Pretty good article really.

TBH, I've never really bought the 'expansion = diluted talent' argument for a couple of reasons. Firstly, if the talent pool is really stretched as thin as is claimed, it should be harder to find AFL level talent in the state leagues. Yet virtually every team has key members of their best 22 that were overlooked in multiple drafts, and toiled away in the lower leagues for a few years. 

Secondly, i think people get nostalgic about footy in days gone by, and forget about the lesser players. There have always been (relatively) bad footballers playing AFL. We've had more than our fair share!

5 hours ago, Accepting Mediocrity said:

Pretty good article really.

TBH, I've never really bought the 'expansion = diluted talent' argument for a couple of reasons. Firstly, if the talent pool is really stretched as thin as is claimed, it should be harder to find AFL level talent in the state leagues. Yet virtually every team has key members of their best 22 that were overlooked in multiple drafts, and toiled away in the lower leagues for a few years. 

Secondly, i think people get nostalgic about footy in days gone by, and forget about the lesser players. There have always been (relatively) bad footballers playing AFL. We've had more than our fair share!

Agree with both points above. In addition, when we last had a 12 team competition, the population of Australia was 16 million. It is now 25.5 million - a 60% increase. In the same time, the number of clubs has increased by only 50% . In raw numbers the talent pool hasn't diminished.

What has happened, though, is that there are more options for potential players to choose from, some of which pay much more handsomely than being a professional AFL player.

Reduced lists = contracts to be re-negotiated for existing players = Buddy takes a pay cut, and Sydney are let off the hook by Headquarters!

The talent pool for top level AFL footy was diluted when the league expanded to 18 teams. We now need over 700 AFL standard players to service the fans.

Remember WA and SA had their own state competitions pre 1987 and then, as now, NSW and QLD delivered few footy players. Suddenly the players who were good enough to play in the inferior state comps were being asked to step up to the top league. Big ask.

Population numbers don't create a linear change as bigger source populations don't necessarily provide talent with the requisite drive to excel in the top league.

Talent spotting, recruitment and development can overcome much, if not most, of the dilution but it still remains.

 

7 hours ago, tiers said:

The talent pool for top level AFL footy was diluted when the league expanded to 18 teams. We now need over 700 AFL standard players to service the fans.

Remember WA and SA had their own state competitions pre 1987 and then, as now, NSW and QLD delivered few footy players. Suddenly the players who were good enough to play in the inferior state comps were being asked to step up to the top league. Big ask.

Population numbers don't create a linear change as bigger source populations don't necessarily provide talent with the requisite drive to excel in the top league.

Talent spotting, recruitment and development can overcome much, if not most, of the dilution but it still remains.

 

Interchange bench. = 4  

Take 2 off..  multiplied by18 = (36),  when I was at school, way back.  Thats almost one full list.

9 hours ago, MyFavouriteMartian said:

Interchange bench. = 4  

Take 2 off..  multiplied by18 = (36),  when I was at school, way back.  Thats almost one full list.

Sometimes the simplest solutions are the best.

With all the academies and NGA zones in place now, it strips the draft of it's essential purpose.

All academies need to be abolished and discounts for F/S selections also need to go (having first dibs on a particular player is enough of a discount).

46 minutes ago, Demon Disciple said:

With all the academies and NGA zones in place now, it strips the draft of it's essential purpose.

All academies need to be abolished and discounts for F/S selections also need to go (having first dibs on a particular player is enough of a discount).

It doesn't have to.

Just put a limit on how many players can be drafted from a combined F/S-Academy school,  per club,  per season.

I like the system concept,  but it needs refinement.

 

IF the draft age gets lifted to 19Yrs of age,  I think Academies will become even more important. 

And I'd suggest that players in Academies,  should be eligible for drafting from 18Yrs of age,  to play senior footy, if they're ready.

Reduced lists won’t help with the diluted talent (which is a huge issue) only less teams will fix this.

Why on earth did the analysts select 1995 as a baseline? Most pundits and fans who complain of a diluted competition are referring to the latest expansion teams - so since 2012.

How much has the population grown since then? How much of that growth is immigrants or first-generation with no interest in football? From the Census data provided the trend-line for football participation for ages 15+ had declined from 2006 to 2012. 

The childhood participation data is meaningless. How many aspiring footballers miss out on the draft or recruitment to state leagues and then just quit football? That's the reserve talent pool, the adult ammos, not some kids who played Auskick in primary school. 

It's subjective of course, but I would posit that football reached it's heights in the years leading up to around 2012, with several dominant and exciting teams. Since then the standard has plummeted, especially over the past three or so years. 

Nostalgia for the mid-90s is another matter. Football was different then. But now it has no grounding - the evenness of the competition is not a benefit in my opinion but a detraction. I want to see the best football possible, not even scorelines and manufactured excitement. 

My and many others' early projections of a diluted competition on recent expansion were slightly wrong. The impact isn't felt immediately, but five or six odd years later when the quality reaches it's peak playing years. That's the dilution - a wider spread of top talent across more teams. 

It's subjective again, but form my perspective that is exactly what has occurred, the inability now to assemble a genuine, top-level team. I still have no respect for current Richmond in the way I did for the Geelong, Hawthorn, Collingwood and Swans' teams of the recent past.

I've basically stopped watching football over the past few years, and it's not because of congestion. It's because I no longer get the opportunity of watching titans in the sport crush other teams, or occasionally play against each other. 

Nothing has moved me to watch in a way that a Hawthorn v Swans or Geelong match-up would have done so not so long ago. Richmond v West Coast or the Giants in 2018/2019? Whatever. I may be getting old.   

But I find arguments against the football talent pool having been diluted illogical. Why would you even use population growth as a starting point, it's completely irrelevant. There's two new top-flight teams. That means a wider spread of top-flight talent as compared to when those teams didn't exist. That dilutes the competition. 

The Fox Sports article draws from here: http://www.hpnfooty.com/?p=31834