Strategy Is low scoring going to change?

[Aussie pie]

Ok so the thing that really annoys me about footy these days is the low scoring defensive tactics that coaches are employing. I just saw that the swans managed 19 points tonight, true they’re not a great side but 19 points is pathetic.
Bucks is one of those coaches that loves defence and the “system” of not scoring. I have begun to turn off any game very quickly If it is one of those games.
My question to you is, will there be a shift back to scoring and big bags of goals or have the coaches tactics totally stopped this forever?
Our game was great because of the highlights you’d get, the great plays unfortunately now you listen to it on the radio or watch it the commentators are trying to pump up games to stop people turning off. Trying to convince us that a 20-16 half time score line is an enthralling tactical battle, what BS. I’m not saying I want 30 goals games by one team but when people get excited by the fact that 2 players in their team have kicked 20 goals in a season then it’s time to have a good hard look. We’ll be lucky to have one player kick 20 goals this year.

so is this a rant, no just frustration about how our great game is being played and how skilful players are being turned into drones because of the “system”

Yes I know it’s not a new idea for a thread but because of lockdown I’ve turned on more games to watch and to be honest turned off most of them. My uncle told me the story of him going to the western oval and walking end to end to watch Dunstall kick 16 I think and uncle doesn’t even follow either team. I don’t get excited for games anymore I just hope that we can actually kick a goal in a quarter.

Anyway I know some people love a good low scoring tactical game and each to their own but as a sport and entertainment that should be our brand, if you want that then soccer is your game.

Would love to hear your thoughts

 

[stormskye]

I can’t see how they can fix it save from reducing to 16 a side but I don’t want that.

only other options are limiting zones like netball But it’s just not really feasible. I mean, Say forwards can’t go past the middle etc to stop congestion, If the Ball rolls over the mid line, are you sposed to stop and watch it? It just wouldn’t work in footy.

I’d be open to kicking backwards not being counted as a mark ( Except in the forward 50 for improving angle of shot at goal etc) This would atleast make teams more accountable and force them to go forwards more. If I made a change, it would be that, trial it in pre season.

Longmire has always been defensive, syd have played this way for 15 years. But it’s gotten worse this year for many teams


we never used to play like this, I don’t know why bucks made the changes but it’s sent us backwards.

I’m hoping its just a bad year...

 

[Robroy22]

Ok so the thing that really annoys me about footy these days is the low scoring defensive tactics that coaches are employing. I just saw that the swans managed 19 points tonight, true they’re not a great side but 19 points is pathetic.
Bucks is one of those coaches that loves defence and the “system” of not scoring. I have begun to turn off any game very quickly If it is one of those games.
My question to you is, will there be a shift back to scoring and big bags of goals or have the coaches tactics totally stopped this forever?
Our game was great because of the highlights you’d get, the great plays unfortunately now you listen to it on the radio or watch it the commentators are trying to pump up games to stop people turning off. Trying to convince us that a 20-16 half time score line is an enthralling tactical battle, what BS. I’m not saying I want 30 goals games by one team but when people get excited by the fact that 2 players in their team have kicked 20 goals in a season then it’s time to have a good hard look. We’ll be lucky to have one player kick 20 goals this year.

so is this a rant, no just frustration about how our great game is being played and how skilful players are being turned into drones because of the “system”

Yes I know it’s not a new idea for a thread but because of lockdown I’ve turned on more games to watch and to be honest turned off most of them. My uncle told me the story of him going to the western oval and walking end to end to watch Dunstall kick 16 I think and uncle doesn’t even follow either team. I don’t get excited for games anymore I just hope that we can actually kick a goal in a quarter.

Anyway I know some people love a good low scoring tactical game and each to their own but as a sport and entertainment that should be our brand, if you want that then soccer is your game.

Would love to hear your thoughts

First of all, I totally agree. If you want to watch keepings off and nil all draws....watch soccer. Otherwise COMPETE.
I think the AFL will have to make laws that alter coaches defensive tactics: 16 a side? No kicking backwards or at least play on if you do kick backwards or side to side, 8 points for mark / kick goals or 4 points for crumbs, defensive shot clocks?

Its sad that coaches have used the rules this way. Our sport used to be the greatest game in the world, now its a conglomeration of all world sports and the crowd's enjoyment of it (or lack of) is palpable.

 

[Roverjg]

Ok so the thing that really annoys me about footy these days is the low scoring defensive tactics that coaches are employing. I just saw that the swans managed 19 points tonight, true they’re not a great side but 19 points is pathetic.
Bucks is one of those coaches that loves defence and the “system” of not scoring. I have begun to turn off any game very quickly If it is one of those games.
My question to you is, will there be a shift back to scoring and big bags of goals or have the coaches tactics totally stopped this forever?
Our game was great because of the highlights you’d get, the great plays unfortunately now you listen to it on the radio or watch it the commentators are trying to pump up games to stop people turning off. Trying to convince us that a 20-16 half time score line is an enthralling tactical battle, what BS. I’m not saying I want 30 goals games by one team but when people get excited by the fact that 2 players in their team have kicked 20 goals in a season then it’s time to have a good hard look. We’ll be lucky to have one player kick 20 goals this year.

so is this a rant, no just frustration about how our great game is being played and how skilful players are being turned into drones because of the “system”

Yes I know it’s not a new idea for a thread but because of lockdown I’ve turned on more games to watch and to be honest turned off most of them. My uncle told me the story of him going to the western oval and walking end to end to watch Dunstall kick 16 I think and uncle doesn’t even follow either team. I don’t get excited for games anymore I just hope that we can actually kick a goal in a quarter.

Anyway I know some people love a good low scoring tactical game and each to their own but as a sport and entertainment that should be our brand, if you want that then soccer is your game.

Would love to hear your thoughts

I agree. I have turned off many games over the past 18 months fir this very reason. I have heard that the AFL has several working groups looking at this very issue. With the financial crisis as a result of COVID they may hasten changes. 1. Reduce playing lists in two phases down to 35 players which will have a significant impact on the salary cap. 2. Reduce players on ground to 16 per team. 3. Reduce interchange to 2-3. 4. Limit interchange to 15-20 per quarter. This will bring back the resting ruckman/rover. 5. Reduce the amount of players in defensive half of ground.

On SM-N975F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Aussie pie]

First of all, I totally agree. If you want to watch keepings off and nil all draws....watch soccer. Otherwise COMPETE.
I think the AFL will have to make laws that alter coaches defensive tactics: 16 a side? No kicking backwards or at least play on if you do kick backwards or side to side, 8 points for mark / kick goals or 4 points for crumbs, defensive shot clocks?

Its sad that coaches have used the rules this way. Our sport used to be the greatest game in the world, now its a conglomeration of all world sports and the crowd's enjoyment of it (or lack of) is palpable.

That’s the problem, the AFL having to make rules to improve the game. It’s the coaches fault, they made it this way they can easily change it again. Remember the clubs in the AFLW were told to make the game less defensive and more attacking and I’ve gotta say the past season was quite enjoyable to watch.

 

[Chameleon75]

That’s the problem, the AFL having to make rules to improve the game. It’s the coaches fault, they made it this way they can easily change it again. Remember the clubs in the AFLW were told to make the game less defensive and more attacking and I’ve gotta say the past season was quite enjoyable to watch.

It’s not the coaches fault imo, it’s the AFL and it’s rule changes that have lead down this path.

The games simple maximise scoring when you have momentum, minimise scoring when you don’t. The rule changes going back to the mid eighties, aside from increasing protection to players, have been largely removing defensive tactics in an effort to speed up the game and increase scoring and thus produce a more watchable tv product.

When you remove defensive tactics, coaches will simply develop other defensive tactics to compensate. The rule changes have taken it to a point that numbers inside defensive 50 is about all that’s left legally to do.

More tinkering with rules will just lead to new tactics being developed, it’s a downward spiral imo.

Imo I think the AFL need to do a complete review of the rules, and accept that defence is as much part of the game and you need to leave some tools there, and stop trying to manipulate the aesthetics.

 

[Ingy]

It’s not the coaches fault imo, it’s the AFL and it’s rule changes that have lead down this path.

The games simple maximise scoring when you have momentum, minimise scoring when you don’t. The rule changes going back to the mid eighties, aside from increasing protection to players, have been largely removing defensive tactics in an effort to speed up the game and increase scoring and thus produce a more watchable tv product.

When you remove defensive tactics, coaches will simply develop other defensive tactics to compensate. The rule changes have taken it to a point that numbers inside defensive 50 is about all that’s left legally to do.

More tinkering with rules will just lead to new tactics being developed, it’s a downward spiral imo.

Imo I think the AFL need to do a complete review of the rules, and accept that defence is as much part of the game and you need to leave some tools there, and stop trying to manipulate the aesthetics.

100% agree.

Every time they have changed the rules there has been an unforeseen negative consequence, leading us to where we are now.

More rule changes are the last thing they should do unless it's reversing a previous rule change

 

[Aussie pie]

It’s not the coaches fault imo, it’s the AFL and it’s rule changes that have lead down this path.

The games simple maximise scoring when you have momentum, minimise scoring when you don’t. The rule changes going back to the mid eighties, aside from increasing protection to players, have been largely removing defensive tactics in an effort to speed up the game and increase scoring and thus produce a more watchable tv product.

When you remove defensive tactics, coaches will simply develop other defensive tactics to compensate. The rule changes have taken it to a point that numbers inside defensive 50 is about all that’s left legally to do.

More tinkering with rules will just lead to new tactics being developed, it’s a downward spiral imo.

Imo I think the AFL need to do a complete review of the rules, and accept that defence is as much part of the game and you need to leave some tools there, and stop trying to manipulate the aesthetics.

We will have to agree to disagree. At a point and I’ll name Sydney and also the dogs in this, teams started to realise they couldn’t beat high scoring teams like Geelong and Essendon so the flood and Over aggressive defensive Was used. Eg the super flood when the dogs beat the dons in 2000. This wasn’t a change because of a rule it was a way for a weaker team to beat a stronger one. The eagles should have gone back to back against the Swans as they were far a more superior Team but for the defensive mind set of the swans. What rules do you think made the Swans play like this? None it was a game plan. It works that’s the problem and it makes for a horrible spectacle. We are as much to blame also with Micks tactics of slow play around the boundaries. The coaches started this and they can easily finish it without rule changes.

 

[barrackers]

It won't change without a rule change

YES

16 per side -
Will reduce congestion around the footy, but won't stop numbers flooding inside 50. With players being fitter they can cover more ground, reducing to 16 per side should help open the field up and enable quicker ball movement if coaches desire.

More interchange not less -
Tired players means more space, but it also means less run and therefore less scoring. Just look at how stagnant and slow we were against the dees when knackered.

Extra premiership point or bonus percentage for scoring over 100 points -
Short of zones whatever is implemented the coaches will eventually overcome, give them an incentive to keep the game open.


MAYBE

Last touch excluding forward 50 -
Has some merit and I don't mind it in AFLW now it's been tweaked to exclude forward 50, but I already hate seeing players pause and wave their arms around looking for a deliberate. That could be legislated against, but like the existing deliberate rule they'd still be grey.

Dropping the ball -
I don't like how hot holding the ball was interpreted after Clarkson's comments, but I still think the rule could be tweaked. Prior opportunity isn't the problem as players in theory are required to correctly dispose of the footy. The issue is when there's no prior opportunity, it's became a thing where teams just drop the footy the moment they're tackled, which causes ugly rolling scrums. I'd trial a rule change - that when there's no prior opportunity the player must either retain possession or dispose of the footy correctly. If they retain possession blow the damn whistle quickly and throw the ball up.

Third man in -
I hate seeing packs forming on the ground and an ugly wrestle occurring. Blowing the whistle quicker would help, but I'd also like to see a rule trialled that prohibits a third man from going in if a teammate already has an opponent wrapped up in a tackle on the ground. It's ugly seeing 3-5 blokes tackling each other on the ground.


NO

Kicking backwards, play on -
As much as I hate seeing it the ability to switch play is one of the few tactics a team has to beat a defensive flood. Getting rid of the backwards kick without other changes will just make things worse. Best to try something else first rather than making wholesale changes at the same time.

Zoning -
The only way zoning works is to have something akin to the TAC cup anti-density rule - set numbers inside each 50 at every stoppage. I don't like it, but it's probably the hardest thing for the coaches to overcome.

On zoning what's happened to the 6, 6, 6 rule in 2020? I haven't seen one paid all year. Now I've said that they'll pluck one against us on Monday!

Super goal -
It adds excitement in the preseason, and would artificially boost the scores, but I can't see it doing much to remove the issue of congestion.

 

[gouki88]

I'd change the 15 metre kick minimum into a 20 metre minimum at least, and drill the umpires on implementing it.

I'd also consider drastically cutting the interchange, I think 10 a quarter would be ideal. It's one of my biggest dislikes of the game.

I don't know if implementing a bunch of rule changes is the way to go. I think we've unintentionally lost a lot of natural footballers to the modern insistence of picking athletic freaks.

 

[Vicky Park]

I'd change the 15 metre kick minimum into a 20 metre minimum at least, and drill the umpires on implementing it.

I'd also consider drastically cutting the interchange, I think 10 a quarter would be ideal. It's one of my biggest dislikes of the game.

I don't know if implementing a bunch of rule changes is the way to go. I think we've unintentionally lost a lot of natural footballers to the modern insistence of picking athletic freaks.

That the 15 metre rule is sparingly applied drives me crazy. Marks are paid after the ball travels 8 or 10 metres, sometimes less, and often in scoring range. I don’t understand why it is so hard for the umpires to gauge the distance, even allowing for some room for error. But not 5 or more metres of ‘error’.

 

[gouki88]

That the 15 metre rule is sparingly applied drives me crazy. Marks are paid after the ball travels 8 or 10 metres, sometimes less, and often in scoring range. I don’t understand why it is so hard for the umpires to gauge the distance, even allowing for some room for error. But not 5 or more metres of ‘error’.

It's crazy, right? They have no trouble measuring distance with their 'protected zones' for players, yet with a kicks they have no idea! Even the grass on most fields is cut so that it looks like 10m-ish lines are cut, yet they routinely miss it? Infuriating incompetence

 

[cleomenes]

It's crazy, right? They have no trouble measuring distance with their 'protected zones' for players, yet with a kicks they have no idea! Even the grass on most fields is cut so that it looks like 10m-ish lines are cut, yet they routinely miss it? Infuriating incompetence

Those squares in the grass we see so clearly on TV are not visible on the ground.
But this topic is one that I have been visiting for years. Coaches are the centre of the problem, and the AFL has to be constantly on guard for the next loophole that a coach will exploit.
Interchange was the cause of so many of the problems, but the difficulty of dealing with modern risk management of concussion and bleeding means that interchange can't be eliminated. It has to be removed as a tactical tool for coaches to have any effect now, and the administration will be tricky and at times contentious. It has to happen. This means that interchange is for injury only. Any other reason and the player stays off.
The fitness, speed and skills of modern players can't be legislated away, so the game can never go back to what it was (unfortunately)
I would hate to see the teams reduced to 16 or even 14, but these numbers may have to be considered if nothing else works.
I really don't like the last touch free kick, but it may be that I'm wrong.
Zones already exist on the ground. I think that restrictions on who can be where are inevitable, since the coaches are not willing to change their ways. (Why should they be, their jobs are results dependent).
The dour, mostly lifeless games that have been the norm this year are an indictment of those responsible for the game.

 

[gouki88]

Those squares in the grass we see so clearly on TV are not visible on the ground.
But this topic is one that I have been visiting for years. Coaches are the centre of the problem, and the AFL has to be constantly on guard for the next loophole that a coach will exploit.
Interchange was the cause of so many of the problems, but the difficulty of dealing with modern risk management of concussion and bleeding means that interchange can't be eliminated. It has to be removed as a tactical tool for coaches to have any effect now, and the administration will be tricky and at times contentious. It has to happen. This means that interchange is for injury only. Any other reason and the player stays off.
The fitness, speed and skills of modern players can't be legislated away, so the game can never go back to what it was (unfortunately)
I would hate to see the teams reduced to 16 or even 14, but these numbers may have to be considered if nothing else works.
I really don't like the last touch free kick, but it may be that I'm wrong.
Zones already exist on the ground. I think that restrictions on who can be where are inevitable, since the coaches are not willing to change their ways. (Why should they be, their jobs are results dependent).
The dour, mostly lifeless games that have been the norm this year are an indictment of those responsible for the game.

To an extent, but I vividly remember BT going out onto a ground and having relatively no difficulty finding and measuring one of the squares. But it's sort of irrelevant - it doesn't seem like a focal point of officiating, which I think is a problem in and of itself.

Other than that, I'm basically in whole agreement with you. Letting coaches weigh in on rule changes is mindnumbingly stupid. They are only in it for themselves and their teams. I remember Paul Roos crusading against the way rucking was done because Goodes got hurt - then he got Jolly and immediately shut up. Just one example of a repeat pattern of behaviour from coaches.

 

[Robroy22]

I know technology is in everything now (and until perfected its frustrating and exhausting) BUT....a couple of drones located above the ground tuned into player tracking devices would allow an off field official to relay messages to the central umpires. The umpires could then say "Pendles...you've got too many behind the ball, if it doesn't change I'll be paying a free kick....."

Once upon a time umpires controlled the spectacle. They would communicate with the captains out on the ground and order players out of contests with the threat of free kicks, an umpire like Razor Ray would love this interaction but others might not be suited to the banter. Clubs need to reinforce the "Umpire is always right" status and then let the umps control the cattle out on the ground. You see this in games like Rugby Union and Hockey where officials work with the team captains out on the field to organise play and to ensure fair play.
If the ump says "only 4 pairs" at a contest, then he or she can send numbers 30m away from the contest. Coaches then cannot clog up play with extra numbers and specialist clearance and positional players then also become more valuable again (like they once were)

Deliberate out of bounce also clogs the game up. Players have little alternative than to "take the tackle" and where once a really good kicker could put his/ her team 50-60m further up the ground now they have to take the tackle and force the stoppage in their own defensive end. Move the play on...let them kick for touch and a boundary throwin.

There's plenty more but I'll rest for now!

 

[stormskye]

I think removing backwards kicks being marks in the defensive half would prob be the best option. Would encourage ball movement forward atleast. I don’t want big changes but feel that would help a little. I’m not sold on limiting numbers in areas, I just think it’s to awkward to force players to stand and watch. say if only 6 a side are allowed inside 50m, is a midfielder sposed to wait on the other side of the 50m line and just watch/wait for the ball to roll over.. it’s just awkward, the ball could literally be 50cm in front of him on the ground but he can’t get it because it’s inside the 50m line. No thanks. Tackling players over lines etc, would just not be feasible in our game and would RUIN it

 

[Finn Jim]

That the 15 metre rule is sparingly applied drives me crazy. Marks are paid after the ball travels 8 or 10 metres, sometimes less, and often in scoring range. I don’t understand why it is so hard for the umpires to gauge the distance, even allowing for some room for error. But not 5 or more metres of ‘error’.

To that end, I would like to see an arc drawn on the field 15m from the edge of the goal square. (It would look like a basketball 3pt line in a way.) The line would serve no purpose but to let everyone and their mother know on a kick-in from a behind if the ball had gone 15m or not, and or when a player has run too far out of the square. I hate that there is so much inconsistency with 15m kicks, and zero consistency with run too far.

 

[DaVe86]

I think shortened quarters are having a big impact....as are the other factors such as condensed fixtures and restricted training schedules.

What we are seeing is a big gulf between the good sides and the poor sides. Also, teams are able to resist their opposition defensively long enough. If you extend the quarters, then the dam wall will eventually burst. The tactics used against Richmond this year have been very defensive. Sides are basically camping. There's no way you could sustain defending so long in an extended game.

I think the inevitable injury surge happened upon the restart, and with multiple games in a week, we've seen fatigue and player management. That reduces the spectacle. With sides so well drilled defensively, and so many good players out, there just isn't the ability to break through.

Whilst defensive structures are here to stay, I think we'll see scoring normalise next year. Perhaps 100 points will still be rare, but we'll see a lot more between 70-90. At the moment, 10 goals pretty much wins it for you.

 

[HeathySure]

I cant see why we just cannot get rid of the "ruck rover" rather than the wings. Then there are 17 players on field but one less in the centre square during the resumption of play. I am still not absolutely confident that this will solve the problem either but trialing a lot of options during the pre season might see some improvement.

And as an aside i dont like the really high scoring games either. Give me a game 13 goals vs 12 and i will be happy!

 

[loki04]

No marks from backward kicks outside your f50 would help.

6,6,6 rule at EVERY stoppage would kill flooding/pressing teams.

Easy fixes.

 

[loki04]

I cant see why we just cannot get rid of the "ruck rover" rather than the wings. Then there are 17 players on field but one less in the centre square during the resumption of play. I am still not absolutely confident that this will solve the problem either but trialing a lot of options during the pre season might see some improvement.

And as an aside i dont like the really high scoring games either. Give me a game 13 goals vs 12 and i will be happy!

Getting rid of 2 players from the field wouldn't fix anything, players would still run the same distances they do now which is less distance then Buckleys era ran.

They would just take 2 from the forward line and press up.

 

[stormskye]

No marks from backward kicks outside your f50 would help.

6,6,6 rule at EVERY stoppage would kill flooding/pressing teams.

Easy fixes.

I’m def in the no marks from backward kicks outside of f50 camp. Would force more forwards movement atleast.

 

[loki04]

I’m def in the no marks from backward kicks outside of f50 camp. Would force more forwards movement atleast.

Yeah but you still need to fix the flooding tactics (and the press is exactly that a fwd flood).

6,6,6 at stoppages will keep the ground spread you can leave your area so not netball type restrictions but you must get back in your zones at stoppages. Can use boundary umps and video umps to monitor it.

 

[cleomenes]

Yeah but you still need to fix the flooding tactics (and the press is exactly that a fwd flood).

6,6,6 at stoppages will keep the ground spread you can leave your area so not netball type restrictions but you must get back in your zones at stoppages. Can use boundary umps and video umps to monitor it.

I suggested this some years back to a deafening silence.

 

[loki04]

I suggested this some years back to a deafening silence.

I was also in favour of it back when it was floated.