Equalisation ... I don't think so

[Demonsone 2,044]

The introduction of the draft & salary cap in 1986 was to ensure all clubs could possibly have the same chance to win a flag & stop clubs from going broke etc....

Since 1990 flags

Melb - 0

Nth Melb -2

Stkilda - 0

Bulldogs-0

Richmond-0

Carlton-1

Essen-1

Coll -2

Haw-4

Geel-3

can you see equalisation???

Afl committed to expansion rather than foundation clubs.....

[deespicable me 1,498]

Bring back the priority pick.

I believe the "Melbourne tanked" debacle and consequent angst towards us by all and sundry with the overall sentiment being "they don't deserve a priority pick" made it easy for the AFL and those with vested interests (the powerful clubs) to take it away. I was surprised and disappointed at the lack of support for one of the enjoyable idiosyncrasies of the draft that added a bit of spice for those supporters who had had to endure a poor year of performance on the field.

One question that was rarely asked in the debate that conspired against Melbourne was did we actually deserve a priority pick. Clearly the answer was yes. I know people also said that teaching a footy club to lose games goes against the grain and creates a poor culture and I think Melbourne were definitely guilty of those sins. In fact Melbourne were pretty bad at everything they did. Maybe they still are.

But even so the priority pick was never intended for such lowly purposes or to give incentive to poorly performing teams to perform even poorer. It was intended to even up the fortunes of the teams on the field in the coming seasons. To create a cycle that allows teams the opportunity to rise back up the ladder irrespective of whether they were a crap club that would blow the chance anyway.

Eventually if they keep getting draft assistance they will rise. GWS are proof of that. Remember this is based on the correct presumption that if your team rises up the ladder you can achieve a much better off field result as well.

Obviously it was abused and the criteria for receiving the priority pick needed reviewing but I think it was a mistake to scrap it, or indeed put it at the discretion of the AFL. What with umpiring and the MRP you can guarantee they'll get that wrong.

Melbourne have been down the bottom for far too long. Its no good for anyone. The AFL isn't robust enough to sustain a club that performs as badly as we have over the past decade. If we remain in the bottom four next year we would have to consider folding. People suggested we got paid overs for Frawley leaving last year. I certainly don't. If the power clubs can take a KPS leading player from a bottom 4 club in his prime at about 25 and lose nothing themselves, the only restriction being to fit him in the salary cap then the bottom 4 club has been given a massive disadvantage. Massive.

If Brisbane or Carlton go through a decade similar to our last decade the drain on the competition will be enormous.

I think this way because I can't see us ever getting back on an even footing with the more powerful clubs. I don't believe we can get there without help. I know some people hate the idea of a welfare system but they better get used to the bottom 4.

[poita 3,902]

Do you really think Hawthorn was in a better position than Melbourne at any time in the 1990s? Or in the first half of the 2000s for that matter?

The reason they have won 3 premierships in the past seven years is because they have spent the past 12 years or so making consistently good decisions, whilst we have spent 12 years being totally inept in all aspects. Yes, after 9 years of mediocrity the AFL could probably do a bit more to help us out, but they are hardly the reason why we are in our current predicament.

Having said that, why is that the NRL have a far more equal competition than the AFL without a draft?

[rjay 25,093]

Do you really think Hawthorn was in a better position than Melbourne at any time in the 1990s? Or in the first half of the 2000s for that matter?

The reason they have won 3 premierships in the past seven years is because they have spent the past 12 years or so making consistently good decisions, whilst we have spent 12 years being totally inept in all aspects. Yes, after 9 years of mediocrity the AFL could probably do a bit more to help us out, but they are hardly the reason why we are in our current predicament.

Having said that, why is that the NRL have a far more equal competition than the AFL without a draft?

Of course they were...they won a premiership in 1991 and were the best performed team of the 70's-80's.

Yes they made good decisions and we made disastrous ones but they had a better base to build from. They also had a stable board led by Ian Dicker that set the club up.

There's no doubt we have been a rabble but even if we had of got it right we still wouldn't have been able to build the membership base that Hawthorn has.

We would have been looking at a premiership though.

[rjay 25,093]

Mike Sheahan was saying we should have a 12 team competition.

I agree, but what clubs should make up the 12 teams?

[Chris 2,892]

Mike Sheahan was saying we should have a 12 team competition.

I agree, but what clubs should make up the 12 teams?

Remove six VIC clubs is the answer that would be found.

That would be the Dees, Saints, Dogs, and Roos for sure, but which two of the Cats, Tigers, Pies, Hawks, Blues, and Dons would go? My money would be on Blues and Cats.

[Chris 2,892]

Do you really think Hawthorn was in a better position than Melbourne at any time in the 1990s? Or in the first half of the 2000s for that matter?

The reason they have won 3 premierships in the past seven years is because they have spent the past 12 years or so making consistently good decisions, whilst we have spent 12 years being totally inept in all aspects. Yes, after 9 years of mediocrity the AFL could probably do a bit more to help us out, but they are hardly the reason why we are in our current predicament.

Having said that, why is that the NRL have a far more equal competition than the AFL without a draft?

A few high priority picks certainly helped things along, even if they got them from sending all the good player away for 'surgery' to ensure the lost enough games. Pies did the same thing, no one ever questions either of them, or the flags they won as a result of their tanking.

[old dee 23,872]

Remove six VIC clubs is the answer that would be found.

That would be the Dees, Saints, Dogs, and Roos for sure, but which two of the Cats, Tigers, Pies, Hawks, Blues, and Dons would go? My money would be on Blues and Cats.

Not sure about six Chris but four need to go.

The talent pool is spread too far for 18 teams.

If one of the deletions happens to be the MFC so be it.

It will never happen of course because the AFL has too much invested in 18 teams.

Also there would be a tremendous loss of supporters for the game in total if four teams were eliminated.

[daisycutter 29,743]

Remove six VIC clubs is the answer that would be found.

That would be the Dees, Saints, Dogs, and Roos for sure, but which two of the Cats, Tigers, Pies, Hawks, Blues, and Dons would go? My money would be on Blues and Cats.

chris, your argument though presumes that a reduction to 12 means only a reduction of vic clubs.

this assumption means only 4 clubs in vic but still 2 each in nsw and qld

this would never fly

more logical mix for 12, would be 6 + 2 + 2 + 1 + 1......or maybe 5 + 2 + 2 + 1 + 1 +1 (tas)

but there again why 12? (apart from 2 x 11 = 22) why not 14? (and top 8 must play each other twice next year)

Edited July 28, 2015 by daisycutter

[sue 9,145]

Not sure about six Chris but four need to go.

The talent pool is spread too far for 18 teams.

If one of the deletions happens to be the MFC so be it.

It will never happen of course because the AFL has too much invested in 18 teams.

Also there would be a tremendous loss of supporters for the game in total if four teams were eliminated.

I don't buy the 'talent pool is spread too thin for 18 teams' argument. It is the distribution of talent across the teams that is the problem. If Hawthorn had a few of our players and we had a few of theirs, games would be far more competitive and the standard of play for spectators would not be much worse. Obviously my argument fails if the number of teams is very large, but I doubt if 18 is too large.

[Chris 2,892]

chris, your argument though presumes that a reduction to 12 means only a reduction of vic clubs.

this assumption means only 4 clubs in vic but still 2 each in nsw and qld

this would never fly

more logical mix for 12, would be 6 + 2 + 2 + 1 + 1......or maybe 5 + 2 + 2 + 1 + 1 +1 (tas)

but there again why 12? (apart from 2 x 11 = 22) why not 14? (and top 8 must play each other twice next year)

Made the call on four remaining Vic teams as I think the AFL would not want to waste the investment made interstate and the potential growth. This of course ignores the damage to the heartland of the sport, but hey, it isn't like they have taken any notice of that over the last 20 years or so!

[dee-luded 2,959]

Bring back the priority pick.

I believe the "Melbourne tanked" debacle and consequent angst towards us by all and sundry with the overall sentiment being "they don't deserve a priority pick" made it easy for the AFL and those with vested interests (the powerful clubs) to take it away. I was surprised and disappointed at the lack of support for one of the enjoyable idiosyncrasies of the draft that added a bit of spice for those supporters who had had to endure a poor year of performance on the field.

One question that was rarely asked in the debate that conspired against Melbourne was did we actually deserve a priority pick. Clearly the answer was yes. I know people also said that teaching a footy club to lose games goes against the grain and creates a poor culture and I think Melbourne were definitely guilty of those sins. In fact Melbourne were pretty bad at everything they did. Maybe they still are.

But even so the priority pick was never intended for such lowly purposes or to give incentive to poorly performing teams to perform even poorer. It was intended to even up the fortunes of the teams on the field in the coming seasons. To create a cycle that allows teams the opportunity to rise back up the ladder irrespective of whether they were a crap club that would blow the chance anyway.

Eventually if they keep getting draft assistance they will rise. GWS are proof of that. Remember this is based on the correct presumption that if your team rises up the ladder you can achieve a much better off field result as well.

Obviously it was abused and the criteria for receiving the priority pick needed reviewing but I think it was a mistake to scrap it, or indeed put it at the discretion of the AFL. What with umpiring and the MRP you can guarantee they'll get that wrong.

Melbourne have been down the bottom for far too long. Its no good for anyone. The AFL isn't robust enough to sustain a club that performs as badly as we have over the past decade. If we remain in the bottom four next year we would have to consider folding. People suggested we got paid overs for Frawley leaving last year. I certainly don't. If the power clubs can take a KPS leading player from a bottom 4 club in his prime at about 25 and lose nothing themselves, the only restriction being to fit him in the salary cap then the bottom 4 club has been given a massive disadvantage. Massive.

If Brisbane or Carlton go through a decade similar to our last decade the drain on the competition will be enormous.

I think this way because I can't see us ever getting back on an even footing with the more powerful clubs. I don't believe we can get there without help. I know some people hate the idea of a welfare system but they better get used to the bottom 4.

again the priority pick isn't a bad thing its a good thing, but it needs to be used well in conjunction with a first 8 draft picks raffle... so clubs cannot bank on a certain pick number & player.

if its a raffle, its up in the arms of fate as to which order happens, & which clubs get certain players, stopping the artificial fixing of wins/losses....

[dee-luded 2,959]

Do you really think Hawthorn was in a better position than Melbourne at any time in the 1990s? Or in the first half of the 2000s for that matter?

The reason they have won 3 premierships in the past seven years is because they have spent the past 12 years or so making consistently good decisions, whilst we have spent 12 years being totally inept in all aspects. Yes, after 9 years of mediocrity the AFL could probably do a bit more to help us out, but they are hardly the reason why we are in our current predicament.

Having said that, why is that the NRL have a far more equal competition than the AFL without a draft?

the reason they are making great decisions is 'they're culture', of taking no prisoners.

they make no excuses or beg your pardons with how they go about stuff. they are focused on winning, & will push their way through to get what they want.

we are still to soft, because our culture is constantly infected by a gentile` cricket based culture of gentlemanly, politically correct, non aggressive ness.

the soft-underbelly demons

we need to cut loose from the culture of the MCC. it hurts anything of aggression.

[Dr John Dee 1,057]

Probably as good a place to put this as anywhere: I see Josh Gibson's been 'equalised' with another fine. Nice to see that standards are being maintained.

[WhyAlwaysMe 237]

Mike Sheahan was saying we should have a 12 team competition.

I agree, but what clubs should make up the 12 teams?

i also agree, & also believe this would fix all AFL problems.

We see players like Brayshaw & Hogan come into the side & marvel at how good they are but that should be the standard not the exeption, the premier AFL comp should not be a place for players like Toumpas & junior trainees to learn there trade, in years gone by kids only played footy or cricket, now they have many other choice & a mobile phone.

[Whispering_Jack 30,674]

Just on the point concerning Hawthorn, I have no doubt that good administration and excellent coaching and player development played a major role in its rise over the past decade but you need some breaks with your drafting as well.

They got a major break when Fremantle dealt them the number 1 pick which gave them Luke Hodge and picked up a slow reject midfielder in Sam Mitchell but they really hit the bonanza with their picks in the 2004 AFL Draft after getting priority pick 2 when the media and clubs were largely ignoring the shenanigans going on to achieve them and trading to get pick 7.

Their selections were:

2. Jarryd Roughead

5. Lance Franklin

7. Jordan Lewis

These, along with Cyril Rioli, a couple of years later were the keys to the Hawthorn rebuild that's made them a strength to this very day.

Imagine however, if the Hawks had found themselves in the 2004 position a year earlier:-

These were the equivalent draft selections from the 2003 AFL Draft:-

2. Andrew Walker

5. Brock McLean

7. Kane Tenace.

[Dr. Gonzo 24,305]

Hawthorn also came good off field on the back of an unprecedented period of success in the modern era (1975-1991). That's a whole generation of kids who grew up seeing nothing but Hawthorn in Grand Finals.

Edited July 29, 2015 by Dr. Gonzo

[Moonshadow 17,677]

Probably as good a place to put this as anywhere: I see Josh Gibson's been 'equalised' with another fine. Nice to see that standards are being maintained.

Helps when you have Hawthorn people on the panel dishing out 'penalties'.

[Biffen 12,947]

They should consider merging the Qld and NSW clubs firstly.

1 team per state.

[jnrmac 20,189]

I don't buy the 'talent pool is spread too thin for 18 teams' argument. It is the distribution of talent across the teams that is the problem. If Hawthorn had a few of our players and we had a few of theirs, games would be far more competitive and the standard of play for spectators would not be much worse. Obviously my argument fails if the number of teams is very large, but I doubt if 18 is too large.

Agreed. Its the commercial opportunities that distort the ability to recruity players.

[Moonshadow 17,677]

They should consider merging the Qld and NSW clubs firstly.

1 team per state.

Does that include Victoria as well? I'd think reducing the Vic teams is the obvious starting point. Competently managed growth in NSW and Qld should also be the focus. Neither of those will happen though.

Edited July 30, 2015 by Moonshadow

[dee-luded 2,959]

I don't buy the 'talent pool is spread too thin for 18 teams' argument. It is the distribution of talent across the teams that is the problem. If Hawthorn had a few of our players and we had a few of theirs, games would be far more competitive and the standard of play for spectators would not be much worse. Obviously my argument fails if the number of teams is very large, but I doubt if 18 is too large.

I agree Sue.

the problem with disenchantment, is the people are not consulted on changes to their game. all other stake holders are consulted & bowed to, but the paying public.

..... seems the AFL & TV company's, & other businesses, think the public are perennial sheep. & will cough up on demand & 'barrr' when told to.

arrogance of big business with board rooms, is ruining this world we knew.

[Spirit of 26 261]

“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”

​Delete "animals" - replace with "clubs".

[dee-luded 2,959]

“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”

​Delete "animals" - replace with "clubs".

northern clubs

[Bluey's Dad 3,419]

“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”

​Delete "animals" - replace with "clubs".

This is it.

This wins the internet.

I'm putting this in my next 'AFL fan survey'.