Were West Coast really a 'state team' in the early 90s?

[Matchu]

Our pre-draft selections from 1988-1991 were very advantageous, but you're looking at it from a 2010s perspective of valuing the draft highly and continuing to not acknowledge that we started with 15 fewer players. Given the ability to have a full list of 52 and the opportunity to sign Bairstow, Winmar etc. we would've cashed in those concessions in a heartbeat.

I actually have acknowledged the reduced list many times in this thread but I'll do it again. West Coast had a reduced list in 1987/88. They made the finals in 1988 so they either got extremely lucky with injuries or it wasn't as big of a deal as you're making it out to be. I was under the impression that they were on a VFL standard list size by 1989. Is that right?

Is it true that Nicky Winmar was actually overlooked by West Coast in 1986? If so, that's a clear distinction between his situation vs Bairstow who was never an option for West Coast. In fact, if you could provide a list of the players that VFL clubs raided from the WAFL in 1986 just before the Eagles were given their licence then that would help.

Primus, Downsborough, Cummings (traded for Schofield) had no SANFL experience prior to signing for Port. Take them out. There's one premiership player down.

Lade, Francou, Eagleton (traded for Montgomery), Tredrea, P Burgoyne, James, Dew, Wilson all zone selections.

Adam Kinglsey was taken in the 1996 draft. Take him out too.

Chad Cornes was taken in the 1997 draft and Matthew Bode (traded for pick 12 used on S Burgoyne) was taken in the 1997 PSD. These are SANFL players so you can keep them. You can have Brad Ottens though if you like. Funny how after taking 20 or so players in 1996 how thin the talent pool of SA players was the year later, no?

So that's 10 premiership players - and some pretty damn good ones - that came from 1996 concessions. Can we give up on the charade that Port's access to the SANFL as well as uncontracted players from anywhere as well as the 1996 draft didn't play a big part in the strength of their list in the early 2000s? That's just premiership players too. Other guys like Paxman and Primus had long and important careers at Port.

I counted 7 of 22 players from Port's '04 premiership team that were directly recruited from the initial concessions. The remaining 15 players were recruited through trading and drafting.

If you want to compare apples with apples then imagine a parallel universe where Port got:

Unlimited access to SANFL players 1996 and 1997, pre-draft selections 1998-2001 with a one player per other club limit in 1998

but

A list in 1997 with 15 fewer players than everyone else
No access to the 1996 and 1997 drafts
No ability to sign uncontracted players in 1996 without prior SANFL experience

You might've got Pavlich or Didak or whoever, but who do you miss before that point? Context my friend.

Again, been through this earlier in the thread. I said I liked the idea of Pavlich wearing the teal and becoming a potent 1-2 punch with Tredrea in the forward line but it's really just speculation as to who Port would pick under those circumstances. Can you tell me West Coast's father-son concessions up until 1995? That may make a difference when talking about this parallel universe in which Port was given plenty of access to SANFL players.

You also failed to mention Port was the second SA team to enter the AFL where as West Coast was the first WA team to enter the league. That's makes a big difference IMO and makes it hard to compare the two clubs.

West Coast finished 13-9 in 1988 and lost their only final. Let's not pretend they were dominant. They also won just 7 games the following year.

The 1988 EF side had an average age of 24y 229d but an average experience of only 45 games per player. That's not something you would see these days. Port's team at the same stage (i.e after two seasons) had similar experience but on average was two years younger.

7 of the 20 that played that day (5 of which were in the youngest 6) played in the 1992 GF. It was a team with a pretty good age distribution but most of the mid range players weren't that good.

The WAFL wasn't totally devoid of talent but the best talent was gone. The guys who were 18/19 in 1988 turned out much better players than the ones who were mid 20s, but we didn't know that would be the case at the time. It wasn't until the early 90s when the team started to get a core of players with 50-100 games experience (who were early to mid 20s at our peak) together that we became a top side.

I didn't say they were dominant but they did finish above 8 established Victorian clubs and 2 non-Victorian clubs. It defies logic that an extremely inexperienced team with low quality players would do that in their second season.

So you're now saying there was talent in the WAFL by the time West Coast got around to assembling their inaugural list? That's very different to the 'Vics took all the WAFL talent and left us with nothing' story that Eagles supporters were perpetuating earlier in this thread.

 

[BRWB]

Good rant. Clueless, but good rant.

You know that two teams entered the VFL in 1987, right? And one of them was pretty much left to their own devices in a non-football state and nearly folded. The AFL had to intervene years down the track.

The other was forced to pay $4m within 30 days after initially agreeing to paying that amount over 10 years and nearly didn't get off the ground at all. And could only recruit players from the VFL (one per club max) with prior WAFL experience and players from the WAFL to fill a list of 37, 15 fewer than every other club at the time. So we were set up to dominate from being bankrupt and unable to sign the best 30 or 40 Western Australian players at the time or players from anywhere else. Good-o.

Since GF Day in 1992 Essendon, North Melbourne, Carlton, Collingwood, Geelong and Hawthorn have all won premierships. St Kilda and Melbourne have made GFs. Richmond and Western Bulldogs have made PFs.

Cry me a river, if not for national expansion there would not have been a 12 team VFL much longer.

Fully aware that the Bears started in 87 with the Eagles. Fully aware that without the national comp money may be less.

None of that changes the fact that the AFL set things up to ensure instant success for its first startup heartland club. Doesn't mean other supporters need to be grateful for WC getting flags that were rigged or not be fairly dismissive of any WC success. It's like congratulating Man City for winning.

No one is surprised.

But it's annoying to see the smugness of WC supporters who continually try and deny the obvious. Heck John Buchannan could've coached WC to a flag with the concessions they got.

 

[BRWB]

lol, at least you realise your club is an irrelevant, minuscule relic from a bygone era that should have been put down at the first opportunity.

Threads not about the Bulldogs but your smug dismissive attitude is indicative of why people dislike non-Victorian clubs that gained their success through unfair AFL concessions.

 

[Scotland]

None of that changes the fact that the AFL set things up to ensure instant success for its first startup heartland club. Doesn't mean other supporters need to be grateful for WC getting flags that were rigged or not be fairly dismissive of any WC success. It's like congratulating Man City for winning.

Can you outline how an initial list size of 37, a limit on one VFL player per club with prior WAFL experience and not being able recruit players from outside WA is a blueprint for 'instant success'?

 

[Scotland]

I actually have acknowledged the reduced list many times in this thread but I'll do it again. West Coast had a reduced list in 1987/88. They made the finals in 1988 so they either got extremely lucky with injuries or it wasn't as big of a deal as you're making it out to be. I was under the impression that they were on a VFL standard list size by 1989. Is that right?

Average teams make the finals, it's not unheard of. The West Coast team as I pointed out had very little VFL experience but an average age of nearly 25, so wasn't a team entirely of kids like GC/GWS 2011/12.

Is it true that Nicky Winmar was actually overlooked by West Coast in 1986? If so, that's a clear distinction between his situation vs Bairstow who was never an option for West Coast. In fact, if you could provide a list of the players that VFL clubs raided from the WAFL in 1986 just before the Eagles were given their licence then that would help.

You'd have to ask Nicky Winmar. Some say he was overlooked, some say St Kilda got in his ear.

I counted 7 of 22 players from Port's '04 premiership team that were directly recruited from the initial concessions. The remaining 15 players were recruited through trading and drafting.

You can't claim Schofield, Kingsley and Montgomery. Two were traded for players gained through concessions, one was recruited from Victoria in the draft.

Again, been through this earlier in the thread. I said I liked the idea of Pavlich wearing the teal and becoming a potent 1-2 punch with Tredrea in the forward line but it's really just speculation as to who Port would pick under those circumstances. Can you tell me West Coast's father-son concessions up until 1995? That may make a difference when talking about this parallel universe in which Port was given plenty of access to SANFL players.

McIntosh and Cousins are the only two of not IIRC.

You also failed to mention Port was the second SA team to enter the AFL where as West Coast was the first WA team to enter the league. That's makes a big difference IMO and makes it hard to compare the two clubs.

Absolutely. Different point in time, different context for each club. Port were lucky (like WC) that a good crop of young players were available in the SANFL at that time. Freo were the ones who were stiffed. As I pointed out previously, for all the preferential access to the WAFL in the world the talent pool was very shallow in 1994. If two teams get the exact same concessions 5 years apart then one could be Geelong 2007-2011 and the other Richmond 1980-2015. Context is huge. Huuuuge.

I didn't say they were dominant but they did finish above 8 established Victorian clubs and 2 non-Victorian clubs. It defies logic that an extremely inexperienced team with low quality players would do that in their second season.

So you're now saying there was talent in the WAFL by the time West Coast got around to assembling their inaugural list? That's very different to the 'Vics took all the WAFL talent and left us with nothing' story that Eagles supporters were perpetuating earlier in this thread.

As has been pointed out about 395 times already look at the 1986 WA SOO side. And the WA players on top of that already playing in the VFL. And the players signed from the WAFL before West Coast's license was granted. The 'WC started with a state team' myth has been debunked. Categorically.

Of course there was talent in the WAFL. There's talent in the WAFL now. There are guys running around now in their mid 20s who would get a kick playing at AFL level - but they're not Buddy Franklin or Nat Fyfe or Cale Hooker or whoever, and since they're not at that level and not young enough to make people think they'll reach that level they'll never be drafted. I don't know how many WA players are currently on AFL lists but I'd estimate around 20% of the league or 150 or so.

If you took a list of all WA players currently on AFL lists today and took out the best 30 or 40 established players. You could build a side that would be competitive, but it would hardly be inspiring fears of a dynasty. That is West Coast in the early days. Because we couldn't get the best established WA players and weren't allowed to get players from anywhere else we started with a mix of some good established VFL/WAFL players, some mid range WAFL players and some untried WAFL youngsters. It was the latter category that drove our success.

 

[BRWB]

Can you outline how an initial list size of 37, a limit on one VFL player per club with prior WAFL experience and not being able recruit players from outside WA is a blueprint for 'instant success'?

It's common knowledge and been explained here numerous times, and even acknowledged by Weagles fans that the set up was generous - well except for the more rabid fans anyway....

As an addition to what has been posted, The smaller list size took into account no reserves or u19s for the Eagles unlike VFL clubs.

 

[Scotland]

It's common knowledge and been explained here numerous times, and even acknowledged by Weagles fans that the set up was generous - well except for the more rabid fans anyway....

So you've got nothing. OK. I think most Eagles fans acknowledge we were successful on the back of the young players we drafted from 1986-1991.

I guess you could call that 'being set up for instant success' if it helps you sleep at night. The AFL must've been livid when we stunk it up in 1989...

As an addition to what has been posted, The smaller list size took into account no reserves or u19s for the Eagles unlike VFL clubs.

Geez you're doing well to field seniors, reserves and U/19 sides from a list of 52 players!

 

[Allan Shorty]

1992* - drugs, concessions, State of Origin players, Bradbury, captained by dodgy pharmacist sniper
1994* - drugs, concessions, State of Origin players, captained by dodgy pharmacist sniper again
2006* - drugs, even more drugs, biased umpires, captained by chicken winging eye gouger obtained from tanking

2005 and 2006 are giant years. Brilliantly coached and put together. The early nineties are inevitable.

 

[stax on the mull]

As you'd expect West Coast supporters defend their generous concessions by saying that they were actually held back and should have been given more, so they would have be able to play against VFL sides with a squad of 50 or so of the best West Australian footballers.

In retrospect the formation of the West Coast Eagles can be seen as a cheap corporate attempt to cash in on the parochialism generated by some meritorious home wins in State of Origin football by forming a state based team to play against mostly suburban Melbourne teams, many of them already in dire financial straits and unable to afford to contract experienced interstate players in what was a pre-salary cap era despite those players being available to them with their draft pick.

They decimated the WAFL, then killed off State of of Origin football and sent the football in WA bankrupt in the space of 3 years - then they went cap in hand to the AFL asking for even more generous player concessions, which they were given under the fear that it would jeopardize the eventual goal of a national competition.

 

[Forward Press]

As you'd expect West Coast supporters defend their generous concessions by saying that they were actually held back and should have been given more, so they would have be able to play against VFL sides with a squad of 50 or so of the best West Australian footballers.

In retrospect the formation of the West Coast Eagles can be seen as a cheap corporate attempt to cash in on the parochialism generated by some meritorious home wins in State of Origin football by forming a state based team to play against mostly suburban Melbourne teams, many of them already in dire financial straits and unable to afford to contract experienced interstate players in what was a pre-salary cap era despite those players being available to them with their draft pick.

They decimated the WAFL, then killed off State of of Origin football and sent the football in WA bankrupt in the space of 3 years - then they went cap in hand to the AFL asking for even more generous player concessions, which they were given under the fear that it would jeopardize the eventual goal of a national competition.

List of things the West Coast Eagles are responsible for:
- Death of suburban football
- Death of State of Origin
- Death of notions of equality
- Death of WAFL
- Drug culture in AFL
- The bubonic plague

That's what I'm getting from your posts in this thread. You can argue the merits of the concessions (which I agree are generous in retrospect), but using this thread to spout mindless empty rhetoric about the evil Indian Pacific West Coast Eagles just reeks of troll. The entry of the Eagles and the expansion clubs saved the VFL and the success of the Eagles paved the way for your own beloved club to enter.

You're welcome.

 

[Matchu]

Scotland, you didn't respond to a lot of my questions/requests so I'll ask in a more direct way.

• Did West Coast have a VFL-standard list size in 1989?
• Can you provide a list of the WAFL players that were signed by VFL clubs in 1986 before the Eagles were given their licence?
• What was West Coast's father-son criteria between 1986-1995?

 

[Scotland]

Scotland, you didn't respond to a lot of my questions/requests so I'll ask in a more direct way.

• Did West Coast have a VFL-standard list size in 1989?
• Can you provide a list of the WAFL players that were signed by VFL clubs in 1986 before the Eagles were given their licence?
• What was West Coast's father-son criteria between 1986-1995?

• No. West Coast recruited 11 players at the end of 1987. Given we only had a maximum of 37 to start with and some players didn't continue past 1987...
  
• Wilson, Sartori, Dennis, Winmar, Bairstow, Mitchell, Spalding, Christian, Starcevich and Dean - see post 3.
• Until 31 October 2007, the West Coast Eagles could select any player whose father had made 150 WAFL appearances prior to 1987 for Claremont, East Perth, West Perth or Subiaco. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Father–son_rule)

 

[Bicco]

The whole concept of drafting players was different in 1986/87. It was all about established players. The idea of drafting a gun 17 year old was unheard of. Vic clubs wouldn't even had thought about drafting the WA Teal Cup side players. The Eagles of '92 and '94 were awesome ( being full of Freo players how could they not be) and the closest thing we will ever get to a state team playing in the AFL.

 

[Scotland]

Forward Press, Freo fans who think that West Coast are the root of all evil are the best.

No West Coast, no Freo.

Of course they'll argue no East/South Freo no West Coast but no Claremont no Freo...

 

[kranky al]

Forward Press, Freo fans who think that West Coast are the root of all evil are the best.

No West Coast, no Freo.

Of course they'll argue no East/South Freo no West Coast but no Claremont no Freo...

But on the other hand.

No freo - no lols.

You be the judge.

 

[Ripper]

They did have 4 all Australians in their 1987 squad.

 

[Scotland]

They did have 4 all Australians in their 1987 squad.

The team that came last had 7.

Just saying...

 

[The_Reaper]

Fully aware that the Bears started in 87 with the Eagles. Fully aware that without the national comp money may be less.

None of that changes the fact that the AFL set things up to ensure instant success for its first startup heartland club. Doesn't mean other supporters need to be grateful for WC getting flags that were rigged or not be fairly dismissive of any WC success. It's like congratulating Man City for winning.

No one is surprised.

But it's annoying to see the smugness of WC supporters who continually try and deny the obvious. Heck John Buchannan could've coached WC to a flag with the concessions they got.

How where they rigged?

Why shouldn't West Coast have gotten start up concessions for WA players over clubs from a completely different state?

The sense of entitlement among some Victorian fans who seem to believe that the rest of the football states exist purely to serve them is ridiculous.

Should Western Australia have just stayed as an easy place for Victorian clubs to poach players from?

 

[BRWB]

How where they rigged?

Why shouldn't West Coast have gotten start up concessions for WA players over clubs from a completely different state?

The sense of entitlement among some Victorian fans who seem to believe that the rest of the football states exist purely to serve them is ridiculous.

Should Western Australia have just stayed as an easy place for Victorian clubs to poach players from?

All any fan can ask for is a level playing field - the continual concessions offered to the start up clubs and the non Victorian clubs for the last 25 years have ensured the success of these clubs to in turn ensure a viable national competition.

WC win two flags 9 yrs in, so did Adelaide...the AFl is not a level playing field and hasn't been for a very long time. A lot of Vic footy fans are sick of it - then listening to gloating ********s (not you) saying if it wasn't for us (pick an interstate club) your club wouldn't exist - and then deny the obvious concessions leading to their success is sickening.

And yes the old VFL was arrogant and pillaged SA and WA for years. But that doesn't change the last 25 yrs.

One cannot just start up a club and win multiple premierships within 10 yrs without the massive concessions WC received.

 

[Forward Press]

All any fan can ask for is a level playing field - the continual concessions offered to the start up clubs and the non Victorian clubs for the last 25 years have ensured the success of these clubs to in turn ensure a viable national competition.

WC win two flags 9 yrs in, so did Adelaide...the AFl is not a level playing field and hasn't been for a very long time. A lot of Vic footy fans are sick of it - then listening to gloating ********s (not you) saying if it wasn't for us (pick an interstate club) your club wouldn't exist - and then deny the obvious concessions leading to their success is sickening.

And yes the old VFL was arrogant and pillaged SA and WA for years. But that doesn't change the last 25 yrs.

One cannot just start up a club and win multiple premierships within 10 yrs without the massive concessions WC received.

Are you suggesting that the expansion clubs shouldn't win flags then? That they should be handicapped such that a whole generation of supporters will never see their club win something? That the older clubs should have first dibs on the trophy?

Arrogant nonsense.

 

[Forward Press]

The entry of West Coast (and the other initial expansion clubs) did help save the VFL (some would argue at the expense of the WAFL).

Check the videos out in this post:

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threa...in-the-early-90s.1123696/page-4#post-43031137

 

[JackOutback]

I was old enough to see the Eagles join the competition, young enough not to know the ins and outs of the deal at the time, but it seems pretty obvious the answer is somewhere in the middle of two extremes being argued. Yes, the concessions turned out to be generous, but they weren't necessarily intended to be so. Canny drafting (using the concessions provided) that changed the way clubs approach the draft seems to be primarily responsible for the Eagles' success in the early '90s.

 

[stax on the mull]

List of things the West Coast Eagles are responsible for:
- Death of suburban football
- Death of State of Origin
- Death of notions of equality
- Death of WAFL
- Drug culture in AFL
- The bubonic plague

That's what I'm getting from your posts in this thread. You can argue the merits of the concessions (which I agree are generous in retrospect), but using this thread to spout mindless empty rhetoric about the evil Indian Pacific West Coast Eagles just reeks of troll. The entry of the Eagles and the expansion clubs saved the VFL and the success of the Eagles paved the way for your own beloved club to enter.

You're welcome.

Flea carrying rats was the most likely cause of the spread of bubonic plague. There's no evidence West Coast were involved.

Facts are, you didn't save anybody but yourselves. You've only got to look at the crowd figures for home games in the one bad on field year 1988 (you still won 7 games) which ranged from 12,000 to 20,000 for the most part. You needed to bring in money, bring in supporters and to do that, you had win games otherwise you'd have been washed up. Making your club successful was what those pre-draft concessions were all about.

 

[stax on the mull]

• No. West Coast recruited 11 players at the end of 1987. Given we only had a maximum of 37 to start with and some players didn't continue past 1987...
  
• Wilson, Sartori, Dennis, Winmar, Bairstow, Mitchell, Spalding, Christian, Starcevich and Dean - see post 3.
• Until 31 October 2007, the West Coast Eagles could select any player whose father had made 150 WAFL appearances prior to 1987 for Claremont, East Perth, West Perth or Subiaco. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Father–son_rule)

The alignment of Claremont as one of 4 teams to the West Coast was retrospective. When Mcintosh was picked up as a father/son there was no thought of a half alignment of WAFL team to West Coast because there was no other WA team. His father John played 146 games for Claremont not 150. The rules were different then, because he was also eligible for St Kilda where he played in the VFL for about 50 odd games. They also listed Nathan McIntosh, Ashley's older brother with a father/son pick in 1991, but he wasn't any good - with all the draft concessions you had picks to burn. (see Tim Watson)

Similarly Cousins father played for Perth Demons, not one of the alignment clubs you've listed as part of the 4. But he was eligible to both West Coast and Geelong under father/son, and supposedly eligible to Fremantle as he played for East Fremantle in the WAFL - and Fremantle were supposed to have exclusive access to half of the WAFL teams for 2 years to formulate their initial squad. East Fremantle being one of those 4 teams.

West Coast list numbers were back to parity (approx. 50 players) with VFL clubs by the 1990 season. That's what those post-draft selections West Coast had at the end of the 1989 draft were all about.

Wilson and Dean both were traded/drafted back to West Coast. Dean was injury prone and never played. Similarly Sartori and Dennis also had injury plagued careers. If you had these players in 1987 you would have had to drop others who you selected from your list. Its dubious to suggest that everyone who was part of what Weagles supporters continually refer to as 'the raid on WA players' actually wanted to play for a start up franchise with a phony name and not a traditional VFL club with substance and culture.

 

[Forward Press]

Flea carrying rats was the most likely cause of the spread of bubonic plague. There's no evidence West Coast were involved.

Facts are, you didn't save anybody but yourselves. You've only got to look at the crowd figures for home games in the one bad on field year 1988 (you still won 7 games) which ranged from 12,000 to 20,000 for the most part. You needed to bring in money, bring in supporters and to do that, you had win games otherwise you'd have been washed up. Making your club successful was what those pre-draft concessions were all about.

Did you check out http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threa...n-the-early-90s.1123696/page-4#post-43031137? The VFL was struggling financially and the entry of West Coast was seen as part of the solution.

It's no surprise that club average attendances correlate with on-field success, look at Freo's crowds in 2001 for example. And even in that annus horribilis of 1989 the Eagles averaged more than the Dogs, Bears, Swans and Lions.

I was old enough to see the Eagles join the competition, young enough not to know the ins and outs of the deal at the time, but it seems pretty obvious the answer is somewhere in the middle of two extremes being argued. Yes, the concessions turned out to be generous, but they weren't necessarily intended to be so. Canny drafting (using the concessions provided) that changed the way clubs approach the draft seems to be primarily responsible for the Eagles' success in the early '90s.

This, pretty much. Because the experienced players were poached, the concession picks were used on kids and it coincided with one of the best WA U19 sides of all time. Drafting those days was a fairly amateur exercise and we lucked into it. So why is this held against us?