- Feb 12, 2017
- 16,630
- 43,599
- AFL Club
- Geelong
I guess ours is still going, right?
Richmond 2017-20 v Hawthorn 2012-15
- Thread starter Selfield
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Falcon3518
Norm Smith Medallist
- Mar 13, 2022
- 5,350
- 3,236
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Banned
- #353
I guess ours is still going, right?
You don’t have one to ‘keep going’
Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
Anyone who followed the trends of the game last yr knew they'd win it, they built into the season perfectly. For mine it was just a matter of could they stay up that long & could they do it in Finals this time around. They did & deserved to win it the way they did.
Jhye Clark 13
07, 09, 11, 22
- Feb 16, 2007
- 80,887
- 98,736
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- Bulldogs, Pelicans, Saints
Haha
I have always wondered if we'd have won '19 & even '20 had we won '18. '19 wouldn't have been billed as "the year of redemption" by those inside the Club for 1. As i have posted before all the great teams lost 1 they should have won along the way. We learnt a great lesson in '18.
We have an extra 44 AFL players to field each week plus all the extra VFL list spots, and there is no increase in players drafted.. Clubs are happy to let them slide to the rookie and pre season supplemental due to inadequate talent later in drafts. So what does that tell you when you have two extra teams to fill with quality players and no extra amount drafted?? You end up with the same talent spread out across more evenly like spreading the same amount of butter across a bigger piece of bread.
So i get why as a richmond supporter you look at it and want to think “ its better because its more even” but the reality is its more even because the top teams are weaker and the talent pool is more spread out across the board. You end up having no super teams sitting at the top like the days of old. I doubt we will see any ever again
- Oct 5, 2004
- 12,343
- 12,898
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- Richmond
2011-13 had three teams pretty much giving their opponents the 4 points each week.
The bottom three teams won less than 9 games between them for the entire season.
Equalisation measures have definitely evened out the comp. But agree it has thinned out the talent pool. Much harder to win these days with more teams in the comp.
The bottom teams are not better, they are much the same. You just have two new teams dipping their hands into the draft pool with no additional talent ( same draft selections in 18 league comp as 16 league comp). due to the talent dilution being spread out, the standard is just lower across the board. Instead of your super teams 9/10 talent of previous years, you have 7/10 teams like richmond winning flags.
- Oct 5, 2004
- 12,343
- 12,898
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- Richmond
Nah, look back at 2011-13. Those bottom three were putrid. Their lists at the time were super poor. Enhanced the view of many that the ‘super’ teams at the time were better than they were due to their ability to have nice little percentage boosters.
The top sides were good, but their records were propped up by how horrifically bad the bottom sides were in those years.
I explained the logic to you before, not my problem you aren't grasping it
Hang on... so because we had 3 teams who won 9 games between them each year between 2011 and 2013, that's the reason we had teams able to win 19 and 20 matches during the home and away season?
My head hurts...
My head hurts...
Just wait till Tassie comes in, then the push will be on for a 20th team as we'll have a bye each week. The media won't let this stop at 19 teams.
Blackas87
Brownlow Medallist
I don’t get this weak era stuff, why was Fremantle a heavy weight team while Port Adelaide a nothing team? Because you can’t remember their season?
Why is Geelong half the team they were from Hawthorns era. Geelong was top 4 every year of Richmond’s 3 premierships, Geelong didn’t even make finals in one of Hawthorns.
Hawthorn didn’t have to compete with up coming heavyweight the Brisbane Lions in their era.
Agreed. I think its fantastic for the game to continue to push growth. But lets not be delusional about the impact that has on the quality of football games. We do not have enough elite talent going around to field 19-20 elite standard afl teams.
The idea is long term 40-50 year vision, that regions will grow with these clubs and as a result the talent pool as well will expand to be able to accomodate 4 more sides of elite level players.
But for now, the impact of an additional 44 AFL spots to fill each week has had a negative impact on the quality of fielded sides each week.
It is impossible to avoid this, and it is absolutely worth it to help grow our great game.
I will attempt to dumb this down as best as i can here.. Ok lets try this...
I have 60 jelly beans... 16 children want those jelly beans... That is 3.75 jelly beans per child or 3 or 4 per kid.. Now lets assume it is not fair and the more dominant kid takes more jelly beans.. He probably grabs 6/7 jelly beans.. Maybe the quiet kid gets 1-2..
Now lets distribute those 60 jelly beans amongst 18 children..that is 3.3 jelly beans per kid.. The greedy kids instead of 6/7 jelly beans can probably only get away with 4-5 jelly beans this time.. As there are more kids to distribute them around too.
Diluting a scenario means on average each person receives less not more....
If you are still struggling, i cant go any further.
I dont know how i can spell it out much clearer.. Diluting means less not more.. This is a very early primary school concept.
Another factor also is the media's "wildcard round" they are obsessed with is that there are barely 8 Finals worthy sides each year let alone the 12 they are pushing for. With Tassie + potentially a 20th team that may be a bigger issue going fwd. I agree it's great for the game to expand but ppl also need to be careful what they wish for. The talent expansion will happen in time but will have a bit of a lag effect, think similar is happening now with the AFLW now it's expanded to 18 teams. 1 issue which isn't helping is the lack of access Clubs get to players from their NGA Academy's as with the current bidding rules it's impossible to get any top end talent into your Club, this IMO may see Clubs not invest as heavily in this area as other teams will benefit from the development that is put into these kids.
Selfield
Debutant
- May 4, 2017
- 141
- 360
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Thread starter
- #371
I'm not sure what you're getting at here, given the fact we lost multiple finals to both Richmond and Hawthorn over the last decade and a half.
The difference is Hawthorn were around the top end of the ladder while our side was at its peak and they beat us in finals, while Richmond were nowhere to be seen during this time. Richmond on the other hand beat us in finals while our team was average with several flaws and holes in the side, and other teams were beating us in those finals series too so it's not like we were this great team who only Richmond managed to beat in the finals.
- Apr 3, 2006
- 33,530
- 11,941
- AFL Club
- Geelong
Was pretty funny when Richmond kept losing to those teams in very comical ways though.
- Apr 3, 2006
- 33,530
- 11,941
- AFL Club
- Geelong
This is and always will be a terrible argument.
We sure made up for it when Finals came around, during that time no1 got us twice in a season.
Sorry for delayed response. I agree 100%. It is a trade off of quality compromise in the short and medium term for long term return (20+ years).
I can see alot more creative recruitment with higher risks and left-field selections such as mark blicavs and irish boys, as well as other athlete cross overs.
