Play Nice AFL Womens - General Discussion

[Firestarter]

How? We've supported women's footy longer than any other club through our partnership with Melbourne Uni. Those players we've supported wanted to play for us. Geelong had the same rules we did. It was a joke that we weren't included from the start but we're reaping the rewards now.

He types like a 4yo. There's no discussing things with him.

But yeah it's nice to be rewarded for 8 years of actual work.

 

[Banyo Bloods]

Little bit but the stripes will be back for all our non-Tassie games.

Cheers didn't know that oh well not too big of a deal I suppose. Still first game would have liked to see the stripes.

 

[Banyo Bloods]

Low scoring isn't an issue as long as the contest is honest and showing continual improvement. Can't make comparisons with the past when place kicks and drop kicks were in vogue or to a period when the drop punt hadn't been invented.

My only expectation is continual improvement and sample size of one round isn't really fair. Was frustrating to see in the dying seconds so many kicks out on the full as though they weren't learning from that error by repeating the same attempt to exit defense. Would prefer a longer season to see the atheletes amongst them take it to another level.

 

[thegreig]

Sorry I’m not sure if this is the correct thread but I thought every game would be live and free on the app?
Im was trying to watch live from overseas but couldn’t get access.

 

[jatz14]

Sorry I’m not sure if this is the correct thread but I thought every game would be live and free on the app?
Im was trying to watch live from overseas but couldn’t get access.

It is as far as I am aware.

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

 

[thegreig]

It is as far as I am aware.

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

Hmmmm.... yeah, I’ll try again next round and see what happens

 

[chiwigi]

There is another more practical consideration.

You cannot have the elite level playing on a drastically smaller ground than other levels of footy.

But other levels share grounds and seasons with men. It just isn't practical to have women play on differently sized grounds to men, there aren't enough grounds for the women to have seperate grounds, and you cannot keep swapping size of grounds multiple times over a weekend.



Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

Under 14's play on full sized ovals. The Oval size argument is a furphy.

 

[winty]

Geelong’s Nina Morrison underwent scans this morning which confirmed a rupture to her right ACL.

The Cats number one draft pick and AFLW round 1 rising star nominee suffered the knee injury during a training session at GMHBA Stadium on Thursday night.

http://www.geelongcats.com.au/news/2019-02-08/morrison-ruptures-acl

Devastating news.

 

[drunkill]

Both #1 picks from the past two drafts are not playing this season (apart from 1 game last week for Morrison), sad news and not great for the competition either.

 

[juss]

Understand scoring might be less than the mens but round 1 for example had 3/5 games where both teams scored less than 30 points. That's soccer type scores with between 1-4 goals per team.

Reckon AFLW needs to find a way to address this rather than "give it time"
How much time? Will public support give it enough time if we are still seeing entire matches where 3 goals are scored between the 2 teams in 5 years time?

 

[Teen Wolf]

Understand scoring might be less than the mens but round 1 for example had 3/5 games where both teams scored less than 30 points. That's soccer type scores with between 1-4 goals per team.

Reckon AFLW needs to find a way to address this rather than "give it time"
How much time? Will public support give it enough time if we are still seeing entire matches where 3 goals are scored between the 2 teams in 5 years time?

Giving it time is a legitimate solution on several different fronts imo and there's solid reason for that view. Generally speaking scores increase as the season progresses, and scores undoubtedly increased from season 1 to season 2.

Last week a team scored 50+ points and lost. Tonight there were 70 points scored in wet conditions from siren to siren. These things did not happen in the first two years. Also, if the AFL are really desperate for higher scoring, they could immediately achieve it by playing full-length quarters (more time!).

Personally I think for a 2-hour broadcast, 12 goals per game is a really workable number for both TV networks and spectators--last year's first round was 8.75 goals per game and the year before last was 7 (and across the whole season was 10 up from 9.25), so they're not there yet but the improvement is already happening and I think at a decent rate.

 

[Trugo anyone]

Beautiful work, TW. Only the innumerate could argue with that.

I can understand some of the tinkering that goes on with AFLW but what I don't understand is the decision to go with 16 a side. My recollection is that the AFL justified it by reference to some research they had commissioned from RMIT Uni mathematicians. I have never been able to find any trace of this research having been published. Has anybody ever seen it?

My trouble with 16 a side footy is that it drives coaches into an emphasis on defensive set ups and limits their ability to establish outlets from defense. The absence of wingers means transition is much more difficult. It means that instead of being able to have 4 - 6 players forward of the ball, coaches often are forced to structure up with 2 -3 forward of the ball because they cannot allow the oppostion to have free players inside 50. Over-simplified, I know, but I think 16 a side is a much more significant factor in football than ground size.

 

[kreglze]

I am not a frequenter on this board but I thought I would inform you guys and girls that the Suns have signed their first 3 players for next season.

 

[Teen Wolf]

Beautiful work, TW. Only the innumerate could argue with that.

I can understand some of the tinkering that goes on with AFLW but what I don't understand is the decision to go with 16 a side. My recollection is that the AFL justified it by reference to some research they had commissioned from RMIT Uni mathematicians. I have never been able to find any trace of this research having been published. Has anybody ever seen it?

My trouble with 16 a side footy is that it drives coaches into an emphasis on defensive set ups and limits their ability to establish outlets from defense. The absence of wingers means transition is much more difficult. It means that instead of being able to have 4 - 6 players forward of the ball, coaches often are forced to structure up with 2 -3 forward of the ball because they cannot allow the oppostion to have free players inside 50. Over-simplified, I know, but I think 16 a side is a much more significant factor in football than ground size.

Cheers. The 16-a-side makes sense from a list management perspective, but there's certainly a give and take with decisions like that. Ultimately though I don't think coaches are forced to empty out their F50s because, after all, some teams regularly do it while others don't.

Just look at the final minute of last year's grand final, ingrained negative structures cost Brisbane and anybody who can't see that has no business making tactical game day calls at an AFLW club. This is why I was glad to see Siekman keep his job and Keeping not keep his.

 

[juss]

Giving it time is a legitimate solution on several different fronts imo and there's solid reason for that view. Generally speaking scores increase as the season progresses, and scores undoubtedly increased from season 1 to season 2.

Last week a team scored 50+ points and lost. Tonight there were 70 points scored in wet conditions from siren to siren. These things did not happen in the first two years. Also, if the AFL are really desperate for higher scoring, they could immediately achieve it by playing full-length quarters (more time!).

Personally I think for a 2-hour broadcast, 12 goals per game is a really workable number for both TV networks and spectators--last year was about 8 and the year before last was about 7, so they're not there yet but the improvement is already happening and I think at a decent rate.

That's good to see. I think the main thing is consistency and ensuring the trend stays upward. Hence my question of how much time before we should realistically be expecting to not be getting "soccer type" scores with games with less than 6-8 total goals between the sides. And second point would be, will the public give it that time if it was 5 years?

I still wouldnt mind maybe some small rule adjustments for the time being to give it a little kick in the right direction. The averages can skew data. 3/5 round 1 games both teams scored less than 30 points. You wouldnt want to be seeing that continue where 60% of games are like this. Small sample size though.

 

[jatz14]

That's good to see. I think the main thing is consistency and ensuring the trend stays upward. Hence my question of how much time before we should realistically be expecting to not be getting "soccer type" scores with games with less than 6-8 total goals between the sides. And second point would be, will the public give it that time if it was 5 years?

I still wouldnt mind maybe some small rule adjustments for the time being to give it a little kick in the right direction. The averages can skew data. 3/5 round 1 games both teams scored less than 30 points. You wouldnt want to be seeing that continue where 60% of games are like this. Small sample size though.

My concern is, those most upset, and most vocal about scoring, make it pretty clear that they hate the idea of pro women's football regardless. It's just a stick to beat the AFL with. Those into AFLW aren't all that bothered by it. If your into the contest, and the contest is close, you barely notice the scoring.

What does piss off fans is continual tinkering with the game. It makes the game look Mickey mouse. I don't want the people that created AFLX pissing around with it.

So, how much can they upset fans, based on criticism from people who will never be fans regardless of how they tinker?

Maybe it's easier to get casual fans involved with higher scoring, but I am not sure the interests of casual fans should drive the agenda either.

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

 

[DevilsAvocado]

I've loved this year's rule changes so far. The kick out and throw in rules have been very effective to date.

As for the points per game, I've always found Melbourne AFLW games to be great spectacles - MFC's AFLW side to date has average 39.4 ppg for since AFLW's inception. Regularly scoring 40, 50, 60 and even 70 points.

MFC's side has scored less than 30 points on only 3 occasions - their first match, @ GWS on a typhoon day and in Alice Springs summer. Without those games MFC are 45+ PPG.

I think if you take out Collingwood and Carlton from the competition stats of season 1 and 2 the PPG would also jump dramatically - so I am very happy that coaching changes were made, those sides played such dour football that was dangerous to the competition.

This Roos side look untouchable though, that score in those conditions is ridiculous and GWS aren't bad competition.

Love me some AFLW - it's awesome. Vic Park today will be a lock out.

 

[rgauci]

What is the point of conferences aside from guaranteeing 2 finalists come from each group? Which would be fine if the fixture confined the normal
Rounds to games within the conference teams, but it doesn’t. These aren’t conferences, these are the AFL pre-determining who plays finals.

 

[The Nostradamus]

There shouldn’t be conferences
Just take the top 4 out of all 10 after 7 rounds for the prelims

1 vs 4
2 v 3

 

[Tas]

What is the point of conferences aside from guaranteeing 2 finalists come from each group? Which would be fine if the fixture confined the normal
Rounds to games within the conference teams, but it doesn’t. These aren’t conferences, these are the AFL pre-determining who plays finals.

Representation for weaker conferences, Oceanic/Asia would probably struggle to get any sides in if they had to play and beat a number European/South American sides.

 

[rgauci]

Representation for weaker conferences, Oceanic/Asia would probably struggle to get any sides in if they had to play and beat a number European/South American sides.

So what is the purpose of conferences in the women’s AFL?

 

[Underarm]

So what is the purpose of conferences in the women’s AFL?

Made more sense when it was a 6 game season.

Next year with 6 teams in each pool it helps guarantee a western Derby/q clash and an assortment of Richmond/Carlton/Collingwood matches.

 

[Tas]

So what is the purpose of conferences in the women’s AFL?

No idea. Not really enough teams to warrant it you would think.

 

[jatz14]

Conferences are to provide a justification for a season thats shorter than playing everybody once. Can you imagine the reaction if it was a normal structure, but they didnt play everybody?

 

[rgauci]

Conferences are to provide a justification for a season thats shorter than playing everybody once. Can you imagine the reaction if it was a normal structure, but they didnt play everybody?

It’s worse. Cause they play clubs from both conferences, so all it does it limit who can play finalists. Making finals in conference A is going to be a lot harder than Conference B. If Freo beat Brisbane at home, and Carlton lose. Both better than 50:50, 8 wins to conference A and 2 wins to conference B after 2 rounds.