Raging Against The Machine- The Season Opener and all that is wrong in the AFL world

[The Adelaide Connection]

It may be that Marcus Adam's fine china ankles have put me in a more cantankerous mood than usual, but I am interested to know what people think are the biggest injustices we should be fighting city hall over. For me it is the fixturing and first on my hit list is Round 1, game 1.

Nothing takes the air out of my "footy's back" bubble than the "traditional" Richmond v Carlton season opener. The game has a history of being ranker than gutter mustard and a complete unwatchable snoozefest. The 2018 edition just might prove to be the worst.

The AFL persist in scheduling the "blockbuster teams" in these prime time slots, despite the ratings showing that timeslots (not teams) now bring in the big numbers (and having two teams in form is just the icing on the cake). It is the neutrals, not competing teams fans, that really drive the numbers. Nine out of the top ten highest rating HandA fixtures from 2017 were Friday nights (Anzac Day #1) and I bet if they released the full figures it would be almost twenty-one Friday nights featuring in the top twenty-two.

The damage of being locked out of these fixtures (or not receiving an equal share) commercially (crowd numbers, ability to woo sponsors, exposure and growth of brand, etc.) is quite catastrophic. I can't find it but there was a PWC report produced that I believe quantified just how much damage to a teams bottom line being locked out of these fixtures does (and how the compensation clubs receive is monumentally inadequate).

The shifting goalpost rhetoric around how a club "earns" these fixtures will ensure the same clubs never receive their fair share. It switches from performance based, to crowd based, to supporter base based (mouthful), to being a big club that just pulls better tv numbers. FWIW the Dogs v GWS game was the #4 highest rating game (we actually had three in the top 10)- that's right, a little Victorian club versus a club without a supporter base somehow scored the fourth highest rating for the year.

I don't know how we fight the AFL on this except by inciting tidal waves of fury via social media and the like. If we didn't fire our banner guy I am sure he could have worked out something scathing and comical. I know PG has a fair crack, but he is fighting short-sighted, bonus chasing execs who have a whole bunch of other presidents (whose clubs get a good deal) patting them on the back.

*Takes deep breath*

So what are the issues you think are the most important to take up placards against?

[Bulldog Joe]

I have always considered the fixture the single greatest impediment to the growth of the smaller clubs.

Without the prime slots there is less exposure and therefore fewer supporters and inferior sponsorship outcomes.

Until they develop an even handed approach which shares these prime slots they is no equalisation and the smaller clubs will continue to be accused of being charity cases.

Under the current system the financial performance of the Western Bulldogs has been stellar.

[Sedat]

Add 2 teams and reduce the season to 19 games - problem solved. I'd much rather water down the overall talent pool at the highest level than continue with the horrible fixture inequalities that 18 teams into 22 rounds creates.

[Bulldog Joe]

Add 2 teams and reduce the season to 19 games - problem solved. I'd much rather water down the overall talent pool at the highest level than continue with the horrible fixture inequalities that 18 teams into 22 rounds creates.

It is not just about who you play. The financial inequality is created by when you play and granting prime slots like ANZAC Day to the same 2 teams is effectively an open cheque in terms of sponsorship and marketing.

[Sedat]

It is not just about who you play. The financial inequality is created by when you play and granting prime slots like ANZAC Day to the same 2 teams is effectively an open cheque in terms of sponsorship and marketing.
I get that but playing every team once and once only is a good start to reducing these inequities. They will still be there with ANZAC Day etc.. but at least there won't be travel inequities or fixturing inequities, such as one mid ranged team playing the top team twice and another mid ranged team playing the wooden spooner twice. That stuff compromises the actual integrity of the competition.

[bornadog]

I get that but playing every team once and once only is a good start to reducing these inequities. They will still be there with ANZAC Day etc.. but at least there won't be travel inequities or fixturing inequities, such as one mid ranged team playing the top team twice and another mid ranged team playing the wooden spooner twice. That stuff compromises the actual integrity of the competition.

Personally I wouldn't like to see less than 22 games per year, however, there are inequities created by the AFL.

There should be a fixture drawn up on a rotating basis so clubs play each other twice over a number of years. There should also be a system worked on on who gets a Friday night match. To me it needs to be divided up equally. It will never happen.

[boydogs]

Personally I wouldn't like to see less than 22 games per year, however, there are inequities created by the AFL.

There should be a fixture drawn up on a rotating basis so clubs play each other twice over a number of years. There should also be a system worked on on who gets a Friday night match. To me it needs to be divided up equally. It will never happen.

Different clubs want different things, making everything equal won't make everyone happy

[bornadog]

Different clubs want different things, making everything equal won't make everyone happy

Of course they do, they only care about their club, and rightly so.

[The Adelaide Connection]

With the Brennan result (and on the back of the Redpath result late last year) I think the new MRP are going to be on my list pretty damn soon.

[boydogs]

Of course they do, they only care about their club, and rightly so.

I don't mean taking ANZAC day away from Collingwood and Essendon is going to annoy them, I mean clubs all have different priorities with their fixturing, which is why I think the AFL's system of getting clubs to submit their top 5 requests is a good one

[The Adelaide Connection]

Of course they do, they only care about their club, and rightly so.

That is an incredibly short-sighted way of looking at it though. Giving more exposure to the cereals on the bottom shelf with minimal facings will help strengthen those brands. Having clubs that have an even footing commercially will mean strogner clubs across the board and long term can only mean a more even competition. It might mean some short term pain, but it is worth the buy in.

The initial hit that might impact some execs bonuses probably will mean it never happens.

[bornadog]

That is an incredibly short-sighted way of looking at it though. Giving more exposure to the cereals on the bottom shelf with minimal facings will help strengthen those brands. Having clubs that have an even footing commercially will mean strogner clubs across the board and long term can only mean a more even competition. It might mean some short term pain, but it is worth the buy in.

The initial hit that might impact some execs bonuses probably will mena it never happens.

I agree with you, that is why my suggestion is to do away with requests and just have a system that every one sticks (see above post). Clubs just want to look after themselves.

[The Adelaide Connection]

I agree with you, that is why my suggestion is to do away with requests and just have a system that every one sticks (see above post). Clubs just want to look after themselves.

To clarify, I meant that the position of the clubs just looking out for themselves is short-sighted (I didn't mean I thought you were being short sighted). I think it is going to take some incredible leadership by a CEO of the AFL flanked by similarly strong and forward thinking club leaders to ever see them have the guts to make the long term thinking calls they need to make.

[bornadog]

I think it is going to take some incredible leadership by a CEO of the AFL flanked by similarly strong and forward thinking club leaders to ever see them have the guts to make the long term thinking calls they need to make.

They will never do it. I was talking to my mate about upcoming games and he is a Hawks supporter. We looked at their fixture and basically the first 5 rounds are all blockbusters at the MCG. We have done incredibly well to get to where we are, but somehow I feel it is not sustainable unless we have the likes of PG boxing in our corner. God help us when he retires.

The way you are thinking TAC, I have always argued the same way. Back in 2002 I was invited along to a business lunch with Smorgan, along with 20 others. I tried to argue the point about the TV time slots, the contrived fixtures, the blockbuster games, but David was more concerned about survival and not fighting HQ. Maybe that is what he had to do at the time, but I know I was pissed off.

[Sedat]

They will never do it. I was talking to my mate about upcoming games and he is a Hawks supporter. We looked at their fixture and basically the first 5 rounds are all blockbusters at the MCG.
Playing devil's advocate in this particular example, Hawthorn's home ground is the MCG. But I agree with the general tone of what's you're saying.

All the problems start because of the absurd situation where each team gets to play 5 teams twice - the AFL can manipulate this by doubling down on blockbusters and cross-town rivalries, and they can also (absurdly) weight the difficulty of some team's fixtures and thereby turn the season into a handicap race. It is actually absurd when you think about a so-called professional competition having such an obvious compromise attached to each and every season.

[Ozza]

I wouldn't want to see the season become shorter than 22 matches.

We have had a fixture where you play some teams twice and some teams once since the Bears and Eagles came in 31 years ago. The measures now where the teams you play twice come from each of the 3 groups (top 6, middle 6, bottom 6) isn't perfect, but it brings an element of fairness and transparency.

As I said, its not perfect - but I don't want to season to be shorter than 22 games (it has been a 22 game season for nearly 50 years now). The 25 weeks without mens AFL footy is too long as it is!!!

[Sedat]

As I said, its not perfect - but I don't want to season to be shorter than 22 games (it has been a 22 game season for nearly 50 years now). The 25 weeks without mens AFL footy is too long as it is!!!
It was a 20 game season in 1993. Also because we've had fixture inequities since 1987 doesn't make it right that we continue. And the grouping/seeding of teams in a previous year actually has nothing to do with the following season and how strong/weak some clubs might be.

20 teams, 19 rounds, 10 in the finals (therefore 1 or 2 extra weeks of finals footy - so the actual season length factoring in bye rounds might actually not be any shorter). I reckon shortening the H&A by 3 rounds would be a relief for the poor performing clubs and their supporters.

[Twodogs]

Everybody plays each other twice is the only solution. We come up with new ways of doing things (clutches of matches, matches in non AFL areas, cut down on preseason training (players will get fit enough playing) and get rid of the preseason.

It's the only way and eventually that's what we will decide. Nothing surer, all the other ideas, while good, does nothing address the basic inequality of a compromised draw.

[Sedat]

Everybody plays each other twice is the only solution. We come up with new ways of doing things (clutches of matches, matches in non AFL areas, cut down on preseason training (players will get fit enough playing) and get rid of the preseason.
Imagine being a Norf, Gold Coast, Brisbane or Carlton supporter last year and having to endure another 12 weeks of the season. Easier to add 2 teams (one of them in Tassie), drop 3 games to get virtually the same fairness.

[hujsh]

It was a 20 game season in 1993. Also because we've had fixture inequities since 1987 doesn't make it right that we continue. And the grouping/seeding of teams in a previous year actually has nothing to do with the following season and how strong/weak some clubs might be.

20 teams, 19 rounds, 10 in the finals (therefore 1 or 2 extra weeks of finals footy - so the actual season length factoring in bye rounds might actually not be any shorter). I reckon shortening the H&A by 3 rounds would be a relief for the poor performing clubs and their supporters.

I like this. Put a team in Tassie (FFS just do it already AFL) and maybe one in the NT (or Canberra?) and you've got coverage pretty much everywhere you need it in the country. Try to make travel as equal as possible (eg if you play WCE in Perth you play Freo at home) and you've got a fair competition on paper. Still have to sort out the finance/exposure inequalities but it's a start nonetheless.

[Ozza]

It was a 20 game season in 1993. Also because we've had fixture inequities since 1987 doesn't make it right that we continue. And the grouping/seeding of teams in a previous year actually has nothing to do with the following season and how strong/weak some clubs might be.

20 teams, 19 rounds, 10 in the finals (therefore 1 or 2 extra weeks of finals footy - so the actual season length factoring in bye rounds might actually not be any shorter). I reckon shortening the H&A by 3 rounds would be a relief for the poor performing clubs and their supporters.

Ok, one season of 20 games in the last 30 - but doesn't really change the argument - in that season, teams still played 6 teams twice.

2 brand new teams is an enormous move and a bigger discussion. We already have 2 teams that are barely settled in, and costing the sport an absolute fortune every season. It is already questionable whether 2 teams in Sydney is ultimately sustainable, and its probably questionable whether any teams in Queensland are. In any case, its a huge change - and I don't think you just bring in new clubs to solve a perceived issue. If the future is that we have 20 teams and fixturing is smoothed out as a result, then great.

In the meantime - playing every team once makes the home and away season 5 rounds shorter - which I think is unacceptable.

The other element for me, that seems to be missed - is that footy should be mostly about fun and entertainment. I'd rather see my team (and all teams) play a minimum of 22 games, than 17 or 19 times. The fixture has an element of swings and roundabouts - maybe the Gold Coast become a gun side this year and you don't want to play them twice, maybe they are rubbish and its a plus. Maybe in a 17 game season - you have to play West Coast in Perth and they are a powerhouse, maybe they are a bad side, can't work out how to play at Optus Stadium and its an advantage to play them there, rather than being fixture to play Freo.

Reality is, if you're good enough - you make finals. And if you're good enough in finals, you will the whole thing. I suspect the players are a lot less worried about the fixture than the supporters.

[Testekill]

It's annoying because we instantly lost our only marquee match for Good Friday because of poor turnout even though the bulk of the blame should always go towards the home team (which was North) while the rich clubs only get richer.

Essendon has ANZAC Day and Dreamtime at the G

Collingwood has ANZAC Day and Queen's Birthday

Richmond has the season opener and Dreamtime at the G

Cats & Hawks have Easter Monday

Demons have Queen's Birthday

[bornadog]

It's annoying because we instantly lost our only marquee match for Good Friday because of poor turnout even though the bulk of the blame should always go towards the home team (which was North) while the rich clubs only get richer.

Essendon has ANZAC Day and Dreamtime at the G

Collingwood has ANZAC Day and Queen's Birthday

Richmond has the season opener and Dreamtime at the G

Cats & Hawks have Easter Monday

Demons have Queen's Birthday

I though the turnout wasn't too bad with 44,000 plus there on the night. Yes should have been closer to 50k, but it was Easter, and lots of people go away.

[Happy Days]

Losing the game on Good Friday was the point at which I decided to give up on grappling with the consistent inconsistencies trotted out by the AFL to explain all of their policy.

There's no point because there is an explanation for anything, no matter how backward it might seem when juxtaposed with the very last piece of communication on the same issue given by the AFL.

Footy is a monopoly and any idiot can run it, so cogency and transparency don't matter. It's why preposterous projects like ham-fisted expansion into footballing wastelands can occur while footy heartlands like Tassie get left to starve and die, or areas of legitimate growth like women's football can be presented so half-baked.

None of it matters, because the game will continue to rake in dollars because it's the best game in the world and pretty much heroin to the majority of Victorian sports fans. And as long as it makes money, then those lucky enough to fall upwards into positions of power can continue justify all of their stupid decisions and their ridiculous salaries.

Seriously, it's selling football to people who love football. Any idiot can do it.

[Twodogs]

Imagine being a Norf, Gold Coast, Brisbane or Carlton supporter last year and having to endure another 12 weeks of the season. Easier to add 2 teams (one of them in Tassie), drop 3 games to get virtually the same fairness.


I'm not averse to that idea either. I've got a romantic attachment to the idea of H & A but I guess everyone playing one another once is still fair.


We must address inequities in the competitions draw. It has to be fair and equitable or what you are running is an expo or exhibition not a competition. It's effectively a tournament we run every year with some of the competitors having weighted draws which advantage them (like seeds in tennis) while other competitors are primarily there to make up the numbers.

[The Adelaide Connection]

This is going to be a Nostradamus like call:

When Tom Boyd goes forward he is going to be grappled and held out of every contest and he will be lucky to get a single free.

I think when this happens (and it will) we as a club have to finally say enough is enough. We need to make a monster edit of the last 20 games he has played and every contest where he has tried to lead up at the ball or has been under a long, high one with a defender. Forward it to the umpires department asking for clarification and, if nothing happens, leak it to the media.

If Riewoldt or Buddy got the same treatment they would kick 10 goals from free kicks every week. Defenders know which players than can get away with it for.

[Ghost Dog]

The MRP has never been settled, causes confusion and annoyance every year.
They have to start just leaving the rules alone. No other game keeps fiddling with core rules and the insecurity is hugely annoying.
Endorsing Damien Barrett's one sided views through the AFL website.

[Twodogs]

The AFL will be thrilled with the fantastically exciting match that North and St Kilda put on. I suppose that will be our fault too.

[Greystache]

The AFL will be thrilled with the fantastically exciting match that North and St Kilda put on. I suppose that will be our fault too.

I look forward to it being Carlton vs Melbourne next year and the AFEL claiming they gave the smaller clubs a chance but they couldn't make it their own. Then after a poor first year turn out being told it takes time to build but those two clubs will get there.

[Twodogs]

I look forward to it being Carlton vs Melbourne next year and the AFEL claiming they gave the smaller clubs a chance but they couldn't make it their own. Then after a poor first year turn out being told it takes time to build but those two clubs will get there.

I like your line of sceptical prediction GS. That's a fairly good chance of happening with that exact explanation. "OK so only 15 000 people turned up but Melbourne and Carlton have only played Good Friday three times and Rome wasn't built in a day after all. We are confident that with changing a few things around we expect a crowd of 45 000 at the Melbourne v Carlton Good Friday match next year"

[Twodogs]

I was talking to a bloke tonight who said we need to start pointing out how the AFL have been chipping away at us for the last few years, taking this away, changing this or that rule, fixturing issues, more than our share of players and staff being hived off to the extension clubs, tribunal problems etc, etc. open letters to the media, calling talkback and that sort of thing. There's probably something to what he is saying. A squeaky hinge gets the oil.

[The Adelaide Connection]

I was talking to a bloke tonight who said we need to start pointing out how the AFL have been chipping away at us for the last few years, taking this away, changing this or that rule, fixturing issues, more than our share of players and staff being hived off to the extension clubs, tribunal problems etc, etc. open letters to the media, calling talkback and that sort of thing. There's probably something to what he is saying. A squeaky hinge gets the oil.

Absolutely we should. That’s where I was going with the tape of edits for Boyd. You hear other coaches bitch and moan and say things like “we will be seeking clarification...” and it bloody works. We need to start stomping our feet and stop allowing ourselves to get walked over.

[boydogs]

42k to Good Friday last year, only 34k this year

[The Adelaide Connection]

A mate of mine reminded me about this the other day. I am still staggered that we didn’t challenge this and counter claim that McGovern is a diver.

Ps Did karma take him out of this weekends game or did he fake an 8 week injury to avoid Wood’s revenge wrath on his ‘just out of the packet’ play dough ribs?


https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=nCowAwGd0cQ

[Twodogs]

A mate of mine reminded me about this the other day. I am still staggered that we didn’t challenge this and counter claim that McGovern is a diver.

Ps Did karma take him out of this weekends game or did he fake an 8 week injury to avoid Wood’s revenge wrath on his ‘just out of the packet’ play dough ribs?


https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=nCowAwGd0cQ


Weak as piss McGovern is an accurate description. And while I can understand McGovern milking it to get a free, surely the contact was nowhere near severe enough for a medical assessment of "bruised ribs" a couple of hours later. What was the motivation for that? It's not like the umpire was going to burst into the medical rooms and award McGovern another free kick if they beefed up how hurt he was. Maybe to get their next week's opponent focusing on a bogus injury? That's the only one I can think of that's not just to be plain nasty to us.

Or are doctors routinely making crap up these days?

[jeemak]

Weak as piss McGovern is an accurate description. And while I can understand McGovern milking it to get a free, surely the contact was nowhere near severe enough for a medical assessment of "bruised ribs" a couple of hours later. What was the motivation for that? It's not like the umpire was going to burst into the medical rooms and award McGovern another free kick if they beefed up how hurt he was. Maybe to get their next week's opponent focusing on a bogus injury? That's the only one I can think of that's not just to be plain nasty to us.

Or are doctors routinely making crap up these days?

Retribution for us calling out their sooking over the umpiring the year before, and the Telliya incidents I think you'll find.

Vindictive bunch of twats that they are.

[Twodogs]

Retribution for us calling out their sooking over the umpiring the year before, and the Telliya incidents I think you'll find.

Vindictive bunch of twats that they are.

You're right. It could have been that. We have to get them back now.

[Bulldog Joe]

Weak as piss McGovern is an accurate description. And while I can understand McGovern milking it to get a free, surely the contact was nowhere near severe enough for a medical assessment of "bruised ribs" a couple of hours later. What was the motivation for that? It's not like the umpire was going to burst into the medical rooms and award McGovern another free kick if they beefed up how hurt he was. Maybe to get their next week's opponent focusing on a bogus injury? That's the only one I can think of that's not just to be plain nasty to us.

Or are doctors routinely making crap up these days?

GWS did similar with a claim of injury to Phil "autumn leaves" Davis from the Redpath incident last year.

Medical reports are given string weight, but their is clearly no integrity in them.

[Twodogs]

GWS did similar with a claim of injury to Phil "autumn leaves" Davis from the Redpath incident last year.

Medical reports are given string weight, but their is clearly no integrity in them.


Surely doctors reports have some sort of oath or something that they follow? A hypocrites' oath by the sound of things.

[westdog54]

Surely doctors reports have some sort of oath or something that they follow? A hypocrites' oath by the sound of things.

The only oath doctors have is to do no harm to their patient. Nothing about telling the truth to everybody else, sadly.

[Twodogs]

The only oath doctors have is to do no harm to their patient. Nothing about telling the truth to everybody else, sadly.

I never trusted them as a group. Far too slippery. Stalin had some intersesting ideas on the medical profession. He must have been thinking of the Crows medical staff when he thought of them.

[The Adelaide Connection]

Not sure if it was mentioned somewhere here or elsewhere, but they were talking about the one sided free kick counts at non-bipartisan stadiums (especially West Coast games in Perth).

They quoted the free kick count as something like 96 to WC and 30 odd to the oppostion this year alone. Both Richardson and Scott were not exactly playing a straight bat, both admitting they knew of the issue (especially against West Coast) and that it had been happening for years. It was also mentioned that the Crows were 14-4 up at one stage and, watching that game, a number of dubious calls kept the Crows in it when the whips were really cracking.

No one suggested it was sinister, more the human element of when the entire crowd yell for something that you are more likely to pay it as opposed to when there is silence.

Robbo was particularly annoyed about it and, as much as I don't rate him at all, it will probably mean a back page article is on its way. This is something that is long overdue. Lets hope something comes out of it.

[Greystache]

There's an article about it in the HS today, doesn't say who wrote it though. It's a clear issue but quite at the level they were suggesting.


the Eagles have topped the counts against Geelong (26-19), Gold Coast (28-19), Port Adelaide (30-13), Richmond (21-10) and St Kilda (25-12).

That is a total advantage of 57 free kicks.

Richardson last year highlighted the noise of the crowd as having a major influence on the umpires.

He said things hadn’t changed at the new stadium.

Everything Chris Scott says in the media is in some way self-serving, so while acknowledging the problem I take his comments with a grain of salt.