What I don't understand is why these "experts" think that something can only be entertaining if it is high scoring? As if that should be the #1 priority.
Soccer is the most watched sport in the world and it is certainly not high scoring. Cricket is number #2 and the best games are rarely when one team dominates the scoreboard. #3 is field hockey which like soccer there generally aren't many goals, and #4 is tennis and does anyone really enjoy watching the no 1 seed smash some 18yo up and comer?
The only time I ever hear people going crazy about how good watching a sport was, was when it was a massive battle. When soccer and hockey was so close it went into more than one overtime or penalty shootout. When tennis lasted well into the early hours of the morning as neither player could break the deadlock. High scoring games like basketball, netball etc are no different imo. I find games where one team smashes the other pretty darn boring personally.
With AFLX they have completely taken away the battle by making it almost completely uncontested. And I kind of feel a lot of the recent AFL rule changes have been about increasing scoring by encouraging more uncontested outside play. And sure, I love watching a player burn down the wing for the length of the field to kick a goal as well. But if you make it a game of predominantly 'keepy off' it becomes bloody boring overall. Contested football is the life blood of footy. Goals are great, but only when they are hard earned.
I'm all for trialling a new format (although I do think it was the wrong timing given AFLW). If it means you don't need 44+ players and a big oval to have a game of footy that's great for international/regional areas/social sport. But if you are going to do it don't take away the parts that make footy great. I'd go back to the drawing board and start all over with it personally. Start by chucking out all the ridiculous 1990s circus promo gunk - the game itself needs to be the hero to start with.
Soccer is the most watched sport in the world and it is certainly not high scoring. Cricket is number #2 and the best games are rarely when one team dominates the scoreboard. #3 is field hockey which like soccer there generally aren't many goals, and #4 is tennis and does anyone really enjoy watching the no 1 seed smash some 18yo up and comer?
The only time I ever hear people going crazy about how good watching a sport was, was when it was a massive battle. When soccer and hockey was so close it went into more than one overtime or penalty shootout. When tennis lasted well into the early hours of the morning as neither player could break the deadlock. High scoring games like basketball, netball etc are no different imo. I find games where one team smashes the other pretty darn boring personally.
With AFLX they have completely taken away the battle by making it almost completely uncontested. And I kind of feel a lot of the recent AFL rule changes have been about increasing scoring by encouraging more uncontested outside play. And sure, I love watching a player burn down the wing for the length of the field to kick a goal as well. But if you make it a game of predominantly 'keepy off' it becomes bloody boring overall. Contested football is the life blood of footy. Goals are great, but only when they are hard earned.
I'm all for trialling a new format (although I do think it was the wrong timing given AFLW). If it means you don't need 44+ players and a big oval to have a game of footy that's great for international/regional areas/social sport. But if you are going to do it don't take away the parts that make footy great. I'd go back to the drawing board and start all over with it personally. Start by chucking out all the ridiculous 1990s circus promo gunk - the game itself needs to be the hero to start with.
classic
