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

[The King!]

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.

I dont think we will ever see true positional play back where the forwards dont move etc ever unless you actually create set zones (and who wants that)

 

[NoobPie]

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. I most certainly will.

No it won't. Many older people recognise the game is as good as its ever been. The key is having a preparedness to evolve and not become a hostage of the tastes and "habits of a lifetime".

Everyone is entitled to their opinion just as everyone else is entitled to dismiss that opinion if it is cliched "back in my day" dribble

 

[J_Moore]

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. I most certainly will.

Maybe it's all got more to do with subjective experience than any objective facts about the 'state of the game'

 

[Jables]

I think the overall skill level is the best or is equal to as good as it's ever been. The overall talent in teams is very spread out though and some people are happy with that, but you're not always going to get champagne football when that happens.

People don't realise it but they see the top dynasties as a standard to reach and when the bar is lowered they are unhappy about it, calling the Dogs and Tigers weak premiers because they can accept when a dominant team wins but not when a great but not 10/10 team wins it all, that makes them feel like their team not being good enough isn't as bearable. There's no united bitching like with Geelong for example, there wasn't much to hate about the Dogs besides the free kicks.

Also some people are just old farts. I mean that's the way it's always gonna be with every sport.

 

[BringBackTorps]

But sell your soul to the TV devil like the AFL has (70% of revenue) and you get Helter Skelter - the murder of aussie rules football.

I disagree with this part.

Broadcasters do NOT like congested, lower scoring games. More goals = more ad breaks=more money for Broadcasters from advertisers =more money ultimately for the AFL Rights.

Despite players now being full time, playing, generally, on pristine ovals (there was once a lot of mud), with less wind (due to most grounds now being surrounded on all sides will grandstands ie wind breaks), total goals kicked have fallen to 1969 VFL levels. This is an indictment on the AFL & game.

It should be noted that the current, congested, scrappy tackleball/stoppageball does not comply with the AFL's own gamestyle Objectives, as enunciated in its own 2014 Charter Of The Game ie freeflowing, continuous play, attacking gamestyles, more one-on-one contests.

The regular crowd silence often heard in AFL games now is very disturbing. Prior to c. 2003, when there was a "breakout" with a clear player who could see a full forward charging into space up the ground to receive the ball from his clear team mate, a roar would often emerge from the crowd. This "reflex" crowd roar was due to crowd anticipation of the full forward getting the ball passed to him.
The crowds previously didnt need irritating official encouragement from idiot ground announcers or embarassing exhortations put on the scoreboard to make a noise!

The killing-off of "gun" full forwards who kick about 80+ goals pa (there is now rarely little space for full forwards to run into, or get clear of multiple opponents) is a MAJOR setback for the AFL. Historians have written that the emergence of "gun" full forwards gave the VFL/WAFL/SANFL/VFA etc HUGE boosts in popularity.

I believe this Thread should be merged with the Footy Industry Forum Thread, "The Health Of The Competition".

 

[footyfan1978]

Should not have expanded the last eight teams.

EFA

 

[kickazz]

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

Nah in the back needs to be paid more in my opinion.
All the congestion and crap is due to the rules slowly favouring tacklers more and more.

A tackle should be a skill that you need to execute properly, and in some cases (player going low for the ball, player facing you head on in a pack) you may not have many easy options to perform an effective legal tackle easily.

An easy tackle is not a right.

 

[BringBackTorps]

I dont think we will ever see true positional play back where the forwards dont move etc ever unless you actually create set zones (and who wants that)

I never said "forwards don't move". The full forward, & other forwards, always ran into space to get away from their backman.
They were not expected to run far past the CHF position (unless, with only a few minutes to go in the last quarter, to protect a very small lead, they would run into the backline -to clog it up).

No one believes Zones are desirable -they should be a last resort...just abolish the interchange.
Positional play existed from the 1870's until c.2004. There is an engraving from the late 1870's showing an AF match in progress -with most players in positions, all over the field.

The Interchange and 4 on the bench was PRIMARILY introduced to provide a safeguard for injured players. Coaches and exercise scientists etc. decided from 2004 to use it for tactical reasons. IMO, they want to make AF a coaches' game, "game of chess" (as Malthouse once described it) -to justify their huge salaries. When we had only 2 substitutes, with onballers resting in the pockets, it was a players' game.

The game was 18 v. 18 -now its 22 v. 22. An horrific, fundamental shift in the game.

 

[afl genius]

I never said "forwards don't move". The full forward, & other forwards, always ran into space to get away from their backman.
They were not expected to run past the CHF position (unless, with only a few minutes to go in the last quarter, to protect a very small lead, they would run into the backline -to clog it up).

No one believes Zones are desirable -they should be a last resort...just abolish the interchange.
Positional play existed from the 1870's until c.2004. There is an engraving showing an AF match in progress -with all players in positions.

The Interchange and 4 on the bench was PRIMARILY introduced to provide a safeguard for injured players. Coaches and exercise scientists etc. decided from 2004 to use it for tactical reasons. IMO, they want to make AF a coaches' game, "game of chess" (as Malthouse once described it) -to justify their huge salaries. When we had only 2 substitutes, with onballers resting in the pockets, it was a players' game.

Would no interchange actually change anything though? My thinking would be the skills would suffer due to fatigue and players would still flood back and clog the game up. The game will naturally evolve anyway in my opinion, it was less than a decade ago Geelong were playing an attack at all cost gameplan, Hawthorn then played a cluster and uncontested marking game plan now its shifted to a forward press/pressure gameplan that is successful. The game will evolve again within the next 5 years

 

[Blackhawk42]

The Essendon/North comeback game from 2001 is often viewed as one of the greatest games ever played. But if you go back and watch it now, The defensive efforts from both sides is embarrassingly bad.
The GWS/Dogs prelim from 2016 is probably the greatest game of Australian rules football I have ever watched, and it ended with moderate score total (both teams in the 80's), and for the most part was dominated by contested footy. It was also played in front of a crowd of only 20 000.
For those suggesting the modern style isn't as captivating, entertaining or potentially promotional, that is the best example and comparison I can give.
I'll take the contested modern pre-lim with breathtaking fleeting moments of attack any day of the week.

 

[BringBackTorps]

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

Historians agree with this analysis -but from the 1880's, players often tried to pass the ball (by kicking it forward!), so it was not completely a game of chance.
Historians say that fairly accurate LONG kicking which started in the late 1870's (helped by better/more true oval-shaped footballs with rubber bladders) and contested high marking in the1880's (helped by the ball having a more predictible, long trajectory) gave AF its greatest boost in popularity; together with the game "opening up" & players could show their SKILLS - from the previous very congested & scrappy play/rolling mauls/constant stoppages.

Long kicking and contested high marking (which can only increase if there is much more long kicking) introduce more an element of "a game of chance", and a "contest" for the ball. Fans want to see AF SKILLS; & a contest, not an overabundance of keepings-off, & scrappy tackleball/rolling mauls. Long kicking & contested high marking are at record lows in the AFL now, cf. recent decades -& tackle numbers & stoppages are also close to record highs. Scoring is well down.

How many times has anyone ever heard a comment similar to "I love football because there are..." -
. "so many tackles"
. "so many stoppages"
. "so many rolling mauls"
. "so many uncontested chip kicks"
. "so much chipkicking backwards & sideways for an uncontested mark"
. "chances to see the four worst players, out of 22, getting game time; and the great players regularly being put on the bench".
Answer: OF course, NEVER!

Throughout the history of AF since 1874, football authorities have REGULARLY made Rule changes to make the game more free flowing & continuous -since they realised this increased the pleasure players had in playing AF; & increased spectators' pleasure in watching it.
(They introduced in 1874 this Rule "A player with the ball is required to immediately drop it if tackled by an opponent". This Rule was designed to prevent a tackled player simply holding onto the ball -causing many other players to jump in, causing an ugly rolling maul of players/stoppages)

Prof. K.Norton, an Exercise Scientist, is advising the AFL on the incidence of injuries (particularly collision/tackle/bump/blocking injuries) and game styles. In 2015, he recommended to the AFL it reduce the interchange to between 20-40 per team per game -to make the game more free flowing & continuous, with more one-on-one contests.
He has also been employed by the NRL -they have reduced their interchange in 2016 from 10-8 per team per game. There is continuing discussion, to make the NRL more exciting, to reduce it to 6.

Former AFL Commission Chairman M. Fitzpatrick said recently he prefers a maximum of 30 interchange per team, per game -but he got overturned on a Commission vote!

There is a glimmer of hope though. IMO, Steve Hocking, with McLachlan's backing, appears to be determined to challenge the coaches' desire to make it a coaches' game -& wants to restore AF's essence, as outlined in The Charter. We shall be clearer when he determines how he wants the AFLW to be played (where AFLW COACHES are now adopting massive & continuous flooding, with consequent scrappy play -& goal droughts occasionally).

 

[Furn2]

Get rid of interchange and have just subs then this outcrowding gameplay will become far less effective, and positional play can compete with it. and no it wont lead to a bunch of marathon runners being drafted, if that was the case we would see that now already.

Limiting rotations doesn't change the fact the that each player on average spends 9/11s of the game on the field.

you also have the added bonus of the 72 worst players every week not playing much if at all.

 

[Furn2]

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.

this is a media myth based on observation, other than a brief period in the 2000s goal kicking accuracy is the best it's ever been.

 

[shaqsuns]

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.

I’m actually in my 20s however I have a strong interest in the history of the game and I love watching footy from all eras, I can guarantee the game has changed and not for the better. Today’s game is becoming boring and the AFL need to find a way of spreading the players out on the field otherwise it will never get a strangle hold in states like QLD or NSW


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Strange Cat]

I’m actually in my 20s however I have a strong interest in the history of the game and I love watching footy from all eras, I can guarantee the game has changed and not for the better. Today’s game is becoming boring and the AFL need to find a way of spreading the players out on the field otherwise it will never get a strangle hold in states like QLD or NSW


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Based on your opinions


right

 

[Goggin Our Best]

I think the overall skill level is the best or is equal to as good as it's ever been. The overall talent in teams is very spread out though and some people are happy with

Also some people are just old farts. I mean that's the way it's always gonna be with every sport.

I would suggest you wernt around in the 80s when the Hawks had their great flag winning teams

Do yourself a favour and watch the 1984 Second Semi Final Haw v Ess - probably in the best 5 games of all time - and the proof is in the pudding - far more enjoyable than the current stuff

When i watched that game ( and bear in mind i dont barrack for either side ) i literally could not wait for the replay ( GF ) in 2 weeks time

That game had pressure skill the whole lot ( not the congestion and chipping it around ) that was AFL football at its finest

Maybe youve only seen the so called modern stuff and thats why you like it

 

[kickazz]

Today’s game is becoming boring

You may be right.

I've actually found myself recently at games looking at shit on my phone, talking to my mate, going to get a pie, etc.

Never used to be able to take my eyes off it. Now it's almost like soccer where you can wait for crowd noise to build a bit before starting to pay attention.

 

[Paratus78]

Based on your opinions


right

He is allowed to have an opinion. You disagree. Jog on.

 

[NoobPie]

He is allowed to have an opinion. You disagree. Jog on.

To be fair he was responding to an opinion whose author assured us is "guaranteed" to be right

 

[Gizza]

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 only reason kicking skills might look worse today than in the past is because players actually try to hit targets now. Footy in the 80s consisted basically of kick long to a pack and hope. Didn't really take kicking skills to execute.

 

[NoobPie]

The only reason kicking skills might look worse today than in the past is because players actually try to hit targets now. Footy in the 80s consisted basically of kick long to a pack and hope. Didn't really take kicking skills to execute.

...or a kick to someone leading into a paddock of space as opposed to weighting a kick perfectly into a small space before a zone collapses on it and spoils / intercepts

 

[shaqsuns]

...or a kick to someone leading into a paddock of space as opposed to weighting a kick perfectly into a small space before a zone collapses on it and spoils / intercepts

This exactly why we need to reduce the interchange to stop this from happening..... fatigue is a good thing, it would naturally spread the players out on the field as players will be to tired to push themselves to get back into a 18 man zone


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Strange Cat]

He is allowed to have an opinion. You disagree. Jog on.

So cute

I wasn’t attacking the poster so jog on hero

 

[NoobPie]

This exactly why we need to reduce the interchange to stop this from happening..... fatigue is a good thing, it would naturally spread the players out on the field as players will be to tired to push themselves to get back into a 18 man zone


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm not against the idea of reducing the interchange by any means but I am certainly not convinced it will eliminate congestion and zoning. If anything, it might even increase numbers either behind or around the ball as teams develop strategies to slow the game down

The classical man on man 3 X 5 positional play is no longer a thing because of the tactical evolution particularly over the last 10 to 15 years. Increased professionalisation and sophistication of coaching and tactics has enabled this of which the exploitation of interchange is a tertiary component.

 

[shaqsuns]

I'm not against the idea of reducing the interchange by any means but I am certainly not convinced it will eliminate congestion and zoning. If anything, it might even increase numbers either behind or around the ball as teams develop strategies to slow the game down

The classical man on man 3 X 5 positional play is no longer a thing because of the tactical evolution particularly over the last 10 to 15 years. Increased professionalisation and sophistication of coaching and tactics has enabled this of which the exploitation of interchange is a tertiary component.

Maybe but if you cull the interchange you will get more one on one match ups as coaches won’t kick a winning score if they implement a flood tactic plus the reason why the 07 cats were so dominant was because they were the first team who broke through the flood with their tsunami type football and it was great to watch. The best part was they kept a full forward roaming the forward 50 the whole time. It’s a shame that the game has lost the greatest position in football due to this rolling maul



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk