Opening Round: GWS v Collingwood, Saturday afternoon

[sr36]

If that is "success", it raises the question as to why bother with GWS at all.

The AFL are playing a long game. It's about generations to build a big following in the area and big supporter base. It's not about the 10 years that these guys have been in the AFL.

 

[doofdoof]

The AFL are playing a long game. It's about generations to build a big following in the area and big supporter base. It's not about the 10 years that these guys have been in the AFL.

So why not rotate the teams that play? Surely having an extra 2-3k people there in 2024 makes very little difference over 40-60 years (generations)

 

[Mollythedolly]

So why not rotate the teams that play? Surely having an extra 2-3k people there in 2024 makes very little difference over 40-60 years (generations)

Depends how many of those 2-3k are relative newcomers to AFL, and how many of them continue to go to the footy. If you can add even a few hundred now then that could underpin exponential growth year to year. If they’re all regulars who are already engaged then it’s a slower process.

 

[BEEG]

It's a rubbish concept this round 0.

Didnt stop me buying flights and accommodation to see both Sydney games.

 

[doofdoof]

Depends how many of those 2-3k are relative newcomers to AFL, and how many of them continue to go to the footy. If you can add even a few hundred now then that could underpin exponential growth year to year. If they’re all regulars who are already engaged then it’s a slower process.

Um ..... they are all Collingwood fans. That's why the crowd is not 5,000

 

[jimmy35]

Pretty happy with our draw actually, I see it got caned in the paper but looks okay to me generally.

 

[jimmy35]

It's a rubbish concept this round 0.

Didnt stop me buying flights and accommodation to see both Sydney games.

I’m sure the AFL have explained the 0 round concept but I missed it. What was their rationale?

 

[BEEG]

I’m sure the AFL have explained the 0 round concept but I missed it. What was their rationale?

Compete with Rugby League.

 

[sr36]

Compete with Rugby League.

I think it's ultimately to add a week of tvs big timeslots.

Interesting what they'll do with Tassie and gather round - they can't keep having 23 games, as it can't work. Gather round has been surprisingly successful Will even numbers of home and away go out the window?

 

[76woodenspooners]

Yes….but it wasn’t fair that we had the shortest off-season AND were scheduled to play three matches before most other teams had played two.

We had 22 weeks break. Our opponent had 23 weeks break. Some teams had 28 weeks break.

You really think there is that much of a difference between 22 weeks and 28 weeks?!?!?

I don’t see why 5 months wouldn’t be ample time for players have a decent well deserved rest, and then prepare strongly for the season ahead.

 

[manicpie]

We had 22 weeks break. Our opponent had 23 weeks break. Some teams had 28 weeks break.

You really think there is that much of a difference between 22 weeks and 28 weeks?!?!?

I don’t see why 5 months wouldn’t be ample time for players have a decent well deserved rest, and then prepare strongly for the season ahead.

If you consider that footy is a percentage game, you only have to be 5% off to lose from week to week. It will have some advantages to having 5 weeks on your opponents. I tend to agree with you though. 5 months should be ample time to be ready for round 1

 

[76woodenspooners]

If you consider that footy is a percentage game, you only have to be 5% off to lose from week to week. It will have some advantages to having 5 weeks on your opponents.

Let’s say one team has a 5 month break and another team has a 2 year break, does that mean the team with the 2 year break has an advantage? Of course not, they’ll be at a disadvantage because they’ll be out of competitive practice.

That’s the argument we use when teams fall over in a Prelim final - they’d only played 1 game in 4 weeks or whatever so they were rusty.

So when one team has a 22 week break and the other has a 28 week break, why don’t we say the team with the 28 week is at a disadvantage because they’re rusty?

 

[jmac70]

Let’s say one team has a 5 month break and another team has a 2 year break, does that mean the team with the 2 year break has an advantage? Of course not, they’ll be at a disadvantage because they’ll be out of competitive practice.

That’s the argument we use when teams fall over in a Prelim final - they’d only played 1 game in 4 weeks or whatever so they were rusty.

So when one team has a 22 week break and the other has a 28 week break, why don’t we say the team with the 28 week is at a disadvantage because they’re rusty?

The best team normally wins.

 

[76woodenspooners]

The best team normally wins.

Surely the best team always wins, by definition?