Oppo Camp Non-Essendon Football Thread XIII

[GUMBLETRON]

Best time to get Robbo, when he's sober his brain is at its weakest.

Vulnerable outside his natural habitat?

 

[DapperDon]

Vulnerable outside his natural habitat?

Like when a baby bird is kicked out of the nest the first time

 

[Zach Package]

3 for Brown.

The Essendon mafia have (apparently) done it again

 

[doug85]

Carlton wanting to offer Alex Fasolo three years.

Really?

The rumours of a two year deal for Eddie Betts were more shocking to me.

 

[JayJ20]

He's not that good.

Put it this way. He can find a spot on an AFL list. Good enough at AFL level

 

[Eleven 38]

Anybody else losing respect for Dangerfield every time he speaks on behalf of the players association. At the start of the season hes talking about strikes so they get a massive pay rise. Now he wants shorter games and less games.

Does he actually realise it's the fans game, not the players game. The players make an absolute fortune chasing a ball around. If they don't want to play don't bloody play. Somebody else will.

 

[Stopher]

He does my head in sometimes. A pay increase for less work? Good work if you can find it.

Perhaps if they didn't have a 5-month pre-season, there would be less burnout.

 

[Zach Package]

Anybody else losing respect for Dangerfield every time he speaks on behalf of the players association. At the start of the season hes talking about strikes so they get a massive pay rise. Now he wants shorter games and less games.

Does he actually realise it's the fans game, not the players game. The players make an absolute fortune chasing a ball around. If they don't want to play don't bloody play. Somebody else will.

He's the president of the AFLPA, so that's the lense he's looking at it through, god knows how he's ended up in that role but here we are

 

[HirdyLannister]

He is a self entitled twat.

Game length is fine but I would like to see 17 game H&A season, play everyone once and the following year you rotate to the other teams home ground. No compromise!
Shorter seasons less dead rubber games!
No rule changes until the 2 year block is done.

 

[Phone]

I mean, he's talked about reducing game time a heap already, it's not a new thing for him. he's also suggested a 34 game season (and also it's his own opinion and not on behalf of the PA. The strike thing is a complete non issue)

 

[Mercurial89]

I think a lot of people dismiss him because of his personality but he has a point.

One of the issues is 5 day breaks with fixture changes, shorter length games may be a way where we can have shorter breaks to then open up further fixture options.
Its a worthy conversation to have on game length, number of games and pre season length.
We cant keep pushing the game towards how far you can run, whilst also carrying so much weight. Players will break down.

Its not a massive change either. 120mins down to 100- 80mins and you increase the number of games. Or keep length the same and go 17 games a season and a shortened pre season.
Changes to the demands on players may also mean we get a more diverse talent pool as the athletic requirements will be lower. Teams full of youth wont be as prone to being blown away due to the vast fitness gap.

Lower injuries is something to consider. This season we have 1 clear team miles ahead of the pack partly due to how good they are and partly because the challengers are savaged by injury.

A shorter season may mean we give the AFLW its due which is apparsntly a very big issue for the girls at the moment.

So many positives, maybe fans need to stop with the entitlement and be open to at least a discussion on the concept instead of dismissing it because of the person saying it.

 

[mike14]

I think a lot of people dismiss him because of his personality but he has a point.

One of the issues is 5 day breaks with fixture changes, shorter length games may be a way where we can have shorter breaks to then open up further fixture options.
Its a worthy conversation to have on game length, number of games and pre season length.
We cant keep pushing the game towards how far you can run, whilst also carrying so much weight. Players will break down.

Its not a massive change either. 120mins down to 100- 80mins and you increase the number of games. Or keep length the same and go 17 games a season and a shortened pre season.
Changes to the demands on players may also mean we get a more diverse talent pool as the athletic requirements will be lower. Teams full of youth wont be as prone to being blown away due to the vast fitness gap.

Lower injuries is something to consider. This season we have 1 clear team miles ahead of the pack partly due to how good they are and partly because the challengers are savaged by injury.

A shorter season may mean we give the AFLW its due which is apparsntly a very big issue for the girls at the moment.

So many positives, maybe fans need to stop with the entitlement and be open to at least a discussion on the concept instead of dismissing it because of the person saying it.

It's also entirely possible to question it without it being about the messenger. I don't think I've ever heard Danger talk outside of those stupid Swisse ads so I have no idea about his personality, I just know I love him as a footballer.

I'd love to see a 34 game season, but it just becomes workable. Assuming no byes and a 4 round finals campaign (which you still need to reduce 'dead rubbers' in the 2nd half of the season) and 2 pre-season games you are talking 40 weekends of football, leaving only 12 for the rest of the year. Outside of the tragics, I feel this is too much football, and you aren't giving players enough of a rest and new pre-season.

Reducing it 17 games works for me because every game is a bit more important (and it means you can work out next years travel in advance), but if you are going to then change the clock it feels a bit too much like messing with the 'fabric of the game'. I'm not opposed to it but I'd like a bit more thought and justification than what's been bought up so far.

I'd be very interested to see a shorter AFL season but with a longer AFLW season. For a league as obsessed with making $$ as the AFL are, it would be a very risky move indeed

 

[AcuteWhistle]

& dont mind the idea Whately went with last night of 18 games - 17 against all other opponents & then 1 rivalry round, for us I guess thatd be Pies, Hawks or Blues. But shortening the game is a big NO, it's an endurance sport & needs to retain that element above all else.

 

[BrunoV]

It's also entirely possible to question it without it being about the messenger. I don't think I've ever heard Danger talk outside of those stupid Swisse ads so I have no idea about his personality, I just know I love him as a footballer.

I'd love to see a 34 game season, but it just becomes workable. Assuming no byes and a 4 round finals campaign (which you still need to reduce 'dead rubbers' in the 2nd half of the season) and 2 pre-season games you are talking 40 weekends of football, leaving only 12 for the rest of the year. Outside of the tragics, I feel this is too much football, and you aren't giving players enough of a rest and new pre-season.

Reducing it 17 games works for me because every game is a bit more important (and it means you can work out next years travel in advance), but if you are going to then change the clock it feels a bit too much like messing with the 'fabric of the game'. I'm not opposed to it but I'd like a bit more thought and justification than what's been bought up so far.

I'd be very interested to see a shorter AFL season but with a longer AFLW season. For a league as obsessed with making $$ as the AFL are, it would be a very risky move indeed

How short do the games become to fit in a 34 game season, 60 minutes?

It doesn't add up to me that the players would essentially get rid of time on and then play 12 more games which I assume would be at a higher intensity.

I'm also bemused by the blow outs argument given that most games are already blow out by half time when the different fitness levels are unlikely to count.

I'd need to see some stats of all of the goals kicked late in quarters which result in 100 point margins.

 

[Mercurial89]

It's also entirely possible to question it without it being about the messenger. I don't think I've ever heard Danger talk outside of those stupid Swisse ads so I have no idea about his personality, I just know I love him as a footballer.

I'd love to see a 34 game season, but it just becomes workable. Assuming no byes and a 4 round finals campaign (which you still need to reduce 'dead rubbers' in the 2nd half of the season) and 2 pre-season games you are talking 40 weekends of football, leaving only 12 for the rest of the year. Outside of the tragics, I feel this is too much football, and you aren't giving players enough of a rest and new pre-season.

Reducing it 17 games works for me because every game is a bit more important (and it means you can work out next years travel in advance), but if you are going to then change the clock it feels a bit too much like messing with the 'fabric of the game'. I'm not opposed to it but I'd like a bit more thought and justification than what's been bought up so far.

I'd be very interested to see a shorter AFL season but with a longer AFLW season. For a league as obsessed with making $$ as the AFL are, it would be a very risky move indeed

Im one that doesnt like the idea of a longer season. If it was there you would have to cut games to 80mins and have shorter turnarounds.

Im not sure i agree that playing with the clock is messing with fabric but i understand the hesitation.
Id consider cutting game length for reasons ive mentioned previously (injuries, greater pool of talent, open up fixturing) but then have finals as longer games.
That could help seperate them from home and away some more and we get to keep the longer games.
Its an interesting discussion to have i feel because i do think we push players too hard, and it takes talented kids too long to reach the required level. At the very least the pre season needs to be looked at, but can you shorten the contact hours there and still get the required work in to last a season, then you can start getting into debates about increased list sizes etc. Its a big topic.

These things are all more important i feel than the rule change debate that is going on.

& dont mind the idea Whately went with last night of 18 games - 17 against all other opponents & then 1 rivalry round, for us I guess thatd be Pies, Hawks or Blues. But shortening the game is a big NO, it's an endurance sport & needs to retain that element above all else.

I dont mind the shorter season for fairness. I think if you shorten the season length by that much the arguement to shorten games is reduced. Shorter pre season and main season with same length games is probably the least radical change and would greatly affect the perceived fairness of a season.
We would i think start getting more dominant teams over a number of years because the draw is limited to how hard you can make it for a team that did well the year prior in that scenario.

 

[Mercurial89]

How short do the games become to fit in a 34 game season, 60 minutes?

It doesn't add up to me that the players would essentially get rid of time on and then play 12 more games which I assume would be at a higher intensity.

I'm also bemused by the blow outs argument given that most games are already blow out by half time when the different fitness levels are unlikely to count.

I'd need to see some stats of all of the goals kicked late in quarters which result in 100 point margins.

The blow outs point is more around (at least the way i see it) the accumulative fatigue a younger team can handle.
Take carlton, can get up for one week and be competitive but cant back it up, or from quarter to quarter.
younger players just physically dont have the tank or strength to get to the level their oppositions are at after 4-5 pre seasons.

Which is fine, its not about making it too easy, and there will always be weak teams.

I guess maybe it should be a little more talent based. Id rather teams be beaten due to just not being good enough skills and knowledge wise rather than being dominated physically. Though i understand that is also part of it, im more concerned that part is growing.

I think of players like Francis. Naturally gifted footballers but no athlete. Maybe we would have seen him sooner if the game was physically less demanding but still demanded the talent to make it.

 

[Doss]

34 game season? Way too long. And if that happens with the pay off being shorter games, no thank you.

 

[Mercurial89]

34 game season? Way too long. And if that happens with the pay off being shorter games, no thank you.

What is it for you that makes the concept of reduced minutes a no go?

Just trying to understand the aversion as its very strong and widely held.

 

[Doss]

Because I hate the trend of shortening things in general (see cricket for example) and there is nothing wrong whatsoever with the existing length of games.

 

[Pweter]

34 games in a season won't fly. The AFL would need to find alternative venues in all cities due to cricket wanting the Gabba, SCG, MCG, Adelaide Oval, Optus Oval, Bellerieve Oval and probably Manuka Oval as well.

It's a concept so ridiculous due to having to resolve this issue alone (it could be done but the cost would be enormous) that it's not worth spending any more time thinking about it imo.

 

[Maddogm]

As an Ice Hockey fan the argument that a longer season means shortening the games amuses me. An NHL game lasts about the same amount of real time as an AFL game. The NHL regular season is 82 games over 6 months with each team playing 3 or 4 games a week. Apart from being extremely fit athletes a contributing factor to how they keep playing at such an elite level night after night is it is a high rotation game.

And that's without mentioning the 2 months of playoffs (aka the 2nd season)

 

[DapperJong]

An NHL game lasts about the same amount of real time as an NHL game.

Irrefutable.

 

[GUMBLETRON]

I think a lot of people dismiss him because of his personality but he has a point.

One of the issues is 5 day breaks with fixture changes, shorter length games may be a way where we can have shorter breaks to then open up further fixture options.
Its a worthy conversation to have on game length, number of games and pre season length.
We cant keep pushing the game towards how far you can run, whilst also carrying so much weight. Players will break down.

Its not a massive change either. 120mins down to 100- 80mins and you increase the number of games. Or keep length the same and go 17 games a season and a shortened pre season.
Changes to the demands on players may also mean we get a more diverse talent pool as the athletic requirements will be lower. Teams full of youth wont be as prone to being blown away due to the vast fitness gap.

Lower injuries is something to consider. This season we have 1 clear team miles ahead of the pack partly due to how good they are and partly because the challengers are savaged by injury.

A shorter season may mean we give the AFLW its due which is apparsntly a very big issue for the girls at the moment.

So many positives, maybe fans need to stop with the entitlement and be open to at least a discussion on the concept instead of dismissing it because of the person saying it.

Optimistic.

Footy teams put a lot of work into running their players into the ground at just the right velocity, and will continue to do so whatever the parameters. Make the games shorter and we'll see a return to heavier players hitting harder, just as capping interchanges and limiting recovery supplements has simply produced lighter players running harder.

 

[pepsi]

We cant keep pushing the game towards how far you can run, whilst also carrying so much weight. Players will break down.

Its not a massive change either. 120mins down to 100- 80mins and you increase the number of games. Or keep length the same and go 17 games a season and a shortened pre season.

Lower injuries is something to consider. This season we have 1 clear team miles ahead of the pack partly due to how good they are and partly because the challengers are savaged by injury.

A shorter season may mean we give the AFLW its due which is apparsntly a very big issue for the girls at the moment.

Players have been getting injuries since the sport has been around. Changing season length or game length won't change that fact. Players get injured in the first game of the season or the first quarter in games. It happens. 20 minutes plus time on needs to stay. I don't get the need to make games shorter in a variety of sports.

In regards to season length, if you reduce it to 17 home and away games, players take a 20% paycut or we pay more for membership and tv subscription. Neither party will accept those changes.

Pre-season length is a big one. That is on the players or the AFL to make a change. Should take a stand and say no club starts pre season training til December.

The AFLW is worth it's due? A comp that has been around for 2 years. I don't get that argument at all sorry. They are different competitions and I do not want to see a shorter AFL season to accommodate a longer AFLW season. An AFLW season could go for 20 weeks and there is no need for that to have an impact on the AFL.

Maybe in the future we will see 2 extra teams in the comp and we'll move to a 20 week home and away season (play each team once plus a rivalry round). But honestly I don't see the 22 round season as something that needs to be changed.

 

[GUMBLETRON]

Maybe in the future we will see 2 extra teams in the comp and we'll move to a 20 week home and away season (play each team once plus a rivalry round).

Throw in a bye round or two and you've got your full, fair(ish) season plus that relief from fatigue.