Welcome to World Footy News
Friday, August 14 2020 @ 10:42 pm ACST

Round 1 Summary - No surprises

International Cup 2014

A cold, at times wet day in the parklands of Melbourne, some crisp clean footy but also some cobwebs, some awkward players that look new to the game but still ploughing into danger, slightly barren fields at the end of winter, football field markings painted over the lines of other sports, a modest but passionate crowd, displays of skill that leave passers-by surprised and exclaiming they didn't know Aussie Rules was played in country xyz, colourful flags and dedicated volunteers shuffling around treating injured players, running drinks and trying to coordinate 24 teams of footballers.  It must be the latest instalment of the International Cup.

Yes the 2014 AFL International Cup is well underway with Round 1 now complete.  Today saw the welcome debut of Indonesia and Pakistan in the Men's competition, and Fiji and Tonga in the Women's, as well as the development Canada and USA teams.

Despite all the changes that can occur in three years in many ways there were no surprises on day one.

All the matches went as most experienced Cup watchers would've predicted.  There were some massive margins and it would've been nice to see the dominant sides take their foot off, but their places in the semi-finals or Division 1 will, in many cases, come down to percentage, so no mercy can be expected when playing for their country and generally at great personal expense.

The biggest hammerings were in the Men's Pool C, where New Zealand didn't allow the Swedes to score (alas the Elks don't seem to have improved since IC11 and paid a heavy price), the United States were ruthless and very efficient in front of goal against Finland, showing they just might be genuine contenders, at least for top 4, and Canada wore down a brave but inexperienced China.

But there was no shortage of pain in pools A and B on what was a day of battlers against the big guns.  Indonesia's players were feisty and fast and plenty showed they knew how to play footy, but their bigger bodied opponents in Nauru increasingly realised they could bust straight through the Garuda tackles and impressively powered to the biggest score of the day, a whopping 35.21 (231). At least Indonesia did get on the board, scoring 1.1 (7).  Like Indonesia, Pakistan also battled hard on debut and made the South Africans look erratic and fumbly early but the Lions settled to completely blow away the Shaheens in the second half.

Great Britain looked to be locked into a tight tussle with France with scrappy play disappointing, perhaps the small ovals preventing clear room to move.  Playing together rarely also restricts the early flow of teams and as the game progressed the difference in ability began to become apparent and 82 points in the end was a significant margin.

Not so tight was Japan vs PNG, one of the tournament favourites. Yet again early on the Mozzies were held close, but eventually found their rhythm and their speed and skill resulting in a 157 point demolition.  Although Japan have a solid league and proud history they are now falling well off the pace of the top teams.

One of the smaller nations, Tonga, monstered one of the biggest, India, in their match.  160 points was a tough margin for India who would've been hoping for better given a number of players with experience in local football in Melbourne.  Footy development is in its infancy on the sub-continent so perhaps they'll memory bank that one for 2017 or 2020.

Maybe the most interesting Men's encounter was Fiji serving it up to Ireland.  The islanders were typically fierce and hunted the Warriors who probably felt there was some undue targetting.  It did seem to pay dividends as the Cup favourites rarely got their flowing skill game going and were well held for a 45 point win.  This could prove decisive if Ireland drop a game (Nauru the one to watch) and need to rely on percentage to scrape into the 4th spot for the semi-finals.  Indeed it now seems likely Ireland can't afford to drop a game this tournament if they are to win it.  No pressure.

The Women's matches tend to be less fast paced and lower scoring so the blow outs were always going to be smaller.  No shock when Ireland beat newcomers Fiji by 61 points, Canada showed impressive depth to have their development squad the Midnight Suns too good for debutantes Tonga, and to prove the point Canada's Northern Lights beat the USA Freedom by 54 in what most probably expected would be a tight encounter.  USA Liberty, the American's development squad, had the bye.

In summary of the Men's competition, the favourites are all safely on the board, Fiji looks like they will build on their 2011 second division title and might cause some grief for those just off the top few, and Indonesia and Pakistan have debuted with matches that were no worse than the first up efforts of many nations in the past and can hold their heads high.  In the Women's we welcome Tonga and Fiji, but already it looks a race in two between the champs Ireland and last Cup's runners up Canada Northern Lights, who seem to have increased their lead over the USA Freedom and boast impressive depth across both their sides.

Expect a much tighter round of matches when the Cup resumes on Wednesday again at Royal Park (mostly), with most matches featuring teams ranked more closely.  Although one fears that PNG vs India and New Zealand vs China could see 300 points reached if the weather is good and the mood ruthless.  Will the AFL ever bite the bullet and start the tournament with separate divisions?  It would save a lot of dashed spirits and less than inspiring one-sided matches.

Familiar faces - Barassi and Dixon

  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn
  • Digg
  • Twitter
  • SlashDot
  • Del.icio.us
  • Yahoo Buzz

Story Options

Round 1 Summary - No surprises | 24 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
Round 1 Summary - No surprises
Authored by: simonblack on Monday, August 11 2014 @ 02:41 am ACST

Totally agree with the last statement that maybe there should be divisions.

The IC should be about the players having FUN and WANTING TO COME BACK and for their teams and family back home to be proud and to grow the game.

Out of 5 matches a team is only guaranteed 1 match! (In the fifth round) where it will be an even match. That’s not good enough. And when that match does come around there is a good chance that a team’s squad will be depleted after 4 rounds of flat out unfairly matched contact sport. (There has already has been bad injuries)

Yes the fixture for IC allows anyone the chance to be in the grand final at the MCG, but this isn’t the TOYOTA AFL premership!!! Come back to reality AFL. Heck throughout Australia there are divisions everywhere (seniors, reserves, second reserves etc). “Hey let’s play our senior against our second reserves that will be a laugh.”

There are more teams in the IC this year so AFL should have adapted to it.
After all this effort AFL put into the IC trying to promote the great game of Aussie rules it’s all lost after the first round. No one wants to see a round with 9 games that are all blow outs. If AFL wants to tap into the Chinese market so bad why humiliate the Chinese team by putting them up against NZ and Canada. Why stream the First round matches live when all we could here from the audio stream was the lone Aussie in the crowed say “and another goal to New Gunnie, geeze this is boring”
Natives of China are not the same height and build as those from FIJI. And when AFL does tap into China it will be Chinese teams vs. Chinese teams not Chinese teams facing Fiji, Tonga etc. AFL is seriously putting the health of the players at risk. Also there should be a limit of how many players are allowed on a team who are basically full time residents of Australia, like 50/50 at least.

Edited on Monday, August 11 2014 @ 02:43 am ACST by simonblack

Round 1 Summary - No surprises
Authored by: Rod Shaw on Monday, August 11 2014 @ 09:47 am ACST

I think divisions would be so much better! There is nothing to be gained for any footy nation in trouncings like those experienced in the first round.
But previously, teams have been too proud or naive to put themselves in Division 2. Maybe there could have been a 10-8 split or 12- 6 but how many teams would have honestly put their hand up for Division 2?
Maybe the decision making is funding based- if a team does not have a shot at the title- funding may not be forthcoming? unlikely....but a possibility.
Perhaps all new teams need to start in Division 2 as a start.

As far as limiting the numbers of non-resident based players this goes so much against what you are trying to do when you are building footy up in a foreign land.
Sure you want to build up your local comps but you also want to get your players up and into better comps. There is only so much you can do around developing your players through playing internationals, improving the local standard and playing against visiting teams.
The best way to get your players to a better standard is get them into decent football Leagues in Australia. These players learnt the game generally in their native country and then fell in love so much with the sport and had the talent to go to the home of the game and compete against Australians.

Every nation should be proud that this happens and then welcome them into their national team! Why should these players be barred from representing their country when they have done nothing more than to better themselves in their chosen sport?

Round 1 Summary - No surprises
Authored by: simonblack on Monday, August 11 2014 @ 11:16 am ACST

yup ok i take back my limit the number of players playing in oz. It only seemed unfair to me because once again it created a uneven match up (a team consisting of 70% canadians playing aussie rules in australia for 3 years vs a teams with no players playing on australia)

But if we bring in divisions than this unevenness wont exist anymore because itll be teams vs teams who both have players plaing in australia.

Round 1 Summary - No surprises
Authored by: Brett Northey on Monday, August 11 2014 @ 02:00 pm ACST
Yes there have been some people or countries not keen to be relegated to a second division and not have a chance to win the title. But I'm not sure if that is widespread and sometimes dare I say it people need to be protected from what they wish for.

Certainly there were plenty of complaints to us after IC08 I think that the weaker nations didn't want to be battered and humiliated by the top nations. IC11 had the first day seeding round that had a series of much shorter matches which limited the damage.

Ultimately the truth is that those lower teams have no chance of winning the Cup, so the only argument that could be made to give them a chance is sponsorship (as Rod pondered above) or experience against the best. But we question the former and on the latter point I believe that when the gulf reaches a certain level there's not much learning going on.

Meanwhile players are injured, perhaps in their own minds humiliated, and not a very good image of international footy presented to the community.

The article didn't set out to make this a major issue, after all the Cup is a wonderful event, but it does start to hit you between the eyes when you go through the lopsided scores, and recall similar tales of woe from past Cups, and try to think of positive highlights from the opening round.

And finally, dare I invoke soccer as an example, I'm sure all the nations of the world in theory would like to be able to play at the FIFA World Cup finals but of course they have to qualify to get there. And our game is so much more physical and high scoring.

I do not advocate at this stage for qualifying. I think it's quite simple that with so many teams attending and since the AFL has fairly robust seedings then based on that they should allocate a showcase top 8 (two pools of 4, play 3 games, top 2 from each pool go through to semis).

The rest (this year 10 others) can start as Division 2 and pools can be based on however many turn up. The top two from Division 2 can be promoted at the next Cup, the bottom two of Div 1 go down.

So based on this year's seedings: http://www.worldfootynews.com/staticp...d_Seedings

we'd have Canada and Sweden miss out on Div 1. Sweden clearly would've been better in Div 2, Canada would probably be unhappy about that but so be it, they would have to throw all their effort into winning Div 2 and being elevated back in 2017. New teams obviously start in Div 2.

It would also give the AFL more certainty and reliability in programming showcase matches at bigger venues, knowing the top 8 are more likely to show up and do so with good squads etc.
--- Brett Northey - Co-founder and Chief Editor of WFN
Round 1 Summary - No surprises
Authored by: Olivier Tresca on Saturday, August 16 2014 @ 10:37 pm ACST

Although I completely agree that sending players to learn the game in Aus is great, what good does it do to the local leagues if they never head back home? What I worry about is what might happen in a few years time, when some country are able to field a team made entirely of Aus based players and don't select localy based one. Do we want the IC to be a tournament of expats living in Australia?

The other concern I have is that we are seeing teams that look one way in their local competition, and completely different at the IC. If you consider Ireland for example, they lost against France in the EU cup, based on that you could assume that France would do relatively well against them here, but no they got flogged. I know that the team roster will vary a lot from competition to competition, mostly because of budget constraint put on players. However, having a Euro Irish side and an Aus Irish side that plays the IC (or any other country for that matter), seems like it's not the way forward.

I'm not suggesting Aus based player don't get to play in the IC, but maybe the eligibility rules must be changed. Something like, if you are a long time Aus resident you can play only if you have already played a couple of games for your country in the year leading to the IC.

Round 1 Summary - No surprises
Authored by: Brett Northey on Monday, August 11 2014 @ 02:07 pm ACST

I agree with a lot of what you say Simon, although don't worry about the Chinese physique. There's plenty of tall Chinese and tough smaller guys, and a team like Fiji is always going to be daunting physically to most opposition.

Even with 2 divisions Fiji would be in Div 2. Be glad Samoa are not here - they were brutal a few years back. And if they do return it would presumably be in Div 2, but hopefully with more focus on the skills than smashing their way to wins.

Brett Northey - Co-founder and Chief Editor of WFN

Round 1 Summary - No surprises
Authored by: Wesley Hull on Monday, August 11 2014 @ 02:43 pm ACST

It seems to me that the talent gulf will always be there as long as there are funding inequities, differing levels of local talent pathways and different opportunities to play. How to more fairly provide opportunity will have pro's and con's no matter what the suggestion. Then, the other thing is - what constitutes victory? Some nations measure on win/loss, whilst others measure on progress as measured in their own eyes.

But, maybe some left field thinking here and there can find solutions. Just spit-balling, if the competition was held over three rounds - Round 1 was seed v seed (1 v 2, 3 v 4 etc..) then rounds 2 & 3 could be pool based. That would certainly give nations an even chance of at least one win or close result to hang their hat on and, who knows, maybe instill confidence before their next hit-out. Again, far from ideal, but another of a raft of ideas which might be thrown around to find a less destructive win/loss outcome.

Round 1 Summary - No surprises
Authored by: Michael Christiansen on Monday, August 11 2014 @ 05:26 pm ACST

A large issue is always the uncertainty of who and how many will attend. You can work various competition models, 1 div, 2 or 3 divs. A 3 div structure with promotions and relegations from tournament to tournament but - to do anything with great certainty you then need to be having a properly funded/structured and capped tournament rather than a wishful thinking open to all comers.

Can't help but feel that there's a point shortly where if it continues then there'll be a select few nations who attend each time and others that really will slot into every 2nd tourney at best.

Perhaps too - allow some nations a 'guest pass' of sorts - allow Finland to bring over up to 3 or 4 guys from Norway and Sweden bring 3 or 4 from Iceland or Germany. Allow some of those nations not yet able to attend to get their first few players exposed, boost the squads of the nations who have a smaller pool.

South Pacific wise obviously I look at say Vanuatu - were they able to attend it might be hard for a large enough squad but allow perhaps 3 or 4 from the Solomons.

The main squad is still representative of the 'branded' nation - and after all, if a fellow who grew up in NZ, discovered footy there and then goes to Canada and plays for them is fine (which I believe it is) then it's not such a stretch. Just a thunk.

Round 1 Summary - No surprises
Authored by: Rog on Monday, August 11 2014 @ 08:47 pm ACST

Who is deciding the format of the comp anyway? Are they consulting with the competing nations? I thought the format for IC11 worked pretty well. I think there should be more "lightning" format matches early to seed the teams. The short format matches would mean the weaker teams don't get completely destroyed and if they are getting flogged they only have to put up with it for 20-30 tough minutes instead of 80. Everyone here could come up with 10 formats better than the one they are using for this tournament, so here's mine.
Play the first 3 rounds of this tournament in 1 day with games played 10-15 minutes halves. That will sort out the top teams from the bottom ones. Split top 10 from bottom 8, which is about right for the division of teams that are some chance against Top 3, like Fiji & Canada, from those that will get destroyed by top teams.
Division 1 Reseed teams Play 3 further normal length games.
(1v4,2v3,5v7,6v8,9v10), (1v6,2v5,3v9,4v10,7v8), (1v9,2v10,3v7,4v8,5v6)
Final Ladder
Grand Final 1 vs 2, and so on playing off for positions 3/4, 5/6, 7/8, 9/10.

Division 2 Two groups of 4. Play the 3 teams in your group normal length games. Then play off top Group A2 vs Top Group B2 for 11/12, and so on 13/14, 15/16, 17/18.

5 days play, everyone starts with a chance of winning the whole thing, quickly seed the teams to make for fairer contests.

Round 1 Summary - No surprises
Authored by: Brett Northey on Monday, August 11 2014 @ 10:15 pm ACST

I think the beauty of a top 8 Div 1 is the uncertainty is removed. The serious contenders can be scheduled and confident well in advance, the rest you can be flexible for how to do the schedule depending withdrawals etc.

Brett Northey - Co-founder and Chief Editor of WFN

Round 1 Summary - No surprises
Authored by: Mister Football on Tuesday, August 12 2014 @ 10:19 am ACST

We saw the danger signs last time, and it appears to have got worse this IC - this must be the last IC where we put up established footy countries against newcomers or weak nations.

It does the game absolutely no good whatsoever to see teams thrashed by 30 goals, it's pointless.

Surely we all know and understand that mismatches in footy games will always result in those sorts of scorelines, so why go through it?

The two division set up is what we now need to aim for, with eight teams in each division.

If need be, we work out a system where the 7th and 8th seeded teams play games pre-tournament with the top seeded teams of the 2nd division to determine the final groupings, and a similar thing could be happening at the bottom end of the 2nd division, i.e. teams have to start earning the right to compete.

We now have to move away from a system where you get to play merely for showing up.

It's a good thing that we can admit that we have reached that stage.

Mister Football

Round 1 Summary - No surprises
Authored by: Jarren on Tuesday, August 12 2014 @ 10:45 am ACST

I do not think we are at the point of not letting teams come just yet. The last thing you want to be doing is telling new leagues with a small number of teams that are able and willing to come that they cannot. Many countries outside Europe struggle to get any international games outside the IC, so telling them they cannot come condems them to years of playing against the same couple of teams in the league, and with no possibility of anything further. Much more dispiriting them coming to the IC and getting a thrashing from NZ.

I also think people are doing the players a disservice, I think most come with a realisitic expectation of where they are at. Been on the end of a few good thrashings myself, i was able to cope, and I do not expect less of the Chinese or Indonesians etc.

Divisions will also not eliminate 1 sided smashings, although it will reduce them a bit. Amateurs have literally dozens of divisions, and still get thrashings.

2 Divisions with the second division of whatever size is required for the teams that want to come.

I like the idea expressed above of the top teams of 2nd div playing the bottom teams of 1st, but given the vagueries of ranking I think it doesn't go far enough.

I would start with only 4 teams in div 1 (top 4), and div 2 would be all teams outside the top 12.

This gives you effectively 3 divisions, 1, 2 and indeterminate. Initial rounds pits top 4 against each other, and tier 2 against each other for seedings in later rounds. The indeterminates play for 'promotion or relegation;. Top team from this round becomes 5th seed in div 1, 5th team becomes top team div 2 etc. Then progress to finals.

Top 4 have the goal of staying top 4, 5th to 12th ranked teams have the goal of making top 4, teams below want to make the indeterminate group.

Thats a quick idea, I am sure other could do it better.

Round 1 Summary - No surprises
Authored by: Kurt_D on Tuesday, August 12 2014 @ 11:33 am ACST

I called this scenario when the draw came out, certainly not a good look for the comp. I don't know what was wrong with the format in 2011. Every team turned up with an opportunity to win the whole thing, and within one day the weaker sides had been separated from the big guns. Everyone got to play more games against similar opposition and I don't remember any complaints. Would be interesting to hear from whoever is in charge as to why they decided to move away from this.

Round 1 Summary - No surprises
Authored by: Brett Northey on Tuesday, August 12 2014 @ 11:48 am ACST

We'll certainly look to have a tournament debrief with the AFL afterwards and try to understand the thinking and push for a change in future.

I definitely agree with the comment that we should not be excluding any teams yet, and that IC11 worked quite well, or straight to divisions. I think the AFL should come up with 1 or 2 models they think should work and put that to the countries that were here.

Brett Northey - Co-founder and Chief Editor of WFN

Round 1 Summary - No surprises
Authored by: Cam Homes on Tuesday, August 12 2014 @ 05:47 pm ACST

Two divisions is bloody obvious, everybody accepts that, AFL, competing nations and probably 99% of all comments we see here and other forums agree, but the arguements come down to how to choose the participants in each division. Do like at IC11, eg. wait till all the nations here have a short game seeding rounds or make nations qualify, or seed nations as per last IC as done this time etc. numerous scenarios have been proposed with each of the drawbacks of each chewed over and over, and in almost all cases they are quite valid reasons to do it/or not to do it in any particular way. eg, costs to make trip, debutant nations coming up against veterans, nations with thousands of players to choose from versus p-ant nations etc.etc.etc.

My proposal is pretty simple and I reckon overcomes all the drawbacks mentioned in all the previoua discussions.
1. Tell the nations there will be two divisions.
2. Use the WFN World Rankings to rank the nations, last IC standards three years old, WFN current/up to date. Most nations accept the WFN rankings.
3. Nations notified in advance of how many nations will be in Division one, that way if a nation is just out of the top division leading up to the IC they might just play an international to try and get into the top division. Cut off, say three months prior to IC.
4. Debutant nations "ranked" at bottom of lower/est division.
5. Higher ranked Div 1 nation drops out just prior to IC(eg. Denmark) then highest ranked div 2 nation slots into bottom of Div one.
6. As more teams compete in IC then number of nations in each Div adjusted accordingly. eg. 8-12, 10 -10, 10-12, 12-12 and so on.

Big advantage of this scheme is that everybody knows where they stand before the IC. and completely eliminates the current situation of Indonesia v Nauru PNG v Japan, NZ v Sweden debacle matches that do absolutely nothing for International Footy, Actually does more harm to promoting International footy than good I believe.

Last but not least the AFL must secure a sponsor for the IC.
they have NAB sponsoring the junior national comps. why not a sponsor for the IC. The IC must have brought in at least a 1000 players, support staff and supporters from all over the world who would be taking that sponsors message back home with them.

Bundaberg Rum sponsors international rugby here in Aussie not because they think they can get more rum drinkers to play Rugby, or more rugby players to drink Bundy rum, but because they want the international rugby visitors to take the Aussie Bundy message out into the wider world.

Round 1 Summary - No surprises
Authored by: Brett Northey on Wednesday, August 13 2014 @ 12:07 am ACST

Worth noting that we've heard informally from the AFL that most teams favoured one division and that Community Round host clubs wanted certainty on who they would be hosting, so there may well be considered reasons and degree of democracy in the way the Cup has been formatted.

I'd still very much favour a change to simply starting with 2 divisions. That would address the certainty issue. I will be interested to survey nations, if possible, about their preference for one division and why. Perhaps the anecdotal evidence I've heard in the past was a poor small sample.

Brett Northey - Co-founder and Chief Editor of WFN

Round 1 Summary - No surprises
Authored by: nicolas on Wednesday, August 13 2014 @ 08:42 am ACST

As a player in 2011, I can tell you the main reason european countries don't want 2 separate divisions.
Players spend almost 5000$ to come from europe for the competition, which is 2 or 3 months salary for most of them, so they want something special. They don't come to play Finland or India, they really want to play the best, New Zealand, PNG...
Even if they're surprised by the gap between the top nations and their country, most of them don't regret it and will realize how they have to work hard to improve when they go back home.

Having said that, I also think the 2011 format was really good, with having a taste of the top nations, before playing the 2nd division.

Sorry for my poor English, but I think it needed to be said

Round 1 Summary - No surprises
Authored by: Brett Northey on Wednesday, August 13 2014 @ 09:01 am ACST

Thanks Nicholas. It's great to get feedback from a player.

Brett Northey - Co-founder and Chief Editor of WFN

Round 1 Summary - No surprises
Authored by: Jarren on Wednesday, August 13 2014 @ 04:31 pm ACST

I am not surprised at the comment re players opinions. In this I think the players point of view should prevail, they are the ones paying out of pocket. If it can be confirmed that it is a common view that they want an opportunity to play the best countries, then that should end the debate in my opinion.

I can understand the view that it would be seen as more disappointing to travel around the world to play in an international tournament, at a standard not much different to what you played at home, than to play the best and be outmatched.

Round 1 Summary - No surprises
Authored by: Troy Thompson on Wednesday, August 13 2014 @ 07:48 pm ACST

Jarren - just to be playful - the obvious extension of that thought is that we then want Australia to be included?

Round 1 Summary - No surprises
Authored by: Jarren on Thursday, August 14 2014 @ 12:26 am ACST

If it was put to the IC players that they could play against a full Australian national team, I am pretty sure what the answer would be.

Round 1 Summary - No surprises
Authored by: Brett Northey on Thursday, August 14 2014 @ 12:47 am ACST

Agreed. I'm still a great believer in entering an amateur Australian under 20 side in this tournament. I think it would raise the profile of it enormously.

You could say it would mean the result is a foregone conclusion, but for about 13 of the 18 teams let's be realistic, it's no going to be them that wins anyway. And it has been stated above that players want to play the best, well that would give them a sample. And the top few teams would probably still be competitive (but not win) against such an Aussie side. Note that it would be of the utmost importance that the AFL ensured (via the AAFC) that the side was truly representative from across Australia.

So taking on board everything above, if I was calling the shots, IC2017 would in fact be IC2018, with an amateur Australian U20 side included, a lightning carnival on day 1 like IC2011 to determine a two division split, and away we go. (I still like pre-determined 2 divisions but I'm hearing the love for the lightning format).

Brett Northey - Co-founder and Chief Editor of WFN

Round 1 Summary - No surprises
Authored by: Jörg Pareigis on Thursday, August 14 2014 @ 06:04 am ACST

I would love it (and I think many international footy players and officials as well) if you would call the shots, Brett! Please raise this when you speak to the AFL. It seems that they are listening to you, too. Hopefully, I will make it down under than as well. Finally!

Round 1 Summary - No surprises
Authored by: Brett Northey on Thursday, August 14 2014 @ 04:57 pm ACST

Thanks Jörg, you can be my campaign manager.

Yep we'll definitely try to have a chat to the AFL and a IC14 de-brief and try to understand the reasons behind certain things and see if we can get some feedback from the nations about what they'd like to see next time.

Of course there's the IC forum that will be held between the nations and the AFL so ideally some of these things would be discussed and debated then.

Brett Northey - Co-founder and Chief Editor of WFN