Opinion 16 a side - why not?

[thylacine60]

Congestion battle: 16-a-side footy might be trialled next pre-season

I've always wanted this. Someone tell me why it's a bad idea.

 

[MitchRobinson12]

Just have to let the game evolve as it always has, less rule changes the better.

 

[1981]

All for it

Helps clubs with limited midfield depth like us

 

[thylacine60]

ffs

 

[Boltfromtheblue]

I thought St Kilda rightly got in trouble for that sort of thing

 

[ShanDog]

All for it

Helps clubs with limited midfield depth like us

I dunno - if anything it puts a premium on midfielders wouldn't it? I imagine most teams would drop a tall forward and therefore a key back. One main KPF and lots of smalls around them.

 

[BlueGum]

I don't think of this idea as a rule change so much. Just taking two players off the park and onto the bench? Would it be enough to take the coaching focus from closing down space, to creating space? Make it a less controlled game again.

 

[thylacine60]

I don't think of this idea as a rule change so much. Just taking two players off the park and onto the bench? Would it be enough to take the coaching focus from closing down space, to creating space? Make it a less controlled game again.

agree

 

[Jimmae]

Congestion battle: 16-a-side footy might be trialled next pre-season

I've always wanted this. Someone tell me why it's a bad idea.

What's wrong with the game at the moment? Teams have adjusted well enough to modern defensive techniques.

The odd club needs to tidy up their recruitment, but even Sydney - the kings of congestion - have recruited and deployed a very quick and open forward structure to score via counter-attack.

Women's footy will be 18-a-side soon enough, and I think taking players off the field just hurts the spectacle through lack of a switch option on the opposite side, making the F50 heavily congested (which we saw in the AFLW).

Could lead to even more midfield congestion to boot.

 

[thylacine60]

Don't wanna complicate the idea. Less players on the ground, less congestion. Less congestion, more room. More room, more open play which I love.

 

[Jimmae]

Don't wanna complicate the idea. Less players on the ground, less congestion. Less congestion, more room. More room, more open play which I love.

I edited my post to further my opinion on it. AFLW results suggest it places a greater emphasis on putting numbers around the stoppage and bottles up the 50.

 

[thylacine60]

ok then- how we looking for 14 a side?

 

[Jimmae]

ok then- how we looking for 14 a side?

They might start emptying out the 50 then, but suddenly the wings look a bit empty.

Question is, do you want old-school footy where blokes had the space but couldn't be arsed running, or do you want enough blokes on the field, unlocking the play through tactics, athleticism and skill?

 

[thylacine60]

I want room to move. The congestion is killing me and the game imo.

 

[Jimmae]

I want room to move. The congestion is killing me and the game imo.

I reckon the recent trend towards prioritising footy IQ, skill and speed over taller athletes will clear that up.

Failing that, they can have the zone caps like in the U18 Champs.

 

[ShanDog]

I reckon the recent trend towards prioritising footy IQ, skill and speed over taller athletes will clear that up.

Failing that, they can have the zone caps like in the U18 Champs.

Zone caps makes more sense to implement before reducing the number of players on the field. Though I'm not sold there needs to be any change. The game adapts and changes all the time.

 

[Amers]

It makes more sense for the mens game than the womens...... It's the best way to stop congestion that I can think of, way easier than making all the grounds larger....

 

[BlueRenaissance]

Not going to be popular but I think a reduction in on field numbers is a great idea. The game was at its best spectator wise in the late 90s. I remembering thinking that this is the best game format in the world and what a shame other countries don't play it. I do not think that at all now - just a decent game that has good/bad matches. The 90s provided a great balance between tall, mid, small, speed and physical contest.

Since the late 90s the game has been revolutionised with advances. The athletes are so much more powerful and get over the ground much quicker creating congestion. The coaching and strategy mgmt has got so much more advanced in term of negating what was good about the game. The AFL has interfered with the rotation increases.

The result of all these impacts is a huge increase in congestion/stoppages. This has then impacted recruitment who favour thick bodied, thick necked skill-less tanks to bowl over the opposition at those stoppages. That and recruiting ever taller players who can win a mark in a congested crowd.

Taking a few players off the field *might* reverse this trend of recruiting rugby style body types and return to thinner, skilled style players (C Bradleys/Schwass of the world). Some of those players still make it but the law of averages see them disappear as a breed overall.

The increase in stoppages sees less end to end football and the one-out contest in the f50. We see more flooding of defences as the players are fit enough and powerful enough to get there in time due to resting/rotation increases. Potentially, the only way to increase one-out situations is to see a reduction in numbers and or a reduction in player rotation numbers.

We are currently choosing power and brute force over skill. Which is the better product to watch is debatable. I'm not a fan of tall useless players who get an AFL game based on tallness...example: Hampson. I'm also not a fan off the bullnecks permeating our game who have no skill (e.g. Tom Bell).

At the minute, the ascendancy is to win with brute force due to the sheer number of stoppages and number of fit/strong players on field resting from rotations. I'd prefer the late 90s model revisited where the ascendancy was with elite runners (C Bradley) as it puts decision making and skills to the fore.

Not sure 16 is the right number but would love to see a trial. It's take time for the AFL players to adjust as they are built for stoppages and sprints, not endurance running. Might start out s**t but recruitment would target different players.

Take the current path to fruition. In the 1980s a ruckman was 190cm...now 210cm...midfielders were 175-185cm. Soon a midfielder average height will be 195+ under the current path the AFL is taking. Stupid big people with no skill but just a big body leading our game. It is this change that is making it less attractive each decade.

 

[Ken Navies]

Not going to be popular but I think a reduction in on field numbers is a great idea. The game was at its best spectator wise in the late 90s. I remembering thinking that this is the best game format in the world and what a shame other countries don't play it. I do not think that at all now - just a decent game that has good/bad matches. The 90s provided a great balance between tall, mid, small, speed and physical contest.

Since the late 90s the game has been revolutionised with advances. The athletes are so much more powerful and get over the ground much quicker creating congestion. The coaching and strategy mgmt has got so much more advanced in term of negating what was good about the game. The AFL has interfered with the rotation increases.

The result of all these impacts is a huge increase in congestion/stoppages. This has then impacted recruitment who favour thick bodied, thick necked skill-less tanks to bowl over the opposition at those stoppages. That and recruiting ever taller players who can win a mark in a congested crowd.

Taking a few players off the field *might* reverse this trend of recruiting rugby style body types and return to thinner, skilled style players (C Bradleys/Schwass of the world). Some of those players still make it but the law of averages see them disappear as a breed overall.

The increase in stoppages sees less end to end football and the one-out contest in the f50. We see more flooding of defences as the players are fit enough and powerful enough to get there in time due to resting/rotation increases. Potentially, the only way to increase one-out situations is to see a reduction in numbers and or a reduction in player rotation numbers.

We are currently choosing power and brute force over skill. Which is the better product to watch is debatable. I'm not a fan of tall useless players who get an AFL game based on tallness...example: Hampson. I'm also not a fan off the bullnecks permeating our game who have no skill (e.g. Tom Bell).

At the minute, the ascendancy is to win with brute force due to the sheer number of stoppages and number of fit/strong players on field resting from rotations. I'd prefer the late 90s model revisited where the ascendancy was with elite runners (C Bradley) as it puts decision making and skills to the fore.

Not sure 16 is the right number but would love to see a trial. It's take time for the AFL players to adjust as they are built for stoppages and sprints, not endurance running. Might start out s**t but recruitment would target different players.

Take the current path to fruition. In the 1980s a ruckman was 190cm...now 210cm...midfielders were 175-185cm. Soon a midfielder average height will be 195+ under the current path the AFL is taking. Stupid big people with no skill but just a big body leading our game. It is this change that is making it less attractive each decade.

And then along came zones...

 

[LanceRomance]

Either that or an offside rule

 

[ferrisb]

Congestion battle: 16-a-side footy might be trialled next pre-season

I've always wanted this. Someone tell me why it's a bad idea.

Because Brisbane's joint b&f winners will now comprise half their starting side...

 

[Magruder]

Either that or an offside rule

Wouldn't that increase congestion?

 

[Navy Blue Blood]

Either that or an offside rule

Pretty sure that would ruin football. Soccer is rubbish because it penalises a player who breaks free forward of the attack, I really don't want the AFL going that way.

Pre-emptive edit: OK a lot of people aren't going to think soccer is rubbish, so i'll rephrase that... This is one of the reasons soccer is an incredibly low scoring game.

 

[Jabba73]

Congestion battle: 16-a-side footy might be trialled next pre-season

I've always wanted this. Someone tell me why it's a bad idea.

It will look like a girls game. It is bad enough they get to play our game, now you want to copy their version? fmd

 

[gbatman]

16 a side has been common place in secondary lower level competitions. It would make the game less about zoning and team defence and more open and one on one that's for sure. There would be a lot of traditionalists who wouldn't like seeing the wing position scrapped. Have always said this is the one true way to open the game up.

The other thing is, does it need to be opened up? The game has been congested and defence orientated and used zones for the last 17 or so years now. This is what it is and what all the young fans have grown up on. A lot of sports around the world are like this, soccer for example. Would opening it up make it appear a bit too "easy" to play and take the difficulty away from it or would the extra action non-stop action and pace be better. I know I've really grown to appreciate players who perform under immense pressure and teams who defend really well. The game can be open and quick enough when the teams are good enough and move the ball really well. I guess some people like T20 cricket and some people like Tests, each to their own.

It would open the game up and make it very quick. Might make the slower players redundant and make the game very pace orientated.

I thought last year, the game as a spectacle had improved and was in a really good place. I liked teams using a third man up, thought that opened things up at stoppages a lot more but the AFL have put a stop to that.

With the women's game it's ideal because the ball handling under pressure isn't as great as the mens and it relieves the pressure. It just helps with skill execution. It's spot on for that level of football.

Mens AFL football with a 6 man bench, no rotation cap and no wings. It would be insanely fast. Weren't the AFL trying to slow the game down?

The only way to find out how it would work would be to trial it. Give it a go, see what happens and what people think.

I think congestion was only an issue with the lesser sides, plenty of exciting and quality football coming out of the top sides. People bang on about the 90s etc but there were just as many god awful games played back then but you just don't remember those ones.