Opinion What unpopular AFL opinions do you have? - Part 2

Remove this Banner Ad

Everyone goes on about how the season will never be 18 rounds because of lost revenue - but it is done in the NFL. If the AFL want to get serious about running a fair competition, they should just pull the trigger and do it.

17 rounds would be less fair than 23
 
should use point difference instead of %...compare GWS and StKilda I can't fathom why is Saints are deemed to be ranked higher purely on a ratio of their for and against...it rewards defensive teams which isn't what we want to see
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Having points gave us moments like the Stephen Milne bounce leading to a draw, Heath Chapman on the goal line spoiling back into play forcing a win, Eric Mackenzie getting shoved into a goalpost in the name of salvaging a draw.

Why would you take the behind away?

Literally because other sports don’t get points for missing.

2nd serve tennis.

And Canadian Football
 
Not sure if this will be unpopular opinion but it makes the fixture fairer, make the season longer because of marquee games, you will never be able to make it every club play each other once, so how about make it every club plays each other twice and you give each club 5-6 extra listed players.
I like the idea that double up games are worth half the premiership points.
For example if a team beat North twice, they would get 2 points for each, 4 points total.

Ladder would have looked like this:
1693233579484.png
 
All historical AFL rivalries are meaningless. Rivalries exist between sets of players, not clubs as entities. Once the players in the rivalry retire, the rivalry no longer exists.
 
All historical AFL rivalries are meaningless. Rivalries exist between sets of players, not clubs as entities. Once the players in the rivalry retire, the rivalry no longer exists.
So much this. Although supporter bases hold hate for rivals.

I will extend it to say, neutrals don’t care about “traditional rivals”, but they will tune in to see genuine rivalries between groups of players.

Ie. Hawthorn/Geelong and even GWS/Bulldogs had been much more interesting than Collingwood/Carlton.
 
All historical AFL rivalries are meaningless. Rivalries exist between sets of players, not clubs as entities. Once the players in the rivalry retire, the rivalry no longer exists.
This is a good one for the thread, disagree completely! Rivalries are what make sport so interesting, and they are entirely carried by the supporters of the game and exist in their collective memories. If rivalries are 'meaningless' and don't exist, why do more people turn up for Hawthorn V Geelong or Carlton V Collingwood than other games those teams would play? Why is the roar 10x louder?
 
This is a good one for the thread, disagree completely! Rivalries are what make sport so interesting, and they are entirely carried by the supporters of the game and exist in their collective memories. If rivalries are 'meaningless' and don't exist, why do more people turn up for Hawthorn V Geelong or Carlton V Collingwood than other games those teams would play? Why is the roar 10x louder?

Is the roar “10x louder”? Or is that your perception based on sitting there talking about the rivalries?

Plus, rivalries are fluid, which plays into the point that sets of players are rivals; not clubs. Line in the sand Hawthorn v Lloyd Essendon is a lot different to 2023 Hawthorn v Essendon.
 
This will be rather controversial but players who switch teams looking for premierships are not as deserving of those premierships than players who stay at the club they were drafted to and win a premiership.

I am not talking about the players who switch teams and then happen to win a premiership at a later date. I am talking about the players who clearly went to a successful team looking for premiership success.
 
This will be rather controversial but players who switch teams looking for premierships are not as deserving of those premierships than players who stay at the club they were drafted to and win a premiership.

I am not talking about the players who switch teams and then happen to win a premiership at a later date. I am talking about the players who clearly went to a successful team looking for premiership success.

I’m trying to find the controversial take here. Tom Lynch was compared to Kevin Durant for ages for this exact reason.

It doesn’t happen that often in fairness.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Brian Lake and Frawley too.
Yeah for sure. I don’t know if it’s as bad as Lynch who joined a club that had just won a flag and then played in a prelim. At least with Lake he joined prior to the threepeat.
 
So Steven May who, as co-captain of the Suns, leaves to join a team that has just been beaten in a prelim final, is "not even remotely not the same" as Tom Lynch who, as co-captain of the Suns, leaves to join a team that has just been beaten in a prelim final?

🤦‍♂️
Correct.

The May deal would’ve been done during the season. The year prior the Dees finished in 9th, 5th and then 17th. They wouldn’t win the premiership until the third season and even then, nobody saw it coming.

Lynch joined a team who had absolutely dominated the home and away season, after a flag the year before only to fall in a prelim.

If you think those two things are similar you’ve got rocks in your head.
 
Last edited:
This will be rather controversial but players who switch teams looking for premierships are not as deserving of those premierships than players who stay at the club they were drafted to and win a premiership.

I am not talking about the players who switch teams and then happen to win a premiership at a later date. I am talking about the players who clearly went to a successful team looking for premiership success.
I understand where you are coming from, but it could also be argued that a player does not 'deserve' to be a premiership player more than another based on the Club he is first drafted to. And perhaps more to the point, how 'deserving' a player is of winning a premiership often has no bearing on whether or not he does in fact achieve that goal - the game simply does not reward players equally.
For example, Sam De Koning last year played in a premiership in his 24th game. By contrast, Jack Ziebell and Ben Cunnington have this year retired after 280 and 238 games respectively without having even made a Grand Final, yet they were both fine players for the Club they were drafted to.
Nothing against De Koning, but does he deserve to have been a premiership player more than Ziebell or Cunnington?
While of course I really admire one club players, stepping back from the emotion of it I also don't begrudge players who chase a premiership in the latter years of their career where - through no fault of theirs - the original club they had no say in joining is not going to win a flag before they retire.
To use an example from my Club, did players who were lucky enough to be originally drafted to Hawthorn in a successful era deserve to be premiership players in 2015 more than Brian Lake or James Frawley, who had already given excellent service to their original clubs?
 
Out of bounds on the full shouldn't be counted with the free kicks stat. There should be a separate state for those freekicks. I know that free kicks don't have to be even and there is a lot of variables in why the count is or isn't even but removing one simple variable that is 99% of the time very easy to adjudicate would remove one variable.
IE supporters of team A complain the umpiring was biased against them. Supporters of team B say no it wasn't the free kick count was even at 18-18. Team A kicked the ball out on the full once while team B kicked did it 6 times. Really the free kick count (as adjudicated by the umpires) is 17-12 in favour of team B. That presents a more accurate picture of the frees than including out of bounds on the full which is much less subjective/black and white and not open to interpretation than nearly all of our other rules.
 
This will be rather controversial but players who switch teams looking for premierships are not as deserving of those premierships than players who stay at the club they were drafted to and win a premiership.

I am not talking about the players who switch teams and then happen to win a premiership at a later date. I am talking about the players who clearly went to a successful team looking for premiership success.

You've just explained one of my key reasons for why we should NEVER introduce a mid-season trade period.

I understand the 'fairytale' nature of the story from an individual perspective, but I still don't have a great feeling about Marlion Pickett winning a premiership in his debut game. The first thing I thought of were the players who had been on the list for years and missed out.
And, he wasn't even a mid season trade situation. The negative feelings would ramp up even more if Pickett had been playing for Gold Coast at the beginning of that season.
 
I don't think they are included
Are you sure?
I can't find anything that tells me whether they are or not. I have assumed they are, I don't remember seeing them listed elsewhere on the standard stat sheet but they could be on a more in depth sheet though.
They're still a free kick that the umpire awards which is why I have assumed they are.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top