Earlier, I posted about how the 2011 season was the worst for blow-out margins in the history of the competition on several indicators.
On looking at the chart further, I could see a period in the past that was similar to the 2011 season.
But first, let's pick -apart the season that was a bit further, as there is some feeling (from AFLHQ and others) that this was inevitable due to the introduction of the Gold Coast.
So It's All About The Suns Then?
As noted in my previous post here, blow-outs were expected by the AFL, as the expansion teams came in and built teams. So using this as a premise, let's allow that "we knew they would happen with Gold Coast etc" point stand on its own, and ignore the other "these are very rare occurrences" comment (from the same post) COMPLETELY ALONE then.
So, taking AD's comment that its all about the Suns, then I have to call bulltish. A simple check of the winners and losers highlights that the Suns may well be the worst, but there were quite a few others that also dished up some rubbish as well.
If you look at the thrashed teams what do we know about their 2011 season.
- Adelaide and Port Adelaide: teams in rebuild mode, profit and financial issues associated with the SANFL licence and ground deal. Both sacked coaches (one in 2010, one in 2011).
And how many of the above were in receipt of financial assistance from AFLHQ? From the AFL's 2010 report (pdf),
A total of $7.1 million was paid from the AFL’s Annual Special Distribution
fund to the following clubs:
• Western Bulldogs Football Club ($1.7 million)
• North Melbourne Football Club ($1.4 million)
• Port Adelaide Football Club ($1.25 million)
• Melbourne Football Club ($1.0 million)
• Sydney Swans Football Club ($0.8 million)
• Carlton Football Club ($0.6 million)
• Richmond Football Club ($0.4 million)
From the winners perspective, the competitions big spenders and power clubs are there (Collingwood, Geelong, West Coast), joined (some what incongruously) by Melbourne. The grain-of-salt for that would be to consider their big wins were vs. Adelaide, vs. Fremantle and vs. Gold Coast, in what was a very odd season for them.
I think there is a case to be made, that the competition is unbalanced and that the richer stronger clubs have opened up an advantage over others. But in the world of the draft, and salary cap how can this be?
Well, there is still unrestricted off-field spending, which it has been argued has reached a new peak (FoxSports May 4 2011).
So, I put it to you, persistent reader that has gotten this far... that it comes down to spending and club finances as to not only how well your season goes, but also to how well you destroy the on-field opposition and create a blow-out game.
Finances and Poor Performance.
So how can anyone suggest in this day and age (of the salary cap, draft and other equalization schemes) that the finances and spend of clubs is creating disparity?
If you look at the thrashed teams what do we know about their 2011 season.
- Adelaide and Port Adelaide: teams in rebuild mode, profit and financial issues associated with the SANFL licence and ground deal. Both sacked coaches (one in 2010, one in 2011).
- Melbourne and North Melbourne: Perennial Melbourne-based financial misfits, both these teams were belted by Collingwood and Geelong in 2011.
- Fremantle: The financially weaker brother of the WA teams, but perhaps their losses were more injury or travel related, as they had two bad losses in Melbourne.
- Throw in the Richmond and Western Bulldogs results, again from a pair of teams that have had financial crises (and often poor recruiting) too.
- You should disregard the Collingwood result (the Round 24 loss to Geelong), as it was in a game that had little value for them... well, that's their side of the story anyway!
And how many of the above were in receipt of financial assistance from AFLHQ? From the AFL's 2010 report (pdf),
A total of $7.1 million was paid from the AFL’s Annual Special Distribution
fund to the following clubs:
• Western Bulldogs Football Club ($1.7 million)
• North Melbourne Football Club ($1.4 million)
• Port Adelaide Football Club ($1.25 million)
• Melbourne Football Club ($1.0 million)
• Sydney Swans Football Club ($0.8 million)
• Carlton Football Club ($0.6 million)
• Richmond Football Club ($0.4 million)
From the winners perspective, the competitions big spenders and power clubs are there (Collingwood, Geelong, West Coast), joined (some what incongruously) by Melbourne. The grain-of-salt for that would be to consider their big wins were vs. Adelaide, vs. Fremantle and vs. Gold Coast, in what was a very odd season for them.
I think there is a case to be made, that the competition is unbalanced and that the richer stronger clubs have opened up an advantage over others. But in the world of the draft, and salary cap how can this be?
Well, there is still unrestricted off-field spending, which it has been argued has reached a new peak (FoxSports May 4 2011).
So, I put it to you, persistent reader that has gotten this far... that it comes down to spending and club finances as to not only how well your season goes, but also to how well you destroy the on-field opposition and create a blow-out game.
Finances and Poor Performance.
So how can anyone suggest in this day and age (of the salary cap, draft and other equalization schemes) that the finances and spend of clubs is creating disparity?
Looking back at the past year, there are many stories and hours of broadcast time that had been sent out around the off field spend of clubs, the overseas visits, and club facilities and staffing levels.
Look back at the chart that shows the number of games lost by margins over 60 points. There is another period in AFL history that shows a very similar trend... that period between 1982 and 1996.
Any suggestions as to what happened between 82 and 96?
Here's a potted history right here...
1981: South Melbourne, in financial trouble, are relocated to Sydney by the VFL.
1985: The first murmurs of financial problems and payment issues at Fitzroy surface.
1986: Ranald McDonald resigns from Collingwood, leaving them in debt and at the foot
of the table.
of the table.
1988: Richmond, suffering from rash management and a 'trade war' with other clubs
(principally Collingwood) have a huge debt, and create the "Save Our Skins"
campaign to fight off death.
1990: Footscray fight back against a merger with Fitzroy and survive (even though Ross
Oakley wasn't merged into outer space).
1994: Further financial troubles around Fitzroy.
1995: St. Kilda launch the "save our Saints" campaign.
1996: A proposed merger between Melbourne and Hawthorn is rejected, after both
teams struggled with debt and low membership levels.
teams struggled with debt and low membership levels.
1996: The Fitzroy fight for survival finally ends after 100 seasons, and they 'merge' with
the Brisbane Bears to form the Brisbane Lions.
That period must be the most de-stabilizing to the VFL/AFL competition in its history, with at least eight clubs suffering debt crises at some time (tell me if I missed any or got the years wrong).
So, let's look at when these blowouts began rising and peaked (see the main chart here), and I will choose the period from 1973 (the year the '10 Year Rule' was introduced and retracted*) until now. Looking at that specific time, and overlaying the troubles above, yields the below chart.
What is also noticeable is that there is an arrest in the growth of blowout games** from 1996 onward (for about 15 years), which may be related to the end of the turmoil of mergers and financial crises, the declared support of the 16 team structure by AFL HQ, and the generally improved fiscal management of the clubs and league itself.
The Reduced Talent Pool
The main idea behind the Demetriou 'new teams = blowout games' theory is based on the idea that adding new teams reduces the talent pool and lowers the playing standard. This also, doesn't stack up so clearly
Firstly from the above, adding a new team (and say 40 senior list players) does not necessarily create a higher chance of blow-outs.
- 1987 introduced both the West Coast and Brisbane Bears, and there were less blowouts than the previous 2 seasons.
- 1991 brought Adelaide with less blowouts than the previous season.
- 1995 brought Fremantle into the competition, with less blowouts than 4 of the previous 5 seasons.
Port Adelaide's entry in 1997 also saw the exit (via merger, if you like) of Fitzroy. That season, and the next two, were more even and balanced than 14 of the previous 15 seasons.
Final Proposition
So, I would think that with the above, you could offer a position that clubs financial strengths has an impact on performance. This was manifested in the 80's and 90's via general club financial problems, and in the recent era in the power to spend off-field and in the back rooms, to build on-field strength.
You can buy yourself an AFL premiership, even in the age of the salary cap and draft.
Let me know if I am wrong, or have missed something.
* What a great moment in VFL/AFL history the '10 Year Rule' was. Introduced as a kind of free-agency policy to allow players with 10 (or more) years service to transfer to a club of their choice, usually for an inflated fee. It caused such ructions and player movement that it was rescinded early the following year over concerns about ballooning payments and clubs wage-payment pressures. Additional player payment and recruitment detail here, by Ross Booth (pdf).
** You could point to seasons 2000 and 2001 as exceptions, but looking at the raw data shows higher 60 and 80 point losses, but only a few losses over 100 points. To me, the dark yellow and red results are the key problem areas.
 |
| Click to Expand |
What I haven't considered so much is exactly what is being paid to players... and whether third party deals or even breaches (known or unknown) are also skewing teams performances.
Firstly from the above, adding a new team (and say 40 senior list players) does not necessarily create a higher chance of blow-outs.
- 1987 introduced both the West Coast and Brisbane Bears, and there were less blowouts than the previous 2 seasons.
- 1991 brought Adelaide with less blowouts than the previous season.
- 1995 brought Fremantle into the competition, with less blowouts than 4 of the previous 5 seasons.
Port Adelaide's entry in 1997 also saw the exit (via merger, if you like) of Fitzroy. That season, and the next two, were more even and balanced than 14 of the previous 15 seasons.
Final Proposition
So, I would think that with the above, you could offer a position that clubs financial strengths has an impact on performance. This was manifested in the 80's and 90's via general club financial problems, and in the recent era in the power to spend off-field and in the back rooms, to build on-field strength.
You can buy yourself an AFL premiership, even in the age of the salary cap and draft.
Let me know if I am wrong, or have missed something.
* What a great moment in VFL/AFL history the '10 Year Rule' was. Introduced as a kind of free-agency policy to allow players with 10 (or more) years service to transfer to a club of their choice, usually for an inflated fee. It caused such ructions and player movement that it was rescinded early the following year over concerns about ballooning payments and clubs wage-payment pressures. Additional player payment and recruitment detail here, by Ross Booth (pdf).
** You could point to seasons 2000 and 2001 as exceptions, but looking at the raw data shows higher 60 and 80 point losses, but only a few losses over 100 points. To me, the dark yellow and red results are the key problem areas.
No comments:
Post a Comment