AFLW Whats next - 2019 and beyond

[The_Wookie]

 

[Heardy_101]

Conferences? For a 10 team league?

Sounds like Codswallop.

 

[jatz14]

New structure, new rules, new team sizes, new directives. Hoping it still looks something vaguely like footy next year, but losing confidence.

 

[BringBackTorps]

New structure, new rules, new team sizes, new directives. Hoping it still looks something vaguely like footy next year, but losing confidence[why].

The ugly congestion, tackleball & stoppages hurt AFLW -in terms of expanding its crowd & TV ratings appeal. AFLW crowds are very good -but the AFL is absolutley correct in wanting to expand TV ratings & crowds further. I found most games entertaining & great fun to watch, in the Australian summer.

A more open game will allow women more time to execute their skills, & thus make the AFLW more attractive -& more goals will be kicked.
To increase the appeal of the AFLW for broadcasters (who will thus pay more money for the Rights), kicking more goals will result in more breaks for TV to play more ads. This will allow more $ for AFLW players.

There is absolutely no necessity for the AFLW to have exactly the same Rules as the AFL. The AFLW does not want any more embarassing "goal droughts" that occurred in the first Carlton V. Coll. game; & next Carlton v. Brisbane game (both a half only). Was the poor lighting/position of lights at Princes Park a contributing factor to these goal droughts?

 

[TheFool]

The AFL already has enough resources to better fund the players and the infrastructure of the women's competition. The AFL is perfectly capable of producing a legitimate competition of Australian rules football for women without rule changes, allowing the players time to improve both in terms of paying the current players enough that they can properly focus on the game and their skills and also in terms of a longer-term investment of resources to increase the talent pool nationwide, and taking advantage of the wave of genuine support and love for female football in this country to make something enduring, well-loved and genuinely competitive.

They don't want to.

 

[hcd199]

The ugly congestion, tackleball & stoppages hurt AFLW -in terms of expanding its crowd & TV ratings appeal. AFLW crowds are very good -but the AFL is absolutley correct in wanting to expand TV ratings & crowds further. I found most games entertaining & great fun to watch, in the Australian summer.

A more open game will allow women more time to execute their skills, & thus make the AFLW more attractive -& more goals will be kicked.
To increase the appeal of the AFLW for broadcasters (who will thus pay more money for the Rights), kicking more goals will result in more breaks for TV to play more ads. This will allow more $ for AFLW players.

There is absolutely no necessity for the AFLW to have exactly the same Rules as the AFL. The AFLW does not want any more embarassing "goal droughts" that occurred in the first Carlton V. Coll. game; & next Carlton v. Brisbane game (both a half only). Was the poor lighting/position of lights at Princes Park a contributing factor to these goal droughts?

Because the goal-a-minute, congestion-free advertising billboard that was AFLX went down such a treat with fans? The greatest strength of the AFLW as a "product" at the moment is the tenacity of its contests; losing that would be far more harmful than a more "free-flowing" game would be beneficial.

It's not strictly necessary that AFLW have the same rules as the AFL, but it does help: if it's clear that AFLW is effectively just AFL with women instead of men, that does a far better job of legitimising the competition than if gimmicky rules designed solely for the sake of spectacle are introduced. Tinkering around the edges might be acceptable, but when the game starts to feel recognisably different, it's hard to see how that will enamour more people than it will turn away.

 

[jatz14]

The ugly congestion, tackleball & stoppages hurt AFLW -in terms of expanding its crowd & TV ratings appeal. AFLW crowds are very good -but the AFL is absolutley correct in wanting to expand TV ratings & crowds further. I found most games entertaining & great fun to watch, in the Australian summer.

A more open game will allow women more time to execute their skills, & thus make the AFLW more attractive -& more goals will be kicked.
To increase the appeal of the AFLW for broadcasters (who will thus pay more money for the Rights), kicking more goals will result in more breaks for TV to play more ads. This will allow more $ for AFLW players.

There is absolutely no necessity for the AFLW to have exactly the same Rules as the AFL. The AFLW does not want any more embarassing "goal droughts" that occurred in the first Carlton V. Coll. game; & next Carlton v. Brisbane game (both a half only). Was the poor lighting/position of lights at Princes Park a contributing factor to these goal droughts?

The knee jerk reactions to the critics harping on about scoring and congestion did more to harm the game than the congestion imop, and more changes are likely to worsen it.

The sight of umps holding up play while the team defending a slender lead into a strong wind has to move their spare player forward is Auskick stuff. It doesn't look like the AFL takes the games seriously as a contest when the prioritise anti congestion over a legitimate attempt to win a footy game, and if they are not taking it seriously, why should anyone else?

A more serious concern is the legitimisation of critics who just have the knives out, and will never approve of AFLW regardless.

If the AFL is making an effort to make women's footy more like men's in terms of scoring and congestion, then it's saying that where it isn't like men's footy, its failed, and needs to be 'fixed'. They should be making the argument that women's footy is its own thing, and skill and tactics will evolve in their own way, and the scoring that results is the scoring.

You want less contested ball, more scoring? NBL is

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

 

[BringBackTorps]

Because the goal-a-minute, congestion-free advertising billboard that was AFLX went down such a treat with fans? [? Never said I wanted AFLW to be 7 per team! I suggest you read some history books about what made AF so popular in past eras. HINT: It was NOT congestion, rolling mauls, & scrappy play; & goals were very popular]The greatest strength of the AFLW as a "product" at the moment is the tenacity of its contests[Agree -but AFLW can, & should, be better]; losing that would be far more harmful than a more "free-flowing" game would be beneficial[Disagree].
It's not strictly necessary that AFLW have the same rules as the AFL, but it does help[By far the biggest adult male comp. in Aust.-the VAFA, with c.12,000 players, does not have exactly the same Rules as the AFL]: if it's clear that AFLW is effectively just AFL with women instead of men, that does a far better job of legitimising the competition than if gimmicky rules designed solely for the sake of spectacle are introduced. Tinkering around the edges might be acceptable, but when the game starts to feel recognisably different, it's hard to see how that will enamour more people than it will turn away.[I attended the 2018 AFLW first 2 games at Princes Park, where 2 halves were goal droughts - I heard some groans! It is not possible to "sell" tackleball to TV stations-no breaks for goals/ ads-so forget about the AFLW ever being a full time professional comp. Fortunately, these 2 games were the exception -but, for the game to prosper, we need more skills on display, & more goals]

 

[BringBackTorps]

The knee jerk reactions to the critics harping on about scoring and congestion did more to harm the game than the congestion imop, and more changes are likely to worsen it.

The sight of umps holding up play while the team defending a slender lead into a strong wind has to move their spare player forward is Auskick stuff. It doesn't look like the AFL takes the games seriously as a contest when the prioritise anti congestion over a legitimate attempt to win a footy game, and if they are not taking it seriously, why should anyone else?

A more serious concern is the legitimisation of critics who just have the knives out, and will never approve of AFLW regardless.

If the AFL is making an effort to make women's footy more like men's in terms of scoring and congestion, then it's saying that where it isn't like men's footy, its failed, and needs to be 'fixed'. They should be making the argument that women's footy is its own thing, and skill and tactics will evolve in their own way, and the scoring that results is the scoring.

You want less contested ball, more scoring? NBL is

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

I am surprised you have this view, as I know you want the AFLW, & female AF, to prosper. My views on AFLW game styles are encapsulated in my reply in post #8 above.

Are you aware that increased numbers of tackles, bumps/collisions (Prof. Norton says the latter are at record highs in the AFL; & the former are also at record highs, with a 2016 Footscray game producing c.192 tackles-about double the average in the 1980's) lead to more injuries -often very serious?
Surely, just from an injury perspective, both the AFL & AFLW, should be intensifying efforts to reduce the heavy congestion/big numbers around the ball.

You like tackleball?
The English rugby game was rejected by most in Vic., WA, SA, & Tas. (who were, generally, strong anglophiles) post 1858; & again in the 1890's, when Rugby tried vigorously to promote the attractions of rugby (the "mothercountry" game, who we could play against), cf. AF.

 

[jatz14]

I am surprised you have this view, as I know you want the AFLW, & female AF, to prosper. My views on AFLW game styles are encapsulated in my reply in post #8 above.

Are you aware that increased numbers of tackles, bumps/collisions (Prof. Norton says the latter are at record highs in the AFL; & the former are also at record highs, with a 2016 Footscray game producing c.192 tackles-about double the average in the 1980's) lead to more injuries -often very serious?
Surely, just from an injury perspective, both the AFL & AFLW, should be intensifying efforts to reduce the heavy congestion/big numbers around the ball.

You like tackleball?
The English rugby game was rejected by most in Vic., WA, SA, & Tas. (who were, generally, strong anglophiles) post 1858; & again in the 1890's, when Rugby tried vigorously to promote the attractions of rugby (the "mothercountry" game, who we could play against), cf. AF.

It cannot be different enough for people to start viewing it as a different game, rather than a female version of the same game. If that happens, it becomes something like AFLX in peoples minds. At least AFLX has players from the highly visible and extensively followed mens comp in it to draw some sort of attention. If AFLW is seen the way AFLX is, it is effectively dead.

Sure, be concerned about safety, but make changes in football in general, not specifically AFLW. The thing people forget about congestion is, the tackles and impacts tend to be slower, players do not have time or room to get momentum. There are more high energy impacts in mens footy than in womens. Tayla Harris impact on Hayley Miller in the last game is a case in point. Its the sort of hit that can break ribs, puncture lungs, etc, but its an open play hit, and womens footy has very few of them.

I am concerned about player safety, however, I am not more concerned about womens safety than mens, and knees aside, I dont see anything that says AFLW is more dangerous than mens footy, and I dont think clearing congestion makes it safer, it may make it less safe.

 

[The_Wookie]

 

[jatz14]

https://beccahayblog.wordpress.com/2018/03/29/the-battles-done-and-we-kinda-won/

 

[owen87]

https://beccahayblog.wordpress.com/2018/03/29/the-battles-done-and-we-kinda-won/

What on earth did I just read? Terrible article.

Whoever wrote that could have done so in one sentence: "I don't like it"

 

[RussCourtnall]

Do we know when the AFLW will start making people pay for tickets?

 

[jatz14]

Do we know when the AFLW will start making people pay for tickets?

They are workshopping that now apparently.

Not clear what the outcome will be.

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

 

[drunkill]

I assume most games will be free until 2020 when all the teams are in. Maybe have two rounds of that season be free as a hook for the new teams then start charging for matches.

Or maybe charge tickets/gold coin entry for existing club matches but free for games involving the new teams. They will want to recoup some money going forward, although the TV rights deal and league sponsorships will cover the cost of the competition (as the NAB and chemist warehouse sponsorship does currently)

 

[jatz14]

I assume most games will be free until 2020 when all the teams are in. Maybe have two rounds of that season be free as a hook for the new teams then start charging for matches.

Or maybe charge tickets/gold coin entry for existing club matches but free for games involving the new teams. They will want to recoup some money going forward, although the TV rights deal and league sponsorships will cover the cost of the competition (as the NAB and chemist warehouse sponsorship does currently)

One of the issues with ticketing is, people keep suggesting gold coin entry, but Liningston said, it costs more to charge a gold coin, than a gold coin.

So it would need to be in the region of $10 for it to be worth charging at all.

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

 

[drunkill]

It costs more if you print out tickets. If it is the people counters/security people with a collection tin, it costs nothing.

 

[precarious]

Although game entry is free at the moment, clubs have some AFLW members who do provide modest monetary support.

Not sure about the figures at other clubs, but the giants had a little over 2,000 AFLW members in 2018, with memberships priced at $50.

This generated the same revenue as would have been generated if, with giants' home attendances unchanged, there had been no members and each attendee had paid $7.75 per game.

 

[WolfgangV]

A few days old;

AFLW: Negotiations continue on broadcast deal

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2018-07-20/aflw-negotiations-continue-on-broadcast-deal


In short, whoever wins the broadcasting rights will determine the time, length and structure of the 2019 season. I don't see how that could be anything but positive for women's football.

Every announcement and decision is simply confirming my view that the worst thing that could have happened to women's football is the AFL getting involved at any level.

 

[BringBackTorps]

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2018-07-20/aflw-negotiations-continue-on-broadcast-deal
In short, whoever wins the broadcasting rights will determine the time, length and structure of the 2019 season.[Disagree. The article does not say this -the AFL will retain control] I don't see how that could be anything but positive for women's football.
Every announcement and decision is simply confirming my view that the worst thing that could have happened to women's football is the AFL getting involved at any level.[Disagree. The AFL is doing a very good job, albeit many decades overdue, in promoting the AFLW & female GR AF ( excluding sthn. NSW.). The AFL does not control GR AF in WA & SA -the former is very poor at establishing large female GR comps.; & the latter has only done well since 2017: Examine how well AFL-controlled Qld female GR is performing!]

 

[WolfgangV]

BringBackTorps, it's called reading between the lines.

 

[Teen Wolf]

The men's game isn't unfettered by television demands, WolfgangV, why should it be different for the women's?

On top of that, I can see multiple scenarios in which the interests of broadcasters converge with what's best for AFLW. An example of this is how networks seemingly aren't too keen on matches in low-rating afternoon timeslots. That could logically result in more/all games played at night (perhaps I will map out my ideal vision for this in another post at some stage) which is a summer league win-win.

 

[WolfgangV]

The men's game isn't unfettered by television demands, WolfgangV, why should it be different for the women's?

On top of that, I can see multiple scenarios in which the interests of broadcasters converge with what's best for AFLW. An example of this is how networks seemingly aren't too keen on matches in low-rating afternoon timeslots. That could logically result in more/all games played at night (perhaps I will map out my ideal vision for this in another post at some stage) which is a summer league win-win.

There is a big difference between unfettered and determined. The article says "The structure of the season – the starting date, the length and finals arrangements – are all tied up in the broadcast deal and won't be finalised until that is complete." That goes way beyond any input the networks have to the men's game. That article sounds very much as if the networks are sitting down with the AFL and saying what length and format they want the AFLW season to be, and when that is worked out to the network's satisfaction the details will be released.

I have good reason to believe that the suggestion of a five week long conference system plus Grand Final is coming from television interests. A nice neat little package that will fill a gap in programming nicely. And turn a football season into a glorified tournament/carnival.

 

[Teen Wolf]

I have good reason to believe that the suggestion of a five week long conference system plus Grand Final is coming from television interests.

Anything you can elaborate on?