6-6-6 - winners and losers

[Topkent]

That's just your personal opinion, I thought the footy was great. Even if you were correct, the standard of football did not stop the AFL from having a record attendance year.

Increased scoring does not necessarily result in a better game. Again the NBA had the exact same philosophy and yet it's now an inferior game than what it was even 2 seasons ago.

I never said increased scoring. Increased space for forwards to work in and increased space for midfielders as well. Don't care if that doesn't mean more scores necessarily but it will be better visually to watch.

Using crowd numbers as a metric doesn't make sense. Our population is much higher now than before, so crowds can go up without improving

 

[radiojake]

only managed to watch a replay of Adelaide v Port last night - didn't see any other JLT game

Small sample size obviously, but I think the one thing that stuck out was the ability for momentum swings

Port got out to an early 3 goal lead, which Adelaide had swung to it's own 3 goal lead by the 2nd quarter

With 10 mins left in the game Adelaide had a comfortable 6 goal lead and normally you'd shut up shop at that point, but Port got 4 goals in about 5 mins pretty much all from centre clearances and it was suddenly a 5 point game before Crows steadied very late

If the 6-6-6 increases the chances for centre clearance goals like that, I'm all for it

 

[Freomaniac]

I think it's a silly rule. The AFL is clearly going the way of the NBA in that more scoring = a better game. But we are seeing now in the NBA that's just not the case the game is just a shoot out with little to no defence.

Reducing defensive tactics will result in huge blow outs for lopsided matches. Some teams will get absolutely demolished this year due to this rule.

The NBA is an entire different beast altogether to be honest.

The AFL has followed the NBAs rules in Equalization such as draft picks and salary cap. They also followed other rules such as free agency too.

Back in the 1970s, the MVP which is their equivalent of the Brownlow medal, was won by the centre. Teams won NBA championships with a dominant centre or were measured by their dominant centre player.

The Last Centre to win an MVP was Shaquille O'Neal in 2000. Tim Duncan won the MVP as a power forward/centre in 2002 and 2003. All MVPs have been won by any position but the centre since.

Back in the 1970s and 1980s, NBA teams didn't shoot on the 3 point zone often. In the 1990s, 2000s and 2010s, teams took more shots on the 3 point line to be more attacking.

 

[Freomaniac]

The losers are the genuine half forward flanker that liked to position themselves off the the line of centre square or outside of the wing to be an attacking player.
The winners are the ones that just do not want to see overkill of negative team tactics of put extra players in your back half and flood the opposition forward line straight after a goal.
The winners are also the midfielders that like to run and burst clear from centre bounce clearance with the ball.
I guess on whole more pros than cons to it but frustrated we have to give up forward flankers that. genuinely playing positive football in regards to centre bounces.
Still believe they missed the obvious correction of previous mistakes from mid 90's about more interchanges that got used for things never intended for.

Still got hope they fix that big mistake in next four or five years but might be a slow burn that I would prefer.

would be interesting how a Jason Akermanis type winger/forward flanker would go?

Seems like this rule would benefit an inside mid with pace such as Dangerfield or Dustin Martin.

Greg Williams would of loved it. All that space/gap and time to hand pass to a 30m hand pass to a running mid

 

[radiojake]

Greg Williams would of loved it. All that space/gap and time to hand pass to a 30m hand pass to a running mid

possibly an argument to suggest that he did have all that space back then?

 

[Freomaniac]

possibly an argument to suggest that he did have all that space back then?

well when he played in his era, not many teams used defensive flood tactics.

 

[footyfan1978]

would be interesting how a Jason Akermanis type winger/forward flanker would go?

Would not really effect a type like him as he tended to play wing, forward pocket or inside the centre square at bounce set ups anyway. His type still can do all that.
No, my point was the one negative I saw from start is the genuine half forward flanker that liked to be able to get into the action from the line of centre square is no longer allowed to. It is not a large number of players but it is some. Basically it means, even if a coach wants to spread out his forward line, he is no longer allowed to have it as open as maybe he would like. He is forced to restrict every one of his 6 forwards inside the 50 metre arc. So if you were a half forward flanker that genuinely did your best work starting further out than 50 metre arc, you no longer allowed to do that. You have to now more or less wait for the midfielders to get ball to you where in past half forward flankers did not have to be restricted to be as passive after each goal. You could get in heat of action more before. So they have removed some negative things but in the process they also removed one good thing also.

 

[KermitJagger]

The losers are the umpires in my opinion. They're continually being asked to do more and more, and adjudicate more and more. It puts anyone who wants to perform the role of an umpire in a really tricky position, and will probably result in more iffy decisions deciding games.

 

[Topkent]

would be interesting how a Jason Akermanis type winger/forward flanker would go?

Seems like this rule would benefit an inside mid with pace such as Dangerfield or Dustin Martin.

Greg Williams would of loved it. All that space/gap and time to hand pass to a 30m hand pass to a running mid

Weird question
How old are you? That's how footy was played back then

 

[footyfan1978]

The losers are the umpires in my opinion. They're continually being asked to do more and more, and adjudicate more and more. It puts anyone who wants to perform the role of an umpire in a really tricky position, and will probably result in more iffy decisions deciding games.

You maybe right. Guess we just wait and see.

 

[Wackajack]

The NBA is an entire different beast altogether to be honest.

The AFL has followed the NBAs rules in Equalization such as draft picks and salary cap. They also followed other rules such as free agency too.

Back in the 1970s, the MVP which is their equivalent of the Brownlow medal, was won by the centre. Teams won NBA championships with a dominant centre or were measured by their dominant centre player.

The Last Centre to win an MVP was Shaquille O'Neal in 2000. Tim Duncan won the MVP as a power forward/centre in 2002 and 2003. All MVPs have been won by any position but the centre since.

Back in the 1970s and 1980s, NBA teams didn't shoot on the 3 point zone often. In the 1990s, 2000s and 2010s, teams took more shots on the 3 point line to be more attacking.

Sure it's a different sport, but the point was that they went the path of more scoring = better game. Which has not worked. They did it by reducing players/teams ability to defend the opposition. Now there is a growing demand for rules to bring back defenses.

All I'm saying is that more scoring does not equal a better game.

 

[Wackajack]

I never said increased scoring. Increased space for forwards to work in and increased space for midfielders as well. Don't care if that doesn't mean more scores necessarily but it will be better visually to watch.

Using crowd numbers as a metric doesn't make sense. Our population is much higher now than before, so crowds can go up without improving

The point of the rule ultimately is to increase scoring. The hold your ground rule or whatever its called was brought in for the same reason. To create more scoring.

I think attendance figures are a pretty good indication the product isn't the worst it's ever been

 

[Brutalitops]

well when he played in his era, not many teams used defensive flood tactics.

No teams used flood tactics back then. The first incident of flooding occurred in the 2000 season in the Bulldogs v Bombers game. Terry Wallace had the majority of his side line up on the defensive 50 metre arc at centre bounces. This would be the only game Essendon would lose for the year.

Then game plans started to change, most notably Sydney, where a very defensive style began and was later adopted by other teams. Some more so than others but the overall tone was that if you wanted to be successful you needed to be able to strangle the game. Geelong bucked the trend for a bit but their efforts didnt do much to sway the overwhelming mindset of coaches.

 

[Gavin Excell]

I think it's a silly rule. The AFL is clearly going the way of the NBA in that more scoring = a better game. But we are seeing now in the NBA that's just not the case the game is just a shoot out with little to no defence.

Reducing defensive tactics will result in huge blow outs for lopsided matches. Some teams will get absolutely demolished this year due to this rule.

Yeah but basketball is f...ng awful

 

[KeilorUnder9s]

Was it the U9’s at Kelior ?

Yes, Hird was coaching.

 

[threesixpio]

The return of the 100 goal forward?

Daniher might have a chance. He seems the most likely

 

[Macpotata]

This worlds about *en winners





and Losers man

 

[Marcel Proust]

Daniher might have a chance. He seems the most likely

Tom Lynch i reckon

 

[pazza]

The losers are the umpires in my opinion. They're continually being asked to do more and more, and adjudicate more and more. It puts anyone who wants to perform the role of an umpire in a really tricky position, and will probably result in more iffy decisions deciding games.

Maybe not.

With 6-6-6, the zone umpires will be able to see more holds and so on. The losers are defenders. There goes all the scragging and double/triple-teaming.

 

[amazingjoshy]

After watching us this weekend. We got spanked in the midfield by a good midfield in the Bulldogs.

However, we looked like we were trying to force stoppages from the centre bounce so we could flood the contest for the follow up bounce.

this is what will start to happen more and more a few weeks into the season imo

 

[Mr B]

I can see the West Coast forward line loving this, and it would suit NicNat beautifully if he ever played. Did I read somewhere that Hickey was good at taking the ball from ruck contests? I'm not sure that any club is going to enjoy defending, but our guys should do as well as any.

 

[threesixpio]

Tom Lynch i reckon

‘Twas an in joke

 

[BOMBERS 4 LIFE!!!!]

Not the right thread but Malcom Blight is absolutely right about the led interchange boards get rid of them and allow runners back on.

https://www.sen.com.au/news/2019/03/06/afl-interchange-boards-doomed-to-fail-says-blight/

 

[Muddiemoose]

Not the right thread but Malcom Blight is absolutely right about the led interchange boards get rid of them and allow runners back on.

https://www.sen.com.au/news/2019/03/06/afl-interchange-boards-doomed-to-fail-says-blight/

Yup just let the runners back on but give umps the ability to play 50m against if they are blocking space

I think it was a tactic gws were using during kick ins if I remember correct

 

[Freomaniac]

Weird question
How old are you? That's how footy was played back then

31, but thanks for asking

Sure it's a different sport, but the point was that they went the path of more scoring = better game. Which has not worked. They did it by reducing players/teams ability to defend the opposition. Now there is a growing demand for rules to bring back defenses.

All I'm saying is that more scoring does not equal a better game.

It really depends on who you are.

Lakers won championships from 2000-2 and they were high scoring games.

2003, 2004 and 2005 were low scoring finals series as in 2003, only 1 side scored 100 points to win in that 2003 finals series. In 2004 and 2005, not one side scored 100 points to win finals series.

This was around the time that San Antonio and Detroit were in the NBA finals, both teams were known as defensive and dour teams.

No teams used flood tactics back then. The first incident of flooding occurred in the 2000 season in the Bulldogs v Bombers game. Terry Wallace had the majority of his side line up on the defensive 50 metre arc at centre bounces. This would be the only game Essendon would lose for the year.

Then game plans started to change, most notably Sydney, where a very defensive style began and was later adopted by other teams. Some more so than others but the overall tone was that if you wanted to be successful you needed to be able to strangle the game. Geelong bucked the trend for a bit but their efforts didnt do much to sway the overwhelming mindset of coaches.

Ironic I am going to Bring up Kevin Sheedy about this....

Kevin Sheedy remember criticized teams who do flood tactics, he called it "basketball crap".

Sheedy was credited as being the 1st coach to put a forward flanker in defence as a 7th defender. Then in 1998 I watched a Carlton vs Essendon game in 1998. One team was leading and was chipping the ball around in the back 50 to drain time late in the game.

Bulldogs used flooding tactics to beat Essendon in 2000. Hawks used it in 2001 and it got them to a prelim.

People bag out swans for using it in 2005-6. Glad they won a flag. And it wasn't because I am a dockers supporter that dislike west coast. That swans team that was unfancied like other teams in the last 20 years.

It was like when a Defensive and dour Detroit beat a flamboyant, All out attacking, superstar packed LA Lakers in the 2004 NBA finals series.

Yeah but basketball is f...ng awful

that's your opinion.

Australian NBL is awful, but that's because the NBL is a much lower calibire of skills compare to the NBA.

Australian A-league is awful due to its low calibre of skills compared to the EPL.