Remove this Banner Ad

Opinion 16 a side - why not?

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

I'd be more in favour of having a minimum of 2 players inside your attacking 50.

Not "zones" necessarily, but you must always have at least 2 in 50. Would force less players around the ball and would create for some interesting set ups inside 50. Ie more set pieces and tactics, positioning for attackers to lead a certain way etc.

It would have the same result as 16 players in terms of having them on the ball, as 2 are taken away from that action and unless a defence wants to be outnumbered, at least 2 maybe 3 defenders.
 
Last edited:
BlueJet said:
The logic is sound, if you don't agree with it - fine, however there's no need to be reductionist simply because you don't think the same way.
Click to expand...
It's ok, Jet. I appreciate what you did there, but it's My fault, I should know better...
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Fact is the game is clogged up because players can run all day now and are fresh as daisies with the interchange bench.
Watch how many repeat contests all over the park they get to when they are completely knackered.
As Bartlett quoted re the stats, there is more scoring late in the game because players are tired & the game opens up.
Fatigued footballers = Better Australian football.
Slice the IC further or abolish it. Time to go back to basics.
 
ShanDog said:
Romanticising the past IMHO sorry Robbo. Go back to watching games I'm the 70s and the umps barely blew their whistle, leading to all sorts of cowardly hits. In the 80s they decided the stoppage was the best part of the game, blowing the whistle and bouncing it the moment someone was tackled half the time (while the ball was rolling away usually too) and the 90s was full of shit exploitation of the rules a-la Wayne Carey pushing defenders in the back. The 2000s saw the game style change completely with whole-of-ground positioning rather than one on one, and with it came a focus on defensive play and keeping possession of the ball.

The game constantly changes. It's become more tactical and defensive recently, but there's also players who are more skilful, faster and athletic than ever before. They do phenomenal things and with minor tweaks like the stricter enforcement (I.e. CORRECT) of the deliberate out of bounds, the game is opening up again. The days of Ross Lyon style 100% defensive teams are quickly disappearing since they never managed to win many flags like that anyway.

Last year was great to watch after a couple of years of ho-hum style. I reckon it will get better again.
Click to expand...
Those who know me well would never describe me as a romantic. Although I sometimes buy flowers for my wife.

I started watching football in the 60s. The days of one umpire, no interchange and positions on an oval ground. The only constant is the shape of the ground. My recollection is that the umpire would consistently pay in excess of 100 free kicks a game. This allowed him to keep up with the game. The two guys on the bench were mainly decoration. And tactics? Maybe an extra behind the ball if the wind was howling. The players knew their place and rarely wandered (except for Beckwith and it won the Dees it's last premiership).

Robbo started playing football in the late 60s and this was the game I fell in love with.

I witnessed the great change to the game. The 1970 GF when Barassi demonstrated that tactics could change the course of a game. Run, run, run. Handball, handball, handball. And Bert off, Teddy on. Bench players were no longer a decoration.

It didn't take long for others to follow. Kanga Kennedy had an ace up his sleeve and he exploited it in 1971 when Peter Hudson kicked 150 goals in a season. It's ludicrous to think that the opposition allowed this to happen. Hudson and his opponent all alone in the forward line. Everyone else around the centre ball up scrapping for the ball. As they said on a church sign in Hawthorn at the time. What would you do if Jesus Christ came to Hawthorn? A witty fan scribbled on the sign. Shift Hudson to Centre Half Forward! The VFL took swift action and introduced the centre diamond to the playing field in 1973. Later changed to the square we see today.

Robbo was at the zenith of his football prowess during this period. I thought to myself that the game is getting better and better. You can kick, handball and run, run, run.

Again Barassi introduced tactics to counter this. I saw them at Arden Street in 1973 when I witnessed Robert Walls and Bret Crosswell felled by cowardly hits by Phil Baker and Sam Kekovich. It was pure carnage and North won. It was also a turning point for the one umpire regime. I can't remember either player getting reported. Today they wouldn't do it but it wasn't a common occurrence in those days either. Barassi's tactic was watched with interest by Richmond who used it to win the 1973 GF. I know I cried at the GF. I think I was crying for the game that day.

I was still playing footy but my zeal for the game was being seriously questioned.

I don't think the game changed a great deal from this time onwards for two decades. Certainly there were changes which. More umpires introduced. Interchange introduced. The move to full time footballers.

Robbo hung up the boots at 26 in 1983. The game itself could no longer inspire me to play. Too many dickheads involved in the game.

I think the real changes have transpired in the past 20 years. The things that I hate about the game. The flood. Everyone on the ball. The conveyor belt on and off the ground. The tribunal decisions. Umpiring that doesn't interfere with the game (read as ignoring the rules). Other tactics that move the game towards a version of rugby. The disappearance of Australian rules for an acronym, AFL.

I still go the game. I observe it closely for the pearls that occasionally happen during a game. This is enough to maintain my interest. To see the skills that are universal throughout time and space.

The game has lost its soul as a result of it being picked apart and 'improved'. My god footballers don't need nouse to play the game anymore. Nouse was probably my favourite part of the game.
 
I'm still evaluating my response to reducing the players from 18 to 16 on the field at one time. I remember it was the major difference between the VFL and VFA competitions when I was young. Did it play a part in VFA's survival because it was considered a better spectacle. I certainly liked watching the VFA on TV but never went to a game. I need more time.
 
When I'm enjoying footy the most is when there is contest after contest. I'm not concerned about how many goals are scored or how many congested stoppages there are (Because eventually something gives). Above all I don't want to see a keepings off game like many other sports and at times like some AFL games in recent years.

In my opinion the objective of the rules should be to allow the following to play the game: The elite sprinter, the elite endurance athlete, small, tall, the powerful, the graceful.

In recent times we have seen the recruitment of elite endurance athletes and the power forwards diminish. This is not right. I believe we need a further reduction of rotations off the bench until decision to recruit sprinter vs endurance athletes is 50/50.

Retaining congestion & stoppages is important for the slower power athletes (Think of Cripps or Diesel)

Players who can run and break through zones & lines (Think of Mcleod & Yarran) are important and are exciting to watch in modern times but we need to keep a balance. In reality these players are creating an exciting contest. It just takes a few seconds to execute. Unlike when players just kick backwards and sideways.

Players who can take a big pack mark (Think of Plugger & J Brown) are great to watch but are less prominent these days.

We have the most expressive game in the world ie kick, handball, mark, tap, block, tackle etc. We also need to ensure that all body types have the opportunity to play the game. Therefore, rule changes should always keep this in mind.

I'm all for sixteen a side if it allows for the above. But I'm sceptical

PS. The AFLW games were a joy to watch because nearly all possessions seemed to be contested. I didn't care as much about the scoring
 
Raging Blue said:
When I'm enjoying footy the most is when there is contest after contest. I'm not concerned about how many goals are scored or how many congested stoppages there are (Because eventually something gives). Above all I don't want to see a keepings off game like many other sports and at times like some AFL games in recent years.

In my opinion the objective of the rules should be to allow the following to play the game: The elite sprinter, the elite endurance athlete, small, tall, the powerful, the graceful.

In recent times we have seen the recruitment of elite endurance athletes and the power forwards diminish. This is not right. I believe we need a further reduction of rotations off the bench until decision to recruit sprinter vs endurance athletes is 50/50.

Retaining congestion & stoppages is important for the slower power athletes (Think of Cripps or Diesel)

Players who can run and break through zones & lines (Think of Mcleod & Yarran) are important and are exciting to watch in modern times but we need to keep a balance. In reality these players are creating an exciting contest. It just takes a few seconds to execute. Unlike when players just kick backwards and sideways.

Players who can take a big pack mark (Think of Plugger & J Brown) are great to watch but are less prominent these days.

We have the most expressive game in the world ie kick, handball, mark, tap, block, tackle etc. We also need to ensure that all body types have the opportunity to play the game. Therefore, rule changes should always keep this in mind.

I'm all for sixteen a side if it allows for the above. But I'm sceptical

PS. The AFLW games were a joy to watch because nearly all possessions seemed to be contested. I didn't care as much about the scoring
Click to expand...
Agreed.

Less players will justt mean more chip, chip, chip. Maintain possession, chip, chip, chip...
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Robbo's my hero said:
I'm still evaluating my response to reducing the players from 18 to 16 on the field at one time. I remember it was the major difference between the VFL and VFA competitions when I was young. Did it play a part in VFA's survival because it was considered a better spectacle. I certainly liked watching the VFA on TV but never went to a game. I need more time.
Click to expand...
It made for some high scoring footy, but it also emphasised the gap between the very good teams & the very ordinary teams, leading to some massive blowouts.
 
Robbo's my hero said:
I started watching football in the 60s. The days of one umpire, no interchange and positions on an oval ground. The only constant is the shape of the ground. My recollection is that the umpire would consistently pay in excess of 100 free kicks a game. This allowed him to keep up with the game. The two guys on the bench were mainly decoration. And tactics? Maybe an extra behind the ball if the wind was howling. The players knew their place and rarely wandered (except for Beckwith and it won the Dees it's last premiership).

Robbo started playing football in the late 60s and this was the game I fell in love with.

I witnessed the great change to the game. The 1970 GF when Barassi demonstrated that tactics could change the course of a game. Run, run, run. Handball, handball, handball. And Bert off, Teddy on. Bench players were no longer a decoration.

It didn't take long for others to follow. Kanga Kennedy had an ace up his sleeve and he exploited it in 1971 when Peter Hudson kicked 150 goals in a season. It's ludicrous to think that the opposition allowed this to happen. Hudson and his opponent all alone in the forward line. Everyone else around the centre ball up scrapping for the ball. As they said on a church sign in Hawthorn at the time. What would you do if Jesus Christ came to Hawthorn? A witty fan scribbled on the sign. Shift Hudson to Centre Half Forward! The VFL took swift action and introduced the centre diamond to the playing field in 1973. Later changed to the square we see today.
Click to expand...

I can really relate to all that and I'm sure some of the younger folk would be reading that and scratching their heads.

The thing is, what you have outlined is that over a long period, there were minimal changes to the rules & structure of the game yet coaches were able to come up with innovative ways to win or get an edge.

It is my belief that if the game was left alone, coaches would be forced into being more creative which in turn would make the game way more fascinating that it is right now.

Years ago, you would go to games just to see the 3 or 4 massive individual duels, they were worth the price of admission alone.

We have lost that facet and its goddam impossible to adequately relay to the new generation of footy followers what they are missing out on.

16 players might sound like a nice idea but in reality, its just another bandaid solution to add to the long list of knee-jerk reactions the current admins of the game want to throw in.
 
thylacine60 said:
1. nothing band-aid about 4 less players on the ground
2. **** fascinating, I want a straight out contest where a player's skills have room to shine
Click to expand...

It is a bandaid solution, it should never have come to the stage where something like that is being considered.

Do you not think that a coaches innovative tactics can give players that room to shine ??

I all for the contest, hell, I crave it, I'm sick to death of the giant circle-work drill the game has turned into.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

thylacine60 said:
agree the game needs administrators with the courage to strip it back - back to where? 2000? 1995? how? what would you take out?
Click to expand...

Waddya wanna see??

Mark of the year is still mind boggling......there's 3 a week.

Goal of the Year......double figures stuff.

It's the best game in the world.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Opinion 16 a side - why not?

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top