Talking Footy

Ahh TLPG you're of topic as usual. And you have stated several times to our admin that you will not post in here again. Your inconsistency on all counts is disruptive so stick your oar where the sun dont shine or come on back to the FC.

We're talking about competition and which code has the more balanced competition. Yes Xman those two new teams are an absolute skid mark on the comp. But what about melbourne and brisbane? They're not far off, as are a few other clubs. The AFL need to think over their strategy with blooding new teams and the state of their league today. Its fairly miserable atm. An absolute chasm has developed and its a shame you AFL knobs in here arent worried about it. What fun is going to the footy when you are certain of the result? And in atleast a third of all games each round this is the case. I'd love to go see how bad khunt of the GC is but im not paying money to watch a no contest.

Xman wrote:

King-Eliagh wrote:

Nice try Xman but the point is the AFL have a serious problem on their hands. The term competition and the AFL just dont sit together no more.

Rubbish!

They have 2 brand new teams who everyone knows will take 3-4 years to be competitive because they have started from scratch with a young talented list.

A real problem is having teams that are uncompetitive and broke, like Fitzroy were. This doesn't poly to any current AFL team. The only one remotely similar of recent years would be Port Adelaide, who are clearly better this year.

brand new teams eh ?

thats yr excuse


Titans record after 8 rounds of 2007 ... their first year in
6 wins
2 losses

the VFL never had the talent to expand .... so......... it shouldn't have
who's going to wait 4 years ?
these teams aren't just uncompetitive ... they are embarrasing
the VFL is already struggling with half of its comp in near bankrupcy .... & it is now throwing all its hard earned wealth into 2 woeful ... unwanted ... cash guzzling disasters
good riddance
here endith the lesson

TLPG wrote:

I'm going to stick my oar in here and point out another really good indicator in the AFL. Membership numbers. In 2011 according to the easiest source I could find (Wikipedia - yes I know it's not the most reliable but it will do for now), there wasn't a club with numbers below 10K. In fact only the Gold Coast were below 20K. Fitzroy in their dying years struggled to make 5K IIRC, which I think is about the same level as a lot of NRL clubs.
So who has the serious problem again?

wot the F has that got to do with anything

the VFL has been ruined by its own egotistical arrogance
a more horridly uneven comp there isn't in Australia

watch the interest evapourate in this silly little victorian game .... & who could blame people
they want to see contests in every game , thats what they pay their hard earned for
the fans of every side want to know their team is a chance in every game

at the moment
the VFL is providing this in about 3 out of 9 games a week

the NRL... in 6 out of 8

so inanswering your question about who's in trouble

the VFL
quite obviously

I have no issue acknowledging the AFL have a less even list of teams. It's the cost of expansion. The cheap way would be to throw a heap of mature players together and expect the locals to identify with and support them. The AFL realize the better way is to give them a promising group of kids combined with some seasoned players and let them develop into the locals very own team. It may involve 3-4 years of pain but once they start winning the support will grow.

Xman wrote:

I have no issue acknowledging the AFL have a less even list of teams. It's the cost of expansion. The cheap way would be to throw a heap of mature players together and expect the locals to identify with and support them. The AFL realize the better way is to give them a promising group of kids combined with some seasoned players and let them develop into the locals very own team. It may involve 3-4 years of pain but once they start winning the support will grow.

how would the majority in Western Sydney know a bunch of mature VFL players from a bunch of kids ?
they know nothing of the game either way

all they'll see is yesterdays result & the subsequent ones to come in 2012... 2013 & 2014

by year 4 .... they will be playing to crowds that would embarras the A League
the VFL have stuffed this up big time

New clubs, when properly supported, are a long term project. Being concerned If they struggle after 3 years is a very short sighted view. After 2 rounds is even more ridiculous.

Xman wrote:

New clubs, when properly supported, are a long term project. Being concerned If they struggle after 3 years is a very short sighted view. After 2 rounds is even more ridiculous.

this isn't any new area

its Western Sydney ... it may as well be mars as far as vicky kicky is concerned

its quite clear the VFL was never ready to expand
their arrogance got in the way of common sense & all VFL fans will suffer for this ego driven mistake

but please .. by all means keep p.issing the war chest up against the wall

VFL ... oopsie

Raiderdave wrote:

Xman wrote:

New clubs, when properly supported, are a long term project. Being concerned If they struggle after 3 years is a very short sighted view. After 2 rounds is even more ridiculous.

this isn't any new area

its Western Sydney ... it may as well be mars as far as vicky kicky is concerned

its quite clear the VFL was never ready to expand
their arrogance got in the way of common sense & all VFL fans will suffer for this ego driven mistake

but please .. by all means keep p.issing the war chest up against the wall

VFL ... oopsie

The only thing that is quite clear is that RL supporters were always going to claim the suns and giants were failures after just a few games.

Yet all I hear them say regarding the storm is "give them time, the following will come". Well after 15 years of success they haven't. Id suggest the AFL will be doing significantly better in WS and the GC than the storm after similar success.

Xman wrote:

I have no issue acknowledging the AFL have a less even list of teams. It's the cost of expansion. The cheap way would be to throw a heap of mature players together and expect the locals to identify with and support them. The AFL realize the better way is to give them a promising group of kids combined with some seasoned players and let them develop into the locals very own team. It may involve 3-4 years of pain but once they start winning the support will grow.

I don't quite go so far as to say that.
People keep referring to "AFL this.. AFL that".
The AFL is the member clubs and whilst the "AFL" created two new clubs and the mechanism of their introduction the two new clubs have chosen their individual routes to success. They appear to be similar but IMO GWS were stymied by other clubs signing up their star playes to 5 contracts. The GWS went to some unusual lengths to get some experience amongst their youngsters. Both teams are ahead in that they are not relocated teams. A relocated team might have worked for a while in the GC but the people of WS are looking for something different from the Swans. That they are and if they can manage some gutsey wins then people will identify with them.
IMO it's quite clever the way GWS have chosen non traditional names, jumpers and players reflecting the different nature of WS.

cos789 wrote:

Xman wrote:

I have no issue acknowledging the AFL have a less even list of teams. It's the cost of expansion. The cheap way would be to throw a heap of mature players together and expect the locals to identify with and support them. The AFL realize the better way is to give them a promising group of kids combined with some seasoned players and let them develop into the locals very own team. It may involve 3-4 years of pain but once they start winning the support will grow.

I don't quite go so far as to say that.
People keep referring to "AFL this.. AFL that".
The AFL is the member clubs and whilst the "AFL" created two new clubs and the mechanism of their introduction the two new clubs have chosen their individual routes to success. They appear to be similar but IMO GWS were stymied by other clubs signing up their star playes to 5 contracts. The GWS went to some unusual lengths to get some experience amongst their youngsters. Both teams are ahead in that they are not relocated teams. A relocated team might have worked for a while in the GC but the people of WS are looking for something different from the Swans. That they are and if they can manage some gutsey wins then people will identify with them.
IMO it's quite clever the way GWS have chosen non traditional names, jumpers and players reflecting the different nature of WS.

Well put

cos789 wrote:

Xman wrote:

I have no issue acknowledging the AFL have a less even list of teams. It's the cost of expansion. The cheap way would be to throw a heap of mature players together and expect the locals to identify with and support them. The AFL realize the better way is to give them a promising group of kids combined with some seasoned players and let them develop into the locals very own team. It may involve 3-4 years of pain but once they start winning the support will grow.

I don't quite go so far as to say that.
People keep referring to "AFL this.. AFL that".
The AFL is the member clubs and whilst the "AFL" created two new clubs and the mechanism of their introduction the two new clubs have chosen their individual routes to success. They appear to be similar but IMO GWS were stymied by other clubs signing up their star playes to 5 contracts. The GWS went to some unusual lengths to get some experience amongst their youngsters. Both teams are ahead in that they are not relocated teams. A relocated team might have worked for a while in the GC but the people of WS are looking for something different from the Swans. That they are and if they can manage some gutsey wins then people will identify with them.
IMO it's quite clever the way GWS have chosen non traditional names, jumpers and players reflecting the different nature of WS.

Omg Xman has just admitted that the AFL is uneven, are my eyes playing tricks on me .

Cos its now your turn to see with eyes wide open mate, think your up to it?

GWS does not come close to reflecting Western Sydney lol only there colors and we all know were they stole that from hey guys. And please don't say folou haha hes a Qlder we respectfully hate those winners lol.

eelofwest wrote:

cos789 wrote:

Xman wrote:

I have no issue acknowledging the AFL have a less even list of teams. It's the cost of expansion. The cheap way would be to throw a heap of mature players together and expect the locals to identify with and support them. The AFL realize the better way is to give them a promising group of kids combined with some seasoned players and let them develop into the locals very own team. It may involve 3-4 years of pain but once they start winning the support will grow.

I don't quite go so far as to say that.
People keep referring to "AFL this.. AFL that".
The AFL is the member clubs and whilst the "AFL" created two new clubs and the mechanism of their introduction the two new clubs have chosen their individual routes to success. They appear to be similar but IMO GWS were stymied by other clubs signing up their star playes to 5 contracts. The GWS went to some unusual lengths to get some experience amongst their youngsters. Both teams are ahead in that they are not relocated teams. A relocated team might have worked for a while in the GC but the people of WS are looking for something different from the Swans. That they are and if they can manage some gutsey wins then people will identify with them.
IMO it's quite clever the way GWS have chosen non traditional names, jumpers and players reflecting the different nature of WS.

Omg Xman has just admitted that the AFL is uneven, are my eyes playing tricks on me .

Cos its now your turn to see with eyes wide open mate, think your up to it?

It's not hard to see there are two teams who are in developmental states. However, there are 5 top tier teams this year who could each win the GF. Meanwhile the NRL have the storm again

Xman wrote:

eelofwest wrote:

cos789 wrote:

I don't quite go so far as to say that.
People keep referring to "AFL this.. AFL that".
The AFL is the member clubs and whilst the "AFL" created two new clubs and the mechanism of their introduction the two new clubs have chosen their individual routes to success. They appear to be similar but IMO GWS were stymied by other clubs signing up their star playes to 5 contracts. The GWS went to some unusual lengths to get some experience amongst their youngsters. Both teams are ahead in that they are not relocated teams. A relocated team might have worked for a while in the GC but the people of WS are looking for something different from the Swans. That they are and if they can manage some gutsey wins then people will identify with them.
IMO it's quite clever the way GWS have chosen non traditional names, jumpers and players reflecting the different nature of WS.

Omg Xman has just admitted that the AFL is uneven, are my eyes playing tricks on me .

Cos its now your turn to see with eyes wide open mate, think your up to it?

It's not hard to see there are two teams who are in developmental states. However, there are 5 top tier teams this year who could each win the GF. Meanwhile the NRL have the storm again

developmental ?

after 30 years of this sport being shoved down peoples throats in NSW & QLD .. & half a billion dollars spent .. they're STILL developmental


gee... failed experiment much

Raiderdave wrote:

Xman wrote:

eelofwest wrote:

Omg Xman has just admitted that the AFL is uneven, are my eyes playing tricks on me .

Cos its now your turn to see with eyes wide open mate, think your up to it?

It's not hard to see there are two teams who are in developmental states. However, there are 5 top tier teams this year who could each win the GF. Meanwhile the NRL have the storm again

developmental ?

after 30 years of this sport being shoved down peoples throats in NSW & QLD .. & half a billion dollars spent .. they're STILL developmental


gee... failed experiment much

Ah no dopey!

The suns and giants are in a state of development.

The lions and swans are well established with membership, sponsorship and crowd figures above almost every NRL team. =D>

Xman wrote:

eelofwest wrote:

cos789 wrote:

I don't quite go so far as to say that.
People keep referring to "AFL this.. AFL that".
The AFL is the member clubs and whilst the "AFL" created two new clubs and the mechanism of their introduction the two new clubs have chosen their individual routes to success. They appear to be similar but IMO GWS were stymied by other clubs signing up their star playes to 5 contracts. The GWS went to some unusual lengths to get some experience amongst their youngsters. Both teams are ahead in that they are not relocated teams. A relocated team might have worked for a while in the GC but the people of WS are looking for something different from the Swans. That they are and if they can manage some gutsey wins then people will identify with them.
IMO it's quite clever the way GWS have chosen non traditional names, jumpers and players reflecting the different nature of WS.

Omg Xman has just admitted that the AFL is uneven, are my eyes playing tricks on me .

Cos its now your turn to see with eyes wide open mate, think your up to it?

It's not hard to see there are two teams who are in developmental states. However, there are 5 top tier teams this year who could each win the GF. Meanwhile the NRL have the storm again

The storm? They've only won two premierships in the last 10 years. And those two were stripped from them. Again Xman, you talking about RL is like miss America talking about politics. Hilarious but not all that deep.