Tag Archives: Australian Football League

The English Prefer Foreign Talent – What About Aussies? (Part 2)

Posted on by

0

Last week I told you about a study I read that analysed the preference for foreign and domestic talent in the English Premier League.  I then told you I would apply it to Australia.  I did warn you that I don’t have the numbers, but I have a few ideas about foreign talent in the various Australian leagues…

AFL
I am almost positive there would be no significant impact on attendance and that fans would not show a preference for foreign or domestic players.  Foreign talents not only makes up a pretty small percentage of players (only 14 current players, total) but even the good ones are not as widely known as the Aussies.  And there aren’t very many good ones (can you even name five?). I will make one exception: Jim Stynes.  Players like that impact the game, and attendance.

I also think foreign talent is pretty accurately represented.  As I mentioned, there aren’t many good foreign players.  Even the ones who are good, aren’t that good.  I doubt the damage or contribute to the game… they just are.

And actually, while I’m at it. I’m going to go out on a limb and say they do damage the game.  In a book I read called ‘How To Play Australian Football’ everyone seems to think that what makes a good player is practice.  Knowing the game, knowing your opponent, knowing how to work the space, opposition and your teammates strengths.  Since AFL is hardly an international sport (yet) how can you expect that a foreigner (someone who hasn’t grown up playing the game) to do that?

NRL
I’d be interested in seeing this.  I can’t seem to find information on the number of non-domestic players in the NRL but I don’t think there are very many (off the top of my head).  To me, and perhaps this is a very uneducated assertion, but it seems like this could be the league with the most negative impact.  Rugby fans (let me be clear: THE FANS, not the players, clubs or leagues) tend to be a bit… outrageous… and I can see how a foreign player, if they are not performing well, would upset people.

Depending on where the players came from, there could be a significant contribution to the team.  Players from South Africa, New Zealand or the UK, for instance, could be beneficial.  Players from the US might be a bit more detrimental.  That would be an interesting study.

NBL
As you know from my previous post, I don’t think Americans do well in the NBL.  I don’t think they would affect attendance at all.  After all, the NBL has a rule which limits the number of non-Australiasian players per team (limit of 2).  I don’t think the fans would care at all.

But performance… I’d put good money on it that non-domestic players are a hindrance.  While they know how to play basketball, and many can play it very well, they don’t play it the Australian way.  Look at the Hawks this season: more appearances by the Americans… fewer wins (although I’m rooting for them, since I volunteer there – GO HAWKS! I DON’T CARE WHERE YOU ARE ON THE LADDER OR WHO YOU SELECT TO PLAY!).  I think the style of play is too different and that they are damaging teams, overall.  Let me be clear though, I only feel that way about the American players.  I would call them ‘overrepresented’ if we were sticking the terminology used in Part 1.  Other players… I’d love to see.

ABL
This is the only league in which I fully, 100% support American imports.  Baseball is America’s past time so odds are that the US produces some quality players.  Not to mention, many ABL players spend time in US in the off season playing for the major and minor leagues.  I actually support most international players in the ABL – I think it’s smart.  Japan and the Dominican Republic, for instance, also have amazing leagues with great quality players.  While I hate to say this, I’d bet that the foreign players provide more marginal benefit than the domestic players.  In this case, I assert that foreign players are underrepresented.

It wouldn’t impact attendance.  The only way I can see that happening is if there’s a big star, which the ABL hasn’t really landed yet.

What do you all think?  Are my assumptions way off base?

Do you want me to run the numbers for any of these leagues?  I’d be interested (and willing!) but only if someone else cares, too.  Otherwise… I’m just a crazy woman obsessing about foreigners and statistics. Weird.

My Review Of Essendon’s Review

Posted on by

3

I will start with a noise:  UGHHHHHHHHHHH.

I know I am late on this but, like I mentioned, I had finals so here it (finally) is.

Firstly, I almost started reading when I read this: a number of individuals key to a full analysis of this period, have been unavailable for interview.  Now, I am going to assume they meant Stephen Dank, but who knows?  There could have been many, many more people unavailable.

Secondly, I have talked about this topic before and you all know my opinion on the situation.  I think everyone is to blame: players, coaches, medical staff, presidents and GMs.  I can’t imagine that no one had an issue with injections and if no one did… then the AFL needs to talk to someone about that because that is pure stupidity.  Also, one of the things dominate in the review is the lack of documentation.  Let me tell you something: I HATE WHEN PEOPLE DO NOT DOCUMENT THINGS. One of my favourite jobs was at a medical supplies company and they documented EVERYTHING. While it was a pain to enter information into four. separate. programs… I could always find information later because it had been documented. That’s the point – to be able to trace ANYTHING. And if I had to do it even to sell some paper to a hospital, why shouldn’t they have to do it for ADMINISTERING DRUGS? (I love my caps lock button – can you tell?)

So here’s my thoughts. Here we go. (Oh, here’s the review)

They wrote: “… rapid diversification into exotic supplements, sharp increase in frequency of injections, the shift to treatment offsite in alternative medicine clinics, emergence of unfamiliar suppliers, marginalization of traditional medical staff etc combine to create a disturbing picture of a pharmacologically experimental environment never adequately controlled or challenged or documented within the Club in the period under review.”

I think: All of this is sketchy, to say the least. I am honestly shocked that no one spoke up. As much as I love (and I really do love) Jobe Watson, how idiodic can your player be that they participated in something like this?  And for the record, that “players have to do what coaches and staff tell they to do” argument is so stupid.  Are they not grown men? Can they not think for themselves?  Everyone feels as though they can question the government and other countries’ motives but not the man with the needle in an off-site facility who can’t adequately explain what he’s injecting? Yea, sure. Sounds legit.

They wrote: “Football clubs are changing and growing… The EFC employs 75 people full time across all its functions and another 35 in part time roles. Annual revenues, and costs, surpass $50 million, and some clubs are considerably bigger.”

I think: OF COURSE football clubs are changing and growing. That’s supposed to be a good thing.  And yes, there are lots of clubs that are considerably bigger. And yet… those clubs can managed their people.

They wrote: “Significant staff changes in a period of transition and growth led to risk…  In the period under review, a number of management processes broke down, failed or were short- circuited.
Problems occurred in:
• Selection and Recruitment processes
• Induction processes
• Management of contractors
• Hierarchy and decision making in the Football Department
• Administration”

I think: Having a sound structure is what keeps businesses from, well, this situation. Sure, it’s unfortunate that things broke down, but where was the boss in all of this?  How is it possible that the CEO had no idea that his football department (which, correct me if I’m wrong, is sort of essential to the existence of a FOOTBALL CLUB) was basically falling apart?  Turnover is normal and so is transition so when it happens in a club, it shouldn’t be a big deal.  So how is it responsible for a doctor administering illegal substances?

They wrote: “In particular, there was a lack of clarity about who was in charge of the Football Department. There were two separate roles, with fuzzy lines of responsibility. The responsibilities of two key staff overlapped, and the new fitness team was able to largely ignore their attempts at direct management. Added to this is a senior coach in his first coaching role.”

I think: Okay, so you had two people who overlapped in role and neither of them thought to sort out the medical staff? Those people probably shouldn’t be working for you… Neither should a fitness team that ignores managements. Now, James Hird.  He is easily one of my favourite coaches and one I respect very much (seriously, I can’t enough nice things).  But he should have been paying attention. And there should have been someone there to tell him he needed to.

They wrote: “The following key issues led to a breakdown in oversight:
i) An assumption was made by the Senior Coach that his instructions would be followed to the letter. In early 2012, there appears to have been no structured follow up, monitoring or recording of compliance with the wishes of the coach.”

I think: You know what they say about assuming?  Well. Case in point.

They wrote: “Institutions are often judged by how well they respond to crises. Post February 2013, the EFC response seems textbook correct. But the best organizations are judged by how well they anticipate and prevent crises. Risk assessment and mitigation, while already part of the core board agenda, should be re examined.”

I think: Yes, good for Essendon. They actually did a great job with the crisis.  The players, coaches and everyone (Stephen Dank excepted) did very well with this situation.

My final thoughts: I have no idea what the AFL will do, but here’s what I think they should do. Fine ‘em. I think a few million (maybe ten or fifteen?) dollars sounds about right. You can’t blame just one person.  As the report says, there were breakdowns everywhere and I agree.  But you also can’t punish everyone, particularly the players that didn’t take part. Essendon didn’t win the premiership anyway, so what’s the difference, really? and for the love of all things… GET THEE AN ORGANISATIONAL SYSTEM.

And finally, at the risk of making this entire article stupid, I am going address the key people (Ian Robson, James Hird, and Andrew Demetriou) by quoting the greatest fictional man I know, Harvey Specter. In an episode of Suits (start watching, now – season 3 starts in July) Harvey has to bust a company for insider trading.  It turns out the be the vice-president and the owner/president of the company says he swears he didn’t know.  Harvey tells him a story, “When I was 13 years old, my little brother was getting bullied by a kid in the neighbourhood.  One day I confronted the kid’s father. He told me he didn’t know anything about it. You know what his problem was? It was his god**** job to know.“

Why You Can’t Pay Players Based On Performance

Posted on by

0

Yesterday, boyfriend and I got into a heated (heated is an understatement – I almost drove away and left him at the park) discussion.

You see, he seems to think that you should pay players based on performance. He was talking about Melbourne and the hot mess that makes up their club (I mean honestly – losing to the Gold Coast by 60 points AT THE MCG? You have got to be kidding).   I will write a post about what I think Melbourne needs to do to get back on track (spoiler alert: A LOT) but in the meantime, I am going to address boyfriend’s concern.  Because if he thinks this is a possibility, he can’t be the only one.

Now, I’m not saying it’s not a good idea. I’m saying it is too difficult to implement.  There are too many issues… as you will see (and honestly, I shortened this post because I care about your eyes).

NOTE: It wasn’t until after I wrote this post that I realised I wrote it about AFL.  But if you take out the stuff about the CBA, it’s applicable about to any sport.

It won’t change things anyway
Studies show that performance based pay makes no difference when employees are committed to the company.  Therefore, you can already say that it won’t work, because we know that players are dedicated to their club.  “But Kayla!” you say, “what about players who aren’t dedicated to their club?”  Well, anonymous reader, that’s a great point.  You show me a professional athlete who doesn’t want to win games and a Grand Final… and I’ll show you a player who shouldn’t be a professional anyway. Don’t worry about those idiots – drop ‘em.  There are 1,000 more ready to take his place.

It’s (almost) not quantifiable
People get payed based on performance all the time, right? That’s what sales is – there are entire industries built like this.  In those instances, however, it’s easy to see who is performing best.  You typically get a percentage of your sales/billables as a bonus, or everyone at each level gets the same amount (i.e., seniors get $x, juniors get $y, and so on and so forth).  Obviously, the latter is not what we’re talking about here.  The problem is: how do you quantify contribution? It may be easy for one game.  Let’s say you have Ryan Crowley tagging Gary Ablett (sound familiar?) and because of him, Ablett only gets three touches (this was the example my boyfriend gave).  Okay, sure, he had an impact on the game.  But let’s say in that same game, Fremantle wins by ten goals and Nathan Fyfe scored six.  Who was more valuable to the team?  Who do you pay more?  And if you pay them both the same because of their contribution, then what about the rest of the team?

Not only is it hard to quantify it each game, but how do you quantify it over an entire season?  If someone dominates at the start of the season, but gets injured and can’t play in the last  games, are they less valuable?  Or what if you have a player that dominates when it doesn’t matter (like Tom Lynch scoring 10 goals against GWS yesterday) but crumbles under the pressure of playing a top-of-the-ladder team?  Are they effective… or not?

Of course, you can always take the Dream Team approach and play them per goal, or per touch, but as we all know… that doesn’t tell you how valuable a person is to a team and those taggers who dominate their opponent?  Well, don’t expect them to be noticed or paid more.

Boyfriend says you can just have the coach decide.  But then, how much room does that leave for favouritism?  LOTS.

There’s already a bonus in place for this
Clubs are allowed to award bonuses to players who are in the top ten best and fairest of the club.  This is not part of the salary cap (at least, I don’t think it is).  The best players – taggers, scorers, defenders… – will likely find themselves in the top ten, anyway.  What’s the point of doing it twice?

They may not reach TPP
The CBA says that clubs must spend at least 92.5% of the salary cap on salaries.  If you plan on usig bonuses as part of salaries, there is no way that you can start the season having spent that much.  You’d have to spend more like… 50% (at the most).  But what if you go through the season and everyone does terribly? You’ll probably have money left over which means that you’ll have to divide it – equitably – amongst the players.  That’s all well and good, but it also defeats the purpose of this idea: don’t pay players that don’t perform.

Requirements will be unclear
If you want merit pay to work, requirements have to be made clear to the employee (the player) by the employer (the coach).  In sales jobs, for instance, it’s easy: you get 5% commission of what you sell.  But if you implement this system, you can’t say to a player, “You’ll get money based on how much you impact each game in relation to your teammates.”  You will literally be able to see question marks forming over their heads.

Players will compete against each  other
As we know, each club has a limited amount of funds (duh, we call it the salary cap).  This means that, like it or not, in this system players would be paid relative to his teammates.  Therefore, you can expect that they will try and outperform their competition – their teammates.  This makes for terrible play, and even worse club culture.  Players will be selfish with the ball, try and hit ridiculous shots and it will give the club a generally negative vibe.

Not to mention, although the AFL does not release player salaries, eventually  estimates get out.  If you think you did better than your teammate and he gets paid more at the end of the year… well.  I can’t imagine you’ll be handing him that ball so readily next season, will you?

It’s against the CBA
This may be the most important one.  The CBA basically dictates everything about money in the AFL and it lays out what can be a ‘bonus’ and performance isn’t one of them.  According to the CBA, bonuses can be awarded for the number of senior matches played, for being in the club’s top ten best and fairest, and for competing in the grand final.  Bonuses based on performance are not included and therefore, (at least until 2017 when the CBA is renegotiated) is not allowed. The end.

Not to mention, there are caps on how much you can pay each player (usually based on the number of years they’ve played or the list they’re on) and it’s not fair for a rookie, say, if he’s killing it every week, to be paid less than a senior player who does a mediocre job, just because he’s a rookie.  That would happen in this case.

Lance Franklin
My last point. Buddy is MIND-NUMBINGLY amazing. Everyone knows that. But how do you pay someone like him based on their performance? It’s an impossibility.

Like I said… it can’t actually be done. Agree?

Although, I think this might be a fun assignment for me for the end of the year… Anyone interested in seeing what I’d pay players based on their performance at the end of the season? I’ll keep that one in the pipeline.

Want to know more? Read this.

How I Would Sell More Memberships

Posted on by

0

My friends give me such amazing ideas and they don’t even know it. No, no, I don’t steal ideas – they say things like, ‘I wonder how he gets fit,’ and I think AFL WORKOUT WEB SERIES. They really are geniuses.  I also think that’s what marketing is about – giving people what they don’t know need want by listening to what they want.

So this idea came from couple friends of mine – shout out to Sammy and Liam!

Sammy got Liam a Swans Membership for Christmas.  I reprimanded my boyfriend for not getting me the one (although, I do live two hours away so maybe he was just being smart).  But then I thought about it… and THAT’S who you need to call to sell memberships – the partners.

If someone had put the idea in my head that my boyfriend would LOVE a footy membership for Christmas/his birthday, I would of bought one for him (he’s also a North Melbourne fan and we don’t live anywhere near North Melbourne so there’s that issue).  I don’t think I’m the only girl who thinks that way.  It’s HARD to buy presents for guys, especially if they don’t have a lot of hobbies or they have hobbies you can’t contribute to.  My boyfriend, for instance, is in the process of building a bike. I know nothing about bikes so even if I wanted to, I couldn’t get him something for it because odds are, it’ll end up being wrong.  So it really is difficult to get guys a present unless you already know what they want.  And we hardly ever know what they want.  Footy tends to be the national language so getting your partner a membership for a team, even if it’s the cheapest option possible, is a great (and safe!) idea.  Guys tend to be big sport fans all around, so you could even get him a membership to teams he may like but hasn’t gotten around to seeing.  The Sydney Blue Sox and other ABL clubs, for instance, have really cheap memberships so it’d be fun!

I’m not sure how you would do this, but the best way would be to figure out people who bought tickets and aren’t members – Liam wasn’t a member before this and that’s why I thought of this idea – reaching a new market is key.

Furthermore, if you can’t aim to sell to the partners… aim to sell partner memberships to the members.

Stay with me here.

Envision this: you’re a guy (most of my readers won’t have to envision this because they are, in fact, guys) and your girlfriend/wife/partner doesn’t like footy (GASP!).  This means that they want to pull you away from the TV on weekends and have no desire to go to games and their eyes glaze over when you talk about stats and the ladder.  Now imagine they become a fan. How much better would life be?!  Let me tell you, my life got exponentially better once I convinced my boyfriend that old movies can actually be enjoyable (don’t tell anyone, but he liked The Wizard of Oz).  Sharing interests is great – and it can be a moneymaker for clubs.  If you can convince your members to buy an additional membership for their significant other, you will make the big bucks… FAST.  Plus, if you can just get them to games consistently, you can turn them into fans so if/when their relationships end (and odds are they probably will – not a pessimist, just trying to help the clubs out) those two members will bring their new partners to games.

How genius would this be?

If a club can figure out how to get to these key people… they could sell so many extra memberships.

PS – I have a mind-blowingly amazing commercial idea to go with the second half of this post… but I can’t share it online (lest it be stolen!).  UGH.

Hey AFL: Stop Trying To Create Rivalries

Posted on by

0

I have had this issue with the AFL for a long time but after writing the post about the Battle of the Bridge, I had to get this off my chest.  The AFL is too cavalier with their rivalries.  They try and create rivalries where there are none. and that gets on my nerves like no other.  Now, it is one thing to market a game in by giving it a name, such as ‘Battle of the Bridge’ but when every game you watch is considered a rivalry, that’s just too much.  The word loses it’s meaning. which is a shame for the true rivalries out there like Carlton/Collingwood.

I’m an American, so I know a thing or two (or two thousand) about rivalries.  My mother is from Wisconsin, which makes her a Green Bay fan, and I went to college in Massachusetts, which makes me a Red Sox and Celtics fan.  Those are three of the greatest rivalries in sports – Green Bay Packers v Chicago Bears, Boston Celtics v LA Lakers, and, of course, the infamous Boston Red Sox v New York Yankees.

For two of these three rivalries, post-season games were the key – the Packers/Bears have met more times in the post-season than any other NFL teams.  The Celtics/Lakers, hold the same record in the NBA and they have had several bouts where they were the top two teams, repeatedly battling for the top spot (in the 60s, 80s, and lates 2000s).  The Sox/Yanks… well. That’s just massive, isn’t it?  Babe Ruth was the cause of that.  We won’t get into it.  Nearly 100 years later and it’s still a sore subject for most.

But there is a REASON for all these rivalries.

The other thing about a rivalry is that people actually have to CARE about it – at least fans of one side (in my experience, the better team’s fans usually pretend they don’t care until they’re on the bottom again).  Let me tell you… when the Lakers came to town, I could not count the number of ‘Beat LA’ shirts I saw in Boston.  The Packers fans always make banners about how they hate the Bears.  And once… a Yankees fan ran over a Red Sox fan with her car (I thought that this person lived, and it was only when I went to retrieve the link that I realized he had died – I certainly do not support killing people over sport).

I know that Australia is a laid-back country and no one wants to do things like this, which is part of what makes sport in this country so great.  Sport is supposed to unite people, not tear them apart.  And that’s fine.  But it then must be acknowledged that concocting a rivalry out of nothing is not only in poor taste, it’s also an unfitting marketing ploy.  If no one cares about it… you’re not going to be able to make them care.  Sure, there are games that are better than others (who DOESN’T love the Collingwood/Carlton game?!) and there are games that people care about… but no one cares about all of them (unless, of course, they have Dream Team players in all of them, but that’s another story).  And trying to make them care about all of them is nonsense – and a waste of time.

In fact, the AFL rivalry Wikipedia page has a list that nearly every AFL team is on – that’s not right.  It’s not a rivalry, it’s a competition.  By contrast, the MLB rivalries page has much fewer, even though there are nearly twice as many teams, and most of those rivalries involve the Yankees (seriously, who likes the Yankees?).  Admittedly, many of the AFL rivalries involve Collingwood, but there are many more, involving most other AFL teams. MADNESS.

I don’t expect Australia to turn into the EPL – ripping chairs out of the stadium and eating the chairs.  And you don’t really want them to become Brazil/Argentina with the police and the killing… and all that negative stuff.  But THAT’S a rivalry. You must admit.  AFL rivalries don’t hold a candle to those of Celtic FC/Rangers FC, Barcelona/Real Madrid, or Man U/Liverpool.  Those are real rivalries.  Sorry AFL, the Battle of the Bridge is just… not.

To give Australia some credit, there are two Australian cases of great rivalries: Aus/England (cricket) and Aus/New Zealand (rugby).  Those rivalries are great because people care – it doesn’t matter who is actually better at the sport or who won last time.  Everyone hopes their team will win the next meeting.  The Ashes are… outstanding.  I have never personally watched one, and I’m excited for this year, but I don’t have to – hearing people talk about it and the coverage that it gets in Australia is enough to relay the fact that it’s a great rivalry.  I am actually slightly frightened (in a good way!) for what will happen when Australia plays England…

Likewise, any time Australia plays New Zealand in rugby… I love it.  There is so much passion (aka hate for New Zealand) expressed by Aussies, which is rare since Australians are chill, almost emotionless-because-they’re-always-happy, people.  That’s what a rivalry is all about!

You cannot just decide: “We have a rivalry.” That’s not how it works, even though the AFL is trying to do that.  Rivalries are spawned from actions.  From losing. From the pain and agony of seeing your team fall to the worst possible opponent.  It’s about hope and passion and fire.

Sort it out, AFL.

(Sidenote: Don’t you LOVE that picture? It’s why I love Jason Varitek)