16 a side.... is it the future

[John Crow Batty 8,252]

57 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

What would Robert "Tulip" Flower think of this...

No wings on The MCG????

 

reduce the interchange further. That is where the problem lies

Agree. Phase out interchange. Have a few reserves. If a player has an injury that needs attending he may be replaced temporarily but has to stay off the park for 20 min minimum. 

[3Dee 1,153]

After watching the free flowing Saturday night womens game I'm completely sold on trialling 16 with an extended bench (6+).

Imagining something akin to ice-hockey with line changes.

Edited September 7, 2016 by 3Dee

[iv'a worn smith 1,979]

Please, can we just leave the game alone for a while.

[Binmans PA 25,992]

1 hour ago, Sir Why You Little said:

What would Robert "Tulip" Flower think of this...

No wings on The MCG????

 

reduce the interchange further. That is where the problem lies

He'd play off the half back flank.

[Diamond_Jim 11,738]

4 minutes ago, A F said:

He'd play off the half back flank.

Funny you say that.... back in the 70's the half back flank was the traditional spot for your debutant and/or your ageing player.

Now it demands one of your quickest and smartest players so Robbie would fit in very well.

Edited September 7, 2016 by Diamond_Jim

[Bluey's Dad 3,419]

1 hour ago, Diamond_Jim said:

And now it is revealed that they have been "secretly" trialling  "7 a side" football at VFL level.

The idea is for it to be a summer game apparently

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/afl-secretly-trials-new-version-of-football-20160907-gral7s.html

'AFL X'.

As stupid as the name is, it might not be a bad idea to have a form of the game that can be played internationally on soccer pitches, that would require little changes of a player to migrate to full AFL.

Retired players, big bash style, why the hell not.

What would be really cool is if they allowed men and women to play together. Massive drawcard IMO.

[mikeydemon 126]

I'm for leaving the game alone for a while.

However if 16 aside did happen, surely it would work best with each team getting rid of a forward pocket and a back pocket?

No wings would just leave a giant space on grounds like the MCG.

Less people in the forward 50 should mean better delivery inside with still the same amount of midfielders to deliver the ball.

[Lucifers Hero 36,991]

1 hour ago, Diamond_Jim said:

And now it is revealed that they have been "secretly" trialling  "7 a side" football at VFL level.

The idea is for it to be a summer game apparently

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/afl-secretly-trials-new-version-of-football-20160907-gral7s.html

'7 a side' played on a small rectangular field - the Aussie Rules equivalent of 20/20 cricket.  I take that back - it would no longer be Aussie Rules - it would be a hybrid of something (s), no idea what. 

AFL stop wasting money on 'new developments'!!!  Gil, yes you want to be a hero and go down as the most innovative CEO who changed the face of the game.  Well stop! 

First, just get the 18 clubs on a strong commercial footing with all clubs in a position to make Grand Finals regularly.  Everything else is a distraction from the main game. 

Edited September 7, 2016 by Lucifer's Hero

[daisycutter 28,485]

it would definitely reduce congestion (which i hate), but i'd like them to keep reducing the interchange first to see if that works (and stop playing around with all these contentious contrivances like deliberate oob's)

[Diamond_Jim 11,738]

I would be interested to see how 7 a side works out.

One of the problems with AFL when compared to soccer is the numbers required to make the game work and the size of the ground.

At it's simplest soccer can be a game in the park played by around 8 people in total with a few backpacks marking the goals. In comparison AFL with that number is just kick to kick

Edited September 7, 2016 by Diamond_Jim

[McQueen 17,862]

I've always enjoyed playing in games where the numbers are a bit short and both teams agree on 16 a side.

Probably only because I found a lot more of the footy.

I'd be open to it at AFL level.

[DemonWA 3,432]

I'd prefer if the AFL didn't tinker with the rules for 10 years.

The game is not perfect, but no game is. Leave it alone!

[Macca 16,173]

2 hours ago, Sir Why You Little said:

What would Robert "Tulip" Flower think of this...

No wings on The MCG????

 

reduce the interchange further. That is where the problem lies

Agree on the rotations but the players are so fit that we're still going to get congestion (or less open play)

In soccer there are various coaches (notably Zidane) who want to bring that sport down from 11 a side to 10 a side for similar reasons. 

16 a side in footy would bring back wing play if it was instigated ... it's not like the space would be left vacant just because the number of players was reduced.  Coaches are constantly attempting to close down space.

Teams written out on paper with all the positions in place has been a thing of the past for years anyway.  There's any number of midfielders these days.  Could anyone name a dozen top wingmen these days like we used to be able to do in the past? Soccer doesn't have it's wingmen like it used to as well.

The rules in place for yesterday's footy are often outdated by today's standards.  The game has moved on in leaps and bounds but the people who oversee the sport often haven't.  

 

[Vagg 2,422]

Back in the day, the VFA seemed to be the poor cousin of the VFL, hanging around on the fringes, and just a bit different, and one of its peculiarities was the 16 a side thingy.  Don't think I'd be too thrilled at this VFA throw-back being reincarnated in the AFL...!  (But, I'm just an old fart, so what would I know...??)

[DeeSpencer 23,109]

3 hours ago, A F said:

I wonder what our FD department think about this possible rule change (specifically Goodwin). I'm selfish when it comes to football. Does this rule change inpact on our game style in a positive or negative way? If it's the latter, then I'm against it.

We are building a contested ball side without massive endurance at this stage so I'd say it probably doesn't help. We want numbers and contested footy.

On the other hand:
1. We are also building a strong midfield, getting more options across half back who can run and play in space as well as the prospect of Hogan, Weideman, Watts, Petracca forward. If we can defend one on one better and move the ball to dangerous forwards then the less players on the ground the better.
2. If we get the development right of our kids, particularly the bunch drafted over the last few years then the less players on the field at the same time the better. Gawn, Hogan, Petracca, Oliver, Viney, Tyson, Stretch, Watts, Weideman, McDonald, Hunt, Brayshaw, Salem. That's 13 guys. Get them all to their potential in 3 years and that's most of a side. The Saints in 09-10 would've won both grand finals without 2 spuds on the field.

[Maldonboy38 5,846]

29 minutes ago, Vagg said:

Back in the day, the VFA seemed to be the poor cousin of the VFL, hanging around on the fringes, and just a bit different, and one of its peculiarities was the 16 a side thingy.  Don't think I'd be too thrilled at this VFA throw-back being reincarnated in the AFL...!  (But, I'm just an old fart, so what would I know...??)

I was thinking about the old VFA too. 16 per team worked perfectly on those tiny inner suburban grounds, making the game open. The idea has merit except for one thing. We need to leave the game alone for awhile.

The modern stoppage-centred game has been in place since about 2005, and it started in 2000 when Footscray flooded to beat Essendon. This year, we began to see it declining as coaches found ways to take risks through the middle of the ground with pace. For the most part, if we leave the game alone, it will evolve and fix itself. 

Edited September 7, 2016 by Maldonboy38

[junk 342]

I ran 6 a side junior soccer match at Nunawading ten years ago on a full pitch. One interchange per qtr,10 minute qtrs, Keeper could be subbed by any player per qtr. The results were 15-9 for the two teams. The kids playing became fitter,goals galore exited the crowd of 20 and the kids enjoyed it. A 7 a side summer comp might be entertaining

There are becoming more and more skilled footy players available each year so a 16 team comp would be cheaper for clubs to run and hence the current comp can afford to expand. Next team zones could occur.  The AFL should look at standardising ground sizes. MCG members will be up in arms. Standardising grounds and playing 16 man a sides could enhance the prospect of ozzie rules to become an international competition. 

[Moonshadow 16,161]

Bring beck the old lightening premiership! 

[Crystal Dees 372]

It's a big yes from me. Most of the changes brought in over the past decade or so have been to reduce the ugly side of our game. The rolling packs, the congestion, the endless stoppages that stifle the beauty of our game that at times looks like a game of group Twister! The real answer has always been this. I always preferred the VFA game over VFL when it was 16 a side, wishing I could witness the best play it. The cream will rise even higher as they will be harder to curtail through dubious tactics. There will still be 32 athletes on the park at any one time - more than other other game - so the physicality will remain as it did in the old VFA. The prospects of a lifelong desire excites me no end and I believe it gives AFL a chance to become more popular in the rugby states and overseas. I would do it now, but appreciate the need to trial. If/when it does, most current fans will be blown away and new fans will arise. Bring it on!

[Rodney (Balls) Grinter 10,578]

6 hours ago, Sir Why You Little said:

What would Robert "Tulip" Flower think of this...

No wings on The MCG????

 

reduce the interchange further. That is where the problem lies

Agree.

Perhaps it's just nostalgia, but for my mind, the best modern footy was played in that 80s/90s era, with two or three on the bench and limited (but not subitutinal type) interchange.  Current coaches complain that it would "slow the game down" and that players would "burn out in the fourth quarter" - my personal opinion is that's crap:

1.  Players and teams would need to relearn how to 'pace' them selves so as to leave them selves more in the tank at the end of the game.  1500m runners don't go out at 400m pace for the first lap.

2.  Would result in more true one on one (not 5 on 5) contests to move the ball down the ground;

3.  More true lead up and one on one power forward/key back type contests at either end of the ground.

4.  Still plenty of scope for different sized, skilled and athleticly talented players to play different roles and parts of the ground.

This is the way Aussie Rules was meant to be played.  If limited rotations failed to bring the desired result, I'd also actually be in favor of introducing further zone rules in general play, beyond the current centre square one we have now.

[Undeeterred 2,839]

I think if this were brought in, we'd see even more of a change towards athletes rather than footballers. The way the game has changed since the 1980s and 1990s makes comparisons with those eras a bit redundant in my view.

[John Demonic 4,794]

16 a side on the MCG is ridiculous. It would look messy and become unskillful as players became tired. The motto would be just to move the ball along at any cost. Messy like the womens game last weekend. The ground looked too big for them. I'm all for trialling it in pre-season though. trial anything and everything there. 

7 a side on a soccer pitch is also too little a number. Maybe 10 would be better unless you had a big bench. 

Edited September 7, 2016 by johndemonic

[Pates 9,536]

Feels better than the idea of "last touch" for the boundary line. Hate the idea of that rule.

Wouldn't be against trialling 16 a side for NAB Challenge.

[daisycutter 28,485]

1 minute ago, Pates said:

Feels better than the idea of "last touch" for the boundary line. Hate the idea of that rule.

Wouldn't be against trialling 16 a side for NAB Challenge.

unfortunately the problem with that, pates, is that the nab challenge is there to prepare the clubs for the start of the season. having a 16 a side would require a different game plan to the season proper, so we would see a schemozzle of under-prepared teams come round 1

[Moonshadow 16,161]

I highly doubt this new AFL X will not be heavily backed by TAB, Crown Casino or similar betting agency. Will not be approved or succeed without it. 

You can bet your house on that...

Edited September 7, 2016 by Moonshadow