What unpopular AFL opinions do you have? (Part 1 - cont in Part 2)

Status
Not open for further replies.

(Log in to remove this ad.)

General Giant

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Posts
29,522
Likes
20,719
AFL Club
GWS
YOUR LOCATION DOES NOT MATTER ONE BIT!
If you play in front of 1 or 1000000 people the game is the same.
So in summary what you're saying is that players play worse in non-footy states?

What a joke.

Port were given that for ONE DRAFT. Not like 5 or whatever you guys got.
Which you're still reaping the benefits of by continuously trading your surplus young talent for more first round picks.
Yeah of course not, location of a start up club makes no difference

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk
 

General Giant

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Posts
29,522
Likes
20,719
AFL Club
GWS
Lol you still can't keep up... The proof was to do with you stupidly not understanding a meme, abe

Your second paragraph doesn't even appear to be a fully formed argument, seems to be a section missing for it to make sense.
Kept up plenty.

Makes perfect sense. Obviously, youngen, your not as quick as you think you are.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk
 
Joined
Jul 18, 2013
Posts
11,394
Likes
8,060
AFL Club
Melbourne
Kept up plenty.

Makes perfect sense. Obviously, youngen, your not as quick as you think you are.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk
Except you haven't ;) you still require things explained to you

And no, no it doesn't. Its not arguing any point. I assume you're missing something along the lines of "we still deserve it" or perhaps the last section should have started with "then it doesn't matter if" or you could've excluded it and just had "then we are lucky enough..."
 

Teeko

Senior List
Joined
Feb 16, 2012
Posts
189
Likes
44
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Chelsea, 49ers
Thats the thing though, every single club has youngsters they can tout like that.

From an outsiders perspective you just look daft making huge predictions about your youngsters before they've done anything. Every club's supporters do it.

Upside is significant, yes, but it is also with many other teams. Could probably make a case for 13-14 teams being 'better' than last season.
I think it was obvious the person making huge claims about our youth wasn't that serious. I think most Essendon supporters are very excited about our list, but aren't talking premierships just yet. I even said myself that many of our youth have a long way to go.

And of course you can put a positive spin on a list assessment with any team, and find reasons why they will improve. I just think the Bombers have a plethora of valid reasons why they might improve from 2015, and I highlighted them.
 
Last edited:

NeXus Nick

Senior List
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Posts
293
Likes
312
AFL Club
St Kilda
My un-popular AFL opinion is the following........
For the good of the competition Melbourne and Western Bulldogs should merge to form the Melbourne Bulldogs. Then the AFL could immediately bring in Tasmania. This would then make the competition truly national and it would also save the AFL millions of wasted dollars.
 

Hoooops

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
May 17, 2016
Posts
6,493
Likes
9,622
Location
Gold City
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Melbourne Stars, Canberra Raiders
I'm going to get crucified for this but here it is anyway:

I liked the sub rule.

It meant that if one team lost a player to injury, they could sub them off without losing an active spot on the interchange bench, hence giving the opposition team less of an advantage.

Without it, one team can be reduced to three fit players on the interchange bench while the other still has four who can be rotated freely.

Don't understand why people were so heavily opposed to it, I was sad to see it go. Injuries now have a bigger impact on results, when they don't need to.
 

Decimation

Senior List
Joined
May 27, 2015
Posts
276
Likes
268
Location
Bunbury W.A.
AFL Club
Melbourne
Other Teams
Detroit Pistons
I'm going to get crucified for this but here it is anyway:

I liked the sub rule.

It meant that if one team lost a player to injury, they could sub them off without losing an active spot on the interchange bench, hence giving the opposition team less of an advantage.

Without it, one team can be reduced to three fit players on the interchange bench while the other still has four who can be rotated freely.

Don't understand why people were so heavily opposed to it, I was sad to see it go. Injuries now have a bigger impact on results, when they don't need to.
Because it destroys my dreamteam :D
 

Clems Knee

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Aug 15, 2009
Posts
6,523
Likes
12,112
Location
Perth
AFL Club
Fremantle
I'm going to get crucified for this but here it is anyway:

I liked the sub rule.

It meant that if one team lost a player to injury, they could sub them off without losing an active spot on the interchange bench, hence giving the opposition team less of an advantage.

Without it, one team can be reduced to three fit players on the interchange bench while the other still has four who can be rotated freely.

Don't understand why people were so heavily opposed to it, I was sad to see it go. Injuries now have a bigger impact on results, when they don't need to.
With the interchange cap, the advantage of a 4 man bench over a 3 man bench isn't as great, because they can't be rotated freely. So the interchange cap has removed the pressing need for the substitute rule.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Hoooops

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
May 17, 2016
Posts
6,493
Likes
9,622
Location
Gold City
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Melbourne Stars, Canberra Raiders
With the interchange cap, the advantage of a 4 man bench over a 3 man bench isn't as great, because they can't be rotated freely. So the interchange cap has removed the pressing need for the substitute rule.
It's not as effective but yeah it's helped a bit.
 

Bojan KantKick

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Sep 5, 2014
Posts
19,529
Likes
17,389
Location
Norf London
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Manchester United, Stevenage FC
My un-popular AFL opinion is the following........
For the good of the competition Melbourne and Western Bulldogs should merge to form the Melbourne Bulldogs. Then the AFL could immediately bring in Tasmania. This would then make the competition truly national and it would also save the AFL millions of wasted dollars.
Tassie Saints sounds better imo.
 

DangerSloane

Hall of Famer
Joined
Jul 13, 2012
Posts
39,865
Likes
18,417
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Charlotte Hornets, Chelsea, Striker
Kept up plenty.

Makes perfect sense. Obviously, youngen, your not as quick as you think you are.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk
Maybe dont try to insult someones intelligence while using the wrong your/you're.

Just a tip for future, you end up looking like a giant potato.
 

DangerSloane

Hall of Famer
Joined
Jul 13, 2012
Posts
39,865
Likes
18,417
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Charlotte Hornets, Chelsea, Striker
Thats just a lie. We won by plenty anyway,
And at the SCG you probably wouldnt have won...

The AFL changed the rules to allow you to play at a neutral venue.

The giants/suns have had far more concessions than any other side ever...and its not even close.
 

DangerSloane

Hall of Famer
Joined
Jul 13, 2012
Posts
39,865
Likes
18,417
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Charlotte Hornets, Chelsea, Striker
I'm going to get crucified for this but here it is anyway:

I liked the sub rule.

It meant that if one team lost a player to injury, they could sub them off without losing an active spot on the interchange bench, hence giving the opposition team less of an advantage.

Without it, one team can be reduced to three fit players on the interchange bench while the other still has four who can be rotated freely.

Don't understand why people were so heavily opposed to it, I was sad to see it go. Injuries now have a bigger impact on results, when they don't need to.
I think it was a crap spectacle, and coaches werent using it correctly.
It was more used to inject fresh legs nearing 3/4 time.

Even with the sub rule, teams that had to use their sub early to replace an injury were still disadvantaged according to the statistics.

I just dont think it achieved what it was supposed to.
 
Joined
Nov 23, 2016
Posts
10,562
Likes
6,890
AFL Club
GWS
And at the SCG you probably wouldnt have won...

The AFL changed the rules to allow you to play at a neutral venue.

The giants/suns have had far more concessions than any other side ever...and its not even close.
Rubbish, better not to post you fantasies on BF, particularly not on the main board.

Sent from my SM-N920I using BigFooty.com mobile app
 

00Stinger

Duel Group 1 winner
Joined
May 8, 2007
Posts
19,608
Likes
18,566
Location
@ HOME
AFL Club
Melbourne
Other Teams
Liverpool & San Francisco 49ers
My un-popular AFL opinion is the following........
For the good of the competition Melbourne and Western Bulldogs should merge to form the Melbourne Bulldogs. Then the AFL could immediately bring in Tasmania. This would then make the competition truly national and it would also save the AFL millions of wasted dollars.
Demographically wouldnt it make more sense for North Melbourne and the Bulldogs to merge?

Sent from my SM-G925I using Tapatalk
 

Saint

Club Legend
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Posts
2,006
Likes
1,186
Location
Victoria
AFL Club
Essendon
I'm going to get crucified for this but here it is anyway:

I liked the sub rule.

It meant that if one team lost a player to injury, they could sub them off without losing an active spot on the interchange bench, hence giving the opposition team less of an advantage.

Without it, one team can be reduced to three fit players on the interchange bench while the other still has four who can be rotated freely.

Don't understand why people were so heavily opposed to it, I was sad to see it go. Injuries now have a bigger impact on results, when they don't need to.
I can see the benefits of it, but it meant if you got more than one injury it was a real problem when the opposition injected fresh legs towards the end of the game. Plus almost every sub was a smaller player and when ruckmen or key position players went down, the same problem was encountered by teams.

With midfields made up of 8-10 rotating players, adding one more into the mix later in the game wasn't really that important.

I think my unpopular opinion is that losing just one rotation through the midfield is not that important, some teams have less players rotating through anyway. I think the whole rotations thing is a bit of a myth that the club with more rotations would have fresher legs. I think confident winning teams rotate more while worse teams rotate less (have less decent players to rotate) so the statistics would skew to look as if more rotations equalled more success, when it was the other way around.

When Hawthorn were 10 goals up they could afford to rotate Sam Mitchell and Luke Hodge off the ground. When Essendon are 2 goals behind, they're hardly going to rotate off Watson (in his prime years) for a first or second year player very often.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom