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

[footyfan1978]

Sorry my knowledge or lack of offended you.

Hence my point re dropping it back.

Was not offended. Just very surprised. At first I thought you were joking.

 

[kranky al]

Minimum of 6 players on one side of the ground and a minimum of two in each 50m arc.


Fifty million rule changes that have made the game un-umpireable as they are all subjective and noone - not even the umpires - can explain them coherently week to week could have been eliminated by the one simple rule above

 

[guruisatiger]

LEAVE THE GAME ALONE
**** THE MEDIA

 

[Coaster2012]

Really? The play usually frees up towards the end of the game because players are fatigued, not the other way. Tired players are less likely to get to every contest to congest play

Players are tired enough as it is. The solution isn't to batter them into submission every game. That's ludicrous.

 

[Tiger2709]

so you have no issue watching 36 players wrestle for a ball within 50m? Add rain or dew and it's comical

Did you ever watch football pre 90's?

There is nothing wrong with the game every 4 or 5 years this type of complaining happens then the AFL has a knee jerk reaction and makes things worse, let the game evolve naturally.

 

[Luv_our_club]

I got worried when the Tigers made the top 5.

When they won the flag, i panicked, but there was no one left to do anything about it.

When they win back to back, it will be too late.

How selfish we have all been.

 

[HTT]

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.

Stop taking so long for stoppages, and this will be fixed. Players won't be able to crowd a contest, so the ball is more likely to clear from these (as was designed originally). Teams will get cut up by having too many players around the ball as forcing a stoppage to get numbers back won't work.
Reducing the interchange WILL NOT work. All that will happen is midfielders will rest forward and back instead of the bench, so instead of having guys like Betts on the ground most of the game, you will only have them on for a quarter or so. And eventually, clubs will favour athletes over footballers. They've seen how well pressure works, they'll want players who can maintain this.
And reducing to 16 players is a laugh. Might as well make goals worth 4 points. Football is played between two teams of 18 players.

 

[mxett]

Players are tired enough as it is. The solution isn't to batter them into submission every game. That's ludicrous.

Players are tired because they are being asked to repeatedly run the length of the field irrespective of their position. They are also asked to congest every contest so there is no space, then spread when they get possession. We have ended up with a team full of running machines. Imagine if Tony Lockett was 18yrs old today. He wouldnt even be drafted due to his poor aerobic capacity. What a shame that would be.

 

[Dazzler9]

Stop taking so long for stoppages, and this will be fixed. Players won't be able to crowd a contest, so the ball is more likely to clear from these (as was designed originally). Teams will get cut up by having too many players around the ball as forcing a stoppage to get numbers back won't work.
Reducing the interchange WILL NOT work. All that will happen is midfielders will rest forward and back instead of the bench, so instead of having guys like Betts on the ground most of the game, you will only have them on for a quarter or so. And eventually, clubs will favour athletes over footballers. They've seen how well pressure works, they'll want players who can maintain this.
And reducing to 16 players is a laugh. Might as well make goals worth 4 points. Football is played between two teams of 18 players.

Midfielders have historically rested forward. It's exactly what you want. If they're up forward having a rest, they're not in the midfield clogging up every contest. That's the whole point!

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

Absolutely. The game's been in decline for years, so pardon me if I enjoy watching my team more than at any time in the last 35 years and couldn't give a **** about "the game".

Absolutely agree. I don't blame supporters for liking the sport when their team is winning - but as I said, I think this is an entirely different discussion to the actual game itself.

Most supporters would love watching their team win 1 goal to 0 as long as they win. Most coaches would be happy with it too.

But unfortunately, neutrals wouldn't be. And aren't. The facts are that ratings are on the decline.


Imagine if Richmond and Collingwood weren't up and about this season? And instead, say, North and the Saints were? Imagine what the ratings would look like then!

 

[mxett]

Did you ever watch football pre 90's?

There is nothing wrong with the game every 4 or 5 years this type of complaining happens then the AFL has a knee jerk reaction and makes things worse, let the game evolve naturally.

I've watched from the 80's. I've never seen the game in such bad shape, and it isnt just this year, it's been developing for a decade. How long do you wait for it to right itself?

That's not to say all games are poor. The best few teams cope with the defensive tactics and have the skill to move the football with minimal errors. Bu the majority of the teams cannot, making most games per weekend not worth watching.

 

[footyfan1978]

This issue has been developing for 2000 when the bulldogs decided to put their entire team behind the ball against Essendon. It won them the game and was the beginning of the flood, then the zone, then the maul, and now the congestion. Richmond have just developed a new way to do it more effectively

To be fair, the beginning of the flood was before that game. Eade used to do a bit of it with Swans in 1996, not to the extent of super flood of Wallace in that game 4 years later but it was not totally new. I am sure even 50 years before we all lived it was done for 5 to 10 minutes of some games we never saw. In fact I am fairly sure Kevin Sheedy used a 7 man defence against St.Kilda at Moorabin one day, maybe early 1990's to try to stop the Plugger show in full flight. So none of these things are entirely new. What is new is whole game plans based on flooding and zone defences and rotating freshest 18 players on field at any one point in time to sustain it for virtually as much as game as possible. Those game plans are all dependent on making use of 4 on bench to sustain the on field territory invasion style of game that dominates for this decade. Remove the ability to rotate players on and off purely for freshness and coaches will adjust their game plans to more attacking styles based on use of ball and not based on territory dominance and tackling pressure.

 

[juss]

. Key forwards are almost all dead an the ones that do play have to be able to play midfield or they can't survive.

What absolute, incorrect rubbish is this?

If your premise for needing to change the game is based on crap, your arguement doesn't stand up.

Please point to all the games Riewoldt, Franklin, Lynch, Walker, Jenkins, Curnow, Daniher, Brown, McCarthy, Kennedy, Darling, Hawkins, Dixon, Cameron, Patton, etc. play through the midfield? Pretty sure they are all doing just fine. A handful of them pinch hit in the ruck, that's a far cry from having to be able to play midfield as you oddly require.

A number of sides have been succesful using smaller, high pressure tackling forward lines, basically some sides are winning because their whole 22 works hard both ways. There is no "fix" to that, it's the current trend. Within 5 years there will be a new trend, and the game will change and evolve again. And then you'll be trying to "fix" the new trend.

Football is a hell of a lot more skilled than it was decades ago, it's just that we see different skills now. Players now have to be tactically adept rather than just be able to beat 1 opponent. That's modern footy. Modern coaches, assistants, players are way too smart now to be beaten in 1 on 1 battles. The best players overcome that and execute their skills within a team-based system. Modern players also work a hell of a lot harder, run and train a lot more, and need to be more well rounded rather than just being able to mark and kick like old school full forwards.

 

[mxett]

To be fair, the beginning of the flood was before that game. Eade used to do a bit of it with Swans in 1996, not to the extent of super flood of Wallace in that game 4 years later but it was not totally new. I am sure even 50 years before we all lived it was done for 5 to 10 minutes of some games we never saw. In fact I am fairly sure Kevin Sheedy used a 7 man defence against St.Kilda at Moorabin one day, maybe early 1990's to try to stop the Plugger show in full flight. So none of these things are entirely new. What is new is whole game plans based on flooding and zone defences and rotating freshest 18 players on field at any one point in time to sustain it for virtually as much as game as possible. Those game plans are all dependent on making use of 4 on bench to sustain the on field territory invasion style of game that dominates for this decade. Remove the ability to rotate players on and off purely for freshness and coaches will adjust their game plans to more attacking styles based on use of ball and not based on territory dominance and tackling pressure.

fair comment, although Wallace was the first to take it to such a level that it drastically affected the game. I was at that game and couldnt believe what I was watching. For me it was the start of the decline because it produced a very unlikely win, and all other coaches took notice

 

[Coaster2012]

Players are tired because they are being asked to repeatedly run the length of the field irrespective of their position. They are also asked to congest every contest so there is no space, then spread when they get possession. We have ended up with a team full of running machines. Imagine if Tony Lockett was 18yrs old today. He wouldnt even be drafted due to his poor aerobic capacity. What a shame that would be.

So how is more playing time going to change these facts? They will still have to run the length of the field, they will still have to congest the contest. The key is giving them more energy and more space. Less players on field and shorter game times is the fix in my mind. The players association would be up in arms if they lower the interchanges. They brought the idea up to Lewis and Reinwoldt last night and both were highly against the idea. This game is also about the players well-being too, it's not all about what we want.

 

[NaturalDisaster]

What about just stop trying to change the game.

The sport is simply evolving and has hit a down patch like everything does, the standard will improve again.

 

[shaqsuns]

So you want to bring in zones? Seriously, if this happens, it will ruin the game. It's not AFL anymore.

It’s called Aussie Rules, AFL is just the top flight comp.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Dazzler9]

So how is more playing time going to change these facts? They will still have to run the length of the field, they will still have to congest the contest.

Because if they play 100% game time and have no breathers on the bench, they will have to pace themselves, and pick and choose which contests they get to. That's the theory at least.

 

[Kipz]

Everyone should have to wear a bib in accordance with the position they are playing. These players are then only allowed to move in an allocated 1/3 area of the field.

Also, once a player takes possession of the ball, they can only take one step before passing it - which may only come in the form of a throw.

 

[Coaster2012]

Because if they play 100% game time and have no breathers on the bench, they will have to pace themselves, and pick and choose which contests they get to. That's the theory at least.

Would never work. Players would just push themselves to exhaustion and we would see a massive increase in injuries and careers ending early.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Instead of bringing in new rules how about we start to pay free kicks for the rules that are in place, the game is littered now with incorrect disposal and high contact and this ridiculous need to let the game go is the major contributor to congested play.
Now add to that umpires when there is a ball up standing around waiting for the two ruckman and this also happens at boundary throw ins is also leading to more congestion.
The game is not that bad in my view and what is wrong with it is at head office not in the coaches box.
Simple solutions
1) Pay free kicks as they are written in the rules, there will be a huge uplift in free kicks initially but the coaches will quickly train and tell there players they now have to play to the rules and then free kicks will then fall again.
2) Remove the nominated ruckman rubbish, just make it one player from each side is allowed to go.
3) Umpires when balling it up to get in there and throw it up within a second, no looking around, no telling everyone where they will run backwards to, just get it up and move the game on. Same with Boundary umpires who stand there waiting for the ruckman to be set.

Bottom line is the rules must be implemented to the letter, coaches run the game because they know they can instruct there players to break the rules without penalty. AFL is at fault not the coaches.

And just while I am at it the AFL is supposed to be the best of the best, not a colts competition. If clubs picked the best footballers in Australia instead of the best potential then it is likely we would not have some of these issues as we have.

 

[HTT]

Midfielders have historically rested forward. It's exactly what you want. If they're up forward having a rest, they're not in the midfield clogging up every contest. That's the whole point!

That's only going to happen for 2-3 years anyway before footballers no longer get drafted. High pressure game plans won't go away until something actually beats it. If the rules change, coaches will find a way around it - namely by drafting athletes.

 

[Coaster2012]

It’s called Aussie Rules, AFL is just the top flight comp.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks for your input, mate.

 

[NOBBYS]

So you want to bring in zones? Seriously, if this happens, it will ruin the game. It's not AFL anymore.

AS a football diehard for over 55 years have seen the game change on many fronts some for the better (centre square, Out on the Full etc)
some for the worse.Go and watch any team train and the skills on display are of the highest quality,go to a live game and the players
are unable to display many of these qualities because of the congestion around the ball.
It is a sad day when tackling is considered the most important part of a teams system.
Afl was meant to be a game of highmarking ,precision kicking ,attacking handball ,good defence and goals being kicked .
At the moment players are struggling to perform any of these disciplines well.
I have coached junior football for over 30 years and a high majority of parents feel the same. .
I am not sold on zones as well ,but changes have to be made or the game will lose its appeal to a lot of supporters

 

[mxett]

So how is more playing time going to change these facts? They will still have to run the length of the field, they will still have to congest the contest. The key is giving them more energy and more space. Less players on field and shorter game times is the fix in my mind. The players association would be up in arms if they lower the interchanges. They brought the idea up to Lewis and Reinwoldt last night and both were highly against the idea. This game is also about the players well-being too, it's not all about what we want.

I disagree. If coaches force their forwards to zone the full length of the ground they'll be too fatigued to contest for the ball later in the game. This will mean they'll be over run by the team who leaves their players in their approximate positions all game. When teams start losing due to fatigue they'll change their tactics quick smart

Giving players more energy allows them to congest the play by zoning for the entire game