see i think expansion has been bad for the quality of the afl competition..
for years, GWS & Gold Coast have essentially been extra byes for a team.. a guaranteed 4 points..
it's only recently that the two have started being competitive, and that's based on the fact that they got the cream of the crop in draft picks for years.. essentially stacking the sides with gun juniors..
imagine a league side with james tedesco, adam reynolds, george burgess, jack bird, dylan walker & jason taumololo..
what's then compounded the issue for other clubs is that these juniors, who should have really gone to some of the other cellar dwellers in recent years, have not been made available, so the quality of available players for them has been diminished, meaning that they can't build back up as per the cycle of boom and bust that a draft provides..
so the likes of melbourne demons and brisbane lions are stuffed for years to come..
the older clubs (okay, so the lions aren't technically that old, but both merged clubs had been) are left to suffer so the new teams can get their success and build a fan base..
to me, it's a false economy..
Yeah I would agree with that, the way the draft was done meant that if you were on the way down when or ust after the expansion sides came in you were stuffed, you didn't get that chance to replenish. Melbourne, St Kilda, WBD, brisbane were all rekt by that. The first three though are now showing reasonable signs of life. Teams who are struggling now are carlton, who have stuffed themselves, GC who have a rotten group of players and were too reliant on one player and Brisbane who are perennially stuffed. brisbane have been the big losers, really, because suddenly AFL dont care about them, all energy into the GC.
That's why im cautious of actually expanding the game beyond 16 teams, you can really dilute the talent pool (as happened in 95) doing too much at once and really stuff things around.
It also shows that expansion will involve a bit of pain in the near term. Obviously question is whether it is worth it? For the AFL I guess Qld's looking a little dire for them at present, and GWS are pretty easy to ignore. It'll be very interesting when the Swans have a couple of doldrum years what happens up here.
I tend to think some clubs will eventually be squeezed. Cronulla are always vulnerable. Wests Tigers could also be vulnerable, because they seem to have squandered what was quite a good following in the last five years through various off field fights. I tend to think Manly are incredibly vulnerable though. They are now very isolated where they are, their crowds arent big and they could easily be in for a bit of a period in the doldrums. Their ground is within a few years of being abandoned (as I suspect Leichhardt will be) but they have shown no ability to bring fans to elsewhere, and I don't really see any money going towards Brookvale.
Also the Roosters fan problems could theoretically catch up to them, but they are so comfortable off field that there's no heat on them at this point.
I think the game definitely needs to expand its blueprint and, aside from my own desire to see a Bears side in the comp again (which will not happen, I don't think), I think Perth is a must and could be quite successful, there'll be another Qld side (but shouldn't be for a little while yet, they need to make sure GC are stable). I'm torn on Adelaide, for a national comp it sure makes sense but it strikes me as a pretty insular town with not a huge market for league anyway, and not really a massive growth region. Would also like a second NZ team. If you could add those four sides with say, two new teams, two relocations, you could have a reasonable mix. If at all possible, anyway.
I guess it'd take a pretty hardline approach to sydney clubs encountering financial difficulties for anything like that to happen.
