Opinion What unpopular AFL opinions do you have? - Part 2

[sabso]

Correction

Just be glad your hungry jacks outlet of a club is propped up by the afl and big oil instead of having to answer to its members.

 

[go_the_dockers]

Okay I will, as I truly believe every club has advantages and disadvantages. Maybe some more than others, but WA/SA get a bit of both.

Despite your comment of Queensland out producing WA for talent, overall that's not entirely true, yes they did this year and maybe any other occasional year, overall WA has the second most players of any state bar Victoria. Queensland has about 40-50 players in the AFL, and WA has about 130. SA has about 115. NSW/ACT have about 60.

So WA still has a significant amount of players in the league. When there's a "go home factor", WA clubs have a 50/50 chance of getting said player, compared to the 1/10 chance that Victorian clubs get. Victoria isn't a singular club/entity - when a big name player like Jeremy Cameron goes home, it's doesn't advantage my club or the 9 other Vic clubs in general.
This is how Freo gets players like Hogan, Luke Jackson, Judd Mcvee, Shai Bolton etc. all within a few off seasons. My club hasn't got a big name Vic player come home since Lever on 2017. With roughly 65 WA players per WA clubs to go home to, it's the best "go home" advantage in the whole league.

WA/SA clubs now also have 11 true home ground advantage games - more than the other 14 clubs in the league.

They also get the advantage of being in AFL states with only 2 clubs - meaning they get a massive piece of the pie with a lot of supporters and $$. In terms of membership/$$, this is how West Coast remain arguably the biggest club in the whole league , with Freo, Adelaide and Port (slightly less so, but still a big club) being well supported.

Yes, I get the whole MCG thing (funnily enough the Dees won a flag without it lol), and I get that Travelling 3-4 more times than the other clubs is a disadvantage. But you asked for advantages and I think I've given some genuine ones.

Sorry about the wall of text. To fit in with the thread, my unpopular opinion is that the WA/SA clubs aren't as hard done by as some think they are - they have advantages and disadvantages like any other club.

I did say big Vic clubs

5 years ago, WA was along way ahead of QLD but it is catching up very quickly. In 5 more years, it will catch up.



As you can see when it comes to top 18 picks over the last 5 years, the break down is even and I would say QLD would have more top 5 picks than WA at least.

	QLD	WA	SA
2025​	5​	1​	3​
2024​	1​	1​	1​
2023​	2​	2​	0​
2022​	2​	2​	2​
2021​	0​	3​	3​
	10​	9​	9​

 

[Purple Suit]

Just be glad your hungry jacks outlet of a club is propped up by the afl and big oil instead of having to answer to its members.

That’s a bit harsh, calling us Hungry Jacks when that’s WC’s major sponsor. You’ve still got pokies propping up your club and just changed to a Chinese car manufacturer as your major sponsor.

The AFL don’t prop up Freo or WA. We’re the only State that pays for its grass roots footy and the lack of cash is an issue in the system.

 

[Hoops]

State of Origin should just be Vic v the rest. So it is competitive and all players get a chance at representation

 

[Millsie69]

State of Origin should just be Vic v the rest. So it is competitive and all players get a chance at representation

They tried that and only Victorian's had the slightest bit of interest.

At least this format will have two states taking an interest in it.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

WA/SA clubs now also have 11 true home ground advantage games

and I get that Travelling 3-4 more times than the other clubs is a disadvantage.

This is the thin that the non-Victorian fans miss in all this.

The true home ground advantage for these clubs is huge - it's worth over 10 points. Maybe only the best 2-3 players in the league are worth that much. When peak Buddy Franklin was a late out in a couple of the games, the betting line only moved 8 or 9 points.

The advantage gained is mainly through big crowd domination - 50,000 Eagles fans booing umpires influence them, and cheering loudly for their players gives them an extra 1% motivation that goes beyond the dumb analysis of "put the players should be motivated anyway".

There have been studies of soccer crowds which show that identical crowds with and without an athletics stadium around it make a difference in the strength of home ground advantage, and this is shown both in the willingness of referees to give yellow cards to away team (so umpiring bias in AFL) and the home team playing slightly better when the crowd is closer (motivation). And there are statistically significant differences from simply an identical crowd being a few metres closer to the players - they are louder and visually closer, this makes a difference.

Lastly, though this is only more minor than the crowd impact, weather and familiarity play a part. When teams come to Melbourne, they are used to the stadium, the city and its weather, most likely they played there numerous times the previous year and it's not the first time they are playing at Docklands/Marvel for the season. On the other hand, when Melbourne teams travel to another city, they may not have even played there the year before, many players it's the first time they've ever played in that stadium (used to its dimensions, how soft the surface is how, the ball bounces, etc.). Weather plays a part too - a team going up to Brisbane or GC in relatively mild or even warm conditions and with humidity is something that's harder to adjust to or train for when you might only play that fixture once a year, while Brisbane and GC when they move down to Melbourne are not unfamiliar in playing in colder weather, as they do that every second week, and plan/strategise across a whole year for a mixture of conditions, whereas Melbourne teams are largely going to plan for playing in the cold against other Melbourne teams, but their equal preparation for these games cancel each other out.

Hopping on a plane half a dozen times for largely very short trips where half your players are in a business class seat doesn't really cancel this out, maybe offsets it a tiny bit.

Of course, in terms of premiership win probability, fact that the GF is played at the MCG cancels a lot of this out - except for your Docklands tenants (and Melbourne which is in its own little category for not having the MCG finals disadvantages but otherwise having all the other Marvel disadvantages).

For example, while Collingwood has all these disadvantages, it gains the advantages back through crowd size etc. in their away games - they play 5 of their 11 away games at the MCG where they contribute to almost half the crowd in those games (virtually even disadvantage). It's an advantage for those 5 games in and of itself, but it's also an advantage in how it layers on itself - appealing go-home club, finals preparation.

For your 3 Docklands tenants - no MCG games to develop familiarity with the stadium, no big away support in away Melbourne games, and home games against big teams have big away support (e.g. home games against Carlton and Essendon at Docklands are often outnumbered in the crowd, something that never happens in the 11 true home games in Perth/Adelaide).

In terms of advantages tiered, it really goes something like this:

Tier 1: Geelong, Brisbane, Sydney, West Coast, Fremantle, Port Adelaide, Adelaide, Collingwood, Richmond, Hawthorn (strong interstate advantages + what the poster said above in terms of go-home factor + MCG home ground and big club advantages. Brisbane/Sydney don't have go-home, local talent advantages but cancelled out by academy bidding process being broken on top of F/S, giving them huge advantage. Geelong have unique true HGA against other Vic teams)

Tier 2: Carlton, Essendon (big club Melbourne advantage but play some games at Docklands, less MCG familiarity advantage compared to other 3 clubs, weird ticketing at Docklands means some home crowds vs interstate clubs get crowds of less than 35,000 when equivalent big Perth/Adelaide games get 40,000+ crowds)

Tier 3: Melbourne, GWS, Gold Coast (Melbourne MCG advantage but small club disadvantage, sells home games to NT. GWS/GC have academy/interstate/home finals advantages don't have a lot of passionate home support, some of their home games have 50/50 support with away team, lots of players wanting to leave a team with no history over the course of history)

Tier 4: Western Bulldogs, St Kilda, North (every disadvantage other than slightly less travel, sell home games, no advantage in terms of large home crowds bigger than away crowds, hardly any MCG games, sometimes have to host home MCG finals against big Melbourne clubs and have the disadvantage etc.. There's a reason that none of these teams + Carlton or Essendon have finished top 4 on the H&A ladder for 15 years).

 

[SizeMatters]

So you think Gold Coast, coming off the back of a semi final, receiving four first round picks + Petracca + Ugle-Hagan (who is still a very good player if he can get his attitude right) in exchange for Flanders (overrated IMO) and a few role players is perfectly fair? LOL.

I shouldn’t be surprised but it’s hilarious the lengths you lot will go to defending a blatantly rorted league.

It’s called good list management. Something your rabble could learn a thing or two about.

 

[go_the_dockers]

This is the thin that the non-Victorian fans miss in all this.

The true home ground advantage for these clubs is huge - it's worth over 10 points. Maybe only the best 2-3 players in the league are worth that much. When peak Buddy Franklin was a late out in a couple of the games, the betting line only moved 8 or 9 points.

The advantage gained is mainly through big crowd domination - 50,000 Eagles fans booing umpires influence them, and cheering loudly for their players gives them an extra 1% motivation that goes beyond the dumb analysis of "put the players should be motivated anyway".

There have been studies of soccer crowds which show that identical crowds with and without an athletics stadium around it make a difference in the strength of home ground advantage, and this is shown both in the willingness of referees to give yellow cards to away team (so umpiring bias in AFL) and the home team playing slightly better when the crowd is closer (motivation). And there are statistically significant differences from simply an identical crowd being a few metres closer to the players - they are louder and visually closer, this makes a difference.

Lastly, though this is only more minor than the crowd impact, weather and familiarity play a part. When teams come to Melbourne, they are used to the stadium, the city and its weather, most likely they played there numerous times the previous year and it's not the first time they are playing at Docklands/Marvel for the season. On the other hand, when Melbourne teams travel to another city, they may not have even played there the year before, many players it's the first time they've ever played in that stadium (used to its dimensions, how soft the surface is how, the ball bounces, etc.). Weather plays a part too - a team going up to Brisbane or GC in relatively mild or even warm conditions and with humidity is something that's harder to adjust to or train for when you might only play that fixture once a year, while Brisbane and GC when they move down to Melbourne are not unfamiliar in playing in colder weather, as they do that every second week, and plan/strategise across a whole year for a mixture of conditions, whereas Melbourne teams are largely going to plan for playing in the cold against other Melbourne teams, but their equal preparation for these games cancel each other out.

Hopping on a plane half a dozen times for largely very short trips where half your players are in a business class seat doesn't really cancel this out, maybe offsets it a tiny bit.

Of course, in terms of premiership win probability, fact that the GF is played at the MCG cancels a lot of this out - except for your Docklands tenants (and Melbourne which is in its own little category for not having the MCG finals disadvantages but otherwise having all the other Marvel disadvantages).

For example, while Collingwood has all these disadvantages, it gains the advantages back through crowd size etc. in their away games - they play 5 of their 11 away games at the MCG where they contribute to almost half the crowd in those games (virtually even disadvantage). It's an advantage for those 5 games in and of itself, but it's also an advantage in how it layers on itself - appealing go-home club, finals preparation.

For your 3 Docklands tenants - no MCG games to develop familiarity with the stadium, no big away support in away Melbourne games, and home games against big teams have big away support (e.g. home games against Carlton and Essendon at Docklands are often outnumbered in the crowd, something that never happens in the 11 true home games in Perth/Adelaide).

In terms of advantages tiered, it really goes something like this:

Tier 1: Geelong, Brisbane, Sydney, West Coast, Fremantle, Port Adelaide, Adelaide, Collingwood, Richmond, Hawthorn (strong interstate advantages + what the poster said above in terms of go-home factor + MCG home ground and big club advantages. Brisbane/Sydney don't have go-home, local talent advantages but cancelled out by academy bidding process being broken on top of F/S, giving them huge advantage. Geelong have unique true HGA against other Vic teams)

Tier 2: Carlton, Essendon (big club Melbourne advantage but play some games at Docklands, less MCG familiarity advantage compared to other 3 clubs, weird ticketing at Docklands means some home crowds vs interstate clubs get crowds of less than 35,000 when equivalent big Perth/Adelaide games get 40,000+ crowds)

Tier 3: Melbourne, GWS, Gold Coast (Melbourne MCG advantage but small club disadvantage, sells home games to NT. GWS/GC have academy/interstate/home finals advantages don't have a lot of passionate home support, some of their home games have 50/50 support with away team, lots of players wanting to leave a team with no history over the course of history)

Tier 4: Western Bulldogs, St Kilda, North (every disadvantage other than slightly less travel, sell home games, no advantage in terms of large home crowds bigger than away crowds, hardly any MCG games, sometimes have to host home MCG finals against big Melbourne clubs and have the disadvantage etc.. There's a reason that none of these teams + Carlton or Essendon have finished top 4 on the H&A ladder for 15 years).

Grand final winners over the last 25 years suggests something different

 

[Saints43]

I doubt anyone would miss a team or two that much tbbh.

FMD

 

[RUNVS]

An opinion I have that I think is unpopular based on the reactions of a few when I have mentioned it is that I think it should be illegal for clubs to front of back load contracts. Too often it is used by the big clubs to really stack their lists and all it does is make it harder for the smaller clubs.

If you sign a player for 6 years at $6 million then you pay that player $1 million a season, no cute accounting tricks to only pay them $200,000 in the first 3 seasons or whatever. If it means players spill out because said club can no longer afford their list then that only benefits the competition as a whole.

 

[Cuzz09]

16 teams and a final 8 just felt right.

 

[Call Me Cake]

16 teams and a final 8 just felt right.

It would've if such a huge number weren't consentrated in Melbourne and more spread out.

If anything as the population keeps rising (the population of VIC, NSW and QLD combined will surpass the current population of Australia in 60+ years) I think the league will expand to 30+ teams in 100-150 years.

 

[btdg]

This is the thin that the non-Victorian fans miss in all this.

The true home ground advantage for these clubs is huge - it's worth over 10 points. Maybe only the best 2-3 players in the league are worth that much. When peak Buddy Franklin was a late out in a couple of the games, the betting line only moved 8 or 9 points.

The advantage gained is mainly through big crowd domination - 50,000 Eagles fans booing umpires influence them, and cheering loudly for their players gives them an extra 1% motivation that goes beyond the dumb analysis of "put the players should be motivated anyway".

There have been studies of soccer crowds which show that identical crowds with and without an athletics stadium around it make a difference in the strength of home ground advantage, and this is shown both in the willingness of referees to give yellow cards to away team (so umpiring bias in AFL) and the home team playing slightly better when the crowd is closer (motivation). And there are statistically significant differences from simply an identical crowd being a few metres closer to the players - they are louder and visually closer, this makes a difference.

Lastly, though this is only more minor than the crowd impact, weather and familiarity play a part. When teams come to Melbourne, they are used to the stadium, the city and its weather, most likely they played there numerous times the previous year and it's not the first time they are playing at Docklands/Marvel for the season. On the other hand, when Melbourne teams travel to another city, they may not have even played there the year before, many players it's the first time they've ever played in that stadium (used to its dimensions, how soft the surface is how, the ball bounces, etc.). Weather plays a part too - a team going up to Brisbane or GC in relatively mild or even warm conditions and with humidity is something that's harder to adjust to or train for when you might only play that fixture once a year, while Brisbane and GC when they move down to Melbourne are not unfamiliar in playing in colder weather, as they do that every second week, and plan/strategise across a whole year for a mixture of conditions, whereas Melbourne teams are largely going to plan for playing in the cold against other Melbourne teams, but their equal preparation for these games cancel each other out.

Hopping on a plane half a dozen times for largely very short trips where half your players are in a business class seat doesn't really cancel this out, maybe offsets it a tiny bit.

Of course, in terms of premiership win probability, fact that the GF is played at the MCG cancels a lot of this out - except for your Docklands tenants (and Melbourne which is in its own little category for not having the MCG finals disadvantages but otherwise having all the other Marvel disadvantages).

For example, while Collingwood has all these disadvantages, it gains the advantages back through crowd size etc. in their away games - they play 5 of their 11 away games at the MCG where they contribute to almost half the crowd in those games (virtually even disadvantage). It's an advantage for those 5 games in and of itself, but it's also an advantage in how it layers on itself - appealing go-home club, finals preparation.

For your 3 Docklands tenants - no MCG games to develop familiarity with the stadium, no big away support in away Melbourne games, and home games against big teams have big away support (e.g. home games against Carlton and Essendon at Docklands are often outnumbered in the crowd, something that never happens in the 11 true home games in Perth/Adelaide).

In terms of advantages tiered, it really goes something like this:

Tier 1: Geelong, Brisbane, Sydney, West Coast, Fremantle, Port Adelaide, Adelaide, Collingwood, Richmond, Hawthorn (strong interstate advantages + what the poster said above in terms of go-home factor + MCG home ground and big club advantages. Brisbane/Sydney don't have go-home, local talent advantages but cancelled out by academy bidding process being broken on top of F/S, giving them huge advantage. Geelong have unique true HGA against other Vic teams)

Tier 2: Carlton, Essendon (big club Melbourne advantage but play some games at Docklands, less MCG familiarity advantage compared to other 3 clubs, weird ticketing at Docklands means some home crowds vs interstate clubs get crowds of less than 35,000 when equivalent big Perth/Adelaide games get 40,000+ crowds)

Tier 3: Melbourne, GWS, Gold Coast (Melbourne MCG advantage but small club disadvantage, sells home games to NT. GWS/GC have academy/interstate/home finals advantages don't have a lot of passionate home support, some of their home games have 50/50 support with away team, lots of players wanting to leave a team with no history over the course of history)

Tier 4: Western Bulldogs, St Kilda, North (every disadvantage other than slightly less travel, sell home games, no advantage in terms of large home crowds bigger than away crowds, hardly any MCG games, sometimes have to host home MCG finals against big Melbourne clubs and have the disadvantage etc.. There's a reason that none of these teams + Carlton or Essendon have finished top 4 on the H&A ladder for 15 years).

While I agree with some of this, we now have 15 years of evidence in a pretty stable league; the last expansion was 2011, the current free agency/draft/academies player movement system was introduced at the same time, and we've played the regular season and finals under a consistent structure in that 15 year period.

And te most damning stat in football is that no Docklands club has finished in the top 4 or won 14 games in a season since the introduction of GWS and Gold Coast in 2011. That's 5 clubs - Carlton, Essendon, North, St Kilda, Bulldogs. Those clubs have had some decent teams too - consider the Bulldogs with Bont, Carlton with Cripps/Curnow/Weitering and before that Judd/Fev/Betts etc - and yet 75 combined seasons without a top 4 finish...

Those 5 clubs have 1 premiership combined this century, and that was a miracle Bulldogs run from 7th place where they won 3 straight finals on the road to get there. St Kilda got close with one of the most stacked teams in history, but couldn't get over the line.

Meanwhile, every single MCG tenant (Melbourne, Collingwood, Hawthorn, Richmond) has won a premiership in the last 15 years. The 'big' club in 3 out of 4 other states has won a Premiership (West Coast, Brisbane, Sydney) and the fourth (Adelaide) made a grand final. The only 'little brother' interstate team to not have a top 4 finish is Gold Coast.

The Docklands teams - it's hard to pinpoint exactly what the issue is, except to highlight that whatever benefit Carlton and Essendon get from their size is totally offset by a home ground situation that sees them oddly play home against other Docklands tenants at Docklands, and then play 'home' against MCG tenants at the MCG. This year, Carlton played 8 games at a ground where they played more regularly across the season, and 15 matches at a ground where their opposition had an advantage.

To put it bluntly: it seems almost impossible for Docklands teams to win enough games to get a meaningful home field advantage in the finals; if they do make finals, it's likely with an absolutely stacked team that creeps into the bottom half of the 8, and has to travel to play a good opponent interstate as a result.

The argument seems to be that those teams are just badly managed. And sure, that's there. But the counter is that their mismanagement seems to be so much more costly. Collingwood completely flubbed its salary cap with an aging list, had to pay other clubs to take a bunch of stars... and made a grand final two years later. Freo have had all sorts of bad management... and have multiple top 4 finishes and a GF appearance. Port have had the bloke from sunrise running the show and seem to think Ken Hinkley the worst coach ever... and have multiple top 4 finishes.

Yet North have Clarko coaching and an infrastructure good enough to make their AFLW team the most dominant in the history of the sport, and yet they can't get out of the bottom 4? There's something else going on here...

 

[Demon13304]

Meanwhile, every single MCG tenant (Melbourne, Collingwood, Hawthorn, Richmond) has won a premiership in the last 15 years. The 'big' club in 3 out of 4 other states has won a Premiership (West Coast, Brisbane, Sydney) and the fourth (Adelaide) made a grand final. The only 'little brother' interstate team to not have a top 4 finish is Gold Coast.

I agree with what you're saying, I just hate that we're getting lumped in this. The MCG advantage comes from that a lot of finals and the grand final is played there. Dees flag was won entirety away from the MCG.

 

[spicerFanClub]

The argument seems to be that those teams are just badly managed. And sure, that's there. But the counter is that their mismanagement seems to be so much more costly. Collingwood completely flubbed its salary cap with an aging list, had to pay other clubs to take a bunch of stars... and made a grand final two years later. Freo have had all sorts of bad management... and have multiple top 4 finishes and a GF appearance. Port have had the bloke from sunrise running the show and seem to think Ken Hinkley the worst coach ever... and have multiple top 4 finishes.

Yet North have Clarko coaching and an infrastructure good enough to make their AFLW team the most dominant in the history of the sport, and yet they can't get out of the bottom 4? There's something else going on here...

Agree across the board on the post. It's really a lack of margin for error in all facets that compound to make it much harder to get highs and the lows to do a lot more damage (though to be clear I'm not denying that the 2016-2021 North administration have a lot to answer for).

A critical example is the draft. Everyone knows the best strategy is to draft for talent, trade for needs. The problem for teams like Bulldogs/North/St Kilda is attracting the trade talent - look at the Bulldogs, they have one of the best attacks and midfields going around and probably just need 1-2 elite defenders to genuinely contend for silverware, yet prospects are slim to none. If you miss in the draft (which is 50/50 at best) and your can't target talent for needs, you stay bottom for longer.

The "intangible" benefits of big, highly televised clubs are now also more relevant than ever. Jobs after footy, influencer opportunities, business connections, investment opportunities - all better at big, prominent clubs. Managers know this and under the cover of "what's best for their client" consistently push their clients into the prominent clubs. This is what it is and is likely to never change, but the media is quiet on it consistently - more clicks in articles punting North for getting a couple of end of first round picks rather than looking at the baked-in institutional advantages for prominent clubs (and before anyone jumps in to say these clubs should just be better, the hierarchy of clubs hasn't changed since the 1970s, nobody in current operations should be patting themselves on the back).

 

[bradfisher14]

An opinion I have that I think is unpopular based on the reactions of a few when I have mentioned it is that I think it should be illegal for clubs to front of back load contracts. Too often it is used by the big clubs to really stack their lists and all it does is make it harder for the smaller clubs.

If you sign a player for 6 years at $6 million then you pay that player $1 million a season, no cute accounting tricks to only pay them $200,000 in the first 3 seasons or whatever. If it means players spill out because said club can no longer afford their list then that only benefits the competition as a whole.

I agree with this. It also prevents players/player managers from double dipping by requesting a trade once the front ended years have finished. It’s tantamount to bad faith negotiations. Not looking at anyone in particular … let’s just call him Charlie C - no, that’s way too obvious - C. Curnow.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Agree across the board on the post. It's really a lack of margin for error in all facets that compound to make it much harder to get highs and the lows to do a lot more damage (though to be clear I'm not denying that the 2016-2021 North administration have a lot to answer for).

A critical example is the draft. Everyone knows the best strategy is to draft for talent, trade for needs. The problem for teams like Bulldogs/North/St Kilda is attracting the trade talent - look at the Bulldogs, they have one of the best attacks and midfields going around and probably just need 1-2 elite defenders to genuinely contend for silverware, yet prospects are slim to none. If you miss in the draft (which is 50/50 at best) and your can't target talent for needs, you stay bottom for longer.

The "intangible" benefits of big, highly televised clubs are now also more relevant than ever. Jobs after footy, influencer opportunities, business connections, investment opportunities - all better at big, prominent clubs. Managers know this and under the cover of "what's best for their client" consistently push their clients into the prominent clubs. This is what it is and is likely to never change, but the media is quiet on it consistently - more clicks in articles punting North for getting a couple of end of first round picks rather than looking at the baked-in institutional advantages for prominent clubs (and before anyone jumps in to say these clubs should just be better, the hierarchy of clubs hasn't changed since the 1970s, nobody in current operations should be patting themselves on the back).

All of this was wound up in the Bailey Smith saga, which was a disgrace. I'm genuinely surprised at my fellow Bulldogs fans for not calling out how unfair and ridiculous it all was, in part to not be seen as whingers, in part because we wanted to move on, be optimistic about the future, and what we were missing out on was abstract as he hadn't run around on the field for us for a year.

For a player that would eventually have as good a season he did, to be rightfully identified and drafted as a top 10 talent by a club, and for that player not to have the patience to serve the club that drafted him 8 years (before free agency) was ridiculous. Once he was out of contract, the AFL's rules were wholly inadequate to either give the Dogs enough draft compensation, or to prevent Smith having his way to specify which club he wanted to go to, or both. What's the point of the AFLPA and the AFL agreeing that 8 years is the balancing act for the draft needing to have meaning and purpose (8 years of service after drafting them) but also giving players out-of-contract freedom of movement, when a player from a small club can just pretend that the 8 years is actually six? What's the point of having an adequate free agency compensation system for when that player executes his psuedo-free agent, the Dogs get pick 21, a worse compensation pick than had he actually been a free agent, despite actually giving 2 fewer years of service to the club that drafted him? Given that the draft has to be the best equalisation tool for these clubs, given that others like trades and salary cap don't help them (for the reasons you point out), what's the point of drafting well and developing talent when you only get the first 6 years of a 15-year career player?

 

[ReturningHawk]

Grand final winners over the last 25 years suggests something different

We can only hope that Fremantle gets a home final next year against an inexperienced, lower ranked side who have a history of playing poorly away from home. Then there really will be no excuses, right?

 

[go_the_dockers]

We can only hope that Fremantle gets a home final next year against an inexperienced, lower ranked side who have a history of playing poorly away from home. Then there really will be no excuses, right?

1 result cancels out the last 25 years of history.

My apologies

 

[ReturningHawk]

Adam Goodes was an awesome player who became a dirty stager and was underhanded in his latter years. He played the race card as the response for the criticism which then brought out a few racists and then appeared to prove him 'right'.
Loved him, then hated him.
Always arrogant which is great when you are a champion but he couldn't handle being beaten and resorted to the staging and kidney punches. When this drew the ire of fans he couldn't fathom that it was because he had become the dirty villian of the team and concluded it must be racism.

“Playing the race card”

A phrase used exclusively by racists. Take a look in the mirror. This is a thread for unpopular opinions like “I reckon Ty Gallop is better than Sam Darcy”, not retrospective justification for one of the most shameful episodes in our sport.

There are still posters here who’ll tell you that Winmar was an attention-seeker as well. Don’t be like them.

 

[sabso]

I used to think Tylar Young was a better player than [PLAYERCARD]Darcy Moore[/PLAYERCARD], now I think he probably is but I don’t care

 

[RUNVS]

“Playing the race card”

A phrase used exclusively by racists. Take a look in the mirror. This is a thread for unpopular opinions like “I reckon Ty Gallop is better than Sam Darcy”, not retrospective justification for one of the most shameful episodes in our sport.

There are still posters here who’ll tell you that Winmar was an attention-seeker as well. Don’t be like them.

Yep. Plus Chris Judd was way way dirtier than Goodes ever was and yet no one was booing him.

 

[Demon13304]

Adam Goodes was an awesome player who became a dirty stager and was underhanded in his latter years. He played the race card as the response for the criticism which then brought out a few racists and then appeared to prove him 'right'.
Loved him, then hated him.
Always arrogant which is great when you are a champion but he couldn't handle being beaten and resorted to the staging and kidney punches. When this drew the ire of fans he couldn't fathom that it was because he had become the dirty villian of the team and concluded it must be racism.

“Playing the race card”

A phrase used exclusively by racists. Take a look in the mirror. This is a thread for unpopular opinions like “I reckon Ty Gallop is better than Sam Darcy”, not retrospective justification for one of the most shameful episodes in our sport.

There are still posters here who’ll tell you that Winmar was an attention-seeker as well. Don’t be like them.

Yep. Plus Chris Judd was way way dirtier than Goodes ever was and yet no one was booing him.

Goodes career started in 1998 and he didn't get booed until around 2013, 15 years into his career. Hmmmm wonder what happened there?

Also he got booed everytime he got the ball. Like everytime - I'm 100% certain it wasn't just because he was a "flog".

It was one of the most disgraceful things I can remember in not just modern AFL, but Modern Australian history. We need to acknowledge it and stop downplaying it. It was clearly racism.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

Adam Goodes was an awesome player who became a dirty stager and was underhanded in his latter years. He played the race card as the response for the criticism which then brought out a few racists and then appeared to prove him 'right'.
Loved him, then hated him.
Always arrogant which is great when you are a champion but he couldn't handle being beaten and resorted to the staging and kidney punches. When this drew the ire of fans he couldn't fathom that it was because he had become the dirty villian of the team and concluded it must be racism.

I’ve seen some dumb shit written on this site over the years, but ignoring the actual racism directed at Goodes and pretending he just brought it up because some fans didn’t like the way he played is up there.

I guess Eddie, Newman, Bolt and the Girl who all had large pockets of Australia backing them in after they’d clearly racially vilified him didn’t happen at all in your world.

 

[Morro]

Matty Richardson would be considered better than Dusty if he played in a Dynasty team. He is criminally underrated due to playing in the shittest era of our club.