Analysis How the state of the game has evolved, is the increased rate of injuries a result of of the evolution

[Roylion]

I'm more impressed by how they managed to wipe Fitzroy's blood off the things.

Really?

 

[Snake_Baker]

Really?

You have your views on this, I have mine.

 

[SJ]

Collingwood flooding the forward line in 2010 was a big one. Their goal kicking conversion suffered but it didn't really matter - no many how many behinds they kicked, you couldn't get it out of your backline and eventually they'd goal against you.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

No. We were good in 2015 and we were suitably s**t to watch. The new Richmond is exactly what we’ve been asking for, applying serious pressure to get the ball, and then when we do, push forward and look to score. If you just watch the game vaguely, yeah it looks like a bit of a rolling maul, but you just have to watch it closely, and you’ll see the brilliance.

You're missing the point.

It's brilliant in terms of its effectiveness in the current game.

No one is denying that.

The discussion that is raging at the moment does not relate to the effectiveness of Richmond or any other club's style - it's that it's unwatchable as a neutral supporter.

Not just Richmond either, almost every game.


The similarity with the UFC is a good one. For those that follow it, they've faced similar challenges.

It's an entertainment product. If people don't watch it - there is no sport.
Whether we like it or not, the AFL is the same.

UFC Coaches came in, and turned the fighter's focus to purely winning fights, rather than beating the other dude up.
So wrestlers became the next big thing. They were coming in and winning fights by lying on a guy for 15 minutes.

It was 'brilliant' in terms of winning the fight and its effectiveness - but it's unwatchable.

People stopped paying to watch it.

Guys like Jon Fitch came in went 9-0 by lying on guys for 15 minutes. Eventually, even though he was winning every fight, the UFC stopped giving him big fights, because no one wanted to watch him!


So you need to differentiate between winning, and entertaining.

 

[_Mike_]

Try keeping the discussion on the state of the game to one single thread please folks.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Do you also enjoy pleasuring yourself with a cheese grater?

There's a few unexamined aesthetic assumptions underpinning your post.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

The new Chinese, Indian. Sri Lankan & Afghani immigrants are not taking up AFL like the Italians and Greeks of past generations. So the population increase should not be factored in.

Yes and no. It is a concern, and while I hope this most recent wave of immigrants eventually see the error of their ways and embrace our great game like the earlier waves of mostly Anglo, Irish and to a lesser extent Continental migrants did, it may be there is more perceived advantage for the more recent arrivals to attach themselves to a sport they might already know; most likely soccer (another good reason why we should not be so damn unwelcoming to immigrants!).

But there are other factors to consider.

The sheer number of immigrants may help override the relevance of the low take-up factor.

There are encouraging signs from the Sudanese community in particular.

The big (and welcome) increase in Indigenous participation may also help offset any disinclination of more recent arrivals to embrace the game.

I don't doubt there are numerous other factors at play too.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

If the field was half the length, it would take only one kick to get from one goal square to the other. It would be mayhem. At least with the game as it is, you have to have some pretty decent ball movement to move it from FB to FF.

No matter what we do to the game in terms of interchange, subs, rotations, number of players - the only way to guarantee all players never being in one half is to have zones where players can't leave. I can see the value in that, but I think it would be incredibly hard to monitor. The old game effectively did have zones in the sense that players stayed close to their positions and it never occurred to them or their coaches to flood and crowd their defensive 50. Once you know you can do that, the option will be used unless the rules force you to do otherwise. But the game is already tricky to officiate - imagine the burden of policing zones. I think all the other measures that are being proposed will only have minimal effect, it's tinkering around the edges. The game has evolved. Evolution rarely reverses itself.

Time for an offside rule?

 

[iluvparis]

Time for an offside rule?

Josh Jenkins would have to be immediately delisted.

 

[ItsAllAboutMe]

Round 6 was the worst round of football I can remember in my 37 years of watching footy.
Round 5 went for 2 weeks, so its difficult to remember much about it
Round 4 the average losing margin was 53 points with 3 games that were 80+ point margins
Rounds 1 - 3 were excellent with exciting football and regular scores of 100+

What has changed?? Part of me thinks that the AFL pumped us with blockbusters early on in the season with round 1 & 2 being standouts, so the season had to correct itself with a few dud rounds. Round 7 looks another dud with really only Geelong v GWS & perhaps WC v Port of much interest for a neutral. Essendon v Hawks would usually be a high profile game but the way the bombers are playing I doubt many will bother.

I will be interesting what the crowds and viewer numbers will be like this weekend after the game has been slammed all week.

 

[iluvparis]

Overnight Tony Modra was a superstar player with no identifiable position.

Wut? Was surely a full forward

 

[Ando727]

Time for an offside rule?

I don't think an offside rule would change anything because it still wouldn't stop a team from flooding their defensive half. If anything it might make the problem worse because there would be no point parking a forward in the goal square if he's going to be pinged for being offside any time he receives the ball with his defensive opponent running in forward of him. Unless you had a different offside concept in mind?

 

[Maylandsman]

Gerard Neesham and his water polo tactics. Everyone scoffed but secretly took on board what he was doing and implemented the best parts. Sheedy admitted as much. Neesham was a revolutionary.

 

[BEaston]

It was idiotic to remove the 3rd man up as it was one of the few tactics teams had to clear the ball from congestion.

Edit: 16 a side is stupid. Would result in more elite runners being played, more fatigue generally and a reduction in skills = more congestion.

 

[MarcusP2]

Wut? Was surely a full forward

I think he's referring to that as the 90s waned (no more Lockett, Dunstall types) the role of the 'stay at home full forward' disappeared. So Modra was the last of those do-nothing-but-kick-goals forwards and by the end of his career the game had moved past him.

 

[iluvparis]

I think he's referring to that as the 90s waned (no more Lockett, Dunstall types) the role of the 'stay at home full forward' disappeared. So Modra was the last of those do-nothing-but-kick-goals forwards and by the end of his career the game had moved past him.

But he says 'he came from nowhere' when he was actually around at the same time that Ablett, Lockett and Dunstall were all still kicking tonnes each year.

 

[MarcusP2]

But he says 'he came from nowhere' when he was actually around at the same time that Ablett, Lockett and Dunstall were all still kicking tonnes each year.

No he didn't....he said 'overnight Modra had no identifiable position'.

Not 'he came into the comp and had no identifiable position'. More like 'suddenly in 1999 he was a superstar...but he no longer had a position to play'.

 

[Maydok]

This Lewis Jetta goal. Everyone seemed to think it was the greatest thing known to man at the time, where I was like, WTF, it looks like a rugby league try.

 

[footyfan1978]

Generally, scoring has been in the low to mid 90's since 1994, with a blip in 2000, and dipping under 90 from 2014 on.

Maybe we should ask what changed at the end of 1993 for the scoring to drop 10 full points per team/20 points per match? (My memory suggests this was when quarters were wound back from 25 minutes + time-on to 20 minutes.) This happened twice previously, in 1959-60 and 1969-70, with 1969 being a 'blip' similar to 2000. Conversely, scoring jumped 12 points in 1981-82 and 15 points in 1968-69.

Scoring also increased by 16 points per team between 1931-34, in what became a golden age of footy. Do we understand the game well enough to attempt to precipitate such changes?

I was listening to Pure Footy hour on SEN and Glenn Luff of Champion Data made a point he thinks the modern game started in 1969 as apparently that was when the rules were changed that you could not kick ball out of bounds on full. They even say "Hit the boundary line" back in those days on tv replays. So maybe that had something to do with 15 points rise from 1968 to 69. I do not know when the Diamond and Centre Square began but within a few years of that. Massive changes to game of that time and the next few decades scoring rose to highest levels ever.
1994 they bring in 3rd interchange to the game and think it was based on compulsory interchange of player for blood rule. Then someone come up with bright idea to bring in a 4th interchange just a few years on for 1998. It was not too long after this flooding was becoming a thing in the game. Basically it has regressed from about 4 to 6 years after that and scoring has tended downwards for some time and rotations explosion happened too.

Going to be fascinating review of whole look or our game in next 12 months. I am glad it is finally on agenda as not really liked how the game has been regressing for so long. Finally has gotten to point where people are taking notice it is not getting better, it has increasingly got worse and worse.
Steve Hocking is right man for right time.

 

[footyfan1978]

16 a side is stupid. Would result in more elite runners being played, more fatigue generally and a reduction in skills = more congestion.

Some of us have seen 16 a side footy. For years channel 10 showed VFA footy on Sunday when this league played all our matches on Saturday. They made a point of being different by having no wings and play with 16 on field. Was a very open game and high scoring from memory. Also crazy amounts of biffo.

I'd rather we stick to traditional 18 a side.

 

[HTT]

That's not much to be excited about.

It's also totally irrelevant to the debate.

Its quite relevant. It means we are scoring both early and late in games - unlike your idea that we only score late.

 

[footyfan1978]

To 'older' watchers of footy, has there ever been a specific moment or game of footy where you thought, "The game is evolving" or something similiar?

The general idea of swapping several players around from one end of ground to other during games. Started becoming a thing by Carlton teams in 1980's with Ken Hunter, Wayne Harmes and Peter McConville types. Kevin Sheedy famously did it in 1984 grand final to turn game around and come from behind to smash Hawks in last quarter.
The huddle from kick outs.
The clever goals controlling topple over of ball on ground from angles made famous by Peter Daicos. Now a regular thing.
Ruckmen not just seeing their role to tap out and mark around ground but be a midfielder too. Jimmy Stynes started this, then we have guys like Kruezer and Nick Nat now do it and even Adam Goodes played that role as undersized ruck for many months in a Brownlow year.

Big bodied midfielder like Kouta called the proto-type for next generation. Now we have Dangerfield's, Fyfe and Cripps as seen as normal sized midfielders. Although to be fair Bernie Quinlan played quite a few games as Superboot ruck rover type for Fitzroy around 1980 period.

The game has been regressing for a good decade for mine since around 2005 period when 4 on bench started to become consciously used regularly for rotations by coaching staff. Now if there is any evolution it is more about schemes, systems and strategies of how 22 can control territory on field with freshest 18 on field to sustain the system in place to stop opposing team do what they want. It is actually less about the player brilliance and more about team systems.
Clarko's Cluster was brilliant strategy for it's time. Not a good look but excellent strategy.
Champion Data started taking stats soon after game had 4 on bench. The coaching staff full time and able to study the stats and work out patterns that help to get a win is one thing. Devising systems and teaching group of players to put it into practice is the evolution we have now.

 

[Collins-Langford-Ayres]

Mark Williams from Hawthorn in the back pocket for the Hawks, looking up and seeing nothing but opposition players ahead of him and then snapping a perfect goal (for the opposition), registering a behind for them, so that we had a kick in and could set-up again.

 

[scarecrow2k1]

2010
Preliminary Final
Collingwood vs Geelong
Saw the pies play with more intensity and pressure than I'd ever seen from a team. After half time I remember thinking this was the future of footy, until a succession plan got in the way.

Richmond revisited it against Geelong in our QF last year

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

I don't think an offside rule would change anything because it still wouldn't stop a team from flooding their defensive half. If anything it might make the problem worse because there would be no point parking a forward in the goal square if he's going to be pinged for being offside any time he receives the ball with his defensive opponent running in forward of him. Unless you had a different offside concept in mind?

No, I was totally being tongue in cheek.