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

[brad5668]

If they persist with 16 minute quarters next year, I am done with the game. You are basically getting 3 quarters of playing time instead of four. The admission fees will stiil stay the same or increase, but you instead of getting 100 or more minutes of playing time you will be lucky to get 80 in its place.

 

[ShooterMcGavin8]

That sequence of events isn’t uncommon for Neale, who enjoys the grind and admits he’s not a fan of the AFL’s decision to retain the shorter quarters.

“It won’t take too much away from my game, I’m probably just a bit of a traditionalist, love the grind and war of attrition,” he told AAP.

“I’m not a big fan of the short quarters ... it’s over pretty quickly and I actually felt quite fresh after round one and in a weird way I like feeling sore, love that feeling of giving it your all.

“In the back end of the third quarter you feel the game open up, blokes get tired and it tests you mentally and fans too, it’s cutting off almost a quarter of them being able to watch their team.

“Some might enjoy the shorter quarters but I’m not one of them; hopefully they keep their word and next year it goes back to normal.”

Lachie "Lad" Neale

 

[The Nostradamus]

Older players would be for this 16min quarters going forward post this year, could prolong careers

young fit players would be against it

 

[Cuzz09]

Older players would be for this 16min quarters going forward post this year, could prolong careers

young fit players would be against it

Technically then all players would be for it because each day they're getting older.... technically

On SM-G925I using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[The Nostradamus]

Technically then all players would be for it because each day they're getting older.... technically

On SM-G925I using BigFooty.com mobile app

Players are short sighted

the young ones will feel immortal and want to capitalise now

the old guys want to prolong now
But yes in general think most players would prefer shorter

 

[Cotchins Hair Piece]

Quite like the shorter quarters. If it reduces the chance of injuries to players, even better. Also liking the play each team once idea. A much fairer way to run a competition.

Let’s make the quarters go for five minutes then, even less chance of injuries to players. Playing each team once doesn’t make the competition any fairer. Playing each team twice, once at home and once away would make it fairer, but it won’t happen (for obvious reasons).

 

[Roogal]

What ever they do, I hope that if we have to have 'canned' crowd noise during AFL telecasts that it isn't bizarrely overdone like the NRL and Channel 9 has done. It's ridiculously obvious and considering that their stadiums are rarely full, their games generally never generate that degree of noise or fervour for weekly home and away games. The simulated noise is more akin to the noise generated during a State of Origin game.

To put it in perspective, imagine the AFL playing a game at an empty Mars Stadium (Ballarat) between the Bulldogs and the Suns and having the crowd noise of an AFL Grand Final dubbed in. Yes NRL and Channel 9, it was that unconvincing and garbage. It reduces the game to a nothing more than a manufactured sitcom.

 

[Cotchins Hair Piece]

The long quarters and being able to run out a game when stuffed is what our game is about. 16 minute quarters isn’t Aussie Rules.

 

[Billy ray]

Need to go back to 25mins plus time on and clock doesnt stop when it goes out of bounds.
unlike before when this was the rule, there is now a deliberate out of bounds rule so players cant hit the boundary line to waste time

 

[Roogal]

Let’s make the quarters go for five minutes then, even less chance of injuries to players. Playing each team once doesn’t make the competition any fairer. Playing each team twice, once at home and once away would make it fairer, but it won’t happen (for obvious reasons).

Given the speed of the game these days, there possibly is a case for shorter quarters or even two 40-minute halves to reduce the injury rate and to make the game more marketable to television. I would prefer to see shorter quarters and perhaps double headers played in order to see a competition where all teams play off against each other twice each season. The current arrangement favours big teams too much and skews the competition too much to the advantage of the teams that can pull bigger crowds.

It's an interesting discussion. The traditionists will obviously want things to stay as they are, but we also have to look at how the game is being played so differently these days. It's nothing like it was in the 1970s. Nothing at all.

It's the media who pay the AFL's bills and who are the major sponsors. They may win the day.

 

[parsons nose]

Let’s make the quarters go for five minutes then, even less chance of injuries to players. Playing each team once doesn’t make the competition any fairer. Playing each team twice, once at home and once away would make it fairer, but it won’t happen (for obvious reasons).

Great let’s have each team play one other team 17 times then, split the home games between them. Problem solved.

 

[Coops93]

That sequence of events isn’t uncommon for Neale, who enjoys the grind and admits he’s not a fan of the AFL’s decision to retain the shorter quarters.

“It won’t take too much away from my game, I’m probably just a bit of a traditionalist, love the grind and war of attrition,” he told AAP.

“I’m not a big fan of the short quarters ... it’s over pretty quickly and I actually felt quite fresh after round one and in a weird way I like feeling sore, love that feeling of giving it your all.

“In the back end of the third quarter you feel the game open up, blokes get tired and it tests you mentally and fans too, it’s cutting off almost a quarter of them being able to watch their team.

“Some might enjoy the shorter quarters but I’m not one of them; hopefully they keep their word and next year it goes back to normal.”

Lachie "Lad" Neale

The change to mental side of it is exactly why I don't like it.

That message from Neale resonates with me. I have professional athletes on both sides of my family, 1 in particular has represented Australia as an athlete and a coach back in the 60s, 70s and 80s. He was way ahead of most on the mental side of being a professional athlete. Not so much the smarts of what you're doing, but the mental strength and psychology of being an athlete. He always thought his advantage over his competitors was that when his body started hurting he could tell his body to go further than the bloke next to him, and more often than not he was right and that's what got him to that level. By the sounds of things that's what drives Neale late in games as well. I'm sure it's not just him, either, all the greats would have it. I remember Judd saying that in his matchups he'd look at one area he was better than his opponent - I'm faster or I'm stronger - and that would give himself the mental edge he felt he needed to beat his man. (fwiw I think he said the only guy he couldn't give himself that edge over was Goodes)

Shortening the game makes it more accessible for the weaker mindset to creep in. You cut a strength of guys like Neale if you shorten it and make the elite players fall back into the pack somewhat. Sure, you can run with Neale/Dangerfield/Fyfe/Pendlebury for 2.5 qtrs, but what about when your body starts hurting? Well how about we just take that part out of the equation. I don't like it.

(fyi I'd just like to point out this wasn't supposed to be a humblebrag, I definitely do not have the acumen of by heritage. I'm one of the guys who says man this is hard, my legs hurt lets go home )

 

[Big Sauce 21]

Neale plays between 90-95% match time every week. Big tank, no wonder he likes it.

 

[BBC1967]

Collingwood oldest team in the AFL according to AFL website. I wonder why Eddie is lobbying for 16minute quarters...hmmm

 

[hawkman]

Terrible.

Shorter quarters, longer breaks between goals and quarters and this is the result.

Expect more and more scores like this

 

[Jables]

Just another brilliant move by the AFL

 

[Big Sauce 21]

Turning into womens afl

 

[richcogs]

Hate these short quarters!

 

[Blue1980]

Given the speed of the game these days, there possibly is a case for shorter quarters or even two 40-minute halves to reduce the injury rate and to make the game more marketable to television. I would prefer to see shorter quarters and perhaps double headers played in order to see a competition where all teams play off against each other twice each season. The current arrangement favours big teams too much and skews the competition too much to the advantage of the teams that can pull bigger crowds.

It's an interesting discussion. The traditionists will obviously want things to stay as they are, but we also have to look at how the game is being played so differently these days. It's nothing like it was in the 1970s. Nothing at all.

It's the media who pay the AFL's bills and who are the major sponsors. They may win the day.

No but all sports are different to the 70s, they haven’t shortened soccer halves to 35 minutes or rugby halves to 32 minutes or anything.

But if we get through the next few weeks and we are just going to have a normalish season with 17 rounds playing once a week, can’t we just go back to 20 minute quarters?

Why the hell do we need shorter quarters if we don’t have to pack more games in a short period?

I don’t even know why we do anyway, just increase interchange and rotations if we need shorter breaks. Shorter games suck.

 

[halalsnackpack]

Absolute garbage, the good thing is everyone is so pissed off with it the morons in the media won't be able to push for it seriously.

 

[Elite Master]

Absolute garbage, the good thing is everyone is so pissed off with it the morons in the media won't be able to push for it seriously.

Everyone was annoyed about the shorter quarters long before tonight but you still had people like Garry Lyon and Patrick Dangerfield acting like this (and a 17 round season) is what people want and what's best for the game.

 

[My Tilly]

the folks who liked the 16 minute quarters earlier in this thread must be feeling a little silly.

 

[Plugger35]

I don't think anyone could make a case for shorter quarters after tonight's game, normally a draw between two of the best teams in the comp would have produced an epic game but it was a mostly dull fizzer and a lot of that was due to the shorter quarters which reduced scoring and the attritional aspect of a full length game.

 

[Linda Lovelace]

I don't think anyone could make a case for shorter quarters after tonight's game, normally a draw between two of the best teams in the comp would have produced an epic game but it was a mostly dull fizzer and a lot of that was due to the shorter quarters which reduced scoring and the attritional aspect of a full length game.

Let's not discount all of the other unique circumstances that made tonight's game feel like trash. Clearly the teams were way off their best and, you know, that whole no crowd thing is a pretty big deal. That game still would have been trash - just longer trash - with longer quarters.

And attrition can easily still be a thing if they tighten the interchange too. Attrition is only relative - as players adjust, they will go harder earlier, and if you limit rotations you bring it back down to the same level.

But with that said, I've realised that it is still obviously a mistake to try it right now. The whole point is that footy is supposed to be 'back' and fundamentally altering a game that's already suffering from no crowds is really not smart. You're not supposed to be appealing to new fans, you're trying to drag existing ones back. Serving them up something completely unrecognizable in multiple ways is a terrible idea.

 

[Do the Dew]

I don't think anyone could make a case for shorter quarters after tonight's game, normally a draw between two of the best teams in the comp would have produced an epic game but it was a mostly dull fizzer and a lot of that was due to the shorter quarters which reduced scoring and the attritional aspect of a full length game.

Attrition is the point. For most of 3 quarters last night, Richmond controlled the ball and kept going long into our forward line, where the loose Pies defenders mopped up. With the shorter quarters, they don't have to defend for as long, they are fresher, and can battle out the quarter.

In a normal game, they would be a lot more fatigued from defending so hard for so long. This allows the attacking team to potentially get some result on the scoreboard, which didn't happen last night. Shorter quarters basically allow a team to flood their defence and survive, without getting hit on the scoreboard.

Why can't the AFL change it back to 20 min considering the 17 round H&A season is beyond me. They have made rules/adjustments on the run during previous seasons - I don't know why this is different unless it's contractual. They made a s**t knee-jerk reaction to shorten quarters that is biting them in the ass.