Burning Jealousy - 11th in 2018 to flag in 2019

Football Discussion Dustin Fletcher Hangar
364

The three main competitions loved to hate each other but they all needed each other too in order to prosper.

It was a long time ago but there were people involved at the time who could see that the future for their own competitions were outside their current regional jurisdictions.

Had the VFL not forced the others’ hands, it probably would have gone down the path of a Super-League’ style of competition with the most healthy of the state based sides joining a new, national competition.

You could have had a West Perth V Collingwood grand final yesterday or Glenelg V Collingwood.

Would it have been better than what we have now? Who can say but it would have been a co-opperative coming together of all the significant stakeholders rather than the forced scrambling of cashed up mercenaries that laid the foundations for what we see today.

3 Likes
365

Just checked the betting agency website. I find it a useful exercise to check my Essendon-fan bias against the market.

We are 10th favourite for the 2019 premiership. Paying $15.

The message? Don’t go all David King until we have completed a necessarily successful trade period.

366

I think I’d probably enjoyed it more just on the premise that the WA and SA clubs would have had their own histories and built in member and supporter bases. That idea seems more appealing to me than throwing out new contrived expansion clubs with market-researched colours, names, and club songs.

But I’m also a relative newcomer to the game and had no idea of what kind of state it would have been in in 1986.

2 Likes
367

This thread is an enjoyable struggle between Diggers’ Harry Harrison alternate histories and John Rain’s focus on current/future realities. But we already have the DJ King thread for that.

All the same, I enjoy considering Diggers’ "what if"s. Imagine instead if in 1987 we had taken an EPL approach and got, say, a four tier league of all VFL, SANFL, WAFL and some NT, Qld, Tasmanian leagues and NSW/ACT clubs thrown in? Relegations and promotions aplenty, the chance to see your club survive with the small potential to dominate. No risk of tanking. By enforcing a salary cap and preventing private ownership, we might have socialised it enough to avoid the sad domination of the happy few, as prevalent in English soccer.

However, I think Diggers is playing down the resilience of Victorian football. He sounds a lot like the Melbourne and Hawthorn boards of 1996: “We have big debts, therefore we must merge”. It is possible that 1897 would have repeated and the solvent teams broken away from the Victorian comp in 1986. They might even have invited Port Adelaide and others to join them, though the Sydney experience might have put this off this. More likely the grass roots appeals and rallies would have maintained most Vic clubs and any national league would still have started as majority Victorian anyway. And if only a few original WAFL and SANFL clubs got to “the big league”, and we lost a few more Vic clubs, wouldn’t that be worse than what we have now?

As for John Rain and the present, like I said, most teams now really are close. Our percentage was a problem this year. Despite this closeness, injuries to gun players were not fatal to Collingwood or the Eagles. It should not be that hard for our list to train like Dyson, tackle like Devon and kick goals like an accurate goal kicker. This year we showed we can win consistently on the road, and we knocked over some bogey teams like Sydney. A new goal is to win on the MCG and keep winning.

3 Likes
368

This really is fairy-land stuff, though.
Any teams that attempted to leave the WAFL and SANFL as whole entities would have been pariahs, just as Port were in South Australia when they tried it.
You’re talking about North, St Kilda, the Bulldogs and Fitzroy all being shoved into the VFA at a stroke.
Whoever would be behind it would be the most hated men in Australia.

1 Like
369

I was around during the time when the formation of the AFL from the was going on, but now that it is all history, it is interesting to see it in perspective, particularly from interstate, so thanks Diggers. However you have got me thinking how it could have worked and still could work.

My thinking is, the best way of making a truly national competition which ideally would have fed all the state leagues funds, would have to indeed created a super league but rather than alienating supporters by picking some teams and not others, you would have 8 teams from each state and territory. Which would lead to a national state of origin competition (or something akin to the Sheffield shield in terms of player origin) where you would guarantee the interest of all the states supporters and united them, and had a bIoody good quality competition while preserving all the state leagues.

While all states could have the option of reserving 26 spots for local players, any unfilled spots could be picked from a draft and trade type system, where the state or territory with the smallest number or reserved players get the pick of what is left over until they have as many as another side, then they start taking turns until all the teams have 26 players and then they all have turns until the have a full squad of 44. This process could be repeated every year, with the state of origin having preferential access until they had filled their 26 reserved spots. It would be vital that the Super League funded the developing and smaller states and territories to have top line coaching and recruiting staff and facilities, so every state was competitive.

The fixture could have 21 rounds and a top 4 with each team playing each other 3 times and the extra home game being alternated each year and the side with the single home game would be worth double points to even out the home ground advantage per point over the season and make these games big events.

21 rounds and a top four should make the local league seasons at least 2 weeks longer which means they would get clear air for their season launch and grand final.

The Victorian reserves could be dispersed into Fitzroy and South Melbourne which the VFL could resurrect. This would make them less stacked with AFL players and a better ability to develop more than one or two players per position (especially ruckmen).

The quality of the football would be amazing and the Grand Final would be played in the state which earnt the right.

How would we cope with that, would we be happy with a VFL that Essendon played in and a true AFL where we could barrack for the big V?

Non Victorian Bomber supporters could best answer this question, if they support a local team which have its best players sucked up by the AFL.

I know Diggers has already described the effect of the Weagles on the WAFL, so I wonder if a second team for each state which was subject to promotion and relegation could work to make each local league more relevant and allow us all to dream of an AFL / Super league Premiership? But this would be phase 2, maybe 10 years down the track, so everyone got used to supporting the big V or its equivalent in each state, before we introduced the concept of promotion and relegation for the local league team in each state if it wasn’t performing well.

Yes @wimmera1 , this is fairyland stuff, unless there is a Packer or a Murdoch who wants to make it happen.

1 Like
370

Rupert Murdoch was hated in NSW and QLD for superleague rugby.

371

Yep.
And Superleague failed.

1 Like
372

I don’t recall that being the sentiment at all. The NRL (or were they still the ARL at the time?) were copping it as much, if not more, for how they handled it.
It pretty much went along club lines. The supporters of the clubs that went to Super league were bagging the ARL. The supporters of clubs that stayed were bagging Murdoch

1 Like
373

Stop writing so much

374

SuperLeague did not fail and was as important as World Series Cricket was to break the stranglehold that the Administrators had over the game.

NRL is a great competition and is now well-run and progressive.

AFL Clubs gave up control to a Board of self serving autocrats, who run the show based on how much TV money they screw.

5 Likes
375

This is spot on.

The 80s were a tumultuous time and most clubs were being seriously mismanaged.

East Perth tried to join the VFL in 1980. The SANFL discussed an Adelaide team joining the VFL in 1981. North’s Pres, Ansett, called for a national comp in 1984. Pig’s Aaaaaarse, Elliot, wanted a separate national comp and tried to entice the Swan Districts and Claremont to join. The Vic Minister for Sport at the time was opposed to any national comp, as 90% of Vics weren’t supportive of it. Discussions to legislate to protect it as a Vic only comp were held, however, I think the parlous state of individual club finances (and the potential hit to State coffers to prop it up) saw any State Government support evaporate. Attorney General, Kennan, forced 7 clubs to open their books and prove solvency.

This was in 1985. The problem with moving to a breakaway 12 team national comp (with 9 Melbourne teams) was funding it. I think the Macquarie Bank baulked at the request for $100m from the WAFL CEO to support the new comp. Without funding, it was always gunna be hard. Had they gained access to that funding, I am certain a new national comp would have been established (NB: 6 Melbourne clubs were prepared to join this comp).

The following year, WAFL presidents voted 6-2 to join the VFL (Swan Districts and East Freo the exceptions) and later West Perth refused to join. Keep in mind that the WAFL presidents believed (at the time) that the VFL would be rationalised (only months later, they found out that the VFL had backflipped on that idea).

1986 was all about merger discussions - Melbourne & Fitzroy, Saints & Fitzroy, Dees & North. Richmond, Footscray & the Pies were on their knees (with the Pies declaring a massive $2.9m loss and sacking their Pres). Only Essendon, Carlton and the Dawks were solvent at the end of '86 and Gordon Lewis almost closed the VFL down for good. Would the public have rallied? I’m not so sure on that. It doesn’t matter anyway. Ross Oakley was brought in to sort it out. The plan to issue multimillion dollar licenses was hatched and the Bears and Eagles joined the comp.

Anyway, this thread has gone on a massive tangent and away from 11th in 2018 to flag in 2019 discussions.

1 Like
376

I don’t want to give the impression that 8 Melbourne clubs, Brisbane, Sydney and three real clubs from WA and SA wouldn’t have been awesome.

I think it would have been.
And of course the players from the four defunct Vic clubs would have all scampered to whoever would take them, so…the interstate sides might have been competitive.

On the other hand, if you think the State leagues were destroyed because of the option they went with…

377

What, you think the club somehow magically knew Myers, Melksham and Kav wouldn’t be gun mids? You say we should have focused on mids, well the club did. They just didn’t all become guns because our earliest pick was #10 until Heppel. Weak drafts in 2009 and 2010 didn’t help.

378

Now, you’re deliberately trying to be antagonistic.

Brush off the fact that you creatively brought the years 2013-2015 into the discussion in your original reply (clearly wrong - given that I stated ‘2012 & earlier’ and ‘gun mids’). No comment on that whatsoever.

As for cherry picking, please. I clearly said ‘recruiting & developing gun mids’.

2006:
2 Gumby (KPP)
5 Boak, 7 J Selwood

2007:
5 Myers
10 Danger
12 Cyril
NB: Later picks were also spent on Pears & Darcy Daniher (both defenders)

2008:
5 Hurley (KPP)
11 Sidebottom
18 Shuey

2009:
10 Melksham
20 Fyfe
24 Carlisle, 26 Colyer, 33 A Long

2010:
8 Heppell (nailed it - as I have acknowledged)
31 Steinberg
40 Parker

2011:
19 Kav
21 T Mitchell
25 S Ross
30 Yeo
31 J Merrett
33 Brad Hill
58 L Neale

Firstly, we need to examine this (prior to 2012). Looking at the above, they clearly targetted KPPs in several of those drafts. Not only with our first pick, but also with later picks in those drafts when we selected a mid with an earlier pick.

Next, and of course it goes without saying that hindsight is a wonderful thing, however, in those drafts that we actually targetted mids, Jackets made some seriously poor decisions with the players he recruited.

And, as I stated in my last paragraph, we have realised our mid deficiencies in recent years and have been focussed on strengthening it (hence the recruitment of Zerrett, Parish, McGrath, etc).

Neglecting our midfield has been a significant reason that we haven’t had any finals success since 2004. One more solid trade period (with a focus on mids) and we should make finals in 2019 and hopefully challenge for a flag.

1 Like
379

I’m being antagonistic, while you’re putting Cyril up as a mid, cherry picking the most successful picks while including F/S selections like Mitchell?

Across the period you named we took a heap of first and second round picks, which you’ve listed (plus of course Zaka, Jetta and Hislop). In fact from 2006 to 2011 we had 15 first and second round picks and used 10 on mids, 1 on a utility and 4 on talls. To say we didn’t try and get midfield support for Jobe is simply wrong. And given how Lloyd, Lucas and Fletcher were ageing, the talls made sense.

380

Hindsight is a marvellous thing.

Amazes me when experts like you want to rewrite history. Think of all those clubs who are whipping themselves because James Hird slipped through to 78 in the Draft. Those who bring up Gumby, just disregard his injury bad luck and if I read the comment about Cyril and Paddy Danger ignored for Myers I will get even grumpier.

Picking kids at 18, guessing they will be a star mid fielder is a mixture of good luck and hope.

The issue for the Bombers in the last 10 years has been the poor development of many, and while you can flog the Club over that, it is mostly up to individual. Jobe got the message and worked hard to be a champion, Walla changed his life to make it to the top. Others who had ability, just didn’t want it enough.

2 Likes
381

This is what I said @Bacchusfox & I stand by it. Recruiting and developing. Jobe was a lone hand for many years, busting his gut with very little mid support. Yes, the Club may have felt that they needed to replenish their tall stocks, however, many would agree that we haven’t had the greatest midfield unit for well over 10 years. I couldn’t give a stuff whether it was poor recruiting, too much emphasis on replenishing tall stocks, lack of development, whatever. The fact remains that we had a crap midfield for a very long time and enjoyed very little success in that time. Have a look at the midfield units of all the premiership sides over the past 15 or so years. They have been full of guns and depth.

To restate, I think the Club has really improved in recent years and drafted in some quality mids. But, to gloss over the past and put it down to simply a bunch of talented kids lacking desire is ridiculous. Talent, hard work, desire, durability - there are many factors.

382

No-one can deny that we have not had enough mid-field grunt since 2000.

But do you think that the Recruiters and Coaches, just ignored the lack of mid-field talent. Maybe they made poor recruiting choices or maybe there was a lack of development, but it was not through lack of effort or resolve.

Besides Jobe, probably the best Mids we drafted have been
Jason Winderlich
Brent Stanton
David Zakaharis
Dyson Heppell

Expectation were these blokes may step up.
Darren Walsh
Jay Nash
Ricky Dyson
Angus Monfries
Henry Slattery
Sam Lonergan
Leroy Jeta
Tom Hislop
David Myers
Jake Melksham
Travis Colyer
Elliot Kav
Jackson Merrett

Should we have not selected Hurley, Myers, Daniher, and gone for mids ?

The real facts may be that the farking draft was corrupted from 2010 when all the best boys, mostly those gun mid-fleiders running around went to Western Sydney and Gold Coast. Further corrupted by our loss of draft picks due to the saga.

I am not making excuses for the Bombers failure to have a great mid-fielders, but there are reasons which were out of our control.

383

Yes I agree with you and I still believe, there are at least two too many teams in Victoria.

A truly national competition I imagine won’t happen in our lifetime. The AFL are simply not that interested or generous and they are already propping up at least five clubs financially. The AFL are concerned not with how the draft plays out or whether it is fair or not, particularly; to the clubs below the top ten. And even more talk on equalization which is nothing but talk won’t occur. In exactly the same way as the world’s oceans are being fished out, the AFL drafts will remain short on supply. It will be a case of 1snatch and grab using dollars.

Because premiership’s are what players and club’s play for and that fact is continually reinforced. Held aloft is the Golden Fleece, the AFL Premiership Cup. They are hard to win another fact reinforced which makes it even more sought after. Where are the very good players going to drawn to and covet regardless of heart alliances? The clubs where that is indeed possible and not just a dream.