Team Line-Ups

[Dav]

Making a mountain out of a molehill here but AFL clubs' naming stupid teamsheets is starting to piss me off. An easy example is this Saturday night:



Mark Blicavs is not playing as a half back flanker. Gary Rohan is not a full forward and Tom Hawkins is not a half forward flanker.

I don't mean to just have a dig at our next opponents, it is something I've noticed across multiple teams including Port at times.

I understand that football is not the same game it was 40 years ago, and that the concept of a specialist centre man or a specialist half forward flanker is dead. But surely, if you're a key forward, you should be named at CHF or FF. If you're a goal kicking small forward, you should be named at FP. If you're a rebound defender, you should be named at HBF or BP.

It's pedantic as all hell but it doesn't really give you any advantage and it means that for this game, Tom Hawkins will be noted as having played (or at least started) as a half forward flanker, which annoys me.

 

[HTPunter]

Really the biggest non-issue going around

 

[Gralin]

Making a mountain out of a molehill here but AFL clubs' naming stupid teamsheets is starting to piss me off. An easy example is this Saturday night:

View attachment 696471

Mark Blicavs is not playing as a half back flanker. Gary Rohan is not a full forward and Tom Hawkins is not a half forward flanker.

I don't mean to just have a dig at our next opponents, it is something I've noticed across multiple teams including Port at times.

I understand that football is not the same game it was 40 years ago, and that the concept of a specialist centre man or a specialist half forward flanker is dead. But surely, if you're a key forward, you should be named at CHF or FF. If you're a goal kicking small forward, you should be named at FP. If you're a rebound defender, you should be named at HBF or BP.

It's pedantic as all hell but it doesn't really give you any advantage and it means that for this game, Tom Hawkins will be noted as having played (or at least started) as a half forward flanker, which annoys me.

You clearly haven't paid attention to Hawks team sheets, we've been doing this for years

Like anyone really things Rough was going to play HBF or Poppy was going to play CHF (OK we do act like he is a lot)

 

[Dav]

You clearly haven't paid attention to Hawks team sheets, we've been doing this for years

Like anyone really things Rough was going to play HBF or Poppy was going to play CHF (OK we do act like he is a lot)

Well that's the point, no one is fooling anyone and all it amounts to is a dumb clerical anomaly. And I'm a stickler for clerical consistency.

 

[Gralin]

Well that's the point, no one is fooling anyone and all it amounts to is a dumb clerical anomaly. And I'm a stickler for clerical consistency.

should probably not follow sports then

 

[Dav]

should probably not follow sports then

I can't think of another sport that names teams like this.

 

[Ron The Bear]

Thought this when Richmond named Shane Edwards at CHB. And then he played there...

 

[Gralin]

I can't think of another sport that names teams like this.

NFL injury reports come to mind

 

[Van_Dyke]

There’s nothing quite like seeing Nathan Wilson named at full back, Ballantyne at CHF among others. Never fails to provide some amusement

 

[Bunk Moreland]

It’s pointless, it’s just a neat way to display them on a page.

All that really matters is who the 22 are.

 

[Maurice Mitchell]

Making a mountain out of a molehill here but AFL clubs' naming stupid teamsheets is starting to piss me off. An easy example is this Saturday night:

View attachment 696471

Mark Blicavs is not playing as a half back flanker. Gary Rohan is not a full forward and Tom Hawkins is not a half forward flanker.

I don't mean to just have a dig at our next opponents, it is something I've noticed across multiple teams including Port at times.

I understand that football is not the same game it was 40 years ago, and that the concept of a specialist centre man or a specialist half forward flanker is dead. But surely, if you're a key forward, you should be named at CHF or FF. If you're a goal kicking small forward, you should be named at FP. If you're a rebound defender, you should be named at HBF or BP.

It's pedantic as all hell but it doesn't really give you any advantage and it means that for this game, Tom Hawkins will be noted as having played (or at least started) as a half forward flanker, which annoys me.

Yeah, but how many will late outs?

 

[Frank Gallagher]

Mason Cox was named as rover last week.

 

[Benny78]

Yeah it drives me nuts. But people will look back in history and think Gary Rohan was our spearhead. Which is fine with me

 

[Firestarter]

I'd be more concerned with clubs deliberately arranging late ins involving players not originally on the teamsheets.

And yes that happens so occasionally you would have fingers to spare. I would still rate them bigger deals.

(Disclaimer: My team played like scrubs regardless.)

 

[Rotayjay]

The Coaches Association doesn't even use traditional positions in its voting. We're used to these positions but they are effectively extinct.

However, 6-6-6 does reintroduce SOME significance to the traditional line-up, if only for a few seconds at a time (as somebody must physically stand in the requisite third of the ground).

 

[Kram]

In case you hadn't noticed after the centre bounce the game is barely played in traditional positions any more so it doesn't really matter, pointless question and thread tbh.

It’s pointless, it’s just a neat way to display them on a page.

All that really matters is who the 22 are.

Exactly.

 

[Lensen]

I liked in round one with Richmond named Dusty at full forward, Butler CHF, with Riewoldt and Lynch as pockets

 

[Seagrave_Holmes]

Oldmanyellsatcloud.jpeg

 

[Hamingja]

It is not too far out that one. Probably the most accurate one we have named all year tbh. They named Dahlhaus as FF one week. Rohan plays as a marking forward and effectively Rohan/Danger will job share as the second key forward behind Hawk as Fort is a just an ordinary ruckman playing forward and they will go around him.

 

[dumb]

just accept that this part of the game is a circus and move on. the afl website doesn't always put them up on time (not necessarily their fault), channel 7 leaning on the afl in the broadcast deal so they can be world-first with this rounds footy teams.
on mobile it's impossible to view all teams at once... this gets annoying pretty quick.

 

[Billy ray]

They should just list them in jumper number order.
Or list them as 6-6-6 and they must line up at first bounce in those 3 groupings across the field

 

[blitzer]

I agree teams should stop taking the piss with the team line-ups. Essendon does it every week and it irritates me. No its not a big deal but I'd describe it as a petty annoyance. I'd regard fixing this up as a nice little positive for fan engagement at no cost to any of the clubs.

For example from this week's lineup we had Mitch Brown on the flank and Laverde as the CHF. Just silly.
We had McGrath listed as back pocket and Redman on the wing even though Redman has played down back basically the whole year and McGrath has been mostly on the wing with just occasional rotations down back or up forward.
Sometimes they will take the piss further by naming Hurley up forward or Tippa down back which yes technically they have played those roles in times gone by but their positions are pretty set nowadays.

Its not like any of this nonsense fools opposition coaches. If I can tell where all these players spend most of their gametime I'm pretty sure highly paid professionals with access to champion data, video replays and more can work out where players spend most of their time during games. It serves no tactical or strategic purpose and just irritates some fans.

Nobody requires teams to name players where they will actually spend their time on the ground, just name the players on the positions they normally play. That's it.