What I don't get about people who complain about "low scores" in AFL

[Catters 070911]

I have heard many in the media talk last year about the "crisis" in AFL of low scores. People flooded talkback and said that they were bored with AFL, because it is too defensive and there aren't enough goals kicked.

Peanuts like Gerard Whatley and Andy Maher were even talking about having a forum to discuss how to improve scoring in the game.

New rules were brought in, like 6-6-6, and other rules to increase scoring, yet we have the lowest scoring season for many years.

What I don't get is this.

People who follow AFL complain about the low scoring, and how it makes the game boring, yet many of the same people will watch soccer.

Hang on. Isn't soccer low-scoring? Aren't nil-all draws or 1-0 scorelines more common than not?

Yet soccer is one of the biggest sports globally and some call it the "beautiful game".

I don't hear soccer media complain about how to increase scoring. I don't hear talkback callers say that they won't watch soccer anymore because the scores are too low. I don't hear of forums on how to increase scoring, and FIFA don't change the rules to increase scoring.

So, what is the difference? Isn't it hypocritical to abandon one sport because of low-scoring, while following another who has the exact same problem?

Also, soccer don't see low scores as a problem.

So, who has it wrong? Is soccer wrong to not change scoring so that there are bigger scores, or is AFL wrong to worry about how low the scoring is in their game?

Fact is, I like high-scoring games, but some low scoring games can be good if there are other things that made the game good (such as the pressure, like in finals).

Also, making scores higher isn't the panacea many think it could be. I fear that increasing scoring might cause better teams to kick higher scores, but lower teams may still not be able to, and there could be more blowouts and one-sided games, and that wouldn't be interesting. Whereas low scores lends itself to closer contests, and both teams being in the game until the end.

So, is the AFL too obsessed with high scores, and why does it matter in AFL when it doesn't matter in world football?

 

[Sab22]

...you cannot compare soccer and footy. It's simply delusional, especially the scoring.

Soccer playing style and rules completely contrast footy.

 

[Viceregal]

Possibly the folk who watch and appreciate soccer are not the ones who have an issue with a tight fought game of Aussie Rules...

If I randomly check the score on a neutral game.and it is half way through the fourth I am not going to switch on to a 100-50 game but I might just for a 50-48 or a 100-98 etc. There is a reason they put up those last two minutes videos.

 

[CrowInFiji]

Vast majority of people are morons and think scoring = quality and then of course the opposite.

The root cause of this is that we haven't been allowed to breed out the intellectually disabled (those with an IQ lower than 125).

 

[Lsta062]

It’s the difference in spectacle. With soccer it makes sense why the scoring is less because of the skill required to get the ball in the net, to hit targets and to control the ball. The goal is also defended by a keeper. With good skills, you can still appreciate and enjoy a low-scoring soccer match because of the skill displayed.

With AFL it is much easier to get a goal to begin with. Secondly, the drop in goals over the past 2 years is the result of a drop in skill level in my opinion. When midfielders comparatively struggle to hit a target and forwards struggle to convert from simple angles and distances, then it becomes boring to watch.

So, it is not necessarily about the low scores to me. Some of the better games over the years usually feature scores of 60-80 points by both sides. The problem lies with the reason why there are low scores, which as I stated as my opinion earlier is due to the low skill level. I just don’t remember a year where there are so many teams that struggle to hit targets and kick straight forward goals like this.

 

[Vindicater]

Soccer and Football are completely different games.

I don't like soccer but I can understand why it is so huge.

The whole game can swing on a single moment (goal). I read somewhere once that in a study done of all major sports in the world, there is more upsets in soccer than any other sport.

 

[Macpotata]

As soon as I saw the thread title I knew the op was going to compare AFL to soccer.


Two completely different sports mate. Yes, they are captain obvious.

 

[Macpotata]

Let's compare footy to Cricket while we're at it

 

[spenze]

Do they score in soccer or are you talking about penalties after extra time, when they are forced to take a shot on goal?

 

[bzparkes]

AFL is only concerned about ad revenue on FTA.

 

[tony__montana]

I dont think it was the footy public driving the"footy is low scoring, we must do something about it" angle last year. That was very much media driven and used as the reasoning for a raft of rule changes. Now that the rules have been implemented and scores are even lower a lot of people are referencing it bc that was the very reason w***ers like Whankly and C.Scott were pushing their agenda.

 

[PerthBoy86]

Yeah low or high scoring doesn't necessarily mean a more exciting or interesting game. Like, a final scoreline of say, 65 to 62 probably means a more exciting game than 120 and 160. To me a game is like any story: there's a story arc of build-up, climax, resolution, and in the best games, the climax continues or finishes at the end. But it's also about the ups and downs, mini-plot lines, the general skill level. Now if it's low scoring because of tactics which are overly defensive, like flooding, then yeah, but I dunno, if it's within the rules of the game, I don't blame coaches/teams for using any tactic to win.

As for soccer, the fact you can't really have truly 'close' games, imo, makes it generally less exciting for me, unless it's a really big match. I can think of few moments as tense, exciting and suspenseful as two teams, even if neither are yours, battling out in the grand final to the death, scores less than a goal apart with minutes to go. To me soccer just doesn't have that. Even if one team is say, 1-0 up with 5 minutes to go, the likelihood of the other team scoring a late equalising goal is fairly low, let alone kicking 2 and pinching it. For me that makes it less suspenseful and engaging. I've always thought the scoring/difficulty of getting of goals is the perfect balance for a potentially exciting contest.

 

[GUMBLETRON]

Soccer rules have been changed to encourage scoring. Offside, backpass, 3 points for a win and away goals.

I'll go out on a limb and say nuffs who bleat about Ross Lyon and think a shootout is the height of tactics probably don't watch much soccer though.

 

[00Stinger]

I don't think a game needs to be high scoring in order to be a good game

 

[im_a_lazy_sod]

As a supporter I don’t care if games involving my team are low or high scoring - I just want to win

I don’t care about low or high scoring in a neutral game either - but a close game is more entertaining regardless of score

Man City wrapped up the title over the weekend with a 4-1 win. Was boring after they went 3-1 up as Brighton weren’t putting up a fight. I’ve found some 0-0 draws far more engrossing if we are going to compare Aussie rules with association football

 

[Coaster2012]

I have heard many in the media talk last year about the "crisis" in AFL of low scores. People flooded talkback and said that they were bored with AFL, because it is too defensive and there aren't enough goals kicked.

Peanuts like Gerard Whatley and Andy Maher were even talking about having a forum to discuss how to improve scoring in the game.

New rules were brought in, like 6-6-6, and other rules to increase scoring, yet we have the lowest scoring season for many years.

What I don't get is this.

People who follow AFL complain about the low scoring, and how it makes the game boring, yet many of the same people will watch soccer.

Hang on. Isn't soccer low-scoring? Aren't nil-all draws or 1-0 scorelines more common than not?

Yet soccer is one of the biggest sports globally and some call it the "beautiful game".

I don't hear soccer media complain about how to increase scoring. I don't hear talkback callers say that they won't watch soccer anymore because the scores are too low. I don't hear of forums on how to increase scoring, and FIFA don't change the rules to increase scoring.

So, what is the difference? Isn't it hypocritical to abandon one sport because of low-scoring, while following another who has the exact same problem?

Also, soccer don't see low scores as a problem.

So, who has it wrong? Is soccer wrong to not change scoring so that there are bigger scores, or is AFL wrong to worry about how low the scoring is in their game?

Fact is, I like high-scoring games, but some low scoring games can be good if there are other things that made the game good (such as the pressure, like in finals).

Also, making scores higher isn't the panacea many think it could be. I fear that increasing scoring might cause better teams to kick higher scores, but lower teams may still not be able to, and there could be more blowouts and one-sided games, and that wouldn't be interesting. Whereas low scores lends itself to closer contests, and both teams being in the game until the end.

So, is the AFL too obsessed with high scores, and why does it matter in AFL when it doesn't matter in world football?

You don't get it because your thinking is deeply flawed for one. You can't compare soccer and AFL. A goal in soccer is worth like 30 points in the AFL because its so hard to get. The tension builds and builds until it finally breaks and someone scores and the crowd goes crazy. If you don't get that, you don't get soccer and shouldn't make the comparison at all. A more suitable comparison would be another high scoring sport like basketball, where it's easy to score and easy to catch up. Basketball would be terrible to watch if the scores were like 40-34 and the fans wouldn't stick around for long.

 

[theyellowsash]

the sydney/eagles finals were much better than the geelong/port or pies/saints rematch

 

[Ok Boomer]

You lost me when you started comparing footy to soccer

 

[iluvparis]

The basketball-AFL comparison above is far more accurate.

The main failure with the OP's analysis is that the correlation between skill and scoring is always going to be much higher in AFL than in soccer.

That is you are more likely to get a low scoring-high skilled soccer game than a low scoring-high skilled AFL game

 

[Coach_Required]

Low scoring games suck, that Adelaide v Freo game 2 weeks ago was a bloody joke, crappy skills, missed targets and terrible to watch. In hindsight it makes sense why Richmond easily accounted for Freo last week because their skill level is terrible.

The whole "low scoring" criticism isnt about the low scores, it's more a dig at the AFL for trying to justify making rule changes using the excuse "to increase scoring". It clearly hasnt worked and is just utter BS the AFL have told us to once again justify s**t decisions.

 

[Roksman]

Soccer rules have been changed to encourage scoring. Offside, backpass, 3 points for a win and away goals.

I'll go out on a limb and say nuffs who bleat about Ross Lyon and think a shootout is the height of tactics probably don't watch much soccer though.

Not entirely accurate - Yes, the elimination of the back pass and 3 points for a win has merit but not the other two.

The offside introduction actually makes it harder to score and easier to defend - yet it is a beautiful rule.

As for away goals, you will actually find this encourages a more defensive mindset for home teams as they don't want to give up the away goal. I'm not sure the exact statistics around this but UEFA is considering removing away goals in the Champions League from as soon as next season - to encourage more goals one would imagine as conceding away goals is now less consequential.

 

[gavaniacono]

I have heard many in the media talk last year about the "crisis" in AFL of low scores. People flooded talkback and said that they were bored with AFL, because it is too defensive and there aren't enough goals kicked.

Peanuts like Gerard Whatley and Andy Maher were even talking about having a forum to discuss how to improve scoring in the game.

New rules were brought in, like 6-6-6, and other rules to increase scoring, yet we have the lowest scoring season for many years.

What I don't get is this.

People who follow AFL complain about the low scoring, and how it makes the game boring, yet many of the same people will watch soccer.

Hang on. Isn't soccer low-scoring? Aren't nil-all draws or 1-0 scorelines more common than not?

Yet soccer is one of the biggest sports globally and some call it the "beautiful game".

I don't hear soccer media complain about how to increase scoring. I don't hear talkback callers say that they won't watch soccer anymore because the scores are too low. I don't hear of forums on how to increase scoring, and FIFA don't change the rules to increase scoring.

So, what is the difference? Isn't it hypocritical to abandon one sport because of low-scoring, while following another who has the exact same problem?

Also, soccer don't see low scores as a problem.

So, who has it wrong? Is soccer wrong to not change scoring so that there are bigger scores, or is AFL wrong to worry about how low the scoring is in their game?

Fact is, I like high-scoring games, but some low scoring games can be good if there are other things that made the game good (such as the pressure, like in finals).

Also, making scores higher isn't the panacea many think it could be. I fear that increasing scoring might cause better teams to kick higher scores, but lower teams may still not be able to, and there could be more blowouts and one-sided games, and that wouldn't be interesting. Whereas low scores lends itself to closer contests, and both teams being in the game until the end.

So, is the AFL too obsessed with high scores, and why does it matter in AFL when it doesn't matter in world football?

Generally agree with you, Catters. I love a contest. Fierce battles. Momentum swings. Rugged tackles. Bumps. And skills. The less scoring the more value each goal has, I think there is an optimal about of scoring, it doesnt need to be that high.

Contrast this with AFLX. What a horendous mutant this concept is, appealing to current kindergarten aged children who will be future donators to the AFL, and arts students who see danger at every turn, and need risk free entertainment.

Gil wants to attract mass numbers of superficial fans, doesnt care for the smaller number of hard core fans.

 

[GUMBLETRON]

Not entirely accurate - Yes, the elimination of the back pass and 3 points for a win has merit but not the other two.

The offside introduction actually makes it harder to score and easier to defend - yet it is a beautiful rule.

As for away goals, you will actually find this encourages a more defensive mindset for home teams as they don't want to give up the away goal. I'm not sure the exact statistics around this but UEFA is considering removing away goals in the Champions League from as soon as next season - to encourage more goals one would imagine as conceding away goals is now less consequential.

I could have explained myself better.

Offside has been changed over the years to favour scoring, from 3 defenders to 2, with players not impacting play not being penalised, attackers level with defenders not offside, and interpretation tweaked to favour attackers in tight calls.

Away goals was intended to encourage away sides to attack, even if it has actually encouraged home sides to defend.

 

[nineteen eighty]

I have heard many in the media talk last year about the "crisis" in AFL of low scores. People flooded talkback and said that they were bored with AFL, because it is too defensive and there aren't enough goals kicked.

Peanuts like Gerard Whatley and Andy Maher were even talking about having a forum to discuss how to improve scoring in the game.

New rules were brought in, like 6-6-6, and other rules to increase scoring, yet we have the lowest scoring season for many years.

What I don't get is this.

People who follow AFL complain about the low scoring, and how it makes the game boring, yet many of the same people will watch soccer.

Hang on. Isn't soccer low-scoring? Aren't nil-all draws or 1-0 scorelines more common than not?

Yet soccer is one of the biggest sports globally and some call it the "beautiful game".

I don't hear soccer media complain about how to increase scoring. I don't hear talkback callers say that they won't watch soccer anymore because the scores are too low. I don't hear of forums on how to increase scoring, and FIFA don't change the rules to increase scoring.

So, what is the difference? Isn't it hypocritical to abandon one sport because of low-scoring, while following another who has the exact same problem?

Also, soccer don't see low scores as a problem.

So, who has it wrong? Is soccer wrong to not change scoring so that there are bigger scores, or is AFL wrong to worry about how low the scoring is in their game?

Fact is, I like high-scoring games, but some low scoring games can be good if there are other things that made the game good (such as the pressure, like in finals).

Also, making scores higher isn't the panacea many think it could be. I fear that increasing scoring might cause better teams to kick higher scores, but lower teams may still not be able to, and there could be more blowouts and one-sided games, and that wouldn't be interesting. Whereas low scores lends itself to closer contests, and both teams being in the game until the end.

So, is the AFL too obsessed with high scores, and why does it matter in AFL when it doesn't matter in world football?

The AFL administration is obsessed (in my opinion overly so) with maximising revenue. So then one looks at the 3 areas that generate the most revenue:

1/ media rights
2/ attendances
3/ corporates

On media rights, they have an almost constant 24x7x365 cycle of news. They are never not in the news. They need to make sure that how the game is played leads to media coverage. To the point that it's an obsession.

They believe open and attacking footy will do this for them. Same for attendances. Same for the fight for the corporate dollar...competing against league, union, soccer.

Oh and the AFL administration are whores to ch7. If the TV broadcaster wants a certain game style, the AFL will try to make it happen through rule changes. TV broadcast rights are into the hundreds of millions...or is it billions as a standalone. Hence the AFL will do everything in it's power to keep them away. Over anything else.

 

[Scotland]

Soccer is actually a good comparison because 1-0 game can be exciting and a 2-0 or 3-0 game can be dull as s**t.

6-6-6 has made footy better. Centre bounce, clearance, long kick, contest. Who cares if it's 90-70 instead of 110-90? It's a better game to watch than centre bounce, clearance, long kick, 25 players inside 50, stoppage, repeat stoppage, repeat stoppage, clearance, player touching the ball on the ground and running around in circles because there is no one to kick to in the 100m of space ahead of him...