Opinion Commentary & Media IV

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
View attachment 851066

WTF haha?

Wallace now won’t ever forgive our supporters for calling him out on his bullshit.

dumb as fu**.
I think his generation don’t say “played like rock stars” as a compliment. They mean that team wanted to look fancy but not work hard. Read the whole quote again - he isn’t convinced.
 
Only outdoing my usual gripe of the Bulldogs following everything we do is my other gripe about the NRL attempting to copy everything the AFL does.

Adding in this bright idea........ a three-grand-final-series......... which AFL people have already been considering for awhile now.......

Although we obviously wouldn't consider three grand finals in the one week.

https://www.news.com.au/sport/nrl/n...d/news-story/a90062e10cc2c99e1397e39b5720edf4
 
Only outdoing my usual gripe of the Bulldogs following everything we do is my other gripe about the NRL attempting to copy everything the AFL does.

Adding in this bright idea........ a three-grand-final-series......... which AFL people have already been considering for awhile now.......

Although we obviously wouldn't consider three grand finals in the one week.

https://www.news.com.au/sport/nrl/n...d/news-story/a90062e10cc2c99e1397e39b5720edf4
If there is ever a 3 gf series, that will be game over for me
 

Log in to remove this ad.

I think his generation don’t say “played like rock stars” as a compliment. They mean that team wanted to look fancy but not work hard. Read the whole quote again - he isn’t convinced.

Yep mea culpa.

I think my point still stands. The Saints are flashy but the North are honest.

It’s either lazy analysis or it’s based on a preexisting agenda. Given Wallace’s recent history I favour more from column b than a.
 
Haven’t been on here much since Round 1.
Grabbed the Herald today & seen the Hawks top 20 players since 87. Any chance anybody here has a snap of ours? I’m not looking for the list, I’ve seen that, more the notes around the selections. Did Kingy pick ours?

Thanks in advance.
 
Putting aside the main content of the article, Carey is so right about what happened when we added those two clubs. The reason the AFL is constantly tinkering with the ******* rules trying to make a 'better spectacle' is because the quality of each team HAS drastically dropped. Carlton and Melbourne would still have been s**t, but imagine if Carlton had a David Swallow in their midfield mix the entire time? If Melbourne had a Cameron? If we had a Kelly on the wing? Even if the ladders had stayed in synch with the competition including the expansion teams the actual games would have been so much better. Every struggling team would have had an extra A grader for fans to latch onto, making them more financially viable, allowing them to invest in the club more etc etc.

The greed for TV money has done a number on the comp, and fu** off with the auskick participation rates and the like, they absolutely could have invested 1/20th of the money it cost for the new teams into those programs and probably got better results. Hell, the AFLW has undoubtedly done more for participation rates than the expansion teams. Imagine if they had started the AFLW back then, and how it would be looking now? Another 1/20th into the second and third tier comps. Imagine what would happen if the average salary for the second tier competitions increased by a couple grand a year? More promising players would work less and spend more time on their AFL careers, you would have more mature players excelling and getting drafted than ever before, the quality of the seniors would increase even more because of it.

Bleh.

I don't think that increasing the teams is what reduced the quality of the game. The population of Australia has increased considerably over the last 30 years. In 1990 (14 teams) the population of Australia was 17.07 million, making 1.2 million people per team. In 2000 when the population was 19.15 we had 16 teams, again 1.2 million people per team. In 2010 the population was 22.03 million, and we still had 16 teams, 1.38 million per team. This year the population of Australia is 25.5 million, and we have 18 teams, making 1.42 million people per team. Maybe there are less people participating in football, I'm not sure, I don't have those numbers. But, I would say that the amount of people that the league can draw talent from has actually risen, in comparison to the number of teams we have in the league.

I think game quality isn't reduced, I just think it is different. Personally, my enjoyment of the game has lessened, likely due to 4 factors:
1. Nostalgia
2. Coaching - Obviously the game plans and structures of the modern game aren't conducive to such sexy football.
3. Media - So much complaining from here definitely has an influence on my opinion of the game. Negativity sells more than positivity.
4. Umpiring/AFL Administration - I feel the rules have become overly complicated, the review system should be improved, player suspensions are inconsistent.
 
I don't think that increasing the teams is what reduced the quality of the game. The population of Australia has increased considerably over the last 30 years. In 1990 (14 teams) the population of Australia was 17.07 million, making 1.2 million people per team. In 2000 when the population was 19.15 we had 16 teams, again 1.2 million people per team. In 2010 the population was 22.03 million, and we still had 16 teams, 1.38 million per team. This year the population of Australia is 25.5 million, and we have 18 teams, making 1.42 million people per team. Maybe there are less people participating in football, I'm not sure, I don't have those numbers. But, I would say that the amount of people that the league can draw talent from has actually risen, in comparison to the number of teams we have in the league.

I think game quality isn't reduced, I just think it is different. Personally, my enjoyment of the game has lessened, likely due to 4 factors:
1. Nostalgia
2. Coaching - Obviously the game plans and structures of the modern game aren't conducive to such sexy football.
3. Media - So much complaining from here definitely has an influence on my opinion of the game. Negativity sells more than positivity.
4. Umpiring/AFL Administration - I feel the rules have become overly complicated, the review system should be improved, player suspensions are inconsistent.
You should also factor in the demographic of our population growth. The quality footballer isnt ... okay, I will leave it there, cant scribe anything that will not sound racist
 
I thought Eddie shut it down pretty quick. I'm paraphrasing but
CW: talk about playing the woman!
EM: oh come on Caro it's not a gender thing
CW: well I'm not going to say "playing the man"
EM: so say " playing the person" then.

So she was in fact publicly challenged over playing the gender card. And society allowed it after all!

I'm glad they did, too, because it was a lame, irrelevant, and all-too-predictable call. Pure deflection. A shithouse effort even by her lowly standards.

Loving the united show of force from the club. Can't recall Caro ever being smacked around the head this much for any of her past crap. Well, not the past crap about North anyway. It's a beautiful thing.
 
For me, Footy becomes less enjoyable to watch every year, these are just a few reasons why:

Scoring is down significantly (Brisbane were the only team in the league last year to score at least 2000 points).

The benchmark for success is lower than ever (compare this so called ‘Richmond Dynasty’ to the Cats dynasty in the 2000’s/10’s and let’s have a laugh.

The constant rule changes (which were supposedly brought in to reduce congestion and open the game up) have actually had the opposite effect.

On a yearly basis More clubs are pursuing athletes first, footballers second (meaning the likes of a Diesel Williams would never get drafted today if he didn’t have a high vertical). Look at Mason Cox, can’t play for s**t, but because he’s tall and can jump high, that doesn’t matter to Collingwood.

Richmond supporters reminding everyone how cancerous they are to the enjoyment of footy games.
 
Haven’t been on here much since Round 1.
Grabbed the Herald today & seen the Hawks top 20 players since 87. Any chance anybody here has a snap of ours? I’m not looking for the list, I’ve seen that, more the notes around the selections. Did Kingy pick ours?

Thanks in advance.
Think it was Gilbert Gardiner and he had

1. Carey
2. Boomer
3. Stevo
4. Schwatta
5. Archer

From there I cant remember but it may have been McKernan at 6 and Cunnington at 8
 
Shots fired





Hands off North, expansion clubs should be the ones in the gun
Wayne Carey
Two-time AFL premiership captain
April 2, 2020 — 3.30pm


I've never been what you'd call a passionate North Melbourne fan.

I mean I loved the club, the success we had and the people who made it what it was, but in retirement I was never one to lose sleep if the Kangaroos lost, or party if they won. It meant talk of the club's future was never really front of mind.


But now, hearing North Melbourne again being linked with relocation, it's impossible not to feel a sense of frustration and disappointment. Maybe that emotional attachment means I'm growing up a little, or maybe, like a lot of fans, I'm simply sick of those who seem intent on erasing 150 years of history.

As my kids grow older, and inevitably one day ask me who I played for, I want to be able to say: "North Melbourne", and point to a real club. Not the Gold Coast Kangaroos, the Tasmanian Kangaroos or even the Northern Kangaroos. North Melbourne.

North have always been willing to think outside the square when it comes to footy and the club's place in the game. In the '90s, we pioneered Friday night football.

We played in Sydney at a time the Swans were still finding their feet and, no doubt, that put a few noses out of joint. Trying to take clinics at schools that were rugby or rugby league mad isn't all that easy now, let alone back then.

Then came matches in Canberra, before some were pushing us to the Gold Coast. Thankfully that was rejected strongly by the members and the board, and it has proved to be the right decision because we've seen how difficult it is to run a successful team up there.

More recently the club has turned to Tasmania. Clearly, a lot of these decisions have been aimed at improving the club's bottom line and it must be said the Roos have posted a profit in 11 of the past 12 years. How can a club with that financial record be moved on?

Gillon McLachlan has already said he plans to have 18 teams when the footy's crisis eventually comes to an end – but for how long?

If the AFL is to make a call on the viability of the competition, then surely Gold Coast and GWS must be put under the microscope before North. That's not to try to spell the end for those expansion clubs. I don't want to see anyone out of a job. As we've seen during the current crisis, it's been terribly sad to see the number of people being stood down.

The Giants have built a great culture and are led by fantastic people in chief executive Dave Matthews and coach Leon Cameron. There are many other diligent workers beneath them.

Even at the Suns, I'm sure everyone is striving to get better.

But the AFL has tipped millions of dollars into those clubs and will need to keep doing so well into the future. Can we afford to keep doing it?

Those clubs will, of course, point to participation rates and Auskick levels and how they've increased since they've had a presence in Western Sydney and Queensland, which is a good argument. But, in my opinion, Auskick rates can also be a bit wishy-washy. At times, it can be a glorified baby-sitting service rather than the starting point for new players or fans.

It's also worth noting what a 16-team competition would do for talent levels right across the AFL. There's no doubt the talent pool has been diluted by having two extra clubs. Right now, I don't think we have enough talent for 18 teams. Imagine the best players at the Giants and Suns spread across the AFL. The standard of games would almost certainly improve.

Is the increase in television rights or participation rates provided by having two extra clubs enough to justify their existence? It's a question only those at the very top of the game can answer.

But one thing is for sure, if North is shipped off to Tassie we'll see a number of fans lost to the game - much like we did when Fitzroy became the Brisbane Lions. While some might say I'm biased being a North Melbourne person, I want to protect the history of every club. Whether it be St Kilda or Melbourne, Carlton, or anyone.

I'm a dreamer. Will footy be refined? Sure. But I dream that the AFL will be spared the tough decision of moving or culling any clubs and that footy will soon get back to what it was before this crisis.

❤️❤️❤️ long live the king
 
For me, Footy becomes less enjoyable to watch every year, these are just a few reasons why:

Scoring is down significantly (Brisbane were the only team in the league last year to score at least 2000 points).

The benchmark for success is lower than ever (compare this so called ‘Richmond Dynasty’ to the Cats dynasty in the 2000’s/10’s and let’s have a laugh.

The constant rule changes (which were supposedly brought in to reduce congestion and open the game up) have actually had the opposite effect.

On a yearly basis More clubs are pursuing athletes first, footballers second (meaning the likes of a Diesel Williams would never get drafted today if he didn’t have a high vertical). Look at Mason Cox, can’t play for s**t, but because he’s tall and can jump high, that doesn’t matter to Collingwood.

Richmond supporters reminding everyone how cancerous they are to the enjoyment of footy games.
Off topic a bit, however if shortening quarters is considered and soft cap reductions might just bring back the genuine footballer
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Off topic a bit, however if shortening quarters is considered and soft cap reductions might just bring back the genuine footballer
The shorter quarters do create more urgency in the game. One rule which my Grandfather used to say should be brought back, is the rule where you have to kick forward of your mark, otherwise it’s play on.
 
Cannot validate it but interesting if it did happen:


Edit - least surprising opinion:

Hutchison: No, you held it against me for at least a year because you’re such a hater that you needed at least 12 months to get it out of your system!
 
For me, Footy becomes less enjoyable to watch every year, these are just a few reasons why:

Scoring is down significantly (Brisbane were the only team in the league last year to score at least 2000 points).

Don't care too much about scoring, if the game is good quality.

The benchmark for success is lower than ever (compare this so called ‘Richmond Dynasty’ to the Cats dynasty in the 2000’s/10’s and let’s have a laugh.

Absolutely.

The constant rule changes (which were supposedly brought in to reduce congestion and open the game up) have actually had the opposite effect.

Absolutely.

On a yearly basis More clubs are pursuing athletes first, footballers second (meaning the likes of a Diesel Williams would never get drafted today if he didn’t have a high vertical). Look at Mason Cox, can’t play for s**t, but because he’s tall and can jump high, that doesn’t matter to Collingwood.

Correct weight and he's the exact player that comes to mind for me too.

In the 90s there were a few of these fringe attempts and those kinds of players wouldn't even make it on to a list.

But bring in another 90 players on to lists and legislate genuine contesting out of the game and suddenly an imbalanced giraffe gets a game.

Stick Mason Cox in 1995 and Mick Martyn would've moved him out of the ball's path everytime Archer didn't cannon into him first.

Richmond supporters reminding everyone how cancerous they are to the enjoyment of footy games.

Whilst I agree, I'm not sure any of these options are preferable:

VISY
* FC
Range Rovers
 
Hutchison: No, you held it against me for at least a year because you’re such a hater that you needed at least 12 months to get it out of your system!

Regardless of what else you think of Barrett and Scotts, Hutchison's role in all this was real "s**t bloke" territory. You don't set your mate up to be belted by a drunk psychopath.
 
Regardless of what else you think of Barrett and Scotts, Hutchison's role in all this was real "s**t bloke" territory. You don't set your mate up to be belted by a drunk psychopath.

Shows the quality of both really
 
Dwayne just interviewed an journo from the Hobart Mercury:

He sounded defeated. Clinging to a 5 year goal...circa 2025.

p.s. Dwayne is an anti-North stooge. Flies under the radar a bit, more subtle than others, cloaks his agenda in faux ‘concern’ for the club.

I see you, Dwayne.
 
Dwayne just interviewed an journo from the Hobart Mercury:

He sounded defeated. Clinging to a 5 year goal...circa 2025.

p.s. Dwayne is an anti-North stooge. Flies under the radar a bit, more subtle than others, cloaks his agenda in faux ‘concern’ for the club.

I see you, Dwayne.
Dwayne can wrap his concern in rusty barbed wire and stick it up his arse.

Sent from my SM-A908B using Tapatalk
 
Caro at it again.
I love it. It’s gunna make it sooooooooo much sweeter when we come out the other side.

We live rent free inside her head.

Our existence is infuriating to her.

And it’s ******* great.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top