Opinion 16 a side - why not?

[Jabba73]

Who is the Dunce in the corner!

That's me.

Suggesting taking the ball out of the game to reduce incentive for congestion apparently is not an option. Didn't think through the whole 'it's called football because they kick a ball' thing. Sorta got lost in the simplicity of the solution to the problem.

Will be back in class after lunch.

 

[__Bobcat__]

That's me.

Suggesting taking the ball out of the game to reduce incentive for congestion apparently is not an option. Didn't think through the whole 'it's called football because they kick a ball' thing. Sorta got lost in the simplicity of the solution to the problem.

Will be back in class after lunch.

Pull your pants up Jabba and give your mouth a go!
Posting crap!! Dooohhhh!

 

[ITCHY EYEBALLS]

I'd really like to hear Jetf35c's thoughts on this.
Bring him back
Bring him back
Bring him back

 

[thylacine60]

he's gone straight through to advanced mod training - should have his quals by round 1

 

[Jabba73]

Pull your pants up Jabba and give your mouth a go!
Posting crap!! Dooohhhh!

Won't get to 7k in posts if that is the rule.

If my posting history had the crap removed, would not have reached 500 yet.

Of course, if posting crap was a crime, we would all be Collingwood supporters.

 

[Jabba73]

just give me your 7k post and move on...........

Here it is, use it wisely.

 

[thylacine60]

Doesn't mean we're engaged...

 

[Aphrodite]

Damm sure this is a Mod free Thread!!!

I think the old marsupial has been given the green light here!!!!!

By th way I'm loving the 16 a Side WAFL!

Damn sure you are wrong there Bobcat!

 

[__Bobcat__]

Out comes Aph! With big stick!

 

[thylacine60]

stick? that's not a stick - this is a stick

 

[Jabba73]

 

[__Bobcat__]

stick? that's not a stick - this is a stick

That's the best 16 a side lump of wood I've seen yet!

 

[Robbo's my hero]

After watching the women's game on Saturday I could not see that reducing the numbers to 16 would change the game. For long periods the game was played in less than half the ground just like the men's version. I'm now devoted to taking the bounce out of the game. We let players run 25 to 30 metres now. Imagine if they could run 100.

 

[Jimmae]

After watching the women's game on Saturday I could not see that reducing the numbers to 16 would change the game. For long periods the game was played in less than half the ground just like the men's version. I'm now devoted to taking the bounce out of the game. We let players run 25 to 30 metres now. Imagine if they could run 100.

Then you just get the best sprinters in the country, teach them to handball, and put them on the wing.

No dice.

 

[MrsEddieBetts]

Ya can't get rid of the bounce! Otherwise we'd just need 18 super fast runners. There's unique skills that must remain at the core of the game for it to be remotely recognisable.

 

[Jabba73]

Ya can't get rid of the bounce! Otherwise we'd just need 18 super fast runners. There's unique skills that must remain at the core of the game for it to be remotely recognisable.

Try telling the umpires ...

 

[Robbo's my hero]

Then you just get the best sprinters in the country, teach them to handball, and put them on the wing.
No dice.

Ya can't get rid of the bounce! Otherwise we'd just need 18 super fast runners. There's unique skills that must remain at the core of the game for it to be remotely recognisable.

Nobody understands Robbo's dry sense of humour.

Although if the umpires enforced the rules we might see the game return to its roots.

 

[kingkingston]

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.

zone footy has ruined it, players running all over the ground for little reward other than wasting energy, just seems pointless to me

 

[Jimmae]

zone footy has ruined it, players running all over the ground for little reward other than wasting energy, just seems pointless to me

Zone footy stops them from running themselves into the ground defending each potential attack, it's a response to the sheer amount of running being pushed for by the coaches.

 

[kingkingston]

Zone footy stops them from running themselves into the ground defending each potential attack, it's a response to the sheer amount of running being pushed for by the coaches.

actually zone footy is the thing that runs them in to the ground and why they have so many interchanges.

The players are constantly moving changing from offensive zone to defensive and have no time for rest.

I see absolutely no point having a full forward run 80 metres up the ground and then back and they don't even get the ball passed to them. Coaches just don't trust their players to win one on one anymore

 

[Jimmae]

actually zone footy is the thing that runs them in to the ground and why they have so many interchanges.

The players are constantly moving changing from offensive zone to defensive and have no time for rest.

I see absolutely no point having a full forward run 80 metres up the ground and then back and they don't even get the ball passed to them. Coaches just don't trust their players to win one on one anymore

Do you think players are going to stop sprinting towards the ball carrier when it's man-on-man?

 

[BlueRenaissance]

It explains a lot about the current world when basic logic is completely dismissed by so many people. It explains Brexit, it explains Trump. We have so many people espousing stupid theories that the original train of thought is lost or mixed up in the ensuing discussion. Trump gets accused of everything, some true, some false...the confusion that follows vetoes the truth bits in some people's minds.

Reducing the number of players on field at its very basic premise would reduce congestion and stoppages. Silly to argue against it. The logical basis is that if it were 100 a side, congestion would be horrible and we would hate the game. 5 a side and it would be an open paddock and ridiculous. The logic is a simple case of sliding scale. More players adds to congestion and less less players reduce congestion. Arguments based on coaches tactics are irrelevant as they apply to each number out on the field.

Golf is an example of how the strength and power advances of golfers have forced them to update layouts to be longer and more difficult. They have had to adapt. In my mind, and in a different way, the AFL need to update their format to keep their product working as well as it had done in the past.

Anything else is putting your head in the sand.

I see cricket changing (big bash) based on people becoming bored with the format since 2000.

Don't hate change!

The basic format of AFL football is incredibly good. Marking, high level of scoring, fast running, bounces, collisions, and a sport that can accommodate all sizes of human beings. To me, it is about facilitating that, but the challenge is that AFL is becoming a derivative of rugby union...both by body type (on average) being recruited and by style (stoppages).

 

[ray8182]

I think it's a mistake to use the women's game as an argument against 16 a side in the men's.

The men's and women's games are at very different points in there evolution. The differences in game style, skills, decision making, strength and power means that apart from the same rules it's a different ball game.

As the women's game develops over time maybe they will start to appear similar. As ball handling, skills and decision making improve the women will be able to take advantage of the extra space from fewer numbers. At the moment though they are struggling to string together enough quality possessions to open up the opposition on a regular basis. Today it's Very stop start, one moment you think they're away and then a mistake occurs.

I think 16 a side would help the men's game but don't think it will ever happen. The game really would have to go backwards for it to happen.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[thylacine60]

I think it's a mistake to use the women's game as an argument against 16 a side in the men's.

The men's and women's games are at very different points in there evolution. The differences in game style, skills, decision making, strength and power means that apart from the same rules it's a different ball game.

As the women's game develops over time maybe they will start to appear similar. As ball handling, skills and decision making improve the women will be able to take advantage of the extra space from fewer numbers. At the moment though they are struggling to string together enough quality possessions to open up the opposition on a regular basis. Today it's Very stop start, one moment you think they're away and then a mistake occurs.

I think 16 a side would help the men's game but don't think it will ever happen. The game really would have to go backwards for it to happen.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I'm using the women's game as an argument for 16 a side in the men's.

 

[ray8182]

I'm using the women's game as an argument for 16 a side in the men's.

There have been a few posts using the woman's game as a reason why 16 a side won't improve things such as number of goals kicked.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk