Analysis The Clarkson Rebuild Model - A Reason For Optimism

Davo23

Premium Platinum
Nov 1, 2001
12,021
23,521
The Bronx
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Arsenal, Storm, NYYankees
Good post, you make some good points.
Leave the damn rules alone!

One thing I’d love to see but will never happen: criticise the teams that play ugly footy. Don’t get the media to make a pretence about teams like Freo and Sydney.

So get rid of the “Paul Roos/Ross Lyon is a master coach” narrative and admit that Roos been a major initiator of the crap, defensive, negative footy, which is happily continued by his disciples Lyon and Longmire.

Name and shame the bastards!

Won’t happen tho.

Sydney and West Coast!


:eek:
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

kazzooka

Club Legend
May 20, 2010
2,137
3,892
AFL Club
Hawthorn
A few interesting observations.

1. In 2006, the afl began attempts to change rules in order to speed up the game and reduce stoppages (eg not having to wait for the flags to be waived to kick the ball in after a behind). If you cast your eye to figure you will see that stoppages rose dramatically after the 2006 season. Ironically, stoppages were alreading trending down prior to 2006.
2. A cynical hypothesis would be that coaches have sort to slow the game down because of the risks posed by the AFLs rule changes. For example, the increased severity of the holding the ball potentially disencentivises positional play because you can’t dive on the footy to cause a ball up when you are isolated or else give up a free kick. In order to avoid the free kick, coaches throw numbers around the ball to avoid players getting isolated. The quick kick in encourages zone defence from a kick in because it gives no time to find a direct opponent so teams are coached to guard space even before the shot for goal is taken. More severe interpretation of rules that punish players for putting the ball out of bounds again reduces options for the players and combined with holding the ball rules Makes it harder to clear the ball from defence which allows defenders to occupy the corridor knowing they are a chance to win the ball back through a free kick of the opposition kicks a long clearing kick towards the boundary.
3. Interchange rules seem to have no effect on the way the game is played when viewed through these stats. Probably need to reduce it down to half of the current level to return the game to an early 2000s style of footy.
Also related to the quick kick in, Chris Fagan told me that in 2010 we were (idea stolen from Collingwood) deliberately kicking long to the pockets to cause a stoppage instead of to the hotspot 20 out from goal. If you have a forward stoppage you can lock it in and create repeat chances.

If you hit the hotspot you get one chance. And it's far more likely that the opposition will quickly rebound it either directly or by spoiling through the goals and getting a quick kick out.
 

TylerDurden

Premium Platinum
Mar 5, 2007
8,302
21,457
Lou's Tavern
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Also related to the quick kick in, Chris Fagan told me that in 2010 we were (idea stolen from Collingwood) deliberately kicking long to the pockets to cause a stoppage instead of to the hotspot 20 out from goal. If you have a forward stoppage you can lock it in and create repeat chances.

If you hit the hotspot you get one chance. And it's far more likely that the opposition will quickly rebound it either directly or by spoiling through the goals and getting a quick kick out.
Correct. Malthouse loved the secondary stoppage. Gave their defenders a rest and time to set up behind the ball. Eventually they'd score as opposition defenders would tire.
 

NICE1

All Australian
Mar 7, 2012
917
823
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Things have to change.

If you had of said in the 90's that in 18 years time we will no longer have the need for KPP people would have called B.S, but with all the rubbish flooding that occurs, that is exactly what has happened.

There are very few one on one contests now, and you regularly see the ball being kicked into a vacant 50 or players kicking backwards because there is no one in the 50.

Regardless of what was or wasn't permitted back in the day, the game has morphed into something that is almost unrecognisable and it isn't enjoyable to watch.

On [device_name] using BigFooty.com mobile app
Shocking isn't it.

Even laugh at commentators suggesting tonight's game is a good game. A cluster of tackles and handballs is supposed to be a good spectacle now.

Games in as bad a state as I've ever seen.
 

MasterSamurai

Premiership Player
Mar 21, 2017
3,242
5,892
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
BayernMunchen
lowering interchange has only resulted in lower scores, making football more boring to watch imo, but if you think thats a good idea then i disagree...

the scrums will continue as football has evolved to have athletes playing instead of pure footballers, if this becomes too much of a problem(scrappy unattractive football) then a rule saying there has to be 4 players(from each team) in each 50m zone at all times kindve like an offside rule will clear up the congestion in the middle and allow for stay at home forwards who can lead and mark more valuable....

P.S. i would raise interchange numbers and create a rule that 4 players from each side must be in the 50m area at all times or the team that breaks this rule gives away a free kick at the place the ball is at to the other team...

(these rules would increase scoring as players would be fresher and also clear up congestion also allowing for more scoring opportunities and maybe football will return to the 90's where 140 - 120 wasnt an oddity but a more normal score line)
No no, I wasn’t suggesting lowering at all, just that the conversation was about that the page before. I’m against lowering the cap.
 

OnTheRocks

Premiership Player
Mar 11, 2016
3,330
4,264
AFL Club
Hawthorn
lowering interchange has only resulted in lower scores, making football more boring to watch imo, but if you think thats a good idea then i disagree...

the scrums will continue as football has evolved to have athletes playing instead of pure footballers, if this becomes too much of a problem(scrappy unattractive football) then a rule saying there has to be 4 players(from each team) in each 50m zone at all times kindve like an offside rule will clear up the congestion in the middle and allow for stay at home forwards who can lead and mark more valuable....

P.S. i would raise interchange numbers and create a rule that 4 players from each side must be in the 50m area at all times or the team that breaks this rule gives away a free kick at the place the ball is at to the other team...

(these rules would increase scoring as players would be fresher and also clear up congestion also allowing for more scoring opportunities and maybe football will return to the 90's where 140 - 120 wasnt an oddity but a more normal score line)
What do you call that game? Zones, more rules, fresher players, more players!
Idk, it might work, it might not.
 

thejockey

Club Legend
Apr 5, 2015
2,055
3,765
keilor
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Buffalo Bills, Boston Red Sox
People hear the term zones or zone and seem to go nuts about it. Radio was amazing listening during the week, people up in arms about it and almost giving the game away. Most likely the same people complaining about the current spectacle.

I’m for giving the starting positions a go , why not . It will at least create 1-1 contests early in play and give sides an incentive to attack.

If people think it will correct itself without some form of change I think you’ll be disappointed . Only my opinion mind you .
 

Davo-27

Premiership Player
Sep 9, 2006
4,340
4,929
Northern Melb
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Box Hill Hawks
What do you call that game? Zones, more rules, fresher players, more players!
Idk, it might work, it might not.
having fresher players and less congestion obviously will work, it isnt rocket science...

WCE V Sydney was supposed to be 2 of the better teams in the league and the game was so bad in terms of skills and goal kicking it was comparable to watching an u/18's game

the level of quality of the AFL is so bad atm, players tiring by half time, congestion at its worst, teams cant kick efficiently, the turn overs last night was embarrassing to watch, i changed the channel because it was such a poor skill game and it wasnt because of pressure either, it was just shit footy, i heard a commentator say at 1 stage, "oh there isnt much space in this game" then proceeding that ******ed call there was about 5 completely open plays where a player was under no pressure and turned over a simple kick, the commentator tried to cover for the shit footy but im sure most viewers werent fooled, or maybe they were?
 
Last edited:

OnTheRocks

Premiership Player
Mar 11, 2016
3,330
4,264
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Having fresher players towards the end of a nearly 2 hour game is pointless. Watching players running from on end of the ground to the other is boring, will more players, fresher players stop this? Doubt it & maybe it would be worse? Personally I preferto have tired and fatigued players trying to make sound decisions, mistakes by fatigue only add to the excitement, imo.
 

bluespooner

Club Legend
May 16, 2007
1,622
818
coffs
Other Teams
chess
People hear the term zones or zone and seem to go nuts about it. Radio was amazing listening during the week, people up in arms about it and almost giving the game away. Most likely the same people complaining about the current spectacle.

I’m for giving the starting positions a go , why not . It will at least create 1-1 contests early in play and give sides an incentive to attack.

If people think it will correct itself without some form of change I think you’ll be disappointed . Only my opinion mind you .
How about people being against zones and also hating the game as it presently stands.

What about getting rid of the all the fake phony introduced rules brought into the game in the last thirty years. The rules introduced that have led to the current spectacle: sliding to take a player's knees out (goes against a player's natural instincts); the 50m penalty for being in the protected area; the free kicks for in the back when there is only incidental hands contact with the player in front (it should have to be forceful); deliberate out of bounds; deliberate conceding of a behind; free kicks for ducking; the 50m penalty (given how umpires misuse this penalty they should implement the SA rule of a 25m penalty); three umpires and now trialing four, there is no need for anymore than two field umpires (over 50 free kicks in a game has meant it is now all about umpiring - staging and playing for free kicks results in the same reward as demonstrating a great skill); four interchange players, it should be reduced to three and then further down to two.

That would do for a start: the focus should be less rules, less about the umpires and no to zones.
 
Last edited:

(Log in to remove this ad.)

thejockey

Club Legend
Apr 5, 2015
2,055
3,765
keilor
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Buffalo Bills, Boston Red Sox
How about people being against zones and also hating the game as it presently stands.

What about getting rid of the all the fake phony introduced rules that have been introduced into the game in the last thirty years. The rules introduced that have led to the current spectacle: sliding to take a player's knees out (goes against a player's natural instincts); the 50m penalty for being in the protected area; the free kicks for in the back when there is only incidental hands contact with the player in front (it should have to be forceful); deliberate out of bounds; deliberate conceding of a behind; free kicks for ducking; the 50m penalty (given how umpires misuse this penalty they should implement the SA rule of a 25m penalty); three umpires and now trialing four, there is no need for anymore than two field umpires (over 50 free kicks in a game has meant it is now all about umpiring - staging and playing for free kicks results in the same reward as demonstrating a great skill); four interchange players, it should be reduced to three and then further down to two.

That would do for a start: the focus should be less rules, less about the umpires and no to zones.
Well that’s the issue and that’s what’s led us to this point isn’t it ?
Constant rule changes that in effect create more issues then in some cases require another change .

At the start of this season I was against any type of further changes and firmly felt the game would sort itself out.
I’ve changed my mind based on what I’ve seen so far this season.

I think the game needs a helping hand in some capacity.
I agree with the points you’ve made there too , but essentially if we revert back eg forceful push rather the just hands in back well that’s making change also to how things currently stand and probably doesn’t actually solve the spectacle/congestion issue anyway.
 

Roquay

Mistakes brought to you by my iPhone
Apr 16, 2016
169
379
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Pittsburgh Penguins
Lordo just said on 3AW he reckons S Mitchell will be taking over in 2-3 years.

Wouldn’t surprise me at all.
I think he’ll be our next coach. Probably was told/hinted at that there were opportunities later in some form to come back and it’s better to get some experience at outside clubs first.
 

rogiebear93

Norm Smith Medallist
May 17, 2017
5,513
11,547
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Lots of little mumblings about a succession plan, to go wth Sam taking over at Box Hill next yea
I'd like this, as he won't be trying to coach people who played with him for a long period of time. Whispers were he wasn't super popular and people had issues with what he demanded from everyone else.
 

Birdofprey

Club Legend
Jun 14, 2017
1,307
2,470
Sydney
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Iowa Hawkeyes
Brilliant, one of the best football related interviews I’ve seen.
Yes - just watched on lunch break - absolutely brilliant!!

They treated him with respect (instead of just trying to fire him up), and he really shared a lot with them.

Highly, highly recommend if you have not watched yet.
 

Top Bottom