Opinion Is the game dead?

Remove this Banner Ad

_M_16_

Premiership Player
Nov 26, 2009
3,248
3,989
Melbourne
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
Liv FC, LA Rams, Pitt Pen, Michigan
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

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

3. WILL not happen. Many players have said one of the rules they dislike is the interchange cap. And you do realize that when the game was "more open and high scoring there was no cap on interchanges? Since the caps have come in the game has become less free flowing? 10 per quarter is to little. Tired heavy legs will lead to even worse kicking skills, thus more turnovers and having the opposite effect of what you hope for

4. Would be one of the rules that everyone hates. May reduce stoppages. But with the amount of over the top sooking fans do about umpires these days, but its not an easy black and white rule. With congestion on the sideline there will be confusion many times to who touched it last because the umpire could be blocked from view to see whos body it touched during a contest on the sideline
 
Apr 15, 2013
1,716
2,681
AFL Club
Hawthorn
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
This would significantly simplify umpiring also.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk
 

Consolaçao

All Australian
May 22, 2007
922
819
Melbourne Town
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Phnom Penh Utd (curling)
I hear you OP, but take a look at the crowds on the weekend. I’d argue pretty much all surpasses expectations... so it appears (fortunately) that the fans disagree.
That said, I agree there’s an issue. I was at the cats v dogs game last night, and watching the set ups. I noticed that for a stoppage in their attacking half, Geelong did their best to move every player to within a kick and a bit of the ball, mostly on the defensive side. Obviously clean possession and flowing football in these circumstances is just not possible.
Ultimately they can set up like this because they run like madmen for 8-10 mins, and have short spells to recover on the bench before coming back on. I’d love to see drastically limited interchanges. I think doing that would mean it physically impossible for 36 players to make every contest without running themselves into the ground and you ultimately generate space. I didn’t watch Melb v Carl today (listened to parts of it), but did the high injury count (and reduced ability for interchange) contribute to the high scoring? Perhaps people at the game might have a view..
That segues into the other big advantage of limiting i/c to say 2 a quarter. Melbourne nearly lost today, in large part because they were unfortunate enough to be down to zero fit players on the bench, where Carlton (I think - happy to be corrected) had injuries but could still rotate to some extent. This situation is just fundamentally unfair, isn’t it?
 

Log in to remove this ad.

JP2

Club Legend
Apr 7, 2003
1,331
5,320
Prague
AFL Club
Melbourne
Threads about the game being in a terrible state come up basically every year, and normally I dismiss them as mindless nostalgia for time of high-quality, entertaining football that never really existed. In the mid-2000s, people were making threads like this because they thought the game was too fast and free-flowing, which meant there was less physical contact in the game than there used to be in the past and it had therefore become "too soft" - almost the exact opposite of what this thread is saying. Check out -> this thread <- from 2006, for example. People often salivate over the games that used to be played in the 1980s, but have you tried to sit down and watch the full 2-hours of a match from that time? Basically impossible: the standard of games really was quite poor. People have skewed memories of how football was played in the past (and therefore how it ought to be played today) and that leads them to cast unfair judgments on the state of the contemporary game, and you end up with a thread full of senile old codgers boring everyone senseless with "how it used to be in my day".

Well, maybe I'm becoming one of those boring old farts then, because I think this is the first time in my life that I've agreed that the game has become basically unwatchable. Yes, it's part of the sport's natural evolution, and in five years as the game evolves further we might look back on threads like this and wonder what all the hysteria was about, but at the moment AFL matches suck terribly. The problem, for me, isn't the low scoring or the defensive tactics: I was one of those who actually used to enjoy watching Sydney during the Paul Roos days because those tactics normally made for close, enthralling games. No, the problem for me is that every match looks exactly the same. Every team is using the same tactics, and there is absolutely nothing I can identify to distinguish one team from another. In the past teams had different approaches to the game, and part of the joy of watching neutral matches would be in seeing how teams would conflicting styles would manage against each other. These days coaches don't really need to adapt anything from week-to-week because all the opposition is playing in exactly the same manner.

Part of the problem is the evenness that loosened player-movement rules have created. In the past, teams would have to adapt their tactics to the kind of players they had available: no point trying to play a tough, contested game if you had a team full of quick, light players. These days, it's become much easier to identify deficiencies in the list and sign players to fill them, meaning that the profiles of each list are looking more and more similar and teams are able to play in less and less distinguishable styles. Players are also being taught to rectify their weaknesses rather than playing to their strengths, and the junior leagues are much more professional at identifying these weaknesses earlier, which also has the effect of making the players look more and more similar individually. There are very few players on a football field who are really able to stand out these days. Go down the list of an opposition team and see how many players you would recognise as being especially good at x or especially poor at y - there really aren't many! Players that are unique and enigmatic will very quickly have that individuality beaten out of them. Gary Ablett senior wouldn't get a game today because of his low contested-ball numbers and his lack of "pressure acts".

This is part and parcel of the professionalism of football, and a side-effect of equalisation programs which I still say are necessary ideas that couldn't be changed without creating undesirable consequences elsewhere. Nor do I think that the AFL should be responding to every step in the game's evolution with knee-jerk rule changes designed to engineer a spectacle. It's bad enough watching boring football matches without also feeling like I'm watching an manufactured, inauthentic spectacle. The game has started to pass me by, and I don't blame the AFL, or the coaches, or anyone else for that, and nor do I think anything ought to be done to pander to my aesthetics: maybe as one starts to get older one just naturally enjoys contemporary football less. But I'm just about done with watching neutral games and it's becoming more and more of a struggle - winning and losing aside - just to watch my own team, because I can't shake the feeling that every team is the league is entirely fungible.
 
Last edited:

PetterdHoisted

Norm Smith Medallist
Apr 27, 2014
6,316
9,539
AFL Club
Richmond
You're seriously saying/thinking that coaches don't want to score goals? Silliest thing I've heard. I think what you're intending to say is coaches WANT to score highly, but the OPPOSITION coaching tactics and poor skills these days makes it harder.

There is nothing wrong with chipping around. Almost every team sport involving a ball, Rugby, AFL, Hockey, Soccer etc, you're coaching to go sideways and sideways until you find an opening or loose player that has gotten open from the defenders caught out by a switched play. Nothing wrong with that tactic, in fact its the best way to deal with flooded backlines. If there is a bigger issue, its teams not moving the ball fast enough, not having anyone inside 50 when they do get a turnover, or hesitating when kicking inside 50 allowing teams time to flood back. If teams didn't switch and just bombed it inside 50 all the time to nobody, it will just be a bigger turnover fest and people will be screaming louder about lack of skills.
Could not disagree more. The worst games I've seen this year are pies v dogs and Hawks v pies last Friday.

It's not low scoring that ruins a game, it's two teams refusing to leave their own half back line until they've chipped it back and forth 10 times. (The opp side sits back and allows it to go on)

Then they kick to a contest anyway, just could have cut out the previous two min of pointless dross.

That retaining of the ball over attacking endeavour is the path to one of the worst bits about soccer.

Not sure what rule change can discourage chippy-chippy crap, 20m plus kick-rule for a mark would be the first one I would bring in.
 
Sep 13, 2015
18,683
48,481
Hillary Step
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
76ers
I'd much rather win 80-30 than 130-80. Nothing more satisfying that dishing out a low score to your opponent.
Still look at the scorecard from when we held Brisbane to 17 last year and shake my head.
But I also love seeing my team post a huge score. 150= is beautiful. Needless to say I was daring to dream of 200 ye
It also means players today can't kick to save themselves.
Forwards are simply putrid.
When you have someone like Ben Brown (sorry Ben) pushing for the Coleman medal, a bloke who would struggle to snag 2 goals a game in the 90's with arm chopping allowed, you know there's a glaring issue there.

Defenders are standing out because their direct opponents are B grade.
Forwards stood out in the 90s because their direct opponents were B grade
 
Feb 21, 2006
20,663
19,482
Muckertal
AFL Club
Melbourne
Other Teams
Turtles, NYJets, Celtics, Tottenham
There's too many players on the field causing congestion and making it too easy to play zone defense. Remove at least 2 but anywhere up to 6 players per team on the field and the game will free up. Players have no chance to get a clean disposal these days, they win the ball and are surrounded by 3 or 4 opposition and then handball to a teammate a metre away who had the same issue.

This will also reduce the amount of players who are not up to it getting a game. There are 80 or 90 players in the AFL now who wouldn't have been 10 years ago prior to the latest expansion. Nothing against those teams, just stating a fact.
 

Pessimistic

Cancelled
30k Posts 10k Posts HBF's Milk Crate - 70k Posts TheBrownDog
Sep 13, 2000
86,852
42,951
Melbourne cricket ground. Australia
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Horks
Geelong is on top of the ladder - and i reckon AFL at present is absolute garbage - a load of mostly unwatchable boring junk

A good contrast would be when the Crows 1st came into the comp - those Sunday twilight games - when Modra was up and about - i use to never miss watching those games - they were great - exciting

His overhead marking - have we had just one of those types of marks in the whole competition this year ? - he use to do it every 2nd or 3rd week . And that bloke from Melb - Shaun Smith - that type of exciting stuff has just totally dissappeared from the game

Impey got penalised for a perfectly good attempted screamer. Its a very bad trend creeping in
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

St Plugger

Senior List
Feb 28, 2012
295
490
AFL Club
St Kilda
The players are so fit now, 18 on the field is too many. I’d like to see it reduced to 16, not that I think it will ever happen...
Couldn't agree more. 16 a side is definitely the easiest way to change the game for the better. 4 less players on the field automatically means more space. Lose the wings for a 6-4-6 set up [Like the VFA] or a forward pocket/back pocket for a 5-6-5 set up. Can't see the hate for the idea from supporters!
[Can from the players association though as it might mean smaller lists and less players on the clubs pay roll.]
 
Apr 17, 2006
27,237
16,555
???
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Miami Dolphins(NFL)
We complain about the AFL but really the fault is with the coaches. There’s just no incentive anymore to play fast attacking football because rebounds are too punishing. Bulldogs and Richmond showed that high pressure trumps skill in a lot of cases, and Eagles played a very deliberate high kick game.
Hawthorn was averaging over 100 pts during the 3peat, and teams were trying to emulate them. The AFL decided to change the rules...
 
Oct 3, 2007
16,084
17,344
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
West Perth
Threads about the game being in a terrible state come up basically every year, and normally I dismiss them as mindless nostalgia for time of high-quality, entertaining football that never really existed. In the mid-2000s, people were making threads like this because they thought the game was too fast and free-flowing, which meant there was less physical contact in the game than there used to be in the past and it had therefore become "too soft" - almost the exact opposite of what this thread is saying. Check out -> this thread <- from 2006, for example. People often salivate over the games that used to be played in the 1980s, but have you tried to sit down and watch the full 2-hours of a match from that time? Basically impossible: the standard of games really was quite poor. People have skewed memories of how football was played in the past (and therefore how it ought to be played today) and that leads them to cast unfair judgments on the state of the contemporary game, and you end up with a thread full of senile old codgers boring everyone senseless with "how it used to be in my day".

Well, maybe I'm becoming one of those boring old farts then, because I think this is the first time in my life that I've agreed that the game has become basically unwatchable. Yes, it's part of the sport's natural evolution, and in five years as the game evolves further we might look back on threads like this and wonder what all the hysteria was about, but at the moment AFL matches suck terribly. The problem, for me, isn't the low scoring or the defensive tactics: I was one of those who actually used to enjoy watching Sydney during the Paul Roos days because those tactics normally made for close, enthralling games. No, the problem for me is that every match looks exactly the same. Every team is using the same tactics, and there is absolutely nothing I can identify to distinguish one team from another. In the past teams had different approaches to the game, and part of the joy of watching neutral matches would be in seeing how teams would conflicting styles would manage against each other. These days coaches don't really need to adapt anything from week-to-week because all the opposition is playing in exactly the same manner.

Part of the problem is the evenness that loosened player-movement rules have created. In the past, teams would have to adapt their tactics to the kind of players they had available: no point trying to play a tough, contested game if you had a team full of quick, light players. These days, it's become much easier to identify deficiencies in the list and sign players to fill them, meaning that the profiles of each list are looking more and more similar and teams are able to play in less and less distinguishable styles. Players are also being taught to rectify their weaknesses rather than playing to their strengths, and the junior leagues are much more professional at identifying these weaknesses earlier, which also has the effect of making the players look more and more similar individually. There are very few players on a football field who are really able to stand out these days. Go down the list of an opposition team and see how many players you would recognise as being especially good at x or especially poor at y - there really aren't many! Players that are unique and enigmatic will very quickly have that individuality beaten out of them. Gary Ablett senior wouldn't get a game today because of his low contested-ball numbers and his lack of "pressure acts".

This is part and parcel of the professionalism of football, and a side-effect of equalisation programs which I still say are necessary ideas that couldn't be changed without creating undesirable consequences elsewhere. Nor do I think that the AFL should be responding to every step in the game's evolution with knee-jerk rule changes designed to engineer a spectacle. It's bad enough watching boring football matches without also feeling like I'm watching an manufactured, inauthentic spectacle. The game has started to pass me by, and I don't blame the AFL, or the coaches, or anyone else for that, and nor do I think anything ought to be done to pander to my aesthetics: maybe as one starts to get older one just naturally enjoys contemporary football less. But I'm just about done with watching neutral games and it's becoming more and more of a struggle - winning and losing aside - just to watch my own team, because I can't shake the feeling that every team is the league is entirely fungible.

Not a bad post this, but one could argue that 90% of the games evolution has been manufactured through rule changes.
Now just for a moment think that if not one rule change had been made since 1990 then we would still be watching a great sport.
The players still would of evolved, they would of got faster, stronger and more professional playing the same sport.
The AFL went down the path of trying to evolve a sport unnaturally and all the issues you point out have appeared because of this.
There has not been one rule change or interpretation change made in the last 30 years that in my opinion has made the game a better game to watch than the game I watched in 1990.
I have loved watching the players and coaching evolve but the sport itself needed to not be touched, no one was unhappy with the sport, the crowds were still huge and tv audiences loved it.
They took something that was working and had worked for 100 years and tried to fix it. And now that they tried to fix a sport which wasn’t broken they have to continuously try to fix what they stuffed up in the first place.
 
can't believe how many people just immediately post something dumb about how the crowd numbers are still decent lmao. the topic is about the GAME not the families the AFL are attracting. it's not hard to understand the crowds these days are bulked up by fairweathers, families, people who go because it's the thing to do. if basketball was our main sport they would take the family there instead. same with netball or soccer or anything. they go because it's the event to go to not because the game itself is amazing this year. they can't even get their kids to watch a full game - they won't even watch it with Captain Marvel coming out at Half Time to entertain them lmao
 

JohnnyFontane90

Norm Smith Medallist
Feb 14, 2014
6,481
10,001
AFL Club
Carlton
allow deliberate rushed behinds again. no more kicking to the pocket to set up a forward press. teams forward entries will not be as deep so there will be more potential for turnovers and transition play.
 
Aug 30, 2014
581
1,020
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
I don't get why people think that high score = good to watch. I love watching the low scoring scaps as long as it's a good battle. I mean a score of 2.19 is absolutely pathetic to watch and a blight on the game but I'm fine with low scores if it's a good game. It makes each goal more exciting when they are hard to come by. If higher scoring was inherently better then we'd just switch to AFLX for the full season.
It's got nothing to do with the score. What I hate, is watching a really good team struggle like hell to score because the oppo has 18 players in their forward line. Thhey spend 10 minutes in fwd 50 get 4-5 points, and then the opposition scores a rebound goal.

As long as that half of the oval is flooded, you just keep smashing it out to eventually break it open and have an open forward line. It's s**t for viewing.
 
Aug 30, 2014
581
1,020
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Crowd nubers are the highest the game has ever seen so?
I've heard this sort of conversation many times, but my query on the future of the game lies on the lack of growth. Our game might be popular but where is it growing?

1990-1999 was justified due to the game going national but since then we've seen very little growth.

705563
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back