Thought bubble: reduce no. of players to 16

[kaypee]

would reducing the number of players on the field reduce congestion, make players stick to field positions, solve the interchange problem and free up play? And if every clubs list was reduced by two, would the standard of players go up across the comp?

 

[Freoforever86]

 

[McCrann]

It'd make players less likely to stay in position.

 

[Beutbrute]

I'd prefer to see the interchange bench used more like a substitution bench, which would effectively reduce the players from 22 to 18, and reduce the impact of an early injury on the outcome of the match

 

[Pusswah]

Did Kevin Bartlett throw this up at some stage?

 

[AstonSouffle]

Did Kevin Bartlett throw this up at some stage?

Somewhat, but he was more steadfast that the interchange was the cause of everything and was rather simplistic in his argument(and still remains so). As much as he has a point, the game has changed to the point where reducing interchange won't solve a thing. It'll just be more of the same, just with more injuries because the players won't be able to sustain it and most likely the game will go even further towards being a running game.

Knock off the half back and forward flanks and you get rid of 4 players there, almost always even all the way down to year 7 junior level they're used as extra wingers now. It's not that they're not staying in their position it's that their position is different now, just they happen to be named flankers.

That's actually 14 players, but you'd get more of the same but with less congestion and that'd improve the spectacle of the competition since we all know that's what this is really all about. Plus all that extra space means, Ross Lyon-like game plans particularly his 2013 style one would probably not work as well.

 

[Nutsngum]

No, theres absolutely nothing wrong with the state of the game at the moment in regards to how it is played.

 

[Biggy_Boy]

No, theres absolutely nothing wrong with the state of the game at the moment in regards to how it is played.

There's always something wrong with the game. That's why we can't even go half a season without it being changed.

 

[Mudeo]

Even better reduce the number of umpires to stop different interpretations of rules. Obviously they are all so pig headed and have their own interpretations making it all really unpredictable

 

[kickazz]

It makes sense from the point of view that the players can run more and faster than ever before and kick longer than ever before; and that increasing the size of grounds is not a practical option.

The main strength of this rule (if it does indeed reduce congestion, free up play, etc) is that it is very easy to enforce.

They did it that way in the VFA for a while - not sure why (smaller grounds?) but it would be interesting to give it a try.

Also with so many teams now the talent pool is diluted a bit. Reducing to 16 players would effectively mean the same standard of players would play each week as when we had 16 teams of 18.

 

[Pessimistic]

Did Kevin Bartlett throw this up at some stage?

I heard him on radio simply dismiss the idea, quoting historical context. I reckon he cant face revising all these teams of the century etd (funny how they had no problem adding players in, funny how the AA never has a sub)

For me I reckon it would be worth trialling it somehow

 

[RobbieGray17]

Nothing sucks more than a team who is 9 points in front with 2minutes to go throwing all players in the defensive 50. I don't think 16 players is the way to go, but I have no problems with preventing clogging of a defensive 50.

 

[DrEvil_]

Nothing sucks more than a team who is 9 points in front with 2minutes to go throwing all players in the defensive 50. I don't think 16 players is the way to go, but I have no problems with preventing clogging of a defensive 50.

What's wrong with that? It's the last two minutes and they are protecting a lead. It's not like they are doing it all game.

 

[RobbieGray17]

What's wrong with that? It's the last two minutes and they are protecting a lead. It's not like they are doing it all game.

It makes it less interesting for mine. It severely reduces the chance of transition. And what usually results, is what I saw with us against Geelong.
Attacking team pulls 6-8 players between the attacking CHF and the centre square to spread out the players, but Defensive side zones all 18 players into spare space eliminating any possibility of a lead and mark. Pack marks are difficult. The defensive side being 9 points up with 2 minutes, or even 13 points up, won't care about the ball entering inside 50 and then just bombing it out straight to a forward player, and it will come straight back. The only hope is a free kick, guy getting space to kick a 60m goal, hanger, or big pack mark.

By my calculations, each defensive player is approximately 14 metres apart in all directions. Tell me how you're going to find space?

I'd love to see some separation of players, not drastic, but enough to stop defensive flooding.

 

[DrEvil_]

It makes it less interesting for mine. It severely reduces the chance of transition. And what usually results, is what I saw with us against Geelong.
Attacking team pulls 6-8 players between the attacking CHF and the centre square to spread out the players, but Defensive side zones all 18 players into spare space eliminating any possibility of a lead and mark. Pack marks are difficult. The defensive side being 9 points up with 2 minutes, or even 13 points up, won't care about the ball entering inside 50 and then just bombing it out straight to a forward player, and it will come straight back. The only hope is a free kick, guy getting space to kick a 60m goal, hanger, or big pack mark.

By my calculations, each defensive player is approximately 14 metres apart in all directions. Tell me how you're going to find space?

I'd love to see some separation of players, not drastic, but enough to stop defensive flooding.

Once again, it's the last two minutes. If you want wide open spaces and transition maybe you shouldn't be behind by 9 in the last two minutes, after all you had the previous 118 minutes to try your transitions.

 

[RobbieGray17]

Once again, it's the last two minutes. If you want wide open spaces and transition maybe you shouldn't be behind by 9 in the last two minutes, after all you had the previous 118 minutes to try your transitions.

I can understand your point; but for anyone not supporting the team flooding the game is boring and predictable.
Why should we have 36 players in 3/5 of the ground. I agree it would be very difficult to implement and not even sure how it would work.

 

[romeohwho]

Nope.

 

[RobbieGray17]

Nope.

Vague

 

[romeohwho]

Vague

Haha definite.

 

[kickazz]

Once again, it's the last two minutes. If you want wide open spaces and transition maybe you shouldn't be behind by 9 in the last two minutes, after all you had the previous 118 minutes to try your transitions.

I think he is talking from a spectator's point of view, not a coach's.

 

[RobbieGray17]

Haha definite.

If you referenced my post, it had two parts to it.

 

[romeohwho]

If you referenced my post, it had two parts to it.

Sorry the 'nope' was in response to the thread topic, not your post.
My thoughts are to leave the game alone, it finds a way to sort itself out.

 

[RobbieGray17]

Sorry the 'nope' was in response to the thread topic, not your post.
My thoughts are to leave the game alone, it finds a way to sort itself out.

so what if a team throws 18 players in defense from the word go, or develop a strategy that makes the game difficult to watch.

 

[romeohwho]

so what if a team throws 18 players in defense from the word go, or develop a strategy that makes the game difficult to watch.

Well its not really likely that a team would do that. They've have already been various strategies applied in our game and other teams have found ways around them. Trust the game.

 

[RobbieGray17]

Well its not really likely that a team would do that. They've have already been various strategies applied in our game and other teams have found ways around them. Trust the game.

This came up in another thread and is kinda laughable, but what if a player got the ball, and 17 of his teammates formed a barrier around him, and guarded him to the goals. And we successfully turned footy into a rolling union scrum.