Opinion Is the game dead?

[wobblypunt]

Have the combined efforts of overly defensive coaches & a meddling AFL killed the game as we know it? Boring as hell games for 3 quarters until the shackles are thrown off for a last quarter mad rush to victory is getting old real quick.

67, 63, 76, 66, 58, 44, 31, 71, 55 - the majority if scores kicked so far this weekend in mostly fine football weather. This nonsense cannot continue.

I think certain tactics that have proved effective in recent years like the flood and the West Coast 'web' have changed the sport dramatically. Players basically seem to position themselves only as far as the ball can be kicked rather than staying in their third of the oval. Might be wrong but that's just what I feel has happened.

 

[Duskfire]

Which is why the AFL adjusts rules and then people scream, shout and whinge about how they keep changing the game too much.

They literally cannot please everyone.

It’s because people would rather blame someone else then their own team. It’s why a lot of people whine about umpires rather then the players running around with 30 percent disposal efficiency.

People can talk about the golden era, but the tactics and the sport science and the fitness of players was nothing like it is today. We will never go back to that period, coaches won’t allow it.

 

[Messenger]

No need for a rule change, just enforce incorrect disposal. You have to get rid of the ball by hand or by foot or it is a free kick. Only if the opposition player knocks the ball out of your hands it is play on.

This. The AFL have to stop tinkering.

 

[Tim Evans Beard]

I see one of the biggest problems is the skill development in junior football. The highest level clubs (AFL) have limited rewards in developing junior footballers as other clubs can draft all that ‘investment’ out. The early success of academy players into academy clubs illustrates that learning a skill set specific to a club system is beneficial. Most top tier junior players work on a generalist set of attributes to appeal to as many clubs as possible. Relatively few juniors develop attributes specific to one club.
The return and success of Geelong juniors to the Geelong system further illustrates this point. Geelong invest a fair bit in junior footy consistent with senior footy.
Return junior footy development. Allow all clubs 2 - 4 juniors at draft equivalent selection (obviously player and club must agree for nomination) and you will see skills increase. You will see more ‘one club’ players. You will see individual fairytales and club dreams combine. There are plenty of players for expansion clubs outside of the small juniors and there will be enough good players in non-football areas to allow the expansion clubs first pick of their academies.
Bring back a genuine skill based pathway rather than a ‘beep test’ based pathway and the game will go and you will be engaged again.

 

[Duskfire]

This. The AFL have to stop tinkering.

Won’t change a single thing. It’s the coaches putting numbers around the ball, not the AFL. It’s the coaches putting every player in the defensive 50. It’s the players with shocking goal kicking and general disposal. Look at how Clarkson coaches the Hawks against GWS; would any easy rule change change that? None of that is the AFLs doing.

I agree that effective disposal needs to be umpired better, but if it gets too harsh players will just not go for the ball. Already you see players waiting to tackle rather then retrieve the ball themselves; if you reward the tackler even more you will see that increase tenfold.

 

[rumply]

listening to DOn Pike talk about the reaction to the recent 6 6 6 and kick out changes shows how far the coaches will go to control scoring against them. He basically said they introduced even more defensive tactics this year because they felt scoring would be easier. No matter what the AFL do the coaches will work a way to shut it down. Time to lift the value of scoring rather than trying to make it easier.

Derm used a good analogy yesterday to describe the game these days - it's like a pursuit bike race where everyone rides around slowly, looking at each other until the last lap when they all go full bore for the win. Ridiculous stuff.

 

[kaiserchief13]

They need to give bonus points for high scores

 

[mxett]

I think certain tactics that have proved effective in recent years like the flood and the West Coast 'web' have changed the sport dramatically. Players basically seem to position themselves only as far as the ball can be kicked rather than staying in their third of the oval. Might be wrong but that's just what I feel has happened.

that's exactly what has happened. Most players defend 'space' now, not opponents. Coaches know if they place all 18 players in a defensive zone covering 70m ahead of the ball the chances of successfully navigating through and scoring are very low. It's like a huge game of soccer, and the low scoring reflects this. Low scoring and turnovers are a feature of most games. The 6 6 6 was great in theory but because goals are far less common the rule is only in effect for a small portion of the game, so it hasnt really helped at all.

 

[mxett]

It’s because people would rather blame someone else then their own team. It’s why a lot of people whine about umpires rather then the players running around with 30 percent disposal efficiency.

People can talk about the golden era, but the tactics and the sport science and the fitness of players was nothing like it is today. We will never go back to that period, coaches won’t allow it.

Then the AFL risk losing many followers. No one wants to watch 2 hours of mistakes. Game day threads are full of people complaining about turnovers or blaming umpires, nothing positive (poor example I know). Other sports have made significant changes to try and keep the integrity and intent of the game as true as possible.

 

[mxett]

They need to give bonus points for high scores

Great in theory, but really will never be a level playing field because some clubs play more often in fine conditions where higher scoring is easier.

 

[kaiserchief13]

Great in theory, but really will never be a level playing field because some clubs play more often in fine conditions where higher scoring is easier.

Luck of the draw.

 

[rumply]

that's exactly what has happened. Most players defend 'space' now, not opponents. Coaches know if they place all 18 players in a defensive zone covering 70m ahead of the ball the chances of successfully navigating through and scoring are very low. It's like a huge game of soccer, and the low scoring reflects this. Low scoring and turnovers are a feature of most games. The 6 6 6 was great in theory but because goals are far less common the rule is only in effect for a small portion of the game, so it hasnt really helped at all.

Peter Sumich spoke of his frustration with his WA under 18's at training - they wanted to setup in zones defensively & he had to force them back to man on man & play the way he wanted. This stuff is all getting ingrained at an early age.

 

[D-N-R]

I think your option 3 and having only 10 rotations a quarter will drag the game down further.; if players tire quickly the skills will follow suit. Drop the total rotations to about 70 per team would be reasonable.

I agree with option 4, works great in the SANFL.

The game on Friday between hawks and pies would disagree. Turgid game with high pressure and sloppy ball use for 3 quarters. Last quarter it opened up. Players had more time and skills actually improved.
I think a bit of tiredness just reduces that instant defensive pressure rather than making players fumble or make bad decisions.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

Why are low scores a sign of bad games? (Unless you're Channel7 banking on ad revenue)
Sometimes lower scoring games are full of the things we claim to like, contests and intense physical pressure. Yet whenever they occur out come the complaints. A variety of game styles is healthy, including dfefensive game plans when necessary.

And, yes, sometimes it is just poor skills - but not all the time.

 

[mxett]

Derm used a good analogy yesterday to describe the game these days - it's like a pursuit bike race where everyone rides around slowly, looking at each other until the last lap when they all go full bore for the win. Ridiculous stuff.

Cricket has power plays to encourage sides to take risks in 'boring' or conservative times in the game. Not sure how to do something similar in the AFL. Maybe they could double the value of a goal in the 2nd and 3rd quarters. Maybe make it a freekick there are more than 9 players from one team in the back half of the ground?

 

[The 747]

Won’t change a single thing. It’s the coaches putting numbers around the ball, not the AFL. It’s the coaches putting every player in the defensive 50. It’s the players with shocking goal kicking and general disposal. Look at how Clarkson coaches the Hawks against GWS; would any easy rule change change that? None of that is the AFLs doing.

I agree that effective disposal needs to be umpired better, but if it gets too harsh players will just not go for the ball. Already you see players waiting to tackle rather then retrieve the ball themselves; if you reward the tackler even more you will see that increase tenfold.

Disagree so the ball is going to sit in the middle of the field and no player will pick it up? The rule is you dispose of it by hand or by foot, if you do that the ball generally clears the congestion.

All the congestion you see in the game is a series of incorrect disposals which is why the ball goes nowhere and doesn't clear the pack. Coaches are defensive, if they start getting burned by having too many players in the contest, and not defending the free kick which removes those players from the ball zone they will send less players in.

 

[mxett]

Why are low scores a sign of bad games? (Unless you're Channel7 banking on ad revenue)
Sometimes lower scoring games are full of the things we claim to like, contests and intense physical pressure. Yet whenever they occur out come the complaints. A variety of game styles is healthy, including dfefensive game plans when necessary.

And, yes, sometimes it is just poor skills - but not all the time.

It's not necessarily the low scoring, its the repeated errors and turnovers. It's like watching the local under 10's. All 36 players within a kick of the ball and no space to actually play the game.

 

[mxett]

Peter Sumich spoke of his frustration with his WA under 18's at training - they wanted to setup in zones defensively & he had to force them back to man on man & play the way he wanted. This stuff is all getting ingrained at an early age.

that's actually really concerning

 

[HTT]

OP is conveniently ignoring scores of 150 and 122, also I take it the term ‘dead’ really means ‘has defence finally’.
As for how to open the game up, I say leave it alone and refer to my explanation from yesterday

The spectacle of football is low because the coaches are on the treadmill of the AFL rules. They are taking the game forwards but every forwards step they take is counteracted by the AFL trying to change the rules to make the game go backwards. And the faster they step, the faster rules are introduced.
The footy is cyclical so when we are at the bottom it’s best to just wait until an uptick. But the AFL keeps trying to go back to the previous peak and are instead trapping the game at the bottom.

 

[adammania9]

It’s the most boring season in my lifetime. I said that when we’d won 7 in a row and sat second and I say the same now. Watching footy has seemed like a chore this year. I’m watching less and less every week and I reckon I’m enjoying my weekends more and more as a result. All the entertainment in our game now happens off the field.

 

[hcd199]

Do we have to have these ridiculous whinge threads every year, where the very notion of defensive tactics is apparently 'ruining the game', and so we need to alter even more aspects of the sport than we already have because the mindless reactionaries still aren't satisfied (and never will be)? Of course coaches have responded to a rudimental rule makes some forms of attack easier with an increased focus on defence, because how negligent would they be if they hadn't?

Collingwood/Hawthorn on Friday night was an awful game of football, no question, but so was Melbourne/Essendon in Round 3, and that had double the score. Tactics (both defensive and attacking) evolve over time, and that's part of the intrigue and enjoyment of the sport - trying to engineer a version of the sport that involves nothing but artificial 'spectacle' diminishes that, giving us only stale versions of what we had before (as coaches adapt to the new limitations) or AFLX-like abominations.

 

[Burtman]

It's not dead, it is just being run by morons. The game is so easy to fix and it doesn't need a competition committee.

1. Get rid of prior opp - all the congestion, stoppage and low scoring problems have evolved from this crap rule about 20 years ago. Why should a player have a god given right to just hatch it because he got to the ball first?

2. Get rid of ruck nominations - it wastes time and creates additional numbers around the ball. Umps should just throw it up immediately there is a ball up.

3. Reduce rotations down to 10 per qtr. Tired legs will promote more positional play.

4. Last possession out of bounds is a free to the opposition. Make the rule black and white. It will promote corridor footy and less throw ins will reduce stoppages and congestion.

Constant ball movement is the key. Remove all obstacles that allow coaches to block the game up and slow it down.

On SM-G930F using BigFooty.com mobile app

If by getting rid of prior opp you mean paying a free kick every time someone is tackled, that will destroy the game. I don’t want to watch a game where players are too afraid to pick the ball up so they essentially turn it into a game of soccer. Also it would increase the free kicks ten fold. Not really something I want to watch. I think furthering of the zones could have a positive effect. Maybe a minimum of 2 players have to be in the forward/mid/back zones at every stoppage. Pay a free kick if they aren’t in the zones by the time the ball is balled up.

 

[caspian]

Man nothing gets the excitement flowing like some flat lining, brain dead “the game no good these days :,(“ thread. Heaps of exciting close games at the moment. Sorry for not being enough of a ******* boomer.

 

[Rob]

No need for a rule change, just enforce incorrect disposal. You have to get rid of the ball by hand or by foot or it is a free kick. Only if the opposition player knocks the ball out of your hands it is play on.

The problem with that is that it will then become like a game of chicken where no player will take first possession. Don't underestimate the effect of such a rule on the game. I'd imagine coaches would develop strategies to deliberately give to ball to opposition players in congested situations just so they can be tackled immediately to get the free kick.
Never mind the problems umpires are going to have in trying to work out whether a ball was knocked out by the opposition, as opposed to falling out in a tackle.

I'm not opposed to tightening up the interpretation on players attempting to get rid of it though. A lot of players deliberately hold the ball in when they know they haven't had prior, and generally are given the benefit of the doubt.

 

[The 747]

The problem with that is that it will then become like a game of chicken where no player will take first possession. Don't underestimate the effect of such a rule on the game. I'd imagine coaches would develop strategies to deliberately give to ball to opposition players in congested situations just so they can be tackled immediately to get the free kick.
Never mind the problems umpires are going to have in trying to work out whether a ball was knocked out by the opposition, as opposed to falling out in a tackle.

I'm not opposed to tightening up the interpretation on players attempting to get rid of it though. A lot of players deliberately hold the ball in when they know they haven't had prior, and generally are given the benefit of the doubt.

It's already a rule. And we can agree to disagree but I don't think the players are going to stand around with the ball on the deck and not pick it up.