Women's Footy a big success?

[Eaglemaniac]

It has gotta be hard coaching, you would have your heart in your mouth i reckon on some occasions.

I coached boys to year 10 level and felt a real level of responsibility for their safety, at that age some are physically men and others boys with most in between.

The vast majority of boys know how to protect themselves whilst attacking the ball and have been playing since auskick, these AFLW coaches really have it all in front of them.

Yeah i coached for many years (and still have my accreditation), and its hard when people get injured because no decent person wants to see that. Unfortunately injury can be a part of sport so i try to teach people how to protect themselves in whatever sport I was coaching, whether that be footy, kickboxing or anything else.

 

[Aeglos]

Because of the congestion, there are so many more tackles. And with more tackles, there is obviously a corresponding rise in injuries.

In a men's WB game last year, the WB did a record 155 tackles in one game -a record for one team.
Congestion is directly related to more injuries.

You keep pushing this narrative yet cannot produce any amount of evidence that suggests this is anywhere near true

 

[Garlic muncher]

You keep pushing this narrative yet cannot produce any amount of evidence that suggests this is anywhere near true

So you don't think more fit bodies congesting around the ball leads to less injuries than open positional football.

 

[jatz14]

So you don't think more fit bodies congesting around the ball leads to less injuries than open positional football.

Congested footy leads to lots of low impact contact. Its wrestling more than high energy impacts. Biggest tackler at the Eagles is Priddis, because he is always in the congestion, but I don't recall him ever hurting anyone, because he is almost at a standstill when he tackles, and he is trying to trap the ball, not piledrive anyone.

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

 

[Aeglos]

So you don't think more fit bodies congesting around the ball leads to less injuries than open positional football.

No I don't.
What do you think will cause greater impact force - 2 players colliding off 5 steps or 2 players colliding off a 20m run up?
All the big hits we've had the past few years have been in open space; not directly at a stoppage (the most obviously ones being May and Franklin).
Lots of congestion means lots of low level impacts.
I also have raw statistical evidence from the AFL itself that shows there is not even correlation between the number of stoppages and injuries

Number of stoppages (less goals) 1960s to 2016
https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/media/stoppage-numbers.184/full

Number of injuries per player 1992-2015
https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/media/afl-reports-injuries.185/full

Oh hey look; number of injuries has gone DOWN as stoppages have increased.

 

[Aeglos]

fwiw, based on this I'd estimate it takes an AFL player 25-35m to hit top speed (Usain Bolt takes 60m) so pretty unlikely he's going to be able to cause a higher impact collision on an opponent who is 5m away, then if he runs in from 20m away
http://www.meathathletics.ie/devathletes/pdf/Biomechanics of Sprints.pdf

*edit* another analogy
If I gave you the option of taking a 5 metre run up to tackle you or a 25 metre run up to tackle you; which is likely to hurt less?

 

[Redline]

Crowds dropped again on the weekend, hard to know when we have hit what we might expect as an average but I'd say the AFL would want it to flatten out soon.

 

[fanackapan]

Crowds dropped again on the weekend, hard to know when we have hit what we might expect as an average but I'd say the AFL would want it to flatten out soon.

This is partly due to having games in Sydney (never expected to draw big crowds) and Brisbane (likewise, but also hampered by a less-than-ideal ground).

 

[Gigantor]

Crowds dropped again on the weekend, hard to know when we have hit what we might expect as an average but I'd say the AFL would want it to flatten out soon.

want it to flatten out or expect it to flatten out?

 

[NoobPie]

Crowds dropped again on the weekend, hard to know when we have hit what we might expect as an average but I'd say the AFL would want it to flatten out soon.

Average crowds are currently still double the all time W-League record crowds so it can comfortably drop significantly more and still have other codes well and truly covered

 

[GreyCrow]

Average crowds are currently still double the all time W-League record crowds so it can comfortably drop significantly more and still have other codes well and truly covered

I expect the crowds to flatten out next year 40% ie Crows 9000 down to 6000.

Norwood Oval , top of the table (hopefully) clash , much better café strip, bigger space should see 12000 turn up for Adelaide v Brisbane

 

[Redline]

Average crowds are currently still double the all time W-League record crowds so it can comfortably drop significantly more and still have other codes well and truly covered

No doubt they have them all covered but for television purposes you want a good turn out to watch. As I said it is to early to tell and they were never going to maintain the round 1 crowds.

 

[NoobPie]

No doubt they have them all covered but for television purposes you want a good turn out to watch. As I said it is to early to tell and they were never going to maintain the round 1 crowds.

In those suburban grounds I reckon it can get away with 4 to 5,000 averages and the TV aesthetic is still good. I don't think anyone thought those crowds would be maitained

 

[Gigantor]

In those suburban grounds I reckon it can get away with 4 to 5,000 averages and the TV aesthetic is still good. I don't think anyone thought those crowds would be maitained

Even the round 3 crowds are way beyond original expectations.

 

[BringBackTorps]

In those suburban grounds I reckon it can get away with 4 to 5,000 averages and the TV aesthetic is still good. I don't think anyone thought those crowds would be maitained

The TV cameras & commentators should be on scaffolding, in the outer, panning back to the parts of the grand (grandstand) where most spectators are located.
It creates a much better atmosphere for the TV viewers -the VFA did this very succesfully in the past. This has been a major failure for the AFLW. It adds so much more to the "vibe"of a game if TV viewers can SEE the animated spectators packed in -& not a sparse outer. It would encourage more viewers to attend in the future!

 

[radiojake]

Haven't managed to make any of the AFLW games yet so far, but the Western Bulldogs v Melbourne game last year was exactly like that at Whitten Oval - Grandstand was absolutely packed compared to the outer (which is what the cameras picked up)

 

[BringBackTorps]

No I don't.
What do you think will cause greater impact force - 2 players colliding off 5 steps or 2 players colliding off a 20m run up?
All the big hits we've had the past few years have been in open space; not directly at a stoppage (the most obviously ones being May and Franklin).
Lots of congestion means lots of low level impacts.
I also have raw statistical evidence from the AFL itself that shows there is not even correlation between the number of stoppages and injuries

Number of stoppages (less goals) 1960s to 2016
https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/media/stoppage-numbers.184/full

Number of injuries per player 1992-2015
https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/media/afl-reports-injuries.185/full

Oh hey look; number of injuries has gone DOWN as stoppages have increased.

As you know from discussions in the Women's Footy thread- Code Wars, the interim Report by Prof. Norton released about 3 years ago said contact-caused injuries were increasing -& he blamed congestion & the big numbers around the ball for this.
Are you claiming Prof. Norton's data ( the AFL's appointed expert to examine injury rates) is incorrect -or his conclusions invalid?

You failed to mention that players played 25 mins + time on previously in the 90's -& there was only two on the bench. Now, with 20 min. qtrs, four on the bench, players are having LESS game time now cf the 90's. Don't confuse the injuries per player NOW (who is playing LESS time cf. the 90's), with the TOTAL number of injuries in the AFL.

Also, preparation, recovery, diagnosis, treatment, med. technology, imaging, & treatment FAR superior now (plus ALL games now televised with more camera angles-greatly reduces injuries now from rough/dirty/illegal actions of opponents + umpires/rules now red-hot on any form of high contact).

Oval surfaces are much better now cf some of the mud heaps of the past -& Docklands never has a wet ground or mud. IF all things were equal now (which they are not, due to congestion), this would cause fewer players to slip/fall over/ get boots stuck in mud, & less packs due to the ball not being so slippery etc.

There were a record 155 tackles by the WB in a game in 2016. With more numbers around the ball now, it is obvious a player is more likely to be tackled & bumped now -& thus increases the chance of injury.

For 50 years +, since I started playing tackers, coaches in jnr. & snr. comps usually play very light weight (cf to the other team) players in the forward pockets or flanks; or on the wing, if they are fit & fast -why?

 

[Aeglos]

As you know from discussions in the Women's Footy thread- Code Wars, the interim Report by Prof. Norton released about 3 years ago said contact-caused injuries were increasing -& he blamed congestion & the big numbers around the ball for this.
Are you claiming Prof. Norton's data ( the AFL's appointed expert to examine injury rates) is incorrect -or his conclusions invalid?

You failed to mention that players played 25 mins + time on previously in the 90's -& there was only two on the bench. Now, with 20 min. qtrs, four on the bench, players are having LESS game time now cf the 90's. Don't confuse the injuries per player NOW (who is playing LESS time cf. the 90's), with the TOTAL number of injuries in the AFL.

Also, preparation, recovery, diagnosis, treatment, med. technology, imaging, & treatment FAR superior now (plus ALL games now televised with more camera angles-greatly reduces injuries now from rough/dirty/illegal actions of opponents + umpires/rules now red-hot on any form of high contact).

Oval surfaces are much better now cf some of the mud heaps of the past -& Docklands never has a wet ground or mud. IF all things were equal now (which they are not, due to congestion), this would cause fewer players to slip/fall over/ get boots stuck in mud, & less packs due to the ball not being so slippery etc.

There were a record 155 tackles by the WB in a game in 2016. With more numbers around the ball now, it is obvious a player is more likely to be tackled & bumped now -& thus increases the chance of injury.

For 50 years +, since I started playing tackers, coaches in jnr. & snr. comps usually play very light weight (cf to the other team) players in the forward pockets or flanks; or on the wing, if they are fit & fast -why?

1) I cannot find a single reference or quotation where Norton outright states that congestion is the cause of contact based injuries which, according to lasts years injury survey (Norton's release only included data up to 2012) have been pretty consistent over the past decade apart from games missed due to concussion which has been attributed to a more conservative approach (sheer numbers of incidents have remained largely unchanged)
Norton uses lots of words like 'association' and 'trend' which in science speaks translates to "there is a correlation and this is our predicted model but we can't definitely prove it"
Norton also earmarks increased game speed (NOT increased congestion) as his hypothesised driver behind the injury increases through the 90s.
So no, I'm not disputing Norton's findings (numbers are numbers after all), merely your interpretation of his conclusions.
Even after all this, we still need to consider the fact that it is well proven that fatigue increases the risk of soft tissue injury which begs the question: do we prefer a player fracturing a collarbone or tearing a hamstring?

2) You do realise the total number of injuries is just he number off injuries per player multiplied by the number of players right? There was also less time on when they were using 25 minute quarters. It's also unlikely anyone knows the actual average time on ground per player over the past 20 years alongside the injury incidence per 1000 playing hours which makes this topic irrelevant as neither of us can be proven right or wrong

3) Yes it is, which is why injury recurrence is WAY down since 1992 (11% in 2015 vs 25% in 1992 with consistent reduction over that period).
The AFL survey also only goes back to 2006 for concussion and head/neck injuries so there is nothing concrete to compare against (thoug iirc the interchanges doubled from 2007-2010 and concussion incidents did not increase in that time period, though as before there is insufficient data to make any sort of conclusion particularly when you need to account for any rule changes regarding head high contact)

4) Relevance to anything?

5) That record of 155 was set by Sydney against Melbourne in round 13. It was wet and there were no reported injuries by either side
http://www.afl.com.au/match-centre/2016/13/syd-v-melb

6) Because the game at the time dictated those were the positions those players were suited to? I'm not exactly sure of the point though . . .

 

[BringBackTorps]

1) I cannot find a single reference or quotation where Norton outright states that congestion is the cause of contact based injuries which, according to lasts years injury survey (Norton's release only included data up to 2012) have been pretty consistent over the past decade apart from games missed due to concussion which has been attributed to a more conservative approach (sheer numbers of incidents have remained largely unchanged)
Norton uses lots of words like 'association' and 'trend' which in science speaks translates to "there is a correlation and this is our predicted model but we can't definitely prove it"
Norton also earmarks increased game speed (NOT increased congestion) as his hypothesised driver behind the injury increases through the 90s.
So no, I'm not disputing Norton's findings (numbers are numbers after all), merely your interpretation of his conclusions.
Even after all this, we still need to consider the fact that it is well proven that fatigue increases the risk of soft tissue injury which begs the question: do we prefer a player fracturing a collarbone or tearing a hamstring?

2) You do realise the total number of injuries is just he number off injuries per player multiplied by the number of players right? There was also less time on when they were using 25 minute quarters. It's also unlikely anyone knows the actual average time on ground per player over the past 20 years alongside the injury incidence per 1000 playing hours which makes this topic irrelevant as neither of us can be proven right or wrong

3) Yes it is, which is why injury recurrence is WAY down since 1992 (11% in 2015 vs 25% in 1992 with consistent reduction over that period).
The AFL survey also only goes back to 2006 for concussion and head/neck injuries so there is nothing concrete to compare against (thoug iirc the interchanges doubled from 2007-2010 and concussion incidents did not increase in that time period, though as before there is insufficient data to make any sort of conclusion particularly when you need to account for any rule changes regarding head high contact)

4) Relevance to anything?

5) That record of 155 was set by Sydney against Melbourne in round 13. It was wet and there were no reported injuries by either side
http://www.afl.com.au/match-centre/2016/13/syd-v-melb

6) Because the game at the time dictated those were the positions those players were suited to? I'm not exactly sure of the point though . . .

An interesting reply.

Are you aware that, nearly always, footballers who play a game on a very muddy or slippery ground, or in the rain (ie slippery ball), finish the game with more sore bodies (cf dry weather football) -because there is more congestion,less clean disposals, more tackles & bumps?

This is the context of my points that:-
. ovals are, generally, in much better condition now, cf the 90's (& never rain at docklands).
.the higher the number of times a person is being tackled (or bumped), the greater the chance of injury.
.re the skinny light weights being exhorted by coaches for 50 years+ (probably 120 years!) "just lead into space, keep out of the packs".
We don't need Prof. Norton's 2012 Interim Report to understand the rationale for these ETERNAL instructions for the skinny blokes -they don't get played in the backline!

Finally, I have not heard of any AF experts who have advocated/promoted congestion, record numbers of tackles & bumps, scrappy play, increased stoppages, low scoring, decline in the number of contested marks & long kicks, constant kicking backwards & sideways to a free player are positive developments for the AFL.
In my "Code Wars"posts to you, I provided you with the details of the massive decline, PER CAPITA, in Melb. attendances since 1970 (Raw AFL numbers peaked about 2010, Melb. pop. has doubled since 1970).

I believe that only coaches & their army of assistant coaches (more coaching jobs & more control of the minutia of the game by them, & therefore more pay) & sports scientists (ditto) & the AFLPA (more jobs for AFL players) are in favour of the four man bench & interchange.
I have heard old AFL players who played during the 2 man bench & the later 4 man period say, paraphrasing "It used to be a player's game -but now, its a coaches' game).

And the reason the centre diamond (now square) was introduced in the 70's was to REDUCE CONGESTION at ball-ups. This rule change has been met with universal acclamation.

Now, to introduce rule changes (2 subs, no i/ch.) to restore the game to its previous aesthetic,& free-flowing delights; & forever eradicate the cancer of the interchange.

Edit.
RU & soccer don't have interchange.
The NRL have just reduced their interchange from 10-8 per team -to make their game more attractive & attacking; allow smaller blokes to survive & prosper (they are being smashed out by the bigger blokes, who get rests). Many NRL commentators are suggesting their interchange should be reduced again, to 6 per game -to improve the aesthetics.
Obvious lessons here from the other 3 codes!

 

[jatz14]

An interesting reply.

Are you aware that, nearly always, footballers who play a game on a very muddy or slippery ground, or in the rain (ie slippery ball), finish the game with more sore bodies (cf dry weather football) -because there is more congestion,less clean disposals, more tackles & bumps?

This is the context of my points that:-
. ovals are, generally, in much better condition now, cf the 90's (& never rain at docklands).
.the higher the number of times a person is being tackled (or bumped), the greater the chance of injury.
.re the skinny light weights being exhorted by coaches for 50 years+ (probably 120 years!) "just lead into space, keep out of the packs".
We don't need Prof. Norton's 2012 Interim Report to understand the rationale for these ETERNAL instructions for the skinny blokes -they don't get played in the backline!

Finally, I have not heard of any AF experts who have advocated/promoted congestion, record numbers of tackles & bumps, scrappy play, increased stoppages, low scoring, decline in the number of contested marks & long kicks, constant kicking backwards & sideways to a free player are positive developments for the AFL.
In my "Code Wars"posts to you, I provided you with the details of the massive decline, PER CAPITA, in Melb. attendances since 1970 (Raw AFL numbers peaked about 2010, Melb. pop. has doubled since 1970).

I believe that only coaches & their army of assistant coaches (more coaching jobs & more control of the minutia of the game by them, & therefore more pay) & sports scientists (ditto) & the AFLPA (more jobs for AFL players) are in favour of the four man bench & interchange.
I have heard old AFL players who played during the 2 man bench & the later 4 man period say, paraphrasing "It used to be a player's game -but now, its a coaches' game).

And the reason the centre diamond (now square) was introduced in the 70's was to REDUCE CONGESTION at ball-ups. This rule change has been met with universal acclamation.

Now, to introduce rule changes to restore the game to its previous aesthetic,& free-flowing delights; & forever eradicate the cancer of the interchange.

Sore bodies and the injuries we are talking about are not the same thing. I get a sore body chopping wood. Low energy impacts can lead to a sore body if you accumulate enough of them. The extra exertion in running in mud, or slippery conditions, the increased number of times you have to go low for the ball, or make a tackle, or try to fight out of a tackle can leave you with general soreness.

The centre diamond was put in to combat a specific sort of congestion. You get a goal with 2 minutes to go, and you are now 2 points up. You put all your players at the ruck contest to make it impossible to get it out. You can do this because you know where the ball will be, you have time to get all your players to that point. This was seen as poor sportsmanship and undesirable. It doesn't really have any bearing on any other part of play.

 

[BringBackTorps]

SEN Melb.Radio 24.2, Lyon & Watson Program

Gil stated the TV ratings are "double what the AFL expected". No reneg. of free TV rights for 2018

Confirmed AFLW Provisional Lic. Holders will be "first cab off the rank" for next expansion which might be in 2019-but need to see how all clubs are promoting community female football.(Ambiguous comment, might indicate that teams who were not allocated a Prov. Lic. might still have a chance -my words).

If Adelaide finish on top, GF will likely be at AO. If GF is two Melb. teams, GF likely to be at Pr. Park.

When AFLW expands, a Finals play-off system will be introduced.

The AFL has been advised there will be c.250 NEW female teams in 2017.
(The latter is a huge boost for female AF, bodes well for the future -my words)

 

[Eaglemaniac]

SEN Melb.Radio 24.2, Lyon & Watson Program

Gil stated the TV ratings are "double what the AFL expected". No reneg. of free TV rights for 2018

Confirmed AFLW Provisional Lic. Holders will be "first cab off the rank" for next expansion which might be in 2019-but need to see how all clubs are promoting community female football.(Ambiguous comment, might indicate that teams who were not allocated a Prov. Lic. might still have a chance -my words).

If Adelaide finish on top, GF will likely be at AO. If GF is two Melb. teams, GF likely to be at Pr. Park.

When AFLW expands, a Finals play-off system will be introduced.

The AFL has been advised there will be c.250 NEW female teams in 2017.
(The latter is a huge boost for female AF, bodes well for the future -my words)

I trained at a senior state womens league team training with a few of the other guys from my mens team on wednesday because their league coach was our division 1 coach for the last two years, and i met a few young women there who were playing footy this year for the first time. I was chatting to the coach and he said that they have a lot of new girls down their playing for the first time this year.

 

[SwampRat]

I hope they keep it at suburban grounds. I would hate for it to be swallowed up by bigger stadiums

Oh and Eff U to having the GF at the MCG. Home ground advantage for the Minor Premier

if they ran the season during the afl men's season, it would get smashed if it was held in the suburban grounds.