Equalisation - the facts and the premiership merry-go-round

[The_Wookie]

You suggest its population that's relevant to supply & demand, I know you are aware that's a very minor part of the equation ... another example of a muddle headed footy fan, not wombat (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Muddle-Headed_Wombat - apologies for you taking offence).

keep this up and you'll be getting a ban. Im tired of this. Apologies arent enough, you constantly do this to people you dont agree with.

 

[telsor]

keep this up and you'll be getting a ban. Im tired of this. Apologies arent enough, you constantly do this to people you dont agree with.

Not on my account I hope. I was being quite genuine when I said I think such 'tactics' reflect worse on him and his argument than they do on me and mine.

 

[The_Wookie]

Not on my account I hope. I was being quite genuine when I said I think such 'tactics' reflect worse on him and his argument than they do on me and mine.

No its not on your account.

 

[Kwality]

I wouldn't say there would be no problems, but to use your own argument...supply and demand...Where there is a clear excess in demand (people unable to get in to watch games), some will move over to a new source of supply.

Population is as relevant in WA as in Vic - mature heartland AFL States. Of course the same stat in NSW is not relevant & you know it.

That WA footy fans will readily adopt a new team, but Victorians wont ... its a thriving community those University diehards ..... been around as long as the Tigers ....

 

[telsor]

Population is as relevant in WA as in Vic - mature heartland AFL States. Of course the same stat in NSW is not relevant & you know it.

Yet whenever I quote things like population and growth stats, you think they're meaningless...

That WA footy fans will readily adopt a new team, but Victorians wont ... its a thriving community those University diehards ..... been around as long as the Tigers ....

Some Vics would adopt a new team...
From the Fitzroy experience, ~1/3 were lost to the game, ~1/3 moved support to Brisbane, ~1/3 found a new club.


Adding a new WA side is different though, because their current side wont be killed off, so nobody would be lost, or forced to make that call.

The supporters of the new side(s) will be there either due to whatever local factors are tied into (WAFL clubs, locality, etc) and a desire to actually see games themselves and feel like they're part of a club rather than just outside observers. I'm not suggesting they'll be as big as WCE, or even Freo, but as Freo showed, when the current demand isn't being met, more supply will be taken up.

 

[Kwality]

Telsor, when it comes to new teams, forget me ...

I've lived through the introduction of the national comp .... to be an elite comp or so I thought.

 

[telsor]

Telsor, when it comes to new teams, forget me ...

I've lived through the introduction of the national comp .... to be an elite comp or so I thought.

You don't think the AFL is a much higher standard than the WAFL was?

 

[Kwality]

Telsor, when it comes to new teams, forget me ...

I've lived through the introduction of the national comp .... to be an elite comp or so I thought.

You don't think the AFL is a much higher standard than the WAFL was?

Absolutely higher, & its true of all State based comps. There are no Stephen Michaels out there.

See the problems Essendon had finding 12 players outside the AFL lists, players of AFL standard for 2016.

 

[The_Wookie]

See the problems Essendon had finding 12 players outside the AFL lists, players of AFL standard for 2016.

Essendon were heavily restrictied in their recruitment options.

 

[Kwality]

Essendon were heavily restrictied in their recruitment options.

What rubbish, in the context of the discussion !! Technically correct if that's your go.

The restrictions were to ensure they picked players that can at least run around an AFL footy field in March 2016, not go down the 'grab kids' path that the expansion clubs used, at ongoing cost to AFL footy generally.

 

[Roylion]

Some Vics would adopt a new team...
From the Fitzroy experience, ~1/3 were lost to the game, ~1/3 moved support to Brisbane, ~1/3 found a new club..

Roughly from anecdotal evidence

- about 45-50 percent of Fitzroy supporters have been lost to AFL football or now follow another code or lower local level of Australian Rules football as their primary football experience. Quite a few of them for example can be found at the Brunswick Street Oval every Saturday afternoon during the football season.
- about 5 percent of Fitzroy supporters now actively follow another AFL side, including a few hundred that went across to North Melbourne.
- over 40 percent of Fitzroy people support the Brisbane Lions, but may not be necessarily paid up members.

 

[The_Wookie]

What rubbish, in the context of the discussion !! Technically correct if that's your go.

The restrictions were to ensure they picked players that can at least run around an AFL footy field in March 2016, not go down the 'grab kids' path that the expansion clubs used, at ongoing cost to AFL footy generally.

They also couldnt pick experienced VFL/SANFL/WAFL talent (unless it had recent AFL experience) that is often overlooked in favour of persistent youth policies. Ive said this before, if clubs stopped with the "all youth, all the time" philosophy and didnt pick up some of these kids until they'd had time to develop at state competition level, the quality of the AFL would be a lot better.

 

[telsor]

Roughly from anecdotal evidence

- about 45-50 percent of Fitzroy supporters have been lost to AFL football or now follow another code or lower local level of Australian Rules football as their primary football experience. Quite a few of them for example can be found at the Brunswick Street Oval every Saturday afternoon during the football season.
- about 5 percent of Fitzroy supporters now actively follow another AFL side, including a few hundred that went across to North Melbourne.
- over 40 percent of Fitzroy people support the Brisbane Lions, but may not be necessarily paid up members.

I stand corrected on the breakup, but the point still stands, killing off a club, even 'nicely' through a merger or something similar means a significant number of existing fans would be lost to the game (and more relevant to the AFL decision makers, to the AFL).

 

[telsor]

Absolutely higher, & its true of all State based comps. There are no Stephen Michaels out there.

See the problems Essendon had finding 12 players outside the AFL lists, players of AFL standard for 2016.

Essendon had to find 12 decent players from among those delisted by other clubs ( AKA other clubs had decided they weren't good enough) or talk players out of retirement...It's no surprise they had trouble finding them.

If they'd been told they could take any 12 players from any non-AFL source, they would have done so a lot more easily.

 

[telsor]

What rubbish, in the context of the discussion !! Technically correct if that's your go.

In context? You're talking about lack of talent out there, and pointing to a club finding 12 players as if it's a problem while ignoring that they weren't allowed to consider 90% of the potential talent.

 

[telsor]

Further to the amount of talent out there (info taken from the participation thread)

In 1990 there were 14 AFL clubs and 231725 club participants or an average of 16551 club players per AFL club.

In 2015 there were 18 AFL clubs and 336108 club participants or an average of 18672 club players per AFL club.

So given the growth in the base has been faster than the growth in number of clubs, the AFL competition is even MORE elite/exceptional than it was 25 years ago.



nb. I chose 'club participants' as the point of comparison because it seems like the one least likely to have been affected by the changes of criteria that seem to inflate some of the other figures.

 

[Kwality]

They also couldnt pick experienced VFL/SANFL/WAFL talent (unless it had recent AFL experience) that is often overlooked in favour of persistent youth policies. Ive said this before, if clubs stopped with the "all youth, all the time" philosophy and didnt pick up some of these kids until they'd had time to develop at state competition level, the quality of the AFL would be a lot better.

Clubs don't pick up the experienced 2nd tier players because its not a value bet: see todays West on Kyal Horsley from Subi (the WAFL side my family follows). At 28 nominated as the best of the WAFL players not on an AFL list, back at Subi after 2 years on the Gold Coasts Suns list (14 games in 2 seasons after being rookie listed), he is a good example of a 2nd tier player. https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/sport/afl/a/31128550/subiaco-dominate-the-wests-top-40/

I share your enthusiasm for giving these guys a go at the highest level, most footy fans I know enjoyed the success of Pods, Micky Barlow ....

Clubs do try to minimise selection failures.

 

[Kwality]

Essendon had to find 12 decent players from among those delisted by other clubs ( AKA other clubs had decided they weren't good enough) or talk players out of retirement...It's no surprise they had trouble finding them.

If they'd been told they could take any 12 players from any non-AFL source, they would have done so a lot more easily.

Those you'd find more easily had been rejected by recruiters at the 2015 draft. 12 players, only 12 .... those wanting more clubs want more than 100 who don't drag down the standard of the comp - there is ready made comp playing our game a lower standard, one in most states ...

100+ 2nd tier players, only 12 taken, is that 88% of the available talent still up for grabs .... seriously 88% . Next thing you'll be claiming talent & participation levels are somehow related.

 

[telsor]

Those you'd find more easily had been rejected by recruiters at the 2015 draft. 12 players, only 12 .... those wanting more clubs want more than 100 who don't drag down the standard of the comp - there is ready made comp playing our game a lower standard, one in most states ...

100+ 2nd tier players, only 12 taken, is that 88% of the available talent still up for grabs .... seriously 88% . Next thing you'll be claiming talent & participation levels are somehow related.

Next you'll be claiming that facts that don't fit your preferred worldview don't count...Like how supply and demand only matter in very limited (but undefined) interpretations of the words.

and BTW, I'd say there are well over 100 second tier players. VFL & SANFL have what, 15, not counting the AFL reserves teams, so that's 330 players running out each week. NEAFL, WAFL & the non-listed players in the SANFL/VFL AFL reserves teams mightn't be so good, but even they might have a player or two worth considering.

 

[Kwality]

In context? You're talking about lack of talent out there, and pointing to a club finding 12 players as if it's a problem while ignoring that they weren't allowed to consider 90% of the potential talent.

90% eh ! 90% of those who aren't up to AFL standard as at the 2015 draft.
Read the article in The West - Kyal Horsley is an example of the players overlooked by Essendon. What U17 footballer are you suggesting should have been picked up?

You & your shadow appear to have little wish for an elite comp, its your right, & you could pay more attention to 2nd tier footy IF that's your want.

 

[Garlic muncher]

Further to the amount of talent out there (info taken from the participation thread)

In 1990 there were 14 AFL clubs and 231725 club participants or an average of 16551 club players per AFL club.

In 2015 there were 18 AFL clubs and 336108 club participants or an average of 18672 club players per AFL club.

So given the growth in the base has been faster than the growth in number of clubs, the AFL competition is even MORE elite/exceptional than it was 25 years ago.



nb. I chose 'club participants' as the point of comparison because it seems like the one least likely to have been affected by the changes of criteria that seem to inflate some of the other figures.

I would agree, academies are better, more time and effort is put into players, more players are identified from O/S and other sports etc so more pathways have been identified, as well as more more club footballers.

The real problem is at the top end, the game which needs to be slowed down and spread out, no one likes to see 15 ruck rovers or midfielders follow the ball

 

[telsor]

90% eh ! 90% of those who aren't up to AFL standard as at the 2015 draft.
Read the article in The West - Kyal Horsley is an example of the players overlooked by Essendon. What U17 footballer are you suggesting should have been picked up?

Pretty much by definition, every player not selected is not up to the current AFL standard as at the draft (at least, according to those doing the drafting), and that would be true regardless....If we only had 2 teams, everyone not selected wouldn't be 'up to AFL standard'.

You & your shadow appear to have little wish for an elite comp, its your right, & you could pay more attention to 2nd tier footy IF that's your want.

My shadow doesn't think for itself, it's only the projection of the absence of light caused by my physical form. You're thinking of peter pan, but I prefer to deal with the real world. Maybe you should start learning to separate fairy tales from reality a bit better, as they seem to be crossing over into your arguments.


The comp is more elite than it was....but you don't really care about facts that get in the way of your preconceived ideas do you? Any excuse in your quest to hurt football in Victoria, facts be damned!

 

[telsor]

I would agree, academies are better, more time and effort is put into players, more players are identified from O/S and other sports etc so more pathways have been identified, as well as more more club footballers.

While the elite junior programs help mold what comes through, having more players coming in gives them a lot more to work with. It also means a better standard at all levels, which helps keep the game strong. The new guy you get playing in some suburban 3rds team might end up being the father/mentor/support person who gets the next superstar into the game.

The real problem is at the top end, the game which needs to be slowed down and spread out, no one likes to see 15 ruck rovers or midfielders follow the ball

I don't disagree, but that's a completely different issue.

 

[Kwality]

Pretty much by definition, every player not selected is not up to the current AFL standard as at the draft (at least, according to those doing the drafting), and that would be true regardless....If we only had 2 teams, everyone not selected wouldn't be 'up to AFL standard'.




My shadow doesn't think for itself, it's only the projection of the absence of light caused by my physical form. You're thinking of peter pan, but I prefer to deal with the real world. Maybe you should start learning to separate fairy tales from reality a bit better, as they seem to be crossing over into your arguments.


The comp is more elite than it was....but you don't really care about facts that get in the way of your preconceived ideas do you? Any excuse in your quest to hurt football in Victoria, facts be damned!

Not sure I've ever suggested returning to the level of the State based days, nor am I sure I've ever suggested pumping in the 2 x underage squads improved the depth of the player pool, nor will returning 12 players who were overlooked ..... hang on, the population has increased therefore ....

Thanks for your commentary on fairy tales after feigning concern over a cartoon character & drawing support from your shadow.

 

[Kwality]

Next you'll be claiming that facts that don't fit your preferred worldview don't count...Like how supply and demand only matter in very limited (but undefined) interpretations of the words.

and BTW, I'd say there are well over 100 second tier players. VFL & SANFL have what, 15, not counting the AFL reserves teams, so that's 330 players running out each week. NEAFL, WAFL & the non-listed players in the SANFL/VFL AFL reserves teams mightn't be so good, but even they might have a player or two worth considering.

No percentage?