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

[royboys4eva]

I haven't read every response but I am sure some would have said by now why don't the umpires just bounce the ball or throw up the ball straight away when they call ball up around the ground. Instead they wait for everyone to get there on masse and then ask who is nominating for the ruck contest. Might as well have cup of tea!

Soon as they say ball up they should run in and throw it up regardless of who is there. That will speed the game up no end.

 

[BEaston]

Current day footy is great.

 

[iluvparis]

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

Like we did for the 70-80 years when there were only substitutes?

 

[Coaster2012]

Like we did for the 70-80 years when there were only substitutes?

You can't compare footy from 70 years ago. Hell, the average ruck was 5 foot 8 then.

 

[iluvparis]

Less rotations means more athletes, not less. High scoring footy isn't attractive when it's 20 goals against 20 goals, there is no contest there.

You mean no defensive contest

 

[Furn2]

That's a false equivalency. The only standard between the two is that the team that can run to contest more contests will win more games, so the coaches will still want a team that can play the same way.

You effectively gave me the same argument back that not drinking is the opposite of drowning. You're throwing primary school arguments out.

The coaches will demand of the players a game plan to win, that won't be less running work. No team has won a flag through putting in less effort than their opponent on purpose.

That Adelaide game against the Suns showing a lot of players near the ball still had a side score over 100 points. The 69 to 86 score of the Swans Geelong game was far more enticing.

OK but why 4 on bench? Why is that the magic number ?

 

[Ron The Bear]

Married at First Sight was the highest rating TV show with nearly 2m viewers. Do you think that's evidence that TV has never been better?

2017 Average Crowds (top 4):
Richmond Tigers 52,562
Essendon Bombers 46,351
Collingwood Magpies 45,636
Adelaide Crows 41,383

2018 Average Crowds (top 4):
Richmond Tigers 65,449
Collingwood Magpies 61,105
Essendon Bombers 48,473
Hawthorn Hawks 47,939


Collingwood are winning, and hey presto they are suddenly averaging 15k more to each game. Richmond win the flag, and hey presto they're up 13k each week. There's your answer as to why crowd numbers are up. And it has nothing to do with the game being in awesome shape. Hawthorn have a won a few this year, and they've also jumped 8k per week. When the big clubs are winning, their big fan base turn up to watch them win - not for the spectacle of the game.

It does not in any way reflect on the quality of the game. It's that people like you, love watching their team do well. As I said, the average punter doesn't care what the game looks like when their team is winning. But the neutral fan does. So even though crowd numbers are up for these clubs (and as a result, for the whole comp), the TV ratings are down.

Neutrals are switching off. It's boring. Dull, and ugly.

Maybe you missed the bit where I said

I'd argue that crowds aren't necessarily a barometer of the spectacle

Again, what are the TV ratings? I am questioning whether they are actually down, and to what extent. If people are at the game, they're not watching it on TV.

Yes, traditional highlights are becoming fewer and farther between. This isn't new. Players are so goddamn regimented. And there are no brawls and few melees. Despite all the tut-tutting, the thing that really got blood pumping among the crowd was an all-in, with players sprinting from every corner. Those who missed that era are deprived!

 

[Taylor]

OK but why 4 on bench? Why is that the magic number ?

That's what they chose in 1998

 

[footyfan1978]

and ****ed it up. Should have left the game alone. Time to fix that mistake in next year.

 

[shaqsuns]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Furn2]

If you have fatigued players, they will still be able to congest play - the ball won't be able to move as quickly due to decreased skills so they won't have to.

So then a team that plays position football won't fatigue and can use skill to win.

 

[Furn2]

That's what they chose in 1998

Yes by why was it chosen and why is more or less not going to reduce congestion?

 

[SumTingWong]

If you go through this thread and start counting the posters who believe the garbage the media are saturating us with (the game is in a poor state) you quickly realise how intellectually challenged alot of our society is.

 

[legend166]

Introducing zones fundamentally alters the sport, so it really should be avoided at all costs.

I'd do no rotations, which is basically what the sport had for most of its history.

 

[Sprout]

I hate tinkering as a general rule but 16 a side is worth trialling in pre-season. I don't think it would be a hugely noticeable change but enough of a tweak to make an impact on congestion etc. See how it looks on a trial basis and go from there.

 

[HTT]

So then a team that plays position football won't fatigue and can use skill to win.

Until another team completely destroys them by bringing in athletes that can press like we see today

 

[Masqualero]

Incorrect disposal is a blight on the game, players are that good these days they can handball and kick very quickly almost as soon as they receive the ball so I don’t see why they need an eternity for prior opportunity.

Exactly, I hate seeing 2 or 3 tackles that get called played on and then the last guy gets tackled instantly and gets called holding the ball even though the last person had more opportunity to dispose of the ball.

It's like the umpires are thinking oh gee those last two tackles didn't create clear possession, I know, I'll ping the next guy to open the game up.

A step count negates any interpretation and is a clear rule we can all follow.

 

[Collins-Langford-Ayres]

ME?

I would reduce the players numbers to 16 a side.

That is like taking two teams out of the league. The talent spread would be much better. That means the players who are 15th or 16th best on the list now have to worry about their spots.

There would be much more space for players to lead into.

I don't get 18 a side being sacrosanct, when zones are being discussed.

Less players means more elite athletes that can run. No thanks Loc. More athletes that are turnover merchants is not what we need IMHO.

I'd start by giving players five seconds extra when they take a mark inside 50 to compose themselves, to improve goal kicking accuracy.

I'd probably then insist there are three players at any time in each 50 metre arc, to reduce forward pressure congestion.

 

[Taylor]

Yes by why was it chosen and why is more or less not going to reduce congestion?

Because it's a game plan issue, not an interchange issue.

 

[legend166]

If they did drop it to 16 a side (which I don't necessarily agree with but it's not the worst thing ever), it would also make it easier to have a national reserves comp without having to increase list sizes too dramatically.

 

[Bungeye]

Reducing the team to 16 players won't make any difference because it just means you will have less players to kick to on the outside. What you need to do is every time their is a stoppage have less players around the ruckman. Less players around the ruckmen gives the ruckmen an incentive to manipulate the ball more often than he does at the moment.

 

[Americanpies]

I don't think it's the congestion. I think it's the quality of the game. I cannot bare to watch a St Kilda game anymore... the skill level is absolutely pathetic. These guys can't kick 30 metres on a sunny day to a guy standing on his own. And it shows in their conversion rate too. This season is the highest amount of behinds to goal ratio in the past 28 years. Then you have this entire raft of 'rebuilding' teams. Everyone seems to be rebuilding these days. The trend is to fill a team with 18 year olds and get belted continuously for years until that team is a super team and can win a flag. And that flag may never even come. Richmond and the Bulldogs never did that rebuild from garbage tactic. Teams like Carlton for example... what on earth are they doing? They have a team of young guys that are clearly not ready for AFL football. Same with Brisbane. I feel bad for players on these types of teams too. Spending the first 5 to 10 years of their career getting smashed every week - see Tom Lynch. And these garbage teams wonder why they can't hang onto their players.

 

[Furn2]

Until another team completely destroys them by bringing in athletes that can press like we see today

Athletes that will be constantly fatigued and can't win or use the footy.

I think the team of footballers using positional tactics would have every chance against that lot.

Far more than they would now.

 

[Americanpies]

Don't make vague assertions based on Whateley's whining, give me facts. What are the numbers?

Crowds to Round 6:

Year|Crowd
\2018|39,470
\2017|36,738
\2016|35,950
\2015|34,121
\2014|33,947
\2013|35,087
\2012|33,682
\2011|38,415
\2010|40,043

I'd argue that crowds aren't necessarily a barometer of the spectacle, but you can't argue that people are losing interest in the face of the above. Normally they'd be trumpeting "Crowds are up almost three thousand per game...".

What will lead to disinterest is the media fostering dissent, because many people are like sheep.

looks like when Collingwood is winning premierships and in the top 8 is when the crowds peak.

 

[Furn2]

Because it's a game plan issue, not an interchange issue.

If you want to get coaches to move away from the congested numbers game plan you need to make it less effective.

No interchange means you will have to either.

A. Get to less contests.

B. Be more fatigued.

C. Recruit fitter players with less skill.

All 3 make the numbers game less effective and therefore less desirable than now and therefore increase the likelihood of coaches moving away from it and trying something else.