I probably wouldn't have a problem with the weather if we didn't have an indoor stadium. Things like this balance out generally but when you can control the wind and rain then that's something different.
Analysis Fixing the Ladder & The Great Lie of 6-6-6
- Thread starter Unknown Entity
- Start date
- Tagged users None
And it is that this very point where we diverge in opinion. To me, a low scoring close game is far better to watch than a high scoring thrashing.
Unknown Entity
Debutant
- Aug 16, 2019
- 56
- 98
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #29
The reason I don't use margins is for that exact reason. Close games don't equal good games and that's the lie the media is trying to push. The reason the Swans v West Coast, 2018 GF, 2016 Bulldogs Prelim, etc are viewed the way they are is that you had 2 dominant teams who could regularly smash opponents clashing which resulted in a low scoring, nailbiting affair. The current state of play is you have a whole bunch of teams not capable of scoring large amounts, which by default creates closer margins, and the stats support that, the most likely result of a game in 2019 is both teams score under 75 points.
A the bare minimum, teams should be capable of putting up large scores if the other team plays poorly, and right now I'm not sure they are. In 2014 Fremantle was lauded as this slow, defensive juggernaut, they kicked more points in 2014 than 17 AFL teams in 2019 at the moment, and probably 16 by years end.
As I’ve written, the only thing that needs to change is the removal of the prior opportunity interpretation of holding the ball.
www.bigfooty.com
The aim of the game MUST be to keep the ball moving and reduce ball-ups after players continually just dive on the ball like rugby union players.
So yeah, I’ve already fixed it.
Ending congestion
The AFL has trialled and implemented all types of new rules to ease congestion and get the ball moving. I reckon the one that would make the biggest difference is staring us right in the face. Look at what happens now at EVERY contested situation. Ball-up around the ground? The ruckmen tap it...
www.bigfooty.com
The aim of the game MUST be to keep the ball moving and reduce ball-ups after players continually just dive on the ball like rugby union players.
So yeah, I’ve already fixed it.
Don't mind the way this seasons being played and don't mind low scoring games.
How many times have Melbourne and GC been flogged this year and how exciting were those games?
How many times have Melbourne and GC been flogged this year and how exciting were those games?
The "state of the game" is not the result of the current set of rules but is a result of coaches' access to information i.e data.
The gameplans of yesteryear were designed on footy mythos, like "go long" "go hard etc", and whatever coaches "saw", wrote down, and decided to keep in a filing cabinet. At that point, not a lot of actual data was being kept.
Now coaches have the ability to say "if the ball is put in long to the pocket, the chances of it rebounding are very low". Hence you have convergence of gameplans on the most data "rational" gamestyle.
The gameplans of yesteryear were designed on footy mythos, like "go long" "go hard etc", and whatever coaches "saw", wrote down, and decided to keep in a filing cabinet. At that point, not a lot of actual data was being kept.
Now coaches have the ability to say "if the ball is put in long to the pocket, the chances of it rebounding are very low". Hence you have convergence of gameplans on the most data "rational" gamestyle.
Bonus point system assumes all games are played under the same conditions. Giants - Hawks in the snow, at night trying for 100 while Bulldogs - Bombers play indoors in placid afternoon conditions.
Low scoring is a symptom not the problem. Likewise congestion.
The problem is tactical. Control the ball, only on our terms etc.
The overall mindset is coaches would rather crush an opponent via constriction then blow them out of the water by high scoring. This has been a slow burn since the early nineties where premierships were won by the team with the better defense than attack.
Sorry Geelong but all this is your fault. '89 - '95 highest scoring team of all time but lost 4 flags to teams with better defenses. Blight learnt from this and took Adelaide back to back on a strong defense. From this has been a line of coaches controlling defense.
The change is coming and from a familiar face in the defensive game. It's Ross Lyon. He learnt kicking only 11-12 goals a game won't win a flag. You have to know your team can kick multiple goals quickly and a high score against good sides. I suspect Clarkson is working on this. As the Hawks transition he is holding making sure things dont get out of control and I suspect within 3 years the hawks will be back scoring big.
Low scoring is a symptom not the problem. Likewise congestion.
The problem is tactical. Control the ball, only on our terms etc.
The overall mindset is coaches would rather crush an opponent via constriction then blow them out of the water by high scoring. This has been a slow burn since the early nineties where premierships were won by the team with the better defense than attack.
Sorry Geelong but all this is your fault. '89 - '95 highest scoring team of all time but lost 4 flags to teams with better defenses. Blight learnt from this and took Adelaide back to back on a strong defense. From this has been a line of coaches controlling defense.
The change is coming and from a familiar face in the defensive game. It's Ross Lyon. He learnt kicking only 11-12 goals a game won't win a flag. You have to know your team can kick multiple goals quickly and a high score against good sides. I suspect Clarkson is working on this. As the Hawks transition he is holding making sure things dont get out of control and I suspect within 3 years the hawks will be back scoring big.
Unknown Entity
Debutant
- Aug 16, 2019
- 56
- 98
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #34
That's the crux of my point. Unless you give coaches reasons or an advantage to kicking a higher score they won't do it because there is a clear advantage in playing an extremely defensive brand of football.
The corridor is hardly ever used because the potential upside of an accelerated avenue from Def50 to Fwd50 is outweighed by the fact if you are to lose possession the advantage swings ten-fold to the opposition, so teams rarely use it and the result is we see modern football almost exclusively played on the wings.
Right now it seems like the mantra of coaching is to, unlike yesteryear where the goal was to score the most amount of points possible, coaches want to simply outscore their opponent. A team like West Coast knows there is little advantage to playing windscreen wiper, shootout footy against Gold Coast so instead they clog up the game, hold the ball in defensive 50 and kick enough to win the game. Call me crazy for believing that results in a pretty boring brand of footy.
Unknown Entity
Debutant
- Aug 16, 2019
- 56
- 98
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #35
Is that a result of Gold Coast and Melbourne being above average or a result of the better teams in the comp having no reason to really put them to the sword? The Melbourne vs. Collingwood game last week ended up being 17 points, but the game wasn't actually close (Collingwood dominated possession the majority of the game) and wasn't entertaining.
I think people are conflating games where both teams are really good and both teams do a great job of negating the ther teams strengths (think '05 '06 GF's), and the result is a close game, with games where both teams play really average footy, and the result is close because both teams score under 75 points.
Great post, but you lost me at "bonus point".
My club has six winning scores between 93 and 99, mostly in rain-affected games. You can't have the elements dictating club fortunes.
That's without taking into account that certain grounds e.g. the Gabba and Marvel have consistently produced higher scores over the past several years.
PS I think the new rules have made it easier for less-talented teams to hold their structure and defend. It's harder to get over the back of the defending team.
My club has six winning scores between 93 and 99, mostly in rain-affected games. You can't have the elements dictating club fortunes.
That's without taking into account that certain grounds e.g. the Gabba and Marvel have consistently produced higher scores over the past several years.
PS I think the new rules have made it easier for less-talented teams to hold their structure and defend. It's harder to get over the back of the defending team.
Last edited:
blckcaviar
Team Captain
- Jul 21, 2018
- 484
- 1,259
- AFL Club
- Carlton
I think you mean a 2 year marriage
I get that your point. Only way % is fair if it's a 17 game season.
Don't understand why people are obsessed with the 100 point barrier equalling a bonus point. If so, a team who wins 100-99 would get a bonus point over a team that wins 99-0, however unlikely that is. Bonus point has always been a terrible idea
Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
mcgarnacle
Norm Smith Medallist
- Dec 2, 2003
- 9,805
- 4,211
- AFL Club
- Sydney
Correct.
I don’t get your criticism, or it’s a poorly constructed one.
If Team A and Team B are equal on points, then a match or matches between Teams A and B are the most direct analysis of comparison for breaking the tie break. If this match is a draw or they play two matches in the season for 1 win each, then move to next tie-breaker - strength of wins.
In reality, if team A is ravaged by injury before and during a match, are they really only going to lose by a point to another finals contender? There are stats that show that teams that suffer injuries to their better players aren’t even making finals, so they’re not going to be competitive to begin with
Talk about an argument being a poorly constructed one...
This one has more holes in it than a wheel of swiss cheese...
Teams are competitive against other teams, despite injuries, all the time!
And teams recover from long term injuries to key players, to contend in finals series', all the time!
A couple of rubbish games this afternoon.
Saints v. Blues, neither team in contention for finals.
Top 2 clash - Cats v. Lions.
None of the four teams kicked 80 points let alone 100, obviously means they were no good as spectacles...
Saints v. Blues, neither team in contention for finals.
Top 2 clash - Cats v. Lions.
None of the four teams kicked 80 points let alone 100, obviously means they were no good as spectacles...
Crankyhawk
Brownlow Medallist
You could derive equivalent targets for bonus point depending on the ground (although more complicated)
That said so many quirks on fixture what’s yet another
Duckworth Lewis method.
