No Oppo Supporters General AFL Discussion #13 - Carlton Posters ONLY!

[BluStreak]

Not sure he will be too popular with the players.

I know of one well known former player who thinks he's an absolute prick. Bevo broke the news to him about getting delisted with an SMS.

Sent from my SM-G998B using Tapatalk

yeah sounds like he is a bit on the nose with the players, but as a coach advisor etc maybe

 

[My Hat]

The 'not enough talent for this many AFL clubs' argument always strikes me as a bit strange.

In 1995, when the AFL expanded to 16 clubs, the national population was about 18.2 million, i.e. there were about
1.14 million people per club.

In 2013, when the AFL expanded to 18 clubs, the national population was about 23.1 million, i.e. there were about 1.28 million people per club.

In 2028, when the AFL expands to 19 clubs, the national population will be about 27.5 million, i.e. there will be about 1.45 million people per club.

Obviously the demands placed on footballers have changed in this time, but arguably they've only been able to change because enough players have been there to support it.

 

[Gethelred]

The 'not enough talent for this many AFL clubs' argument always strikes me as a bit strange.

In 1995, when the AFL expanded to 16 clubs, the national population was about 18.2 million, i.e. there were about
1.14 million people per club.

In 2013, when the AFL expanded to 18 clubs, the national population was about 23.1 million, i.e. there were about 1.28 million people per club.

In 2028, when the AFL expands to 19 clubs, the national population will be about 27.5 million, i.e. there will be about 1.45 million people per club.

Obviously the demands placed on footballers have changed in this time, but arguably they've only been able to change because enough players have been there to support it.

The 'product' that is the AFL is worse because the athletic demands required to play it at the top level have become so high, making the floor to play AFL at minimum levels higher than at any point in history. You need to be tall, fast, an endurance animal, not too injury prone and of a programmable mindset to get drafted these days.

As a consequence, it doesn't matter how skilled you are, how many tricks you've got, how determined you are; where there was once a position at AFL level for a player whose grunt and passion made them the equal or better than a bigger person on any given day, the recruiters/coaches are simply going to pick the bigger bloke. He fits in more holes, doesn't get any shorter, and no-one comp wide - and I do mean, no-one - is better than two blokes the same size as they are.

What this means is that the pool of AFL capable players is less even if the population is more, and the on field product is less skilled even if the overall club number was lower anyway.

 

[RPCB]

 

[ESKIE]

Tom morris

 

[Kruezing]

What would Dodo offer up for Reid ?

 

[Aphrodite]

Tom morris

 

[agro]

Hi Harley, it’s Essendon* here, would you like a caffe latte with a steroid chaser.

 

[Dadda Dave]

If Bevo is dumped by the Kennel, is he worth considering as some one for our footy department and where would he best fit

He could teach our young players how to punt and be a waste of space..

 

[My Hat]

The 'product' that is the AFL is worse because the athletic demands required to play it at the top level have become so high, making the floor to play AFL at minimum levels higher than at any point in history. You need to be tall, fast, an endurance animal, not too injury prone and of a programmable mindset to get drafted these days.

As a consequence, it doesn't matter how skilled you are, how many tricks you've got, how determined you are; where there was once a position at AFL level for a player whose grunt and passion made them the equal or better than a bigger person on any given day, the recruiters/coaches are simply going to pick the bigger bloke. He fits in more holes, doesn't get any shorter, and no-one comp wide - and I do mean, no-one - is better than two blokes the same size as they are.

What this means is that the pool of AFL capable players is less even if the population is more, and the on field product is less skilled even if the overall club number was lower anyway.

Even if that's true (and I agree to an extent), there's still an interesting question about which is the cause and which is the effect.

Are there fewer players to choose from now because the definition of AFL capable has changed, or has the definition of AFL capable changed because there is now more population i.e. more competition for each list spot?

 

[SkyhorseTamer]

Hi Harley, it’s Essendon* here, would you like a caffe latte with a steroid chaser.

Harley probably would tbh

 

[Gethelred]

Even if that's true (and I agree to an extent), there's still an interesting question about which is the cause and which is the effect.

Are there fewer players to choose from now because the definition of AFL capable has changed, or has the definition of AFL capable changed because there is now more population i.e. more competition for each list spot?

If you remember, the actual problem with there being too many clubs - beyond an uneven number necessitating one side has a bye every week - is is that it makes the on field spectacle worse due to talent dilation. Whether the cause is the raising of the floor for athletic capability making it harder to get drafted or anything else, the net effect of these factors causes players without the skill floor required to make the game attractive to watch - a fan's perspective - to be playing at AFL level. Looking at it as a per capita tradeoff is bringing an objective measurement to a subjective perspective; they don't really encounter each other, as one is the reality that there are probably more people to choose from (even if the floor for minimum achievement is higher) where the other is a fan's aesthetic judgement of the game's attractiveness through their lens of experience.

 

[My Hat]

If you remember, the actual problem with there being too many clubs - beyond an uneven number necessitating one side has a bye every week - is is that it makes the on field spectacle worse due to talent dilation. Whether the cause is the raising of the floor for athletic capability making it harder to get drafted or anything else, the net effect of these factors causes players without the skill floor required to make the game attractive to watch - a fan's perspective - to be playing at AFL level. Looking at it as a per capita tradeoff is bringing an objective measurement to a subjective perspective; they don't really encounter each other, as one is the reality that there are probably more people to choose from (even if the floor for minimum achievement is higher) where the other is a fan's aesthetic judgement of the game's attractiveness through their lens of experience.

That's a possible explanation, sure.

Another is that when there's more competition for list spots, as seems to be the case nowadays based on those population numbers, list managers have a greater range of potential players to choose from. It could be that part of why there are more big players now is that there are more big players coming through the system to choose from. Maybe with the addition of extra clubs, the extra supply of bigger players would 'run out' and list managers would be forced to fall back on plan B: those smaller but more skilled players that perhaps we don't see as many of nowadays. And that reality of what the pool of available players looks like might move the game in a more desirable direction.

Here's a thought experiment to illustrate the point: imagine if instead of 18 top-tier clubs, we only had, say, 4. Would the average player height of those 4 lists be greater than the average height of the 18 lists we have now? And would there be some bigger but relatively less talented players on those 4 lists who would crowd out some more highly talented but smaller players? I suspect the answer would be yes in both cases.

In the end though I think we're both just speculating. The reality is likely to be more complex than any one explanation.

 

[teagueyubeauty]

The 'not enough talent for this many AFL clubs' argument always strikes me as a bit strange.

In 1995, when the AFL expanded to 16 clubs, the national population was about 18.2 million, i.e. there were about
1.14 million people per club.

In 2013, when the AFL expanded to 18 clubs, the national population was about 23.1 million, i.e. there were about 1.28 million people per club.

In 2028, when the AFL expands to 19 clubs, the national population will be about 27.5 million, i.e. there will be about 1.45 million people per club.

Obviously the demands placed on footballers have changed in this time, but arguably they've only been able to change because enough players have been there to support it.

Not to mention in 1995 lists were like 54 players each club


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[katmanblue]

What they should have done was expand the lists again for a couple of years so that some hopefuls get ona list and hopefully improve in a professional environment.

Expand out to 50 plus Cat B.

On SM-F926B using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Arr0w]

Don't like that we are heading into a 19 team competition, but it probably means each team will get 2 byes

 

[Revenant1965]

Don't like that we are heading into a 19 team competition, but it probably means each team will get 2 byes

And if we think the 'fixture' is a bit of complicated mess now, wait until 19 teams, and at least one bye every week...

 

[Lace_Out]

yeah sounds like he is a bit on the nose with the players, but as a coach advisor etc maybe

Maybe.

Need to do something as Voss's strength is as a leader, not tactically.

Sent from my SM-G998B using Tapatalk

 

[Jatz]

And if we think the 'fixture' is a bit of complicated mess now, wait until 19 teams, and at least one bye every week...

The NRL have it now, it sucks.

One team waits all off season and then essentially wastes one of their byes by having it in round 1.

Then there'll be a club that misses out on gather round etc etc.

 

[Blue_Fusion]

Put a ring on it: AFL’s $2.2m plan to borrow US sports tradition... and every player would get one

Put a ring on it: AFL’s $2.2m plan to borrow US sports tradition... and every player would get one

www.foxsports.com.au

The AFL is working on a plan which would see every player who featured even once for each year’s premiership team, in both AFL and AFLW, given a premiership ring.

 

[Blue Pulse]

Put a ring on it: AFL’s $2.2m plan to borrow US sports tradition... and every player would get one

Put a ring on it: AFL’s $2.2m plan to borrow US sports tradition... and every player would get one

www.foxsports.com.au

American Football League, not sure what is wrong with our Australian Football tradition?

50K a ring, that could help grass roots football?

 

[teagueyubeauty]

Yep, that’s 1.15 million dollars to just sit in a framed box at home like the premiership medallions already do.

Noones wearing a flipping premiership ring out to Revolver on a Saturday night, or anytime for that matter.

Why do we have to copy the yanks for?

How about providing a medallion for the other participants that played in a game for that year who contributed to the success of the team winning it all?


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[3rd Grade Maggy]

Don't the owners shell out for the rings for the players in the NBA anyway?

 

[JoeyPBLUES]

Don't the owners shell out for the rings for the players in the NBA anyway?

Yep the winning "organization" as they like to call themselves, organizes, pays for & distributes the rings to the entire roster whether they had any game time that season or not, provided they were on the main roster

 

[Revenant1965]

Don't the owners shell out for the rings for the players in the NBA anyway?

I like the idea. Clubs can pay, AFL provide guidelines as for coherent look, size, etc, and clubs then get to choose what is used in the ring. Norf might use tin and zirconium (if they continue to exist and win again, in year 2525), and others like us, gold and platinum and diamonds.