If you only read one footy article all year, make it this one.

Remove this Banner Ad

Apr 30, 2015
13,590
24,399
AFL Club
West Coast
Not telling us anything we dont already know.

Nothing will get fixed as the vacuous cycle of inane media drivel continues as it drives "eyes to the product".

The only solution is for all of us not to read the drivel/support the product, which is exceptionally unlikely to happen.
 

Marcus DuQuesne

Cancelled
Aug 4, 2017
996
612
AFL Club
Geelong
In the context of the 'state of the game' debate and the quality of commentary we are subjected to these days, comes the article that sums it all up perfectly.

Will it resonate with the fans? Yes.

Will the AFL industry heed its wise words? Not a chance.

https://www.theroar.com.au/2018/07/...tate-of-the-football-media-thats-the-problem/
Nothing really enlightening in all that...the average punter gets it...These ex footballers and their multiple media jobs is way over the top. The non ex footballers are competing against the exes to try and be relevant. Well except for this site (which is a bit of a gag to be honest) I do NOT interact with the football media in any way shape or form...I watch on TV (mostly) with the mute button on. Zero Radio and do not read Newspapers that contain football articles. Why would u?
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Jun 6, 2011
5,507
10,209
Goonellebah
AFL Club
GWS
Other Teams
Islanders

mr bagcroft

Norm Smith Medallist
May 19, 2017
9,310
10,870
AFL Club
St Kilda
It’s a reflection on life these days. We used to be more sensible,certainly not as narcisstic,and less stringent that people need to hear what our opinion may be on...anything. Footy personal is no exception.
 
Sep 13, 2015
18,683
48,481
Hillary Step
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
76ers
I was hoping a writer on the roar would do something like this. Always good stuff out of that site.

The issue started when we started blurring the lines between commentator, analyst and reporter.

Commentator: commentates the game, tells us what’s happening, presents interesting facts without opinion, (e.g. Cometti,McAvaney)
Analyst: analyses the game, gives opinions on performance things, discusses the mechanics of the game, special comments guys (e.g. Bartel)
Reporter: reports on news, may provide some speculation on off field actions (e.g. I don’t know many good ones. Think Tom Browne, Sam McClure but better)

The problem is that everyone wants to be an analyst. That should be the department of people who actually have credentials. Mainly, but not limited to ex-players and coaches at a high level. If you want to see the issue live, tune in to Talking Footy. Sam McClure puts his two cents worth into every bloody thing - why do we care what you think Sam? What knowledge do you have that we don’t?

The root of all this is people wanting to be the game - or have a legacy, or take ownership of the game. I heard a quote during the week about the look of the game committee ‘caring for the game’. Who said that was your job?
 
Last edited:
Apr 30, 2015
13,590
24,399
AFL Club
West Coast
Nothing really enlightening in all that...the average punter gets it...These ex footballers and their multiple media jobs is way over the top. The non ex footballers are competing against the exes to try and be relevant. Well except for this site (which is a bit of a gag to be honest) I do NOT interact with the football media in any way shape or form...I watch on TV (mostly) with the mute button on. Zero Radio and do not read Newspapers that contain football articles. Why would u?
It's the first article I've seen calling it out though.
 

Kummerspeck

Cancelled
Pokemon is Life
Sep 12, 2013
5,219
5,356
AFL Club
Sydney
Excellent article. Every year there is this narrative that the game is worse than ever, and needs to go back to what the game was like whenever whoever was commenting believed it was at its peak. Survival bias also doesn't help, when people rely on highlights packages and their memories of the best times in an era to build this image of what the game was like in the past.

Even more so, it seems like whatever happens now is bad. One dominant team? Poor, weak competition means a boring year. A year like last year where any one of a number of teams could have won where the premier didn't get a win over every team in the league? Also bad.

We're currently in a place where there are actually a pretty wide variety of game styles, and some rock, paper, scissors style strengths and weaknesses between teams.
 
Last edited:

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Fadge

Brownlow Medallist
Mar 4, 2007
17,859
17,256
Melbourne
AFL Club
Collingwood
Great article.

What is the end point for these rule changes? More scoring means a more attractive product and therefore more viewers, enabling global growth?

Bollocks.

Soccer is the most played and watched sport in the world, and occasionally we see nil all results!

The answer to global growth is simplification. I can't take an overseas visitor to a game to explain the rules when the interpretation changes with each incident within a game. It is impossible. And embarrassing.

Jimmy Bartel got it right on the weekend - get rid of all of the grey areas. That is your answer.
 

theprospect

Club Legend
Saints Pledge Contributor
Sep 26, 2016
2,838
10,874
Melbourne
AFL Club
St Kilda
Ripper article, sums it all up pretty well.

There's only one thing on the minds of the AFL and it's money. The more goals, the more ads in the 30 second breaks between play. It's also supposed to attract more viewers and of course convert the casual fan - the Stiffler's mum of football, into paid up members of the game.

Channel 7's commentary is enough to make the Dalai Lama blow a gasket. From BT's insufferable pronunciation and bias towards certain players, to Bruce's orgasm's whenever someone breaks the lines, to Cameron Ling and his unhealthy obsession with the Telstra Tracker, it drives me nuts. Have to mute the tv or listen to music every time I turn it on. Then you go and watch Fox Footy. The number of times every game that commentators get the players names wrong is staggering. I get that they can make mistakes, everyone does, but it's unbelievable that these so called experts can consistently get players names wrong so often.

Everyone has their own agenda that they want to push because they want to be top of the s**t heap. They all want to be #1. But that's what's wrong with the game. Sure there are rules that we would all change and aspects that could be improved but * me, it's definitely not the state of the game they should be concerned about.
 

PowerForGood

2020. The year the competition became terminal. Ju
10k Posts
Sep 1, 2006
16,849
15,401
Adelaide
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Liverpool, Lakers, Rabbitohs
Actually, I kind of disagree with the article in some aspects.

The media "membership" and the amount of influence they have because of media rights agreements and the number of "old boys" network commentators / analysts / special comments / hangers on there are, all very good points.

The bit I dont necessarily agree with is the state of the game itself. If you are ok with how much professionalism and fitness and advanced coaching strategies and sports science has changed the game then that's ok.

But the way that football was played *and became a popular sport* is not the game we have today as *still a popular sport*. And if some are unhappy that in the quest to grow and grow the sport we actually end up not seeing the things that made it such a great game in the first place, then why should those people just keep quiet and fade away? Why should they be the inevitable casualties?

This is the reason I don't trust the AFL. Not the media, but the governing body who are self-proclaimed "custodians on the game". Their touch is too heavy in their role. They are the pre-eminent competition, but they shouldn't "own the game". They model themselves on the US sports setup, but the US has a thriving high school and college setup in all sports that will ensure that the fans are never forgotten.

The AFL's touch should be to protect the essential aspects of the game we love *and no more*, not to pander to advertisers or to respond to the media or one state over another or to "grow the sport". Things like 10 mtr protected zones and ruck nominations are embarrassing. The Grand Final venue renewed contract is another. No Tasmanian team is another. Reward the ball winner rather than the tackler. And if I agree with the media old boys network on these things, then that's a good thing.

My 5c worth.
 

david addison

Team Captain
Feb 3, 2016
487
1,057
AFL Club
Collingwood
I'm a bit slow on the uptake, so let me think out loud for a minute. The 'state of the game' conversation is not solely about congestion. It's about getting the scoreboard ticking over. Have I got that right? Tick tick ticking over to keep the theatre goers interested, and to increase the advertising dollar. Of course. That's why they pay no credence to Buckley's suggestion of eliminating prior opportunity. His idea eliminates congestion, but doesn't address the issue of low scoring. OK. Now I get it. Wouldn't it be nice if the AFL was transparent with their motives for this 'state of the game' conversation? I reckon one day they'll be honest with the public completely by accident, and it'll scare the s**t out of them. So they want to change the game in the name of revenue, and they chose as mouthpieces anyone who thinks 'the game was better in my day' such as Matthews & Blight. I think they're going to learn the hard way, as usual, that you can't produce 9 great games unless every team has equal talent. And if that's what they want, let's get rid of the ladder, and give every team a cup at the end of the season. I reckon Matthews, Blight et al are doing the process a disservice, because the more they bark, the more the public lose faith in it, and question the motives. It creates a perception that it's a bunch of old timers who think they know better and pine for their youth, rather than people who have the best interests of the game at heart. I'd be surprised if Gil hasn't already made the call to those people and told them to stfu. Given that the decisions will be made by committee, I guarantee the decisions will be a compromise that pleases no one on the committee, nor the public. I've been on committees, and I've been on jurys, and every time, the biggest voice belongs to the stupidest person. It's human nature. Stupid people think their opinions are more valid that everyone else, and they dominate proceedings. KB on the rules committee was a prime example. In fact most of the current crop of 'legends' are shockingly outspoken and destructive. I'd put a gag order on all of them. Matthews had the opportunity to run the game when Vlad quit, but he didn't have the balls. Instead he influences from the shadows. He probably knew he'd have more power that way. I don't think they should do a damn thing to the game except repeal all of the s**t rule changes of the past decade, but if congestion really bothers them, just reduce the teams to 16. Simple. Reducing the rotations won't work. It'll exhaust players. They'll be sloppy. Probably more injuries thru exhaustion. Play slows down. Less scoring. Clubs will recruit marathon runners instead of footballers. As for increasing the scoring, that's simple too. Widen the goals, of make it like soccer, where a ball ricocheting off the post thru the goals is counted as a goal. Or if it's touched, it's still a goal. This would eliminate the need for score review too. Too extreme? But it's for the good of the game, haven't you heard. We need to suck every last dollar out of it, and strangle it to within an inch of it's life. AFL, like any corporation, is dying if it ain't growing. Sell sell sell. Sell your soul. By the way, and this might sound ageist, because it is, the average birth date of Sheehan, Matthews, Healy & Blight is 1953. Let's put that in perspective. In 1953 Hefner published the very first playboy. The first Bond novel Casino Royale is also published. Mickey Mantle hits the longest home run in history. Sinatra & Nelson Riddle begin their first sessions together. Edmund Hillary becomes the first man to climb Everest. John Kennedy gets married. Gentlemen Prefer Blondes hits cinema screens. Joseph Stalin dies, as do Dylan Thomas & Eugene O'Neill. The Korean War ends. The CIA overthrows the Mosaddegh government of Iran. Truman announces that the US has developed a hydrogen bomb. The first nuclear tests are conducted in Nevada, with 1600 people watching from 3 kms away. Carlton games will soon be like this. 1600 people watching from 3 kms.

 

blitzer

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 27, 2006
7,483
8,749
House
AFL Club
Essendon
I'm a bit slow on the uptake, so let me think out loud for a minute. The 'state of the game' conversation is not solely about congestion. It's about getting the scoreboard ticking over. Have I got that right? Tick tick ticking over to keep the theatre goers interested, and to increase the advertising dollar. Of course. That's why they pay no credence to Buckley's suggestion of eliminating prior opportunity. His idea eliminates congestion, but doesn't address the issue of low scoring. OK. Now I get it. Wouldn't it be nice if the AFL was transparent with their motives for this 'state of the game' conversation? I reckon one day they'll be honest with the public completely by accident, and it'll scare the s**t out of them. So they want to change the game in the name of revenue, and they chose as mouthpieces anyone who thinks 'the game was better in my day' such as Matthews & Blight. I think they're going to learn the hard way, as usual, that you can't produce 9 great games unless every team has equal talent. And if that's what they want, let's get rid of the ladder, and give every team a cup at the end of the season. I reckon Matthews, Blight et al are doing the process a disservice, because the more they bark, the more the public lose faith in it, and question the motives. It creates a perception that it's a bunch of old timers who think they know better and pine for their youth, rather than people who have the best interests of the game at heart. I'd be surprised if Gil hasn't already made the call to those people and told them to stfu. Given that the decisions will be made by committee, I guarantee the decisions will be a compromise that pleases no one on the committee, nor the public. I've been on committees, and I've been on jurys, and every time, the biggest voice belongs to the stupidest person. It's human nature. Stupid people think their opinions are more valid that everyone else, and they dominate proceedings. KB on the rules committee was a prime example. In fact most of the current crop of 'legends' are shockingly outspoken and destructive. I'd put a gag order on all of them. Matthews had the opportunity to run the game when Vlad quit, but he didn't have the balls. Instead he influences from the shadows. He probably knew he'd have more power that way. I don't think they should do a damn thing to the game except repeal all of the s**t rule changes of the past decade, but if congestion really bothers them, just reduce the teams to 16. Simple. Reducing the rotations won't work. It'll exhaust players. They'll be sloppy. Probably more injuries thru exhaustion. Play slows down. Less scoring. Clubs will recruit marathon runners instead of footballers. As for increasing the scoring, that's simple too. Widen the goals, of make it like soccer, where a ball ricocheting off the post thru the goals is counted as a goal. Or if it's touched, it's still a goal. This would eliminate the need for score review too. Too extreme? But it's for the good of the game, haven't you heard. We need to suck every last dollar out of it, and strangle it to within an inch of it's life. AFL, like any corporation, is dying if it ain't growing. Sell sell sell. Sell your soul. By the way, and this might sound ageist, because it is, the average birth date of Sheehan, Matthews, Healy & Blight is 1953. Let's put that in perspective. In 1953 Hefner published the very first playboy. The first Bond novel Casino Royale is also published. Mickey Mantle hits the longest home run in history. Sinatra & Nelson Riddle begin their first sessions together. Edmund Hillary becomes the first man to climb Everest. John Kennedy gets married. Gentlemen Prefer Blondes hits cinema screens. Joseph Stalin dies, as do Dylan Thomas & Eugene O'Neill. The Korean War ends. The CIA overthrows the Mosaddegh government of Iran. Truman announces that the US has developed a hydrogen bomb. The first nuclear tests are conducted in Nevada, with 1600 people watching from 3 kms away. Carlton games will soon be like this. 1600 people watching from 3 kms.


Should have used the bomb to blow your post into paragraphs. I applaud anyone who reads it in that format.
 
Back