Moved Thread how do you rate and compare the past two premiers?

[geelong_crazy26]

From what you're saying, it sounds like it's a lot harder to win a premiership these days. Apart from having to compete against clubs cheating withe PEDs. Hopefully.

Nah no premiership team has been done for PED thankfully. Can cross Carlton’s 1995 off the list tho for cap cheating.

I have given the evidence and sound reasoning why your premiership team and the bulldogs are the two weakest premiership sides in AFL history.

Like I also said, it isn’t Richmond or bulldogs fault, it is just the direction of the AFL due to equalisation measures and two new sides introduced. Richmond and bulldogs seized the opportunity and with luck they won flags. You made the absolute most of what was given to you. I have respect for that.

All I am doing is stating facts about the change in the game.mainly the huge drop in top 8 standard.

I guess the reason it offends you so much is because you realise what I am saying is true

 

[captain blood 17]

Master bigfooty trolls..

That's how I rate and compare the last two premiers. Suck it up you offended flogs.

Just wait till this year is a dogs/tigers grand final. s**t is gonna meltdown.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[geelong_crazy26]

Just wait till this year is a dogs/tigers grand final. s**t is gonna meltdown.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

You probably won’t even make the 8.

 

[freezer]

We are drug cheats for taking amino acids?? I’m just not interested in discussing make believe stories, I am only willing to discuss facts, which I have given about how the last two premierships are the weakest in AFL history. I will reiterate again for you the very sound reasons why.

1. Equalisation policies put in place by the AFL have effected clubs administration and limited spending. This restricts areas of innovation and to pull ahead.
2. Introduction of two new teams that watered dow the talent pool of the other 16 sides.
3. Since you play weaker top 8 sides in the finals, it is an easier run in September.

Geelong and hawthorn where probably the last of the dying champion elite premiership teams.

There is a strong chance Richmond will fall off similar to the bulldogs.

Look a premiership is a premiership, you just don’t have as good a premiership list as others gone by. For reasons not even your clubs fault.

Such a rubbish illogical argument. ‘A’ for persistence though I guess.

Anyway time to end this..

So your basing your whole argument on a reduction of talent pool and unequal spending in the football depts with this leading to a more even comp and therefore this, in your fantasy land, meaning that the 2017 premiers would be worse than the say 2007 premiers*.

Let’s destroy these one by one:

Reduction in talent pool - According to the AFL’s annual reports, in 2007 there were 16 teams in the AFL and 450K Aussie rules participants in all completions and in 2016 there were 18 teams and 630K participants (2017 not released yet). So there has been an 11% increase in AFL teams and a 40% increase in participants. Hmmm, seems like waaay more talent to go around?!

Equalisation in spending - perhaps off field spending has been somewhat equalised, but that would only mean standards have dropped if spending had reduced. In 07 the cats spent $6.7m off field on the football dept, which would equate to approx $8.3m today according to the RBA. In 2017 the Tigers spent $12m off field on the football department. Hmmm that to me would indicate that the players today are much better trained with much better injury management etc?!

So if there’s significantly more talent to pick from for each club and the current premiers have spent way more money off field than the 07* version...you’d kind of have to say that the 17 Tigers would spank the 07* Cats, if that’s what your basing your argument on.

If it’s who took the most PEDs then yeah, fair play you win.

Sorry if that’s wrecked your fun. Really all this has proved is that the 07 cats were a worse team in a significantly worse league than the 17 Tigers. Hope keeping this going for 40 pages has been worth it...

 

[Benny78]

Tom Hawkins Tom Hawkins Tom Hawkins

Tom Hawkins has more AFL Premierships than Richmond will ever have.

 

[geelong_crazy26]

Such a rubbish illogical argument. ‘A’ for persistence though I guess.

Anyway time to end this..

So your basing your whole argument on a reduction of talent pool and unequal spending in the football depts with this leading to a more even comp and therefore this, in your fantasy land, meaning that the 2017 premiers would be worse than the say 2007 premiers*.

Let’s destroy these one by one:

Reduction in talent pool - According to the AFL’s annual reports, in 2007 there were 16 teams in the AFL and 450K Aussie rules participants in all completions and in 2016 there were 18 teams and 630K participants (2017 not released yet). So there has been an 11% increase in AFL teams and a 40% increase in participants. Hmmm, seems like waaay more talent to go around?!

Equalisation in spending - perhaps off field spending has been somewhat equalised, but that would only mean standards have dropped if spending had reduced. In 07 the cats spent $6.7m off field on the football dept, which would equate to approx $8.3m today according to the RBA. In 2017 the Tigers spent $12m off field on the football department. Hmmm that to me would indicate that the players today are much better trained with much better injury management etc?!

So if there’s significantly more talent to pick from for each club and the current premiers have spent way more money off field than the 07* version...you’d kind of have to say that the 17 Tigers would spank the 07* Cats, if that’s what your basing your argument on.

If it’s who took the most PEDs then yeah, fair play you win.

Sorry if that’s wrecked your fun. Really all this has proved is that the 07 cats were a worse team in a significantly worse league than the 17 Tigers. Hope keeping this going for 40 pages has been worth it...

Sorry but this data is about as accurate to use as my toilet paper. Participation rates have soared because of so many variable reasons. I hope for heavens sake you didn’t include women’s in there because I would laugh, I will assume you didn’t for now and give you credit.

More and more kids are being forced to play sport now than before by school policies, the drop out rate at the top level is massive at under 18. A lot of them are forced to play even at all sorts of ages when they are very reluctant to including even under 18.I know this as I have seen it myself.

There is also a big increase in “fun” environment teams out there. Football teams and versions at all level now vary from scoring matches to these weirdo funky hold hands non scoring style games. Times have changed. It’s all about inclusiveness now instead of hard nut competitiveness.

The growth rates for Auskick and junior levels is irrelevant, all that really counts is the serious football participation rates at the elite under 18 level, and like I said the data is seriously flawed as it doesn’t take into account many factors such as forced policies and changes to teams and leagues that have had the effect.

The data also shows a massive increase in NSW football, but take a look at the actual drafted talent out of NSW, it is so poor they had to give GWS a TAC cup zoned area to attract all their draft talent because the areas provide such poor quality kids.

Also recent years have seen reicord participation rates in tasmania... where are all the Tasmanian draftees?? We have had some drafts with 0 from Tasmania lol.

It is for this arguments sake toilet paper I will use on my ass, wouldn’t be good for anything else.

The AFL also seriously fudges their own data.

Sorry but the fact remains, we introduced two new teams that required 88 elite level players, and from their own local areas contributed nothing, but simply took and diluted from the already large pool out there and watered it down.

Let’s not forget also that we have also had two drafts 100% diluted where clubs didn’t get first round picks because of the two introduced sides. This is being felt right now, and is probably the worst period we will see in equalisation history.

In terms of the spending, your very incorrect, it has created massive mediocracy. In 2014 Geelong spent over 20million along with other clubs. So your way off the mark with your figure of how spending went up.

Richmond had to even cut its coaching pannel from 11 to 7 in 2017 because they couldn’t afford it, same for other teams.

Clubs off field are much less professional and less equipped financially than before. Has definitely contributed to a mediocre competition. Also senior more quality experienced coaches are having contracts severed because they cost more money.

Just all and all a much weaker AFL standard.

 

[captain blood 17]

You probably won’t even make the 8.

Mmmmmmmm, tasty.


Sent from my iPhone using Righteous Man Power.

 

[geelong_crazy26]

Mmmmmmmm, tasty.


Sent from my iPhone using Righteous Man Power.

Good chance you won’t. The following scenario is why

Richmond don’t have a talented list, their premiership relied on a very fit healthy list all season, as well as a game plan that was ahead of everyone else.

People this season will catch up and get ahead of Richmond’s game plan, nullifying it’s effect. Just the exact same as they did to the bulldogs.

Very good chance you could drop out of the 8 given you dont have the talent required to stay up there.

 

[captain blood 17]

Good chance you won’t. The following scenario is why

Richmond don’t have a talented list, their premiership relied on a very fit healthy list all season, as well as a game plan that was ahead of everyone else.

People this season will catch up and get ahead of Richmond’s game plan, nullifying it’s effect. Just the exact same as they did to the bulldogs.

Very good chance you could drop out of the 8 given you dont have the talent required to stay up there.

And yet we are more talented than Geelong who we comfortably beat last season.

 

[freezer]

Sorry but this data is about as accurate to use as my toilet paper. Participation rates have soared because of so many variable reasons. I hope for heavens sake you didn’t include women’s in there because I would laugh, I will assume you didn’t for now and give you credit.

More and more kids are being forced to play sport now than before by school policies, the drop out rate at the top level is massive at under 18. A lot of them are forced to play even at all sorts of ages when they are very reluctant to including even under 18.I know this as I have seen it myself.

There is also a big increase in “fun” environment teams out there. Football teams and versions at all level now vary from scoring matches to these weirdo funky hold hands non scoring style games. Times have changed. It’s all about inclusiveness now instead of hard nut competitiveness.

The growth rates for Auskick and junior levels is irrelevant, all that really counts is the serious football participation rates at the elite under 18 level, and like I said the data is seriously flawed as it doesn’t take into account many factors such as forced policies and changes to teams and leagues that have had the effect.

The data also shows a massive increase in NSW football, but take a look at the actual drafted talent out of NSW, it is so poor they had to give GWS a TAC cup zoned area to attract all their draft talent because the areas provide such poor quality kids.

Also recent years have seen reicord participation rates in tasmania... where are all the Tasmanian draftees?? We have had some drafts with 0 from Tasmania lol.

It is for this arguments sake toilet paper I will use on my ass, wouldn’t be good for anything else.

The AFL also seriously fudges their own data.

Sorry but the fact remains, we introduced two new teams that required 88 elite level players, and from their own local areas contributed nothing, but simply took and diluted from the already large pool out there and watered it down.

Let’s not forget also that we have also had two drafts 100% diluted where clubs didn’t get first round picks because of the two introduced sides. This is being felt right now, and is probably the worst period we will see in equalisation history.

In terms of the spending, your very incorrect, it has created massive mediocracy. In 2014 Geelong spent over 20million along with other clubs. So your way off the mark with your figure of how spending went up.

Richmond had to even cut its coaching pannel from 11 to 7 in 2017 because they couldn’t afford it, same for other teams.

Clubs off field are much less professional and less equipped financially than before. Has definitely contributed to a mediocre competition. Also senior more quality experienced coaches are having contracts severed because they cost more money.

Just all and all a much weaker AFL standard.

Where are you getting your 'facts' from?!?

Kids forced into playing football now? There was compulsory school sport in the 90s in Melbourne.

Soaring participations rates in Tasmania? Two major clubs have shut down.

Anyway the main fact is that participation at school and club level has gone up 40%, the amount of clubs 11%.

My sources are here:
http://s.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL Tenant/AFL/Files/Images/compressed_2016-AFL-Annual-Report (1).pdf
http://s.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL Tenant/AFL/Files/Images/compressed_2016-AFL-Annual-Report (1).pdf

Even if you wanted to take the school kids out, I don't know why, but lets do it for the sake of it, then we're talking 283K to 380K in clubs, still a 35% increase. Based on this you don't need to have more elite U18 teams, as the quality will be better because there's more players pushing for a place.

Have a look at football spending again once you've taken out Total Player Payments, thats included in Football spending and the Tigers spent $26m last year if want to include it.

The two new clubs taking all the drafts picks hasn't shifted those players to another sport or league, that argument is nonsense - there's still the same talent pool

The FACTS are that there are way more people playing Australian Rules now at every level than in 07 and there is more money spent on the football departments of the premier now than from 07, including or not including TPP. So the FACTS are that the premier this year would spank your precious team of battlers from 07, like we did your 2017 version.

 

[geelong_crazy26]

Where are you getting your 'facts' from?!?

Kids forced into playing football now? There was compulsory school sport in the 90s in Melbourne.

Soaring participations rates in Tasmania? Two major clubs have shut down.

Anyway the main fact is that participation at school and club level has gone up 40%, the amount of clubs 11%.

My sources are here:
http://s.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL Tenant/AFL/Files/Images/compressed_2016-AFL-Annual-Report (1).pdf
http://s.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL Tenant/AFL/Files/Images/compressed_2016-AFL-Annual-Report (1).pdf

Even if you wanted to take the school kids out, I don't know why, but lets do it for the sake of it, then we're talking 283K to 380K in clubs, still a 35% increase. Based on this you don't need to have more elite U18 teams, as the quality will be better because there's more players pushing for a place.

Have a look at football spending again once you've taken out Total Player Payments, thats included in Football spending and the Tigers spent $26m last year if want to include it.

The two new clubs taking all the drafts picks hasn't shifted those players to another sport or league, that argument is nonsense - there's still the same talent pool

The FACTS are that there are way more people playing Australian Rules now at every level than in 07 and there is more money spent on the football departments of the premier now than from 07, including or not including TPP. So the FACTS are that the premier this year would spank your precious team of battlers from 07, like we did your 2017 version.

There are plenty of schools who have tightened up their rules forcing more and more kids to play sport. It has gained a lot of popularity among policies in a health conscious age.

Like I also said, massive amounts of “fun” weirdo footy style teams and versions of the game are popping up everywhere that can hardly even be called football, these are no doubt being claimed by the AFL as participation rates.

The stats are worthless and seriously flawed for this sort of dicussiob as there are so many facts and variables to consider.

Like I said participation rates are extremely meaningless. All that matters are the amount of kids at under 18 level who are serious about their rootball pushing to play AFL.

For example the game has grown what easily over 50% in NSW the last decade?? Yet look at how s**t the quality of kids and the frequency of top talent coming out of NSW is. The talent is so mediocre coming out of NSW that GWS had to be assigned a TAC cup strong football region for its development. Where is all the elite NSW kids despite the “participation” rate going up massively??

The participation rates don’t simply align with the talent going up in the draft. NSW Queensland provides hardly anything draft wise, going by the growth rates we should be seeing big draft spikes.

Also common sense tells you, that if this was true, then why are we not seeing big spikes in the amount of kids drafted?? Why are the drafts not going way beyond what they used to?? Recently we have had some of what is considered to be the worst drafts in years from recruiters. In 2009 we had 77 live picks (before rookie promotions) in 2016 we had 77 live picks chosen.

So why given your theory of increased talent available, are we not seeing more drafted AFL players?? We are seeing the same amount picked as previously. Hmmmmmm.... bit weird??? Same amount of kids deemed AFL standard..... but now divided amongst two more clubs.. wonder what effect this has????

It’s just toilet paper for such a discussion your stats. Too many flaws, question marks and inconsistencies with especially draft night.

Also regarding the spending caps, clubs where increasing each year at about 6.7 percent on their administration costs, so no idea how you come to the conclusion our spending should have only been the equivalent of a small jump. You used a simplistic inflation rate model which was silly.

I will quote an article extract to give you an ide how big an effect the spending cap had on the AFL clubs and how badly it effected and reduced the standard of the competition:


The SOFT cap on football department spending will not be increased in 2017 despite an unprecedented number of experienced coaches being squeezed out of the game.

For the first year of the soft cap the spending hovered, but now we're seeing clubs really tighten up on their coaching and not renewing the odd contract to get numbers down," one assistant told AFL.com.au.

"Coaches are being asked to do more than one role or another half a role … because it (the spending) couldn't keep going up the way it was.

The club eventually cut Damien Hardwick's coaching support staff down from 11 in 2016 (including two part-time staff) to seven.


That above was taken from an article highlighting how the spending cap has turned AFL clubs into a much tighter resourced unit that have to even get rid of senior qualified coaches and cut their coaching group down due to budget restraints.


This obviously means a massive decrease in the quality of the coaching AFL players are receiving and also their development is being effected for the worse.


Like I said, mediocre equalisation effected AFL teams compared to previous years.


Richmond and bulldogs flags are by far the worst in AFL history as a result

 

[freezer]

There are plenty of schools who have tightened up their rules forcing more and more kids to play sport. It has gained a lot of popularity among policies in a health conscious age.

Like I also said, massive amounts of “fun” weirdo footy style teams and versions of the game are popping up everywhere that can hardly even be called football, these are no doubt being claimed by the AFL as participation rates.

The stats are worthless and seriously flawed for this sort of dicussiob as there are so many facts and variables to consider.

Like I said participation rates are extremely meaningless. All that matters are the amount of kids at under 18 level who are serious about their rootball pushing to play AFL.

For example the game has grown what easily over 50% in NSW the last decade?? Yet look at how s**t the quality of kids and the frequency of top talent coming out of NSW is. The talent is so mediocre coming out of NSW that GWS had to be assigned a TAC cup strong football region for its development. Where is all the elite NSW kids despite the “participation” rate going up massively??

The participation rates don’t simply align with the talent going up in the draft. NSW Queensland provides hardly anything draft wise, going by the growth rates we should be seeing big draft spikes.

Also common sense tells you, that if this was true, then why are we not seeing big spikes in the amount of kids drafted?? Why are the drafts not going way beyond what they used to?? Recently we have had some of what is considered to be the worst drafts in years from recruiters. In 2009 we had 77 live picks (before rookie promotions) in 2016 we had 77 live picks chosen.

So why given your theory of increased talent available, are we not seeing more drafted AFL players?? We are seeing the same amount picked as previously. Hmmmmmm.... bit weird??? Same amount of kids deemed AFL standard..... but now divided amongst two more clubs.. wonder what effect this has????

It’s just toilet paper for such a discussion your stats. Too many flaws, question marks and inconsistencies with especially draft night.

Also regarding the spending caps, clubs where increasing each year at about 6.7 percent on their administration costs, so no idea how you come to the conclusion our spending should have only been the equivalent of a small jump. You used a simplistic inflation rate model which was silly.

I will quote an article extract to give you an ide how big an effect the spending cap had on the AFL clubs and how badly it effected and reduced the standard of the competition:


The SOFT cap on football department spending will not be increased in 2017 despite an unprecedented number of experienced coaches being squeezed out of the game.

For the first year of the soft cap the spending hovered, but now we're seeing clubs really tighten up on their coaching and not renewing the odd contract to get numbers down," one assistant told AFL.com.au.

"Coaches are being asked to do more than one role or another half a role … because it (the spending) couldn't keep going up the way it was.

The club eventually cut Damien Hardwick's coaching support staff down from 11 in 2016 (including two part-time staff) to seven.


That above was taken from an article highlighting how the spending cap has turned AFL clubs into a much tighter resourced unit that have to even get rid of senior qualified coaches and cut their coaching group down due to budget restraints.


This obviously means a massive decrease in the quality of the coaching AFL players are receiving and also their development is being effected for the worse.


Like I said, mediocre equalisation effected AFL teams compared to previous years.


Richmond and bulldogs flags are by far the worst in AFL history as a result

So just to be clear, you're saying that if you spend less money on a department, recruit talent from a smaller pool of people, and use technology and methodology that's a decade old, that you'll get better performance....

PM me and I'll give you the name of my direct business competitors - hopefully they're hiring.

 

[geelong_crazy26]

So just to be clear, you're saying that if you spend less money on a department, recruit talent from a smaller pool of people, and use technology and methodology that's a decade old, that you'll get better performance....

PM me and I'll give you the name of my direct business competitors - hopefully they're hiring.

So to be clear, having no extra AFL quality talent ( as evidenced by no extra players picked up in the draft than previously) is clear evidence there isn’t a bigger talent pool up to AFL standard.

Having no extra AFL talent in the pool, then adding two extra teams to divide the already existing pie from, creates a more watered down mediocre competition.

Adding and putting in place spending caps that have caused clubs to have to let go senior experienced coaches because they are too expensive and also slash their coaching pannels because they can’t afford them.

Yes all of the above screams mediocracy and a watered down competition.

Less talented teams, smaller coaching panels with less experience due to budget restrictions.

Absolutely 100% mediocre

The Richmond premiership was won in a watered down weaker standard competition in an era of equalisation.

The days of champion dominant sides is just over

Don’t worry mate, your job serving burgers and fries is safe

 

[freezer]

So to be clear, having no extra AFL quality talent ( as evidenced by no extra players picked up in the draft than previously) is clear evidence there isn’t a bigger talent pool up to AFL standard.

Having no extra AFL talent in the pool, then adding two extra teams to divide the already existing pie from, creates a more watered down mediocre competition.

Adding and putting in place spending caps that have caused clubs to have to let go senior experienced coaches because they are too expensive and also slash their coaching pannels because they can’t afford them.

Yes all of the above screams mediocracy and a watered down competition.

Less talented teams, smaller coaching panels with less experience due to budget restrictions.

Absolutely 100% mediocre

The Richmond premiership was won in a watered down weaker standard competition in an era of equalisation.

The days of champion dominant sides is just over

Don’t worry mate, your job serving burgers and fries is safe

Show me one reference that states that there are less than 112% of the number people playing club football in 2017 than there were in 2007. That would show the pool of talent is relatively smaller. You can't because there's no evidence of it - read the exact like for like numbers in the AFL annual reports - its crystal clear.

Then show one piece of evidence that the players in this pool are of a worse standard now than a decade ago?! Nonsense fun leagues is your arguement?! These aren't clubs and not what the AFL is quoting... If you're still spouting AFL conspiracy theories about them flat out lying about participation rates, show me any actual proof...and while you're at it a reason why they'd risk lying in such an official document about it?

Saying because there's less players drafted is because there's less talent is also ridiculous. That would only make sense if teams weren't filling their lists. The reason that kids aren't selected is because there's less turnover - you know better rehab, longer careers, more money on sports medicine, etc. There's nothing forcing a club to turnover there list if their talent is already mature, fit and strong. With all the testing there's also less left to chance. No need to chuck more draftees at it every year when your using a scalpel on a list not a machete.

If you could put as many players on a list as you wanted this statement would make sense, you can't so it simply doesn't.

Regardless it does zero, zilch nada to prove whether the draftees from 07 are relatively better than those from 2017. It just proves that they were better than the broken down hacks they replaced from the year before.

You simply can't argue the money or the technology and methods.

Richmond 17 are spending more money - fact.

Richmond 17 are using better tech and methods - fact.

Having more people working in a department doesn't necessarily make it better. You can spend more on less of the best people and then give them the systems and tech to do way more with a smaller headcount. You know technology - emails putting mailmen outta business, camera phones - kodak, netflix - blockbuster.....but yeah tech in professional sport has gone backwards in 10 years, as opposed to everything else in the world. Riiiiight.

Richmond spent more money, with better tech, on better players, from a bigger pool of talent. We'd be so much better it isn't funny.

Geelong 07 wouldn't get within 7 goals of Geelong 17, let alone the tigers.....that would be flat out embarassing.

 

[Benny78]

I take a s**t in two separate toilets and see which one takes the longest to dissolve

 

[geelong_crazy26]

Show me one reference that states that there are less than 112% of the number people playing club football in 2017 than there were in 2007. That would show the pool of talent is relatively smaller. You can't because there's no evidence of it - read the exact like for like numbers in the AFL annual reports - its crystal clear.

Then show one piece of evidence that the players in this pool are of a worse standard now than a decade ago?! Nonsense fun leagues is your arguement?! These aren't clubs and not what the AFL is quoting... If you're still spouting AFL conspiracy theories about them flat out lying about participation rates, show me any actual proof...and while you're at it a reason why they'd risk lying in such an official document about it?

Saying because there's less players drafted is because there's less talent is also ridiculous. That would only make sense if teams weren't filling their lists. The reason that kids aren't selected is because there's less turnover - you know better rehab, longer careers, more money on sports medicine, etc. There's nothing forcing a club to turnover there list if their talent is already mature, fit and strong. With all the testing there's also less left to chance. No need to chuck more draftees at it every year when your using a scalpel on a list not a machete.

If you could put as many players on a list as you wanted this statement would make sense, you can't so it simply doesn't.

Regardless it does zero, zilch nada to prove whether the draftees from 07 are relatively better than those from 2017. It just proves that they were better than the broken down hacks they replaced from the year before.

You simply can't argue the money or the technology and methods.

Richmond 17 are spending more money - fact.

Richmond 17 are using better tech and methods - fact.

Having more people working in a department doesn't necessarily make it better. You can spend more on less of the best people and then give them the systems and tech to do way more with a smaller headcount. You know technology - emails putting mailmen outta business, camera phones - kodak, netflix - blockbuster.....but yeah tech in professional sport has gone backwards in 10 years, as opposed to everything else in the world. Riiiiight.

Richmond spent more money, with better tech, on better players, from a bigger pool of talent. We'd be so much better it isn't funny.

Geelong 07 wouldn't get within 7 goals of Geelong 17, let alone the tigers.....that would be flat out embarassing.

I already told you it’s irrelevant the participation rates, it’s a toilet paper stat. And there are a few variables and reasons for it anyway like I pointed out but it is irrelevant.

All that matters is the quantity of AFL draft standard kids coming through at under 18 level, and this has not increased.

The game has grown massively in QLD/NSW but at the same time we are seeing very scarce and sparing quality of AFL players from those regions, some drafts they would struggle to get even a couple in the top 40. The reality suggests these so called growth figures are meaningless.

Rubbish, you hardly see anyone going past their early thirties, there has not been a significant shift at all. It’s mostly genetics that determine your longevity. The fact is the list management side of things has stayed basically the exact same.

Sports science is not getting ahead and improving massively anyway because clubs have strict spending caps that limit innovation and high financing for such operations. Previously clubs could spend like crazy on a needs basis for such things, now they have a 9.5 million dollar cap on all administration costs. Before clubs could spend whatever it takes to fix a player up, now they simply can’t, it has to fall within strict budget.

It’s a simple reality, you have no extra drafted players, which is clear evidence that the talent pool has not increased, yet now it has to be divided between an extra two clubs. Given all your stats you have posted I am sure you can get a pen and paper out to solve that mystery of whether teams are better off or not now sharing the same pool of plates with an extra two sides.

We have even seen a trend emerge of recent years with clubs picking up more and more VFL and mature age players because they need to get creative with their recruitment in a watered down draft system and competition, that late draft picks are not as good as they used to be.

There is specific articles making it very clear that Richmond had to cut its coaching pannel from 11 to 7 because they choose to spend it on other things instead. Clubs are doing it out of necessity of limited resources rather than choice, which has created a mediocre coaching and football department standard.

Limited resources means less innovation and luxuries. Before the sky was the limit with spending, now clubs have to be strict and careful how they spend.


It’s very clear, bulldogs and Richmond have won a premiership through mediocre equalisation measures being put in place, otherwise you wouldn’t have gotten one.

It doesn’t stack up to previous premiership winners before equalisation measures

 

[David Schwarz]

Okay this thread started off as s**t, and is literally stuck in the S-bend

Sports science is not getting ahead and improving massively anyway because clubs have strict spending caps that limit innovation and high financing for such operations.

And thank * for that. Because when sports science was big, we had players going off for injections - which even before 2012 was just disgusting to watch - then the whole Essendope bullshit.

I hope it never returns. This is a game of multiple skills. If you want to watch doped up idiots doing marathons, just rewatch all of Armstrong's Tour de Farce wins.

It’s very clear, bulldogs and Richmond have won a premiership through mediocre equalisation measures being put in place, otherwise you wouldn’t have gotten one.

Equalisation has been around for at least two decades, and we won sweet stuff all. It took a coincidence of a talented young group and a coach that looked past the stats that you love to keep spouting about, for us to reach the promised land on pure guts and glory.

Richmond have been a bigger club than Geelong since - forever? Even if you want to include the fact that for 37 years they seemed like they loved the pain that came with shooting themselves in the foot repeatedly, they were always massive. So how would equalisation benefit a club that was already big? You're now just arguing against standard logic.

All you're doing is glossing over recent premiers because deep down you know that the Cats can't win a flag without topping up their midfield through dodgy player manager deals (Ablett) or talking so much about a player at a club that they feel compelled to join (Dangerfield).

How about, instead of putting us two under the microscope, you look at yourself and your club, and hopefully you may then realise that topping up doesn't actually work? Unless you're well established at the foothill like Hawthorn was for so many years.

#wolfpack bitch

 

[David Schwarz]

By the way - equalisation - yeah sweet. So out of the three, who has elite players?

Geelong has 3 - obvious

Footscray has one - I would argue two including Wallis with Bont, although I'm aware that non-Bulldogs fans won't agree

Richmond has one truly elite player too - although that one elite player is one hell of a monster

So if, despite all of the talk of equalisation, our two clubs can win a flag before a pack of mongs sporting three top class players - how does that enter into your stupid ******* argument?

Heart and guts. Maybe if you stopped signing peahearts like Tuohy you'd know what those two meant.

 

[Elton Johns Wig]

Okay this thread started off as s**t, and is literally stuck in the S-bend



And thank **** for that. Because when sports science was big, we had players going off for injections - which even before 2012 was just disgusting to watch - then the whole Essendope bullshit.

I hope it never returns. This is a game of multiple skills. If you want to watch doped up idiots doing marathons, just rewatch all of Armstrong's Tour de Farce wins.



Equalisation has been around for at least two decades, and we won sweet stuff all. It took a coincidence of a talented young group and a coach that looked past the stats that you love to keep spouting about, for us to reach the promised land on pure guts and glory.

Richmond have been a bigger club than Geelong since - forever? Even if you want to include the fact that for 37 years they seemed like they loved the pain that came with shooting themselves in the foot repeatedly, they were always massive. So how would equalisation benefit a club that was already big? You're now just arguing against standard logic.

All you're doing is glossing over recent premiers because deep down you know that the Cats can't win a flag without topping up their midfield through dodgy player manager deals (Ablett) or talking so much about a player at a club that they feel compelled to join (Dangerfield).

How about, instead of putting us two under the microscope, you look at yourself and your club, and hopefully you may then realise that topping up doesn't actually work? Unless you're well established at the foothill like Hawthorn was for so many years.

#wolfpack bitch

By the way - equalisation - yeah sweet. So out of the three, who has elite players?

Geelong has 3 - obvious

Footscray has one - I would argue two including Wallis with Bont, although I'm aware that non-Bulldogs fans won't agree

Richmond has one truly elite player too - although that one elite player is one hell of a monster

So if, despite all of the talk of equalisation, our two clubs can win a flag before a pack of mongs sporting three top class players - how does that enter into your stupid ******* argument?

Heart and guts. Maybe if you stopped signing peahearts like Tuohy you'd know what those two meant.

 

[Tiger2709]

Tom Hawkins has more AFL Premierships than Richmond will ever have.

Richmond has more Premierships than Geelong will ever have.

 

[_Mike_]

Salt, strong with it is this thread

 

[geelong_crazy26]

Okay this thread started off as s**t, and is literally stuck in the S-bend



And thank **** for that. Because when sports science was big, we had players going off for injections - which even before 2012 was just disgusting to watch - then the whole Essendope bullshit.

I hope it never returns. This is a game of multiple skills. If you want to watch doped up idiots doing marathons, just rewatch all of Armstrong's Tour de Farce wins.



Equalisation has been around for at least two decades, and we won sweet stuff all. It took a coincidence of a talented young group and a coach that looked past the stats that you love to keep spouting about, for us to reach the promised land on pure guts and glory.

Richmond have been a bigger club than Geelong since - forever? Even if you want to include the fact that for 37 years they seemed like they loved the pain that came with shooting themselves in the foot repeatedly, they were always massive. So how would equalisation benefit a club that was already big? You're now just arguing against standard logic.

All you're doing is glossing over recent premiers because deep down you know that the Cats can't win a flag without topping up their midfield through dodgy player manager deals (Ablett) or talking so much about a player at a club that they feel compelled to join (Dangerfield).

How about, instead of putting us two under the microscope, you look at yourself and your club, and hopefully you may then realise that topping up doesn't actually work? Unless you're well established at the foothill like Hawthorn was for so many years.

#wolfpack bitch

No equalisation has not been around for two decades in any shape or form like it is now, the two absolute killers of Late that have tipped it are

1. Spending caps. The gap between western bulldogs club spending and collingwoods was over 5 million dollars difference... do you honestly think you could have won 16 given this difference continued?? The AFL equalisation spending cap measures absolutely brought this down to allow you to win it.

Nobody is talking about illegal stuff, there are clear penalties for that. I am talking about clubs now being restricted and unable to spend as much as possible to increase and improve player welfare like they once did. The worlds best treatments are no longer an option for AFL clubs with spending caps

2. Bringing in two new teams that only watered down the competition without adding talent to it. back when we added all the state sides originally, it was to create a national competition by expanding to already strong football areas that instantly added massive amounts of quality to the talent pool and stood quickly on their own feet. This is no where near the case for GWS and GC as they are long term market growth areas which have zero interest in AFL.

These two clubs took talent away from the other teams and this watered down the standard immensely. Dropping the standards to allow bulldog and Richmond sides take a premiership

both are easily the worst premiers in AFL history, just look at he lists To make this very bleeding obvious conclusion, you guys couldn’t even follow up with a top 8 finish the year after.

 

[geelong_crazy26]

By the way - equalisation - yeah sweet. So out of the three, who has elite players?

Geelong has 3 - obvious

Footscray has one - I would argue two including Wallis with Bont, although I'm aware that non-Bulldogs fans won't agree

Richmond has one truly elite player too - although that one elite player is one hell of a monster

So if, despite all of the talk of equalisation, our two clubs can win a flag before a pack of mongs sporting three top class players - how does that enter into your stupid ******* argument?

Heart and guts. Maybe if you stopped signing peahearts like Tuohy you'd know what those two meant.

We have has big deficiencies and gaps over the years, also slight issues playing the MCG with our personal at times.

Put it into perspective how badly watered down the competition has gotten

Geelong since the great champion 3 premiership team has lost:

13AA players, 18 starting best 22.

Yet we still managed to finish third last year and make a prelim.

Seriously what a ginormous drop in top 4 standard that is when you stop to consider it. Huge

 

[Grin]

geelong_crazy26 If you're going to meltdown in public, can you please make your posts shorter, so that those of us with short attention spans can enjoy them too?

 

[geelong_crazy26]

geelong_crazy26 If you're going to meltdown in public, can you please make your posts shorter, so that those of us with short attention spans can enjoy them too?

Sorry, I only cater for intellectuals. This thread has not provided me with too much in return thought. The way this thread is going, I could hand in a research paper to AFL house on the IQ of Richmond supporters.