Why did the game devolve into the current dog's breakfast?

[HTT]

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

Its just a bit of insanity
"doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results"

 

[Pessimistic]

There’s already veiled accusations by commentators that the current run of entertaining football is some conspiracy by coaches to throw the AFL off the scent as it were

Or it could be the problem is over hyped

Leavethebloodygamealone

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

There’s already veiled accusations by commentators that the current run of entertaining football is some conspiracy by coaches to throw the AFL off the scent as it were

Or it could be the problem is over hyped

Leavethebloodygamealone

Overhyped for sure.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

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.

This is why the AFL has backed off on its ridiculous concept of 6-6-6 at every stoppage. Imagine the farce of players having footraces running 100 metres away from the contest to be first over the line to not give away a zoning free kick.

Its been watered down to "after every goal" which actually doesnt happen very often anyway. So it will have limited effect on the game. Which I'm fine with. Leave it alone!!

 

[footyfan1978]

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).

Yes, two decades, since the interchange was doubled to 4 on bench from 2 it had been through a golden era. Did not take long for full time coaching groups to abuse it and turn it into a rotation system. We can fix that easily by undoing that mistake in coming years for the interchange bench and kill off rotations as it was never intended to be part of it.

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.

Adam Cooney suggested something like this on radio on Friday.
He suggested when there is a stoppage in forward 50 arcs that each team needs to start with 4 players on their side in other half of ground. Basically suggested that the centre line be marked from boundary to boundary. I do not mind it as not very restrictive. Basically it just means two marking forwards and types playing forward pocket do not join the wings and flankers flooding the opposition forward line, plus it also stops the stupid spectacle of you get ball out of back 50 and you got no one to kick to.

It stops this attempt to look into starting positions for EVERY stoppage that was being looked into but would have been not as easy to adjust to. This is way easier and so easy to follow for players and fans.

 

[BringBackTorps]

I want someone to explain this 'if we make players more exhausted[More tired is the more accurate description -players will "pace" themselves, & play more positional AF, mids resting regularly in pockets -as they did for 100 years+], the games will look better' idea.

We have known for many decades that, on average, more goals are scored in the last quarter, cf. either of the first 3 quarters? Why is that?

The diminution/elimination of congestion has been a fairly constant issue in the minds of Administrators since 1874 (The 1874 rule was introduced so that when tackled, a player had to drop the ball immediately -& not just hold on to it, causing stacks on the mill/stoppages).
Do you agree with this philosophical approach?

The Charter Of The Game, adopted by the Commission, states that the game should, generally, be free flowing, played with an attacking mind set, & have good goal scoring levels.
Do you agree with this philosophical approach?

When we had 2 on the bench only up until 1978, who were only substitutes (ie could not be interchanged), we did not have the CONSTANT congestion we have now.
Do you think having 4 on the bench, and introducing massive rotations, has been the main reason we have congestion now?

If interchange is such a great idea, why don't soccer & RU have it?

The NRL had unlimited interchange up until the late 1990's, but have reduced it from 10-8, to make their game more attractive -& allow smaller, more skilful players to display the skills of RL. It has been beneficial for displaying skills, & there is much discussion it will be further reduced to 6 interchange per team.
Have the NRL been wise?

Should we again make our game 18 vs. 18, as it was very successfully from 1899 -1978: & NOT 22 vs. 22?

 

[bungwahl]

We have known for many decades that more goals are scored in the last quarter, cf. either of the first 3 quarters? Why is that?

I think this has a little to do with player energy levels, but much more to do with the fact tactics generally change towards the end of the game when you can no longer play the percentages and need to take the game on. If you're 3 goals down in the last quarter then everything will be attack oriented.

Limiting interchange is fine if you think that would make the game more interesting somehow, but it has little to do with congestion.

 

[jatz14]

We have known for many decades that, on average, more goals are scored in the last quarter, cf. either of the first 3 quarters? Why is that?

The diminution/elimination of congestion has been a fairly constant issue in the minds of Administrators since 1874 (The 1874 rule was introduced so that when tackled, a player had to drop the ball immediately -& not just hold on to it, causing stacks on the mill/stoppages).
Do you agree with this philosophical approach?

The Charter Of The Game, adopted by the Commission, states that the game should, generally, be free flowing, played with an attacking mind set, & have good goal scoring levels.
Do you agree with this philosophical approach?

When we had 2 on the bench only up until 1978, who were only substitutes (ie could not be interchanged), we did not have the CONSTANT congestion we have now.
Do you think having 4 on the bench, and introducing massive rotations, has been the main reason we have congestion now?

If interchange is such a great idea, why don't soccer & RU have it?

The NRL had unlimited interchange up until the late 1990's, but have reduced it from 10-8, to make their game more attractive -& allow smaller, more skilful players to display the skills of RL. It has been beneficial for displaying skills, & there is much discussion it will be further reduced to 6 interchange per team.
Have the NRL been wise?

Should we again make our game 18 vs. 18, as it was very successfully from 1899 -1978: & NOT 22 vs. 22?

This is a quaint nostalgic little idea people seemed welded to on the basis of I don't know what. The idea that if we make players fatigue faster, and slow the pace of the game down, it will return to something like the positional play of the 80s. You can cut it to 16 on the ground and no interchanges at all, and this will still not happen.

Players will not 'pace themselves', because it's been shown to be a losing strategy. They will not play 'positions' because it's playing to lose.

Numbers to the ball wins you the ball. Numbers back and congesting their forward line and restricting run through the middle stops them scoring.

If you play Richmond, the balls in their forward half at a throw in, they push 12 to the ball, a few forward, a few back, you don't, what happens?

The basis for a lot of the tactical changes was a simple breakdown of the game, and the simple question, 'how do teams get the ball'?

There are only a few. Opposition clanger. Point. Clearance at a centre bounce. Contested ball.

Contested ball is usually won by the team getting numbers to the contest.

Most modern tactics relate to causing a contest if they have it, getting numbers to the contest, controlling the contest, moving the ball from the contest. None of this is changed by reduced rotations.

If the Eagles have Kennedy, Darling, LeCras, Rioli, Cripps and Waterman playing traditional forward positional play while the Eagles are being smacked in the middle, then they may as well go sit in the crowd. What does and will happen is they get pushed to the contest in the middle. If they are not up to the running, then they get replaced with players that are.

If capped rotations come in, teams will work out ways to play a competitive modern style within those limitations, they will not play positional footy. Positional footy has gone the way of the huddle and it ain't coming back.

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

 

[iluvparis]

I think this has a little to do with player energy levels, but much more to do with the fact tactics generally change towards the end of the game when you can no longer play the percentages and need to take the game on. If you're 3 goals down in the last quarter then everything will be attack oriented.

Limiting interchange is fine if you think that would make the game more interesting somehow, but it has little to do with congestion.

Easy test - can see if the stat still holds in games that are as good as over at 3/4 time - if it does that rules out your hypothesis.

 

[jatz14]

Easy test - can see if the stat still holds in games that are as good as over at 3/4 time - if it does that rules out your hypothesis.

I think it's more to do with one team getting worse faster than the other, and losing the ability to defend effectively.

If people are so stuck on the idea of more scoring is better, that the idea of making teams play so badly they cannot defend well, seems sensible, then the AFL is on a winner.

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

 

[iluvparis]

I think it's more to do with one team getting worse faster than the other, and losing the ability to defend effectively.

If people are so stuck on the idea of more scoring is better, that the idea of making teams play so badly they cannot defend well, seems sensible, then the AFL is on a winner.

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

Hmmm I wonder if they get worse faster than the other team because they are getting tired quicker

 

[bungwahl]

Easy test - can see if the stat still holds in games that are as good as over at 3/4 time - if it does that rules out your hypothesis.

Not at all. My previous post was simply one reason for more goals being scored in the last quarter. In games that are over by 3/4 time you might see the losing side drop their heads or move away from the game plan. My point was simply that "There are more goals in the last quarter because players are tired" is not a thorough analysis.

 

[BringBackTorps]

I think this has a little to do with player energy levels, but much more to do with the fact tactics generally change towards the end of the game when you can no longer play the percentages and need to take the game on. If you're 3 goals down in the last quarter then everything will be attack oriented.[To challenge your theory -which, on the surface, has some validity- the counter view is that the team which is 3 goals ahead at 3/4 time, can/did simply go ultra-defensive, with extra numbers in defence: a "zero sum game" re goals in the 4th qtr". So, why historically over many decades, does the 4th qtr average more goals?]
Limiting interchange is fine if you think that would make the game more interesting somehow, but it has little to do with congestion[Most experts disagree. Interchange was adopted from US sports, & was COMPLETELY foreign to AF].

 

[BringBackTorps]

This is a quaint nostalgic little idea people seemed welded to on the basis of I don't know what. The idea that if we make players fatigue faster, and slow the pace of the game down, it will return to something like the positional play of the 80s. You can cut it to 16 on the ground and no interchanges at all, and this will still not happen.

Players will not 'pace themselves', because it's been shown to be a losing strategy. They will not play 'positions' because it's playing to lose.

Numbers to the ball wins you the ball. Numbers back and congesting their forward line and restricting run through the middle stops them scoring.

If you play Richmond, the balls in their forward half at a throw in, they push 12 to the ball, a few forward, a few back, you don't, what happens?

The basis for a lot of the tactical changes was a simple breakdown of the game, and the simple question, 'how do teams get the ball'?

There are only a few. Opposition clanger. Point. Clearance at a centre bounce. Contested ball.

Contested ball is usually won by the team getting numbers to the contest.

Most modern tactics relate to causing a contest if they have it, getting numbers to the contest, controlling the contest, moving the ball from the contest. None of this is changed by reduced rotations.

If the Eagles have Kennedy, Darling, LeCras, Rioli, Cripps and Waterman playing traditional forward positional play while the Eagles are being smacked in the middle, then they may as well go sit in the crowd. What does and will happen is they get pushed to the contest in the middle. If they are not up to the running, then they get replaced with players that are.

If capped rotations come in, teams will work out ways to play a competitive modern style within those limitations, they will not play positional footy. Positional footy has gone the way of the huddle and it ain't coming back.

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

Do you care to answer my questions?

 

[bungwahl]

I think there needs to be a distinction between "experts" and everyday ex-footballer media types. I hear guys like KB banging on that reducing interchange is the only thing that will fix congestion when there's literally no direct link between the two, just a hypothesized link based on fatigue.

In theory, more fatigue also brings with it more skill errors. More players fumbling the ball, inviting more congestion. Tired players finding it harder to clear the congestion and sprint in to open space.

To me it's just amusing that some people bang on about interchange numbers with such conviction, whilst it could possibly have the opposite effect on congestion.

 

[Grongey]

I wish they'd stop tinkering, but if they simply must make changes:
- 16 players per side
- quarters 20 mins plus time on
- restricted interchange

 

[jatz14]

Do you care to answer my questions?

No

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

 

[jatz14]

I think there needs to be a distinction between "experts" and everyday ex-footballer media types. I hear guys like KB banging on that reducing interchange is the only thing that will fix congestion when there's literally no direct link between the two, just a hypothesized link based on fatigue.

In theory, more fatigue also brings with it more skill errors. More players fumbling the ball, inviting more congestion. Tired players finding it harder to clear the congestion and sprint in to open space.

To me it's just amusing that some people bang on about interchange numbers with such conviction, whilst it could possibly have the opposite effect on congestion.

It's like someone prescribing a medicine on the basis they think it may help, or it may make it worse, or it may make no difference, with the logic that it will make it worse just as convincing as the logic it makes it better.

You do not introduce major change on that basis. The Hippocratic oath says 'Firstly, do ot harm' for a reason.

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

 

[jatz14]

Hmmm I wonder if they get worse faster than the other team because they are getting tired quicker

We should make them do a half marathon before playing the game, what a fantastic high scoring free flowing game that would be.

A better alternative, make pre season illegal, and bring back beers and cigies after a game. After all, why change the game to overcome players ability to run to much, just make the players less fit.

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

 

[Darhkuan]

We had some rubbish games for a few rounds and then every commentator under the sun started jumping up and down about the state of the game. Eventually if enough people who are supposed to be the experts start yelling and crying, more and more people will begin to think there must be something wrong.

The last few rounds have been some of the best football I've seen in years.... clearly the game needs massive rule changes... The problem I see is that everyone wants every game to be this amazing spectacle. It's just not going to happen no matter what you do to the rules.

Name another sport right now where there are legitimately 11 or 12 teams from an 18 team comp that are in contention for finals 3/4 of the way through the season. That's bloody amazing.

High scoring doesn't equal amazing, great contests are what I want to see (personal opinion), and we have had plenty of them over the last few weeks!

 

[HTT]

Average margin of 3.33 points so far this round. The AFL need to step in. We need more blowouts!

 

[Barry_Badrinath]

Awesome weekend of footy so far

EAD Whateley