Time to Scrap %. Points For Only.

Remove this Banner Ad

Lavender Bushranger

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 25, 2005
6,631
10,211
Grogansville
AFL Club
Gold Coast
Shortened quarters really need to be considered here.

And that still doesn't address the point that points difference is far too dependent on conditions, and it still doesn't address how a team controls a match relatively.

loose Example.....

Essendon 8.9(57) def. Adelaide 6.3(39)
is more of a complete and impressive victory(and a complete victory takes into consideration your ability to limit the other teams scoring as well as your own ability to score) than....
St.Kilda 12.8(80) def. Geelong 9.6(60)

Essendon won by 2 points less, but had a much higher percentage of the total match score which indicates their victory was a superior performance, particularly if that match occured in bad weather conditions which made it more difficult to score.

Its harder to score in wet conditions, thats just fact, so teams who play in these conditions more often....which is merely down to luck of scheduling will be punished through no fault of their own.
I'm not saying that it's a better system than %.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not anti-percentage. And I'm not suggesting it be canned just for a laugh.

But I'd happily sacrifice something like % if it means it forces the coach's hands, or at least encourages them, to stop dragging the game down into a defensive shitshow. I'd far prefer subtle changes to things like the OP suggested, than rip the heart out of the game itself by introducing a myriad of rule changes every year that end up being futile in the end anyway - cause the root cause isn't ever addressed - the coaches.

The end would comfortably justify the means, in my opinion.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

PhatBoy

Brownlow Medallist
May 5, 2016
22,766
24,336
AFL Club
Geelong
I'm not saying that it's a better system than %.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not anti-percentage. And I'm not suggesting it be canned just for a laugh.

But I'd happily sacrifice something like % if it means it forces the coach's hands, or at least encourages them, to stop dragging the game down into a defensive shitshow. I'd far prefer subtle changes to things like the OP suggested, than rip the heart out of the game itself by introducing a myriad of rule changes every year that end up being futile in the end anyway - cause the root cause isn't ever addressed - the coaches.

The end would comfortably justify the means, in my opinion.

I think you are overstating how much tactics and coaching has actually impacted the scoring side of the game.

I made mention of this in another thread about a similar topic a year or so back.

Quite simply the difference is fitness. Thats why we have this defensive oriented game.

Do you think that, say, Malcolm Blight wouldn’t have encouraged his defenders to zone off and help one another when Tony Lockett was kicking a bag of goals? (I cited Blight because he was famous for how attacking his sides were). Do you think he wouldn’t have told Bairstow, Couch and Hocking to play two way footy wherever possible and fall back to half-back when they could, or tackle as much as they could?

Of course he would have.

But fitness standards weren’t even close to the level they are today.

Players would run and push themselves to GET the ball, but they wouldn’t repeat that effort to thwart the ball. Players would man an opponent and make sure he didn’t get the ball. They couldn’t just sprint off and leave him halfway through the third quarter and run to another teammate’s contest 50 metres across the field. They wouldn’t get there in time, they wouldn’t get back in time, and they couldn’t rely on another teammate dropping off to cover THEIR man.

Players are fitter, faster and stronger.

Yes obviously the natural strength of an Ablett sr or Lockett or Stewart Loewe or whoever would still be just as handy today but the running power that comes on top of it would just be at another level.


Think back to 2000. The dogs’ tactic to beat Essendon was so blatant it was called the super flood.

This was 20 years ago when professionalism was starting to pick up but not nearly to the level it was 10 years later.

The teams still scored 92-81. So even with two thirds of the dogs team streaming to the back one third of the field, the teams still managed 173 points between them.

Why? Because the speed and endurance of the players was lower than it is now so even with a completely negative game plan it could only stifle the scoring to a certain point
 

Lavender Bushranger

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 25, 2005
6,631
10,211
Grogansville
AFL Club
Gold Coast
I think you are overstating how much tactics and coaching has actually impacted the scoring side of the game.

I made mention of this in another thread about a similar topic a year or so back.

Quite simply the difference is fitness. Thats why we have this defensive oriented game.

Do you think that, say, Malcolm Blight wouldn’t have encouraged his defenders to zone off and help one another when Tony Lockett was kicking a bag of goals? (I cited Blight because he was famous for how attacking his sides were). Do you think he wouldn’t have told Bairstow, Couch and Hocking to play two way footy wherever possible and fall back to half-back when they could, or tackle as much as they could?

Of course he would have.

But fitness standards weren’t even close to the level they are today.

Players would run and push themselves to GET the ball, but they wouldn’t repeat that effort to thwart the ball. Players would man an opponent and make sure he didn’t get the ball. They couldn’t just sprint off and leave him halfway through the third quarter and run to another teammate’s contest 50 metres across the field. They wouldn’t get there in time, they wouldn’t get back in time, and they couldn’t rely on another teammate dropping off to cover THEIR man.

Players are fitter, faster and stronger.

Yes obviously the natural strength of an Ablett sr or Lockett or Stewart Loewe or whoever would still be just as handy today but the running power that comes on top of it would just be at another level.


Think back to 2000. The dogs’ tactic to beat Essendon was so blatant it was called the super flood.

This was 20 years ago when professionalism was starting to pick up but not nearly to the level it was 10 years later.

The teams still scored 92-81. So even with two thirds of the dogs team streaming to the back one third of the field, the teams still managed 173 points between them.

Why? Because the speed and endurance of the players was lower than it is now so even with a completely negative game plan it could only stifle the scoring to a certain point
Being able to run all day is one thing - knowing where to run is another.

Plenty of fit guys play in teams that leak goals like a sive - cause they aren't well drilled at setting up defensively.



On a side note...unrelated....I went to an Essendon game when I was a teenager at Moorabbin, when the 'flood' was first rolled out.

Wallace and Ease get credit for it - but Sheedy did it first. Lockett was in rare form, and Essendon were going just Ok. Sheedy played three loose men in defence, whilst Daniher played directly on Lockett.

Lockett was well held and only only managed 4 - but was largely ineffectual and St Kilda couldn't score. Essendon won.
 
Last edited:

estibador

purple haze
Mar 2, 2007
39,409
46,845
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Liverpool
I've never agreed with this concept of conflating high scoring footy with exciting footy. It's what happens between the goals that makes a game exciting to watch - there's nothing inherently exciting about watching the ball go between the sticks.

Sure, goals are exciting when you're watching your own team because they're a stepping stone to victory, but there's nothing inherently exciting about watching goals in neutral games if the build up play isn't exciting.

Some of the best qtrs I've ever seen are those where neither team score much but the ball is in constant movement pinging between the two 50m arcs with each HB line attacking and counter-attacking. It's a lack of stoppages that make games exciting, that's why commentators get so excited when they finally get a chance to pause after a frenetic piece of play where the ball is in constant movement.

TL;DR - goals themselves aren't what make games exciting to watch, constant ball movement is.
 

harrythetiger

Jack Graham That Is 🏆🏆🏆
Sep 13, 2015
15,243
41,598
Hillary Step
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
76ers
I've never agreed with this concept of conflating high scoring footy with exciting footy. It's what happens between the goals that makes a game exciting to watch - there's nothing inherently exciting about watching the ball go between the sticks.

Sure, goals are exciting when you're watching your own team because they're a stepping stone to victory, but there's nothing inherently exciting about watching goals in neutral games if the build up play isn't exciting.

Some of the best qtrs I've ever seen are those where neither team score much but the ball is in constant movement pinging between the two 50m arcs with each HB line attacking and counter-attacking. It's a lack of stoppages that make games exciting, that's why commentators get so excited when they finally get a chance to pause after a frenetic piece of play where the ball is in constant movement.

TL;DR - goals themselves aren't what make games exciting to watch, constant ball movement is.
Agree.
Some of the past games that get replayed all the time descend into periods of quick clearance - key forward marks on lead - set shot goal - repeat. That is about as boring as it gets for me. I really don’t get the push for this type of stuff happening weekly. It’s really not that exciting to watch. I much prefer games with variety - including periods where it feels like scoring is impossible and other periods where it seems easy. That’s why the 2018 Grand Final was so fantastic. And it was below average scoring on a season where people said there wasn’t enough scoring!
 

Ok Boomer

Back in my day
Jul 27, 2015
8,030
12,881
South West
AFL Club
West Coast
Coaches trying to find the most efficient way of winning instead of worrying about aesthetics isn't exactly breaking news. The same points have been made since 2005 when the AFL were whinging about Sydney.

Which kind of shows how useless the AFL goons like Steve Hocking are, because the game has become much, much worse.
 

Aramis

Premiership Player
Jul 31, 2016
4,213
8,823
AFL Club
Hawthorn
The fabric of the game, and most team ball sports, is to score points, and stop your opposition scoring points.

Why should value be placed on one of those skills over another?
I'll give you millions of reasons $$$

The game is being heavily commodified/bastardised into an 'entertainment product' as opposed to a sporting contest.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

LordLucifer

Brownlow Medallist
Mar 20, 2002
20,913
20,107
The North Shore Daaaahling !!
AFL Club
Carlton
The biggest issue with the game is the coaches.

They want dour, low scoring, clogged up stoppage fests.

Free flowing, high scoring games terrify them.

I'd guarantee that every AFL coach would prefer to win 1.1 to 1.0 every single week - than lose in high scoring and entertaining games. Hell, some supporters would too.

I don't blame coaches really - they lose games, they lose their job.

So that's what needs to be addressed. The evolution of the game into what we see today is no fluke. It's solely due to the above reason.

So...scrap percentage. You still get 4 point for winning, but % is replaced with Points For.

It's subtle, as winning games remains the priority - but kicking scores has a fairly significant benefit too.

It doesn't alter any fundamentals of the game itself either.

Discuss...


Blunt.png
 

Kwality

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 14, 2011
28,012
10,449
Trafalgar
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Renault F1
Stupid idea that is too flawed based on where you play most of your games

So a team playing indoor at the Docklands they have a better chance of a high scoring game rather than in the et down at Geelong
The OP will be posting the data to support his suggestion, including how it would have effected the last 10 years ladders.
 

BF Tiger

Norm Smith Medallist
Jun 5, 2007
7,187
16,701
9th
AFL Club
Richmond
Bad idea.

A coach will coach to win first and foremost. If that means he coaches for 8 goals to 6 goals and 16 wins a season he’ll take that over 20 goals to 18 goals and 14 wins a season.
 

Remove this Banner Ad