Slartibartfast

Not only that, it's exceptionally popular. http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/nab-challenge-cup-early-ratings-win-for-afl-20160225-gn3vjx.html

I think that when many look at the AFL they don't see the wood for the trees. Of course there are issues where there will be lively debate - drugs, gambling, player welfare, the draw, exposure, racism, allocation of revenues, FD spending taxes and the list goes on and on. People will have differing positions and that is healthy. Where you put forward an argument for "equal opportunity" regarding public exposure on Friday night I'd put forward an argument to reward successful teams (they're there through good management) with Friday nights. I'm a passionate Friday night watcher. Would I rather watch Brisbane v Carlton or Hawks v WC? Which will draw the bigger audience. Audience will determine TV deals. The bigger the TV deal the more able the AFL is to support it's clubs. Good games on Friday mean I'll make that a priority, poor games on Friday and I couldn't give a hoot. My view is "get the money in and then distribute it fairly". IMO that gives the competition as a whole the best chance of success. Better games in prime time means a bigger audience and greater interest in the game leading to more sponsorship, membership and junior participation. More money means that the AFL can promote junior and country footy and we now have the establishment of womens footy. We now all have academies to promote the game to different cultural groups. Can't do that without money and they are fantastic developments. You maybe right or I maybe right but the proof of the pudding is in the eating and the AFL has done it very well for years now. They may have bungled the drug thing, they may have bungled the tanking thing, they may have bungled the FS bidding system, they may have bungled the rookie draft but they certainly haven't bungled the business of football. Chris I think MFC have had the opportunity to make money but we bungled it and what the AFL's responsibility is now is to let us survive so we can make our own way in the competition. I think we are doing it now but only because of good management by the AFL. But I also think it's very important that the successful teams get rewarded - not to the extent of exclusion of others but rewarded nonetheless. The balance is difficult and how to do it will be debated, but AFL footy is very strong under the AFL's management, it's hard to deny that.

Are you really interested? The AFL are signatories to WADA most probably because the Government wanted them to be. It's not a part of football that interests me so I know little of it beyond that. But at the end of the day Essendon have suffered the most damaging disruption for years now and face a complete rebuild subject to what the 12 banned players do. Can they both sue and play for the club at the same time? All I know is if I was an Essendon supporter who had no say in the supplements saga I'd be shattered. Drugs is an issue within the AFL and depending where you stand "scant regard" and "thumbing its nose at WADA" is a view. It's certainly not an issue that defines the AFL's success or otherwise as trustees of the game. "Pandering to certain power clubs" is also a view. But the competition is not even and never will be. 18 teams and a 22 game season sees to that. There will be winners and losers. The question to me is whether all clubs have a reasonable opportunity. I think they do but there will always be inequities. WCE play 12 "home" games at a ground that favours them heavily. Collingwood don't get that advantage. We got Viney and Stretch as FS's well after their true draft position. The capitalist in me says the power clubs deserve benefits as they are the ones who have been well managed and should benefit from that. Why should the well run Hawks who gave games in Melbourne away to develop their supporter base in Tassie give money to those that didn't make that sacrifice? If you don't give the clubs a reward for good management where is the incentive? There are a group of posters here who always seem to be outraged about the AFL and any decision they make. Your statement above about the AFL being driven by the dollar and not ethics is interesting. Firstly if the AFL wasn't run as a business (driven by the dollar) many clubs wouldn't exist and perhaps the AFL itself would have failed as a result. But secondly what is ironic is that those that bemoan the ethics of the AFL still support it so passionately through the support of the MFC. Don't kid yourself that support of the MFC isn't support of the AFL. It's hard to think of an institution that is not compromised in terms of ethics. Charities, churches, governments, sporting codes (Olympics and soccer) and business all have ethical questions hanging over their heads. Why should the AFL be different? The AFL is a business in the entertainment sector and it competes in that market. They are doing pretty well and don't look like going away soon. We exist because they are a very well run business who have a socialist agenda. Thank heavens because I really enjoy supporting MFC.

The management of the AFL over the last 15 years has been magnificent. Aussi rules football has become a truly national game that is competing with and beating world sports in soccer, rugby and basketball in this country. It's recently signed a record breaking media deal that is the envy of just about every other Australian sport underwriting its position and that of it's 18 clubs for the foreseeable future. Over a significant period memberships and attendances have increased all the time competing with other sports. Recently a black man asked a white woman out and that caused national debate. I briefly read that a white woman dressed up as a black rapper and upset someone who I don't think was even there. We've become a nation that is not only a nanny state and excuse makers but we are teaching our people to not only be offended by innocuous things but we are teaching them to search for things to be offended by. We are turning into a bunch of whingers and bludgers. This thread about the AFL fits that paradigm beautifully. The AFL is there to provide the clubs with an infrastructure to compete. They set rules that mean the weak can survive and in some cases thrive as the Dogs and Kanga's have shown. The AFL is a socialist organization and that is the only reason we still have a footy club to support. Within the environment they provide the well managed clubs will thrive and the poorly managed clubs will struggle. On any sort of right to exist basis we've blown it on a number of occasions yet here we are on the verge of a season with genuine hope of becoming a successful team. You can scratch at the edges. You can [censored] about individual decisions, but really, the AFL is at fault for putting on "pre game experience" which is popular with the young and the future generations that will support the sport? And when we have a statement like "when it's not about the footy anymore but about entertainment" I just shake my head. When has footy not been entertainment. And show me any major sport around the world where the "ordinary punter" gets to grand finals. We have been a dud club because we've had dud Boards who have appointed dud CEO's. It was the AFL that finally said enough is enough and installed their own Board and CEO and suddenly we look ok. And by the way, they gave us enough money to pay out all the contracts of the duds we'd employed plus some. Thankfully Jackson isn't sitting back lamenting the "unfairness" of the AFL. He's doing what previous CEO's have failed to do. He's managing the place beautifully. He's employing industry standard people in the FD and administration. He's looking at developing our supporter base in NT and now the Chinese community. He's getting on with it while some of our supporters sip their coffee and just find things to complain about and justify why we've been crapp for the last decade. Well enjoy the ride boys and when we have success in whatever form that takes sit back and thank the AFL for supporting us when we were down and out, giving us enough money to survive and stay in the competition, putting in place a competent CEO when we were junk and providing an environment were they allow all clubs the chance to succeed if they are good enough. Essendon and Carlton look like being the worst clubs in the AFL this year and Kanga's and Dogs a couple of the good ones. What's that about strong clubs remaining strong? Rather than blaming others we need to take responsibility for ourselves and get on with it. The attitude of the OP is the typical response of those that just want to blame others. Thankfully Jackson thinks differently and the AFL provide an environment that at least gives us a chance.

Apologies.

I haven't seen enough of Oliver to really know but Brayshaw was value last year because he's such a smart footballer by both hand and foot. His vision and decision making is also elite and he was damaging off the half forward line. From what I saw on Friday Oliver was very good inside with an ability to find the ball in traffic but I just wonder if he's got the other strings to his bow to play that half forward role as well as others. I guess what I'm saying is I'm not sure if he's good enough to play the role Brayshaw did last year and if he can't get a go as a genuine inside mid perhaps he won't play as much as I think. Oliver will have more competition than Brayshaw did for that spot too with Kent being fit and Kennedy coming to the club. Petracca and Trengove also will make it more difficult for him to get a game. Might have to amend my thinking based on what you've said.

Fair enough. I disagree, I think you're underselling Spencer as a first ruck and I think the stats show that. Let's hope Max gets through the season.

Few if anyone is arguing for playing both Spencer and Gawn. But if Gawn goes down Spencer is an adequate replacement.

After seeing Clayton Oliver at last weeks practice match I'm starting to think he is a serious chance to play early in the season and even round 1. IMO he was the second best player from stoppages last week only behind Viney. Players like AVB were better with their whole contribution but Oliver looked like a clearance machine. Really looking forward to seeing what he does in the NAB series.

There is an argument there that if he was at other clubs he'd be their no 1 ruck, even Sydney. What your post shows, for which I thank you, is it's more than likely that Spencer will get another contract given his body holds up. Sadly that has been an issue for him in the past. The general "value of a ruck" debate is one that has been going on for decades. Some love them and think they are a foundation and others don't value them at all and think the Mark Blicavs solution is more benefit to a team. My view is you must have someone who can negate the opposition ruck and stop the opposition getting a free run from stoppages. It's then obviously beneficial if you get anything else. Nic Nat is great because he can really give WC an advantage and he's very hard to negate. But he is useless around the ground. Goldy is the best because he can do it all. Not many can and Gawn has a chance. But what is pretty clear from this discussion is Spencer is underrated by many here (including he prior to this discussion) and I reckon he'll be around for a while.

http://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/pg-melbourne-demons--jake-spencer I don't think the stats back you up. His first few games last year when he was our sole ruckman he did well and when looking at the stats remember that Gawn didn't play until round 10 last year. Spencer was also very good against Geelong. Your description of him as a "standing tree-stump" is insulting and clearly wrong. I don't recall anyone saying Gawn is not clearly our first pick ruck but Spencer is a good backup. Your assertion that he doesn't involve himself past the ruck work is not born out by his tackling stats. He gets involved in stoppages, chases and competes. Just for the record he had more tackles in his 7 games than Gawn did in 13. And if you think being a negating ruck is worthless you only need to see last weeks practice match. It was only when Spencer went off that Gawn took control and gave is mids an easy ride. Gawn is clearly no 1 but Spencer is a worthwhile backup.

Yeh, but Goodwin will select the team.

Jack is a ripping poster, why wouldn't I read his contributions?

Add AVB to that list.

Thanks for the summary of ladder positions to date Jack, seems at odds with your stated lack of interest but I'm sure it fits together somehow. If anything interesting happens I'll let you know so you don't have to trawl through hours of boring footy watching youngsters make their way. I also missed it live but watched at my leisure later in the day. Just for the record I don't think Rooey watches much footy other than senior AFL. Spoke to one of the players who said the only two Casey games Rooey saw last year were the ones that his son played in. Anyway Rooey isn't really our coach, Goodwin is. I bet he watched along with the assistants. BTW, why are you recording these games if you've got no interest in them?

There's a bit of history mo.

Not sure it was RFPC that accused Hogan of being a mercenary, think it was the Nut but could be wrong. Don't care really.

You've obviously never had a good red.

But he wasn't bad either. No "headlight" moments that typified his time at MFC.

Not at all. I've watched all but the Freo v Tiges game (I was otherwise engaged). Hawks game was crud but the other 2 were good. The Port Swans game particularly. Port with some good young players and The Toump to entertain and seeing Callum Mills was terrific. He will be a star. Put him in your fantasy team Jack, although I imagine you've filled it up with Demons already! I'm surprised you don't like preseason given your interest in the young players entering the game. Each to there own.

I agree, and a profound observation I might add. Keep 'em coming Jack!?

Unnecessarily personal. Anything to say on Oliver?

I went along yesterday. Unusually good conditions for Casey Fields. CF is a terrible viewing ground and early in the season picking up players can be difficult. I agree with much of what has been said and I reckon that where you are standing can influence your view as seeing what's happening on the other side of the ground is hard. I agree with most of what's been said ubut where I differ from others I've noted below. I was surprised and quite impressed with Frost. Whilst his attributes were on display last year his ability to do anything with them wasn't. But he was ok to good yesterday which was promising. Watts was good, involved but I was disappointed with his kicking. Missed easy goals and some makable passes. I didn't think he played 3rd tall either, more high half forward but these things aren't all that easy to see. I thought Jake was very competitive against Gawn and the dominance of the "good" team was signifantly helped by Spencer's absence. Jake will never be a dominant player but if he is first ruck for us he will not make it easy for opposition ruckman. He's a good AFL backup ruck. We are not ruined if Gawn doesn't play. After the recent debate about Oliver I was looking out for him and I thought he was terrific and shows more that Brayshaw at the same stage (yes, I know about Brayshaw's injury situation last year). What was very evident yesterday was his ability to find the ball at stoppages and in general play. I thought his lateral movement was great and his vision excellent which led to good disposal by hand. Not so good by foot but he had a lot of mates in that regard yesterday. Salem is a gun. AVB found it heaps, Viney prolific Tommy Mac awful, Kennedy tough and Harmes impressive. But that has been reported by others. Ive been going to intraclub matches for 10 years now and haven't been impressed by the play once. Yesterday was no different. As PD says you go there to look for individual things.

Apologies. Still it's a harsh call on anyone who makes an AFL list.

Not sure why you feel compelled to say this, it's unnecessarily derogatory and clearly not right. He's not best 22 clearly but he's carved out a nine year AFL career albeit with 3 clubs. He's got games with the Premiers and served them well as a depth play. He's a footballer that can hold his own in any circles other than the elite level. Rather than make stupid statements why not just give a little credit where it's due. But I doubt it's in your nature, you love potting players.