Unpopular AFL Opinions

[Falcon3518]

It’s almost impossible to. I put them in the same bracket - with Kennedy - as being the next best forwards behind buddy in the last 13 seasons. I think the Nick/Pav/Brown era was before they were hitting their prime so I keep them separate.

I think Kennedy was the next best pure goal kicker and I think Hawkins and Riewoldt are better than Kennedy as all round footballers.

Yeah fair, I agree it’s splitting hairs.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Falcon3518]

Do you honestly think Lochie O'Brien listed at 84kg has a more muscular physique than Leigh Matthews at 178cm / 82kg? I'd say Leigh Matthews height/weight are bang on. (And that modern player weights are hugely exaggerated for the most part)

Christian Guzman (a competitive bodybuilder with a better physique than literally EVERY player in the comp) self reports his height/weight at 180cm and 84kg. Andrew McGrath is listed as 83kg and 180cm.

Do you think McGrath has a bodybuilder like physique? Or, is it possible that clubs just self report random heights and weights because it doesn't really matter? You can find a few that are accurate, like Charlie Cameron being listed as 76kg at 180cm - seems about right, he is more muscular than McGrath too, I might add.

Not just weight either, height too. I'm 183cm and I've walked with Sam Mitchell while he was wearing footy boots and he's meant to be 180cm, but he honestly feels more like 177cm. I saw Tom Lynch out once though and he was the biggest human I'd ever seen, easily believable that he'd be 2m.

No Lochie O’Brien is taller so bigger bones add more weight. 84kg for a 185cm guy is thin because the bone to muscle ratio is higher if you get what I mean.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Bald]

What about in the past decade though? I thought I heard that Hawkins has kicked more goals.

Someone else brought that up with me recently but it's not true. In The last 10 seasons (excluded goals and games this year for obvious reasons):

Lance Franklin: 626 goals from 198 games (3.16 goals per game)

Tom Hawkins: 558 from 223 games (2.50 goals per game)

 

[PhatBoy]

Someone else brought that up with me recently but it's not true. In The last 10 seasons (excluded goals and games this year for obvious reasons):

Lance Franklin: 626 goals from 198 games (3.16 goals per game)

Tom Hawkins: 558 from 223 games (2.50 goals per game)

Since the start of season 2012 based on season by season goal tallies on AFL Tables:

571 Hawkins
565 Franklin

My maths is shithouse but I think that’s correct

 

[Bald]

Since the start of season 2012 based on season by season goal tallies on AFL Tables:

571 Hawkins
565 Franklin

My maths is shithouse but I think that’s correct

I see where I went wrong, I included 2011 because Buddy didn't actually play at all in 2020.

 

[PhatBoy]

I see where I went wrong, I included 2011 because Buddy didn't actually play at all in 2020.

Obviously Franklin’s goal average is better and he’s clearly had the better career, that’s not in any question at all and there’s no debate about that at all. I do think you could make a case that overall for that decade Hawkins has been the equal of Franklin - he’s had 200 goal assists in that time as well, to Franklin’s 135.

227 games - 771 goals contributed
180 games - 700 goals contributed

It’s 3.9 (Franklin) to 3.5 (Hawkins) so Franklin’s direct scoreboard impact is still greater. He doesn’t ruck at all though and I don’t think his field kicking has been as impactful as Tom.
Probably still falls short but over that time period at least the gap isn’t as big as what many people would think. What makes Franklin the freak he is is the fact that he was a superstar almost immediately and that will ensure he remains the best forward - by a distance - of his generation. I think hawkins’ slow start has been a double edged sword. Maybe at a weak club he would have played as the number one forward every week for his first five seasons and kicked an extra 150-200 goals, who knows. But I doubt he would have developed into the team-first lynchpin that he has been or built as wide a skill-set as what he has. His apprenticeship has served him really well later in his career

 

[Foxx]

Dropping the ball rule is adjudicated wrong most times.
No prior opportunity - If you drop it because you can't get a hand or foot to it, it's play on.

 

[BringFevBack2021]

Dropping the ball rule is adjudicated wrong most times.
No prior opportunity - If you drop it because you can't get a hand or foot to it, it's play on.

I was watching the Gold Coast vs Carlton game and I was just thinking, what's the point in tackling - you can just drop the ball as soon as your tackled and umpires will assume/suggest that it was knocked free in the force of the tackle. Like how many times do you see players grab a ball, let go immediately and get get paid a holding the man against the tackler? Cripps is an expert at drawing these frees, but I really don't think they should be there.

 

[PhatBoy]

I was watching the Gold Coast vs Carlton game and I was just thinking, what's the point in tackling - you can just drop the ball as soon as your tackled and umpires will assume/suggest that it was knocked free in the force of the tackle. Like how many times do you see players grab a ball, let go immediately and get get paid a holding the man against the tackler? Cripps is an expert at drawing these frees, but I really don't think they should be there.

Holding the man free is the equal worst rule in the game along with the in the back rule when tackling.

Once a player touches the ball he should be fair game. It’s not the tackler’s responsibility to make sure the opponent holds the ball, or to check and see whether he’s still got it

 

[BringFevBack2021]

Holding the man free is the equal worst rule in the game along with the in the back rule when tackling.

Once a player touches the ball he should be fair game. It’s not the tackler’s responsibility to make sure the opponent holds the ball, or to check and see whether he’s still got it

Absolutely right mate! Obviously, there are exceptions; like holding someone down after they got rid of it but for the most part it is ridiculous. ITB is bad too, if someone caves at the knees and you fall into their back it shouldn't be a free.

 

[GhostofJimJess]

Holding the man free is the equal worst rule in the game along with the in the back rule when tackling.

Once a player touches the ball he should be fair game. It’s not the tackler’s responsibility to make sure the opponent holds the ball, or to check and see whether he’s still got it

Oh yeah, one my total pet hates. That one where the tackler wraps up the carrier, the carrier falls forward taking the tackler with him into the ground. Apparently chest into back on the ground is the infringement in this? Totally against what the push-in-back rule was designed for - taking opponents out of a contest from behind.

 

[Bianconeri]

Holding the man free is the equal worst rule in the game along with the in the back rule when tackling.

Once a player touches the ball he should be fair game. It’s not the tackler’s responsibility to make sure the opponent holds the ball, or to check and see whether he’s still got it

Well it’s is

 

[PhatBoy]

Well it’s is

The way the rule is adjudicated yes. There is no way that it should be though. If his opponent drops the ball or doesn’t take possession cleanly, that’s his own fault - the tackler shouldn’t have to wait and check ‘oh did you pick it up old boy? Jolly good, carry on.’

 

[Bianconeri]

The way the rule is adjudicated yes. There is no way that it should be though. If his opponent drops the ball or doesn’t take possession cleanly, that’s his own fault - the tackler shouldn’t have to wait and check ‘oh did you pick it up old boy? Jolly good, carry on.’

I’m fine with the way it is. Creates a more free flowing game, tacklers shouldn’t have it any easier.

 

[PhatBoy]

I’m fine with the way it is. Creates a more free flowing game, tacklers shouldn’t have it any easier.

I don’t see the logic there. The play gets stopped - usually in those scenarios the loose ball will get picked up by someone else and play continues?

 

[Bianconeri]

I don’t see the logic there. The play gets stopped - usually in those scenarios the loose ball will get picked up by someone else and play continues?

It discourages tacklers from going all out aggression, so they have to stop for a split second and think before tackling allowing the team with the ball to play more freely.

 

[PhatBoy]

It discourages tacklers from going all out aggression, so they have to stop for a split second and think before tackling allowing the team with the ball to play more freely.

Look I respect your right to that opinion but a tackler shouldn’t have to make decisions based on whether or not his opponent is skilful enough to hold the ball ImO

 

[BrodeeKF]

I reckon this one could be incredibly unpopular, but I truly believe it:

Eddie McGuire would make a good AFL CEO.

 

[Falcon3518]

I reckon this one could be incredibly unpopular, but I truly believe it:

Eddie McGuire would make a good AFL CEO.

Totally agree, he knows his stuff and got screwed over by the media at the pies.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

I reckon this one could be incredibly unpopular, but I truly believe it:

Eddie McGuire would make a good AFL CEO.

Why?

I've always thought of him as nothing more than a marketing guy.

 

[Thetrader15]

The way the rule is adjudicated yes. There is no way that it should be though. If his opponent drops the ball or doesn’t take possession cleanly, that’s his own fault - the tackler shouldn’t have to wait and check ‘oh did you pick it up old boy? Jolly good, carry on.’

I think play is allowed to go on way too long before umpire intervention.

Players are tackled 360 degrees and still allowed to dispose of it, and it's not HTB. What does the tackler do as a result, they try to sling them to the ground.

Any tackle lasting more than 2 seconds needs to either be a ball up or HTB.

This will speed play up.

Scrimmages also need to be stopped much earlier, lose the rolling maul of players picking it up and dropping it for the next player. Once the ball is held up, the umpire comes in and throws it up IMMEDIATELY, don't wait for 10 seconds for the players to congest the area while the teams are deciding who will nominate for the ruck.

 

[windyhill]

I reckon this one could be incredibly unpopular, but I truly believe it:

Eddie McGuire would make a good AFL CEO.

 

[Elmer_Hauser]

Malcolm Blight is much more of an Adelaide Crows person than a Shinboner, as David Parkin far more Carlton than a Hawk, or Sheedy a Bomber than Tiger.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

Well the AFL says there is a scoring issue in the game. So I thought instead of making stupid rules to artificially make goals through frees and 50m penalties you can just use my idea and it literally fixed everything and makes the game more interesting. I’m pretty sure most people don’t want constant rule changes anymore. Not sure why this is so annoying to you, do you actually have an issue with my idea?


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

I don't agree with anything you just said.



How many times does the ball hit the post? And of the very few times that it does actually happen, how many times would it simply end up getting rushed through anyway?

To suggest that this is a solution to low scoring is simply baffling.


If the Problem Statement was that it's too hard to adjudicate the ball snicking the post, and the effort isn't worth it - then I could maybe see a point to it. But as a solution to low scoring??? I mean WTF??

And if there is no Problem Statement, then what is the point?

There is no point. None.



To be honest, it's this sort of shit that I think has caused the AFL so much grief over the years. Some deadshit old execs sitting around a board table somewhere coming up with hair brain ideas as to how to make footy cool.

Nek minnit we have AFLX, the Hands in the Back rule and the yellow or red vest or whatever colour it was.

 

[Lets Roar like '44]

I reckon this one could be incredibly unpopular, but I truly believe it:

Eddie McGuire would make a good

I reckon this one could be incredibly unpopular, but I truly believe it:

Eddie McGuire would make a good AFL CEO.

He’d make a great CEO of any competition that doesn’t involve non Victorian clubs