The worst football in a generation

[samFFC]

I, for one, blame Ross Lyon for only one team scoring over 100 this weekend, GC/Melb being 120 points combined, Port scoring 30 points in three quarters etc.

 

[Topkent]

Take 2 people off the ground from each team and make it harder to zone. Simple

 

[Macpotata]

We're lucky we have people playing though. In 50 years it will be robots. Then it will just be like watching a video game with players wearing helmets and cape's.


Patrick Forcefield.

 

[Topkent]

It was close all game, Gold Coast repelling constant Melbourne attacks. The pressure and tackling was pretty crazy, I admit if it didn’t finish like it did, it wouldn’t of been a standout game, but it was a pretty decent contest. I’ve been impressed with the way Gold Coast has gone about it this year. They clearly don’t have the cattle but they’ve shown more heart than a majority of teams this year

I'm not sure what you were watching but our game was a disgusting watch. I don't reckon I'll be watching footy in a couple years.

 

[Tiger Tim]

Well according to Gil yesterday on the radio the game is in superb shape - everything is up!!! Including his head..

 

[PumpyChowdown]

AFLX is where its at.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Yet the game was on the verge of extinction in the mid to late eighties-an era everyone raves about.. strange but true.

No it just needed some management which is what happened. The people loved the game and barracked for their team with passion, you either won or you lost. Umpiring the game was much easier and yes they still made mistakes and people got shirty.
Footy fans didn’t care about the look of the game, rule changes, how many interchanges, runners, water boys because it was a non issue. The AFL chose to change all these things and now all you here is whinge whinge whinge every bloody week about the look of the game. It’s been on our watch we have allowed them to change the sport.
AFL is a hybrid version of Australian Football.

 

[NoobPie]

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.

Can we create a new board for the whinging nuffies wot hate the modern game?

 

[RUNVS]

Not that this makes a better game but the fact is that there is not a single team in 2019 that would not smash the best team from 1989. Tactics, skills and fitness are way better in 2019 than they were 30 years ago.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Not that this makes a better game but the fact is that there is not a single team in 2019 that would not smash the best team from 1989. Tactics, skills and fitness are way better in 2019 than they were 30 years ago.

It’s all relative to the era, if those players in 1989 had the same fitness and tactics then what do you think would happen.
Skills are very questionable if they are better now.

 

[FreoMonocle]

Not that this makes a better game but the fact is that there is not a single team in 2019 that would not smash the best team from 1989. Tactics, skills and fitness are way better in 2019 than they were 30 years ago.

This.

Having rewatched some of my favourite games that I saw in the 70's recently, a team from back then would be nothing but witches hats. Zoning used to happen, but only because they were too fat and unfit to run up and down the park constantly (plenty of the smoked, a few would be playing with a hangover etc). You'd think the witches hat's might try to square the ledger with a bit of rough play, but the team would look like an Auskick team in comparison and would be intimidated by the size and muscle of the current teams, (193cm was monster size and ruck material back then).

 

[Quixote]

While I agree the corporate think-tank ruler-changers are doing their best to lay a giant turd on the game, the above comment is something to consider.

Also the fact that players these days are so well drilled to 'give maximum effort' every week, every game. Heard Riewoldt saying the other day one of their measures was having at least 17 blokes who were switched on and gave maximum effort across the 4 quarters. If they could hit 17, 18 players giving maximum effort they'd generally win. If this figure dropped to maybe 12, 13, 14, they knew they were in trouble and invariably lost.

Unheard of in the 80's where you'd maybe ride on the back of a great performance from a star or two and have plenty of no-shows. As far as I can tell.

 

[Coaster2012]

I do find myself zoning out when a game is on not involving my teams and picking up my phone. I don't remember it being that way. Weather it's because the games are less exciting or if I just don't care as much as I've gotten older, I'm not sure.

 

[Tony Harrison]

I do find myself zoning out when a game is on not involving my teams and picking up my phone. I don't remember it being that way. Weather it's because the games are less exciting or if I just don't care as much as I've gotten older, I'm not sure.

Or your phone didn't have access to the crazy amount of distractions that it does now?

 

[greatwhiteshark]

This.

Having rewatched some of my favourite games that I saw in the 70's recently, a team from back then would be nothing but witches hats. Zoning used to happen, but only because they were too fat and unfit to run up and down the park constantly (plenty of the smoked, a few would be playing with a hangover etc). You'd think the witches hat's might try to square the ledger with a bit of rough play, but the team would look like an Auskick team in comparison and would be intimidated by the size and muscle of the current teams, (193cm was monster size and ruck material back then).

Again give those players the same fitness and pro training and see how they go.
Do some like v like comparison on who is the better footballer. You are basically saying that a player like Shuey at the west Coast Eagles is a far superior footballer to someone like a Greg Williams, Geoff Raines, Gerard Healy, etc etc.
and yes they would be intimidated, they would be 6 players down at half time with nothing more than some bruising, the other 14 would be sitting in a circle crying calling for their mum.

 

[RUNVS]

It’s all relative to the era, if those players in 1989 had the same fitness and tactics then what do you think would happen.
Skills are very questionable if they are better now.

The teams in the late 80's early 90's did not pay as much attention to their 18 to 22 players like they do now. They put all their focus on their top 10 players so while the top 10 players of any team 30 years ago would have been quality in terms of pure skill, the bottom players in the best 22 would be a lot better now than they used to be, by a huge margin as well.

Also I am somewhat suspicious of all the supposedly "best of all time" players that played in that era. There is no way there can be that many amazing players in that short span of time. I think quite a few players in the Carey, Ablett, Dunstall, Lockett, Silvangi, Williams, Matthews and Materia were not as good players as a lot of people like to remember them as.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

The teams in the late 80's early 90's did not pay as much attention to their 18 to 22 players like they do now. They put all their focus on their top 10 players so while the top 10 players of any team 30 years ago would have been quality in terms of pure skill, the bottom players in the best 22 would be a lot better now than they used to be, by a huge margin as well.

Also I am somewhat suspicious of all the supposedly "best of all time" players that played in that era. There is no way there can be that many amazing players in that short span of time. I think quite a few players in the Carey, Ablett, Dunstall, Lockett, Silvangi, Williams, Matthews and Materia were not as good players as a lot of people like to remember them as.

You are bagging an era which I am not sure you actually saw.
You are rating today’s skills way to high, I spend half a game watching my own side who are the reigning premiers at how bad our skills are. I find it laughable across the board that do many targets are missed without pressure when they are pro players.
How is goal kicking going from these highly skilled players? No better than 30 years ago.

Anyway it is all off subject, you are comparing to different eras playing to entirely different sports.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

The teams in the late 80's early 90's did not pay as much attention to their 18 to 22 players like they do now. They put all their focus on their top 10 players so while the top 10 players of any team 30 years ago would have been quality in terms of pure skill, the bottom players in the best 22 would be a lot better now than they used to be, by a huge margin as well.

Also I am somewhat suspicious of all the supposedly "best of all time" players that played in that era. There is no way there can be that many amazing players in that short span of time. I think quite a few players in the Carey, Ablett, Dunstall, Lockett, Silvangi, Williams, Matthews and Materia were not as good players as a lot of people like to remember them as.

And name me a player like for like in the last 15 years who is better in the position than those players you mentioned.
The only one is maybe Rance might be the equal to Silvangni.

 

[amazingjoshy]

There are 207 games a season not including the preseason.

They won't all be blockbusters.

This exact argument is why we didn't need the rule changes

 

[footyfan1978]

The teams in the late 80's early 90's did not pay as much attention to their 18 to 22 players like they do now..

The ignorance highlighted here. There was not 22 players on a team then. Having 22 players has actually made a huge difference on game as it has turned the bench into something it never was meant to be. Incredible how ill thought out some comments are of people never watching footy then. You had 20 players then and the 19th and 20th on bench were virtually seen as back up in case of injury and not really a rotation system it been bastardised as now we have 22 a team.

 

[cardamon]

It's a sport not a TV show

 

[Gaborone]

I had an interesting conversation with a former physiotherapist at Essendon. The message constantly pushed by the AFL was AFLX style football with an emphasis on individual, offensive play with umpires instructed to give the attacking player the benefit of the doubt. For me this highlights what is wrong with AFL 2019. 1. AFL football is a team game - not bruise-free and not basketball . 2. Attack and defence is the Yang and Yang of football and has to be treated equally. Great defence is as exciting as great attacking play but in AFL 2019 the favouring of the attacking side ensures that teams will take the safety first approach and kick down the line to the pack with the inevitable ensuing scramble. 3. The concerning number of fights at AFL matches this year between rival supporters, is, in my opinion directly related to both this and constant meddling with the rules with the result that supporter (and even commentator) frustration definitely on the increase.

 

[boncer34]

Got nothing to do with the AFL it's the coaches. They are the biggest blight on the game.

All they care about in Winning, so they use the safest way to do that, by focusing on defense.

How exactly is the AFL responsible for 30+ players around the ball at all times?

Then blame the real cause of the issue. The coaches.

How were they wrong in trying to find a way to improve the game from the way the coaches have tuned it into a game of congestion?

You are right but i was actually talking about footy these days. Funny thing is that the rule change to extend the bench size came from pressure from the coaches, in particular Sheedy.

Exactly and that is their job and is what they should do.

However that is the very reason they should not be listened to because while they talk about caring for the game they actually couldn't give a rats tossbag about the game.

Rubbish.

Congestion isn't worse, its been **** for years.

The less interchanges you have the less congestion because players can't run up and back as often.

How does making kick ins easier lead to more care to not turn it over?

The coaches are to blame and always will be because they are the ones that dictate how the game will be played because they train the players that way.

Why do you think players sit in meetings all friggen week?

Didn't know Steve Hocking was an Essendon fan.

 

[Cold Sober]

The teams in the late 80's early 90's did not pay as much attention to their 18 to 22 players like they do now. They put all their focus on their top 10 players so while the top 10 players of any team 30 years ago would have been quality in terms of pure skill, the bottom players in the best 22 would be a lot better now than they used to be, by a huge margin as well.

Also I am somewhat suspicious of all the supposedly "best of all time" players that played in that era. There is no way there can be that many amazing players in that short span of time. I think quite a few players in the Carey, Ablett, Dunstall, Lockett, Silvangi, Williams, Matthews and Materia were not as good players as a lot of people like to remember them as.

In the 70's and 80's clubs recruited footballers with football brains not athletes to be taught how to play football. Nowadays champions are rated on how far they can run, and god help me if they can use both sides of their bodies, they would be called freaks. Back then most teams half back flankers were as good if not better than the Rances of today.

 

[dcutter]

Andy Maher was pretty spot on, on SEN the other day - you get home on a Friday night and can't wait for the game.
Then you end up routinely watching a really low scoring, underwhelming contest which is inevitably pretty dismal viewing which more often than not now, gets switched off.