Oppo Camp The Non-Essendon Thread VI

[Ben the Gooner]

Teams and particularly individual players have always paced themselves. This is smart play. And one of the reasons teams chip the ball around defence, is to give the team a breather.

I would limit the cap to sixty - No point implementing a cap unless it makes a significant change to the game.

And endurance has always been one of the skills of the game.

 

[Beerfish]

I doubt we'll see the 80 cap again. Ever.

 

[Mercurial89]

Teams and particularly individual players have always paced themselves. This is smart play. And one of the reasons teams chip the ball around defence, is to give the team a breather.

And you consider this good football? You actually enjoy watch a ball travel backwards under no pressure 20m? Seriously.

ATM we have a group of people trying to speed the game up to exhaust the players to......slow it down to a crawl so they can have their precious "one on one" contests.

I weep for the future of this game

 

[Ben the Gooner]

You just know that they'll introduce a no mark from a backwards kick rule after 2 years of the interchange cap.

 

[lamaros]

I like it when the game opens up and support the idea.

Would prefer to see 2+2 instead of a cap though.

Counting that many interchanges with such a heavy penalty is absurd micromanagement.

 

[Old Campaigner]

ATM we have a group of people trying to speed the game up to exhaust the players to......slow it down to a crawl so they can have their precious "one on one" contests.

I weep for the future of this game

I think they were really keen to avoid clunky rules like the 'no mark for a backwards kick' thing mentioned above so they had to come up with some other way of slowing the game down and this convoluted logic is what they came up with.

You can see already that it isn't going to work; teams are focusing more on athletics and endurance in their preseasons with size being of lesser importance, and my biggest worry is that if the AFL decide to continue with this 'speed it up to slow it down' philosophy we'll end up with skills and talent taking a back seat to endurance as well.

 

[yaco55]

And you consider this good football? You actually enjoy watch a ball travel backwards under no pressure 20m? Seriously.

ATM we have a group of people trying to speed the game up to exhaust the players to......slow it down to a crawl so they can have their precious "one on one" contests.

I weep for the future of this game

I can't help it if this is the way footy has been played since the year dot - Players don't go hard 100% of the time - You must be watching a different game !

And teams have been chipping the ball sideways and backwards for at least ten or fifteen years - And this is pre massive interchange rotations and post massive interchange rotations.

 

[yaco55]

I like it when the game opens up and support the idea.

Would prefer to see 2+2 instead of a cap though.

Counting that many interchanges with such a heavy penalty is absurd micromanagement.

Agree

My preference is 2+2. But whether this is approved is another matter.

The coaches argument to make it 120 rotations will not change anything - WC will be under pressure seeing that they average 107 rotations. It has to be a significant change.

 

[yaco55]

I think they were really keen to avoid clunky rules like the 'no mark for a backwards kick' thing mentioned above so they had to come up with some other way of slowing the game down and this convoluted logic is what they came up with.

You can see already that it isn't going to work; teams are focusing more on athletics and endurance in their preseasons with size being of lesser importance, and my biggest worry is that if the AFL decide to continue with this 'speed it up to slow it down' philosophy we'll end up with skills and talent taking a back seat to endurance as well.

What

Are you saying that Harvey/Crawford and that ilk were athletes, and not footy players. The true footy players have always benefited when footy is an endurance game

There is a difference between speeding up and continuous footy - Continuous is to keep the ball moving by less stoppages/packs - It's completely different to speeding up the game.

 

[Old Campaigner]

Semantics. The point is the rule changes will see an increased emphasis on athleticism and if the AFL go far enough down this road the athletic attributes of players will become far more important than their skill as footballers. That is not to say that footy is not and should not be an endurance sport. But I think there should be a balance between the skill and athletic requirements that players need to meet in order to succeed. I'd just hate to see a situation emerge where the Travis Colyers of football get picked ahead of burst players like Swan because their habit of butchering the ball is overshadowed by the fact that they can still run out the final quarter of an interchange capped game with few breaks in the play. I want to watch ******* footy, not a marathon with a bouncy egg.

 

[yaco55]

Semantics. The point is the rule changes will see an increased emphasis on athleticism and if the AFL go far enough down this road the athletic attributes of players will become far more important than their skill as footballers. That is not to say that footy is not and should not be an endurance sport. But I think there should be a balance between the skill and athletic requirements that players need to meet in order to succeed. I'd just hate to see a situation emerge where the Travis Colyers of football get picked ahead of burst players like Swan because their habit of butchering the ball is overshadowed by the fact that they can still run out the final quarter of an interchange capped game with few breaks in the play. I want to watch ******* footy, not a marathon with a bouncy egg.

This is where we disagree - Natural footy players often have a big tank - Swan will still be a fine player if he is rotated less or even spends time resting in the forward line - Good players are good players under any rules.

 

[Old Campaigner]

Actually I agree with that. What worries me though is that there are a significant number of good players without big tanks who can contribute to the spectacle at the moment but will be pushed out and replaced with players of a lower skill level but greater athleticism because that is what the game will demand. And

 

[lamaros]

So what?

Whenever the rules change in any way one group or type of players will become slightly more advantaged than before, that's just a simple reality.

There will be 'good footy players' who are helped and hindered whatever happens.

However I would like to see a different type of footy return, the more open game of the early 2000s and late
90s.

 

[Eleven 38]

im sick of seeing 25-30 players around stoppages, if they are changing rules to get rid of this then im all for it...

I don't think this rule change will push out the skilled player, when it gets down to the business end of the season its always the more skilled teams that get deep into september..

 

[The Prosecutor]

im sick of seeing 25-30 players around stoppages, if they are changing rules to get rid of this then im all for it...

It won't ease congestion, in fact, it will create more.

What do you think the players will do when they need a break and can't get off the flood? They'll be instructed to flood!

 

[lamaros]

It won't ease congestion, in fact, it will create more.

What do you think the players will do when they need a break and can't get off the flood? They'll be instructed to flood!

I don't think you understand how much physical fitness is required to constantly run from one end of the ground to the other...

 

[The Prosecutor]

I don't think you understand how much physical fitness is required to constantly run from one end of the ground to the other...

If one team is flooding, I don't think you'll be seeing teams running from end to end.

 

[yaco55]

Actually I agree with that. What worries me though is that there are a significant number of good players without big tanks who can contribute to the spectacle at the moment but will be pushed out and replaced with players of a lower skill level but greater athleticism because that is what the game will demand. And

This gets back to my point, that smart players conserve their energy,and use it when it matters most. If we could only get Hurley to run flat out when it benefits the team.

 

[yaco55]

It won't ease congestion, in fact, it will create more.

What do you think the players will do when they need a break and can't get off the flood? They'll be instructed to flood!

The highly talented players will rest forward when they need a break.

Have you watched the NAB CUP with 80 rotations - Lot more space in the second half of games.

Flood at your peril - It mean's it's hard for the flooding team to score.

 

[The Prosecutor]

The highly talented players will rest forward when they need a break.

Have you watched the NAB CUP with 80 rotations - Lot more space in the second half of games.

Flood at your peril - It mean's it's hard for the flooding team to score.

Shortened format right at the start of the season. Wait until mid-year when the players are buggered and injuries become more rampant.

There was a quote from the Dr who Dank/Robinson took blood samples to. He said he could tell these players were about to breakdown at any point and there was nothing they could do.

What do you think will happen when the work load increases even more? What do you think coaches will do within the game when it's evident the players are beyond ****ed?

 

[Old Campaigner]

The highly talented players will rest forward when they need a break.

Have you watched the NAB CUP with 80 rotations - Lot more space in the second half of games.

Flood at your peril - It mean's it's hard for the flooding team to score.

The only one I saw was the final and what I saw was a third quarter of tired players bombing up and down the ground and no goals for about half an hour. Now the NAB isn't a great predictor of future playing style due to lack of match fitness etc but if that was any indicator I'm not going to be thrilled with the rule changes.

 

[yaco55]

Shortened format right at the start of the season. Wait until mid-year when the players are buggered and injuries become more rampant.

There was a quote from the Dr who Dank/Robinson took blood samples to. He said he could tell these players were about to breakdown at any point and there was nothing they could do.

What do you think will happen when the work load increases even more? What do you think coaches will do within the game when it's evident the players are beyond screwed?

I will repeat again - Players/coaches learn to pace themselves - You don't need to go 100% at every contest unless you can clearly influence the contest.

 

[yaco55]

The only one I saw was the final and what I saw was a third quarter of tired players bombing up and down the ground and no goals for about half an hour. Now the NAB isn't a great predictor of future playing style due to lack of match fitness etc but if that was any indicator I'm not going to be thrilled with the rule changes.

Its hard to give conclusive opinions, when you have only see one game under the new proposed format for 2014.

Players and coaches will adjust to the new circumstances - That's why clubs spend so much on their footy departments.

Do you see the game between Collingwood and Brisbane, which was played last Saturday evening under the heat policy. Twenty four players, unlimited interchanges and Collingwood made 168 rotations in a game that lasted a touch over 100 minutes. I cant fathom you need 1.7 rotations per minute.

 

[Doss]

I think we can definitely agree, whatever your view, that if the changes do come in, they will certainly cause some changes to strategy.

I wouldn't necessarily be averse, purely from a football point of view, to a return to a game less obsessed purely with who is best at endurance running.

Do people think there's any possibility that such changes could usher in, perhaps, a returned tendency to more one-on-one stuff? Not necessarily back to the the real old days, but perhaps closer to a late 1990s/early 2000s style?

I guess what would be worth remembering, is that even the proposed changes still allow 80 changes per game. What were the average figures in, say, 1998? 2000? 2003? Betting they'd be nowhere near as high. So perhaps it might not be a catalyst for such drastic change afterall.

Interesting food for thought, though.

 

[Mercurial89]

Its hard to give conclusive opinions, when you have only see one game under the new proposed format for 2014.

Players and coaches will adjust to the new circumstances - That's why clubs spend so much on their footy departments.

Do you see the game between Collingwood and Brisbane, which was played last Saturday evening under the heat policy. Twenty four players, unlimited interchanges and Collingwood made 168 rotations in a game that lasted a touch over 100 minutes. I cant fathom you need 1.7 rotations per minute.

4 ball ups total in that games shows that the amount of interchanges didn't affect that game at all. So why cap the game to limit mauls when games can have no stoppages with large numbers of interchanges? Because some people don't like "the look" of people running off the ground? Pathetic.

Trying to handicap players by exhausting them is such a bad way of thinking. It's counter intuitive to a good spectacle. Cyril riolli is a prime example why there shouldn't be a cap. Burst player who can do incredible things when he isn't tired but has zero tank. So why rob the game of these players by trying to make everyone stop running.

You keep saying players don't need to go 100% all the time. But what we will end up having is a game of players running at 50-60% in the latter half of games and the top level of AFL, the very elite level of the game in this country starts looking less spectacular. Everyone has a whinge about players not trying in the NAB cup and it shows with crowd numbers. People don't like watching low quality games. That's what we will get if we keep asking players to pace themselves.

There is already a "cap" on rotation where it becomes useless because you lose more energy going off then u gain by resting. Why people feel the need to screw with a game every year is why a vast majority of people get upset. The game is never allowed to evolve naturally.