Should the number of on field players be reduced?

[Grendel]

With QT bringing up the idea of a 30 game season and therefore, equalising the competition so that its a truly fair draw (at last). The idea is always met with, the seasons to long for the players, they cant cope with the extra workload, etc etc.

What ive been pondering is, okay, they (the AFL) have alread reduced the actual playing time. They have increased the bench size.

So, why not remove TWO onfield players (say the wingers, who are really only extra on-ballers now anyway) keep the same number of OFF field players (ie keep 22 as the actual selected team) and free the game up even more.

We often here about the congestion of the middle, how to stop flooding the backline. This would help both areas. With the pace that games played at, i think it would also help keep players in the game for a longer period of time. The interchange bench could be rotated/used more often to rest players during the course of the game. With less workload would this then allow the league to go to an equal home and away draw of everyone playing twice?

Just an idea.

------------------
Right now I'm having amnesia and deja vu at the same time. I think I've forgotten this before.

[This message has been edited by Grendel (edited 24 February 2001).]

 

[Collingwood Boy]

I don't know how you figure that's an easier workload, since each player would be covering a larger piece of the ground than before. It'd only be easier for the six stiffs who are stuck on the bench most of the time.

IMO it doesn't matter how many matches are in a season. The draw will never be fair as long as interstate teams are playing interstate half the time and teams like Collingwood have 75% of their games in Melbourne (18 out of 22 this season).

 

[Joel]

NO, I think that would be a bad idea. The players on field would be doing more work, therfore getting REALLY tired and you would see a reduction is the skill level.

 

[WCE2000]

Grendel, your logic seems to be screwed around about here.
If you wanted to ease the workload on the players, you would increase the amount of players on the field. That way the players wouldn't have to cover so much ground.
But then thats just as stupid an idea, because it would clog up the play.

------------------
visit the Easts Cricket Club - <A HREF="http://www.eastscricket.com.au" TARGET=_blank>www.eastscricket.com.au
</A>
A must for anybody into statistics - http://cromulent.freehosting.net/

[This message has been edited by WCE2000 (edited 24 February 2001).]

 

[Mobbs]

Being a typical stubborn traditionalist ocker dill, I say no, leave it as it is.

------------------
Hallowed be thy Roy

 

[Same Old's]

You could have more people on the Bench. Maybe up to 10?

 

[WCE2000]

Originally posted by Same Old's:
You could have more people on the Bench. Maybe up to 10?

that would mean a team needs to chose 28 players for a match. There are times when a team doens't even have 28 fit players on their list.
I think its just right - 18 on the field and 4 on the bench.

------------------
visit the Easts Cricket Club - <A HREF="http://www.eastscricket.com.au" TARGET=_blank>www.eastscricket.com.au
</A>
A must for anybody into statistics - http://cromulent.freehosting.net/

 

[Same Old's]

The AFL could increase player lists, but they probably won't do that.

[This message has been edited by Same Old's (edited 24 February 2001).]

 

[WCE2000]

Thats an option by the AFLPA would have something to see because of the player payments.

------------------
visit the Easts Cricket Club - <A HREF="http://www.eastscricket.com.au" TARGET=_blank>www.eastscricket.com.au
</A>
A must for anybody into statistics - http://cromulent.freehosting.net/

 

[Bob_vic]

Why do people want to change things all the time. As I've said before, there should be a 10 year ban on non-urgent rule changes.

Bob

 

[CJH]

Here's a thought Grendel.

Increase the season to 30 games as QT suggests and I endorse.

INCREASE the list of players a club has to say 45 - 50 and let them roster players on and off in the same manner as the top English Premier League clubs.

That way we can end this farcical situation and Dan's Minor Premiership theory will also have some mathematical credibility!

------------------
TigerFury.net - Independant Richmond Tigers website

[This message has been edited by CJH (edited 24 February 2001).]

 

[Westy Boy]

I reckon your idea has alot of merit Grendel.

It would certainly reduce the clogged up srappy play in the middle (although that's what my team thrives on

). 4 less players involved would achieve this to a degree, reducing the tedency for ugly rushed disposals out of packs etc.. IMO, it would also promote a far more attacking brand of football, as you pointed out.

A couple of people brang up the point that covering more ground would reduce a players longetivity in the game. IMO, the benefits from reduced body on body contact due to the reduction in on field players, would far outweigh the negatives. Another point that would offset the increased ground to cover, would be the additional players on the bench..... especially considering that rotational midfields plays a large part in many team's game plans already.

For me personally, there's nothing better than watching fluent open games, which in theory, this idea would achieve .... but conversely, I'm still not too sure about choosing wingman to be fazed out of the game though.

Don't know how/chances of it getting implemented, but I can certainly see the reasoning behind it.

[This message has been edited by Westy Boy (edited 25 February 2001).]