Expansion The logic of giving GC the Round 1 bye

[Thommo 42]

As we saw last week, Round 1 teams are out on their feet earlier, struggling to adjust to the increased intensity and just generally down on skill level, awareness and speed.

This is the case at almost all levels of footy, I play low division stuff here in Brisbane and we had our second game yesterday and it was 3 times as good as the first hitout as everyone had adjusted and settled after a Round 1 hitout.

So why would you debut the youngest and most inexperienced side in Round 2, when half of them have never even played at AFL level, and are a week behind their opponents for match fitness and battle hardening?

They were going to be lambs to the slaughter anyway, but why make it worse by rolling them out a week late, when their opponents have had a solid Round 1 hitout/tuneup?

Not only did they have 12 debutants, they also had 10 blokes playing 'Round 1 footy'

 

[syl]

Were they originally hoping to have Carrara ready? That coud be the reasoning.

 

[Rob]

Were they originally hoping to have Carrara ready? That coud be the reasoning.

Partly. They always knew the stadium wouldn't be ready until round 10 or so, so they wanted to give the GC their 2 byes in the first 9 rounds. Given that, it made sense to give them a bye in round 1.

I doubt the bye made the difference between a 20 goal flogging and being competitive.

 

[Soul_Pie]

Yeah, definitely a very poor mistake, although I guess any team that had the bye was at a disadvantage. But Gold Coast in particular would have struggled because they had no experience whatsoever both playing as a team at AFL level and in the case of so many players no AFL experience at all. As such they looked like a VFL team in the opening quarter.

They'll improve as the year goes on I think, but this was a baptism of fire and pretty badly thought out by AFL HQ.

 

[saint_larry]

Round 1 is too big an event.
Debuting in round 2 gives them all the attention in the media.

 

[Leather Poisoning]

I think the logic would be that all of the other clubs have loyal supporters (real ones, not just tyre kickers) that have been waiting months to see their club play. Why would you make any segment of fans wait an extra week for this?

That's the closest thing to logic that I can see.

 

[Bazzar]

So why would you debut the youngest and most inexperienced side in Round 2,

By a bees dick over Richmond.

AFL have gifted them games against the 2 youngest and inexperienced teams setting them up for a blockbuster against the Pies.

 

[El_Scorcho]

Round 1 is too big an event.
Debuting in round 2 gives them all the attention in the media.

This is it 100%.

The media coverage would have been all over the place instead of focused on the Suns where the AFL wanted it.

 

[nonetheless]

I'm not sure what the logic was behind giving them a round 1 bye, but I don't think it would have been the difference in winning and losing last night.

 

[Thommo 42]

I was at the game and despite the scoreline, they were more competitive than most would imagine. They seemed to match the Blues at stoppages, but could never find a free man and didn't seem to have an intuitive gameplan. Blues were spreading from contests instinctively, while everytime the GC boys had the footy they were in a panic. They also didn't kick the footy enough, too much handballing to blokes under pressure. Teamwork was clearly lacking, and they just couldn't mark the footy enough.

I think it made a massive difference between a 100+ hiding and more of a 'contest' that it was a Round 1 performance with 12 debutants against a Round 2 side.

I just think it was very poor planning, given everyone knows that Round 1 is when the rust is blown off and match fitness is enhanced, and the GC would have been up against it regardless.

 

[wallyt99]

I think it was to make supercoach more interesting - so that we would have to choose our Suns players before knowing if they would be in the best 22.

 

[Bazzar]

So why would you debut the youngest and most inexperienced side in Round 2

It was actually round 1 - The team stats for both Carlton games

Richmond - Gold Coast.
22.6 -Age- 22.7
51.0 -Games- 53.6
13 -Less than 50 games- 14
7 -50 to 99- 1
1 -100 to 149- 3
1 -150 and over- 4

 

[CrippsonBlue]

Ha, I like how you've simply labeled it 'Less than 50 games', as though 12 guys making their debut is somehow comparable to guys that have played anywhere up to 2-3 seasons, or even a couple of games for that matter.

More than half their side had never played a senior game - don't embarrass yourself with meaningless technicalities.

 

[Team Mo']

Was a ridiculous decision. A perfect second round for Carlton.

The Gold Coast would have been underdone and Carlton coming off a toughish win against Richmond were over the round 1 nerves/cramps/etc. How they weren't playing in the round 1 opener is mind boggling.

 

[Byron_Clanger]

Giving them an extra week to prepare I suppose

 

[GoldenCoast]

Think we needed an extra week to get ready, didnt turn out that way but we came across a red hot outfit in the Blues.

can only improve from here!

 

[Monty of the Shire]

Ha, I like how you've simply labeled it 'Less than 50 games', as though 12 guys making their debut is somehow comparable to guys that have played anywhere up to 2-3 seasons, or even a couple of games for that matter.

More than half their side had never played a senior game - don't embarrass yourself with meaningless technicalities.

Excuse me this board is all about meaningless technicalities and statistics! Last season someone (cant be arsed finding the post) claimed global dominance of Collingwood as a football club because of something like 'highest cumulative attendance across 2 consecutive rounds of home & away football'. Its wonderful posts like that and the one you refer to that keep me coming back to this site for a laugh. My stats teacher at uni would have a field day with some of the shovel loads of steaming bullshit served up as 'facts' and argument settlers. Love it

Anyway, good win for the blues, GC can only get better.


SWANS 2011 !

 

[Jabso]

It's also a bad decision in that the younger players will tire towards the end of the year, and they won't have two byes to break up the season for them.

 

[legend166]

What is with Richmond fans desperately trying to claim they are somehow younger or inexperienced than the Suns? So bizarre.

 

[Monty of the Shire]

What is with Richmond fans desperately trying to claim they are somehow younger or inexperienced than the Suns? So bizarre.

just getting their excuses in early mate

 

[GoldenCoast]

HA

who would even say that???

does he also think that gravity is a myth!

there are facts there which prove him wrong!

 

[Bazzar]

What is with Richmond fans desperately trying to claim they are somehow younger or inexperienced than the Suns? So bizarre.

Why is it Bizzare

Look at the facts. The Richmond team that lined up against Carlton average age was 22.6 to the Suns 22.7 and average games played was 51.0 for Richmond and 53.6 for the Suns.

Go to any stats site and come back if you can prove that wrong.

HA

who would even say that???

does he also think that gravity is a myth!

there are facts there which prove him wrong!

Ill give you a head start -

down to bottom right hand side "average attributes"

Richmond v Carlton http://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/ft_match_statistics?mid=5147

Suns v Carlton http://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/ft_match_statistics?mid=5158

 

[conwaynmfc]

Why is it Bizzare

Look at the facts. The Richmond team that lined up against Carlton average age was 22.6 to the Suns 22.7 and average games played was 51.0 for Richmond and 53.6 for the Suns.

Go to any stats site and come back if you can prove that wrong.

The point is, 12 GC players had not played AFL footy before. How many players from Richmond did that apply to?

The "less than 50 games" fact is rubbish because you could have a shitload on 49 games. Just sayin...

 

[UrLordUnbeliever]

As we saw last week, Round 1 teams are out on their feet earlier, struggling to adjust to the increased intensity and just generally down on skill level, awareness and speed.

So why would you debut the youngest and most inexperienced side in Round 2, when half of them have never even played at AFL level, and are a week behind their opponents for match fitness and battle hardening?

They were going to be lambs to the slaughter anyway, but why make it worse by rolling them out a week late, when their opponents have had a solid Round 1 hitout/tuneup?

Not only did they have 12 debutants, they also had 10 blokes playing 'Round 1 footy'

I've been saying that since the draw was released - that the Suns would be massively disadvantaged by not playing in the first week. It should have been the Premiers given the bye in rnd 1, kind of evening the balance for the rest of the competition. Ah well, it's over now and hopefully won't be shown up too badly against the Bulldogs next week before their next game at the GABBA.