BoundbyKreuze
Cancelled
- Feb 9, 2020
- 1,463
- 2,997
- AFL Club
- Carlton
Just leave the game alone.
If it became 16 a side, how would your club become affected?
- Thread starter sunsofanarchy
- Start date
- Tagged users None
I understand your point, we have committees devoted to change things SO they've been changing things from day one of the national comp.
The game we have right now is a distant rel'o of what is was.
BoundbyKreuze
Cancelled
- Feb 9, 2020
- 1,463
- 2,997
- AFL Club
- Carlton
Carlton port and Brisbane seem
To be able to score. When we were s**t we weren’t complaining that the rules are the reason we aren’t playing very well. You adapt and move on. This 16 minute quarter thing is temporary. Scoring will improve. Richmond’s game plan of 2017-2019 changed the game and turned it into a slog fest lacking clean kicking. Lessening possessions but going forwards at all costs. It doesn’t work a more. I hear Clarko and Hardwick whinge every press conference and blame the rules.
Bit early to say it doesnt work anymore. It won a premiership by 14 goals 7 games ago. We were a pretty high scoring team last year and scored heavily against you in round 1. We just have a lot of players horribly out of form. It also requires outrunning and outworking the opposition, as our team gets older, younger teams will outrun us. The style may well still work, but we might struggle.
The Old Dark Navy's
Moderator
- Moderator
- #57
Carlton would struggle for pace initially or we'd have to develop a couple of our quicker depth players a little faster.
We have several players with giant tanks so if going to 16, allowed for more interchanges, we would lose that advantage. If not, then it would be have a good advantage as the match went on.
We have several players with giant tanks so if going to 16, allowed for more interchanges, we would lose that advantage. If not, then it would be have a good advantage as the match went on.
telsor
Hall of Famer
I agree, but see it more as winding the game back to where it was to rectify past mistakes.
That's why I'd prefer they went with cutting the interchange, at least as a first step.
2 on the bench, 10 interchanges per qtr. (possibly one or two emergencies can be brought in to cover injuries as well, but only with controls to ensure coaches don't exploit it).
If that doesn't work, then look at 16 a side, but only after testing it for a couple of years in lower tier comps.
Back to where it was, I agree, but the question then is what goes. Not an easy task, self interest .....
Dont think dropping back to 16 is a big issue, one year in the 2nd tier should do the job.
I can think of at least three lower tier competitions who have tried 16 a side already and in both formats, no wings and also one
less forward and defender. As John Kennedy Senior said "Don't think, do".
- Jun 14, 2017
- 3,493
- 5,571
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
- Other Teams
- Liverpool, AC Milan, North Adelaide
Agree except i would have 3 on the bench and reduce the interchanges to 40 per side per match which can be taken whenever they choose. It should have a natural progression to spreading players over the field, creating more space and higher scoring.
The VFA played for nearly 50 years with only 16 on the ground, playing with no players on the wings.
There is nothing revolutionary about 16 a side.
- Sep 23, 2012
- 3,737
- 5,652
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Sturt, Ozark Mountain Daredevils
When the VFA had 16 the game scores were around 20 pts higher than the VFL with 18.
Do you think basketball would have higher scores with 7 a side?
I will go even further, hypothetical only.
Round 8: 16 a side, 6 on the bench, configuration 6-4-6, all games.
Round 9: 16 a side, 6 on the bench, configuration 5-6-5, all games.
Still uses 22 x Players and the same rules, people would barely notice. After Sydney versus Richmond anything goes make the most
of a disrupted troubling season.
Hypothetical over.
Well worth a try.
- May 27, 2017
- 6,368
- 9,799
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
Why stop at 16.
AFL Sevens anyone? Imagine the high scores!
AFL Sevens anyone? Imagine the high scores!
Could still flood a backline with 7 players
How about AFL 3's? 1 forward, 1 back and 1 midfielder.
- May 27, 2017
- 6,368
- 9,799
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
AFL penalty shoot-out style with each player having a kick from 50m.
Highest score wins.
Congestion = Ended.
The problem with this is all lower tier competitions are semi-professional, amateur, or for VFL, WAFL etc. topped up with plenty of semi-professional players.
So I don’t think we’d truly know the impact on the elite level of changes until it’s implemented by professional coaches and professional players.
Plus as a few have pointed out, teams are likely to change their player list strategy so true impacts may take years to be seen.
I’d love interchange rotation reduction and players in the field reduction because one one level it’s an obvious and easy fix, but I fear the response will be more Alex Neal-Bullens and Billy Hartungs running around.
The left field idea I heard that I think is worth a try is bonus points which would in some ways relegate percentage one step on the ladder.
If you gave an extra bonus point for say the top four highest scoring clubs, win or lose, in the round what would that do?
I think you’d have more attacking play, but not 190-185 score line games because the losing team, if that score was one of the top four scores, would only get 1 point vs. the winner 5, and winners of other games with lower scores still get 4 points so it won’t be incentive enough to just shoot out but don’t care if you lose.
It could also add another layer of interest in the last couple of games of the round as the top four scoring teams wouldn’t be known until that final game finishes.
Holy s**t, is he still playing AFL football? You have blown my mind.
I love this idea Yojimbo, you could even get all eighteen coaches and a player from attack, defence and the midfield to write an
essay after the two weeks on the virtues and effects of both configurations. That's a tremendous library of testimonials from
eighteen games of football that could prove very useful down the track when refining said process.
So a person believes that 7 and a half billion people is too many for the planet to support so obviously that person believes in killion billions of people.
Another person believes that an aircraft carrier is obsolete so obviously that person believes that no country should have a navy.
The AFL believe in equalisation so that means they obviously believe in every player getting 1 year contracts and every year every player is put into a new draft.
Bjo187
Premiership Player
- Apr 30, 2020
- 3,173
- 4,179
- AFL Club
- Essendon
Of course it makes sense for 16 a side, there are almost 40 players on the field ffs. Go to 16 and reduce interchange the game will open up nicely. I actually think it will go the other way, there will be less athletes because players will have more time and space to hit targets and you will be exposed if you are just an athlete with poor skills because you can't just slap it on the boot under pressure and kick into a pack like now with so many numbers within 50m of the ball.
Similar threads
