Forgive me for not wailing with anguish at this one. The game has evolved and will continue to do so. It's easy to look back with rose-coloured glasses, but even in the 'halcyon days' of the 90s there was a fair bit of footy that was laughable. If Melbourne won 25 games by a score of 10-9 this season, I'd be so flaming thrilled I'd have to be carted out of the G by St John's on October 3. Is it pretty? No. Is it forever? No. That doesn't mean it is guaranteed to get prettier, but things change.

This isn't peculiar to our game though. Recently there was a terrific piece in The Players Tribune by former NHLer Igor Larionov which encompassed some of the thoughts on here. I've included a relevant quote below and the article can be found here: http://www.theplayerstribune.com/miracle-on-ice-hockey-russia/

"The problem is more philosophical and starts way before players get to the NHL. It’s easier to destroy than to create. As a coach, it’s easier to tell your players to suffocate the opposing team and not turn the puck over. There are still players whose imagination and creativity capture the Soviet spirit — Johnny Gaudreau in Calgary, Patrick Kane and Jonathan Toews in Chicago just to name a few. However, they are becoming exceptions to the rule. Many young players who are intelligent and can see the game four moves ahead are not valued. They’re told “simple, simple, simple.”

That mentality is kind of boring. Nobody wants to get fired. Nobody wants to get sent down to the minors. If you look at the coaches in Juniors and minor league hockey, many of them were not skill players. It’s a lot of former enforcers and grinders who take these coaching jobs. Naturally, they tell their players to be just like them. Their players are 17, 18 years old — younger than I was when I joined the Red Army team. Say what you want about the Whiplash mentality (or the Soviet mentality), but if coaches are going to push kids at that age, why are they pushing them to play a simple game? Why aren’t coaches pushing them to create a masterpiece?

We lose a lot of Pavel Datsyuks to the closed-minded nature of the AHL and NHL."

Edited March 30, 201510 yr by pantaloons

No, forward runs to centre of ground (nowhere near the ball which is in the opponents forward line), teammates in said forward line get ball so forward runs back to his forward line.

He could have just stayed in his own forward line and provided an option running towards the teammate instead of running away from him.

Hawthorn do it the best and what they do is push up so there is a contest if there is a quick clearance and then the forwards push hard back towards their 50 and then peel back presenting to the player who has the ball. This is why they base their game plan on marking and swift kicking but also a a major component of how they are able to score multiple goals inside 50. They also use their wingers in Brad Hill and Isaac Smith in a similar role encouraging them to push incredibly deep into the backline and then sprint hard into 50, often losing their opponents.

What it does is prevents the presses from actually squeezing the ball inside their defensive 50 as they are able continue to make players in these zones accountable and follow players through the areas.

Port do it a little bit different and push all of their forwards up the field and then hope their quicker/fitter mids and forwards (Hartlett, Wingard, Matt White and Boak) are able to get into the pagans paddock effect.

Melbournes problem is that our midfield has struggled to often win the one on one contests and when we have the outnumber our skills are often too poor leading to costly mistakes.

Thats how i see it anyway

Forgive me for not wailing with anguish at this one. The game has evolved and will continue to do so. It's easy to look back with rose-coloured glasses, but even in the 'halcyon days' of the 90s there was a fair bit of footy that was laughable. If Melbourne won 25 games by a score of 10-9 this season, I'd be so flaming thrilled I'd have to be carted out of the G by St John's on October 3. Is it pretty? No. Is it forever? No. That doesn't mean it is guaranteed to get prettier, but things change.

This isn't peculiar to our game though. Recently there was a terrific piece in The Players Tribune by former NHLer Igor Larionov which encompassed some of the thoughts on here. I've included a relevant quote below and the article can be found here: http://www.theplayerstribune.com/miracle-on-ice-hockey-russia/

"The problem is more philosophical and starts way before players get to the NHL. It’s easier to destroy than to create. As a coach, it’s easier to tell your players to suffocate the opposing team and not turn the puck over. There are still players whose imagination and creativity capture the Soviet spirit — Johnny Gaudreau in Calgary, Patrick Kane and Jonathan Toews in Chicago just to name a few. However, they are becoming exceptions to the rule. Many young players who are intelligent and can see the game four moves ahead are not valued. They’re told “simple, simple, simple.”

That mentality is kind of boring. Nobody wants to get fired. Nobody wants to get sent down to the minors. If you look at the coaches in Juniors and minor league hockey, many of them were not skill players. It’s a lot of former enforcers and grinders who take these coaching jobs. Naturally, they tell their players to be just like them. Their players are 17, 18 years old — younger than I was when I joined the Red Army team. Say what you want about the Whiplash mentality (or the Soviet mentality), but if coaches are going to push kids at that age, why are they pushing them to play a simple game? Why aren’t coaches pushing them to create a masterpiece?

We lose a lot of Pavel Datsyuks to the closed-minded nature of the AHL and NHL."

No tagging and zones are in TAC. So the AFL might just have seen the light in junior footy at least.

One Roos line I'll always detest is this line about young players not being able to defend. I reckon it's crap.

Defending in AFL footy with the exception of within 50m from goal and to an extent at stoppages is mindset. Tackling is not a difficult skill for most players (excluding many of ours). Chasing your opponent is pretty simple. Forward pressure defending is a skill but it's one the best players have naturally. Cyril Rioli was a master in his first season. Chad Wingard is great at it, Jack Darling from game 1. The smart players no how to do it. Stick to your opponent and read the play to get to the dangerous space.

If you have the right mix of athletic tools and physical and mental determination then I reckon you'll succeed at defending if you have the right coach. But all the coaching in the world struggles to correct skills that just aren't up to scratch or an inability to find the ball.

Hawthorn do it the best and what they do is push up so there is a contest if there is a quick clearance and then the forwards push hard back towards their 50 and then peel back presenting to the player who has the ball. This is why they base their game plan on marking and swift kicking but also a a major component of how they are able to score multiple goals inside 50. They also use their wingers in Brad Hill and Isaac Smith in a similar role encouraging them to push incredibly deep into the backline and then sprint hard into 50, often losing their opponents.

What it does is prevents the presses from actually squeezing the ball inside their defensive 50 as they are able continue to make players in these zones accountable and follow players through the areas.

Port do it a little bit different and push all of their forwards up the field and then hope their quicker/fitter mids and forwards (Hartlett, Wingard, Matt White and Boak) are able to get into the pagans paddock effect.

Melbournes problem is that our midfield has struggled to often win the one on one contests and when we have the outnumber our skills are often too poor leading to costly mistakes.

Thats how i see it anyway

its not about how the best teams do it, play entertaining footy...... if only 15% of games are any good the AFL will die.

It's all about how exhilarating the weaker sides are in their games that makes the competition strong & healthy.

Otherwise the AFL will have to keep on bailing out the bottom 85% of clubs finances, as the top 15% get all the marquee benefits to keep the coffers filling... here is the vicious cycle the vfl/afl has caused itself, by allowing the power clubs what they wanted for all those years.

the game is stuffed until the hard decisions are made to even up the fixture, & the big game timeslots.

OP should read: posters having trouble accepting change support group.

Honestly, the game we play now is the one I prefer.

If I go back & watch games from 10 years ago, I'm bored by the style, relatively.

No tagging and zones are in TAC. So the AFL might just have seen the light in junior footy at least.

No tagging in TAC is a myth. I had a conversation with a TAC coach 20 years ago when I was coaching school footy and while he wouldn't tag opposition players other TAC clubs did. Of course they don't call it tagging - "they run with- or at least close to opponents". Maybe there's been a mindset change, but I doubt it.

Good football starts with defence. Its why Neeld was such a culture shock when he walked through the doors. We had no concept of two way running. We could always play attacking 'attractive' football under Bailey, but it was never going to win us games consistently because better teams with better players would just rebound far too quickly. These days even one forward who won't chase his man (like a Brendan Fevola) is enough to destroy defensive structures.

Some of the game styles played these days may seem ugly, but a well fought out, tight game is still a spectacle to watch. The problem, to me, isn't necessarily the style of play, but the disparity between teams. There's generally only about a third of the league that is a genuine contender for the flag. Sure everyone would like to get into the finals, but when you're just making up the numbers is loses it's gloss somewhat.

If anyone was to get the blame for killing the game, it would be HQ with their bloody fixtures and rule changes.

its not about how the best teams do it, play entertaining footy...... if only 15% of games are any good the AFL will die.

It's all about how exhilarating the weaker sides are in their games that makes the competition strong & healthy.

Otherwise the AFL will have to keep on bailing out the bottom 85% of clubs finances, as the top 15% get all the marquee benefits to keep the coffers filling... here is the vicious cycle the vfl/afl has caused itself, by allowing the power clubs what they wanted for all those years.

the game is stuffed until the hard decisions are made to even up the fixture, & the big game timeslots.

If Melbourne, as a weaker team, can limit the opposition to scores which are attainable then more supporters will attend but we are also more likely to win games. At the end of the day football is a business and having 25,000 on a marquee slot is not an acceptable amount and the more competitive Melbourne get, the more supporters turn up.

I have no problems with how Melbourne play football last year and will continue to hope we adopt a Roos based game plan with obvious adaptations to continue to improve.

We will get what we deserve and if we become a consistent top 8 team we will get a favourable draw with an increase in big game timeslots.

The Swans vs WC grand finals whilst tough uncompromising affairs took the sparkle and joy of watching a game of footy for me and the trend continued....No coach was game enough to take the game on.

I loved these games, and the other close ones between these teams over a period then. Tough, committed contested footy. Bring it on at our club.

Get rid of the interchanges, just have 4 substitutes like soccer and the game will open up as fatigue sets in late in each quarter and more so in the second half . The coaches are taking advantage of the rules so we have 18 midfielders and a fullback and a maybe two key forwards and rolling mauls, ball ups, the forward presses etc. Without the continuous rotations off the bench we would see players actually playing in their position for much of the time.

earl, agree with the substitutes only idea

i would make one change. I would allow a temporary substitute if a player has to come off to receive medical attention. Such player must wait a min of 10 mins before resuming field.

(afl to determine what constitutes medical attention and to monitor)

e.g. blood rule, stiches, concussion testing etc

Edited March 30, 201510 yr by daisycutter

Bossdog, you are absolutely correct. Enjoyable, watchable football was a highlight of the past and it was so because the game WASN'T congested like it is today. Goals flowed freely, high marks were a highlight, running into space was a delight to watch.

The game will NOT evolve as some suggest. It has already evolved into the mess we see today.

The Rules must change to stop the Rugby scrum, or U10's game that we see today.

Deanox is correct in that the only solution to crowding is to stop players/coaches doing it. Solution: zones

For those who aren't old enough to remember...the centre square was introduced to stop crowding at ball-ups. The result: invariably someone gets the ball out into the open and play continues.

A simple line down the centre of the ground with a stipulation that a minimum number of players be on either side solves the problem. There is an emergency umpire sitting on his bum who can monitor it.

The impediment to the solution has been the likes of Kevin Bartlett who "doesn't want to turn the game into soccer or netball". Trouble is it has turned into rugby instead.

What's wrong with netball?

Lots of physical contact, fast, high scoring, tight checking, argy bargy. It's the complete package.

Any change must be simple for juniors and the umpire (Juniors themselves) to govern.

Ive had the same idea for a couple of years now.

Make 2 changes.

1)Every ball up at start of quarter or after a goal, all players except 4 on each team in the center, all others behind the 50 meter line.

This gets rid of the center square which (I believe) is now redundant as players will still get to the contest fast or spread.

2) Every Ball up or Ball in around the ground, the umpire(s) check some one is in the 50 meter arc for each team. If not a free kick is given.

This will be easy to check especially when the square is removed.

Bossdog, you are absolutely correct. Enjoyable, watchable football was a highlight of the past and it was so because the game WASN'T congested like it is today. Goals flowed freely, high marks were a highlight, running into space was a delight to watch.

The game will NOT evolve as some suggest. It has already evolved into the mess we see today.

The Rules must change to stop the Rugby scrum, or U10's game that we see today.

Deanox is correct in that the only solution to crowding is to stop players/coaches doing it. Solution: zones

For those who aren't old enough to remember...the centre square was introduced to stop crowding at ball-ups. The result: invariably someone gets the ball out into the open and play continues.

A simple line down the centre of the ground with a stipulation that a minimum number of players be on either side solves the problem. There is an emergency umpire sitting on his bum who can monitor it.

The impediment to the solution has been the likes of Kevin Bartlett who "doesn't want to turn the game into soccer or netball". Trouble is it has turned into rugby instead.

Leave the game alone.

Oh dear. All these people who want to zone off the ground...Please.

Australian Rules allows players to run (with their opponent) wherever they wish

Player x is not allowed to enter the forward line....

No thanks. Leave it alone. Scale down the interchange now that we have seen where that rule took the game.

10 per Quarter...

If Melbourne, as a weaker team, can limit the opposition to scores which are attainable then more supporters will attend but we are also more likely to win games. At the end of the day football is a business and having 25,000 on a marquee slot is not an acceptable amount and the more competitive Melbourne get, the more supporters turn up.

I have no problems with how Melbourne play football last year and will continue to hope we adopt a Roos based game plan with obvious adaptations to continue to improve.

We will get what we deserve and if we become a consistent top 8 team we will get a favourable draw with an increase in big game timeslots.

I like having players defend, its the way its always been. don't like one way runners.

I'm not talking about offence footy or defence footy. I'm talking about the zones floods every player cover every blade of grass on the ground then sprinting off for a five minute rest before doing it all over again. its boring to the back teeth.

we need the players to run out of gas, to be Not able to run to the back pocket, then to the HFF flank, to the back pocket, into the ball up & to the forward pocket, then rotate for a 5Min break.

why not put a table & chairs on the boundary & serve then latte`s & cake, while their off.

its just not footy.

I think the basic problem is that there isn't really much of genius going on tactically.

The tactics being implemented actually close down the options for the team using them.

Instead of 'we have a tactical structure that can respond to all these situations', the mantra is 'we need to create the situations that make our tactics work'.

Sun Tzu would be steaming in his urn.

Port Adelaide and Geelong seem to play an exciting, attacking brand of footy.

I know it's the start of a new season but I'm not sure my apathy is because we have been so bad or the game of footy is just plain boring except for a few highlights

Ever since Wallace brought in the Flood which in turn turned footy into a defensive slog in most matches.

The Swans vs WC grand finals whilst tough uncompromising affairs took the sparkle and joy of watching a game of footy for me and the trend continued....No coach was game enough to take the game on

I used to enjoy watching other teams play and watch replays of most of the games but now I just look at the results.....It seems to me that the coaches are afraid of attacking...Payers are hobbled out of playing their natural game all in the name of defence first... High marking is just about a thing of the past as defenders block the run ups It's like a game of chess which I enjoy playing but it is so boring to watch.

I miss games where the score line was 19.15 to 17.13....It is not allowed by coaches these days.

Anyway.....Good luck to us this year....I will try not to doze off.

I have tried staying away from this thread.

But I agree 100% Bossdog

You have my vote

OP should read: posters having trouble accepting change support group.

Honestly, the game we play now is the one I prefer.

If I go back & watch games from 10 years ago, I'm bored by the style, relatively.

In 20 years time there will be threads about the "Golden Era" of footy on the 2010s when Ablett, Franklin and Dangerfield roamed the turf.

Bookmark it.

I've been banging on about this for years but I hate all the players being in one half (forward line even) of the ground. I still don't see why coaches don't leave one or two players in their own forward line and see if the opposition are brave enough to leave them unaccounted for.

Great point Clint, 16 players inside one 50 metre arc should be able to fill the gaps and form a formidable defensive zone. Where would the opposition 17th and 18th player be? Around the top of the arc?

I nominate JKH and Garlett.

I really do not see games as being boring, frustrating maybe (especially watching us) but not boring.

Predictable games will always be boring, anything predictable is, but I find it intriguing watching teams arm wrestle, who can get the ball out of the congestion, who can use their skills well enough to penetrate the zones, so and so player is wiping the floor with whats his face, but struggles against whosiwhatsit when coming our of the back line. I do not think OUR game can ever be boring.

Horses for courses.

The most exciting football I've seen ever was in a H&A game between Hawthorn and Sydney a few years ago. Plenty of players around the ball, but the handball work in close by Sydney especially was breathtaking and led to many running, exciting goals.

I worry greatly that any major changes to the interchange could return footy back to the rubbish style I've seen while watching Grand Final replays from the 70's. So boring and brainless. It looked like kick to kick between the half-forwards lines. Not for me thanks.

Let the game evolve. Once the skill level develops across the talent pool then the ball movement within and through defensive structures will be great to watch. Making the players play with even more fatigue will produce more clangers and errors, which everyone seems to hate.

The job of the coach is to win games, it's the clubs that are making the game ugly, too many kneejerk reactions that get coaches sacked, no coach is going to do what's good for the game if it leads to there team losing.