Play Nice AFL Womens - General Discussion

[Cuzz09]

I reckon Port will win the AFLW flag purely because they got Erin Phillips.

She is head and shoulders above anyone and can lead even a half decent team to win.

On SM-G925I using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Teen Wolf]

I reckon Port will win the AFLW flag purely because they got Erin Phillips.

She is head and shoulders above anyone and can lead even a half decent team to win.

We all love Erin Phillips, it's just a shame people can't express that sentiment without disrespecting other great players.

If she's ever played in a merely half-decent team at AFLW level, it's when Chelsea Randall has been absent... and that has not typically resulted in victory (see the 2021 GF for the ultimate example).

 

[cmndstab]

I reckon Port will win the AFLW flag purely because they got Erin Phillips.

She is head and shoulders above anyone and can lead even a half decent team to win.

On SM-G925I using BigFooty.com mobile app

In 2017 this might have been true.

In 2022, as good as Phillips was, she wasn't even the best player in her side. She'll be a great captain and really drive standards at Port, but it takes more than one great player to win a flag.

 

[CrowdedHouse]

In 2017 this might have been true.

In 2022, as good as Phillips was, she wasn't even the best player in her side. She'll be a great captain and really drive standards at Port, but it takes more than one great player to win a flag.

It's a bit hard to predict without the fixture available yet, but it would be interesting to see everyone's "pass mark" for each of the expansion sides.

Personally, for my Bombers, I think the pass mark is 12th. I'd be over the moon if we made finals, but realistically, if we could finish above at least 2 (if not all three) of our other expansion teams) and a 3-4 of the current sides, I'd be happy with that and see that as a satisfactory debut year.

 

[Teen Wolf]

Based on lists, the pass mark for a full-strength Essendon is:

beating Hawthorn and Sydney;​

being competitive against Port Adelaide, West Coast and St Kilda (or beating them, if those teams are missing a couple key players); and​

being competitive against Richmond, Geelong and Gold Coast if those teams are missing a couple key players​

Completely unreasonable to expect anything more.

---

An outsider's Port Adelaide AFLW homecoming - InDaily

indaily.com.au

In this article, Michelangelo Rucci writes...

the first AFLW Showdown, now expected in late September when Adelaide Oval is vacant rather than at the start of the new season in late August.

So if that game is indeed pushed back due to the rugby as expected, I hope Port's first home game is R1 at Alberton against... St Kilda, or West Coast. Something that should be a decent match-up without taking any of the other 3 new teams away from their home state in round one.

 

[footyknut]

Based on lists, the pass mark for a full-strength Essendon is:

beating Hawthorn and Sydney;​

being competitive against Port Adelaide, West Coast and St Kilda (or beating them, if those teams are missing a couple key players); and​

being competitive against Richmond, Geelong and Gold Coast if those teams are missing a couple key players​

Completely unreasonable to expect anything more.

---

An outsider's Port Adelaide AFLW homecoming - InDaily

indaily.com.au

In this article, Michelangelo Rucci writes...

So if that game is indeed pushed back due to the rugby as expected, I hope Port's first home game is R1 at Alberton against... St Kilda, or West Coast. Something that should be a decent match-up without taking any of the other 3 new teams away from their home state in round one.

So from that, do you think Port are stronger than Essendon?

Looks to me like their forward is stacked (as far as an expansion side goes) but they may have trouble getting it there.

Personally, I think Essendon’s list has been overrated by the media but still think they look the best if they expansion sides.

And why do you think were they limited to 14 current AFLW players, that seems to low to build a competitive squad.

 

[Teen Wolf]

So from that, do you think Port are stronger than Essendon?

Looks to me like their forward is stacked (as far as an expansion side goes) but they may have trouble getting it there.

Personally, I think Essendon’s list has been overrated by the media but still think they look the best if they expansion sides.

And why do you think were they limited to 14 current AFLW players, that seems to low to build a competitive squad.

I think Essendon have a stronger list, but not to the degree that they should certainly beat Port. More like if they do lose to Port, it should certainly only be a close loss.

14 would be a great number for new clubs imo, if they were all players already getting a regular game at AFLW level. But far too many expansion signings were fringe players at their old club who really aren't going to make a difference for their new teams.

 

[footyknut]

I think Essendon have a stronger list, but not to the degree that they should certainly beat Port. More like if they do lose to Port, it should certainly only be a close loss.

14 would be a great number for new clubs imo, if they were all players already getting a regular game at AFLW level. But far too many expansion signings were fringe players at their old club who really aren't going to make a difference for their new teams.

Would be interesting to know if 14 was decided because they thought that was a fair number, or if they were worried one club would get 20 and not leave enough for the other clubs.

 

[Teen Wolf]

Would be interesting to know if 14 was decided because they thought that was a fair number, or if they were worried one club would get 20 and not leave enough for the other clubs.

Well, no club reached the limit of free agent expansion signings when it was set at 12 for GC/Rich/StK/WCE. And as for NM & Geel, when there was no limit on free agent expansion signings, they picked up 13 and 7 respectively.

So I don’t think there was any suspicion that Ess/Haw/PA/Syd would actually be hindered by a limit of 14, which was vindicated as they only signed 10, 6, 9 and 9 respectively. The only obstacle encountered, in terms of quantity, has been the number of players that clubs can lose as free agent expansion signings.

This time around 6 clubs could lose 4 players as free agent expansion signings, 6 clubs could lose 3, 1 club could lose 8, and 1 club could lose 6. That all adds up to 56. Divide that by 4, the number of new teams, and you get 14--the same method that was used to determine the limit of 12 for GC/Rich/StK/WCE.

 

[footyknut]

Well that makes sense then. I would have thought NM picked up more than that but it was obviously the quality and not quantity that made them strong from the start.

 

[Teen Wolf]

Here is just something random that I wanted to look into: number of remaining players from each club's inaugural squad. I didn't strenuously double-check it but doubt there's m/any errors.

Adelaide: 5 (plus 2 on inactive list)
Sarah Allan, Anne Hatchard, Ebony Marinoff, Chelsea Randall, Stevie-Lee Thompson (plus Dayna Cox and Deni Varnhagen on inactive list)

Brisbane: 6
Ally Anderson, Emily Bates, Shannon Campbell, Kate Lutkins, Breanna Koenen, Sharni Webb

Carlton: 4
Breann Moody, Natalie Plane, Gabriella Pound, Darcy Vescio

Collingwood: 5
Brittany Bonnici, Sophie Casey, Steph Chiocci, Stacey Livingstone, Ruby Schleicher

Fremantle: 5 (plus 1 on inactive list)
Ebony Antonio, Kara Antonio, Kiara Bowers, Hayley Miller, Gabby O’Sullivan (plus Ashley Sharp on inactive list)

GWS Giants: 2
Nicola Barr, Rebecca Beeson

Melbourne: 5
Sarah Lampard, Lily Mithen, Karen Paxman, Daisy Pearce, Lauren Pearce

W. Bulldogs: 4
Ellie Blackburn, Bailey Hunt, Kirsty Lamb, Kirsten McLeod

Geelong: 10
Georgia Clarke, Julia Crockett-Grills, Kate Darby, Renee Garing, Maddy Keryk, Meg McDonald, Maddy McMahon, Nina Morrison, Georgie Rankin, Rebecca Webster

North Melb.: 9
Sophie Abbatangelo, Nicole Bresnehan, Jenna Bruton, Jasmine Garner, Danielle Hardiman, Emma Kearney, Emma King, Tahlia Randall, Ashleigh Riddell

Gold Coast: 7 (plus 1 on inactive list)
Lauren Ahrens, Lauren Bella, Tori Groves-Little, Ellie Hampson, Kalinda Howarth, Jamie Stanton, Serene Watson (plus Jade Pregelj on inactive list)

Richmond: 11
Maddy Brancatisano, Katie Brennan, Hannah Burchell, Monique Conti, Kate Dempsey, Kodi Jacques, Laura McClelland, Rebecca Miller, Sophie Molan, Courtney Wakefield, Gabby Seymour

St Kilda: 11 (plus 1 on inactive list)
Rosie Dillon, Nat Exon, Clara Fitzpatrick, Caitlin Greiser, Darcy Guttridge, Molly McDonald, Hannah Priest, Kate Shierlaw, Olivia Vesely, Tarni White, Nicola Xenos (plus Georgia Patrikios on inactive list)

West Coast: 8
Kate Bartlett, Hayley Bullas, Imahra Cameron, Kellie Gibson, Dana Hooker, Sophie McDonald, Belinda Smith, Emma Swanson

And for the record, by my count there were 219 AFLW-listed players in the first season (2017), and 105 are still on an AFLW list (whether it's the same club or a different one) heading into season seven. Carlton have the most inaugural players now at other clubs (15), followed by Melbourne (12), and the rest are between 5 to 10.

 

[The Victorian]

Fixture should be out this week or next week. Livingstone said it will be out by end of June

 

[The Victorian]

Livingstone said that the fixture would be out by the end of June. Tomorrow is the last day of June so hopefully the fixture is announced tomorrow then.

 

[Munga]

As the AFLW have stated, having five on the bench with unlimited rotations was a summer thing. Can we expect an update on this, given not a single match will be played in summer? Four on the bench? Rotaion cap?

 

[Vacuous Space]

As the AFLW have stated, having five on the bench with unlimited rotations was a summer thing. Can we expect an update on this, given not a single match will be played in summer? Four on the bench? Rotaion cap?

I like five on the bench. A lot of teams carry an extra back, forward, centre square mid, wing and ruck on the bench. If they bring in rotation caps or reduce the number of players on the bench, it's probably going to mean less taller players and more runners.

 

[FoopyNerd]

I like five on the bench. A lot of teams carry an extra back, forward, centre square mid, wing and ruck on the bench. If they bring in rotation caps or reduce the number of players on the bench, it's probably going to mean less taller players and more runners.

Agreed, and the league would never think this far ahead but surely these types of changes would impact the development of a 30-player squad. In other words, if they are going to reduce the bench and introduce a cap then clubs may have placed more value on runners in the draft last night.

 

[Munga]

I like five on the bench. A lot of teams carry an extra back, forward, centre square mid, wing and ruck on the bench. If they bring in rotation caps or reduce the number of players on the bench, it's probably going to mean less taller players and more runners.

Yeah they are good points. How about with scoring? It seems that scores increase later in matches and fatigue kicks in and the field opens up. Maybe going with four on the bench, possibly with caps too, would open up the field earlier and lead to larger scores. But as you said, the clubs would probably find ways around it like fielding less key position players. Longer quarters would be good too, but again, clubs would probably field more runners. The AFL is aiming to get away from congestion, they'll come up with something.

 

[Vacuous Space]

Agreed, and the league would never think this far ahead but surely these types of changes would impact the development of a 30-player squad. In other words, if they are going to reduce the bench and introduce a cap then clubs may have placed more value on runners in the draft last night.

That's a tough sell, IMO. Unless you get an absolute stack of the footy each week, you're already not getting drafted unless you run a good 20m or 2K time trial - probably both.

Yeah they are good points. How about with scoring? It seems that scores increase later in matches and fatigue kicks in and the field opens up. Maybe going with four on the bench, possibly with caps too, would open up the field earlier and lead to larger scores. But as you said, the clubs would probably find ways around it like fielding less key position players. Longer quarters would be good too, but again, clubs would probably field more runners. The AFL is aiming to get away from congestion, they'll come up with something.

Does fatiguing players more make the game better to watch? I know that's their argument with the men's, but I've seen the AFL make all kinds of incredible claims about the wonders of fatigue without seeing a lot of evidence. They were initially claiming that it reduced injuries, which seems really, really unlikely.

If they're going to do anything, I'd like them to stop the clock when the whistle is blown outside of two minutes. They're giving away 5-10 seconds for each ball-up and 10-20 for each throw in the way things are right now. I wouldn't be surprised if we're losing another two or three minutes per quarter vs the men's in addition to the five that are already missing.

 

[Munga]

Does fatiguing players more will make the game better to watch? I know that's their argument with the men's, but I've seen the AFL make all kinds of incredible claims about the wonders of fatigue without seeing a lot of evidence. They were initially claiming that it reduced injuries, which seems really, really unlikely.

If they're going to do anything, I'd like them to stop the clock when the whistle is blown outside of two minutes. They're giving away 5-10 seconds for each ball-up and 10-20 for each throw in the way things are right now. I wouldn't be surprised if we're losing another two or three minutes per quarter vs the men's in addition to the five that are already missing.

Funnily enough, for me it does make a better spectacle. It seems counter intuitive, but I've always preferred the old style football, players out on their feet trying to drag their team forward. Like watching two boxers in the 9th round. Yeah the skills take a step backwards at that time, but to me the spectacle of desperation more than makes up for it. It's probably what's missing in the men's game today, too. More space, more one on ones, maybe more use for key position players. But that's just my own preference. Plugger wasn't the fittest fella going around but his skills were the best going around hehehe. Yeah I'm not sure about injuries. You'd think playing fatigued leads to more injuries, but then less congestion means less impacts. I don't know.

Yeah time-on is a must, not sure why that's different. The whole point is to have uniform gametime and prevent time wasting. The big question is how long should the regular gametime be? 15 minutes, 16 minutes, or 20 minutes like the men? Hopefully we get to the stage of matching the men, whether the women's game lengthens or the men's reduces. I'm not positive, but as far as I know women's soccer is the same gametime as men, rugby the same, basketball the same, field hockey the same etc... And again, it should lead to greater scores, for those who whinge about that.

 

[Walshawk]

Livingstone said that the fixture would be out by the end of June. Tomorrow is the last day of June so hopefully the fixture is announced tomorrow then.

Does anyone know where Hawks will be playing their home games?

 

[Walshawk]

Funnily enough, for me it does make a better spectacle. It seems counter intuitive, but I've always preferred the old style football, players out on their feet trying to drag their team forward. Like watching two boxers in the 9th round. Yeah the skills take a step backwards at that time, but to me the spectacle of desperation more than makes up for it. It's probably what's missing in the men's game today, too. More space, more one on ones, maybe more use for key position players. But that's just my own preference. Plugger wasn't the fittest fella going around but his skills were the best going around hehehe. Yeah I'm not sure about injuries. You'd think playing fatigued leads to more injuries, but then less congestion means less impacts. I don't know.

Yeah time-on is a must, not sure why that's different. The whole point is to have uniform gametime and prevent time wasting. The big question is how long should the regular gametime be? 15 minutes, 16 minutes, or 20 minutes like the men? Hopefully we get to the stage of matching the men, whether the women's game lengthens or the men's reduces. I'm not positive, but as far as I know women's soccer is the same gametime as men, rugby the same, basketball the same, field hockey the same etc... And again, it should lead to greater scores, for those who whinge about that.

But then it won’t fit in the neat two hour broadcast slot.

 

[The Victorian]

Does anyone know where Hawks will be playing their home games?

I’m hearing Port Melbourne and Ikon Park

 

[Munga]

But then it won’t fit in the neat two hour broadcast slot.

Yep, sad but true.

 

[Profop]

Would be mighty tough to run out a full game with only sixteen on the field and interchange caps. I think that would likely see a massive blowout in injuries. Have to remember that they are still currently only part time athletes

 

[*Crash*]

Yeah they are good points. How about with scoring? It seems that scores increase later in matches and fatigue kicks in and the field opens up. Maybe going with four on the bench, possibly with caps too, would open up the field earlier and lead to larger scores. But as you said, the clubs would probably find ways around it like fielding less key position players. Longer quarters would be good too, but again, clubs would probably field more runners. The AFL is aiming to get away from congestion, they'll come up with something.

Maybe they need to experiment with longer and longer quarters to test this theory. To me, fatigue means more turnovers, which means less scoring (and scoring accuracy).