The boys fight back...

Football so far...

So the AFL has had an interesting start to the year. Generally speaking, most of the outcomes so far have been pretty expected. Probably the major shocks have been the form of Fremantle (great) and Adelaide (awful). Sydney has also been going quite well, probably much better than expected.


For me, the big disappointment has been Collingwood. Last week they weren't able to beat a St Kilda that was missing Riewoldt and Koschitzke. Not only that, but the Collingwood forward line is looking seriously ineffective. Their defence is great, their midfield looks great but their forwards (Cloke, Didak, Anthony, Davis) need to actually do something. Unless they can turn things around (which lets face it, is possible, Collingwood regularly do that) than the flag is beyond them this year.

So, a new look at how we can expect things to turn out this year.

Bulldogs
St Kilda

These guys seem to clearly be ahead of the pack so far

Geelong

They're the wounded champion (think Essendon in 2001 or Brisbane in 2004) but they still have the ability to put the hurt on. Do they have what it takes to win another flag?

Collingwood, Hawthorn, Brisbane

These teams are all strong, and potentially top 4, but they're not firing 100% at the moment. They do have the teams to bust anyone though, they just need to sort themselves out.

Sydney, Fremantle

Sydney has been the surprise packet, winning games and looking quite solid. Do they have the chops in their backline to match it with the big boys though? Fremantle have been amazing. I have massive wraps on Matthew Pavlich and it's nice to see them finally be good at the start of a season. If they can win on the road (especially now that teams realise they're a serious threat) than who knows where they'll end up.

Essendon, Carlton, Port?

These guys have the game to take it to the big boys, but aren't balanced out, either lacking key players or having very young lists. They might make up numbers in the finals but realistically they can't win a flag.

West Coast, Adelaide

West Coast have been doing alright (apart from not winning) and have a couple of genuine A-listers (Kerr and Glass, Cox if he's uninjured), but they're not going to win a flag anytime soon. Who wouldn't like Natanui in their team for the next 10 years though? Adelaide are just too old. They're structured and well drilled but just seem past it. The worst thing is that without their old midfielders they'd be even further in the hole! They definitely should be higher than this (expectations were top four) so they should turn things around, maybe.

North Melbourne, Melbourne

North Melbourne have lost their forward and have an old and inconsistent midfield. They should win a few games, but it's not going to be a fun year for their supporters. Melbourne has a very young list. They've shown that when they put in a full effort they can have a real dip, but they're necessarily going to be inconsistent because of the youth of their list.

Richmond

What can I say, they're screwed.

Obviously things are going to change, especially this weekend with the Hawthorn/Collingwood match, but that seems to be the state of play at the moment.

cheers

Harry

Edit - Bulldogs/Brisbane is going to be fascinating as well!

Free Agency

So it seems that the AFL has finally come up with a deal to allow players "free agency", basically the ability to move club if they are out of contract but their current club doesn't want to trade them. This column by Patrick Smith seems to sum it up quite simply, although I have seen some discrepancy in different reports, whether it's 8 years service for star players (top 25% of earners) or 10 years.

Except, to my ignorant eyes it seems remarkably similar to how the system works now (Luke Ball going into the draft with no guarantees of where he would end up, for example).

Now I'm not going to go all muggaccino like Jeff Kennett has and announce that it's the death of football as we know it, but I have to admit I didn't really see the need for free agency and even now I don't necessarily agree with the changes. In fact, many of the points that Jeff brings up seem quite legitimate to me, especially since, speaking from the perspective of a club with what, 45,000 members? he is definitely in a stronger position.

It definitely would have been interesting to see what would have happened if a case had gone before a court though, any club that sponsored such an action (even implicitly) would be creating a rod for its own back by setting a dangerous precedent. As such, you can't imagine such a situation being likely to happen anytime soon.

Now one of the comments on the first link to the Herald Sun was this one

Wombat of Brisbane Posted at 8:29 AM Today
Not sure if the Players Association has done what is best for their members. They have definitely helped the minority of disgruntled players who want to move clubs and they have definitely helped the bank accounts of the best players in the competition. I think they may have inadvertantly cut the earnings of the majority of their members who are neither disgruntled or stars.

I think that that's an extremely valid point. Sure, a few people want to change clubs and a few players can attract mega salaries if they do move (Ablett, Judd, Brown, Buddy etc) but the majority of players are not only unlikely to want to move, but unlikely to be viewed as that desirable by other clubs, certainly not desirable enough to offer significantly boosted salaries to. The majority of the players out there are having their share of the salary cap cut, while a few stars take away a higher percentage.

A couple of other comments from the Kennett article also seemed quite insightful to me.


jeff from perth of perth Posted at 2:19 PM Today
Nothing has been said regarding how if a player in the top ten money earners goes to the club of his choice how that will effect that clubs salary cap. The salary cap dictates how much gets paid to the players, does it mean that if a club gains one of these players, how many players must that club jettison to keep under the salary cap. Please explain? I'd love Ablett in a Carlton jumper but if that meant Carlton would have to loose Gibbs, Kruezer and say Murphy to fit him in I'd be totally against the move. It seems to me the only persons to benefit under these new rules will be the player manager; they will always get their 10% and never have to deal with angry, disillusioned supporters.

Sure Buddy or Ablett are damn good players, but are they better than 2 or 3 middle or lower-upper tier players? If I had a choice of Ablett or a package deal of Gibbs, Kruezer and Murphy I'd go for the package deal everytime. Sure it's nice to have stars, but great teams have depth and consistency, 22 players who can deliver (why did Gary Ablett senior never win a flag?) Geelong, St Kilda and Sydney have reinforced this need for consistency in the list over recent years.
rust of brisbane Posted at 1:20 PM Today
Is`nt that like putting the shoe on the other foot now.So all the clubs will have to be extra nice to their players.They say that loyalty should prevail, but have a look at so many players that have been loyal then told that there not wanted or put up as draft bait.

Now that is a REALLY interesting point. AFL clubs can't afford to be sentimental. Even Kevin Sheedy, who always made an effort to drag players back to make up milestones was a ruthless bastard when it came to player selection. Loyal club servants were traded or dropped when it was needed. If there's no loyalty shown by a club than it's hard for the players to feel loved. It's definitely a two way street.

Anyway, what we don't really want to see is a situation like the NRL or gridiron where players can move clubs mid season. Having strong clubs with traditions and players with associations with those clubs might not be good for players, but it's certainly great for our game. If the players don't like it, let them go play for Werribee!

cheers

Dr Harry

A great game of footy...

I'll come right out and say it now.  I'm an Essendon supporter.  "Go the Dons!"

That being said, Essendon kind of suck a bit at the moment, having to tried to import some of Richmond's winning culture to give them an edge and help create their next premiership.

Anyway, not coming from a traditional football family I've never really gotten into the whole tribalism of AFL, even with the "traditional" rivals for Essendon.  I actually quite like Collingwood, I enjoy watching them play and like their team first structure.  I don't mind Carlton, especially this year and last year, never had much time for them before that.  I don't really like St Kilda (supposedly everybody's second team) and don't really care if they have to wait another 43 years until they actually get a premiership.  

I don't like Port but I do like Adelaide (this year anyway, not really before now).  I don't like the Weagles but I do like Fremantle (don't know why, they suck.  Maybe because the Pav is the best forward in the competition but nobody knows about it because he's always playing in the midfield).  I don't particularly like the Lions, but it's got nothing to do with the 2001 Grand Final, I can't explain it.  I also don't like the Hawks very much.  I don't really like the Bulldogs, although I do like Jason Akermanis.

Anyway, I just saw the Essendon/Adelaide semi final.  What a great game of football!  The second half was fantastic.  As outlined above, I actually like both teams.  Andrew McLeod is one of my favourite players and I really like how both teams play the game.  At first I was thinking I'd like Adelaide to win but with Collingwood close so they weren't disgraced.  Then I decided I didn't care.  I'd be happy for either team to win, I was just there to enjoy the contest.  So I did.  If you want to explain Aussie Rules to someone, show them the second half of that match of football.  No more explanation will be needed.

As for the grannie, obviously the smart money is on Geelong and St Kilda to be there.  Personally I think St Kilda will probably win.  I'd kind of prefer Geelong to win because they're in the position of 1 premiership from 3 years of dominance and I feel sorry for them.

Let's hope it rains so we have a mud fest and something interesting to talk about.

Oh, and a big congratulations to the Pies, great victory!

cheers

harry

to bump or not to bump, that is the question...

So Matthew Lloyd laid a bump on the weekend.  Of course anyone who has seen any media that relates to football at all would know this.

It now seems he has been offered a 6 week ban (4 with an early plea) and has accepted the 4 week ban.  Essendon are apparently choosing not to fight the charge.

While the consequences of the bump are quite obvious for all to see, I believe that it was not an illegal bump and therefore he shouldn't be suspended for it.  He was going for the ball.  However, someone who can make the case much more clearly than me is Greg Baum, who actually gets paid to do such things.  Read his article on the whole case here.

Personally, for me the much more worrying situation is that Chance Bateman got offered a one week suspension for his attempted coathanger on Lloyd.  The coat hanger is a true blight on the game of AFL, much different to the front on bump.  For many years the coat hanger was employed with brutal effect and the league spent a lot of time removing it from the game.  You still see it occasionally in country football, but generally it seems to have died off.  So Bateman launched a full coat hanger at Lloyd, with obvious intent, and collected him in the throat.  It didn't do what he wanted but that's not the point, he still attempted it.

And then he gets offered one week?  For me personally, I think that the two crimes are similar.  One is last minute, unplanned and with high consequences.  One is measured, planned and has low consequences.  Give them both equal time I say.

One quick point.  I am an Essendon supporter.  That being said, I don't believe that my vision is being impaired in this matter, I think that Lloyd deserves to play next week.

cheers

Harry

ps If you look at the bump from a different angle, so that Matthew Lloyd is facing the camera, you can see how fast the whole thing happens and that Lloyd is actually going for the ball.  The view that is being shown most commonly puts him in a much worse light.