How the game has evolved

[mike123]

No, it's extinction. Players might be named at full-forward but the old-fashioned full forward is, IMO, extinct.

No the old fashioned full forward evolved into something different.

 

[iameviljez]

No the old fashioned full forward evolved into something different.

In the sense that homo erectus evolved into something different, but is now extinct, I also argue that the full-forward is now extinct. The role of the full-forward is, IMO, dead. The way that every tall forward plays the game now - the location they take on the field, their contribution to the team score sheet, their roles in both build-up play and goalscoring - is basically what was once the centre-half forward.

 

[Roaming Lou]

In the sense that homo erectus evolved into something different, but is now extinct, I also argue that the full-forward is now extinct. The role of the full-forward is, IMO, dead. The way that every tall forward plays the game now - the location they take on the field, their contribution to the team score sheet, their roles in both build-up play and goalscoring - is basically what was once the centre-half forward.

Yeah its not like how they use to push it as deep as they can into the 50 before they go for the shot, now if you get a mark on the 50 line your expected to have a shot. Its so bad in some games only half the ground actually relevant.

 

[rmcq]

No, it's extinction. Players might be named at full-forward but the old-fashioned full forward is, IMO, extinct.

Well in that sense, every position on the field is now extinct. If there’s no full-forward then there’s no full-back. Pockets? Gone long ago. Half’s? Nup. Wing? Another midfielder. Centre, follower, Ruck-rover? Those words aren’t even recognisable.

Fixed positions died out decades ago.

Then again, I can’t see how Tom Lunch is not a “full forward” (long ago redesignated as a KPF).

 

[Rotayjay]

Might sound silly, but just yesterday something happened with a children's toy which reminded me of this topic.

I was mucking around with a mate and we played a game of Connect Four that was lying around. We used up every single one of our pieces trying to block each other's efforts to line up four ('score').

When actual young children play Connect Four, someone scores and wins quickly because the kids aren't advanced enough to properly defend their opponent's efforts. But as adults, we just couldn't bring ourselves to sit there and let each other score without using such an obvious defensive tactic.

Once fully professional AFL coaches turn their minds to defence, never again can they sit back and allow the opposition to score in the obvious ways they once did. It's like Adam and Eve eating from the Tree of Knowledge. Once you know defence, you can't un-know it.

 

[screech]

Remember when you could take a carton of beer to the footy?

Well the beer was better back then as well.

OK Boomer

 

[Ghost Patrol]

OK Boomer

Nah, X

 

[iameviljez]

Well in that sense, every position on the field is now extinct. If there’s no full-forward then there’s no full-back. Pockets? Gone long ago. Half’s? Nup. Wing? Another midfielder. Centre, follower, Ruck-rover? Those words aren’t even recognisable.

I do disagree. I think that there are evolutions of each position outlined except for the full-forward - I honestly think that the goalsquare full forward is extinct since Clarkson moved Buddy up the field and Fev imploded, and what we see now are evolutions of the CHF.

In terms of other players - it's reasonable, IMO, to suggest that Betts plays forward pocket, Ablett (now) plays a flank, Fyfe is a ruck-rover, Hill plays wing, etc.

I'm not just talking about the literal location on the field, I'm talking about the way in which the team is structured and the position is played. Full-forwards were almost never involved in build-up play, they would sit deep and use that space to take chest marks on the lead. They'd take shots at goal with the majority of their possessions, and would usually kick around 30% of their team's entire score. That whole methodology is just dead.

 

[iameviljez]

Nah, X

Boomer isn't just an age, it's a way of life

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Boomer isn't just an age, it's a way of life

So is running around calling people boomers.

Good luck with that.

 

[HTT]

Might sound silly, but just yesterday something happened with a children's toy which reminded me of this topic.

I was mucking around with a mate and we played a game of Connect Four that was lying around. We used up every single one of our pieces trying to block each other's efforts to line up four ('score').

When actual young children play Connect Four, someone scores and wins quickly because the kids aren't advanced enough to properly defend their opponent's efforts. But as adults, we just couldn't bring ourselves to sit there and let each other score without using such an obvious defensive tactic.

Once fully professional AFL coaches turn their minds to defence, never again can they sit back and allow the opposition to score in the obvious ways they once did. It's like Adam and Eve eating from the Tree of Knowledge. Once you know defence, you can't un-know it.

Interesting you bring this up, there’s a chapter in a book that details Hardwick’s pre game speech on Anzac Day Eve 2017, where he refers to a game of connect 4 with his daughter. He basically says he was playing a silly way, going for the win. It meant there were two possible results for him: win, or lose.
But his daughter was set up defensively, simply waiting for her opponent to make a mistake which allowed her to win. It meant there were only two results for her as well - win or draw.

This mentality is the base of our style of ‘turnover game’ that many sides employ too.

 

[rmcq]

I do disagree. I think that there are evolutions of each position outlined except for the full-forward - I honestly think that the goalsquare full forward is extinct since Clarkson moved Buddy up the field and Fev imploded, and what we see now are evolutions of the CHF.

In terms of other players - it's reasonable, IMO, to suggest that Betts plays forward pocket, Ablett (now) plays a flank, Fyfe is a ruck-rover, Hill plays wing, etc.

I'm not just talking about the literal location on the field, I'm talking about the way in which the team is structured and the position is played. Full-forwards were almost never involved in build-up play, they would sit deep and use that space to take chest marks on the lead. They'd take shots at goal with the majority of their possessions, and would usually kick around 30% of their team's entire score. That whole methodology is just dead.

Tom Lynch scored 36% of Richmond's score in this year’s PF.

I would argue that the FF role has evolved just the same as all other positions have evolved.
Plus Lynch played the entire first half of the year as a “traditional” FF since he could barely move.

 

[iameviljez]

Tom Lynch scored 36% of Richmond's score in this year’s PF.

Yeah, in one game - not a whole season. Besides, he had something like 20 touches. If Lockett got 20 touches, 19 of them were kicks and 10 of those were goals.

Coaches made the very deliberate choice to stop playing a full-forward because the predictability killed their team. Having a single individual as the focus of so many attacks just wasn't sustainable. Tall forwards now are really just all variations on the CHF role, IMO, or on a very rare occasion, that Buddy/Hipwood/Cameron role of pushing up the ground then using your athletic prowess to torch opponents on the way back home.

 

[iameviljez]

Interesting you bring this up, there’s a chapter in a book that details Hardwick’s pre game speech on Anzac Day Eve 2017, where he refers to a game of connect 4 with his daughter. He basically says he was playing a silly way, going for the win. It meant there were two possible results for him: win, or lose.
But his daughter was set up defensively, simply waiting for her opponent to make a mistake which allowed her to win. It meant there were only two results for her as well - win or draw.

I reckon it's also that traditional positions have always been set up to maximise attacking effectiveness - maximum coverage of the ground in a game where the ball can travel 50m in a few seconds. We've always been good at attacking footy, it's only in the last ten years that defence was given the same thought.

 

[HTT]

I reckon it's also that traditional positions have always been set up to maximise attacking effectiveness - maximum coverage of the ground in a game where the ball can travel 50m in a few seconds. We've always been good at attacking footy, it's only in the last ten years that defence was given the same thought.

One of the earliest tactical progressions was a move towards that, and it was to improve attacking prowess. Even though the game has never had an offside rule, it was played as though it did. Then teams started putting 'goalsneaks' goalside of their opposition so they could get some easy goals.
No doubt this was the start of what became traditional positions.

 

[rmcq]

Yeah, in one game - not a whole season. Besides, he had something like 20 touches. If Lockett got 20 touches, 19 of them were kicks and 10 of those were goals.

Coaches made the very deliberate choice to stop playing a full-forward because the predictability killed their team. Having a single individual as the focus of so many attacks just wasn't sustainable. Tall forwards now are really just all variations on the CHF role, IMO, or on a very rare occasion, that Buddy/Hipwood/Cameron role of pushing up the ground then using your athletic prowess to torch opponents on the way back home.

It happened a few times this season. My point is that the full forward role has evolved just like all other positions. Tom Lynch would be easily recognisable as a full-forward to a time traveller from 1920.

 

[Consolaçao]

Fox Footy's been brilliant in the off season. Showing classic games, beats the s**t out the crap they play these days.



It resembled FOOTBALL

Are you comparing apples with apples here? Will Fox be showing round 19, 1985... St Kilda v Melbourne at Moorabbin, neither side with anything to play for, Melbourne winning 59-50 in a muddy scrap? Or are you talking about the 1989 Grand Final?