Opinion State of the Game

[plugger66]

Yeh and again where are you getting this from? Any stats? Just one bit of data?

Ok well here is the NBL, which broke its record attendance last year;

NBL breaks crowd records through 2018/19 season - Australasian Leisure Management

www.ausleisure.com.au

NRL crowds over the last 3 years have all averaged with 200 people per game of each other.

The A-League is the only league where there has been a significant drop off, averaging over 12,000 a few years ago down to just over 10,000 this year.

Netball always sells out.

Using the theory that the AFL is in its best shape purely because more people watch it is ridiculous sorry plug.

That would be silly to say it’s in best shape. I think only you have said that. My point is every single year we could have this thread and people would say the game is worse and I haven’t got the interest I once had. As I said basing things on that would mean it’s now C grade ammos standard and the crowds would be dropping off but it isntC grade ammos standard and the crowds are increasing so I’m saying what people say now on the internet doesn’t run true. As with many things mostly only the people who don’t like the game as much comment. Obviously enough like the game for the crowds in to increase where a lot of other sports are struggling with crowds. Rugby as a sport is dying. NRL isn’t increasing. Soccer is dying. Basketball died and is now on the way up but people watching on tv is terrible. Horse racing is dead. Netball is killing it. Actually women’s footy is doing ok as well. The game could be better but if you want better the last thing you need is no rule changes. Unless coaches and players are told you can’t get fit and you can’t try these tactics you will always need rule changes to at least try to stop the negative play. As someone pointed out we were a backward sport. It was always try to score but then they started using defensive tactics of other sports and things changed.

And lastly I reckon the Brisbane board haven’t got a negative thread about the state of the game. If and when we move higher on the ladder I can bet the state of the game improves. Amazing what wins can do to your positivity

 

[bergholt]

The AFL should definitely stop tinkering with the rules.

Also, I hate the way the game is played and the AFL needs to change the rules to improve it.

 

[St Kilda Death]

Things aren't what they used to be' is the rallying cry of small minds.

When men say things used to be better, they invariably mean they were better for them, because they were young, and had all their hopes intact.

The world is bound to look a darker place as you slide into the grave.

 

[St Muir]

The game is now centered around short bursts of high intensity via bench rotations.

The power clubs have always lobbied hard for changes so they could exploit them.

Maybe it's time to go back to two in the bench and a return to endurance.

I think you’ve nailed it here. The only realistic way to reduce congestion and open the game up is reduce numbers of players on the ground or bench players.
I raised that a while ago and got told it wouldn’t be AFL anymore. It used to be 18 players with 2 substitutes, no interchange. It was called Aussie Rules...

 

[hayes]

Biggest problem these days is frontal pressure. It’s ruined the game because the ball doesn’t ping from one end of the ground to the other anymore, it just gets stuck in one teams forward half until they can get it out of bounds around the wing and set up from there. 36 players in one half just isn’t footy. Unfortunately the team that’s the best at this basically wins it which is why it will never change.

Still the best game in the world for mine. I can’t remember a time when there were no clear standout teams and that any team could win any week. I don’t think Steve Hocking has a clue what he’s doing just quietly.

 

[pebblesofsand]

I just wanted to get your views on this. I'm not sure if I think this way because we aren't a good team, but I remember only a few years ago actually looking forward to the weekend's games and now, particularly in the last couple of years, the game is becoming less and less exciting.

Jack Riewoldt's 65 goals last year was the lowest recorded goal tally to win a Coleman medal since 1965. Across the competition scoring is a major, major issue and even with the 6-6-6 rule, it hasn't changed anything. In actuality the average score per game has decreased this year. What has changed? Are coaches shutdown, defensive game styles killing the game? Is there a way out of this, or is the natural progression of the sport and in time it will change again?

Then there's the umpiring. Most games are over officiated. Seemingly every contest there's a free kick paid. Being physical is actually a disadvantage these days, evidenced by Max Gawn last week being penalised for two ruck infringements that were merely him being physically stronger than his opponent. Umpires are part time, which really is a disservice to the sport and should be looked at by Gil and co. Score review system is a shambles...an amateur league would have done a better job.

Then the skill level of the players. Professional footballers missing targets week in week out. Goal kicking has become a joke. The only thing the players seem to be elite at is endurance running.

I worry about where the game is headed. It's starting to remind me of how rugby is played. A battle for field position, seemingly marching the ball down field on nothing but will, and then getting a fluke kick away for a goal or a goal from a stoppage. There's no flow to the game anymore. There's no Aussie Jones streaming down the wing and kicking a goal. It's all stop-start.

But what really annoyed me is the recent talk about Steve Hocking and the AFL looking into "excessive tackling". I don't even know what excessive tackling means. Every year we have rule changes, we can't just leave the game alone. We tried the 6-6-6 and many were positive about it but it's done nothing. I doubt anything the AFL does in future to alter the way the game is played, without ruining the fundamentals of the sport, is going to be worked out quickly by coaches and then become redundant anyway.

Here's the article (I'm sure most have seen it already);

AFL wants to cut back on tackling

The AFL is examining the issue of excessive tackling, with football boss Steve Hocking saying the AFL wants to reduce the amount of tackling in the game.

www.theage.com.au

So what do you guys think? Surely I'm not alone here.

Where did the days of 100 season goal kickers and 20 goal games go? Why has the game been sapped of the most exciting elements?

I used to watch about 4-5 games a weekend. Ours and a couple of others. Now I find myself only watching our game and if another game is close nearing the end I will watch the end. I can't sit through a full game anymore unless it's one of ours or it's a final. We know the AFL has a duty to the broadcasters to show them a value for money spectacle, so all these changes are just as much for them as they are for the game itself. But gee the games are pretty dull I reckon.

"The only thing the players seem to be elite at is endurance running."

"Steve Hocking and the AFL looking into "excessive tackling". I don't even know what excessive tackling means."

You've answered your own question with these two observations.

Simple fact is the endurance capacities of the players now allows them to get to more contests - more contests mean more tackling. More tackling means more congestion.

This is exactly what Hocking was talking about - that the skills of the game (marking, kicking, scoring etc) need to be allowed to shine and that while tackling is important it shouldn't be the preeminent skill of the game.

As to what you can do about it - well the AFL know, you probably know, its just a question as to whether its done as a gradual process (as its happening 6-6-6) or as a major overhaul.

Major overhaul would include something like -

reduce the number of players - 16 players (+ 3 or 4 subs)

reduce the interchanges - say max 50

introduce permanent zones - min 3 forwards and 3 defenders at all times

introduce a third man in rule - second tackler penalised

 

[bergholt]

I like new rules and changes personally. Nothing’s perfect and there’s no easy way to predict the effect, so I think trying things is fine.

The two I’d do right now are:

- Last touch out of bounds. Surely that creates more use of the corridor.

- Unnecessary off-ball contact. Make it illegal to initiate contact with another player outside a direct contest for the ball. Get rid of the Ben Stratton type bullshit, and make more space for great attaching players to play.

 

[saintspremiers]

It’s not the rules that are the issue, it’s this romantic notion of how good the game was up until the end of the last century, and how we need to get closer to that.

If you watch games from the 80’s and 90’s, there is constant run and gun and not many players running both ways. I dare say back then they on average ran half of what they do now.

If the AFL are hellbent on higher scoring so channel 7 can insert more ads and the game “looks” better, the only real options they haven’t tried is limiting the interchange dramatically to say 40 and/or reducing the number of players on the field from say 18 to 16.

 

[jwikked]

Would rather the AFL leave the rules alone for 7 years. Give the game some stability, and allow teams the chance to develop strategies that work best.

Sick to death of rule changes year after year, for no other reason than someone at the AFL has the job and has to be seen to be doing something. Drives me crazy and is ruining my enjoyment of the game. Over officiated, reactionary changes and a constant desire for change for the sake of change.
Couple that with an AFL house that is unable to ever admit they get anything wrong and it's a recipe for disaster.

Leave the game alone.

 

[jwikked]

If you watch games from the 80’s and 90’s, there is constant run and gun and not many players running both ways. I dare say back then they on average ran half of what they do now.

The thing about this is, if they're showing a game from back then on the TV they aren't going to pick a s**t game to broadcast - they're gonna pick an exciting one. It's skewing peoples memory of the game itself.

 

[VDS66]

Interesting thread.

I’ve had the house (and TV) to myself for a couple of days and got through the whole 2 and a half hours of Banger Harvey’s career highlights that just got uploaded to Youtube a couple of days back.

I couldn’t help noticing a couple of things:

1. I realized just how many good players we had over the years and how we really don’t have many good ones now
2. How engaged the crowds were. Even in the down years (Banger’s career covered many ups and downs for the Saints) like 2000-2003, the dome would be absolutely gong off most of the time. You barely hear a thing nowadays, maybe it’s smartphones but everything seems sedated in the crowd.

I think there are a lot of factors but my gut feel is that the more defensive the coaches and players have become, the less genuinely skillful moments per game occur.

Think about the last time you saw someone from our team do anything like our greats from the past that made you go “wow”. Win lose or draw, we would get those “wow” moments from multiple players in the past... and many times per game. Now, at least for us, it’s pretty much Gresh or bust.

There’s a serious lack of flair players across the league now and it has a big impact on enjoyment and crowd engagement in my opinion.

That's OK. Richo is now gone. All fixed

 

[plugger66]

I think you’ve nailed it here. The only realistic way to reduce congestion and open the game up is reduce numbers of players on the ground or bench players.
I raised that a while ago and got told it wouldn’t be AFL anymore. It used to be 18 players with 2 substitutes, no interchange. It was called Aussie Rules...

It wouldn't be AFL with 16 on the ground. It would be AFL with 18 on the ground and 2 interchange or subs however i believe that would make the game have even more flooding. The coaches now think defence first and they would close the game down completely. I reckon 3 interchange with 60 rotations mightbe the best way to go.

 

[plugger66]

Would rather the AFL leave the rules alone for 7 years. Give the game some stability, and allow teams the chance to develop strategies that work best.

Sick to death of rule changes year after year, for no other reason than someone at the AFL has the job and has to be seen to be doing something. Drives me crazy and is ruining my enjoyment of the game. Over officiated, reactionary changes and a constant desire for change for the sake of change.
Couple that with an AFL house that is unable to ever admit they get anything wrong and it's a recipe for disaster.

Leave the game alone.

And if you do that don't ever expect it to get anything but even less negative. I don't get leave the game alone. If we did there would no out on the full. Imagine that. There would be no centre square. Imagination the congestion. There would be players running the ball through the goals from 30 out in their defence ala Mal Michael. There would be rucks wrestling at every ball up around the ground and at every centre bounce. Most new rules work and if they don't they change them. A fair few have been brought in for the safety of players. Do want a Kosi incident or what Pickett used to do.

 

[jwikked]

And if you do that don't ever expect it to get anything but even less negative. I don't get leave the game alone. If we did there would no out on the full. Imagine that. There would be no centre square. Imagination the congestion. There would be players running the ball through the goals from 30 out in their defence ala Mal Michael. There would be rucks wrestling at every ball up around the ground and at every centre bounce. Most new rules work and if they don't they change them. A fair few have been brought in for the safety of players. Do want a Kosi incident or what Pickett used to do.

I'm not saying it's inherently a bad thing, but having yearly changes is too much. They need to leave the game alone for a few years until something urgent needs to be done. 6-6-6 wasn't an urgent required change. The sub rule wasn't an urgent need either, as we've seen since they got rid of that stupid change.

 

[plugger66]

I'm not saying it's inherently a bad thing, but having yearly changes is too much. They need to leave the game alone for a few years until something urgent needs to be done. 6-6-6 wasn't an urgent required change. The sub rule wasn't an urgent need either, as we've seen since they got rid of that stupid change.

Maybe im missing something but I don't see how it matters. They tried the sub rule and it didn't work so they get rid of it. No big deal. I said from the start the 6 6 6 wouldnt get more scoring because the forward line is actually more crowded but it does seem to have made the games closer for longer. Well something has because stats show that. Again though its not hurting the game and if it doesnt work it will go. You cant say lets have no rule changes because some have made the game much better for players safety and supporters. Even the kicking out from full back hasnt improved the game but its just a sensible rule. Putting your foot to the ball over the line on the square was stupid imo. The hands on the back rule was stupid and has no gone again. Some rules dont work and some do. The game isnt worse for rule changes. If it is worse its because coaches think defence before attack and players get fitter every single year. Not sure what they can do to stop both those things.

 

[St Muir]

It wouldn't be AFL with 16 on the ground. It would be AFL with 18 on the ground and 2 interchange or subs however i believe that would make the game have even more flooding. The coaches now think defence first and they would close the game down completely. I reckon 3 interchange with 60 rotations mightbe the best way to go.

Why do you think it would make it worse pluggs? I’d think less energy to run and close down space should mean a more open game.
Yeah 16 on the ground is VFA but still might open the game up

 

[plugger66]

Why do you think it would make it worse pluggs? I’d think less energy to run and close down space should mean a more open game.
Yeah 16 on the ground is VFA but still might open the game up

Really don’t like the 16 a side. Every comp follows the afl and we don’t want less players playing the game at junior level. And I think the coaches would find a way of closing the game down whatever they try. The problem is now it’s defence first.

 

[St Muir]

Another option is make the grounds bigger. Should only cost a billion or two...

 

[hayes]

I'm not saying it's inherently a bad thing, but having yearly changes is too much. They need to leave the game alone for a few years until something urgent needs to be done. 6-6-6 wasn't an urgent required change. The sub rule wasn't an urgent need either, as we've seen since they got rid of that stupid change.

In 2006 the game was becoming too slow - rules were changed to speed the game up.

2010/11 - game is now too fast, rotations must be limited to slow it down.

2017/18 - game is too slow, we need to speed it up.

What chance do we have when the AFL doesn’t even know what it wants.

 

[Diehard Saint]

I’ve really enjoyed watching the games without the pink shirts running all over the place and coaching on the field.

I think the coaches won’t agree with me - I wonder if that’s going to change.

 

[Diehard Saint]

Spot on about the commentary. It's rare that it's tailored to anyone except morons And the most annoying thing about it is the assumption that every second of play needs to be filled with voices.

What many viewers would prefer is minimal play by play commentary, just a name and and a verb would be fine, add in a tiny bit of fact based or qualified and non obvious notes and mic up the ground more, selectively edited of course.

I might actually pay for that!

When they tell me there’s two minutes to go in the final quarter and just 10 points in it I just want to throw something at the screen which actually gives me all that information anyway.

 

[gringo2011]

The one thing I do like is how even the competition is, usually we'd know the final 8 by now in years gone by but the last few years there's been about 14/15 teams still in it very late into the season. I don't know why that is, though. Can't be fixturing, surely.

Umpires keep teams in the contest then ruin them late. I reckon they are told to keep things even, too much over officiating to be coincidence.

 

[plugger66]

Umpires keep teams in the contest then ruin them late. I reckon they are told to keep things even, too much over officiating to be coincidence.

Yes of course they are. Seriously. wowee.

 

[Sainttony]

I think we need a TV umpire every game. An umpire watching on tv linked to the field umpires giving direction, fixing mistakes. For example that Mc Inerney free in the Brisbane game would be adjudged by the tv umpire as a mark to Thompson. The field umpire gets it in his earpiece and changes his decision. Crosses his arms across his chest or something to signal a correction.

 

[plugger66]

I think we need a TV umpire every game. An umpire watching on tv linked to the field umpires giving direction, fixing mistakes. For example that Mc Inerney free in the Brisbane game would be adjudged by the tv umpire as a mark to Thompson. The field umpire gets it in his earpiece and changes his decision. Crosses his arms across his chest or something to signal a correction.

Might work on that situation but there would be so many times the ball would be 50 metres away before they stopped play and who is to say they are right anyway.