Analysis How the state of the game has evolved, is the increased rate of injuries a result of of the evolution

[Bicco]

I couldn't care less about how the rest of the world sees the game.

So all of the young kids growing up are playing soccer and the immigrants to Australia find the rules confusing and difficult to understand (as do I) and aren't participating like the Greek and Italian immigrants of the 50's 60's. This alone should be a huge concern for the game going forward.

 

[shaqsuns]

I couldn't care less about how the rest of the world sees the game.

You clearly live in one of the southern states then. Myself, I enjoy seeing the growth of the game in NSW and QLD however it seems more people are walking away or just having a passing interest from the game up here and a lot of that has to do with the way the game has evolved in the last 10 years. I used to love watching 3 to 4 games per weekend now I’m lucky to sit through one Suns game (granted they have been very hard to watch in the last 3 years) however I believe it has more to do with every player on the ground being on the screen during a ball up and then when the ball does get cleared there is no one to kick to so the player just kicks it backwards giving the defense a chance to set up an 18 man zone 50 metres away from the kicker. it’s boring and we are starting to lose our uniqueness


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Elite Master]

Football back in the old days may have made for a more attractive spectacle to see big forwards kicking bags, the best players having room to show off their skills and one on one positional play etc, but lets face it: the game was so tactically primitive and ridiculously simple, almost embarrassingly so. The AFL only just started to catch up to other major sports around the world on a sophisticated and professional level in the early to mid 2000's.

 

[shaqsuns]

Football back in the old days may have made for a more attractive spectacle to see big forwards kicking bags, the best players having room to show off their skills and one on one positional play etc, but lets face it: the game was so tactically primitive and ridiculously simple, almost embarrassingly so. The AFL only just started to catch up to other major sports around the world on a sophisticated and professional level in the early to mid 2000's.

What was embarrassing about having a contest within a contest? I would argue it’s embarrassing now with the game looking like a bunch of seagulls fighting over a chip


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[HTT]

Lets be realistic, with the current rules, even the wooden spooner this year would annihilate an 80s or 90s era team premiership team, they would be so slow and rely so much on one-on-one footy that even Carlton would look like the most dominant team ever by comparison.

The rules have evolved to favour athletes over footballers and it is much easier for coaches to develop defensive strategies than offensive ones; zones, presses, webs, etc are all defensive strategies to restrict the oppositions ability to move the ball and it takes significant endurance and speed to execute well.

We are seeing what is the outcome of professionalism, especially in coaching. The game may look uglier, but it is a lot harder to execute.

Agree. Things evolve, new methods are better at winning games. That doesn’t take away from past sides though. That’s like blaming the Wright brothers for their plane being noisy.

 

[NoobPie]

Putting aside the subjective assertions that the game has degenerated as a spectacle (either because of tactical development or rules / interpretation going down the wrong path), the other common gripe / assertion made through this thread - that only "athletes" are being drafted now at the expense of "footballers" - is nonsense

At least one person, presumably not being ironic, put Sam Mitchell up as an example of somebody who wouldn't be drafted today. In reality he would have likely gone a high draft pick today where as he was overlooked twice before being rookie drafted at Hawthorn.

The reality is the classical positional / man-on-man era so many nostalgically pine for, was twilighting in the late 90s early 00s. This was the period when 'athletes" were being drafted ahead of "footballers" (particularly slower and shorter ones) as it was assumed the latter would be exposed one-on-one.

The tactical evolution of the game, including the degree of organisation and the tactical control of space, has actually made footballing prowess as critical as ever.

 

[NoobPie]

What was embarrassing about having a contest within a contest? I would argue it’s embarrassing now with the game looking like a bunch of seagulls fighting over a chip


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't know about embarrassing but Australian football was basically the last of the non-hard offside (ie the rugby's and american football) invasion sports to "evolve" into a more sophisticated and organised game. Not surprisingly, such sports basically adapted zones, presses etc in reverse order of the size of the field and the number of players. Australian football, with 18 players covering a couple of hectares was naturally the last.

I think the "classical" form of Australian football was brilliant. I much prefer the modern game though. You may not get to wings playing one-on-one and FBs and FFs one out running into acres of space out of a goal square. I think the collective contest is miles beyond what we had though. It's beyond brilliant. I feel sorry for you if you experience this as seaguls fighting over chips.

 

[Blackhawk42]

The game is what we have to sell to the world and when the game doesn’t look good it’s virtually impossible to get new supporters to our game.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Highlights is all any sport uses to sell itself. NFL is gaining popularity worldwide and 90% of any game is void of anything remotely entertaining.
Our game has the greatest highlights package of any sport on Earth. That's all that matters. I'd argue our highlights happen more frequently also. Most games contain multiple spectacular moments. Basketball may be the only comparative ball sport due it's similar pace, structure and high scoring.

 

[Goggin Our Best]

Lets be realistic, with the current rules, even the wooden spooner this year would annihilate an 80s or 90s era team premiership team, they would be so slow and rely so much on one-on-one footy that even Carlton would look like the most dominant team ever by comparison.

The rules have evolved to favour athletes over footballers and it is much easier for coaches to develop defensive strategies than offensive ones; zones, presses, webs, etc are all defensive strategies to restrict the oppositions ability to move the ball and it takes significant endurance and speed to execute well.

We are seeing what is the outcome of professionalism, especially in coaching. The game may look uglier, but it is a lot harder to execute.

AFL use to be a game of chance ( thats why it was exciting ) now it is a game of possession - and stacks of short passes

Best example is kicking in from fullback - i think 99% of all supporters of all clubs - would like to see either a torp or a long drop punt to the centre - why - because you dont know what will happen - what will eventuate - that makes it exciting - but 90% of the time we get a short pass - whats exciting about that - nothing - and neutrals lose interest very quickly

In the off season - i watched a Nth Melb - v Geel game from the mid 90s - was at the MCG - and the immediate and huge difference - was right from the start of the game - early in the 1st qtr - it was free flowing end to end football ( and blooody enjoyable to watch )

Where as todays football =- alot of the time - its like 2 boxers in the 1st 3-4 rounds - just jabbing and sparring - nothing blooody happens - just chip it around - keep possession - short pass short pass

Doesnt matter if the side you follow has had success in this modern era - that doesnt mean the game overall is now more enjoyable to watch

I watch Friday night football - because if you have worked all week - your looking forward to watching a game etc - then i watch the side i supports game - and then thats it - couldnt stand watching any other games - because its not worth watching - look at the round just finished - one sided non competitive junk

 

[Farm Boy]

is pretty average at best these days. This round alone barring Richmond and Collingwood thus far the skill level and standard of play is absolutely horrendous. There hasn't been that many good games 4 rounds in.

Footys going backwards. It's just about pace and clogging up the field rather than skill. The dogs-swans game was close but frantic. Nothing else. Just frantic. Even arguably the games best player was kicking like shit.

North during Carey's reign was some of the best football I have seen. It was exciting, with a blend of pack marking, and open spaces (Pagan's paddock). You knew something was going to happen and you didn't know what. It was exciting football. Today's football is different, and it does look a little congested, but I wouldn't be too hard on these guys, the rules change on a weekly basis thesedays. On the weekend I saw players penalized for taking possession of the football (with no chance to get rid of it), which essentially means the AFL by way of its rules is discouraging players to take possession of the football. This is what is wrong with the game at present, and the players are simply in a state of confusion.

 

[Coaster2012]

Some of you on here need to pack up your negatvity and quite frankly **** off. Personally loving the footy so far and think its an open year besides the blues and lions.

 

[shaqsuns]

Some of you on here need to pack up your negatvity and quite frankly **** off. Personally loving the footy so far and think its an open year besides the blues and lions.

I think it starting to be a common thought that that the game has turned into this mess.... I don’t think it’s negative that we come here because we love the game we just want the product to be better then the crap it has served us up for the last 10 years


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Bicco]

North during Carey's reign was some of the best football I have seen. It was exciting, with a blend of pack marking, and open spaces (Pagan's paddock). You knew something was going to happen and you didn't know what. It was exciting football. Today's football is different, and it does look a little congested, but I wouldn't be too hard on these guys, the rules change on a weekly basis thesedays. On the weekend I saw players penalized for taking possession of the football (with no chance to get rid of it), which essentially means the AFL by way of its rules is discouraging players to take possession of the football. This is what is wrong with the game at present, and the players are simply in a state of confusion.

IMO one of the crucial rule changes was the introduction of 'prior opportunity '. In any given contest, a fast player who could close down space and lay a tackle would be rewarded over the player who actually went and got the ball first. Its such a counter intuitive rule for sports generally.
If the AFL got rid of this 'ethos' and that ridiculous 'sliding in rule' and started paying free kicks for already existing rules (in the back comes to mind) then the player infront/first to the ball would start being rewarded again.
Currently it looks like the AFL is trying to please the mothers of western Sydney but is in effect displeasing much of its current supporter base.

 

[SJ]

The skills have been declining for years. Merging the Gold Coast/Brisbane and North/St. Kilda will somewhat improve the highlights, the talent pool requires compression.

Both offensive and defensive skills have improved. Defensive skills, particularly team defence, has skyrocketed in the past couple of decades. Very little time and space to use offensive skills anymore.

 

[Farm Boy]

IMO one of the crucial rule changes was the introduction of 'prior opportunity '. In any given contest, a fast player who could close down space and lay a tackle would be rewarded over the player who actually went and got the ball first. Its such a counter intuitive rule for sports generally.
If the AFL got rid of this 'ethos' and that ridiculous 'sliding in rule' and started paying free kicks for already existing rules (in the back comes to mind) then the player infront/first to the ball would start being rewarded again.
Currently it looks like the AFL is trying to please the mothers of western Sydney but is in effect displeasing much of its current supporter base.

The sliding in rule is in place to firstly discourage players from going to ground, but secondly to encourage them to remain upright and keep their feet (like Ablett jr does), which decreases the risk of head injuries. The thing is, if you keep your feet and don't go to ground, when you do bend down to pick the ball up, your neck is badly exposed (like Dylan Shiel's would have been had he of not anticipated Cotchin barrelling into him, he probably would have broken his neck). I expect to see a player break their neck in the near future (unfortunately) as they bend down and pick the ball up. The only thing the AFL can really do is introduce strict guidelines as to how to enter into a contest (where the ground ball is there to be won). Perhaps even implement rules to encourage players to slow down entering into contests. They will have to end up doing this because concussion is the games biggest issue, and with the obvious flaw in our game (safely taking possession of the ground ball), the AFL have their work cut out. I personally don't think the game is playable if you want to play it safely. And I don't think the power that be truly understand the flaw in our game.

 

[NoobPie]

IMO one of the crucial rule changes was the introduction of 'prior opportunity '. In any given contest, a fast player who could close down space and lay a tackle would be rewarded over the player who actually went and got the ball first. Its such a counter intuitive rule for sports generally.
If the AFL got rid of this 'ethos' and that ridiculous 'sliding in rule' and started paying free kicks for already existing rules (in the back comes to mind) then the player infront/first to the ball would start being rewarded again.
Currently it looks like the AFL is trying to please the mothers of western Sydney but is in effect displeasing much of its current supporter base.

Sorry but I don't get what you are trying to argue

What do you mean by the "introduction of prior opportunity"? The "must have prior opportunity" interpretation of holding the ball is precisely designed to give the player who wins the ball time to dispose of it. What is the alternative? Get rid of holding the ball completely?

A massive problem has been how to deal with the increase in "professionalism" with certain players in particular turning the engineering of infringements (high tackles and in-the-back) into an art form. Some players, like poppy for instance, instinctively look for free kicks if they get the ball in traffic. I certainly wouldn't want these player rewarded more. I certainly can't see how "in-the-back' for instance is over paid.

The sliding rule is proving hard to police but I think it is probably a good rule all in all. Player safety is one thing but also the more players go to ground to take possession the more congestion is encouraged

 

[afl genius]

Football back in the old days may have made for a more attractive spectacle to see big forwards kicking bags, the best players having room to show off their skills and one on one positional play etc, but lets face it: the game was so tactically primitive and ridiculously simple, almost embarrassingly so. The AFL only just started to catch up to other major sports around the world on a sophisticated and professional level in the early to mid 2000's.

Exactly. I like watching big forwards kick massive bags as much as the next person but allowing blokes like Ablett,Plugger, Dunstall play one out in the 50 is strategically embarrassing from an opposition coach Not sure any rule change would allow the games to go back to the shoot out 90s games as coaches are alot better now.

 

[NoobPie]

I think it starting to be a common thought that that the game has turned into this mess.... I don’t think it’s negative that we come here because we love the game we just want the product to be better then the crap it has served us up for the last 10 years


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I tell you amongst whom this a "common thought"?

Dudes who were in their prime in the 80s and 90s, getting lots or roots, promising career ahead of them....

The game has record crowds, participation and TV rights deals. People in their 20s now have only known a game with far more organisational sophistication and where the contested ball is one of the more exciting parts of the game. A large minority of fans in their 40s and 50s might be overcome with nostalgia but in 20 years they'll be in their 60s and 70s.

 

[Bicco]

Sorry but I don't get what you are trying to argue

What do you mean by the "introduction of prior opportunity"? The "must have prior opportunity" interpretation of holding the ball is precisely designed to give the player who wins the ball time to dispose of it. What is the alternative? Get rid of holding the ball completely?

A massive problem has been how to deal with the increase in "professionalism" with certain players in particular turning the engineering of infringements (high tackles and in-the-back) into an art form. Some players, like poppy for instance, instinctively look for free kicks if they get the ball in traffic. I certainly wouldn't want these player rewarded more. I certainly can't see how "in-the-back' for instance is over paid.

The sliding rule is proving hard to police but I think it is probably a good rule all in all. Player safety is one thing but also the more players go to ground to take possession the more congestion is encouraged

No. Prior opportunity means if the player with the ball has had prior opportunity to dispose of the ball and is tackled, almost no matter how effective the tackle is, it's holding the ball (there never was a holding the ball, only incorrect disposal). The rule used to place the onus the tackler laying an effective tackle that caused incorrect disposal. If the tackler laid a tackle that caused the ball to spill it was play on. Now if that same tackle has occured the player with the ball will be called holding the ball, if they've had prior opportunity to dispose of it. It's a very subtle change in the rule but very important. It used to be that the decision around holding the ball only started once a tackle was laid, now it starts the moment a player picks up the ball. i.e they've had prior opportunity.
On the in the back rule, it is almost never paid and that is a huge reason why we have massive packs around the ball. A player going low and hard would win a free kick if someone jumped on their back, its rarely paid these days.

 

[J_Moore]

Football back in the old days may have made for a more attractive spectacle to see big forwards kicking bags, the best players having room to show off their skills and one on one positional play etc, but lets face it: the game was so tactically primitive and ridiculously simple, almost embarrassingly so. The AFL only just started to catch up to other major sports around the world on a sophisticated and professional level in the early to mid 2000's.

I’d say only with Clarkson did we finally see a coach who took a wholistic view of gameday tactics, and tried to implement a system.

Anyway, the state of this thread.
If it makes you feel better, every single other professional sport website has a group of old blokes whinging about how everything sucks now.

 

[Strange Cat]

Seems it’s only time the old timers who pine for the good old days that hate modern football, either get with the time or just stick to your old VHS tapes and stay in your safe space.

I constantly have this argument about the game being shit with a mate old father who is stuck in the 90’s football (ironically when the Blues were good) and who can’t stand how the game has envolved.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

I have to admit to being very confused about a game which used to be so simple. The choices players make just do my head in at times. Silly dribble kicks when a simple drop punt would suffice, players taking set shots while standing facing away from the goal, players electing to allow the ball to bounce in front of them rather than just take simple marks ... and the list goes on. Holding the ball remains a total mystery. I just find myself sitting there watching and asking, "What did he do that for?". Is there any wonder why coaches go off their heads in the box sometimes?

 

[NoobPie]

No. Prior opportunity means if the player with the ball has had prior opportunity to dispose of the ball and is tackled, almost no matter how effective the tackle is, it's holding the ball (there never was a holding the ball, only incorrect disposal). The rule used to place the onus the tackler laying an effective tackle that caused incorrect disposal. If the tackler laid a tackle that caused the ball to spill it was play on. Now if that same tackle has occured the player with the ball will be called holding the ball, if they've had prior opportunity to dispose of it. It's a very subtle change in the rule but very important. It used to be that the decision around holding the ball only started once a tackle was laid, now it starts the moment a player picks up the ball. i.e they've had prior opportunity.
On the in the back rule, it is almost never paid and that is a huge reason why we have massive packs around the ball. A player going low and hard would win a free kick if someone jumped on their back, its rarely paid these days.

It is completely wrong to say:

- there never was holding the ball
- in the back is hardly paid (it is too often paid when a player dives forward as he is getting tackled)

Much of the rest of your post is confused / confusing

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

If it makes you feel better, every single other professional sport website has a group of old blokes whinging about how everything sucks now.

Just think. One day you too will be "old". The game you like so much now will have changed to the point you don't really like it as much as you used to. You continue to watch because it's difficult to change the habits of a lifetime.

You will begin to reflect on how the game isn't as good as it used to be when you were younger, simply because you don't enjoy it as much. If you dare to make any comment along those lines, some young smartarse will remind you of the fact you're an old fart and therefore not entitled to an opinion. You will certainly not be allowed the luxury of thinking the likes of Buddy Franklin or Dustin Martin were as good, if not better than any of the stars of the day.

You will be annoyed by the comment "the game has never been better" when you know in your heart that's rubbish, and something they say to help selling an ailing product to new markets.

And don't fool yourself by thinking it won't happen to you. It most certainly will.

 

[BringBackTorps]

Lot of players who cant kick

Fair few on our team sadly

The average kicking skills of players is ,incontrovertibly, the best it has ever been. Strangely, however, the accuracy of set-shots at goal has hardly improved in the last 40 years.

The problem is the congestion/huge numbers almost constantly around the ball/ constant tackling pressure causing scrappy play. This problem, of course, is directly related to the 4 man interchange, 90 rotations per game -refreshed players can constantly get to more contests, clog-up the game in 1/3 rd of the field.

I suggest we revert to 2 on the bench only -who are only substitutes (with exceptions for the Blood Rule; and after a player receives a head knock, comes off for a concussion test). Rest onballers in the pockets as we did for about 120 years. This would also restore the much anticipated ONE-ON-ONE contests, as players would be more likely to play positional football -particularly after half time.