In the WAFL finals this year, there was a lot of grumbling about the advantages that Peel had over the rest of the competition because of its alliance with Fremantle FC.
Some of the complaints were just those of sore losers, many South Fremantle fans should be ashamed of themselves for booing after the game, and I don't remember the West Perth president complaining last year when a team of WAFL reservists played them because Freo withdrew its players in case they were needed.
But the competition doesn't need an unfair playing field where one team dominates over all others because of an advantage unavailable to the other clubs. It happened in the early 2000s with East Perth and over the last decade with Subiaco (access to seats and the members' bar at Subiaco Oval meaning they are far more financial).
I think the Subiaco situation will fix itself when the new stadium is opened.
It is worthwhile to look at how the alliances between West Coast and Fremantle and their WAFL clubs are working, and whether a tweak is needed, or an abandonment of the whole concept is needed.
If you talk to the WAFL clubs, I think you will find that the problem is:
However, the AFL clubs feel that playing together, under a similar game plan helps develop the list, and enables them to compete with the aligned clubs of The other AFL clubs.
I think the argument of scrapping the alignment and returning to a split of draftees among 4 or 5 clubs would be knocked on the head quickly. We went to the current system because that system did not work.
I also think playing a Fremantle and West Coast seconds in the competition would be unsustainable. Many times in the last few years, there have been only a half dozen players available and fit to play in the seconds. It would be a disaster for the competition.
I reckon that a solution to the problem is a tweak of the rules:
Make the eligibility of finals players the same as the VFL and SANFL competition. My understanding is that three to five players would not have been eligible under the interstate rules.
Leave WA players in the club they were drafted from. This would mean that de Boer would have stayed at Claremont, Yarran at Subiaco, Walters and Naitanui at Swan Districts etc, but any interstate player would be listed as an aligned club player.
The advantages of the second tweak would be that the players would still be in the environment that enabled them to be drafted in the first place. I think de Luca, who was a Subiaco premiership player, struggled with the move to Peel, for example. Walters benefitted from going back to Swan Districts and sorting himself out. It would have been much harder for him to go down to Peel and try the same transformation.
The WAFL would be happier when a player gets drafted to a local club in the AFL. The galling sight of one of their stars playing in other WAFL colours would be avoided.
The competition would be more even. The aligned clubs would still have an access to professional players, but not the double whammy of taking players from their opposition.
The disadvantage would be that young WA players wouldn't play together with young interstate players in the seconds. But they would still train together for most of the week, and AFL club and WAFL club could have dialogue and move a player if things weren't working out well. I think that because the drafted player is from the WAFL club originally, it is more likely that the player will be treated properly.
If a player is drafted from an aligned club, then the player would have to move across - you couldn't tolerate a situation where a Fremantle player is training with Eagles players for two nights a week.
What do people think? A fair compromise, unnecessary, or not far enough?
Some of the complaints were just those of sore losers, many South Fremantle fans should be ashamed of themselves for booing after the game, and I don't remember the West Perth president complaining last year when a team of WAFL reservists played them because Freo withdrew its players in case they were needed.
But the competition doesn't need an unfair playing field where one team dominates over all others because of an advantage unavailable to the other clubs. It happened in the early 2000s with East Perth and over the last decade with Subiaco (access to seats and the members' bar at Subiaco Oval meaning they are far more financial).
I think the Subiaco situation will fix itself when the new stadium is opened.
It is worthwhile to look at how the alliances between West Coast and Fremantle and their WAFL clubs are working, and whether a tweak is needed, or an abandonment of the whole concept is needed.
If you talk to the WAFL clubs, I think you will find that the problem is:
- The availability of a large number of professional players in an otherwise semi-professional competition.
- Players that have been developed by WAFL clubs and playing for an aligned club, just because they are on an AFL list.
- The aligned clubs have suffered an exodus of WAFL standard players to the country or other WAFL clubs as a result of a perceived lack of opportunities at those clubs.
However, the AFL clubs feel that playing together, under a similar game plan helps develop the list, and enables them to compete with the aligned clubs of The other AFL clubs.
I think the argument of scrapping the alignment and returning to a split of draftees among 4 or 5 clubs would be knocked on the head quickly. We went to the current system because that system did not work.
I also think playing a Fremantle and West Coast seconds in the competition would be unsustainable. Many times in the last few years, there have been only a half dozen players available and fit to play in the seconds. It would be a disaster for the competition.
I reckon that a solution to the problem is a tweak of the rules:
Make the eligibility of finals players the same as the VFL and SANFL competition. My understanding is that three to five players would not have been eligible under the interstate rules.
Leave WA players in the club they were drafted from. This would mean that de Boer would have stayed at Claremont, Yarran at Subiaco, Walters and Naitanui at Swan Districts etc, but any interstate player would be listed as an aligned club player.
The advantages of the second tweak would be that the players would still be in the environment that enabled them to be drafted in the first place. I think de Luca, who was a Subiaco premiership player, struggled with the move to Peel, for example. Walters benefitted from going back to Swan Districts and sorting himself out. It would have been much harder for him to go down to Peel and try the same transformation.
The WAFL would be happier when a player gets drafted to a local club in the AFL. The galling sight of one of their stars playing in other WAFL colours would be avoided.
The competition would be more even. The aligned clubs would still have an access to professional players, but not the double whammy of taking players from their opposition.
The disadvantage would be that young WA players wouldn't play together with young interstate players in the seconds. But they would still train together for most of the week, and AFL club and WAFL club could have dialogue and move a player if things weren't working out well. I think that because the drafted player is from the WAFL club originally, it is more likely that the player will be treated properly.
If a player is drafted from an aligned club, then the player would have to move across - you couldn't tolerate a situation where a Fremantle player is training with Eagles players for two nights a week.
What do people think? A fair compromise, unnecessary, or not far enough?
