5-5-5

[RJK Tiger]

Watching this final its became apparent to me the game is becoming cooked. The move to make the game a athletic showcase vs a skill showcase has hit a critical point. The extra athletic element has allowed coaches to basically cause flooding around the ball, or, set zones which makes I50s a shitshow.

More teams & declining glassroots has caused a serious talent shortage.

Its actually time for the game to change in a serious way - time to go from 18 players on the ground to 15 ie 5-5-5

Do we really need 6 in the fwd 50-60m?

This will make the ground "bigger" & actual ground space to allow skills to outpower speed & stamina.

It will allow teams to drop list numbers by 5 players, which will cull out the bottom 100 players & stop the talent drain.

Id rather see the number of players on the field drop vs more rule changes & the less players on the field will mean the super talents like Daicos will impact more & more. It will also help Key Position forward regain the role of the most important player on the field. Also makes it harder to play a "floater" or "3rd guy up" defender. I actually can't see a single "downside" to dropping the players down to 15 & going a 5-5-5

 

[SleepingGiant]

 

[Truetiger]

Hasn’t KB suggested something similar over the years? It seems to many players on the field, but I’m unsure if it would actually happen.

 

[Wrenny]

 

[Tackle Bag]

Reduce interchange. It brings back fatigue, it brings back key positions staying at home.

KB has been banging this drum for years and he is right

 

[RJK Tiger]

Reduce interchange. It brings back fatigue, it brings back key positions staying at home.

KB has been banging this drum for years and he is right

I hadn't heard that from KB as in Bris, but it makes a hell of a lot of sense.

Issue with interchange limits is it increases soft tissue injuries alot if you have blokes stuck on the field.

18 players on the ground is a stupid amount when they are all marathon runners. In our dynasty era we basically played with no natural chf & 3 more midfield/wing types.

The only real debate I see about it is do you go 15 or just 16, removing 1 each from chf-chb. Would do wonders for contested forward marking

The problem with relying on exhaustion being your trigger is watching tired players isn't really much of a solution to seeing a higher quality of play

 

[Tackle Bag]

I hadn't heard that from KB as in Bris, but it makes a hell of a lot of sense.

Issue with interchange limits is it increases soft tissue injuries alot if you have blokes stuck on the field.

18 players on the ground is a stupid amount when they are all marathon runners. In our dynasty era we basically played with no natural chf & 3 more midfield/wing types.

The only real debate I see about it is do you go 15 or just 16, removing 1 each from chf-chb. Would do wonders for contested forward marking

The problem with relying on exhaustion being your trigger is watching tired players isn't really much of a solution to seeing a higher quality of play

Players, mids in particular would train more for endurance, like they used to.

With the current game, we are training players to be burst athletes that are required to provide repeat efforts over 2 hours. It’s hard to achieve that burst/endurance balance. It’s impossible without regular breaks for most players.

Reduce interchange and structured position based set ups will return because 18 blokes can’t sprint up and down the field all day like they do now.

Going on past experience, as fatigue kicks in, players with higher skill level stand out more and become the difference.

 

[Greggy]

The ground will be full of Tom Scullys.

 

[SunshineBoy]

I hadn't heard that from KB as in Bris, but it makes a hell of a lot of sense.

Issue with interchange limits is it increases soft tissue injuries alot if you have blokes stuck on the field.

18 players on the ground is a stupid amount when they are all marathon runners. In our dynasty era we basically played with no natural chf & 3 more midfield/wing types.

The only real debate I see about it is do you go 15 or just 16, removing 1 each from chf-chb. Would do wonders for contested forward marking

The problem with relying on exhaustion being your trigger is watching tired players isn't really much of a solution to seeing a higher quality of play

Higher quality of okay ? What you drinking ?

 

[rfctigerarmy]

Issue with interchange limits is it increases soft tissue injuries alot if you have blokes stuck on the field.

18 players on the ground is a stupid amount when they are all marathon runners. In our dynasty era we basically played with no natural chf & 3 more midfield/wing types.

I've never seen someone run a marathon similar to the interval style of running an AFL player does.

 

[richard parker]

Or maybe double or triple the size of the grounds? Rip em down and expand.

 

[ComfortablyNumb]

Reduce interchange. It brings back fatigue, it brings back key positions staying at home.

KB has been banging this drum for years and he is right

they've been doing that for 15 years and it's done nothing to promote stay at home forwards

 

[kozi]

Or maybe double or triple the size of the grounds? Rip em down and expand.

Punt rd would have to be just one massive oval with some showers along the back wall

 

[Drunken Wookie]

scrap the AFL and build a new game... with blackjack... and hookers.

 

[Tackle Bag]

they've been doing that for 15 years and it's done nothing to promote stay at home forwards

They haven’t done it to anywhere near the level required.

I’d drop it to 20 for the game, maybe even less

 

[Madtiger2006]

Make the ground bigger. 500m long x 400m wide

 

[RJK Tiger]

there is no game i watched on the weekend that made me think this still isn't the best way forward.

Drop the players on field to 15 & drop the interchange from 4 to 3 players - so 18 players in total.

Lower List sizes by 6-7 players, to allow for a better spread of talent across all the teams.

This change is far less damaging to the fabric of the game than all the micro-changes they are doing, literally, every year. Changing Out of bounds like they are planning is just another change which changes the entire sport, not the game.

Have people actually watching 80s-90s footy recently? Re-watch some of those games and ask yourself - was the "out of bounds" decisions to "throw it in" actually making the game worse? What KPI are we looking at which makes us think that doing this type of change is going to "fix" anything?

Allowing the I50 to have less players in it will only make the more talented players in the I50 shine more. It will also help make teams have more definable attacking styles

 

[Ceehook]

there is no game i watched on the weekend that made me think this still isn't the best way forward.

Drop the players on field to 15 & drop the interchange from 4 to 3 players - so 18 players in total.

Lower List sizes by 6-7 players, to allow for a better spread of talent across all the teams.

This change is far less damaging to the fabric of the game than all the micro-changes they are doing, literally, every year. Changing Out of bounds like they are planning is just another change which changes the entire sport, not the game.

Have people actually watching 80s-90s footy recently? Re-watch some of those games and ask yourself - was the "out of bounds" decisions to "throw it in" actually making the game worse? What KPI are we looking at which makes us think that doing this type of change is going to "fix" anything?

Allowing the I50 to have less players in it will only make the more talented players in the I50 shine more. It will also help make teams have more definable attacking styles

"What KPI are we looking at" when working in AFL house the most import KPI is how often you kiss that arse above you

 

[SunshineBoy]

I’ve got the answer

 

[RJK Tiger]

I’ve got the answer

View attachment 2431313

dude, this is like the complete opposite of what i was saying. This would make the game more crowded - not less!

 

[SunshineBoy]

dude, this is like the complete opposite of what i was saying. This would make the game more crowded - not less!

There would only be 10 players per side

 

[sregit]

Make the ground bigger. 500m long x 400m wide

Dumb

 

[sregit]

there is no game i watched on the weekend that made me think this still isn't the best way forward.

Drop the players on field to 15 & drop the interchange from 4 to 3 players - so 18 players in total.

Lower List sizes by 6-7 players, to allow for a better spread of talent across all the teams.

This change is far less damaging to the fabric of the game than all the micro-changes they are doing, literally, every year. Changing Out of bounds like they are planning is just another change which changes the entire sport, not the game.

Have people actually watching 80s-90s footy recently? Re-watch some of those games and ask yourself - was the "out of bounds" decisions to "throw it in" actually making the game worse? What KPI are we looking at which makes us think that doing this type of change is going to "fix" anything?

Allowing the I50 to have less players in it will only make the more talented players in the I50 shine more. It will also help make teams have more definable attacking styles

Only change required is 2 interchange. Fatigue sets in. 1 emergency for concussion only.

 

[Aido97]

Pretty lame troll thread

 

[kozi]

Make the ground bigger. 500m long x 400m wide

3 sets of goals and multiball