Now that the quadrennial gumboot-tossing, yak-dancing, and passport alteration championships are over, let us (or at least that fraction of the population who cares about such things) turn our minds back to that most local of sports, Australian rules football. At the end of the home and away season, Geelong are almost unbackable favourites ($1.40 at the TAB, to be precise) to win another premiership, something which I suspect probably slightly underestimates the chances of bad luck striking over a finals series.
It’s worth considering, for a moment, just how successful their home-and-away season campaigns have been, and comparing them to other dominant teams of the recent past – an exercise made easy by finalsiren.com’s historical result listings. Geelong’s home-and-away season performance has been considerably better than last year, winning 21 of a possible 22 games, and with a percentage of 160 (that is, they have scored 1.6 times as many points as their opponents over the course of the season). Statistically, it is a (marginally) better home-and-away season than Essendon’s 2000 season, and well in front of any other team’s home-and-away record. Over a two-year period, Geelong’s home-and-away win-loss record in 2007-08 equals Essendon’s 1999-2000 record, and their overall percentage is considerably higher – they have won as many games, but by bigger margins. While some other teams have enjoyed longer periods of success – Essendon topped the ladder again in 2001 – Geelong have been as dominant in regular games over the past two years as any team we’ve seen (note: with the exception of the 1929 Collingwood team)
Given that the AFL draft and salary cap is supposed to even out the competition, it is interesting that two of the most statistically dominant teams seen – the Essendon team of 1999-2001, and the present Geelong team – have played in the last decade under this structure. Throw in Brisbane’s three consecutive premierships of 2001-03, and – while no team has managed continuous domination of the kind that the Melbourne Demons managed through the late 1950s – you start to get a picture that the current structure might just be leading to single, dominant teams more than one would expect.
So why is this the case? I don’t know, but there’s a few possibilities that come to mind. The idea of a “rebuilding a team” over a period of years has always been present, but I doubt it’s ever had the prominence that it’s had now. The details of the salary cap make it impossible to hoard money to shell out on star players when they become available; unlike soccer, it’s not possible to buy players from outside the competition to quickly improve a team. The only way for mediocre AFL teams to become competitive is to be patient, accumulating the best available young players in the annual draft, hopefully to all peak around the same time to put them in contention for a premiership. While they are not ready to contend for a premiership, the incentives for a team to win are limited to pleasing fans and sponsors; their chances of collecting potential stars in the draft is hurt by winning too many games. So my guess is that, particularly late in the season, coaches of “rebuilding teams” – while not explicitly “tanking” – may well be treating matches as primarily training and experimentation opportunities with the younger players who will have a chance to contend for premierships. This may lead to top teams winning more of these matches than would have taken place in the past.
But even if that theory is true, it doesn’t entirely explain the dominance of single teams. Any thoughts? Just random chance, or is there something more systematic going on?
Geelong are a great side because they have the confidence in each other to move the ball on whether to a contest or not. Sides that wait for an uncontested possession for every delivery allow their opponents to flood back more effectively.
That may be, but why do they have that confidence?
If your answer is that “they’ve got great players”…how have Geelong managed to assemble a team of players who, at this moment, are superior to the competition by a historically unusual margin?
They seem capable of simply *deciding* to win. Individual contests or entire games – the confidence zorro speaks of is palpable. Against the Eagles Saturday it was plain to see. Halfwat through the second quarter – scores even, WC throwing everything they could at the Cats and making what appeared to be a good fist of it. Turns out Geelong were just waiting to see what WC had in them, and for them to tire themselves out. The Eagles did nothing much different in the next 15-odd minutes, Geelong just won every single contest and walked right over them like they weren’t there.
They’re not like Carey’s Roos or Essendon 99-00. Those teams had star players who needed to stand up and inspire the rest to heroic feats. Geelong seem able to do this at will, and together as a group.
AFL teams may achieve dominance for a few seasons at a time, but that success can be fairly ephemeral – look at West Coast now, or the Lions since their four straight grand final appearances. Compare that to the top European football leagues, where a period of dominance is usually measured in decades, through several generations of players. Obviously there’s a lot more going on there than the draft system and salary caps (relegation not the least), but it would suggest the AFL’s system hasn’t really failed in its aims.
Yes Jim – especially since I don’t remember those aims including “prevention of a single team winning consecutive premierships”.
It’s obviously a big regulatory distortion, but my only real problems with it are:
1) Freo seem to always finish mid-table, which can serve to entrench mediocrity
2) Tanking, which I’m glad to say Freo don’t do, which is partly the cause of 1)
Jim: I agree that it is does seem to be succeeding in preventing decade-long dynasties.
I’m just wondering whether there is a pattern of fairly unusual (by historical standards) dominance for two or three seasons, and whether this pattern is a side effect of the salary cap and draft, there’s some other causal factor, or that there’s no pattern and it’s just random chance at work.
Furthermore, I’m not suggesting the way it is is necessarily bad, either.
Well apart from the fact I think AFL is a waste of a good park,and a joke of a game,and having it shoved down my throat every waking hour on radio TV and the joke that passes for Newspapers in WA I don,t care
Speaking as a totally biased Geelong supporter, I think there are a few reasons why Geelong has been able to do what they have so far (please may it continue):
1. Got the right people to turn a financial basket case into a solid organisation, prepared to look to the long term, as a club and as a team.
2. Unlike all of the other clubs (until Collingwood this year) maintained their own VFL (reserves) team to be a feeder for the club. This means that younger players, and those coming back from inhury or poor form have been handled within the same club, with integrated coaching and playing styles, something the other VFL teams cannot guarantee. Ergo, VFL premierships in 2000 and 2007 have been won with players who later become Geelong AFL players
3. Recruited locally,and using “father-son” drafts (most of whom grew up locally in Geelong or thereabouts anyway) to foster an ongoing culture and again exploit integrated coaching (half the local teams are coached by ex-Geelong players)
4. Particularly after the 2006 review, fostered a real team culture. Geelong is a champion team that fortunately has more than its share of champion players. You can really see their confidence in one another, from the backline to the goal square, which lifts them all up and must surely intimidate the opposition
5 And lastly, Geelong has always managed to have some freakish players, the ones who just do things differently. We’ve always been at our best with a free wheeling, fast paced game. When it works, as it did in the early 90s and now, it presents breathtaking play, where you’ll often see opposing teams virtually become spectators.
I expect that the next few years will see more young champions appear, with a continuing turnover (we have a very even spread of age groups, and some absolute gem players unable to get regular games in the seniors) that, while perhaps not as dominant, should keep us in the upper reaches of the ladder for quite some time.
Hopefully, in a few weeks from now I’ll have more reason to say it’s a great time to be a Geelong supporter.
The dominance of single teams in seasons is interesting.
Part (and only part) of the reason for the ability to build such dominant season records may be the (comparative) lack of home and way advantage compared to years past – though the interstate clubs have more, for Melbourne clubs you play only 4-6 games a year in hostile territory where in the past you generally had 11 games truly ‘away.’
This gives the interstate clubs a good setup for a midtable finish, but a Victorian club that is in red hot form has an easier run to build up a sensational season record because less of their opponents have a home ground advantage.
But even more Geelong has genuine home ground advantage 5 or six games a year at skilled without 11 trips into hostile territory. Even Essendon were the new master tenants of a brand new ground when they ran over the competition in 2000.
As for premiership dominance the Lions made four consecutive Grannies, but Hawthorn and Geelong played in more Grand finals respectively not that long ago. The three in a row was a mighty feat, but it can probably be put down to the fact they were a team with players and a football department who were expert in putting together great finals campaigns, rather than some anomalous dominance of the competition.
FDB at 5:
Freo tanked in 1999.
Come round 22 they were second last, sitting on 5 wins; one more win would have seen them miss out on a priority pick. At half time at Kardinia Park they were leading Geelong 10.2 to 7.11, but ended up losing by 51 points after Geelong kicked 14 goals to 3 after half time.
Thus Freo preserved their priority pick, which they used to select Paul Haselby.
You might say that it’s jusr a case of Freo, once again, being rubbish on the road. But many a credentialed footy expert suggests otherwise.
I say this not as a Crows supporter but a follower of the game over the years. I don’t think there is anything particularly remarkable about Geelong’s dominance at the moment. It’s inevitable in this day and age of the draft, salary cap etc. that clus will rotate through the ladder. I’ve still never seen a side as good as Brisbane when they won three in a row and now they’ve missed the finals four years on the trot. Who would’ve thought West Coast would be second to bottom just a couple of years after winning the premiership? Sydney are at the end of their line. Geelong too will be down near the bottom in a few years. It’s what happens now, every kid wins a prize (eventually) and you have to strike while the iron is hot.
I’m quite impressed with the current rebuilding job my Crows are doing at the moment and it will be quite some achievement if Neil Craig gets us back up there without even bottoming out of the finals (dropped to 8th last year). I just hope in the future we pounce on it unlike when we dominated the competition for two years in ’05 and ’06 and failed to capitalise on it.
I wonder how idiotic guys like Robert Walls etc feel now after declaring Victorian teams dead a couple of years ago and whinging about all those big nasty interstate clubs dominating and that the AFL had to step in. Here we are just two years later and only Adelaide and Sydney have made the finals.
My Crows get the honour of ending Collingwood’s finals hopes for another year this time around and can’t wait. Hopefully Eddie will be here to saviour the moment and sing the song…”We’re the pride of South Australia…”
Freo didn’t want to repeat Brisbane’s mistake of 1998 – their recruiting department was said to be livid – when the Loins won the round 22 match at the Gabba against St Kilda by one point, thus missing out on the priority pick by half a game.
Jacques: sure, it’s inevitable that teams will get a turn at the top.
What is historically unusual is the extent to which Geelong have statistically dominated the competition, or at least the home and away season.
Winning 21 of 22 is considerably better than, say, the Hawthorn teams of the 80s, or even Carlton of 1995, managed.
I think there is more to the psychology of a good side than just having the talent available. Even when the Lions were at their peak a few years ago, they were barely the most talented team around – they were never the minor premiers – but they did have the ability to switch on in big games, similar to that described above for Geelong.
Having said that, it’s a bit early to start speculating on history. Geelong will need to win another couple of flags in the next few years to even match recent standards of dominance, let alone historic ones like Collingwood in the late 20s, Melbourne in the late 50s or Hawthorn in the late 80s.
I stand corrected, Tony T. I had succeeded in expunging that debacle from my memory, now it’s back and I can’t say I’m happy.
They looked pretty flaky on Friday night, and I suspect were thinking about losing to stay 3rd bottom (assuming, fairly enough, that Port would be flogged by North) until it became obvious that the Pies were so hopeless they were incapable of winning. About 20 minutes into the 3rd quarter, the choice was to literally lie down, or give the fans a little something for their trouble.
Then Port smashed the Roos, and I got to eat my cake and keep it too!
I’m not making the claim that the Geelong side rates up there with those other teams. ; the agreed-upon criterion for greatness in Aussie rules football is premierships and grand final apperances.
But I do think it’s interesting that amongst dominant sides of the past, Melbourne never managed to only drop one game over a home-and-away season, and nor did Hawthorn. Only Collingwood’s undefeated 1929 season was clearly superior to Geelong’s 2008 home-and-away season.
I just want to know whether there is some systemic factor explaining Essendon and Geelong’s stunning home-and-away seasons occurring now, or if it’s just random chance.
Monocausal explanations for such a complex phenomenon are seductive but unsound temptations.
Many of the above causes for Geelong’s success encompass necessary conditions for success.
Let it not be forgotten, however, that many of these conditions pertained in early 2007 when Geelong suffered a characteristic fade-out vs North Melbourne.
Coach Thompson came close to being sacked, a couple of leading players told some uncharacteristic truths about their colleagues and a long-standing culture of amateurish mediocrity.
Something clicked. The club administration kept its nerve and supported Thompson.
Now Geelong’s culture is spoken of as a winning culture.
How quickly people forget…
This kind of success subsists on a knife’s edge.
There probably weak factors such as you mentioned above. The uneven draw must also have some impact – the only top eight teams that Geelong have had to play twice are North and Sydney, while they’ve been able to play all bottom four teams twice.
Largely I suspect it’s just luck. Geelong have come together as a team when the previously dominant were on the slide, or had fallen altogether, but before the next lot of challengers are quite ready.
For all their boundless talent and confidence, I still find the dominance of Geelong a bit mystifying. brettc said, “Particularly after the 2006 review, fostered a real team culture.” What exactly did they do?
The surprising thing is that it wasn’t a case of gradually improving confidence, gradually better results building up over time — rather, it was like a light switch was flicked. They snapped their fingers and — almost overnight — turned a talented but flaky outfit into a consistent winning machine.
Before 2006, Geelong were a team that could beat anyone on a good day, but also lose to anyone on a bad day, and you never knew what sort of day they were going to have!
Back then, I placed them in the same category as Freo: say three “Hail Marys” and cross yourself before you place a bet on them.
I wish them every success (particularly since I put some $ on them at the start of the season, when the odds were 3:1, hee hee). But as the French say, “don’t sell the bearskin before you have killed the bear”!
This year’s NFL Superbowl featured the apparently unbeatable New England Patriots, with a perfect regular season performance, versus the New York Giants, with a patchy record and a young, inconsistent quarterback. Well, the ‘unbeatable’ Patriots got their asses handed to them, as the Americans say …
On Friday 9th September 2005, a young Geelong team, and all the commentators, the crowd including myself, and the football gods thought Geelong were through to the prelim. final against St Kilda.
It was a typical Swans scraggy scrap with Sydney not having kicked more than 3 goals until the 4th quarter. Nick Davis then kicked 4 goals to win the game, the last kicked with a second to go. Sydney go onto win the flag for first time in 72 years.
A super talented young Geelong team lay on the SCG distraught, most in tears. They don’t recover until the 2007 season.
In 2007, Geelong beat Sydney on ‘points against’ by 30, the next team another 200 points more conceded and then daylight. This year their percentage is even higher.
Geelong have the foot and hand skills to kick huge exciting scores, but also the body strength, tempo match play, and the “guts and determination” to shut down opposition teams, a la Sydney Swans under Roos.
Welcome to footy in the naughties.
I’m with Katz.
A suspension (say, to Mooney) or a couple of untimely injuries (say, to Ablett and Bartel) and Geelong’s winning culture could quick stix become Geelong’s missed opportunity, or to the less charitable, Geelong’s choking culture.
brettc at 9:
Sandy beat North Ballarat to win the 2000 VFL flag.
“I just want to know whether there is some systemic factor explaining Essendon and Geelong’s stunning home-and-away seasons occurring now, or if it’s just random chance.”
I do too, Robert.
As much as I love AFL, there’s one thing about it that really infuriates me: the lack of informed discussion about tactics and strategy.
The TV just focuses on the man-on-man contests, zooming in on the marks and disposals, but you don’t see what’s happening elsewhere on the field, and thus get no idea of tactics.
There’s no equivalent of the detailed American NFL commentary, where they’re drawing diagrams with X’s and O’s and zig-zagging lines to explain what happened. (Admittedly, it’s easier in NFL because of its stop-and-start nature, but still, they could make more of an effort to explain in AFL.)
The radio commenters are morons who explain wins in terms of one team “wanting it more than the other”. Post-game discussions feature interminable legalistic arguments about free kicks and umpiring.
And the mid-week TV commentary is provided by sub-morons. Well, I qualify that — I think Sam Newman is actually quite a bright guy, but he has sold every last shred of integrity in pursuit of cheap and nasty laughs.
Any team with 3 or 4 of its top players out, are going to come back to the field, that’s pretty obvious isn’t it?
As for switching on the lights – I have no idea what relatonship exists but Tom Harley thanked Brett Kirk a number of times after the 07 Grand Final for being such an inspirational leader & person. (trying to find links)
Call it the Kirky Bloods Factor, Paulus.
“I just want to know whether there is some systemic factor explaining Essendon and Geelong’s stunning home-and-away seasons occurring now, or if it’s just random chance.”
Clearly, Geelong has evolved the game in a vastly different direction.
Their high-possession, centring midfield play and willingness to kick to contests on the forward line contradict many previously established precepts.
Certainly, GFC scores heavily off the rebound by the opposition defence. This requires a highly-disciplined gameplan in which midfielders and mobile backmen leave their opponents and trust to their ability to read the play.
This is like the 18th-century British innovation of bayonet drill. Previously, soldiers were drilled to protect themselves. The innovation drilled soldiers to protect the man on his left. For reasons that aren’t completely clear, this drill suppressed the urge of soldiers to break and run, which had been the moment that allowed slaughter.
Drilled esprit de corps? Possibly.
“As much as I love AFL, there’s one thing about it that really infuriates me: the lack of informed discussion about tactics and strategy.”
Absolutely
I remember that when Mick Malthouse was doing finals commentary for Channel 10 when Collingwood was out of the finals in 04/05 and at one point shortly after half time they were discussing kick outs, he asked for a shot from behind the goals to illustrate a point about the way the relevant side was managing kick outs and he just got shut out of the conversation for yet another discussion of midfield stats.
Katz is on to something.
The bayonet drill was designed to win battles against the wild charges of the Scots Highlanders, who the English regarded as primitive hairy savages, more akin to apes than human beings.
In other words, the 18th century equivalent of Collingwood players.
If Collingwood (somehow) makes it through to the Grand Final, we shall no doubt see a modern day re-enactment of the battle of Culloden.
Paulus and Katz, that same wonderful playing-on rebounding out of defence, when Geelong lose the athleticism they show so well at the moment, is going to lead to a lot of drubbings. The moment they start getting caught running out of their fifty metres, it’ll be obvious that they’re unaccountable. Being super-fit and confident is a requirement when a team simply don’t mark up.
This of course parallels the superiority of the bayonet drill to its ancestor, the pike drill. Nastier, slower, unimaginative and designed for poorly trained amateurs, you may now see it in football analogy at any Melbourne Demons match.
Tonyt at 23: OOps, thanks. It was 2002 that Geelong’s VFL group (including most of our current stars) won their VFL premiership. mea culpa.
Martin’s point with the draw is an interesting one. In Essendon’s 2000 season, they played 3 other teams in the 8 twice – Carlton (3rd with a 16/6 record), the Doggies (7th, with a 12/10 record including the famous victory over Essendon), and Hawthorn (8th, 12/10).
There’s also perhaps an issue of whether interstate teams are strong in any given year, and whether you have to play them away (if you only play them once). In 2000 only Brisbane had a decent year (6th at 12/10); however, the Bombers belted them at the Gabba.
Haven’t had time to look through Geelong’s games yet.
“The TV just focuses on the man-on-man contests, zooming in on the marks and disposals, but you don’t see what’s happening elsewhere on the field, and thus get no idea of tactics.”
I agree Paulus. You cant see the oval on the Teev so cant get a sense of the plays at hand. I think the AFL have tried to address this with stuff like Michael Voss doing the ‘NAB Analyser’ examination of plays unfortunatly it only makes sense to himself.
Maybe Voss will get a chance to make it make sense it to the Lions if he gets the gig.
One thing I’ve noticed in Geelong’s game is their ability to make a play and carry it through. One thing that bedevils young players – so many options, then you have to make a decision while the options are alive. Some get it with experience, some done. Geelong doesn’t seem to suffer from that. I wonder if they didn’t just pick players with skills and fitness, but also looked at decision making ability to pick the right option.
Oops – “some don’t” I meant.
Geelong’s dominance is largely psychological. All this popping the ball along to the next player in line a split second before they umpire pings them for holding has the rest of the league (apart from Collingwood) hoodwinked.
It is a near genius strategy. They are also a team of players whose winning self confidence allows them to outplay their direct opponents more times than not.
However Micky M is onto them. Once he gets his team passed the ankle-biters in the first couple of rounds of the finals, Collingwood’ll show the football world that Geelong’s struttin, blind hand-ballin’ preenin’ and weenin’ amounts to nought come the time of the last battle.
In the GF, Mooney will crack first. Johnson will then of course go missing. Stokes’ll be ducking his head. Scarlett’ll be adjusting his socks up and down just so – all to show off his beautiful calves the better. Meanwhile Collingwood will run riot and straight over the top.
Forget Culloden – it’s gonna be 1812 all over again.
wbb – you’re dreamin’
Don’t let me stop you though.
The only systemic facto in the dominance of the teams that you have mentioned Robert is that despite allt he attempts by the AFL to create an even comp, it only takes a few bad decisions by a team, ie, bad draft choices, Haselby for Freo, (I have recently been wondering about the role of groupthink in the national draft as well as the peicemeal approach to the performance indicators that are considered important) ill considered trades, Hall from St Kilda to Sydney, and an inability to get the best out of particular players, again Hall at St Kilda, for the team to miss their draft and salary cap enginerred chance for glory.
That said, i think that geelong at the mo have a few extra advantages. you have already mentioned their home ground advantage, so enough said. Geelong are doing very well out of the Father – Son rule at the mo. this rule doesn’t always deliver, but in the two Abletts and Harley it certainly has. In the last six-seven years Geelong have spent a fair bit of time in the middle of the table and on and off field indiscretions have played havoc with their focus, many teams in the AFL have responded to positions like that by trading the offending players and sacking the coach, Geelong have kept their nerve an dfocus and they are who we are writing about.
Like wwb i am currently dreaming, but my dreams are Rob Harvey favoured. we leave for 4 weeks n NZ on sat and i’ll be looking for a suitable screen in the Gisbourne area. i guess that this means that i will have to cop another lecture from a Kiwi re the prvalance of Aussie rules in NZ durring the inter war years.
“Geelong are doing very well out of the Father – Son rule at the mo”
Certainly – and imagine if they’d got Benny Cousins too (as they arguably should have).
They got Matthew Scarlett under father-son; Tom Harley came from the Power.
Tom Hawkins is another father-son pick, but he’s not a big factor right now (though he’s obviously got few potential).
Not sure how you figure this, dylwah. At the Saints, Hall won no premierships. Sydney transferred Hall, and the team played in two grand finals and won a flag.
By all sensible measure both Hall and Sydney made a good trade in 2001.
They got Matthew Scarlett under father-son; Tom Harley came from the Power.
Tom Hawkins is another father-son pick
Pffft, got my Hiatchs mixed up.
Liam. A good trade for Hall and Sydney, not the saints.
“hiatch”?
Is that like a male biatch?
Mate, you’re thinking of the Toyota Hiatch, their cross between a hatchback and a courier van. Yes, it’s a panelvan.
In understand they’re getting Fraser Gehrig to star in the ads.
Yes, I think AFL fans speak with unanimity (minus one sixteenth) on this matter: what’s bad for St Kilda is good for the league.
Other father sons are, of course the two Abletts, Blake and next year possibly Larry Donohue’s son.
I’m looking forward to the first instance of the new “challenge” set-up in which clubs must match bids for father-son candidates.
I’m going with the random chance explanation for now until we see a couple more teams dominate a season like Essendon did and Geelong has. Otherwise the draw seems the most likely explanation to me, with top teams playing less matches against other top teams and in hostile territory (although from memory, there have been many seasons where each team did not play all of the other teams twice).
Which raises the spectre of *shock horror*….
An ACTUAL home and away season! Where everyone plays everyone… home and away!
Scrap the pre-season, shorten the finals, lose the split round, and play 30 rounds of H&A football.
which is great until the Gold Coast and Western Sydney teams come into the competition…
Voss was a great footballer. Fearless, hard at it, skillful, a bit of mongrel, a natural. If he makes a good coach then I for one can’t see it. As an old Fitzroy follower from ‘way back I’d love him to succeed but listening to him talking football tactics with Malcolm Blight during the West Coast Geelong game made Voss sound like a novice. Blight was a champion footballer and a master coach. He knew how to get a dodgy Adelaide side up against better performed, more talented opponents twice in the only game that is remembered in any season. Forget StKilda, they needed cleaning out and it has taken years to achieve that. Blighty had a long apprenticeship with a team of champions and learned the lessons well. A champion team plays to instruction to the letter. They strive to attain a level of commitment and endeavor that inspires the confidence required to be winners.
I’m with you FDB but 16 teams is enough, how about relegation?
I wasn’t arguing for more teams Zorro. 30 rounds = 16 teams H&A. Less if anything would be good, then we could keep the crazy ideosyncratic finals series intact without playing from early autumn to late spring.
Oh, and yes to relegation in theory, but I dunno if there’s enough cash in the game to regularly have teams stepping up and down. The expense would be colossal.
Amalgamation worked for my old side. Love the sight of the old Maroon and Blue when they deign to wear it as an away strip. Yes should have done the math.anyway where would they relegate to? By the bye I tore a calf tackling the pinnacle this morning. Now that reminded me what footy’s all about.
I suppose every five years you could work out the top 2 sides from each state comp who want to try and step up, averaged from results over the intervening 5 seasons, and have them play off for a single spot. The bottom AFL side (on the same criteria) would just go back, or in some cases “back”, to their home state’s league.
Now that would be an interesting process. How many years before half a dozen Vic. sides languishing in the VFL watching Subiaco and Sturt playing the AFL grandfinal?
Send a notice of Relegation Rules to all AFL clubs with attached possible outcome as above and re-introduce the amalgamation suggestion.
There might well be a level playing field in terms of number of kids playing in a state and number of teams representing their hopes and dreams.
*pauses to hurl at own mawkishness*.
But ultimately there’s no reason why Vic shouldn’t continue to be over-represented in purely numerical terms, as would be proper if they’ve got a stronger player base.
It would certainly change everything – state-based teams wouldn’t be as keen to let star players go, it would play havoc with the draft system*, and as I only thought of it off the top of my head an hour ago there’s probably a lot else…
Let’s face it – my plan needs a bit more time in the oven. The effects would mostly be good for the game, though.
*actually, this would be mostly good too. The long-term effects of finishing last in a season (putting yourself in relegation territory) might offset the short-term incentive to tank for a pick, and the reverse-meritocracy aspect of the draft might work better.
Couldn’t give a stuff about Geelong or any other AFL team, but singular verb for a team please. As in How good is Geelong and who cares?
I think it serves as a handy disambiguator, but yes you’re technically correct.
The best KIND of correct!