Review Geelong tries its best to lose and finds a way to stagger to a 4 point win over Demons

[Spazz Cat]

Yeah I don't get how people can say that. Having less games and shorter quarters means luck is more likely to play a factor. The more games the less chance comes into it.

Not just that. Which is more than enough for me for an asterix on it's own.
But teams getting games cancelled. Look at the hubs. 3 of the 4 teams that had to travel to one are on the dead set bottom of the ladder.
It's so compromised in so many ways. I don't really think we'll see the best 2 teams come grand final day.

 

[Vdubs]

Yeah I don't get how people can say that. Having less games and shorter quarters means luck is more likely to play a factor. The more games the less chance comes into it.

Fairer comp, play each team only once.
I have NEVER been happy with the expanded comp yet still only playing 22 matches.
The history of 22 games as you well know is based on 12 teams each playing a H & A game.
I have heard all the excuses, season too long, lists not large enough, but to be a TRULY fair comp, each team must play each team twice, home and away.
17 games at least is a half way measure.
\EPL has teams like Arsenal, Man City etc having to travel to away venues where capacity goes from >70k to <30k

 

[iameviljez]

Fairer comp, play each team only once.
I have NEVER been happy with the expanded comp yet still only playing 22 matches.

While I agree that this would be inherently fairer, the reality is that neither the fans nor the beancounters want five fewer weeks of footy per year.

I've seen various items around having a pre-finals month to jostle for final positions - I don't mind that idea, to be honest. You'd have 17 weeks (each team plays each other once). Then split the ladder into thirds, and have each team in the set of six play each other once (carrying over points from the regular season). Then you'd go into the regular finals.

 

[iameviljez]

I would regard it as the MOST meritorious flag ever. To win against all this adversity, and to come out on top would be huge for me.
It could be in Adelaide for all I care.

Every club is facing the same issues, though - and, tbh, I agree with Partridge that the short season and short quarters mean more luck comes into it.

For soccer fans, it's kindof like FA Cup (knockout) vs Premiership (Long-form). You sometimes get weird sides going on a hot/lucky streak in the FA Cup, but it's 1/100 that it lasts long enough to win the Premiership.

 

[Pollywaffle]

Which is more than enough for me for an asterix on it's own.

You had a lot of Gaul mentioning that

 

[Partridge]

Fairer comp, play each team only once.
I have NEVER been happy with the expanded comp yet still only playing 22 matches.
The history of 22 games as you well know is based on 12 teams each playing a H & A game.
I have heard all the excuses, season too long, lists not large enough, but to be a TRULY fair comp, each team must play each team twice, home and away.
17 games at least is a half way measure.
\EPL has teams like Arsenal, Man City etc having to travel to away venues where capacity goes from >70k to <30k

But that isn't fairer. At all. Where are those games played? Let's say Geelong played all interstate teams interstate, and Richmond at the MCG. Heads would explode on here. More than normal that is.

I have never, ever advocated a shorter season. Somewhere around 22 games in home and away seems pretty good. Yes we both know the history. But they should have thought of that before bringing in six new teams. The size of lists is irrelevant anyway.

 

[Pollywaffle]

\EPL has teams like Arsenal, Man City etc having to travel to away venues where capacity goes from >70k to <30k

Be interesting to know how the codes compare in relation to attendance revenue vs rights/sponsorships etc
The scramble to get games back on TV was much more frenetic than regaining ’crowds’
Attendances, in EPL games especially, have almost become just a side business.
‘Travel’ in UK just a short jaunt usually ,not the logistical nightmare it can become here. (even in normal times.)

 

[JohnZ]

While I agree that this would be inherently fairer, the reality is that neither the fans nor the beancounters want five fewer weeks of footy per year.

Option A: Go to 34 games. F the cricket season, they can play at the Junction before Boxing Day. Top 4/5 finals series.

Option B: 6 New teams. EPL style divisions. 22 game, full H+A (12 sides in each division), bottom 4/top 4 relegation each season, both divisions play finals, week 3 saturday is Div 2 GF, week 4 saturday is Div 1 GF.

 

[CatToTheFuture]

Not just that. Which is more than enough for me for an asterix on it's own.
But teams getting games cancelled. Look at the hubs. 3 of the 4 teams that had to travel to one are on the dead set bottom of the ladder.
It's so compromised in so many ways. I don't really think we'll see the best 2 teams come grand final day.

The other one is top of the ladder.

Of the 4 the only ones that are in positions that would surprise anyone are west coast and Port.

Adelaide maybe a little worse than expected but it's not far off

 

[iameviljez]

Option B: 6 New teams. EPL style divisions. 22 game, full H+A (12 sides in each division), bottom 4/top 4 relegation each season, both divisions play finals, week 3 saturday is Div 2 GF, week 4 saturday is Div 1 GF.

I'm not a huge fan of the Division concept because it does have the habit of entrenching inequality. I think that would be a pretty high price to pay for fixing the draw.

 

[Spazz Cat]

The other one is top of the ladder.

Of the 4 the only ones that are in positions that would surprise anyone are west coast and Port.

Adelaide maybe a little worse than expected but it's not far off

Eagles down the bottom and Suns up the top is fair surprise.

 

[thejester]

All of this is true, however you *can* make changes to the game that makes systematic, analytical thinking more likely to produce aesthetically pleasing results when put in to practice.

Systematic, analytical thinking should not be so closely associated with defense-first football. You mentioned that 90s football was really dumb and unsophisticated, and I agree with that. Well, maybe the job of the AFL rules committee is to put in place a system that makes playing conservative football the dumb and unsophisticated coaching strategy? I don't know how they'd do that of course, but I also don't see any reason why it should be a fundamental impossibility.

It should be possible, but the AFL has been trying to do this for fifteen years and has completely failed; maybe things could change but I'm skeptical. I think in part its because the group with the expertise to actually think through these problems (people in footy departments) have the least incentive to do so.

There's also a broader philosophical point about how much you want to legislate what is good and bad football. This thread is full of people simultaneously saying that the whole idea of keeping possession is bad while also lamenting congestion around the ball, when working to remove one almost certainly increases the chances of the other. Most other big team sports I'm familiar with have some version of a debate between attack and defence, but they also have more than one league or country so the ideas can exist simultaneously. In some ways even Australian football had that prior to the creation of the AFL.

 

[thejester]

So as a neutral - you didnt enjoy say Tony Modra taking those screamers on a regular occurrence - oh no that was dumb football

94 Prelim. Billy Brownless marks it inside defensive 50 with about a minute left and then plays on, prompting Dennis Commetti to choke out 'but why play on?!' and Drew Morphett to reply 'because that's the way they play, Geelong!' Very exciting for the neutral, classic bit of commentary, very dumb from Billy Brownless.

What game are we supposed to be following - your consistent thesis might carry a tiny bit of weight if we are playing rugby union - maybe if the Cats were playing Gordon or Eastern Suburbs you might be happy

However i thought Geelong were in the Australian Rules comp - not the rugby union or a bastarrdisation of both codes.

My thesis is that for most of the game's history it has been lower scoring than it is today and that there have always been bad individual games of football, and yet it has somehow survived. Not sure of the relevance of rugby union.

 

[JohnZ]

I'm not a huge fan of the Division concept because it does have the habit of entrenching inequality. I think that would be a pretty high price to pay for fixing the draw.

I don't necessarily think that's true. The inequality you see in the EPL is less about the divisions, and more about the fact that every town above 100 people has a club and there is no salary cap or draft.

Div 2 clubs would have access to the top 12 draft picks every year and the same list and salary cap rules as Div 1.

The current system has top clubs and bottom clubs who cycle up and down the ladder. The division system makes it easier for the bottom clubs to rise, as they only play clubs of similar standard (not half their games against the top teams).

 

[iameviljez]

The inequality you see in the EPL is less about the divisions, and more about the fact that every town above 100 people has a club and there is no salary cap or draft.

Oh, completely - but the division system still changes things. We do already have an issue with player flow from s**t to good clubs keeping sides like Hawthorn and Richmond on top, we don't want to make it worse.

My other issue with it is that sides have come from the clouds to win flags a few times - us in 2007, Richmond in 2017.

 

[Vdubs]

But that isn't fairer. At all. Where are those games played? Let's say Geelong played all interstate teams interstate, and Richmond at the MCG. Heads would explode on here. More than normal that is.

I have never, ever advocated a shorter season. Somewhere around 22 games in home and away seems pretty good. Yes we both know the history. But they should have thought of that before bringing in six new teams. The size of lists is irrelevant anyway.

So why not 34 games?

 

[Partridge]

So why not 34 games?

I'd rather 34 than 17 any day.

 

[Vdubs]

I'd rather 34 than 17 any day.

Same.
'But not this year, or next.
I fear we'll be lucky to see the season finish, at this rate of border closure etc.

 

[catscratchfever]

Tactical aspects of the 80’s and 90’s football were terrible ...you can not deny that

while the game has become overly defensive at this stage, it is the consequences of the game growing up to professionals standards.

I’m sure in time the offensive side will balance it out.

Maybe, maybe not. From the early 20th century through to about the early '70s, scoring in big time soccer was far higher than now. For example, the average goals-per-game for the 1954 World Cup was 5.38, at the 2016 edition it was 2.6, ie less than half of back in the day. The curve in the major leagues would be similar.

As coaching tactics and planning became more "scientific" and players fitter, the average score per match plummeted. Same in footy perhaps?

I'm guessing that there are other team sports that have had the same evolution.

 

[Spazz Cat]

It should be possible, but the AFL has been trying to do this for fifteen years and has completely failed; maybe things could change but I'm skeptical. I think in part its because the group with the expertise to actually think through these problems (people in footy departments) have the least incentive to do so.

There's also a broader philosophical point about how much you want to legislate what is good and bad football. This thread is full of people simultaneously saying that the whole idea of keeping possession is bad while also lamenting congestion around the ball, when working to remove one almost certainly increases the chances of the other. Most other big team sports I'm familiar with have some version of a debate between attack and defence, but they also have more than one league or country so the ideas can exist simultaneously. In some ways even Australian football had that prior to the creation of the AFL.

It all comes down to taste. I don't mind contests and congestion. I also quite like wet weather football.
But the chip kicking, not playing on and keeping possession I really don't like.
Also don't like the dinky little kicks inside 50. Just takes away the excitement.
But then someone else could think the exact opposite.
I hope they just leave it as it is. Maybe Port will win the flag and everyone will try and play like them.

 

[Strange Cat]

Maybe, maybe not. From the early 20th century through to about the early '70s, scoring in big time soccer was far higher than now. For example, the average goals-per-game for the 1954 World Cup was 5.38, at the 2016 edition it was 2.6, ie less than half of back in the day. The curve in the major leagues would be similar.

As coaching tactics and planning became more "scientific" and players fitter, the average score per match plummeted. Same in footy perhaps?

I'm guessing that there are other team sports that have had the same evolution.

It could be a combination of things which is why I made that blanket term of the game growing up to professional standards

it’s an interesting debate and I think there would be more qualified people out there that could debate the standards, tactics and fitness all compounding to what the game looks like now .

to me I think the game will continue to envolve to a more high scoring game ...you only have to look back at the dread and complaints from ‘05-‘06 for example to see what happened .

This is all my opnion of course

 

[CatToTheFuture]

Eagles down the bottom and Suns up the top is fair surprise.

Yeah actually they're all surprising upon reflection

 

[Partridge]

Oh, completely - but the division system still changes things. We do already have an issue with player flow from sh*t to good clubs keeping sides like Hawthorn and Richmond on top, we don't want to make it worse.

My other issue with it is that sides have come from the clouds to win flags a few times - us in 2007, Richmond in 2017.

Yeah but that goes in all directions. For some strange reason we don't mind it when we can get Dangerfield for instance.

 

[Partridge]

Maybe, maybe not. From the early 20th century through to about the early '70s, scoring in big time soccer was far higher than now. For example, the average goals-per-game for the 1954 World Cup was 5.38, at the 2016 edition it was 2.6, ie less than half of back in the day. The curve in the major leagues would be similar.

As coaching tactics and planning became more "scientific" and players fitter, the average score per match plummeted. Same in footy perhaps?

I'm guessing that there are other team sports that have had the same evolution.

True. But even then there were exceptions. Serie A in the late '80s, early '90s to my recollection was pretty high scoring, despite there being plenty of great defenders.

It might have had something to do with Van Basten and Maradona being at their peak too of course.

 

[iameviljez]

Yeah but that goes in all directions. For some strange reason we don't mind it when we can get Dangerfield for instance.

Sorry, by "we" I didn't mean Geelong, I meant the whole AFL in general.

Go back through the comment reply thread - it's a discussion about the merits of divisional systems and how it might further ingrain inequality between top and bottom sides.