Congestion - Why don't they...

[Wetdog]

Remove the two wing positions for both teams on the field. You then automatically have four less players on the field - creating more space - surely this goes some way to clear up the congestion on the field. You also have the added benefit of improving the depth of the competition with less spuds playing. Have they tried this in the pre-season comp before? Or in any of the lower tier leagues? Would it work?

 

[Suntory Boss Coffee]

Have they tried this in the pre-season comp before? Or in any of the lower tier leagues? Would it work?

We did it in under 9's and it made the congestion worse. That may have been because we were 8 just chasing the ball. But my point still stays.

 

[Freofalcon]

The VFA used to play minus the wing positions. That's the only thing I know about the VFA.

 

[Scotland]

It doesn't really matter which two positions you get rid of unless they are inside the centre square.

I reckon with two less players the game would evolve to be more like chip and chase rugby union where offside is in play.

The only way we are going to return to players actual holding positional lines (F, HF, C etc.) is when coaches instruct their teams to play that way - which I can't see happening with 80 or 100 or whatever it is rotations a game.

 

[andrew99]

Players tend to converge around where the ball is , or to a specific defensive shape in a small part of the ground.

Removing 2 players won't change how the rest of the players behave.

You'd have to enforce fixed positions for players to make your plan work, e.g. like netball.

 

[andrew99]

The VFA used to play minus the wing positions. That's the only thing I know about the VFA.

Yes but in the modern' game positioning is outdated, there is no 'wing position' per se anymore, not with rolling zones (e.g. the forward press)that mean a player could find himself anywhere on the ground.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

It's a good idea and something I've said before, but unless they have 6 on the bench the AFLPA won't like it because it gives less playing opportunities for players.

 

[Kram]

You know what the OP is?


An ideas man.

 

[estibador]

It's ironic that the traditionalist hate the 'rolling maul' yet the only two solutions that will actually reduce it has the traditionalists aghast - either zones or reducing the amount of players per team.

 

[JOELY]

sometimes an open game with constant chip passing sideways is more boring than the rolling maul. i'm not sure if these sorts of changes wont turn the game into a possession fest.

 

[Billy ray]

You want a solution? Lasers.
Specifically laser pointers. If congestion forms, laser in the eyes of the 5th man in....


Only half serious. Lasers rock.

 

[Spanish_Fly]

Whatever measure is introduced to try and restore the structure of yesteryear is bound to fail because coaches are hellbent on finding the most effective defensive strategy first before they think about how the are going to score. As long as defence is the first priority for coaches we will see predominantly congested shutdown football.

The same thing has happened in most sports around the word, defence comes first, and those sports have fixed that problem only by offering incentives for coaches to play attacking football. 3 points for a win in soccer, 3 point shots, bonus points are all incentives "outside" the game itself that were offered to coaches to try and encourage more open play.

Not sure exactly what the best way to do this in AFL is, but this is the only way you'll fix the problem.

 

[Crankyhawk]

Umpire it like the crows hawks game and call the ball up early