SA Footy

therisingblues wrote:

JK wrote:Although I'm not certain the dilution won't still have a detrimental impact on the standard. Mike Sheehan said the other week he reckons 12 teams, he believes, would be the ideal number. Obviously that won't ever be the case but it's an interesting thought about how good the teams would look.

Back in the 80's we had 30 teams playing top shelf footy in the SANFL, WAFL and VFL. T
In the early 80's the wealth of talent available in Tasmania was largely untapped,and participation rates in Queensland and NSW were much lower than today. Obviously those 3 leagues drew on a much smaller pool of players than today.
So why is it no one complained about the standard when we had 30 teams and less players to choose from, yet I am reading about this line of thinking now that we have only 18 teams and participation levels at an all time high Australia wide?

Nobody is comparing it to the 80s, they were comparing it to a 16 team comp - an extra 100 odd players playing AFL now than a few years ago, and clearly they are of a worse quality on average.

Think of maybe Shaun McKernan from essendon - no way would be still be playing AFL in a 16 team comp, as Essendon would have a young ruckman that is now on the list of GWS or GC

I don't really care what those media folk are comparing it with Benny. Just providing another perspective.

Fixing the fixture is the biggest priority. So unfair currently, here's my solution for a fairer draw
Currently there is approx 4 weeks of pre season and finals plus 23 weeks of HA games, so lets say 31 weeks of footy.

No pre season 26 Rd H & A
Rd 1-17 play each other once, Rd 18-26 play the same in Rd 1-9 at alternate venue
Rd 1-3 No rotation cap and extended bench of 8 to ease players in and for hotter weather conditions
From Rd 4 back to 4 on the interchange cap the rotations, although I dont think it makes any difference to the game whatsoever
Rd 4-9 must play AFL deemed rival/moneymaker to ensure playing them twice in the season
Complete Bye after Rd 13
Rd 24-26 No rotation cap extended bench to 6 to manage players for finals
Finals as normal
Supercoach Rd 3-23

Agree LMA.

The draw should be one of the easiest things to organize.
A couple of simple examples:
22 rounds - one game against each team, then the remaining five games based on ladder position from year before - top 9 you play three teams from the top 9, 2 from bottom, and obviously vice versa if you finished bottom 9.
23 rounds - one game against each team, ladder from previous year split into 6, and play one of the three teams from each 6 groups again.
I'm sure there would be other simple splits like this.

Give each club the opportunity to nominate a rival/money-spinner/reason to play a second time each year. Obviously the derbies for those outside Vic, Cwd/Ess, Melb/WB could be the breast cancer game, StK/Rich Maddies match, Carlton/NM Good Friday, HW/Geel Easter Monday. Maybe lock these in for 4-5 years and then revisit. If promoted right, ladder position wouldn't be overly critical, witness some Anzac Day.

One thing I'd suggest. I agree with the prior opportunity rule but you still have to lay a ******* tackle, just bumping the player isn't good enough for it to be called HTB.

Thinking about the veterans and how they are departing the game.

What about a "veteran list" where you can list one player per year, he's limited to 15 ( or more upon discussion ) games and he gets paid a maximum wage, the same wage for all veterans. It could perhaps be the average wage +15% or something.

That way the likes of Stevie J could go one more year at Geelong, Schulz could at Port, etc etc. They spend a maximum one year on that list and then retire.

Thoughts?

Didn't they basically have that's few years ago? Where a veteran could have 50% of his wage paid outside the salary cap?

I think the issue is not money but the fact that they are clogging the list up and clubs would rather have a developing youngster.

bennymacca wrote:Didn't they basically have that's few years ago? Where a veteran could have 50% of his wage paid outside the salary cap?

I think the issue is not money but the fact that they are clogging the list up and clubs would rather have a developing youngster.

Yes, and yes, but I think make lists 41 and the 1 is the veteran. Would have to be a minimum 30 years old or some other 8 years / 200 games + type qualification. Add another to the list but restrict how many games they can play. Perhaps 18 games maximum in the minor round.

I heard on the weekend about the notion of having a top ten double chance thing. If I heard it correctly it had the top 6 getting the last week off with 7v10 & 8v9 in a knockout thing for that week, I didn't mind it given the often lop-sided draw and the fact only 44% of the teams play finals in the current format.

On the other hand I think 8 finals teams is too many ands something of a farce.
I'd say 6 at the most.

Psyber wrote:On the other hand I think 8 finals teams is too many ands something of a farce.
I'd say 6 at the most.

With your concept, Adelaide misses out with a 13/8 record 62% win record.

Psyber wrote:On the other hand I think 8 finals teams is too many ands something of a farce.
I'd say 6 at the most.

I don't like this because it means there are way too many dead rubbers.

bennymacca wrote:

Psyber wrote:On the other hand I think 8 finals teams is too many ands something of a farce.
I'd say 6 at the most.

I don't like this because it means there are way too many dead rubbers.

Sounds like the West Parklands on a Sunday morning.

You are in form this morning LM

bennymacca wrote:You are in form this morning LM

That's what they say to him in the West Parklands on a Sunday morning.

Lightning McQueen wrote:

Psyber wrote:On the other hand I think 8 finals teams is too many ands something of a farce.
I'd say 6 at the most.

With your concept, Adelaide misses out with a 13/8 record 62% win record.

Yes, but I don't think it would make much difference to their prospects this year.
I must admit I tend to lose interest in the re-badged VFL once the SA teams are out of it.
I had no interest in it at all before they existed, and still care more about the SANFL.

Booney wrote:

bennymacca wrote:You are in form this morning LM

That's what they say to him in the West Parklands on a Sunday morning.

My balloon tying business is taking off.

Psyber wrote:

Lightning McQueen wrote:

Psyber wrote:On the other hand I think 8 finals teams is too many ands something of a farce.
I'd say 6 at the most.

With your concept, Adelaide misses out with a 13/8 record 62% win record.

Yes, but I don't think it would make much difference to their prospects this year.
I must admit I tend to lose interest in the re-badged VFL once the SA teams are out of it.
I had no interest in it at all before they existed, and still care more about the SANFL.

You could say the same about 4th and 5th in the SANFL too.

Give us more meaningless finals I say!

Psyber wrote:

Lightning McQueen wrote:

Psyber wrote:On the other hand I think 8 finals teams is too many ands something of a farce.
I'd say 6 at the most.

With your concept, Adelaide misses out with a 13/8 record 62% win record.

Yes, but I don't think it would make much difference to their prospects this year.
I must admit I tend to lose interest in the re-badged VFL once the SA teams are out of it.
I had no interest in it at all before they existed, and still care more about the SANFL.

I'll listen to or watch any game, my son and daughter are the same, more so when it's a knockout final.

I think the AFL should worry about getting its current finals system sorted and not having teams who have earnt a home final being forced to play at other grounds before it worries about others final systems

The AFL proving once again what a manufactured farce the competition really is