Round 10 Talking Points, analysis, reaction, results, wrap, highlights, fixture unfair to WA clubs, 20th team expansion, Izak Rankine running too far, Richmond problems – MASHAHER

Amid a renewed debate about the WA clubs’ travel woes, there’s a big but simple solution they may not like.

Plus why the Izak Rankine call was right but wrong, Richmond’s new low and an “outrageous” Suns suggestion with merit.

The big issues from Round 10 of the 2024 AFL season analysed in Talking Points!

Watch every game of every round this Toyota AFL Premiership Season LIVE with no ad-breaks during play on Kayo. New to Kayo? Start your free trial today >

SOLUTION TO WA FIXTURE FLAW CLUBS WON’T LIKE

Let’s get one thing straight – the suggestion that WA teams’ complaints about excessive travel should be ignored because a portion of the team gets to fly business class (domestic business class, by the way, they aren’t exactly lie-flat seats) is stupid.

The suggestion, which came from a Victorian team as part of the AFL’s competitive balance review, muddies the water around the real issue – and how advantaged or disadvantaged non-Victorian clubs are.

It’s inarguable they have to travel a lot more than Victorian teams, and it’s especially bad for West Coast and Fremantle. But that’s also just the reality of expanding from the Victorian Football League to a national competition; it’s not like they joined the comp expecting teleportation to be invented.

Every sport with a home and away fixture – almost all of them – has to deal with a travel imbalance. The Los Angeles Chargers, located on the west coast of the US, will travel 26,803 miles (43,135 kms) in the 2024 season. The teams in the more concentrated east coast (hey we’ve heard that before) have to travel a lot less, with the Washington Commanders’ 10,550 miles (16,978 kms) ranking last.

Admittedly NFL players don’t have to be quite as aerobically athletic as AFL players because of the nature of their stop-start game, but they also have to deal with short turnarounds for Thursday night games and fixtures that can change just weeks out from the game.

You also have to consider the advantage interstate teams have more often than Victorian sides – true home ground advantage.

Yes, travel matters and adds up over the course of a season, but the edge gained by a crowd that’s 99% on your side (and the statistically-proven impact on friendly umpiring that results) at a venue you play way more often matters a lot in one single game.

Big Victorian clubs, who can often get plenty of fans to their ‘away’ games against fellow Victorian sides, don’t have to worry about this as much. But the smaller Vic teams get the worst of it.

Just compare Fremantle and West Coast’s clear and obvious home ground advantage to two of the smaller but still successful Victorian teams – Melbourne and the Western Bulldogs.

HOME AND AWAY RECORDS, LAST FIVE YEARS (pre-Round 10)

Fremantle: 30-25 home, 22-1-29 away (+8 wins)

Melbourne: 30-1-22 home, 33-20 away (-3 wins)

West Coast Eagles: 27-26 home, 15-38 away (-12 wins)

Western Bulldogs: 31-21 home, 30-24 away (+1 win)

The advantage of 10-12 genuine home games, as compared to 5-6 genuine home games and plenty of so-called ‘home’ games with no real advantage, adds up. It is a counterbalance to the travel load.

Nobody can tell you with any certainty which one matters more. Those in the west will argue travel does; those in the east will argue genuine HGA does. It’s not an argument that can be won.

At the same time we can acknowledge the issues that exist. The WA clubs, in particular, have created way fewer 300-plus game players than the rest of the AFL – logically, having to spend 7-8 hours trapped in a metal tube every fortnight would have some impact on that.

WA journalist Ryan Daniels has pointed to the gap in “home state games” for Victorian teams to WA sides; this isn’t something that can easily be solved.

The idea of forcing Victorian teams to play other Victorian teams interstate, purely to make them travel a bit more, seems like it creates way more problems than it’s worth – the financial impact on the teams (which can be lessened by the league), the impact on fans who miss a game from their membership, the smaller crowds you’d inevitably get when trying to attract neutrals, just to name a few.

There are alternatives. Playing Gather Round in the west – either the existing one, or another one – makes all the sense in the world given WA’s love for footy, and adds to the east coast sides’ travel load. Perhaps once the league expands, adding a second Gather Round could get us closer to the dream of playing a one-time round-robin with minimal double-ups (since the extra games would primarily be at neutral venues).

It would be nice if we could remove the yearly home-state Grand Final advantage for Victorian teams too, but that’s locked in for decades, so we will simply acknowledge this is a problem without providing a solution, because one does not exist (for now).

You can also go the other way – instead of penalising the Victorian teams, you help the travellers. Give them an even nicer flight experience; Daniels floated a dedicated plane with recovery assistance, which would be incredibly pricey, but even ensuring they don’t have short turnarounds after travel would help.

The WA clubs, particularly West Coast with assets over $100 million, are wealthy with a unique back-room structure. If permitted, they could easily spend money to give their players the smoothest travel experience.

But it’s that wealth, and the demand for footy in WA, that could solve the travel problem in a different way. It’s just that the clubs probably wouldn’t be happy with it.

A 20th team, some time in the next decade, seems incredibly likely. Having 19 clubs is awkward and the AFL is incentivised to reach an even number, since it’d give them a 10th game each weekend to sell in the media rights deals. That’s hundreds of millions of dollars, which would help pay for the new team/s.

The argument that the AFL talent pool is too thin to support it has no real basis. Not only has the population of the country expanded massively since the last round of expansion, never mind when we went to 16 teams, but as a general rule in sport talent pools are top-heavy and then balance out. There is a similar difference between the best and 30th-best players in the AFL as between the 300th and 600th-best – plenty of state league players or over-looked under-agers could do fine filling out a list, just needing an opportunity.

The sentimental pick is the Northern Territory, giving Indigenous representation and filling a void in the footy map, but the financial and population realities are even more difficult than with Tasmania – and it took decades for the Devils to get across the line.

Canberra makes a lot of sense in many ways, as a large and wealthy city with plenty of footy historic in and around the area, but the Giants have a clear connection to the region now and the AFL would not be keen on removing that.

So then you’re looking at existing areas. South Australia and Western Australia could both earn a third team, but pretty much every factor – population and economic viability the most pressing – leans WA’s way.

The state has a gorgeous new venue, Optus Stadium, which deserves to host more than one game a week. The huge crowds for Dockers and Eagles games suggest even if a third team had to start from scratch, there would be interest purely on the grounds of ‘hey, I want to watch elite-level footy, let’s go to the game’. It would help balance out the fixture, since a 10th game each weekend will probably need to be played in a late-night slot (perhaps a permanent Friday double-header or later Sunday game); WA’s time zone is of immense assistance here.

And, of course, there’s the travel element. Assuming the WA trio would play two derbies against each other per year, they’re flying less. Plus east coast teams would have to make the trek to WA to play the Joondalup/Mandurah/Bunbury side.

Theoretical fixture for WA clubs in 20-team comp with a third WA side

9 x home games vs interstate sides

2 x ‘home’ games vs local rivals

2 x ‘away’ games vs local rivals

9 x away games vs interstate sides

1 x Gather Round

Total: 13 in WA, nine interstate, one in SA or whether Gather Round is

In this version of the AFL, a Victorian team would go from 17 home state games to 16.5 – alternating between making two trips to WA one year, thus losing one ‘away’ games in Victoria, and making one trip in the other year.

This is a small change but gets us closer to equality; we don’t need full equality in this area, because interstate sides do have that advantage of more ‘true’ home games, but it’s a worthy change. (Especially when you consider that adding a Tassie team gives us another east coast club.)

So what’s the problem? Well, West Coast and Fremantle also enjoy the advantages of being the only two teams in a footy-loving town. They have huge crowds and financial success partially because the fans are so starved for content. Adding a third team risks eating into that advantage, so they likely wouldn’t be too keen.

But if they do end up being the roadblock, then they’re adding to the very problem they’re criticising.

There are plenty of solid reasons to add a 20th team elsewhere in Australia, and a Darwin/Alice Springs team would create more travel as well, so this isn’t a WA-only solution.

But it’s another tick in a column with plenty of ticks, next to a relatively empty column of crosses.

SIMPLE PROBLEM WITH THE RANKINE CALL

When the media criticises AFL umpires, it often comes with the caveat that Aussie rules is one of the hardest games in the world to officiate.

That’s true because of the physical requirements of running around the ground; it’s also true because of the 360 nature of the contest, and even with an extra umpire in recent years we’ve seen how easy it is for free kicks to be missed and/or incorrectly paid by someone who’s not in position.

But it’s also true because there are so many rules that are down to interpretation, not hard and fast requirements.

Holding the ball is the best example. What your typical AFL crowd thinks holding the ball is is very different to what an umpire thinks, as they go through the checklist in their head about the level of prior opportunity and whether they made a genuine attempt to dispose.

But there are also rules which have a clear description but aren’t officiated like that. And that’s what we saw on Saturday afternoon at the MCG.

AFL rule 18.13 (c) explains a field umpire shall award a free kick against a player who “whilst in possession of the football, does not bounce or touch the football on the ground at least once every 15 metres, irrespective of whether such Player is running in a straight line or otherwise”.

And on Saturday, Izak Rankine ran just over 24 metres without a bounce, so by the letter of the law he clearly infringed. The AFL, as it loves to do, ticked off the call on Sunday; it was technically correct, the best kind of correct.

Now, because umpires aren’t robots, they can’t measure 15 metres exactly with their eyes. Nor can they precisely measure the 50 metres a player needs to move forwards after a 50m penalty.

So there are rules of thumb that have been adopted. As Jack Riewoldt exclaimed in the aftermath of Rankine’s free kick against Collingwood, the Crows forward took 14 steps – a step being the rough approximation of a metre.

We know that’s not perfectly accurate, because Rankine went 24 metres in 14 steps. But it’s the rule of thumb that is always used, both for running too far free kicks and for measuring 50-metre penalties.

But more to the point, rules like running too far are about the vibe. If you’ve watched plenty of footy you just know when a player has run too far; you also know half the time you’ll watch a game and think that, it won’t be called.

For example, Brisbane’s Harry Sharp wasn’t pinged for running too far when he travelled 22.3 metres without a bounce on Saturday night against Richmond.

But nobody would have blinked an eyelid at that if the Rankine situation hadn’t occurred earlier in the day. (Partially because it was in a blowout, and as unfair as it is, the context of a free kick determines whether it’s discussed.)

Was the umpire correct in paying a free kick against Rankine? Absolutely. He did his job.

How often would a player doing the exact same thing get a free kick called against him? Well, basically the same thing wasn’t paid later that night. These frees get missed all the time.

Few would argue against giving players the benefit of the doubt in these situations because running bounces are one of the most exciting, athletic and rare acts we see on a footy field.

Just think about the 2012 preliminary final when Sydney’s Lewis Jetta produced one of the highlights of the year, running 80-100 metres on route to a brilliant goal. He bounced three times during the run; simple division will tell you he should’ve had at least five or six.

“The umpire on the night does not have a tape measure, he makes a ‘guesstimate’ of how far he has travelled,” AFL umpires boss Jeff Gieschen said at the time.

The problem here is within the rules of the game. Grey area creates controversy, and while again the Rankine situation was correct, no neutral wanted to see that free kick paid.

Yes, Collingwood had neutralised the ball where he kicked it anyway, and probably would’ve won. This is nowhere near as bad as last year, when the AFL admitted umpires missed free kicks in both Adelaide-Collingwood endings, along with the goal umpire review disaster against Sydney.

But anyone saying “he ran too far and it clearly had to be paid” is living in a world that doesn’t exist. The running too far rule has never been that black and white; that’s the problem with it, but also the best part. You can allow amazing moments, like Jetta’s prelim heroics and even the foot race with Cyril Rioli a week later, even if by the letter of the law they might’ve been free kicks.

So it’s no wonder the general vibe around the Rankine call was that of disappointment (especially after his injury). One of the most exciting players in the game was trying to win it for his team in the final seconds; we want those plays incentivised.

You can be right and wrong at the same time.

‘GREAT CHALLENGE’ AHEAD OF TIGERS CLEAR AMID DUSTY QUESTION

Richmond’s season hit a low point in Saturday night’s 119-point loss to Brisbane at the Gabba.

The Tigers’ biggest loss under new coach Adem Yze, it stands to be a long season for the 17th-placed club as injuries have badly exposed its lack of depth amid question marks on their young talent.

Again, Richmond is missing some key soldiers. Rhyan Mansell (concussion) was the latest casualty to join the likes of Liam Baker, Josh Gibcus, Jack Graham, Jacob Hopper, Tim Taranto and Maurice Rioli Jr on the sidelines.

But the idea of ‘tipping over the edge’ was personified in that big loss to the Lions.

It’s now crystal clear the massive task in front of Yze in getting this powerhouse club back up the ladder contending, with a big reset needed despite still having several premiership stars from that golden run. 

“There are players there who’ve played in the premierships, and they don’t look like they’re enjoying their footy – you can’t enjoy it when you’re losing by 119 points,” Hawks legend Dermott Brerton said on Fox Footy.

“It’s probably not (everything they have to give). That’s because of where they’ve been and the hunger might just be off one or two per cent and it really shows.

“It’s going to be a great challenge for him (Yze), because from everything I’ve learned, they say he’s technically a fantastic coach. What he has to bring now is something which we don’t describe much in league footy of coaches – he has to bring raw emotion and motivate these blokes.

“I know continuity’s not on their side, but he has to reach them emotionally – so he’s got to dig down deep and give something perhaps as an assistant coach he hasn’t had to do before – we’re going to find out if he can motivate men.”

Brereton acknowledged such bad runs with injury can spiral and put clubs “in the lap of the gods,” but thinks it’s a good opportunity for Yze to learn about his youth.

“The only thing I’d say to Tigers supporters to keep your chin up is, you’re going to have to play some kids and you’re going to lose, but look for the good in the kids,” he added.

“Some of these kids are starved of opportunity – 21, 22, 23 year olds – (Hugo) Ralphsmith, (Thomson) Dow, (Rhyan) Mansell, we don’t really know how good they are.

“They’re probably not going to win (in the short term). But you’re going to see them play a full game of AFL for the next few weeks; it might help their growth.

“Look for the positive in it, support your team and hang in there with them. They were bad tonight, their senior players didn’t come to the party.”

It comes with several key Tigers out of contract and facing uncertain futures including club champion Dustin Martin.

Martin is among those Richmond players in uncharted territory after experiencing so much success in his career including winning three premierships.

Fox Footy caller Kelli Underwood noted Martin “must be so frustrated given the highs of his career,” adding “it’s never easy to watch the champs near the end of their career.”

Martin, who turns 33 next month, has been linked to a move to the Suns to reunite with Damien Hardwick, while he could also hang up the boots altogether.

So does the legendary three-time Norm Smith medallist have more to give?

“It’s always a hard one when you’ve done everything in the game and you’re at the bottom – it’s always a harsh reality and motivation for a senior player, but I think he’s up for it,” former Hawthorn sharpshooter Ben Dixon said on Fox Footy.

Western Bulldogs legend Brad Johnson highlighted Martin, despite dropping off from his enormous previous heights, is playing more of a leadership role in “educating youngsters” at Tigerland – a role he could continue to provide great value in at the club or elsewhere.

“It (his game) isn’t at the top level, because he’s got other things on his mind in terms of the youngsters in that team as well,” Johnson said.

‘OUTRAGEOUS’ EDGE AS SUNS FIND HOME AWAY FROM HOME

In their 14-year history, it would be fair to say they’re yet to deliver on most expectations the competition has had of them since day dot.

But Gold Coast have confirmed that there’s one place they simply cannot be underestimated – Darwin.

Their 64-point win over the Cats on Thursday night is undoubtedly their biggest scalp in the ‘Top End’ yet; also their fourth win by ten goals or more across a six-game winning streak.

TIO Stadium was just about at capacity, and it’s clear to see why given the way they completely dismantled Geelong after quarter-time.

With a final crowd of 12,112, it was easily the biggest attendance the Suns have ever played in front of at the stadium.

“It was a powerful performance, and make no mistake – they are making TIO Stadium an absolute fortress and a nightmare for the opposition; that is now six (wins) on the trot by an average of 50 points, and they are putting teams to the sword with their scoring ability, it’s become a real weapon for them,” Leigh Montagna said on Fox Footy.

The big question – as asked by Hawthorn legend Jason Dunstall – is how do the club get more games up there?

Of the eight matches in Darwin the club has played, seven have been since 2020 – all of which in the last four years have been treated as a Gold Coast home game.

“That should be discussed, in all seriousness,” Montagna replied.

“(They should try to play) as many as you can the way they’re playing,” Dunstall added.

When quizzed on how many games a year they should aim for in Darwin for 2025, Montagna answered: “Six? I’d take four or five.”

The Suns would have to consider their home fans, of course, as those on the Gold Coast probably wouldn’t be thrilled with their side losing up to half their home games.

Yet at the same time, amid all the talk of AFL expansion into Darwin – and the sheer financial realities that make it much harder than expanding into Tasmania – a northern Australia-focused Suns could also make plenty of sense.

Not all were as joyful on the Suns playing up in Darwin, as former Giant, Saint and Bulldog Josh Bruce wrote on X (formerly Twitter).

“Gold Coast NT advantage outrageous two weeks in a row. Did the same thing to the dogs last year,” he wrote.

The Suns beat the Bulldogs in Round 11 at TIO Stadium by seven points, before the Crows flew up to the Northern Territory capital the next week – only to be beaten by another class Suns outfit by 25 points.
While there’s no doubt that a fit and firing Gold Coast Suns in Darwin is good for the league, it’s perplexing that the Suns are able to find their best form away from home so consistently.