Quote:
Originally Posted by mojopinuk
The other blatant difference of course that is that Aussie Rules have often seen a successful team one season have a terrible season the next. For a start theres been 5 different Premiership winners in the last 5 seasons and often teams just yo-yo from one end of the table to the next season to season.
|
Yes you are fundamentally correct though there has been the exception of the mighty Brisbane Lions (my team
). This is IMO because the cap, draft etc makes it difficult for teams to get hold of all the best players who are evenly spread among the teams. For example the star players rarely leave the clubs they play for. There are exceptions of course but Jon Brown the Lions star player is a Lion for life and idolised by the supporters. He would get the Lions share of the money, say $800,000 a season out of the salary cap of $8,000,000. Chicken **** money I know in comparison to Football but the comp could not afford to be a free for all. The clubs, the players the administration and the supporters know it. There is the odd grumble but the system is rigidly stuck to. Also the clubs have to have a minimum amount of players on there roster, 42 I think, so they then have to be very clever in how they spread the readies around.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mojopinuk
Football in England is the complete opposite and I guess you could argue which is better. Over here you need to build a squad over a matter of years to be successful, over there though I'm sure its a lot more exciting to watch.
|
I love both football and Rules and am loathe to want either to change the way things are done. It is easy for Rules to have caps and drafts. They so not have to compete with other countries for players and audience's. Even the game played at the Oval is just a game to let Expat Aussies living in the UK an excuse to get pissed
Quote:
Originally Posted by mojopinuk
I like that we have more 'established' clubs and that that hasnt just happened overnight.
|
The clubs in AFL are very much established. Melbourne Demons for example have been established since
1858. Most of the Melbourne teams have a very long history. With the establishment of a national comp there is no doubt that the Perth clubs and the Crows in Adelaide are "newer". Port Adelaide are a fairly new team in the Competition but in fact they were established in
1870.
I would even argue that the Lions are an established club as we amalgamated with Fitzroy who were founded in
1883. The Sydney team was moved from Melbourne, previously called South Melbourne and established
1874, lock stock and barrel 1982.
The issue for the AFL is that the old Melbourne clubs are too "established".
There is a club too many in Melbourne and the problem is that one will "disappear" in the not too distant future and it will all end in tears of bitterness. The AFL has already agreed to an expansion club on the Gold Coast. North Melbourne Kangaroos were nudged to make a move but refused so it is going to be interesting to see if they can stand on their own.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mojopinuk
Ideally we'd have something that was somewhere in the middle I think, but I dont see how it will ever change as it just gets more and more out of hand financially.
|
Nor do I.
I gather from your knowledge you have watched a bit of Rules.