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

[NoobPie]

Can we really say we have the greatest game in the world if any old athlete can be basically as good as/impact the game as much as our most skilled players?

Sorry this is nonsense.

There are 800 payers in the AFL, if it were true that the modern game was for athletes and not footballers, why is there only one non Australian (or irish) player who didn't grow up with the game getting a regular game? Why is the very limited success - despite decades of category B rookies - only one narrow range of positions - i.e. ruck or ruck/forward?

People can have their subjetive views of the qualities (or lack there of) of the modern game but this "any old athlete" baloney is demonstrable nonsense

 

[HairyO]

those who actually watch full matches from 30,40, 50 years ago and not just highlight reels will know that the skills and pace have improved across the board

Skills have not improved. Pace has.

 

[footyfan1978]

We've allowed the game style to change on it's own

Wrong. We changed the game with 4 interchanges. The game plans we have now are dependent on the bench be used to rotate 4 players on and off at any moment. That is why now when a player gets injured and out of game despite both teams still having 18 on field the commentators say one team is one rotation down. It regressed from there a few years after 4 interchanges was a change to the game. They made a mistake. Time to fix it in next 18 months.

 

[rmcq]

How to fix AFL football:

1. Stop listening to SEN or whatever your local media beat-up source is.
2. Start watching teams that don’t play bad football, like Adelaide, Richmond, West Coast, GWS.

There’s only one thing that’s really changed since the days of “beautiful football”, the late 80s: The AFL thinks “stoppages” are bad, so they have done their best to encourage a rolling scrum. Increase stoppages with free kicks and ball-ups.

 

[barmy44]

I think the "oldies" have no argument re skills, bravery, etc

But new coaching tactics...
Add to that, the athleticism of players... the height of the players.... 185cm used to be CHF.

Crowding around stoppages is undeniable. And isn't what the game is supposed to be about.

but it is what the game is supposed to be about, because it is what the game is now about.

my point was that times/things/sport change. if someone honestly believes the modern iteration is rubbish, you have one option - turn it off.

nothing stands still... the argument appears to be 'i loved '60s/'70s/'80s/'90s football, why cant it stay like that forever?'

absolutely people can prefer older football. but trying to 'freeze the game' is crazy... 2018 tactics would annihilate 1985 tactics. if all coaches agreed to coach to 1985 tactics, the smart coach amongst them would say 'screw that, i want to win the flag' and introduce tactics to smash the agreed style. and the game moves on.

so why would clubs tasked with relentless pursuit of success not prioritise that apparent goal over the aesthetic sensibilities of people who preferred football from their youth?

 

[NoobPie]

I think the only no-brainer changes that need to be made are around breakdowns

1. pay holding the ball more when players drop it
2. call for a ball up far quicker when the play has broken down

Beyond that I agree with those mocking the nostalgic fogeyism

 

[Ron The Bear]

However he backed down when shown a bit of pressure by robbo. This is what shits me me about the players and coaches having their say on the state of the game, they are not paying patrons who continuously put $1000’s of dollars through their club and the AFL to watch 11 home games and pay extra money for the away games. All they are trying to do is win football games, they don’t care if they do it pretty or do it ugly however as complete entertainment value the fans don’t like this bunch of seagulls fighting over a chip. Steve Hocking needs to fix this ASAP my argument is get rid of the interchange completely and make it just subs. This will hinder the rolling maul as players can’t possibly continue to do repeat sprints and will have to save their energy for when the ball is near them, this will is also naturally spread the players out and hopefully keep the big forwards at home where they belong, not the half back flank.

Thing is, nobody knows what effect tinkering will have. Maybe you'd end up with exhausted players too tired to clear the zone, flopping on top of the ball and each other. It would benefit the older teams with battle-hardened legs. Coaches would play safe and select the journeyman who's going to get through 120 minutes over the talented kid who's only up to playing 80.

Substitute v interchange is a minefield. How do you deal with players undergoing a concussion test or sent off under the blood rule? They must be allowed to return if able. And how do you distinguish between those coming off for a genuine concussion test and those just seeking a rest? You could have players carrying razors in their socks in order to get a blood rule break.

Need to be very careful here.

Agree that coaches are the worst people to ask.

 

[Luv_our_club]

but it is what the game is supposed to be about, because it is what the game is now about.

my point was that times/things/sport change. if someone honestly believes the modern iteration is rubbish, you have one option - turn it off.

nothing stands still... the argument appears to be 'i loved '60s/'70s/'80s/'90s football, why cant it stay like that forever?'

absolutely people can prefer older football. but trying to 'freeze the game' is crazy... 2018 tactics would annihilate 1985 tactics.

so why would clubs tasked with relentless pursuit of success not prioritise that apparent goal over the aesthetic sensibilities of people who preferred football from their youth?

The argument..."if you don't like it, turn it off" is more churlish than the criticism of oldies saying it was better in our day.

The 25 players within 20 meters of the ball.... that is a problem. Not about modern vs classic. Just a basic problem.

We have no off-side rule, so there was always the possibility we would get here. But no off-side rule doesn't mean we can't say... wtf! now the game is a rolling pack!

Personally, i would rather see the traditions respected and leave the game alone. Keep a Day Grand Final. Don't reduce game time. Support local footy. But if everything seems up for sale, removing the congestion is the one change i can support.

 

[rmcq]

I think the only no-brainer changes that need to be made are around breakdowns

1. pay holding the ball more when players drop it
2. call for a ball up far quicker when the play has broken down

Beyond that I agree with those mocking the nostalgic fogeyism

Spot on. Look at a game from the 80s. As soon as the ball is in dispute, the umpire steps in. There’s no time for a scrum to develop. And it’s all because the AFL measure “stoppages”.

 

[Ron The Bear]

Nothing to do with Richmond. They have made the best of a shitty sport and won the flag, no one else is playing anything more attractive. In fact I'm the most footy obsessed person you could ever meet and I can't sit through neutral games anymore

Andy Maher opened his program the other day saying Richmond are to blame for the poor spectacle.

I would've ceased watching a lot of neutral games years ago if not for fantasy footy. It's been a godsend for the AFL. But the standard is not suddenly appreciably worse than it was, say, three years ago.

 

[barmy44]

The argument..."if you don't like it, turn it off" is more churlish than the criticism of oldies saying it was better in our day.

The 25 players within 20 meters of the ball.... that is a problem. Not about modern vs classic. Just a basic problem.

We have no off-side rule, so there was always the possibility we would get here. But no off-side rule doesn't mean we can't say... wtf! now the game is a rolling pack!

Personally, i would rather see the traditions respected and leave the game alone. Keep a Day Grand Final. Don't reduce game time. Support local footy. But if everything seems up for sale, removing the congestion is the one change i can support.

churlish? i dont think so at all. i do get your point, but you cant stop progress, and in a competition asking people to do so to match a preferred aesthetic defeats the purpose.

if you hate the game changing, you honestly have one choice - stop watching, and re-watch old matches that meet your aesthetic.

it is a competition demanding pursuit of success. like it or not, coaches will therefore pursue success and that will involve changes both good and bad for the spectator. and the game will change.

otherwise, put on exhibiton matches as 'art', not competition. instruct those involved to play to a certain easthetic style, as opposed to relentless pursuit of winning.

 

[shaqsuns]

Thing is, nobody knows what effect tinkering will have. Maybe you'd end up with exhausted players too tired to clear the zone, flopping on top of the ball and each other. It would benefit the older teams with battle-hardened legs.

Substitute v interchange is a minefield. How do you deal with players undergoing a concussion test or sent off under the blood rule? They must be allowed to return if able. And how do you distinguish between those coming off for a genuine concussion test and those just seeking a rest? You could have players carrying razors in their socks in order to get a blood rule break.

Need to be very careful here.

Agree that coaches are the worst people to ask.

Simple answer to that is if your coming off for a concussion test your done for the day. If it’s a blood rule a player has 5 minutes to be fixed up and can be replaced during that time with a sub (just like the old sub rule).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[mxett]

Wrong. We changed the game with 4 interchanges. The game plans we have now are dependent on the bench be used to rotate 4 players on and off at any moment. That is why now when a player gets injured and out of game despite both teams still having 18 on field the commentators say one team is one rotation down. It regressed from there a few years after 4 interchanges was a change to the game. They made a mistake. Time to fix it in next 18 months.

Fair enough, I forgot about the increase in interchanges. I also think the number of teams has progressed beyond the talent pool we have at our disposal, so at least a few players per club that are not up to AFL standard

 

[Luv_our_club]

churlish? i dont think so at all. i do get your point, but you cant stop progress, and in a competition asking people to do so to match a preferred aesthetic defeats the purpose.

if you hate the game changing, you honestly have one choice - stop watching, and re-watch old matches that meet your aesthetic.

it is a competition demanding pursuit of success. like it or not, coaches will therefore pursue success and that will involve changes both good and bad for the spectator. and the game will change.

otherwise, put on exhibiton matches as 'art', not competition. instruct those involved to play to a certain easthetic style, as opposed to relentless pursuit of winning.

Quite honestly, if you asked me to define "churlish", i would struggle.

 

[barmy44]

Quite honestly, if you asked me to define "churlish", i would struggle.

it means 'rude, in a very mean way'

 

[mxett]

but it is what the game is supposed to be about, because it is what the game is now about.

my point was that times/things/sport change. if someone honestly believes the modern iteration is rubbish, you have one option - turn it off.

that's the thing. Evidence shows many people are turning off. Is that what we want?

 

[Luv_our_club]

it means 'rude, in a very mean way'

I am so sorry, you total bastard.

 

[Ron The Bear]

Simple answer to that is if your coming off for a concussion test your done for the day. If it’s a blood rule a player has 5 minutes to be fixed up and can be replaced during that time with a sub (just like the old sub rule).

Don't think that concussion rule is workable.

What about a player needing a finger put back in? A player getting a knock to the knee who needs to be checked for damage?

Be careful what you wish for.

 

[HTT]

The game isn't in dire need for fixing. We just need to adjust this one thing to reduce congestion slightly, and the game will still be able to evolve naturally like it always has. Adding zones or other complicated rules is just stupid and the suggestion is symptomatic of those who grew up in the 80s and 90s. Seriously, get over it. You are starting to look like the people in the crowd that reckon footy was better when it was played in mud pits. And because you just look for the negatives, you actually don't understand how the game works, or how to 'fix' it.

Remove the third man up rule & in general simplify ball ups and boundary throw ins
Most people I think agree that the congestion is mainly caused by stoppages allowing teams to get many players around the ball. One suggestion is to pay more free kicks, but I don't think this will work. Umpires are already paying free kicks for things they think happen, this will only get worse if you direct them to pay more. Another alternative is to require players to be in set starting positions at stoppages, but I think this takes away one of the great things about our game - that is that you can run anywhere and pass the ball in any direction. There are no restrictions on movement. So, instead of forcing players to clear the area, I think we should make it difficult to do so. A ball up should basically consist of the umpire going in, grabbing the ball, and tossing it back up in the air. To do that we need to adjust a few things.
Firstly, get rid of the third man up restrictions. This whole nomination process is ridiculous, and takes far too long, allowing more players to crowd the contest. A third man up also has a greater chance of punching the ball into open space away from a contest.
Second, allow the umpire to move a short distance (say up to 5m) along the 'east-west' line (parallel to the goal line), away from players that are picking themselves up off the ground. By doing this, players will get up more quickly, as otherwise they risk being outnumbered around the ground. And regardless of whether they get up quickly there will not be time for players to crowd the contest. I would also anticipate that this will mean less times when 7+ players end up on the same football, as this will disadvantage them when the ball gets thrown up.
Finally, you have to pay free kicks against time wasters. If someone is preventing the ball from coming out of the contest as quickly as possible, pay a free kick. If there's a loophole being exploited, fill it. Trial it in NAB Cup games. This sort of stuff should be trialled in it.

 

[Tiger2709]

leave things alone and put a whole lot more money into junior football including bringing back under 19's.

Also stop having zonal rules in under 18s rules by this stage must be the same at all levels.

 

[Tiger2709]

easy fix, no carlton on tv this year

AFL did that to us in 2017 after our 2016, I cant believe they put them on 4 fridays, showcasing the worst of the game.

 

[Dazzler9]

Having 36 players in one quarter of the ground is just ugly footy. Wanting to change that is not about yearning for the good old days, it's about being able to watch a sport that is attractive to look at.

It's not a cyclical thing either, this is where the game has evolved to based on its current rules and teams' pursuit of winning, which is fair enough.

So I agree that modern congested footy needs to be fixed. 16 players per side has merit. So does a reduction in the interchange or switching to subs only. There will be some unintended consequences I'm sure, but let's not hold back for fear of change.

 

[powerrrrrrrrrrrr]

Need to actually give players time to made a decision and dispose of the ball correctly after a mark or free kick. These days they are given about 3 seconds before he umpire starts blaring play on and waving their hands around. Give players a bit of time to compose themselves and correctly dispose of the ball and I think the quality of disposal will dramatically increase, reducing congestion due to quality disposal and reduce fatigue on players being required to constantly run up and down the ground

Too often these days players have the ball and are instantly called to play on and just throw it on the boot down the line as they don’t have time to Correctly dispose of the ball to a teammate or just give it straight off to a team mate who’s under instant pressure

 

[Damon_3388]

Fair enough, I forgot about the increase in interchanges. I also think the number of teams has progressed beyond the talent pool we have at our disposal, so at least a few players per club that are not up to AFL standard

Could clubs basically devoting half their list to young/developing players (say, 19-24), based on their potential in their future prime (ages 25-29) be part of the issue.

How many footballers could we source from the AFL, state leagues and elsewhere, if we remove anyone under, say, 23 years old (born after 1995) from calculations? Would this improve the standard at all?

 

[NoobPie]

Spot on. Look at a game from the 80s. As soon as the ball is in dispute, the umpire steps in. There’s no time for a scrum to develop. And it’s all because the AFL measure “stoppages”.

I would argue there are three areas where the AFL went off course with its rules (and interpretation) maintenance over the last decade

1. The avoidance of stoppages which has allowed rugby style "rucks" to form but without the heavy regulation of offside
2. The "head is sacrosanct" crack down on high tackles which has created a generation of players who immediately look to engineer a free kick rather than a good play when they take possession
3. The "you've got to protect the player who wins the ball" which has resulted in players having way too long to get rid of the ball and not getting punished for dropping it

Each of these have in common that they were well meaning but had unintended consequences more deleterious than what they were trying to achieve

I think the AFL are improving in this area. The interpretation of 2 has improved with players not getting free kicks where they would have a few years back. I trust this new super committee more than the old rules committee (which had kevin bartlett on it for years FFS!)

But I agree with you more generally that the game is still fantastic notwithstanding these issues