Opinion AFL: The Spectacle

[BigEasyPeasy]

Lots of talk on this board of late about having to 'play the kids' and what having an inexperienced side does to your chances on game day (Last of the Roys' great resource here). In the 'Leppa's vision thread' I alluded to the fact that one could argue the notion of a 'premiership window' in modern football whether by nature of the draft or team-based ideology has the potential to drop the overall standard of the competition. Combined with recent expansion I get the impression that an increased proportion of young players is currently being observed at the elite level.

In other sporting leagues young players are required to complete more rigorous apprenticeships before they get their shot at senior level. In many of these cases veteran players are preferred to improve the immediate chances of victory and general playing ability of individual teams. Is this something that is affecting the standard of football across the league?

In the media over the past week or so (and certainly during commentary on Saturday night) notable football personalities have indicated their displeasure with the lack of 'spectacle' in the game today. I for one have always appreciated the tactical evolution and adaptation of the game over time, so long as the 'essence' of football is protected. But I myself remember the not too distant past where I could happily sit down and watch most games (time permitting) on the weekend; something I would find incredibly difficult today. I found it very difficult to watch Essendon vs St Kilda on Saturday, and I can't put my finger on what has changed. Maybe I have... but maybe it's the game.

I've always been a fan of letting football evolve naturally with minimal legislative change and only after a 'thorough and robust' negotiation process; I tend to think this period in the game won't last. However, in the meantime I think it's worthy of discussion.

Are there too many players on the field?
Is it the rules?
Is it the tactics?
Is it the spread of talent bringing down the overall standard?
Is it the 'cyclical nature' alluded to above increasing the disparity between top and bottom teams, and thus undermining the weekly 'spectacle'?
Is the game less of a spectacle?
Is this an issue at all?

What'ya reckon?

 

[MacMum]

Yesterday I heard a commentator say that its almost like the players are coached out of their natural instincts of how to play the game...

..interesting, could be a reason for a general lack of skills across the whole game, which in turn leads to a poor match to watch....(and sports gurus who won't let them practice kicking goals as much as they used to)

 

[Skoob]

I agree, that the spectacle is largely lost. I am looking forward to this afternoon's game between the Hawks & Cats, mainly because they are 2 teams still at the top of their game (the Cats might have slip a bit, so maybe not 'top' of their's, but close). What do I expect from these 2 teams that was lacking from others? Skill I guess is the short answer. While there are other skillful teams and players out there, some, like Fremantle for example are missing a few and have had to top up.
Youth.I think there is a definite trend at the moment for even the older teams to be trying to unearth the 'next big talent', some out of necessity like the Lions & Demons (apologies for lumping us together), but also the likes of Geelong and Hawthorn in a bid to stay at the top.

Skill.The game is seeing an approach from clubs to put athletes on the ground, more importantly than footballers. This has a twofold effect of higher concentration of youth, but also a lower quality of pure football skill. As the game strategies get faster (he who runs fastest, longest wins) the priorities of skills shift. How many times have we heard "he not a great kick, but he can run all day" in draft discussions?

Scheduling. This too is playing a big part. Whilst it is hard to predict how any team will perform in any following season, surely a better guess is able to be made. We only have to look at round 1 this year. Bne v Haw? Cats v Crows? Sure there were some surprises like Syd losing to GWS, but I wouldn't have paired those 2 for round 1, nor GC v Rich. As it turned out, those 2 were upsets, but on paper they never looked like being good games. Terrible mismatches produce poor matches.

Rules. Rule or interpretation changes are not new to this year, but just what are they trying to achieve? High contact: we must protect the head of players, so high contact is banned. High contact is banned, so players draw free kicks by lowering the head. Then we must stop paying frees for some high contact. Umpires must now guess (usually wrongly) which player caused the high contact.
Let's slow the game down by having 1 less interchange player (and now capped as well). Let's speed the game up by removing the bounce and reducing the free kick count.
Let's penalise players for diving on the ball. Let's give them an eternity to get rid of it instead of blowing the whistle. (Except Chappy, *chirp* my ball, *bounce*, sorry, *throw*.
Let's ban deliberate rushed behinds. Let's let them do it sometimes. Which times? Dunno, when they look scared?
Umpiring. I don't even blame rule changes, although history tells us that there is a trend to tinker (usually as a knee jerk response) and umpires (and players) struggle to adjust in the first few rounds, it is pretty much par for the course of a new season. What is different/worse this year is a policy to underumpire games. I cannot get my head around why, or what they hoped to achieve because it was never going to work or get the result they wanted. Despite a clear set of rules that is largely unchanged, the umpires have been given a direction to ignore the rules unless something is really obvious. The imagined 'grey' area of interpretation has been expanded to allow greater powers of discretion. Some like it, this "let it go" policy, this "common sense" approach, but more and more, week by week, people are seeing that it DOES NOT WORK. The ignoring of the rules of the game is allowing play to go on which more often than not results in greater dispute of the ball, more players around the ball and a much uglier tug of war. It has resulted in less flow and less scoring (aside from illegal, unfair play). It has increased congestion, confusion and frustration. The actor Hugh Laurie, in Australia ATM tweeted yesterday that having watched a game, he had no idea what had just gone on. I replied that he "shouldn't worry, none of us do either". With the perceived (or real) influx of youth and lower level of skill, free kicks should be at an all time high. An average of 16 frees per team is just too low. Not that there should be a prescribed number, but it is inconceivable that there are only 30 odd infringements in a game. No longer can you watch a game, knowing what is going on and think "that's a free" nope, "play on". aside from the ugly mess created by "letting it go" you simply do not know what just happened, let alone what will happen next. Worse than the confusion is the very basic unfairness of the game. The game is allowed to be played outside the rules and is therefore unfair, regardless of results. So team 'A' won by 12 points, big deal, they broke the rules 29 times and only punished 16 times. It's a bit like playing chess and being allowed to put removed pieces back on the board. What's the point?

I think a combination of the changing values of skills v athleticism, rule changes and umpiring all contribute to the spectacle, but for mine, the biggest issue at the moment is the umpiring. It is just plain wrong and let's face it, illegal. They want the game to open up and be more free flowing. Simple, pay the free kick. The ball is no longer in dispute and players must spread. Another 15 free kicks and the game opens up. Another 15 free kicks and the game is fairer and may the better team win.

 

[Sausages]

My brain is a bit foggy atm - but here's the thought that popped into my head after reading....

Award points in a match for each quarter won.

Win 4 quarters - 4 points.
Win 3 - 3 points etc etc

The goal here would be to allow teams to compete, irrespective of ability level, for a minimum of 30 minutes, for some tangible award. As has been noted elsewhere, we'd still be on a doughnut lol

 

[dlanod]

My brain is a bit foggy atm - but here's the thought that popped into my head after reading....

Award points in a match for each quarter won.

Win 4 quarters - 4 points.
Win 3 - 3 points etc etc

The goal here would be to allow teams to compete, irrespective of ability level, for a minimum of 30 minutes, for some tangible award. As has been noted elsewhere, we'd still be on a doughnut lol

Nah, we won a quarter against Richmond (the second?).

 

[chopperduck]

I think there has just been too much change too fast. Look at how footy was played in 2004 compared to 2014. The game, tactics and types of players is changed and 10 years is not a long time for that much evolution.

What they need to do is to stop changing and tinkering with things, give the game some time to settle then deal with issues that come up. They went about trying to shape and cp trol how the game evolved, and some things that werent intended like flooding come about from it. Put a freeze on rule changes for 3 years, get some consistency in the umpiring and give the coaches some time to figure out which way the game ia going to evolve.

 

[wantok]

Interchange has led to the congested rugby maul the game has become. Players only play in 5 minute bursts so they are always ready to run to the next contest. If they couldn't interchange as regularly this would not be aerobically possible. Umpires are unable to sort out this mess so have basically given up . The throw is rampant . Diving on backs is epidemic. The game will soon be played by 190cm midfielders. All other body types will go and play soccer or rugby because they will be obsolete . The game will die if we allow this to continue as junior numbers drop. There needs to be a complete review. Watch a game from the late 90's thru to mid 2000 and you will see the game at its best . Tell me it's not true. If the supporters and club members don't rise up we deserve what we get.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Dom PC]

What would the game look like if you cap the interchange at 40 for the game? Surely you can't have the full forward press with that? The things I pray to see by 2020 is - cap at 40 for the interchange which I think will result in more 80 goal seasons by KPF's and more man on man AFL games.

 

[jackess]

What would the game look like if you cap the interchange at 40 for the game? Surely you can't have the full forward press with that? The things I pray to see by 2020 is - cap at 40 for the interchange which I think will result in more 80 goal seasons by KPF's and more man on man AFL games.

The problem is the game will probably head even further towards endurance athletes which is the problem at the moment.

 

[luthor]

My brain is a bit foggy atm - but here's the thought that popped into my head after reading....

Award points in a match for each quarter won.

Win 4 quarters - 4 points.
Win 3 - 3 points etc etc

The goal here would be to allow teams to compete, irrespective of ability level, for a minimum of 30 minutes, for some tangible award. As has been noted elsewhere, we'd still be on a doughnut lol

Nope .

This is just wrong.

Take the Melb v GC game yesterday as an example(scoring system only
....the game itself was putrid)

Melbourne "won" 3 quarters but were dead set lucky to only lose the match by 8 points.

Applying your system, Melb would have got 3 Premiership points and GC 1 point

 

[Dom PC]

The problem is the game will probably head even further towards endurance athletes which is the problem at the moment.

I agree that is a potential issue. But I would also suggest if you remove the chance for players to consistently rest with the cap of 40 then the press becomes less viable even for the supremely fit players. It then would result in players staying closer to the natural positions on the field and if that is the case then you will still need your big bodied key position players at both ends of the field.

 

[SizeMatters]

My brain is a bit foggy atm - but here's the thought that popped into my head after reading....

Award points in a match for each quarter won.

Win 4 quarters - 4 points.
Win 3 - 3 points etc etc

The goal here would be to allow teams to compete, irrespective of ability level, for a minimum of 30 minutes, for some tangible award. As has been noted elsewhere, we'd still be on a doughnut lol

Theoretically you could be 0 wins and 22 losses overall and still make finals.

 

[Crawb]

Theoretically you could be 0 wins and 22 losses overall and still make finals.

You can still today if Dank cloned himself and embedded himself in 10 different teams.

 

[karix]

The problem is the game will probably head even further towards endurance athletes which is the problem at the moment.

I'm not so sure about this. You will still have some endurance athletes as we do now, but being more skillful reduces that amount of running needed. So I think you'd find it would be a balance that teams would look at more closely, as only the most amazingly fit players would be able to press they way they can now with very limited interchange breaks, you'd find guys who weren't at fit but were quite skillful (or could play midfield and rest forward), would come into the frame as more viable options.

All changes will have unforeseen consequences though, it's just about trying to sell on a set of 'side effects' that the crowds are happy to accept.

 

[Kernel Kurtz]

Interchange has led to the congested rugby maul the game has become. Players only play in 5 minute bursts so they are always ready to run to the next contest. If they couldn't interchange as regularly this would not be aerobically possible. Umpires are unable to sort out this mess so have basically given up . The throw is rampant . Diving on backs is epidemic. The game will soon be played by 190cm midfielders. All other body types will go and play soccer or rugby because they will be obsolete . The game will die if we allow this to continue as junior numbers drop. There needs to be a complete review. Watch a game from the late 90's thru to mid 2000 and you will see the game at its best . Tell me it's not true. If the supporters and club members don't rise up we deserve what we get.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You are right they need to do something Now .I agree with they should drop the interchange number.
The game would open up earlier than it does now. Some games now go through almost the entire game without getting away from highly congested contests. I also agree with other posts (Karix)and that is, it will require the teams to be more balanced ( athletes and football players).
You only have to discuss this with people who watched the game say go back to only 10years and they say the game has now too much of this rolling maul, which is terrible to watch. Then on the other end of the fan spectrum , show the game to a non AFL supporter and I know as we all have heard it , they cant even get into the game as it is so bloody sloppy and contested , it seems there are no rules .
To me it is like watching a grand final every week now , too full on , no open footy.

As for the rules , I think they should enforce the existing ones first then maybe reassess.
One example for mind is incorrect disposal.
How many times do you see a player now get caught with the ball , only then to drop the ball,( and it hasn't even been knocked out), and the game rolls on, no free for incorrect disposal.
It should be a free then the maul stops and the game has a chance to open, from my understanding this is the rule it just isn't scrutinized at the moment, my guess is that they think if they let it slide ,the game will keep flowing, wrong it just makes it sloppy.

The other ruling I don't really know the complete definition of, is the shepherding rule.
Can someone enlighten me if I have got this wrong.

Surely in the rule book it says you cant put two arms around a player without the ball, eg. Taggers do this every week.
Cotchin copped this style of shepherding with Port , I think this style of shepherding or tagging or corralling, what ever you want to call it , is got to be taken out of the game.
Ablett received a free on the weekend for exactly this type of tagging , About bloody time.
I suppose the alternative is , and I saw our Robbo do this twice on Thursday nights game, is to grab the defender by his two shoulders and turf him to the side like a rag doll. That was outstanding to say just quietly, highlight of the match for me.

Back to the interchange number I would like to see it dropped my at least a half, do this over 2 years, and you would see a brand of footy more like a kicking game and not so much of this forward press that we see today .

 

[Apex61]

Kevin Sheedy has urged the game’s decision-makers to consider restricting players to certain parts of the ground, as the style and standard of the game emerges as a serious issue.
AFL operations chief Mark Evans has said feedback from clubs will be sought this year on forcing players into zones in a bid to counter what the league believes is an increase in congestion.
This comes as Melbourne great Garry Lyon described the standard of football this season as "shocking" and expressed concerns it could even impact on the value of the next television rights deal. He said Sunday's clash between the Demons and Gold Coast Suns had been "horrendous".


Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/kevin-sheedy-and-garry-lyon-concerned-about-standard-of-play-20140421-zqx92.html#ixzz2zfPqV8eK

That is what I was thinking for over 2 years of watching the Floodathon rugby mauls.

Forwards are to stay in there half. (put a line down the middle).
Defenders are the same they have to stay in there defensive half of the field.
Midfielders are the only ones that can roam the whole field.

Tired of watching this fitness running maul that looks nothing like the AFL of the 80's & 90's.

 

[Davemonkey]

Doesn't it get back to skill level and coaching? The Hawks/Cats game was a pretty damn good game that, at times, flowed coast to coast.

 

[SizeMatters]

2 subs and two rotating players on the bench would be a good start. I don't think capping the interchange will change it all that much unless it is severe like 40 rotations a game. We need to somehow try to get the game back to the mid 90s - early 2000s as that was the best IMO (although I was very young I enjoyed footy more back then... maybe bias considering we were dominating?)

 

[Ray Button]

What would the game look like if you cap the interchange at 40 for the game? Surely you can't have the full forward press with that? The things I pray to see by 2020 is - cap at 40 for the interchange which I think will result in more 80 goal seasons by KPF's and more man on man AFL games.

The problem is the game will probably head even further towards endurance athletes which is the problem at the moment.

jackess, I see reverting to endurance as a positive rather than a problem; I see the current basketball-style few-minutes-on / few-minutes-off multiple interchange scenario as the main culprit in causing congestion.

I'd go even further than Dom PC and, if I couldn't do away with the interchange entirely, allow only 28 interchanges per game - four interchange players, with each allowed only one change per quarter plus the quarter and halftime breaks.

 

[weevil]

I don’t think it requires any new, exotic rule changes. Rugby League had almost the identical issue when they had unlimited interchange. It created a situation where all players essentially ended up with unlimited fitness and this resulted in games becoming very heavily structured, ultra-defensive, low scoring and robotic.

The NRL simply identified it as an issue, limited the interchange and the problem instantly went away.

For some reason the AFL has vacillated over this, somehow equating ‘players might get tired’ with ‘player welfare’. And naturally none of the AFL coaches want to change this because they are all now so heavily invested in their current game plans and list structures.

I just don’t think it is very complicated at all. All the AFL have to do is click their heels three times and repeat "There's no place like home."

 

[Ray Button]

It's not so very long ago that interchanges were relatively limited. You may recall that in the 2002 Grand Final, Aaron Shattock was named on the interchange and spent only 11 minutes on-field (I think), despite the fact that the Lions ended up with a couple of injuries that limited them to 20 fit players. Matthews played Shattock more like a reserve than an interchange and left the main players to get on with it.

Not sure how many interchanges Matthews made that game, but it would have been bloody low.

 

[Mr Ripper]

I was becoming concerned with what the game was starting to look like at least 13 years ago. My opinions on points 3 and 5 remain unchanged.

 

[western royboy]

A week or so ago Fox Footy replayed the 1986 State of Origin between Western Australia and Victoria at Subi. It was the last of the it's kind as '87 saw the Eagles and Bears come into the competition which marked the beginning of the end of the state based competitions and heralded the start of the national competition. It was very fast footy and due to the nature of state of origin, not a lot of defence as a result. Plenty of high marking contests, one on one duels and sublime skills from various shaped players.

My nine year old watched it intently and asked millions of questions as he has never understood the concept of State of Origin as he has no exposure to it.

He watched a quarter and then said completely un prompted - "Best Footy I have ever seen".

Requiring people to stay in zones I don't think will work, limiting interchange is the way to go - perhaps 2 subs and 2 interchange and bring the number down to 60.

All the great prose about the artistry of the game and the ability to freeboard it (as exhibited in this game) has largely gone from the game. Post 1986 the game has gone fully professional, players are now supremely fit athletes and in expanding from 12 - 18 teams the playing population has doubled. At around this time you could wander aroud the major VCFL leagues and pick out a minimum of 1-5 players that good judges would tell you "he should've or could've played VFL" and they were right, I don't see those players around my way anymore.

The game balance has shifted to athletes over artists, the increased volume of players required means that the pure footy skills have dropped as an example every player was virtually dual sided in that age and so it's only natural that the game has decreased a bit in aestheticss.

 

[blynd_freddie]

2 subs and two rotating players on the bench would be a good start. I don't think capping the interchange will change it all that much unless it is severe like 40 rotations a game. We need to somehow try to get the game back to the mid 90s - early 2000s as that was the best IMO (although I was very young I enjoyed footy more back then... maybe bias considering we were dominating?)

I also lean this way and might even suggest further restrictions.
Say reduce a team back to only 20 - your old fashioned 19th and 20th could be one for rotations [unlimited] and one as a sub, should there be an injury?

Outcomes?
Players would be forced stay more in position rotate rovers back into forward line and rucks down back.
A threat to injuries and player welfare? Hypothetically yes, although not totally proven, this would really need to be stringently monitored.
Skills? Might actually be poorer due to fatigue.

 

[POBT]

Requiring people to stay in zones I don't think will work.

I couldn't agree more. I can't think of a way to make netball style zones work. Full forwards shouldn't be limited to playing within a 50 metre arc - imagine being denied the excitement of the long bomb after a mark taken outside 50 - Browny would have lost half his goals! And what if the person is competing for the footy at the edge of the zone - is he expected to stop competing as soon as the ball falls outside his area?

Coaches and players will call for a gradual reduction of interchanges. But I think the game needs to be shocked. If we continue to drop the cap by a few interchanges every year, we'll retain the status quo. Players will simply get fitter to account for the slight increase in running. A massive reduction on interchange numbers will see the game shift markedly in terms of strategy and tactics and, to be honest, that is not a bad thing.