Opinion What unpopular AFL opinions do you have? - Part 2

[btdg]

Problem with that is it could reasonably be expected that it would provide an unfair advantage to clubs playing home games in the warmer states, clubs playing home games on smaller grounds or clubs playing home games in a dome. It may also create an unintended consequence at the end of the season where teams go ultra defensive to prevent the opponent from securing the bonus point.

It's also problematic with the uneven fixture when you have a side like Essendon in 2016 (they weren't even the poorest defensive side that season: Brisbane somehow averaged 130.5 points against them) or expansion GC/GWS: we get to play them twice and now you're practically gifting us a bonus point too?

A point for each game over the score is far too generous too: maybe something like a point once you do it three times would be better.

I’m not worried at all about the unfair advantage side. There’s so many other quirks and unique feature of the fixture and it just sits alongside Geelong’s home double home games, the extra travel some teams do vs genuine home advantage, etc. I honestly don’t think there is that much evidence that teams score more highly At certain grounds - even wet weather has less impact than it used to because so many scores come from turnovers anyway. Expansion is a once a decade type thing, and honestly, in the current system you already get a ‘5 point’ bonus playing a team like that because of the percentage boost.

And ultimately, the purpose of the competition is entertainment, NOT fairness. Something that confers a marginal, indeterminate advantage to some teams, possibly, while making the game lots more entertaining, is totally fine with me.

I do worry a bit about unintended consequences and late season shenanigans though. It opens up for some silliness with tanking (teams deliberately not kicking going for 100 to maintain draft position) or manipulating finals opponents. But until it happens, that’s also a long bow, and it’s also not a reason not to do it.

I’d be ok with a bonus point for every 3x 100 points, although I don’t know that solves either issue you raise, and probably removes a lot of the incentive to target it, particularly at the top end of the ladder.

Ultimately, it makes far more sense that trying to change rules around the ground. The holding the ball mess for example - it doesn’t seem to reduce congestion, has just led to more sloppy play and fan annoyance, confusion, because ultimately it does nothing to change the incentives of teams or coaches. A bonus point for high scoring does, a lot, and that’s why it works.

 

[Hallstrom]

I’m not worried at all about the unfair advantage side. There’s so many other quirks and unique feature of the fixture and it just sits alongside Geelong’s home double home games, the extra travel some teams do vs genuine home advantage, etc. I honestly don’t think there is that much evidence that teams score more highly At certain grounds - even wet weather has less impact than it used to because so many scores come from turnovers anyway. Expansion is a once a decade type thing, and honestly, in the current system you already get a ‘5 point’ bonus playing a team like that because of the percentage boost.

And ultimately, the purpose of the competition is entertainment, NOT fairness. Something that confers a marginal, indeterminate advantage to some teams, possibly, while making the game lots more entertaining, is totally fine with me.

I do worry a bit about unintended consequences and late season shenanigans though. It opens up for some silliness with tanking (teams deliberately not kicking going for 100 to maintain draft position) or manipulating finals opponents. But until it happens, that’s also a long bow, and it’s also not a reason not to do it.

I’d be ok with a bonus point for every 3x 100 points, although I don’t know that solves either issue you raise, and probably removes a lot of the incentive to target it, particularly at the top end of the ladder.

Ultimately, it makes far more sense that trying to change rules around the ground. The holding the ball mess for example - it doesn’t seem to reduce congestion, has just led to more sloppy play and fan annoyance, confusion, because ultimately it does nothing to change the incentives of teams or coaches. A bonus point for high scoring does, a lot, and that’s why it works.

Maybe the late season shenanigans and the double up games problem could both be solved by going back to the draw where you play every team once in the first 17 rounds, then play double ups, and then bonus points are only on offer for the first 17 rounds. Keeps teams trying to kick big scores in the early rounds and later in the season teams are playing for ladder position.

 

[wagstaff]

While it most likely wouldn't be practical if things returned to normal, I actually sort of prefer the general fixture structure of this season to the traditional weekend fixture.

It's great for TV watchers who get to see almost a match every night and for those going to the games the benefit of weeknight matches is more weekends free to do other things.

And I'm sure the AFL would've noticed these periods of matches on 20 consecutive days and the like help make footy dominate the sporting landscape, something they desire as much as anything else.

 

[btdg]

Maybe the late season shenanigans and the double up games problem could both be solved by going back to the draw where you play every team once in the first 17 rounds, then play double ups, and then bonus points are only on offer for the first 17 rounds. Keeps teams trying to kick big scores in the early rounds and later in the season teams are playing for ladder position.

Yep, that could work too.

I'd also layer it with my other proposal which is that the last 5 games of the season (ie; after eveyone has played each other once) are decided by swiss placings (1v2, 3v4, 5v6, etc) and teams are eliminated once they are fully mathematically eliminated from finals contention.

In that case you could keep the bonus point. That makes every game suddenly a 10-point game - top vs 2nd has a potentially massive swing if you can win, score 100, and keep your opponent below 100. Port/Brisbane - not only are they playing for top, but a 5-point swing almost guarantees it. But for the loser... Geelong/Richmond are playing and if you lose, you risk slipping. Of course, West Coast also had a win and jumped up...

In the middle of the ladder, it would also be massive. St Kilda started this week a game + a heap of percentage clear and played 5th, their likely swiss pairings opponent, but with very little at stake because its unlikely that enough teams get hte points and percentage to get ahead of them. Imagine if instead:
- Collingwood play GWS. Win with a bonus point and GWS go above St Kilda. Loser is in real trouble, because;
- The Bulldogs play Melbourne. Winner is jumping above Collingwood/GWS. Bonus point also puts the Bulldogs above St Kilda; AND
- Carlton play Essendon. Suddenly, Carlton with a bonus point (and no-one else getting one) can jump into the 8. Essendon are PROBABLY finish, but if they can hit two bonus points in the last two rounds, they're back in contention... sheet, imagine how this game looks if both teams need both a win AND bonus point to stay in contention. We might see teams playing full-forwards out of the goal-square!
- Freo and Gold Coast are mathematically still in contention (GC need 2 wins + bonus points to catch 8th, but it's possible). The rest are done. Now, I'd give my left nut to see Gold Coast play in a game where both teams are going all out to score bonus points. And Freo - they seem young and interesting, but also seem to be playing it tight and boring and having a lot of low-scoring games. So lets see it - open the sails, and lets see whether those young guys really do have what it takes or whether they are just looking ok because they're playing congestion footy against tired opponents.

The main thing is that it suddenly puts a massive incentive on teams to score heavily and get bonus points, and makes for an insanely tense finish to the year, with 10-point swings and all matches being important and relevant. Teams who lose get eliminated

Bang - Fixturing fixed. Congestion fixed. Competition is more entertaining, high scoring. I'll just take Gil's job thanks!

 

[Billy ray]

Less games. But only a few less.
17-3 is what i want.
20 game season.

play every team once in rounds 1-17.
rounds 18-20 each team plays a team in the 1-6,7-12,13-18 bracket. Now this can be done either at start of season based on prior year finishing position or after round 17 with a bye round.

Having just 3 double ups and one each from those three brackets ensures you can have a return derby/showdown etc.

every team gets 10 home games and 10 away. No bye before finals if the 3 double ups are decided after round 17 as everyone just had one.
But pre finals bye if double ups decided before season starts as bye rounds can be ~ round 10ish.

Fairest way i think as only 3 double ups is less skewed than 5.
To make up for loss of 27 home and away games, have more thursday games for broadcast rights value.

 

[jatz14]

I’m all for expansion, but if it has directly led to the atrocious decision making and skills of the average afl player then I’d agree 18 is too many.

My eyes are bleeding for large parts of every game now, the lack of proper execution is embarrassing for a professional sport.

Professional soccer players practise penalties a lot on the off chance they might need to take one or two a year in a shootout. How much goal kicking does the average footy player do in training these days? Not a lot by the look of it.

And for those who think you can’t recreate the pressure of a crowd - they’ve still been basically sh*t this year and there’s only one man and his dog there.

That's tactics, not skill level.

Skill level is higher than ever, but defensive pressure is higher still.

You could reduce it to a 2 team comp, would still look roughly the same.

On moto g(6) plus using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[GhostofJimJess]

Unlike every single footy commentator in the last decade since they started banging on about it, I really don’t think it matters if you come to the bench after kicking a goal.

 

[BlueandGoldforever]

That the AFL is totally corrupt and doesn’t really care about its fans or players, just as long as the media rights, advertising and sponsorship revenue comes in the door to swell the overpaid executives, they are happy.

 

[Cuzz09]

That the AFL is totally corrupt and doesn’t really care about its fans or players, just as long as the media rights, advertising and sponsorship revenue comes in the door to swell the overpaid executives, they are happy.

That is 100% what I think too.


On SM-G925I using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[HTPunter]

Unlike every single footy commentator in the last decade since they started banging on about it, I really don’t think it matters if you come to the bench after kicking a goal.

I think a lot just want to know why it happens. And then you have former players like Nick Riewoldt deny it's an intentional thing which is just odd because it really is too much of a coincidence to be a "timed rotation".

 

[jatz14]

I think a lot just want to know why it happens. And then you have former players like Nick Riewoldt deny it's an intentional thing which is just odd because it really is too much of a coincidence to be a "timed rotation".

When there is a big break, like a goal, they will usually run the full rotations.

So the guy that kicked the goal has about a 1 in 5 chance of being one of them. If it's a mid, then its much higher than that.

The camera is on the guy that kicked the goal, so you see him change.

You notice and remember when he changes, but you don't when he doesn't, so it becomes confirmation bias.

The commentators bitching on about it reinforces this.

On moto g(6) plus using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

All the debate and arguments about the All Australian and Brownlow selection process... Lachie Neale has just won the AFL Players Association MVP by more than 700 votes.

I'm not saying he's an undeserving winner, just that I can't imagine any player deserving to win the player of the year award by that margin. That's as ridiculous as anything the Brownlow or All Australian has ever thrown up.

The Players Association MVP gets a free ride from scrutiny compared to other awards. If anything, it shows us that the players aren't experts and they tend to just follow each other in the voting.

 

[Richo83]

The debate about how the All-Australian side doesn't always put players in the exact positions they play is the most arcane, dumb, boring irrelevant discussion. And I know this is an unpopular opinion because every time the All-Australian side gets released, I read much anger about how player x "ISN'T A WINGMAN".

Here's the thing about the All-Australian side, in five years time, no-one is going to remember where a player was put into the 2020 side, only that they were considered one of the best players and put in there. The All-Australian side tries to balance recognising who is the best with trying to put players somewhere near where they play. Just shoving in the best 22 players isn't ideal, but being some obsessive who creates rigid rules about selection in an era where positions are fluid and players play multiple roles is also utterly stupid. Many players only play one role. But the best players often play multiple roles which is why they're considered the best players in the first place.

Team positions are designed around the idea that you don't have 22 stars you can just put anywhere which is why you need various players to play various roles. Whereas the All-Australian selectors don't have to worry about that. Team positions are also based around outdated ideas about how players played in their own little spot and had no variety, flexibility and dynamism. Many gun players are positionless. They play a mixture of roles in a variety of spots. If we're doing the "must pick the player who has done the most in this specific part of the ground" game, then dynamic players who are the types which premiership teams have won't get put in. But that means the All-Australian side isn't reflective of the modern game or who the best are.

I'll be flamed for this; it's an unpopular opinion. I'm sure many of you are scoffing at the team and think I'm mad. But answer me this: are there any players in this team who couldn't play their position well? No? Well then who cares?

 

[Moist Biscuit]

The debate about how the All-Australian side doesn't always put players in the exact positions they play is the most arcane, dumb, boring irrelevant discussion. And I know this is an unpopular opinion because every time the All-Australian side gets released, I read much anger about how player x "ISN'T A WINGMAN".

Here's the thing about the All-Australian side, in five years time, no-one is going to remember where a player was put into the 2020 side, only that they were considered one of the best players and put in there. The All-Australian side tries to balance recognising who is the best with trying to put players somewhere near where they play. Just shoving in the best 22 players isn't ideal, but being some obsessive who creates rigid rules about selection in an era where positions are fluid and players play multiple roles is also utterly stupid. Many players only play one role. But the best players often play multiple roles which is why they're considered the best players in the first place.

Team positions are designed around the idea that you don't have 22 stars you can just put anywhere which is why you need various players to play various roles. Whereas the All-Australian selectors don't have to worry about that. Team positions are also based around outdated ideas about how players played in their own little spot and had no variety, flexibility and dynamism. Many gun players are positionless. They play a mixture of roles in a variety of spots. If we're doing the "must pick the player who has done the most in this specific part of the ground" game, then dynamic players who are the types which premiership teams have won't get put in. But that means the All-Australian side isn't reflective of the modern game or who the best are.

I'll be flamed for this; it's an unpopular opinion. I'm sure many of you are scoffing at the team and think I'm mad. But answer me this: are there any players in this team who couldn't play their position well? No? Well then who cares?

All that dribble to defend Dusty being in the forward pocket with a staggering 15 goals for the year. Its a farce mate, deal with it.

 

[Richo83]

All the debate and arguments about the All Australian and Brownlow selection process... Lachie Neale has just won the AFL Players Association MVP by more than 700 votes.

I'm not saying he's an undeserving winner, just that I can't imagine any player deserving to win the player of the year award by that margin. That's as ridiculous as anything the Brownlow or All Australian has ever thrown up.

The Players Association MVP gets a free ride from scrutiny compared to other awards. If anything, it shows us that the players aren't experts and they tend to just follow each other in the voting.

It's a crazy margin but, for instance, Dangerfield was seen by pretty much all and sundry to be the best player in 2016 (AFLCA award, brownlow medal, AFL MVP) and won the MVP by 926 votes. Sounds like the kind of margin you get in Soviet dictatorships. But just because all the players voted for him doesn't mean he's clearly the best and the margin is ridiculous, it just means that everyone agrees that Dangerfield was the best. It may even be by small margins. He's won the AFLCA award and will probably win the brownlow and I'm guessing a stack of media awards.

You're complaining about footy player hive minds but let's say some media outlet in 2016 picked someone other than Dangerfield, people would have responded with "well the umpires, coaches and players think you're wrong so....". In other words, people are looking for a hivemind.

 

[Richo83]

All that dribble to defend Dusty being in the forward pocket with a staggering 15 goals for the year. Its a farce mate, deal with it.

Right, should have been on a HFF instead.

 

[Moist Biscuit]

Right, should have been on a HFF instead.

Should have never been picked tbh. He's had an average year by his standards.

 

[mr bagcroft]

The debate about how the All-Australian side doesn't always put players in the exact positions they play is the most arcane, dumb, boring irrelevant discussion. And I know this is an unpopular opinion because every time the All-Australian side gets released, I read much anger about how player x "ISN'T A WINGMAN".

Here's the thing about the All-Australian side, in five years time, no-one is going to remember where a player was put into the 2020 side, only that they were considered one of the best players and put in there. The All-Australian side tries to balance recognising who is the best with trying to put players somewhere near where they play. Just shoving in the best 22 players isn't ideal, but being some obsessive who creates rigid rules about selection in an era where positions are fluid and players play multiple roles is also utterly stupid. Many players only play one role. But the best players often play multiple roles which is why they're considered the best players in the first place.

Team positions are designed around the idea that you don't have 22 stars you can just put anywhere which is why you need various players to play various roles. Whereas the All-Australian selectors don't have to worry about that. Team positions are also based around outdated ideas about how players played in their own little spot and had no variety, flexibility and dynamism. Many gun players are positionless. They play a mixture of roles in a variety of spots. If we're doing the "must pick the player who has done the most in this specific part of the ground" game, then dynamic players who are the types which premiership teams have won't get put in. But that means the All-Australian side isn't reflective of the modern game or who the best are.

I'll be flamed for this; it's an unpopular opinion. I'm sure many of you are scoffing at the team and think I'm mad. But answer me this: are there any players in this team who couldn't play their position well? No? Well then who cares?

The WHOLE concept itself is dumb, irrelevant and meaningless...from a-hole to breakfast.
Never understood the point of its existance, or why anyone would give a s**t. Seriously.
Come at me.
Just my opinion.

 

[Virgin Dog]

Players who cry homesick when requesting trades come across as entitled children. Crying because they miss mummy and daddy just shows how naive and sheltered the average footballer is.

When you earn as much as they do, you have more than enough money to travel interstate and go visit in the offseason, or fly them up for a visit.

And before anyone calls me out for supporting a Victorian side - I am not Victorian. I go months without seeing family due to not living close enough, as well as everyone's own personal circumstances, so I definitely know what it's like to be away from family/friends.

If you want a trade to your home state, just say so. Don't cry homesick or go on about being closer to family, as if people are supposed to have sympathy. There are very rare cases like Tim Kelly that are 100% justified, but he's the exception.

 

[Moist Biscuit]

Players who cry homesick when requesting trades come across as entitled children. Crying because they miss mummy and daddy just shows how naive and sheltered the average footballer is.

When you earn as much as they do, you have more than enough money to travel interstate and go visit in the offseason, or fly them up for a visit.

And before anyone calls me out for supporting a Victorian side - I am not Victorian. I go months without seeing family due to not living close enough, as well as everyone's own personal circumstances, so I definitely know what it's like to be away from family/friends.

If you want a trade to your home state, just say so. Don't cry homesick or go on about being closer to family, as if people are supposed to have sympathy. There are very rare cases like Tim Kelly that are 100% justified, but he's the exception.

Ditto. Or when players are leaving for money, just say it. Don't go full Zac Williams "Ahhh I want to move to Melbourne to be closer to my sister who lives in Albury" just say the extra 150-200 k a year was too much to pass up.

 

[Franc de Borges]

All the debate and arguments about the All Australian and Brownlow selection process... Lachie Neale has just won the AFL Players Association MVP by more than 700 votes.

I'm not saying he's an undeserving winner, just that I can't imagine any player deserving to win the player of the year award by that margin. That's as ridiculous as anything the Brownlow or All Australian has ever thrown up.

The Players Association MVP gets a free ride from scrutiny compared to other awards. If anything, it shows us that the players aren't experts and they tend to just follow each other in the voting.

Name the years where they got it wrong. I've gone through them and can't find one that stands out as undeserving, which certainly can't be said for the Brownlow.

The process may be a bit s**t but we pretty much always end up with the correct player of the year, which is exactly what it's designed to do.

 

[Richo83]

Players who cry homesick when requesting trades come across as entitled children. Crying because they miss mummy and daddy just shows how naive and sheltered the average footballer is.

When you earn as much as they do, you have more than enough money to travel interstate and go visit in the offseason, or fly them up for a visit.

And before anyone calls me out for supporting a Victorian side - I am not Victorian. I go months without seeing family due to not living close enough, as well as everyone's own personal circumstances, so I definitely know what it's like to be away from family/friends.

If you want a trade to your home state, just say so. Don't cry homesick or go on about being closer to family, as if people are supposed to have sympathy. There are very rare cases like Tim Kelly that are 100% justified, but he's the exception.

It's not that uncommon for people to want to work close to where their friends and family live. The AFL basically grabs 18 year olds and says to them "hey toots, you're going to the sunny shores of a place you've never been to send me a postcard". After a while, much like many employees, they exercise their right to change their employment conditions. If the clubs as employers can move players around as pawns, surely players can want to work where they want to. I've known people who have shifted jobs just to be in their home state or even in their home city. Tell a Melburnian that they're going to have to work in one of the regional cities and see how they feel.

I'd rather them be honest and admit they want to play in their home state than make up a fake "looking for more opportunities/need a fresh start/want to play a different role" reason.

 

[Virgin Dog]

It's not that uncommon for people to want to work close to where their friends and family live. The AFL basically grabs 18 year olds and says to them "hey toots, you're going to the sunny shores of a place you've never been to send me a postcard". After a while, much like many employees, they exercise their right to change their employment conditions. If the clubs as employers can move players around as pawns, surely players can want to work where they want to. I've known people who have shifted jobs just to be in their home state or even in their home city. Tell a Melburnian that they're going to have to work in one of the regional cities and see how they feel.

I'd rather them be honest and admit they want to play in their home state than make up a fake "looking for more opportunities/need a fresh start/want to play a different role" reason.

My issue is crying homesickness when you're in your 20s. They need to grow up and cut the cord. Go home if you want to, but don't act like you need sympathy for being "homesick"

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

Name the years where they got it wrong. I've gone through them and can't find one that stands out as undeserving, which certainly can't be said for the Brownlow.

The process may be a bit sh*t but we pretty much always end up with the correct player of the year, which is exactly what it's designed to do.

"Name the years they got it wrong" kind of misses the point. You could do a poll on here with a rule that you can't vote for a player from your own team and "pretty much end up with the correct player of the year".

The hugely lopsided margins just imply that the players are pretty much aware of how everyone's voting and they just follow each other. The way our game is played means that there's never a player who is that far ahead of everyone else. And since it's been 16 years since a non-midfielder has won, I wonder how often over that period it's just been the favourite for the Brownlow at the time that's won the MVP.

 

[Richo83]

My issue is crying homesickness when you're in your 20s. They need to grow up and cut the cord. Go home if you want to, but don't act like you need sympathy for being "homesick"

I don't think they expect or want sympathy. They're just being honest that they have certain things they want out of life and work and will use their employee bargaining power to get that. I'm sure there are employees who work for a nationwide company who say to the boss "hey can I be sent back to the regional office where I live?"