The worst football in a generation

[greatwhiteshark]

I know I am biased, but I’ve seen some horrid decisions go against Melbourne. I’ve seen Rioli duck his head into Jones one week in front of goal and get the free. Jones has his arms up in the air.

I think last year against St Kilda at the G Salem was chasing someone, tackled him nicely, they both fell on the side and Salem got given against for push in the back.

It’s just comical now.

I think they have got it wrong with the high contact rule, I believe the bloke with the ball should be able to do whatever he pleases other than duck his head. The onus should be on the tackler and it no longer is, the bloke with the ball is now deemed to be the issue.
If they paid the free kicks for all high contact other than a player ducking his head which they did forever then the onus would shift back to the coaches and tacklers to change instead of a rule to make it easier for them and to also reward the weak tacklers.

 

[mxett]

My point is that what Hawthorn we’re doing wasn’t unattractive. They maintained possession and worked it around until they could get an advantage. It’s better than watching teams just dump kick it to a 2-1 and turn it over.

I suppose it depends on whether you like a 'keepings off' style of game where there are barely any contests or scores. If the most interesting thing about a game is how well a side can short pass and hit up a lead the game really is in trouble

 

[demondavey]

Uncontested possession is double or triple what it was 20-30 years ago, players cannot kick on their wrong foot.
I agree that contested possession is under extreme pressure and far greater than it ever was,but half the game is uncontested and players can’t hit a target as professionals.

Did you hear Nick Dal Santo on SEN a few weeks ago? He was special comments for the Sydney v Melbourne game and said he was close to leaving at half time the skills were that bad.

He put it down to this intense focus on tackling and pressure at junior level, particularly TAC Cup. Less focus on the skill levels per say, but the athletic components and just pressure.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Did you hear Nick Dal Santo on SEN a few weeks ago? He was special comments for the Sydney v Melbourne game and said he was close to leaving at half time the skills were that bad.

He put it down to this intense focus on tackling and pressure at junior level, particularly TAC Cup. Less focus on the skill levels per say, but the athletic components and just pressure.

Don’t listen to SEN much over here in a Perth but he is right. I coached for a long time at senior level and skills seem to be worse from year to year, the intensity and appetite for hard running and pressure was much better year to year though.
Senior level coaches should not have to be teaching skills.

 

[Topkent]

Kidding yourself. With the increases in fitness there is a much more significant pressure from the opposition on disposal these days. Granted they don't have to worry about being king hit behind the play anymore generally but the amount of time they have to dispose of the ball is far less than what it used to be. Set shots are an issue for anybody when you've run upwards of 10km a game as well.

So the increased pressure means skills are now worse than ever. Game set match.

 

[Topkent]

My point is that what Hawthorn we’re doing wasn’t unattractive. They maintained possession and worked it around until they could get an advantage. It’s better than watching teams just dump kick it to a 2-1 and turn it over.

What Hawthorn was going was unattractive, but so were 15 other teams

 

[mxett]

I never thought I'd be agreeing with a traditionalist, but here I am.

Enough of the tinkering, it's failed to produce a more aesthetically pleasing spectacle. In fact it's probably harmed the sports appeal.

Just let the game and tactics progress naturally. I would rather as close to the pre-Gil and maybe even pre-Vlad rules as possible. Easy 100m penalties and zones which prevent coaches/young teams stopping momentum swings aren't that exciting. Firstly yes, I want my side to win, but the game feels like it's losing it's cohesion

the rule changes have had a very minor effect on the style of game we see today when compared to the coaches. They're the one's directing 36 players to stay within a kick of the ball all over the ground. The current or new rules have no way of stopping this farce. Either we accept the game as it is or introduce radical changes, because the coaches will never change this tactic while it continues to win games. They dont care if it's ugly, they want wins to retain their job.

 

[demondavey]

I suppose it depends on whether you like a 'keepings off' style of game where there are barely any contests or scores. If the most interesting thing about a game is how well a side can short pass and hit up a lead the game really is in trouble

Yes but Hawthorn have always been a keepings off team. They’d dominate uncontested football and weave it around until they could score.

This was clearly a plan against GWS though, keeping the ball away from their elite users is an important way in rolling them. The Giants also struggle with MCG space I think.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

the rule changes have had a very minor effect on the style of game we see today when compared to the coaches. They're the one's directing 36 players to stay within a kick of the ball all over the ground. The current or new rules have no way of stopping this farce. Either we accept the game as it is or introduce radical changes, because the coaches will never change this tactic while it continues to win games. They dont care if it's ugly, they want wins to retain their job.

Easy, return the rules to mid 90’s and just let the game be played. You either win or lose. That’s footy.

 

[demondavey]

Don’t listen to SEN much over here in a Perth but he is right. I coached for a long time at senior level and skills seem to be worse from year to year, the intensity and appetite for hard running and pressure was much better year to year though.
Senior level coaches should not have to be teaching skills.

Yep.

 

[HurleyHepsHird]

the rule changes have had a very minor effect on the style of game we see today when compared to the coaches. They're the one's directing 36 players to stay within a kick of the ball all over the ground. The current or new rules have no way of stopping this farce. Either we accept the game as it is or introduce radical changes, because the coaches will never change this tactic while it continues to win games. They dont care if it's ugly, they want wins to retain their job.

The coaches adapt to the rule changes.

Each successive rule change has led to a more congested, lower scoring game.

Sydney were naturally replaced by high scoring footy, but the AFL suddenly became unhappy about the number of rotations ( a trick Malthouse copied), thus we have had the gradual continuing cluster* we arrive at today. You can't force the coaches to not want win, you can stop the AFL from making dumb, unnecessary decisions.

 

[HurleyHepsHird]

Easy, return the rules to mid 90’s and just let the game be played. You either win or lose. That’s footy.

I'm good with this.

 

[mxett]

Easy, return the rules to mid 90’s and just let the game be played. You either win or lose. That’s footy.

that wont change the current congestion or defensive problems though. These tactics arent the result of rule changes, they're the result of tactics the rules cannot stop.

If that's what fans want, fair enough, but most people I know have pretty much had enough

 

[demondavey]

What Hawthorn was going was unattractive, but so were 15 other teams

I didn’t think it was that bad, I’d honestly rather see that than what we do and just slam it on the boot as soon as we get it. We’ve got some horrible hackers. Brayshaw can’t kick. Petracca was a top 2 pick yet literally holds the ball over his head for a ball drop of 3 foot.

 

[demondavey]

Easy, return the rules to mid 90’s and just let the game be played. You either win or lose. That’s footy.

Do we think the interchange is having much impact? I mean what if we radically cut back interchange rotations?

 

[mxett]

The coaches adapt to the rule changes.

Each successive rule change has led to a more congested, lower scoring game.

Sydney were naturally replaced by high scoring footy, but the AFL suddenly became unhappy about the number of rotations, thus we have had the gradual continuing cluster**** we arrive at today. You can't force the coaches to not want win, you can stop the AFL from making dumb, unnecessary decisions.

I completely disagree. The rule changes have not caused congestion, they've unsuccessfully attempted to stop it. The reason the AFL want to reduce rotations is because it allows players the endurance to run the ground all day, which results in congestion.

The AFL have attempted to address a massive issue of congestion with minor rule changes because people dont want changes. Small rule changes were never going to fix such a big issue. Now people are claiming the rule changes are the cause. FMD that's stupid

 

[HurleyHepsHird]

I completely disagree. The rule changes have not caused congestion, they've unsuccessfully attempted to stop it. The reason the AFL want to reduce rotations is because it allows players the endurance to run the ground all day, which results in congestion.

The AFL have attempted to address a massive issue of congestion with minor rule changes because people dont want changes. Small rule changes were never going to fix such a big issue. Now people are claiming the rule changes are the cause. FMD that's stupid

I don't think they have caused congestion, I think they have exacerbated it. Reducing rotations disincentivises running the ball, instead it's better to create congestion and use kicks from a contest to clear. Slow the game down, which has been born out by GPS numbers.

Just as they didn't cause low scoring this season, just made the trend worse. The removal of runners under most circumstances and penalty for kicking a point has encouraged more conservative ball movement, to protect young teams or against end to end goals from a kick in.

Read my actual post.

 

[Topkent]

I didn’t think it was that bad, I’d honestly rather see that than what we do and just slam it on the boot as soon as we get it. We’ve got some horrible hackers. Brayshaw can’t kick. Petracca was a top 2 pick yet literally holds the ball over his head for a ball drop of 3 foot.

As a neutral I was interested in that game for 3 minutes before i turned it off. Wouldn't blame anyone for doing the same on our game. The whole product is disgusting now

 

[demondavey]

As a neutral I was interested in that game for 3 minutes before i turned it off. Wouldn't blame anyone for doing the same on our game. The whole product is disgusting now

It’s at its lowest point. It’s almost like it has to go a full 180 to go back to a decent standard.

 

[mxett]

I don't think they have caused congestion, I think they have exacerbated it.

Just as they didn't cause low scoring this season, just made the trend worse.

Read my actual post.

the 6 6 6 rule hasnt made directly congestion worse, or lowered scores. Logic says the change should make scoring easier because the balance of forwards and defenders is more conducive to scoring. However, the coaches have reacted defensively to any move to make the game higher scoring. Don Pye openly admitted he is unhappy if forwards and defenders are in similar numbers because he believes he will be scored against too easily. So coaches have made even more defensive strategies to negate the effect and further limit scoring.

The current rules and rule changes just cannot keep up with the defensive strategies the coaches are introducing each year. Now they know defensive zoning and congestion wins games by limiting scoring they'll never change while the rules allow these strategies.

 

[HurleyHepsHird]

the 6 6 6 rule hasnt made directly congestion worse, or lowered scores. Logic says the change should make scoring easier because the balance of forwards and defenders is more conducive to scoring. However, the coaches have reacted defensively to any move to make the game higher scoring. Don Pye openly admitted he is unhappy if forwards and defenders are in similar numbers because he believes he will be scored against too easily. So coaches have made even more defensive strategies to negate the effect and further limit scoring.

The current rules and rule changes just cannot keep up with the defensive strategies the coaches are introducing each year. Now they know defensive zoning and congestion wins games by limiting scoring they'll never change while the rules allow these strategies.

Do you make a habit of strawmaning people?

You just cited the exact rule change I didn't mention.

As I said before, read my posts before replying. Also, if coaches have been reacting to rule changes by tightening their defence then you just proved me right. Thanks.

 

[mxett]

It’s at its lowest point. It’s almost like it has to go a full 180 to go back to a decent standard.

many fans are claiming poor player skill is the reason the game has become so ugly. However, this doesnt take into account the massive pressure effect that congestion and zones have on players disposal efficiency. Players have significantly less time to dispose of the ball, and when they look up forward for a target their teammates are outnumbered and surrounded by opposition players. Less time and less target options equals more turnovers. It's the very reason these tactics are so successful.

 

[mxett]

Do you make a habit of strawmaning people?

You just cited the exact rule change I didn't mention.

As I said before, read my posts before replying. Also, if coaches have been reacting to rule changes by tightening their defence then you just proved me right. Thanks.

I wasnt directly having a go at you, I was replying to you but speaking generally, so stop being so sensitive.

The fact coaches have reacted defensively doesn't mean the rule was wrong, it means the current set of rules still allow the coaches too much freedom, or do not provide enough incentive to balance defense and attack.

 

[demondavey]

As a neutral I was interested in that game for 3 minutes before i turned it off. Wouldn't blame anyone for doing the same on our game. The whole product is disgusting now

I started watching footy around 1997, so I was 12. Basically back then it was all about goals and getting it to a FF. Paddocks and paddocks of space for a big unit to lead out into. I really got into it right on the Lions triple premiership stage. I got it heaps more then. Lynch was the guy I thought was the best due to him being an absolute monster in size, could lead, mark and kick. Neitz the other one. Just smashed packs apart and gloved it.

Neitz and Lynch had virtually identical careers stats wise if you look them up. Both also turned forwards from defenders. I used to love watching Mal Michael and Rocca, or Leppitsch and Tredrea.

You’d see forwards back then waving campaigners out of the holes and spaces so they could lead into them! No zoning, just open the paddock and let the FF and FB go at it. They were real defenders back then, not these zone off types today. Leppitsch, Michael, Martyn, Wellman, Wallis. Scarlett was a bit of both but man was he unbeatable one on one.

Even Alistair Nicholson was a better one on one defender than Rance FFS.

 

[demondavey]

many fans are claiming poor player skill is the reason the game has become so ugly. However, this doesnt take into account the massive pressure effect that congestion and zones have on players disposal efficiency. Players have significantly less time to dispose of the ball, and when they look up forward for a target their teammates are outnumbered and surrounded by opposition players. Less time and less target options equals more turnovers. It's the very reason these tactics are so successful.

I am not saying it has no impact. The 6-6-6 is just a gimmick. What does it actually do? Confines player to an area briefly before the congestion starts.

Let’s reduce interchanges drastically so the fatigue factor is increased.