Time To Reduce 18 to 16?

[Vinnie Vegas]

We need to stop over reacting to a 6 goal a side game and enjoy the fact that we have numerous forwards kick 5 and 6 goals on weekend.

Bingo!

People are forgetting that these two sides had 19 and 21 shots at goal respectively. If they even kicked 50-50, the game would have been 71-69, and we wouldn't have nearly this level of fuss over it. If they had kicked at the average AFL ratio of 60%, both teams would likely have scored around 80 points. In that case, people probably would have dubbed it a classic.

It's just a coincidence that the two sides happened to both be exceptionally inaccurate on the night - It's not as though they weren't trying to score, they were just inaccurate.

 

[GhostofJimJess]

Stop with this rubbish and trying to change our game.

"Our" game is constantly changing, though maybe you haven't noticed such a dramatic shift because it's been gradual change over time. However, it's about to take avery noticeable change (possibly for the worse) as we attempt to source nearly 100 extra new elite level players over the next two years, in addition to the other 200 or so players that will be drafted to the existing 16 clubs in the 2008, 2009 and 2010 national drafts.

If anything, my original suggestion is an attempt to preserve what we already have. That it has the potential side-effects of reducing congestion and increasing depth at clubs is merely a bonus.

Not sure how old you are ... I'll assume you at least have access to footage of the 80's and 90's where the game evolved to what it now is. Simply put, modern footballers are fitter and faster than their predecessors - they get to more contests more often. The ongoing increase in use of interchange rotations exacerbates this situation. We love contests, but my preference tends to be for one-on-ones, as opposed to 18-on-17's.

We need to stop over reacting to a 6 goal a side game and enjoy the fact that we have numerous forwards kick 5 and 6 goals on weekend.

I honestly wasn't reacting to this game. I actually enjoyed that game, albeit for a far different reason than I enjoyed the Bulldogs/Crows game. If anything the manner in which St Kilda flooded back in the NAB Cup was the catalyst, but I've actually been a staunch believer that this should be trailed for quite some time.

And as intense and enjoyable a game as Brisbane/Collingwood last night from an impartial viewpoint, it could really have benefited from four less blokes in the playground.

 

[Professor Knowall]

...
But, from a rural viewpoint, I wholeheartedly agree with removing the wingmen and playing 16 a side because of the availability of players (especially in the Mallee, Sunraysia and the Wimmera, where this is quite profound), and helping clubs stay alive as seperate entities instead of merged ones, and I hope that the VCFL (and other similar bodies in Country Football) does this for all district leagues in the coming years (and keeping the bigger league like the Goulburn Valley FL, 18 a side).

I know that this is mainly about the AFL, but from my viewpoint, I can see that 16 a side as merit from a player viewpoint (less spots to fill) and from a viewer viewpoint (faster games, and less scrappy, congested contests).

Great post about the rural numbers. I've been thinking the exact same thing for some years. In the dryland farmimg areas with falling populations, the footy leagues have made the problem worse for themselves by lamely (or blindly) following the AFL's expanded 4 player interchange bench - thus making it even harder for many rural clubs to find sufficient players.

The solution is obvious for these small rural leagues - just reduce he playing numbers to no more than 16 on the field and back to 2 interchange. Much better alternative than have clubs folding simply due to being short of a few players to field a full 22.

As for the AFL, I don't think anyone can be sure until its at least given a trial. If it doesn't work, so be it, at least we know for surre.

 

[lids2004roar]

One major benefit would be stars of the game will have more space and we will see more impressive individual performances.

Good midfielders will have more room to burst down the ground and pass it to a star forward who now doesn't have 3 blokes hanging off him.

Give it a shot

 

[finders]

id like to see swans leave the scg purely from a ground size point of view. It cannot help to play on that ground so often.

16 a side would be worthwhile to trial in the nab cup to start with is a better idea than limited interchange or 9 point goals and the other rubbish they try.

A great idea it worked well for the VFA for 30 years plus if the comp goes to 18 teams it will free up some players and reduce overall football dept costs'.
Trail it in the NAB cup and see if it stops some of the ugly packs forming.

The one big advantage soccer has over our Australian game is the much lesser amount of players required to field a team 11 - 18.

 

[NeutralFan]

I wouldn’t mind this idea being at least trialled. The AFL want less congestion, more fast flowing footy.

And it’d take the two worst players off game day so that should increase skill level overall because there are definitely players on lists that are not AFL standards. Would also make the absolute stars of the game stand out more which is always a win.

Don’t expect a trial anytime soon but it seems a good discussion

 

[HTT]

Let's remove the behind posts too