Taylor Walker... how's he going?

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Simmo28

Premiership Player
Joined
Apr 23, 2014
Posts
3,065
Likes
2,571
Location
Sydney, Australia
AFL Club
Hawthorn
What an ignorant post, You'r full of Sh.., Tex has quality's that other key forwards don't, like goal assists and his ability to sum up situations and pin point foward entry passes when getting the ball up the ground, When he plays deep forward he gets most defender attention which free up our other fowards. Do you think Jenkins would have kicked 3 last night if Walker was out? I don't think so, Walker is still one of our if not our most important players, and he stood up last night when we needed him too, To say he's a liability and needs to be dropped is utter crud.
You are trying to talk adult concepts to a child, they just won’t understand.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

John Who

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Apr 16, 2017
Posts
5,214
Likes
3,607
AFL Club
Adelaide
I have a funny hunch Tex is going to feast on the Tigers next week. Time for him to make a firm statement of his leadership, his mindset, his physical ability, and where he wants his team to be heading this year.
 

GROTTO

Hall of Famer
Joined
Jul 5, 2013
Posts
38,833
Likes
40,335
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I have a funny hunch Tex is going to feast on the Tigers next week. Time for him to make a firm statement of his leadership, his mindset, his physical ability, and where he wants his team to be heading this year.
Would be great, but I dont think its going to be great night for big fowards for both teams with heavy rain predicted. That weather may change.
 

John Who

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Apr 16, 2017
Posts
5,214
Likes
3,607
AFL Club
Adelaide
Would be great, but I dont think its going to be great night for big fowards for both teams with heavy rain predicted. That weather may change.
For a moment when posting, I totally forgot about the rain prediction! Well if not the goals, would like to see him to the mongrel tackling (legally) and the quick handball goal assists.
 

GROTTO

Hall of Famer
Joined
Jul 5, 2013
Posts
38,833
Likes
40,335
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
For a moment when posting, I totally forgot about the rain prediction! Well if not the goals, would like to see him to the mongrel tackling (legally) and the quick handball goal assists.
It should be a massively contested game one would suspect. Tigers will fancy their chances too against us.
 

Simmo28

Premiership Player
Joined
Apr 23, 2014
Posts
3,065
Likes
2,571
Location
Sydney, Australia
AFL Club
Hawthorn
It should be a massively contested game one would suspect. Tigers will fancy their chances too against us.
What AFL game these days isn’t congested? There is only one way to reduce congestion and that is reduce the number of players or increase the size of the fields, we both know which one is cheaper.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

GROTTO

Hall of Famer
Joined
Jul 5, 2013
Posts
38,833
Likes
40,335
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
What AFL game these days isn’t congested? There is only one way to reduce congestion and that is reduce the number of players or increase the size of the fields, we both know which one is cheaper.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Thats because the SCG is smaller and lot more congested.
 

BrissyCrow

Club Legend
Joined
Mar 20, 2011
Posts
2,779
Likes
2,926
Location
Brisbane
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Glenelg & All Tiger Teams
What AFL game these days isn’t congested? There is only one way to reduce congestion and that is reduce the number of players or increase the size of the fields, we both know which one is cheaper.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
What about the idea of eliminating rotations. Players will be stuffed and will have to slow down or stop moving with the ball all the time effectively forcing them to stay more in their positions...less congestion around the ball.
 

Simmo28

Premiership Player
Joined
Apr 23, 2014
Posts
3,065
Likes
2,571
Location
Sydney, Australia
AFL Club
Hawthorn
What about the idea of eliminating rotations. Players will be stuffed and will have to slow down or stop moving with the ball all the time effectively forcing them to stay more in their positions...less congestion around the ball.
It will only work later in the game, but I agree with less players on field and less rotations.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

GROTTO

Hall of Famer
Joined
Jul 5, 2013
Posts
38,833
Likes
40,335
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Why do bigger grounds seem to have same levels of congestion?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
They do. It is just amplified more on smaller grounds at the SCG. Next time watch games at the SCG to see the difference say compared to MCG, Optus or AO.
 

John Who

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Apr 16, 2017
Posts
5,214
Likes
3,607
AFL Club
Adelaide
What about the idea of eliminating rotations. Players will be stuffed and will have to slow down or stop moving with the ball all the time effectively forcing them to stay more in their positions...less congestion around the ball.
This idea won’t work unless all fans buy-in. Players appearing to not try hard, will get fans booing and more rants on forums eg.BF!

Also issues of likely worsening soft tissue injuries for less rotations and players effectively have to run harder for longer.
 

GROTTO

Hall of Famer
Joined
Jul 5, 2013
Posts
38,833
Likes
40,335
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
This idea won’t work unless all fans buy-in. Players appearing to not try hard, will get fans booing and more rants on forums eg.BF!

Also issues of likely worsening soft tissue injuries for less rotations and players effectively have to run harder for longer.
A more simpler solution of eliminating congestion is for umpires to pay more free kicks for holding the ball and allowing players to play on at all times, including in a marking contest.

Even when a player has prior opportunity and is tackled the umpires allow the player absolutely way too long to get rid of the ball.
 

mcattack

Senior List
Joined
Apr 14, 2019
Posts
195
Likes
117
AFL Club
Adelaide
A more simpler solution of eliminating congestion is for umpires to pay more free kicks for holding the ball and allowing players to play on at all times, including in a marking contest.

Even when a player has prior opportunity and is tackled the umpires allow the player absolutely way too long to get rid of the ball.
+1 and dropping the ball and in the back. Vfl ruining the game trying to make it quicker and keep the less than clubs in the hunt for wins. The effect is pockets of scrums all over the ground. The last kick rule in SANFL id a better option to keep game flowing.
 

John Who

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Apr 16, 2017
Posts
5,214
Likes
3,607
AFL Club
Adelaide
A more simpler solution of eliminating congestion is for umpires to pay more free kicks for holding the ball and allowing players to play on at all times, including in a marking contest.

Even when a player has prior opportunity and is tackled the umpires allow the player absolutely way too long to get rid of the ball.
I would expect players would less likely to grab the ball if umpires are too hot on HTB during congestion, which wouldn’t likely increase the spectacle of the game, and perhaps would still lead to more congestion!

I think what would work better is a rule in place to enforce say 2-3 forwards/defenders, to remain in their designated zones at ALL times (defensive/attacking half). Each week, the coaches can nominate who they want as these designated players.

So if the ball ends up to the opposite end, the above players aren’t allowed to follow the ball, thus creating more space.
 

GROTTO

Hall of Famer
Joined
Jul 5, 2013
Posts
38,833
Likes
40,335
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
+1 and dropping the ball and in the back. Vfl ruining the game trying to make it quicker and keep the less than clubs in the hunt for wins. The effect is pockets of scrums all over the ground. The last kick rule in SANFL id a better option to keep game flowing.
I also would like to see the umpires set a standard for awarding 50m penalties as well. Once they start giving a few out, players will be conscious of doing anything that will slow or effect the speed of the game down. Over time in the end, the umpires will give less but the end effect is that the speed of the game will increase.
 

GROTTO

Hall of Famer
Joined
Jul 5, 2013
Posts
38,833
Likes
40,335
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I would expect players would less likely to grab the ball if umpires are too hot on HTB during congestion, which wouldn’t likely increase the spectacle of the game, and perhaps would still lead to more congestion!

I think what would work better is a rule in place to enforce say 2-3 forwards/defenders, to remain in their designated zones at ALL times (defensive/attacking half). Each week, the coaches can nominate who they want as these designated players.

So if the ball ends up to the opposite end, the above players aren’t allowed to follow the ball, thus creating more space.
Players will always go for the ball, no matter what that is the way the game has always been played.

If you dont have prior opportunity then its not a holding the ball decision. I am talking abut during any passage of play when a player is tackled, the decision to award a free should be a lot quicker than what is taking place right now.

We dont need, nor do the fans want zones. The 666 rule is to prevent flooding and is a lot easier to maintain because the play is completely stopped for a minute before the bounce.
 

John Who

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Apr 16, 2017
Posts
5,214
Likes
3,607
AFL Club
Adelaide
Players will always go for the ball, no matter what that is the way the game has always been played.

If you dont have prior opportunity then its not a holding the ball decision. I am talking abut during any passage of play when a player is tackled, the decision to award a free should be a lot quicker than what is taking place right now.

We dont need, nor do the fans want zones. The 666 rule is to prevent flooding and is a lot easier to maintain because the play is completely stopped for a minute before the bounce.
This conversation probably warrants its own separate discussion. The way I see it, if the AFL/fans genuinely wants less congestion, then the only logical solution is to limit certain numbers from entering one half of the ground. There are instances when the ball is continuously dead from all players in just one half of the ground! Some situations, the congestion is so bad there’s hardly room to breathe let alone room for a meaningful footy play!

Regarding the umpiring, I think consistency is the key, not varying decisions during the one game. Fans would generally be fuming!
 

GROTTO

Hall of Famer
Joined
Jul 5, 2013
Posts
38,833
Likes
40,335
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
This conversation probably warrants its own separate discussion. The way I see it, if the AFL/fans genuinely wants less congestion, then the only logical solution is to limit certain numbers from entering one half of the ground. There are instances when the ball is continuously dead from all players in just one half of the ground! Some situations, the congestion is so bad there’s hardly room to breathe let alone room for a meaningful footy play!

Regarding the umpiring, I think consistency is the key, not varying decisions during the one game. Fans would generally be fuming!
No I think you missed the point I am making.

If the umpires were red hot on paying frees, players would change their behaviour over time as they know they cannot do certain things as it will warrant a free kick or 50m penalty. As a consequence there will be less frees.

I agree about the congestion, but almost invariably there is an opportunity for umpires to award frees to help clear it during those passages of play. Also just because you dont have prior opportunity, I wouldl like to see players genuinely trying to get rid of the ball, otherwise that should be a free.
 

James_37

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Sep 19, 2007
Posts
9,856
Likes
9,488
Location
Darwin
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
GCFC/Sturt/MLDFC
It may have been mentioned already, but the interesting flip side to The Tex v Hurn scenario is the Jack Martin v Ziebell situation. Martin hits the ball hard, turns his body side on to protect himself, but Ziebell dives in headfirst. Ziebell cops the high hit and Martin is reported(I hope he gets off).

The one difference probably that Hurn was also going side on, but you can perhaps understand the thought processes in Tex’s head re duty of care, not wanting to give away a free kick or risk suspension if the other mug happens to stick his head in the way.

Not saying it was the right call, but there’s a lot for players to consider these days.
 

GROTTO

Hall of Famer
Joined
Jul 5, 2013
Posts
38,833
Likes
40,335
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
It may have been mentioned already, but the interesting flip side to The Tex v Hurn scenario is the Jack Martin v Ziebell situation. Martin hits the ball hard, turns his body side on to protect himself, but Ziebell dives in headfirst. Ziebell cops the high hit and Martin is reported(I hope he gets off).

The one difference probably that Hurn was also going side on, but you can perhaps understand the thought processes in Tex’s head re duty of care, not wanting to give away a free kick or risk suspension if the other mug happens to stick his head in the way.

Not saying it was the right call, but there’s a lot for players to consider these days.
I never had a problem with what Tex did, despite some posters in here feeling differently about it. I do think the Tex and Martin incidents are different.

Martin went at speed and led with his shoulder ready to make contact and did. The ball did not look like his objective.

Tex was always going for the ball it was always his primary objective, had he put his head over the ball and turned his body to protect himself from contact and ended up with making contact with Hurn, IMO he would have been let off.

I guess we can never definitely know because the reporting system is screwed.

Fyfe and Ablett both should have been suspended for their incidents and that was a forearm to the head.
 

James_37

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Sep 19, 2007
Posts
9,856
Likes
9,488
Location
Darwin
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
GCFC/Sturt/MLDFC
I would expect players would less likely to grab the ball if umpires are too hot on HTB during congestion, which wouldn’t likely increase the spectacle of the game, and perhaps would still lead to more congestion!

I think what would work better is a rule in place to enforce say 2-3 forwards/defenders, to remain in their designated zones at ALL times (defensive/attacking half). Each week, the coaches can nominate who they want as these designated players.

So if the ball ends up to the opposite end, the above players aren’t allowed to follow the ball, thus creating more space.
Yeah, I wouldn’t want to see it happening, but if coaches continue to insist on forcing all 36 players into 1 quarter of the field, a level of zoning may need to happen.

I wouldn’t rush into it and I’m a believer in giving the game a chance to sort itself out. The trouble is the more the afl try to fix congestion, the more coaches seem to try and create it.

I think having 1 or 2 players in the forward and defensive 50’s at any one time is probably the starting point, but the issue is whether it’s the same 1 or 2 players, or if it’s just any 1or 2 players.

The difficulty is you don’t want players trying to count #’s in the 50 whilst involved in a direct play. Ie Eddie Betts chasing opposition player, but has to stop on the 50 line or some BS.

Whether you look at min 2 players for each team inside the 50 at each stoppage. Doesn’t restrict general play, but limits potential congestion to an extent, you could also have an additional 2 players from each team, totalling 4, needing to be in each half at every stoppage.

Not ideal, but watching the flooding at games at times and then clubs winning a clean break at the stoppage only to have to go backwards/sideways, instead of a clean transition forwards, is not good for the game.
 

James_37

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Sep 19, 2007
Posts
9,856
Likes
9,488
Location
Darwin
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
GCFC/Sturt/MLDFC
I never had a problem with what Tex did, despite some posters in here feeling differently about it. I do think the Tex and Martin incidents are different.

Martin went at speed and led with his shoulder ready to make contact and did. The ball did not look like his objective.

Tex was always going for the ball it was always his primary objective, had he put his head over the ball and turned his body to protect himself from contact and ended up with making contact with Hurn, IMO he would have been let off.

I guess we can never definitely know because the reporting system is screwed.

Fyfe and Ablett both should have been suspended for their incidents and that was a forearm to the head.
Agree that there are some differences, but also some stark similarities. I have no problem with what Martin did, he was going for the ball and correctly, in my eye, protected his head in doing so. He showed grreat desperation. What I don’t like is when players, like Ziebell, lead with the head and get rewarded for it, whilst Martin gets punished.

Responsibility for limiting head knocks and hence concussion/head injuries lies with both the player getting hit and the player doing the hitting. Martin got to the ball first and had hands on the ball when Ziebell was hit.

At present our game rewards players for seeking head contact, yet we say we are serious about concussion and that the head is “sacrosanct”. We need to teach and encourage players to protect themselves.

What Fyfe and Ablett did should have met suspensions without a doubt. Once again the AFL’s bark is worse than it’s bite. Hitting or elbowing someone on the head/neck region has no place in our game, no matter the force. Fining a bloke on $500k+ a year $1k isn’t a deterrent. Suspend them 1st off and it largely gets rubbed out over night.
 
Top Bottom