Which team list would you least want?

[Magus]

Essendon, Adelaide, Geelong, Hawthorn

 

[BEEG]

Surprised Melbourne doesn't get more of a mention awful team.

 

[Captain_Bender]

WC shot themselves in the foot by losing to Hawthorn at home in the last round which cost them a top 4 spot. They potentially could have played Brisbane away in a QF, then had an easy ride into the grand final.

Brisbane would have beat West Coast by 10+ goals if they met in the QF

 

[Freomaniac]

If Optus Stadium suddenly had 8 co-tenants it would also mean the travel load would be lesser. I'd take that fixture.

I've always been of the view that Richmond deserved their flag and that the natural advantage of having a lesser travel burden is balanced out by having less 'true' home games. It is what it is and it won't change in the short to medium term.

West Coast weren't good enough in 2019 (the Collingwood and Hawthorn games at home in the end probably cost us) and it is a bit embarrassing that a handful of supporters on here cannot acknowledge that.

That being said - I'd prefer an MCG tenant style fixture rather than an Optus Stadium tenant fixture - the travel really does have an effect on performance, this is well documented and studies and I hope no Richmond supporter is ignoring that either.

so you would want a 3rd WA side in the AFL for that reason.

I remembered until 2010 when it was a 16 team comp, one WA team would play at home then away the next week. Which derby team had the "away" derby had 3 WA games in a row.

Hence why Freo made top 4 in 2006 as they won 9 games in a row. Their last 9 games were 5 at home and 3 away. One of those away games was a derby. So essentially when Freo won 9 in a row that year, they won 6 at their home state and 3 away.

 

[Freomaniac]

No, the travel is a genuine burden. I just think that some West Coast fans think that having a lot of MCG games means that it’s a simple equation when it comes to winning a Premiership. I see it as a trade-off. Don’t travel a lot, but don’t have much home ground advantage either. Travel a lot, but have a lot of home ground advantage to compensate for it. It somewhat ends up balancing itself which is why there tends to be just as much non-Victorian sides in the top 8 as Victorian sides.

In finals, Non-Victorian sides have more advantage being the home side (1st, 2nd, 5th and 6th) than Victorians. Example: West Coast finishing 2nd and Richmond finishing 1st in 2018. West Coast hosted Collingwood and Melbourne at Optus Oval, which were two travelling sides. Richmond hosted Hawthorn and Collingwood, which were both MCG tenants like Richmond so no HGA at all for finishing first.

Victorians have more advantage being the away side (3rd, 4th, 7th and 8th) than non-Victorians. Example: Richmond finishing 3rd in 2017 and GWS finishing 4th. Richmond played Geelong at their own home ground week one at the MCG whereas GWS travelled for both.

I think that things pre-Grand Final are fine as they are. We all know the inequality of the Grand Final itself though. It’s admittedly skewed towards Victorian sides than non-Victorian sides and it isn’t really necessary to be an exclusive Victorian thing when it is a national league. I think it was a little silly to lock the Grand Final at the MCG for so long. In the NFL, they pre-determine where the Super Bowl is. The only problem is that their average stadium holds a pretty decent capacity. Perth Stadium, Adelaide Oval, MCG and ANZ Stadium are all fine to have a Grand Final, but is the Gabba good enough with a capacity of ~42K? I don’t know. Maybe if they expand its capacity to 50-60K then these 5 stadiums can be used for the Grand Final on a pre-determined rotational basis. Only then will the AFL truly have attempted what they can to make the competition a national competition instead of making it a little Victorian-centric.

solid post but you also forgot one thing and this also balanced out. As a fan of a WA team, I can't bitch and moan about home ground advantage. Cuts both ways regardless big your a Vic side or a non Vic side.

People also forget one factor. It's called local talent.

Freo only has to fight against one side in west coast for local WAFL talent.

As for Richmond, sure you can find talent in the VFL and tac cup but your fighting against 9 other local sides for that. An 18 year old Dustin Martin would easily be top 10, possibly top 5 in any draft, let alone the 2009 draft he was taken.

 

[Mt Isa Mustang]

Gold Coast are a revolving door of talent, reflecting wider cultural issues and lack of leadership. Many of their young guns will be good in 3-5 years time, but will they still be playing for the suns?

19 resigning this year with fiorini and some of the new draftees to be announced at the season open members event.

I’d say vast majority.
Tide has turned.

 

[JerryWexler]

I'd rather Dunks in the guylts then Gaff, that's 100%

Guylts? I know what you mean, but I disagree. Dinky handpasses and a guy who is ratshit in front of goal is not Andrew Gaff.

 

[Foucault1989]

You're spot on about them needing to be in "win now" mode, especially when you take into account that not only do they have that many who are 27yo or older, but that all their very best players are currently 27yo+.

Age by the end of this season:

32- Higgins, Goldstein
31- Tarrant
29- Cunnington, Ziebell, Daw, MacMillan, Pittard
28- Jacobs
27- Brown, Polec

9 of the top 10 in their B&F came from that group.

Very little to get excited about in the currently 22-26yo group (hence only Dumont cracking the top 10 in the B&F), and by the time their currently 21yo and under group (who have shown promise, but are as yet almost all "unproven") are coming into their prime years, the likes of Higgins, Goldy and Tarrant are likely to be gone, and with Cunnington and Ziebell on what may be their last legs.

They wouldn't need much to go wrong to be in a pretty dire place.

If on the other hand they managed to pick up a mid-career "superstar", say this year, that could propel them into genuine premiership contention, but of course they've failed at all their attempts to do that in recent years, and will presumably continue to do so, if it looks like they're really not going anywhere fast.

I hate this argument so much. If a club's senior core were not in the top 10 of a best and fairest, we would all be criticizing them for a lack of leadership and leaving it up to the younger players to carry the load.

9 out of 10 in the best and fairest SHOULD be players over 25. That is when AFL players peak in terms of footy IQ and physical maturity. The whole goal of list management is the build a solid core in the 24 - 28 age bracket because we know that's the sweet spot in terms of output and consistency.

You then want a steady group of young players coming through the ranks and developing their craft by learning from those more senior experienced types.

 

[Ambrosia]

I remember Richmond getting the most votes for the same question posed a few years ago... bigfooty

I never understood the criticism of Richmonds list in that period. You guys had 3 guns of the competition with plenty of football ahead of them. There was always time to find the right pieces around them.

 

[JerryWexler]

Don't mess with the zurhar is tops, jury out on others

Are you an East Freo boy too?

 

[old55]

I hate this argument so much. If a club's senior core were not in the top 10 of a best and fairest, we would all be criticizing them for a lack of leadership and leaving it up to the younger players to carry the load.

9 out of 10 in the best and fairest SHOULD be players over 25. That is when AFL players peak in terms of footy IQ and physical maturity. The whole goal of list management is the build a solid core in the 24 - 28 age bracket because we know that's the sweet spot in terms of output and consistency.

You then want a steady group of young players coming through the ranks and developing their craft by learning from those more senior experienced types.

As long as that team is being successful then yes, but if they are battling mid table then it's not a good sign.

 

[Freomaniac]

Brisbane would have beat West Coast by 10+ goals if they met in the QF

As much as I dislike west coast, I disagree.

Even bh90210fan will agree to this. That Brisbane side you knocked off at the Gabba was the least experienced and weakest Brisbane side to play finals. Hell the Brisbane side in 1995 that lost to Carlton at least had Roger Merrett and Michael McClean as experienced players. Not saying tiger's were crap, far from it. They were good and efficient. Reminded me if hawks beating Freo in the 2015 prelim final in Perth.

So yeah west coast would of probably beaten Brisbane easily.

 

[Coaster2012]

Watch Richmond & WC miss the 8. How foolish we all will be.

 

[Freomaniac]

You're spot on about them needing to be in "win now" mode, especially when you take into account that not only do they have that many who are 27yo or older, but that all their very best players are currently 27yo+.

Age by the end of this season:

32- Higgins, Goldstein
31- Tarrant
29- Cunnington, Ziebell, Daw, MacMillan, Pittard
28- Jacobs
27- Brown, Polec

9 of the top 10 in their B&F came from that group.

Very little to get excited about in the currently 22-26yo group (hence only Dumont cracking the top 10 in the B&F), and by the time their currently 21yo and under group (who have shown promise, but are as yet almost all "unproven") are coming into their prime years, the likes of Higgins, Goldy and Tarrant are likely to be gone, and with Cunnington and Ziebell on what may be their last legs.

They wouldn't need much to go wrong to be in a pretty dire place.

If on the other hand they managed to pick up a mid-career "superstar", say this year, that could propel them into genuine premiership contention, but of course they've failed at all their attempts to do that in recent years, and will presumably continue to do so, if it looks like they're really not going anywhere fast.

well looking at that list of oldies you mentioned. In 3-4 years. All those blokes will be gone. So basically 3-4 years time, half of Norths best 22 will be different.

 

[Freomaniac]

Watch Richmond & WC miss the 8. How foolish we all will be.

Yep and Freo and Saint Kilda will make this year's grand final. LoL

 

[Tenny]

Watch Richmond & WC miss the 8. How foolish we all will be.

I wouldn’t be surprised if WCE did miss the eight all together. I have maintained they are a 5th to 8th side and 9th is just outside of that bracket. What will help them is the fact there are only seven other good sides in it.

 

[Coaster2012]

I wouldn’t be surprised if WCE did miss the eight all together. I have maintained they are a 5th to 8th side and 9th is just outside of that bracket. What will help them is the fact there are only seven other good sides in it.

Yeah no shit you do, everyone knows you don't rate WC. It's literally all you've banged on about for the last 5 pages and I can't really be bothered talking to you.

 

[Numero Uno]

I wouldn’t be surprised if WCE did miss the eight all together. I have maintained they are a 5th to 8th side and 9th is just outside of that bracket. What will help them is the fact there are only seven other good sides in it.

you're nearly as obsessed with WC as most freo supporters

that's some effort

 

[Piggy Smalls]

I wouldn’t be surprised if WCE did miss the eight all together. I have maintained they are a 5th to 8th side and 9th is just outside of that bracket. What will help them is the fact there are only seven other good sides in it.

Do you have to troll and argue with West Coast on every thread?

 

[Captain_Bender]

As much as I dislike west coast, I disagree.

Even bh90210fan will agree to this. That Brisbane side you knocked off at the Gabba was the least experienced and weakest Brisbane side to play finals. Hell the Brisbane side in 1995 that lost to Carlton at least had Roger Merrett and Michael McClean as experienced players. Not saying tiger's were crap, far from it. They were good and efficient. Reminded me if hawks beating Freo in the 2015 prelim final in Perth.

So yeah west coast would of probably beaten Brisbane easily.

Seeing that Brisbane flogged West Coast at the Gabba during 2019, I would still put my money on Brisbane to win

 

[Coaster2012]

Seeing that Brisbane flogged West Coast at the Gabba during 2019, I would still put my money on Brisbane to win

During?

You mean at the start. It was round 1.

 

[Senor M]

During?

You mean at the start. It was round 1.

Is Round 1 not part of the AFL season now?

 

[Coaster2012]

Is Round 1 not part of the AFL season now?

There is a start of a season, during the season, at the end of the season. Don't play dumb. That poster knew exactly what he meant. He could of said at the start, but hes a known WC troll so.

If you are seriously trying to state an argument on a round 1 result then I'm already bored.

 

[emuboy]

With 18 teams in the league, North Melbourne I see as the team that gets stuck in the middle of the ladder for years on end. I can't see them bottoming out at any time soon, but I don't see them making a serious challenge for the premiership either. They might draft some players who turn out to be very good players and do well out of trades, but as for building the necessary list to win a premiership, I can't see it. The Kangaroos might be able to make the finals some years but probably semi finalists at best.

 

[Senor M]

There is a start of a season, during the season, at the end of the season. Don't play dumb. That poster knew exactly what he meant. He could of said at the start, but hes a known WC troll so.

If you are seriously trying to state an argument on a round 1 result then I'm already bored.

So you're trying to say just because it was Round #1 the result doesn't count??

Gees--- The West Coast Whingers will really use any excuse when they lose.