Skills are far more valuable than many modern football clubs realise

Yep. I can hear the chorus of people here (and at the club) calling for us to have poor skills.

Interesting that the comparion was with West Coast, who were one of the poorest skilled clubs af all in 2010. Especially considering the closesness of our picks int he 2008 draft, where we can see where the focus was for each club.

Melbourne West Coast

Pick 1 - Jack Watts 2- Nic Naitanui

17- Sam Blease 18- Luke Shuey

19- James Strauss 20- Tom Swift

35- Jamie Bennell 36- Ash Smith

51- Neville Jetta 52- Jordan Jones

64- Rohan Bail

So, looking at that, we picked 5 highly skilled players and a roughie (Bail). Each time we picked a highly skilled player in preference (Watts - Naitanui, Strauss - Swift, Jetta - Jones, while we both picked skill with Blease, Shuey, Bennell and Swift).

I don't think any team doesn't think that skill is important. Including us.

... by the introduction of an un-even fixture, by the un-even salary caps, by the un-even outside $ for one club and screw the rest, by [censored] video reviews where the goal umpire in perfect position is overruled by boundry umpire/s 20m+ away, by MRP decisions where well supported clubs are given preference to less well supported clubs, by MFC playing 'home' games at an away venue ... ... ... .. .. .. . . .

That's just you having a general [censored] about everything. The only two that are vaguely rational are the first two, but even they aren't examples of the AFL deliberately trying to skew the playing field.

1- The fixture. Have you got a better idea to have the fixture fairer? Besides, the outcome of the draw is random from year to year. Some years the draw is helpful, some years it isn't. That isn't the AFL deliberately trying to keep the low teams at the bottom.

2- The salary cap was an effort to keep things level. It was on the basis that it was more difficult to keep players in Sydney and Brisbane, and also that it was difficult to lure players to GWS and GC without using money. They needed extra money to get players, much in the same way that we would have to pay extra money to Cloke if we were to get him to leave Collingwood. These conditions were also agreed to by the clubs.

In other words, the AFL tries its hardest to keep a level playing field because that's what makes it a great product.

That's just you having a general [censored] about everything.

1- The fixture. Have you got a better idea to have the fixture fairer? Besides, the outcome of the draw is random from year to year. Some years the draw is helpful, some years it isn't. That isn't the AFL deliberately trying to keep the low teams at the bottom.

2- The salary cap was an effort to keep things level. It was on the basis that it was more difficult to keep players in Sydney and Brisbane, and also that it was difficult to lure players to GWS and GC without using money. They needed extra money to get players, much in the same way that we would have to pay extra money to Cloke if we were to get him to leave Collingwood. These conditions were also agreed to by the clubs.

In other words, the AFL tries its hardest to keep a level playing field because that's what makes it a great product.

OK. So a couple of clubs don't have 10% more money to field their teams.

So many clubs don't have twice any many games against the easy beats as the previous years top 8.

The AFL tries its hardest to make money. Period.

Edit: THAT is why GWS gets a gig over Tassie.

Edited July 11, 201213 yr by Trident

OK. So a couple of clubs don't have 10% more money to field their teams.

So many clubs don't have twice any many games against the easy beats as the previous years top 8.

The AFL tries its hardest to make money. Period.

Edit: THAT is why GWS gets a gig over Tassie.

First point has been previously explained.

Second point is not true. No club has twice the number of games against the two easy beats than any other club. The most is 3 games, the least is 2.

The AFL is in place to represent the clubs and the interests of the game of AFL football. It is a non-profit organisation that distrubutes any extra money to the club that it represents. It's aim is to promote AFL football and that include a healthy AFL competition which is competitive. Having its clubs being financially viable is part of that. It maximises its profits where possible so that it can reinvest in the game to both grow the game and keep its member clubs financially healthy.

The AFL is invested in the competitiveness of the league. It has no reason to reduce competition within the league.

The AFL is invested in the competitiveness of the league. It has no reason to reduce competition within the league.

Complete and utter lie.

Why, then, did the AFL tolerate Sydneys TPP absolute advantage in its premiership years? Why did TPP differences exist at all? It's 'difficult'?!

Well excuse me says 16th placed MFC.

Why, then, did the AFL sanction Judds transfer vs Scully's retention?

No comment?

IF the playing field was even I'd entertain your musings AoB.

It is not. Nor has it been even close in the last decade+.

Edited July 11, 201213 yr by Trident

... by the introduction of an un-even fixture, by the un-even salary caps, by the un-even outside $ for one club and screw the rest, by [censored] video reviews where the goal umpire in perfect position is overruled by boundry umpire/s 20m+ away, by MRP decisions where well supported clubs are given preference to less well supported clubs, by MFC playing 'home' games at an away venue ... ... ... .. .. .. . . .

well said Trident.

Though they do prop up the "lesser clubs" financially.

Why, then, did the AFL sanction Judds transfer vs Scully's retention?

When Anderson came out and basically said he would stop us trying to keep him, in a similar manner to the way Carlton got Judd, I thought that was absolutely disgusting by the AFL.

Why, then, did the AFL sanction Judds transfer vs Scully's retention?

Ironically, the AFL stopped Judd-esq deals because they thought that it would be unfair on the poorer clubs without the connections. They were trying to make the salary cap stricter. ie, make it more even.

Why, then, did the AFL tolerate Sydneys TPP absolute advantage in its premiership years? Why did TPP differences exist at all? It's 'difficult'?!

The Sydney TPP excess was due to the increased cost of living in Sydney. It originally had (some time ago) extra due to the difficulty in luring/keeping players in Sydney (like Brisbane) but that has since disappeared as the club became a more attractive place to be and NSW/QLD are producing more native players. So the only part it gets is due to the cost of living allowance.

It was done to make it fair for those clubs.

As I said, the AFL is invested in the evenness of the competition. But everyone likes a bad guy, so the AFL is an easy target for you. But your complaints against them are misguided if you believe them to be specifically aimed at keeping the poorer clubs (like ours) on the bottom of the ladder.

OK. I get your AFL endorsement hinges on what you say. I can't be arsed anymore and therefore you win. Go franchise x. I r retrard'd.

No comment?

Ah. The post in support of changing the rules as they benefit non franchise teams. So much for the 'competitiveness of the league' +1

Edited July 11, 201213 yr by Trident

I can't be arsed anymore and therefore you win.

Sorry, I thought you'd finished.

[another post that clearly shows that you can be arsed, but have run out of arguments]

Aparently not.

Could you possibly respond to the the arguments presented? Tough ask, I know.

Edited July 11, 201213 yr by Trident

The Sydney TPP excess was due to the increased cost of living in Sydney

So. Is the AFL giving Perth based teams more money due to their current higher costs of living than anywhere else in the country? No? Why is that?

Edited July 11, 201213 yr by Trident

Could you possibly respond to the the arguments presented? Tough ask, I know.

So you can be arsed.

I have responded to every 'argument' you have presented. If there is one that I have missed then quote it and I will respond to it.

..... happily.

"No comment?"

Edited July 11, 201213 yr by Axis of Bob

Never mind. Won't be arsed again. You win 5 monopoly dollars. Everything is wonderful.

Never mind. Won't be arsed again. You win 5 monopoly dollars. Everything is wonderful.

So I had responded to everything. Thanks, but please stop making things up to win cheap points.

OK. I get your AFL endorsement hinges on what you say.

Yep. I can hear the chorus of people here (and at the club) calling for us to have poor skills.

Interesting that the comparion was with West Coast, who were one of the poorest skilled clubs af all in 2010. Especially considering the closesness of our picks int he 2008 draft, where we can see where the focus was for each club.

Melbourne West Coast

Pick 1 - Jack Watts 2- Nic Naitanui

17- Sam Blease 18- Luke Shuey

19- James Strauss 20- Tom Swift

35- Jamie Bennell 36- Ash Smith

51- Neville Jetta 52- Jordan Jones

64- Rohan Bail

So, looking at that, we picked 5 highly skilled players and a roughie (Bail). Each time we picked a highly skilled player in preference (Watts - Naitanui, Strauss - Swift, Jetta - Jones, while we both picked skill with Blease, Shuey, Bennell and Swift).

I don't think any team doesn't think that skill is important. Including us.

You are confusing natural talent/skills with an emphasis on time spent on skills in training, relative to other factors, eg boundary line stoppage clearances. I have said many times on other posts that most of the players on club lists have talent/skills or they wouldn't be there. That is very different from the approach an individual club takes to time spent on skills training - the style of play of some clubs requires a much higher level of skills for success than the more rugby-like style adopted by others, to use an extreme comparison.

On the issue of the need for all clubs to pay at least 95% of the salary cap, my suspicion is that this has been put in place to avoid restraint of trade action by players. Because of the draft system players are unable to choose where they play. The draft prevent players from seeking market rates (although this will be partially overcome with free agency...which still won't help young players). So to avoid legal action, I suspect the requirement that every club paying at least 95% means every player should be able to get close to market rate wherever he ends up being drafted to.

Here, here! Thats why you find us still doing Pre-season training 10 rounds into the season!

It's common knowledge that Neeld and Mission were astonished by how poor our fitness levels were in comparison to other clubs and players. This season has been a write off since the word go as we have bad to use it building up fitness to work into 2013 and beyond!

Next year you will see that with fitter bodies comes a huge improvement in skills and gameplay. Mark my words

This really needs more love, unfortunately 2012 is yet another transition year.

I think that the club, unfortunately, is still feeling the after-effects of Junction Oval.

After training in substandard (even for VFL) facilities for so long, then going to the state-of-the-art AAMI Park, it's going to be some time before the benefits are fully realised.

Unfortunately for we supporters, and as much as it frustrates me week-in, week-out, it means we will have to deal with yet more 'rebuilding' whilst the players get fitter.

Great article in the herald sun regarding kicking accuracy:

"WHEN West Coast was wallowing at the tail end of the AFL ladder only two years ago, embattled coach John Worsfold made a decision that played a key role in the club's resurrection from also-ran to contender.

Kicking, and in particular, the clean use of the ball, was going to be the club's benchmark. Those good at using the Sherrin were going to be given chances; those who weren't had to get better quickly or make way; and those who were targeted by the club in the national draft had to be proficient with the "pill".

Fast-forward to 2012 and the Eagles loom as a serious chance to win their fourth AFL premiership"

http://www.news.com....5-1226419850156

I presume Melbourne rates fairly low in this "Hit Rate"

We have struggled all year to hit targets and thus control the ball.

I can rattle off almost a dozen names that are dreadful by foot. Not sure if this comes down to skill, fitness or an understanding (lack of) of coaches instruction.

Its time for the football department to make the tough decisions and get rid of those that are below par.

Hei Bandicoot that's all a little Simplistic.

Melb are instructed(game plan) to ignore short passes to corridor and preference longer kicks to a boundary contest. This uncertainty is a large reason for the poor kicking accuracy. All players that make AFL standard can kick very well. Comes down to the coaching , confidence and if that's all good the kicking will be fine.

Not sure if you attended the Tigers game? Did you notice Melbourne rarely now handball "over the top" to the loose player. Luke Hodge commented on this. The loose player is wasted. Melbourne kick long as possible to Contest. Did you also notice several Out on the full free kicks against us?

So it's more about certainly or uncertainty that leads to the poor kick not necessarily the player is generally a poor kick. Makes sense?

Yep. I can hear the chorus of people here (and at the club) calling for us to have poor skills.

Interesting that the comparion was with West Coast, who were one of the poorest skilled clubs af all in 2010. Especially considering the closesness of our picks int he 2008 draft, where we can see where the focus was for each club.

Melbourne West Coast

Pick 1 - Jack Watts 2- Nic Naitanui

17- Sam Blease 18- Luke Shuey

19- James Strauss 20- Tom Swift

35- Jamie Bennell 36- Ash Smith

51- Neville Jetta 52- Jordan Jones

64- Rohan Bail

So, looking at that, we picked 5 highly skilled players and a roughie (Bail). Each time we picked a highly skilled player in preference (Watts - Naitanui, Strauss - Swift, Jetta - Jones, while we both picked skill with Blease, Shuey, Bennell and Swift).

I don't think any team doesn't think that skill is important. Including us.

IMO, Shuey would oF struggled at Melbourne given the lack of dominant good big players to support and give out easy possessions. . Kennedy, Darling, Cox, NicN Lynch...same goes for a lot of the other names bandied around. We had one in Neitz a few years back and now Clark but that's it.

Watts is burning IMO> If West Coast had him would be almost bronwlow material by now.

Players of the Ilk of Gysberts, Morton Bay, Moloney, Sylvia even Aaron Davey and Bennell would by absolute stars if they played for West Coast.