Rohan Connolly - perfect storm article

[Macca 16,903]

when rotations came in I was happy to see how far it would go. But now we know it is killing the game.

I say 10 Max per quarter only because the AFL are never going to go back to zero (they Should)

This was all Kevin Sheedy's idea.

It failed Sheeds. YOU WERE WRONG.

Even if it was solely Sheedy's idea ultimately the fault lies with the AFL. The fish rots at the head

I see the AFL are aiming at getting 1.7 billion from the next set of broadcast rights - that amount might be achieved on the back of people's allegiances to their team, tribal rivalries and loyalty to the sport but unless they fix the aesthetics of the game, a tipping point might be reached down the track.

Soccer as a whole is now a genuine threat - the interest in soccer doesn't stop at the A league ... there's the EPL and other European leagues, the Champions league, the World cup, Asian cup, European cup, participation rates and pathways for young sportsmen - even the video game (Fifa 16) is a threat in terms of interest being taken away from the AFL.

My preference would be for the AFL to be the clear no.1 sport in this country.

[Je Roos Salem 661]

So your basing your argument around your "respect for coaching"?

And you don't expect to be entertained by footy?

I respect your opinion JRS but we are diametrically opposed here ... I need to be entertained by footy and I couldn't care less about the coaches in the way you do. They should not be the custodians of the sport (yet, effectively, they are the custodians of the sport)

If rotations were reduced to zero, coaches would be forced to leave a number of their players in their rightful positions ... before the explosion of rotations, clubs were always recruiting "athletes" who could play the sport to high levels who could run all day. However, there was never enough of these types in order to have the sport end up looking like it looks now though.

Should a talent like Hogan be required to run up and down the ground all day? (and end up spending a lot of his time in the backline?)

Part of Hogan's talent IS his ability to run up the ground and take marks, like Riewoldt.

Do you really think the AFL want it devolved into a scrappier and slower game given the skills and speed that are showcased nowadays? A game without rotations would be interesting but it'd also be a shock to the system and I don't think it'd automatically adapt into exciting footy

[Je Roos Salem 661]

Even if it was solely Sheedy's idea ultimately the fault lies with the AFL. The fish rots at the head

I see the AFL are aiming at getting 1.7 billion from the next set of broadcast rights - that amount might be achieved on the back of people's allegiances to their team, tribal rivalries and loyalty to the sport but unless they fix the aesthetics of the game, a tipping point might be reached down the track.

Soccer as a whole is now a genuine threat - the interest in soccer doesn't stop at the A league ... there's the EPL and other European leagues, the Champions league, the World cup, Asian cup, European cup, participation rates and pathways for young sportsmen - even the video game (Fifa 16) is a threat in terms of interest being taken away from the AFL.

My preference would be for the AFL to be the clear no.1 sport in this country.

It's not like the fans are flocking to other sports. Footy has just gone down people's pecking order because of the accessibility and standard of big leagues like the EPL and NBA. The AFL can't get too ahead of itself and trump the game into something its not, it should be reasonably priced and played at friendly times because it doesn't have that number of people behind it like those other leagues do

[daisycutter 29,600]

Part of Hogan's talent IS his ability to run up the ground and take marks, like Riewoldt.

Do you really think the AFL want it devolved into a scrappier and slower game given the skills and speed that are showcased nowadays? A game without rotations would be interesting but it'd also be a shock to the system and I don't think it'd automatically adapt into exciting footy

the idea of no (or few) rotations is not to continue the same style of play and exhaust the players and reduce fast play

what would happen is the coaches (to avoid exhaustion) would limit the range that players roam, rather than follow the ball to all ends like a rugby maul.

this would reduce the number of players in close proximity to the ball and allow space for the creative players to move in and reduce congestion/stoppages

various players would tend to be more positional which would encourage more player on player contests

the speed would still be there because playrs won't be so exhausted trying to follow the ball

there would also be more onfield interchanges where some midfielders might rotate through the pockets and flanks as used to happen

of course it wouldn't happen overnight there would be lots of experimentation before it settled down

but the rugby maul style would be impossible to sustain and would go by the wayside (except on wet rainy days where the ball movement is so slow)

Edited July 25, 2015 by daisycutter

[Macca 16,903]

Part of Hogan's talent IS his ability to run up the ground and take marks, like Riewoldt.

Do you really think the AFL want it devolved into a scrappier and slower game given the skills and speed that are showcased nowadays? A game without rotations would be interesting but it'd also be a shock to the system and I don't think it'd automatically adapt into exciting footy

But the game wouldn't develop into a scrappier and slower game - how are you so convinced that it would? Players wouldn't necessarily become tired if the coaches were forced to not make their players run up and down the ground all day (if we had zero rotations or a drastically reduced number)

I like seeing forwards play as forwards and backmen as backmen - all the time. The sport is now "interesting" and "complex" but I find it unspectacular and a trifle boring.

You've already said that you don't need to be entertained by footy - and that's fair enough. If changes aren't made, we're going to see more and more stoppages and more negative footy. The path we're on isn't magically going to start going in the opposite direction. Meanwhile, many are already turning away from the sport.

It's not like the fans are flocking to other sports. Footy has just gone down people's pecking order because of the accessibility and standard of big leagues like the EPL and NBA. The AFL can't get too ahead of itself and trump the game into something its not, it should be reasonably priced and played at friendly times because it doesn't have that number of people behind it like those other leagues do

And to counteract that shift footy needed to be and needs to be more aesthetically pleasing - instead of that, the opposite has occurred.

It's probably best we agree to disagree - again, I respect your opinion and find your view of footy most interesting. I've had many other such conversations previously with others who share your view. We're allowed to view things differently.

[sue 9,096]

when rotations came in I was happy to see how far it would go. But now we know it is killing the game.

I say 10 Max per quarter only because the AFL are never going to go back to zero (they Should)

This was all Kevin Sheedy's idea.

It failed Sheeds. YOU WERE WRONG.

I didn't really need another reason to hate Sheedy, but thanks.

[Dr. Gonzo 24,130]

What if we got rid of rotations all together and just like soccer we had instead 4 or more substitutes, where the game started in the first place with the 19 and 20th men. When did we introduce interchange? What was that decision based on and it seems that the decision makers had little idea of where that decision would lead the game. It has been transformational. One of the main differences of our game was its positional, and 360 degree nature versus the off side rule games like soccer and rugby that dictate players face each other and there are no fixed playing positions except the goalie is soccer. Let's trash the interchange I say.

Getting rid of the interchange and reducing the numbers on-field (anywhere between 12-16 players a side) would go a long way to solving the problem.

18 players with elite fitness can cover the ground all day. 18 players can set up an effective 60 metre zone so whenever a team has the footy there is little room to create play. Remove a couple of players and the zone breaks down, play opens up and we get more one-on-one contests and less packs and constant stoppages.

You may also create a higher standard of play with fewer less-skilled players on the ground.

[Dr. Gonzo 24,130]

Interchange is the main issue. I know it seems like following popular opinion, but less interchange means more fatigue, more open play, less numbers at the stoppage, shorter quarters etc etc. Its not so much a rule change, more just enforcing the way the rule was meant to be used in the first place, rather than being abused like it is now.

If you reduce the interchange with no other changes it may have an adverse impact though. Tell Ross Lyon or Roos they only have a limited number of interchanges and what do you think their strategy will be? Drop more players behind the footy (soccer style) to stop a team scoring goals and clog up their forward line then try and score quickly on a fast break from defense. Essentially this is what happens now but it would get even worse I think with teams starting most of their 18 behind the ball with only limited players forward. Coaches will always try to stop the opposition scoring before trying to score themselves.

[jnrmac 20,053]

If you reduce the interchange with no other changes it may have an adverse impact though. Tell Ross Lyon or Roos they only have a limited number of interchanges and what do you think their strategy will be? Drop more players behind the footy (soccer style) to stop a team scoring goals and clog up their forward line then try and score quickly on a fast break from defense. Essentially this is what happens now but it would get even worse I think with teams starting most of their 18 behind the ball with only limited players forward. Coaches will always try to stop the opposition scoring before trying to score themselves.

Disagree. Players will get tired and "stay at home" in their positions more. More contested or one on one footy. Would be the best thing ever.

The interchange has stuffed up the game because players can presently run up and down the field all day - ergo more can get to stoppages.

For 20 yrs every rule change was designed to speed up the game for TV. They butchered 100 yrs of evolution for telly.

Cutting the interchange is the easy and logical choice to cut down on congestion.

[dee-luded 2,959]

It's not like the fans are flocking to other sports. Footy has just gone down people's pecking order because of the accessibility and standard of big leagues like the EPL and NBA. The AFL can't get too ahead of itself and trump the game into something its not, it should be reasonably priced and played at friendly times because it doesn't have that number of people behind it like those other leagues do

nah, that might be the case for the young ones, swapping codes.

Myself I cannot stand soccer, used to love the US basketball years back, with Magic Johnson, Larry Bird, Kareem Abdul Jabbar, etc, etc. & grid iron at that time as well with Joe Montana, John Riggins, etc.

modern sport is toooo hyped, & too full of noise during the games (play). I like the warm up entertainments pre-game, during the long break, etc, after games.

........... but please STFU will yous, during the play; & less is more, when it comes to commentators.

I've turned to Rugby league as a preference because of the commentary..... its not so in your face, or all over you, like a bad rash.

[dee-luded 2,959]

If you reduce the interchange with no other changes it may have an adverse impact though. Tell Ross Lyon or Roos they only have a limited number of interchanges and what do you think their strategy will be? Drop more players behind the footy (soccer style) to stop a team scoring goals and clog up their forward line then try and score quickly on a fast break from defense. Essentially this is what happens now but it would get even worse I think with teams starting most of their 18 behind the ball with only limited players forward. Coaches will always try to stop the opposition scoring before trying to score themselves.

highest points used to win games DG, lowest loses, talent gets goals.

[Macca 16,903]

If you reduce the interchange with no other changes it may have an adverse impact though. Tell Ross Lyon or Roos they only have a limited number of interchanges and what do you think their strategy will be? Drop more players behind the footy (soccer style) to stop a team scoring goals and clog up their forward line then try and score quickly on a fast break from defense. Essentially this is what happens now but it would get even worse I think with teams starting most of their 18 behind the ball with only limited players forward. Coaches will always try to stop the opposition scoring before trying to score themselves.

To counteract that the league could make the forwards and backmen line up within their 50 metre arks after a goal is scored - that bit wouldn't be too difficult to police. A radical approach perhaps but so was the then "Diamond" and not long after - "The centre square" when those changes were implemented. The supporters back then very quickly got used to that major change to the game.

Also, the fans could vote with their feet if an ultra flood was employed on a consistent basis - not every supporter would accept such a ploy. And who would want to watch that sort of thing on TV?

I'm not sure the ultra flood would be workable with zero or minimal rotations anyway - the ultra flooding team would still be required to try and score and by doing that, they still might have a need to run up and down the ground all day (without so much as a minutes rest) Or do teams just kick it away like the socceroos of 1974 (we still lost to East and West Germany with that ploy)

.

Edited July 25, 2015 by Macca

[Je Roos Salem 661]

But the game wouldn't develop into a scrappier and slower game - how are you so convinced that it would? Players wouldn't necessarily become tired if the coaches were forced to not make their players run up and down the ground all day (if we had zero rotations or a drastically reduced number)

I like seeing forwards play as forwards and backmen as backmen - all the time. The sport is now "interesting" and "complex" but I find it unspectacular and a trifle boring.

You've already said that you don't need to be entertained by footy - and that's fair enough. If changes aren't made, we're going to see more and more stoppages and more negative footy. The path we're on isn't magically going to start going in the opposite direction. Meanwhile, many are already turning away from the sport.

And to counteract that shift footy needed to be and needs to be more aesthetically pleasing - instead of that, the opposite has occurred.

It's probably best we agree to disagree - again, I respect your opinion and find your view of footy most interesting. I've had many other such conversations previously with others who share your view. We're allowed to view things differently.

Because the 120 cap has already seen the average score drop 7-8 points and teams be more conservative. There could be a tipping point, but I'm not convinced no rotations would have your desired effect. Also it'd be a headache for injuries/ruckmen. If it changes to 80 next year I'll be expecting more points to be dropped from the average score. I think having a cap AT ALL preoccupies the coach's mind and gives him a reason to play carefully.

At least players would actually stay on the field after kicking goals though.

Yes let's best end this even though we probably pronounce tomato in the same way

[daisycutter 29,600]

Because the 120 cap has already seen the average score drop 7-8 points and teams be more conservative. There could be a tipping point, but I'm not convinced no rotations would have your desired effect. Also it'd be a headache for injuries/ruckmen. If it changes to 80 next year I'll be expecting more points to be dropped from the average score. I think having a cap AT ALL preoccupies the coach's mind and gives him a reason to play carefully.

At least players would actually stay on the field after kicking goals though.

Yes let's best end this even though we probably pronounce tomato in the same way

why a headache for injuries? allow an interchange for injuries but can't come back for 15 minutes (or whatever). if not back in a certain time becomes a substitution

ruckmen? have 2 and they "interchange" on field (say in fwd pocket). this is what happened in the past

or have 1 ruckman who doesn't go deep at either end staying a kick behind

[Macca 16,903]

Because the 120 cap has already seen the average score drop 7-8 points and teams be more conservative. There could be a tipping point, but I'm not convinced no rotations would have your desired effect. Also it'd be a headache for injuries/ruckmen. If it changes to 80 next year I'll be expecting more points to be dropped from the average score. I think having a cap AT ALL preoccupies the coach's mind and gives him a reason to play carefully.

At least players would actually stay on the field after kicking goals though.

Yes let's best end this even though we probably pronounce tomato in the same way

As a last resort I'd be an advocate of reducing the amount of players on the ground ... one thing is for sure, it's a talking point and the AFL do look like they are possibly going to address the congestion issue.

I'm also a very practical person so I see your suggestion of a cap of 80 rotations as the path that the AFL will probably take - if that happens, only time will tell whether that reduced number of rotations will have any effect on the congestion.

.

Edited July 25, 2015 by Macca

[Dr. Gonzo 24,130]

To counteract that the league could make the forwards and backmen line up within their 50 metre arks after a goal is scored - that bit wouldn't be too difficult to police. A radical approach perhaps but so was the then "Diamond" and not long after - "The centre square" when those changes were implemented. The supporters back then very quickly got used to that major change to the game.

Also, the fans could vote with their feet if an ultra flood was employed on a consistent basis - not every supporter would accept such a ploy. And who would want to watch that sort of thing on TV?

I'm not sure the ultra flood would be workable with zero or minimal rotations anyway - the ultra flooding team would still be required to try and score and by doing that, they still might have a need to run up and down the ground all day (without so much as a minutes rest) Or do teams just kick it away like the socceroos of 1974 (we still lost to East and West Germany with that ploy).

I'm not convinced it would happen like that but if I try and think "what would Ross Lyon do" I have to think with a focus on a defensive gameplan and less options to rotate players there will be more flooding with attempts to score on quick breaks. This would likely result in more soccer style scores with more games won 6 goals to 3.

[Fitz Fitzpatrick 886]

Something I've really noticed is worth noting in this discussion.

Ive been overseas for 15 years. Left 2 weeks after the 2000 grand final! put 4k away to fly back for the GF the following year, never happened did it.

Anyway, years back when i would sit some Brits or French, Italians down and show them some footy over a beer(back then it was VHS tapes sent over), they would really get in to it, marvel at the speed and the marks and of course the bumps. Anyway, to a person, they would be impressed and enthused about the game.

Recently, say from 2011 onwards, whenever I sit someone down and show them the game , the response is of curiosity which soon moves to disinterest and eventually something else happens and they leave.

This is a reflection on the current games ability to attract NEW fans to the sport. Not people brought up in suburban melbourne and adelaide homes but migrants, tourists and Aussies from non footy regions of the country. I don't see it as having that ability at this point in time.

[Fitz Fitzpatrick 886]

As a last resort I'd be an advocate of reducing the amount of players on the ground ... one thing is for sure, it's a talking point and the AFL do look like they are possibly going to address the congestion issue.

I'm also a very practical person so I see your suggestion of a cap of 80 rotations as the path that the AFL will probably take - if that happens, only time will tell whether that reduced number of rotations will have any effect on the congestion.

.

it wont make a difference. 80 cap is still a HUGE amount of rotations. I guess younger supporters don't know any different but in 2004 the average was 35!! thats the type of footy we won't to replicate. 80 is a wishy washy middle ground that will be unnoticed in its change

Edited July 25, 2015 by Munga

[Fitz Fitzpatrick 886]

i dont agree with the argument about injuries and the low rotations. players will deal with injuries exactly how they did in recent history when the rotations were 25-30. John howard was in office - it wasn't that long ago!!!

[Dr. Gonzo 24,130]

As a last resort I'd be an advocate of reducing the amount of players on the ground ... one thing is for sure, it's a talking point and the AFL do look like they are possibly going to address the congestion issue.

I'm also a very practical person so I see your suggestion of a cap of 80 rotations as the path that the AFL will probably take - if that happens, only time will tell whether that reduced number of rotations will have any effect on the congestion.

I think a reduction of players combined with a reduced interchange (or having only subs, no interchange) could be the answer. On a ground the size of ours having only 12 or 14 players (maybe 16) makes a zone almost ineffectual and forces defensive teams to play one-on-one.

At the moment defensive zones are effective because 18 players can cover a 50-60 metre area of the ground (between the player with the ball and his goals) and leave limited space between each zoned defender. This makes it impossible to hit up targets further than 15-20 metres ahead because a defender is able to get to the drop of the ball before the ball hits it's target. If you reduce players and spread the zone it takes a defensive player an extra second or two to cover the ground to get to the drop of the ball meaning the attacking team can move the ball further more effectively. The zone will become obsolete because to have an effective zone you could only cover a 35-40 metre area meaning the attacking team could simply kick over the zone.

[Fitz Fitzpatrick 886]

a bit left field but what about some kind of incentive for side to play offensively. for example, the ladder is more weighted to percentage rather than points OR extra percentage/point is laid on when a team wins by more than 30 points?

may result in a team going early and then shutting down , but just an idea

I would consider that in conjunction with a rotation cap. I don't like the rotations, for reasons beyond the congestion. i just don't think 100 rotations is aussie rules

[Macca 16,903]

I'm not convinced it would happen like that but if I try and think "what would Ross Lyon do" I have to think with a focus on a defensive gameplan and less options to rotate players there will be more flooding with attempts to score on quick breaks. This would likely result in more soccer style scores with more games won 6 goals to 3.

I remember about 15 years ago Ric Charlesworth (the former Australian Olympian - field hockey) being quoted as saying that if the Germans played "Aussie rules" we'd see scorelines of 5 goals to 3. Prophetic words as it turned out except we didn't need the Germans

The flood and the forward press could be countered with draconian measures ... I won't go into how that could happen or how it could be policed but a reduction of the players on the field would be a simpler solution.

You know, there's nearly a whole generation of footy fans who have never seen a true wingman at play - the wings are now often the most congested part of the field. When posters here talk about a player being best suited to a wing I often wonder what they are talking about.

.

Edited July 25, 2015 by Macca

[Macca 16,903]

it wont make a difference. 80 cap is still a HUGE amount of rotations. I guess younger supporters don't know any different but in 2004 the average was 35!! thats the type of footy we won't to replicate. 80 is a wishy washy middle ground that will be unnoticed in its change

I agree Munga but in practical terms, do you see the AFL reducing rotations all the way to 40, 20 or zero in one hit?

It's my belief that they are quite clueless when it comes to being custodians of the sport - they know how to make money but I don't watch the sport because of the money - who does?

Apparently Gill was quoted today as blaming the coaches for the state of the game - he might want to look in the mirror because ultimately, it's he and the commission who are the ones responsible for the state of the game.

Interesting bit of reading ... Rule changes 1858 - 2013 ... nb - the 3rd interchange was introduced in 1994 and the 4th interchange was introduced in 1998

[Macca 16,903]

I think a reduction of players combined with a reduced interchange (or having only subs, no interchange) could be the answer. On a ground the size of ours having only 12 or 14 players (maybe 16) makes a zone almost ineffectual and forces defensive teams to play one-on-one.

At the moment defensive zones are effective because 18 players can cover a 50-60 metre area of the ground (between the player with the ball and his goals) and leave limited space between each zoned defender. This makes it impossible to hit up targets further than 15-20 metres ahead because a defender is able to get to the drop of the ball before the ball hits it's target. If you reduce players and spread the zone it takes a defensive player an extra second or two to cover the ground to get to the drop of the ball meaning the attacking team can move the ball further more effectively. The zone will become obsolete because to have an effective zone you could only cover a 35-40 metre area meaning the attacking team could simply kick over the zone.

As a first step I'd cut things back with zero rotations, lengthen the kick for a legal mark by 5 metres, blow "play-on" if a ball is kicked backwards and instruct the umpires to throw the ball up quickly at the first sign of a pack forming.

I'd also enforce a rule where as all the forwards and backmen are inside their 50 metre arc after each goal is scored. We do all that and it would have to have an effect on congestion (at least in part)

A next step might be to reduce the amount of players on the ground but we may not need to take that measure if the above changes worked.

What we need are some visionaries and creative minds at league headquarters but I won't be holding my breath for that to happen Gonzo.

[daisycutter 29,600]

As a first step I'd cut things back with zero rotations, lengthen the kick for a legal mark by 5 metres, blow "play-on" if a ball is kicked backwards and instruct the umpires to throw the ball up quickly at the first sign of a pack forming.

I'd also enforce a rule where as all the forwards and backmen are inside their 50 metre arc after each goal is scored. We do all that and it would have to have an effect on congestion (at least in part)

A next step might be to reduce the amount of players on the ground but we may not need to take that measure if the above changes worked.

What we need are some visionaries and creative minds at league headquarters but I won't be holding my breath for that to happen Gonzo.

i'd only make it play on for a backwards kick/mark if on the backline, certainly never in the fwd 50 at least

and i agree on an extra 5 metres distance for a mark, not that i'd trust the umpires to judge it correctly but no worse than now

Edited July 25, 2015 by daisycutter