Coach Fages and the coaching group

[martinson]

The footy medias biggest problem is that it's analysis is shallow at best and disproportionate to teams across the league.

It's generally not much better then tabloid garbage and to make it worse is gatekept to the point that data isn't offered to the layman so they can draw their own conclusions.

The fact we have so few professional commentators / analysists amongst a sea of ex players that dribble on about nothing is a detriment to the game.

The professional commentators we have are just the same.

It's not much different to reporting across any facet of life. Look at the Brittany Higgins issue ,the Ukraine war, Harry and the Monarchy ,Covid , any other issue that has gripped the imagination of the public .The stories generally contain an element of truth with fluff made up to cover up what they don't know or are allowed to say and then speculation all over SM.

My general point on reflection is that this is no different to any time I was growing up and beyond and any issue which has reached the public eye where I know the person involved or have a close idea of the actual facts is generally not reported that way ,which is not always the fault of the journalist involved. The public now has personal access to expressing their viewpoint , they demand information ,clues and any related speculation.

I don't think reporting per se is any much different but the demands on the media and those in it has drastically changed. It's not 9-5 with a typewriter. How many people want to read in depth articles any more , it's all one liners and hot takes that create interest. The majority of mistruths put out there are from Governments ,organisations and the public themselves.

To go against the grain on a small blog like Big Footy you often get howled down so the step up for a reporter on any issue of public interest is multiples higher.

Sorry for the digression but my main response is commentators on Aussie Rules are at least as enlightened as those of yesteryear imo and overall we're not served too badly in comparison to broader reporting on public interest matters. Given what the public demands these days.

 

[M Malice]

A lot has changed.....Commentators have people behind the scenes giving them direction on where to go with a story or situation at that time.

Using Briztoon's example of the recent Petty-Zorko sitaution, the media knew the facts but didnt report them until later because that wasn't the story they wanted to run with initially. In the meantime, Zorko's reputation was dis-credited by the hour which is wrong. Holding onto facts about a situation happens all the time and I'm not saying it doesnt happen in other non-footy situations but if you believe what footy journos say or write 100%, more fool you in my opinion. There are many other situations where the truth or actuals are not important to a story and I hate it. Shows like 360/On The Couch/#9 Footy Show are all gulity of it as is some of the commentary in every game I watch on the box.
Not critisising anyones opinions as accused in a previous post, just dis-agreeing with them is all.

With the 24/7 news cycle, short attention spans and the proliferation of choice for consumers of information there is rabid competition for viewers/readers so clickbait and narrative always win out.

Sensationalism and gotcha moments are the default for the vast majority of media IMO... sometimes the truth is just simply too boring for them.

 

[martinson]

With the 24/7 news cycle, short attention spans and the proliferation of choice for consumers of information there is rabid competition for viewers/readers so clickbait and narrative always win out.

Sensationalism and gotcha moments are the default for the vast majority of media IMO... sometimes the truth is just simply too boring for them.

That's a big issue.

You either give the public what they want or die of irrelevancy.

 

[blynd_freddie]

That's a big issue.

You either give the public what they want or die of irrelevancy.

Exactly, only have to look at the dribble and non-truths posted in the preview thread by myself. As it was on our board it received a more positive feel. The 'aint posters kept pointing out the tongue in cheek faults, it was just another twist on the Sydney is a piss weak side thread. The medja just run a yarn to suit their interpretation of the those following.

 

[martinson]

Exactly, only have to look at the dribble and non-truths posted in the preview thread by myself. As it was on our board it received a more positive feel. The 'aint posters kept pointing out the tongue in cheek faults, it was just another twist on the Sydney is a piss weak side thread. The medja just run a yarn to suit their interpretation of the those following.

That's just a small scale replica of how Governments ,organisations and individuals get whatever their message is across these days and how that is fed into the system as other individuals pick it up and run with it , isn't it.

The media itself is just another player in the landscape that is used, manipulated and complicit in the process .For the real truth to get out there if it currently isn't the facts as they are 'known' need to change and be made public and sometimes that can take a long time if ever.

 

[Sanchez365]

The professional commentators we have are just the same.

It's not much different to reporting across any facet of life. Look at the Brittany Higgins issue ,the Ukraine war, Harry and the Monarchy ,Covid , any other issue that has gripped the imagination of the public .The stories generally contain an element of truth with fluff made up to cover up what they don't know or are allowed to say and then speculation all over SM.

My general point on reflection is that this is no different to any time I was growing up and beyond and any issue which has reached the public eye where I know the person involved or have a close idea of the actual facts is generally not reported that way ,which is not always the fault of the journalist involved. The public now has personal access to expressing their viewpoint , they demand information ,clues and any related speculation.

I don't think reporting per se is any much different but the demands on the media and those in it has drastically changed. It's not 9-5 with a typewriter. How many people want to read in depth articles any more , it's all one liners and hot takes that create interest. The majority of mistruths put out there are from Governments ,organisations and the public themselves.

To go against the grain on a small blog like Big Footy you often get howled down so the step up for a reporter on any issue of public interest is multiples higher.

Sorry for the digression but my main response is commentators on Aussie Rules are at least as enlightened as those of yesteryear imo and overall we're not served too badly in comparison to broader reporting on public interest matters. Given what the public demands these days.

In general, I would have less of an issue with commentary / media / reporting being generated for the lowest common denominator if the data to make informed analysis wasn't gatekept and drip fed through that same machine.

There's no doubt there are people out there far more capable of providing valid and interesting analysis of the game that aren't able to because of the AFLs right grip on how the game is talked about and presented.

 

[martinson]

In general, I would have less of an issue with commentary / media / reporting being generated for the lowest common denominator if the data to make informed analysis wasn't gatekept and drip fed through that same machine.

There's no doubt there are people out there far more capable of providing valid and interesting analysis of the game that aren't able to because of the AFLs right grip on how the game is talked about and presented.

Not doubting what you say at all Sanchez but who are they, from what arm of the media would they operate, and what sort of things would they talk about and present that currently aren't covered.

 

[martinson]

Not doubting what you say at all Sanchez but who are they, from what arm of the media would they operate, and what sort of things would they talk about and present that currently aren't covered.

If you want a contrary narrative to what the AFL puts out there are thousands of examples all over twitter and across blogs and sometimes in the mainstream media which from time to time gives the AFL an awful shellacking.

 

[Sanchez365]

Not doubting what you say at all Sanchez but who are they, from what arm of the media would they operate, and what sort of things would they talk about and present that currently aren't covered.

I've made it clear in the stats thread my thoughts on this and I appreciate the people that go to the effort on both other platforms (like Twitter) and here to provide more in depth analysis.

You only have to watch any other sport to immediately notice far more astute observations by the commentary team while the game is happening. The only person I have heard give actual interesting analysis is Hodge realistically.

I'm not really getting into the nitty gritty of afl "journalism" here, guys like Tom Browne and his ilk are just tabloid hacks that deserve as much respect as paparazzi, but if people enjoy that content good for them, I can tune it out.

What frustrates me is the Kane Cornes of the world making outlandish statements for air time, Matthew Lloyds of the world who can't look past their inherit biases to give an indepth opinion about different teams, David King's drip feeding us tiny morsels of actual analysis disguised as his own opinions, a lack of robust coverage across the entire league instead pandering to the largest teams (which inherently makes them larger). Overall it's a very shallow analysis of the game itself and there is no way for an alternative media to provide that analysis.

If the afl were to provide me a subscription where I could get full access to raw champion data stats, multiple broadcast angles of the game streamed so I could choose my own viewing angle (eg behind the goals vision) and the ability to turn off commentators and hear just crowd noise, I'd happily pay it and just let the afl media hum along in the background pointlessly.

As someone who never played AFL in any serious capacity, yet has watched the sport for 25+ years, I have been taught very little about the strategy of the game by the media surrounding it, and I have a strong desire for that.

 

[martinson]

I've made it clear in the stats thread my thoughts on this and I appreciate the people that go to the effort on both other platforms (like Twitter) and here to provide more in depth analysis.

You only have to watch any other sport to immediately notice far more astute observations by the commentary team while the game is happening. The only person I have heard give actual interesting analysis is Hodge realistically.

I'm not really getting into the nitty gritty of afl "journalism" here, guys like Tom Browne and his ilk are just tabloid hacks that deserve as much respect as paparazzi, but if people enjoy that content good for them, I can tune it out.

What frustrates me is the Kane Cornes of the world making outlandish statements for air time, Matthew Lloyds of the world who can't look past their inherit biases to give an indepth opinion about different teams, David King's drip feeding us tiny morsels of actual analysis disguised as his own opinions, a lack of robust coverage across the entire league instead pandering to the largest teams (which inherently makes them larger). Overall it's a very shallow analysis of the game itself and there is no way for an alternative media to provide that analysis.

If the afl were to provide me a subscription where I could get full access to raw champion data stats, multiple broadcast angles of the game streamed so I could choose my own viewing angle (eg behind the goals vision) and the ability to turn off commentators and hear just crowd noise, I'd happily pay it and just let the afl media hum along in the background pointlessly.

As someone who never played AFL in any serious capacity, yet has watched the sport for 25+ years, I have been taught very little about the strategy of the game by the media surrounding it, and I have a strong desire for that.

You make some good points. The main issue is that the vast majority of the public are fed what they want to hear. Coverage of clubs that have far more supporters is just a natural thing for the media to do . It's a random game where the technical aspects have become more prevalent but not as easily explainable as say on motor car racing ,soccer or swimming , international sports where there are enough large pockets of viewers worldwide who crave more astuteness and professionalism from the live commentators.

To me the analysis of the game from the media is vastly improved from what it was . There are lots of independent blogs like the Mongrel Punt that give some insights , if there was someone out there who could provide the analysis you're seeking in a format that the public could understand I'm sure the mainstream would pick it up. Likewise if there was a market there for what you're seeking from the AFL I'm sure they'd be providing it. Ultimately it will come.

These things naturally evolve over time but we're talking about a sport that has always had a tribal following aspect and the coverage has always reflected that in the States of one country where it's the preferred winter viewing sport and just a spasmodic coverage in the others. To get any broad coverage in the latter states you need a headline.

Nonetheless the AFL has the capacity to do more if it so wishes. You'd think access to all the raw data stats would be a good start.

 

[Tom14]

I've made it clear in the stats thread my thoughts on this and I appreciate the people that go to the effort on both other platforms (like Twitter) and here to provide more in depth analysis.

You only have to watch any other sport to immediately notice far more astute observations by the commentary team while the game is happening. The only person I have heard give actual interesting analysis is Hodge realistically.

I'm not really getting into the nitty gritty of afl "journalism" here, guys like Tom Browne and his ilk are just tabloid hacks that deserve as much respect as paparazzi, but if people enjoy that content good for them, I can tune it out.

What frustrates me is the Kane Cornes of the world making outlandish statements for air time, Matthew Lloyds of the world who can't look past their inherit biases to give an indepth opinion about different teams, David King's drip feeding us tiny morsels of actual analysis disguised as his own opinions, a lack of robust coverage across the entire league instead pandering to the largest teams (which inherently makes them larger). Overall it's a very shallow analysis of the game itself and there is no way for an alternative media to provide that analysis.

If the afl were to provide me a subscription where I could get full access to raw champion data stats, multiple broadcast angles of the game streamed so I could choose my own viewing angle (eg behind the goals vision) and the ability to turn off commentators and hear just crowd noise, I'd happily pay it and just let the afl media hum along in the background pointlessly.

As someone who never played AFL in any serious capacity, yet has watched the sport for 25+ years, I have been taught very little about the strategy of the game by the media surrounding it, and I have a strong desire for that.

Don't know what you are talking about, I love 2 only see snippets of behind the grounds footage on a monday night so Browny can tell me that the players 'showed a lack of desire and effort' and that a key forward 'played with presence.'

It was telling early this year that Buckley made an interesting technical observation about a game plan on one of his first episodes of On the Couch, and Lyon and Browny both told him to not get too into the weeds.

 

[martinson]

Don't know what you are talking about, I love 2 only see snippets of behind the grounds footage on a monday night so Browny can tell me that the players 'showed a lack of desire and effort' and that a key forward 'played with presence.

It was telling early this year that Buckley made an interesting technical observation about a game plan on one of his first episodes of On the Coach, and Lyon and Browny both told him to not get too into the weeds.

Buckley's not too bad actually. He sometimes makes attempts to go a bit deeper into motivation and tactics. I'm sort of warming to him a little without having paid much attention or listened to him on the radio.

 

[Tom14]

Buckley's not too bad actually. He sometimes makes attempts to go a bit deeper into motivation and tactics. I'm sort of warming to him a little without having paid much attention or listened to him on the radio.

He'll have it beaten out of him soon enough. Riewoldt was similarly quite interesting his first few years in the media and then he was as bad as the rest.

I think he's clearly a good tactical head and was a pretty good coach. Wouldn't want him coaching us as I didn't love his more defensive approach but he clearly understands how things work.

 

[martinson]

He'll have it beaten out of him soon enough. Riewoldt was similarly quite interesting his first few years in the media and then he was as bad as the rest.

I think he's clearly a good tactical head and was a pretty good coach. Wouldn't want him coaching us as I didn't love his more defensive approach but he clearly understands how things work.

Yes it's interesting how anyone who starts out with an understated analytical approach sooner or later reverts to a hit first ask questions later approach. And they're all trained to talk very very quickly which is beyond annoying.

The main aim is ratings so if the public wanted a Reiwoldt the way he started out he would've stayed that way.

These sorts of shows are pretty much useless because you only get a limited coverage of your game with mainly shallow analysis focused on a single issue like Dev Robertson's jumper and just a Ra Ra or a what's gone wrong reactionary analysis of the major clubs.

 

[Tom14]

Yes it's interesting how anyone who starts out with an understated analytical approach sooner or later reverts to a hit first ask questions later approach. And they're all trained to talk very very quickly which is beyond annoying.

The main aim is ratings so if the public wanted a Reiwoldt the way he started out he would've stayed that way.

These sorts of shows are pretty much useless because you only get a limited coverage of your game with mainly shallow analysis focused on a single issue like Dev Robertson's jumper and just a Ra Ra or a what's gone wrong reactionary analysis of the major clubs.

I'm sceptical about the current commentary approach to games being a driver of ratings (positively or negatively). Sentiment that I see is more negative, but you have no real competition when all games are exclusive to a single commentary team. Next broadcast deal allowing fox to offer their own commentary for channel 7 games might be somewhat interesting.

Footy talk shows have a very small audience and most of it rusted on die hards who just want any content.

Which brings me back to Sanchez365's point that it would be great if the league would allow people to pay a reasonable amount to have access to the full stats package and behind the goals vision which would allow more niche analysis products to be done by people. I pay the Shinboner patreon a small monthly amount because I like his posts and he keeps some useful general information collated. For stats stuff there's a gambling interest too I guess but that's at the bottom of my priority list.

This sort of stuff doesn't compete with major broadcasters or the newspapers but there hasn't been any interest to open it up even though the AFL is a 49% shareholder of champion data and would have the influence to ask for that to occur. Its frustrating because I can go direct to NFL gamepass and look at endzone footage from every pre-season game that just happened if I want to, but all you can get here is whatever scraps are provided.

 

[rye]

could it be a part of the negotiations in the broadcasting deal that the champion data stuff remains behind a paywall that effectively functions as a barrier on access to all but the networks who also hold the tv rights?

if a competitor started offering a programme that actually dove into in depth analysis on each team in the competition with access to the champion data information, you would imagine shows like on the couch would quickly lose their audience to something that is more compelling

 

[martinson]

I'm sceptical about the current commentary approach to games being a driver of ratings (positively or negatively). Sentiment that I see is more negative, but you have no real competition when all games are exclusive to a single commentary team. Next broadcast deal allowing fox to offer their own commentary for channel 7 games might be somewhat interesting.

Footy talk shows have a very small audience and most of it rusted on die hards who just want any content.

Which brings me back to Sanchez365's point that it would be great if the league would allow people to pay a reasonable amount to have access to the full stats package and behind the goals vision which would allow more niche analysis products to be done by people. I pay the Shinboner patreon a small monthly amount because I like his posts and he keeps some useful general information collated. For stats stuff there's a gambling interest too I guess but that's at the bottom of my priority list.

This sort of stuff doesn't compete with major broadcasters or the newspapers but there hasn't been any interest to open it up even though the AFL is a 49% shareholder of champion data and would have the influence to ask for that to occur. Its frustrating because I can go direct to NFL gamepass and look at endzone footage from every pre-season game that just happened if I want to, but all you can get here is whatever scraps are provided.

AFL should provide it for free.

The reality is there would still only be a limited number of people who were interested but it would add to the educative aspect of the game.

Re the ratings yes I'm a bit sceptical as well but the demands for specialist commentators to deliver their drivel in a certain way must come from somewhere and I'd suggest it's the producers and the particular commentators management group.

 

[p4p1]

Speaking of commentators, it was very clear to me Kingy feels like he has to be the smartest person in the room and tries to use stats, among other things in an effort to make sure every fan listening knows he is. But he does it without actually adding much to the commentary or making worthwhile comments. On the weekend for example, he cut off the other boys who were having a bit of a laugh over something to inject some completely useless stat. At the end of the day I want to be entertained and informed by the commentators, Kingy is neither entertaining me or informing me.
It just becomes word vomit by the end of it and I tune him out.
I remember early on listening to Duck commentating, and yes, I agree he shouldn't have a job in the media etc but there was a lot of times he called what was going to happen or what a coach was going to do to stop something from happening and low and behold, it happened. Not many that do that now.

 

[p4p1]

Buckley's not too bad actually. He sometimes makes attempts to go a bit deeper into motivation and tactics. I'm sort of warming to him a little without having paid much attention or listened to him on the radio.

Bucks has won me over since he started in the media. He actually seems like a fun bloke and is happy to take the piss but can also be serious and point out things that us fans may have missed.

 

[Mighty Lions]

Speaking of commentators, it was very clear to me Kingy feels like he has to be the smartest person in the room and tries to use stats, among other things in an effort to make sure every fan listening knows he is. But he does it without actually adding much to the commentary or making worthwhile comments. On the weekend for example, he cut off the other boys who were having a bit of a laugh over something to inject some completely useless stat. At the end of the day I want to be entertained and informed by the commentators, Kingy is neither entertaining me or informing me.
It just becomes word vomit by the end of it and I tune him out.
I remember early on listening to Duck commentating, and yes, I agree he shouldn't have a job in the media etc but there was a lot of times he called what was going to happen or what a coach was going to do to stop something from happening and low and behold, it happened. Not many that do that now.

Today's commentators who were past champions of the game also know just as much as Duck knew that something was happening/about to happen, but there are people behind the scenes dictating how the commentary flows and it's irrelevant to these behind the scenes people what the commentators think. Very sad and one of the many flaws in the modern game that puts $ first over everything else.

 

[martinson]

Speaking of commentators, it was very clear to me Kingy feels like he has to be the smartest person in the room and tries to use stats, among other things in an effort to make sure every fan listening knows he is. But he does it without actually adding much to the commentary or making worthwhile comments. On the weekend for example, he cut off the other boys who were having a bit of a laugh over something to inject some completely useless stat. At the end of the day I want to be entertained and informed by the commentators, Kingy is neither entertaining me or informing me.
It just becomes word vomit by the end of it and I tune him out.
I remember early on listening to Duck commentating, and yes, I agree he shouldn't have a job in the media etc but there was a lot of times he called what was going to happen or what a coach was going to do to stop something from happening and low and behold, it happened. Not many that do that now.

Kingy needs to do some meditation and take some valium before he fronts the camera.

Just overly anxious to give a forthright explanation of everything that more or less amounts to the same diatribe every time.

He doesn't seem overly bright tbh.

 

[p4p1]

Today's commentators who were past champions of the game also know just as much as Duck knew that something was happening/about to happen, but there are people behind the scenes dictating how the commentary flows and it's irrelevant to these behind the scenes people what the commentators think. Very sad and one of the many flaws in the modern game that puts $ first over everything else.

That is really sad to know that. By now we should all know that everyone in the media is acting out a part to some extent. But to hear actual good insights are just shutdown now is sad because I also don't think the current commentators are great characters in the vein of a Lou Richards or someone like that.

 

[Sanchez365]

I'm sceptical about the current commentary approach to games being a driver of ratings (positively or negatively). Sentiment that I see is more negative, but you have no real competition when all games are exclusive to a single commentary team. Next broadcast deal allowing fox to offer their own commentary for channel 7 games might be somewhat interesting.

Footy talk shows have a very small audience and most of it rusted on die hards who just want any content.

Which brings me back to Sanchez365's point that it would be great if the league would allow people to pay a reasonable amount to have access to the full stats package and behind the goals vision which would allow more niche analysis products to be done by people. I pay the Shinboner patreon a small monthly amount because I like his posts and he keeps some useful general information collated. For stats stuff there's a gambling interest too I guess but that's at the bottom of my priority list.

This sort of stuff doesn't compete with major broadcasters or the newspapers but there hasn't been any interest to open it up even though the AFL is a 49% shareholder of champion data and would have the influence to ask for that to occur. Its frustrating because I can go direct to NFL gamepass and look at endzone footage from every pre-season game that just happened if I want to, but all you can get here is whatever scraps are provided.

I was hoping someone would back me up and prove that other sports allow what I'm talking about. I don't follow NFL so didn't know what they offered.

The lack of competition across channels is definitely part of the problem. The NBA for example has multiple analysis shows so if one channel seems garbage you can flip over to the next for a different opinion. For us we can watch different shows on the same channel, but all controlled by the same production company. No other people have the means (to collect their own stats) or the access (to the teams) that fox footy has for its shows (as part of the broadcast deal with the AFL).

Afl is unfortunately controlled very heavily by the old boys mantra of the Murdoch media empire, both in its presentation and desire for monopoly.

The above is IMO and I don't want to derail this constructive conversation down the politics pathway lel.

 

[martinson]

I was hoping someone would back me up and prove that other sports allow what I'm talking about. I don't follow NFL so didn't know what they offered.

The lack of competition across channels is definitely part of the problem. The NBA for example has multiple analysis shows so if one channel seems garbage you can flip over to the next for a different opinion. For us we can watch different shows on the same channel, but all controlled by the same production company. No other people have the means (to collect their own stats) or the access (to the teams) that fox footy has for its shows (as part of the broadcast deal with the AFL).

Afl is unfortunately controlled very heavily by the old boys mantra of the Murdoch media empire, both in its presentation and desire for monopoly.

The above is IMO and I don't want to derail this constructive conversation down the politics pathway lel.

That's a simple explanation but the reality is usually more complex.

My perspective is that the deal has delivered a pot of gold to the competition and the AFL could do more to provide public access to all the information out there and it's up to them to convince Fox that it could be in their interests too.

It's just my feeling about it all that neither of them think there's sufficient demand out there rather than any monopolistic strategies.

Enhancing the coverage and providing public access to detailed game data and creating a bit of controversy having conflicting views and competition between the analytical opinions is a dream for any broadcaster. They've probably looked at the numbers and just can't be bothered with what that would entail.

 

[BuntonRules]

Silly me, I thought this was a thread about our coaching panel.