The worst football in a generation

[Lionheart182]

I don't believe that. The ground conditions were a ****load worse back in the day with rain and wind and mud. Either way it's a moot point because no matter how good you think the skills are now they aren't on show in modern footy. Its a terrible sport to watch

Yet here you are, watching games (I assume) and commenting on forums. I suggest ragging on the state of the game is in vogue at the moment and the product actually is not that bad. Each to their own I guess.

 

[Lionheart182]

One would think they should but they don’t. Do you not watch the games?
You would be surprised just how little skills a worked on at AFL clubs. Of the 15-18 sessions an AFL footballer has a week at a club the bulk of them are in pools, yoga, football education, game plans, gyms.
I remember Karl Langdon and Dwayne Lamb both saying that when they went back to the WAFL after their AFL career that WAFL clubs did almost double the amount of skills training than AFL clubs and they train only 3 sessions a week.
The athlete first and footballer second recruiting AFL clubs do means they recruit many players who have below par skills.
Learning to kick a footy, getting the feel for distances and weights of your kick is something you learn at a very young age. Both Ckarkson and Hardwick have said On the Couch that there is very little you can do to change a players ingrown kicking ability by the time they reach AFL. You either can kick or you can’t.
Only in the last 5 years since Clarkson demanded it have AFL draft camps started to now test their actual football skills. How would that of never been the priority?
I just don’t see it as any different to other eras, yes today their are many highly skilled players, just as in other eras. There are also many poorly skilled players and as professionals that simply should not be the case.

You've answered your own question here:

there is very little you can do to change a players ingrown kicking ability by the time they reach AFL. You either can kick or you can’t.

Players either come into the system with an acceptable level of skill or they go undrafted (apart from "project players"). AFL clubs are not going to spend hour upon hour practicing basic skills. However I happen to know there is a huge focus on skills in the pre-season and usually at least a full skills session per week in season and usually more. These guys are at the club 8 hours+ a day after all. I disagree these players are poorly skilled and if you get a chance to sit close enough to the ground you can see how much skill is actually involved, people are just taking it for granted generally, in my opinion.

 

[Lionheart182]

People say reducing interchange rotations would fatigue players more so skills would be worse, yet in prior decades that was the case; interchange rotations were less yet we saw better skills and a more open field.

Paul Roos changed that in 2005 with his highly defensive Sydney team.

Less pressure, less K's covered, less zoning. Basically less pressure on the ball carrier in general.

 

[demondavey]

Less pressure, less K's covered, less zoning. Basically less pressure on the ball carrier in general.

So how did Hawthorn win 3 in a row? They played in an era of heavy zoning and congestion, yet the uncontested ball use and skill sets they employed were A grade and not comparable.

Hodge
Mitchell
Lewis
Burgoyne
Shiels
Birchall
Lake
Roughead

8 players that were footballers first.

 

[Lionheart182]

So how did Hawthorn win 3 in a row? They played in an era of heavy zoning and congestion, yet the uncontested ball use and skill sets they employed were A grade and not comparable.

Hodge
Mitchell
Lewis
Burgoyne
Shiels
Birchall
Lake
Roughead

8 players that were footballers first.

An incredibly skilled team. Not sure how that relates to what I posted though. They were a step above the competition.

 

[demondavey]

An incredibly skilled team. Not sure how that relates to what I posted though. They were a step above the competition.

Correct. But they were a step above because they picked footballers first. And this is my point; kids aren’t getting drafted on pure footballing talent anymore, the key metrics are athletic qualities because they are the kids that can run, tackle, pressure and jump. Now if those players fit into the modern game, the strategies and tactics will reflect that.

I don’t blame coaches for playing follow the leader with the current style, because it takes a bold coach to want to wind back the clock and employ pure footballers, but the game will remain clogged and congested whilst we play ultra defensive and pick kids with sub par skills.

Clarkson bucks the trend, he picks a worpel for example. Here is a kid who is a footballer first. Geelong pick Kelly and Stewart. I honestly think that we are leaving too many pure players in the VFL or TAC Cup that are footballers first.

You know the irony in this? The only exceptional thing about Hawthorn was that they were footballers first. I mean the AFL stands for AUSTRALIAN FOOTBALL LEAGUE, not the ATHLETIC FOOTBALL LEAGUE.

I look at my team, and on the Melbourne board we bemoan our lack of talent. Angus Brayshaw, third in the Brownlow last year, pick 3 in 2014, has god awful skills at times. God awful. Petracca was pick 2. Cant kick a set shot.

 

[RookiePick]

Pay incorrect disposal and stop leaning on "ball knocked free in the tackle, play on". If you take possession of the footy it's your responsibility to legally dispose of the ball. Players are simply letting go of the footy when tackled or holding the ball out for a team mate to grab and they should be getting pinged.

Players will either bank on not having prior and hold onto the footy - so we get a ruck stoppage or HTB free depending on the umpires interpretation or they will be forced to try and dispose of the ball more obviously by hand or foot (ping the bloody throws too) - meaning other players can't collapse into the contest on expectation of player/s laying an egg.

Coaches will hate their players being forced to squeeze out handballs or little chipped kicks under pressure because it represents a loss of control. Guess what? **** the coaches.

It will open the game up and improve the spectacle 10 fold. Players who can read the play will be amply rewarded by getting to the right spot and have time and space to execute their skills instead of being caught in a rolling maul.

We have to use the mechanisms already in place in the rules to force players to stand further off the contest. This will give us space to play the game.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Correct. But they were a step above because they picked footballers first. And this is my point; kids aren’t getting drafted on pure footballing talent anymore, the key metrics are athletic qualities because they are the kids that can run, tackle, pressure and jump. Now if those players fit into the modern game, the strategies and tactics will reflect that.

I don’t blame coaches for playing follow the leader with the current style, because it takes a bold coach to want to wind back the clock and employ pure footballers, but the game will remain clogged and congested whilst we play ultra defensive and pick kids with sub par skills.

Clarkson bucks the trend, he picks a worpel for example. Here is a kid who is a footballer first. Geelong pick Kelly and Stewart. I honestly think that we are leaving too many pure players in the VFL or TAC Cup that are footballers first.

You know the irony in this? The only exceptional thing about Hawthorn was that they were footballers first. I mean the AFL stands for AUSTRALIAN FOOTBALL LEAGUE, not the ATHLETIC FOOTBALL LEAGUE.

I look at my team, and on the Melbourne board we bemoan our lack of talent. Angus Brayshaw, third in the Brownlow last year, pick 3 in 2014, has god awful skills at times. God awful. Petracca was pick 2. Cant kick a set shot.

Brilliant post

 

[Lionheart182]

Correct. But they were a step above because they picked footballers first. And this is my point; kids aren’t getting drafted on pure footballing talent anymore, the key metrics are athletic qualities because they are the kids that can run, tackle, pressure and jump. Now if those players fit into the modern game, the strategies and tactics will reflect that.

I don’t blame coaches for playing follow the leader with the current style, because it takes a bold coach to want to wind back the clock and employ pure footballers, but the game will remain clogged and congested whilst we play ultra defensive and pick kids with sub par skills.

Clarkson bucks the trend, he picks a worpel for example. Here is a kid who is a footballer first. Geelong pick Kelly and Stewart. I honestly think that we are leaving too many pure players in the VFL or TAC Cup that are footballers first.

You know the irony in this? The only exceptional thing about Hawthorn was that they were footballers first. I mean the AFL stands for AUSTRALIAN FOOTBALL LEAGUE, not the ATHLETIC FOOTBALL LEAGUE.

I look at my team, and on the Melbourne board we bemoan our lack of talent. Angus Brayshaw, third in the Brownlow last year, pick 3 in 2014, has god awful skills at times. God awful. Petracca was pick 2. Cant kick a set shot.

The Hawthorn team was drafted as players who could kick with a huge emphasis on skills, but they also benefited from free agency and trades, bringing in guys like Burgoyne. They were also dominant in a time where the talent pool was spread as thin as it has ever been with the two new teams taking the bulk of the cream from the draft. But you are correct in saying their skill was a huge reason they were so dominant.

The problem with recruiting pure footballers are that you can very well end up with a team of very similar players who are all one paced or limited in some way athletically. I believe a team with a midfield of Rockliffs for example would be killed on the spread for example. You need a mix of talent and athleticism on your team in the modern game. But no player is without a significant amount of football specific skill. I think the recruiters generally get it right with who does or does not get drafted and there is also a huge amount of eyes on state leagues now as well for those who slip through the cracks like you mention.

The way Melbourne are playing is a whole other thing though I reckon. Brayshaw, Oliver et al are playing well below their talent at the moment. Petracca has been all hype up until this point anyway as I personally have never seen him tear a game apart, haven't watched a stack of Melbourne thought to be fair.

 

[demondavey]

Pay incorrect disposal and stop leaning on "ball knocked free in the tackle, play on". If you take possession of the footy it's your responsibility to legally dispose of the ball. Players are simply letting go of the footy when tackled or holding the ball out for a team mate to grab and they should be getting pinged.

Players will either bank on not having prior and hold onto the footy - so we get a ruck stoppage or HTB free depending on the umpires interpretation or they will be forced to try and dispose of the ball more obviously by hand or foot (ping the bloody throws too) - meaning other players can't collapse into the contest on expectation of player/s laying an egg.

Coaches will hate their players being forced to squeeze out handballs or little chipped kicks under pressure because it represents a loss of control. Guess what? **** the coaches.

It will open the game up and improve the spectacle 10 fold. Players who can read the play will be amply rewarded by getting to the right spot and have time and space to execute their skills instead of being caught in a rolling maul.

We have to use the mechanisms already in place in the rules to force players to stand further off the contest. This will give us space to play the game.

You know the key word in your entire post? Interpretation. The issue is interpretation. Rules are not there to be interpreted, they are there to follow irrespective of opinion. A rule is a rule. It’s black and it’s white. The problem is that there’s an allowance for 50 shades of grey. Stop the interpretation of rules and follow them for what they are.

Football needs to remain basic. Players and supporters don’t play and watch to get confused and to try and understand an interpretation. We are almost at the point where the only people running the game and umpiring departments should be ex players with serious credibility for returning it to the decades gone by.

 

[demondavey]

The Hawthorn team was drafted as players who could kick with a huge emphasis on skills, but they also benefited from free agency and trades, bringing in guys like Burgoyne. They were also dominant in a time where the talent pool was spread as thin as it has ever been with the two new teams taking the bulk of the cream from the draft. But you are correct in saying their skill was a huge reason they were so dominant.

The problem with recruiting pure footballers are that you can very well end up with a team of very similar players who are all one paced or limited in some way athletically. I believe a team with a midfield of Rockliffs for example would be killed on the spread for example. You need a mix of talent and athleticism on your team in the modern game. But no player is without a significant amount of football specific skill. I think the recruiters generally get it right with who does or does not get drafted and there is also a huge amount of eyes on state leagues now as well for those who slip through the cracks like you mention.

The way Melbourne are playing is a whole other thing though I reckon. Brayshaw, Oliver et al are playing well below their talent at the moment. Petracca has been all hype up until this point anyway as I personally have never seen him tear a game apart, haven't watched a stack of Melbourne thought to be fair.

I am sorry, but your first point is ridiculously flawed. I've seen the thread about Hawthorn's success being an accident of history. Hawthorn did not benefit anymore than any other club from free agency or trade. You are making an excuse for the lack of ability to capitalise on free agency and trade for all the other clubs. Every single club had the opportunity to trade and to engage in free agency. As far as the talent pool goes? Well like every other club, Hawthorn were pushed down the draft order, so if that was relevant, they'd have been disadvantaged.

I agree you need both, but i feel we have far too much of the latter and not enough of the former. I am not saying recruit a whole heap of plodders, of course you want the athletic component, but we have gone way beyond the athletic component to only focusing on kids that have those qualities. Mate, seriously, some guys just can't kick.

I think the recruiters often get it wrong. It is ridiculous that Kelly could not get drafted initially.

 

[Lionheart182]

I am sorry, but your first point is ridiculously flawed. I've seen the thread about Hawthorn's success being an accident of history. Hawthorn did not benefit anymore than any other club from free agency or trade. You are making an excuse for the lack of ability to capitalise on free agency and trade for all the other clubs. Every single club had the opportunity to trade and to engage in free agency. As far as the talent pool goes? Well like every other club, Hawthorn were pushed down the draft order, so if that was relevant, they'd have been disadvantaged.

I am saying they capitalised more than basically any other club. Not that it was unfair, aside from the systemic advantages they have from being in Melbourne and everything that comes with being a big club. That is a separate matter though which has been done to death on here. The talent pool was stretched pretty thin though so they nailed it by peaking when the competing clubs would be at their weakest. I doubt we'll see another threepeat for a long time for this reason.

I think the recruiters often get it wrong. It is ridiculous that Kelly could not get drafted initially.

That is one player. How many state level players get on AFL lists but fail to thrive? Much more than the reverse I would guess. Gibbons for example was dominant at state level but is no more than a role player in a pretty average team. Likely to get pushed out once their young guys mature as well. There wouldn't be that many AFL capable guys running around state leagues that could make a meaningful difference to most teams and recruiters would (I assume) take a punt on an 18 year old who needs work rather than a state league player who could be your 18-22nd best player now (depending on circumstance of course).

 

[demondavey]

I am saying they capitalised more than basically any other club. Not that it was unfair, aside from the systemic advantages they have from being in Melbourne and everything that comes with being a big club. That is a separate matter though which has been done to death on here. The talent pool was stretched pretty thin though so they nailed it by peaking when the competing clubs would be at their weakest. I doubt we'll see another threepeat for a long time for this reason.


That is one player. How many state level players get on AFL lists but fail to thrive? Much more than the reverse I would guess. Gibbons for example was dominant at state level but is no more than a role player in a pretty average team. Likely to get pushed out once their young guys mature as well. There wouldn't be that many AFL capable guys running around state leagues that could make a meaningful difference to most teams and recruiters would (I assume) take a punt on an 18 year old who needs work rather than a state league player who could be your 18-22nd best player now (depending on circumstance of course).

It’s one player I’ve given an example of, but there is Marty Hore on our list, Brody Mihocek. Hawthorn weren’t even the best home and away side in 14 & 15.

The reason you won’t see a threepeat is because they aren’t easy. Collingwood 1927-1930. Melbourne 1939-1941, Melbourne 1955-1956. Then a huge gap, Brisbane & Hawthorn. West Coast May very well go back to back this year and Richmond were a big chance last year.

 

[RookiePick]

You know the key word in your entire post? Interpretation. The issue is interpretation. Rules are not there to be interpreted, they are there to follow irrespective of opinion. A rule is a rule. It’s black and it’s white. The problem is that there’s an allowance for 50 shades of grey. Stop the interpretation of rules and follow them for what they are.

Football needs to remain basic. Players and supporters don’t play and watch to get confused and to try and understand an interpretation. We are almost at the point where the only people running the game and umpiring departments should be ex players with serious credibility for returning it to the decades gone by.

I agree in principle but there is umpires interpretation in every sport to some degree. Has a player taken possession or not? Has a player had prior opportunity or not? Did the player make a legal handball or not.

That's what the umpires are there for.

By all means try to eliminate areas of the rules where an umpire is supposed to judge the "intention" of a player. Did the player mean for the ball to stay in or go over the boundary? Did the player try to make a legitimate disposal?

The umpire is there to make decisions. His Their interpretation and decision making is integral to the game.

 

[Collins-Langford-Ayres]

Hocking, McLachlan and the AFL Board should all resign. Their arrogance in changing the games has resulted in the most congestion, the lowest scoring and the most boring football in a generation.

The fact they have a pre-season comp to test rule changes before making them permanent, but do not use this, highlights the depth of their incompetence.

In a competitive industry, I doubt many of these blokes would survive...

 

[Goggin Our Best]

I had a good laugh at On the Couch the other night saying that although 6-6-6 hasn't helped the scoring what so ever it at least has made the game look better to watch.

Are they seriously watching the same game that we all are? All the 6-6-6 does is allow for teams to perhaps kick a goal quickly at the end of the game. Aside from this for what ever reasons the game just goes back to the same clogged up rubbish that it's always been in the last 10 or so years. I still to this day say cut the interchange and the game will free up more because you wont have players being able to run all over the ground.

Apt and accurate description

However for some reason some grounds - you dont see anywhere near as much of it

As a neutral i enjoy watching GWS when they play at home - there doesnt seem to be those big mauling packs - and the ball goes from end to the other pretty quickly ( doesnt seem to be that cancer called 10 metre passes ) and you get quite an enjoyable free flowing game

 

[smasha]

A predominantly Geelong panel enforced the new rules,look at where Geelong are on the ladder!

I rest my case.

Dimma and Clarko will find a way though even with 9 premiership players injured.

 

[Gaborone]

Pay incorrect disposal and stop leaning on "ball knocked free in the tackle, play on". If you take possession of the footy it's your responsibility to legally dispose of the ball. Players are simply letting go of the footy when tackled or holding the ball out for a team mate to grab and they should be getting pinged.

Players will either bank on not having prior and hold onto the footy - so we get a ruck stoppage or HTB free depending on the umpires interpretation or they will be forced to try and dispose of the ball more obviously by hand or foot (ping the bloody throws too) - meaning other players can't collapse into the contest on expectation of player/s laying an egg.

Coaches will hate their players being forced to squeeze out handballs or little chipped kicks under pressure because it represents a loss of control. Guess what? **** the coaches.

It will open the game up and improve the spectacle 10 fold. Players who can read the play will be amply rewarded by getting to the right spot and have time and space to execute their skills instead of being caught in a rolling maul.

We have to use the mechanisms already in place in the rules to force players to stand further off the contest. This will give us space to play the game.

This is right on the money!

Earlier in this thread I mentioned Ying and Yang - get them out of balance and bad things happen. The AFL wants attacking football so they favour Ying over Yang and what happens is that the coaches, inevitably, find ways to close up the football. Blance Ying and Yang out and coaches will trust their good players to win the one to one contests and allow the game top open out. It is simple, its is about balance.

 

[WilloTree]

Hocking, McLachlan and the AFL Board should all resign. Their arrogance in changing the games has resulted in the most congestion, the lowest scoring and the most boring football in a generation.

Hawks supporter 2013-15: "The game is in great shape. Best.game.ever.
Hawks supporter 2019: "The game is sh*t. It's so unfair. I'm going home."

 

[Goggin Our Best]

A predominantly Geelong panel enforced the new rules,look at where Geelong are on the ladder!

I rest my case.

Dimma and Clarko will find a way though even with 9 premiership players injured.

The only reason Geel are where they are on the ladder is because of the incompetence and shocking standard/ability of alot of teams

The standard accross the board this year is atrocious - there are NO genuine bona fide top notch teams this year - absolutely none .

 

[Gaborone]

A predominantly Geelong panel enforced the new rules,look at where Geelong are on the ladder!

I rest my case.

Dimma and Clarko will find a way though even with 9 premiership players injured.

Finally, someone else picked this up!

Now, I am not saying that this was cheating. What I am saying is that when you have a football supremo (and also one person to interpret reports etc for that matter) you limit the understanding and perspectives that are brought to bear on any single issue. If you go back to Hocking's pronouncements on the rule changes they have been dogmatic, reflecting a single, I am right, view. What was there need - demonstrated by hard evidence? Where was the trialling? Where was the consultation especially with supporters? And the problem of only having limited perspectives is that the views/ values held by individuals come to have a disproportionate impact on decisions made. Hocking likes the way Geelong play, they are his 'gold standard' so change should be modelled on the Geelong way. Even blind Freddy could predict that with the changes Geelong have gone into 2019 with a leg up from the AFL.

 

[demondavey]

A predominantly Geelong panel enforced the new rules,look at where Geelong are on the ladder!

I rest my case.

Dimma and Clarko will find a way though even with 9 premiership players injured.

Bullshit mate

 

[demondavey]

I agree in principle but there is umpires interpretation in every sport to some degree. Has a player taken possession or not? Has a player had prior opportunity or not? Did the player make a legal handball or not.

That's what the umpires are there for.

By all means try to eliminate areas of the rules where an umpire is supposed to judge the "intention" of a player. Did the player mean for the ball to stay in or go over the boundary? Did the player try to make a legitimate disposal?

The umpire is there to make decisions. His Their interpretation and decision making is integral to the game.

https://m.afl.com.au/news/2019-05-15/barrett-rampe-call-shows-theres-too-much-grey-in-afls-rules

 

[Gaborone]

Hawks supporter 2013-15: "The game is in great shape. Best.game.ever.
Hawks supporter 2019: "The game is sh*t. It's so unfair. I'm going home."

Childish response. This is not about Hawthorn. If you look at the EVIDENCE - much lower scores, crowd disturbances, even some commentators breaking ranks with the AFL line and decrying the standard of football across most games then you'll see that the game is in trouble.

 

[Gaborone]

https://m.afl.com.au/news/2019-05-15/barrett-rampe-call-shows-theres-too-much-grey-in-afls-rules

The umpires are instructed on how to interpret the rules and that is in favour of the attacker.