Um the flood era started back in the late 90s twenty years ago. So yes there are plenty of examples. Sydney vs eagles grand finals in 2005 and 2006 were too such examples
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 10 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Why did the game devolve into the current dog's breakfast?
- Thread starter Sttew
- Start date
- Tagged users None
This happened all the time in the early 2000s at least. Are you new to the game?
Aerial Ping Pong
Debutant
I haven't read all comments on this thread so apologise if this has been covered before. The root cause of the current condition of the game is the change from substitutions from the bench to interchange from the bench. Introducing interchange opened Pandora's box. Previously coaches influenced a game through exhortation and on field inspiration. Strategy was limited to positional changes and substitutions were held in reserve and mainly used late. The 1970 Grand final when Carlton substituted their 19th man at half time, got people thinking about using the bench actively. Hence the interchange.
So would I change it? I certainly wouldn't introduce zones and more umpiring complexity. Most of the changes proposed to mitigate the consequences of interchange have a "swallowed a spider to catch the fly" quality to them.
Maybe this... Our game is some what unique in having quarters rather than halves. We also currently have a bench of four players. I suggest the following:
- At the start of each quarter the 18 players on the field and the 4 players on the bench are nominated.
- During the quarter up to 4 substitutions can be made from the bench.
- The starting 18 of a quarter does not have to be the starting or finishing 18 from the previous quarter. Any of the 22 players can be starting or on the bench.
- Injured players can be interchanged (blood rule etc.). The interchange can only last for a certain amount of time (5 mins say..). Then the player comes back or the interchange becomes a substitution.
What i like about this..
- At the very least i will know who is on the field. Currently during a quarter each side makes up to 20 interchanges. I can't keep up, to these old eyes the changing numbers of the players on the interchange display look like fuzzy, rapidly changing bingo. When you can decipher the numbers you have to do a quick "let me see now. if a,b,c and d are on the bench that means w,x,y, and z are on the the ground, damn changed again,d is on and f is off, Great mark, who kicked it,"
- Hopefully substitutions will introduce more strategy. Will we start the quarter with our gun midfielders and rotate them through the forward line for the whole quarter for the first half and then sub 2 off halfway through the third and fourth? Do we start small and have them chase us for the first half the quarter and when they tire substitute on our tall gun forward? Currently strategy seems to be to just blitz the oppositions forward line and hope to get it out of bounds with out giving away a free. Then have everyone move to the stoppage and repeat.
- Injuries will have less impact on the outcome of games. Currently if a player is injured it has an impact on "rotations" and teams lose games. With substitution, injuries have less of an impact as there are no rotations. The game returns to 18 players versus 18 players almost always, not 22 v 22 or 21 or 20.
- Key position players more likely to stay on the ground and in position.
- No more running to the bench straight after kicking a goal.
After watching the world cup I thought that the strategic use of substitutions was a great feature. With a game going at least 90 minutes and possibly 120 they allowed 3 substitutions from bench of nine. AFL perhaps could do the same. Three subs from a bench of nine each quarter. Any 18 of the 27 players can start a quarter, only 3 substitutions from the bench ( or 3 from 6 or 4 from 6 or 8).
I should be careful what i wish for. The AFL could really get innovative and agile on this. For example up to 4 interchanges per quarter from a bench of nine, the bench is 6 from the clubs list, 2 from a feeder league like VFL and one selected from the crowd. The club could auction of the place on the bench to their fans or scan footage of the crowd for a supporter giving it to one of our players and take him up on his opinion that he could do better.
So would I change it? I certainly wouldn't introduce zones and more umpiring complexity. Most of the changes proposed to mitigate the consequences of interchange have a "swallowed a spider to catch the fly" quality to them.
Maybe this... Our game is some what unique in having quarters rather than halves. We also currently have a bench of four players. I suggest the following:
- At the start of each quarter the 18 players on the field and the 4 players on the bench are nominated.
- During the quarter up to 4 substitutions can be made from the bench.
- The starting 18 of a quarter does not have to be the starting or finishing 18 from the previous quarter. Any of the 22 players can be starting or on the bench.
- Injured players can be interchanged (blood rule etc.). The interchange can only last for a certain amount of time (5 mins say..). Then the player comes back or the interchange becomes a substitution.
What i like about this..
- At the very least i will know who is on the field. Currently during a quarter each side makes up to 20 interchanges. I can't keep up, to these old eyes the changing numbers of the players on the interchange display look like fuzzy, rapidly changing bingo. When you can decipher the numbers you have to do a quick "let me see now. if a,b,c and d are on the bench that means w,x,y, and z are on the the ground, damn changed again,d is on and f is off, Great mark, who kicked it,"
- Hopefully substitutions will introduce more strategy. Will we start the quarter with our gun midfielders and rotate them through the forward line for the whole quarter for the first half and then sub 2 off halfway through the third and fourth? Do we start small and have them chase us for the first half the quarter and when they tire substitute on our tall gun forward? Currently strategy seems to be to just blitz the oppositions forward line and hope to get it out of bounds with out giving away a free. Then have everyone move to the stoppage and repeat.
- Injuries will have less impact on the outcome of games. Currently if a player is injured it has an impact on "rotations" and teams lose games. With substitution, injuries have less of an impact as there are no rotations. The game returns to 18 players versus 18 players almost always, not 22 v 22 or 21 or 20.
- Key position players more likely to stay on the ground and in position.
- No more running to the bench straight after kicking a goal.
After watching the world cup I thought that the strategic use of substitutions was a great feature. With a game going at least 90 minutes and possibly 120 they allowed 3 substitutions from bench of nine. AFL perhaps could do the same. Three subs from a bench of nine each quarter. Any 18 of the 27 players can start a quarter, only 3 substitutions from the bench ( or 3 from 6 or 4 from 6 or 8).
I should be careful what i wish for. The AFL could really get innovative and agile on this. For example up to 4 interchanges per quarter from a bench of nine, the bench is 6 from the clubs list, 2 from a feeder league like VFL and one selected from the crowd. The club could auction of the place on the bench to their fans or scan footage of the crowd for a supporter giving it to one of our players and take him up on his opinion that he could do better.
No, it wasn't, it was an injury delay, not a stoppage. Also, as Bartel said at the time, if you move 2 pairs of players out, so what? What effect is that going to have really? Dont the remaining players just congest in a little more.
You have a stoppage deep in Eagles defence, Darling and Kennedy retreat to the 50. So what? They play the role of outlet players to congestion usually. They are sitting at the end of the congested zone to provide a contest, they are not sitting around where the ball is, removing them has ZERO impact on congestion at the ball, what it does is REMOVE an outlet for the Eagles to clear the congestion. How the **** does that help? The fact they are to far away means as soon as the ball is bounced, they sprint back up the ground.
Total impact of the starting zone, Darling and Kennedy (or whichever of the deep forwards get to run back to the fifty) get to do a lot more running, number of players where the ball actually is is not affected at all. Eagles find it harder to clear the ball out of their defensive fifty immediately after a ball up, because 2 of their contested ball outlet players are 100 meters away.
You could make it 3, or 4 or 6 from each team in the starting zone, and just to make it clearer, give them bibs.
No
It would remove 1 of Darling or Kennedy back to the 50 along with 2 other pairs.
Darling or Kennedy could still be the outlet kick, but someone has to take the place of the other 2 pairs back in the 50. Therefor 4 players that would normally be within 20 meters of the stoppage now have to drop back 70 meters from the stoppage.
It’s all about spacing out the game
Depends where the stoppage is. Only 50m between the arc
The Goon
Norm Smith Medallist
YEP. This is why I don't want any more changes for a while. I simply don't trust the AFL to have the methodology to implement a solution that actually works, as opposed to making things worse. Then of course they'll add more changes to 'fix' the game (while blaming the coaches). To my mind the two big changes they've introduced in recent times - the nominated ruck and restricted interchanges - have both contributed to congestion.
Congestion on the wings or in the middle isn’t really an issue. It’s from half forward in where teams just compress the game and lock it into a certain part of the ground that is the issue
With out a single doubt, Ross Lyons is the architect of the current scrum the AFL has turned into.
It was his teams who first started deliberately going to ground when tackled, know they could simply roll off the ball or throw the ball on along the ground to overcome incorrect disposal rules.
Coupled with players who now throw themselves forward onto the ground when tackled from behind in an attempt to get a push in the back free or simply off load the ball on the ground we find ourselves with AFLs version of rugby.
The solution is simple, if a player gets taken to ground with the ball, hes deemed to had prior and gives a free away.
This will stop players throwing themselves on the ground when tackled and make the short handpass in a pack far less desirable and see players kicking the ball a lot more.
Kicking the ball even short distances will overcome congestion and new offensive/defensive patterns will emerge.
BigRed
It was his teams who first started deliberately going to ground when tackled, know they could simply roll off the ball or throw the ball on along the ground to overcome incorrect disposal rules.
Coupled with players who now throw themselves forward onto the ground when tackled from behind in an attempt to get a push in the back free or simply off load the ball on the ground we find ourselves with AFLs version of rugby.
The solution is simple, if a player gets taken to ground with the ball, hes deemed to had prior and gives a free away.
This will stop players throwing themselves on the ground when tackled and make the short handpass in a pack far less desirable and see players kicking the ball a lot more.
Kicking the ball even short distances will overcome congestion and new offensive/defensive patterns will emerge.
BigRed
Bulldogs win over Essendon in 2000. That's the earliest I remember the flood becoming a tactic.
Not really sure how you can point to the change to an interchange being the root cause when it's been that way now for nearly 50 years.
- Sep 28, 2016
- 6,965
- 8,567
- AFL Club
- Essendon
- Other Teams
- Man U .White Sox;Storm,Victory
Too many rule changes.
Too many rule changes badly interpretated by small men with small man syndrome.
Too many rule changes to protect the soft, can't have the little 'Cotchy's of this world being bullied out of football.
Too many rule changes brought about by nuff nuff media whinging.
Too many Chiefs and the Indians are sheep.
Too many rule changes badly interpretated by small men with small man syndrome.
Too many rule changes to protect the soft, can't have the little 'Cotchy's of this world being bullied out of football.
Too many rule changes brought about by nuff nuff media whinging.
Too many Chiefs and the Indians are sheep.
Craze
Premiership Player
- Aug 7, 2013
- 3,513
- 7,925
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- Steelers
Nice one slick. Perhaps you're the one with small man syndrome. You'd run a million miles if Trent Cotchin fronted up to you on the footy field.
- Sep 28, 2016
- 6,965
- 8,567
- AFL Club
- Essendon
- Other Teams
- Man U .White Sox;Storm,Victory
Todays rules suit Cotchin, it wasn't that long ago Richmond were screaming for Cotchin to 'get in and get the bloody thing'.
IMO. Todays rules suit the Cotchin type player, Priddis was a player who until player protection got stronger played 6 wide, It's confidence to go for the ball without fear of injury.
'
Craze
Premiership Player
- Aug 7, 2013
- 3,513
- 7,925
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- Steelers
Cotchin has always been a ball winner and a bloody brave one at that. He was criticised for kicking sideways in 2016, but that was more a reflection of the coach's over-possession game style. But Cotchin is not soft, as you implied.
Nah, there was some before then. That was more a superflood tactic. One of the early Showdown games in Adelaide I remember was a real turn off as for about first half of game , there was continual flooding down one end. That was in late 90's. Eade did it a bit with Swans in 1996. Nothing extreme like we see more often now, but it happened.
Lets just make the game into AFLX that was an amazing spectacle of no contact aussie rules
That was the other extreme shit. No thanks.
Q. Why did the game devolve into the current dog's breakfast?
A. Because our coaches & clubs decided to go overseas and study other sporting codes & "pinched" facets & tactics of their game and then implemented them into ours in the hope that it would be good for their team and in turn, the game itself.
A. Because our coaches & clubs decided to go overseas and study other sporting codes & "pinched" facets & tactics of their game and then implemented them into ours in the hope that it would be good for their team and in turn, the game itself.
Der because the end thirds of the ground are much smaller in size to the middle? Thats as it was always
Eade was probably the instigator of the first flooding, Freo under Neesham funnily enough had a good record v Sydney, iirc theory was at the time that his high possession game plan was good at picking its way through it.
Some blame incerchange, but before 2000 the only grounds it worked at were SCG and maybe princes park. Swans ysed to get smashed when they ventured to the much larger waverley.
once waverely replaced by smaller docklands, more teams found the congestion tactics appealling
Similar threads
