AFLW General AFLW Talk Thread

[Schulzenfest]

Why do I need to help myself? Those pretending its not sh*t might need help with reality.

If you actually think it's 'U12 level' I reckon you might too.

You honestly think you could put a group
of U12 boys up against an AFLW team and they'd be competitive? Like, I'm under no illusions that the standard isn't great, but come on.

 

[Holden Hillbilly]

Its gone from boys under 10s standard to maybe under 12s. People think I'm ragging on it, but that, from what I have seen is about the standard. Most players can't kick over 30 metres.

I agree - after my sons played under 13,14,15 etc. for North Adelaide I would say the Under 13s fitness level is superior and under 14s skill level is superior. Under 15s would smash any women's AFL team.

 

[JakeNeadeFan]

The reality with AFLW at the moment is that the standard of play is still very low and over time even though it will improve it will not get close to the level of even the lower second tier leagues.

But "watchability" isn't entirely measured by the skills or athelticism of the players. Plenty of people still watch the SANFL and WAFL even though there is a better product available. People watch A-League for Christ's sake. If people get invested in the league, the teams and the players then I can see a future where its commercially viable on its own two feet.

Once Port gets a team even some of the more pessimistic types on this board might begin to buy in.

 

[Andre]

If you actually think it's 'U12 level' I reckon you might too.

You honestly think you could put a group
of U12 boys up against an AFLW team and they'd be competitive? Like, I'm under no illusions that the standard isn't great, but come on.

More the skills level comparison there. Size wise obviously the boys would get roasted. Put an U16 or U17 side from the SANFL / WAFL / VFL against an AFLW side and it'd be a reasonable contest.

Though he's missing the point again, that it doesn't really matter that the skills are (now a bit less) s**t. What matters is we're missing out on supporters and money whilst we don't have a team.

 

[GremioPower]

Its gone from boys under 10s standard to maybe under 12s. People think I'm ragging on it, but that, from what I have seen is about the standard. Most players can't kick over 30 metres.

You must take it for what is. Women soccer looks like soccer from the 60’s. That’s fine. Talented girls wouldn’t be able to show their footy skills otherwise.

 

[GremioPower]

I agree - after my sons played under 13,14,15 etc. for North Adelaide I would say the Under 13s fitness level is superior and under 14s skill level is superior. Under 15s would smash any women's AFL team.

It’s soccer, all right, but Grêmio’s U-16 has beaten Brazil’s Women National team by 6-0 in January.

 

[edgie]

I agree - after my sons played under 13,14,15 etc. for North Adelaide I would say the Under 13s fitness level is superior and under 14s skill level is superior. Under 15s would smash any women's AFL team.

Right.

But he said under 12s.

Sent from my Nokia 7.2 using Tapatalk

 

[NoddyHolder]

Picture of actual under 12 boy lining up against AFLW player

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

It’s soccer, all right, but Grêmio’s U-16 has beaten Brazil’s Women National team by 6-0 in January.

Same result in Oz a few years ago when the Newcastle Jets U/16 boys team beat the Women's national team, The Mathilda's in 2016, who needed to get some practice before a tournament against NZ. A year earlier they drew 2-2 against an U/16 boys team but the team had been in camp for a few weeks before that earlier game. (Edit U/16 beat Mathilda's 7-0 in 2016)

 

[edgie]

Bulldogs look like a better team than Adelaide but Adelaide have Erin Phillips, so...

Sent from my Nokia 7.2 using Tapatalk

 

[EskimoPAFC]

Well I'm pretty sure Tayla Harris is as good as any male player that's ever played the game.

So really the mens teams would be U12 standard if they were playing a team of Tayla Harrises.

 

[1954]

I suspect Papa G is taking the vegemite with his under 12's comment, but I am with those who believe an under 16 boys team would probably get the job done.

As I stated earlier I haven't watched any AFLW at all this year, but the major weaknesses in the ladie's game from my viewings in previous seasons was the overall lack of skill, including continual fumbling which often lead to a pack forming followed by more fumbling and more packs, handballs to flat footed team mates who were often no more than a metre away, and the absolute lack of depth in the kicking.

In the men's game, regardless of the level of the comp most blokes can kick the ball at least 35 - 40 metres, and many much further than that, and plenty of under 16's boys can tonk it just as far, so I suspect a male team with their longer kicking would break up the packs that continually form in the ladie's version of the game and get the ball moving to one out situations would win most, if not all contests.

I can recall making comment on the women's T20 cricket final about 3 or 4 years ago when the standard was absolute garbage, with fielders dropping any number of waist high lollipops, and or escorting balls that were barely trickling across the surface to the boundary.
Women's cricket has now improved significantly in a fairly short time, so let's hope Aussie rules goes the same way.

 

[edgie]

Women's cricket

 

[CharlieKelly]

The number of you who'd rather watch children over women, bit suss...

 

[edgie]

The number of you who'd rather watch children over women, bit suss...

Please, heaps of blokes don't get right in to the TAC stuff trying to get insight to the draft, been happening for decades.

Sent from my Nokia 7.2 using Tapatalk

 

[JimmyBC]

Hey Papa G they want to play 22 rounds & get paid as much as the men.. thoughts?

I'm not against it but generate the income required and get back to me.

 

[backtozero]

Hey Papa G they want to play 22 rounds & get paid as much as the men.. thoughts?

I'm not against it but generate the income required and get back to me.

This debate has been doing on in the wnba for ages.

 

[DaTBird187]

This debate has been doing on in the wnba for ages.

If the WNBA and AFLW didn't have financial juggernauts financing their entire competition they simply wouldn't exist. The media exposure of both is disproportionate to the level of interest/financial return.

Mens Australian rules football had over 100 years of amateur and or part time status. Players still had other jobs up until the late 90s. Surely consolidation of the league for at least a decade is not unreasonable. But as with most things nowadays, everyone wants everything all at once.

 

[Papa G]

Hey Papa G they want to play 22 rounds & get paid as much as the men.. thoughts?

I'm not against it but generate the income required and get back to me.

Who is advocating this?

 

[JimmyBC]

Who is advocating this?

Dunno just heard something on the radio to that effect, Herald sun article as well I think.

 

[TeeKray]

This is a classic case of men at the top of the pay pyramid advocating strongly for gender equality (as I'm sure the ever so woke AFL and AFLPA would) but refusing to take action themselves by sharing their enormous slice of the pie. Gender equality in the workforce actually means kicking the men off the bottom and replacing them with women, not men stepping aside and promoting women to highly paid positions.

I'd be happy for the AFLW to go full time pro with 22 games and equal pay but it'd mean a massive pay cut to the AFLM players and that will never happen.

 

[Papa G]

This is a classic case of men at the top of the pay pyramid advocating strongly for gender equality (as I'm sure the ever so woke AFL and AFLPA would) but refusing to take action themselves by sharing their enormous slice of the pie. Gender equality in the workforce actually means kicking the men off the bottom and replacing them with women, not men stepping aside and promoting women to highly paid positions.

I'd be happy for the AFLW to go full time pro with 22 games and equal pay but it'd mean a massive pay cut to the AFL players and that will never happen.

Why would you be happy with this? Its akin to the trolley collector at Woolies getting paid a million bucks a year.

 

[Schulzenfest]

Even as a bleeding heart leftie, nah get ****ed.

99% of jobs women can do just as well as men and should be well within their rights to expect proper representation and equal pay. Professional sport is not one of them. It's a meritocracy. Dusty Martin and James Rowe are doing the same job but they don't get the same pay, nor should they. Meanwhile, James Rowe's former SANFL contemporaries don't get the same pay as him, nor should they. Meanwhile again, some bench player scrub in the NBA gets paid as much as if not more than Dusty Martin, because the NBA generates more revenue than the AFL, just like the AFL generates more revenue than the AFLW.

'Equal pay' is not a thing in professional sport. You get paid according to how good you are and how much money your competition generates. AFL is streets ahead of AFLW in both measures.

 

[bomberclifford]

I'd be happy for the AFLW to go full time pro with 22 games and equal pay but it'd mean a massive pay cut to the AFL players

Explain to me what you mean by “equal pay” and how you think it would be funded.

 

[TeeKray]

Why would you be happy with this? Its akin to the trolley collector at Woolies getting paid a million bucks a year.

Because it's for the good of the game. Higher pay equals higher participation equals more overall engagement equals more fans for both AFL and AFLW equals more revenue. In addition, in this woke world, it would be a statement absolutely adored by government and big business and would further enhance the AFL's dominance of the corporate dollar. It would be a very, very smart business move.