The AFL appears committed to the principle of the players being given two weekends per season where they don't play. Two methods of fixturing have been tried this year. Personally, I don't think either model is satisfactory. But then, I'm not convinced that the players should be entitled to these breaks.

Should the players be entitled to these rests? Are byes and split rounds the best way to manage it? Should there only be one, rather than two breaks for the players each year? And are there any novel approaches out there which might overcome the lack of football for the supporter?

An example of an alternative approach might be a 22 round season spread over 22 or 23 weeks with clubs limited to playing each individual player for no more than 20 or 21 games in a season (excluding finals). Clubs could then manage the rotation of the players deciding when each player should get his "rest break". I'm not sure I like it - but I definitely don't like the bye.

Any other views out there?

no, its ridiculous

1 is more then anough

There should be zero preferably

Yes there should be. I have played in semi professional level and that had two and it was the best 2 weekends I had during winter.

Its mind taxing and mentally tough on the mind and your physically spent. Couldn't imagine what it would be on professional players. Though I do know they love the byes.

Byes are critical for us especially when you start to see blokes like Viney, Salem, JKH and even Dom Tyson beforehand tire out a bit.

I am all for two byes.

I think not - it's to fricken boring for supporters when your teams not playing.

I think I prefer the 6-6-6 over 3 rounds model in achieving byes to the 5-4 over 2 rounds. No right answer.

Can't help but feel this bye now is more about the finals teams. I know our young guys are probably tiring out but you could rest or manage some of them and have got on with the last 5 weeks.

But that's obviously different to the finals teams who probably benefit massively from a rest now and can go harder into finals.

This is for a different thread but the predictability of AFL finals and pretty much waste of the 5-8 clubs being any chance to get anywhere in them makes me think this bye is only for the 5 teams who have a shot at top 4.

There should be only 1, smack bang in the middle of the season, not 7 weeks in, and not with 7 weeks to go. Middle of the season.

We have list of 40 players plus rookies, and 'list managers' . Why does every player have to play 23 games? You could remove both byes extend the h&a season and cap max games during the season. These guys are professional athletes and should look at requirements of some other professionals(not limited to sports). How many hours does their profession consume of their life per week? Afl players wouldn't even rank in the top couple thousand occupations for hours per week, They should suck it up, work for their money and earn their breaks like everyone else.

But that's just what I think..... Desperate for a bye myself.....

We have list of 40 players plus rookies, and 'list managers' . Why does every player have to play 23 games? You could remove both byes extend the h&a season and cap max games during the season. These guys are professional athletes and should look at requirements of some other professionals(not limited to sports). How many hours does their profession consume of their life per week? Afl players wouldn't even rank in the top couple thousand occupations for hours per week, They should suck it up, work for their money and earn their breaks like everyone else.

But that's just what I think..... Desperate for a bye myself.....

The argument against resting players is who wants to go watch a team play without good players. I know I don't.

And I agree about the players earning their breaks from a mental point of view. Suck it up kind of thing. But from a physical point of view 22 weeks straight of running 15km and getting smashed up once a week and probably doing 10km on the track per week is a heck of a strain on the body.

1 bye seems to be a worthy investment as fans. You accept 1 week without your team playing and in return the players get through more games and at a higher standard with less injuries. 2 games maybe not.

I'm actually for a redesigned finals system where the top 4 all get a week off the first week of finals. Then you'd have one bye in the middle of the season, if you want a second bye then earn it!

yup.

On a positive note at least we don't lose on the bye weekend!!

2 byes could easily be factored in in a better format much like everything else to do with the fixture. There's no reason they have to have everyone have the bye in the same round they could have 2 or 4 clubs a week with byes over a period during the season.

My preference is 17 games over 19 weeks you play everyone once and alternate home and away each year. Each team travels to WA, SA, NSW & QLD once a year.

The argument against resting players is who wants to go watch a team play without good players. I know I don't.

And I agree about the players earning their breaks from a mental point of view. Suck it up kind of thing. But from a physical point of view 22 weeks straight of running 15km and getting smashed up once a week and probably doing 10km on the track per week is a heck of a strain on the body.

1 bye seems to be a worthy investment as fans. You accept 1 week without your team playing and in return the players get through more games and at a higher standard with less injuries. 2 games maybe not.

I'm actually for a redesigned finals system where the top 4 all get a week off the first week of finals. Then you'd have one bye in the middle of the season, if you want a second bye then earn it!

Watching a team with a few being 'rested' is surely more interesting than not watching it at all.

I wonder if there are data for the total numbers watching / listening / attending games over a whole season.

I certainly lose interest in watching "neutral games' during and for few weeks after a bye. But then it may be the manner in which the game is now played, with the rolling mauls etc that puts me off.

PS:

Just looked at the ridiculous schedule that Vlad served up to us as his parting gesture -- what a bloody disgrace. Thought that I may look at a "neutral game" contrary to my comments above, only to find ONE game tonight at 8:40 EST. ONE Saturday "afternoon" 16:40 QLD vs QLD (ho hum), ONE Saturday night and ONE Sunday "afternoon" 16:40

What a bloody disgrace and an absolute turnoff.

Watching a team with a few being 'rested' is surely more interesting than not watching it at all.

I wonder if there are data for the total numbers watching / listening / attending games over a whole season.

I certainly lose interest in watching "neutral games' during and for few weeks after a bye. But then it may be the manner in which the game is now played, with the rolling mauls etc that puts me off.

The issue with bye weeks from a neutral perspective is you turn off instead of flicking over. Or that's how I feel. Saturdays and Sundays I'll watch footy if it's good but not so much if it's bad. Most rounds there's a chance to just watch the better games. And of course there is data but you might not find it!

I'd rather watch a team with a few being rested than no team at all but taking out JKH, Viney and Tyson decreases our shot at winning and I don't want to watch losses. I'm willing to put with 1 bye a year instead of us losing a game with good players on the side line.

There should be none. It should be the clubs' responsibility to manage players so that they're as fresh as they can be when the club feels it's most important (usually the end of the year).

There should be none. It should be the clubs' responsibility to manage players so that they're as fresh as they can be when the club feels it's most important (usually the end of the year).

Exactly

well i think chip will be giving us two extra byes (byebye)

There should be none. It should be the clubs' responsibility to manage players so that they're as fresh as they can be when the club feels it's most important (usually the end of the year).

Spot on

Professionally run professional athletes should be able to be "managed" by their clubs.......it should be up to both to decide if a 'rest' is needed, and in fact it has been so for years. Player X out with a 'niggling injury' for a game vs easy beats to prepare for an important game the next week.

(Of course some other clubs try pharmacological means.)

There should be no byes and clubs just need to learn to manage players through the season, it's part of the evolution of the game

Spot on

Professionally run professional athletes should be able to be "managed" by their clubs.......it should be up to both to decide if a 'rest' is needed, and in fact it has been so for years. Player X out with a 'niggling injury' for a game vs easy beats to prepare for an important game the next week.

(Of course some other clubs try pharmacological means.)

So what about us when we don't have any easy beats? Great for Hawthorn/Sydney's but not really fair on the bottom clubs. Does one week off really bother you more than us losing when we rest JKH/Tyson etc?

There are very few sports in the world that don't give you a bye weekend.

For AFL arguably one of the most physical it makes obvious sense to have 2 breaks. Extending the season one extra week doesn't bother me one bit and if it motivates the players and coaches to stop 'resting' guns I'm all for it.

There are very few sports in the world that don't give you a bye weekend.

For AFL arguably one of the most physical it makes obvious sense to have 2 breaks. Extending the season one extra week doesn't bother me one bit and if it motivates the players and coaches to stop 'resting' guns I'm all for it.

When they get a week off in Professional Football(Soccer) it is because they are playing internationals. Last season Premier League Clubs played on Boxing Day(Thurs), Sunday, New Years Day(Wed). Not to mention Champions/Europa League, cup competitions etc. Whilst I understand footy is a brutal sport, IMO squads would be better being extended or at very least Rookies should always be eligible and clubs just need to map out plans for the season in squad management.

Their sports science departments are paid enough they would figure it out soon enough

I'm all for a 17 round season with one bye.

We should have a shorter season with at most a single bye round. I wouldn't mind scheduling a state of origin match for the bye, but that is another argument all together.

Happy with two byes.

Today I am off to the Amos, should get a win and no worry about the Dees losing.

Come to think of it I might approach the AFL for three next year.

Try this one for size.

Find another 6 clubs QLD 1, NSW 1 SA 1 WA 1 TAS 2

Total 24 teams

Now make 2 divisions of 12 each division has 22 games playing each other twice

2nd div made up of the new clubs plus bottom 6 of existing.

When it comes to finals top4 of each division have a knockout. 1 v 4. And 2 v 3

The winners then X. play each other in preliminary finals with both divisions combined.

Winners go into GF and winner wins.

We may be competitive in Div 2 for a few years.