TOPIC:

STT the points I raised are what I would support the WAFC doing but i just mentioned the obvious hurdles that will be raised. your points and mine are worthy of consideration but it appears the WAFC have no care or interest for and in the WAFL and as instructed by their AFL masters will be happy to see the comp descend into a limited under age comp, ie u/23 with up to 5 over age players, something like that. Would i still go and watch, probably yes as i will follow any group that pull on the maroon and gold.

mikeh: good post as always -- it has been a dynasty you are right, although we are barely copping with the alignment and the eagles.
People need to keep in mind that there could have easily been four alignment premierships, we manged to beat EP and WP have done it to their credit.
The original sin of the Commission was bringing Fremantle into the AFL and Peel into our league, only WP and Subiaco have been unaffected by the move -- naturally, both have won flags.
Your beloved black and whites would not be last if Peel had to field a full side; the whole competition is distorted because of that club.

In terms of the future, there is part of me that is little bit optimistic -- gradual improvement in PFC, CL and EF-- may enable us to cope with the two AFL clubs in the competition.
There are two other possibilities in the future: the AFL sod off to the VFL, or equally, clubs could merge.

I would merge Subiaco and Claremont and the Fremantle clubs
The subi's old zone should be split between WP and EP; SD to get Ellenbrook
PA's country zone should to be eliminated

EP and SD should get extra help on the recent 'extra model' they have set up for the black and red

Don't lose heart in SD mikeh, change will come in one way or another.

If the more optimistic prediction comes through

I would still give help to:

SD
EP -- the only zone which would not have given a premiership since 1980
the Demons
Old Easts --- i think they will come good anyway with a good coach and zone.

ArkRoyal wrote: mikeh: good post as always -- it has been a dynasty you are right, although we are barely copping with the alignment and the eagles.
People need to keep in mind that there could have easily been four alignment premierships, we manged to beat EP and WP have done it to their credit.
The original sin of the Commission was bringing Fremantle into the AFL and Peel into our league, only WP and Subiaco have been unaffected by the move -- naturally, both have won flags.
Your beloved black and whites would not be last if Peel had to field a full side; the whole competition is distorted because of that club.

In terms of the future, there is part of me that is little bit optimistic -- gradual improvement in PFC, CL and EF-- may enable us to cope with the two AFL clubs in the competition.
There are two other possibilities in the future: the AFL sod off to the VFL, or equally, clubs could merge.

I would merge Subiaco and Claremont and the Fremantle clubs
The subi's old zone should be split between WP and EP; SD to get Ellenbrook
PA's country zone should to be eliminated

EP and SD should get extra help on the recent 'extra model' they have set up for the black and red

Don't lose heart in SD mikeh, change will come in one way or another.

If the more optimistic prediction comes through

I would still give help to:

SD
EP -- the only zone which would not have given a premiership since 1980
the Demons
Old Easts --- i think they will come good anyway with a good coach and zone.

Mate your posts are always worthwhile and considered (unlike myself sometimes, for the purpose of banter and a bit of a chuckle). Therefore I would just like to clarify the opening paragraph to mikeh (who also makes considered and worthwhile contributions). I think the term dynasty is appropriate (much more than just a cycle, it's well and truly beyond that), so I'm interested in who is barely coping with the alignment and the weagles? Is that Subiaco? Because if Subiaco are barely coping (with their record that has been previously posted over the last 20 years) then I would be interested in an assessment on the level of coping that others in the WAFL are facing. Or more to the point not coping with.

As I have said before, winners are grinners and good luck to them.

Lot of merit in your suggestions around who could/should merge and in those cases there are obvious logical advantages - and yes my team is one of those mentioned.

Change will come to the WAFL and I, for one are far from optimistic about it.

ooll: thanks for your kind words: I just meant that we have not beaten PA when it has mattered which in the record books, but perhaps not in terms of perception, limits the dynasty.

ool: I could put up with a merger with CL - but they should call it cl-subi and they should play in the current alternate strips each week. I would not want to see 'western suburbs' and a new jumper.

BC wrote: Souths should have played in the last 3 GF's Mike but were stiffed directly by an AFL loaded up Peel in 2016 and Subi in 2017 when Peel won straight through to the GF and blew it against WP last year.

Yes - South Fremantle should have done so.
They were very clearly the second best side of Twenty16, 17 and 18.
Twenty16 saw Subiaco accumulate 280 Goals, For score of 1943, having 1168 Disposals Ins 50 and an Offence rating of 26.9%.
Claremont scored 255 Goals, For score of 1709, with 925 Disposals Ins 50 and a 24.1% Offence rating
South Fremantle finish with 253 Goals, For score being 1756, and 964 Disposals Ins 50, with an Offence rating of 26%
And they miles ahead of the other teams.

Twenty17 saw South Fremantle with a total of 337 Goals, a For score of 2258, accumulating 1067 Disposals Ins 50 and an Offence rating of 30.4%.
Subiaco managed 297 Goals, a For score being 2061, there were 1066 Disposals Ins 50 with an Offence rate of 29.4%
The other teams were a long way back.

And Souths were the second best team throughout 2018 too. Then fell over after the Qualifying rounds finished, with West Perth and Subiaco contesting the Grand Final.

ArkRoyal wrote: ool: I could put up with a merger with CL - but they should call it cl-subi and they should play in the current alternate strips each week. I would not want to see 'western suburbs' and a new jumper.

We could call it Subimont?

westaussie: that is a very good suggestion. I reckon you could go with 'monts' for the nick name and Subi-Claremont in fulI. I have always liked the way the WACA cricket clubs amalgamate names -- Claremont-Nedlands, and other god ones, including Midland- Guilford

I'm not sure why anyone would want Subi and Claremont to merge. Both have had periods of sustained success since the Eagles kicked off in 1987...both are financial and both are pretty well set up where they are. Clubs that have struggled for a long period of time on the field such as Perth and SD would make more sense.

BC- merging 'so called weak clubs ' would defeat the purpose of the exercise which is to compete against the AFL clubs.