What unpopular AFL opinions do you have? (Part 1 - cont in Part 2)

[Colonial]

View attachment 326517

Reading not to good eh?

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

 

[Colonial]

YOUR LOCATION DOES NOT MATTER ONE BIT!
If you play in front of 1 or 1000000 people the game is the same.
So in summary what you're saying is that players play worse in non-footy states?

What a joke.

Port were given that for ONE DRAFT. Not like 5 or whatever you guys got.
Which you're still reaping the benefits of by continuously trading your surplus young talent for more first round picks.

Yeah of course not, location of a start up club makes no difference [emoji57]

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

 

[Colonial]

Lol you still can't keep up... The proof was to do with you stupidly not understanding a meme, abe

Your second paragraph doesn't even appear to be a fully formed argument, seems to be a section missing for it to make sense.

Kept up plenty.

Makes perfect sense. Obviously, youngen, your not as quick as you think you are.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

 

[DemonTim]

Kept up plenty.

Makes perfect sense. Obviously, youngen, your not as quick as you think you are.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Except you haven't you still require things explained to you

And no, no it doesn't. Its not arguing any point. I assume you're missing something along the lines of "we still deserve it" or perhaps the last section should have started with "then it doesn't matter if" or you could've excluded it and just had "then we are lucky enough..."

 

[Teeko]

Thats the thing though, every single club has youngsters they can tout like that.

From an outsiders perspective you just look daft making huge predictions about your youngsters before they've done anything. Every club's supporters do it.

Upside is significant, yes, but it is also with many other teams. Could probably make a case for 13-14 teams being 'better' than last season.

I think it was obvious the person making huge claims about our youth wasn't that serious. I think most Essendon supporters are very excited about our list, but aren't talking premierships just yet. I even said myself that many of our youth have a long way to go.

And of course you can put a positive spin on a list assessment with any team, and find reasons why they will improve. I just think the Bombers have a plethora of valid reasons why they might improve from 2015, and I highlighted them.

 

[chrisdon16]

This discussion has all of a sudden got me pumped for the new season

 

[NeXus Nick]

My un-popular AFL opinion is the following........
For the good of the competition Melbourne and Western Bulldogs should merge to form the Melbourne Bulldogs. Then the AFL could immediately bring in Tasmania. This would then make the competition truly national and it would also save the AFL millions of wasted dollars.

 

[Hoooops]

I'm going to get crucified for this but here it is anyway:

I liked the sub rule.

It meant that if one team lost a player to injury, they could sub them off without losing an active spot on the interchange bench, hence giving the opposition team less of an advantage.

Without it, one team can be reduced to three fit players on the interchange bench while the other still has four who can be rotated freely.

Don't understand why people were so heavily opposed to it, I was sad to see it go. Injuries now have a bigger impact on results, when they don't need to.

 

[Decimation]

I'm going to get crucified for this but here it is anyway:

I liked the sub rule.

It meant that if one team lost a player to injury, they could sub them off without losing an active spot on the interchange bench, hence giving the opposition team less of an advantage.

Without it, one team can be reduced to three fit players on the interchange bench while the other still has four who can be rotated freely.

Don't understand why people were so heavily opposed to it, I was sad to see it go. Injuries now have a bigger impact on results, when they don't need to.

Because it destroys my dreamteam

 

[Clems Knee]

I'm going to get crucified for this but here it is anyway:

I liked the sub rule.

It meant that if one team lost a player to injury, they could sub them off without losing an active spot on the interchange bench, hence giving the opposition team less of an advantage.

Without it, one team can be reduced to three fit players on the interchange bench while the other still has four who can be rotated freely.

Don't understand why people were so heavily opposed to it, I was sad to see it go. Injuries now have a bigger impact on results, when they don't need to.

With the interchange cap, the advantage of a 4 man bench over a 3 man bench isn't as great, because they can't be rotated freely. So the interchange cap has removed the pressing need for the substitute rule.

 

[Bokonon_]

What about the fact that they would've lost the first final if the AFL didnt give them a 'concession' of playing at a neutral ground!

Thats just a lie. We won by plenty anyway,

 

[Hoooops]

With the interchange cap, the advantage of a 4 man bench over a 3 man bench isn't as great, because they can't be rotated freely. So the interchange cap has removed the pressing need for the substitute rule.

It's not as effective but yeah it's helped a bit.

 

[Bojan KantKick]

My un-popular AFL opinion is the following........
For the good of the competition Melbourne and Western Bulldogs should merge to form the Melbourne Bulldogs. Then the AFL could immediately bring in Tasmania. This would then make the competition truly national and it would also save the AFL millions of wasted dollars.

Tassie Saints sounds better imo.

 

[DangerSloane]

Yeah of course not, location of a start up club makes no difference [emoji57]

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

To on field performance, correct.

 

[DangerSloane]

Kept up plenty.

Makes perfect sense. Obviously, youngen, your not as quick as you think you are.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Maybe dont try to insult someones intelligence while using the wrong your/you're.

Just a tip for future, you end up looking like a giant potato.

 

[DangerSloane]

Thats just a lie. We won by plenty anyway,

And at the SCG you probably wouldnt have won...

The AFL changed the rules to allow you to play at a neutral venue.

The giants/suns have had far more concessions than any other side ever...and its not even close.

 

[DangerSloane]

I'm going to get crucified for this but here it is anyway:

I liked the sub rule.

It meant that if one team lost a player to injury, they could sub them off without losing an active spot on the interchange bench, hence giving the opposition team less of an advantage.

Without it, one team can be reduced to three fit players on the interchange bench while the other still has four who can be rotated freely.

Don't understand why people were so heavily opposed to it, I was sad to see it go. Injuries now have a bigger impact on results, when they don't need to.

I think it was a crap spectacle, and coaches werent using it correctly.
It was more used to inject fresh legs nearing 3/4 time.

Even with the sub rule, teams that had to use their sub early to replace an injury were still disadvantaged according to the statistics.

I just dont think it achieved what it was supposed to.

 

[Bokonon_]

And at the SCG you probably wouldnt have won...

The AFL changed the rules to allow you to play at a neutral venue.

The giants/suns have had far more concessions than any other side ever...and its not even close.

Rubbish, better not to post you fantasies on BF, particularly not on the main board.

Sent from my SM-N920I using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[00Stinger]

My un-popular AFL opinion is the following........
For the good of the competition Melbourne and Western Bulldogs should merge to form the Melbourne Bulldogs. Then the AFL could immediately bring in Tasmania. This would then make the competition truly national and it would also save the AFL millions of wasted dollars.

Demographically wouldnt it make more sense for North Melbourne and the Bulldogs to merge?

Sent from my SM-G925I using Tapatalk

 

[NeXus Nick]

Demographically wouldnt it make more sense for North Melbourne and the Bulldogs to merge?

Sent from my SM-G925I using Tapatalk

Maybe, but North have shown they are more viable than Melbourne over the last 35 years or so.

 

[00Stinger]

Maybe, but North have shown they are more viable than Melbourne over the last 35 years or so.

Really? I would say they are clearly the least viable team followed by St Kilda, Bulldogs & Melbourne.

Sent from my SM-G925I using Tapatalk

 

[Gavin Excell]

Shock view - i don't mind Hawthorn

 

[Cynic]

Shock view - i don't mind Hawthorn

It's going to be less unpopular in the next few years sadly

 

[Saint]

I'm going to get crucified for this but here it is anyway:

I liked the sub rule.

It meant that if one team lost a player to injury, they could sub them off without losing an active spot on the interchange bench, hence giving the opposition team less of an advantage.

Without it, one team can be reduced to three fit players on the interchange bench while the other still has four who can be rotated freely.

Don't understand why people were so heavily opposed to it, I was sad to see it go. Injuries now have a bigger impact on results, when they don't need to.

I can see the benefits of it, but it meant if you got more than one injury it was a real problem when the opposition injected fresh legs towards the end of the game. Plus almost every sub was a smaller player and when ruckmen or key position players went down, the same problem was encountered by teams.

With midfields made up of 8-10 rotating players, adding one more into the mix later in the game wasn't really that important.

I think my unpopular opinion is that losing just one rotation through the midfield is not that important, some teams have less players rotating through anyway. I think the whole rotations thing is a bit of a myth that the club with more rotations would have fresher legs. I think confident winning teams rotate more while worse teams rotate less (have less decent players to rotate) so the statistics would skew to look as if more rotations equalled more success, when it was the other way around.

When Hawthorn were 10 goals up they could afford to rotate Sam Mitchell and Luke Hodge off the ground. When Essendon are 2 goals behind, they're hardly going to rotate off Watson (in his prime years) for a first or second year player very often.

 

[DangerSloane]

Rubbish, better not to post you fantasies on BF, particularly not on the main board.

Sent from my SM-N920I using BigFooty.com mobile app

Its the unpopular opinions thread ya drongo.

Although the fact that you would've lost at the SCG probably isnt that unpopular.