MFC Fans Only Non Dees AFL thread 2019 edition- Thank god its over. Tylenol NOW!

[Cannon82]

Easy, it should have to be signed off by the exiting players Club doctor, and the AFL doctor rostered for the Umpires, after both diagnosing the injury/illness, prior to the Emergency player being activated.

Not sure an AFL game can have a week break in the middle of it while doctors wait for scan and test results. You bring in a law, players / clubs will learn how to exploit it. If you can only use a sub if someone is hospitalized, then teams will shuttle someone off to hospital with some kind of hard to diagnose injury every week. You expect a doctor to gamble with their livelihood that a player is faking an injury on the back of a very short time frame to test?

If you want to have coverage for injuries, just have a bench with substitutes on it. No interchange, just like normal football, once you're off, you're off. If a coach / manager uses their subs early and then further injuries occur, tough.

 

[Cannon82]

What if they deliberately injure them?

"I can't go on, boss, I've pinged a hammy."
"We're going to have to lose the leg, Jim."

Would have saved Jordie McKenzie's career.

 

[Dory_77]

Rule changes to reduce interchange/numbers on the field won't do much to improve scoring/the quality of games. If anything I reckon it'd make coaches double down on a good defence and getting guys who can run all day over be good at footy.

The issue isn't so much rules as the tactics that get developed to game them to advantage. Coaches are always going to do what wins games. Having a bloke get 10 snags and take 6 speccies each week would sell memberships and be great for the social media team but if they lose each game by 10 goals coaches won't stick with it. Having 2 less blokes on the field means the coaching teams just have to get out the set squares to work out how to set up a 16-man rather than 18-man zone.

Take it back to 1 coach and maybe 3 line coaches in the box and maybe things would be less overanalysed and structured. That, or leave it as is and just let coaches sort their s**t out and hope someone wins a flag or two with aggressive attacking play to bring that back into vogue.

I reckon the best bet of that is probably the Lions. They play a nice style to watch and in the next few years could set a new tone for attacking play. So too GWS, at times, but they're very flakey.

 

[CWaffles]

GC requesting the number 1 pick in this year's draft, meaning if granted they will get pick 1 and 2. They definitely need it, but i don't want to move down a spot.

Afl more than likely give them a end of first round compensation.

 

[Gysberts2Bate]

GC requesting the number 1 pick in this year's draft, meaning if granted they will get pick 1 and 2. They definitely need it, but i don't want to move down a spot.

Afl more than likely give them a end of first round compensation.

I'm not hugely fussed, seems pretty even between 3-5. If anything I'm more pissed about GC getting a freebie after we already hugely overpaid them for May.

 

[CWaffles]

I'm not hugely fussed, seems pretty even between 3-5. If anything I'm more pissed about GC getting a freebie after we already hugely overpaid them for May.

True, when you look at it Carlton have been as bad as them over the past 4 years, they weren't granted a priority pick so would seem GC shouldn't be granted one.
The Suns being an AFL creation and them needing to be successful in a harsh market will probably see then given a pick, hopefully they can get some young guns in that side and retain some of their core group to be more competitive.

 

[Topkent]

True, when you look at it Carlton have been as bad as them over the past 4 years, they weren't granted a priority pick so would seem GC shouldn't be granted one.
The Suns being an AFL creation and them needing to be successful in a harsh market will probably see then given a pick, hopefully they can get some young guns in that side and retain some of their core group to be more competitive.

It's been proven time and time again that one pick won't make * all difference. Rayner was nearly dropped agsisnt us yet Brisbane are flying. Id be fine with GC getting another crack at the state leagues best and a 2nd rounder to trade but it's much more important to have the off field stuff right

 

[Johnny Karate]

The issue that I see with rule changes is that for every problem they attempt to solve, it seems they inadvertently create two more.

For example, reducing rotations and 6-6-6 were meant to bust flooding and increase scoring but seem to have led to teams being more risk averse.

I have my own hot takes on what might save footy but chances are that they could create an even uglier game.

Football is definitely an ugly game that descended into a large game that looks like result of Basketball, Rugby and Soccer having a massive bareback orgy.

The broader issues that I see are:
1) the constant tinkering of rules lead by people who have no idea about coaching, tactics and strategy - I remember Paul Roos saying that during his time coaching the AFL CEO would often broach potential rule changes during an annual dinner and that most coaches would’ve worked out their counter strategies for any new rules by the time they had left the building.

2) the game is over coached. Since the game went professional their has been a focus on ‘elite standards’ to the point of basically breaking individuals down and then building them back up again into risk averse, game plan over intelligence automatons. Tactics such as flooding, zoning and pressing have lead to a lot more ugly footy.

3) Recruiting athletes over footballers. Most players are now 6’3 +, 0% body fat, elite repeat endurance athletes who couldn’t hit the backside of a barn from 5m away. I know that every boring old campaigner in history has waxed lyrical about ‘in my day’ so here’s my take - the game was better when there was a diversity of shapes, sizes and personalities. It meant that nobody was too fat, short, skinny or non-private-schooled robot to play.

4) the focus on safety. I’m all for ridding the game of pathetic cheap shots but the AFL has got the whole ‘the head is sacrosanct’ bullshit arse about. We are now actively suspending players for football acts during collisions where one player gets concussed but not cracking down garbage such as diving or jumper/gut punching off the ball. What’s more is that because umpires are instructed to give free kicks for anything that looks high and other associated interpretations, players feel free to lead with their head because they may draw a free kick. In other sports such as cricket, well intentioned moves to protect the head have seen players develop poor techniques where instead of watching the ball, they take their eye off it when trying to evade. The equivalent in football is that players do not turn their shoulders and brace for contact because they will get a free kick for getting hit in the head or they may fear getting suspended for turning their shoulder and collecting an opponent high when bracing for contact.

5) the punter in the crowd gets fisted. I can accept that it potentially costs a lot of money for good seats at blockbuster games but it’s pretty s**t when there are 20k at the G and you get either a restricted view on the bottom level or shat on by seagulls sitting in the nosebleeds where no bars or outlets are open. There used to be great value in that you could make a day of it and watch the ressies or under 19s before the game, kick to kick on the ground afterwards was also a highlight. Now we just have ‘match day experience’ which must be French for a bunch of loud, boring, annoying, cross promotional s**t with s**t prizes to boot. Have I mentioned how fun it is to be cued up and wanded every time you enter the ground? They used to open the gates at 3 quarter time so people could have a sticky but no more. I also love how the no cans or glass bottles extends to rival external food products at Docklands. The game does need to make profits to be sustainable but currently they turn profits to make mega profits funding the greed of corporate leeches feasting on the soulless carcass of what was once a game of the people.

 

[Sylvia Saint]

I'm not hugely fussed, seems pretty even between 3-5. If anything I'm more pissed about GC getting a freebie after we already hugely overpaid them for May.

Wouldn't say we hugely overpaid them - granted May was probably a year or two too old to warrant pick 6, and hasn't exactly repaid us yet, but a player of his quality is worth a pick in that range.

If he had stayed, he'd be going somewhere in Victoria as a free agent this year on big $$$. It wouldn't be us and the Suns would have likely got pick 2 as compensation.

I'm not saying we won the trade, far from it, but I take umbrage to pick 6 being huge overs.

 

[Gysberts2Bate]

Wouldn't say we hugely overpaid them - granted May was probably a year or two too old to warrant pick 6, and hasn't exactly repaid us yet, but a player of his quality is worth a pick in that range.

If he had stayed, he'd be going somewhere in Victoria as a free agent this year on big $$$. It wouldn't be us and the Suns would have likely got pick 2 as compensation.

I'm not saying we won the trade, far from it, but I take umbrage to pick 6 being huge overs.

A player of what quality, exactly? A zero time AA? Better players have gone for significantly less. Think it's more likely they'd have gotten compo on band 2 at the end of the first round, don't think anyone was going to pay $800k for May. Although we love paying overs so maybe we would have.

 

[Topkent]

A player of what quality, exactly? A zero time AA? Better players have gone for significantly less. Think it's more likely they'd have gotten compo on band 2 at the end of the first round, don't think anyone was going to pay $800k for May. Although we love paying overs so maybe we would have.

0 time AA is a dumb argument. He played for GC only the greatest of all time managed an AA there. What do you think he was worth on the trade table as a pick number because by your argument the Hogan trade was an even bigger joke because he was a 0 time AA with a navicular issue. Lucky to even get a pick for him

 

[Gysberts2Bate]

0 time AA is a dumb argument. He played for GC only the greatest of all time managed an AA there. What do you think he was worth on the trade table as a pick number because by your argument the Hogan trade was an even bigger joke because he was a 0 time AA with a navicular issue. Lucky to even get a pick for him

You're right, we robbed Fremantle. Hogan is crap.

 

[jhong]

Small sample but it seems to me that Frost has been in good form with May as the anchor down back . Surely its still too early to decide if what we gave up for May is either too much or whatever . In fact to me it seems a rather peripheral discussion. I must admit i am warming too him and i don't give a s**t if he had a couple of beers with a mate during his rehab. I only care about what he brings to us on the park , and so far he is looking ok. He also seems willing to be a leader down back , something we have been screaming for . I will leave the discussion on his pick value to others , i am only interested in his value to us .

 

[SugarHealey]

The issue that I see with rule changes is that for every problem they attempt to solve, it seems they inadvertently create two more.

That's the easiest of all, to see why they have fukked up the game, because they refuse to Undo rules that have caused complications, and unintended consequences.

So then they make more new rules, instead of reverting back to Adam. As an old mentor used to say to me. Back to the origins.

 

[SugarHealey]

If you want to have coverage for injuries, just have a bench with substitutes on it. No interchange, just like normal football, once you're off, you're off. If a coach / manager uses their subs early and then further injuries occur, tough.

I'd be OK with 2 interchange, and two Subs. That could work.

 

[Sylvia Saint]

Personally I think top 10 picks are overrated anyway. There are 10 of them every year and only half end up living up to expectations and these days those same guys might demand a trade anyway. Every year you hear of players like Lukosuis being a generational talent then they come into the AFL and .. they aren't really that good. I'm disappointed with how little May has done so far (in the sense he hasn't played much), but he's proven quality. Ben King needs a summer or 4 in McDonalds to even get a frame worthy of AFL footy

 

[Gysberts2Bate]

Personally I think top 10 picks are overrated anyway. There are 10 of them every year and only half end up living up to expectations and these days those same guys might demand a trade anyway. Every year you hear of players like Lukosuis being a generational talent then they come into the AFL and .. they aren't really that good. I'm disappointed with how little May has done so far (in the sense he hasn't played much), but he's proven quality. Ben King needs a summer or 4 in McDonalds to even get a frame worthy of AFL footy

Agreed. Name one team that’s won a flag with a top 10 pick on its list

 

[dee_mac]

May has looked ******* good down back since he's come in. ******* good.

 

[Proper Gander]

May has looked ******* good down back since he's come in. ******* good.

I picture you posting that in a Southerner accent - so I’m a bit dissatisfied that you didn’t replace ******* with “damn good”.

Then I could reply with Hot damn! and get my Tuesday off to an excellent start.

 

[Demon bhoy]

Agreed. Name one team that’s won a flag with a top 10 pick on its list

Yep get your top 10 picks right win flags, * it up hello Melbourne and Carlton, live trading has made them even more vulnerable

 

[Topkent]

Yep get your top 10 picks right win flags, fu** it up hello Melbourne and Carlton, live trading has made them even more vulnerable

Richmond won the flag with 2 standout out top 10 picks.

We have Oliver Brayshaw Petracca and Weid. If that isn't enough then development will always hold us back

 

[Proper Gander]

What does standout top 10 pick mean?

Richmond actually had Cotchin, Martin and Vlastuin that they selected in the top 10. So they aren't exactly the Adelaide Crows - they have had their share.

They had a couple of players they traded in that were originally top 10 picks also in Caddy and Prestia. And they had a bunch of first rounds in that group between 11 and whatever in Ellis, Rance, Rioli and Riewoldt.

If your point is that you don't need top 10 picks for a flag (I think you should add Salem to our list) then I guess you might be correct, but I don't think Richmond are a solid example.

As far as I can make out looking at premiership teams, they seem to indicate that a certain number of players who were picked high in the draft are actually needed - particularly as there are always going to be young guys picked high on early promise that go nowhere (Melbourne managed to pick all of that lot for a while there).

 

[Demon bhoy]

Richmond won the flag with 2 standout out top 10 picks.

We have Oliver Brayshaw Petracca and Weid. If that isn't enough then development will always hold us back

Exactly get your picks right especially your top 10/first round and you give yourself a big chance, jury’s is still out on ours from 14,15 at this stage but the needle is pointing the wrong way at this point, not what I would of said 6 months ago but all 4 are still under 100 games so fingers crossed the best is to come

 

[dee_mac]

I picture you posting that in a Southerner accent - so I’m a bit dissatisfied that you didn’t replace ******* with “damn good”.

Then I could reply with Hot damn! and get my Tuesday off to an excellent start.

Lord howdy what a missed opportunity. It's a damn shame. Dangnabbit

 

[Proper Gander]

Lord howdy what a missed opportunity. It's a damn shame. Dangnabbit

shucky darn and slop the chickens