Sheedy Calls For 16 Players Per Side

[LordLucifer]

https://www.canberratimes.com.au/sp...-s-time-to-try-16-a-side-20180530-p4ziig.html

After being elevated to HOF status, Kevin Sheedy is now recommending the number of players per team on the field be reduced to 16.

The rationale he is offering up is that it will help reduce congestion.

Here's a thought Kevin, if you had of kept your big trap shut instead of pushing & pushing for an increase in the number of players on the bench (2 up to 4) and the introduction of interchange that replaced the actual 'reserves', we may not be in this position now.

What a muppet !!

 

[Turnover]

Good for Carlton

 

[Benny78]

Hopefully no one listens to him

 

[LordLucifer]

Good for Carlton

Good for no-one actually.

Reduce the bench back to 2 instead taking 2 off the field.

 

[Turnover]

Less spuds on the field.

 

[JohnnyFontane90]

It absolutely will reduce congestion. The question we need to ask is does this change the game fundamentally? And I think it does.

But I also think it's the only reasonable way to reduce congestion. the idea of zones is ridiculous and reducing interchanges has proven to lower scoring. Paying more free kicks in stoppages seems to work until a side loses a final from a technical nothing free kick out of a stoppage.

 

[HTT]

Just speed up stoppages, and we need actual proper analysis of tactics on TV so people actually understand what’s happening. Guarantee you’ll enjoy it more if you can see things happening, rather than just rolling mauls.

 

[Isaac Cumming No 1]

Just speed up stoppages, and we need actual proper analysis of tactics on TV so people actually understand what’s happening. Guarantee you’ll enjoy it more if you can see things happening, rather than just rolling mauls.

Probably true. Neither side in any game is going to tell you what their doing though. You'd have to have the broadcaster employing genuine opposition analysts to read what's going on in detail.

Probably a good idea but it might also be dry and boring, it would be In real time with no chance to brighten it up.

 

[The_Eagles]

Anything but zones. The freedom and 360 nature is what makes AFL fun to play. A ball bobbling to stop right next to the 50 metre line with players standing there unable to cross to grab it would be the dumbest look ever

 

[Tarkyn_24]

Anything but zones. The freedom and 360 nature is what makes AFL fun to play. A ball bobbling to stop right next to the 50 metre line with players standing there unable to cross to grab it would be the dumbest look ever

I take it you haven’t watched our forward line across the last five years?

 

[spenze]

Anything but zones. The freedom and 360 nature is what makes AFL fun to play. A ball bobbling to stop right next to the 50 metre line with players standing there unable to cross to grab it would be the dumbest look ever

Yeah, I still think a player would cross the line to pick up the ball, they are footballers

 

[HTT]

Probably true. Neither side in any game is going to tell you what their doing though. You'd have to have the broadcaster employing genuine opposition analysts to read what's going on in detail.

Probably a good idea but it might also be dry and boring, it would be In real time with no chance to brighten it up.

Sometimes I see it on fox, just little snippets mid game, a bit of an insight into what they’re actually doing. I reckon that’s the go, as you say big chunks of that sort of stuff would be unwatchable, and defeat the purpose.

My hunch is that our media is full of completely lazy people, so I reckon with a bit of effort they could get together some good stuff. Rather than pointing at statistics, actually show us stuff. That is just a hunch though.
Obviously there’s specifics no sane coach would discuss, but I think there’s a lot of almost universal principles, especially around contests, that could be explained.
In an ideal world I’d love the ‘special comments’ guys to be sitting there analysing the tactics, even if it’s basic things like teams dropping a man a kick away from a stoppage because they’re getting smashed in clearances. I reckon that would be a more entertaining product than the current personality set up.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

If it was done I reckon nobody would even notice after a couple of weeks.

 

[LordLucifer]

Reduce the interchange back to two players and then assess what effect that has on congestion.

If that doesn't help, only then would you consider something else more drastic.

 

[Isaac Cumming No 1]

Sometimes I see it on fox, just little snippets mid game, a bit of an insight into what they’re actually doing. I reckon that’s the go, as you say big chunks of that sort of stuff would be unwatchable, and defeat the purpose.

My hunch is that our media is full of completely lazy people, so I reckon with a bit of effort they could get together some good stuff. Rather than pointing at statistics, actually show us stuff. That is just a hunch though.
Obviously there’s specifics no sane coach would discuss, but I think there’s a lot of almost universal principles, especially around contests, that could be explained.
In an ideal world I’d love the ‘special comments’ guys to be sitting there analysing the tactics, even if it’s basic things like teams dropping a man a kick away from a stoppage because they’re getting smashed in clearances. I reckon that would be a more entertaining product than the current personality set up.

Makes sense
I'm still trying to work out what was going on Sarurday night with the centre bounces. I'm used to a couple of guys on the wings and maybe one forward and one back of the square running to join the contest, and sometimes hanging off. We had two guys on each wing, two forward and two back Saturday night from each team. All going full pelt for the centre on the bounce of the ball. It seemed we did it and the Bombers reacted from the timing of the setup.
On the other hand our mids underperformed so maybe it was the Bombers disrupting us, I'd love someone to explain things like that.

 

[Farm Boy]

16 players a side is a good move.

 

[SherbertLemon]

I have a radical solution, let's leave the damn game alone for a season

 

[Gydafud]

Wouldn't it lead to the same amount of players around the ball, all trying to hack it to space so their fast players can run on to it?

 

[hoianbulldog]

Just speed up stoppages, and we need actual proper analysis of tactics on TV so people actually understand what’s happening. Guarantee you’ll enjoy it more if you can see things happening, rather than just rolling mauls.

Get rid of prior opportunity. Problem solved with the stoke of Gils *cough* pen.

 

[LordLucifer]

Get rid of prior opportunity. Problem solved with the stoke of Gils *cough* pen.

Always hated the "prior opportunity" rule, just reward a good tackle and the game will move on quickly.

 

[gillo94]

https://www.canberratimes.com.au/sp...-s-time-to-try-16-a-side-20180530-p4ziig.html

After being elevated to HOF status, Kevin Sheedy is now recommending the number of players per team on the field be reduced to 16.

The rationale he is offering up is that it will help reduce congestion.

Here's a thought Kevin, if you had of kept your big trap shut instead of pushing & pushing for an increase in the number of players on the bench (2 up to 4) and the introduction of interchange that replaced the actual 'reserves', we may not be in this position now.

What a muppet !!

Kevin Sheedy is full of s**t

 

[jesterwester]

I wouldn’t be against trialling the idea- in the preseason for the next couple of years.

It really can’t hurt- just to see how it looks. I don’t think it will necessarily work- I don’t think the number of players would change at the contest. I also think it would open a gap between the fitter sides with experienced bodies compared to the younger developing sides who just wouldn’t have the legs to run out the quarters.

17on field, 4 on bench + a concussion sub I would also be open to trialling in time. For mine that would be compromise to opening up the game but also allows for a solution should a player be removed due to a concussion.

 

[LordLucifer]

17on field, 4 on bench + a concussion sub I would also be open to trialling in time. For mine that would be compromise to opening up the game but also allows for a solution should a player be removed due to a concussion.

Constantly tinkering with the structure & rules of the game is the exact reason it is such a s**t spectacle right now.

Time to scale back some of the recent rule introductions, get rid of the Rules Committee as well. The game worked really well for over a century & only needed occasional minor adjustments to go with the improvements in training & skills etc.

 

[Nutsngum]

How is this going to reduce congestion? Its going to result in 4 less players sitting off the ball and even less emphasis on forwards sitting forward of the ball.

Ive honestly barely even noticed bad congestion this year anyway, feels like a solution looking for a problem.

 

[RudyBlue]

Wouldn't it lead to the same amount of players around the ball, all trying to hack it to space so their fast players can run on to it?

Yeah definitely.

This whole congestion issue comes down to the coaches. How do we incentivise coaches to open up the play? That's the question.

16 a side? Might open up things a little bit but I doubt the 'look' of the game will change dramatically.

Reduce the number of interchange players or the number of rotations per team? I just see a stronger push for athlete over footballer.

Zones? This is probably the strongest proposition but I really don't like the idea of turning our game into netball.