- Jan 6, 2018
- 10,660
- 12,193
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Norwood
do you think a 5 vs 6 in each teams forward arc will work?
Roast Clarkson is bang on the money...
- Thread starter Mutineer
- Start date
- Tagged users None
I agree, if the ball is disposed of incorrectly then holding the ball. I don’t think that will make much difference to the spectacle of the game though. 16 players on the field would be better with 4 interchange. And extend the quarters to 18 minutes plus time on for next season.
I have never thought about one less player at the CB, that would be interesting.
I always imagined it would be a forward and a back pocket that dropped off the team sheet
Some people mention having no wings as another option
I guess it depends on what style the coach wants to play.
I was thinking that less players would create more space on the ground and then fatigue may come into play later in the game and open the play up as well.
Yeah didn’t think that one through it’s fifteen a side, with 5 interchange, good pick up
Out coached
- Sep 23, 2012
- 3,739
- 5,653
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Sturt, Ozark Mountain Daredevils
There's no outlet players now (maybe Murphy at FF
), all 36 are on the ball most of the time. At worst it'd be 32 but they'd tire sooner with less men on the ground so couldn't all get there like an under 8's match. Imagine basketball with 7 a side, or soccer with 13, it'd look bad.The VFA had 16 until 1991 and scoring was regularly higher then the VFL. Even some of the AFL coaches are now saying it.
18 was OK when players kept their position but that's long gone.
Fix the holding the ball rule and players will maintain positions more - less time to flood back if they’re all at the contest.
How much of the look of the game comes down to how your side is travelling?
Were we complaining about the game in 2017? (I don’t remember)
Are port supporters complaining about it at the moment?
Were we complaining about the game in 2017? (I don’t remember)
Are port supporters complaining about it at the moment?
Yeah it is, name another arena sport that would come close with no supporters?
Rugby ? No
Soccer - what happens in the crowd would be the most entertaining thing most of the time.
Cricket? No just watch a Sheffield shield Match
NFL? Doubt it
Basketball - nah
It goes back a few years, but the funniest thing I ever heard an umpire say was "if you do that again, I'll give a free kick against you." Footy Park north end sometime early this century.
Brown Lightning
Debutant
My mind goes back to 2009 in the Craig Era when we were playing shootout footy. High scoring, play on at all cost footy. We were probably the form side going into the finals before Jack Anthony broke our hearts. Anyway, high scores, dynamic end to end stuff.
Would that current game-style be possible in the current 6-6-6 setup? Me thinks not. The lack of flow and the hugging of the boundary line is making the game less attractive. I guess I probably wouldn't be talking about this if we were at the other end of the ladder... but yeah, footy in general is difficult to watch (even non crow games)
Would that current game-style be possible in the current 6-6-6 setup? Me thinks not. The lack of flow and the hugging of the boundary line is making the game less attractive. I guess I probably wouldn't be talking about this if we were at the other end of the ladder... but yeah, footy in general is difficult to watch (even non crow games)
SugarShane
C12 H22 O11
The beginning of the end for holding the ball might have been when they started to get really hot on the "genuine attempt" rubbish.
If you, an 80kg backman, are tackled by a 110kg ruckman immediately after taking possession you're at risk of being declared holding the ball if you don't opt to thrash about like a beached Murray Cod in an elaborate pantomime to show you are making a "genuine attempt." Simply accepting that the ball is held to your stomach by 2 tree trunk like arms is not an option.
And it's Russian roulette as to when the umpires decide to be hot on it. You'll see 5 tackles in a row clearly holding the ball in, ball up. Then out of nowhere the umpire will sit on the whistle for a bit longer and you'll know, "This is the one." The tackle will be no different to the last 5 but this time they've decided to be extra critical. Your arms can't move and he's laying on top of you, you couldn't move if your life depended on it. "*brrrrrrrrrt* Holding the ball, no genuine attempt."
When they started doing people for that s**t, it was never going to be long until players preferred to drop it in a tackle rather than try and force a ball up and get done.
If you, an 80kg backman, are tackled by a 110kg ruckman immediately after taking possession you're at risk of being declared holding the ball if you don't opt to thrash about like a beached Murray Cod in an elaborate pantomime to show you are making a "genuine attempt." Simply accepting that the ball is held to your stomach by 2 tree trunk like arms is not an option.
And it's Russian roulette as to when the umpires decide to be hot on it. You'll see 5 tackles in a row clearly holding the ball in, ball up. Then out of nowhere the umpire will sit on the whistle for a bit longer and you'll know, "This is the one." The tackle will be no different to the last 5 but this time they've decided to be extra critical. Your arms can't move and he's laying on top of you, you couldn't move if your life depended on it. "*brrrrrrrrrt* Holding the ball, no genuine attempt."
When they started doing people for that s**t, it was never going to be long until players preferred to drop it in a tackle rather than try and force a ball up and get done.
SugarShane
C12 H22 O11
Agree. Our game is a perfect catalyst for excitement with how dynamic it is. Any game that has timeouts automatically loses because all teams use that as a momentum stopper in the most tense part of the game.
NFL and basketball immediately lose out in that regard. We need to score 10 points in 5 minutes to win? Better call 3 timeouts (plus whatever the opposition calls). NFL also loses out because if you're down and the other team has it, you literally can not win. The opposition can just kneel down for 2 minutes.
Soccer? Nope. We complain if a game has less than 10 goals scored.
Cricket? Nope. Again, too much down time.
Rugby? Not even close.
Our game may be badly umpired, and have terrible skills at the moment, but s**t, I still wouldn't perefer to watch anything else.
Golumless
A bigger deal out west.
It's more likely in actual skill quality, nearly everyone who is playing today is more skilled than their respective counterpart 20-30 years ago (There would naturally be some exceptions, i.e. I'd expect Darren Jarman to still be one of the best kicks today). Just the defensive side has pretty much skyrocketed and making it look worse.
- Banned
- #67
You're in the overwhelming minority.
Only half a country Care about AFL remember ? We luv it because we were raised with it, but I'm convinced now it's no where near the greatest game in the world but the supporters are amazing and make it seem better than it is.
We played similar footy in 2017.
SugarShane
C12 H22 O11
I more meant right now due to lack of a preseason but you're right in that regard too. Also looks worse because of the bigger talent pool dilution. There are 90-odd players in list spots that didn't exist 10 years ago.
SugarShane
C12 H22 O11
How many other people care about AFL has little effect on how much I care about it. If we're going on pure saturation then we might as well say Post Malone and Ed Sheeran are the greatest artists in the world because they're the most popular.
We love it because we were born with it. But the same goes for every sport. Soccer thrives where people are brought up with it, likewise baseball, ice hockey, basketball, etc. I was brought up on cricket too but I have nowhere near the spectator attachment to it, despite playing it every season for over 20 years.
It might not be the best game in the world, how you would even determine what that is I'm not sure, or even if it's possible. Everybody is going to have some bias. But there's nothing I'd rather watch.
- Banned
- #71
It's all subjective you are right.
I've taken family and friends from overseas to AFL games and they think it's a complete joke of a game.
You need to be raised with it I guess, like NFL I can't stand the game but Americans luv it
Dirty Bird
Pokémon Master
Western Bulldogs 2008 (Their best ever attacking year) - 16 100+ scores (9 at Docklands)
Adelaide 2016 (Our best ever attacking year ) - 16 100+ scores (10 at Adelaide Oval)
Heck, even a h2h 2016 (Bulldogs premiers remember)
Adelaide 100+ = 16 times
Bulldogs 100+ = 6 times (only 3 at Docklands)
Ground doesn't mean s**t.
Heck, of current grounds what are the top 3 for points per game?
1. Gabba
2. SCG
3. Docklands
Not bad considering Brisbane have been trash for years and Sydney have a reputation of playing ugly football.
- Oct 16, 2015
- 24,279
- 30,558
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
Gabba is great weather and a hard, fast track
SCG - the smallest ground
Docklands - under a roof
So what you are saying is that if it rains, scoring should be as high as when it doesn't rain?
Show me those stats...
- Jul 12, 2014
- 716
- 851
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
Make the limit one tackler. Then it's a one-on-one contest, may the better player win.
- Jul 12, 2014
- 716
- 851
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
Good point!
I sometimes think, if umps simply paid every shirt grab, or shove in the back, of any player not holding the ball, and not just when the ball is live but in dead time too.... then the game would clean up and be more about skill.
Similar threads
