Oppo Camp "Code Wars" discussion

[BringBackTorps]

^ that is, without a doubt, the dumbest proposed rule for any game I have ever heard

1.Do you agree that congestion is a major problem, for asthetic reasons, in the AFL?

2.Do you agree that there are often (cf pre 2000 era games) about 20 players in close vicinity of the ball in the AFL -& this is often causing pressured, scrappy play?

3.Do you agree that most AFL fans prefer to see more goals, on average, per game than is currently being kicked?

4.Do you agree that most AFL fans enjoy watching gun forwards, who might kick 80+ goals per season?

5.Do you agree that congestion is causing the record number of bumps, collisions, & tackles in the AFL?

6.Re the latter question, is this record number causing more injuries (cf pre 2000 era)?

7.Do you agree that AFL players are, on average, heavier, stronger, & fitter than 20 years ago?

8.Do you agree that, on average, AFL players are running faster now (cf when there were only 2 subs. on the bench)?

9.Do you agree that, for most fans in the pre 2000 era, watching the one-on-one duels was an important reason for fans' enjoyment & attendance at AFL games?

 

[Aeglos]

1.Do you agree that congestion is a major problem, for asthetic reasons, in the AFL?

2.Do you agree that there are often (cf pre 2000 era games) about 20 players in close vicinity of the ball in the AFL -& this is often causing pressured, scrappy play?

3.Do you agree that most AFL fans prefer to see more goals, on average, per game than is currently being kicked?

4.Do you agree that most AFL fans enjoy watching gun forwards, who might kick 80+ goals per season?

5.Do you agree that congestion is causing the record number of bumps, collisions, & tackles in the AFL?

6.Re the latter question, is this record number causing more injuries (cf pre 2000 era)?

7.Do you agree that AFL players are, on average, heavier, stronger, & fitter than 20 years ago?

8.Do you agree that, on average, AFL players are running faster now (cf when there were only 2 subs. on the bench)?

9.Do you agree that, for most fans in the pre 2000 era, watching the one-on-one duels was an important reason for fans' enjoyment & attendance at AFL games?

1. No
2. Yes (close vicinity)/no (scrappy)
3. Possibly. It only really took a nose dive AFTER the AFL capped interchanges (see graph below)
4. Yes, though your proposed rules are unlikely to directly and significantly increase this number as its ingrained now in clubs to use multiple avenues to goal
5. Yes (Though disagree with the implication that this lessens the aesthetics)
6. No (Statistically, there are roughly the same number of games missed per player from 1992-99 as there are today. Factor in how cautious we are with concussions and injury rates have most likely reduced)
7. Yes
8. Yes
9. Yes, but see "fans who the game has passed by" thread

https://cdndata.bigfooty.com/2017/02/337714_a14594143e2ee4ee2e4915294c644328.PNG

 

[le dominateur]

Watched 2 minutes of the Netball, if that is the major opposition to AFLW becoming the number one code in Women's sport in Australia then it should not take too long.

 

[The_Wookie]

 

[Crankyhawk]

Misread that as plan to shoot matildas and thought wow that's harsh.

Also first negative article about a AFLW player today (can't post link but was also discussed inSEN re Mo hope struggling)

 

[le dominateur]

The empty seats in the background sums it up, no chance of this happening.

 

[BringBackTorps]

1. No
2. Yes (close vicinity)/no (scrappy)
3. Possibly. It only really took a nose dive AFTER the AFL capped interchanges (see graph below)
4. Yes, though your proposed rules are unlikely to directly and significantly increase this number as its ingrained now in clubs to use multiple avenues to goal
5. Yes (Though disagree with the implication that this lessens the aesthetics)
6. No (Statistically, there are roughly the same number of games missed per player from 1992-99 as there are today. Factor in how cautious we are with concussions and injury rates have most likely reduced)
7. Yes
8. Yes
9. Yes, but see "fans who the game has passed by" thread

https://cdndata.bigfooty.com/2017/02/337714_a14594143e2ee4ee2e4915294c644328.PNG

I note you are 28 yo. Its a shame that you do not believe, for aesthetic reasons, congestion is a MAJOR problem for the game, & often causes scrappy play. Many ex-coaches & other experts (per my previous posts) certainly do -as did Demetriou, Fitzpatrick; & last few weeks Eade, & the WB & Coll. AFLW coaches.

Why was the centre diamond (now square) introduced in the 70's by the VFL? Was its introduction deemed a success?

The AFL's own Charter Of The Rules mentions that, ideally, AF should be a free-flowing game.
Do you agree with this? Do the high number of stoppages currently in the AFL appeal to you, from an aesthetic viewpoint? Do you believe the rolling maul appeals to the public? And constant kicking backwards & sideways to a non-contest?

Historians Prof. G. Blainey, Ass.Prof. R. Hess & others have written that AF began to greatly increase in popularity in the 1880's with the advent of long, accurate kicking -then about 20 years later, high marking (first Charles "Commotion"Pearson, later Dick Lee, Pratt, Nash, Todd etc).
Both are becoming rarer since 2003, almost the antithesis of the modern game (where the mantra is to kick the ball short, & to avoid a contest; lower % of CONTESTED marks) -do you consider this a good thing, re the appeal of the game?

Historians have also written that gun FF's or CHF's, regularly kicking big bags of goals, ENORMOUSLY increased the game's popularity-almost mass"euphoria". Given Aust. is such a highly competitive sporting environment for AF, how do we resurrect it (with congestion, forwards have so little open space to lead into; forward lines often have about 32 occupying players)?

Given that you agree players are, on average, heavier, fitter, & stronger(and running faster, due to so many interchanges), how can we resolve the problem identified by the AFL's own Prof. Norton ie congestion is the cause of the record number of collision/bump/tackling injuries?
L. Matthews has also stated in recent years players are hitting harder due to the interchange. Principles of Newtonian physics are immutable: Force = mass x acc. Impact injuries are far more likely.

Do you accept limiting the run-up by ruckmen, with the centre circle, has dramatically reduced the PCL injury rate (when ruckmen previously knocked knees very FORCEFULLY in their long,rapid run-ups)? This was an application of the basic Newtonian principle.

Do you agree sprinting is far more likely to cause hamstring etc injuries, cf simply jogging or trotting on a football oval?

You stated that, re injury rates, "Statistically, there are roughly the same number of games missed per player from 1992-1999 as there are today".
This is an indictment of the modern game, from an injury perspective (Assuming the record is games missed per player, per game time actually played).

Previously, players played 25 mins. qtrs,plus time-on; now, 20, plus time-on.
Previously, there were only two on the bench, now four.
In effect, the average player is playing about 23% LESS game TIME, per each game he plays. Therefore, the average player today should be missing about 23% LESS games through injury, cf to your figures of 1992-99.

Actually, players today have far superior training & recovery programs & facilities; better injury monitoring, prevention, & rectification/surgery etc; more specialist physios, doctors, sports scientists; more & better medical technology & imaging etc.
AFL ovals are far better today- 25 years ago, often the goal squares & centre areas were muddy. About 48 games pa are played on the pristine Docklands -no mud.
We all know that when the ball is wet (from mud, wet grass, rain), the game becomes more congested & scrappy. Accurate disposal by hand & foot is more difficult, it is more difficult to mark the ball, and therefore there are a lot more contests & packs forming -do you agree? And more contests/ collisions/bumps/tackles =more injuries; & players feel more sore after a wet ball game.
There was also more rough & dirty play pre 2000.
Taking all the above in account, the modern player should probably be missing about 30% less games due to injury.

Why has there been a significant decline, per capita, in Melb. attendances since the 70's cf now -even though stadium facilities & seating, city location, ease of pub. transport are FAR superior now. (Melb. had c. 2,200,000 in 1970 -now, c. 4,650,000; 160,000 pw in 1970 VFL & VFA, now AFL 190,000 pw).

 

[External Inputs]

“What’s prompted this is when you look at what’s important to us within Australia as a nation, we like to pride ourselves on being the premier sporting nation in the world,’’ Didulica said.

After years of apathy, all of a sudden they're falling over themselves. I think we know what really promped this.

 

[Aeglos]

I note you are 28 yo. Its a shame that you do not believe, for aesthetic reasons, congestion is a MAJOR problem for the game, & often causes scrappy play. Many ex-coaches & other experts (per my previous posts) certainly do -as did Demetriou, Fitzpatrick; & last few weeks Eade, & the WB & Coll. AFLW coaches.

Why is it is shame? Because you don't agree with it? Remove the whole Essendon saga garbage which has reduced my interested in AFL as a whole through that period and I would MUCH rather watch a game from 2005-2015 than any other period preceding it

Why was the centre diamond (now square) introduced in the 70's by the VFL? Was its introduction deemed a success?

No idea, I wasn't born for another decade

The AFL's own Charter Of The Rules mentions that, ideally, AF should be a free-flowing game.
Do you agree with this? Do the high number of stoppages currently in the AFL appeal to you, from an aesthetic viewpoint? Do you believe the rolling maul appeals to the public? And constant kicking backwards & sideways to a non-contest?

tbh I really don't care what the charter says as it is hardly going to dictate whether I watch a particular sport or not (not to mention that free-flowing is a fairly fluid concept that means nothing without context). The sports I enjoy watching range from some of the fastest sports in the world (ice hockey) to some of the slowest (powerlifting).
As per previous, I would much rather watch a game from 2005-2015 than from before that period.
Whether this is to do with the 'style' of play vs the skill level being so much higher I couldn't tell you, though for the most part I enjoy sports either because they represent the elite of the elite in regards to certain athletic traits (powerlifting, sprinting etc) or because there is high tactical component (basketball) so it's conceivable that the reason I enjoy modern football more is because of the increased tactical aspect (cause we sure as hell don't have elite athletes in any individual trait)

Historians Prof. G. Blainey, Ass.Prof. R. Hess & others have written that AF began to greatly increase in popularity in the 1880's with the advent of long, accurate kicking -then about 20 years later, high marking (first Charles "Commotion"Pearson, later Dick Lee, Pratt, Nash, Todd etc).
Both are becoming rarer since 2003, almost the antithesis of the modern game (where the mantra is to kick the ball short, & to avoid a contest; lower % of CONTESTED marks) -do you consider this a good thing, re the appeal of the game?

Historians have also written that gun FF's or CHF's, regularly kicking big bags of goals, ENORMOUSLY increased the game's popularity-almost mass"euphoria". Given Aust. is such a highly competitive sporting environment for AF, how do we resurrect it (with congestion, forwards have so little open space to lead into; forward lines often have about 32 occupying players)?

Again, my overall subjective view is that I prefer modern football, and I've never had a key forward as a favourite player so that aspect really doesn't bother me. Would like to seem more genuine mark of the year contenders, but I think that has as much to do with how much better defenders are at defending these days as it does player numbers (even at local level, where there is far more open space I have observed that defenders are much better able to make body contact and block a players run up at the ball then even a decade ago).
And whilst history can be used as a guide, it does not predict the future. NFL, Baseball and Soccer are some of the slowest moving and scoring games in the world yet they're probably the 3 most watched (definitely soccer, not sure if the American market for NFL/Baseball overcomes the fact they're predominantly played in just the one country).
A big enticement for junior participation in sports is also the opportunity to be involved/score. In a side of 22+ (18 on the field) it's easy to hide a couple of players who may not end up with much involvement in the game (compared to say basketball where it's rare for a kid not to score each game, and they'll definitely handle the ball a lot). If anything, a shift towards high possessions and more even contributions amongst players (which will eventually filter down to lower levels) may be good long term for junior sports participation (although that's getting into the realm of speculation/prediction which I tend to try and avoid)

Given that you agree players are, on average, heavier, fitter, & stronger(and running faster, due to so many interchanges), how can we resolve the problem identified by the AFL's own Prof. Norton ie congestion is the cause of the record number of collision/bump/tackling injuries?

What makes this a problem?
1) you have not been able to display that there has even been an increase in collision injuries
2) even if you had been able to display this increase, you have not provided a single shred of evidence that even remotely suggests that the increased amount of congestion would have anything to do with it

L. Matthews has also stated in recent years players are hitting harder due to the interchange. Principles of Newtonian physics are immutable: Force = mass x acc. Impact injuries are far more likely.

Unless Leigh Matthews has access to shock impact data on AFL players he could not possibly know this for certain (as far as I'm aware no such data exists).
Now, working on the assumption that Matthews hypothesis is correct (which it may well be, though yet to be proven)
1) if the players are fitter, stronger, faster would their bodies not be more capable of handling such forces than previously?
2) if there are 32 players around the ball (as you have implied), how much speed do you really think a player is going to be able to attain to add to the acceleration component of Newton's law?

Do you accept limiting the run-up by ruckmen, with the centre circle, has dramatically reduced the PCL injury rate (when ruckmen previously knocked knees very FORCEFULLY in their long,rapid run-ups)? This was an application of the basic Newtonian principle.

I do accept this, and it also backs up my argument that increased congestion limits the amount of acute impact force imparted upon players.
Based on approximations of AFL player top speed and acceleration qualities it would take an AFL player 30 metres to reach their top sprinting speed (it takes Olympic sprinters about 50m with a higher top speed but similar 20m times) - if everyone is within 15 metres of each other clearly they are going to be moving a lot slower than if there is 30 metres of clear space for them to run into.

Do you agree sprinting is far more likely to cause hamstring etc injuries, cf simply jogging or trotting on a football oval?

Yes I do, but GPS tracking shows that AFL players only spend 20-30 seconds a game sprinting (data from 2009 review - there's not a whole heap that is publically available)
source: http://www.catapultsports.com/media/3275/coutts-2009-match-performance-gps-afl.pdf

You stated that, re injury rates, "Statistically, there are roughly the same number of games missed per player from 1992-1999 as there are today".
This is an indictment of the modern game, from an injury perspective (Assuming the record is games missed per player, per game time actually played).

Previously, players played 25 mins. qtrs,plus time-on; now, 20, plus time-on.
Previously, there were only two on the bench, now four.
In effect, the average player is playing about 23% LESS game TIME, per each game he plays. Therefore, the average player today should be missing about 23% LESS games through injury, cf to your figures of 1992-99.

That was my initial summary of the data but when I graphed it the trend was a significant decrease from the mid to late 90s to now.
Bit hard to get a true gauge though as the reports only go back to 1992 unfortunately.
Things to note
- increase from 2 to 3 interchange in 1994 (minor increase in injuries from '93 but less than '92 at about the same difference in number)
- increase from 3 to 4 interchange in 1998 (upwards spike in '99 before dropping significantly to near the '96 season)
- sub rule brought in for 2011 (increase in injuries from 2010, but insignificant in the larger scheme of things)
- interchange cap introduced (resulted in the highest number of injuries in over a decade, though it went back to around the baseline the next year so could just be an outlier)
https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/media/afl-reports-injuries.185/full

Your assumption is incorrect - figures are calculated off injuries per clubs over the year. Source: http://s.build001.aflprod.com/staticfile/AFL Tenant/AFL/Files/2015-AFL-Injury-Report.pdf

Lol, that's not how it works. Anyway, injury figures aren't calculated off minutes played so argument is moot

Actually, players today have far superior training & recovery programs & facilities; better injury monitoring, prevention, & rectification/surgery etc; more specialist physios, doctors, sports scientists; more & better medical technology & imaging etc.

Anyone with any experience in sports science (or other related fields) will tell you all that sounds good in theory, but at some point we reach a threshold where (save for PEDS) that we can't train any more efficiently, or recover any more quickly as we're just limited by the human bodies limitations.
Once you account for eras of PED introduction, Olympic records have been moving pretty slowly the past 20 years so you'd expect injury rates to have also moved slowly through that time (which they have)
The one area better monitoring and the med tech helps is prevention of injury reoccurrence (obviously the more accurate the diagnosis and the more baseline measures of strength etc you have the better which is one area sports science has definitely improved). Based on the data from that 2015 survey the rate of reoccurrence has been on a downward trend since '92 (though it does appear to have more ups and downs than the initial injury numbers whatever that means)

AFL ovals are far better today- 25 years ago, often the goal squares & centre areas were muddy. About 48 games pa are played on the pristine Docklands -no mud.
We all know that when the ball is wet (from mud, wet grass, rain), the game becomes more congested & scrappy. Accurate disposal by hand & foot is more difficult, it is more difficult to mark the ball, and therefore there are a lot more contests & packs forming -do you agree? And more contests/ collisions/bumps/tackles =more injuries; & players feel more sore after a wet ball game.

Do you have anything to support your claim that wet conditions yield more injuries? (hint: no such data or evidence exists anywhere)

There was also more rough & dirty play pre 2000.

Relevance? I'm not sure punches to the solar plexus figure amongst the AFL's injury reports

Taking all the above in account, the modern player should probably be missing about 30% less games due to injury.

http://i.imgur.com/wJB4SAR.jpg

Why has there been a significant decline, per capita, in Melb. attendances since the 70's cf now -even though stadium facilities & seating, city location, ease of pub. transport are FAR superior now. (Melb. had c. 2,200,000 in 1970 -now, c. 4,650,000; 160,000 pw in 1970 VFL & VFA, now AFL 190,000 pw).

How long is a piece of string? To draw a proper conclusion you would need to account for:
- age demographics (are people just older and less likely to go out?)
- family demographics (are families more or less likely to go to an AFL game?)
- cultural demographics (what % of immigrants, or those from other ethnical backgrounds who haven't grown up with AFL do we have now vs then)
- social demographics (is it just too expensive to go to the football now? are people forgoing AFL in favour of local games, are more people working weekends, is it just not "in" at the moment to go to sporting events)
- geographical demographics (is Victoria's population no less centralized than previously, meaning for some the distance is too far to travel)

Australian Open attendance has increased 7% from 1988 to 2017 (the past 3 years have been the only to top 7000,000) yet the participation rate dropped 39% between 2002-2012, yet the AFL participation growth rate has surpassed the population growth rate.
Would it not be safe to assume that increased participation at a junior level should correspond to higher attendances in the future provided the demographics I listed above remain constant?
http://www.aflvic.com.au/blog/2015/10/13/2015-participation-rates-surpass-state-population-growth/
http://mojonews.com.au/tennis-participation-rates-drop-by-over-a-third/

 

[External Inputs]

Australian Open attendance has increased 7% from 1988 to 2017 (the past 3 years have been the only to top 7000,000) yet the participation rate dropped 39% between 2002-2012, yet the AFL participation growth rate has surpassed the population growth rate.
Would it not be safe to assume that increased participation at a junior level should correspond to higher attendances in the future provided the demographics I listed above remain constant?
http://www.aflvic.com.au/blog/2015/10/13/2015-participation-rates-surpass-state-population-growth/
http://mojonews.com.au/tennis-participation-rates-drop-by-over-a-third/

The Australian Tennis Open isn't a great comparison. Why use a world sport to compare against a domestic football code? The vast majority of players that play the Open are from overseas, and local fans have only one chance a year to see the world's best live. People flocked just to see Roger Federer practice this year and the organisers have ensured there are plenty of music, food and other entertainment options apart from the tennis to lure crowds to their event. It has been many years since Australia had any legitimate contenders, so Australian participation doesn't seem to be necessary in order to make it a success.

 

[Aeglos]

The Australian Tennis Open isn't a great comparison. Why use a world sport to compare against a domestic football code? The vast majority of players that play the Open are from overseas, and local fans have only one chance a year to see the world's best live. People flocked just to see Roger Federer practice this year and the organisers have ensured there are plenty of music, food and other entertainment options apart from the tennis to lure crowds to their event. It has been many years since Australia had any legitimate contenders, so Australian participation doesn't seem to be necessary in order to make it a success.

It was to demonstrate that crowd numbers aren't necessarily the best measure (on their own) for a sports success/popularity

 

[The_Wookie]

 

[External Inputs]

It was to demonstrate that crowd numbers aren't necessarily the best measure (on their own) for a sports success/popularity

It does demonstrate that people will attend if what's on show interests them.

 

[Aeglos]

It does demonstrate that people will attend if what's on show interests them.

I'm not sure such data exists, but it would be interesting to see the age demographics of those attending the Aus Open.
Only people I know that have gone the past few years have been women aged 50+ but I'd suggest my sample size of 5-6 probably isn't the best lol

 

[The_Wookie]

 

[Gigantor]

Very honest and frank assessment by Bibby.

 

[jatz14]

Male basketball has competed with AFL, and NRL for years. While it hasn't thrived domestically, it has done ok.

It just depends what Australian basketball wants.

I have always thought that the rise of AFLW would ignite the code wars in Australian women's sports, and it's going to force all codes to lift their game.

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

 

[The_Wookie]

Jess Cameron: the Ashes winner who became an Aussie Rules footballer

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/b...-cricketer-ashes-aflw-aussie-rules-footballer

 

[Aussie in exile]

Watched 2 minutes of the Netball, if that is the major opposition to AFLW becoming the number one code in Women's sport in Australia then it should not take too long.

Netball is an Olympic and international sport and the number women's sport in the country. AFLW neither.
It will always get more funding than AFLW unless the AFL dig deep into their pockets.
It might one day overtake netball with player numbers but not for many years if ever.

 

[jatz14]

Netball is an Olympic and international sport and the number women's sport in the country. AFLW neither.
It will always get more funding than AFLW unless the AFL dig deep into their pockets.
It might one day overtake netball with player numbers but not for many years if ever.

Soccer already has, and footy will hurt it as well. The argument, 'this is the way it was, and ever will it be thus', is just a really lazy argument.

Netball cannot and is not taking the view they are the unassailable number 1 girls sport, because they can lose that spot really fast if they do.

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

 

[Gigantor]

Netball is an Olympic and international sport and the number women's sport in the country. AFLW neither.
It will always get more funding than AFLW unless the AFL dig deep into their pockets.
It might one day overtake netball with player numbers but not for many years if ever.

I had never noticed netball being played at the Olympics before (and even if it was an Olympic sport, pretty irrelevant, the majority of Olympic sports have next to none commercial value in Australia).

The AFL doesn't need to match netball's participation rates in order to match its commercial appeal.

 

[Garlic muncher]

Netball is an Olympic and international sport and the number women's sport in the country. AFLW neither.
It will always get more funding than AFLW unless the AFL dig deep into their pockets.
It might one day overtake netball with player numbers but not for many years if ever.

You mean netball is a Commonwealth sport!

And not really big across all Commonwealthcountries either

 

[Aussie in exile]

Soccer already has, and footy will hurt it as well. The argument, 'this is the way it was, and ever will it be thus', is just a really lazy argument.

Netball cannot and is not taking the view they are the unassailable number 1 girls sport, because they can lose that spot really fast if they do.

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

Soccer already has, and footy will hurt it as well. The argument, 'this is the way it was, and ever will it be thus', is just a really lazy argument.

Netball cannot and is not taking the view they are the unassailable number 1 girls sport, because they can lose that spot really fast if they do.

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

You mean netball is a Commonwealth sport!

And not really big across all Commonwealthcountries either

Netball is an Olympic recognised sport
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netball_and_the_Olympic_Movement
After 40 plus years of soccer mums soccer is becoming very big in the USA despite the NFL with its many billions doing its best to stop its growth.
I'm not a big fan of soccer but don't underestimate is very popular appeal.
http://outsideoftheboot.com/2016/10/21/the-rise-of-soccer-the-growing-influence-of-usa-on-football/

 

[TWLS]

Soccer already has, and footy will hurt it as well. The argument, 'this is the way it was, and ever will it be thus', is just a really lazy argument.

Netball cannot and is not taking the view they are the unassailable number 1 girls sport, because they can lose that spot really fast if they do.

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

The big question at this time which cannot be answered is what is the likely plateau of Womens footy participation numbers.
Will it ever overtake the massive head start Netball has with the current 800,000 participants in all age groups.
Womens footy has several factors which means it probably wont. Of the States that our game dominates only Victoria has the big population to draw apon.
The States where the 2 big populations reside our game is probably the fourth Code, and the Womens Rugby Codes are slowly getting organised, and Soccer Football is very strong.
A very interesting scenario to watch is the Black Diamond Football League in Newcastle NSW. They are in the Rugby Codes heartland and have attracted at least 10 AFL Womens teams in 2 years from a NIL base.
Currently it appears they do not have any Womens Rugby Codes teams, but they will arrive on the scene eventually. Let us see what develops over the next 5 years up there.

 

[Garlic muncher]

The big question at this time which cannot be answered is what is the likely plateau of Womens footy participation numbers.
Will it ever overtake the massive head start Netball has with the current 800,000 participants in all age groups.
Womens footy has several factors which means it probably wont. Of the States that our game dominates only Victoria has the big population to draw apon.
The States where the 2 big populations reside our game is probably the fourth Code, and the Womens Rugby Codes are slowly getting organised, and Soccer Football is very strong.
A very interesting scenario to watch is the Black Diamond Football League in Newcastle NSW. They are in the Rugby Codes heartland and have attracted at least 10 AFL Womens teams in 2 years from a NIL base.
Currently it appears they do not have any Womens Rugby Codes teams, but they will arrive on the scene eventually. Let us see what develops over the next 5 years up there.

12 women's teams in Black Diamond, including 2 teams from one club - Newcastle city which according to the local league is considering a new club as the men's is very strong as well.

A new club in Central Newcastle would have a ready made player base