs.

But as usual WA and SA fans think they were entitled to start up concessions AND father son to any and all SANFL and WAFL clubs with the same criteria Melbourne based clubs had with their own individual club.
 
How can a club that is just established have father son players?

Need to wait a generation.
I'll just keep this short because we're really getting nowhere with this. You say you need to wait a full generation for F/S picks but only 2 of the current 18 clubs in the AFL were/are being forced to wait a full generation. The AFL rules allowed every other club to bypass the generational wait that you're arguing.
 
Of the interstaters Brisbane look good with their good recruiting, and Sydney are there abouts based on last seasons Grand Final, Freo? maybe ... I think though Geelong, Melbourne and Richmond (who have also recruited exceptionally) are more likely to top 4. Apologize to Collingwood who could also justifiably put their hand up based on 2022.

All of the sides are young enough to stay in contention for the next few years.
 
Last edited:
I'll just keep this short because we're really getting nowhere with this.
Yeah, you arent getting it.
You say you need to wait a full generation for F/S picks but only 2 of the current 18 clubs in the AFL were/are being forced to wait a full generation.
Father / son relationship is the next generation.

If you aint got that, you dont have a Father / Son relationship.
The AFL rules allowed every other club to bypass the generational wait that you're arguing.
Yes, as per usual the AFL created a botched rule to appease the WA and SA wowsers...and they then still wanted more!!

Standard practice really.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Mate, you would miss the interstate connection in the first year if they left. VFL would be s**t boring without Interstaters to hang it on.

Yeah, that's the difference between Vic and 'the rest'.

Most Vics don't care that much about hanging it on interstaters. They don't hate non Vic clubs nearly as much as they hate other Vic clubs.

There are exceptions of course, but for the most part it holds up (BF isn't exactly representative after all). If the league split on Vic/non-Vic lines, the Vic part would go on cheerfully enough. It wouldn't be AS good, and the fans would know that, but it would still function as an elite comp. The non-Vic part would probably die of indifference without the chance to kick the Vics.
 
That isn't what you asked.

2007 there were 3 FS players - Scarlett, Gaz and Nablett.

Only Gaz was from 99/01 drafts, the drafts when Geelong built their dynasty.

The Lions themselves jagged J.Brown through FS in 99, and they won 3 flags soon after.

Serious about challenging your inane WA wowser myths - yep.

Just like your Medhurst theory, absolute crap basically.
Just like your view on non Vic sides advantage over Collingwood in grand finals lol
 
Actually it is, if you read the title of the OP about a period of dominance of teams not based in Melbourne.

I happen ro think Freo are as good a chance as any to win a flag in the next 2-3 years, and the Tigers are on the way down (Hopper is a plodder whom Richmond paid way overs for)
Well I hope you are right about the dockers winning a flag in 2 or 3 years
 
Bloody hope so. Great for the national game. Fair trade off when we consider the GF is played in Melbourne every single year.
Add in Tassie in a few years and this is going to become more and more common. The Vics are just going to have to get used to the idea that there won't necessarily be a Victorian team in the GF every year anymore.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Opinion Are we on the verge of another period of dominance from teams not based in Melbourne?

Back
Top