Equalisation of Competition

[Demonsone 1,617]

As for the Hawks - they understand the parameters and the rules of engagement and conduct their activities accordingly. Rather than being envious, I see them as the benchmark that we can aspire to - we need to be aggressive and confident with our intentions.

There's no reason why we can't build a great list ... as an example - if we had to give up a 1st round pick in next years draft to help secure a top player this season, why couldn't we offset that drafting loss by securing the services of 2 decent free agents at the end of next season?

Having an average to fair list (as we have now) should always mean that we should have loads of salary cap space ... so, the bringing in of free agents should not come with any barriers. We'd probably need to make 2 "in principle" agreements with those free agents now (or perhaps, 6 months ago) but it's entirely do-able.

That's the new footy landscape - we need to be way ahead of the game. Otherwise, we'll be also-rans. Forever reacting rather than being proactive.

Bottom clubs struggle to secure classy free agents... We offered Dangefield big $$$ but no interest .... Good players wanna go to top clubs to win a flag.. Eg frawley .. Vicious circle & got caught in the cycle of bad drafting & expansion clubs ...

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

Bottom clubs struggle to secure classy free agents... We offered Dangefield big $$$ but no interest .... Good players wanna go to top clubs to win a flag.. Eg frawley .. Vicious circle & got caught in the cycle of bad drafting & expansion clubs ...

In the case of Dangerfield he is going from a team who did play finals to a team who didn't play finals simply because he wants to be closer to his home town.

He provided Adelaide with many years of great service, I have no problem with this at all.

[SaberFang 7,141]

The point is also well founded that the first round is no longer much of an advantage draft-wise in an 18 team competition.

All well and good to land pick 1 like Carlton, but they don't get another pick until 19. In a shallow draft, that's just another Lucas Cook waiting to happen.

The better clubs have the advantage of being attractive propositions for free agents; it's time the lower clubs got a leg-up in the draft. The bottom 6 should share the top 12 picks, before the other 12 teams get a go. The clubs that get 2 early picks could change each year depending on wins/losses. For example, this year there's a pretty noticeable gap between 12th (Collingwood, 10 wins) and 13th (us, 7 wins), thus making the bottom 6 the obvious candidates for draft assistance.

Edited October 3, 2015 by Lamashtu

[Dr. Gonzo 22,524]

So much whinging.

We have been completely incompetent for 8 years.

Blaming the AFL for our drafting errors and horror management doesn't help.

Win games and they will come

It's about the competition not just the MFC.

[Macca 16,173]

Bottom clubs struggle to secure classy free agents... We offered Dangefield big $$$ but no interest .... Good players wanna go to top clubs to win a flag.. Eg frawley .. Vicious circle & got caught in the cycle of bad drafting & expansion clubs ...

Free agency is only 3 years old ... the sample size is nowhere near big enough to make overall absolute appraisals of how it's all going to work looking ahead. The path we go down as a sport with regards to free agency will end up mirroring other sports.

Like always, many have been slow to embrace the concept including (in my opinion) the clubs themselves. Essendon have been a little aggressive but that may have a lot to do with the PED investigation. The Hawks have well and truly jumped on board but again, they seem to be the most aggressive.

I reckon we'd all feel a lot differently if we had have already secured a few quality free agents. Of course, we've been hamstrung by the whole compo thing but we stuffed up our compo anyway in the 2012 off-season (notwithstanding turning that 3rd round compo pick into Kent)

And a free agent doesn't have to be the quality of Dangerfield either - there are many free agents who could be secured who, whilst not being superstars, they would certainly improve a list like ours.

But to get them you have to get in early - forget the rules, clubs talk to agents on a constant basis and it wouldn't be too difficult to put an "unofficial" offer to a would-be free agent.

[Redleg 37,858]

In the case of Dangerfield he is going from a team who did play finals to a team who didn't play finals simply because he wants to be closer to his home town.

He provided Adelaide with many years of great service, I have no problem with this at all.

When he committed to the Cats they were a regular finalist.

[deespicable me 1,435]

The point is also well founded that the first round is no longer much of an advantage draft-wise in an 18 team competition.

All well and good to land pick 1 like Carlton, but they don't get another pick until 19. In a shallow draft, that's just another Lucas Cook waiting to happen.

The better clubs have the advantage of being attractive propositions for free agents; it's time the lower clubs got a leg-up in the draft. The bottom 6 should share the top 12 picks, before the other 12 teams get a go. The clubs that get 2 early picks could change each year depending on wins/losses. For example, this year there's a pretty noticeable gap between 12th (Collingwood, 10 wins) and 13th (us, 7 wins), thus making the bottom 6 the obvious candidates for draft assistance.

A lot of posters, public and most journalists and commentators won't agree with you but people should ask themselves

"what do Hawthorn need to add to their team to be a top four contender next year?"

The answer is obviously not a lot.

Now ask yourself

"What do Carlton or Brisbane need to add to their team just to get OUT of the bottom four next year" and clearly the answer is lots.

And yet the difference in drafting scope for each team, apart from subjective pick numbers is very little.

As good as Hawthorn is, and they are indeed very good, they are now in a position where they can pick and choose as managers parade free agency players in front of them and take their time developing a John O'Rorke, Will Langford, Sicily (gun) or Jed Anderson. Have ready made players on the fringe of the team like Schoenmakers, Simpkin, Hartung or that bearded Jesus looking guy (maybe it is Jesus) ready to go when there are injuries or rotations against weak teams.

Hawthorn don't need high draft picks.

Look at Carlton. Liam Jones. Vojo Rainbow. Watson. No forward line. And yes all those players they gave away to other clubs. With Henderson and Yarran, both around the 25 age mark and ready made footballers about to join the long list of players that are better having moved away.

And yes like us, they were crap at picking, developing and holding onto talent.

But that doesn't mean they need to spend the next ten years in and out of the bottom four. (as much as we wouldn't mind that scenario at all I'm talking about the health of the competition)

But surely people can see given the system as it stands the people now in charge of Carlton and Brisbane will need to be almost geniuses to get anywhere near the top four in the next five or so years.

I think thats pretty depressing and potentially very damaging to the health of the competition.

So yes I agree, the bottom teams should get 2 or even 3 picks before Hawthorn gets their first.

[SaberFang 7,141]

I guess, ultimately, the usual response from other club supporters about the woes of the MFC's predicament is that most of it was self-inflicted. Poor drafting, poor trading, poor development, poor culture. These are all very fair criticisms and every MFC supporter knows it.

However, as you correctly stated, it's not healthy for the overall competition to have clubs like this (whether in this position through their own fault or not) wallowing in misery for years on end. It hurts every single club and, frankly, the opposition to us getting draft assistance last year from other clubs was laughable (I loathed the hypocrisy by Swann on radio this week who, after the Lions PP was rejected, actually conceded the MFC deserved one last year... after campaigning against it at the time!) Point is, what benefit does it serve 17 other clubs to have a consistently weak team in the league? Low match attendances, low ratings, low revenue, low public interest.

The only logical reason I can fathom for this is simply enjoying having that "guaranteed" win once or twice a season and maintaining the status quo of feeder clubs that continues to get high draft picks and players walking out the door looking for success. It only serves the successful clubs having this; the overall league suffers tremendously.

Edited October 3, 2015 by Lamashtu

[bush demon 1,901]

There are too many teams in the competition, this is the problem. Any team finishing lower on the table is getting players sucked out of it regardless of their so-called culture or draft selections. Conversely, the higher teams are having players drawn toward them, you might say in a draft fashion, ensuring they remain a top team.

[Macca 16,173]

A lot of posters, public and most journalists and commentators won't agree with you but people should ask themselves

"what do Hawthorn need to add to their team to be a top four contender next year?"

The answer is obviously not a lot.

Now ask yourself

"What do Carlton or Brisbane need to add to their team just to get OUT of the bottom four next year" and clearly the answer is lots.

And yet the difference in drafting scope for each team, apart from subjective pick numbers is very little.

As good as Hawthorn is, and they are indeed very good, they are now in a position where they can pick and choose as managers parade free agency players in front of them and take their time developing a John O'Rorke, Will Langford, Sicily (gun) or Jed Anderson. Have ready made players on the fringe of the team like Schoenmakers, Simpkin, Hartung or that bearded Jesus looking guy (maybe it is Jesus) ready to go when there are injuries or rotations against weak teams.

Hawthorn don't need high draft picks.

Look at Carlton. Liam Jones. Vojo Rainbow. Watson. No forward line. And yes all those players they gave away to other clubs. With Henderson and Yarran, both around the 25 age mark and ready made footballers about to join the long list of players that are better having moved away.

And yes like us, they were crap at picking, developing and holding onto talent.

But that doesn't mean they need to spend the next ten years in and out of the bottom four. (as much as we wouldn't mind that scenario at all I'm talking about the health of the competition)

But surely people can see given the system as it stands the people now in charge of Carlton and Brisbane will need to be almost geniuses to get anywhere near the top four in the next five or so years.

I think thats pretty depressing and potentially very damaging to the health of the competition.

So yes I agree, the bottom teams should get 2 or even 3 picks before Hawthorn gets their first.

Yet we at Melbourne did not want either club receiving a priority pick based on the fact we didn't get one. The bottom clubs squabbling amongst themselves is probably music to the AFL's ears.

The AFL aren't going to do the right thing - they don't even know what the right thing is. They are most interested in making money and whilst that money keeps rolling in, we can't expect them to start becoming decent custodians.

We need to do the best we can given what the rules of engagement are ... whilst I agree with many here and see the competition as a lopsided one moving forward, I can't see anything of a substantial nature changing in the near future.

We need to continually make sound, intelligent and well thought out decisions ... and then hope for the best. The first major step is to somehow get to 10-12 wins - and then at least hold our ground.

[Je Roos Salem 661]

Attending the GF really hammered home the fact that there's different tiers in the competition. Seeing the G decked out in Melbourne and Bulldogs colours just feels like a world away. The Hawks will remain good because they will remain a one stop premiership shop for any dweller with an ounce of potential. (Something would have to go massively wrong). Much of their core are 30+ and they all played really well together again. As soon as the Eagles showed weakness today they were toast.

[deespicable me 1,435]

There are too many teams in the competition, this is the problem. Any team finishing lower on the table is getting players sucked out of it regardless of their so-called culture or draft selections. Conversely, the higher teams are having players drawn toward them, you might say in a draft fashion, ensuring they remain a top team.

This is true, especially 10 teams out of Melbourne. Unless the AFL can create a better equalisation formula they mose well send a couple of Melbourne teams to the wall. Wallowing down the bottom of the ladder is no fun.

Actually I think they have a real problem in the two Northern states as well, and there are too many teams who can't stand on their own feet without AFL assistance. Queensland is a basket case. The Hollywood lifestyle of the Gold Coast players on money given to the club from the AFL is a bad look. Brisbane are really struggling to hold players. And no-one particularly cares least of all the people who live there who don't give a fig for AFL.

And yet we don't have a team out of Tassie. Oh thats right, Hawthorn have rights there, we all have to leave that alone.

Actually it's all a bit of a mess really. Thank goodness for TV rights

[SaberFang 7,141]

Hawthorn having cornered the Tasmanian market ON TOP of everything else they've cornered is just the icing on the cake.

Annoys me to no end. And, of course, it's yet another [censored]-up directly caused by the stubborness of the idiots at AFLHQ, who saw fit to expand into markets with zero interest in the game and abandon their loyal fans down south... all in the name of money.

[Binmans PA 26,275]

Yet we at Melbourne did not want either club receiving a priority pick based on the fact we didn't get one. The bottom clubs squabbling amongst themselves is probably music to the AFL's ears.

The AFL aren't going to do the right thing - they don't even know what the right thing is. They are most interested in making money and whilst that money keeps rolling in, we can't expect them to start becoming decent custodians.

We need to do the best we can given what the rules of engagement are ... whilst I agree with many here and see the competition as a lopsided one moving forward, I can't see anything of a substantial nature changing in the near future.

We need to continually make sound, intelligent and well thought out decisions ... and then hope for the best. The first major step is to somehow get to 10-12 wins - and then at least hold our ground.

Good post. The beauty is that although the competition is incredibly lopsided, particularly the top 4 teams, the rest of the competition is actually pretty even. So when the top 4 teams do lose a group at once (see Geelong and soon, Hawthorn too), they will drop out of the top 4. We just have to make sure we're on the cusp of the top 4 when the current crop drop out.

Once Mitchell, Hodge and Lewis retire, Hawthorn's midfield will be a distinctively different proposition. We might just be lucky and be timing our run perfectly for the next group of top 4 teams. I think GCS (if they can keep their list together), GWS (the same) and the Bulldogs (if they continue their upward trajectory) will be big players in five years time. I'm hoping we can be the other.

Edited October 3, 2015 by AdamFarr

[Macca 16,173]

Good post. The beauty is that although the competition is incredibly lopsided, particularly the top 4 teams, the rest of the competition is actually pretty even. So when the top 4 teams do lose a group at once (see Geelong and soon, Hawthorn too), they will drop out of the top 4. We just have to make sure we're on the cusp of the top 4 when the current crop drop out.

Once Mitchell, Hodge and Lewis retire, Hawthorn's midfield will be a distinctively different proposition. We might just be lucky and be timing our run perfectly for the next group of top 4 teams. I think GCS (if they can keep their list together), GWS (the same) and the Bulldogs (if they continue their upward trajectory) will be big players in five years time. I'm hoping we can be the other.

The way you've described it has probably always been the case but such is the transparency of how things are now, there does seem to be a formula that needs to be adhered to. Just about every position on a list will need to have a purpose - a club can't afford to have too many "hope for the best" types - it's just too risky.

Our situation was always going to be a time related fix and we're still at least 2 off-seasons away from becoming a regular 10-12+ win club. To be better than that will require a number of factors to be in our favour - including luck.

The FD has a different strategy to building the list than what we've seen previously and we'll see that strategy again in the trade and drafting period. Our list building has become far more creative.

I'd still like the club to become more active with regards to free agency. I see free agency as a real way of bridging the gap - I don't expect anything to come our way in this off-season but next year should be a different matter.

[biggestred 4,340]

I'd still like the club to become more active with regards to free agency. I see free agency as a real way of bridging the gap - I don't expect anything to come our way in this off-season but next year should be a different matter.

Cant be too active when youve only got 9% of your salary cap to play with because you're paying spuds.

Gotta remove the minimum cap

[sue 8,457]

If the best players were raided each year Nahan Jones would have nominated a trade to Hawthorn or Collingwood 5 years ago. Didn't happen.

90% of the best players DON'T change hands

Bad example. As much as we love Jones, and especially 5 years ago, he is not a 'big fish'. By definition your 90% of players are not 'big fish', so them not changing clubs is not relevant to the equalization issue.

[Macca 16,173]

Cant be too active when youve only got 9% of your salary cap to play with because you're paying spuds.

Gotta remove the minimum cap

There are ways and means to have way more than 9% of your salary cap available at any given time. By the way, is that figure accurate? Rather than being overly concerned about removing the minimum salary cap, I'd rather the club look at ways of making sure that the 10 million is spent wisely.

As an example - the club could set aside x amount of the salary cap for the top placegetters in the B&F. If that was standard practice then we could at least (in theory) not be necessarily overpaying the lesser lights ... or we could just pay our best players more than market value or pay bonuses to the best performed players whilst at the same time be on the lookout for some genuine A grade talent.

Setting aside 8 million for the standard player contracts with other 2 million "floating" is one way of doing things.

It just needs a bit of creative thinking - the real issue is that this club just hasn't made a big enough effort in the more recent past in bringing in some genuine A grade talent. We spent the money on Clark & Dawes butt neither of those 2 could ever be described as stars of the game.

In many ways, our whole strategy lacked substance ... we just kept pointing towards the draft as our salvation - and it didn't work. Basically we put all our eggs in one basket - high risk in my eyes. The club was draft obsessed and what we ended up with was far too many unproven players on our list.

There are a number of ways that a club can bring talent into a club ... drafting, trading, free agents, delisted free agents, targeting A graders and role players .. and then there's developing the existing players. Roos and co are doing all that as well as trying to build good culture.

.

Edited October 4, 2015 by Macca

[Jara 1,149]

Hawthorn having cornered the Tasmanian market ON TOP of everything else they've cornered is just the icing on the cake.

Annoys me to no end. And, of course, it's yet another [censored]-up directly caused by the stubborness of the idiots at AFLHQ, who saw fit to expand into markets with zero interest in the game and abandon their loyal fans down south... all in the name of money.

Like this post, especially the last six words.

Ruining football for me. If you were on top when the expansion clubs and the big bucks came in, you're laughing. If you weren't, you're stuffed (with the very odd exception).

[censored] like Dill couldn't care less, as long as they get their $2 mill salaries. It's the spuds out in the burbs like us who bear the brunt, who pay the cost. As somebody else said above, we sure as hell cant change teams. I'll be a Demon supporter until I cark it, but I don't expect to ever see a premiership.

[Mazer Rackham 14,970]

Question. How many people 10 or 15 years would have dropped everything to watch the grand final no matter who was playing?

How many of those watched it yesterday?

(Disclosure: I always watched years ago, and didn't even have the radio on yesterday.)

[Demonsone 1,617]

Hawthorn have been building foundations since the failed merger almost 20yrs ago.... I think people forget how strong off the field they become financially including the Waverley deal which was a bargain etc... Stability was the key & with strong cash flows they attracted the right people across the entire club .. So 4 flags in 8 yrs just didn't happen..... Look back on our club in the same period ...we wanted a White knight to be our saviour, poor long term vision, rejecting the now Lexus centre, continued internal board & mgt issues, CEOs changing, crap sponsorship fiascos, band aid approach & diabolical drafting & culture as a result of wrong people in critical positions, continued coach changes & game plans....

[Jara 1,149]

Question. How many people 10 or 15 years would have dropped everything to watch the grand final no matter who was playing?

How many of those watched it yesterday?

(Disclosure: I always watched years ago, and didn't even have the radio on yesterday.)

Me too. Not only didn't watch or listen to it, have to place a total media ban upon myself. Makes me sick. Only media I've looked at was the realestate section in yesterday's Age, which my wife left lying around. Lead article was about how the prices for mansions in Toorak etc were going absolutely gangbusters. And I thought, there's an appropriate analogy for what's happening to our sport.

[loges 6,132]

So the best clubs ALWAYS get the best players?

No.

90 % of the time

[Bombay Airconditioning 5,941]

Look at the hawks, they are big bodied, strong and willing. How many sides have skinny young kids in their sides trying to get game experience.

How many sides compare in all of those aspects, plus have damn fine skills. The Hawks tackle and put pressure on so if you do not deliver the ball with precision you will be tackled hard, if you fumble you will be tackled hard. If one players misses a tackle a second is usually not far away ready to tackle. The hawks apply pressure, pressure, pressure. So many eagles players today just wanted the bang the ball down field and ended up turning it over more times than not.

When I watch Melbourne play I see players run past the opposition player with the ball chasing their man not looking at or chasing the man with the ball. Our players often don't tackle but try to bottle the opposition in. You cannot afford to give skilled players 5-10 meters head start which is what we do when we play a zone. When our zone falls apart the opposition players are running free everywhere while our players try to figure out who should chase who, or who should to where. I prefer the hawks method, man up and play one on one football when they have the ball and run off your opponents when you have it.

Big bodied?

Rioli

Smith

Hill

Gunston

Shiels

Duryea

They're not big bodied at all.

Hodge

Suckling

Gibson

Bruest

Stratton

Big boy

Birchall

Shoenmakers

Burgoyne

Are all average weight for height for footballers.

Mitchell

Lewis

Poppy

Lake

Chip

Hale

Rough

Could be considered big bodied.

I agree with your other points.

Hawks outside players are capable of winning their own in congestion when required and are skilful enough to more often than not beat their opponents one on one.

They have versatile players similar to when Geelong won their flags. Back and forward flankers can rotate through the midfield.

As much as I like Jetta if we had more talent/depth I'd play another mid in place of him. Rather than say Grimes is a medium defender, to me it has to be Grimes is a midfielder who plays off a bank flank and that's the difference, elite users of the ball all over the ground. The exception being your CHB, FB and RUCK. Chip is an average user of the footy, Lake has reasonable skills but he's also s very smart player. Hales disposal is average but he's able to provide a contest in the ruck and go forward, take a mark and kick it. If a Hawks defender takes a mark he only has to look left or right to find Birchall or Burgoyne or look up the ground and see Sheils or Smith or Hill.

[markc 975]

Question. How many people 10 or 15 years would have dropped everything to watch the grand final no matter who was playing?

How many of those watched it yesterday?

(Disclosure: I always watched years ago, and didn't even have the radio on yesterday.)

we worked all day , with friday off , all my staff and i worked a normal day , not once did we have the game one or even listen to it

it was a busy day and many people came out

I used to watch or listen to it but now to be honest can't be bothered , seems like the same teams over and over again lately ,

sad if it was melbourne i would watch or even some of the other bottom teams , Last time i was really interested was watching stkilda

i can't see much changing next year either