SA Footy

I've checked with a mod to make sure it was ok to post this, not sure if it belonng here or in the history forum. My class are doing an assignment of about how certain events/people have shaped current-Australia, and I've got a couple students who are looking at how the 'creation 'of the AFL in 1990 has changed football in Australia. Part of their task is to get info/opinions from people, so they're not just relying on just the Internet (ie, Wikipedia) for information. So if anyone could spare a couple minutes commenting on the following 2 questions it would be greatly appreciated (the boys will be very excited to get a response):

a. Why do you think a national competition (the AFL) introduced in 1990?
b. How do you think football has changed in Australia since the beginning of the AFL?
c. Do you think the introduction of the AFL has been good or bad for football in Australia? Why?

Thanks!

Presumably it changed from VFL to AFL in 1990 because it had gotten to the point in the VFL where non Victorian sides were becoming more than just a novelty i.e. South Melbourne becoming Sydney in 1982, the admission of the Brisbane Bears and West Coast Eagles in 1987 and the imminent entry of a South Australian side - which of course happened in 1991. It is known that the admission of these sides and the $4 million licence fees (think that is correct amount) these teams had to pay for entry helped to save some existing VFL sides as 5 or 6 of the remaining VFL sides were bordering on trading insolvent. Since of course there has also been a second WA side (Fremantle 1995), a second South Australian side (Port Adelaide 1997) and the same in Queensland (Gold Coast in 2011) and NSW (GWS this year).
The scouting of players in other competitions was taken even more seriously, an elite Under 18 competition was set up in Melbourne in the early 1990's to help identify the best Victorian talent, the SANFL and WAFL were forced to take a bit of a back seat due to the player drain and interest toward the AFL, there has been a bigger effort to identify talent in the non main football states of Queensland and New South Wales and there has also been a greater effort since the introduction of the AFL to identify talent even from other sports - some that even have a different skill set to Australian Rules. Probably another point is that the best players from the WAFL and SANFL back before AFL would most likely have a few years in their own comp before heading to Melbourne at 21, 22, etc where as since the advent of AFL, once they are drafted they head straight over to their AFL club which in most cases is before they've played a league game.
Think the introduction of AFL has been good for the standard of football as the best players from all over play in it but the game IMHO is losing touch with it's roots as time goes on but guess you could argue that was inevitable with the now fully professional nature of the AFL game.

a. Why do you think a national competition (the AFL) introduced in 1990?

The SANFL wouldn't be part of the "Victorian football League" The VFL were desperate to get representation from all of the major footy states so their only option was to change the name to reflect a National Theme

b. How do you think football has changed in Australia since the beginning of the AFL?

Positives
Australian Rules has been promoted well in the non traditional Aussie Rules states and Overseas
Players wages have increased hugely to reflect the professionalism and dedication required to play at that level
Player welfare has been taken more seriously

Negatives
State leagues have had media attention cut
Crowds have deminished at State League games (although I do think a lot of SANFL supporters are more passionate than their AFL counterparts)
The AFL wants the game to be called "AFL", not "Australian Rules Football" as it truly is
The AFL want the State Leagues to be a sub league of the AFL, eg: AFLTas, AFLQLD etc.
The AFL want's to control the State Leagues (and they do in a lot of cases)
Rule changes for the sake of changing rules. Rules will always need changing from time to time, they have since the game was invented, but not to the extent that they are changed constantly now. There has to be a genuine need for change, not just justification for a committee to exist.


c. Do you think the introduction of the AFL has been good or bad for football in Australia? Why?

In it's current format, NO (for reasons, see negatives above + it is also still too "Victorian")

Mic wrote: So if anyone could spare a couple minutes commenting on the following 2 questions it would be greatly appreciated (the boys will be very excited to get a response):

a. Why do you think a national competition (the AFL) introduced in 1990?
b. How do you think football has changed in Australia since the beginning of the AFL?
c. Do you think the introduction of the AFL has been good or bad for football in Australia? Why?

Thanks!

Your not a maths teacher I hope :smile:

mickey wrote:

Mic wrote: So if anyone could spare a couple minutes commenting on the following 2 questions it would be greatly appreciated (the boys will be very excited to get a response):

a. Why do you think a national competition (the AFL) introduced in 1990?
b. How do you think football has changed in Australia since the beginning of the AFL?
c. Do you think the introduction of the AFL has been good or bad for football in Australia? Why?

Thanks!

Your not a maths teacher I hope :smile:

LOL Gold - well done Silent Mike! A true Grog Squader!

on the rails wrote:

mickey wrote:

Mic wrote: So if anyone could spare a couple minutes commenting on the following 2 questions it would be greatly appreciated (the boys will be very excited to get a response):

a. Why do you think a national competition (the AFL) introduced in 1990?
b. How do you think football has changed in Australia since the beginning of the AFL?
c. Do you think the introduction of the AFL has been good or bad for football in Australia? Why?

Thanks!

Your not a maths teacher I hope :smile:

LOL Gold - well done Silent Mike! A true Grog Squader!

any chance of of singing some grog songs? early and continuas. cmon lads the lads love the grog squad.stop being quiet.

CMONNNNNNN UUUUUUUUU REDSSSSSSSSSSSS

Mic wrote:I've checked with a mod to make sure it was ok to post this, not sure if it belonng here or in the history forum. My class are doing an assignment of about how certain events/people have shaped current-Australia, and I've got a couple students who are looking at how the 'creation 'of the AFL in 1990 has changed football in Australia. Part of their task is to get info/opinions from people, so they're not just relying on just the Internet (ie, Wikipedia) for information. So if anyone could spare a couple minutes commenting on the following 2 questions it would be greatly appreciated (the boys will be very excited to get a response):

a. Why do you think a national competition (the AFL) introduced in 1990?
b. How do you think football has changed in Australia since the beginning of the AFL?
c. Do you think the introduction of the AFL has been good or bad for football in Australia? Why?

Thanks!

a. Financial gain and control of the regional development of the game. Centralisation of the running of the game.
b. Far more professional on all counts
c. Very good. See b. It means players can earn good money and a living off the game where they wern't able to prior to the introduction of the AFL. The AFL looks after player welfare on and off the ground, within and outside the AFL system. The only downside I see is the commercialisation of the game. It seems to me to be too sanitised on the premise that it doesn't appeal to everyone. What the AFL should understand is that the game appeals to people because of the diversity of the contest and the manner in which the game is played (instinctive and reactionary). Rather than make it like other games, ensure it's safe, but leave the base game alone.

on the rails wrote:

mickey wrote:

Mic wrote: So if anyone could spare a couple minutes commenting on the following 2 questions it would be greatly appreciated (the boys will be very excited to get a response):

a. Why do you think a national competition (the AFL) introduced in 1990?
b. How do you think football has changed in Australia since the beginning of the AFL?
c. Do you think the introduction of the AFL has been good or bad for football in Australia? Why?

Thanks!

Your not a maths teacher I hope :smile:

LOL Gold - well done Silent Mike! A true Grog Squader!

You see, this what I always teach my students - check your work before submitting it! I've missed a word in question a. too ("was")

Thanks for the responses; will be very helpful.

Mic, if you haven't already, get your hands on a copy of this...

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/sout ... 6473684265

This story might be worth considering Mic.
It is perhaps the downside of professional sport, and seems a common theme that for a while the standard burgeons, but then too much strategy and analysis becomes involved due to so many livelihoods at stake, and what we loved about the unpredictability, flair and variety of a sport makes way for complete team-orientation. Couple this with commercialistion, and everything becomes a bit "the same". As a mate once said to me about the AFL, you could put different guernseys on the same players, and no one would know the difference. Whether it is age or genuinely due to professionalism, a little bit of the magic is lost, and I know a number of people around my age, mid-30's who feel the same, who used to love the AFL.
Perhaps also an oversaturation both on the field and in the media has an effect.
One day cricket is another prime example, however I don't think Test cricket has succumbed in the same way as other sports, and this is what it makes so special IMO.

Had there not been being circulated, for some years, the idea of a real national league not run from Melbourne?
IIRC, the VFL acted to prevent this happening, as it began to look more possible, and that was why the pressure was put on South Melbourne to move to Sydney or be left to die..

On a less than complimentary note, Victorians have always been protectionists, going right back to before Federation, so you could argue they should have been the last people involved to run a national competition.
On the other side of the coin, whilst to many it is still not a true national comp, and it irks me that some of the Victorian sides are still there simply because they are Victorian, expanding out of an existing comp rather than starting something new from scratch has worked well for the AFL and NRL, compared to other sports such as soccer, baseball and basketball. So would a truly national comp be as strong as the AFL is today or would it have had the same problems as other sports?

MagpiesPower is OTM when referring Mic to that book. My copy is in storage currently so can't double check but it answers point (a)

IIRC the motivation was to start to remove the power of the VFL clubs and establish a National Controlling body independent of any of the existing state leagues at the time. I think they also knew that to truly take game national to grow the it to it's full earnings potential (and to take on the other codes) they needed a national title instead of the "VFL".

(b) Football has become national, players have become full time, club spend on football has grown massively, TV rights have grown and the game has grown. On the downside the state leagues have suffered significant drops in interest and attendances. The greater exposure has had positive and negative impacts. The issue of racism in the AFL became very public and lead to important improvements since the Nicky Winmar incident. A more recent example is the public scrutiny on the effect on players who suffer concussions.

(c) I think the game had to go national in one form of another. Whether the "AFL" we got being just an expanded VFL with a name change is worse than a competition started from scratch (and competing with those same VFL clubs) is something we will never know. Some supporters of the state leagues during the pre-AFL days will be adamant that the AFL has not been good for the game. The next generation who only know Aussie Rules with the AFL place won't know any differently. I think the opportunities for players outside the old, traditional football states have grown and blokes like Kurt Tippett may not have played Aussie rules without an AFL in place.

I could write pages and pages on this but those are the comments off the top of my head.

FlyingHigh wrote:On a less than complimentary note, Victorians have always been protectionists, going right back to before Federation, so you could argue they should have been the last people involved to run a national competition.
On the other side of the coin, whilst to many it is still not a true national comp, and it irks me that some of the Victorian sides are still there simply because they are Victorian, expanding out of an existing comp rather than starting something new from scratch has worked well for the AFL and NRL, compared to other sports such as soccer, baseball and basketball. So would a truly national comp be as strong as the AFL is today or would it have had the same problems as other sports?

I think the NRL should be used as an example of how not to form a national comp. My memory (happy to be corrected) is that the ARL was a renamed version of the NSWRL and then there was the new Superleague with a lot of new clubs, a lot of which have folded. The NRL is the end product of the rugby league war. While the end result might be ok the process was far from good for the game.
It might irk you that some Victorian side are there because they are Victorian but their supporters are just as passionate about their clubs as anyone else. To get rid of these sides just because they are Victorian clubs would mean a lot of disenfranchised supporters who would be potentially lost to the game.

Mic wrote:a. Why do you think a national competition (the AFL) introduced in 1990?
b. How do you think football has changed in Australia since the beginning of the AFL?
c. Do you think the introduction of the AFL has been good or bad for football in Australia? Why?

a. VFL was going broke so started the expansion in 87 with Brisbane and West Coast, which brought financial help to the ailing league .. In order to continue to get the dollars in further expansion was required, and that about the need to change the name of the League

b. Far more professional right across the board - Technology, Sports science knowledge (training regimes, recovery, hydration, studies of other competitions throughout the world etc). It's been marketed and sold much better and now operates from a financial base that's unrivaled in the country. In order to assist with selling the brand it's required several image change's to enhance the profile, which has resulted in the game having many many different aspects and features to the pre-AFL era.

c. Both. Participation is structured and healthy from the youngest ages. It's meant many long standing clubs however have either had to amalgamate, or fade into obscurity. It has also become a less affordable sport to attend (or watch on TV in many cases) and the pinnacle of the fixture, the Grand Final, is sold out to the Corporate masses at the expense of the Grassroots supporter.

Mr Beefy wrote:

FlyingHigh wrote:On a less than complimentary note, Victorians have always been protectionists, going right back to before Federation, so you could argue they should have been the last people involved to run a national competition.
On the other side of the coin, whilst to many it is still not a true national comp, and it irks me that some of the Victorian sides are still there simply because they are Victorian, expanding out of an existing comp rather than starting something new from scratch has worked well for the AFL and NRL, compared to other sports such as soccer, baseball and basketball. So would a truly national comp be as strong as the AFL is today or would it have had the same problems as other sports?

I think the NRL should be used as an example of how not to form a national comp. My memory (happy to be corrected) is that the ARL was a renamed version of the NSWRL and then there was the new Superleague with a lot of new clubs, a lot of which have folded. The NRL is the end product of the rugby league war. While the end result might be ok the process was far from good for the game.

True, Superleague almost broke the game and probably gave the AFL a 5 year headstart, and agree that the end has been better than the process. However, before SL, the NSWRL/ARL were expanding too - was "the process" and Superleague simply one man's greed or did it come from some disenchanted clubs and players like with cricket?

Mr Beefy wrote:It might irk you that some Victorian side are there because they are Victorian but their supporters are just as passionate about their clubs as anyone else. To get rid of these sides just because they are Victorian clubs would mean a lot of disenfranchised supporters who would be potentially lost to the game.

Yes, there would be a lot of disenfranchised supporters now if it were to happen, given the boom in attendances, memberships etc over the last 15 years. But things weren't that great 20-25 years ago for some of these teams, and would have been a parallel with waht the WAFLand SANFL clubs went through.

If it wasn't existing VFL teams "promoted" to the AFL then would they have been new generic teams covering geographic areas like West Melbourne, Northern Melb, Central Melbourne, whatever Melbourne, etc? If so, how would this have worked I wonder? It would have seen the old VFL clubs share the pain that the WAFL and SANFL clubs went through but would it have given the new AFL the right start basically trying to grab supporters of the old VFL clubs? How many Collingwood and Carlton supporters would have come over? If instead the top VFL clubs were admitted again what happens to the supporter base of the other VFL clubs?

Not sure it would have worked but we will never know.

As a lifelong Centrals supporter and a neutral AFL follower:

Why do you think a national competition (the AFL) was introduced in 1990?
Don't really know (I was long-term away overseas at the time) but I expect it was an effort to grow the game.

How do you think football has changed in Australia since the beginning of the AFL?
The players are fitter and more professional and this is reflected in the quality of the games. Player safety is more important - a good thing. More people are enjoying our great game.

Do you think the introduction of the AFL has been good or bad for football in Australia? Why?Overall, good. For the reasons stated above.

very good topic
alot more behind the scenes was happening than alot of us experts would ever know
living in vic at the time it was well known that kerry packer had already began planning a break away league,,ie world series cricket,,,for channel nine
supposedly they had spoken to a couple of the major clubs and were looking at interstate clubs to join as well in a ten team comp
the biggest problems they were having was that the club names and emblems were owned by the league and the grounds were leased also to the league
very much like what happened when the majors left the vfa and formed the vfl,