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

[MaddAdam]

North vs Hawthorn at the MCG in 2008. Home and away game.

Clarko's Cluster was in full swing and the Big Thing.

Dean Laidley who was a great match day coach but craphouse at everything else, devised a way of beating it, essentially by winning the contested ball and then kicking over the zone to Lindsay Thomas (in his first year) who would "get out the back".

Tactic worked, LT kicked five or six and North won.

Since then Clarko's Cluster has been reworked and improved a million times and Collingwood added the intense forward pressure, but the zoning element has remained the same.

And the way to beat it has various fashions but the end result - getting out the back for the easy goal, remains the same.

Game evolved that day.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

This Lewis Jetta goal. Everyone seemed to think it was the greatest thing known to man at the time, where I was like, WTF, it looks like a rugby league try.

Not sure many people thought it heralded a new phase in tactics. Unless you’re referring to Rioli’s blatant push in the back after Jetta had disposed of it.

 

[Dr Tigris]

JK senior - centre bounce flood.
Barrass - handball as attacking weapon; swing players.
Sheeds - 1/2 team as utility players; perfecting the stopper; demanding large interchanges.
JK snr and Pagan - a huge forward open area.
Jeans - go the biff for all 4 quarters.

+ Brisbanes 3peat. Showed a clearly different approach to physical development and football could be dominant
+ Wallace's use of heavy flood to stop teams. One off tactic for him, but showed that the best teams could be stopped in their tracks (actually a few took this on as a tactic around the same time)
+ Last year last couple of rounds then finals. A pure pressure team with genuine speed and endurance can shut down the run and carry of just about anyone. Going to see changes in drafting and development to match what the Tigers are doing. And/or changes to how the game is played.

 

[saintal]

Terry Wallace superflood against the baby bombers. Just awful.

Yep

A couple of years later a St Kilda v Sydney game was locked at 8.8 apiece under the roof. Yes Grant Thomas had engineered a draw against a stronger opponent, but it was putrid footy to watch.

 

[No_Spoke]

Dusty's perfection of the don' argue

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

Its quite relevant. It means we are scoring both early and late in games - unlike your idea that we only score late.

Kicking just over 3 goals in a quarter doesn't really suggest anything remarkable. On average, it would equate to only 13 goals a game for the winning team! And that's the best and highest scoring team in the comp currently!

But as I said, it's irrelevant. For the 1000th time - this is not about whether Richmond are a good football team or not.

It's that watching the current format of footy is very difficult.


I actually remember an old school teacher of mine about 25 years ago bagging basketball. He was a hardcore footy guy, and his main argument against basketball was that only the last 5 minutes matters. You may as well do something else and just tune in for the end. The rest is boring.

Funnily enough, that's exactly how I see the footy these days.

 

[Dean1]

Tigers v Adelaide(?) Terry Wallace and his "basketball crap"

This is the one i remember in 2006 and after that year seen heaps of teams start doing it. Richmond had 80more marks that game than Adelaide.
Then they brought in the rule in the preseason where a backwards kick in the defensive 50 was not a mark

 

[Maydok]

Not sure many people thought it heralded a new phase in tactics. Unless you’re referring to Rioli’s blatant push in the back after Jetta had disposed of it.

That's because I moronically posted the wrong link. In my head, I loaded this clip.

 

[TheWoodenSlug]

Dusty's perfection of the don' argue

Good call, I reckon. Seems to be heaps more players going with the don't argue this year, most often successfully. Wouldn't be surprised to see it become more and more popular over the next few years, unless and until a strategy to counter it is devised.

 

[HTT]

Kicking just over 3 goals in a quarter doesn't really suggest anything remarkable. On average, it would equate to only 13 goals a game for the winning team! And that's the best and highest scoring team in the comp currently!

But as I said, it's irrelevant. For the 1000th time - this is not about whether Richmond are a good football team or not.

It's that watching the current format of footy is very difficult.


I actually remember an old school teacher of mine about 25 years ago bagging basketball. He was a hardcore footy guy, and his main argument against basketball was that only the last 5 minutes matters. You may as well do something else and just tune in for the end. The rest is boring.

Funnily enough, that's exactly how I see the footy these days.

Not sure where you got the 3 goals a game figure from, we are averaging a tick under 4 goals in 1st quarters.
I quite like the modern game, whenever I watch 90s football, I find it to be like watching a test match on a flat deck in sunny conditions. High scoring sure, but that doesn’t take much skill when there’s no resistance from the bowlers. The players don’t actually have much of a say over who wins - the team who wins the ball first will score. Much the same, I find football that is too high scoring to be boring. Might as well just hold a centre bounce and whichever team clears it gets a penalty shot from the location the ball lands inside 50.
Much the same, I don’t want it to be impossible to score, then like in soccer, the better team can lose if they have 1 or 2 things not go their way.
As they say, variety is the spice of life, and that applies to Footy. Within games, the scoring rate changes create an interesting dynamic, and beyond that I think there should be a mix of average scoring games, a few low scoring grinds, and a few high scoring shootouts. The 2012 GF is looked back on fondly, the average score in that was 84. I don’t think averaging 84 points is a problem. Ideally if the average score hovers between that and, say, 100, I think football is in a good place.

 

[DrMike]

I reckon we surround the field with glass and fill all the stadiums with water.

This way only the elite players that can hold their breath the longest will be able to play around the stoppage and teams won't be able to use a kick down the the line as a tactic as the ball will just bounce off the glass.

Guaranteed to stop congestion.

 

[StillAtLarge]

2010
Preliminary Final
Collingwood vs Geelong
Saw the pies play with more intensity and pressure than I'd ever seen from a team. After half time I remember thinking this was the future of footy, until a succession plan got in the way.

Richmond revisited it against Geelong in our QF last year

Round 9 2008, Pies kicked 20 goals to 9 vs Geelong and also had more possessions (I'm guessing for the only time in '08). It was the most insane forward 50 pressure I'd seen and was the blueprint for the 2010/11 Collingwood teams.
Cats had the last laugh though

 

[HTT]

When Daniel Rioli took a ruck contest. In the grand final.

 

[Blueboys11]

All of you saying 'remove the interchange' are just making me cringe. The bench is completely necessary and used FAR better than it ever was in the past. People look at the 80's and 90's with rose coloured glasses. Guys would sit on the bench for almost an entire game, playing sporadically depending on how the game was unfolding. We saw how ludicrous this was in a modern game when the sub rule was introduced. Guys would play half a quarter of football (quite often having no impact), then be stuck out on the field post-game doing a training session so their conditioning wasn't thrown off.
Strength and conditioning science has come a long way in 20 years. Eliminating an interchange or capping one so far that players barely get a run will have worse negative consequences than positive.

What are these negative consequences you speak of if we reduced the interchange to say 20 for the match?
How did players 20 years ago survive by playing out whole games.

 

[gavaniacono]

I remember that game very well and thinking, Ive never seen anything like this before.

 

[iluvparis]

No he didn't....he said 'overnight Modra had no identifiable position'.

Not 'he came into the comp and had no identifiable position'. More like 'suddenly in 1999 he was a superstar...but he no longer had a position to play'.

You are correct - please carry on

 

[gavaniacono]

What was the story here? Was this the introduction of the diamond/square?

Yes I believe it was.
Rfc bogey team during 60s and 70s was hawthorn, and even when the centre zone was introduced they still managed to beat us up more often than not.
Rfc aided by serendipity of not ever playing hawks in a final.

The best gf i saw was 71 hawks saints, it was hot the whole game and resembled a war. BOG Don Scott even though a handy bloke called Keddy and a quirky skilled player Meagher got the plaudits (from memory).

1975: hawks in gf waiting on winner of north rfc, were hoping for a tiger victory. Sadly for them north won and their skills destroyed the hawks the next week.

 

[footyfan1978]

What are these negative consequences you speak of if we reduced the interchange to say 20 for the match?
How did players 20 years ago survive by playing out whole games.

They cancelled seasons as players could not handle playing games fully themselves.
It is incredible players did not die on mass for playing out 120 minutes on ground.

 

[footyfan1978]

Yes I believe it was.
Rfc bogey team during 60s and 70s was hawthorn, and even when the centre zone was introduced they still managed to beat us up more often than not.
Rfc aided by serendipity of not ever playing hawks in a final.

The best gf i saw was 71 hawks saints, it was hot the whole game and resembled a war. BOG Don Scott even though a handy bloke called Keddy and a quirky skilled player Meagher got the plaudits (from memory).

1975: hawks in gf waiting on winner of north rfc, were hoping for a tiger victory. Sadly for them north won and their skills destroyed the hawks the next week.

So what year was the diamond introduced and what was the discussion in football circles leading up to it brought in?
Be fascinating to hear their thinking at the time. Would love to see one of the football shows back then and what they said about the style of games before it.

 

[Leeda]

the day Buddy left Hawthorn...

 

[gavaniacono]

So what year was the diamond introduced and what was the discussion in football circles leading up to it brought in?
Be fascinating to hear their thinking at the time. Would love to see one of the football shows back then and what they said about the style of games before it.

According to wiki diamond introed in 73 replaced by square 75.

73 also year of 10 year rule.

 

[footyfan1978]

Damn, I was hoping you had seen it yourself and give first hand account of it.
Wiki your friend instead I see.

****, so we lost because of a ****ing diamond too.
So Tigers won back to back flags in the diamond era.

 

[gavaniacono]

Damn, I was hoping you had seen it yourself and give first hand account of it.
Wiki your friend instead I see.

****, so we lost because of a ******* diamond too.
So Tigers won back to back flags in the diamond era.

My memory is not what it once was.

I was thinking that the diamond came in after 72 gf, which was one of the most open games ive witnessed, so must have been in response to something else. A quick flick through 72 ha scores showed up lots of very low scores so I assume this was part of the reason.

On wiki I read this which I think you may enjoy:

• The 16 September First Semi-Final between Richmond and Carlton was tied at 8.13 (61) each. Angry fans invaded VFL Park immediately after the siren and field umpire Ian Coates was assaulted.

Both both sets of fans no doubt.

 

[gavaniacono]

Damn, I was hoping you had seen it yourself and give first hand account of it.
Wiki your friend instead I see.

****, so we lost because of a ******* diamond too.
So Tigers won back to back flags in the diamond era.

Clearly, the square had it in for us in 75. I expect further fiddling to curtail the tigers is upcoming.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

They cancelled seasons as players could not handle playing games fully themselves.
It is incredible players did not die on mass for playing out 120 minutes on ground.

Gary O'Donnell was SEN today.

He played the entire match of the 93 Granny on the ball. Didn't go to the bench once. His opponents rested in the forward line.

My take is, that the whole point of the concept of reducing players resting, is that they won't physically be able to go at the same speed in the same style that they currently do.

So there probably will be injuries as a result of fatigue - if they attempt to play the same way as they do now without a rest. They'll be rooted. But that's the entire point of the proposal isn't it? To get them to stop playing the way they do now?