The what if thread

[mianfei]

Zones were introduced to counter Melbourne dominance, there was no way the VFL would let them get a decent zone

That is patently false!

By the time country zoning was introduced, Melbourne’s days as a VFL power were well and truly over. In 1965 the Demons finished 10—8 after starting 8—0 (though with only two of those eight wins by over fifteen points), in 1966 they were 3—15, and in 1967 (the last year of free agency for country players) they were 8—10 though their Under-19s finished 0—18. No Melbourne side was seen during the finals between 1965 and 1968 in any grade, and fear of the Demons dominating if they were given a good zone was non-existent vis-à-vis dislike of the real dominance by the “big five” of Carlton, Collingwood, Essendon, Geelong and Richmond.

I will acknowledge that Melbourne had as of 1967 greater hope of challenging the “big five” than patron-less, middle-class Hawthorn or decrepit, immigration-decimated South, North, Footscray and Fitzroy, but the VFL was not out to deny them a good zone. The league aimed to rotate the zones so that the Demons had the same opportunity as the “big five” to recruit the best country players, but of course could never do this because Carlton and newly empowered Hawthorn would not let go of their near and productive zones for the distant zones given to South Melbourne, Collingwood or Richmond.

 

[Marc_Remillard]

That is patently false!

By the time country zoning was introduced, Melbourne’s days as a VFL power were well and truly over. In 1965 the Demons finished 10—8 after starting 8—0 (though with only two of those eight wins by over fifteen points), in 1966 they were 3—15, and in 1967 (the last year of free agency for country players) they were 8—10 though their Under-19s finished 0—18. No Melbourne side was seen during the finals between 1965 and 1968 in any grade, and fear of the Demons dominating if they were given a good zone was non-existent vis-à-vis dislike of the real dominance by the “big five” of Carlton, Collingwood, Essendon, Geelong and Richmond.

I will acknowledge that Melbourne had as of 1967 greater hope of challenging the “big five” than patron-less, middle-class Hawthorn or decrepit, immigration-decimated South, North, Footscray and Fitzroy, but the VFL was not out to deny them a good zone. The league aimed to rotate the zones so that the Demons had the same opportunity as the “big five” to recruit the best country players, but of course could never do this because Carlton and newly empowered Hawthorn would not let go of their near and productive zones for the distant zones given to South Melbourne, Collingwood or Richmond.

The VFL didn't want Melbourne to have success after the 50’s and early 60's, what took place in the late 60's was irrelevant.

 

[mianfei]

The VFL didn't want Melbourne to have success after the 50’s and early 60's, what took place in the late 60's was irrelevant.

It stands as one of the great urban myths that the VFL wanted the results it obtained from the country zoning system, although fans of those clubs who were the losers from the draw for zones will often try to argue the results were intentional. Melbourne is along with Geelong (who lost to Collingwood and Fitzroy zones it was developing), South Melbourne (whose relocation to Sydney was effectively determined by the pot luck 1968 draw) and St. Kilda (who had been developing the Mornington Peninsula zone allotted by that same pot luck draw to Hawthorn and been the only club competitive against the “big five” between 1965 and 1967) one of the four clubs who were worst affected.

 

[Marc_Remillard]

It stands as one of the great urban myths that the VFL wanted the results it obtained from the country zoning system, although fans of those clubs – and Melbourne is along with Geelong (who lost to Collingwood and Fitzroy zones it was developing), South Melbourne (whose relocation to Sydney was effectively determined by the pot luck 1968 draw) and St. Kilda (who had been developing the Mornington Peninsula zone allotted by that same pot luck draw to Hawthorn and been the only club competitive against the “big five” between 1965 and 1967) one of the four clubs who were worst effected.

Yet the VFL made the decision to not change the zones around as they originally promised.

You can argue all you want but history does not support your argument

 

[mianfei]

Yet the VFL made the decision to not change the zones around as they originally promised.

It was the clubs who prevented the zones from being re-allocated! Too many of them were doing too well out of the zones they had, and the poorer clubs feared a return to the inequality between 1965 and 1967 if they drew a poorer zone.

What the VFL actually wanted was not to stop Melbourne from becoming a power again, but to restore the relatively even competition that had existed before the “big five” spent their financial power on top country players. The same problem of a few rich clubs (then basically only Carlton and Richmond) spending their wealth on top country players (who were free agents) had led the League to introduce the Coulter Law in 1930. Although it was slow to have effect, the Coulter Law did slow down large-scale country recruiting by the richest clubs, but by the 1960s they had overcome this problem and the Law was creating its own problems.

 

[ShockersBoy11]

What if Geelong had won the PF in 2013?
Fremantle vs Geelong GF would have been good, I think we would have had a better chance against them than against Hawthorn. To be fair we could have won if we kicked ****ing straight that day.

 

[mianfei]

Here’s a forgotten “what if”:

• What if Footscray had relocated to Brisbane circa 1983??

This relocation was expected after the 1981 season according to page 38 of The Australian Football Business: A Spectator’s Guide to the VFL, which said “Footscray is unable to maintain its level of membership in a region increasingly populated by European migrants. Rumours persist that the Club will move to Queensland in the near future”. The argument when the relocation was expected was that “Footscray was surrounded by a large Yugoslav and Maltese community who preferred to play and watch soccer” (not capitalised as I originally had thought).

Would the “Brisbane Bulldogs” (discussed as I recall in some newspapers but I did not check) have been any more successful than Brisbane has been over the past three decades (of which twenty years has been persistently bad despite the other decade having been very successful)?

Would the “Brisbane Bulldogs” have been more successful than Footscray was between 1983 and 1995? Would they have retained any of Footscray’s supporter base from 1981?

Would the success of the remaining Victorian clubs have been affected by Footscray’s relocation. Especially, might North, Geelong and Essendon have been even more successful than they were in the late 1980s and 1990s? Would the Kangaroos or Bombers have built a true 1990s dynasty, for instance??

 

[Macpotata]

What if Geelong had won the PF in 2013?
Fremantle vs Geelong GF would have been good, I think we would have had a better chance against them than against Hawthorn. To be fair we could have won if we kicked ******* straight that day.

Would have been very interesting. Grand finals are different though, although it must be said you had the wood over us the last couple of years.

As for the granny itself I know you guys sprayed some shots and an out of bounds on the full or two but if you kick a goal at some stage who's to say the other points would have happened. I felt the Hawks were always going to win that game regardless. Once they were there and even after your '' manic pressure '' against Sydney I didn't give you a hope in hell. I thought the odds on offer for the Hawks were laughable. No disrespect.

 

[Scotland]

The Brisbane Bulldogs would've had continuity on their side compared to the Bears cobbling a team together from scratch, but the Bears struggled their first 6 years in part due to not actually playing in Brisbane.

If I could go back in time and do over the introduction of a Brisbane team the first thing I would do is not have them playing out of Gold Coast.

 

[Macpotata]

Made a thread on membrey and his poor kicking and costing the saints on sat night. It got deleted. They mentioned him on the couch tonight lol. They must be following me fox footy because the state of the game got mentioned too amongst other things.

Macpotata the footy journalist

Poor again tonight. Saints were up 7 or 8 points and he blew a golden opp to either goal or lay it off. Pies goalled shortly after and went on a run on since. The game hasn't been the same since for the saints. He's killing his team.

 

[SSSSSS]

What if Roughy never had a recurrence of melanoma in 2016. We made the top 4 but we were desperate for a key forward in the finals. Who knows but we could have gone 4 in a row.

Would have saved Roughy a lot of trouble.

Alas, there are bigger things than football.

 

[Number37]

GWS don't win a flag within 3 years their will be a massive walkout.

 

[MaddAdam]

What if Josh Kelly says "Ah actually, I should have done what I wanted to do last year and not been talked out of it by my managerr, I want to go to North now" at the end of this season?

Is the North big money offer still available? I am very confident it would be.

Do GWS hold him to his contract or decide they don't want a disaffected player on their list.

Does his trade value decrease?

I think this situation is not that wild a speculative exercise myself.

 

[Blind Turn]

What if they knew about ACL injuries like they do today when Neale Daniher first wrecked his in ‘81?

 

[Scotland]

Given North are looking at a middling finish (7-12) their first round pick won't be that great, so trading for Kelly would probably be a 2018 + 2019 pick proposition.

 

[MaddAdam]

What if they knew about ACL injuries like they do today when Neale Daniher first wrecked his in ‘81?

What about John Coleman? I've seen it said his original knee would have been a 12 week injury these days and he'd have come back as good as new.

 

[MaddAdam]

Given North are looking at a middling finish (7-12) their first round pick won't be that great, so trading for Kelly would probably be a 2018 + 2019 pick proposition.

Fine by me!

If we got Kelly and Tarryn Thomas in at the end of this year, happy, happy days.

Kelly is going at the end of next year regardless, I reckon North should be into him again this year.

 

[Blind Turn]

What about John Coleman? I've seen it said his original knee would have been a 12 week injury these days and he'd have come back as good as new.

True, but that was before my time. Neale’s still eats at my insides. Most likely he would’ve captained the 84-85 sides and was on a trajectory to becoming one of the greats of our club.

 

[Scotland]

Fine by me!

If we got Kelly and Tarryn Thomas in at the end of this year, happy, happy days.

Kelly is going at the end of next year regardless, I reckon North should be into him again this year.

What's Tarryn Thomas going to cost? Would've thought North would have more bargaining power next year. But no harm in asking.

 

[MaddAdam]

What's Tarryn Thomas going to cost? Would've thought North would have more bargaining power next year. But no harm in asking.

Thomas will cost whatever other clubs bid on him.

His value now is hard to assess but it is fair to say within the top 10. Given where our first pick will land, it makes a lot more sense for us to trade it (as we've publicly indicated we will) and then use points from our 2nd and 3rd round and possibly even deficit into 2019 to get him.

If we could get Kelly across this year for 2018 + 2019 first rounders, then spend lower picks on Thomas, would be a great way to really load up for an assault on 2019.

Especially given we could still get a free agent this year too on top of that.

I think Gaff is more likely going to the Dees, but still, we have plenty cashola.

Thus say Kelly, Gaff and Thomas is theoretically plausible at the end of the year, but unlikely. Still, we will give it a crack because, as the IRA said, we only have to be lucky once.

 

[autocol]

What if Josh Kelly says "Ah actually, I should have done what I wanted to do last year and not been talked out of it by my managerr, I want to go to North now" at the end of this season?

Surely the what-if is "What if Josh Kelly had moved to North last year?".

What would adding an absolutely silky A-grade mid have done to their already surprisingly good year?

 

[Scotland]

If Kelly left last year, North wouldn't have Luke Davies-Anorak who they drafted with pick 4. They might have lost pick 23 or their 2018 first pick, also. LDU is no doubt a talented kid but isn't a key factor in North's resurgence.

It's an interesting hypothetical because Kelly has only played 3 games all year and hasn't had much influence on GWS' season. If he's injured at North, you can guarantee people are saying 'big money long term deal, looking risky' etc. If he left, would LDU be playing for North or would he be in the NEAFL and someone else getting a run? Would GWS have picked Cerra or someone else? Or traded for an established player?

The difference from 2018 to 2019 is that people were expecting North to be shit. Kelly didn't sign long term because he has some interest in joining North (or another club). He probably didn't want to bail on a top 4 team for a bottom 4 team and be known as a mercenary. North are in the mix for a finals spot without him, so if anything he's probably thinking that the near future is brighter than he and most people thought.

 

[MaddAdam]

Surely the what-if is "What if Josh Kelly had moved to North last year?".

What would adding an absolutely silky A-grade mid have done to their already surprisingly good year?

I don't like to live in the past. But yes, having Josh Kelly instead of say Trent Dumont would be very nice.

 

[MaddAdam]

If Kelly left last year, North wouldn't have Luke Davies-Anorak who they drafted with pick 4. They might have lost pick 23 or their 2018 first pick, also. LDU is no doubt a talented kid but isn't a key factor in North's resurgence.

It's an interesting hypothetical because Kelly has only played 3 games all year and hasn't had much influence on GWS' season. If he's injured at North, you can guarantee people are saying 'big money long term deal, looking risky' etc. If he left, would LDU be playing for North or would he be in the NEAFL and someone else getting a run? Would GWS have picked Cerra or someone else? Or traded for an established player?

The difference from 2018 to 2019 is that people were expecting North to be shit. Kelly didn't sign long term because he has some interest in joining North (or another club). He probably didn't want to bail on a top 4 team for a bottom 4 team and be known as a mercenary. North are in the mix for a finals spot without him, so if anything he's probably thinking that the near future is brighter than he and most people thought.

Very happy to have LDU where he is - in the twos gaining size and experience, having had a taste of the seniors.

 

[Major Colvin]

If Isaac Smith kicked that goal in the 2016 QF, I believe Sydney would have beaten Hawthorn 2 weeks later, but the interesting one is the Geelong vs Bulldogs SF.

We all know how red-hot the Dogs were that September, but could they have beaten the team that troubles them the most?

Bulldogs would have easily beaten Geelong. Same as Richmond last year - Geelong have a long winning streak against them, but Richmond were just hungrier and better drilled. The past doesn't count for much in finals.