Sheehan What the?

[- PC -]

ps
keep redevolping those suburbs grounds in Melbourne too, they're going to be needed again one day!!!

Silly thing is it was the Vic clubs strength at these suburban grounds that helped them win games

 

[Adrian Shelton]

Dead right on these guys in there early 20's, gotta wonder if some of these skin and bone 18 yr olds that get drafted late are just being picked to 'justify' the u'18 comps existence

 

[- PC -]

Dead right on these guys in there early 20's, gotta wonder if some of these skin and bone 18 yr olds that get drafted late are just being picked to 'justify' the u'18 comps existence

Is the SANFL still running the under 17s and 19s?

I believe this gives young players that extra year to develop.

 

[Crow-mo]

Yeah, but the VFL clubs have great volunteer networks

you've heard the old saying:
free advice is worth what you paid for it.

 

[Adrian Shelton]

You maybe onto something there Perth Crow, when the vic u/19 were swapped for the system they have now....well they may be reaping what they have sown there too

 

[jc67]

Is the SANFL still running the under 17s and 19s?

I believe this gives young players that extra year to develop.

We have folded to the pressure!
From 07 onwards it will be under 16s and 18s in all SA leauges

 

[- PC -]

We have folded to the pressure!
From 07 onwards it will be under 16s and 18s in all SA leauges

 

[rayven]

You ask any AFL footballer where they would most like to win a grand final? And i would bet 95% would say the MCG. You ask AFL football fans where they would want to watch their team live win a grand final and most would say the MCG. Its the 'home' of football, by all means its not the only place but its the symbol of the september finale and we can't break tradition because its a bit crap to travel their. i'd call it a pilgrimage in the last week of september anyway.

Such a pity that my side has not played there since last year.

 

[rayven]

Only one of our 4 rookies got recruited from SA.
Any ol' excuse to hide their incompetence.

Well 4 ex rookie listed players lined up for Adelaide last week.

 

[rayven]

If travelling ten times a year in the H&A is not an disadvantage then why do Collingwood rest Buckley on away games and why did Lynch get rested? Or the humidifiers we use and the extra attention to sore spots are medico's give before jumping on a plane.

Then there's the example of Mahoney,at AAMI he was a good player,once he jumped on a plane he was a dead set hack at one stage.Many players and complete teams fit this example.

From my observations Home Ground advatage does not overate a team,what it does do is show up the incompetencies of the travelling teams,them being incompetent is not our fault.We were the same at one point and they sledged us for it,now that it is obvious they are incompetent travelling we get sledged for it too.

 

[turbo182]

We have folded to the pressure!
From 07 onwards it will be under 16s and 18s in all SA leauges

Are you serious???

I knew it was happening in the amateur league but Sanfl as well?

That leaves a great big hole in transition from under 18's to seniors...Many more players will give up higher level aspirations to go to amateur legue clubs instead of breaking into reserves sides. From my point of view this will weaken the SANFL - the same amount sof talent will nto come through because they won't be perceived as big enough to cope with the demands od senior football.

Ridiculous decision.

 

[lacrow]

If the Victorians have a problem, there's an easy solution: get rid of all the superfluous teams in Melbourne. Fact is there are too many teams in Melbourne and nothing is gonna change that until some move out. In that case they better just get used to the "inequality" that they perceive exists.

 

[*PAF]

Well 4 ex rookie listed players lined up for Adelaide last week.

Same for us.

 

[PrideOf]

If the Victorians have a problem, there's an easy solution: get rid of all the superfluous teams in Melbourne. Fact is there are too many teams in Melbourne and nothing is gonna change that until some move out. In that case they better just get used to the "inequality" that they perceive exists.

I, for one, hope that they keep 10 teams in Victoria, their unsuccessful cultures (see St Kilda & Collingwood), their inability to see football outside their own state, their bias towards the Vic under age comp, their rattle-the-tin volunteer mentality, their hatred of travelling interstate to play games and their general bloody-mindedness that they know how to run a footy club.

After all, it's working so well for us. And West Coast. And Brisbane. And Sydney. And Port. And now Freo.

 

[silverphoenix]

I, for one, hope that they keep 10 teams in Victoria, their unsuccessful cultures (see St Kilda & Collingwood), their inability to see football outside their own state, their bias towards the Vic under age comp, their rattle-the-tin volunteer mentality, their hatred of travelling interstate to play games and their general bloody-mindedness that they know how to run a footy club.

After all, it's working so well for us. And West Coast. And Brisbane. And Sydney. And Port. And now Freo.

Where does the whole US and THEM mentality come from? Personally i think that the problem with victorian football at the moment is clubs arent using their money wisely enough, they are throwing big dollars at big name senior coaches and having pittents left for recruiting staff. The whole vic teams have 18 home matches a year is complete bollocks, we have 4 home matches a year and 14 suburban games a year. Especially when collingwood vs essendon in round 6 is at the MCG, then Essendon vs Collingwood in round 19 is at the MCG... theres no home ground advantage.

Also someone mentioned the equalisation that the AFL have been trying to do since the competition became national. The problem has been that during the middle stages of it the big victorian teams didnt want to follow the rules (carlton go caught, but i have no doubts in my mind that essendon werent in the same boat. Collingwood were too poor to cheat back then) Then the focus moved on to the thinking that tanking or hording of draft picks = a rise to the top, so teams were spending multiple years down the bottom, meaning that the equalisation was just more of bottom team moves up top team moves down, what the aim should be is team A can beat team B at any given tiem (this is slowly happening) i think in 5 years we will see the equalisation fully come into affect and from then the bottom team will be winning 7-8 games a season rather than the 4-5 that we see at the moment.

 

[PrideOf]

Where does the whole US and THEM mentality come from?

It comes from every time you hear a Victorian football commentator/supporter/administrator talk about INTERSTATE sides in a national competition.

 

[arrowman]

I do not agree.
We have won 3 from 10 at home this year, yet 4 from 9 away.
When a side is no good it will lose no matter where they play.

Yeah, but your season has been pretty whacko for consistency and you were very average in the early part of the season when you had a lot of home games. I think an analysis over a longer period might be interesting -

- In fact I think JohnK did this in his Adelaide Review column a while back. Care to share, John?

Travel on the other hand apparently has an effect on injured players and also older players retiring earlier.

I think that is generally accepted, yes.

 

[arrowman]

Not at all the GF is on the MCG who plays there more often?

And have a look at the record - non-Vic clubs are something like 6-1 against Vic clubs in GFs. Your argument does not stand up to the facts.

If their clubs are to poor to win enough games not to take advantage it is their trouble.

True, of course.

There are more parks in victoria then 2 to play on, grasping at straws with his comment looking for more reasons for vic clubs shortcummings.

OK, add Kardinnia Park. Where are these other grounds that Vic clubs play on?

Stupid really, they risk losing those 4 games outside of victoria.
OMG!.... you mean teams shouldn't have a home ground advantage?
If you can't get enough wins to secure a home final with 18 games in victoria you have not earned an advantage.

Look - I'm, not saying that Vic clubs have some sort of disadvantage (and therefore I disagree with Sheahan), all I'm saying is that it cuts both ways and before non-Vic supporters start going on about the lack of travel for Vic clubs they need to realise that there are other factors.

Do you think that finishing 1 or 2 on the ladder, and getting home final(s) is not important to Adelaide and West Coast?

Are the Crows better off playing a team that has travelled here, with 90% of the crowd behind the Crows, or against a home town rival that hasn't travelled and the crowd is about 50-50?

Let me wave a magic AFL wand and take away 6 of the Crows' games against visiting teams, and swap them for 6 more games against Port. Would you take that?

Do Essendon have a home ground advantage when they play Collingwood at the MCG?

Like I said - it cuts both ways. Non-Vic clubs have to travel more than Vic clubs. Bad for us. Vic clubs have less home ground advantage than us. Bad for them. That latter is not the excuse that Sheahan is looking for, but it's not an unreasonable point to make either.

 

[manureid]

Maybe Vic teams are just ***** at drafting. Isn't that supposed to even up the comp? It is cyclical, hence Port and Brisbanes current rebuild, the same for the Bombers of 99,00.

 

[Vader]

My reading of the Sheehan article was that it focussed on how all games between Victorian sides are essentially at neutral grounds.

The non-Vic sides all have a significant home ground advantage, of this there can be little doubt. However, what you gain on the swings you lose on the roundabouts - they suffer a significant disadvantage when they in turn travel to Victoria. The fact that they are good enough to win consistently away from home speaks volumes about their professionalism.

However, when a Vic team plays another Vic team (excluding Geelong at Kardinia Park), it is at a ground which is essentially neutral. There's no rabid home team support like there used to be at Windy Hill, Victoria Park and the likes. Telstra Dome and the MCG are now home to so many sides that they're to all intents and purposes neutral.

Not only that, but the interstate sides play so often at the TD that it is essentially neutral for them as well.

Maybe the Vic teams could benefit from returning to their roots and regaining some of that old home ground advantage...

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

We have folded to the pressure!
From 07 onwards it will be under 16s and 18s in all SA leauges

I think that is a good decision.

At the moment a talented junior will go straight from Under 17's into the reserves. Quality players tend to spend very little, if any, time in the Under 19's.

Consider the number of players that are in their last year of U19's (ie 18 years old on Jan 1) that don't play any reserves football this year. Statistically very few (I'd estimate close to 5%) of these players will make it to SANFL league football, let alone AFL. So essentially the SANFL are running an entire age group that feeds players into amateur league clubs. Why? That is not their role. The new system is a common sense approach.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

If the Victorians have a problem, there's an easy solution: get rid of all the superfluous teams in Melbourne. Fact is there are too many teams in Melbourne and nothing is gonna change that until some move out. In that case they better just get used to the "inequality" that they perceive exists.

When the Crows and the other interstate 'franchise' teams came in to the competition they had to present a business plan that showed that they would be able to exist in a national competition. That they would be financially viable long term, would attract enough sponsors and members, could fund adequate facilities for players and spectators etc.

The VFL clubs did not have to go through this process.

What this means is that several Melbourne clubs were doomed to fail in the AFL from the very beginning. They started off behind the eight ball and have been losing ground ever since.

 

[NikkiNoo]

The comments about the Victorian based clubs not having recruiting staff looking at the sanfl/wafl etc is a crock of ****e. I know people that have done this previously and they were given a team tracksuit as their 'payment'.

The other comment about the 4 rookies that we had playing for us on the Weekend included Bassett who was a rookie for Melbourne - so that throws a little spanner in their arguments.

I'm with Stiffy in that it has been the continual poor management of the Victorian clubs that has allowed them to get in the position they are in. Both the AFC and the PAFC have to report to the SANFL each year on their finances etc and the Victorian based clubs have no over arching reporting system to make them as accountable.

 

[marvin]

Well 4 ex rookie listed players lined up for Adelaide last week.

Essendon had 5 (Mark Johnson, Peverill, Lovett, Lovett-Murray, Jolley).
Collingwood had 2 (Maxwell, Lockyer)
Melbourne had 4 (Bruce, Jamar, Carroll, Ward) + a pretty handy injured one (Davey) + 2 rookie list discoveries playing elsewhere (Bishop, Walsh)
Kangaroos had 5 (Green, Firrito, Schwarze, Pratt, Harding) + others who have played this year (Gibson, Lower)
Even Whingeing Terry's Tigers had 4 (Foley, Howat, Tivendale, Tuck)

Rookie list elevations are not resource dependent.

 

[Crow-mo]

Personally i think that the problem with victorian football at the moment is clubs arent using their money wisely enough, they are throwing big dollars at big name senior coaches and having pittents left for recruiting staff.

nah. in either case the numbers are a pittance compared with the cash the clubs are generating. the average AFL coahc is paid what, about 500k? what difference does an extra 2 or 300k make to a business turning over 30 million?

The whole vic teams have 18 home matches a year is complete bollocks, we have 4 home matches a year and 14 suburban games a year. Especially when collingwood vs essendon in round 6 is at the MCG, then Essendon vs Collingwood in round 19 is at the MCG... theres no home ground advantage.

I can't imagine how you could get a simple issue more wrong. it's hardly bollocks, when by your own admission you play most of your games on the same 2 or 3 grounds, whilst you sleep in your beds, maintain an identical routine, and your supporters can easily turn up to every game.

there are no suburban grounds - with the exception of geelong, so how can you have 14 suburban games?

at best, you have 18 neutral venue games. at worst, you have 18 home games.

just because it doesn't suit you to acknowledge this, doesn't change whether it's true.

Also someone mentioned the equalisation that the AFL have been trying to do since the competition became national. The problem has been that during the middle stages of it the big victorian teams didnt want to follow the rules (carlton go caught, but i have no doubts in my mind that essendon werent in the same boat. Collingwood were too poor to cheat back then)

agree to some extent. Carlton's problem is that it took it a long time to realise it was no longer in a surburban competition, and that the rules had changed. same way Essendon's recruiting policies followed similar lines and are now biting them on the bum.

for me, I think collingwood were one of the first (if not the) victorian clubs to embrace the new commercialisms and economics of the national comp.

Then the focus moved on to the thinking that tanking or hording of draft picks = a rise to the top, so teams were spending multiple years down the bottom, meaning that the equalisation was just more of bottom team moves up top team moves down, what the aim should be is team A can beat team B at any given tiem (this is slowly happening) i think in 5 years we will see the equalisation fully come into affect and from then the bottom team will be winning 7-8 games a season rather than the 4-5 that we see at the moment.

this is all smoke and mirrors. no team has yet had any success rebuilding through the draft, and no one with a priority pick has ever won a permiership. this will change, but equalisation is more about appearing to give everyone a fair shake, than actually doing so.

for example, the draft. everyone agrees it has a role blah blah. but when clubs like adelaide & WC, spend 5 times more on footy ops than the doggies say, they gain advantages in drafting.

league equalisation does not address the fundamental structure inequalities, that really drive the differences in performance. we have a salary cap, but it doesn't have any bearing on our ability to exercise our economic advantages in other ways.

the gap is getting bigger, and no one is doing anything to stop it.
fine by us.