A major setback to Coffs Masters Carnival on Saturday, when I injured my left ankle in a Hunter Masters intraclub game.
I've had scans on the ankle, and it looks like a ligament strain or partial tear, so 4 weeks out, which means hopefully should still be OK for the carnival.
I have to thanks the other Masters players who really made sure I was ok after the incident - carrying me off the ground, and getting ice on it straight away. Also BK and Bones for helping me get home, and to Bones for taking me off to hospital on Sunday for a scan.
I tried not to show it at the ground on Saturday, but I was fucking shattered immediately after it happened. Just knowing that all the work Bones and I had done might have been for nothing. It wasn't helped by some players saying I could still go along to the carnival and enjoy it, even though I'd be injured. And I initially thought the worst. I heard a loud pop when it happened, and thought it must have been a snapped ligament. Obviously you feel bad for the person who was responsible for the injury, because you know they didn't mean it, but it's still very shocking when it happened.
So all things considered, it's probably a best case scenario. However, I will have to work on my fitness when I can start training again, and I'll miss the Illawarra carnival, but I hope to be back for the father-and-son/daughter game in 4 weeks.
--------------
Think I may have posted on this before, but I was reading an article on the weekend, and it reminded me of the ability to use a VPN to access Pirate Bay and get content. Not sure why this is a big deal, but I think it demonstrates how badly outdated the law is, and how ineffective it is in combating users who will use any means necessary to get the content they want.
Monday, August 27, 2018
Wednesday, August 22, 2018
Participant Observations 22/8/18 - AFL Masters National Carnival & AFL Free Agency
National AFL Masters Carnival
After some consternation about whether I should play or not, I made the decision a few weeks ago to play in this year's National AFL Masters Carnival in Coffs Harbour in October.
I wasn't sure if I could afford the time and money to go to the tournament, but in keeping with the general theme this year of getting my life back, I decided I would register for it, which at the moment feels like the right thing to do.
This is because I've really put a lot of time and effort into getting the most out of this year from the point of view of playing AFL. I've only missed one game all season (the weekend me and Joey went to Adelaide), I've put in heaps of training with Alex Holness and with Newcastle/West Wallsend BDAFL team (usually 2 nights a week skills and agility training), and I also played in the pre-season and AFL 9's comp.
I'm at the point where I feel like my skills are as good as they've been in many years, as has my fitness (despite having TWO fucking colds during the winter). A downside however is that I'm now dealing with several niggling injuries - other than managing the shoulder, which will be with me forever, I also have some plantar fasciitis in my feet, and I have repeatedly sprained my right thumb, resulting in a little bit of 'goal-keepers' thumb. The thumb is a recurrence of an injury I had in about 2009 when I first moved to Melbourne.
But I feel that if I hadn't registered for the Masters Carnival, I would have regretted it. I'm really looking forward to it, and because I've put so much time and effort into training, I feel like I can have a positive impact on the team and feel good about my contributions to the side. I also feel that if I ever now let my skills slip, that I will have a lot of trouble trying to get them back to a decent level, and the Masters Carnival would let me test myself in that sense - are there any areas I need to work on, how is my fitness, what is my game awareness like, etc.
There is a chance you can play at least three games, and hopefully up to six games of AFL across three competition days. It will also give me the opportunity to see Coffs Harbour, and I'll be taking my golf clubs, mountain bike and surf board with me (although I honestly think I might be so fatigued after playing two games of footy on the competition days to actually do any of that!)
It's also a good way for me to bond with the existing Hunter Masters guys, and meet some new people in Masters generally. It's in the Uni semester break, so I can get away from teaching, marking, and Newcastle for a while, and I'll be living the dream of playing, talking, thinking AFL for a week! It also runs the week after the AFL Grand Final, so it's the perfect way to come-down after the few weeks that will lead into that. Still need to make plans for the AFL Grand Final by the way...
But yeah, super excited to get involved and play in a competitive environment for a week long festival of the boot.
------------------------
AFL Free Agency
Aside from the possible changes to playing rules, probably the most talked about issue in the AFL over the last few weeks has been around player free agency and compensation picks, and priority picks for poor-performing clubs.
I understand why the Players Association argued for free agency, but I believe it has created many unintended consequences. As I heard Bob Murphy say on a podcast this week, free agency was originally introduced to help those players who might be struggling to get a game in a very good side to move to clubs where they would have more opportunity, improving the overall talent distribution and competitive balance of the league.
In fact, what has happened is the reverse. Free agency has resulted in very good players moving from poorly performing clubs to the top clubs at the end of their contract in order to chase on-field success. The classic example this year is the rumoured move of Tom Lynch from the Gold Coast to Richmond.
This has naturally reduced competitive balance, as player talent concentrates in the better teams, and we end up in a situation where commentators and the league is now looking for solutions to improve competitive balance.
Before looking at methods to address the issue, I will say on the record that I think introducing player free agency was a mistake. The competitive balance of the league was trending very well before its introduction, and I believe it was only introduced because the players wanted to be more like the American model of free agency, which gives power to the players. While I don't want to deny the players the ability to have some control over their playing careers, there is significant benefit in not giving complete control to the players - it improves the likelihood of players moving clubs, hence reducing club loyalty, which has been fundamental to the competition for many years. It's also possibly indicative of a neo-liberal or individualistic tendency of the competition, where the benefits of the individual are prioritised, at the cost of collectivist sentiments where player movement policies are put in place to benefit the whole competition.
Again, I'm not arguing for the transfer model, where clubs retain rights over a player even when their contract ends, but this half-assed system that we currently have doesn't seem to benefit anyone. The league doesn't benefit because of the loss of competitive balance, the clubs don't benefit accordingly (especially those at the bottom of the ladder), and the players don't benefit either. Tom Lynch is still at the behest of his club - he's a restricted free agent, but Gold Coast may still choose to match the offer from Richmond. My understanding is that if Lynch still wants to leave after the Suns match any offer, then the player enters the pre-season draft, and could end up at any club (in this case it would be Carlton) rather than going to the club of their choice. Free agency also introduced the unsightly situation of off-contract players engaging with clubs during the current season, and clubs being forced into a position where, if they become aware that a player is talking to another club, they may not select that player because the player might not be with the team after the current season.
The current mechanism to address player movement in free agency is to give the clubs that lose the player a compensation pick somewhere in the draft. Where that pick ends up I think is chosen by the AFL and is somewhat arbitrary and subjective. The compensation pick to me seems like the AFL was afraid of going 100% into the NBA model, and so introduced this level to try and return some power to the clubs. So I don't like free agency at all.
Another unintended consequence of free agency is that, because of the loss of competitive balance that results from the best players at poor clubs moving to the top teams, the league now has to look at additional mechanisms to restore competitive balance. So arguments around priority picks have resurfaced. Priority picks are additional picks in the draft that are awarded to poorly performing clubs in the belief that it will give them more young talent. There has already been much debate around priority picks, because it would seem to incentivse tanking for clubs that are not doing well, especially if the priority picks are awarded at the top of the first round, which effectively gives a club the first two picks at the start of the draft. So other ideas are to give the priority picks mid-way through the first round, or at the end of the first round.
Carlton and the Gold Coast look like candidates for priority picks in the draft this year. Some commentators seem to think that the priority pick is not an effective way of helping under-performing clubs improve, or that under-performing clubs should be given access to mature age players instead of rookies. But I like the idea of priority picks, and I like them before the first round, so long as it can be ascertained that a club didn't tank in order to get them. Obviously this is incredibly hard to establish, but one idea to counter that is the suggestion that a priority pick would only be introduced if a club won, say 4 games a year for 5 years on average.
I also don't mind the idea of giving under-performing clubs access to established players in other leagues, even if that means that those clubs are allowed to have an extended playing list and salary cap.
All this seems like unnecessary mechanisms on top of mechanisms, and some people say we need to overhaul the entire system. I agree with them, but my idea of overhauling the entire system is to simply GET RID OF PLAYER FREE AGENCY. We never had it for a very long time, and the league was fine. It hasn't been used in the way that it was supposed to when it was introduced, and it has compromised competitive balance, which doesn't benefit anyone.
After some consternation about whether I should play or not, I made the decision a few weeks ago to play in this year's National AFL Masters Carnival in Coffs Harbour in October.
I wasn't sure if I could afford the time and money to go to the tournament, but in keeping with the general theme this year of getting my life back, I decided I would register for it, which at the moment feels like the right thing to do.
This is because I've really put a lot of time and effort into getting the most out of this year from the point of view of playing AFL. I've only missed one game all season (the weekend me and Joey went to Adelaide), I've put in heaps of training with Alex Holness and with Newcastle/West Wallsend BDAFL team (usually 2 nights a week skills and agility training), and I also played in the pre-season and AFL 9's comp.
I'm at the point where I feel like my skills are as good as they've been in many years, as has my fitness (despite having TWO fucking colds during the winter). A downside however is that I'm now dealing with several niggling injuries - other than managing the shoulder, which will be with me forever, I also have some plantar fasciitis in my feet, and I have repeatedly sprained my right thumb, resulting in a little bit of 'goal-keepers' thumb. The thumb is a recurrence of an injury I had in about 2009 when I first moved to Melbourne.
But I feel that if I hadn't registered for the Masters Carnival, I would have regretted it. I'm really looking forward to it, and because I've put so much time and effort into training, I feel like I can have a positive impact on the team and feel good about my contributions to the side. I also feel that if I ever now let my skills slip, that I will have a lot of trouble trying to get them back to a decent level, and the Masters Carnival would let me test myself in that sense - are there any areas I need to work on, how is my fitness, what is my game awareness like, etc.
There is a chance you can play at least three games, and hopefully up to six games of AFL across three competition days. It will also give me the opportunity to see Coffs Harbour, and I'll be taking my golf clubs, mountain bike and surf board with me (although I honestly think I might be so fatigued after playing two games of footy on the competition days to actually do any of that!)
It's also a good way for me to bond with the existing Hunter Masters guys, and meet some new people in Masters generally. It's in the Uni semester break, so I can get away from teaching, marking, and Newcastle for a while, and I'll be living the dream of playing, talking, thinking AFL for a week! It also runs the week after the AFL Grand Final, so it's the perfect way to come-down after the few weeks that will lead into that. Still need to make plans for the AFL Grand Final by the way...
But yeah, super excited to get involved and play in a competitive environment for a week long festival of the boot.
------------------------
AFL Free Agency
Aside from the possible changes to playing rules, probably the most talked about issue in the AFL over the last few weeks has been around player free agency and compensation picks, and priority picks for poor-performing clubs.
I understand why the Players Association argued for free agency, but I believe it has created many unintended consequences. As I heard Bob Murphy say on a podcast this week, free agency was originally introduced to help those players who might be struggling to get a game in a very good side to move to clubs where they would have more opportunity, improving the overall talent distribution and competitive balance of the league.
In fact, what has happened is the reverse. Free agency has resulted in very good players moving from poorly performing clubs to the top clubs at the end of their contract in order to chase on-field success. The classic example this year is the rumoured move of Tom Lynch from the Gold Coast to Richmond.
This has naturally reduced competitive balance, as player talent concentrates in the better teams, and we end up in a situation where commentators and the league is now looking for solutions to improve competitive balance.
Before looking at methods to address the issue, I will say on the record that I think introducing player free agency was a mistake. The competitive balance of the league was trending very well before its introduction, and I believe it was only introduced because the players wanted to be more like the American model of free agency, which gives power to the players. While I don't want to deny the players the ability to have some control over their playing careers, there is significant benefit in not giving complete control to the players - it improves the likelihood of players moving clubs, hence reducing club loyalty, which has been fundamental to the competition for many years. It's also possibly indicative of a neo-liberal or individualistic tendency of the competition, where the benefits of the individual are prioritised, at the cost of collectivist sentiments where player movement policies are put in place to benefit the whole competition.
Again, I'm not arguing for the transfer model, where clubs retain rights over a player even when their contract ends, but this half-assed system that we currently have doesn't seem to benefit anyone. The league doesn't benefit because of the loss of competitive balance, the clubs don't benefit accordingly (especially those at the bottom of the ladder), and the players don't benefit either. Tom Lynch is still at the behest of his club - he's a restricted free agent, but Gold Coast may still choose to match the offer from Richmond. My understanding is that if Lynch still wants to leave after the Suns match any offer, then the player enters the pre-season draft, and could end up at any club (in this case it would be Carlton) rather than going to the club of their choice. Free agency also introduced the unsightly situation of off-contract players engaging with clubs during the current season, and clubs being forced into a position where, if they become aware that a player is talking to another club, they may not select that player because the player might not be with the team after the current season.
The current mechanism to address player movement in free agency is to give the clubs that lose the player a compensation pick somewhere in the draft. Where that pick ends up I think is chosen by the AFL and is somewhat arbitrary and subjective. The compensation pick to me seems like the AFL was afraid of going 100% into the NBA model, and so introduced this level to try and return some power to the clubs. So I don't like free agency at all.
Another unintended consequence of free agency is that, because of the loss of competitive balance that results from the best players at poor clubs moving to the top teams, the league now has to look at additional mechanisms to restore competitive balance. So arguments around priority picks have resurfaced. Priority picks are additional picks in the draft that are awarded to poorly performing clubs in the belief that it will give them more young talent. There has already been much debate around priority picks, because it would seem to incentivse tanking for clubs that are not doing well, especially if the priority picks are awarded at the top of the first round, which effectively gives a club the first two picks at the start of the draft. So other ideas are to give the priority picks mid-way through the first round, or at the end of the first round.
Carlton and the Gold Coast look like candidates for priority picks in the draft this year. Some commentators seem to think that the priority pick is not an effective way of helping under-performing clubs improve, or that under-performing clubs should be given access to mature age players instead of rookies. But I like the idea of priority picks, and I like them before the first round, so long as it can be ascertained that a club didn't tank in order to get them. Obviously this is incredibly hard to establish, but one idea to counter that is the suggestion that a priority pick would only be introduced if a club won, say 4 games a year for 5 years on average.
I also don't mind the idea of giving under-performing clubs access to established players in other leagues, even if that means that those clubs are allowed to have an extended playing list and salary cap.
All this seems like unnecessary mechanisms on top of mechanisms, and some people say we need to overhaul the entire system. I agree with them, but my idea of overhauling the entire system is to simply GET RID OF PLAYER FREE AGENCY. We never had it for a very long time, and the league was fine. It hasn't been used in the way that it was supposed to when it was introduced, and it has compromised competitive balance, which doesn't benefit anyone.
Friday, August 17, 2018
Participant Observations 17/8/18 - NBL, AFL in 4K, and Amazon Prime
A lot to cover off today, but hopefully I can get it all done succinctly...
--------------------
The NBL heads to commercial Free-to-Air.
The NBL have announced they'll have 2x games on FTA each week during the comeing season over the coming summer:
https://www.smh.com.au/sport/basketball/nbl-heads-to-nine-in-new-broadcast-deal-20180816-p4zxw5.html
I think this is great news in terms of getting more of my second favourite sport on TV, but there are some caveats that need to be realised as well. For example, the games will be on 9Go, a secondary channel. The games will be in the 3-5pm time-slot, so not exactly prime time. It's not clear if other games will be on Foxtel, or available via the NBL app, as it was previously.
However, I think the games will get the attention of some of the market because Andrew Bogut is playing, the quality of the league is good, and there are many Australian's playing in the NBA in America, helping to raise the overall profile of the sport here at home. It's clear the NBL will also try and use the same funding model it had previously with Foxtel, where the NBL pays for production costs, and then splits the revenue with Channel 9, which encourages both parties to work hard at promoting the game and driving up sponsorship.
Obviously some details still need to be worked out, but good news for the sport...
------------------
The AFL in 4K Resolution
It was announced today that Foxtel has plans to show the AFL in 4K resolution next season:
https://www.smh.com.au/technology/foxtel-taking-the-fight-to-free-to-air-with-plans-for-4k-footy-20180816-p4zxre.html
As I posted about yesterday, it doesn't seem like 4K will be delivered via the internet, owing to the unreliable speeds the NBN provides in Australia (sigh).
However, the fact they are identifying this sport, ahead of any other winter codes, also makes me think that Foxtel believes the AFL audiences are especially passionate about their sport, and would be most likely to upgrade to 4K resolution because of it.
I also found out from this article that Foxtel will become an exclusively delivered satellite service in the future, as its cable network gets taken over for NBN delivery. Also, 4K on FTA is unliely anytime soon, due to the squeeze for spectrum. As a satellite service, as opposed to a terrestrial-based service like the FTA channels, clearly Foxtel doesn't have this problem.
-----------------
Goodbye Prime Video, Hello Amazon Prime.
I received an email from Prime Video the other day that I could upgrade to Amazon Prime, which would be cheaper and I still get to keep all the video content on Prime Video.
While I don't use this service a lot, I can't say no to a cheaper service with the other stuff that Amazon Prime offers, such as reading content, shopping benefits etc. Obviously I have misgivings about ultimately supporting a non-Australian service, but at the end of the day, the cheaper fees win out. I'm also hopeful that ultimately, Amazon will start showing sport content, so I will save a subscription fee later!
--------------------
The NBL heads to commercial Free-to-Air.
The NBL have announced they'll have 2x games on FTA each week during the comeing season over the coming summer:
https://www.smh.com.au/sport/basketball/nbl-heads-to-nine-in-new-broadcast-deal-20180816-p4zxw5.html
I think this is great news in terms of getting more of my second favourite sport on TV, but there are some caveats that need to be realised as well. For example, the games will be on 9Go, a secondary channel. The games will be in the 3-5pm time-slot, so not exactly prime time. It's not clear if other games will be on Foxtel, or available via the NBL app, as it was previously.
However, I think the games will get the attention of some of the market because Andrew Bogut is playing, the quality of the league is good, and there are many Australian's playing in the NBA in America, helping to raise the overall profile of the sport here at home. It's clear the NBL will also try and use the same funding model it had previously with Foxtel, where the NBL pays for production costs, and then splits the revenue with Channel 9, which encourages both parties to work hard at promoting the game and driving up sponsorship.
Obviously some details still need to be worked out, but good news for the sport...
------------------
The AFL in 4K Resolution
It was announced today that Foxtel has plans to show the AFL in 4K resolution next season:
https://www.smh.com.au/technology/foxtel-taking-the-fight-to-free-to-air-with-plans-for-4k-footy-20180816-p4zxre.html
As I posted about yesterday, it doesn't seem like 4K will be delivered via the internet, owing to the unreliable speeds the NBN provides in Australia (sigh).
However, the fact they are identifying this sport, ahead of any other winter codes, also makes me think that Foxtel believes the AFL audiences are especially passionate about their sport, and would be most likely to upgrade to 4K resolution because of it.
I also found out from this article that Foxtel will become an exclusively delivered satellite service in the future, as its cable network gets taken over for NBN delivery. Also, 4K on FTA is unliely anytime soon, due to the squeeze for spectrum. As a satellite service, as opposed to a terrestrial-based service like the FTA channels, clearly Foxtel doesn't have this problem.
-----------------
Goodbye Prime Video, Hello Amazon Prime.
I received an email from Prime Video the other day that I could upgrade to Amazon Prime, which would be cheaper and I still get to keep all the video content on Prime Video.
While I don't use this service a lot, I can't say no to a cheaper service with the other stuff that Amazon Prime offers, such as reading content, shopping benefits etc. Obviously I have misgivings about ultimately supporting a non-Australian service, but at the end of the day, the cheaper fees win out. I'm also hopeful that ultimately, Amazon will start showing sport content, so I will save a subscription fee later!
Wednesday, August 15, 2018
Participant Observations 15/8/18 - 4K 4 Real? Not for me...
Foxtel have announced that they're launching 4K resolution ahead of the cricket season, for which they just secured the rights for:
https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/foxtel-launched-4k-channel-in-preparation-for-cricket-20180814-p4zxgg.html
Obviously, at first I was pretty excited about this, as it meant I might be able to watch the cricket this summer in glorious 4K resolution. That was until you see some of the finer print:
So, it doesn't look like I'll be getting 4K sport anytime soon. However, here are some other takeaway points:
https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/foxtel-launched-4k-channel-in-preparation-for-cricket-20180814-p4zxgg.html
Obviously, at first I was pretty excited about this, as it meant I might be able to watch the cricket this summer in glorious 4K resolution. That was until you see some of the finer print:
- 4K is only available to satellite subscribers, not internet subscribers (i.e., Foxtel Now).
- 4K resolution is only available on one channel, a specialized channel that will carry some cricket, movies, documentaries and concerts.
- Subscribers will have to upgrade to the iQ4 set-top-unit to get the 4K channel.
- The 4K channel is only available for free to existing subscribers with either the sports or HD package. If you are not a sports or HD subscriber, you have to pay extra.
- The 4K channel will be launched to internet platforms later, but it wasn't announced when, and "the pickings are very thin and... never in live sport and live material."
- Internet users will likely need at least 15Mbps to get 4K resolution when it is available, and more likely to need 25Mbps.
So, it doesn't look like I'll be getting 4K sport anytime soon. However, here are some other takeaway points:
- It suggests that Foxtel believe sport in a higher resolution matters for fans. This is something that the research in this area has also born out.
- It is further evidence of how central sport is to the business model of pay television.
- it's evidence how sport is used as a testing ground for new technologies, both at the game and at the point of consumption. The same thing happened with 3D television and College basketball in the US.
- It suggests that Foxtel still see their satellite service as their core business, by trying to attract and retain customers there. If not, why wouldn't they offer the 4K service over the internet? I have the requisite internet speeds television specifications, and have watched 4K content on Netflix before.
In part, this staggers me, because, as can be seen in some of my previous posts, clearly consumers are heading online to get their content.
Why Foxtel wouldn't use the 4K carrot as a way to attract consumers to their internet platforms seems in some ways to be counter-intuitive. Offering 4K would put them at least on par, if not above, Netflix and Stan, who also offer 4K. The point of difference for Foxtel would have been they would be the only platform to offer 4K sport via an OTT platform.
Accordingly, it might turn out that Channel 9/Fairfax are the first to do this, given that Channel 9 has the tennis rights and have just merged with Fairfax, who part own Stan, a 4K-ready platform who are eager to make inroads on Netflix's dominance of the OTT market.
Perhaps technical issues prevented them from doing this - understandably, OTT providers would by apprehensive after seeing the backlash from what happened with Optus during the world cup. And given the 4K signal requires such large download speeds, it potentially wouldn't take too much of an increase in demand from consumers for the service to be compromised, given the unknown ability of the NBN to deliver the content in 4K.
Accordingly, I think it will be a few years before Foxtel are game enough to deliver 4K content online, and I think another OTT platform will be the first to do it with live sport in Australia.
Wednesday, August 8, 2018
Participant Obersvations 8/8/18 - The End of Foxtel Now?
A real blow to my television consumption patterns this week, with the announcement that Foxtel may phase out their Foxtel Now streaming service, in favour of skinny bundle, stand-alone sport and entertainment streaming services.
This sucks, because I get sport and entertainment in the one package now, and I have some concerns that I'll get the same level of content as I do now at the same price and the same convenience if I have to subscribe to numerous skinny bundles.
For example, the sports bundle has been reported to be around $20-25 a month. If the entertainment bundle is the same, plus any HD add-ons, it could easily go past my current subscription of $54 a month.
It was revealed in Mediaweek today that survey data is believed to be behind the decision to go this way, in particular these two graphs from Roy Morgan and Telsyte:
From Roy Morgan:
From Telsyte:
The Roy Morgan data shows Foxtel is the only subscription TV service with negative growth from 2017-2018.
The Telsyte data shows 54% annual growth in SVD subscriptions from 2017-2018, and the report also suggests 100% growth in the SVOD market by 2022.
Clearly, Foxtel want to tap into the SVOD growth market, as their existing subscription model is stagnant at best.
I understand this move, but I always thought the skinny bundles (Project Matian and Project Jupiter) would happen in addition to Foxtel Now, but I guess the writing is on the wall with Foxtel Now.
It's also been widely reported that new Foxtel-Fox Sports CEO Patrick Delany is not enamoured with the Foxtel Now brand or product, that was launced by his predecessor Peter Tonagh.
This is something of a sunk cost now for Foxtel, because they also launched a Foxtel Now STU to accompany the product - what will happen with those units if Foxtel Now is phased out? Will it support the new skinny bundles? I guess they could update the software to support it, but I'm not fully across if they could do that.
I was so looking forward to watching the cricket with Foxtel Now, but it's clear Foxtel want to use their new cricket rights to launch the new skinny products, so I'm not sure what will happen.
The cricket season is only over a month away, so whatever happens will happen soon I would think, especially if Foxtel want to leverage their existing customers over to the new service in time for the cricket.
This sucks, because I get sport and entertainment in the one package now, and I have some concerns that I'll get the same level of content as I do now at the same price and the same convenience if I have to subscribe to numerous skinny bundles.
For example, the sports bundle has been reported to be around $20-25 a month. If the entertainment bundle is the same, plus any HD add-ons, it could easily go past my current subscription of $54 a month.
It was revealed in Mediaweek today that survey data is believed to be behind the decision to go this way, in particular these two graphs from Roy Morgan and Telsyte:
From Roy Morgan:
From Telsyte:
The Roy Morgan data shows Foxtel is the only subscription TV service with negative growth from 2017-2018.
The Telsyte data shows 54% annual growth in SVD subscriptions from 2017-2018, and the report also suggests 100% growth in the SVOD market by 2022.
Clearly, Foxtel want to tap into the SVOD growth market, as their existing subscription model is stagnant at best.
I understand this move, but I always thought the skinny bundles (Project Matian and Project Jupiter) would happen in addition to Foxtel Now, but I guess the writing is on the wall with Foxtel Now.
It's also been widely reported that new Foxtel-Fox Sports CEO Patrick Delany is not enamoured with the Foxtel Now brand or product, that was launced by his predecessor Peter Tonagh.
This is something of a sunk cost now for Foxtel, because they also launched a Foxtel Now STU to accompany the product - what will happen with those units if Foxtel Now is phased out? Will it support the new skinny bundles? I guess they could update the software to support it, but I'm not fully across if they could do that.
I was so looking forward to watching the cricket with Foxtel Now, but it's clear Foxtel want to use their new cricket rights to launch the new skinny products, so I'm not sure what will happen.
The cricket season is only over a month away, so whatever happens will happen soon I would think, especially if Foxtel want to leverage their existing customers over to the new service in time for the cricket.
Tuesday, August 7, 2018
Participant Observations 7/8/18 - AFLW Broadcast Coverage
It was revealed late last week that the AFLW competition fixture could be changed to six home and away rounds plus two rounds of finals, despite two new teams being introduced this season, bringing the total number of teams to 10.
The players are upset, as they see this format as treating their competition with disrespect. Players often move interstate for the competition, spend longer training in the pre-season than playing in the competition, and teams would not play each other at least once under the proposed format.
Obviously, there are logistical reasons why the AFL may see see a compact fixture as necessary. Currently, the AFL has to consider scheduling AFLX, AFLW, and the AFL pre-season competition before the AFL season proper. There are only so many weeks in the year, and unless you are willing to start the AFLW earlier in the new year, or late in the current year, they you will have overlap between competitions, with games from different competitions being played on the same day across the country. This happens somewhat already, with AFLW and AFL pre-season games occasionally scheduled on the same day earlier this year.
Overlapping competitions would seemingly reduce the AFL's ability to have a year-round presence, but to schedule the competitions so they run sequentially and without overlap would also position the AFL in direct competition against other sports in the summer, with tennis, cricket, soccer, and basketball, among others, all in-season from about November through to March.
The AFLW is also a maturing competition, and until the quality of the average female player has been allowed to develop, it could be argued that the quality of the game, especially over a drawn-out season, could result in less of a spectacle.
This makes it hard to garner the attention of sponsors and television broadcasters, as was reported on Footy Classified this week:
The commentators debated if television coverage of every AFLW game was necessary, with some saying it was fundamental to the future of the game, and others suggesting to start the season with 'Match of the Round' coverage, and then work up towards complete television coverage by the end of the competition.
However, if the AFL can't get the television coverage they want for the AFLW, I believe this is the perfect opportunity for the AFL to produce their own coverage of the AFLW and show it on their own online and mobile platforms. Coverage could be free with embedded advertising, or be supported with a variety of subscriptions, such as a $20 season pass, or $5 micro-transaction on a round-by-round basis.
A longer season could be scheduled for the AFLW, with the early season games that are in competition with other sports being available via their own platforms. Then, as the competition from other sports dissipates, and as the AFLW season heads towards it's conclusion, the broadcast coverage ramps up with more games on traditional broadcast coverage. Traditional broadcasters don't have to carry as much risk, as they don't have to show many early season games where the quality of the games and interest in the competition is probably not as high.
This is exactly what Cricket Australia has done with women's matches previously, and for memory, the online numbers of people watching were better than expected.
Additionally, all research suggests that younger people are consuming more content online and on mobile devices, so by shifting the game to those platforms, you have a way to reach the younger demographic that sports would try to engage with.
It would also allow them to test their ability to produce their own games, which gives them data and logistical information about costs, production set-ups, travel, distribution, engagement, revenues, and so on.
More importantly, that information would possibly put them in a better position for when the next round of broadcasting rights come up for sale. By producing their own games, they would have some idea of what control they have over the coverage, what revenues they could possibly earn, what their potential reach is, and so on, and weigh up that information against the benefits of going with free-to-air, subscription television, or another new media player such as Facebook or Google/YouTube.
Tennis Australia has taken back their own rights, and while admittedly tennis is a global game with global markets to sell rights to, they are more in control of their product and have become less reliant on the performance of Australian players in the tournament to generate revenue from their broadcasting rights. The NRL has also reportedly taken back some control over their digital rights from Telstra as well, possibly in a move to produce their own games or at least have more control over their online coverage.
Perhaps a long term solution would be to have a fully-fledged AFLW competition running in the winter, the true seasonal home of Australian Rules Football. A winter competition could accommodate a longer season, with fully developed players and coaches competing in better quality games. Combined with the AFL men's competition, the additional games in the winter that the AFLW provides could lead to almost daily coverage of AFL games in some format on television from March through to October.
But until the AFLW matures and finds the corporate and broadcasting support that that scenario requires, I believe there is no better time for the league to at least contemplate producing their own games.
The players are upset, as they see this format as treating their competition with disrespect. Players often move interstate for the competition, spend longer training in the pre-season than playing in the competition, and teams would not play each other at least once under the proposed format.
Obviously, there are logistical reasons why the AFL may see see a compact fixture as necessary. Currently, the AFL has to consider scheduling AFLX, AFLW, and the AFL pre-season competition before the AFL season proper. There are only so many weeks in the year, and unless you are willing to start the AFLW earlier in the new year, or late in the current year, they you will have overlap between competitions, with games from different competitions being played on the same day across the country. This happens somewhat already, with AFLW and AFL pre-season games occasionally scheduled on the same day earlier this year.
Overlapping competitions would seemingly reduce the AFL's ability to have a year-round presence, but to schedule the competitions so they run sequentially and without overlap would also position the AFL in direct competition against other sports in the summer, with tennis, cricket, soccer, and basketball, among others, all in-season from about November through to March.
The AFLW is also a maturing competition, and until the quality of the average female player has been allowed to develop, it could be argued that the quality of the game, especially over a drawn-out season, could result in less of a spectacle.
This makes it hard to garner the attention of sponsors and television broadcasters, as was reported on Footy Classified this week:
The commentators debated if television coverage of every AFLW game was necessary, with some saying it was fundamental to the future of the game, and others suggesting to start the season with 'Match of the Round' coverage, and then work up towards complete television coverage by the end of the competition.
However, if the AFL can't get the television coverage they want for the AFLW, I believe this is the perfect opportunity for the AFL to produce their own coverage of the AFLW and show it on their own online and mobile platforms. Coverage could be free with embedded advertising, or be supported with a variety of subscriptions, such as a $20 season pass, or $5 micro-transaction on a round-by-round basis.
A longer season could be scheduled for the AFLW, with the early season games that are in competition with other sports being available via their own platforms. Then, as the competition from other sports dissipates, and as the AFLW season heads towards it's conclusion, the broadcast coverage ramps up with more games on traditional broadcast coverage. Traditional broadcasters don't have to carry as much risk, as they don't have to show many early season games where the quality of the games and interest in the competition is probably not as high.
This is exactly what Cricket Australia has done with women's matches previously, and for memory, the online numbers of people watching were better than expected.
Additionally, all research suggests that younger people are consuming more content online and on mobile devices, so by shifting the game to those platforms, you have a way to reach the younger demographic that sports would try to engage with.
It would also allow them to test their ability to produce their own games, which gives them data and logistical information about costs, production set-ups, travel, distribution, engagement, revenues, and so on.
More importantly, that information would possibly put them in a better position for when the next round of broadcasting rights come up for sale. By producing their own games, they would have some idea of what control they have over the coverage, what revenues they could possibly earn, what their potential reach is, and so on, and weigh up that information against the benefits of going with free-to-air, subscription television, or another new media player such as Facebook or Google/YouTube.
Tennis Australia has taken back their own rights, and while admittedly tennis is a global game with global markets to sell rights to, they are more in control of their product and have become less reliant on the performance of Australian players in the tournament to generate revenue from their broadcasting rights. The NRL has also reportedly taken back some control over their digital rights from Telstra as well, possibly in a move to produce their own games or at least have more control over their online coverage.
Perhaps a long term solution would be to have a fully-fledged AFLW competition running in the winter, the true seasonal home of Australian Rules Football. A winter competition could accommodate a longer season, with fully developed players and coaches competing in better quality games. Combined with the AFL men's competition, the additional games in the winter that the AFLW provides could lead to almost daily coverage of AFL games in some format on television from March through to October.
But until the AFLW matures and finds the corporate and broadcasting support that that scenario requires, I believe there is no better time for the league to at least contemplate producing their own games.
Participant Observations 7/8/18 - AFL Rule Changes
My take on the rule changes being talked about in the AFL this year:
Firstly, the rules need to change. At times, the current games looks like a rolling scrum, and it's not uncommon to see all 36 players on the field in one quarter of the ground. Yes, 5 games this round were decided by less than a goal, but that's one round out of 20. For the majority of the rest of the season, the game has been near unwatchable. The drop in TV audiences attest to this.
It's visually a mess. And this leads to the major reason why I think the rules need a change - if I'm a broadcaster, who's paid billions of dollars or the rights, I want the game to be aesthetically pleasing. I understand that a visually perfect game is an impossibility, but the current game-style is too unattractive for casual viewers in my opinion.
Having said that, paradigm-shifting rules are not necessary. If you look at the history of the game, the rules of the game have been tweaked every few years, and that's all that I think is necessary - a few tweaks that on their own don't do a lot, but combined, enhance the game play. For example, there was a time in the history of the game where the kick off line was 20-yards out. It's been 10 yards for some time, but we shouldn't be blind to the idea that rules can and have changed over time.
I also don't think rule changes should be left up to the coaches alone. Coaches are there to win games, and they don't necessarily care how the game looks - winning is their priority, and no one blames them for that. Coaches, and players for that matter, should definitely be consulted, but not held solely responsible for advising on rule changes.
In addition to rule changes, I think games and seasons should be shortened. Players and coaches themselves are saying the games and season is too long, and I'd argue that a shorter season means less player injuries, and more games of consequence. In the NFL for example, teams only play 16 regular season games, so every game has a lot of consequence. While a shorter season may mean that a team that looses it's opening 4 games of the year has little to play for, I believe this could be alleviated with some inventive or dynamic fixturing. Perhaps after 66% of the season, the bottom 4 sides play off against each other for draft positions, or something like that. Ideally, I think an 18-round season is ideal - each team plays each other once, plus an extra round for 'rival' matches or some other 'cause' round. Games should also be shortened to around the 20-25 minute mark, so maybe make it 15 minute quarters with time on? And get rid of the countdown clock at games. Players know the time via runners. Crowds know the time via radio/mobile phones. Get rid of the unnecessary appearance of suspense.
I'd also advocate for either a floating fixture in the final round OR a week between the end of the season and finals. We don't need both. Either or. I understand the purpose of it - to give players an equal rest before finals, but both is too much, and as Ian Robinson on AFL 360, suggested, if you keep the bye after the final round, and keep the final round as a floating round, it floating round basically just becomes a tool for the TV networks to secure the largest audience. Again, while I don't have an issue with that per se, it does leave fans feeling cynical and jaded about the relationship between the game and the media. I also like the idea of a wildcard weekend, between the end of the season and the finals proper, where, say team 7 plays team 10, and 8 plays 9, in a play-off for the final two spots.
So, here are the rule changes I would like to see:
That's all I can think of at the moment. If I think of any others, will update the post.
Another rule that came up over the weekend was the possible introduction of a red card for an 'unsportsmanlike' act, such as striking a player in a game. A West Coast player broke the jaw of a Fremantle player off the ball last weekend, and the West Coast player went on to kick a goal. Other Fremantle players then also targeted the West Coast player in question.
Before jumping on-board with the red card rule, I'd have some questions, such as: Do you also introduce a yellow card for lesser infractions? How long does someone get sent off for under a yellow card? What constitutes 'unsportsmanlike' behaviour? How far off the ball does it have to be? What if a player stages being hit/knocked out in an attempt to get another player red-carded. What if the player being struck has a glass jaw and is more susceptible to being knocked out? What if the action that knocked a player out was accidental, or can't clearly be determined as being deliberate?
I think some data and feedback is needed from the leagues where this rule is already in place, to gauge the impact of the rule, before deciding if this should be instituted as a rule.
Firstly, the rules need to change. At times, the current games looks like a rolling scrum, and it's not uncommon to see all 36 players on the field in one quarter of the ground. Yes, 5 games this round were decided by less than a goal, but that's one round out of 20. For the majority of the rest of the season, the game has been near unwatchable. The drop in TV audiences attest to this.
It's visually a mess. And this leads to the major reason why I think the rules need a change - if I'm a broadcaster, who's paid billions of dollars or the rights, I want the game to be aesthetically pleasing. I understand that a visually perfect game is an impossibility, but the current game-style is too unattractive for casual viewers in my opinion.
Having said that, paradigm-shifting rules are not necessary. If you look at the history of the game, the rules of the game have been tweaked every few years, and that's all that I think is necessary - a few tweaks that on their own don't do a lot, but combined, enhance the game play. For example, there was a time in the history of the game where the kick off line was 20-yards out. It's been 10 yards for some time, but we shouldn't be blind to the idea that rules can and have changed over time.
I also don't think rule changes should be left up to the coaches alone. Coaches are there to win games, and they don't necessarily care how the game looks - winning is their priority, and no one blames them for that. Coaches, and players for that matter, should definitely be consulted, but not held solely responsible for advising on rule changes.
In addition to rule changes, I think games and seasons should be shortened. Players and coaches themselves are saying the games and season is too long, and I'd argue that a shorter season means less player injuries, and more games of consequence. In the NFL for example, teams only play 16 regular season games, so every game has a lot of consequence. While a shorter season may mean that a team that looses it's opening 4 games of the year has little to play for, I believe this could be alleviated with some inventive or dynamic fixturing. Perhaps after 66% of the season, the bottom 4 sides play off against each other for draft positions, or something like that. Ideally, I think an 18-round season is ideal - each team plays each other once, plus an extra round for 'rival' matches or some other 'cause' round. Games should also be shortened to around the 20-25 minute mark, so maybe make it 15 minute quarters with time on? And get rid of the countdown clock at games. Players know the time via runners. Crowds know the time via radio/mobile phones. Get rid of the unnecessary appearance of suspense.
I'd also advocate for either a floating fixture in the final round OR a week between the end of the season and finals. We don't need both. Either or. I understand the purpose of it - to give players an equal rest before finals, but both is too much, and as Ian Robinson on AFL 360, suggested, if you keep the bye after the final round, and keep the final round as a floating round, it floating round basically just becomes a tool for the TV networks to secure the largest audience. Again, while I don't have an issue with that per se, it does leave fans feeling cynical and jaded about the relationship between the game and the media. I also like the idea of a wildcard weekend, between the end of the season and the finals proper, where, say team 7 plays team 10, and 8 plays 9, in a play-off for the final two spots.
So, here are the rule changes I would like to see:
- A ball kicked or handballed over the boundary line results in a free-kick to the opposition. A ball rushed over the boundary line is thrown in as normal. This motivates players to keep the ball in play, reducing boundary line throw-ins and associated congestion, and also leading to more direct play and higher scoring. I saw this rule in Adelaide, and I have no doubt it results in a more aesthetically pleasing, high scoring game.
- A reduction in the number of interchange rotations. Initially, I wasn't a fan of this idea, as I though fatigued players were more likely to get injured, but I think I've seen data that suggests that fatigued players are no more or less likely to get injured than non-fatigued payers. Also, fatigued players will be less likely to make contests and stoppages, so the game would open up a bit more, although another potential side-effect of this rule could be a drop-off in skill levels due to fatiguing.
- The 6-6-6 formation rule for all center square bounces. Obviously this rule would have the most impact late in close games by preventing coaches from flooding backlines. I also like the idea that one player from each team in the 50-metre arcs must be inside the goal square at the bounce downs.
- The 20-yard extended goal square. Obviously allows players kicking-in after a behind to send the ball deeper into play. It also gives the player who plays on from the goal square more room to run and carry before kicking off. And as was also identified in the VFL trial, kicking a behind is discouraged, as it gives the team kicking in more of an advantage. While this may discourage some teams from having a shot of goal, it could also potentially result in better goalkicking, as teams spend more time and effort in making sure they don't score a behind.
- Boundary umpires come in 10 metres from the boundary line for throw-ins. This would reduce the likelihood of repeat throw-ins and would move the ball back into the corridor. We already assess 15 meters for a kick, and I don't think it would have to be too precise, so no need for more markings on the field. Conversely, the grass could be cut on grounds to indicate where the 10m line would be.
- Automatic play-on for backward kicks that are marked inside the defensive 50m.Kicks have to start and finish inside the defensive 50m. A friend told me the coaches don't like this rule (probably because they all use it) but I remember seeing it in a pre-season comp a few years ago, and I think it would encourage teams without the ball to put forward pressure on the team with the ball to try and force a turnover.
- Eliminate the nominated ruckman rule, but keep the 'no third man up' rule. Teams should be able to figure out for themselves who is rucking and who is not. If a team sends up a third ruck, pay a free kick against. Teams will soon work it out.
- Throw the ball up at stoppages and at boundary throw-ins immediately. There is an unnecessary amount of gesticulating from umpires at stoppages, which slows the play down and allows more players to arrive at the contest.
That's all I can think of at the moment. If I think of any others, will update the post.
Another rule that came up over the weekend was the possible introduction of a red card for an 'unsportsmanlike' act, such as striking a player in a game. A West Coast player broke the jaw of a Fremantle player off the ball last weekend, and the West Coast player went on to kick a goal. Other Fremantle players then also targeted the West Coast player in question.
Before jumping on-board with the red card rule, I'd have some questions, such as: Do you also introduce a yellow card for lesser infractions? How long does someone get sent off for under a yellow card? What constitutes 'unsportsmanlike' behaviour? How far off the ball does it have to be? What if a player stages being hit/knocked out in an attempt to get another player red-carded. What if the player being struck has a glass jaw and is more susceptible to being knocked out? What if the action that knocked a player out was accidental, or can't clearly be determined as being deliberate?
I think some data and feedback is needed from the leagues where this rule is already in place, to gauge the impact of the rule, before deciding if this should be instituted as a rule.
Monday, August 6, 2018
Participant Observations 6/8/18 - VFL on Freeview
I wanted to share a way I was able to circumvent the Free-to-Air geolocated restrictions on broadcast content via the Freeview App.
Last Saturday afternoon, Channel 7 in Victoria broadcast a VFL game on one of their secondary channels, which trialed two of the new rules - The 6-6-6 formation for centre bounces, and the 18-yard extended goal square.
I checked the regular FTA guide to see if the game would be on any of the digital channels, but it was not, so I couldn't watch it via terrestrial FTA, or via the live streaming app of Channel 7.
However, the Freeview app asks users to input their postcode when they first open the app, so they get the content for that region. Why this app doesn't use GPS or geolocating to automatically determine the location of the viewer is a mystery, but it allowed me to enter a Victorian postcode and access the Victorian content.
Out of interest, I entered 3051, my old North Melbourne postcode, and there was no problems.
The vision was in SD, and a little pixelated at times, but I was able to see the trialing of these new rules live. Which was awesome. Much like the 'trickster' mindset, I think this inventiveness demonstrates the entrepreneurial mindset again.
Last Saturday afternoon, Channel 7 in Victoria broadcast a VFL game on one of their secondary channels, which trialed two of the new rules - The 6-6-6 formation for centre bounces, and the 18-yard extended goal square.
I checked the regular FTA guide to see if the game would be on any of the digital channels, but it was not, so I couldn't watch it via terrestrial FTA, or via the live streaming app of Channel 7.
However, the Freeview app asks users to input their postcode when they first open the app, so they get the content for that region. Why this app doesn't use GPS or geolocating to automatically determine the location of the viewer is a mystery, but it allowed me to enter a Victorian postcode and access the Victorian content.
Out of interest, I entered 3051, my old North Melbourne postcode, and there was no problems.
The vision was in SD, and a little pixelated at times, but I was able to see the trialing of these new rules live. Which was awesome. Much like the 'trickster' mindset, I think this inventiveness demonstrates the entrepreneurial mindset again.
Wednesday, August 1, 2018
Participant Observations 1/8/18 - Adelaide Trip/Herald Sun fan survey
Last weekend Joe Fluechter and I headed over to Adelaide for a HUGE weekend of footy.
It started on Friday night when we went to Norwood Oval to see Norwood vs Woodville/West Torrens.
On Saturday we went to my old high school Prince Alfred College and saw a 4ths game (!). We then stopped off at a pub in North Adelaide where we watched Richmond v Collingwood, before walking up to Prospect Oval to See North Adelaide vs Adelaide.
We then walked back into town, and along the way saw Darren Jarman at a bottle shop. I told him he was my favourite player growing up, and thanked him for all the enjoyment he gave me watching him play, for which he seemed genuinely happy about.
After meeting up with some mates in town, we went on to the Adelaide Oval, where we saw Adelaide vs Melbourne.
Finally, on Sunday, we headed down to a pub in Unley where we watched North Melbourne vs West Coast, before trekking over to Unley Oval to watch Sturt vs Central Districts. Then at the airport before flying home, we watched some of Fremantle vs Hawthorn on my phone in a bar.
So all up, 5 games live, and three games on TV, including one on my phone.
Needless to say, it was fucking epic. Of course there was plenty of drinking done in and around the footy, and it was awesome catching up with mates at the Adelaide Oval. I took my footy with us everywhere over the weekend (literally, everywhere), and so after the Crows game, we went down to the area behind the members grandstand and had a kick of footy, which will go down as one of the best ever!
Also, meeting Darren Jarman was a real surprise which I think both me and Joey enjoyed. Completely unexpected, and he seemed happy enough. I was happy with the way I approached us, and although he turned down the request for a photo, he did beep his car horn as he drove off.
Some other thoughts on the weekend:
- The SANFL rules about turning the ball over on a kick or handball out of bounds is excellent and should be adopted by the AFL. It results in heaps more play, and it seemed to us, higher scores and more skills.
- It was good going back to my old school, although everything seems a bit smaller than I remember!
- Would've like to get a look in at my old-scholars game as well, but I didn't think about it before we went over.
- The standard of the SANFL was generally very good, apart from on Sunday when the wind got up and made skills difficult. But the Friday game was very good, and the North Adelaide game had over 40 (!) goals kicked in total.
- Me and Joey have short-listed Perth and Darwin as the next possible places for a footy trip.
- I think I might retire my footy after this trip. He performed very well, but is getting a bit old. Joe and I had the idea that for each subsequent footy trip, we should by a new footy for it, and write on it where the footy trip was, and sign and date it. Then, even though it's a new footy, we would still kick it around on the trip, letting it get all the cuts and bruises as a mark of the trip.
-----------------------
So the Herald Sun released the results of their Fan Survey this week, of which I also voted in:
https://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/more-news/footy-fans-survey-nearly-a-third-of-fans-say-their-enjoyment-of-the-game-has-diminished/news-story
It's now gone behind a paywall, but it did show that I'm in tune with most fans on some things, but way off the mark with others.
For instance, I'm definitely not a fan of Bruce McAvaney as the best commentator, but I think David King is the best analyst.
One's I got 'right':
- The Grand Final should be a day game.
- Protected zone is the worst rule
One's I got 'wrong':
- Reduce interchange numbers
Unfortunately the online article has gone behind a paywall now and I can't see it. It does make me think that most AFL fans are more conservative that I am, and it also shows how the free-to-air coverage dominates fans perspective of the game, as shown by most of the results being skewed in that direction.
It started on Friday night when we went to Norwood Oval to see Norwood vs Woodville/West Torrens.
On Saturday we went to my old high school Prince Alfred College and saw a 4ths game (!). We then stopped off at a pub in North Adelaide where we watched Richmond v Collingwood, before walking up to Prospect Oval to See North Adelaide vs Adelaide.
We then walked back into town, and along the way saw Darren Jarman at a bottle shop. I told him he was my favourite player growing up, and thanked him for all the enjoyment he gave me watching him play, for which he seemed genuinely happy about.
After meeting up with some mates in town, we went on to the Adelaide Oval, where we saw Adelaide vs Melbourne.
Finally, on Sunday, we headed down to a pub in Unley where we watched North Melbourne vs West Coast, before trekking over to Unley Oval to watch Sturt vs Central Districts. Then at the airport before flying home, we watched some of Fremantle vs Hawthorn on my phone in a bar.
So all up, 5 games live, and three games on TV, including one on my phone.
Needless to say, it was fucking epic. Of course there was plenty of drinking done in and around the footy, and it was awesome catching up with mates at the Adelaide Oval. I took my footy with us everywhere over the weekend (literally, everywhere), and so after the Crows game, we went down to the area behind the members grandstand and had a kick of footy, which will go down as one of the best ever!
Also, meeting Darren Jarman was a real surprise which I think both me and Joey enjoyed. Completely unexpected, and he seemed happy enough. I was happy with the way I approached us, and although he turned down the request for a photo, he did beep his car horn as he drove off.
Some other thoughts on the weekend:
- The SANFL rules about turning the ball over on a kick or handball out of bounds is excellent and should be adopted by the AFL. It results in heaps more play, and it seemed to us, higher scores and more skills.
- It was good going back to my old school, although everything seems a bit smaller than I remember!
- Would've like to get a look in at my old-scholars game as well, but I didn't think about it before we went over.
- The standard of the SANFL was generally very good, apart from on Sunday when the wind got up and made skills difficult. But the Friday game was very good, and the North Adelaide game had over 40 (!) goals kicked in total.
- Me and Joey have short-listed Perth and Darwin as the next possible places for a footy trip.
- I think I might retire my footy after this trip. He performed very well, but is getting a bit old. Joe and I had the idea that for each subsequent footy trip, we should by a new footy for it, and write on it where the footy trip was, and sign and date it. Then, even though it's a new footy, we would still kick it around on the trip, letting it get all the cuts and bruises as a mark of the trip.
-----------------------
So the Herald Sun released the results of their Fan Survey this week, of which I also voted in:
https://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/more-news/footy-fans-survey-nearly-a-third-of-fans-say-their-enjoyment-of-the-game-has-diminished/news-story
It's now gone behind a paywall, but it did show that I'm in tune with most fans on some things, but way off the mark with others.
For instance, I'm definitely not a fan of Bruce McAvaney as the best commentator, but I think David King is the best analyst.
One's I got 'right':
- The Grand Final should be a day game.
- Protected zone is the worst rule
One's I got 'wrong':
- Reduce interchange numbers
Unfortunately the online article has gone behind a paywall now and I can't see it. It does make me think that most AFL fans are more conservative that I am, and it also shows how the free-to-air coverage dominates fans perspective of the game, as shown by most of the results being skewed in that direction.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)