Analysis The Clarkson Rebuild Model - A Reason For Optimism

[Brant]

A lot of people seem to struggle with why Frawley, who has played more bad games than good this year, is picked ahead of Brand. I think part of this anxiety over Brand's absence stems from the dark years from 2009-2012 where the best KPP we had was a young shoey and we had become accustomed to KPF taking contested marks against us. I think this causes us to take a little blind eye to Brand's short comings because 'at least we don't feel like we did back in the dark days of no KPDs'.

However, I have put together a series of graphs which I hope visualises the decision Clarko is making by choosing Frawley over Brand.

View attachment 499409
The figure above represents a quick and dirty microeconomic analysis of Clarko's preference for Frawley over Brand. The x axis is zone defending and the y axis is one v one defending. The red line shows that Brand is a 10 for one v one defending but only a 4 for zone defending. The green line shows that Frawley is only a 4 for one v one defending and an 8 for zone defending. Based on the area under the red line and the green line (20 for Brand, 16 for Frawley), Brand is represented as the superior player over all (in microeconomics these lines represent budget lines so we can view them as potential output...I did mention this was quick and dirty!). IF the only criteria was overall defending ability, Brand would be playing ahead of Frawley. However, this ignores Clarko's preference. The blue represents Clarko's indifference curve or, in other words, Clarko prefers all points along that blue line equally. Clarko's happiness is maximised when the blue line is positioned as far right and as high as it can (but it has to touch one of the lines).

View attachment 499655
Now imagine that you can put that blue line anywhere on the chart however it still must be touching either the green line or the red line. If you move the blue line down and to the left so it is touching Brand's line (see the purple line), you can find a way for Clarko's indifference curve to touch Brand's line, however, the purple line would make Clarko less happy than than the blue. The key to this is the rate at which Clarko will trade out one v one defence for zone defence.

View attachment 499653
In this figure I have increased Brand's one v one defence to 21 in order for it to touch Clarko's indifference curve. Clarko would be equally happy to play Brand or Frawley in this situation as both the red and the green line touch the same indifference curve and Clarko is equally happy with all points along the blue line. However, we had to more than double Brand's one v one defence so that he is now more than 5 times better in one v one and the area under his line is now 42 compared to Frawley who is still 16. So Clarko is equally happy with either player even though on potential, as described in this figure, Brand is roughly a 2.5 times better player! I don't think Brand is that much better than Frawley but even if he was exactly 5 times better (score of 20) than Frawley at one v one defending, he still would not be picked ahead of Frawley as only a lower indifference curve will touch the red line and a lower indifference curve makes Clarko less happy than a higher indifference curve.

View attachment 499654
In this figure I return Brand's one v one defence to 10 but adjust his zone defence to 6.25. At this level Brand's line touches the Clarko's blue indifference curve again. In this case the red line touches at approximately 5 zone defence and 2 one v one defence. Contrast that with the previous graph in which the red line touches the blue line at approximately 2 zone defence and 12 one v one. Remember, all these combinations (including Frawley's point) make Clarko equally happy. In this case, the area under Brand's red line is 31.25 which is almost double Frawley's 16 however it only places them on EQUAL terms in Clarko's eyes. What it highlights is that you can be a lessor player but so long as you are good at what Clarko prefers more, it will be easier to get a game than if you are really good at less preferred skills and poorer at the most preferred skills (i.e. being good at zone defence makes it easier to get a game than being good at one v one defence).

I know what you are thinking, 'Bris', you could have just said that Clarko picks Frawley because he is better at zoning than Brand'. The thing is, I have said it and so have others but people just don't want to believe that Clarko is making a rational choice and instead believe he is just playing favourites. What I have tried to highlight (without going overboard) is that a perfectly rational person could pick Frawley ahead of Brand across a range of potential circumstances even where Brand is more than twice the player as Frawley because of where Frawley is strong compared to Brand and because of Clarko's strong preference for zone defence over one v one defence right up until the extreme right end of his indifference curve. The numbers I have used are not real, I have simply created a set of numbers that reflect what we are seeing on the team sheet every week. Choosing Frawley over Brand is what economists call a revealed preference. Clarko has never picked Brand ahead of Frawley except where Frawley is injured. If it helps you digest it, this is the kind of moneyball analysis which would cause a list manager to recruit the lessor player over the better player because he gives more of what the team needs for less. This analysis could potentially be used to explain a whole bunch of players big footy punters have labeled 'Clarko's favourites' but I'm not going to attempt to analyse anyone else. Use you imaginations

I'd suggest Mira playing this week is a way of offsetting the lose of Frawley to the structure - and I mean both his physical presence and his voice at directing players around him to be in the right spot at the right time (Brand, I'm looking at you). Anyway, I have glossed over a lot of assumptions built into the model above but I hope I have provided enough of an insight to understand why Brand plays at Box Hill and Frawley plays for Hawthorn. If Brand does get good enough at zone defence (or whatever it is that Clarko judges these players on) then he will get games and in time I'd hope he would become a better player.

Too much colour. I think it adds bias.

Can you do the same but in black & white?

 

[Brishawk]

Too much colour. I think it adds bias.

Can you do the same but in black & white?

Just change your display settings

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

I have thought similar this week when I saw that Mirra was listed that we were utilising him as a secondary support in Frawley's absence, but the data explains that a little better.

 

[Brishawk]

I think we would all agree that football this season hasn't been the great spectacle that we grew up watching. I spent some time examining the data tonight to see what trends have emerged in recent years to make the game more s**t fight than anything else. Some figures include an indicator of the premier. For 2018 I have used league leaders West Coast to make things simple.

Trends:
1. Less Goals Per Game

As you can see, there has been a steady decline in goals per game (per side). This trend is the same for premiers and the rest of the comp although premiers still tend to be higher scorers than the league average.

2. Less Marks Inside 50

You can see that there has been a steady decline in marks inside 50 since 2006 which correlates with a decline in goals scored. It makes a lot of sense and is likely the direct cause however there is more to the story.

3. Tackles are Up

Yep, its pretty hard to kick the ball to a team mate inside fifty when a 90 kg power house is smashing you in a tackle.

4. More Stoppages

Stoppages actually reduced from 2002 through to 2006. My thoughts here are that the increased use of the flood (sending numbers into defensive fifty) so the transition between the arcs was increasingly open and football was still being played reasonably direct towards goal. Post 2006 an increasing use of various forms of the press created more congestion and more stoppages.

5. Inside 50s Roughly Constant

The number of inside 50s has remained relatively constant over time. There may be a slight increase in recent years but it isn't much in it.

6. Scores Per Inside 50 is Decreasing

As you can see, generally the premier is among the top few in efficiency going inside 50 but the league as a whole is finding it hard to score due to the improvement in the defensive side of the game.

7. 2001-2008 Increasing Efficiency Inside 50

Sides got better and better at creating improved scoring opportunities inside 50 with the peak in recent history coming in 2008 with the Hawks being the most efficient team in the period by a long way over teams in the same year. You can thank Clarko's Cluster for that as we turned the ball over in the midfield and were able to return the ball back inside 50 to Buddy and Roughy.

8. The Downside...

Coaches like Ross 'The Genius' Lyon took the beautiful Cluster and turned it into a press and a rolling scrum that sat around the ball at all times. This extreme focus on defensive structures has made it harder and harder to score despite the same number of inside fifties being conceded.

9. The Problem in 2018

Generally under Clarkson we have been very efficient going inside fifty relative to the rest of the comp. This year however....we are bottom three. Clearly this is a large indication that we are either not turning the ball over high enough up the field or lack the quality ball users that set us apart in our peak. Got to find a way to create more scoring shots for all our effort. If we do, we could still be a threat for the flag but based on these figures its hard to see it happening.

I have more to say and a graph or two to add to this but its late and I have an early morning run tomorrow. Ponder this until I can get back online and finish this off

 

[Brishawk]

PART2

To summarise above, the league has moved fairly consistently and quickly in the same direction. Even in our peak, Hawthorn may have been the most efficient team but not so much that we were an outlier (2008 possibly excluded). Essentially, defences has progressively focused on congesting the play as evidenced by increased tackles and stoppages. The impact has been less scores per inside 50 and, consequently, less goals per game. But what is the fundamental mechanism at play? I give you disposal efficiency.

10. Disposal Efficiency is on the Decline (Yes, even in our three-pete years it was lower than the past!)

That graph represents about a net 8% decrease in disposal efficiency since 2001. A good reason why less goals are kicked and less marks inside 50...its just harder to hit a target (I believe players are more skilful now than in the past).

11. Hawthorn the Best of a Bad Bunch

A hallmark of all Hawthorn sides under Clarkson since 2006 is that we are generally at the top of the disposal efficiency distribution regardless of the overall downward trend (with the exception of 2009 and 2010 when we were rubbish and had a stack of injuries). Quite a testament to our recruiting, quality of coaching, strategic approach to football and just general awesomeness. So How have we stayed at the top all this time, even when we haven't been as good?

12. Contested Possessions on the Rise

As we can see, contested possessions have increased more or less in line with tackles and clearances, again supporting the idea that increasing congestion has changed the game.

13. Ratio of Contested Possessions to Disposals Has Three Phases

2001 to 2005 the ratio of contests to overall disposals was roughly the same as it was now however, as we saw in figure 12, the number of contested possessions was less which means the overall number of of possessions was less. IT was a very watchable period of footy where direct footy to leading CHFs like Tredrea and Brown produced open fields and goals. From 2006 to 2009 teams attempted to use uncontested footy to reduce the impact of the flood employed by teams like Sydney through that period. But as the number of contested possessions increased through 2010 to its current level, the ratio of contested possessions to overall disposals increased again only now teams were still using a lot of uncontested possessions to keep the football and be more strategic in the contests they chose to kick to given typically you are always outnumbered ahead of the ball.

As you have probably already noticed, Hawthorn feature at the bottom of the distribution in almost every season under Clarkson. Clearly his coaching philosophy is to establish a game plan that enables uncontested use of the football but we haven't been as effective in that regard in 2018. The question is, is this fixable in this season or will we need to wait another year to see change? I'd hazard a guess that last year we would not have been sitting in the same position that we finished. Changes can be made but will Clarko pull the trigger or is he playing the long game? More and more this side has looked more like 2010 than 2011 or 2012 so even if changes occur, we may be left a little short while we wait for certain players to mature and for others to join the club.

 

[TheFourPillars]

Brishawk you out do yourself mate on this

 

[Brishawk]

A few interesting observations.

1. In 2006, the afl began attempts to change rules in order to speed up the game and reduce stoppages (eg not having to wait for the flags to be waived to kick the ball in after a behind). If you cast your eye to figure you will see that stoppages rose dramatically after the 2006 season. Ironically, stoppages were alreading trending down prior to 2006.
2. A cynical hypothesis would be that coaches have sort to slow the game down because of the risks posed by the AFLs rule changes. For example, the increased severity of the holding the ball potentially disencentivises positional play because you can’t dive on the footy to cause a ball up when you are isolated or else give up a free kick. In order to avoid the free kick, coaches throw numbers around the ball to avoid players getting isolated. The quick kick in encourages zone defence from a kick in because it gives no time to find a direct opponent so teams are coached to guard space even before the shot for goal is taken. More severe interpretation of rules that punish players for putting the ball out of bounds again reduces options for the players and combined with holding the ball rules Makes it harder to clear the ball from defence which allows defenders to occupy the corridor knowing they are a chance to win the ball back through a free kick of the opposition kicks a long clearing kick towards the boundary.
3. Interchange rules seem to have no effect on the way the game is played when viewed through these stats. Probably need to reduce it down to half of the current level to return the game to an early 2000s style of footy.

 

[tommyk72]

Brishawk you out do yourself mate on this

Here here. Amazing Brishawk. A real pleasure to read.

 

[badgrill]

You need to get this to that State of the Game committee, Brishawk.

 

[thejockey]

A few interesting observations.

1. In 2006, the afl began attempts to change rules in order to speed up the game and reduce stoppages (eg not having to wait for the flags to be waived to kick the ball in after a behind). If you cast your eye to figure you will see that stoppages rose dramatically after the 2006 season. Ironically, stoppages were alreading trending down prior to 2006.
2. A cynical hypothesis would be that coaches have sort to slow the game down because of the risks posed by the AFLs rule changes. For example, the increased severity of the holding the ball potentially disencentivises positional play because you can’t dive on the footy to cause a ball up when you are isolated or else give up a free kick. In order to avoid the free kick, coaches throw numbers around the ball to avoid players getting isolated. The quick kick in encourages zone defence from a kick in because it gives no time to find a direct opponent so teams are coached to guard space even before the shot for goal is taken. More severe interpretation of rules that punish players for putting the ball out of bounds again reduces options for the players and combined with holding the ball rules Makes it harder to clear the ball from defence which allows defenders to occupy the corridor knowing they are a chance to win the ball back through a free kick of the opposition kicks a long clearing kick towards the boundary.
3. Interchange rules seem to have no effect on the way the game is played when viewed through these stats. Probably need to reduce it down to half of the current level to return the game to an early 2000s style of footy.

Great read , brilliant work . Thanks for that .
You should even send that into the AFL

 

[Argy]

A few interesting observations.

1. In 2006, the afl began attempts to change rules in order to speed up the game and reduce stoppages (eg not having to wait for the flags to be waived to kick the ball in after a behind). If you cast your eye to figure you will see that stoppages rose dramatically after the 2006 season. Ironically, stoppages were alreading trending down prior to 2006.
2. A cynical hypothesis would be that coaches have sort to slow the game down because of the risks posed by the AFLs rule changes. For example, the increased severity of the holding the ball potentially disencentivises positional play because you can’t dive on the footy to cause a ball up when you are isolated or else give up a free kick. In order to avoid the free kick, coaches throw numbers around the ball to avoid players getting isolated. The quick kick in encourages zone defence from a kick in because it gives no time to find a direct opponent so teams are coached to guard space even before the shot for goal is taken. More severe interpretation of rules that punish players for putting the ball out of bounds again reduces options for the players and combined with holding the ball rules Makes it harder to clear the ball from defence which allows defenders to occupy the corridor knowing they are a chance to win the ball back through a free kick of the opposition kicks a long clearing kick towards the boundary.
3. Interchange rules seem to have no effect on the way the game is played when viewed through these stats. Probably need to reduce it down to half of the current level to return the game to an early 2000s style of footy.

F'ing brilliant.

Many of the rule changes, like out of bounds, have the effect of limiting the options the players have to dispose the ball. This makes the game more predictable and easier to defend, resulting in more scrums and less spread.

The deliberate point rule also adds to the congestion. It encourages numbers of defenders around the ball. Much better to allow the point and reset the game.

 

[Argy]

A few interesting observations.

1. In 2006, the afl began attempts to change rules in order to speed up the game and reduce stoppages (eg not having to wait for the flags to be waived to kick the ball in after a behind). If you cast your eye to figure you will see that stoppages rose dramatically after the 2006 season. Ironically, stoppages were alreading trending down prior to 2006.
2. A cynical hypothesis would be that coaches have sort to slow the game down because of the risks posed by the AFLs rule changes. For example, the increased severity of the holding the ball potentially disencentivises positional play because you can’t dive on the footy to cause a ball up when you are isolated or else give up a free kick. In order to avoid the free kick, coaches throw numbers around the ball to avoid players getting isolated. The quick kick in encourages zone defence from a kick in because it gives no time to find a direct opponent so teams are coached to guard space even before the shot for goal is taken. More severe interpretation of rules that punish players for putting the ball out of bounds again reduces options for the players and combined with holding the ball rules Makes it harder to clear the ball from defence which allows defenders to occupy the corridor knowing they are a chance to win the ball back through a free kick of the opposition kicks a long clearing kick towards the boundary.
3. Interchange rules seem to have no effect on the way the game is played when viewed through these stats. Probably need to reduce it down to half of the current level to return the game to an early 2000s style of footy.

You need to post your stats on the main board (if you haven't already) and take it to the rules committee,

 

[Pessimistic]

Brishawk. Great stuff.

I was wondering about your cool interpretation of the effects of interchanges. I note that proponents of drastic reduction in the cap dont seem keen to tlk indicators, particularly as we have had a cap of sorts for a season and a half now.

We know interchanges peaked about 2010-11 and the style seemed to be forward half pressure at that time. I deresay a lot of current complainers would prefer footy from that era now.

I am critical of people proposing a cap reduction, not that I am convinced they are wrong, but that they wont engage in practical discussion or analytics.

It seems to be 1. Reduce interchange or remove it altogether >>>>>> 2. A miracle happens >>>>>> 3. Coaches adopt positional play of the 80s-90s

 

[Davo23]

Brishawk. Great stuff.

I was wondering about your cool interpretation of the effects of interchanges. I note that proponents of drastic reduction in the cap dont seem keen to tlk indicators, particularly as we have had a cap of sorts for a season and a half now.

We know interchanges peaked about 2010-11 and the style seemed to be forward half pressure at that time. I deresay a lot of current complainers would prefer footy from that era now.

I am critical of people proposing a cap reduction, not that I am convinced they are wrong, but that they wont engage in practical discussion or analytics.

It seems to be 1. Reduce interchange or remove it altogether >>>>>> 2. A miracle happens >>>>>> 3. Coaches adopt positional play of the 80s-90s

There are people in the media like Bartlett saying that fewer interchanges open up the game, but I don't see it.

Haven't the interchange reductions helped to escalate the current problem of congested footy?
My feeling is that fewer rests for players means more fatigue - players can't run as fast or as far: therefore more congestion.

 

[Hawk Dork]

If you are allowed to shuffle the ball forward with throws,illegal disposals and drops when tackled and there are lots of unpaid tackles that just add to the congestion and when it stops moving the umpire calls a ball up this draws everyone in a group again .
No third man up means the clearance isnt going to get out of the congestion quickly either.
Rinse and repeat.

 

[Brishawk]

There are people in the media like Bartlett saying that fewer interchanges open up the game, but I don't see it.

Haven't the interchange reductions helped to escalate the current problem of congested footy?
My feeling is that fewer rests for players means more fatigue - players can't run as fast or as far: therefore more congestion.

The current interchange rules have made essentially no difference. The jump in congestion etc started even befor the sub rule came in and none of it has made any observable change in the stats above. 10-15 years ago teams were using about 40-50 interchanges per game which is why I suggested halving the current level (90) would probably be needed to make an impact in terms of opening the game up.

 

[Brishawk]

If you are allowed to shuffle the ball forward with throws,illegal disposals and drops when tackled and there are lots of unpaid tackles that just add to the congestion and when it stops moving the umpire calls a ball up this draws everyone in a group again .
No third man up means the clearance isnt going to get out of the congestion quickly either.
Rinse and repeat.

If you punish drops and ‘throws’ more severely, you incentivse players waiting for others to take possession of the football and then tackle them. You don’t disincentivise congestion though. Because the only way you win those frees is to have high tackle counts and the only way you have high tackle counts is congestion.

 

[thejockey]

Gerard Whateley made an interesting point about state of game this morning
He says the game was heading this way in 2005 just the super Geelong and Hawthorn sides staved it off but predictably we were going to reach this point .

Not sure I totally agree but it’s an interesting perspective.

 

[thejockey]

There are people in the media like Bartlett saying that fewer interchanges open up the game, but I don't see it.

Haven't the interchange reductions helped to escalate the current problem of congested footy?
My feeling is that fewer rests for players means more fatigue - players can't run as fast or as far: therefore more congestion.

I think good teams would really benefit from it , more space and simple better skills under more fatigue.
Poor teams simple would be able to hold out like they could now

I think it would equally lead to a lot of large blow outs eg sides piling on 7-8 last quarter goals

 

[Bardo State]

A lot of people seem to struggle with why Frawley, who has played more bad games than good this year, is picked ahead of Brand. I think part of this anxiety over Brand's absence stems from the dark years from 2009-2012 where the best KPP we had was a young shoey and we had become accustomed to KPF taking contested marks against us. I think this causes us to take a little blind eye to Brand's short comings because 'at least we don't feel like we did back in the dark days of no KPDs'.

However, I have put together a series of graphs which I hope visualises the decision Clarko is making by choosing Frawley over Brand.

View attachment 499409
The figure above represents a quick and dirty microeconomic analysis of Clarko's preference for Frawley over Brand. The x axis is zone defending and the y axis is one v one defending. The red line shows that Brand is a 10 for one v one defending but only a 4 for zone defending. The green line shows that Frawley is only a 4 for one v one defending and an 8 for zone defending. Based on the area under the red line and the green line (20 for Brand, 16 for Frawley), Brand is represented as the superior player over all (in microeconomics these lines represent budget lines so we can view them as potential output...I did mention this was quick and dirty!). IF the only criteria was overall defending ability, Brand would be playing ahead of Frawley. However, this ignores Clarko's preference. The blue represents Clarko's indifference curve or, in other words, Clarko prefers all points along that blue line equally. Clarko's happiness is maximised when the blue line is positioned as far right and as high as it can (but it has to touch one of the lines).

View attachment 499655
Now imagine that you can put that blue line anywhere on the chart however it still must be touching either the green line or the red line. If you move the blue line down and to the left so it is touching Brand's line (see the purple line), you can find a way for Clarko's indifference curve to touch Brand's line, however, the purple line would make Clarko less happy than than the blue. The key to this is the rate at which Clarko will trade out one v one defence for zone defence.

View attachment 499653
In this figure I have increased Brand's one v one defence to 21 in order for it to touch Clarko's indifference curve. Clarko would be equally happy to play Brand or Frawley in this situation as both the red and the green line touch the same indifference curve and Clarko is equally happy with all points along the blue line. However, we had to more than double Brand's one v one defence so that he is now more than 5 times better in one v one and the area under his line is now 42 compared to Frawley who is still 16. So Clarko is equally happy with either player even though on potential, as described in this figure, Brand is roughly a 2.5 times better player! I don't think Brand is that much better than Frawley but even if he was exactly 5 times better (score of 20) than Frawley at one v one defending, he still would not be picked ahead of Frawley as only a lower indifference curve will touch the red line and a lower indifference curve makes Clarko less happy than a higher indifference curve.

View attachment 499654
In this figure I return Brand's one v one defence to 10 but adjust his zone defence to 6.25. At this level Brand's line touches the Clarko's blue indifference curve again. In this case the red line touches at approximately 5 zone defence and 2 one v one defence. Contrast that with the previous graph in which the red line touches the blue line at approximately 2 zone defence and 12 one v one. Remember, all these combinations (including Frawley's point) make Clarko equally happy. In this case, the area under Brand's red line is 31.25 which is almost double Frawley's 16 however it only places them on EQUAL terms in Clarko's eyes. What it highlights is that you can be a lessor player but so long as you are good at what Clarko prefers more, it will be easier to get a game than if you are really good at less preferred skills and poorer at the most preferred skills (i.e. being good at zone defence makes it easier to get a game than being good at one v one defence).

I know what you are thinking, 'Bris', you could have just said that Clarko picks Frawley because he is better at zoning than Brand'. The thing is, I have said it and so have others but people just don't want to believe that Clarko is making a rational choice and instead believe he is just playing favourites. What I have tried to highlight (without going overboard) is that a perfectly rational person could pick Frawley ahead of Brand across a range of potential circumstances even where Brand is more than twice the player as Frawley because of where Frawley is strong compared to Brand and because of Clarko's strong preference for zone defence over one v one defence right up until the extreme right end of his indifference curve. The numbers I have used are not real, I have simply created a set of numbers that reflect what we are seeing on the team sheet every week. Choosing Frawley over Brand is what economists call a revealed preference. Clarko has never picked Brand ahead of Frawley except where Frawley is injured. If it helps you digest it, this is the kind of moneyball analysis which would cause a list manager to recruit the lessor player over the better player because he gives more of what the team needs for less. This analysis could potentially be used to explain a whole bunch of players big footy punters have labeled 'Clarko's favourites' but I'm not going to attempt to analyse anyone else. Use you imaginations

I'd suggest Mira playing this week is a way of offsetting the lose of Frawley to the structure - and I mean both his physical presence and his voice at directing players around him to be in the right spot at the right time (Brand, I'm looking at you). Anyway, I have glossed over a lot of assumptions built into the model above but I hope I have provided enough of an insight to understand why Brand plays at Box Hill and Frawley plays for Hawthorn. If Brand does get good enough at zone defence (or whatever it is that Clarko judges these players on) then he will get games and in time I'd hope he would become a better player.

Well this isn't what I expected when I tried to procrastinate studying for my Micro exam

 

[Bardo State]

Brishawk

Just read the other posts mate. Brilliant analysis.

 

[Brishawk]

Gerard Whateley made an interesting point about state of game this morning
He says the game was heading this way in 2005 just the super Geelong and Hawthorn sides staved it off but predictably we were going to reach this point .

Not sure I totally agree but it’s an interesting perspective.

They probably have other data to work with but there was a dramatic change in tackles and stoppages that happened after 2006. I’d love to have all the match data for this period and I could potentially demonstrate the incentive for the change in the game. My hypothesis is that it has been driven from the bottom or the middle in order to compete with the best teams as opposed to being lead by premiers.

 

[Hawk Dork]

If you punish drops and ‘throws’ more severely, you incentivse players waiting for others to take possession of the football and then tackle them. You don’t disincentivise congestion though. Because the only way you win those frees is to have high tackle counts and the only way you have high tackle counts is congestion.

If you think your going to get tackled you kick the ball off the ground or smash it forward or quick handball.
Pay holding the man and it increases the risk to hunt the ball player.
Either way it will clear congestion

 

[Brishawk]

If you think your going to get tackled you kick the ball off the ground or smash it forward or quick handball.
Pay holding the man and it increases the risk to hunt the ball player.
Either way it will clear congestion

Teams are already setup for quick kicks forward. Any ball movement forward is essentially to a position where you are outnumbered which favours congesting the stoppages and winning it back when it is hacked forward. You are essentially advocating putting the ball winners under even more pressure which encourages more reckless disposal. What is the incentive for the defending team to put numbers forward of the ball if they can minimise the risk of a goal by putting numbers behind the ball and around the ball in order to encourage the rushed kick forward? Free kicks rose dramatically with congestion and it didn’t change a thing.

 

[Gralin]

Teams are already setup for quick kicks forward. Any ball movement forward is essentially to a position where you are outnumbered which favours congesting the stoppages and winning it back when it is hacked forward. You are essentially advocating putting the ball winners under even more pressure which encourages more reckless disposal. What is the incentive for the defending team to put numbers forward of the ball if they can minimise the risk of a goal by putting numbers behind the ball and around the ball in order to encourage the rushed kick forward? Free kicks rose dramatically with congestion and it didn’t change a thing.

Zones