2nds 2026 Adelaide Crows SANFL thread

[crows dude]

I'll have some of what you're smoking

I would give you some but I dont touch any of that crap.

 

[Vader]

There's 2 or 3 guys on every list, sometimes more, who have no business being on an AFL list.

Did you see the Dreamtime game last week ?? Or Richmond or Essendon this week ??

That's a bit of an own-goal argument, isn't it? The fact that Richmond & Essendon's injury lists are so long that these players are getting a game is proof that they need list sizes at least this big (arguably larger).

There have been a couple of instances in recent years where clubs had to field players who weren't AFL listed, due to the number of players MIA due to injury. From memory (and I could be wrong), both West Coast & Essendon have had to resort to this. If anything, current AFL list sizes are too small.

The problem you're talking about would be better addressed by removing 1-2 teams from the competition, thereby increasing the average level of talent in the pool. That's a whole other discussion.

 

[Syd Crow]

That's a bit of an own-goal argument, isn't it? The fact that Richmond & Essendon's injury lists are so long that these players are getting a game is proof that they need list sizes at least this big (arguably larger).

There have been a couple of instances in recent years where clubs had to field players who weren't AFL listed, due to the number of players MIA due to injury. From memory (and I could be wrong), both West Coast & Essendon have had to resort to this. If anything, current AFL list sizes are too small.

The problem you're talking about would be better addressed by removing 1-2 teams from the competition, thereby increasing the average level of talent in the pool. That's a whole other discussion.

Eagles in 2022 definitely did. Essendon apparently in 2016. So you are not wrong!

 

[Cromulant]

That's a bit of an own-goal argument, isn't it? The fact that Richmond & Essendon's injury lists are so long that these players are getting a game is proof that they need list sizes at least this big (arguably larger).

There have been a couple of instances in recent years where clubs had to field players who weren't AFL listed, due to the number of players MIA due to injury. From memory (and I could be wrong), both West Coast & Essendon have had to resort to this. If anything, current AFL list sizes are too small.

The problem you're talking about would be better addressed by removing 1-2 teams from the competition, thereby increasing the average level of talent in the pool. That's a whole other discussion.

I do understand that argument, but Richmond and Essendons injury lists are outliers rather than the rule.

The only thing that can come from increasing AFL list sizes is decreasing the standard at all levels of football.

 

[Cromulant]

Eagles in 2022 definitely did. Essendon apparently in 2016. So you are not wrong!

But thats because clubs are horribly managed isnt it ?? The fact Essendons name has been mentioned more than once goes to show you how poor they have been from top to bottom.

If you have 40 players on a list and you get to a point where you need extras, you're doing something badly wrong.

 

[Vader]

I do understand that argument, but Richmond and Essendons injury lists are outliers rather than the rule.

The only thing that can come from increasing AFL list sizes is decreasing the standard at all levels of football.

You're conflating 2 separate issues. List Sizes & the number of clubs in the competition.

List Sizes need to be big enough to provide a pool of reserve players in the event that the first choice players are unavailable due to injury/illness/suspension. Evidence suggests that current list sizes are barely adequate for meeting this requirement.

Adding further clubs to the competition decreases the average quality of the talent pool, by increasing the number of players in the system who really aren't good enough to be playing at this level. The problem you're complaining about (and it's a valid complaint) would be best addressed by reducing the number of clubs in the competition - ideally to no more than 16. We all know that this is never going to happen.

 

[Cromulant]

You're conflating 2 separate issues. List Sizes & the number of clubs in the competition.

List Sizes need to be big enough to provide a pool of reserve players in the event that the first choice players are unavailable due to injury/illness/suspension. Evidence suggests that current list sizes are barely adequate for meeting this requirement.

Adding further clubs to the competition decreases the average quality of the talent pool, by increasing the number of players in the system who really aren't good enough to be playing at this level. The problem you're complaining about (and it's a valid complaint) would be best addressed by reducing the number of clubs in the competition - ideally to no more than 16. We all know that this is never going to happen.

Theres no evidence that list sizes need to be increased, people have named 3 clubs in the last however many years. If it were a regular occurrence then sure.

If you increase the current lists by say, 5 players, thats 90 more you need to find. Where does it stop ??

 

[Vader]

Theres no evidence that list sizes need to be increased, people have named 3 clubs in the last however many years. If it were a regular occurrence then sure.

If you increase the current lists by say, 5 players, thats 90 more you need to find. Where does it stop ??

Conversely, if you reduce the number of clubs by 2 then you reduce the overall player numbers by ~90...

Another factor which nobody has yet mentioned is that the AFL is constantly increasing the number of players in the team - we only had 3 on the bench when Adelaide won their 1997/1998 premierships, now it's 5. Increasing team sizes inevitably results in more players being needed on team lists.

As for where it ends... The AFL reduced team sizes in the COVID era, cutting list sizes by 2 players. At the time we were told that this was a temporary measure, but as usual the AFL lied to us - and the numbers were never restored. Going back to list sizes as they were in 2020 would appear to resolve the problem. I don't see any reason for adding an extra 5 players, let alone going back to the 52 player lists we had when Adelaide first joined the competition in 1991.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

List sizes shrunk when the AFL Players Association successfully lobbied for higher rookie and draftee wages from memory

One avenue to increase the amount players was paid was to trim the number on the active roster

 

[Vader]

List sizes shrunk when the AFL Players Association successfully lobbied for higher rookie and draftee wages from memory

One avenue to increase the amount players was paid was to trim the number on the active roster

The most recent list reduction was a direct response to COVID, but the reduction before that may well have been blowback from AFLPA salary demands.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

The most recent list reduction was a direct response to COVID, but the reduction before that may well have been blowback from AFLPA salary demands.

That's right. A bit like the coaching soft cap, some of the things that got scaled back during Covid have remained

Social distancing in shop queues largely has stayed which is glorious