Do the equalisation methods need tweaking?

[Demonic Ascent]

The reason Melbourne and other strugglers are where they are because they are poorly run. End of story.

No one is disputing we've been poorly run. The issue is that the introduction of FA at the same time as the expansion drafts and with the current structure of the salary cap means it is currently harder than any time since 1987 to climb out of the doldrums. By the same token, it has also been easier to maintain success for the clubs at the top. No one is trying to denigrate your success, I don't know why you would have a chip on your shoulder about that. If Melbourne were ever in Hawthorn's position I'd be too hung up on enjoying the success rather than worrying that supporters of the bottom clubs may think it undeserving (even though that's not what we're saying).

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Port Adelaide and Bulldogs have made giant leaps out of mediocrity in recent seasons. St Kilda looks likely too.

It's only these perpetually mismanaged clubs like Melbourne and Brisbane that seem unable to pick themselves up.

The management of Hawthorn both at board level and amongst the football department is way more responsible for our success than free agency or compromised drafts.

Melbourne finished on top of St. Kilda in 2015 and also beat the Dogs by 40 points. Not sure we're as far away as you seem to think.

 

[Sttew]

You can't equalise good management.

Nor can you / should you compensate for poor management

 

[Back One Out]

There's always going to be clubs down the bottom who will be more susceptible to losing players. FA makes that easier, and easier for clubs at the top to poach them. Those who found themselves at the bottom when FA was introduced are caught in a bit of a cycle where losing players means they can't get better which means they lose players which means they can't get better etc. This occurred at the same time as these clubs felt the brunt of the expansion drafts the most as well meaning the majority of top end talent went to the expansion clubs rather than those at the bottom of the ladder so there was a double whammy effect.

Giving Melbourne selection no.3 in the 2014 draft as FA compensation is what made Frawley susceptible to being poached by either Hawthorn or Geelong. The Demons made no effort to resign him - they played him out of position all year and then showed him the door while rubbing their hands together with glee.

I'm sick of people whinging about free agency, but failing to even mention the AFL compensation which aids and abets the player movement.

I'm also sick of Melbourne fans whinging about the expansion clubs siphoning off all the talent when close inspection of those national drafts shows that Melbourne were hardly affected - they retained their picks at the top of the order - they also received MASSIVE overs when compensated for losing Scully - they were basically given 2 top 5 picks for wasting a pick no.1. And they were in the position to trade those early picks to gain access to 17yo Jesse Hogan.

 

[Crankyhawk]

I am not saying this is a Melbourne-only issue... it is a competition-wide issue. Disregard the facts that I barrack for Melbourne... I know our boardroom has been A LOT of the problem in the last decade, and we finally have some stability there.

Just look at facts. In the last decade of football (2015-2005), the Grand Final has been contested by only 8 teams (or half the competition, disregarding GC & GWS):
Hawthorn - 5x
Sydney - 4x
Geelong - 4x
West Coast - 3x
Collingwood - 2x
St. Kilda - 2x
Fremantle - 1x
Port Adelaide - 1x

In the decade prior (2004-1994), the Grand Final was contested by 12 teams (or 50% more teams than the 2005-2015 decade):
Brisbane - 4x
North Melbourne - 3x
Adelaide - 2x
Essendon - 2x
Carlton - 2x
Collingwood - 2x
Geelong - 2x
West Coast - 1x
Port Adelaide - 1x
St. Kilda - 1x
Sydney - 1x
Melbourne - 1x

Can you see the difference there??? If you can't see the problem with that, then you're just blind to what is around you as you sit atop your Hawthorn premiers throne. There is something wrong with EQUALISATION in football... and the stats prove it. We are heading towards an EPL system where the grand finals are contested by only the same 5-6 teams year in-year out.

It is more than just a 'having the house in order' issue... because if that is your argument, it seems like only 8 teams out of 18 have had their 'house in order' during the last decade, because they've been the only teams to play in grand finals

Clear problem with the 1994 to 2004 time is lack of hawthorn. Curse goldspink!

 

[Prudster]

I'm sick of people whinging about free agency, but failing to even mention the AFL compensation which aids and abets the player movement.

This. Any compensation we should have paid for Frawley would have been dwarfed by the compensation we should have received for Franklin. Swings and roundabouts.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

And for that matter, how an earth is 'made a grand final' the metric for measuring success? Just because the Western Bulldogs, or North haven't made a GF, doesn't mean their PF's aren't worth something, or show that they were close, but not quite good enough. Add in things like the addition of GWS/GC, Essendon's off field issues, and other short term issues, there are factors that have impacted these statistics which should not be taken into consideration when building a long term equalisation system.

Under Demetriou the AFL consistently said one of the key indicators of the success of equalisation was the number of clubs who had competed in a Preliminary Final over a period of time.

If you look at the final 4 (preliminary finalists) for the last 9 years compared to the 9 before that it shows that while every club had competed in a PF between 1998-2006, only 11 of 16 clubs (excluding the expansion sides) have competed in a PF over the period 2007-2015. There was also a greater spread with one club (Bris) in 5 PF's, one (Adel) in 4 and the rest (14 clubs) 3 PF's or fewer.

Since 2007 Haw and Geel have competed in 6 PF's each with Coll at 5 and the rest (8 clubs) 3 or fewer.

2015 - Haw, WCE, Freo, NM
2014 - Haw, Syd, NM, Port
2013 - Haw, Freo, Syd, Geel
2012 - Haw, Syd, Coll, Adel
2011 - Geel, Coll, WCE, Haw
2010 - Coll, St. K, Dogs, Geel
2009 - Geel, St. K, Coll, Dogs
2008 - Geel, Haw, Dogs, St. K
2007 - Geel, Port, NM, Coll

Haw - 6
Geel - 6
Coll - 5
NM - 3
Syd - 3
St. K - 3
Dogs - 3
WCE - 2
Freo - 2
Port - 2
Adel - 1

2006 - WCE, Syd, Adel, Freo
2005 - Syd, WCE, St. K, Adel
2004 - Port, Bris, Geel, St. K
2003 - Bris, Coll, Port, Syd
2002 - Bris, Coll, Port, Adel
2001 - Bris, Ess, Rich, Haw
2000 - Ess, Melb, NM, Carl
1999 - Carl, NM, Ess, Bris
1998 - Adel, NM, Melb, Dogs

Bris - 5
Adel - 4
Syd - 3
Port - 3
Ess - 3
NM - 3
Carl - 2
Melb - 2
WCE - 2
St. K - 2
Coll - 2
Freo - 1
Geel - 1
Rich - 1
Haw - 1
Dogs - 1

 

[mfcrox]

Demonic Ascent... notice how it is Hawthorn and Geelong supporters defending free agency? Haha

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Giving Melbourne selection no.3 in the 2014 draft as FA compensation is what made Frawley susceptible to being poached by either Hawthorn or Geelong. The Demons made no effort to resign him - they played him out of position all year and then showed him the door while rubbing their hands together with glee.

I'm sick of people whinging about free agency, but failing to even mention the AFL compensation which aids and abets the player movement.

Frawley was an unrestricted FA so we could not match an offer. He also put contract talks on hold until the end of the season so not sure what else we could do.

He also played forward in his junior days, was out of form playing in defense and was one of our few options as a key forward once Hogan was out for the year and Clark was reinjured/retired. Not sure what else we could do. We also played Tom McDonald forward for a time during 2015, were we trying to force him out the door too? Of course we will take the FA compo once it is clear a player will be leaving, but don't be deluded into thinking we would rather another untried 18 year old over an AA FB.

 

[mfcrox]

Under Demetriou the AFL consistently said one of the key indicators of the success of equalisation was the number of clubs who had competed in a Preliminary Final over a period of time.

If you look at the final 4 (preliminary finalists) for the last 9 years compared to the 9 before that it shows that while every club had competed in a PF between 1998-2006, only 11 of 16 clubs (excluding the expansion sides) have competed in a PF over the period 2007-2015. There was also a greater spread with one club (Bris) in 5 PF's, one (Adel) in 4 and the rest (14 clubs) 3 PF's or fewer.

Since 2007 Haw and Geel have competed in 6 PF's each with Coll at 5 and the rest (8 clubs) 3 or fewer.

2015 - Haw, WCE, Freo, NM
2014 - Haw, Syd, NM, Port
2013 - Haw, Freo, Syd, Geel
2012 - Haw, Syd, Coll, Adel
2011 - Geel, Coll, WCE, Haw
2010 - Coll, St. K, Dogs, Geel
2009 - Geel, St. K, Coll, Dogs
2008 - Geel, Haw, Dogs, St. K
2007 - Geel, Port, NM, Coll

Haw - 6
Geel - 6
Coll - 5
NM - 3
Syd - 3
St. K - 3
Dogs - 3
WCE - 2
Freo - 2
Port - 2
Adel - 1

2006 - WCE, Syd, Adel, Freo
2005 - Syd, WCE, St. K, Adel
2004 - Port, Bris, Geel, St. K
2003 - Bris, Coll, Port, Syd
2002 - Bris, Coll, Port, Adel
2001 - Bris, Ess, Rich, Haw
2000 - Ess, Melb, NM, Carl
1999 - Carl, NM, Ess, Bris
1998 - Adel, NM, Melb, Dogs

Bris - 5
Adel - 4
Syd - 3
Port - 3
Ess - 3
NM - 3
Carl - 2
Melb - 2
WCE - 2
St. K - 2
Coll - 2
Freo - 1
Geel - 1
Rich - 1
Haw - 1
Dogs - 1

Stop using facts and making sense mate... they don't like it ;-)

 

[cryptor]

Melbourne finished on top of St. Kilda in 2015 and also beat the Dogs by 40 points. Not sure we're as far away as you seem to think.

I was more getting at the fact each of those teams were contesting PF and GFs in the last 5-10 years (Port 07, Dogs 08, Saints 10) before dropping right down the ladder, looking like they might be down their indefinitely but through good management have been able to turn their fortunes around (Port 14, Dogs 15, Saints 17?).

And that is in spite of what so many are arguing has been impossible for certain sides which by their logic should include these teams.

I don't mean to pick on Melbourne here but they are a perfect example... They have been down for a long time now and had been screwing up the development of first round picks well before drafts were compromised by expansion and free agency had been introduced.

The evidence suggests that management and leadership is the real difference between who stays up, who stays down, and who can get back up after going down. Blaming drafts, fixtures and free agency is a cop out.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

This. Any compensation we should have paid for Frawley would have been dwarfed by the compensation we should have received for Franklin. Swings and roundabouts.

Hawthorn received the same compensation for Franklin that Melbourne received for Frawley, i.e. tier 1 compo.

 

[Back One Out]

Hawthorn received the same compensation for Franklin that Melbourne received for Frawley, i.e. tier 1 compo.

Pick 3 versus pick 19 ?

 

[Prudster]

Hawthorn received the same compensation for Franklin that Melbourne received for Frawley, i.e. tier 1 compo.

That's not what i said. I was referring to the idea that Hawthorn got Frawley for 'free' and should have paid some sort of compensation. Doing that would have only seen Melbourne get less for Frawley, and Hawthorn get far more for Franklin.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

No one is disputing we've been poorly run. The issue is that the introduction of FA at the same time as the expansion drafts and with the current structure of the salary cap means it is currently harder than any time since 1987 to climb out of the doldrums. By the same token, it has also been easier to maintain success for the clubs at the top. No one is trying to denigrate your success, I don't know why you would have a chip on your shoulder about that. If Melbourne were ever in Hawthorn's position I'd be too hung up on enjoying the success rather than worrying that supporters of the bottom clubs may think it undeserving (even though that's not what we're saying).

Clubs like Melbourne have been struggling for years, have little to no stability, poor drafting and a string of coaches, so you should be able to see that your assertion that it's harder than ever to improve is completely and utterly a consequence of these many issues, above anything the expansion clubs have done to the comp.

Clubs with a strong and stable administration, who make good decisions and who draft well can fly up the ladder, as we've seen plenty of teams do over the last 5 years.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

I was more getting at the fact each of those teams were contesting PF and GFs in the last 5-10 years (Port 07, Dogs 08, Saints 10) before dropping right down the ladder, looking like they might be down their indefinitely but through good management have been able to turn their fortunes around (Port 14, Dogs 15, Saints 17?).

And that is in spite of what so many are arguing has been impossible for certain sides which by their logic should include these teams.

I don't mean to pick on Melbourne here but they are a perfect example... They have been down for a long time now and had been screwing up the development of first round picks well before drafts were compromised by expansion and free agency had been introduced.

The evidence suggests that management and leadership is the real difference between who stays up, who stays down, and who can get back up after going down. Blaming drafts, fixtures and free agency is a cop out.

Oh don't worry I'm under no illusion that we were extremely poorly managed for a long period and stuffed up our first go at a rebuild. But this isn't about Melbourne, this is about the "equalisation methods" and FA/player movement is just one aspect of that. I don't think FA is a reason clubs can't pick themselves up. I don't think the expansion drafts is a reason either. But when you look at these things holistically and in context it is clear that it is currently more difficult to rise up the ladder from a position of weakness than it has been at any time since the comp went national and this is due to a variety of factors. This isn't to say it is impossible, just that it is harder i.e. will take longer.

When talking about "equalisation methods" we should look back at what the AFL first discussed in 2013. They asked clubs to provide a paper on equalisation outlining their thoughts on what the issues were, what should be tried etc. As far as I am aware only Geelong and the Dogs proposals have been made public. I asked the MFC for a copy of what we provided however got the typical response. With all the crap going on at the club at the time they probably had other concerns on their plate. The AFL then put together a "working group" which from memory consisted of Eddie (Coll), Newbold (Haw), Nisbett (WCE), Gale (Rich) and Gordon (Dogs).

Now, besides the fact there are a couple of issues with the makeup of this group (1. only 1 representative from a non-Vic club; 2. only 1 representative from a "poorer" club) it was clear following the trip to the US and these guys getting in the AFL's ear that discussion on equalisation had shifted. Instead of looking at inherent inequities in the competition and trying to address these they wanted to implement them on a broader scale. Rather than looking at issues to do with off-field equalisation and the impacts this has on the competition the richer clubs shifted the discussion to "on field" equalisation which wasn't equalisation but rather ways that they saw others were getting a competitive advantage and wanted to ensure they had access to the same advantages.

Case in point - all of a sudden the northern academies were an equalisation issue when this had never been the case in the past - but the solution wasn't to remove them or make the clubs more accountable - the solution was to expand them so every club can have an academy which will clearly benefit the richer clubs and lead to greater inequities in the competition.

COLA was also then seen as an equalisation issue when it had never been the case before. Now whether you believe academies and COLA are an issue is one matter however they should be dealt with as part of the existing pillars of equalisation, the salary cap and draft. Equalisation was initially meant to look more broadly at inherent inequalities in the structure of the competition largely to do with the AFL's policies of revenue maximisation and stadium arrangements but also taking into account other factors. Have a read of Geelong's proposal to get an idea of what the thinking at the time regarding equalisation entailed.

This has been turned on its head and now as then the AFL only pays lip service to equalisation maintaining the inequities in the competition and throwing inadequate compensation at those who are impacted.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Pick 3 versus pick 19 ?

Tier 1 compo. Hey I'll gladly take pick 19 if it gets us a flag and you can take pick 3 and all that is associated with that over the last decade if you want to switch places....

 

[mfcrox]

Pick 3 versus pick 19 ?

Tier 1 compensation: Compensation pick following 1st round draft pick. That's what Melbourne and Hawthorn both got.

You had the chance to match Sydney's offer, but chose not to. You also could have worked with Sydney and traded for greater/fairer compensation ala Adelaide and Geelong for Dangerfield.

Melbourne had no chance to match Hawthorn's offer. Hawthorn gave up nothing to get Frawley as well.

 

[Prudster]

Under Demetriou the AFL consistently said one of the key indicators of the success of equalisation was the number of clubs who had competed in a Preliminary Final over a period of time.

If you look at the final 4 (preliminary finalists) for the last 9 years compared to the 9 before that it shows that while every club had competed in a PF between 1998-2006, only 11 of 16 clubs (excluding the expansion sides) have competed in a PF over the period 2007-2015. There was also a greater spread with one club (Bris) in 5 PF's, one (Adel) in 4 and the rest (14 clubs) 3 PF's or fewer.

Since 2007 Haw and Geel have competed in 6 PF's each with Coll at 5 and the rest (8 clubs) 3 or fewer.

Why the random timelines? Before you were comparing decades, but were actually using 11 year periods, now you're using 9 year periods?

Only 11 out of 16? The only 5 who haven't are Richmond, Melbourne, Brisbane, Carlton and Essendon. I just want to point out that 3 of those clubs are 'big 4' with a lot of resources. 3 of those 5 are absolute basket cases who have been terribly run, 1 more was an absolute basket case until the last couple of years (and has since shown good signs), and the last has had huge off field scandals which has killed their run at finals.

I'm just putting it out there, but there is no system that could have helped Melbourne make a prelim. Richmond have been unable to win a final, even when they finished top 5. Carlton were pretty close to making a prelim just a few years ago, losing by less than a kick or two iirc. Brisbane were also not too far off, before their mismanagement of players and Voss shot them in the foot.

I don't see this as an equalisation problem. With even slightly competent management, these clubs could have had a chance. Prelim spots shouldn't just be handed to clubs because they're there. Maybe the problem is that clubs are becoming more professional, and these clubs are still living in an era where incompetence still saw you make prelims.

Your stats are terrible and don't tell even close to the whole story.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Clubs like Melbourne have been struggling for years, have little to no stability, poor drafting and a string of coaches, so you should be able to see that your assertion that it's harder than ever to improve is completely and utterly a consequence of these many issues, above anything the expansion clubs have done to the comp.

Clubs with a strong and stable administration, who make good decisions and who draft well can fly up the ladder, as we've seen plenty of teams do over the last 5 years.

Again, I'm not focusing solely on Melbourne and the fact you continue to refer to the club I support as an argument for your case is tiresome.

Let's take Richmond as an example. They haven't lost anyone to FA as far as I am aware however the expansion drafts have hit them as hard as anyone. They've had draft picks pushed back and while they have risen up the ladder they haven't been able to crack the top 4 which they would have had a greater opportunity to had they not been impacted by the expansion drafts.

Again, I am not saying clubs can't climb the ladder only that FA in it's current form combined with the other policies such as the salary floor and coming in at the same time as the expansion drafts has meant the rise is prolonged and therefore the clubs at the top have a prolonged period of success too. You use the Dogs as an example, they are another who likely would have finished top 4 this year if not for the expansion drafts and losing players to FA/expansion clubs.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Why the random timelines? Before you were comparing decades, but were actually using 11 year periods, now you're using 9 year periods?

That was someone else who did the GF comparisons. I used PF's because that is what the AFL always talked about when looking at the success of the competition.

You may think "my" stats are terrible but I'm only providing the facts.

 

[mfcrox]

I give up Demonic Ascent. Going to leave you to fight this fight on your own. We are arguing with a brick wall.

Pack of brown and gold nuffies with absolutely no idea what we are talking about or trying to get across. Happy to live in their own bubble and ignore facts because of the success it is bringing their club.

 

[Prudster]

I give up Demonic Ascent. Going to leave you to fight this fight on your own. We are arguing with a brick wall.

Pack of brown and gold nuffies with absolutely no idea what we are talking about or trying to get across. Happy to live in their own bubble and ignore facts because of the success it is bringing their club.

I don't think that word means what you think it means. There are obviously still improvements to be made to the equalisation system, but you guys are oversimplifying and making massive oversights in order to make your point.

 

[Prudster]

That was someone else who did the GF comparisons. I used PF's because that is what the AFL always talked about when looking at the success of the competition.

You may think "my" stats are terrible but I'm only providing the facts.

Okay fair call.

It's not the stats i have an issue with, it's the conclusions you are drawing. You are comparing everyone making a prelim to 11/16 making one and saying it shows that the competition is less equal, or that these stats call for something to change. The reality is that clubs have gotten more professional over that time, and it's no coincidence that the clubs who haven't are the ones who have struggled.

As i said before, there are certainly improvements to be made to the equalisation system, but a lot of the points brought up have confounding variables that aren't being accounted for, or have large assumptions being made.

 

[cryptor]

Oh don't worry I'm under no illusion that we were extremely poorly managed for a long period and stuffed up our first go at a rebuild. But this isn't about Melbourne, this is about the "equalisation methods" and FA/player movement is just one aspect of that. I don't think FA is a reason clubs can't pick themselves up. I don't think the expansion drafts is a reason either. But when you look at these things holistically and in context it is clear that it is currently more difficult to rise up the ladder from a position of weakness than it has been at any time since the comp went national and this is due to a variety of factors. This isn't to say it is impossible, just that it is harder i.e. will take longer.

When talking about "equalisation methods" we should look back at what the AFL first discussed in 2013. They asked clubs to provide a paper on equalisation outlining their thoughts on what the issues were, what should be tried etc. As far as I am aware only Geelong and the Dogs proposals have been made public. I asked the MFC for a copy of what we provided however got the typical response. With all the crap going on at the club at the time they probably had other concerns on their plate. The AFL then put together a "working group" which from memory consisted of Eddie (Coll), Newbold (Haw), Nisbett (WCE), Gale (Rich) and Gordon (Dogs).

Now, besides the fact there are a couple of issues with the makeup of this group (1. only 1 representative from a non-Vic club; 2. only 1 representative from a "poorer" club) it was clear following the trip to the US and these guys getting in the AFL's ear that discussion on equalisation had shifted. Instead of looking at inherent inequities in the competition and trying to address these they wanted to implement them on a broader scale. Rather than looking at issues to do with off-field equalisation and the impacts this has on the competition the richer clubs shifted the discussion to "on field" equalisation which wasn't equalisation but rather ways that they saw others were getting a competitive advantage and wanted to ensure they had access to the same advantages.

Case in point - all of a sudden the northern academies were an equalisation issue when this had never been the case in the past - but the solution wasn't to remove them or make the clubs more accountable - the solution was to expand them so every club can have an academy which will clearly benefit the richer clubs and lead to greater inequities in the competition.

COLA was also then seen as an equalisation issue when it had never been the case before. Now whether you believe academies and COLA are an issue is one matter however they should be dealt with as part of the existing pillars of equalisation, the salary cap and draft. Equalisation was initially meant to look more broadly at inherent inequalities in the structure of the competition largely to do with the AFL's policies of revenue maximisation and stadium arrangements but also taking into account other factors. Have a read of Geelong's proposal to get an idea of what the thinking at the time regarding equalisation entailed.

This has been turned on its head and now as then the AFL only pays lip service to equalisation maintaining the inequities in the competition and throwing inadequate compensation at those who are impacted.

I completely disagree that it is now harder for clubs to climb back up the ladder. There have been plenty of clubs who've been able to go from the lower regions of the ladder back up into the top 8.

As for "richer clubs shifting the discussion to 'on field' equalisation" rather than addressing what we both seem to agree is the real difference in the off field stuff this isn't true. At least 'not true' in the sense that off field equalisation hasn't been ignored. There is now a footy department tax that either limits "richer clubs" quality of management or financially supports the "poorer clubs". And I won't deny that these clubs didn't fight that change - and I can understand why; Good management should be encouraged, not limited so mismanaged clubs can throw huge coaching deals at big names like Roos and Malthouse every few years. Signing up Bolton is probably the smartest thing Carlton have done in my life time.