Expansion has gone too far

[I am Jack]

The quality of the game has dropped, with more sides it will mean more kids get a chance.
The AFL is a business, so it has to increase employment for kids and generate maximum profits.

In reference to quality of the game, I don't even think it is an argument anymore.
The product itself is inferior, but it reaches more people than ever - and people seem content.

 

[Admiral Byng]

I was thinking along these lines last nght and was going to start a thread.

To me it seems the biggest factor between a top side and a bottom side is the skill level. Top sides seems to have it, bottom sides seem not to have it. The ability to pick up the ball without fumbling it, handpass it into the hands of a teammate at a comfortable height so he doesn't have to either raise or lower his eyes, or to kick it and hit a target - that's what sets up the play. There have been so many passages of play from bad sides where they are away but one poor handpass or one bad kick results in a loose ball and a contest. It only takes a half a second delay and suddenly there is an opposition player there ready to pressure or tackle. It's that keepings off type play to keep the ball moving half a second ahead of the opposition that makes top teams good.

Which leads to me think if modern coaches place enough emphasis on skills and skills training. Are they too focused on fitness and structures and game plans that they leave skills up to the players themselves?

 

[Modified Dog]

There'll always be a gap. But I think at 18 clubs, it's just too big.

The players bringing up the rear (they're at all clubs, the top ones just have less) are not elite standard IMO.

It happens in all sports and leagues - there's always a gap, but at some stage it just becomes too big. I can't imagine There's many other football leagues in Australia with 18 participants - for good reason.

I don't think it's a talent gap between top and bottom. I just think the top clubs create a better environment for their talent to flourish.
They have better coaching and better systems. Their players develop and work better as a team. That's all it is.

Gibson, Hale, Stratton, Breust, Puopolo, Smith, Shiels, Hill, Duryea, Spangher, Cheney, Simpkin, Suckling, Litherland and Langford weren't rated particularly highly for their individual talent a few years ago. They're playing well within the Hawthorn system. Clarkson has them playing well as a team. People always individualise too much and don't talk enough about the team aspects of football. Top 50s, Top 10s, Ablett then daylight, Judd>Hodge… It's all bullshit. It's irrelevant to winning games of football.

Winning and losing creates prejudiced thinking among the footy followers. People don't realise how even the talent actually is between clubs.
They get carried away by the supposed wealth of talent at the top clubs and they sfellow at how "s**t" the footballers are at the bottom clubs.
It's never as good as people think and it's never as bad either.

The gap isn't that big. Things can change quickly. Whenever a good coaching regime takes over at one of the bottom clubs and lifts them up the ladder, people's perceptions suddenly change about the talent on their list. Look at Port Adelaide - they were dead and buried a few years ago, with no light at the end of the tunnel. Now they're pushing for top 4 and have great talent on every line.

Sorry mate, but I think you're barking up the wrong tree in this thread.

 

[scotty13]

Don't entirely disagree with OP but we may need to look further down for what's happening at TAC level. More resources need be pumped into keeping talented junior footballers in the system. Too many have extraneous issues that are affecting their levels of motivation and hence dedication to succeeding at TAC level and even in development programs at under 16 level.

havent been assed reading all the posts... but could the TAC cup be part of the problem not the solution? Often kids drafted from the TAC cup arent ready to jump right into AFL footy (there are exceptions) however those kids drafted that have played a year or two of senior SANFL/WAFL footy seem to come on much quicker initially. Maybe rather than having all these kids play each other, they need to play against other men (bigger bodied players) to get them up to scratch right away.

 

[FrankDrebin]

No doubt the first half last night was as bad an exponent of AFL footy as we have seen by 2 sides in many a year.

As pointed out there are a myriad of reasons for this, one i havent seen mentioned though is that defensively AFL players have never been better. Most coaches i would say these days actually pick players more for what they are doing when they dont have the the footy compared to when they do.

Of course this isnt an excuse for some of the horrid kicks & handballs we witnessed last night but I think the defensive abilities of the players these days need to be taken into account when analyzing the competitions skillset.

 

[Silent Alarm]

It's because these sides trade, daft, and develop terribly. There's plenty of good footballers worthy of being in the AFL and plenty of spuds who get picked over them because they're 6'4" and not 6'. Or because their dad played 200 games of local footy as opposed to 22. But mostly because Richmond and Brisbane are s**t.

 

[calyam]

There'll always be a gap. But I think at 18 clubs, it's just too big.

The players bringing up the rear (they're at all clubs, the top ones just have less) are not elite standard IMO.

It happens in all sports and leagues - there's always a gap, but at some stage it just becomes too big. I can't imagine There's many other football leagues in Australia with 18 participants - for good reason.

Where exactly do your draw the line? It is not as though there is a 19th team out there that could beat any of the 18 clubs in the AFL. Cut the league to 12 and again you could argue that it is not an elite competition, after all the bottom team in that league might only win two or three games (such as St Kilda in 1985/86). So should we cut the league to eight? Surely that would help but nope crap teams still exist. Four perhaps? Maybe just two teams? But damn it one team always wins ... lets just give up.

The fact is you cannot have good teams without bad teams. You cannot have success without failure. Football is a zero-sum game - one team wins and another must lose. No matter how many teams are in the league there will always be dreadful sides, sides trying to rebuild and other sides that are dominant. We have 117 years of VFL/AFL football that proves this - not to mention thousands of examples from sporting leagues worldwide.

In addition, the talent pool in the AFL has never been deeper and it is spread among fewer teams that it was prior to 1991. Before then elite talent was spread between 30 teams across the VFL, SANFL and WAFL creating leagues where there really was dreadful talent getting a game each week - often in successful sides. Furthermore, the increasing professionalism of the league and the greater money involved has made football a more viable career. For those great at football - with the potential to play in the AFL - there is very little competition for their services, whether from other sports or corporate careers (the same cannot be said in the more amateur days pre-90s).

 

[final fight]

Far too many teams and there ain't nowhere near enough talented players to go round. 10-12 teams would be perfect.

 

[PACatter]

Hello, overreaction.

You can't blame over-expansion. You've got, what, maybe 500 people in the country being considered for a list week-in and week-out? How elite do you need them to be?

And anyone putting the idea of relegation/second tier league out there, well, that would just water down the talent pool even further. Imagine every metro league in the country throwing money at players. Not good.

I know many Aussies are not big on the idea, but look for international involvement for more elite talent. Look at guys like Pyke and Hanley - impact players from outside of the country. You want to up the talent pool, encourage more talent from around the world to come aboard.

 

[Hellgood]

They wouldn't. But not due to lack of skill compared to half the players out there last night but lack of elite fitness. Therefore they couldn't run with the AFL sides even young ones like Brisbane. Which is half of the problem.

I would suggest that most clubs have a player who is probably best 22 (or very close) who doesn't get a look in because they don't have the fitness for AFL footy. Dayle Garlett at the Hawks would've been an example. Tom Lee and Siposs at the saints, Kieran Harper at North, Sam Blease at Melbourne. Both of the Davey's probably were young and skilled enough to still be playing.

Semantics, but very odd choice of player there. Have seen him play a lot in the WAFL and just about all of his AFL games and his endurance has always been extremely strong asset of his. Physical strength and injuries are the only thing stopping him at the moment.

 

[forwardflanker]

The test for whether there is enough talent in the country to sustain the expansion will be whether Mitch Robinson gets to 100 games or not.

 

[GhostofJimJess]

The first change that should be made to ease the OP's concerns is to reduce onfield playing numbers to 16 from 18. The reasons for this are many.

But mostly because Richmond and Brisbane are s**t.

Don't get too far ahead of yourself just yet tiger. Remember Richmond did beat both Hawthorn and Fremantle very comfortably last year, and took the Dockers to just a couple of points in WA when Matt White's kick rebounded back into play in the last few minutes of the other clash. Things can change pretty dramatically pretty quickly.

 

[WCErevival]

Its really no different to any sport in the world is it? You have your good and bad players. You cant exactly have a full league of Gary Abletts

 

[master bate]

Semantics, but very odd choice of player there. Have seen him play a lot in the WAFL and just about all of his AFL games and his endurance has always been extremely strong asset of his. Physical strength and injuries are the only thing stopping him at the moment.

Not what I've been told from saints fans. They all bemoan his lack of work rate. Maybe he has the endurance on the training track but not work rate on the field.

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

It's because these sides trade, daft, and develop terribly. There's plenty of good footballers worthy of being in the AFL and plenty of spuds who get picked over them because they're 6'4" and not 6'. Or because their dad played 200 games of local footy as opposed to 22. But mostly because Richmond and Brisbane are s**t.

Examples of a player being picked because his dad played 200 games of local footy...?

 

[Bunk Moreland]

It's not an argument over who is s**t and why.

Not arguing that there'll always be a gap between bottom and top.

Saying that (a) 18 clubs is too many in one division, and that gap is too big... and (b) we've beyond exhausted the amount of genuinely elite footballers a a available. Some of the players on AFL lists (and not just the kids) simply do not belong on the same ground as the best.

 

[Demonheart]

Brisbane's only chance of winning games is the AFL changing the rules to give them an advantage, whether it's extra salary cap, access to players or destroying a club to give them freebies. It's always been the same with them, it's just good now that we have another club up there

 

[greatwhiteshark]

I somewhat agree with the OP, the AFL com,p should be the best of the best and it is far from that.
The best 900 players in the country are not on AFL lists.
There would be easily at least 200 players in the country who are more than good enough to play AFL but have not been chosen because clubs choose 17-19 year old kids who have potential only at their expense.

I would love to know how many of the 100 kids drafted every year end up playing 50+ games or more of AFL footy? Anyone know that? My guess it would be under 50% of them.
If it is under 50% then how stupid are clubs overlooking seasoned men who have played 2-5 years of mens footy in the VFL/WAFL/SANFL and drafting these kids with such low % terms of success.

I have always been an advocate that you should not be allowed to play AFL until you have played X amount of games at second tier level. Kids are jumping the levels without any right to.

I expect the best players to play AFL, I don't expect clubs in the AFL to be running a colts program. But they all do.

 

[master bate]

havent been assed reading all the posts... but could the TAC cup be part of the problem not the solution? Often kids drafted from the TAC cup arent ready to jump right into AFL footy (there are exceptions) however those kids drafted that have played a year or two of senior SANFL/WAFL footy seem to come on much quicker initially. Maybe rather than having all these kids play each other, they need to play against other men (bigger bodied players) to get them up to scratch right away.

I don't think so. Wines was as ready as O'Meara last year. This year in terms of first year AFL players getting rising star noms with got Kelly straight from TAC against McDonald and Dunstan with senior experience. I think it's the physical limitations that only a bunch of kids can handle and mainly fitness and speed of the game rather than bigger bodies.

The biggest problem with the TAC cup I think is that guys fall out of it then go back to local footy. Compared to the WAFL/SANFL system where some kids maybe battle away at Colts level but still stick with the club, but that's there club for seniors so they stick around and one good preseason and they are right back in draft contention. Either drop out of TAC or miss out in the draft and you kind of have to start all over again in the VFL system and get your way in.

Melbourne rookie Alex Georgiou tells a story of just playing footy, never thinking about it as a career but then rising through the grades at Norwood to become an integral part of the SANFL premierships team. If he was a Victorian he could well missed TAC, just gone to local footy and just been the good full back at his local club and maybe made it to a VFL side but each step would've taken time. The TAC cup are linking in better with the VFL now and also now there are many more VFL clubs their will be more spots for kids who miss out but who knows. We need to make sure there's a spot for those good kids who are unlucky and just as talented at 18 as most of their peers, but we also need spots to find those guys who are really accidental AFL players.

 

[Smiling Buddha]

Of all the reasons to dislike expansion, this is the least coherent imo.

 

[Ichabod Noodle]

Since the VFL was formed in 1897 there have been good teams and pi$$poor teams. It took St Kilda 4 years to win a game (by a point) then they lost the next 34 after that. How long did it take Hawthorn or North to come good after the 1925 expansion? Decades.

There are good teams and bad teams and it has been that way since the very beginning of an 8 team competition. Expansion is not the problem. Recruiting spuds is.

I read one post that said the talent is diluted. Then another post that a melbourne metro rep side could beat both Richmond and Brisbane. Well clearly the talent can't have been diluted all that much if there is such a strong Melbourne metro "side" running around out there.

I also love the posts that say "this is not a rant against GWS but I hate expansion and they have ruined everything and are about to bring about the destruction of all we hold dear, they shouldn't be allowed to exist, they bring the end of civilization as we know it." yeah, thanks for that, not a rant against us at all.

 

[master bate]

I also love the posts that say "this is not a rant against GWS but I hate expansion and they have ruined everything and are about to bring about the destruction of all we hold dear, they shouldn't be allowed to exist, they bring the end of civilization as we know it." yeah, thanks for that, not a rant against us at all.

It's really not personal. You could call yourself whatever you want. Wear whatever colours and whichever mascot. It's not that you are GWS but that you have been set up and have diluted the talent pool and taken all the best kids. I don't usually like war analogies but you really are the AFL's version of Vietnam.

To get respect you'll need to actually grow the game, which means proof of bums on seats, juniors playing AFL and kids getting drafted out of Western Sydney and the irony is to get that you'll likely have to be successful first.

 

[PACatter]

It's really not personal. You could call yourself whatever you want. Wear whatever colours and whichever mascot. It's not that you are GWS but that you have been set up and have diluted the talent pool and taken all the best kids. I don't usually like war analogies but you really are the AFL's version of Vietnam.

Well that was just a s**t analogy. What next, going to compare Melbourne's futility to the Holocaust?

 

[mxett]

I reckon a large proportion of the problem has to do with the introduction of rolling maul football. Asking 36 players to bunch within a kick of the ball has resulted in a large proportion of rushed disposals under pressure. Good sides manage to handle this pressure to a degree, where as inexperienced or crap sides just don't have the skill, poise or confidence to handle so many rushed disposals in a row to create an efficient play. Therefore we see turnover after turnover.

IMO theyve got to find a way to limit the number of players around the ball or in the vicinity of a kick. How they do that is beyond me but games last night are turning fans away

 

[Kwality]

One issue with the expansion teams is because they were flooded with so much talent at the beginning, they have a whole lot of talent playing in the twos that wont get an AFL chance

If these players were allowed to develop at other clubs (Richmond or Brisbane for example) then these clubs would be that little bit stronger.

If you replace each clubs worst player with a younger talented player then they become a fair bit stronger. But its hard to identify these players now for trade options because they havent developed the way they wouldve at other clubs and havent gotten enough chances at AFL level and have lost their development years.

Could not disagree more - history lesson:each time new clubs were added the selection system was flawed, in this case you can argue an overkill. I suggest guys like Caddy & Tyson indicate these clubs player lists can be raided/traded, so IF the recruiters identify talent at these clubs is not getting a go, chase them - maybe your recruiting guys are concentrating in the wrong places. The talent not getting a game is clearly visiblle in the NEAFL.