
Can someone please explain to me why the AFL has cut the clubs list down by so much over the last decade or so? It it purely monetary in incentive?
We had a ridiculous situation on the weekend, a squad of 40 (since Lewie retired), but only ~28 fit(ish) players to choose from, including at least five rookies. I know it was a novelty, and won't happen very often, but I believe clubs should have a squad of at least 45, even 50.
Perhaps this weekend exposed our lack of deep, deep depth, but the fact is we've had to delist several players over the last couple of years, because they weren't developing fast enough. The focus is on youth, and the older players suffer because of it. We had two debutants, and a few others who really weren't ready for league footy.
Injury management is suffering too, with players coming back sooner than they ought to, to cover the loss of others.
Are squad members who don't even come close to playing a game really worth $40-50,000 a year? I'd like to see a bigger squad, and slightly bigger salary cap, with lower payments for the 'bottom' players.
Is this a justified comment, or a desperate attempt to find answers for the weekend?
Appreciate your thoughts.....
BTW/ We're getting ten of our best back this weekend, so look out Port!
We had a ridiculous situation on the weekend, a squad of 40 (since Lewie retired), but only ~28 fit(ish) players to choose from, including at least five rookies. I know it was a novelty, and won't happen very often, but I believe clubs should have a squad of at least 45, even 50.
Perhaps this weekend exposed our lack of deep, deep depth, but the fact is we've had to delist several players over the last couple of years, because they weren't developing fast enough. The focus is on youth, and the older players suffer because of it. We had two debutants, and a few others who really weren't ready for league footy.
Injury management is suffering too, with players coming back sooner than they ought to, to cover the loss of others.
Are squad members who don't even come close to playing a game really worth $40-50,000 a year? I'd like to see a bigger squad, and slightly bigger salary cap, with lower payments for the 'bottom' players.
Is this a justified comment, or a desperate attempt to find answers for the weekend?

BTW/ We're getting ten of our best back this weekend, so look out Port!