Autopsy 16-minute quarters: which teams are winners and losers from this?

What do you think of the reduced quarters?

  • Not sure yet

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    11

Hawk_francais

Cancelled
Sep 20, 2015
3,509
7,036
AFL Club
Hawthorn
18 teams play each other once (17 rounds)

Games go for the normal time a game football actually goes for

Top 8 teams play finals.

Top 4 get double chance.

Grand Final played in the higher placing team's home state.

It's so simple and elegant there is no way it will ever happen.
 
Mar 20, 2002
24,079
24,761
Mosman Village
AFL Club
Carlton
26 rounds. No byes. 36 more games brings more cash into the game and allows for rolling fixture where over each two year period each team plays all others three times plus one extra derby/showdown. Fixes the finances and delivers a far more equitable fixture.
Simply start a week earlier and have the GF a week later. Easy.
More footy = win/win/win.
AFL fixed.

There is only one answer to this post ...……… GIVE YOURSELF AN UPPERCUT !!
 
May 20, 2011
11,921
10,506
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Will be a 17 round season going forward with 16 minute quarters and longer breaks between quarters for more advertising. Dangerfield and many others get there wish on doing as little as possible.
 
Aug 4, 2003
22,984
23,443
WA
AFL Club
West Coast
Wrap up GC, cap the Vic sides at 5 relegate the bottom 2 each year to revamped ‘VFL’ competition. Promote the VFL GF teams each year. Eventually aim to develop into a national 2nd tier comp with open relegation.

12 Team ‘premier league’, everyone plays each other twice, top 6 finals with a 5–6-7-8 ‘wild card’ round.

Now THAT would be a comp....that would obviously never happen. ;)
 
Feb 23, 2009
32,140
45,738
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
New York Jets
I don't know where the need for shorter quarters even came from. Seemed to just pop up out of nowhere as a problem I didn't know existed. The AFL doesn't seem satisfied unless they've made at least 2 adjustments to the game each year.
Broadcasters.
Overlapping games aren't good for them. They want every game unique to maximise individual ratings and revenue. If 2 games are on at once, the market is split, if they are on consecutively, people can watch both.

Shorter games allows them to utilise more time slots too.
 
Jun 25, 2006
10,481
6,777
Melbourne
AFL Club
Fremantle
16 minute quarters were horrible to watch on the TV. Personally, I wouldn’t bother going to watch a game live for an hours worth of play.

I'm with you tbh, take me 25 on a train to get the to MCG so thats already almost an hour just in PT. Will still go to Freo games but unless I can get free tickets will give a miss on all others. It was a noticeable difference.
 

nerRADIAN

Team Captain
Oct 20, 2006
577
649
AFL Club
Adelaide
I don't mind it but the low scores were a problem last year and the AFL don't like that. How about reducing the 20 minute half time break? + the 2 quarter breaks? Cut those breaks in half.
 

Hawk_francais

Cancelled
Sep 20, 2015
3,509
7,036
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Ditto of not wasting my time to go in to lose an entire quarter of footy. Will not renew my membership if the game changes from 20-16mins and less rounds.
Nobody has a really good reason for shortening the quarters. If its about wear and tear, I’m all for reducing the lenth of the season.

It’s really sad because the AFL are mostly doing it to fit in with the global sporting ‘market’. More watchable for foreigners, mid-week games etc.

I love how long the game is, a proper afternoon or evenings watching with so many possible twists and turns. The marathon nature also makes the game harder. Teams need more than a few stars and a good clearance strategy to win consistently. They need proper discipline and determination to weather the opposition’s attack when they lose the momentum. I see that shaving down the game is all about blitz and razzle dazzle.
 
Jun 25, 2006
10,481
6,777
Melbourne
AFL Club
Fremantle
Nobody has a really good reason for shortening the quarters. If its about wear and tear, I’m all for reducing the lenth of the season.

It’s really sad because the AFL are mostly doing it to fit in with the global sporting ‘market’. More watchable for foreigners, mid-week games etc.

I love how long the game is, a proper afternoon or evenings watching with so many possible twists and turns. The marathon nature also makes the game harder. Teams need more than a few stars and a good clearance strategy to win consistently. They need proper discipline and determination to weather the opposition’s attack when they lose the momentum. I see that shaving down the game is all about blitz and razzle dazzle.

Its weird because we are constantly bombarded with "record attendance numbers" so they can't exactly say its what the fans want. If the players somehow win the battle for shorter games then it will once again show how little the AFL/clubs care about their members...oh but they care about them right now for the $$$$$$
 

Hawk_francais

Cancelled
Sep 20, 2015
3,509
7,036
AFL Club
Hawthorn
This is one rule change I don't understand why it happened, or why it should continue.
Players want to play less game time, it's too strenuous on their bodies. I can fairly believe this is so. If less game time means less injuries, I'm totally on board.

Option 1: Make the season longer, bringing in two or three more byes. This allows players time to rest, but overall it just cuts into their off-season rest period, so probably has a neutral effect overall.
Option 2: Shorten the season by cutting out games. Obviously the best option, but it's not an easy sell. Everybody loses money, some fans will complain very loudly anyway about wanting to pay less membership, less opportunity to watch their team blah blah blah.
Option 3 (the 'cadbury' option): Just give everyone the same thing and hope they won't notice the bit you took out. Namely, reduce game time by 16 minutes. Meanwhile you get a product that's easier to market, more time for ads and the players are super happy with you. Shame that anybody who likes the game - but doesn't profit from it - loses out.
 

Crusty Demon

Norm Smith Medallist
Sep 20, 2009
7,863
8,310
Brighton
AFL Club
Melbourne
Other Teams
Leeds United
Anymore tampering with the rules, time etc and I'm done with this sport. And I'm not the only one saying that. With the greed of the players,the constant rule changes, to the AFL not only propping up GWS and GC but trying to legitimately make them long term powerhouses, alot of people are on the edge of walking away as it is. Giving supporters less footy with more ads will drive many away. I honestly felt short changed with the 16min quarters.
 

Crusty Demon

Norm Smith Medallist
Sep 20, 2009
7,863
8,310
Brighton
AFL Club
Melbourne
Other Teams
Leeds United
Nobody has a really good reason for shortening the quarters. If its about wear and tear, I’m all for reducing the lenth of the season.

It’s really sad because the AFL are mostly doing it to fit in with the global sporting ‘market’. More watchable for foreigners, mid-week games etc.

I love how long the game is, a proper afternoon or evenings watching with so many possible twists and turns. The marathon nature also makes the game harder. Teams need more than a few stars and a good clearance strategy to win consistently. They need proper discipline and determination to weather the opposition’s attack when they lose the momentum. I see that shaving down the game is all about blitz and razzle dazzle.
This 100%

You can compare that to the way cricket shortened their games to 20 overs a side. It probably needed to for survival arguably, however you're starting to see a drop off in suppprt for that format now because the supporters who loved cricket for the lengthy mental battle between bat and ball and the traditional side of the sport are now losing interest fast, me included. But cricket is a little different as you can maintain 3 formats of the game with different teams etc. AFL need to be careful as they don't have the international market like an India or England to rely on $$$ coming in. Stop f***ing with our game!!
 

Luv_our_club

Norm Smith Medallist
Feb 14, 2017
6,883
12,955
AFL Club
Hawthorn
People suggest the 17 game season as if it is the great equalizer.

What about home ground advantage? What if you play 3 of the top 4 teams interstate? Or off short breaks?

I always believed that the more games you play the more even things become. It is like going to the casino: you may get lucky once, but if you keep going there the truth will out.

22 games is more even than 17 imo. And 25 games more even than 22 etc

Plus, the season will lack quality games if the best teams only play each other once.
 
Last edited:

Luv_our_club

Norm Smith Medallist
Feb 14, 2017
6,883
12,955
AFL Club
Hawthorn
34 game season but games are only 2 halves of 30 mins each.
each weekend you play two games eg when you travel you play two games on the road trip

am i doing it right?

The AFL want 2 halves of 32 minutes each. So yes, you are doing it exactly right.
 

mattwa

Club Legend
Jun 10, 2007
2,524
4,773
wa
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Changing the quarter length requires changes to your list to more speedier players with a smaller tank. Our games built on work rate and strategy and by removing that last 4 mins you remove that gut running that we idolise in our elite players. Can the AFL just leave the game alone it is a joke they keep changing it. Leave it at 20 min quarters
 

Consolaçao

All Australian
May 22, 2007
922
819
Melbourne Town
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Phnom Penh Utd (curling)
I read something by a sycophantic AFL journo the other days saying that one of the 'great' things about shorter quarter would be that stars would be on the ground for longer (implying that this is what fans want to see). Maybe it's me, but I've never turned on a game so I could watch a 'star' in action. I'm happy to accept that Nat Fyfe is one of the AFL's best and a deserving Brownlow winner, but in recent years I've done whatever I could to avoid having to endure Fremantle games.
 

Hawk_francais

Cancelled
Sep 20, 2015
3,509
7,036
AFL Club
Hawthorn
People suggest the 17 game season as if it is the great equalizer.

What about home ground advantage? What if you play 3 of the top 4 teams interstate? Or off short breaks?

I always believed that the more games you play the more even things become. It is like going to the casino: you may get lucky once, but if you keep going there the truth will out.

22 games is more even than 17 imo. And 25 games more even than 22 etc

Plus, the season will lack quality games if the best teams only play each other once.
I actually agree with you that the season we have now is pretty fair, and I like it, but the writing is on the wall. So in a 17 round fixture, each team plays 17 games. The bottom 9 sides from the previous year get 9 home games, the rest get 8. It should be tweaked like the normal fixture to make sure the bottom side isn’t playing every top 4 side away etc.

You say the home and away season will lack quality games. But that’s unavoidable given you are taking away a third of the season. If you’re shortening the H&A by 7 games though, it means you could extend the finals series, add a wild card weekend etc. That’s a much better guarantee of quality games than extra rounds in H&A.

Players are crying out for less minutes of football per year, and the AFL are realistically going to satisfy this by satisying themselves, i.e. less minutes per quarter = game cut down to soccer length for international appeal = more fixture flexibility due to less fatigue = exact same time for advertisers. Unfortunately when every commentator should be pulling them up on it, the Fox team are squarely behind the change, for no apparent reason. They seem to be the only ones in the world for whom R1 2020 was actually more exciting - which is objectively wrong.
 
Back