2018 AFL Crowds & Ratings thread

[dave10]

Will be interesting to see what next week’s Hawks v Eagles draws.

I reckon today’s result will give Hawks fans the perfect excuse not to go to Docklands as seemingly like all supporters of MCG clubs they dislike the ground and rarely turn up in big numbers.

Reckon it will be about 22k or so.

They would probably only draw around 30-33K at the G this week. I will go 22-24K.

Broadly speaking, the permanent MCG tenants have a greater aversion to Etihad than Carlton and Essendon. However particularly against Vic clubs, even Essendon crowds at Ethihad are probably 10,000 per game lower than if held at the MCG. History shows that MCG home games against Geelong, Hawthorn and Melbourne are considerably lower at Ethihad. This would be the case for Carlton too when they start being more competitive.

Given good weather, I’d expect 55,000 at the G next week for the Tigers V Saints. Good time slot and weather. Tigers 2nd will drawn well. Saints will bring 10,000 - 12,000 or so along.

 

[magic_johnson!]

That would mean 40% of the township would actually be sold be at the game (ok maybe 35% once out of towners are taken into account)

It would still be an unbelievable showing that no other city in Australia has probably ever achieved.

Not sure of Geelong's population in the 1950s, but you'd have to think the crowd of 49,000 in 1952 against Carlton would have been almost close to 70-100% of the population.

 

[Rouel_14]

MCG prediction of 46000 seems about right for Tigs vs Saints.
Hoping we could hit 50k.
When you compare it to 43000 the other week vs Freo, doesn’t seem to out of reach


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[BringBackTorps]

clubs are going to force the league to introduce zoning [N0]. this crap is going to start affecting the leagues tv revenue[Yes. Lack of goals = less advertising breaks (& more boring football) =less TV Rights $].

Zoning should be a LAST resort to minimise congestion. Melbourne Rules-Australian Football was designed to allow for freedom of movement/no onside rules etc., one of the game's greatest attractions.

It is 4 on the bench, with interchange, that is the cancer we introduced. The NRL went from 10-8 interchange in 2016 to open it up, recruit more short players/give more scope for short players to display their silky RL skills etc. They are now considering a reduction to 6 interchange per side per game.

Prof. K. Norton (Exercise scientist, employed by the AFL to analyse game styles/congestion and the record number of injuries from tackles/bumps/collisions) advised the AFL in 2015 to reduce the interchange to between 20-40 per game, per side. M.Fitzpatrick said after leaving the AFL Commission he wanted 30 interchange per team -but was outvoted on the Commission!

IMO, we should restore the game to its original design -18 players v. 18 players, 2 subs. on the bench, NO interchange (unless for blood rule, or player receives a head knock/undergoes concussion test), mids rest in the pockets as they did for 130+ years (There is an engraving from c.1877 that shows a game in progress, with all players spread all over the ground, in traditional positions).
The game would open up after half time, giving time & space for tiring players to exhibit their skills. Players would not be able to flood all day -prior to interchange, they never did. Collisions/bumps/tackles -with players being less "fresh"-would be less ballistic, so fewer injuries.

Incidentally, did you write on BF c. 6 months ago that 1997 average Total weekly FTA & Foxtel 5 Metro city AFL Ratings have dropped from an average of 4,500,000 total pw to about 3,500,000 pw in 2017?
What was the AFL total 5 city average in 1997 & 2017?
Any idea how this compares to the Total average non-sporting Ratings' reduction between 1997 & 2017?

 

[The_Wookie]

Zoning should be a LAST resort to minimise congestion. Melbourne Rules-Australian Football was designed to allow for freedom of movement/no onside rules etc., one of the game's greatest attractions.

I doubt very much the founders of the game would even recognise the modern version.

Incidentally, did you write on BF c. 6 months ago that 1997 average Total weekly FTA & Foxtel 5 Metro city AFL Ratings have dropped from an average of 4,500,000 total pw to about 3,500,000 pw in 2017?
What was the AFL total 5 city average in 1997 & 2017?

Any idea how this compares to the Total average non-sporting Ratings' reduction between 1997 & 2017?

No idea

 

[NoobPie]

Z
IMO, we should restore the game to its original design -18 players v. 18 players, 2 subs. on the bench, NO interchange (unless for blood rule, or player receives a head knock/undergoes concussion test), mids rest in the pockets as they did for 130+ years (There is an engraving from c.1877 that shows a game in progress, with all players spread all over the ground, in traditional positions.

Which is simply not true. There were 20 players on the field per team until 1897. A substitute (that didn't require a player to be injured) did not come in until 1930 and the second substitute until after WW2

The game would open up after half time, giving time & space for tiring players to exhibit their skills. Players would not be able to flood all day -prior to interchange, they never did.

How do you know that? One thing is for sure, the game is not just going to go back to how you liked it in the 70s because they revert back to two substitutes!

This has been discussed before, but of the "defensive" strategic innovations of the last couple of decades, the only one that is likely to be reduced by the removal of interchange is the aggressive press. Zones, "plus 1s and 2s", stoppage congestion will all be encouraged, if anything by removal of interchange.

I'm not against making any changes that may or may not "open the game up" a bit but I strongly advise that you reconcile with the fact that we aint going back to man-on-man positional game with three followers who rest in the forward and back pockets. You can't put the professionalism geenie back in the pot. The healthy thing to do is to liberate yourself from the assumption that how the game was played in your youth is the "right" way to play it

 

[Our Game]

Noobie, you make many assumptions.

I am aware of the 20 man-per-side origins, a 19th man (substitute only) 1930 introduction & 20th man (sub only) 1946 introduction. I prefer the 18 v. 18 traditional game, with mids getting all their rests in the pockets (which they-not the grossly overpaid army of coaches-easily managed themselves). For c.130 years, resting in the pockets was perfectly acceptable!.
IMO, 20 v.20, with interchange, is the reason for the increasingly ugly/scrappy/tackleball/low scoring game we have been seeing since c.2004 (when interchange nos. began to explode! A coincidence?).

Do you think soccer, RU, and RL were wise not to adopt 4 men on the bench, with unlimited interchange? Why is it good for AF?

Are you aware that Interchange was introduced primarily to allow injured players to be assessed/ return to the field -& NOT for strategic reasons?
The "mad coaches" have attacked the essence/highlights of AF ie high kicking/long marking/attacking/one-on-one football

Why do you think Prof. Norton & M.Fitzparick wanted to slash interchange to between 20-40 per game per side? Are they experts?

What ever is done the game needs to get back to some of the traits that were present before the massive increase of interchange players.

I love our game but at the moment there are some matches I just dont like to watch due to the ugly mess of the players all down one end or around the ball and I switch off and I suspect a lot of neutral fans like me are doing the same..

To me the umpires or who coaches them are also to blame as they just wont pay holding the ball or not disposing of the ball properly free kicks for the many dubious "handballs" that are blatant throws. If a few more frees were paid Im certain the game would free up and players would need stay more true to the position they were supposedly picked to play instead of all following the ball all around the ground like an under 12 match.
In one match at the weekend one of the commentators said ALL the players are past the 50 metre line at one end!

 

[VFL13]

Quick question. Where are the comparison figures of this year to last,are they in a different area now?

 

[NoobPie]

BringBackTorps Here are the Collingwood % of game played stats from saturday night



What you'll notice is that the "structural" defenders like Dunn, Flynn, Scharenberg (and generally Langdon and Howe too) are the players that will generally spend the greatest amount of time on the field - and are also using the lower share of rotations.

Then there are the likes of Phillips and Sidebottom that are endurance midfielders.....and the first ruckman who is a contested ball, tackling fiend

Apart from fasolo who was injured early, the 6 players under 80% game time are all midfielders / high half forwards / pressure forwards.

Reducing or removing interchange is just as (if not more than) likely to increase defensive tactics

Anyway, I suspect we are nearing the number of off topic itterations that could see the Wookie shift this to another thread

 

[BringBackTorps]

I believe a consensus on the interchange reduction (or abolition)/whether we have 18 players with 2 subs. only ( ie maximum 20 players) is difficult because:-

. The AFLPA will likely desire a union "featherbedding/over-manning/more jobs & more Union members" outcome. Thus the AFLPA will always want 22 players per team, not 20.
Ala the 80's AWU wool shearing " wide comb" dispute -even though NZ shearers had been using the wide shears for decades, so had greater productivity. Ditto Corrigan's Patrick Stevedores v. the MUA on dock numbers/members. Corrigan won, bloated dock staffing levels were reduced to other western levels , general productivity increased. History is replete with such disputes.

I note you haven't commented on the average 45 tackles per game in total in the 80's, to an average total of 145 now per game...nothing to see there? Prof. Norton has advised the AFL that tackling/bumping/collision injuries are at record highs in the AFL.
If the medical evidence proves abolition/reduction of the interchange rotations is wise, the AFLPA will accept it.

. I have heard commentators say the interchange makes AF a more complex game - prior to interchange it was more a "players' game", but is now a "coaches" game, to exercise "controls". The coaches know this, that the interchange "complicates" coaching tactics/strategies/resting phases/use of "burst" players etc.
If one accepts the "coaches' game" view, it justifies the increasing importance of coaches and assistant coaches -& inflates their salaries/increases no. of coaching positions. Ditto exercise scientists/"phys.edders" etc.

I believe there is an increasing consensus that the game has clearly diminished as a spectacle, compared to the pre-2000 period. We previously didn't need intrusive rock music to entertain us before and during games, and other artificial exhortations from Ground idiots. Fans were sufficiently absorbed/"entranced"/"connected" to the rapidly changing spectacle/chance of scoring on the field -& far fewer stoppages!

The reduction in goals (& ad breaks) has negative implications for funding from advertisers for the AFL.

There are still many good games eg the recent Showdown at AO was superb. Also, in the past, there were many poor, scrappy games, played by part time footballers. On muddy surfaces. Players previously had worse kicking & poor precision in passes; (small) "pack" football & associated sloppiness were not uncommon etc. Unfortunately, IMO, the balance is shifting, with an increasing % of poor/forgettable games.

The previous one-on-one contests, however, created very exciting spectacles, which enraptured the crowds -& caused much anticipation/speculation on these duels before games/during the week/during the actual games. The one-on-one duels were a "game within a game". And the gun forwards, kicking bags, created often almost a frenzied following

Historians tell us that accurate long kicking, high marking (the latter requires the former), and gun full forwards -the antithesis of recent trends - were the main reasons AF triumphed over the Anglophiles & their games. Do you accept this view?
The AFL will abandon/diminish these things at its peril.

This thread is not really the appropriate place to explore these issues in detail -other threads have done so.

 

[Our Game]

I doubt very much the founders of the game would even recognise the modern version.



View attachment 500468


No idea

The AFL and for that matter any sport on TV dont get 4.5 million different people watching each week more like 2 - 3 million core viewers plus a few casuals watching some matches that are not rusted in viewers.
I would watch 5 to 6 matches over a weekend for different lengths of time so I get counted that many times not just once.

 

[dave10]

Crowds thread?

 

[Cmarsh]

Crowds thread?

It's also a tv ratings thread if you look at the thread title.

 

[Rouel_14]

With the New update on the MCG at it clearly shows which bays are going to be General Admission to each game!

Will be interesting to compare different GA areas depending on the Club.

Also MCC raised estimate to 52000
Must be strong ticket sales and be expecting a large member show up rate considering Saints only got 16000 to a home game and they haven’t won a game since


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[BallaratBulldog]

Ethiad clubs will take the opportunity to go to the G when they can, as they rarely play there. I mean look at the pies home game this weekend as an example. So annoying.

 

[madmug]

Ethiad clubs will take the opportunity to go to the G when they can, as they rarely play there. I mean look at the pies home game this weekend as an example. So annoying.

I guess WCE think the same thing. A Hawthorn game at Etihad, another missed chance to play at the G.

 

[NoobPie]

Ethiad clubs will take the opportunity to go to the G when they can, as they rarely play there. I mean look at the pies home game this weekend as an example. So annoying.

Sure we'd rather play our home games against etihad tenants at the G as well

I think the idea is they need to give all non MCG tenant clubs (at lest those that are contending) at least a couple of MCG games a year, which means at least one of Collingwood's 2 prescribed home games at etihad are generally against one of the three etihad tenants

 

[sverik25]

With the New update on the MCG at it clearly shows which bays are going to be General Admission to each game!

Will be interesting to compare different GA areas depending on the Club.

Also MCC raised estimate to 52000
Must be strong ticket sales and be expecting a large member show up rate considering Saints only got 16000 to a home game and they haven’t won a game since


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

Really can't see there being more than 10,000 Saints supporters there on Saturday. 6-8,000 probably realistic. You guys will be stuck doing the heavy lifting from a crowd perspective.

 

[AstuteTiger]

Really can't see there being more than 10,000 Saints supporters there on Saturday. 6-8,000 probably realistic. You guys will be stuck doing the heavy lifting from a crowd perspective.

Hope their is more but reality is their will be under 10K
Four saints supporters I work with all members arent going as they said “why would we go and watch us get flogged”

I said to them I really thought the saints would push for the 8 this year and they go
we have no leadership on the ground and some of our young players have gone backwards. Another year gone!

 

[Our Game]

New name for Docklands

It was announced on Thursday morning Etihad Stadium will be renamed Marvel Stadium in a new partnership with The Walt Disney Company Australia.

 

[Rezza Tiger]

New name for Docklands

It was announced on Thursday morning Etihad Stadium will be renamed Marvel Stadium in a new partnership with The Walt Disney Company Australia.

Marvel by name but we'll hardly marvel at it. Couldn't think of a less appropriate name for such a boring, sterile stadium.

 

[sverik25]

Hope their is more but reality is their will be under 10K
Four saints supporters I work with all members arent going as they said “why would we go and watch us get flogged”

I said to them I really thought the saints would push for the 8 this year and they go
we have no leadership on the ground and some of our young players have gone backwards. Another year gone!

Yep basically rock bottom for us at the moment.

 

[Rabman]

37,985 at docklands

 

[Our Game]

37,985 at docklands

So much for the supposedly massive"Collingwood army" who cant even travel a few kms across the CBD for a home game!

 

[Rabman]

So much for the supposedly massive"Collingwood army" who cant even travel a few kms across the CBD for a home game!

3rd highest crowd at docklands so far this season i think, about on par with what i expected, was hoping though it to just shy over 40k.