If it became 16 a side, how would your club become affected?

Remove this Banner Ad

LordLucifer

Brownlow Medallist
Mar 20, 2002
20,375
19,323
The North Shore Daaaahling !!
AFL Club
Carlton
What are the new configurations ?

Which two players do you lose ?

Needs some meat on the bones, too much of an air question.
Why would the league want to adjudicate "new configurations" ??

Let the coaches work it out for themselves, it will lead to a variety of new tactics & strategies.

Just keep the 6-6-6 rule but on the understanding that coaches can have whatever format they want as long as it doesn't go over 6 per sector (e.g. 4-6-6, 5-5-6 etc). Once again, this leads to a variety of new tactics and game-plans which reinvigorates the old cat & mouse counter-plans as well.
 

Jugada

Norm Smith Medallist
Dec 5, 2012
5,739
6,414
AFL Club
West Coast
No idea why you would need to remove certain positions, it's not like all clubs run with the same 6-6-6 structure now. Just cut 2 players and coaches can take them from wherever they want
 

lewdogs

Premium Platinum
Jun 4, 2008
5,135
13,921
WA
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
Arsenal, Portland Trailblazers
Of all the changes this is probably one you would notice very little. I mean, you're not going to say "wow, you can really tell the difference with 5 backs and 5 forwards". The game would look and feel the same, but with more space. I really wouldn't mind seeing it, at least give it a trial in the pre-season comp.

Of course there's every chance it feels exactly the same and makes no difference to congestion. I'd really like to see the massive cap on rotations that Healy has suggested, get it right down to 20 or so a game and see what happens.

In terms of how it would effect St Kilda, I think it's impossible to say.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

RUNVS

Hall of Famer
Feb 28, 2007
37,212
36,938
Sydney
AFL Club
Sydney
I would personally go further and go 15 a side. 6 players off th ground would make a real difference.

I though would have an interchange bench of 5 as I don't want the game becoming one where teams will draft the endurance athlete over the more talented player. I think 15 a side would create enough space where even with players not remotely tired we would still see a noticeable improvement.
 

Yojimbo

Norm Smith Medallist
Nov 14, 2012
9,782
8,543
On the "Sweet Wagon"
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Why would the league want to adjudicate "new configurations" ??
The op posed the question of 16 x Players, which means 6+6+6=18 two too many therefore 5+6+5=16 or the incredibly difficult
to understand 6+4+6=16 i was simply asking which methodology was he using, no wings or one less defender/forward as it was
not stated in the op. Competitions have tried both methods so in essence we have a blueprint already or at the very least a small
sample. Good win on the weekend.
 

sunsofanarchy

Club Legend
Dec 3, 2013
1,358
1,271
AFL Club
Gold Coast
I use to have my set fixed opinion of 'dont change the game, let it evolve' but then last night I tried getting my head around what it would actually look like if they did change it, and I came to the opinion that it would actually become more attractive football, everything becomes more important, missed kicks, endurance, clearances. I believe that if it becomes 16 a side, the stars of the competition will be more influential than ever before. I believe midfielders will probably drop 2-3kg and we might even get back to fwds kicking close to 100 a season (if they re-lengthen the qtrs).

Just one man's opinion, wanting to hear yours

On SM-G960W using BigFooty.com mobile app
 

Gunf

Premiership Player
Mar 11, 2019
4,313
6,241
AFL Club
Geelong
If we go to 16 or even 15 a side we need to remove the interchange cap or we may see an influx of athletes and less footballers.

I know it would never happen but i would love to see a game start with 4-6-8 instead of 6-6-6 ( 8 forwards not defends ) just to see what would happen lol
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Walshawk

Club Legend
Mar 24, 2017
1,635
1,474
Blackburn
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Of course reducing player infield will reduce congestion.
Ask yourself what would happened if we added two players to each team - would it be more congested? Obviously yes. It is a big change. I would try 17 first - simply removed The centreman.
 

Kwality

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 14, 2011
25,761
9,277
Tootgarook
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Renault F1
If we go to 16 or even 15 a side we need to remove the interchange cap or we may see an influx of athletes and less footballers.

I know it would never happen but i would love to see a game start with 4-6-8 instead of 6-6-6 ( 8 forwards not defends ) just to see what would happen lol
Its the interchange that dominates footy today versus the game of the 80s. Interchange effectively introduced 22 competitors versus the days of 18 competitors (even 16 in the VFA).
 

Gunf

Premiership Player
Mar 11, 2019
4,313
6,241
AFL Club
Geelong
Its the interchange that dominates footy today versus the game of the 80s. Interchange effectively introduced 22 competitors versus the days of 18 competitors (even 16 in the VFA).
I am all for trialing 16 a side but only in the VFL/SANFL/WAFL for a full year or 2 first and see if that makes a difference

As for the interchange cap i have stated what coaches and recruiters will do (in my opinion) and if that happens will you be happy?

I mean i love Blicavs but do we want more players like him ore more skilled players that may not be able to run all day like Sam Mitchell (not saying he didn't have a good tank) etc

Not to mention the chance of young players getting a game in year 1-3 is unlikely until they get a decent tank.

Now my concerns may well be wrong and coaches will instead just say stuff it everyone stay in positions but i don't see it those buggers refuse to do things like that.
 
Last edited:

RUNVS

Hall of Famer
Feb 28, 2007
37,212
36,938
Sydney
AFL Club
Sydney
I am all for trialing 16 a side but only in the VFL for a full year or 2 first and see if that makes a difference

As for the interchange cap i have stated what coaches and recruiters will do (in my opinion) and if that happens will you be happy?

I mean i love Blicavs but do we want more players like him ore more skilled players that may not be able to run all day like Sam Mitchell (not saying he didn't have a good tank) etc

Not to mention the chance of young players getting a game in year 1-3 is unlikely until they get a decent tank.

Now my concerns may well be wrong and coaches will instead just say stuff it everyone stay in positions but i don't see it those buggers refuse to do things like that.
I agree entirely. Make the game harder running and making players more tired at the end of games will have one result, and that is clubs recruiting endurance athletes over footballers.
 

Flags_In_The_Bag

Premiership Player
Aug 17, 2014
4,419
2,402
Melbourne
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
Not a fan of overseas teams.....
N
I would personally go further and go 15 a side. 6 players off th ground would make a real difference.

I though would have an interchange bench of 5 as I don't want the game becoming one where teams will draft the endurance athlete over the more talented player. I think 15 a side would create enough space where even with players not remotely tired we would still see a noticeable improvement.
Not bad
 

Billy ray

Brownlow Medallist
Nov 10, 2013
13,724
20,570
The Valley near the Alley
AFL Club
Gold Coast
Other Teams
Hell no
Would suit us - all teams will lose those fringe players that are in and out of the side that often, that final 2 players that are the difference between great team and a good team

as far as on the field, i would say it would be a 6-4-6 formation, opens up the midfield at the centre bounces
 

Kwality

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 14, 2011
25,761
9,277
Tootgarook
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Renault F1
I am all for trialing 16 a side but only in the VFL/SANFL/WAFL for a full year or 2 first and see if that makes a difference

As for the interchange cap i have stated what coaches and recruiters will do (in my opinion) and if that happens will you be happy?

I mean i love Blicavs but do we want more players like him ore more skilled players that may not be able to run all day like Sam Mitchell (not saying he didn't have a good tank) etc

Not to mention the chance of young players getting a game in year 1-3 is unlikely until they get a decent tank.

Now my concerns may well be wrong and coaches will instead just say stuff it everyone stay in positions but i don't see it those buggers refuse to do things like that.
Yep we disagree over interchange cap, imho the lower the number of interchanges the greater the endurance required. Limiting it & applying it to individual players will keep our best players on the field not recuperating on the bench.

Implementing 16 a side in the 2nd tier is a good compromise.

Do you think you'd know Blicavs was an athlete before footy if no one told you?
 

Gunf

Premiership Player
Mar 11, 2019
4,313
6,241
AFL Club
Geelong
Yep we disagree over interchange cap, imho the lower the number of interchanges the greater the endurance required. Limiting it & applying it to individual players will keep our best players on the field not recuperating on the bench.

Implementing 16 a side in the 2nd tier is a good compromise.

Do you think you'd know Blicavs was an athlete before footy if no one told you?
Probably not but i would wonder why his disposal is so sh*t lol
 

kozi

Hall of Famer
Oct 14, 2011
40,447
46,951
living rent free
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Dubs, United
Whether it’s capped interchange or 16 a side I’m right behind whatever leads to more open space and 1 v 1 contests across the ground.

Watch a few nostalgic highlights from any time between the mid 80’s and mid 2000’s. You’d be hard pressed to find a neutral who doesn’t agree that’s the timeframe when as a sport the spectacle was at its peak.
 

Top Bottom