00Stinger
100 - 7
so UFC with a ball?
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
-
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
i think the amount of interchange and the extra 2 clubs makes for extra unskilled players (you dont need skills to run to a position or to apply pressure)
skilled players can break out of congestion so therefore we need more skilled players
cut back on the number of teams (1-2 clubs less)
less interchange (ideally you want the best 18 playing with the interchange as reserves not 22 players playing 85% game time, for match fitness you want the 4 reserves to play maybe 50%)
having more skilled players per team means breaking out of congestion will be easier (making it a less viable tactic)
less stoppages would help, a harsher holding the ball rule, players can knock it on or kick it
another thing would be to have the most attacking teams playing during prime time and the defensive ones playing Sunday arvo, encouraging teams to play with more flair so they get the good time slots
the great geelong and hawthorn teams didnt have that many problems against zones because of such skillful players (geelong being able to run and carry with quick handball and hawthorn with precision kicking)
skilled players can break out of congestion so therefore we need more skilled players
cut back on the number of teams (1-2 clubs less)
less interchange (ideally you want the best 18 playing with the interchange as reserves not 22 players playing 85% game time, for match fitness you want the 4 reserves to play maybe 50%)
having more skilled players per team means breaking out of congestion will be easier (making it a less viable tactic)
less stoppages would help, a harsher holding the ball rule, players can knock it on or kick it
another thing would be to have the most attacking teams playing during prime time and the defensive ones playing Sunday arvo, encouraging teams to play with more flair so they get the good time slots
the great geelong and hawthorn teams didnt have that many problems against zones because of such skillful players (geelong being able to run and carry with quick handball and hawthorn with precision kicking)
Brenton Davy
Premium Gold
Kevin Sheedy was the first coach to suggest the current tactics, saying that the players would eventually cover all positions on the ground like soccer players. He espoused that all playrrs would gravitate to where the play was on ghe ground, defending when required and attacking when required.
I don't think there's anything wrong with the tactics, just have more skillful footballers. Most afl footballers are simpletons and battlers and are unable to implement the highly complicated game plans. Remember, us Aussies are physically genetically incompetent to play such a game plan.
To answer this question we need to look at what point the game originally evolved from a dogs breakfast into a game. If we can pinpoint that, we could analyze what happened to form the transition.
Then we can evolve the current dogs breakfast back into the game again
Then we can evolve the current dogs breakfast back into the game again
To generalise it must have been considered a dogs breakfast in the 1960's to be discussing bringing in the centre square to de-congest the play. After rejecting it at first they eventually brought it in during the early 1970's. But even before that the other massive change was making the boundary line the enemy of the game. If you kicked it out of bounce "hit the boundary line" was a legitimate defensive tactic before then without penalty. 1969 they made it outlawed and a free kick to opposition. Handball as an attacking weapon started to come into the game also lead by the likes of Polly Farmer. It got made more famous by Carlton doing more of it from back half in 1970 grand final to play on quickly. So this idea of evolve in bullshit anyway. This is a game which rules are made up from start. We invent ideas for a game to make it more interesting or fun to either play and for those watching. Tactics evolve to manipulate what ideas brought into the ruling of the game. Ball ups an invention. Marks an invention. Centre Square an invention. Handball and kicking tactics evolve. If they end up making the game less fun to play or watch the admin invent new ideas to bring the game back to fun to play and watch. Congested play on the whole is the enemy of the game being fun to play and watch. As a game we want contests for sure but congestion where it becomes a big group of players fighting over ball like seagulls over chips at beach is not fun for anyone. That is when the game is a dogs breakfast. It was not invented as a game to be played in the spirit of rugby and tackles be a big feature. But in general it is what it has become the last decade. The other extreme we do not want is AFLX we saw where virtual no contests. So if you have too few players on ground there are few contests it is ping pong like. If it is too many players in one area it is rugby like. Ideally as a game we want contests of players opposed too each other competing based on skill to deliver and get ball. A balance where attack and defence are both embraced as a contest.
So what was going on during 1970's that allowed the game to be seen as a whole de-congested when the decade before was considered as a congestion problem ?
First thing 18 players each team on field were there to play the match out. There was no resting players on bench to have a fresher 18 on field and rest a few on bench. So players were paced to play out 120 minutes and get their rests at half time and quarter breaks. It was not a game of rotating freshest 18 on field we have now. So in essence we had 3 followers and 3 centre line players and those guys conditioned themselves to be up both ends of the ground. The other 12 players had starting positions they roamed from but they knew they had to pace themselves to play out 120 minutes so running up other end of ground like the 3 followers and 3 centre line players was not in the game. In general that meant the players were spread out fully over roughly 180 metre oval. Pressing that space down to all 18 players on a team within 90 metres of each other at a stoppage was not happening. So from stoppages we have the 36 players pressed into half the space they used to be spread out. Hence the congestion. To maintain this it means the old 12 players on each team that used to be just primarily forwards or defenders roaming one half of ground at their end are now covering 12 to 15 km's in two hours....running much further to have less space at a stoppage to maintain the lack of space to opposition. Basically starting positions at every stoppage for roughly a 90 metre length team defence. Having constant rotations on bench to bring the players red lining off for fresher players to maintain that run to fill space and maintain team defence. This was not in the game previously. In fact it was not even intended to be part of the game. The bench was intended for bringing off injured players to replace them so each team could still have a contest of 18 v 18 on field. But the unintended rotations have brought it into a game of 22 v 22. Your freshest 18 on field at any point to maintain the territory game it has mutated to.
But it is not the only reason on it's own for congestion. The way the umpires have allowed packs to form in last two decades has compounded the issue too. Go look at any game from 70's or 80's umpired on youtube and you will see there is a clear instruction that tacklers that were second to ball and did anything but a total clean tackle were penalised. If there was more than 3 players around ball and it even started to look like becoming a rugby like scene they blew the whistle to ball it up and did so promptly. They kept allowing the ball to have a chance to be cleared out into space. Not congested and locked in like a rugby set up. Pay prompt frees kicks for anything that even looks like it might be a sloppy tackle stop the guy getting the ball having a fair go at it. Also promptly penalise if a clean tackle and a clean disposal is not executed. Umpires have a great control over way the game can be encouraged to be played. It is umpired vastly different now.
Rotations numbers, congestion and big tackle numbers are enemies of the game being fun to play and watch. Minimum interchange, players spread out to contest more evenly across the 180 metres of the oval are the friends of our game to play and watch. If admin and umpires keep that in mind in how the game run the players and coaches can put on a fun interesting contest and encouraged to take risks to win rather than congest and shut space down to stop other team scoring.
Last edited:
I'd like to hear in detail, what the committee dislike about the current state of the game and would like hear in detail about how to fix it.
For mine the obvious is time in congestion as a result of stoppages, it is impossible to eradicate stoppages unless we go to an AFLX format and I'm sure nobody wants that.
The 666 starting positions is a minimal change as basically most teams start most of their 18 in their starting positions anyway.
The one I can't get my head around is how to enforce it at every stoppage.
For example we have a stoppage on centre wing, the arc players have to go back to the arc before play restarts. Do the midfielders have to go back to their positions as well? Do the wingers who started on the other wing have to go back to their position? Do the rucks have to go back to the square? Does this just leave the wingers to contest the ball up?
Obviously not but it's a bit vague and has not been explained to the fans - in detail - as to what's going to happen.
It seems the intent is too force some sort of zoning, for example the arc players aren't going to run to and from every contest all day - seems there won't be a rule that says you can't but everyone knows that the arc players aren't going to do that. Forced zoning without enforcing a rule.
Not sure how that will sit with the majority of the paying supporters and members.
Be wary HQ of what you wish for because it may not be what the funding fan base want.
For mine the obvious is time in congestion as a result of stoppages, it is impossible to eradicate stoppages unless we go to an AFLX format and I'm sure nobody wants that.
The 666 starting positions is a minimal change as basically most teams start most of their 18 in their starting positions anyway.
The one I can't get my head around is how to enforce it at every stoppage.
For example we have a stoppage on centre wing, the arc players have to go back to the arc before play restarts. Do the midfielders have to go back to their positions as well? Do the wingers who started on the other wing have to go back to their position? Do the rucks have to go back to the square? Does this just leave the wingers to contest the ball up?
Obviously not but it's a bit vague and has not been explained to the fans - in detail - as to what's going to happen.
It seems the intent is too force some sort of zoning, for example the arc players aren't going to run to and from every contest all day - seems there won't be a rule that says you can't but everyone knows that the arc players aren't going to do that. Forced zoning without enforcing a rule.
Not sure how that will sit with the majority of the paying supporters and members.
Be wary HQ of what you wish for because it may not be what the funding fan base want.
- Nov 22, 2016
- 2,218
- 3,011
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- North Adelaide, Arsenal.
6-6-6 only applies at the centre bounce.
I want someone to explain this 'if we make players more exhausted, the games will look better' idea.
The last running effort the the players will give up is running TO the contest, the first running effort to drop off will be unrewarded running to space and FROM the contest.
The data released some months ago by an assistant coach supported this. Restrictions thus far have not eased congestion, if it's had any affect at all, it increased it.
Tired players doesn't stop congestion forming, it does make it harder to clear.
Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk
The last running effort the the players will give up is running TO the contest, the first running effort to drop off will be unrewarded running to space and FROM the contest.
The data released some months ago by an assistant coach supported this. Restrictions thus far have not eased congestion, if it's had any affect at all, it increased it.
Tired players doesn't stop congestion forming, it does make it harder to clear.
Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk
Someone remind me about how bad the game is right now...
There is talk of starting positions at stoppages as well which like I said would require players to run to and from their starting positions at every stoppage which is unsustainable.
That was the point of the whole post, we the funding base fans have been given very little information on what the (apparent) brains trust is thinking.
For mine that is bordering on deliberate arrogant ignorance and puts HQ in danger of driving away said fan base, seems to HQ that the view of the where the dollars come from is not important.
- Nov 22, 2016
- 2,218
- 3,011
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- North Adelaide, Arsenal.
There trailing it, from the reports it's to clunky and doesn't help the flow of the game. I doubt it will come in next season.
While watching excellent games so far this weekend, the rule changes seem like a lot of effort with no clear upside.
No. Game has never been perfect, we just never had the custodians obsess about its imperfections to the degree they have created a sense of crises and doom.
Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk
Thats in the airtime when the current footy media isn't so inwardly focussed it obsesses about who, what, why in the footy media.
Never been so obsessed with itself
The easy answer is because coaches believe that this is a viable way to win games. Tactically and strategically we have been heading in this direction for a long time. Coaches will do everything within the rules to win footy games (and save their jobs).
Footy today is far more sophisticated offensively and defensively than it was a decade ago and comparing footy today with the 1980s you'd be forgiven for wondering whether it was the same sport. There is also little doubt that the players today are better athletes, they are certainly fitter and cover more ground, and they are also more highly skilled as training techniques have progressed. Anyone declaring that this is a skill issue are off the mark.
The problem is that it is vastly easier to negate another player than it is to create yourself. Much of the innovation that has occurred with the ball has been in response to changing defensive tactics. Unfortunately as defensive tactics have become more sophisticated it has become harder to score and that ultimately leads to a less appealing product.
The 6-6-6 proposition will probably be meaningless because it will, within a minute of the ball bouncing, begin to replicate what we currently have. If it applies to stoppages then it will have a material impact but will also result in a much longer contest. I'd advocate for some type of soft zoning, incorporating concepts such as illegal defence, that would pull players away from the ball when it is in the opponent's 50m zone. Something like that would actively reduce congestion by spreading the field but wouldn't be very restrictive on player movement. But the AFL will inevitably half-arse whatever rule changes they make and then wonder why it didn't work.
Footy today is far more sophisticated offensively and defensively than it was a decade ago and comparing footy today with the 1980s you'd be forgiven for wondering whether it was the same sport. There is also little doubt that the players today are better athletes, they are certainly fitter and cover more ground, and they are also more highly skilled as training techniques have progressed. Anyone declaring that this is a skill issue are off the mark.
The problem is that it is vastly easier to negate another player than it is to create yourself. Much of the innovation that has occurred with the ball has been in response to changing defensive tactics. Unfortunately as defensive tactics have become more sophisticated it has become harder to score and that ultimately leads to a less appealing product.
The 6-6-6 proposition will probably be meaningless because it will, within a minute of the ball bouncing, begin to replicate what we currently have. If it applies to stoppages then it will have a material impact but will also result in a much longer contest. I'd advocate for some type of soft zoning, incorporating concepts such as illegal defence, that would pull players away from the ball when it is in the opponent's 50m zone. Something like that would actively reduce congestion by spreading the field but wouldn't be very restrictive on player movement. But the AFL will inevitably half-arse whatever rule changes they make and then wonder why it didn't work.
Reduce on field numbers.
Easy to umpire. They won’t do it because somehow 18 is sacrosanct but not having zones isn’t?
Easy to umpire. They won’t do it because somehow 18 is sacrosanct but not having zones isn’t?
If we start employing the ideas that are coming out from the AFL, and from idiots like Blight, our game will no longer remain the same. You simply cannot extend the goal square and expect the game to be the same.
JohnnyFontane90
Norm Smith Medallist
- Feb 14, 2014
- 6,481
- 10,001
- AFL Club
- Carlton
100% agree.
People think players stayed in their positions in the 80s because they didn't use the interchange. I think they didn't run up and down the ground all day because they had 5 beers and a pack of winnies after every game. The increase in professionalism in the sport off the field is what has made the game look different to how it has historically and this natural evolution is something we should embrace. With unlimited interchanges in 2013 the game was fine, it's only since they've started fighting natural progress by reducing rotations have things started to really go south.
The less interchanges there are the more valuable running power becomes. If people want to see a 22 runners rather than 22 football players then keep cutting interchanges.
Certainly umpired differently
BlueTucker456
Senior List
- Apr 10, 2014
- 150
- 283
- AFL Club
- Carlton
Imagine thinking one's status as a man is based on how much they enjoy violence... Genuinely concerning stuff
Smartest Brain
Premiership Player
Are you getting the operation soon or something?
You're right that they go over to other sports and take tactics away, but they don't do it because they 'think it will be good for their team and the game'. They do it because they know it will be good for their team. It is only a byproduct that the tactical evolution of the game makes it far more interesting, don't give the coaches too much credit.
Similar threads
