TOPIC:

Baz that was due to the Freo big bodies closing up all the space so your mids had no room to move and create and they had the fitness to do that and flood the your 50 all day apart from the last when they took the foot off the pedal. No they didn't get tired, they got a bit arrogant but realized the danger in time and shut the game down again. they scored mainly from defensive rebound, ie flooding your forward line then winning the ball and breaking out.

Senior Seagull wrote: Baz that was due to the Freo big bodies closing up all the space so your mids had no room to move and create and they had the fitness to do that and flood the your 50 all day apart from the last when they took the foot off the pedal. No they didn't get tired, they got a bit arrogant but realized the danger in time and shut the game down again. they scored mainly from defensive rebound, ie flooding your forward line then winning the ball and breaking out.

Agree the amount of blokes they had falling back was remarkable, yep pressure went off a bit and we had a but of a surge, but then they controlled the came with the danger sounded in a space of 4 to 6 minutes that was enough to stifle any revival,

swan42 wrote:

Bazza wrote:

strono wrote: the peel & ep alignments...someone correct me but didn't the other wafl clubs vote this in

Strono, not really , what they did do was vote to accept the compensation package which allowed it to go through.

The Constitution of the WAFC doesn't allow them to veto a decision of the WAFC in any case,

Bazza they are completely separate. The host club alignment was a fait accompli. What the G7 clubs tried to do was to try to minimise the damage. In my opinion the compensation paid to the G7 clubs should have been at least $400,00 per host club team per WAFL club. That is, each of the G7 clubs should have received $800,000 per year.

I have no idea how they can be completely separate when one only came about as a result of the other,

but as my post clearly states, the clubs had NO power of veto over the decision..what they did do was vot to agree to take the settlement rather than keep fighting for more.

Senior Seagull wrote: Baz that was due to the Freo big bodies closing up all the space so your mids had no room to move and create and they had the fitness to do that and flood the your 50 all day apart from the last when they took the foot off the pedal. No they didn't get tired, they got a bit arrogant but realized the danger in time and shut the game down again. they scored mainly from defensive rebound, ie flooding your forward line then winning the ball and breaking out.

On the money with this assessment SS... The other dynamic was the inclusion of the seasoned AFL players of the calibre such as Suban , Sutcliffe and Sheridan. Their presence around the stoppages and in the clinches just did not allow our mids to exert themselves on the game. All the named players have played more AFL football in 2017 than WAF. Figure that one out?

Seriously Dwert if the likes of Suban,Sutcliffe and Sheridan are limiting the likes of Kelly and Schloitge around the stoppages then they have no chance at the next level....amazing to think 3 spuds can play better than the cream of the WAFL midfielders....the WAFL is well n truly more fudged than I thought!

The seven real clubs have a limited number of salary points to stop the richer clubs recruiting too many big name players. Why do the two aligned clubs not have any such restrictions. Could "points" be awarded to all AFL players based on AFL games played? Then Peelmantle and EP Eagles would be limited to only selecting players totalling a certain number of "points", especially in the finals. Something has to be fairer than the crap we're all enduring since the alignment.

CM, Peel and East Perth virtually don't exist anymore they are controlled and managed by their AFL masters. They are their reserves teams where leftover listed players are bolstered by the few local lads that can get a run. The AFL clubs want all their players in one spot under one rule so the points idea is not really relevant to these two teams nor would the AFL teams cop a points system as it doesn't suit them (arrogant pricks that they are). The only way is to place restrictions on number who can qualify for finals. As I've said before go look at the SANFL rules, they are fair to all parties and help control arsehole clubs like Freo from inserting a mostly AFL team in finals thus denying opportunities for local boys to experience those games and making the finals a farce.

Senior Seagull wrote: CM, Peel and East Perth virtually don't exist anymore they are controlled and managed by their AFL masters. They are their reserves teams where leftover listed players are bolstered by the few local lads that can get a run. The AFL clubs want all their players in one spot under one rule so the points idea is not really relevant to these two teams nor would the AFL teams cop a points system as it doesn't suit them (arrogant pricks that they are). The only way is to place restrictions on number who can qualify for finals. As I've said before go look at the SANFL rules, they are fair to all parties and help control arsehole clubs like Freo from inserting a mostly AFL team in finals thus denying opportunities for local boys to experience those games and making the finals a farce.

I absolutely agree. I like the idea someone posted elsewhere that EP or PT should only be able to play the average number of AFL players used during the season. But yes I agree the SANFL model seems much fairer as well. My understanding is that if the AFL team is not playing finals (like Freo), only players who have played more SANFL games than AFL games are eligible to play for the alignment team and the player must have played 3 games for the aligned team since June 30. The rules are relaxed a bit if the AFL team is playing in the finals. Under those rules, I wonder who wouldn't have played for Peel on the weekend.

Country member wrote:

Senior Seagull wrote: CM, Peel and East Perth virtually don't exist anymore they are controlled and managed by their AFL masters. They are their reserves teams where leftover listed players are bolstered by the few local lads that can get a run. The AFL clubs want all their players in one spot under one rule so the points idea is not really relevant to these two teams nor would the AFL teams cop a points system as it doesn't suit them (arrogant pricks that they are). The only way is to place restrictions on number who can qualify for finals. As I've said before go look at the SANFL rules, they are fair to all parties and help control arsehole clubs like Freo from inserting a mostly AFL team in finals thus denying opportunities for local boys to experience those games and making the finals a farce.

I absolutely agree. I like the idea someone posted elsewhere that EP or PT should only be able to play the average number of AFL players used during the season. But yes I agree the SANFL model seems much fairer as well. My understanding is that if the AFL team is not playing finals (like Freo), only players who have played more SANFL games than AFL games are eligible to play for the alignment team and the player must have played 3 games for the aligned team since June 30. The rules are relaxed a bit if the AFL team is playing in the finals. Under those rules, I wonder who wouldn't have played for Peel on the weekend.

CM as you described it it does sound fairer than what we have here save for one thing. There shouldn't be a difference whether they are in the AFL finals or not.