Talking Footy

Demitriou finally admits it

When I got the Sunday Age this morning as I always do for the metro and country Victorian scores, my attention was forcibly drawn to the headline on the Sunday Herald Sun;

"VIC FOOTY NEEDS HELP"

The AFL, through their CEO Andrew Demitriou, has finally acknowledged that the lack of Victorian club success in the AFL in recent times isn't just a cycle. It's a reflection of something more permanent.

Well, hello!

I've been saying that since 2004 at least!!

Because I wouldn't pay a cent for the Herald Sun at any time, I went looking for this story on the website. Demitriou has ordered a full investigation into the issue, as the story notes that the last time a Victorian team won the flag was in 2000 (Eseendon) and the last time a Victorian team was in the grand final was in 2003 (Collingwood). The story also noted that in the last ten years, only two flags have come to Victoria (Essendon in 2000 and North Melbourne in 1999. The rest have gone interstate - three to SA, three to Queensland and one each to New South Wales and Western Australia. And the top three at the time of typing (awaiting the Port Adelaide v Geelong clash today) are interstate clubs as well.

The story stated, "The review is investigating a series of issues, including the level of resourcing in recruitment, revenue to clubs, boards and governance, facilities, the second-tier competition and the TAC Cup competition."

The second tier examination (the VFL) was already mooted in a TV interview Demitriou did with Phil Cleary in early April. Ron Barassi (who was the first to address the problem last September when there were no Victorian clubs left come preliminary final week), Doug Hawkins, Bob Davis and Bob Skilton all agreed there was a problem with only Skilton sticking to the "cycle" line. Graham Cornes was sceptical of the process, and suspected a heap of advantages for Victoria as a result of the review.

He was quoted as saying, "The reason the non-Victorian clubs are doing better than the Victorian clubs is that they are run better and they are coached better and have maximised their resources."

I don't agree with "coached better". Coaches are only as good as the resources around them. Denis Pagan is one of the best coaches around, but he is struggling with Carlton. We have Mick Malthouse at Collingwood, and I certainly don't have issues with any of the other Victorian club coaches - except maybe for Ross Lyon if only because he lacks the experience of the others.

But running a club better with better resources all boils back to one thing. Money. Or lack thereof. The reality is - and again, this is something I've been saying for a long time - Victoria is over populated with AFL clubs. The only way there can be a long term catch up with the interstate clubs is if at least two Victorian clubs either involve themselves in a merger, relocate interstate (full time that is - not part time like some are to Tassie, Canberra and the Gold Coast), or shift lock, stock and barrel down to the VFL - as Fitzroy should have done back in the days of the VFA.

There is only so much money going around. It's not enough to spread between ten clubs to be competitive with just two clubs in the South Australian and Western Australian markets leaving them miles ahead. It could be argued that the strength of Sydney and Brisbane comes from the favours the AFL did them given they are in non AFL territory (especially Sydney), but that's not the issue anymore. The real concern should be with the four flagship clubs of the problem - West Coast, Fremantle, Adelaide and Port Adelaide.

There is another issue as well - the near wrecking of the game in Victoria as a whole, dating back to 1990. The losses sustained across the state (as I stated to the Country Footy Enquiry) were worse than any other state since the year the VFL became the AFL, and Wayne Jackson's penchant for game development over club development (an attitude that affected Victoria worse than any other state - and only New South Wales and Queensland even needed it for crying out loud!) is now coming out in the wash. The generally impractical relationship between the grass roots and the TAC Cup also isn't helping - especially in regional areas. Heck, when I was in Benalla a couple of weeks ago they expressed those very concerns with the Murray Bushrangers. The same applies to kids recruited into TAC Cup teams like Gippsland, Bendigo, North Ballarat and Geelong. It just doesn't work properly. The Under 19's format should not have changed, except maybe to be made Under 18's instead. The SANFL and the WAFL didn't change their junior format. Victoria didn't need to change either. Not to mention the fact that Victoria went without a state body effectively for two years (1990 and 1991 before the formation of the VSFL in 1992) and then changes left right and centre especially in metro Melbourne with the collapse of the VMFL and the eventual formation of Football Victoria. It has been one big mess and it was bound to show at elite level eventually.

There is really only one way this can be resolved, and I hope the review reveals this fact. You can't draw blood from a stone, so there HAS to be cut backs in on field expenditure. And within Victoria that can only be achieved by culling two clubs. Who they are is up for debate, but as long as we have ten clubs from Victoria in the AFL, Victoria has little hope for an AFL premiership any time soon.

TLPG wrote:

If either of you didn't read my Wiki article I suggest you do so - I make the case rather strongly I think.

There is only so much money going around. It's not enough to spread between ten clubs to be competitive with just two clubs in the South Australian and Western Australian markets leaving them miles ahead. It could be argued that the strength of Sydney and Brisbane comes from the favours the AFL did them given they are in non AFL territory (especially Sydney), but that's not the issue anymore. The real concern should be with the four flagship clubs of the problem - West Coast, Fremantle, Adelaide and Port Adelaide....

You can't draw blood from a stone, so there HAS to be cut backs in on field expenditure. And within Victoria that can only be achieved by culling two clubs. Who they are is up for debate, but as long as we have ten clubs from Victoria in the AFL, Victoria has little hope for an AFL premiership any time soon.

http://philsworld.wiki-site.com/index.p ... _admits_it

LisaJ wrote:

So if your solution is to cull two clubs, which two clubs would you cull??