Roos has his say on Victoria's "crisis".

[Tas]

Money has nothing to do with success.

It is the ability to get enough good quality players on the list. You need to have that core group of about 5 exceptional players and the rest need to be very solid backed up with a good bit of depth.

You can get those exceptional players from sucking arse, ie Judd or you can poach them from other clubs, ie Hall, etc. or get them via F/S, ie Smith, Hawkings, etc or you just have to get luck that a very good player is overlooked or undervalued for whatever reason.

Then you have to be fortunate enough that these players turn into good AFL footballers.

It doesn't matter how much money you spend on recruiting or player development, sometimes players just never live up to their potential/reputation, ie McDougal or Gardiner.

I think a good development coach is more important than anything else. NC and Woosha are very good development coaches and can bring up players to get the most out of them.

 

[Tuco]

The cynical way Hawthorn has gone about "building" their list is worse for the game than any interstate domination.

Just like St Kilda's tanking for priority picks, and now their chronic injuries, it's funny how karma always catches up with you.

Sydney haven't had a top 3 draft pick since Jarred McVeigh in 2002, and have played finals consistently for a decade. West Coast and Adelaide the same.

Hawthorn have been down for a few years, but mainly stuck with the youth program. That's all I meant. Not sure what you mean by cynical. Are you suggesting Hawthorn have deliberately tanked? If so that's a bit harsh.

 

[Hawkk]

The cynical way Hawthorn has gone about "building" their list is worse for the game than any interstate domination.

Just like St Kilda's tanking for priority picks, and now their chronic injuries, it's funny how karma always catches up with you.

Sydney haven't had a top 3 draft pick since Jarred McVeigh in 2002, and have played finals consistently for a decade. West Coast and Adelaide the same.

2002 - 10th
2003 - 9th
2004 - 15th
2005 - 14th
2006 - 11th

Yeah, we've definately mastered the art of 'tanking'

 

[Merv]

What about the fact that interstate clubs have 11 home games plus finals depending on where they finish.

This is a 2 edged sword.

Initially it's a disadvantage when the new club is formed, as the travel drags the team down.

Yet over the years, they become accustomed to it and it is no longer the issue it was.

Recruits come into the club and adapt to the travel far quicker then the Vic clubs recruits that do it maybe once or twice in their first year, depending on their talent.

In comparison the Vic clubs travel 4-5 times a year only and don't win interstate very often, many clubs don't have an interstate win in the year.

The higher finishing clubs then get 2 home finals and an armchair ride into the GF.

There is no doubt the interstate clubs, in particular W/C have done a far superior job of recruiting, but the Home games in particular and to a lesser extent salary cap concessions for some are the main reasons why they have had the sucess they are enjoying today.

 

[Hammo]

What about the fact that interstate clubs have 11 home games plus finals depending on where they finish.

This is a 2 edged sword.

Initially it's a disadvantage when the new club is formed, as the travel drags the team down.

Yet over the years, they become accustomed to it and it is no longer the issue it was.

Recruits come into the club and adapt to the travel far quicker then the Vic clubs recruits that do it maybe once or twice in their first year, depending on their talent.

In comparison the Vic clubs travel 4-5 times a year only and don't win interstate very often, many clubs don't have an interstate win in the year.

Victorian teams play 15-18 home games a year

 

[Hammo]

Hawthorn have been down for a few years, but mainly stuck with the youth program. That's all I meant. Not sure what you mean by cynical. Are you suggesting Hawthorn have deliberately tanked? If so that's a bit harsh.

A 'youth' program is very easy to follow if you axe all your experienced and middle-experienced players, and earn early draft picks by finishing near last for consecutive years. You may not be trying to lose, but you don't give yourself the best chance at winning either.

 

[Merv]

Victorian teams play 15-18 home games a year

Can you read?

Vic clubs don't get used to travelling as they don't do it often enough.

Thats why interstate teams win nearly every game at home, finish high on the ladder and get 2 more home finals.

 

[btdg]

which is consistent with the suggestion that it is other expenditure, such as staff and facilities, that is allowing us to maintain a high standard. it's not just an issue of recruitment, it's more about football department and other expenditure. the non-victorian clubs generally have enough cash to do whatever they want. (those that are presently "up" are of course spending big to maximise the peak of their success). collingwood and essendon have similar access to cash and can support their players well. carlton will soon regain that kind of position but have been down for a while because elliot wasted their money and brought the club into disrepute which earned them hefty penalties. the kangaroos are presently bucking the trend, but will they maintain that for this season let alone the next two? (three up years is a general minimum for the recently successful). geelong got their finances together 3 or 4 years ago and are now looking like they may produce a period of consistent success (but probably won't as usual).

group the rich stable victorians with the non-vics and you get

year                 premier              runner up             minor prem
2001                 brisbane             essendon              essendon
2002                 brisbane             collingwood           port adelaide
2003                 brisbane             collingwood           port adelaide
2004                 port adelaide        brisbane              port adelaide
2005                 sydney               west coast            adelaide
2006                 west coast           sydney                west coast

so of 15 prestigious finishes over the past five years, not a single team outside of the rich, stable teams (non vics + pies and dons). the odds of this happening purely by chance = (8 "rich clubs" / 16 total)^15 spots = 1/2^15 = 1/32768 = 0.0030518% = tiny.

this is of course a very simplistic analysis, but the numbers really are stacking up against the teams without large war chests.

Footy has always been this way. Back in the 1980s, the richest teams in the competition were the big Victorian teams - Carlton, Essendon, Hawthorn, Collingwood, Richmond. Between 1980 and 1989, those 5 teams made up every single minor premier, and 18 out of 20 grand finalists (with Melbourne in 1988 and Geelong in 1989 the exceptions) - and the 1980s was the supposed golden era of football.

In the 90s, you had a bit of a power shift from those teams to the non-victorian teams, but it was mainly the same. What changed was the rise of a couple of extraordinary teams - a Geelong team built around the phenomenal Gary Ablett, and a North team built around Wayne Carey. Take out those two 'freak' teams, and it was basically the same story - premierships to West Coast, Carlton, Collingwood, Essendon and Adelaide, who were arguably the 5 biggest clubs at the time (as Port and Freo were new, Sydney still growing and Brisbane in their pre-merger existence and Carlton pre-collapse), and a couple of 'surprise' GF appearances from the also-rans (St Kilda in 1997, Sydney in 1996).

Now, we're into the new millenium, and we've had 7 grand finals shared between 7 of the 9 biggest teams in the comp. Not much has changed really. The bigger and richer the team, the more resources they have to spend on recruitment, player development, injury management, coaching and other resources, and the bigger crowd support they have. All other things being equal (and in the 'socialist' AFL they are), you would expect those teams to do better.

IMO this is the pattern we will see into the future. The big teams will dominate, with smaller teams popping up during weaker seasons (ie 1997-98), or when they are lucky enough to stumble upon a talent so extraordinary that they can surpass the other weaknesses the club faces.

That means, unfortunately, its basically gonna be West Coast, Sydney, Essendon, Collingwood, Adelaide, Port, Brisbane and maybe Freo sharing premierships until either:
- Carlton, Richmond or Hawthorn get their act together and rejoin the power teams off-field
- A superstar emerges who can transcend the socialism of the AFL and supass the limitations of his club at a smaller team (Hawkins is probably the only one on the horizon right now, Riewoldt was 3 years ago but hasn't delivered)
- By sheer luck there is a phenomenally weak year that allows a smaller team to get through.

On the other hand, how many other major competitions can say that in any 1 year, there are at least 8 teams in genuine contention for the premiership based on resources, and least 3 others with the support base to get there in the medium term, and all the other teams in contention for finals berths (if not the main deal) on a regular basis. I reckon we're doing pretty well...

 

[Hawkk]

Footy has always been this way. Back in the 1980s, the richest teams in the competition were the big Victorian teams - Carlton, Essendon, Hawthorn, Collingwood, Richmond. Between 1980 and 1989, those 5 teams made up every single minor premier, and 18 out of 20 grand finalists (with Melbourne in 1988 and Geelong in 1989 the exceptions) - and the 1980s was the supposed golden era of football.

In the 90s, you had a bit of a power shift from those teams to the non-victorian teams, but it was mainly the same. What changed was the rise of a couple of extraordinary teams - a Geelong team built around the phenomenal Gary Ablett, and a North team built around Wayne Carey. Take out those two 'freak' teams, and it was basically the same story - premierships to West Coast, Carlton, Collingwood, Essendon and Adelaide, who were arguably the 5 biggest clubs at the time (as Port and Freo were new, Sydney still growing and Brisbane in their pre-merger existence and Carlton pre-collapse), and a couple of 'surprise' GF appearances from the also-rans (St Kilda in 1997, Sydney in 1996).

Now, we're into the new millenium, and we've had 7 grand finals shared between 7 of the 9 biggest teams in the comp. Not much has changed really. The bigger and richer the team, the more resources they have to spend on recruitment, player development, injury management, coaching and other resources, and the bigger crowd support they have. All other things being equal (and in the 'socialist' AFL they are), you would expect those teams to do better.

IMO this is the pattern we will see into the future. The big teams will dominate, with smaller teams popping up during weaker seasons (ie 1997-98), or when they are lucky enough to stumble upon a talent so extraordinary that they can surpass the other weaknesses the club faces.

That means, unfortunately, its basically gonna be West Coast, Sydney, Essendon, Collingwood, Adelaide, Port, Brisbane and maybe Freo sharing premierships until either:
- Carlton, Richmond or Hawthorn get their act together and rejoin the power teams off-field
- A superstar emerges who can transcend the socialism of the AFL and supass the limitations of his club at a smaller team (Hawkins is probably the only one on the horizon right now, Riewoldt was 3 years ago but hasn't delivered)
- By sheer luck there is a phenomenally weak year that allows a smaller team to get through.

On the other hand, how many other major competitions can say that in any 1 year, there are at least 8 teams in genuine contention for the premiership based on resources, and least 3 others with the support base to get there in the medium term, and all the other teams in contention for finals berths (if not the main deal) on a regular basis. I reckon we're doing pretty well...

Good post

 

[harmesy 37]

What crisis?

Carlton have been consistently losing for five years in a row.. what is another year and another year and another year to that list? Just another year of losing. We are used to being losers.

 

[pharro]

The population is not there to support the unfinancial teams so why not merge them and become a strong unit as one team ?

Where were you in 1996 when two Victorian clubs decided to merge to become a strong unit as one team? Do you remember? Your club was so terrified of the prospect that it voted against the proposal.

 

[Crow-mo]

problem with topping up with top 3 talents is this nasty little salary cap thing.

 

[RUNVS]

problem with topping up with top 3 talents is this nasty little salary cap thing.

Its a cruel mistress that salary cap.

 

[mcgarnacle]

never mind Woosy that Melbourne clubs only have a real home ground advantage in 3 or 4 of those MCG or Telstra Dome matches. **** the colour of the shorts, a match between two melbourne club is neutral. furthermore, of the 11 away matches Woosy talks about his Swans playing in, one of them (Bulldogs) is a neutral venue which they've played at regularly and with predominantly Swans support, and another 6 or 7 are in Melbourne anyway in stadiums, where once again, they play in regularly and where they have some decent support.

there is a structural problem with this competition. Roos can write whatever he likes, however when the swans have needed a bit of a boost, the AFL have always been there with monetary and non-montary aid due to the market his club represents.

9 teams in the Melbourne metro area compete for supporters & sponsors - the two main stakeholders who provide variable funds to footy clubs. the afl as whole is doing great with TV rights, but the current 16 team format is being subsidised by the administration and will continue to do so for years to come.

the homogenising of the game in melbourne will further contribute to this. footy clubs don't represent anything anymore - community, people - clubs have adopted a generic identity in order to appeal to all and sundry. furthermore, all clubs play in town now. i'd prefer to support a collingwood or an essendon too if i were newbie and had a choice of whats on offer now.............a full stadium with atmosphere? it'll win out every time!

left to market forces, this comp would be a rabble not unlike the old NSL.