Reasons for Melbourne's decline since 1964

[Stats Man]

my knowledge of everything that has happened isn't flash so for those who aren't in the loop, what has contributed to melbourne's fall since they dominated the competition in the 50s and 60s?

some questions.....

1) if melbourne were so successful in the 50s and 60s..where was the influx of support of kids in the state who grew up in that era??

2) traditionally (1890s-1960s) where did they get their support from? what was their area?

3) why the chronic instability? jim stynes aside, it seems like they have not had anyone to glue them together..

4) forecast a few years forward from now and say by 205-2016, melbourne are in the finals and who knows (just hypothetical so don't shout it down!!!) maybe even becoming one of the best teams to watch in the comp and one genuinely on the rise with a few eye catching stars - what sort of crowds can we expect??

5) the previous q leads to this q - are fans set to drop off from the fiasco that has been 2012 for the demons? i mean, richmond and saints in particular have had their decades of broken dreams and genuine lack of success but at least they have teased with hope.. tbh i feel for demons fans because right now... where is the legitimate hope? not neeld's fault either.

6) the merger.. the hawks seem to have bandied together since the 1996 proposed merger and become a big club that has stability written all over it (although they flunked in 2004).. melb on the other hand seem to have been a year to year proposition since.. daniher got them to the 00 GF i know but where was the response from melbourne's fans in 97? or if there was one (im comparing it to the hawks proud passionate and paid up drive that had a big effect apparently) what was it like?

what do you think?? and what can be added to the discussion??

cheers and good luck dees!

 

[Maddhew]

my knowledge of everything that has happened isn't flash so for those who aren't in the loop, what has contributed to melbourne's fall since they dominated the competition in the 50s and 60s?

some questions.....

1) if melbourne were so successful in the 50s and 60s..where was the influx of support of kids in the state who grew up in that era??

2) traditionally (1890s-1960s) where did they get their support from? what was their area?

3) why the chronic instability? jim stynes aside, it seems like they have not had anyone to glue them together..

4) forecast a few years forward from now and say by 205-2016, melbourne are in the finals and who knows (just hypothetical so don't shout it down!!!) maybe even becoming one of the best teams to watch in the comp and one genuinely on the rise with a few eye catching stars - what sort of crowds can we expect??

5) the previous q leads to this q - are fans set to drop off from the fiasco that has been 2012 for the demons? i mean, richmond and saints in particular have had their decades of broken dreams and genuine lack of success but at least they have teased with hope.. tbh i feel for demons fans because right now... where is the legitimate hope? not neeld's fault either.

6) the merger.. the hawks seem to have bandied together since the 1996 proposed merger and become a big club that has stability written all over it (although they flunked in 2004).. melb on the other hand seem to have been a year to year proposition since.. daniher got them to the 00 GF i know but where was the response from melbourne's fans in 97? or if there was one (im comparing it to the hawks proud passionate and paid up drive that had a big effect apparently) what was it like?

what do you think?? and what can be added to the discussion??

cheers and good luck dees!

Melbourne's population cannot sustain 9 teams.

 

[Mordecai]

Melbourne's population cannot sustain 9 teams.

Yes it can.

Unless you blokes are referring the Mayan Prophecy of 2012 then things look set to continue in one way or another. Melbourne is only continuing to expand.

 

[SM]

No it can't.

 

[Quivorir]

No it can't.

Yes it can.

 

[Stylus]

Well this is an interesting debate.

 

[Perry Pie]

Well this is an interesting debate.

No it isnt

 

[Hodge is God]

Well this is an interesting debate.

Enthralling.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Just want to add my ten cents' worth.

 

[Jentleman Geff]

Fans deserted and began to support Hawthorn.

 

[royals1922]

Forget this debate about whether it can support 9 teams or not. TV contracts are in place and that is it for that point for me.

It comes, for me, to talent identification and talent base.

Melbourne have not been able to draft since the commencement of the draft... ever....

But there is another issue. Look at the 1964 team that won the flag. Only one was a non Victorian - Tassie Johnson.

Now look at the players themselves.

From the limited information available to me at short notice, the 20 men who played in 1964, apart from Tassie Johnson came from Lyndhurst Hampton Park, Dandenong, Glen Iris, East Burwood or Salesian College or Melbourne High or St Pats College or Northcote High School or the 3 that came from the amateurs or the Vic country boys who came from Kyabram or Echuca or North Ballarat or Castlemaine or Rutherglen.

Essentially a Victorian side built to some degree from the amateurs or their zones.

I have no doubt if you looked at the 54 premiership team or the other teams you would find some similarity but the VFL ceased being the VFL but Melbourne never got its recruiting in step with it...

 

[SHAKESPEARE]

La Nina. Winters are colder. Fans like snow. Less fans = less money = poorer club. Poor clubs have poor players.





Seriously, It's just bad luck.

 

[bunsen burner]

Reasons for Melbourne's decline since 1964

They shit bro.

 

[SM]

La Nina. Winters are colder. Fans like snow. Less fans = less money = poorer club. Poor clubs have poor players.





Seriously, It's just bad luck.

It's all Global Warming's fault.

 

[SHAKESPEARE]

It's all Global Warming's fault.

Exactly. The changes in the atmospheric pressure means strange things happen. There must be losers in life.

 

[The Speaker]

No it isnt

Yes it is.

 

[SM]

Yes it is.

Is it?

 

[MightyHawks]

The quick version
Sacked Norm Smith
Factions
Ron Barrassi left
Factions
Never became a professional club
Split from MCC
Factions
Voted to merge
Factions
Gave Scully Barassi's number
Scully left

Currently
Most Demons supporters today were alive in 1964

 

[Chewy]

1) if melbourne were so successful in the 50s and 60s..where was the influx of support of kids in the state who grew up in that era??

2) traditionally (1890s-1960s) where did they get their support from? what was their area?

Melbourne didn't convert their 1950's success into mass appeal because they were a club without a heartland. They didn't represent any particular area. They represented the upper-class old-money toffs.

3) why the chronic instability? jim stynes aside, it seems like they have not had anyone to glue them together..

Melbourne fans would be best left to answer this, but in my opinion, it is because they don't have a strong club culture. They've always just been making up the numbers, even when they had fleeting success.

A lot of the Melbourne fans I know are slightly embarrassed to admit their allegiance. They're almost apologetic about it. Not just these past 5 barren years, but through the 80's and 90's. They've always had a small following, not many good players, meagre success and very little is said or written about them.

Nobody hates them. Not many admit to barracking for them either. They are just a bit of a non-event. They've never had a place to call home. Other clubs had their social clubs. Where was Melbourne's? Other clubs trained at their suburban oval. Where did Melbourne train at? It always changed from one year to the next.

They don't really have any identity. They were the football club for the tight-fisted old-money silver tails, unlike Carlton, who had millionaires like Dick Pratt, Bruce Mathieson and John Elliott kicking in millions and paying the transfer fees for the likes of Kernahan, Bradley, Rhys-Jones, Madden, Blackwell, Naley, Dorotich, Evans, etc...

The successful VFL clubs in the 70's and 80's were those nurtured their local zones and topped up their lists with expensive gun players from SA and WA. Apart from the big splash the Demons made in 1981 with the top-dollar signings of Peter Moore, Kelvin Templeton and Ron Barassi as coach, they were never really in the game. From 1965-1987, the Dees were amateurs and losers.

I think this was a huge growth period for football. Unfortunately for Melbourne, it coincided with a time when they just sat on their hands, did nothing and fell by the wayside. By the late 80's and early 90's, they were openly courting mergers with other clubs.

4) forecast a few years forward from now and say by 205-2016, melbourne are in the finals and who knows (just hypothetical so don't shout it down!!!) maybe even becoming one of the best teams to watch in the comp and one genuinely on the rise with a few eye catching stars - what sort of crowds can we expect??

5) the previous q leads to this q - are fans set to drop off from the fiasco that has been 2012 for the demons? i mean, richmond and saints in particular have had their decades of broken dreams and genuine lack of success but at least they have teased with hope.. tbh i feel for demons fans because right now... where is the legitimate hope? not neeld's fault either.

It's entrenched the suspicion that Melbourne are a bit of a joke. A soft club who rolls over. If their "brand" wasn't already being trashed as a result of their consistent losing ways, it's now established they deliberately tried to win the wooden spoon. Terrible... It can't help them. Hopefully they can get their act together on the field, but their club has been damaged by this, no two ways about it. If there was any 6/7/8 year old Dees fans out there, they've probably jumped ship over the events of 2012.

6) the merger.. the hawks seem to have bandied together since the 1996 proposed merger and become a big club that has stability written all over it (although they flunked in 2004).. melb on the other hand seem to have been a year to year proposition since.. daniher got them to the 00 GF i know but where was the response from melbourne's fans in 97? or if there was one (im comparing it to the hawks proud passionate and paid up drive that had a big effect apparently) what was it like?

What needs to be made clear about the 1996 merger vote is that it was never a mutual venture.

Melbourne had been looking to merge with a number of teams from 1986-1996, but always on their terms, never a proper merger, but a takeover attempt. Basically preying on the other weak clubs who were in financial shit. 1996 was no different, except the AFL were more involved. Graeme Samuel and Ross Oakley wanted to it to happen and they actually funded the campaign. They were openly trying to reduce the number of Victorian teams in order to accommodate more teams from interstate.

Hawthorn had experienced unparalleled success from 1974-1994. They made the finals in 18 of those 21 years. There was enormous complacency among Hawk fans. They'd seen their team dominate for their entire lives. By 1995, the AFL's equalisation measures (draft and salary cap) finally had the desired effect, we finished 2nd last and many fans briefly deserted the club. They found other things to do with their weekend, as you do when you're a part-time bandwagon fan (and EVERY club has their share of these.) Losing sucks when you're accustomed to winning.

It affected Hawthorn's bottom line. The club had been mismanaged. They had just spent MILLIONS renovating the clubrooms at Glenferrie and had no money. We were in debt and sinking with a clueless lame-duck administration.

The AFL basically came along and tried to kill off my football club when it was at a brief low ebb. We just needed new broom: a president with money and new board members with fresh ideas. That happened after the AFL's failed merger/execution attempt. Everyone jumped on board and we had 28,000 members in 1997 (up from 11,000.) This was back in the days when Collingwood was the only club with more than 20,000 members.

The people who ridicule Hawthorn for the events of 1996 have no idea what they are talking about.

I have never forgiven the AFL for trying to kill my club

 

[MightyHawks]

I have never forgiven the AFL for trying to kill my club

Has the AFL forgiven Hawthorn for surviving?

 

[Marns]

 

[Marlowe]

Gypsy curse.

 

[HugeJohnson]

Jack watts

 

[Mick98]

Global warming has affected the ski fields badly since 1964,Hence Melbourne's downward spiral.

Success is determined by the current climate.

 

[Northworth]

I think whenever we discuss "too many teams" or the problem with Victorian clubs, three clubs are always mentioned - North, Bulldogs and Demons.

North has been poor on-field for most of its existence and is located between the zones of other clubs, so its starting supporter-base from which to draw members has always been challenging. However, its successes in the 70s and 90s certainly have helped and it has been willing to innovate (often to the ridicule of others, with many secondary markets being dismal failures). But as at today, we have a good, young list, and a solid/rising membership base and I hope that our next few years position us well in the lead up to the next media rights deal. We'll see.

The doggies are a club that has always been everyone's second club. They try and don't give an inch - which is why they are respected. Whilst having a worse on-field history than us, their membership zone is wide and growing, and in the long-term they will be fine. Perhaps there are some cultural issues that have prevented them from taking the next step from prelim regulars to premiership heroes but I am sure it will happen.

Melbourne are funny. They have a worrying combination of:
- big club arrogance
- terrible, sustained on-field performance for 40+ years
- medium sized supporter base that defers to the few

I think that the Casey move was smart as it does position them to grow their membership base. But I think they have historically been reliant on "the few" to control their own destiny (MCC, the en bloc voting for the merger in 96). I suspect it is the attitude that "we are a great club and invented the game" that has made them complacent, and accept weird paths like tanking which is counter to what the rest of us think the game should be about.

I hope they survive the tanking fiasco - and thrive going forward, but it will require a groundswell of fans to take control of the club's direction.