Roast State of the modern game; Clarkson

[Crankyhawk]

I've loved footy all my life and witnessed some great games since the 70s and seen some dreadful games due to muddy ovals. I was one of those footy supporters who would gladly watch games Port weren't playing, either because I liked the teams playing, liked certain players or thought a genuine contest was on offer.

But this year has consistently pumped out the most boring spectacle.

Last night I was watching the port hawks game whilst surfing the net and watching youtube clips of when the game was interesting. I can't believe I can't be bothered watching my team win.


Personally I see no return to decent footy until we reduce the coaches and measurement system.


Solution:
1) one coach on game day and no communication devices
2) no measurement or monitoring systems. If 12yo kids can play footy without it, then professionals can go without
3) no pain relief
4) no cap on rotations or zones
5) two man bench

Add in no injury sub.

 

[scottyt2]

Fancy deliberately fatiguing the players and then expecting the spectacle to improve..LOL

 

[Dr Tigris]

It's not skills or willingness to attack.

IMHO I reckon there are basically 2 main issues

1) The rules/umpiring. Done to death but constant changes mean there is always uncertainty in what players and coaches do. So they react to that uncertainty by being safer. Also the rule changes tend to be aimed at 'speeding the game up by altering how the ball can be moved' all with a style of play something like AFLX in mind. So the stand rule was aimed at stopping guys like Trent Cotchin moving aggressively on the mark and forcing ball movement sideways, backwards or a risky kick forward. The problem is that logically when you have a free/mark both teams have some time to set up. So defensively all the stand rule means is that you have to be more aware deeper of a kick coming in. But offensively it means you have a relatively risk free set play. Therefore defensively teams will set up deeper and offensively you simply move the ball in shorter or wider. This slows the game down and prioritises mark kick and patience. So it ends up achieving the opposite to the intent, because 1) SHocking/AFL HQ didn't think it through, and 2) they didn't trial it for a year or more. It takes coaches at least 2 years to work out how to gain offensive benefit from a rule change. Constant changes mean they go down the easy route of safety and defensive options each time. Also the only way you achieve the AFLX style is by eliminating pressure. But the Dogs and Tigers won premierships with intense pressure, and now you aren't competitive without intense pressure. So changing rules without but sill allowing tackles and other physical pressure tactics means that you just create a more complex game without affecting your 'problem'. I'll get the problem at the end of this over egged post.
1a) What rules can you change easily that would help. IMHO tackles should be rewarded, go back 20 - 30 years in the rule interpretation. This would stop players running into tackles and hoping to be able to get the ball out or get s stoppage. This reversal to historical norms would force players move the ball on more and reduce scrums. Also be more harsh on scragging and blocking - so KPFs are virtually tackled all the time and no free.

2) Coaches first aim is not to lose, and then it is to win. The modern defensive pressure means that the all out attacking teams of old would be destroyed by all modern teams. They couldn't move the ball and their defence would be wide open. So this is a fact of life and should not change. It is the logical outcome of how the AFL works, any professional team sport in fact. So they will always learn how to manipulate rule changes and other innovations to advantage. Let the rules stay constant and observe how teams win. Then the AFL can artificially support bottom/developing teams through things like soft cap concessions, better development support etc. i.e. let the coaches coach and build better teams - that make better football. You can't help it is a club decides to over pay their salary cap or repeatedly screws up development.

Lastly, what is the 'problem'. As I said I think the problem for the AFL HQ is that the game has too much contested play and too much chaos in it. They want clean uninterrupted 1990 style football. OK, firstly that's nice but my point 2 above shows that the coaches nowadays will destroy that style of football. It is suicide to try and do it. Every rule change, every interpretation change aiming at that style of game will fail. Cause the coaches will not do something so stupid as actually play that style of football. And secondly I love the contested controlled chaos style. I don't see it as a problem. The current slow chip chip style I don't like. So my problem is different to SHocking and Gil's problem. They are fixing a problem that doesn't exist to me. And they are creating a problem for me watching the game.

Final note; if you like that unpressured 1990 style then bad luck. You'll have to watch AFLX. That boat is long gone.

 

[Power Raid]

Fancy deliberately fatiguing the players and then expecting the spectacle to improve..LOL

perhaps players will adjust their activities to "play out" a whole game. More space means less rugby scrums, rolling defence and they'll let the ball do the work rather than running as much.

When the ball does the work, we see the rise and importance of kicking to advantage, leading and marking.


Imagine..............actually don't imagine, just look at footy in the 90s and 2000s

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

perhaps players will adjust their activities to "play out" a whole game. More space means less rugby scrums, rolling defence and they'll let the ball do the work rather than running as much.

When the ball does the work, we see the rise and importance of kicking to advantage, leading and marking.


Imagine..............actually don't imagine, just look at footy in the 90s and 2000s

Agree - the problem is if we want reduced interchange/increased fatigue to work, we need to 'break' the possibility of endurance/athleticism and structured defence. We haven't gone far enough yet.

At the moment, the fitter team can still win by being able to hold their structure for longer.

If we reduce interchange further (10 per quarter, unlimited at breaks?) that may be enough that players have to start conserving energy.

That will lead to the next problem - coaches will sacrifice scoring to ensure their systems can remain intact - a "soccer-esque" battle across the HB lines and relying on the 'counter-attack' to score.

The only way I can really see us getting back to the football we want to see is to undo almost every rule/interpretation change of the last 20-30 years. The game is about time - delay, delay, delay to setup structure.

Pay EVERY free kick, ignore the ignoramus media/fans and within a few weeks the coaches and players will adjust. No holding, no off-the-ball niggle, players making the ball their target. Speed, athleticism and 'talent' becoming more important than ability to hold structures.

As soon as possible, ball-up, throw-in - I don't care if there are still a pile of bodies on the ground - they'll learn quick when the rucks start landing on them. If a player in the pack doesn't release to the ump or roll away after the whistle it's a free against. No ruck nomination needed - as they are paying every block/hold free kick now.

One thing that's needed fixing for 30 years and still hasn't been. Whistle means STOP. Let umpire call advantage (raise an arm, or some other signal), but if the whistle blows, play stops and resets. Didn't hear it? Bad luck, that's 50 too.

I do like the extra time for a shot. What I'd like to see is the player calls for the extra time (not the umpire) - but then they MUST go back over the mark, be set by the umpire and MUST shoot for goal. Didn't make the distance or changed your mind? Free against from where it lands. Bring back set shot kicking as a skill.

I don't mind the 'around the corner' shots - but players MUST still kick over the mark. They can go wider of the mark, to allow themselves to have momentum - but the kick must be over the mark.

Basically, if we enforce the rules properly most of our issues will go away.

 

[Power Raid]

Agree - the problem is if we want reduced interchange/increased fatigue to work, we need to 'break' the possibility of endurance/athleticism and structured defence. We haven't gone far enough yet.

At the moment, the fitter team can still win by being able to hold their structure for longer.

If we reduce interchange further (10 per quarter, unlimited at breaks?) that may be enough that players have to start conserving energy.

That will lead to the next problem - coaches will sacrifice scoring to ensure their systems can remain intact - a "soccer-esque" battle across the HB lines and relying on the 'counter-attack' to score.

The only way I can really see us getting back to the football we want to see is to undo almost every rule/interpretation change of the last 20-30 years. The game is about time - delay, delay, delay to setup structure.

Pay EVERY free kick, ignore the ignoramus media/fans and within a few weeks the coaches and players will adjust. No holding, no off-the-ball niggle, players making the ball their target. Speed, athleticism and 'talent' becoming more important than ability to hold structures.

As soon as possible, ball-up, throw-in - I don't care if there are still a pile of bodies on the ground - they'll learn quick when the rucks start landing on them. If a player in the pack doesn't release to the ump or roll away after the whistle it's a free against. No ruck nomination needed - as they are paying every block/hold free kick now.

One thing that's needed fixing for 30 years and still hasn't been. Whistle means STOP. Let umpire call advantage (raise an arm, or some other signal), but if the whistle blows, play stops and resets. Didn't hear it? Bad luck, that's 50 too.

I do like the extra time for a shot. What I'd like to see is the player calls for the extra time (not the umpire) - but then they MUST go back over the mark, be set by the umpire and MUST shoot for goal. Didn't make the distance or changed your mind? Free against from where it lands. Bring back set shot kicking as a skill.

I don't mind the 'around the corner' shots - but players MUST still kick over the mark. They can go wider of the mark, to allow themselves to have momentum - but the kick must be over the mark.

Basically, if we enforce the rules properly most of our issues will go away.

And get rid of coaches and communcations

Let footballers work it out

 

[Cyber_punk]

I was watching the highlights of a game from 2011 and I saw 3 skilful dribble kicks bounce through the goals from the boundary line. The thought occurred to me: it was one of the great skilful innovations of the modern era, but we don't even see many of them anymore. Every small forward worth his salt was practising his arsey dribble kicks after training and putting it into practise on game day when the situation arose.

For a couple of years there, they became so commonplace, you expected them to go through and they no longer won the Goal of the Round.
But how many have we seen this year? Maybe I'm not watching the right games??

AFL footy seems so boring these days. Not just cos the Hawks suck. Even the neutral games. I find myself tuning out and watching replays of the Euro Championships instead.

It's not just the rules or the umpiring. The coaches have killed our great game. They've taken all the flair out of it and turned the players athletes who play it into robots. They really are the most boring bunch of campaigners. Listen to the sh*t they dribble in their press conferences: Clarko, Dimma, Longmire, Bevo, Simpson, Teague, ... They have no personality and their teams follow suit. It's all processes, playing the percentages, field position, defence, discipline, controlling the things you can control, etc.

Players are handcuffed. They have all the spontaneity coached out of them. That's why good young footballers are the best to watch - they haven't yet been fully indoctrinated by the coaches & team systems.

Agreed with everything you said especially this. It's over coached, over umpired, and feels like every team plays the same. Players used to "go for it" now they are very reactive to the other team. Hard to imagine the likes of Carey, Ablett, and the teams of old putting out this stuff.

 

[Iceman!]

Agreed with everything you said especially this. It's over coached, over umpired, and feels like every team plays the same. Players used to "go for it" now they are very reactive to the other team. Hard to imagine the likes of Carey, Ablett, and the teams of old putting out this stuff.

All i will say is if this happens be prepared for a lot of blow outs, look at the NRL at the moment fans hate the way the game is shifting (i don't mind it).

As long as everyone is okay with seeing bottom teams getting done in by huge margins (much bigger than we are already seeing) i am okay with it.

 

[hawkman]

I was watching the highlights of a game from 2011 and I saw 3 skilful dribble kicks bounce through the goals from the boundary line. The thought occurred to me: it was one of the great skilful innovations of the modern era, but we don't even see many of them anymore. Every small forward worth his salt was practising his arsey dribble kicks after training and putting it into practise on game day when the situation arose.

For a couple of years there, they became so commonplace, you expected them to go through and they no longer won the Goal of the Round.
But how many have we seen this year? Maybe I'm not watching the right games??

There is generally a defender sitting near the goal square now

 

[Noidnadroj]

Some very simple solutions :

1. Get rid of the stand rule. It’s juvenile and has umpires focussing on irrelevant garbage.

2. Remove the ruck nomination rule and just penalise 3rd man up. Throw the ball in from the boundary or ball it up at a set time of 2-seconds from the umpire being ready … 1… 2…. up the ball goes…. Don’t wait for ruckman etc…. Just go at 2-seconds every time so players, coaches, umpires and supporters know what’s going to happen.

3. When a player is awarded a mark or free kick between the arcs, call play-on at an exact time from when he takes possession of 2-seconds. Again, everyone knows what to expect and away the game goes. None of this ‘move it on’ garbage after 5-seconds and another 2-seconds before calling play on.

4. Reduce time allowed for shots on goal from 30-seconds to 20-seconds. 30 is a joke.

The major issue with the game is caused by teams playing with defensive structures and grids. And how does this happen? It happens because umpires allow time for teams to set up structures by waiting for ruckman at every stoppage to nominate and get into position.

And what also happens is if a team has the ball from a mark on the wing, the defending team floods back into their defensive grid, happily leaving attacking players free behind the kicker. So the kicker often takes the sideways kick, giving even more time for the defending team to set up behind the ball. And the result is sideways chip chip crap, or a long kick down the line to huge congestion as the player has taken 7-seconds to kick it.

The other thing that happens now is teams defend ‘with’ the ball. So it’s all about setting up defensively in the event of a turnover, thus
Players are instructed to take their time even when in possession.

Imagine now they have to make a decision within 2-seconds. It will by default create fast play before defensive structures have time to
set-up either behind the ball by the defending team, or by the attacking team behind the player with the ball. So in the event of a turnover it will be ‘wooshka’ back and forth.

And it will kill the ultra boring 10-minutes each quarter at stoppages or waiting for players to kick for goal.

Simple solutions to resolve the main reason for games that are hard to watch …. and that is very advanced defensive structures and grids coached to within an inch of their life.



Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Pessimistic]

Yeah that's another idea that I don't like but will consider if it makes the game more watchable. I think the VFL have zones this year and it's probably not my favourite thing tbh

‘the vfl zones got wound back after derision from coaches in the pre season

 

[Pessimistic]

Nothing will improve unless the process of selecting implementing and post evaluating ‘changes’ is improves and not largely a PR exercise to cover the failings

I just re read that and it equally applies to the AFL and the actual country of australia

 

[Pessimistic]

Agree - the problem is if we want reduced interchange/increased fatigue to work, we need to 'break' the possibility of endurance/athleticism and structured defence. We haven't gone far enough yet.

At the moment, the fitter team can still win by being able to hold their structure for longer.

If we reduce interchange further (10 per quarter, unlimited at breaks?) that may be enough that players have to start conserving energy.

That will lead to the next problem - coaches will sacrifice scoring to ensure their systems can remain intact - a "soccer-esque" battle across the HB lines and relying on the 'counter-attack' to score.

The only way I can really see us getting back to the football we want to see is to undo almost every rule/interpretation change of the last 20-30 years. The game is about time - delay, delay, delay to setup structure.

Pay EVERY free kick, ignore the ignoramus media/fans and within a few weeks the coaches and players will adjust. No holding, no off-the-ball niggle, players making the ball their target. Speed, athleticism and 'talent' becoming more important than ability to hold structures.

As soon as possible, ball-up, throw-in - I don't care if there are still a pile of bodies on the ground - they'll learn quick when the rucks start landing on them. If a player in the pack doesn't release to the ump or roll away after the whistle it's a free against. No ruck nomination needed - as they are paying every block/hold free kick now.

One thing that's needed fixing for 30 years and still hasn't been. Whistle means STOP. Let umpire call advantage (raise an arm, or some other signal), but if the whistle blows, play stops and resets. Didn't hear it? Bad luck, that's 50 too.

I do like the extra time for a shot. What I'd like to see is the player calls for the extra time (not the umpire) - but then they MUST go back over the mark, be set by the umpire and MUST shoot for goal. Didn't make the distance or changed your mind? Free against from where it lands. Bring back set shot kicking as a skill.

I don't mind the 'around the corner' shots - but players MUST still kick over the mark. They can go wider of the mark, to allow themselves to have momentum - but the kick must be over the mark.

Basically, if we enforce the rules properly most of our issues will go away.

your last point was what clarko said, the title of the thread

 

[Pessimistic]

Sounds like what the media said about the 6/6/6 rule. Before the AFL stuffs the game up any further, I’d like to see proof that a new rule change will improve the game over a reasonable amount of time. Chris Scott vouching for it in team practice doesn’t really cut it for me.

especially a coach who’s team many expect actually coach/practice to cheat

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

especially a coach who’s team many expect actually coach/practice to cheat

Nah, I won't stand for that.

They aren't coached to cheat, they are coached and practice to exploit weaknesses in rules and current adjudications.

It's just another element of our game, just like the shape of the ball, unique ground and weather conditions affect play.

Flapping arms around calling for deliberate isn't cheating.
Holding the ball to a prone opponent in the tackle isn't cheating.
Engaging their direct opponent early and off the ball to stop them from reaching the contest isn't (of itself) cheating.
Even raising the arm, turning into the tackle, ducking, dropping the knees etc - none of that is cheating.

Throwing the ball IS cheating, but all teams are doing it to some extent.

Throwing punches off the ball are ok, so long as the Media don't comment on it.
Dropping knees/stomping/eye-gouging is ok so long as you are a "Warrior Captain"

 

[Lsta062]

That's pretty much the reason in what is wrong with the sport these past couple of years.

Clubs are more interested in selecting draftees at the draft now that have a better fitness ability and base compared to their fundamental skills these days, and as a result, has been why the skill-level of players has DRAMATICALLY fallen away since 2017 IMO.

Add in the fact that 99% of teams are defence first in the way they play in their system, a team scoring 100 points in a game is now quite rare in the current generation while teams scoring less then 60 points is a new normal compared to past generations.

Like don't get me wrong, I'm a valid AFL supporter who gets to watch most matches every week on the T.V/ground, but besides watching my team play every week, around 90% of matches of neutral-supporting have been pretty much BORING with the way most teams operate these days cause instead of taking risks and pushing forward to their F50, clubs are now more then happy to just chip it around 15-20m to a spare man backwards and wait until there is a clear opening for however long it takes now. As well as that issue, a dramatic overview needs to take place with that HTB rule cause I'm sorry but that rule is now clearly confused for everyone and it seems like there are numerous interpretations for different players/situations these days and now as a result, players are not trying to pick up the ball and hold possession for the fear of being caught HTB now.

I think five simple easy changes that need to be operated in the future, to allow the flow of the game to be more exciting for all of us and also keep the competition entertaining as well at the same time, include:

1. A much simpler HTB rule that needs to be enforced and easy for everyone to understand, regardless of what situation they are in, if that just means blowing the whistle quicker or calling the free-kick quicker, the AFL needs to fix it before the sport becomes a mess like how it currently is now with players not wanting to take possession of the football and it becomes all f’ed from there to decide what is HTB or what is not IMO.

2. Players who catch the football in their D50, after someone kicks the ball backwards to them, is just an instant "play on" and no mark would be rewarded as such to stop teams playing defence-orientated football around the ground.

3. Any player who kicks/handballs the football out of bounds, after it touched the field and then bouncing out of the playing field without the opposition touching it, will be called Last Touch Rule (similar to AFLW), and the opposition get the football back on the boundary line as a result.

4. Players to have only "20 seconds" now to take a set on goal otherwise it is "play on" and the man on the mark can then tackle the player who is taking the shot or whatever.

5. Clubs who score 100+ points in a match automatically receive 1 bonus point, regardless of if they win, lose or draw.

Agree except for number 5. It may work, but I think it’s favouring the scoring side a bit too much. Maybe something like a differential where beating teams by a great margin really matters. You can increase the differential by restricting by only so much before you need to actually score a high score. Percentage doesn’t really give as much emphasis on scoring. In fact, I probably think that it favours good defensive teams as they can get a high percentage just by restricting teams to a really low score often.

I really like the idea of 2. How many teams just sit there and chip the ball around the backline to retain possession? This ensures that there is a greater risk involved when it comes to clear backward kicking.You can then keep a couple of forwards in the forward line when teams try the switch so that they are dispossessed when they kick backwards.

The other options are also great ideas. At this point I don’t know what HTB is either so having them implement something that is easy to follow would be great.

 

[deanc]

That's pretty much the reason in what is wrong with the sport these past couple of years.

Clubs are more interested in selecting draftees at the draft now that have a better fitness ability and base compared to their fundamental skills these days, and as a result, has been why the skill-level of players has DRAMATICALLY fallen away since 2017 IMO.

Add in the fact that 99% of teams are defence first in the way they play in their system, a team scoring 100 points in a game is now quite rare in the current generation while teams scoring less then 60 points is a new normal compared to past generations.

Like don't get me wrong, I'm a valid AFL supporter who gets to watch most matches every week on the T.V/ground, but besides watching my team play every week, around 90% of matches of neutral-supporting have been pretty much BORING with the way most teams operate these days cause instead of taking risks and pushing forward to their F50, clubs are now more then happy to just chip it around 15-20m to a spare man backwards and wait until there is a clear opening for however long it takes now. As well as that issue, a dramatic overview needs to take place with that HTB rule cause I'm sorry but that rule is now clearly confused for everyone and it seems like there are numerous interpretations for different players/situations these days and now as a result, players are not trying to pick up the ball and hold possession for the fear of being caught HTB now.

I think five simple easy changes that need to be operated in the future, to allow the flow of the game to be more exciting for all of us and also keep the competition entertaining as well at the same time, include:

1. A much simpler HTB rule that needs to be enforced and easy for everyone to understand, regardless of what situation they are in, if that just means blowing the whistle quicker or calling the free-kick quicker, the AFL needs to fix it before the sport becomes a mess like how it currently is now with players not wanting to take possession of the football and it becomes all f’ed from there to decide what is HTB or what is not IMO.

2. Players who catch the football in their D50, after someone kicks the ball backwards to them, is just an instant "play on" and no mark would be rewarded as such to stop teams playing defence-orientated football around the ground.

3. Any player who kicks/handballs the football out of bounds, after it touched the field and then bouncing out of the playing field without the opposition touching it, will be called Last Touch Rule (similar to AFLW), and the opposition get the football back on the boundary line as a result.

4. Players to have only "20 seconds" now to take a set on goal otherwise it is "play on" and the man on the mark can then tackle the player who is taking the shot or whatever.

5. Clubs who score 100+ points in a match automatically receive 1 bonus point, regardless of if they win, lose or draw.

In addition to other recent comments already provided in relation to the above, I offer.

1. Holding the ball/incorrect disposal etc. Sadly was, more so in recent times, and will remain a difficult aspect of our game to correctly adjudicate. Review and tweak here and there may help but also I note very few people actually consider the umpires challenge - in that he/she must, in half a second, determine many related factors and always make a 'correct' decision. Whereas we get to review this, often in slow motion and from many different angles, while also having 'expert commentators' tell us that according to rule 46b/part IV that was or not a poor decision!

2. Kicking backwards-play on. Agree and I would also slightly expand on this proposal, that being; if a player marks the ball from a backwards kick from any part of the ground 'outside their offensive 50 meter arc' then it's play on, only allowance is if the ball is kicked from this area...
For the objectors, if you really want to see your players kicking the ball around in their D50 usually to wind down the clock, while also racking up uncontested possessions, then simply go and watch them train...

3. Last touch rule. Mmmm, not sure on this one; while I understand the intentions, helping resolve the current deliberate OOB interpretations, I can also, at this level, easily see it being creatively abused and creating even more controversy then we currently have with deliberate OOB..!

4. 30 second allowance for goal kickers. Keep the 30s but simply enforce the player to kick for goal. As determined by the umps, if you do not make 'a genuine attempt to score', then a free kick will be awarded to the player on the mark.

5. Premiership point incentive for scoring 100pts in game. Already suggested this in another post - and from the reactions you'd think I was asking some people to surrender their first born for Nazi type medical experiments..!
Although I could probably author an extensive paper on the positive aspects of such a notion, here are the three main reasons why it will probably never be introduced:
a. Selling it. The proposal and acceptance of such a change will require the agreement of ALL clubs. Given that Carlton have only scored 100 pts or more 2 or 3 times over the past 10 years, good luck getting them to sign-up for this 'incentive'..
b. Supporting evidence. It cannot in anyway be trialed during pre-season matches.
c. Public perception. I doubt the AFL will risk the potential fall out, negativity from it's overall audience! Even the AFL's own media fan boys may turn against them with narratives suggesting this 'incentive' is just widening the gulf between the better teams and the rest...