List Mgmt. Collingwood FS & NGA "Peter Daicos Academy" kids

[Seedsfan]

Statements like this make me chuckle. What makes the AFL in the mid 2000s more "physical" than now?

The rule changes

 

[gouki88]

The rule changes

Such as?

What about the ways in which physicality has increased in the 15-20 years since Lonie retired?

 

[loki04]

Statements like this make me chuckle. What makes the AFL in the mid 2000s more "physical" than now?

Firstly it was low to mid 2000s.

Secondly the bump was still a legitimate part of the game including shirt fronts, the tackle was able to be done however you deemed fit as long as it wasn't high.

Teams often also went out to hurt opponents now it's doc and love.
Remember the 00s Lions when Reiwoldt did his shoulder? It was not very sportsman like nor good but they played with a mean streak.

Same as 00s bombers, Port also cracked in.

It was a harder edged and rougher game then.

 

[loki04]

Such as?

What about the ways in which physicality has increased in the 15-20 years since Lonie retired?

Do tell?

Now you tackle someone and if you don't put a pillow and blanky down you will be suspended.

Bump all but dead.
Tackle can only be done as a hug.
Unduly rough conduct has become more open and varied.
Charging out as a KPF and cleaning up a defender would not even garner a free kick half the time those years...

The game has gone through an over sanitisation, comments like yours make me chuckle trying to defend it.

Everything you can do NOW you could do then but you also had more physical things you could throw at the opposition.

 

[gouki88]

Firstly it was low to mid 2000s.

Secondly the bump was still a legitimate part of the game including shirt fronts, the tackle was able to be done however you deemed fit as long as it wasn't high.

Teams often also went out to hurt opponents now it's doc and love.
Remember the 00s Lions when Reiwoldt did his shoulder? It was not very sportsman like nor good but they played with a mean streak.

Same as 00s bombers, Port also cracked in.

It was a harder edged and rougher game then.

I don't think any of what you listed makes the game of then more 'physical' than now. The physicality was just different. Players move with much more speed these days. I wonder if Pendlebury would agree with your assessment

 

[gouki88]

Do tell?

Now you tackle someone and if you don't put a pillow and blanky down you will be suspended.

Bump all but dead.
Tackle can only be done as a hug.
Unduly rough conduct has become more open and varied.
Charging out as a KPF and cleaning up a defender would not even garner a free kick half the time those years...

The game has gone through an over sanitisation, comments like yours make me chuckle trying to defend it.

Everything you can do NOW you could do then but you also had more physical things you could throw at the opposition.

Sounds like you're too busy shaking your fist at the clouds to appreciate the physicality of the game today. Trying to make it more sustainable so that players don't retire with half a brain is reasonable.

 

[loki04]

I don't think any of what you listed makes the game of then more 'physical' than now. The physicality was just different. Players move with much more speed these days. I wonder if Pendlebury would agree with your assessment

So it being more physical doesn't make it more physical?

Pendles also came in debut in 2006 just as the bump was being put to rest on a slow life support drip. RIP.

Lonie debuted in 2001.

The argument the game is quicker is something you could potentially make but then again the 00 Bombers moved the ball at break neck pace, Port also sling shot and played an attacking brand, Lions played a territory game and bully.

The mids back then were pitting up massive numbers on GPS, 20km was hit by Buckley, Harvey, Riscatelli, Crawford etc.
Chris Tarrant was doing 16km a game which is high for a current midfielder.

The game in early 00s peaked.

 

[gouki88]

So it being more physical doesn't make it more physical?

Pendles also came in debut in 2006 just as the bump was being put to rest on a slow life support drip. RIP.

Lonie debuted in 2001.

The argument the game is quicker is something you could potentially tally make but then again the 00 Bombers moved the ball at break neck pace, Port also sling shot and played an attacking brand, Lions played a territory game and bully.

The mids back then were pitting up massive numbers on GPS, 20km was hit by Buckley, Harvey, Riscatelli, Crawford etc.
Chris Tarrant was doing 16km a game which is high for a current midfielder.

The game in early 00s peaked.

No, your unbalanced viewpoint is what I'm calling out - take the time to read. You are only focusing on ways in which the game is 'less physical', which ignores all the ways it has increased (or changed).

I am talking about the actual speed and power of the players. The improvements in training, therapy & sports science has enabled quicker players.

Any citation for that GPS data? I would argue that would be due to not using interchanges the way they are today to allow constant sprint efforts.

 

[The Royal Sampler]

Loki seems to be talking about the amount of contact, so yes players need to be fitter/more athletic and run faster/harder these days, but the need to absorb a beating from contact is less. As he rightly points out, the scope for tackling and bumping is much more limited now.

 

[Vicky Park]

Max Rocca - Anthony’s son kicked 5 in division 3 U14 for the interleague

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Here we go again.

 

[loki04]

Sounds like you're too busy shaking your fist at the clouds to appreciate the physicality of the game today. Trying to make it more sustainable so that players don't retire with half a brain is reasonable.

Cool story bro. The old bigfooty favourite go to when your argument is shit personal attack cloud shouter....

Game was played 150 years that way, fine tuning rules was fine to limit it, but the pendulum has gone to far punishing incidental head contact.

 

[loki04]

Here we go again.

Need to hope the FS rule changes they are looking at aren't anything to detrimental given we have a few potential candidates coming through.

 

[gouki88]

Loki seems to be talking about the amount of contact, so yes players need to be fitter/more athletic and run faster/harder these days, but the need to absorb a beating from contact is less. As he rightly points out, the scope for tackling and bumping is much more limited now.

The scope is, but the frequency is so much less. The top tackling team in 2004 was St Kilda with 49.4, which would place them 3 below the worst tackling team of this season and almost 20 below the top team (us). The frequency of collisions is so much higher these days

 

[manicpie]

So it being more physical doesn't make it more physical?

Pendles also came in debut in 2006 just as the bump was being put to rest on a slow life support drip. RIP.

Lonie debuted in 2001.

The argument the game is quicker is something you could potentially make but then again the 00 Bombers moved the ball at break neck pace, Port also sling shot and played an attacking brand, Lions played a territory game and bully.

The mids back then were pitting up massive numbers on GPS, 20km was hit by Buckley, Harvey, Riscatelli, Crawford etc.
Chris Tarrant was doing 16km a game which is high for a current midfielder.

The game in early 00s peaked.

I think there were more interchanges back then which allowed for more break neck speed. The AFL changed the rules to stop it.

 

[loki04]

The scope is, but the frequency is so much less. The top tackling team in 2004 was St Kilda with 49.4, which would place them 3 below the worst tackling team of this season and almost 20 below the top team (us). The frequency of collisions is so much higher these days

Not all tackles are equal. There is greater pressure around a stoppage but being tackled in the stoppage is not usually that fierce they are just normal wrap up tackles to hold the ball in.
You don't get many Brodie Holland style charge off the square hits through there now do you?

I call BS on your last line as well. There were massive hits back then that you rarely see now.

 

[gouki88]

Cool story bro. The old bigfooty favourite go to when your argument is shit personal attack cloud shouter....

Game was played 150 years that way, fine tuning rules was fine to limit it, but the pendulum has gone to far punishing incidental head contact.

If you want the game to survive, you need to come to terms with this

 

[loki04]

I think there were more interchanges back then which allowed for more break neck speed. The AFL changed the rules to stop it.

Dave Buttifant did that with the 2010 side. Swanny often partly credits it for his rise allowing a burst mid to run all game.
Iirc it's still what is being done today but fit into a interchange rotation cap.

Prior to that players stayed on the park longer. The endurance was massive.
I'd imagine max repeat sprint efforts would of been lower then than now for certain positions.

 

[Carlthetruth]

If you want the game to survive, you need to come to terms with this

Ryan Lonie was absolutely skewered back in the day by opposition supporters and a large chunk of our own for being uber outside. I wonder how many of the then haters remember him fondly particularly with a son in the system?

 

[Apex36]

Loki seems to be talking about the amount of contact, so yes players need to be fitter/more athletic and run faster/harder these days, but the need to absorb a beating from contact is less. As he rightly points out, the scope for tackling and bumping is much more limited now.

Spot on. Remember Lindsay Thomas sniping Ben Reid off the ball back in 2013(?). Jumped off the ground, head clash, broken jaw, concussion and 6 weeks out for Ben and Thomas got off scot free. And that was at a time where they were already starting to crack down on bumping with high contact. The same thing would be a 4-6 week suspension now.

 

[loki04]

If you want the game to survive, you need to come to terms with this

The game would of survived with out the over correction.

They didn't look for middle ground.

NFL got sued over hiding the study results and taking the choice away from the individual on whether to continue to play and take the risk.

AFL has not hidden anything that I'm aware of from the players.

MMA, Boxing, Muay Thai are also sports none of them have banned head contact for fear of law suites.

AFL could of took to removing deliberate acts (hits to the head not incidental or secondary contact) out alone and left it at that. The sport would of been fine.
You know the risk of playing you either choose to do it or you don't. Majority would continue to play it.

Having suspensions off incidental head clash or knocks based off you choosing to bump or tackle is over the top.

Also AFL need to be careful not to neuter the sport too much or they will also kill it off that way.

 

[loki04]

Ryan Lonie was absolutely skewered back in the day by opposition supporters and a large chunk of our own for being uber outside. I wonder how many of the then haters remember him fondly particularly with a son in the system?

Lonie also had a fan base due to his breaking lines and long goals.

He was definitely polarising and after 2003 I will openly admit I wasn't his biggest fan nor R.Shaws (RShaw went on to be a very good player for sydney however).

But his skill set in the current AFL would have him see a long and flourishing career.

 

[Seedsfan]

No, your unbalanced viewpoint is what I'm calling out - take the time to read. You are only focusing on ways in which the game is 'less physical', which ignores all the ways it has increased (or changed).

I am talking about the actual speed and power of the players. The improvements in training, therapy & sports science has enabled quicker players.

Any citation for that GPS data? I would argue that would be due to not using interchanges the way they are today to allow constant sprint efforts.

Power in the game has decreased

 

[manicpie]

I don't think any of what you listed makes the game of then more 'physical' than now. The physicality was just different. Players move with much more speed these days. I wonder if Pendlebury would agree with your assessment

All I know is that I would hate to be on receiving end of a player running full bore at me in today's game. It was probably just as bad in the early 2000's also. The speed and power which they move is frightening

 

[manicpie]

Power in the game has decreased

I Reckon if you were on receiving end, you'd change your mind

 

[sam_e]

The game would of survived with out the over correction.

They didn't look for middle ground.

NFL got sued over hiding the study results and taking the choice away from the individual on whether to continue to play and take the risk.

AFL has not hidden anything that I'm aware of from the players.

MMA, Boxing, Muay Thai are also sports none of them have banned head contact for fear of law suites.

AFL could of took to removing deliberate acts (hits to the head not incidental or secondary contact) out alone and left it at that. The sport would of been fine.
You know the risk of playing you either choose to do it or you don't. Majority would continue to play it.

Having suspensions off incidental head clash or knocks based off you choosing to bump or tackle is over the top.

Also AFL need to be careful not to neuter the sport too much or they will also kill it off that way.

participants in these sports sign waivers that indemnify the organisers barring any gross / overt negligence