Jump to content

  • Latest Podcast: Sydney



Diamond_Jim

The Game, the Press and the future

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Diamond_Jim said:

agree that is definitely the first step and is relatively easy ... would you also drop to 21 players.... say 3 on the bench.

Out of curiosity do you have any ideas roughly on how many interchanges you would allow and would you make the limit per quarter or per game?

No I don't but it was clear in the past that when players got tired they couldn't run as fast or far (and press etc). The Premiership quarter was often about players getting tired leading to more contested football, errors and taller players like ruckmen taking more marks .

The argument about players becoming more injured is somewhat circular because coaches are saying there will be more injuries if you limit interchange. But this argument relies on players playing with the same manic style which is highly unlikely if the interchange was cut.

The players have adjusted to the 90 limit pretty well and yet we are still talking about congestion. Injuries have not anecdotally gone up so I would think we could cut to 15 a quarter without too many problems. Its certainly easier than introduce zones and changing the fabric of the game. Would be like netball or basketball..

 

 

Edited by jnrmac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Go back to how the game was played in the 90’s and get back to basics. Maybe reduce players to 3 on the bench and cap rotations to 10pq, with no banking. But then if players are more tired do their skills get worse? Currently the skills league wide are the worst I’ve ever seen. Tough one. Maybe the 6 forwards and back can’t go past the centre line. Need more time to think about it 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

No I don't but it was clear in the past that when players got tired they couldn't run as fast or far (and press etc). The Premiership quarter was often about players getting tired leading to more contested football, errors and taller players like ruckmen taking more marks .

The argument about players becoming more injured is somewhat circular because coaches are saying there will be more injuries if you limit interchange. But this argument relies on players playing with the same manic style which is highly unlikely if the interchange was cut.

The players have adjusted to the 90 limit pretty well and yet we are still talking about congestion. Injuries have not anecdotally gone up so I would think we could cut to 15 a quarter without too many problems. Its certainly easier than introduce zones and changing the fabric of the game. Would be like netball or basketball..

 

 

start at 10/qtr for a year. 15/qtr  imho is not drastic enough

maybe reduce bench to 3

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, SFebey said:

Go back to how the game was played in the 90’s and get back to basics. Maybe reduce players to 3 on the bench and cap rotations to 10pq, with no banking. But then if players are more tired do their skills get worse? Currently the skills league wide are the worst I’ve ever seen. Tough one. Maybe the 6 forwards and back can’t go past the centre line. Need more time to think about it 

Definitely. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, SFebey said:

Go back to how the game was played in the 90’s and get back to basics. Maybe reduce players to 3 on the bench and cap rotations to 10pq, with no banking. But then if players are more tired do their skills get worse? Currently the skills league wide are the worst I’ve ever seen. Tough one. Maybe the 6 forwards and back can’t go past the centre line. Need more time to think about it 

only if the coaches don't change their game plan. i.e. they get forced to tone down the press and some of the gut two-way running

if they don't then they run the risk of  big late-game blow-outs

***** assuming drastic reduction in interchange *****

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ive often wondered why coachs seem so eager to rotate in pairs.

I would have thought an astute fox might make use of an imbalance of players if only there for 30-40 secs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

interesting line run by Buckley and the other coaches that we need the rotations to protect the players.

That's the very point.. reduce the rotations and the coaches would be forced to come up with a game plan that allows players to rest on the ground.

Resting ruck and resting rover were once genuine positions.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rest on the ground ? Hmmm ???

Thats just silly

 

60521650.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The solution is to scrap the interchange - rotations hasn't added to the spectacle,  it's made the game more congested outlined by many posters previously in this thread. 

I'd also bring the numbers down to 16 a side and if that doesn't work 15.  We won't need zones or lines if that happened.

Soccer & Union has no interchange and neither of those sports needs interchange because of the amount of subs on the bench.  Rugby League has 8 or 10 rotations per team per game which is a negligible amount. 

Imagine if soccer did have 90 rotations per team?  That sport would turn into an unholy mess.  

The complaints about the state of the game is a more recent one ... I don't ever remember anyone complaining about the spectacle to any great degree until about the mid 2000's.  Old, young or otherwise.  And the 'oldies' loved the sport in the 70's,  80's & 90's.  Not a murmur of protest. 

And no other sport receives anywhere near the same criticisms from its own fans.  Let's face it ... the sport took on a different look in the mid 2000's. 

Positional play is a thing of the past yet many don't seem to mind.  The counter attack is exciting but the rest of it is hundreds of short passes together with hundreds of uncontested marks mixed in with 36 footballers all scrambling for the ball in one 6th of the ground.  If that floats your boat,  so be it. 

No other sport has gone about so much change and it's the coaches who have changed the sport while the custodians (the AFL) have stood by and let them do it.  And because of all the congestion & the press,  the flooding and now the 'Squash',  the game is even harder to umpire than it ever was.

Like all systems that break down or are flawed to begin with,  we tend to blame the ass-end of the problem.  The fish rots at the head was never more apt. 

I don't envisage any change though ... whilst the money keeps rolling in and the crowds and TV viewers are high why change?  The AFL will only act if the droves turn away.  But most footy fans are totally addicted to the sport - the spectacle and the aesthetics aren't top of the list. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Diamond_Jim said:

...... if you just had club supporters watching their own game just watch your TV ratings and money plummet.

Very interesting - 

Surely, I’m the last person on this site you have to explain that too. 

2 hours ago, Mazer Rackham said:

Nothing. It only confirms what I already thought.

And what would that be?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Macca said:

Soccer & Union has no interchange and neither of those sports needs interchange because of the amount of subs on the bench.  Rugby League has 8 or 10 rotations per team per game which is a negligible amount.

Pretty much every football code bar Australian Rules has an offside rule meaning that congestion is not an issue for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
31 minutes ago, Clint Bizkit said:

Pretty much every football code bar Australian Rules has an offside rule

Obviously. 

I was only referencing soccer not League or Union with regards to increased congestion.   And because we don't have an offside rule it's all the more reason to not have interchange. 

But soccer would have a congestion issue within the midfield if teams were allowed 90 rotations each.  That stands to reason. 

I don't understand why people defend rotations ... the original reason for having the interchange was so that players who had to briefly leave the field were then able to come back on.  Not to be exploited in the way that it has (by the coaches)

My call is an ambit claim - I know the rotations are never going to be brought down to zero but it would be my starting point.

And if people enjoy watching the new version of footy,  so be it.  I can't say I care for it in its present form. 

 

Edited by Macca
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, SFebey said:

Go back to how the game was played in the 90’s and get back to basics. Maybe reduce players to 3 on the bench and cap rotations to 10pq, with no banking. But then if players are more tired do their skills get worse? Currently the skills league wide are the worst I’ve ever seen. Tough one. Maybe the 6 forwards and back can’t go past the centre line. Need more time to think about it 

Im fine with 4 on the bench. Peg the rotations to about 40 as you say.  44 is the ideal in my view as each player can then be rotated off and on at least twice if needed.

Coaches will adapt as they see the mostly mid type players starting to tire later into the game.  They will look to recruit/draft a few more leaner endurance type players a la the Isaac Smith / Hunt types who can run the ball consistently and look to evade the tiring bulkier mid type players later into the game.  An overweighting of the weighty if you like across to a more leaner balanced mix of the two!

On top of this IF the AFL were to enforce literal interpretation of the prior opportunity rule and/or alter it.  Alter it so the 2nd or subsequent hand ball receiver, from  the same team, MUST dispose of the ball legally, immediately prior or as soon as the tackle commences or they will be penalised.  In some ways no different to what happens now  anyway to a ruckman if he takes the ball directly from a throw in or bounce!  

Personally think that's all that is needed to begin with.  Just let it evolve afterwards for a number of years and review.

No harm in trialing / testing these two changes.  Can be done pre-season. 

Edited by Rusty Nails
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

This is where we need sports scientists.

Just reducing the rotations without reducing the player numbers means you have longer rests. Is this sufficient to introduce the fatigue affect which people are relying upon.

Or is it people are assuming that the people rested will be limited to the "midfield" thus requiring the defence and offence to cover less ground if they are to avoid extreme fatigue.

The more I think about it you need to both reduce the rotations and the bench size to achieve the desired impact.

PS... one other thing... by reducing the rotations are you reducing the ability to bring the stars on and off... spreadsheet necessary !!

Edited by Diamond_Jim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

This is where we need sports scientists.

Just reducing the rotations without reducing the player numbers means you have longer rests. Is this sufficient to introduce the fatigue affect which people are relying upon.

Or is it people are assuming that the people rested will be limited to the "midfield" thus requiring the defence and offence to cover less ground if they are to avoid extreme fatigue.

The more I think about it you need to both reduce the rotations and the bench size to achieve the desired impact.

I reckon soccer has it right in their sport - you come off you stay off except where a player might need a few minutes attention on the sidelines. 

And they have 7 substitutes where only 3 can be used. 

Putting aside my 'Ambit' claim and then seeing an ideal solution I'd say 10-20 rotations (max) per team and 8 on the bench with a maximum of 5 or 6 being used. 

But 18 a side is still too many - these days.  The players are ultra fit as opposed to how things were in the past so we'd still see too much congestion with limited rotations enacted. 

Others could easily see it differently as we're talking about a lot of unknowns.  And not too many known unknowns. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also last one to touch it OOB is a free kick against would work as it’d take away all the boundary throw in congestion also. Does any here follow SANFL and how this rule is working? Plenty of ideas, just how much we want to stuff with rules I suppose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

This is where we need sports scientists.

 

Wash your mouth out with soap - "sports scientists" are the core reason we have any issues in the game today - they fill the coaches head with all these "theories" and are responsible for nothing. 

I'm with AD - not sure the science boys do add to the spectacle of the game. in reality the complete opposite.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, SFebey said:

Also last one to touch it OOB is a free kick against would work as it’d take away all the boundary throw in congestion also. Does any here follow SANFL and how this rule is working? Plenty of ideas, just how much we want to stuff with rules I suppose.

Little known fact Febes ...

Between 1926 and 1939 that OOB rule was in place in the then VFL ... I've searched the internet for verification but have only found small snippets to confirm.  Otherwise I'd provide a link.  Someone else might have better luck.

But I'm more intrigued in the why?  Was the league back then looking for more constant play with the corridor used more.  Of course,  the term 'corridor' wouldn't have been used but that's by the by. 

Another intriguing question is to why the VFA brought in 16 a side - might have been the late 40's or early 50's but it's my guess that league wanted more 'Open' footy and could have had a congestion issue with the lesser skilled players. 

Other notable moves was the huge size of the Waverley ground (great foresight?) and the introduction of the 'Diamond' which was then replaced by the centre square.  All congestion related? 

It could be argued that the former bodies were proactive as opposed to not even trying to be reactive these days. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

Just reducing the rotations without reducing the player numbers means you have longer rests. Is this sufficient to introduce the fatigue affect which people are relying upon.

Or is it people are assuming that the people rested will be limited to the "midfield" thus requiring the defence and offence to cover less ground if they are to avoid extreme fatigue.

It would like it was 15 to 20 years ago where all the rotations would be midfielders and key position players would play close to 100 percent of game time unless injured. Skills are bad enough without fatigue.

Hardwick was On The Couch a few weeks back and said they drafted/traded for players who could tackle and backed themselves in to teach them the rest. I reckon a team playing like Hawthorn 2015 with precise kicking and uncontested marking would slice them up.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Macca said:

Little known fact Febes ...

Between 1926 and 1939 that OOB rule was in place in the then VFL ... I've searched the internet for verification but have only found small snippets to confirm.  Otherwise I'd provide a link.  Someone else might have better luck.

But I'm more intrigued in the why?  Was the league back then looking for more constant play with the corridor used more.  Of course,  the term 'corridor' wouldn't have been used but that's by the by. 

Another intriguing question is to why the VFA brought in 16 a side - might have been the late 40's or early 50's but it's my guess that league wanted more 'Open' footy and could have had a congestion issue with the lesser skilled players. 

Other notable moves was the huge size of the Waverley ground (great foresight?) and the introduction of the 'Diamond' which was then replaced by the centre square.  All congestion related? 

It could be argued that the former bodies were proactive as opposed to not even trying to be reactive these days. 

Great r search mate. I think the OOB could be a goer but haven’t watched any SANFL games last two years, I hear it’s first year was a success though.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting to see how innovative the VFA were in their day...

  • first to play for premiership points under lights
  • first Sunday games
  • first to allow live telecasts of games
  • first to introduce a top 6

Back in 1938 they even introduced a rule allowing throwing of the ball in order to speed up the game.

Great discussion on Big Footy re the history of the VFA

https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/the-old-vfa.147414/

Interesting to see that congestion was being discussed in 2011:

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/afl-toys-with-16-a-side-to-get-the-game-flowing/news-story/63cb43923855fcbb306f0b55ec063fab?sv=5d8ab0b12e44cc1bc7513c55919e31b6&nk=34fd14988ab099a0a18aab69e413ab5d-1525240049

With the numbers around stoppages reaching alarming levels, the league considered dropping two wingmen from each team in a throwback to the old VFA.

"We spoke about that to the clubs last year, about trying it in the NAB Cup," AFL game analysis manager Andrew McKay confirmed yesterday.

McKay said the league instead opted to trial the contentious last-touch-out-of-bounds rule, which was also designed to tire players quicker and reduce congestion.

But McKay did not rule out the league revisiting the 16-a-side option.

"It's not out of the question - who knows?" McKay said.

Premier Collingwood and grand finalist St Kilda have mastered the art of filling space and pressuring opponents.

With every disposal so rushed amid the congestion, the AFL is concerned that the game's skills are being eroded.

Disposal efficiency has dropped from 81.2 per cent in 2000 to 73.1 per cent last year - proof that the game is more scrappy than when Essendon stormed to a premiership 11 years ago.

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Couple of thoughts, some with a tin-foil hat on:

The agenda for the AFL is expansion and growth. AFLX is the display of where the league wants the game to be aesthetically.

Could it be that the AFL is pushing a narrative in the media, so as to prepare the public for a bunch of rule changes to push the game in the AFLX direction at year's end? 

Tin-foil hat off:

We (as a broad footballing community) are in a transition phase. The defensive era that kicked off in mid 2000s (Sydney/WCE) has been met by the competition with enhanced athleticism, pressure and speed of game, leading defensive movement to dominate. The skill-level drop off will correct itself, perhaps in a Darwinian sense, as kids will come to the fore who have the athleticism AND the skills. Hopefully this, combined with tactical innovation, will herald in an era with a bit more offensive (attacking, not rude) movement.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

Interesting to see how innovative the VFA were in their day...

  • first to play for premiership points under lights
  • first Sunday games
  • first to allow live telecasts of games
  • first to introduce a top 6

Back in 1938 they even introduced a rule allowing throwing of the ball in order to speed up the game.

Great discussion on Big Footy re the history of the VFA

https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/the-old-vfa.147414/

Interesting to see that congestion was being discussed in 2011:

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/afl-toys-with-16-a-side-to-get-the-game-flowing/news-story/63cb43923855fcbb306f0b55ec063fab?sv=5d8ab0b12e44cc1bc7513c55919e31b6&nk=34fd14988ab099a0a18aab69e413ab5d-1525240049

With the numbers around stoppages reaching alarming levels, the league considered dropping two wingmen from each team in a throwback to the old VFA.

"We spoke about that to the clubs last year, about trying it in the NAB Cup," AFL game analysis manager Andrew McKay confirmed yesterday.

McKay said the league instead opted to trial the contentious last-touch-out-of-bounds rule, which was also designed to tire players quicker and reduce congestion.

But McKay did not rule out the league revisiting the 16-a-side option.

"It's not out of the question - who knows?" McKay said.

Premier Collingwood and grand finalist St Kilda have mastered the art of filling space and pressuring opponents.

With every disposal so rushed amid the congestion, the AFL is concerned that the game's skills are being eroded.

Disposal efficiency has dropped from 81.2 per cent in 2000 to 73.1 per cent last year - proof that the game is more scrappy than when Essendon stormed to a premiership 11 years ago.

 

I agree with somebodies comments earlier - the AFL can "leak" thru the media and test public reaction before they make a move. 

They love this publicity. 

Edited by DaveyDee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Macca said:

The solution is to scrap the interchange - rotations hasn't added to the spectacle,  it's made the game more congested outlined by many posters previously in this thread. 

I'd also bring the numbers down to 16 a side and if that doesn't work 15.  We won't need zones or lines if that happened.

Soccer & Union has no interchange and neither of those sports needs interchange because of the amount of subs on the bench.  Rugby League has 8 or 10 rotations per team per game which is a negligible amount. 

Imagine if soccer did have 90 rotations per team?  That sport would turn into an unholy mess.  

The complaints about the state of the game is a more recent one ... I don't ever remember anyone complaining about the spectacle to any great degree until about the mid 2000's.  Old, young or otherwise.  And the 'oldies' loved the sport in the 70's,  80's & 90's.  Not a murmur of protest. 

And no other sport receives anywhere near the same criticisms from its own fans.  Let's face it ... the sport took on a different look in the mid 2000's. 

Positional play is a thing of the past yet many don't seem to mind.  The counter attack is exciting but the rest of it is hundreds of short passes together with hundreds of uncontested marks mixed in with 36 footballers all scrambling for the ball in one 6th of the ground.  If that floats your boat,  so be it. 

No other sport has gone about so much change and it's the coaches who have changed the sport while the custodians (the AFL) have stood by and let them do it.  And because of all the congestion & the press,  the flooding and now the 'Squash',  the game is even harder to umpire than it ever was.

Like all systems that break down or are flawed to begin with,  we tend to blame the ass-end of the problem.  The fish rots at the head was never more apt. 

I don't envisage any change though ... whilst the money keeps rolling in and the crowds and TV viewers are high why change?  The AFL will only act if the droves turn away.  But most footy fans are totally addicted to the sport - the spectacle and the aesthetics aren't top of the list. 

Excellent assessment Macca

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've said this here before but I still remember the outcry & alarm when the Diamond/Square was first introduced in the early 1970's. 

Many were aghast at the change but my personal view back then was I thought it was a fantastic initiative.  Of course I was very young at the time but the league was making an obvious move to my way of thinking.  And history confirms that they were right. 

The catalyst for the diamond/square was the Hawks placing numerous players in the middle for bounce downs between goals.  Other clubs were starting to follow suit and then the league knocked the concept on its head.

40 years later we're faced with the same dilemma ... but the fans do not like change even if a convincing argument is put forward. 

Our sport requires progressive thinking and proactive rulemakers - just because of the very nature of the sport. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×