News 19th AFL Team Discussion

[sr36]

Why do you think this?
Much as Tassie doesn't want Norf this may be one to suck up. On the other hand it kill Nth Melb as any Tassie team would want to celebrate the rich history of Austalian footballers coming out of this state, like Wright, Mihocek & & a few bit players.

I'd love it to work. I just don't think enough cashed up blokes in there 20s will choose to stay.

 

[leon123]

Had a thought, maybe a new team is not state or locality based.

It could be like called the born again moral crusaders.

Jdg obviously wouldn’t be a prime player target... it could work

 

[Mollythedolly]

In 1993, when footy was probably at its best, AFL lists were 52. Now they’re around 36, not counting rookies. 44 counting them.

thats around 15-18 per team or about 250 players fewer in the AFL system, not counting rookies. So in 30 years the talent pool has decreased by that much? Rather than increased? Okay, there are other things to take into account, but these decisions have become about because of commercial reasons and then Justified on the basis of “talent”. One is the creation of greater class differentiation between the players. Ie. The elite players get huge deals, rookies are constantly on tenterhooks.

You can argue for smaller lists or fewer teams on lots of bases, but talent pool is a bizarre one. What does it mean? The ability to play at a current afl team? Do we use north or Melbourne as the example? Talent pool is a pretty arbitrary category. You have to say talent FOR something. But what?

You’re really stretching the memory now but fairly sure that while U19’s finished in 1991, I’m pretty sure we were still fielding a reserves sides in 1993 so the additional players weren’t a reflection of quality depth, just the numbers needed for a reserves. Lists were reduced to 46 after reserves were done away with. There were also only 15 teams in 1993.

So in equivalent terms, we now have a senior list of 44 plus a VFL list of (currently) 25, therefore lists are 69 players, they’ve just shifted some of it to the VFL. Plus the 3 addition squads. Not to mention the 3 extra VFL teams in the 21 team competition. That’s already a lot of extra football players by my read. And I’m not aware there a proportional level of recruitment from the VFL relative to their numbers.

That said, discussion purely on raw numbers also ignores the additional spread of the absolute elite players. Every team ends up with a share of the A-graders and they don’t grow on trees.

 

[noideaatall]

If the AFL is concerned about talent pool it should push an NT AFL team. The kids in the communities live, eat & breath footy. They are the potential to drive the spectacle over the next few decades.

 

[Mollythedolly]

If the AFL is concerned about talent pool it should push an NT AFL team. The kids in the communities live, eat & breath footy. They are the potential to drive the spectacle over the next few decades.

I don’t think the AFL has commented either way.

Personally, I think a NT AFL team though is even more problematic than a Tassie team. You only have to watch any games in the NT or northern Queensland to appreciate the impact of climactic conditions. It’s a different thing hosting a couple of promotional games up there to a full 11 home games.

If there are questions about the Tassie population’s capacity to support an AFL side, then I’d be even more concerned the Territory lacks the population to support an AFL side, or the government the intent/capacity to subsidise one.

Given the lack of players who emerged through the zones in the NT I’m also less convinced they have the players to negate any dilution. Not that I wouldn’t welcome additional players from up there.

 

[Finnishpie]

You’re really stretching the memory now but fairly sure that while U19’s finished in 1991, I’m pretty sure we were still fielding a reserves sides in 1993 so the additional players weren’t a reflection of quality depth, just the numbers needed for a reserves. Lists were reduced to 46 after reserves were done away with. There were also only 15 teams in 1993.

So in equivalent terms, we now have a senior list of 44 plus a VFL list of (currently) 25, therefore lists are 69 players, they’ve just shifted some of it to the VFL. Plus the 3 addition squads. Not to mention the 3 extra VFL teams in the 21 team competition. That’s already a lot of extra football players by my read. And I’m not aware there a proportional level of recruitment from the VFL relative to their numbers.

That said, discussion purely on raw numbers also ignores the additional spread of the absolute elite players. Every team ends up with a share of the A-graders and they don’t grow on trees.

You‘re right that we can sift through the numbers this way and that. But I still hold to my position that depth of talent is a distraction and not the issue. Hardly any player from 30 years ago would be able to play modern afl. That’s partly due to fitness of course, but athleticism would rule lots out, as would skill level. Ie, players are more skilled now than ever. The VFL looks a lot more like afl of the 80s or 90s. So talent has increased across the board. so what we’re really saying is, we can limit the number of players playing afl and that will raise the level, or we can increase the number playing and the level will drop relative to the first Option. But it won’t drop all the way back to the 90s. It will only drop relative to smaller list sizes. That might mean it would stay as it is. Even if it dropped back to the level of 10 years ago, I’d be fine with that. We’d still get a good game. Tbh, the 1980-2000 years were peak AFL.

None of this is the real discussion though. The real discussion is about $. Sadly.

 

[sr36]

Had a thought, maybe a new team is not state or locality based.

It could be like called the born again moral crusaders.

Jdg obviously wouldn’t be a prime player target... it could work

The moral crusaders would be united by their disgust over Jordy, but would quickly fracture when they realised that their club was half woke and half bible bashing conservative.

 

[whiskeytown]

Aside from the side of the debate about what sort of team Tasmanians want

McGuire is right on when saying NM need to look at what their future would be like in a 19 team comp… where resources are being pulled into TAS team

Roos would lose millions not having the Tassie market. What other market are they going to tap into to sell their home games? Not many left

NM would only be weaker again in a 19-20 team comp

Or they could make the bold call now and guarantee themselves a future down in TAS with the 100% backing of the AFL as they don’t let interstate teams fold like they do Melbourne teams

 

[Mollythedolly]

You‘re right that we can sift through the numbers this way and that. But I still hold to my position that depth of talent is a distraction and not the issue. Hardly any player from 30 years ago would be able to play modern afl. That’s partly due to fitness of course, but athleticism would rule lots out, as would skill level. Ie, players are more skilled now than ever. The VFL looks a lot more like afl of the 80s or 90s. So talent has increased across the board. so what we’re really saying is, we can limit the number of players playing afl and that will raise the level, or we can increase the number playing and the level will drop relative to the first Option. But it won’t drop all the way back to the 90s. It will only drop relative to smaller list sizes. That might mean it would stay as it is. Even if it dropped back to the level of 10 years ago, I’d be fine with that. We’d still get a good game. Tbh, the 1980-2000 years were peak AFL.

None of this is the real discussion though. The real discussion is about $. Sadly.

I never said dilution of the talent pool is an issue for the AFL. I said as a supporter, the establishment of 19th and 20th teams should give cause for reservations to us all as it would dilute the talent pool and lead to years of compromised drafts. It’s purely a comment based on self interest. These factors don’t help the Collingwood football club. I don’t care about the finances of any club beyond Collingwood, and the fact we’re the leagues cash cow. I’m not fussed either way about a 19th or 20th team beyond how their establishment would impact Collingwood.

 

[noideaatall]

I don’t think the AFL has commented either way.

Personally, I think a NT AFL team though is even more problematic than a Tassie team. You only have to watch any games in the NT or northern Queensland to appreciate the impact of climactic conditions. It’s a different thing hosting a couple of promotional games up there to a full 11 home games.

If there are questions about the Tassie population’s capacity to support an AFL side, then I’d be even more concerned the Territory lacks the population to support an AFL side, or the government the intent/capacity to subsidise one.

Given the lack of players who emerged through the zones in the NT I’m also less convinced they have the players to negate any dilution. Not that I wouldn’t welcome additional players from up there.

Climate is an issue,not sure how to resolve. Air-conditioned stadiums? The young talent is there in the communities, just not the supportive process to develop & make AFL ready.

The financial viability issue is somewhat artificial. Tweak the caps and a Tassie team is viable. Might mean players get paid a bit less, a few less staff, etc but doubt it will impact that much on the spectacle.

 

[MyManLynch]

Aside from the side of the debate about what sort of team Tasmanians want

McGuire is right on when saying NM need to look at what their future would be like in a 19 team comp… where resources are being pulled into TAS team

Roos would lose millions not having the Tassie market. What other market are they going to tap into to sell their home games? Not many left

NM would only be weaker again in a 19-20 team comp

Or they could make the bold call now and guarantee themselves a future down in TAS with the 100% backing of the AFL as they don’t let interstate teams fold like they do Melbourne teams

A future like South Melbourne & or Fitzroy.
Ask old supporters opinions of the relocation/mergers.

 

[whiskeytown]

A future like South Melbourne & or Fitzroy.
Ask old supporters opinions of the relocation/mergers.

The point is they either proactively go now… and get the benefits, backing and security of the TAS market

Or fade away eventually anyhow in a 19 team comp… which then takes us back to an 18 team comp

How do they survive financially without selling games to a second market?

TAS will be gone, Dogs have central Vic, giants have Canberra, Suns are being given Darwin

… what’s left? Traralgon?

 

[Finnishpie]

I never said dilution of the talent pool is an issue for the AFL. I said as a supporter, the establishment of 19th and 20th teams should give cause for reservations to us all as it would dilute the talent pool and lead to years of compromised drafts. It’s purely a comment based on self interest. These factors don’t help the Collingwood football club. I don’t care about the finances of any club beyond Collingwood, and the fact we’re the leagues cash cow. I’m not fussed either way about a 19th or 20th team beyond how their establishment would impact Collingwood.

Okay, I guess the question of whether it helps Collingwood or not depends on where we are on the ladder. That is, you don’t want to be about to rebuild when a new team comes in.

Having said that, diluting the talent pool is relative, as I tried to suggest. It’s going to dilute it for everyone at the same time, so I don’t see it’s an issue.