Some changes to the international cup 2005

[HawkNZ]

What I'd like to see

1. Format of the pools

Just for the sake of discussion I'm going to assume 16 teams for the next international cup - it sounds like there should be more in Australia than last time at least. Last time the cup was played there were two pools with the highest team from each pool automatically going into the final. I'd like to see this changed for a start because basically it means that if you lose just one game in the pools you won't be in the final. Therefore after your first loss in the tournament, the rest becomes fairly meaningless for your team. I'd like to see maybe 4 pools of 4 teams each - with 2 teams going through to the finals in each pool. From there you have 8 teams in the finals "series" which can be played out like the AFL finals series - the 4 winners of their pools get a double chance and the 4 runners up are in the same situation that 5th-8th are in the AFL finals.
Of course the number of teams might not be as perfect as 16, but the idea is to give teams a second life if they lose a game or two in pool play. We should try to aim for 16 teams though.



2. Playing the pools all over Australia instead of just in Melbourne.

You might not think so at first, but the more you think about it the more appealing the idea is - people from across Australia could get to see matches, it would cut down on the strain to find lots and lots of available grounds all in the one city by spreading the load out more, it would be viewed as more of a "national" event by Australian citizens and thus would attract more media and spectator interest, and give the players a chance to see more of the country. It wouldn't increase the travel expenses very much - if Britain, Denmark, South Africa and Ireland went to Perth in one pool, then Paupa New Guinea, Nauru, Samoa and Japan went to Brisbane, then New Zealand, USA, Canada and maybe a new team such as Chile or Fiji going to Sydney then you would find they are not only on the way to Melbourne (thus not much more expensive airfares) but there are large ex-pat populations of most of those nationalities who, even if they don't usually watch footy would probably flock to the grounds to see their national team play, even if it isn't in a sport they have grown up with.



3. Better publicity

Obviously. That would come if the International Cup was in many cities quite easily.



4. A "shield" competition

As happens in rugby union 7-a-side. The teams finishing 3rd to 4th in each pool also travel to Melbourne (the venue for all the finals) to compete in a 'best of the rest' finals series. This would parallel the main finals series but the teams with the double chance would be those finishing 3rd and the other four finals places being filled by those finishing 4th in their pools. After that it is played exactly the same as the cup final - so there would be two grand finals - the shield grand final (consisting of teams finish 3rd and 4th in their pool) and the cup grand final (consisting of teams finishing 1st and 2nd in their pool).

We could also have a "plate" and "bowl" finals series. If you've understood what I'm on about with the "shield" competition, read on - otherwise you're probably very confused and shouldn't continue.
OK. Imagine the Cup competition for a moment. What should happen to the teams that get knocked out before the Cup's grand final? The first four teams to get knocked out of the Cup finals series (if it were AFL and in the 2003 finals series then it would be Fremantle, West Coast, Essendon and Adelaide since none of them made the preliminary finals in week 3) go into a "plate" competition. Basically these 4 teams eliminated from the "cup" get to play off for the right to be in the "plate" grand final.
The same would happen for the first 4 teams eliminated from the "shield". They would play off for the right to be in the "bowl".

So in summary
Cup Grand Final = teams who finished 1st or 2nd in their pool and win their way through the cup finals to be at the cup grand final.

Plate Grand Final = teams who finished 1st or 2nd in their pool, then are amoung the first 4 eliminated from the cup finals but then win their way to the plate grand final against the other teams in the same position.

Shield Grand Final = teams who finished 3rd or 4th in their pool, then win their way though the shield finals series to be at the shield grand final.

Bowl Grand Final = teams who finished 3rd or 4th in their pool, then are amoung the first 4 eliminated from the shield finals but then win their way to the bowl grand final against the other teams in the same position.





So what do you think? Are any of these ideas go-ers?

 

[Stealth bomber]

1. Strongly agree.

If I recall correctly, all five teams from one pool won their place games against the equal finisher from the other pool. Which tells me that the other wasn't really all that strong and that those teams may have artificially high.

The US finished 5th, but they never played against the 2nd and 4th place finishers, who had finished 1st and 2nd in their pool. They just went right into a 5th place game. I would have liked for them to have had a chance to play off against higher placed teams in the other pool.

There needed to be an actual finals system, rather than just automatic placings.

2. I disagree, just because I don't see people in Sydney or Brisbane really turning up and supporting it, and I don't think that all the travelling is logistically sound for a competition which doesn't have a lot of financial backing at this point in time.

3. Absolutely agree. I didn't even find out about the event last time until after it had started, and I pay very close attention to USFooty and AFL websites.

4. Like the idea, just to keep all the teams involved to the very end. The more games played, the better I think.

 

[Goat]

The airfare from Adelaide to Melb is fairly low, so I'd love to see some games in Adelaide.... say Adelaide Oval.... they are always looking to host events since they don't get AFL games. I also mentioned it to Steven Trigg (Adelaide Crows CEO) as a possible curtain raiser to an AFL game at Footy Park (what is it, AAMI Stadium these days). They're always trying to get people to turn up earlier rather arrive just as the main game is about to start. This might actually achieve that, especially if they helped promote it.

Of course, all these ideas may be 1 or 2 ICs premature. But maybe not? I think the main thing is to sort out the relationship between ICs and World 9s. As stated elsewhere, I think they should alternate every 2 years where possible, and the IC be in Australia, and 9s elsewhere.

 

[Richoagain]

ABove all, financial considerations have to be borne in mind, plenty of leagues are finding it tough enough to get here in the first place.

Maybe in future you could spread it round, but for the moment keep it all in the one location - it would simply be too expensive, particularly as the AFL sure as hell isn't helping out a lot.

My previous comments about forging friendly ties between organisations at this ebryonic stage of development are valid for the IC as well as the nines (in my humble opinion )

 

[Brian]

It would cost RSA less to fly to Perth than Melbourne .
You'd have a better chance of defaying costs ,with the involvement of the WAFL or the two WA AFL clubs .

If bonding is the big thing ,then everyone can go onto Melbourne for the final .Remember Melbourne was underwhelmed in it's response last time .Give the other states to perform better .

Since the AFL is demanding control of this event ,it has a reponsibilty to be Australian NOT Victorian .BY law the GF has to be in Melbourne ,not true of any other event .And with the size of the games smaller grounds might be appropiate .

 

[Luc]

Originally posted by Stealth bomber
2. I disagree, just because I don't see people in Sydney or Brisbane really turning up and supporting it, and I don't think that all the travelling is logistically sound for a competition which doesn't have a lot of financial backing at this point in time.

Though there were hardly packed stands of people supporting it when it was in Melbourne.

 

[cckid]

Time to de-lurk. Having read almost every post about this that and the next thing I feel I need to say a few things.

HawkNZ not some bad ideas. Having been there and done that as far as the IC is concerned I feel that I have some unique insight.

Honestly going to Melbourne is what it is about. Real Footy fields with people who really know the game. I'm not discounting the rest of Australia or thier knowledge or passion for the game, I'm am saying coming to Melbourne and walking into the MCG at the start of the Friday night game was a really big deal. Second to that point the logistics invovled in running a tournament are large and complicated, lots of stupid little things always crop up at the last second just to keep you on your toes. Splitting it off into 4 different cites across Australia increases the complication and potiential to be stuff'd up exponentially.
KISS - First rule of anything 'Keep It Simple Stupid'

I agree that more playing of other teams is needed however with two weeks to play it in you can only play so many games. I think it is safe to say that the pools were pretty well sorted out, the fact that one pool one over another pool in the cross over matches does not necessarily mean that the better teams were in one pool. If you were to take Ireland out of the equation and adjusted the cross over accordingly who would have won??

Have 4 pools of 4 teams, play teams from your pool and one other pool = 7 games, best team from each pool plays semi against team from pool not played against win go to GF do cross overs the same way. That is about as fair as you can get it. That is 9 games in 14 days, that is tough and probably a bit much.

Press coverage - stop for just a moment and think this through. The AFL had no real idea of the quality of football that was going from the 11 teams at the first IC. What if for just a moment you pictured the 11 teams paticipating looking like an Auskick match at the large break during an AFL match. Would the AFL not look pretty stupid for spending lots money promoting this tournament. People seem to forget that the AFL is business, there to make money. Sitting in there shoes I would have have used caution.

Now they know. If the IC is not promoted in 2005 then you can start complaning I know I will.

Football being played internationally is a great thing, it takes alot of hard work by some very dedicated people, I know I was one of those for many years, just going tp play this year and enjoy the game again. The Grants that AFL provide are a wonderful thing however small it may be. The AFL is doing some that no other Professional League does any where in the world, they give money to grassroots organisations in other countries. The NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL, Rugby, Soccer; no league to my knowledge does what the AFL does.

It is because of the age of instant communication that we want things to happen faster. If these 11 countires had started their efforts say 50 years ago and grown the way they have in the past 10 years and you continued that to today you would probably have 11 very strong associations that would not need AFL handouts and would be part of an IAFC along with the AFL as equal members. Remember Patience.

While I respect Clarkey for his efforts, lord knows I do not always agree with his approach. I personally am tired of the continued attepts to upstage the AFL. Why would you have a footy 9 competiton as an alternative to the IC in 2005 if not to be to create friction? The Atlantic Alliance will probably not be held again until 2010 as teams have realized that it was a bit over abitious to have as many tournaments in a short space of time. I know I was there in the meet when the tournament schedules were agreed upon.

I apologise for the rant I imagine that I set off quite the fire cracker.

 

[Tommo]

Mate there was no fire works there, I think you may have just explained why the AFL doesn't do more than it does for international development. I know we all would love for the AFL to really push for greater growth of the game, but like cckid said we need to be patient. The game will grow and I believe the AFL is probably going about it the right way, rewarding junior development.

 

[Goat]

It is great to hear the perspective of some one who has been involved internationally (hopefully there are a lot more "lurkers" out there).

I can understand the attraction to the MCG, but as a South Australian, I would be very disappointed if the IC didn't expand to have games at Adelaide Oval or AAMI Stadium. But I could understand if it was 1 or 2 cups down the track.

I still think a 9s comp held in the northern hemisphere would be good for footy, but not in the same year as the IC. But we really do need to hear more of the opinions of the non-Australian leagues and players. Speak up if you're out there.

 

[Brian]

The good thing about a 9s comp in Oz is that games could be held at half time during AFL matches ,giving huge exposure .
The crowds aren't big to watch a curtain raiser ,though post main event was tried here in W.A. with success ,enticing patrons to stay on .

 

[HawkNZ]

Interesting discussions guys. I'm still convinced my ideas could work and I'll try and keep the debate going with my reasons why.

Having matches in different cities - cckid says going to Melbourne is what it is about. I agree! That's why I'm proposing we have all the finals matches there. If coupled with my other idea of a plate/bowl/shield to go with the cup then everyone still gets to go to Melbourne. I'll admit it could be logisitcally difficult, but it really shouldn't be that much tougher than organising all these teams to travel halfway around the world in the first place. This is the information age people! There is internet, mobile phones, and all sorts of other gizmos to get messages across if need be.
I still think that by spreading the matches across Australia we would look more professional - more like the very sucessful rugby world cup. The media would see it as a well-organised international class tournament instead of a tin-pot little get-together by a bunch of homesick ex-pats (which it isn't, but let's face it - this is how most Aussies would think of international footy). It wouldn't be much more expensive anyway - don't you get from Sydney to Melbourne for $30 these days? If you held one pool each in Perth, Adelaide, Sydney and Brisbane then moved everyone on to Melbourne for the finals I think it would generate much more interest.
With matches across Australia there may be sponsorship advantages too - companies would prefer to see their brand splashed across an entire nation instead of just Melbourne for obvious reasons.

 

[benjamin]

spot on cckid

cckid you are right on the money. i was at that AA meeting in 2001 when we discussed the schedule too and I said THEN that a long distance tournament every two years was not feasible. i think i was politely ignored. most of us will struggle to make the second IC after three years. they are great ideas but at our level it's a %¤&#(-load of money that can be better spent elsewhere.

As to the venue, you gotta remember that what the players get out of this is the opportunity to meet and spend time with other foreign nationals who play footy as well. spread the tournament all over australia and you lose that. Going to Melbourne is the attraction. Not going to Australia, not playing in an IC. If it wasn't held in Mebourne during the footy season, i am quite sure most leagues simply would not be able to get a team together to go. i'd say the vast majority of the players pay their own way and if they can't have the added benefit of seeing AFL games then they just won't go.

one thing you need to remember when thinking of a format: we're cramming games into a short space of time, and every match day of semi finals or finals is another day where the majority of teams cannot play. I was originally against the format used in 2002 but let's face it, only New Guinea, Ireland and maybe New Zealand ever had a chance of winning (any other team who thought they would win were kidding themselves). Most teams were there for the experience. It was a great format which allowed everyone to play up until the last day. Maybe you could add semis somewhere with 5v6, 7v8 playoffs on the day of the semis but you wouldn't want to do much more than that.

time to hop off the soap-box ... !

 

[HawkNZ]

How would you lose the bonding between different foreign nationals? I am saying everyone will end up in Melbourne at the finals - so everyone in every team will all be in the same city at the same time therefore everyone still gets to meet everyone else!
Besides, AFL matches aren't played solely in Melbourne.
Teams WOULD still play on semi-finals days because with the bowl and cup and plate and shield, everyone is playing right up till the second to last match day and half the teams will be playing on the final match day.

 

[GoalFlags]

The IC has to be held in Melbourne. The other options aren't financially viable.

One of the great attractions of Melbourne is that all people talk about is Australian Rules. You are able to see 3 games each weekend which most players did. The British players were watching a game of footy within 2 hours of getting off a plane.

I think players would be disappointed to have their games scheduled in Adelaide.

Also most of the teams went to watch the other International teams when they weren't playing.

One option that might be possible is to bring the International Cup forward to about June when the airfares aren't at peak time. It would also give leagues a mid-season break rather than just before finals.

 

[HawkNZ]

Well it doesn't look like we're going to agree on this. I'm still a bit confused about why people are saying it's no good playing in cities other than Melbourne - as I've said right from the very start EVERY TEAM WILL GET TO GO TO MELBOURNE.

Also, why the angry face there? Cheer up - it's Valentines day tomorrow.

 

[Richoagain]

Originally posted by HawkNZ
I'm still a bit confused about why people are saying it's no good playing in cities other than Melbourne - as I've said right from the very start EVERY TEAM WILL GET TO GO TO MELBOURNE.

Money.

Money, money, money.

The cup's biggest weakness is how much it's costing the organisations to get there. Add on travel within Australia, and it very, very quickly becomes unfeasible.

 

[clarkey]

I would like to welcome Bruce Parker (cckid), former President of the Canadian Australian Football Association (CAFA), to the forum.

Good to hear from you Bruce, and welcome down from that fence you have been sitting on.

I was wondering who was going to be the first person to label the World Nines as an attempt to destabilise the 2005 International Cup.

Nothing could be further from the truth. I'm just as keen as anyone on the IC happening again, but let's be realistic – many teams are struggling to afford the funds and serious question marks remain over the future of the event.

As Bruce would admit, Canada officially withdrew from the 2002 IC and only made the trip thanks to a last minute donation.

And I'm not so sure that it's worthwhile staging the event if funds that would otherwise be used for development are instead spent on travelling to Melbourne.

The World Nines is an attempt to stage a major event offshore, with equal input and ownership from all countries, where we can all come together and discuss major issues that need to be discussed, without fear of threat of reprisals and/or withdrawal of funding from the AFL.

If you don't want to be a part of it, stay at home.

 

[Peter P]

XQZ ME but I'm going to cut & paste my post from one of my contributions to the other thread:

"It seems a decision on 2005 IC needs to be made soon. If it is too hard for many countries then it should be cancelled in favour of a concerted big attendance in 2008.

That would then free up all and sundry to look seriously at a World 9's in 2005.

From what I've read on these threads that seems best. A low attendance at 2005 would probably do more harm than good - in image and also financially to leagues and to the 2008 IC.

Why is 2008 so important? Well longer time scale allows for more planning and better teams, but big issue is the 150th Centenary of the Game itself. This milestone will throw a lot of emphasis on the "next 150 years" and a good IC will get the message out that the game must and can be global in a global village.

All that said - if there is the funds around the world for a full quorum at the IC in 2005 and 2008 then perhaps the World 9's should be a smaller event - as it may be held with laxer expat rules the players attending may be different to those selected for the IC. Could it even be a parallel event in Australia to the 2005 IC? Probably better to go for somewhere like LA where europe and the pacific and asian teams can all get to. But if there is a full on IC then.....maybe a world 9's in 2006? alongside the Commonwealth Games then???

starting to ramble here but it seems there is a need for a definite YES/NO for 2005 IC soon."



The point being - if 2005 IC plus a 2008 can be a full success then go with them, full 18-a-side in Melbourne. Maybe a few prelim games in other cities but that can be debated. However if there isn't the funds, then have a World 9's instead in 2005. Alternating the two forms for a few years would be economical and also boost the 9's which realistically has to be a major alternative form for footy's growth on small pastures in big fields.

 

[Peter P]

Should have added - decide soon. What forum to decide with - cckid is the AFL international development dept for the affiliated leagues the right forum? Do they have a forum where even countries outside the 11 affiliated leagues could have a say about whether they can muster an 18's or just a 9's? If not it does boost Clarkeys argument for a role for the IAFC.

You make fair points about the AFL's caution with the 1st IC. It was a success. They know the score now and got you guys affiliated. It's what they do from now on that counts. What is the strategic planning out of the AFL for 2005 and 2008?

 

[HawkNZ]

I want to see the 2005 IC go ahead. All the players would be gutted in New Zealand if they had to wait an extra 3 years before the next IC.

 

[FootyontheBrain]

I've been out for the last week, and this thread has got a lot of good stuff I'd like to respond to.

Hawk, I think your idea to spread the games out around the country is a good idea and one that could conceivably be implemented down the track, but for the next 2 or 3 cups it is a financial impossibility. I think the pool idea is an absolute winner. The last time around the one pool was decidely stronger than the other in spite of what CCKid thinks. If you look at the score of those cross over games it wasn't even close. The US absolutely dismantled GB. So the idea of more smaller pools is a good one, and I think would make for a more interesting competition overall. It would at least sort some things out and conceivably make for more competitive games.

CCKid makes some good points about the AFL's involvement. Having played down there it would have been great to get a few thousand out to the games instead of a few hundred, but from a business perspective I think it got the coverage it deserved. However, having seen the improvement of a team like Canada I think the AFL needs to take some serious consideration of lifting their marketing game when it comes to the 2005 and 2008 ICs.

As far as a Wolrd Nines comp I completely disagree that it's an attempt to undermine the AFL and their IC. It's a completely different comp, and the fact of the matter is that the 9's concept is a much more viable option for international competition than is the full size version. Think about how easy it would be to organize 15 guys compared to a full on 40 person contingent. I'm actually more exciteed about the 9s potential than the 18 aside. At the very least the 9s concept could be a financial bonanza with the right marketing behind it. I mean if IRC can run a successful rugby tournament in LA in Mid-Feb then there is no reason whatsoever that the same thing couldn't be done with Aussie Rules in a 9s format.

 

[cckid]

First I'dlike to thank clarkey for broadcasting to the world who I was, I appreciate the promotion, really I do.

Second, I have never sat on the fence regarding any of the issues. I just did not feel the need to scream at the top of my lungs and behave like a prat.

Thrid, I did not intend to suggest or label the worldnines as an attempt to destabilize the 2005 IC. I merely suggested that it was another attempt at creating friction between yourself and the AFL. I happen to think that a World Footy 9's is a great idea, I merely disagree with the timing.

Peter P - The Affiliate Agreements were inplace long before the Internatinal Cup. Canada has had one on paper since the late nineties.

The criteria for participating was quite simple, one of which was that the governing body of the sport in each country must be a registered corporation and $1000Aud.

As far as countries outside of the 11 from last time, I can not say if the AFL will talk to them or if there is a forum for them to express interest. I can not believe that the AFL would not be receptive to new countries interested in joining the IC. The deadline for expression of interest in the last international cup was 1 year before the date of the cup. I would suspect that that will be the case this year. I would expect a package to show up at each of the national organisations sometime in June.

If a country outside the 11 does not here from the AFL about there participation in the IC, then I would think it would be prudent of them to contact the AFL in July, Or stay in contact with one of the 11 and find out when they get there package. That is what I would do if I were on the outside looking to get in.

I been fighting this fight too long and all I really want to do is just play some footy this year maybe win a premiership or even make the national squad, something I have never been able to put my full attention too because of all the other BS.

 

[Peter P]

CCkid - Enjoy your footy mate. I had a couple of years of sports admin stuff, committees etc with Gaelic football. Headaches galore. Someones gotta do it though.

Look once again - sorry - I had some input on this forum into the World 9's idea because of mention that there may not be enough $$£££ around the world to fund both a 2005 and a 2008 in succession with some leagues struggling to pay off 2002. In that case a World 9's in 2005 keeps the ball rolling and doesn't bankrupt everyone.

But seems there should be some forum of all the leagues to discuss this now.

As a second issue i do feel there's a place for a World 9's because that form of footy is going to be, and already is, crucial to the spread of the game. Just find a place that doesn't mess up the IC.

 

[Cudaman]

Totally agree with cckid's last mail.

The World 9's is more about the timing. There is a place for such a tournament....and it may very well become the major tournament - but should we embark on such a journey now before giving the 2005 IC a full blooded go!

I can say Denmark has made all their decisions to attend, or not attend, various international games based on the 2005 IC has precedent.

The fact that people now say Denmark didn't attend this game or England didn't attend that game or whatever, is immaterial if as all the leagues agreed at the end of the last IC, the main priority in the future was the 2005 IC.

As fledgling leagues we can only be 100% committed to one thing at a time. Hence, we need to commit to what is the most important international games for our league and International Football as a whole. And in my mind, it is only the IC in 2005 - everything else is great but it wiil take back seat to this event. If the 2005 IC does not happen, we should concentrate on our own leagues - and then contemplate a new strategy. We cannot change strategies like underwear (present company accepted!!)

It was a miracle it happened the first time given everone's financial constraints and minimal AFL interest. And I have no doubt this time around, it will also take some minor miracles to financially make it happen again. However, this time around we know it can happen, what the fantastic experience it was, and the AFL will support it far more.

I have met the AFL and discussed this and they do feel a little embarrased about their last attempt. However, probably justifiably so, they were very wary that an unorganised bunch of yobbos were going to land on their footstep and say this is the "face of International Aussie Rules" as they vomited on the doorstep!!

They now know this was not the case and they missed the PR exersize of the century!! As astute business men, who turn over millions dollars a year, do you think they will miss the boat again. Hello!!

All that is required is that we perform the minor miracles one more time.

 

[FootyontheBrain]

Cuda,

You make some very good points. However, I don't know that anyone is trying to compete with the 2005 IC. If you read the document Clarkey came up with it relaxes player qualifications significantly, and I would expect player qualifications could be further relaxed as more people/clubs/leagues involve themselves in the discussion. To discuss these topics does us absolutely no harm. Quite the contrary, I would say these discussions are very healthy as we have more and more people playing around the world why not expleore different options for playing representative footy?

I, for one, would love to open it up to leagues with a 50/50 requirement of Aussies to Nationals on each team participating. I think we owe it to the Aussies who've taught us the game the opportunity to represent the league's they've played in and had a hand in forming.