Dude, that was brilliant. The Tassie games have been a bugbear of mine since they came into it. West Coast, from memory havent won a single time down there... even in our premiership window of 2015-2018 we were regularly getting towled up by North who didnt even make finals. . The Pies have never had to play down there. For the WA sides, the travel is hard enough, but then playing consequtive 6 day breaks, against opponents who have had 7, 8, sometimes ten days rest, well its ridiculous. Anyway, like i said, brilliant presentation! and I loved that idea about playing Brisbane, Gold Coast and GWS in a 13 day period. Nice work ; ]
Net rest differential. Damning stuff. You really should send a copy of this to ALL AFL clubs (don't bother with AFL HQ they never listen to anyone). The clubs have to roll the AFL on this one.
Afl teams should all have a bye in one week, where they could advertise vfl, sanfl, wafl ect.. And they should stop having overlapping games such as 2 games at 1.45, rather do a 12.30 game and a 1.45 game so people can watch the ending of both.
Mate I just saw this vid tonight and I find myself in complete agreement with you. I'm an old bugger and can remember when it was fair. Without boring you with all my whinges, here is one thought, how about having an AFL match in every state on Anzac Day? Derby Day!
The good old days, when there were 12 teams. Six games on a saturday arvo. I remember those days fondly, having a smoke at 3/4 time in a local game in the huddle and asking a mate how my team was going as he had his ear up to the wireless and who had won at Flemington. Heading out to a pleasant sunday morning at the club the next day for a few cans and then off to the VFA for a few more brews and watch some of the hardest footy you would ever see. Those days are sadly gone forever.
there's a stigma against overcapitalising on Anzac Day I feel, they wouldn't want to do any more than Anzac Eve in terms of national TV spectacles because that would be too American
Brilliant analysis. The richer keep getting richer. One solution is two conferences like the NFL. The final 8 then comprises the top four in each conference. But in each conference everyone plays each other twice and the extra games are made up on a rotation system out of conference. It would certainly add an extra layer of intrigue to the AFL.
The fifth and sixth team in one conference might be better than the third and fourth team in the other conference. That is the flaw with that system that i see.
Great video and very well thought out and argued as to the disparities when it comes to the AFL's fixturing of double-up games for a handful of Melbourne-based clubs regardless of where they are on the ladder or how they are/have been performing and the "mortgages" that some clubs now hold seemingly perpetually for the sake of the AFL lining their pockets. Like you said in your video, a game like Bombers v Magpies for ANZAC is always going to draw a 90-95K+ crowd regardless of whether it is played on ANZAC Day itself or at any other time throughout the "ANZAC round". The same could be said for any other games where Carlton, Collingwood, Essendon, Melbourne and Richmond are playing each other - King's Birthday, Dreamtime, Opening Round. Regarding Gather Round where both SA teams have an extra Home game in addition to their bi-annual Showdowns, it would make sense to play one of those Showdowns as either the opening or closing game of Gather Round. Whichever SA team is deemed the "home" team for Gather Round, they should be required to travel interstate for either the week prior or after. The "away" team for GR would play as the "home" for the same round. Similarly, assuming that Gather Round is subsequently shared to WA, NSW and QLD, the same thing should happen with the tenant teams of those states. Victoria doesn't need a Gather Round. On the Byes, especially the Opening Round situation, I know it was to take advantage of the NRL vacating NSW and QLD for their Opening Round in Vegas, but I absolutely agree with you that what happened this year cannot be allowed to transpire again next year, but if it does, it also makes sense that the teams that participate must play one of the participating teams the following week. In do so, does this "compromise" the already convoluted fixture further than it already is? The other thing to note is Round 24 where the AFL have already fixtured which teams play each other, but the games have not yet been scheduled for a timeslot. What's the point of this if the teams who are going to be playing in the first week of finals are going to be having a week off in between anyway? It wouldn't matter if two teams are going to be playing in Week 1 of finals (against each other or other opponents) also happen to face off against each other in Rd24. Also, the current fixture where some teams play each other twice in the space of 6-8 weeks. Using my team, the Lions, as an example, they played the Crows in Rd9 and will play them again in Rd17 and the Saints in Round 14 and 21 yet, they play Collingwood at both ends of the season. It will be interesting to see how things are scheduled when the Tas team enters the competition in a few years and again when a 20th team is likely introduced a few years later to "even" out the number of teams. The AFL will have to be forced to rethink the fixturing of the games, if they haven't already done so in the meantime, as to how many and which teams play each other twice per season and who gets blockbuster games year in, year out. Perhaps the solution is to have bi- or tri- annual rotational fixturing where all teams play would play each other the same number of times over that period instead of the current disparities.
Seems as though we are in agreement on a lot of these issues! I made the comment elsewhere that the Lions don't play the Bombers until Round 24 and the last time they played them was in May of 2023. Brisbane have played three sides four times in-between those two matchups with the Dons...it's just crazy, if I can see that with my eyes how can a computer algorithm not pick it up?
Another great vid and evidence that it can be done. I'm a North supporter and astounded that they have a travel burden greater than Adelaide! Would be interesting to see some data around the graveyard 4:40 Sunday timeslot as well - hopefully that goes when Thursdays are introduced permanently. Hope you don't mind, but I've posted this in response to Jon Ralphs low fidelity reporting on Mark Evans equalisation submission to the AFL... 🤘🏼
Amazing video. They could have one break in the middle of the season putting the mid season trade period and draft in the week. If opening round needs continue it should just be a split round.
@@OTPpride hardly... Look at the English premier League. There are 20 teams in the competition, and they all play each other home and away. The teams that go deep into the cup competitions play over 50 games a season. Saying the AFL playing each other twice is too much is a joke....
@@natextreme_ except soccer is a non contact sport with shorter games and shorter travel times, furthest flight Bournemouth would have to take is about an hour to Newcastle once a year
@@albertmiller2electricbooga897 you do realize teams travel Europe to compete in the cup games right? And at times, play 3 games a week It's a stupid argument to say it's too many games for professional athletes...
Thank you for putting the time into creating such a fantastic video! I am now a subscriber. I have shared this video on a Geelong Football Forum (Cats Claw) for the members there to watch and discuss. Hopefully you'll get some more support. 👍
One issue with the fixture you didn't mention was home v away v neutral games. Eg Collingwood v Melbourne at the MCG is a neutral game as it is both clubs home ground, Collingwood having one of its 'home' games v North at Marvel is actually an away game because they are playing at North's home ground. This happens to Vic teams regularly but never to NSW/Qld teams (excepting Gather Round of course).
I’m not saying this issue balances out the other inequities in the fixture, this is just another instance of the uneven draw that I would like to see analysed
@@cmadelaide56nah we are making that our home games 😂. It’s an incentive we have wanted as we have that zone and picked up guys like Joel Jeffrey etc..
Phenomenal video mate. One thing I cant recall being mentioned, is say, Geelong "hosting" home games at the MCG against big drawing teams. For example, why do the Blues, Pies and Bombers never play down in Geekong, Hobart, Alice Springs, etc? Hows that fair? Also dont get me started on the MCG being locked in as the GF venue until 2059 in a supposed national competition...
One of the causes of the disparity was the agreement that each club would have 11 home and 11 away games each year. When the Crows, Eagles, Power and Dockers entered the competition the victorian clubs fought to keep this 11 home and 11 away agreement and compromised the fixture with their stubborn resistance to change.
scrap opening round, rotate gather round, get rid of matchups owning specific dates and public holidays, 3 year rotation for matchups, 10 & 8 teams each week for bye rounds and have interstate teams go on the road for 13-14 days and 3 matches to combat travel inequalities. I reckon this solves most problems apart from maybe not having as many blockbuster games that the fans want, but its a big problem to solve and in reality not everyone will get exactly what they want, and some things are more important than others. (e.g. competitive advantage from less double up matchups in a year is far less important that having as many blockbuster games as we do now.) what do you think? is this the ideal solution for fixing the fixtures?
The worst thing is that the AFL honchos then use crowd numbers as "evidence" that fans are happy and the game is in good shape. As Mick Malthouse said to Laura Kane on radio recently "That's all rigged before the season" 😮
Overlay that with the completely broken draft and you have the AFL writ large. I was a mug that helped prop up the AFL in 2020 by going to hundreds of Marvel games as a Saints supporter. Then we cop crap as Saints supporters that our hand is always there for a handout. Great video and analysis.
Surely the biggest problem is the MCG Grand Final contract. At the end of the day that's what all 18 teams are trying to win and a select few start every season with that huge advantage.
I think the non Melbourne clubs should get together and take a class action lawsuit out against the AFL . I dont recall that anyone of them were consulted about it, the deal was announced during midweek and nobody had a clue it was even being discussed, that is my memory of it. If you removed the Brisbane Lions (gifted an All Star Side) and the games featuring two non Melbourne teams (Swans-Eagles) its a horrendous losing record for the interstaters, even when they finished games clear on top of the ladder the rule of thumb is they will get massacred at the G on that last day in September. I will wager the Swans finish three games clear this year, but will get done by the Blues in the one game that matters. Lets see ; ]
@@PeterM1-qx1tz Big chance, I am a Blues man so happy with that. But all jokes aside, they need to work out something a lot better than the current structure. Its ridiculous.
@@iankearns774 Cheers mate, its all good, They rotate the Superbowl every year, no reason Adelaide, Perth and Melbourne cant do the same for the AFL. ; ]
the pies v blues and essendon is an interesting discussion on one hand yes we make a lot of money playing in those massive games together on the other hand Collingwood have had the edge over both sides majority of that time and thus have had "easier" games than if they were to play better sides more often like Geelong hawks sydney etc.
Great video. Thanks for the work that has gone into this. I have subscribed and will forward on to like minded people. The only thing I would add is that to even up the travel burden, Victorian teams should travel 8 times a year to each of the non-Victorian teams. Keep up the good work
Great video, very insightful. My greatest bugbear is the Anzac game, probably the most significant game after the Grand Final but only two clubs can play in it and only players from those two teams can win the Anzac medal. What I suggest is that the Anzac game be the Grand Final replay, with all the prestige that goes with it. Why can’t Freo play the Giants?or Carlton play the Crows? Why must it be fixed that only two teams can play? Don’t get me started on all the other anomalies in the AFL, (blood coming to the boil)
Thank you. Some interesting data and viable solutions. One thing I would like to see trialed is the opening round as local Darby round. Looking forward we will have 19 teams. Now that will cause bye headaches in a 23 round competition.
73,000 on Anzac Day in 1992 does not compare to 95,000 on Anzac Day in 1995. That's a 22,000 difference, which is the equivalent of some entire match crowds between two teams today. 95,000 is Grand Final crowd numbers, and Collingwood/Essendon deserved the stamp they put on it.
Just a reminder that the crowd of 73,000 was at Waverley Park. Only two thousand short of the crowd that attended the 1991 Grand Final at the same venue... Thanks for watching.
There were split rounds, not 'byes' i.e. in 2001 with no more SOO games, one round had 4 games one week, the other 4 the next week. Eventually it lead to what it is now
Brilliant analysis & research. I would also like to see some discussion around the chain of causation. Ie "small" clubs like Nort, Saints don't get blockbuster games. Is this because they are small? Or, are they small because they don't get blockbusters? Big games.afford so many opportunities re sponsors, recruiting, player retention, and therefore father-sons, etc, etc. It is self fulfilling and leads to a two-tiered comp
The part of the video that made my jaw drop was the net rest imbalance. To my mind that shows a strong correlation with ladder position and current form. Hawthorn seem to bucking the trend, but I don't know if they are modifying their training schedules to compensate. I read that Geelong trained extra hard in the pre-season to develop a new game style which seemed to pay off in the first 7 rounds. Since then the net rest differential (along with form drop off and some injuries) seems to have really had a toll. Thank you for doing all this incredible research.
Could two conferences be trialled? A VIC conference and interstate conference. Local teams always get to play each other twice. You travel and play the teams in that state in consecutive weeks. One VIC team has to play in the interstate conference on rotation. Maybe Vic teams get less home games during the time they play the interstate teams to even up the travel and cost?
The AFL draw has been a farce for over 30 years. It’s all about maximizing profits by having the big teams playing each other twice a year. The team that qualifies to host the grand final should have the grand final at their home ground. The season should be reduced to a 17 game season so that each team plays every team once. There should be a 2 week close down in the middle of the season to give everyone a break. The final 8 should stay as it is as I think the finals system is fair (apart from the hosting rights of the grand final)
Hey mate great video I really enjoyed listening to you. The things they should change for the fixture in my opinion is 1 1st 17 rounds everyone play each other 2 Everyone has a bye following week 3 Round 18 Derby round 4 The rest of double ups play teams based on the ladder 5 Have 4 Gather rounds 1 in Adelaide, Brisbane, Perth and Sydney 6 The team higher on ladder plays Grand final in there home state or home venue 7 Balance out who gets each other twice if they keep current fixture model eg Essendon has not played Melbourne since 2005 this has to be a double up lock next year it is ridiculous 8 Teams playing each other in different venues eg Brisbane vs Hawthorn at Gabba. No more than 3 years wait to play a team in their state. The only exceptions is Carlton, Collingwood, Essendon and Richmond only play at the G every year.
Should split the league between Vic and NonVic sides when we expand to 20 but just for the purpose to somewhat even out the number of games played within your home state (we still use one ladder). Teams play 12 games within their own group, so 3 double ups. For Vic sides, that’s 12 games within their home state (Victoria) while for NonVic sides it’s 6-7 home state games (8 if team 20 is WA3 or SA3, but Canberra is likely the AFL’s preferred option and would work better for this system). The equalisation would come from the 10 Vic v NonVic games each side plays where a majority of them are played outside Vic, forcing Vic sides to travel and to help even out the tally of home state games. No more Collingwood playing half a dozen consecutive games at the MCG. In the end we could have 18 sides get 14 games in their home state and 2 from Vic get 15 on a rotational basis from season to season. This would be out of a 22 game fixture and does not take into account sides selling home games to other states or Gather Round.
I agree with the unevenness of the fixture, but in the 90s there was no such thing as Queen's birthday "eves", or any "eves." It was Collingwood who played Melbourne on the public holiday because of the post war rivalry. It's ANZAC that's the problem. Which is rather ironic because during the First World War Collingwood along with 3 other Irish based suburbs refused to take part in a war time discontinuation of the VFL matches. The Queen's birthday was never big in AFL history until the big freeze resurrected the popularity of the game. ANZAC day and these pre scheduled games are only a recent phenomenon.
Your logic is based on the premise that the AFL isn't just a money-making machine. The draw is one of the lesser examples of this. Umpiring within a game designed to always manufacture tight games is the most egregious.
Hey mate love your content. Video idea for you - AFL Awards. We've got the Coaches Association Awards and the Players Association Awards each with their own objective and transparent voting systems. But the most glamorous and/or prestigious awards (the Brownlow, the Rising Star, All Australian and to a lesser extent the Norm Smith) are all suffering from serious credibility issues and riddled with flaws. In the case of All Australian we had years of no specialist wingers being selected in favour of just sticking unlucky on-ballers in those spots, and there's not even any sort of objective system (are the selection panel even required to watch and assess all the matches?). Just seems to be a vibes and media hype award at this point. The Brownlow has lots to talk about: the frequent bizarre upsets, the flawed 3,2,1 voting system (in comparison to the coaches' system, the lack of votes for ruck-men, forwards and defenders etc. There was JHF's 3 vote game from last season from an anonymous game. The fairest element in the Rising Star and Brownlow is a topic of controversy. There's a lot there. Keep it up, mate.
Another great video, you should have more subscribers. Interesting look at the advantage teams have gotten over the years and how 'smaller' clubs have still pulled big crowds in the marque fixtures. Would be keen to seen the AFL put the 'blockbuster' match ups in the bad timeslots like 1.10pm saturday or 4.40pm sunday like collingwood vs essendon and putting North vs st kilda on ANZAC day or something. Could get 60-70k to both as opposed to 80-90k to one and 25k to the other. I have had a thought similar to yours of a team playing both QLD and an NSW back to back to back. I would have the league to 'split up' into travelling blocks, like the divisions in the US sports. So based on the location of the teams but the blocks have no impact on ladder position or entrance into the finals. The WA teams and the SA teams are one, QLD and NSW teams are another and the VIC teams plus TAS plus team 20 (if not too far away) get split up into 3 blocks. The WA/SA block travels to melbourne, stays for 4 games each, play one of the VIC blocks, so each team of each block plays once rotating around per game. Then the block goes home and then the QLD/NSW block travels to perth and adelaide. Suns and Lions are in perth and alternate between the Eagles and Dockers while the Swans and Giants do the same with Crows and Power in Adelaide. Then the Suns and Lions switch with the Swans and Giants, play two more games and then travel home. There are 5 blocks, block A is playing block B while block C is playing block D and block E is playing amongst itself for 4 games. Then the block switch with each other and alternate between home and away. The block playing it self will only have 3 opponents so there will be a bye factored in and technically one team will start and end the year with the bye. This could be shuffled around on rotation or something (have worked that bit out completely yet). It would be easier to explain if I could draw a diagram. It doesn't have to be as formal as that, but have the WA teams stay in Melbourne for multiple games in row will save a lot of travelling and its crazy how we have two teams in each major city outside of melbourne and don't play them back to back. Also I would prefer each team playing each other team twice a year, once at home and once away and to cut down on season length, they should play 4 games over a 3 week period. Also they should increase team list size so they can rest players more. This could lead to a top team resting a lot of players when they play a bottom team at full strength which could lead to them winning more.
Absolutely agree with the sentiment of this video and well done on the research. The Afl and commentators alike justify fixturing , especially the so called blockbuster games on tv veiwing and crowds. Sure these are the bigger clubs generally but part of their member numbers are sold PURELY on blockbuster games entry. Build it then they will come, then let their members fight it out for a seat to be part of a big game and say they were there , then sell more tickets next year, therefore showing they deserve it, then shut it off to everyone else because they dont . Its a loop handed to clubs which builds them up. On the other hand you have clubs which the afl and also Afl media believe because they cant think outside a very small squre, truly dont deserve big games. Theyre stuck in a doom loop. Small games against small clubs in bad timeslots because theyre small clubs who only play in small games - a doom loop. Gresham " love going to Ess to play in the big games" its ingrained in their thinking because the Afl feeds this year after year. Rod
Great analysis. In relation to the bye (s) however, like it or not, the Players Association have specifically requested them. There can be a fairer way to distribute the byes throughout the season, but scrapping them altogether is unlikely to occur. The player salaries are driven by media rights, and the scheduling of the byes allow the AFL to have the season in the spotlight for a longer time. Economics unfortunately trump fairness.
I’d be interested to see a three year rotation itinerary. Though with Tassie coming in it’s going to be a mess again until a 20th team is introduced. Also, what about two tiers with relegations? Could the AFL sustain that?
Great analysis. The thing is it's not the AFL, but the broadcasters who pay for and do the draw. Think you will find the inequity increasing from friday night footy beginnings and tv rights contract explosion under the expansion of night tv 'blockbusters' (aren't they all now called blockbusters). Ultimate for them is one game each night of the week at 7.30pm, all labelled blockbusters. It's who puts bums in front of tv's at peak times, the broadcasters have to make profit from billions of dollar outlay, to be interested at all.
ANZAC day is probably the only day where I’m absolutely bolted onto Essendon and Collingwood being the match. Anzac Eve and the additional game on Anzac Day are find and I’m not upset about those being rotated.
Why Dons v Pies as the big ANZAC Day clash? Like it was stated in this video, those teams are going to draw a 90K+ crowd regardless of when it is played in the "ANZAC" round. Although gate-takings are shared between the Dons and Pies, why should they always benefit financially each year while other teams basically get nothing, even if they play the later game on the same day, like the Giants v Lions game this year? I don't see why the afternoon ANZAC Day clash cannot be fixtured to other teams. Yes, it can still involve an Essendon or a Collingwood. At the end of the day, it's just another match within the ANZAC round and it allows other teams to experience and benefit from exposure to a bigger crowd and increased revenue. Th question then to ask is, should it always be at the MCG? Yes, if the home team for that year is an MCG-tenant team. The AFL shouldn't then "fix"ture the afternoon game to always be an MCG-tenant team as that just reintroduces complexities around a select few clubs that benefit from that prime afternoon timeslot. The flip-side might be to always have it at the MCG, regardless of who the two competing sides are, which might comprise of two Marvel-tenant teams, a Marvel-tenant team and an interstate team, or two interstate teams. The fixture at the moment is too heavily stacked against interstate teams that only play at the MCG possibly only once, maybe twice at most, through the H&A season. If they were to play against an MCG-tenant team in a Final, they are already disadvantaged through lack of exposure of that venue. I don't know what the answer is or should be, but it certainly isn't what we have now.
I’ve been to two ANZAC day games at the MCG and neither had Essendon or Collingwood. They were Richmond v Footscray 1983 and Carlton v Melbourne 1986, both great games and great tributes.
@@jasonfreestone9944 That's probably because you've only ever known of it from the last 29 years. For almost 20 years prior to the first Bombers v Pies game in '95, the ANZAC Day game was played between other teams and was just another game in the H&A season albeit with respect paid to the ANZACs. It only became a constant Bombers v Pies game on the AFL fixture from '95 onwards after Kevin Sheedy proposed the idea to the Essendon and Collingwood clubs and the RSL to play a game to honour the ANZAC Spirit. In the first 10 years or so from '95, the game was almost really just another game on the calendar, even though it was the only game actually played on ANZAC Day itself. The first game had an attendance of high-94K and the following 10 years had mixed attendances, some as low as low-57K, before returning to high-80K to low-mid-90K attendances from 2006. Tickets were generally easy enough to purchase, even up to a several weeks prior to the game in those first 10 years. From 2006 onwards, the event has been considered a sell-out as soon as tickets went on-sale at the start of the season, with crowds constantly in the mid-high 80Ks to low-mid 90Ks and this is when the match became THE biggest marquee game of the season outside of the GF, and becoming more of a members-only and corporate/commercial event for the AFL than it is to pay respect to the fallen soldiers for which the day is for, even though the pre-match ceremonies convey the respect, not the game itself. Essendon and Collingwood might be two of the biggest clubs in the country, but the afternoon event should not be beholden to them perpetually. Regardless of where they sit on the ladder, they'll still draw a 80-90K+ crowd, even if they were sitting in 17th and 18th positions (we can only wish for this day to happen). Sure there are major broadcast rights involved in today's game now and the money made by the AFL, and that has come with the popularity of the "rivalry" of the clubs from this event, but those two clubs should not have the sole monopoly on that game, and it should be returned to a fixtured game where any club could play that specific afternoon event. Always hold it at the MCG and always involve a Victorian team, and sure it can involve Essendon and/or Collingwood at some point, but why should those two teams alone ALWAYS benefit from that one day, is part of the unfairness and imbalance of the fixture that this video is communicating.
I'm not mathematically knowledgeable enough to calculate it, but I'd be in favour of any formula which would see travel, marque dates and timeslots, and 'traditional rivals' rotated over a set period of time. Basically, an adapted version of the NFL system. NOT a fan of the AFL attitude of being absurdly profit-driven as it is now. This simply complicates the inequalities. Fantastic vid. Thank you.
As a Swans fan, love this video. We've cracked 70k members and currently constantly cracking 35-40k crowds. Would love to be rewarded with better blockbuster games. Not just the Sydney Derby but having like Sydney vs Collingwood on a public holiday. Or Sydney vs Hawthorn.
Everything you said is 100% spot on. The AFL r a disgrace. Only worried about filling their pockets, they dont give a stuff about the battling teams. If they want the same teams playing the big games they should just form a super league.
The Scottish SPFL split system could work well. Each team will play each other once (rotating home away each year) before the league splitting in Rd18 - Each side keeps their current one blockbuster day. Then, top 8 sides drawn against one another, bottom 10 the same. Could have a proper out of a hat style draw for fairness like FA Cup draw. Blockbusters every week for last 5 or 6 weeks with smaller clubs if in the 8 getting the prime time slots.
As an American AFL fan (go eagles!) the scheduling methodology is baffling. There isn't even pretense of parity. Tassie Devils entering the league, forcing an uneven number of clubs, and hence 1 bye every week including the final round, will dramatically worsen the current system. Change is needed. For inspiration, look at the nfl while it still had 31 teams, they managed
None of this is baffling or even new knowledge. Every year of my life, either one or 2 people controlled and managed ( influenced ) the rules of the game and the fixture. In both the VFL and the AFL. 1990 and the 3 best teams all missed the grand final. 2 average teams played off for the cup, being Essendon and Collingwood. Supercoach Kevin Sheedy expected Essendon to win easily, but discovered his fast , skilfull team lacked the physical strength to go the full 2 hours. Sheedy contacted the BOSS of the commission, a life long Essendon fan from a family of Essendon presidents. Together, they created the interchange bench, 2 extra players on the bench ( from 18 + 2 reserves to 18 + 4 interchange players ) and the game was SHORTENED by over 20 minutes.....more than 5 minutes a quarter. While the ESSENDON Football Club was running the AFL, Sheedy got every rule change he wanted. I have no gripe with Sheedy, he did the job every fan wants from the coach . The problem is the club gangsters running the game.
IMO the only fair way is for each team to play each other both home and away. This would mean 34 rounds however by reducing the length of games as was done during COVID and increasing the squad sizes Im sure the teams could cope. More games played will also generate more income for both the AFL and also the teams.
A great video with excellent analysis and deep stats to been it up. Surely as you say the reason behind the fixture decisions by the AFL are financially motivated, but you haven't said how their decisions benefit the league, rather than individual clubs. Two things that are intrinsically linked through advertising surely generate the most revenue for the AFL - broadcast rights and gambling. The fixture is designed to benefit clubs with the biggest audiences and draw millions of viewers at home rather than 20-80,000 at the game, where more money theoretically goes to clubs through ticket and merchandise sales. Bigger audiences get marquee timeslots and dates and thus the same clubs keep getting prime time and public holidays. The AFL is not in the business of parity (in practice at least) but in generating more dollars and keeping broadcasters and gambling companies happy. If they legitimately wanted all clubs to succeed equally (as much as that's possible) then fixturing would be fairer. As it is the big clubs get bigger because they receive more attention, and the smaller clubs have to be happy with 50,000 or less members and 15-20,000 at home games.
Some great points here but I think the same logic would apply. Just as the St.Kilda v Geelong game in 2009 at Marvel was the highest ever attended at the venue, the game was the 4th highest for the season in tv ratings behind only ANZAC Day, the opening game of the season and Sydney v Collingwood. I honestly believe that if the quality of the game is there, that both attendances and tv ratings will be through the roof...thanks for watching
Great video. Not Victorian. Just asking, what do people think about Victorian teams not really having a home ground advantage? I mean most of them share home grounds, and the ones that don't play home games away from home.
It seems like one of those videos you will look back on and think what the hell was i talking about. You started off saying the afl is money hungry with only the big teams playing on the marquee slots and not sharing, to then point out how the current teams didn’t draw as high crowd numbers as teams beforehand who tried it out Your idea on how to fix the travelling for the western country teams only fixes one problem (time in flight) however it creates a much larger problem as the teams are living away from home for x2 the amount of time than they do currently which goes against what the interstate teams want. In fact it’s the complete opposite to spending longer away from home. Scheduling more day games so teams like Brisbane can fly out that night to avoid airport curfews
Really enjoyed your video. AFL is a right royal mess at the moment. Is our great Aussie game losing its way due to corporate greed? Impressive analysis you did. Interesting point you bring up that the precious players of today want more money for less work effort and commitment.
I agree with some of the points. They do need to share the marque games between each team. But I think you’re ignoring how the current fixture is worked out and the reason why there is no rotation in teams playing each other twice in a season. 1. Currently each team will play each other once. 2. Plus a neutral game in gather round. 3. The remaining 5 games are used to play teams that finished close to you on the ladder in the previous season to give teams an even chance of winning more games. Number 3 is the reason why teams don’t play other teams twice in a season as often. By rotating who you play each year then people will just complain when a team low on the ladder ends up playing all the teams higher on the ladder twice in one season, making it harder for them to go up the ladder. So you either even up how often you play each team twice. Or you even up each teams chance of winning. ……personally I don’t mind the idea of a conference system. When Tasmania and a 20th team come in (let’s say NT), have 5 conferences of 4 teams. 1. All 20 teams play each other once in the home away season, making up 19 games (Home ground swaps each season). 2. Rivalry round, so teams can play a draw card game against their rival. 3. Teams in their respective conferences play each other twice. Making a total of 23 rounds as it currently is. Finals can stay as a top 8 system with the top 5 teams from each conference going through to the finals and the next best 3 teams (could be from any conference depending on overall win/lose record) making up the 8. Conferences could be as follows. West conference - WA/SA teams. East conference - QLD/NSW VIC south conf- st.k/geel/hawks/Tas VIC central conf - coll/melb/carl/rich VIC west conf - north/dogs/ess/NT* *NT hard to fit into a conference unfortunately.
@@jasonfreestone9944 that’s true. Could even split the conferences into 4 lots of 5 teams. Then the conferences can be as follows West conference WA/SA/TAS East conference QLD/NSW/NT Vic East conference Haw/rich/st.k/coll/melb Vic west conference Carl/north/ess/dogs/geel Unfortunately for tas and NT they have to join a conference that best suits the comp.
Splitting the Vics won't work. I'm going to fairly assume that your model means that vic central just stay and play and vic, south have to travel to Tas and vice versa and the west conference the same. Immediately the fans of the clubs that travel will say 'hey those central clubs don't travel and their fans can see them every week', and they'd be right. For a club like the saints that disadvantages them more than what they are now. Same with combining the non vics, they're still travelling, not as much as they are now but still you have a conference that doesn't travel at all and varying levels of travel for the other clubs in the other conferences. You're better off having state conferences, i:e a VFL, SANFL, WAFL etc. Whether or not the franchise clubs keep their following would be dictated by the market, as they already compete in those state leagues (wc, freo, ade port). This model eliminates the current travel disparity. And then a playoff of the conference champions. Of course this is a hypothetical model but it fixes a lot of problems that can't be fixed with the current model.
@@michaeldehn7840 it will be way too hard to create a fair fixture. Could maybe have 4 conferences of 5. With the make up each conference being 2 clubs from one state and 2 or 3 Vic clubs. This would mean vic clubs at least have to travel again. Could be Conference 1 2x WA and 3 vic clubs. Conference 2 2x SA, TAS and 2 vic clubs. Conference 3 2x NSW and 3 vic clubs. Conference 4 2x QLD, NT and 2 vic clubs. Can rotate the vic clubs between the conferences each year so over a 4 year period everyone plays each other the same amount of times. Except for the rival interstate teams who would play each other twice every year.
My idea for a solution for the byes is the equivalent of all star week. Obviously the AFL will never give us a proper showcase of the best AFL players, but why not do a gather round that rotates locations each year of teams from the VFL, WAFL, SANFL. Like get 2 teams from each league and make a team from each state play a team from another state. Could get celebrity involvements, broadcast history stuff, kicking contests, that sort of thing. Adds fanfare, allows younger guys to play in front of a bigger audience, each team still gets a bye, helps grow the game. It’s almost like all star meets a grassroots version of state of origin. I think it’s definitely up there with the most entertaining solutions, and would be great for the fans and players alike.
This a good analysis but I think you should factor in the team success and membership numbers data points. Do those elements paint a different picture? I loved the net rest data point . I hate byes. In terms of fitness you can’t make a good stock from baby formula and fast food
This was an excellent video and not because it fixes the problems immediately or would have all agreed and others are willing to concede. But because the inequalities are getting harder to ignore and you have Victorians making ridiculous statements now like they created the game (I'm Australian I created Vegemite) or you joined our competition so winge all you want. These attitudes are disgraceful no better than racism and infect the desire for the AFL to see big Victorian teams succeed above all else. But slowly and assuredly the national competition will be united fair, with integrity and bringing top quality football.
Scrap opening round as its a joke to eliminate to bye argument. As for travel, it shouldn't be an issue in todays day and age. Players are flying business class and have to sit on a flight at worst 4 or so hours. They get transported to the airport and worst case scenario are checking their own bags in. Equipment etc in travel handled by the club. So a flight and hotel accomodation shouldn't affect their performance at all. And post game they usually would fly back. Compare that to say the 90s when things were a lot different with less money, flights and crappy accomodation.
I love this video I subscribed on this topic alone i cannot believe it’s been ignored for as long as it has this topic I genuinely think it’s so irritating when they come out and say it’s unfair and don’t do anything about it they expect a different outcome for the same problem they are causing like no teams should ever be locked in for a particular time slot like Anzac Day kings birthday and Dreamtime etc because like you said Essendon vs Collingwood Collingwood vs Carlton and Carlton vs Essendon would still attract a big crowds no matter the time slot because they are the big 3 Carlton and Essendon were mediocre for 2 decades and still got crowds it so means the rich get richer
so the hub model, where for example the dockers go to qld and play brisbane, gold coast, and giants over 2 weeks. would that not increase revenue? i wouldnt consider flying over to watch 1 game...but flying over and getting 2? thats a lot more tempting
Ok. If you are a vic player in Wa. And you weigh up between traveling or spending time with freinds and family most weekends. Would you take the option of playing for a vic team that paid the same money. We could introduce travel money.
The problem the AFL has its a national competition imposed on a former city (Melbourne) based competition spread over a country where the population varies
When they played each other twice only two teams or sometimes. three teams won premierships but since they can no longer play each other twice more teams have won premierships
Some of the decisions made by the AFL make absolutely no sense to me. Why move from having a 1.45 and a 2.10 game on a Saturday to 2x 1.45 games, where we can't see the ending of both and there is zero footy on during the breaks in play?
It is a joke that only Victorian teams get any true blockbuster games. I'm a Cat's supporter, but even I can see that this competiton is not a true national one like it should be. It's still essentially the VFL, with a name change, and handful of interstate teams thrown in for good measure.
Good way to look at the Pies bias in fixtures is that in 18 years against 2 West Aus teams Pendelbury has played 21 games in Perth. Just over 1 per year with 2 teams....
Your 3 year rotation is sound but it would mean even more travel for WA teams as they won’t have 2 extra “away” games in Perth therefore increasing travel time and distance
The 3 year rotation wont work as the non vic clubs need to have double ups against each other every year for derbies. And there is always a double up of the previous years grand finalists. It's very unlikely but what if we had the same grand final match up 3 years straight?
Valid points and it needs fixing. I totally agree that these Locked in Holiday games are a disgrace and should be rotated.However because AFL is money driven instead of fairness driven, if you want bigger games TURN UP to your Teams games.
back in the late 90s early 2000s we had round 12 as a "split round" 4 games each week end then we went from their. Idk why we have 2 byes this week 6 next week 4 that week and 2 on those weeks.
Naturally everyone is going to protest the unfairness to their team. Fact, the Swans last played on the MCG IN ROUND 8, in early May and all going well will not see the mcg again until September 28. Adelaide oval, Gabba, marvel etc. anywhere but the mcg.
Don't (or do) look at net rest differential from when the tigers won in 2020. I brought it up with a couple of mates during the year. felt like every game the tigers played they had more rest (they did)
As a cricket fan, seeing the attention come off of an India or NZ tour to the AFL season earlier just cos the AFL need to fit a pre-final bye or an 'opening round' in. Look at how disinterested NRL fans and players get after their 20 somethingth game by July
This is such a good video mate. As a crows fan I’ve definitely been losing interest in the league due to the bias to a few clubs. I’m sure west coast fans feel the same way. It’s run like a bush league
Firstly well done on the video The points about showcase matches are well made, I personally feel it's political though and their likely concessions to the big clubs (Essendon and Collingwood) and the club that controls the "home of football" (Melbourne) to make them stop complaining about redistribution of funds to smaller clubs, which feels like a self perpetuating cycle, but the AFL really likes those The fixturing part is well researched, but the conclusion misses the point you spent 10mins arguing prior, if you went to the model where you you rotate to play the other clubs twice in a 3yr period, then the non-vic clubs are disadvantaged because they now have to travel 11 times as opposed to 10 at least once in a 3yr period, defeating the purpose of a model designed to equalise the competition if 8/18 clubs are worse off than they are currently The only way I can see a pathway to fairness is if you eventually get 24 AFL Clubs, then a 23 Round Season would work, as you would face every team once. The downside to this is there is barely enough funding for 18 Teams, and I don't see how the AFL's funding system could be expanded to include 24 teams, as most clubs are on AFL handouts with the current funding model and would likely become insolvent if their funding was reduced, and I doubt the next TV rights deal will be that much larger than the current one, unless they go to a streaming service, which the Government may block
No, the VFL almost always had a bye, look at the dates, there was almost always a week off with no footy played. We need a bye, but probably a week off with no footy is the best model.
![Дон ДОН, Алаудинов и СБЕЖАВШИЕ из под Курска ахматовцы 😁 [Пародия]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/dEfCf5IK26Q/mqdefault.jpg)
This is really well researched and it baffles me how the AFL have gone about the fixture, i'm glad you're bringing this issue into light, great video.
Thanks mate, appreciate it
Bottom line the AFL still getting bums on seats and people love the game .😊
@@paulkyriakopoulos3444 they lost me though... I stopped watching about 10 years ago after following the comp for 30 years.
It should not baffle you for long, the AFL are clowns and could not careless about equality or integrity of the game
The AFL slogan should be "Money before integrity"
Dude, that was brilliant. The Tassie games have been a bugbear of mine since they came into it. West Coast, from memory havent won a single time down there... even in our premiership window of 2015-2018 we were regularly getting towled up by North who didnt even make finals. . The Pies have never had to play down there. For the WA sides, the travel is hard enough, but then playing consequtive 6 day breaks, against opponents who have had 7, 8, sometimes ten days rest, well its ridiculous. Anyway, like i said, brilliant presentation! and I loved that idea about playing Brisbane, Gold Coast and GWS in a 13 day period. Nice work ; ]
Net rest differential. Damning stuff. You really should send a copy of this to ALL AFL clubs (don't bother with AFL HQ they never listen to anyone). The clubs have to roll the AFL on this one.
Crazy stat hey? It blew me away when I found it.
@@aflinsight2023 are you able to release data for years past?
Afl teams should all have a bye in one week, where they could advertise vfl, sanfl, wafl ect.. And they should stop having overlapping games such as 2 games at 1.45, rather do a 12.30 game and a 1.45 game so people can watch the ending of both.
Mate I just saw this vid tonight and I find myself in complete agreement with you. I'm an old bugger and can remember when it was fair. Without boring you with all my whinges, here is one thought, how about having an AFL match in every state on Anzac Day? Derby Day!
The only problem with that is scheduling games for television broadcast both on Ch7 and FoxFooty - 5 games across the day.
The good old days, when there were 12 teams. Six games on a saturday arvo. I remember those days fondly, having a smoke at 3/4 time in a local game in the huddle and asking a mate how my team was going as he had his ear up to the wireless and who had won at Flemington. Heading out to a pleasant sunday morning at the club the next day for a few cans and then off to the VFA for a few more brews and watch some of the hardest footy you would ever see. Those days are sadly gone forever.
there's a stigma against overcapitalising on Anzac Day I feel, they wouldn't want to do any more than Anzac Eve in terms of national TV spectacles because that would be too American
That would be a great idea
Brilliant analysis. The richer keep getting richer. One solution is two conferences like the NFL. The final 8 then comprises the top four in each conference. But in each conference everyone plays each other twice and the extra games are made up on a rotation system out of conference. It would certainly add an extra layer of intrigue to the AFL.
The fifth and sixth team in one conference might be better than the third and fourth team in the other conference. That is the flaw with that system that i see.
Great video and very well thought out and argued as to the disparities when it comes to the AFL's fixturing of double-up games for a handful of Melbourne-based clubs regardless of where they are on the ladder or how they are/have been performing and the "mortgages" that some clubs now hold seemingly perpetually for the sake of the AFL lining their pockets.
Like you said in your video, a game like Bombers v Magpies for ANZAC is always going to draw a 90-95K+ crowd regardless of whether it is played on ANZAC Day itself or at any other time throughout the "ANZAC round". The same could be said for any other games where Carlton, Collingwood, Essendon, Melbourne and Richmond are playing each other - King's Birthday, Dreamtime, Opening Round.
Regarding Gather Round where both SA teams have an extra Home game in addition to their bi-annual Showdowns, it would make sense to play one of those Showdowns as either the opening or closing game of Gather Round.
Whichever SA team is deemed the "home" team for Gather Round, they should be required to travel interstate for either the week prior or after. The "away" team for GR would play as the "home" for the same round.
Similarly, assuming that Gather Round is subsequently shared to WA, NSW and QLD, the same thing should happen with the tenant teams of those states. Victoria doesn't need a Gather Round.
On the Byes, especially the Opening Round situation, I know it was to take advantage of the NRL vacating NSW and QLD for their Opening Round in Vegas, but I absolutely agree with you that what happened this year cannot be allowed to transpire again next year, but if it does, it also makes sense that the teams that participate must play one of the participating teams the following week.
In do so, does this "compromise" the already convoluted fixture further than it already is?
The other thing to note is Round 24 where the AFL have already fixtured which teams play each other, but the games have not yet been scheduled for a timeslot. What's the point of this if the teams who are going to be playing in the first week of finals are going to be having a week off in between anyway? It wouldn't matter if two teams are going to be playing in Week 1 of finals (against each other or other opponents) also happen to face off against each other in Rd24.
Also, the current fixture where some teams play each other twice in the space of 6-8 weeks. Using my team, the Lions, as an example, they played the Crows in Rd9 and will play them again in Rd17 and the Saints in Round 14 and 21 yet, they play Collingwood at both ends of the season.
It will be interesting to see how things are scheduled when the Tas team enters the competition in a few years and again when a 20th team is likely introduced a few years later to "even" out the number of teams. The AFL will have to be forced to rethink the fixturing of the games, if they haven't already done so in the meantime, as to how many and which teams play each other twice per season and who gets blockbuster games year in, year out.
Perhaps the solution is to have bi- or tri- annual rotational fixturing where all teams play would play each other the same number of times over that period instead of the current disparities.
Seems as though we are in agreement on a lot of these issues! I made the comment elsewhere that the Lions don't play the Bombers until Round 24 and the last time they played them was in May of 2023. Brisbane have played three sides four times in-between those two matchups with the Dons...it's just crazy, if I can see that with my eyes how can a computer algorithm not pick it up?
Another great vid and evidence that it can be done. I'm a North supporter and astounded that they have a travel burden greater than Adelaide! Would be interesting to see some data around the graveyard 4:40 Sunday timeslot as well - hopefully that goes when Thursdays are introduced permanently. Hope you don't mind, but I've posted this in response to Jon Ralphs low fidelity reporting on Mark Evans equalisation submission to the AFL... 🤘🏼
Of course I don't mind, appreciate the support!
Amazing video. They could have one break in the middle of the season putting the mid season trade period and draft in the week. If opening round needs continue it should just be a split round.
Until each team plays each other twice home and away, the league fixture will never be fair or even
That’s too many games tho
@@OTPpride hardly... Look at the English premier League. There are 20 teams in the competition, and they all play each other home and away.
The teams that go deep into the cup competitions play over 50 games a season.
Saying the AFL playing each other twice is too much is a joke....
@@natextreme_ except soccer is a non contact sport with shorter games and shorter travel times, furthest flight Bournemouth would have to take is about an hour to Newcastle once a year
@@albertmiller2electricbooga897 you do realize teams travel Europe to compete in the cup games right? And at times, play 3 games a week
It's a stupid argument to say it's too many games for professional athletes...
@@natextreme_ only the top handful of teams play in european cup competitions, and they get paid extra
Great video, hopefully one day the competition will be somewhere close to equitable
Thank you for putting the time into creating such a fantastic video! I am now a subscriber. I have shared this video on a Geelong Football Forum (Cats Claw) for the members there to watch and discuss. Hopefully you'll get some more support. 👍
Great video - very well pulled together and couldn't agree more
I liked this video cause you actually talk about the reason its unfair is because of 🤑 and not just shitting on vic clubs like some conspiracy
Mate I just love footy and want to see all clubs get a fair go
One issue with the fixture you didn't mention was home v away v neutral games.
Eg Collingwood v Melbourne at the MCG is a neutral game as it is both clubs home ground, Collingwood having one of its 'home' games v North at Marvel is actually an away game because they are playing at North's home ground.
This happens to Vic teams regularly but never to NSW/Qld teams (excepting Gather Round of course).
The Suns playing home games in Darwin may beg to differ.
I’m not saying this issue balances out the other inequities in the fixture, this is just another instance of the uneven draw that I would like to see analysed
@@cmadelaide56nah we are making that our home games 😂.
It’s an incentive we have wanted as we have that zone and picked up guys like Joel Jeffrey etc..
The compromise is the extra bye for some and the doubling up before you play another team once.
Play 17 games then schedule the last 5 or 6.
Phenomenal video mate. One thing I cant recall being mentioned, is say, Geelong "hosting" home games at the MCG against big drawing teams. For example, why do the Blues, Pies and Bombers never play down in Geekong, Hobart, Alice Springs, etc? Hows that fair?
Also dont get me started on the MCG being locked in as the GF venue until 2059 in a supposed national competition...
One of the causes of the disparity was the agreement that each club would have 11 home and 11 away games each year. When the Crows, Eagles, Power and Dockers entered the competition the victorian clubs fought to keep this 11 home and 11 away agreement and compromised the fixture with their stubborn resistance to change.
The AFL has made a lot of terrible decisions in 2024
scrap opening round, rotate gather round, get rid of matchups owning specific dates and public holidays, 3 year rotation for matchups, 10 & 8 teams each week for bye rounds and have interstate teams go on the road for 13-14 days and 3 matches to combat travel inequalities. I reckon this solves most problems apart from maybe not having as many blockbuster games that the fans want, but its a big problem to solve and in reality not everyone will get exactly what they want, and some things are more important than others. (e.g. competitive advantage from less double up matchups in a year is far less important that having as many blockbuster games as we do now.) what do you think? is this the ideal solution for fixing the fixtures?
Great video, very well researched. This issue needs to be discussed and you did it well.
The worst thing is that the AFL honchos then use crowd numbers as "evidence" that fans are happy and the game is in good shape.
As Mick Malthouse said to Laura Kane on radio recently "That's all rigged before the season" 😮
Amazing statistical analysis and reasearch. Good on you. Keep it up !!,
great job mate... a well-earned sub.
Appreciate it mate
Overlay that with the completely broken draft and you have the AFL writ large.
I was a mug that helped prop up the AFL in 2020 by going to hundreds of Marvel games as a Saints supporter. Then we cop crap as Saints supporters that our hand is always there for a handout.
Great video and analysis.
Surely the biggest problem is the MCG Grand Final contract. At the end of the day that's what all 18 teams are trying to win and a select few start every season with that huge advantage.
Is it though? We had two years running of GFs outside of Melbourne and Victorian clubs still won.
I think the non Melbourne clubs should get together and take a class action lawsuit out against the AFL . I dont recall that anyone of them were consulted about it, the deal was announced during midweek and nobody had a clue it was even being discussed, that is my memory of it. If you removed the Brisbane Lions (gifted an All Star Side) and the games featuring two non Melbourne teams (Swans-Eagles) its a horrendous losing record for the interstaters, even when they finished games clear on top of the ladder the rule of thumb is they will get massacred at the G on that last day in September. I will wager the Swans finish three games clear this year, but will get done by the Blues in the one game that matters. Lets see ; ]
@@PeterM1-qx1tz Big chance, I am a Blues man so happy with that. But all jokes aside, they need to work out something a lot better than the current structure. Its ridiculous.
@@iankearns774 Cheers mate, its all good, They rotate the Superbowl every year, no reason Adelaide, Perth and Melbourne cant do the same for the AFL. ; ]
@@PeterM1-qx1tz Yeah one reason, the MCG holds 90,000 plus. The other venues arent even close to that. It comes down to $$$$s.
the pies v blues and essendon is an interesting discussion on one hand yes we make a lot of money playing in those massive games together on the other hand Collingwood have had the edge over both sides majority of that time and thus have had "easier" games than if they were to play better sides more often like Geelong hawks sydney etc.
I’ve notice that this year, west coast only play teams coming off byes during the bye rounds
Great video. Thanks for the work that has gone into this. I have subscribed and will forward on to like minded people. The only thing I would add is that to even up the travel burden, Victorian teams should travel 8 times a year to each of the non-Victorian teams. Keep up the good work
Great video, very insightful. My greatest bugbear is the Anzac game, probably the most significant game after the Grand Final but only two clubs can play in it and only players from those two teams can win the Anzac medal.
What I suggest is that the Anzac game be the Grand Final replay, with all the prestige that goes with it. Why can’t Freo play the Giants?or Carlton play the Crows? Why must it be fixed that only two teams can play?
Don’t get me started on all the other anomalies in the AFL, (blood coming to the boil)
Thank you. Some interesting data and viable solutions. One thing I would like to see trialed is the opening round as local Darby round. Looking forward we will have 19 teams. Now that will cause bye headaches in a 23 round competition.
73,000 on Anzac Day in 1992 does not compare to 95,000 on Anzac Day in 1995. That's a 22,000 difference, which is the equivalent of some entire match crowds between two teams today. 95,000 is Grand Final crowd numbers, and Collingwood/Essendon deserved the stamp they put on it.
Just a reminder that the crowd of 73,000 was at Waverley Park. Only two thousand short of the crowd that attended the 1991 Grand Final at the same venue... Thanks for watching.
There were split rounds, not 'byes' i.e. in 2001 with no more SOO games, one round had 4 games one week, the other 4 the next week. Eventually it lead to what it is now
Brilliant analysis & research. I would also like to see some discussion around the chain of causation. Ie "small" clubs like Nort, Saints don't get blockbuster games. Is this because they are small? Or, are they small because they don't get blockbusters? Big games.afford so many opportunities re sponsors, recruiting, player retention, and therefore father-sons, etc, etc.
It is self fulfilling and leads to a two-tiered comp
The part of the video that made my jaw drop was the net rest imbalance. To my mind that shows a strong correlation with ladder position and current form. Hawthorn seem to bucking the trend, but I don't know if they are modifying their training schedules to compensate. I read that Geelong trained extra hard in the pre-season to develop a new game style which seemed to pay off in the first 7 rounds. Since then the net rest differential (along with form drop off and some injuries) seems to have really had a toll. Thank you for doing all this incredible research.
Could two conferences be trialled? A VIC conference and interstate conference. Local teams always get to play each other twice. You travel and play the teams in that state in consecutive weeks. One VIC team has to play in the interstate conference on rotation. Maybe Vic teams get less home games during the time they play the interstate teams to even up the travel and cost?
what an incredible amount of research that has proven what so many of us have believed
The AFL draw has been a farce for over 30 years. It’s all about maximizing profits by having the big teams playing each other twice a year. The team that qualifies to host the grand final should have the grand final at their home ground. The season should be reduced to a 17 game season so that each team plays every team once. There should be a 2 week close down in the middle of the season to give everyone a break. The final 8 should stay as it is as I think the finals system is fair (apart from the hosting rights of the grand final)
Hey mate great video I really enjoyed listening to you.
The things they should change for the fixture in my opinion is
1 1st 17 rounds everyone play each other
2 Everyone has a bye following week
3 Round 18 Derby round
4 The rest of double ups play teams based on the ladder
5 Have 4 Gather rounds 1 in Adelaide, Brisbane, Perth and Sydney
6 The team higher on ladder plays Grand final in there home state or home venue
7 Balance out who gets each other twice if they keep current fixture model eg Essendon has not played Melbourne since 2005 this has to be a double up lock next year it is ridiculous
8 Teams playing each other in different venues eg Brisbane vs Hawthorn at Gabba. No more than 3 years wait to play a team in their state. The only exceptions is Carlton, Collingwood, Essendon and Richmond only play at the G every year.
Should split the league between Vic and NonVic sides when we expand to 20 but just for the purpose to somewhat even out the number of games played within your home state (we still use one ladder).
Teams play 12 games within their own group, so 3 double ups.
For Vic sides, that’s 12 games within their home state (Victoria) while for NonVic sides it’s 6-7 home state games (8 if team 20 is WA3 or SA3, but Canberra is likely the AFL’s preferred option and would work better for this system).
The equalisation would come from the 10 Vic v NonVic games each side plays where a majority of them are played outside Vic, forcing Vic sides to travel and to help even out the tally of home state games. No more Collingwood playing half a dozen consecutive games at the MCG.
In the end we could have 18 sides get 14 games in their home state and 2 from Vic get 15 on a rotational basis from season to season.
This would be out of a 22 game fixture and does not take into account sides selling home games to other states or Gather Round.
Fantastic video mate. I wish the AFL would take note, or at least members could pressure the clubs into action!
I agree with the unevenness of the fixture, but in the 90s there was no such thing as Queen's birthday "eves", or any "eves." It was Collingwood who played Melbourne on the public holiday because of the post war rivalry. It's ANZAC that's the problem. Which is rather ironic because during the First World War Collingwood along with 3 other Irish based suburbs refused to take part in a war time discontinuation of the VFL matches. The Queen's birthday was never big in AFL history until the big freeze resurrected the popularity of the game. ANZAC day and these pre scheduled games are only a recent phenomenon.
Your logic is based on the premise that the AFL isn't just a money-making machine. The draw is one of the lesser examples of this. Umpiring within a game designed to always manufacture tight games is the most egregious.
Great comment
38:55 I’ve thought this be for and trust me the agreed upon arrangement would be much easier
Hey mate love your content. Video idea for you - AFL Awards. We've got the Coaches Association Awards and the Players Association Awards each with their own objective and transparent voting systems. But the most glamorous and/or prestigious awards (the Brownlow, the Rising Star, All Australian and to a lesser extent the Norm Smith) are all suffering from serious credibility issues and riddled with flaws.
In the case of All Australian we had years of no specialist wingers being selected in favour of just sticking unlucky on-ballers in those spots, and there's not even any sort of objective system (are the selection panel even required to watch and assess all the matches?). Just seems to be a vibes and media hype award at this point. The Brownlow has lots to talk about: the frequent bizarre upsets, the flawed 3,2,1 voting system (in comparison to the coaches' system, the lack of votes for ruck-men, forwards and defenders etc. There was JHF's 3 vote game from last season from an anonymous game. The fairest element in the Rising Star and Brownlow is a topic of controversy. There's a lot there. Keep it up, mate.
What a video... genuinely incredible how incompetent the AFL is and how obedient they are to the big VIC clubs.
Another great video, you should have more subscribers.
Interesting look at the advantage teams have gotten over the years and how 'smaller' clubs have still pulled big crowds in the marque fixtures. Would be keen to seen the AFL put the 'blockbuster' match ups in the bad timeslots like 1.10pm saturday or 4.40pm sunday like collingwood vs essendon and putting North vs st kilda on ANZAC day or something. Could get 60-70k to both as opposed to 80-90k to one and 25k to the other.
I have had a thought similar to yours of a team playing both QLD and an NSW back to back to back. I would have the league to 'split up' into travelling blocks, like the divisions in the US sports. So based on the location of the teams but the blocks have no impact on ladder position or entrance into the finals. The WA teams and the SA teams are one, QLD and NSW teams are another and the VIC teams plus TAS plus team 20 (if not too far away) get split up into 3 blocks.
The WA/SA block travels to melbourne, stays for 4 games each, play one of the VIC blocks, so each team of each block plays once rotating around per game. Then the block goes home and then the QLD/NSW block travels to perth and adelaide. Suns and Lions are in perth and alternate between the Eagles and Dockers while the Swans and Giants do the same with Crows and Power in Adelaide. Then the Suns and Lions switch with the Swans and Giants, play two more games and then travel home.
There are 5 blocks, block A is playing block B while block C is playing block D and block E is playing amongst itself for 4 games. Then the block switch with each other and alternate between home and away. The block playing it self will only have 3 opponents so there will be a bye factored in and technically one team will start and end the year with the bye. This could be shuffled around on rotation or something (have worked that bit out completely yet). It would be easier to explain if I could draw a diagram.
It doesn't have to be as formal as that, but have the WA teams stay in Melbourne for multiple games in row will save a lot of travelling and its crazy how we have two teams in each major city outside of melbourne and don't play them back to back.
Also I would prefer each team playing each other team twice a year, once at home and once away and to cut down on season length, they should play 4 games over a 3 week period. Also they should increase team list size so they can rest players more. This could lead to a top team resting a lot of players when they play a bottom team at full strength which could lead to them winning more.
Absolutely agree with the sentiment of this video and well done on the research. The Afl and commentators alike justify fixturing , especially the so called blockbuster games on tv veiwing and crowds. Sure these are the bigger clubs generally but part of their member numbers are sold PURELY on blockbuster games entry.
Build it then they will come, then let their members fight it out for a seat to be part of a big game and say they were there , then sell more tickets next year, therefore showing they deserve it, then shut it off to everyone else because they dont .
Its a loop handed to clubs which builds them up.
On the other hand you have clubs which the afl and also Afl media believe because they cant think outside a very small squre, truly dont deserve big games. Theyre stuck in a doom loop. Small games against small clubs in bad timeslots because theyre small clubs who only play in small games - a doom loop.
Gresham " love going to Ess to play in the big games" its ingrained in their thinking because the Afl feeds this year after year.
Rod
Well said Rod, it really is a loop of doom
Just a complete joke of a competition
Great analysis. In relation to the bye (s) however, like it or not, the Players Association have specifically requested them. There can be a fairer way to distribute the byes throughout the season, but scrapping them altogether is unlikely to occur. The player salaries are driven by media rights, and the scheduling of the byes allow the AFL to have the season in the spotlight for a longer time. Economics unfortunately trump fairness.
Excellent video mate, subscribed
I’d be interested to see a three year rotation itinerary. Though with Tassie coming in it’s going to be a mess again until a 20th team is introduced. Also, what about two tiers with relegations? Could the AFL sustain that?
Great video mate.. love this!!!
Great analysis. The thing is it's not the AFL, but the broadcasters who pay for and do the draw. Think you will find the inequity increasing from friday night footy beginnings and tv rights contract explosion under the expansion of night tv 'blockbusters' (aren't they all now called blockbusters). Ultimate for them is one game each night of the week at 7.30pm, all labelled blockbusters. It's who puts bums in front of tv's at peak times, the broadcasters have to make profit from billions of dollar outlay, to be interested at all.
ANZAC day is probably the only day where I’m absolutely bolted onto Essendon and Collingwood being the match.
Anzac Eve and the additional game on Anzac Day are find and I’m not upset about those being rotated.
Why Dons v Pies as the big ANZAC Day clash?
Like it was stated in this video, those teams are going to draw a 90K+ crowd regardless of when it is played in the "ANZAC" round.
Although gate-takings are shared between the Dons and Pies, why should they always benefit financially each year while other teams basically get nothing, even if they play the later game on the same day, like the Giants v Lions game this year?
I don't see why the afternoon ANZAC Day clash cannot be fixtured to other teams.
Yes, it can still involve an Essendon or a Collingwood.
At the end of the day, it's just another match within the ANZAC round and it allows other teams to experience and benefit from exposure to a bigger crowd and increased revenue.
Th question then to ask is, should it always be at the MCG? Yes, if the home team for that year is an MCG-tenant team. The AFL shouldn't then "fix"ture the afternoon game to always be an MCG-tenant team as that just reintroduces complexities around a select few clubs that benefit from that prime afternoon timeslot.
The flip-side might be to always have it at the MCG, regardless of who the two competing sides are, which might comprise of two Marvel-tenant teams, a Marvel-tenant team and an interstate team, or two interstate teams.
The fixture at the moment is too heavily stacked against interstate teams that only play at the MCG possibly only once, maybe twice at most, through the H&A season.
If they were to play against an MCG-tenant team in a Final, they are already disadvantaged through lack of exposure of that venue.
I don't know what the answer is or should be, but it certainly isn't what we have now.
I’ve been to two ANZAC day games at the MCG and neither had Essendon or Collingwood. They were Richmond v Footscray 1983 and Carlton v Melbourne 1986, both great games and great tributes.
@@jasonfreestone9944 That's probably because you've only ever known of it from the last 29 years.
For almost 20 years prior to the first Bombers v Pies game in '95, the ANZAC Day game was played between other teams and was just another game in the H&A season albeit with respect paid to the ANZACs.
It only became a constant Bombers v Pies game on the AFL fixture from '95 onwards after Kevin Sheedy proposed the idea to the Essendon and Collingwood clubs and the RSL to play a game to honour the ANZAC Spirit.
In the first 10 years or so from '95, the game was almost really just another game on the calendar, even though it was the only game actually played on ANZAC Day itself.
The first game had an attendance of high-94K and the following 10 years had mixed attendances, some as low as low-57K, before returning to high-80K to low-mid-90K attendances from 2006. Tickets were generally easy enough to purchase, even up to a several weeks prior to the game in those first 10 years.
From 2006 onwards, the event has been considered a sell-out as soon as tickets went on-sale at the start of the season, with crowds constantly in the mid-high 80Ks to low-mid 90Ks and this is when the match became THE biggest marquee game of the season outside of the GF, and becoming more of a members-only and corporate/commercial event for the AFL than it is to pay respect to the fallen soldiers for which the day is for, even though the pre-match ceremonies convey the respect, not the game itself.
Essendon and Collingwood might be two of the biggest clubs in the country, but the afternoon event should not be beholden to them perpetually.
Regardless of where they sit on the ladder, they'll still draw a 80-90K+ crowd, even if they were sitting in 17th and 18th positions (we can only wish for this day to happen).
Sure there are major broadcast rights involved in today's game now and the money made by the AFL, and that has come with the popularity of the "rivalry" of the clubs from this event, but those two clubs should not have the sole monopoly on that game, and it should be returned to a fixtured game where any club could play that specific afternoon event.
Always hold it at the MCG and always involve a Victorian team, and sure it can involve Essendon and/or Collingwood at some point, but why should those two teams alone ALWAYS benefit from that one day, is part of the unfairness and imbalance of the fixture that this video is communicating.
I'm not mathematically knowledgeable enough to calculate it, but I'd be in favour of any formula which would see travel, marque dates and timeslots, and 'traditional rivals' rotated over a set period of time. Basically, an adapted version of the NFL system.
NOT a fan of the AFL attitude of being absurdly profit-driven as it is now. This simply complicates the inequalities.
Fantastic vid. Thank you.
As a Swans fan, love this video. We've cracked 70k members and currently constantly cracking 35-40k crowds. Would love to be rewarded with better blockbuster games. Not just the Sydney Derby but having like Sydney vs Collingwood on a public holiday. Or Sydney vs Hawthorn.
Everything you said is 100% spot on. The AFL r a disgrace. Only worried about filling their pockets, they dont give a stuff about the battling teams. If they want the same teams playing the big games they should just form a super league.
Imagine how easy this would be if we had 20 teams, and everyone just each other once.
The Scottish SPFL split system could work well.
Each team will play each other once (rotating home away each year) before the league splitting in Rd18 - Each side keeps their current one blockbuster day.
Then, top 8 sides drawn against one another, bottom 10 the same. Could have a proper out of a hat style draw for fairness like FA Cup draw.
Blockbusters every week for last 5 or 6 weeks with smaller clubs if in the 8 getting the prime time slots.
You're the man! Subscribed.
As an American AFL fan (go eagles!) the scheduling methodology is baffling. There isn't even pretense of parity. Tassie Devils entering the league, forcing an uneven number of clubs, and hence 1 bye every week including the final round, will dramatically worsen the current system. Change is needed. For inspiration, look at the nfl while it still had 31 teams, they managed
None of this is baffling or even new knowledge.
Every year of my life, either one or 2 people controlled and managed ( influenced ) the rules of the game and the fixture.
In both the VFL and the AFL.
1990 and the 3 best teams all missed the grand final.
2 average teams played off for the cup, being Essendon and Collingwood.
Supercoach Kevin Sheedy expected Essendon to win easily, but discovered his fast , skilfull team lacked the physical strength to go the full 2 hours.
Sheedy contacted the BOSS of the commission, a life long Essendon fan from a family of Essendon presidents.
Together, they created the interchange bench, 2 extra players on the bench ( from 18 + 2 reserves to 18 + 4 interchange players ) and the game was SHORTENED by over 20 minutes.....more than 5 minutes a quarter.
While the ESSENDON Football Club was running the AFL, Sheedy got every rule change he wanted.
I have no gripe with Sheedy, he did the job every fan wants from the coach .
The problem is the club gangsters running the game.
Amazing work
IMO the only fair way is for each team to play each other both home and away. This would mean 34 rounds however by reducing the length of games as was done during COVID and increasing the squad sizes Im sure the teams could cope. More games played will also generate more income for both the AFL and also the teams.
A great video with excellent analysis and deep stats to been it up. Surely as you say the reason behind the fixture decisions by the AFL are financially motivated, but you haven't said how their decisions benefit the league, rather than individual clubs. Two things that are intrinsically linked through advertising surely generate the most revenue for the AFL - broadcast rights and gambling. The fixture is designed to benefit clubs with the biggest audiences and draw millions of viewers at home rather than 20-80,000 at the game, where more money theoretically goes to clubs through ticket and merchandise sales. Bigger audiences get marquee timeslots and dates and thus the same clubs keep getting prime time and public holidays. The AFL is not in the business of parity (in practice at least) but in generating more dollars and keeping broadcasters and gambling companies happy. If they legitimately wanted all clubs to succeed equally (as much as that's possible) then fixturing would be fairer. As it is the big clubs get bigger because they receive more attention, and the smaller clubs have to be happy with 50,000 or less members and 15-20,000 at home games.
Some great points here but I think the same logic would apply. Just as the St.Kilda v Geelong game in 2009 at Marvel was the highest ever attended at the venue, the game was the 4th highest for the season in tv ratings behind only ANZAC Day, the opening game of the season and Sydney v Collingwood. I honestly believe that if the quality of the game is there, that both attendances and tv ratings will be through the roof...thanks for watching
Great video. Not Victorian. Just asking, what do people think about Victorian teams not really having a home ground advantage? I mean most of them share home grounds, and the ones that don't play home games away from home.
It seems like one of those videos you will look back on and think what the hell was i talking about.
You started off saying the afl is money hungry with only the big teams playing on the marquee slots and not sharing, to then point out how the current teams didn’t draw as high crowd numbers as teams beforehand who tried it out
Your idea on how to fix the travelling for the western country teams only fixes one problem (time in flight) however it creates a much larger problem as the teams are living away from home for x2 the amount of time than they do currently which goes against what the interstate teams want. In fact it’s the complete opposite to spending longer away from home. Scheduling more day games so teams like Brisbane can fly out that night to avoid airport curfews
Great work on the vid and the effort you went too I forgot to mention i do agree with a lot of what you said
Agree with everything you said.
Geelong hasn’t had a home Thursday night game since 2014!
Really enjoyed your video. AFL is a right royal mess at the moment. Is our great Aussie game losing its way due to corporate greed? Impressive analysis you did. Interesting point you bring up that the precious players of today want more money for less work effort and commitment.
Thanks mate, appreciate the kind words
I agree with some of the points.
They do need to share the marque games between each team.
But I think you’re ignoring how the current fixture is worked out and the reason why there is no rotation in teams playing each other twice in a season.
1. Currently each team will play each other once.
2. Plus a neutral game in gather round.
3. The remaining 5 games are used to play teams that finished close to you on the ladder in the previous season to give teams an even chance of winning more games.
Number 3 is the reason why teams don’t play other teams twice in a season as often.
By rotating who you play each year then people will just complain when a team low on the ladder ends up playing all the teams higher on the ladder twice in one season, making it harder for them to go up the ladder.
So you either even up how often you play each team twice.
Or you even up each teams chance of winning.
……personally I don’t mind the idea of a conference system.
When Tasmania and a 20th team come in (let’s say NT), have 5 conferences of 4 teams.
1. All 20 teams play each other once in the home away season, making up 19 games (Home ground swaps each season).
2. Rivalry round, so teams can play a draw card game against their rival.
3. Teams in their respective conferences play each other twice.
Making a total of 23 rounds as it currently is.
Finals can stay as a top 8 system with the top 5 teams from each conference going through to the finals and the next best 3 teams (could be from any conference depending on overall win/lose record) making up the 8.
Conferences could be as follows.
West conference - WA/SA teams.
East conference - QLD/NSW
VIC south conf- st.k/geel/hawks/Tas
VIC central conf - coll/melb/carl/rich
VIC west conf - north/dogs/ess/NT*
*NT hard to fit into a conference unfortunately.
Geelong are more West than South. Geelong much closer Tom Footscray and Essendon than they are to StKilda and Hawthorn.
@@jasonfreestone9944 that’s true.
Could even split the conferences into 4 lots of 5 teams. Then the conferences can be as follows
West conference
WA/SA/TAS
East conference
QLD/NSW/NT
Vic East conference
Haw/rich/st.k/coll/melb
Vic west conference
Carl/north/ess/dogs/geel
Unfortunately for tas and NT they have to join a conference that best suits the comp.
Splitting the Vics won't work.
I'm going to fairly assume that your model means that vic central just stay and play and vic, south have to travel to Tas and vice versa and the west conference the same.
Immediately the fans of the clubs that travel will say 'hey those central clubs don't travel and their fans can see them every week', and they'd be right. For a club like the saints that disadvantages them more than what they are now.
Same with combining the non vics, they're still travelling, not as much as they are now but still you have a conference that doesn't travel at all and varying levels of travel for the other clubs in the other conferences.
You're better off having state conferences, i:e a VFL, SANFL, WAFL etc. Whether or not the franchise clubs keep their following would be dictated by the market, as they already compete in those state leagues (wc, freo, ade port). This model eliminates the current travel disparity.
And then a playoff of the conference champions.
Of course this is a hypothetical model but it fixes a lot of problems that can't be fixed with the current model.
@@michaeldehn7840 it will be way too hard to create a fair fixture.
Could maybe have 4 conferences of 5. With the make up each conference being 2 clubs from one state and 2 or 3 Vic clubs.
This would mean vic clubs at least have to travel again.
Could be
Conference 1
2x WA and 3 vic clubs.
Conference 2
2x SA, TAS and 2 vic clubs.
Conference 3
2x NSW and 3 vic clubs.
Conference 4
2x QLD, NT and 2 vic clubs.
Can rotate the vic clubs between the conferences each year so over a 4 year period everyone plays each other the same amount of times. Except for the rival interstate teams who would play each other twice every year.
It’s not a math problem. It’s a maths problem. (Math is a stupid Americanism…)
My idea for a solution for the byes is the equivalent of all star week. Obviously the AFL will never give us a proper showcase of the best AFL players, but why not do a gather round that rotates locations each year of teams from the VFL, WAFL, SANFL. Like get 2 teams from each league and make a team from each state play a team from another state. Could get celebrity involvements, broadcast history stuff, kicking contests, that sort of thing. Adds fanfare, allows younger guys to play in front of a bigger audience, each team still gets a bye, helps grow the game. It’s almost like all star meets a grassroots version of state of origin. I think it’s definitely up there with the most entertaining solutions, and would be great for the fans and players alike.
Love this idea!
This a good analysis but I think you should factor in the team success and membership numbers data points. Do those elements paint a different picture? I loved the net rest data point . I hate byes. In terms of fitness you can’t make a good stock from baby formula and fast food
This was an excellent video and not because it fixes the problems immediately or would have all agreed and others are willing to concede. But because the inequalities are getting harder to ignore and you have Victorians making ridiculous statements now like they created the game (I'm Australian I created Vegemite) or you joined our competition so winge all you want. These attitudes are disgraceful no better than racism and infect the desire for the AFL to see big Victorian teams succeed above all else. But slowly and assuredly the national competition will be united fair, with integrity and bringing top quality football.
Glad you enjoyed, thanks for watching!
Unlikely this is Melbourne’s game. WA and SA are just pawns to the AFL
Scrap opening round as its a joke to eliminate to bye argument.
As for travel, it shouldn't be an issue in todays day and age. Players are flying business class and have to sit on a flight at worst 4 or so hours. They get transported to the airport and worst case scenario are checking their own bags in. Equipment etc in travel handled by the club. So a flight and hotel accomodation shouldn't affect their performance at all. And post game they usually would fly back. Compare that to say the 90s when things were a lot different with less money, flights and crappy accomodation.
I love this video I subscribed on this topic alone i cannot believe it’s been ignored for as long as it has this topic I genuinely think it’s so irritating when they come out and say it’s unfair and don’t do anything about it they expect a different outcome for the same problem they are causing like no teams should ever be locked in for a particular time slot like Anzac Day kings birthday and Dreamtime etc because like you said Essendon vs Collingwood Collingwood vs Carlton and Carlton vs Essendon would still attract a big crowds no matter the time slot because they are the big 3 Carlton and Essendon were mediocre for 2 decades and still got crowds it so means the rich get richer
so the hub model, where for example the dockers go to qld and play brisbane, gold coast, and giants over 2 weeks. would that not increase revenue? i wouldnt consider flying over to watch 1 game...but flying over and getting 2? thats a lot more tempting
Ok. If you are a vic player in Wa. And you weigh up between traveling or spending time with freinds and family most weekends. Would you take the option of playing for a vic team that paid the same money.
We could introduce travel money.
The problem the AFL has its a national competition imposed on a former city (Melbourne) based competition spread over a country where the population varies
When they played each other twice only two teams or sometimes. three teams won premierships but since they can no longer play each other twice more teams have won premierships
Some of the decisions made by the AFL make absolutely no sense to me. Why move from having a 1.45 and a 2.10 game on a Saturday to 2x 1.45 games, where we can't see the ending of both and there is zero footy on during the breaks in play?
What about teams that had a bye in round 1.
What benefit is that to any of those teams. A team that needs a bye in round 1 is in trouble.
It is a joke that only Victorian teams get any true blockbuster games. I'm a Cat's supporter, but even I can see that this competiton is not a true national one like it should be. It's still essentially the VFL, with a name change, and handful of interstate teams thrown in for good measure.
Good way to look at the Pies bias in fixtures is that in 18 years against 2 West Aus teams Pendelbury has played 21 games in Perth. Just over 1 per year with 2 teams....
Good point, and in 2021 Collingwood played some home games in Perth due to the Covid protocols
As long as Geelong is looked after, yhe afl are happy.
Your 3 year rotation is sound but it would mean even more travel for WA teams as they won’t have 2 extra “away” games in Perth therefore increasing travel time and distance
The 3 year rotation wont work as the non vic clubs need to have double ups against each other every year for derbies.
And there is always a double up of the previous years grand finalists. It's very unlikely but what if we had the same grand final match up 3 years straight?
Valid points and it needs fixing. I totally agree that these Locked in Holiday games are a disgrace and should be rotated.However because AFL is money driven instead of fairness driven, if you want bigger games TURN UP to your Teams games.
back in the late 90s early 2000s we had round 12 as a "split round" 4 games each week end then we went from their.
Idk why we have 2 byes this week 6 next week 4 that week and 2 on those weeks.
Naturally everyone is going to protest the unfairness to their team. Fact, the Swans last played on the MCG IN ROUND 8, in early May and all going well will not see the mcg again until September 28. Adelaide oval, Gabba, marvel etc. anywhere but the mcg.
Don't (or do) look at net rest differential from when the tigers won in 2020. I brought it up with a couple of mates during the year. felt like every game the tigers played they had more rest (they did)
As a cricket fan, seeing the attention come off of an India or NZ tour to the AFL season earlier just cos the AFL need to fit a pre-final bye or an 'opening round' in. Look at how disinterested NRL fans and players get after their 20 somethingth game by July
AFL know what there doing more premiers in a decade compared to when they played each other twice
This is such a good video mate. As a crows fan I’ve definitely been losing interest in the league due to the bias to a few clubs. I’m sure west coast fans feel the same way. It’s run like a bush league
Firstly well done on the video
The points about showcase matches are well made, I personally feel it's political though and their likely concessions to the big clubs (Essendon and Collingwood) and the club that controls the "home of football" (Melbourne) to make them stop complaining about redistribution of funds to smaller clubs, which feels like a self perpetuating cycle, but the AFL really likes those
The fixturing part is well researched, but the conclusion misses the point you spent 10mins arguing prior, if you went to the model where you you rotate to play the other clubs twice in a 3yr period, then the non-vic clubs are disadvantaged because they now have to travel 11 times as opposed to 10 at least once in a 3yr period, defeating the purpose of a model designed to equalise the competition if 8/18 clubs are worse off than they are currently
The only way I can see a pathway to fairness is if you eventually get 24 AFL Clubs, then a 23 Round Season would work, as you would face every team once. The downside to this is there is barely enough funding for 18 Teams, and I don't see how the AFL's funding system could be expanded to include 24 teams, as most clubs are on AFL handouts with the current funding model and would likely become insolvent if their funding was reduced, and I doubt the next TV rights deal will be that much larger than the current one, unless they go to a streaming service, which the Government may block
Everyone will agree that a fair fixture is important... but obviously people would get upset if you try to break up the WA, SA, QLD derbies.
I'm not a fan of laying into the players re toughness or pay. You have a very strong argument without going there.
No, the VFL almost always had a bye, look at the dates, there was almost always a week off with no footy played. We need a bye, but probably a week off with no footy is the best model.