First Successes, Last Hurrahs

Continuing the series of VFL / AFL 'decades in review'... In part 3, a 'golden era' of the VFL, where most teams had a realistic shot at the flag.
In the 30 seasons from 1950 to 1979, 10 of the 12 competing teams did indeed carry off a season with a flag. While the writing was on the wall at the end of this period for the two teams that missed out, South Melbourne and Fitzroy.


THE BREAKTHROUGHS BEGIN

The first full post-war decade brought the first real success of the 'new teams' introduced in 1925, with Footscray breaking through for their first Premiership in 1954. Even that successful year didn't amount to a successful decade, with a winning percentage of only 48.9%.

The fifties also was the era of dominance by Melbourne under the legendary Norm Smith, when they won 4 flags and could have bagged another 2 more (missing 1954 and 1958). And the Melbourne dominance didn't finish with the end of this decade, with more flags in the 60's.


THE SPLIT APPEARS

The 60's were possibly the most balanced and competitive decade of the VFL, with 7 different teams winning flags, and only 4 teams not having positive winning percentages. It could also be argued that it was the beginning of tough times for the 4 clubs that had the poorest winning percentages. Of those 4 two have moved / merged and the other 2 have had both additional AFL funding and changed their name as well.

This decade was (and still is) St.Kilda's best, with a flag and a 61.2% winning performance. Best by a long way (nearest was 50.4% in the 90's).

It was also the decade of breakthrough for Hawthorn, finally winning a flag and leaving only North Melbourne without a premiership.

The 60's also marked the start of Collingwood's 'Decades of Dissapointment', with no flags for the 60's, 70's and 80's.

With the advent of television and televised games (along with radio coverage) you could also mount an argument that the additional media coverage fuelled the divide amongst the clubs, with more focus on the successful teams pulling in more supporters and dollars etc. You could mount that case, but I will just call it a theory and leave it at that.


THE BEGINNING OF THE END

The 70's were the era of colour television, where teams accommodated the TV networks by changing jumper colours (e.g. Melbourne to a lighter blue), and even wearing coloured shorts (Richmond and Essendon both donned shorts that matched the sashes, Footscray went for red shorts too). The first real decade where the media influenced football.

In turn it was also the decade where football influenced popular culture as it was when the first Australian Football based feature films were made:  "The Great MacArthy" (1975) and "The Club" (movie: 1980, play 1977).

It also saw the last of the 1920's new boys break through and win a flag, with Barassi at the helm and Aylett working the 10-year rule to effect, North Melbourne picked up their first 2 flags. It was also the begininning of a dominating period by Hawthorn and Carlton as well, with 3 flags each and more in the 80's as well.

It also returned football back to a decade of dominance of some clubs, but this time with a twist. Clubs were now openly spending and securing the best talent, as well as developing players from within their zones, which continued into the next decade until the boom time turned to bust.

The spending was partly triggered by the introduction of the 10-year rule, but also by the increased flow of funds into clubs. No longer reliant on memberships and benefactors, this decade brought sponsorship to a new level. No longer were the fences on the outer draped with supporter made banners, but sponsor signs. Jumpers also first sported logos over the left breast
 - North Melbourne and Courage Breweries
 - Essendon and Don Smallgoods
 - Collingwood and Yakka
 - Richmond and Carlton and United Breweries
for example.

Notably, without sponsorship dollars was St. Kilda, Melbourne, Footscray, Fitzroy and South Melbourne. And for the latter, it was their last decade in Melbourne. The beginning of the end of the VFL had begun, without most people realising it.


And the next three decades would shake the foundations of the football world,
...as well as re-invigorate it into a new dimension.

Ask Your Grandfather

Continuing the series of VFL / AFL 'decades in review'... this time from the 20's through to the 40's... another period that the VFL and Australia was touched by war and troubles.

An era where legends were made, heroes were only read about and dreamed of. Where kids kicked rolled up newspapers around because they couldn't afford footballs, but loved the game intensely.


ROARING AGAIN

The 1920's was the final decade of footy before electronic media, radio, television etc. Players then were more mythical legends, with deeds only seen at live on match-days, or read in the papers, or discussed in workshops, pubs or schoolyards. It was the last days of the most pure form of team supporting... of being at your local ground as the only direct contact and involvement you could have with your team.

The 20's also saw the VFL push for the introduction of a new team and elimination of the bye. VFA clubs spent years lobbying the power-brokers at the League before finally settling on North Melbourne, Hawthorn and Footscray (with Prahran missing out). Those three teams were selected for inclusion to the VFL during the 1924 season. At the end of the '24 season, Footscray as VFA premiers, famously went on to win the title 'Champions of Victoria' after defeating the VFL Premiers, Essendon.

The three new clubs commenced VFL action in 1925, but owing to the existing VFL clubs not relinquishing suburban recruiting zones, they were hamstrung from the start (somethings never change). Essendon also recruited a few of the Footscray players that defeated them in the Champions of Victoria match (one of the purest examples of being a sore loser!).



DEPRESSION ERA FOOTBALL

The depression brought in hard and tough football, where playing with an injury was a must unless you wanted to lose your match payments. Also, as money was tight at clubs, the wealthy benefactors at the bigger clubs were able to help with player payments and recruitment through the decade, and this is reflected in the teams listed at the top at the finish of the decade.

In fact, this decade was so lopsided that it is the only one to produce a top 4 that won +60% of their games and have +120% for/against. (The only challenger is the 70's, although the for/against percents were lower).



WAR, LOSS AND RATIONING

The war years again brought a suspension in play, but only for Geelong who stood out of the 1942 and 43 seasons due to wartime travel restrictions. Geelong's players were temporarily transferred to other clubs to allow them to keep playing. Melbourne and Collingwood also struggled to field teams, relying on VFA players and Servicemen to complete their squads.

Matches were also played away from major grounds, as they were requisitioned for the war effort. US soldiers and Australian RAAF personnel were stationed at the MCG (in what the Americans called 'Camp Murphy').

St. Kilda also missed playing some games due to a quirky draw the VFL introduced to eliminate the bye mid-season (in 1943 after 11 rounds, the 11th team got tipped out for the remaining 5 matches).
The war and ration years also proved to be the worst period in Collingwood's history to date, with no flags and the the first time they had won less than 6 out of 10 games. Quite a contrast to the big spending decade before.

Money Can Buy You Wins

... but I'm still not sure if money can buy you love.

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).

- 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. 

    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. 

    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.

Click to Expand

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.

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.

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.

Blow-out Me Down With A Feather.

The 2011 AFL season was the most lopsided in the history of the competition. The number of blowout games (on most measures by margins), and also by ladder percentage disparity (since 1970, when a 22 week home and away season became the norm). I don't put this down to the start of the Gold Coast Suns, but to that commodity every team, and everyone else, wants more of.

I had tweeted about this during the season, with charts etc, but I felt it also warranted further study and analysis. It may be that I have also found a possible root cause... more on that in the next post though.


The Blow-outs Of The Season.
There was a lot of media chatter about the 2011 season, particularly the blow-out games that have been posted in the back-half of the season. It all really fired up after this result:
        30/7/2011:   Kardinia Park  - Geelong  37. 11. 233  def  Melbourne  7. 5. 47

The aftermath of course brought the downfall of Dean Bailey, and an apparent push by the leading clubs to 'fly the flag' and post huge scores against lowly clubs as well. Which may have been the impetus for these results:

       06/8/2011:   Football Park  - Port Adelaide  3. 3. 21  def by  Collingwood  23. 21. 159

       06/8/2011:   Kardinia Park  - Geelong  29. 14. 188  def  Gold Coast  6. 2. 38 

All of this brought out talk (and tweets) about how blowouts were a big problem for the AFL, which His Andrew-ness said was an over-reaction (ABC News).

         "I just think they are a very rare occurrence," he said .... "We always knew that the

         Gold Coast would have a couple of largish results ... I don't think it's one that requires

         a crisis meeting and hysteria."

          - Andrew Demetriou: Aug 10 2011.

The following week, despite the head-honcho's assurances that massive blow-outs were rare, brought another belting (or big-club-showing-it-could-also-beat-up-a-lowly-club... read that as you will) 
       13/8/2011:   M. C. G.  - Hawthorn  31. 11. 197  def  Port Adelaide  5. 2. 32

So in the space of 3 weeks, the AFL served up the incredibly rare event of 4 blowout matches, for a combined scoreline of    120. 57. 767  -v-  21. 12. 138    Margin:  629 pts

And of these four, only one was a Gold Coast game... so much for His Andrew-ness's logic. Adding to the increasing rarity of these blowouts was the two earlier +120 point games in 2011 as well:

       01/5/2011:   Docklands  - Essendon  31. 11. 197  def  Gold Coast  8. 10. 58

       22/5/2011:   Subiaco  - West Coast  26. 19. 175  def  Western Bulldogs  8. 4. 52

Which benchmarks this season as the worst season EVER for
   - Margins 60 points and over           46 games
   - Margins 100 points and over         10 games (equal with 1991 season)
   - Margins 120 points and over         6 games (equal with 1991 season)
   - Margins 140 points and over         3 games

To put that in perspective, the chart below shows all results with margins of +60 points since 1897 (broken down into 20 point increments)

Click to expand.

And while this year has set a new high-watermark in un-evenness of the competition, the scoring rate (blue line) remains relatively stable at just around 180 pts scored per game.
Also interesting that the 2011 season has run against the trend of the last 10 years, which had been reasonably consistent.

You could also look to the disparity between teams ladder percentages over the years. Since 1970, when the now standard 22 round season was first introduced, 2011 is again the most unbalanced.

Click to expand.

The chart above shows the Standard Deviation of all teams scoring percentages in 2011 to be 31.8, And the net difference between the maximum and minimum teams scoring percentages in 2011 to be 111.4%.

     * NOTE: Removing results of games involving the Gold Coast, adjusts this to a Standard Deviation of 30.4, and
     total difference between the maximum and minimum teams scoring percentages in 2011 to be 104.2%. Both of
     these adjusted figures are still record levels.

The Reaction So Far
So has this sent alarm bells ringing down at AFLHQ?
Well, it possibly triggered an internal season review (read as "crisis meeting" if you like), because His Andrew-ness came out at seasons end on Melbourne radio (MTR) to advise that...

         “What will happen you will see more one side affairs, you will see more one sided
          affairs, and western Sydney and Gold Coast suffering big losses as they build their
          team ... It will probably take three years for a correction to happen into the game
          where we get back to much more even games, get back to the pure draft after next
          year ... But for the next couple of years you will see these things that are skewed
          to blowouts"
          - Andrew Demetriou: Sep 28 2011.

...none of which is any surprise to football followers. Thanks, Andrew, for the concession speech, and lets assume this was written up in the Grand Final Edition "Football Record", on page 31, small print, bottom inside corner under the title "We Were Wrong"...?

Or, maybe not.

And to cap it all off, we can expect more in 2012, as

          "The AFL called a press conference yesterday to announce it was making ''no major
          rule changes'' for next year."
          - Sydney Morning Herald: Oct 12 2011.

 It will be interesting to see what happens further both in the off-season and during 2012.
- Will any post-season analysis and review bring up any root cause, or mirror to the past?
- Will AFLHQ read and consider any external opinion and study?
- Is Andrew planning on buying new curtains for the office and hoping it all goes away?


I will post up some ideas on why I think all this has happened and the link to the dollars later.
And also why I don't think this is a result of the arrival of a new team.

Feel free to offer your theories now.