Mega Thread Port Forum General AFL Thread Part 25

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Introducing a third WA team doesn't dilute West Coast at all. If it dilutes anyone, it's Freo.

West Coast are the state team. They're the powerhouse. They're the team that's won 4 flags and played in 7 grand finals. They're the club of the rich and the famous. They're the club that the business community want to be associated with.

Freo are the challenger brand. The underdog. They're the club you support if you don't want to support West Coast for whatever reason.

You introduce a third team and you're halving Freo's support, not West Coast's.

In any case, we need less teams in this bloody league not more.
How many memebers are on the Eagles wait list?
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Crows must be filthy on Rachelli.The footage shows no out or possible appeal,at the tribunal.He just lost his marbles.
Recon the Crows will trade him when his contracts up.He will end up at Norf or West Coast.

They stuck by the racist why won’t they stick by Rocky?

Absolutely no hint of a “no dickheads policy” there
 
Introducing a third WA team doesn't dilute West Coast at all. If it dilutes anyone, it's Freo.

West Coast are the state team. They're the powerhouse. They're the team that's won 4 flags and played in 7 grand finals. They're the club of the rich and the famous. They're the club that the business community want to be associated with.

Freo are the challenger brand. The underdog. They're the club you support if you don't want to support West Coast for whatever reason.

You introduce a third team and you're halving Freo's support, not West Coast's.

In any case, we need less teams in this bloody league not more.
Remember when the popular wisdom was that if we rebranded as Crows Lite we would attract more members that otherwise would have supported the Camry Crows. It just doesn't work that way.
 
Remember when the popular wisdom was that if we rebranded as Crows Lite we would attract more members that otherwise would have supported the Camry Crows.
No I don't.

Thankfully.

And whoever said it was neither popular nor wise. Certainly not in my part of this town.

Sounds like something thought up by guys with shiny ridiculously tight suits and RM boots snorting hysterically over a couple of vastly overpriced Wolf Blass wines somewhere on the Parade.
 
Last edited:

(Log in to remove this ad.)

I love the way they call it "wildcard" when all it is is an extension of the finals series by a week and including more teams - that is, a money grab.

The fact that 12th would potentially qualify for finals in an 18-team competition essentially makes the minor round competition pointless.

The AFL would be much better off working on making the fixture fair, this giving all teams an equal chance of playing finals.

Adam Papalia is one of the better footy commentators (yeah I know, it's a low bar) but tonight on his 6PR show he was using the term "play-ins" for these pre-finals finals, which is what they use in the NBA :mad: The concept is probably reasonable in a country with 50 states, but overkill in the AFL, at least until there's 20 teams
 
Adam Papalia is one of the better footy commentators (yeah I know, it's a low bar) but tonight on his 6PR show he was using the term "play-ins" for these pre-finals finals, which is what they use in the NBA :mad: The concept is probably reasonable in a country with 50 states, but overkill in the AFL, at least until there's 20 teams
Yeah with 20 teams surely 2 ten team conferences is the way to go, then you can make finals go on forever if that's the objective.
 
If you cannot make the top eight teams in the comp you don't deserve to be playing any sort of final. The AFL always seem to be ****ing around with the rules or the programme. Why can't they turn their attention to the things that matter, such as a national AFL Reserves comp or a viable AFLW comp?

On NINE this morning they had a go at explaining what is proposed but hit a brick wall after the loser of the Elimination Final v the winner of 9v10. When asked what happens next the presenter laughed and said that is what the AFL will try to work out today and tomorrow. NINE treated it as a joke and at this stage I think that is about the right take.
 
If you cannot make the top eight teams in the comp you don't deserve to be playing any sort of final. The AFL always seem to be ******* around with the rules or the programme. Why can't they turn their attention to the things that matter, such as a national AFL Reserves comp or a viable AFLW comp?

On NINE this morning they had a go at explaining what is proposed but hit a brick wall after the loser of the Elimination Final v the winner of 9v10. When asked what happens next the presenter laughed and said that is what the AFL will try to work out today and tomorrow. NINE treated it as a joke and at this stage I think that is about the right take.
The idea sounds like the AFL trying to milk a couple more games out of the season to meet their growth targets.

For a club finishing 9th-10th I'd reckon they'd have more chance of winning a flag the following season (by booking in early surgeries, pre season starts sooner etc.) than playing out an extra week or two.

Only exception would be if you lost a few to injury during the year and they all were coming back and getting into form towards the end of season.

Only other positive I can imagine is if you've missed finals for a while and have a heap of kids on your list that haven't experienced it. The extra game or two could help build the buzz for the following pre season.
 
the NBA brand the "play in tournament" as a separate thing to the playoffs and put all the focus on those games then. the AFL might do something like this in the bye week - 7th hosts 8th for 7th place, 9th hosts 10th in an Elimination Final and the winner of that plays the loser of that 7th/8th game for 8th spot. i don't know where'd they'd stick that third game for 8th though. they'd probably love to spread it over 2 weekends but people would hate that second weekend having one game and such a long wait for the real finals.
 
If you cannot make the top eight teams in the comp you don't deserve to be playing any sort of final. The AFL always seem to be ******* around with the rules or the programme. Why can't they turn their attention to the things that matter, such as a national AFL Reserves comp or a viable AFLW comp?

On NINE this morning they had a go at explaining what is proposed but hit a brick wall after the loser of the Elimination Final v the winner of 9v10. When asked what happens next the presenter laughed and said that is what the AFL will try to work out today and tomorrow. NINE treated it as a joke and at this stage I think that is about the right take.
Guessing in the bye week before the finals 1-6 get the week off. While 7 plays 10 and 8 v 9.

Given the stats on teams coming off the bye, suspect that would mean following week. 5 must play 6.
Which means 6th place team misses chance to host a home final altogether but 9th place team could get a home final if both 7th and 8th lost their home final the week before.

Which brings up the worst dad joke "why was 6 crying"... because 7 8 9.

Always had that on par with make like a wombat eats roots, shoots and leaves.
 
Last edited:
Seriously best of 3 grand finals. 1 home, 1 away, 1 neutral if needed.

Ratings and cash poonanza.

Side thought: did Coon cheese ever consider to be rebranded Poon cheese.
 
And they want to play AFL here next year LOL??

Sturt has strongly defended the state of Unley Oval after it copped a whack from an angry South Adelaide coach Jarrad Wright, who described the playing surface as “unsafe’’ and “not up to league standard’’.
Wright was furious after last Sunday’s 34-point loss to the Double Blues, saying three of his players – Matthew Broadbent, Ben Shillabeer and Liam Fitt – rolled their ankles “in the horrible ground that Unley is’’.
“We said before the game it’s unsafe to play on and it proved that way with the injuries that came out of it,’’ Wright said of the muddy oval.
“The ground is not up to league standard. I think there’s some work getting done to it at the end of the year by the council, but it’s unsafe to play.’’
Sturt chief executive Sue Dewing said that while Unley Oval’s surface had copped a hammering and been under duress through Adelaide’s wettest start to a winter in 36 years, the ground was certainly playable and no worse than a couple of other SANFL venues.
 
People need to realise the wildcard stuff is about minimising the number of dead rubbers on the fixture, especially when we're expanding to 20 teams soon and who knows how many eventually given the insatiable appetite for expansion.

Keep teams alive and with hope longer so you have less meaningless games that nobody cares about. Ultimately the top teams will still win.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top