Why women play the rough/risky game of AF? How can we get more?/Improve the AFLW? Any barriers?

[jatz14]

Have no problem with female participation but they need to play on smaller field - soccer or rugby size and under modified rules.

The amount of games I have seen where girls do not know how to tackle or protect their bodies when colliding/bumping opponents is concerning.

No

 

[Jibroni]

No

Then the game will be dead in 5 years.

 

[jatz14]

A rejoinder to M. Malthouse's ridiculous views that the bump should be outlawed from female AF; & that he was influenced in his view by his 2 grand daughters -who told him they didn't want to play because it was too rough!

Females know that AF is a rough game, they need courage to play it, & they could be injured. A big attraction for many (but not all) females is the very physical nature of AF.
This does not preclude the AFL from examining female injury rates. Also, after full consultation with AFLW players, should subtle Rule changes be introduced to minimise severe injuries like ACL's & concussions

https://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/li...thouse-to-an-arm-wrestle-20180928-p506p6.html

Freo has signed someone running a program for reducing ACLs, had worked for hockey, and they went from 5 or 6 in one year, to 0 over 5 years.

So, let the dust settle, and see what happens when everything has worked itself out.

When clubs have a handle on womens professional footy, how to deal with female bodies, and have teams of players who grew up playing high level footy. A good portion of AFLW coaching staff are essentially out of community footy.

I find the calls for changes to the game now because of injuries/risk/talent level etc weird. Lets wait to see what those things are like in a more mature steady comp, not the current moving feast.

 

[Yoga Pants]

Then the game will be dead in 5 years.

Maybe if the AFL pour $$ into away from the TV/public eye it might evolve, but as it is now it's beyond bad.

 

[jatz14]

Then the game will be dead in 5 years.

No, it will not.

You want it dead, put it on a soccer pitch with heavy modified rules, guarantee a good portion of the players that switched from other sports switch straight back. If they wanted to play AFLX or Netfootball, they wouldn't have come to footy in the first place.

Womens footy has been around for over 30 years, and started with modified rules, but they switched to normal rules due to player demand. They dreamt of, and wanted to play `real` football.

That hasnt changed at all. ******* old fossils like Malthouse, and dare I say, yourself, can decide you would prefer women play under modified rules you deem more suitable, it isnt going to happen, an if it looks like it will be forced on them, there will be a revolution.

 

[Truckosaurus]

Because it's fun. Also I once took a speccy over an opponent in a game of netball and neither she nor the umpire were impressed.







I'd been watching a 'Greatest Marks' video before the game and momentarily forgot which sport I was playing.

 

[BringBackTorps]

Freo has signed someone running a program for reducing ACLs, had worked for hockey, and they went from 5 or 6 in one year, to 0 over 5 years.
So, let the dust settle, and see what happens when everything has worked itself out.
When clubs have a handle on womens professional footy, how to deal with female bodies, and have teams of players who grew up playing high level footy. A good portion of AFLW coaching staff are essentially out of community footy.

I find the calls for changes to the game now because of injuries/risk/talent level etc weird. Lets wait to see what those things are like in a more mature steady comp, not the current moving feast.

I assume this knee injury reduction, over 5 years, was for females playing hockey -correct?

"5 or 6 in one year" out of how many players playing hockey?
Do you know what the knee injury (ie per 1000 playing hours) rate is for females playing hockey?
Any idea if the female hockey serious knee injury rate is similar to netball?

Can you provide more details on who ran this hockey ACL program, when, & how the reduction was achieved? Any links to this program would be appreciated.

 

[Jibroni]

No, it will not.

You want it dead, put it on a soccer pitch with heavy modified rules, guarantee a good portion of the players that switched from other sports switch straight back. If they wanted to play AFLX or Netfootball, they wouldn't have come to footy in the first place.

Womens footy has been around for over 30 years, and started with modified rules, but they switched to normal rules due to player demand. They dreamt of, and wanted to play `real` football.

That hasnt changed at all. ******* old fossils like Malthouse, and dare I say, yourself, can decide you would prefer women play under modified rules you deem more suitable, it isnt going to happen, an if it looks like it will be forced on them, there will be a revolution.

Freo has signed someone running a program for reducing ACLs, had worked for hockey, and they went from 5 or 6 in one year, to 0 over 5 years.

So, let the dust settle, and see what happens when everything has worked itself out.

When clubs have a handle on womens professional footy, how to deal with female bodies, and have teams of players who grew up playing high level footy. A good portion of AFLW coaching staff are essentially out of community footy.

I find the calls for changes to the game now because of injuries/risk/talent level etc weird. Lets wait to see what those things are like in a more mature steady comp, not the current moving feast.

Yes I agree with Malthouse with his view of the game ATM and Mo Hope should have checked in her ego at the door, she can learn a few lessons on class from Daisy Pearce.

But if you expect people to pay $$$ to watch the current product then we have a problem, I’m looking at the game for a commercial perspective in addition to quality.

 

[jatz14]

Yes I agree with Malthouse with his view of the game ATM and Mo Hope should have checked in her ego at the door, she can learn a few lessons on class from Daisy Pearce.

But if you expect people to pay $$$ to watch the current product then we have a problem, I’m looking at the game for a commercial perspective in addition to quality.

Changing the rules doesn't change the quality of the skills. Someone who isnt interested in going to watch a womans match played to standard rules is not going to watch a bastardised version either. There is utterly no point pandering to those that do not think its worth watching, their opinion is quite literally, of no value.

Yes, there are right now, people who would pay to watch womans AFL. This doesn't matter, the success or failure of the concept isn't determined by whether the AFL makes a bob or 2 at the gate (the fact they still do not charge, and probably will not in 2019 should be a clue).

And Malthouse, for all that he is an Eagles club legend, is one of those whos opinion holds no weight. He even suggested they use smaller balls? Totally unaware woman traditionally use a 4.5, but use a 4.0 in AFLW. He had no idea, despite it being well covered, because he has paid no attention, and given it no thought. Had they used a standard ball, and dropped the size in line with his suggestion, he still would have paid no attention.

If they adopt his other suggestion, and limit tackling, and bumping in AFLW, guess what, he will still not pay any attention. If he has no interest in ALW, why would he have any interest in bruise free AFLW?

I have not seen one single suggestion made of a change that has any prospect of making even one person with no interest in AFLW more likely to watch, all they would do is piss of those already watching.

 

[jatz14]

I assume this knee injury reduction, over 5 years, was for females playing hockey -correct?

"5 or 6 in one year" out of how many players playing hockey?
Do you know what the knee injury (ie per 1000 playing hours) rate is for females playing hockey?
Any idea if the female hockey serious knee injury rate is similar to netball?

Can you provide more details on who ran this hockey ACL program, when, & how the reduction was achieved? Any links to this program would be appreciated.

It was from the national female hockey program, I have been looking for the link, it may have come from a Freo twitter feed.

 

[jatz14]

I assume this knee injury reduction, over 5 years, was for females playing hockey -correct?

"5 or 6 in one year" out of how many players playing hockey?
Do you know what the knee injury (ie per 1000 playing hours) rate is for females playing hockey?
Any idea if the female hockey serious knee injury rate is similar to netball?

Can you provide more details on who ran this hockey ACL program, when, & how the reduction was achieved? Any links to this program would be appreciated.

http://www.fremantlefc.com.au/news/...akes-freos-high-performance-to-the-next-level

 

[BringBackTorps]

http://www.fremantlefc.com.au/news/...akes-freos-high-performance-to-the-next-level

VERY interesting, great find.
I listened to the Starre interview in the link. It stated the ACL prevention work was done on the "Hockeyroos" -but did not specifically state if the common rate of "5 or 6" ACL's in one year was for female hockey players, or it was for male players. Nor did it say 5 or 6 ACL's pa out of how many players.
Similarly, it did not specifically say the reduction (Gillian Weir's ACL prevention methods) to nil ACL's after 5 years was for Hockeyroo females, or males.

Is there any chance you can:-
. clarify these queries
. ascertain whether G. Weir has completed her PhD on ACL prevention strategies; & how widely G.Weir's research & results have been disseminated

Also, do you know if there is publicly recorded information on the % of female AF serious knee injuries caused specifically by a tackle, bump, or push; the % by landing awkwardly; % by running/leg simply collapsing without any body contact? I assume there would be.

Women's different knee anatomy, together with their monthly hormonal changes causing their knee ligaments to weaken, means it is inevitable that females will have a higher rate of serious knee injuries cf. men. Unfortunately, therefore, they are a part of the game -but certainly we should attempt to minimise them, whilst retaining the essential & beautiful aspects of AF.

It would be valuable to know the % of female AF players who have serious female knee injuries, cf. female netball, basketball, soccer & hockey players.

I think most AF fans certainly don't want any changes to the tackling/bumping etc. Rules for female AF.

Prof. K.Norton has advised the AFL there are a record no. of tackles in the AFL, & record no. of tackle/bump/push/collision injuries in the AFL.
Having 4 on the bench & huge interchange nos. facilitate congestion & the record nos. of tackles. This is also happening regularly in community AF, & light weight players are being hammered/injured.

 

[BringBackTorps]

Enjoy.

http://www.footyalmanac.com.au/youre-playing-footy-arent-you-scared-of-being-hurt/

 

[Aardvark]

Enjoy.

http://www.footyalmanac.com.au/youre-playing-footy-arent-you-scared-of-being-hurt/

What a great read. That is what it's all about really.

 

[BringBackTorps]

This is an articulate, personal viewpoint as to why a dimunitive, 50 kg woman decided to start playing contact RU.
I think the many points she makes apply equally to AF. There are women's AF teams around the Manly area, & I wish she commented on why she preferred RU to AF (the latter is safer, IMO, for a petite woman).

www.wellnessdaily.com.au/expert/why-your-daughter-should-play-rugby?utm_source=outbrain&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=wellness_daily_articles

 

[BringBackTorps]

I thought this is the best place for an article on reducing the high rate of female knee injuries in sport.
If left unchecked, female AF will be diminished.
(Ditto, much higher rates of female AF concussion, cf male AF. This may be partially due to many females having a very poor tackling technique -tackling with their head forward, not in an upright position; not knowing how to predict/protect their bodies from incoming opponents)

The good news is that agility training & landing with knees bent can, apparently, reduce knee injuries by 80%. It requires 3 training sessions pw, 3 x 20 minutes each- essential.

It is essential the AFLW plays game styles similar to the highly lauded Melb. V. Footscray Sept.2016 women's game. It needs to reject the ugly, massive congestion- which inevitably causes constant tackling/bumping/collisions, & more injuries.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-10...mong-elite-sportswomen/10364518?section=sport

 

[owen87]

The good news is that agility training & landing with knees bent can, apparently, reduce knee injuries by 80%. It requires 3 training sessions pw, 3 x 20 minutes each- essential.

Sounds like this is something that could (should) be implemented as part of warming-up / cooling-down for each training session. Especially at the junior level where you're dealing with relatively undeveloped athletes.

It is essential the AFLW plays a game styles similar to the highly lauded Melb. V. Footscray Sept.2016 women's game. It needs to reject the ugly, massive congestion- which inevitably causes constant tackling/bumping/collisions, & more injuries.

What you're suggesting has a few things;

1. That we need to force AFLW to provide a certain 'look' to the game, thus limiting tactical options from coaches concerned simply with winning, and changing it to be about aesthetic concerns.
2. That congestion - and contested football - is ugly.
3. That reducing congestion will reduce tackling, bumping and collisions, and that therefore will result in reduced injury rates.

 

[BringBackTorps]

What you're suggesting

1. That we need to force AFLW to provide a certain 'look' to the game, thus limiting tactical options from coaches concerned simply with winning, and changing it to be about aesthetic concerns.
2. That congestion - and contested football - is ugly.
3. That reducing congestion will reduce tackling, bumping and collisions, and that therefore will result in reduced injury rates.

Having an AFLW game (which are only c.15 mins.+ per qtr; & assuming it is played in under 25 degrees, fine conditions) with scorelines around 3g 7 pts to 2g 6 pts is a MASSIVE fail for female AF. Check the AFL's "Charter Of The Game" for the desired game style (based on historical analysis of what features gave AF its greatest popularity).

In the 1980's there were an average of 20 tackles per team per game (ie total 40) -now it's an average of 70 per team (ie total 140).
Prof. K.Norton, the AFL's own expert, said there are now record tackle/bump/collision/push injuries. There are constantly big nos. around the ball, players (rested on the interchange, with 4 on the bench) are more ballistic now, & are hitting or colliding harder. L.Matthews has also said this.
Prof. Norton recommended to the AFL the interchange should be only 20-40 per team. AFL Chairman Fitzpatrick wanted only 30 per team.

AFLW ratings crashed in 2018-fans want to see AF skills, not stoppages-filled tackleball.

AFL average total goals per game are at their lowest level since 1968. This is despite better/firmer surfaces, less wind in enclosed grounds (& 42 games pa at pristine DS!), chopping of the arms banned, marks in the square being put straight in front, players are full timers now/better kicks etc. Less goals + less ad breaks= less TV Rights $ = AFL & AFLW stuffed financially.

The very high rates (10 times approx.) of AFLW serious knee injuries are horrific -for female AF, & the player (my above link quotes Dr Vertullo, orthopaedic surgeon, stating lifelong arthritis issues).

The very high rates of female AF concussion (double?) represent the possibility of strategic, existential issues for female AF -& possibly the players' health. Are you aware of the concussion problem for the NFL; & GR gridiron in the US? Why are jnr & snr RL & RU male contact playing numbers in a long term decline in Aust.?

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2018-09-26/aflw-concussion-acl-injuries-highlighted

The injury rates in female & male AF MUST be minimised. First step is to ameliorate the ugly, congested tackleball crap that a big majority of professional AFL commentators state is an aesthetic problem for AF.

Tim Lane has been a professional VFL/AFL commentator since the early 80's.
He says, in the link below, (paraphrasing) he cannot recall so many concussions then as now, there were fewer high speed collisions, & that today's football is more collision-orientated. His comments (& many experts share his views) are extremely worrying.

IMO, the AFL's biggest priority (in a strategic sense) is to reduce the record no. of collision injuries we are now experiencing- particularly head & knee.
I assume most who read this Thread want to see female (& male) AF prosper. If we don't reduce the very high injury rates, the game will NOT advance & prosper. Or it will become mainly a game played by professionals, & not with an enormous no. of community male & female players -similar to gridiron in the US.

https://www.theroar.com.au/2018/07/19/think-the-afls-gone-soft-think-again/

 

[owen87]

Having an AFLW game (which are only c.15 mins.+ per qtr; & assuming it is played in under 25 degrees, fine conditions) with scorelines around 3g 7 pts to 2g 6 pts is a MASSIVE fail for female AF. Check the AFL's "Charter Of The Game" for the desired game style (based on historical analysis of what features gave AF its greatest popularity).

In the 1980's there were an average of 20 tackles per team per game (ie total 40) -now it's an average of 70 per team (ie total 140).
Prof. K.Norton, the AFL's own expert, said there are now record tackle/bump/collision/push injuries. There are constantly big nos. around the ball,(rested on the interchange, with 4 on the bench) players are more ballistic now, & are hitting or colliding harder. L.Matthews has also said this.
Prof. Norton recommended to the AFL the interchange should be only 20-40 per team. AFL Chairman Fitzpatrick wanted only 30 per team.

AFLW ratings crashed in 2018-fans want to see AF skills, not stoppages-filled tackleball.

AFL average total goals per game are at their lowest level since 1968. This is despite better/firmer surfaces, less wind in enclosed grounds (& 42 games pa at pristine DS!), chopping of the arms banned, marks in the square being put straight in front, players are full timers now/better kicks etc. Less goals + less ad breaks= less TV Rights $ + AFL & AFLW stuffed financially.

The very high rates of AFLW serious knee injuries are horrific -for female AF, & the player (my above link quotes the orthopaedic surgeon stating lifelong atrhritis issues.
The very high rates of female concussion represent the possibility of strategic, existential issues for female AF -& possibly the players' health. Are you aware of the concussion problem for the NFL, & GR gridiron?

The injury rates in female & male AF must be minimised. First step is to ameliorate the ugly, congested tackleball crap that a big majority of professional AFL commentators state is an aesthetic problem for AF

Your writing style is still incredibly unpleasant to read, let alone to respond to.

AFLW ratings were arguably inflated for season one, so of more interest will be the average ratings and attendance for season 2019 as compared to 2018 to see if they're levelling off or declining.

You clearly have a very specific idea of what the game should look like, and if the AFLW doesn't match that look, then it needs to be changed.

I agree that we should be looking at ideas and ways of minimising injury rates, but I don't think a pre-determined 'look' to the game is the correct way to go about it.

 

[romeohwho]

Freo has signed someone running a program for reducing ACLs, had worked for hockey, and they went from 5 or 6 in one year, to 0 over 5 years.

So, let the dust settle, and see what happens when everything has worked itself out.

When clubs have a handle on womens professional footy, how to deal with female bodies, and have teams of players who grew up playing high level footy. A good portion of AFLW coaching staff are essentially out of community footy.

I find the calls for changes to the game now because of injuries/risk/talent level etc weird. Lets wait to see what those things are like in a more mature steady comp, not the current moving feast.

Makes perfect sense to me that there could be modifications given the high injury rate-which is presumably a consequence of women having not grown up playing the game in the same way males have. Hence the bodies are not coping as well. Why would you want to tolerate so many injuries when some minor tweaks might make it better?

 

[BringBackTorps]

AFLW ratings were arguably inflated for season one, so of more interest will be the average ratings and attendance for season 2019 as compared to 2018 to see if they're levelling off or declining.
You clearly have a very specific idea of what the game should look like, and if the AFLW doesn't match that look, then it needs to be changed.
I agree that we should be looking at ideas and ways of minimising injury rates, but I don't think a pre-determined 'look' to the game is the correct way to go about it.

With relatively little fanfare, the 2016 Melb. v Footscray female games rated extremely well -the Sept. 2016 relatively, free flowing, good scoring, exciting game peaking at over 1,000,000.

I have specifically addressed your comments in my comments above.
You haven't specifically addressed all of mine -or, in your attempts, have been unconvincing.

Are you aware that in community AF, from male U16 onwards, having 32 players in half the ground is becoming common for lengthy periods of the game?
And that LIGHT WEIGHT players (for adult men, under 74kgs) are getting SMASHED/often INJURED?
Once coaches would place light weight players on the wing (if they had good leg speed); or in the forward pocket or flank -& tell them to "Run into space"-BUT THE SPACE IS NOW BEING REMOVED (by the interchange, & 4 on the bench- 6 in jnrs).

AF MUST address the high injury rates.

 

[jatz14]

Makes perfect sense to me that there could be modifications given the high injury rate-which is presumably a consequence of women having not grown up playing the game in the same way males have. Hence the bodies are not coping as well. Why would you want to tolerate so many injuries when some minor tweaks might make it better?

Tweaks will make it better, but will not solve the issue. Some of the greater risk is due to structural issues, hips leading to different leg angles, thinner ligaments etc, that cannot be remedied, but it can be better than it is.

One of the reports highlighting the increased risk still recommended women play, as an increased risk of knee injury was outweighed by other benefits of sport.

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

 

[jatz14]

Having an AFLW game (which are only c.15 mins.+ per qtr; & assuming it is played in under 25 degrees, fine conditions) with scorelines around 3g 7 pts to 2g 6 pts is a MASSIVE fail for female AF. Check the AFL's "Charter Of The Game" for the desired game style (based on historical analysis of what features gave AF its greatest popularity).

In the 1980's there were an average of 20 tackles per team per game (ie total 40) -now it's an average of 70 per team (ie total 140).
Prof. K.Norton, the AFL's own expert, said there are now record tackle/bump/collision/push injuries. There are constantly big nos. around the ball,(rested on the interchange, with 4 on the bench) players are more ballistic now, & are hitting or colliding harder. L.Matthews has also said this.
Prof. Norton recommended to the AFL the interchange should be only 20-40 per team. AFL Chairman Fitzpatrick wanted only 30 per team.

AFLW ratings crashed in 2018-fans want to see AF skills, not stoppages-filled tackleball.

AFL average total goals per game are at their lowest level since 1968. This is despite better/firmer surfaces, less wind in enclosed grounds (& 42 games pa at pristine DS!), chopping of the arms banned, marks in the square being put straight in front, players are full timers now/better kicks etc. Less goals + less ad breaks= less TV Rights $ + AFL & AFLW stuffed financially.

The very high rates (10 times approx.) of AFLW serious knee injuries are horrific -for female AF, & the player (my above link quotes Dr Vertullo, orthopaedic surgeon, stating lifelong arthritis issues.

The very high rates of female AF concussion (double?) represent the possibility of strategic, existential issues for female AF -& possibly the players' health. Are you aware of the concussion problem for the NFL, & GR gridiron?

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2018-09-26/aflw-concussion-acl-injuries-highlighted

The injury rates in female & male AF must be minimised. First step is to ameliorate the ugly, congested tackleball crap that a big majority of professional AFL commentators state is an aesthetic problem for AF

Tim Lane has been a professional VFL/AFL commentator since the early 80's.
He says, in the link below, (paraphrasing) he cannot recall so many concussions then as now, there were fewer high speed collisions & that today's football is more collision-orientated. His comments (& many experts share his views) are extremely worrying.

IMO, the AFL's biggest priority (in a strategic sense) is to alter the record no. of collision injuries we are now experiencing-particularly head & knee.
I assume most who read this Thread want to see female (& male) AF prosper. If we dont reduce the very high injury rates, the game will NOT advance & prosper. Or it will become mainly a game played by professionals, & not community male & female players -similar to gridiron in the US.

https://www.theroar.com.au/2018/07/19/think-the-afls-gone-soft-think-again/

Tackling has gone up, and intensity has gone up, yet as a rule, contact in congestion is less high energy than contact in open play.

In congestion, players are relatively stationary, tackles are more wrestling someone to the ground. Players do not bring in lots of momentum.

Injuries in congestion tend to be unfortunate, eg, ankle trapped, leg twisted, or the result of poor or dangerous technique, sling tackles and the like.

Contact in open play tends to be more high energy, both players are more likely to be running at Pace. Head clashes, ribs, tens to be done in open play.

Marking is an example. A long kick to a big pack tends not to result in injuries, there's lots of contact, but it's not high energy.

Nasty injuries are more likely if the ball is kicked to space, and multiple players converge at pace.

Injuries in congestion can be partly offset through technique, and enforcement of rules. Altering the look of the game is not necessary.

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

 

[owen87]

With relatively little fanfare, the 2016 Melb. v Footscray female games rated extremely well -the Sept. 2016 relatively, free flowing, good scoring, exciting game peaking at over 1,000,000.

I have specifically addressed your comments in my comments above.
You haven't specifically addressed all of mine -or, in your attempts, have been unconvincing.

Are you aware that in community AF, from male U16 onwards, having 32 players in half the ground is becoming common for lengthy periods of the game?
And that LIGHT WEIGHT players (for adult men, under 74kgs) are getting SMASHED/often INJURED?
Once coaches would place light weight players on the wing (if they had good leg speed); or in the forward pocket or flank -& tell them to "Run into space"-BUT THE SPACE IS NOW BEING REMOVED (by the interchange, & 4 on the bench- 6 in jnrs).

AF MUST address the high injury rates.

You're talking a one-off exhibition game, with almost 0 time to prepare tactically, and using players that are now distributed as generally top-5 players on their individual teams, where winning came secondary to showcasing the game.

You're effectively advocating for an exhibition league by the sounds of it.

This is a discussion, not a statistical analysis of whatever random nebulous figures you care to throw out that may or may not apply to AFLW or Women's AFL in general.

 

[BringBackTorps]

Tackling has gone up, and intensity has gone up, yet as a rule, contact in congestion is less high energy than contact in open play.

Play was far more open, obviously, in the 80's, 90's, early 2000's. The facts irrefutably show tackle counts have gone from an average of 40 per game in the 80's, to 140 now -& tackle/collision/bump/push injuries are now at RECORD highs, according to Prof. Norton (who advised the AFL to reduce interchange to 20-40 per team).
Players' average speed is now, irrefutably, much higher; & they are, on average, heavier, fitter, & stronger. Force =Mass X Acceleration.

Prof. S.Alomes, below, also disagrees with your views.

https://theconversation.com/afl-must-change-ticketing-and-ugby-rules-that-drive-away-fans-26059

D.Parkin also disagrees, & believes "the look of the game needs to be changed".

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-10...es-rule-changes-in-afl/10365884?section=sport

You're talking a one-off exhibition game, with almost 0 time to prepare tactically, and using players that are now distributed as generally top-5 players on their individual teams, where winning came secondary to showcasing the game.
You're effectively advocating for an exhibition league by the sounds of it.[Weak]
This is a discussion, not a statistical analysis of whatever random nebulous figures[Weak] you care to throw out that may or may not apply to AFLW or Women's AFL in general[Weak. Also, unless AFLW highlights AF skills, not tackleball, it will never get much higher Ratings & crowds/become a full time prof. comp.]

I'm sorry you don't like me advocating arguments based on objective & historical criteria measuring the game's popularity.
I'm sorry you don't want me to refer to the AFL's very carefully researched Charter Of The Game (where it specifies most fans prefer a game that is relatively free flowing, with good scoring, long kicking a lots of contested marking). Long kicking, contested marking, running bounce nos. are now at record lows, cf. recent eras.

Many AFL commentators want the traditional, & most aesthetically pleasing/often unique, features of AF to be showcased -not ugly, stoppages filled, quasi-rugby, low scoring, tackleball.
eg Hafey, Sheedy, Jeans, Barassi, Kerley, Parkin, Matthews, Pagan, Bartlett, Walls, Wallace, Blight, Brereton, Lane, Quartermaine, G.Healy, Russell, Baum, Ralph, C.Wilson, G.Lyon, Niall, Watson, Maher, Whateley & many others. Even Dangerfield, AFLPA representitive, recognises the need to change the current game's aesthetics.

You have not referred to T. Lane's comments in my link above, thus it can be assumed you agree with them all. If not, what specifically do you disagree with, & why?