There was an ex-Socceroo on ABC Radio National this morning spruiking his book and Australian soccer generally. He said that soccer became tactical 100 years ago and that AFL was just now catching up with this. I fear he may be right.

It is arguable that footy was more enjoyable to watch when the ball was kicked to a 'mindless' contest rather than kicked around in circles - witness the Footscray Saints match last weekend.

I don't want to watch a game if tactics come at the expense of contests and excitement. Chess is full of strategy and tactics - but you don't get 100,000 people to watch a chess match.

sigh

Every sport evolves. I'm just curious: how old are you? It seems like the older generations can never really grasp the concept of evolution when it comes to anything.

Watch basketball, rubgy, tennis 20-30 years ago. All differently played to the way they're played now. With improved technology, better monitoring, smarter coaches, better medical expertise, comes change. If you watch football 20 years ago, it's different to the way it is now, but there is a sense of an amateurish-nature to it; no tactics, just mindless contests, as you said. There is no way this sport could grow and be known on a global scale if it didn't evolve.

Also, that evolution runs far deeper than you think. If the game had stayed the way it was 20 years ago, it could be argued that so would sponsorship, crowd figures, player payments etc. The league would be in the dark ages, with no prospect for growth outside of Australia. I'm confident that if you showed an overseas video a game from last weekend and then a game from 20 years ago, they'd be able to grasp the rules more from watching the match from last weekend.

As for it moving to soccer; football is a contact sport, soccer is not. Every sport has tactics. That ex-Socceroo is an idiot.

Edited May 3, 201015 yr by calabreseboy

sigh

If the game had stayed the way it was 20 years ago, it could be argued that so would sponsorship, crowd figures, player payments etc. The league would be in the dark ages, with no prospect for growth outside of Australia. I'm confident that if you showed an overseas video a game from last weekend and then a game from 20 years ago, they'd be able to grasp the rules more from watching the match from last weekend.

Sorry. I can't accept that.It was a great game 20 years ago ......... and it is a great game now.

The game is faster today - and hence potentially more exciting. But equally it is more predictable - with fewer contested marks. From the reactions of the crowd it is arguable that the least attractive feature of our game is the tendency to chew-up time by using the soccer-like tactic of kicking the ball backwards. This didn't happen 20 years ago.

Through the use of the interchange bench, the game has become 22 rotating players vs 22 rotating players rather than a match between two teams of 18 ( plus injury substitutes). By refreshing players through the use of the interchange , coaches have been able to employ 18 man zones and add some rugby and basketball - and soccer - patterns to their tactical options.If this makes it easier for overseas audiences to follow the game, then so be-it.

The game is far more professional now - and therefore potentially far better than it once was. The speed of the game is exhilarating - but I am concerned that over-use of the interchange is robbing us of the one-on-one battles which were once a major source of interest and entertainment

Edited May 4, 201015 yr by hoopla

Are you one of those supporters that drive me crazy who wails in despair every time we kick the ball backwards to an open player. Smart coaches at some point realised that you could use tactics from other games in order to keep posession rather that bomb it to, as you put it yourself, a mindless contest. Next time you're at a game, watch how many times we are able to move the ball forward effectively after a backwards kick to swith the play.

Re chess - you also can't run, jump, mark, kick, handball, bump, kick goals in chess so probably not the greatest analogy.

Are you one of those supporters that drive me crazy who wails in despair every time we kick the ball backwards to an open player. Smart coaches at some point realised that you could use tactics from other games in order to keep posession rather that bomb it to, as you put it yourself, a mindless contest. Next time you're at a game, watch how many times we are able to move the ball forward effectively after a backwards kick to swith the play.

Re chess - you also can't run, jump, mark, kick, handball, bump, kick goals in chess so probably not the greatest analogy.

No, I'm quite happy to see it kicked backwards, across goals etc. My point is that the more the game becomes a tactical contest it is possible that the game will become less interesting to a spectator because there are less physical contests.

So my chess 'analogy' (not an analogy, just an illustration by pointing to extreme case) is apt. Most spectators want action and contests.

Since your opening words asked a rhetorical question trying to stereotype me, let me respond in kind:

Are you one of those supporters who love watching someone on TV in close-up running with a ball rather than people contesting the footy? Sorry that's a cheap shot since noone but TV broadcasters seem to think that is an interesting shot compared with showing the movement of players down-field as they execute their coaches interesting tactics!

You should note that players kicking the ball backwards to waste time is a rarity in the game today. Whilst it did happen a few years ago, now players kick backwards to open up the other side and present new targets. This is why you should note that the crowd doesn't boo when the ball is kicked backwards now...

Tactics are fine, the game will not become slow and predictable like soccer because our game is an aggresive, contested sport, making our game unpredictable at times. Kicking the ball long and in hope was a tactic, now that tactic is seen as irrelevant to the modern game and outdated, thus being replaced by more effective tactics.

The game evolving is good, not only for the game itself but for the players and the fans. If the game uses the same tactic over and over, it will no doubt become predictable. E.g. Always kicking it long. Therefore new tactics make the game appear fresh, exciting and unpredictable.

sigh

Every sport evolves. I'm just curious: how old are you? It seems like the older generations can never really grasp the concept of evolution when it comes to anything.

As for it moving to soccer; football is a contact sport, soccer is not. Every sport has tactics. That ex-Socceroo is an idiot.

Actually the reason I raised this topic was that I have been watching some replays of old matches - perhaps some from before I was born. Although I was missing the extra emotion and interest that comes from barracking for the Dees in games played now, I found the old ones very entertaining.

And yes, there will always be contact in AFL so it won't just become soccer. Never said it would. But will it be as exciting to watch as it is now or in the past? The more you remove physical contests by the use of tactics, the greater the danger that it will be less entertaining to watch.

Some evolution is good, some can lead you up the garden path. If the Dogs-Saint game last weekend is the way of the future, then I'd be worried. (Note I said 'if'.)

Just as you've picked one example from the weekend, I'll pick another two - the Swans-Lions game and the Carlton-Collingwood clash.

Both involved big hits, plenty of contests and contested marking, incredible goals and free-flowing play. I'd argue that those two games - and not the Dogs-Saints grind - are a truer indicator of how the game will evolve.

Fiercely contested stoppages and a desire by both teams to release their damaging players into space and to move the ball quickly will be hallmarks of modern football.

Australian hockey ex-Captain and Coach Ric Charlesworth said a number of years ago when assisting at WCE that it has taken AFL 100 years to work out that you are allowed to kick the ball backwards.

The only way to stop this nonsense is to restrict the interchange. In years gone by players couldn't run for 4 quarters and we had less collision type injuries. We also had more one-on-one contests and IMO footy was generally more attractive to watch.

Can't stand this basketball/soccer/hockey zone crap.

Australian hockey ex-Captain and Coach Ric Charlesworth said a number of years ago when assisting at WCE that it has taken AFL 100 years to work out that you are allowed to kick the ball backwards.

The only way to stop this nonsense is to restrict the interchange. In years gone by players couldn't run for 4 quarters and we had less collision type injuries. We also had more one-on-one contests and IMO footy was generally more attractive to watch.

Can't stand this basketball/soccer/hockey zone crap.

To be honest, I watch a game from >20 years ago and it looks like a sh%&fight devoid of skill.

The ball gets thrown blindly onto a players boot then the players who happen to be at the fall of the ball belt each other until one manages to get it onto his boot.

Today's game is much more attractive to me.

Just as you've picked one example from the weekend, I'll pick another two - the Swans-Lions game and the Carlton-Collingwood clash.

Both involved big hits, plenty of contests and contested marking, incredible goals and free-flowing play. I'd argue that those two games - and not the Dogs-Saints grind - are a truer indicator of how the game will evolve.

Fiercely contested stoppages and a desire by both teams to release their damaging players into space and to move the ball quickly will be hallmarks of modern football.

agreed. I'm just expressing the fear that the example I chose (and was stupid enough to sit through) might become the way of the future. I trust coaches will work out how to make sure it doesn't happen.

WHile the gist of the OP might be right, I reckon the cream always rises to the top. We've impressed the footy world and been dominant in some games this year for one reason. We wanted it more. The Cats are the same. They made it through determination first.

Tactics may play a big part... but in the most outrageously tactical code going around, the NFL, it's STILL al about who wants it more.

It's the only rule in footy.

Don't ever worry about AFL becoming like soccer. They are worlds apart.

I won't go on about my dislike for Soccer, because it is not needed. But blind freddy could tell you that even with huge changes to the game that they are still very different sports, and will always remain this way.

Don't ever worry about AFL becoming like soccer. They are worlds apart.

I won't go on about my dislike for Soccer, because it is not needed. But blind freddy could tell you that even with huge changes to the game that they are still very different sports, and will always remain this way.

Glad to hear it. As long as it doesn't become as boring to watch, so that frustrated fans aren't reduced tearing up seats and brawling in order to keep themselves entertained.,

I hope it doesn't, I h...strongly dislike soccer