Bit of talk about shortening our game again after the 35min qt ova in the west the other night. I for one don't want it shortened anymore, cause the actual play'n time hasn't lengthened, Brad Scott suggested a countDOWN clock and no body would notice the xtra time length for stoppages, I thought that was a good idea but it would also kill the excitement of not nowing if there's time to still get up for a win, either or for the clock but pls no shorter Mr AD(dicktator)????? And geez what a positive week it has been for OUR MIGHTY CLUB & great work by all involved at the club.... GO DEE'S

I hate the knee jerk reactions the powers to be have when a certain game style is played. From year to year the game styles change and every year Bloody Bartlett and his mates try to tinker with the game.

The game has already been shortened from '100 minutes' from when I was a kid. I don't think it needs to be any shorter.

From what I have observed it is only the coaches who like to play 'heavy rotation' football or have been shafted by injuries in recent seasons that squeak loudly about shortening the game. (apart from Malthouse who also thought it was a good idea so his team wouldn't smash other teams by so much).

IMO the game should be longer not shorter and rotations should be capped; BUT NOT for each team but rather for each player!!

I would also like to see the 'sub' extended to two and the 'bench' reduced to two.

Football to me was always a game based around 'desire' and 'persistance'; a game where the 'lesser' player could triumph because he showed more of these attributes on a given day.

The game is now more about 'fresh legs' and 'athletic ability', to its detriment.

Make it longer and harder I say.

End rant.

Go Dees - Bring Forth Hell Fire and Brimstone in 2012

Toad making the game longer would make it more about athletic ability. The coaches aren't going to go backwards on fitness and just chuck in a bunch of skilled players because everyone will be tired. They just get fitter and fitter players.

I don't want a game of football played by 400m runners. I want a game that is based on skill combined with athleticism, that gives everyone a chance. Desire and persistence is great if it means players who out sprint, out mark and go harder to get the ball get rewarded, but not if its a marathon with a ball.

Slow but skillful players have already been wiped out. As have little fellas. If you aren't lightening quick you have to be close to 185cm.

I'm all for shortening quarters. As a spectacle most games go for way too long anyway especially with all the big losses that we'll have.

Toad making the game longer would make it more about athletic ability. The coaches aren't going to go backwards on fitness and just chuck in a bunch of skilled players because everyone will be tired. They just get fitter and fitter players.

I don't want a game of football played by 400m runners. I want a game that is based on skill combined with athleticism, that gives everyone a chance. Desire and persistence is great if it means players who out sprint, out mark and go harder to get the ball get rewarded, but not if its a marathon with a ball.

Slow but skillful players have already been wiped out. As have little fellas. If you aren't lightening quick you have to be close to 185cm.

I'm all for shortening quarters. As a spectacle most games go for way too long anyway especially with all the big losses that we'll have.

wouldn't cutting the interchange (people or number of changes) also restore a better balance?

Can we just leave the game alone for once?

Can we just leave the game alone for once?

This......................

The game has already been shortened from '100 minutes' from when I was a kid. I don't think it needs to be any shorter.

From what I have observed it is only the coaches who like to play 'heavy rotation' football or have been shafted by injuries in recent seasons that squeak loudly about shortening the game. (apart from Malthouse who also thought it was a good idea so his team wouldn't smash other teams by so much).

IMO the game should be longer not shorter and rotations should be capped; BUT NOT for each team but rather for each player!!

I would also like to see the 'sub' extended to two and the 'bench' reduced to two.

Football to me was always a game based around 'desire' and 'persistance'; a game where the 'lesser' player could triumph because he showed more of these attributes on a given day.

The game is now more about 'fresh legs' and 'athletic ability', to its detriment.

Make it longer and harder I say.

End rant.

Go Dees - Bring Forth Hell Fire and Brimstone in 2012

Totally agree with your sentiments 'Toad33'.

I think we need to give the game back to Hard headed players who have enormous character for the contest. The balance between the 'skilled' player (runners usually) and the true hard footballer, (Diesel) (Lockett), has been eroded by burst athletes and high rotations, to the detriment of tough hard footy & run hard all day players like Robert Harvey & Diesel, & even Flower.

We've lost an awful lot with the high rotations, including specialist Full Forwards and most of the long kicking & most of the High Marks. (did you see the pathetic group of marks in the 'Mark of the Year)?

And the 'Goal of the Year', Ffff. Wheres Daic's or Farmer??? Jurrah would IMO improve with less rotations and more opportunity, think Daicos or Bartlett.

Toad making the game longer would make it more about athletic ability. The coaches aren't going to go backwards on fitness and just chuck in a bunch of skilled players because everyone will be tired. They just get fitter and fitter players.

I don't want a game of football played by 400m runners. I want a game that is based on skill combined with athleticism, that gives everyone a chance. Desire and persistence is great if it means players who out sprint, out mark and go harder to get the ball get rewarded, but not if its a marathon with a ball.

Slow but skillful players have already been wiped out. As have little fellas. If you aren't lightening quick you have to be close to 185cm.

I'm all for shortening quarters. As a spectacle most games go for way too long anyway especially with all the big losses that we'll have.

When you slow the game down thru less rotations you have to play less athletes and more bigger bodied players, who happen to be usually slower but stronger. This brings back the heavy hits and more mongrel play, with slower runners that go all day. More like the Nineties.... > think back to the 'Ted Whitten' 'State of Origin' game. If you've forgotten, do yourself a favor.... > Lyon/ Stynes/ Viney/ Wight/ GAblett/ Lockett/ etc, etc...

I hope that when they shorten the game they shorten the cost, as we are getting less for our $$$

I hope that when they shorten the game they shorten the cost, as we are getting less for our $$$

Ha!

Can we just leave the game alone for once?

Novel idea.

When you slow the game down thru less rotations you have to play less athletes and more bigger bodied players, who happen to be usually slower but stronger. This brings back the heavy hits and more mongrel play, with slower runners that go all day. More like the Nineties.... > think back to the 'Ted Whitten' 'State of Origin' game. If you've forgotten, do yourself a favor.... > Lyon/ Stynes/ Viney/ Wight/ GAblett/ Lockett/ etc, etc...

NO! NO! NO! If you drop rotations you have to play more athletes not less. We've already seen (the limited) death of the second ruck. Key forwards who have the marking power but not the athleticism aren't even looked at in drafts any more.

The game will slow down for no one. Players will always be getting fitter and faster. The lest rotations you have the more you'll need fitness freaks.

Shorter quarters are a great way to favour those will speed and skill over pure fitness, there can be no doubt about that.

There were quite a few games this year that I would have been happy to shorten.

Particularly one by Corio bay I would have been happy with 15 minute quarters.

Seriously leave it alone!

Wait for the fake stats they use to justify this. Farce. Leave the freaking game alone.

NO! NO! NO! If you drop rotations you have to play more athletes not less. We've already seen (the limited) death of the second ruck. Key forwards who have the marking power but not the athleticism aren't even looked at in drafts any more.

The game will slow down for no one. Players will always be getting fitter and faster. The lest rotations you have the more you'll need fitness freaks.

Shorter quarters are a great way to favour those will speed and skill over pure fitness, there can be no doubt about that.

Nope. I have to disagree with you. I've seen both games with only 19th & 20th men to the introduction of the interchange to the extensions of the Int Bench.

With even fewer rotations, the players can't run out the game. We were just at the beginning of that, at the start of the year till they adjusted. We're right at the edge of it, where one less interchange will stop the athletes and we'll return to players with bigger engines but less speed. When we go to that point, the players carry more muscle mass & condition. And body work returns to the game.

This is when the big full forwards return, & the 2 ruck system returns, when players tire late in the game & can barely pump the legs. 'Taller players don't get shorter'.

Nope. I have to disagree with you. I've seen both games with only 19th & 20th men to the introduction of the interchange to the extensions of the Int Bench.

With even fewer rotations, the players can't run out the game. We were just at the beginning of that, at the start of the year till they adjusted. We're right at the edge of it, where one less interchange will stop the athletes and we'll return to players with bigger engines but less speed. When we go to that point, the players carry more muscle mass & condition. And body work returns to the game.

This is when the big full forwards return, & the 2 ruck system returns, when players tire late in the game & can barely pump the legs. 'Taller players don't get shorter'.

and the impact is more on the midfield cos they have more rotations

and the impact is more on the midfield cos they have more rotations

Thats Right, & with less rotations, the players start to really struggle to follow the ball all over the field, forwardline to backline and back to the midzone. This fewer rotations then starts to see more players playing the traditional positions, and manning Up, the CHF against the CHB. Instead of basketball styled following the ball.

So we then start to see the specialist Half forward flanker return.

Leave our game alone! It is fast becoming unrecognisable with so many rule changes etc over the past 5 years. Enough is enough!

Leave our game alone! It is fast becoming unrecognisable with so many rule changes etc over the past 5 years. Enough is enough!

Yes, agreed, but deeluded is not talking about change but rather unchange ...........................semantics???

I don't think it's rotations. It's stoppages. The more teams zone, get numbers around the ball, contest the ball harder, increase the tackle count, play the boundary rather than the corridor, or kick towards the boundary after a behind, the more stoppages you'll get. Stoppages equal time-on. It's a function of the modern contested, zoning, rolling zone, flooding strategies. Find a way to reduce stoppages, and you'll get less time-on.

When the quarters went for 30 minutes, they had about 2-3 minutes of time-on. Now they've got 25 minute quarters plus 7-8 minutes of time-on. If they reduced quarters to 20 minutes, pretty soon the game will just morph into 10-12 minutes of time on. Still football for 120 minutes ... of sorts.

BTW, are those who are against shortening the game concerned about player welfare? ... about the increased injuries as play goes longer and everyone goes harder at the ball?

I don't think it's rotations. It's stoppages. The more teams zone, get numbers around the ball, contest the ball harder, increase the tackle count, play the boundary rather than the corridor, or kick towards the boundary after a behind, the more stoppages you'll get. Stoppages equal time-on. It's a function of the modern contested, zoning, rolling zone, flooding strategies. Find a way to reduce stoppages, and you'll get less time-on.

When the quarters went for 30 minutes, they had about 2-3 minutes of time-on. Now they've got 25 minute quarters plus 7-8 minutes of time-on. If they reduced quarters to 20 minutes, pretty soon the game will just morph into 10-12 minutes of time on. Still football for 120 minutes ... of sorts.

BTW, are those who are against shortening the game concerned about player welfare? ... about the increased injuries as play goes longer and everyone goes harder at the ball?

Maurie, I think you'll find Qtrs were 25 mins (with ump signalled only time-ons) and are now 20 mins (with more automatic time-ons)

Maurie, I think you'll find Qtrs were 25 mins (with ump signalled only time-ons) and are now 20 mins (with more automatic time-ons)

I've lost track. Proves my point.

I just thought years ago they were actually 30 minutes, which is where we got the "120 minutes" of football from.

I've lost track. Proves my point.

I just thought years ago they were actually 30 minutes, which is where we got the "120 minutes" of football from.

I think the "30" came from 25mins plus generally 5 mins time-on = 30min (on average)

It ain,t broke...so don't fix it.