Women told to score more

[Little Goffy 14,583]

2 hours ago, picket fence said:

Yeah shorten the field size? Just like the good old days of backyard footy with my mates playing 5 a side.

Lets face it 

1 Women's footy is a novelty where skill level apart from a very few exceptions is poor.

2 Any Average grade men's suburban side would beat any AFLX women's team Easily IMO

Sigh.

Any average grade men's suburban side is full of players who, cpmared to women footballers, had an extra decade of access to coaching, training and playing opportunities by the time they were 20. Even for code-hoppers the available development resources in their previous sport is radically different in almost all cases.

You're comparing people who have had a lifetime of enocuragement, coaching, support and often pay, to people who have persevered despite being laughed at for even showing an interest, or at best cut off from access to development programs by the time they reach puberty.

It's just a tedious false comparison, and I'm sure you already know about these differences, you're not generally an idiot, even if you're a bit wild with the punctation sometimes.  So, when you ignore obvious facts in order to mock people because of their sex... well, look yourself in the mirror and at least promosie you won't ever complain about people being annoyed that you're sexist, ok?

[dworship 3,342]

4 hours ago, dino rover said:

And its not sexist to observe different standards of skill between mens and womens footy

No censorship of truth please

No, but it is to belittle one by constant reference to the other.

[dworship 3,342]

2 hours ago, Little Goffy said:

Sigh.

Any average grade men's suburban side is full of players who, cpmared to women footballers, had an extra decade of access to coaching, training and playing opportunities by the time they were 20. Even for code-hoppers the available development resources in their previous sport is radically different in almost all cases.

You're comparing people who have had a lifetime of enocuragement, coaching, support and often pay, to people who have persevered despite being laughed at for even showing an interest, or at best cut off from access to development programs by the time they reach puberty.

It's just a tedious false comparison, and I'm sure you already know about these differences, you're not generally an idiot, even if you're a bit wild with the punctation sometimes.  So, when you ignore obvious facts in order to mock people because of their sex... well, look yourself in the mirror and at least promosie you won't ever complain about people being annoyed that you're sexist, ok?

Completely disagree.............. you figure out the bit I mean

[rjay 24,999]

5 hours ago, hemingway said:

Most of us were blown away by the competition last season and the skills displayed by the women.

I don't think so 'hemingway'...

A lot were blown away by  Melbourne v Dogs "exhibition" games but by spreading the talent over 8 teams the standard has dropped off dramatically and not just this season, last as well.

It's going to get worse before it gets better.

[Ethan Tremblay 30,898]

The only thing that I can think of that will increase scoring is to introduce zones. Scoring would of course increase given time however if the AFL want scoring to increase next week, then zones is the answer. 

Edited February 8, 2018 by Ethan Tremblay

[hemingway 7,630]

36 minutes ago, rjay said:

I don't think so 'hemingway'...

A lot were blown away by  Melbourne v Dogs "exhibition" games but by spreading the talent over 8 teams the standard has dropped off dramatically and not just this season, last as well.

It's going to get worse before it gets better.

A matter of opinion RJ. 

Appreciate the differences and just enjoy it for what it represents and the unbridled enthusiasm and joy of the players.

Applaud the players and the game, don't stand on the sidelines and criticize the skill differences. Of course there are differences, but that is to be expected and understood. 

The game is in its infancy.  

What did you realistically expect?

 

[rjay 24,999]

7 hours ago, hemingway said:

Criticism of the women's game is a bit rich.

Most of us were blown away by the competition last season and the skills displayed by the women.

 

 

1 hour ago, rjay said:

I don't think so 'hemingway'...

A lot were blown away by  Melbourne v Dogs "exhibition" games but by spreading the talent over 8 teams the standard has dropped off dramatically and not just this season, last as well.

It's going to get worse before it gets better.

 

1 hour ago, hemingway said:

A matter of opinion RJ. 

Appreciate the differences and just enjoy it for what it represents and the unbridled enthusiasm and joy of the players.

Applaud the players and the game, don't stand on the sidelines and criticize the skill differences. Of course there are differences, but that is to be expected and understood. 

The game is in its infancy.  

What did you realistically expect?

 

Only commenting on your statement that most were blown away by the skills displayed 'hemingway'...unfortunately there are not enough skilled players at the moment. Surely only blind Freddy would be blown away by the skills. Can't knock the endeavour and enthusiasm though.

I got what I realistically expected when the AFL decided on an 8 team competition.

They're between a rock and a hard place...the competition has really encouraged the growth of female footy at grass roots which is great but in pushing it so hard so early they're also in danger of damaging the brand before the standard picks up. The product is not good enough.

It's going to be really interesting to watch how this pans out over the next few years...I just can't see an 18 team womens competition working and there are some astute football people sitting back and observing. I haven't noticed Hawthorn rushing in to get a womens team for example.

 

 

 

[deelete my account 1,194]

I concur with the field adjustment size. But as it's not feasible, perhaps they need an extra 2 on the field.

Edited February 8, 2018 by Doodle Dee

[Ethan Tremblay 30,898]

I don’t see the field size as being an issue. The game is currently being played similar to a schoolyard or Auskick game where every player chases the ball. Decrease the field size and you’ll just have even more players going for and surrounding the ball. 

Edited February 8, 2018 by Ethan Tremblay

[Rodney (Balls) Grinter 10,842]

A few observations I made from the MFC Vs GWS game:

1. Some patches of good ball movement and good ball control/skills;

2. Both teams actually had the ability to move the ball the length of the feild and score quite quickly at times, to the point that, with only two minutes still remaining,  I was concerned that GWS were still in striking distance of scoring a match equalizing goal.  It also needs to be remembered that the women also play shorter game time, so that will inherently reduce scoring;

3. As much as I thought I would hate the  so called 'last touch out of bounds' rule,  I was pleasantly surprised that the actual rule seemed quite ok.  It's not really last touch rule at all, but more of a last controled possession, which I see really working as a more objective form of the deliberate out of bounds rule;

4.  The main problem I saw with conjestion was the umpires unwillingness to pay holding the ball for player diving on and sitting on top of the ball.  They seemed to alow far more tolerance of that than in the men's  game. That's not so much a player skill thing as an umpiring one.  If the umpires pay the free kick more quickly, the players will soon learn, adjust, get the ball out, stop diving on it or be moving it freely via the free kick.

 

I can't comment much on the other AFLW games, though I have seen the odd good highlight.  The unattractive moving maul in modern footy is as much a problem in the men's game and I'd rather the AFL take step like serverly cut back interchange or introduce zoning in a more normal preseason game than play this AFLX thing or mess excessively and intrusivly as they seem to have with the AFLW in this instance.

Edited February 8, 2018 by Rodney (Balls) Grinter

[praha 11,240]

9 hours ago, Win4theAges said:

Why do you think Gill and the AFL are pushing this so hard? $$$$ No goals scored = less ad breaks the sponsors of these companies would have been livid with the output from the 1st round bar melb v gws.

There is alot riding on theses games /competition plus the AFLX because the AFL are in such a hurry to package this all up with the AFL proper for the TV rights renewal at the end if this year. 

Thats why Gill has given them a wack the greedy bastard. 

It will take 10 years for AFLW to be any good the young girls need to come through the correct training systems and fitness.

It might, MIGHT have to do with the fact that no scoring is just boring to watch and is bad for the brand of football itself. "Low" scoring in the AFL is considered 15 goals between two teams. When both can barely make it to 5, there's an issue.

[praha 11,240]

2 hours ago, Doodle Dee said:

I concur with the field adjustment size. But as it's not feasible, perhaps they need an extra 2 on the field.

Yes it is. You just bring the boundary line in.

[rjay 24,999]

52 minutes ago, praha said:

Yes it is. You just bring the boundary line in.

It's not easy to relocate the goals though.

If it's an AFL ground or training ground you wouldn't want holes dug in the surface.

[Dees_In_October 3,391]

Our Daisy makes some good points and offers a wider perspective to those hung up on high scoring as the benchmark of a game worth watching:

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/womens-afl/daisy-pearce-dont-wallow-in-aflw-negativity-20180208-h0vskb.html

[hemingway 7,630]

12 hours ago, rjay said:

 

 

Only commenting on your statement that most were blown away by the skills displayed 'hemingway'...unfortunately there are not enough skilled players at the moment. Surely only blind Freddy would be blown away by the skills. Can't knock the endeavour and enthusiasm though.

I got what I realistically expected when the AFL decided on an 8 team competition.

They're between a rock and a hard place...the competition has really encouraged the growth of female footy at grass roots which is great but in pushing it so hard so early they're also in danger of damaging the brand before the standard picks up. The product is not good enough.

It's going to be really interesting to watch how this pans out over the next few years...I just can't see an 18 team womens competition working and there are some astute football people sitting back and observing. I haven't noticed Hawthorn rushing in to get a womens team for example.

 

 

 

Agree "blown away" was over stating it. Perhaps a better word would have been "impressed." 

Your opinions are well articulated. 

My main concern has been the overreaction from the AFL to the Collingwood / Carlton game.  Perhaps more importantly, the women's game should be appreciated for what it is and should not be measured or compared to the men.  For too long, men have put down women's sport as being second rate and not to be taken seriously. At the same time in many international sports people don't make the comparison. We don't compare a female 100m sprinter's time against that of Usain Bolt. Swimming, hockey, soccer similarly.   

I thought Daisy Pearce nailed it perfectly in her recent article in The Age.  

 

[old dee 23,801]

4 minutes ago, hemingway said:

Agree "blown away" was over stating it. Perhaps a better word would have been "impressed." 

Your opinions are well articulated. 

My main concern has been the overreaction from the AFL to the Collingwood / Carlton game.  Perhaps more importantly, the women's game should be appreciated for what it is and should not be measured or compared to the men.  For too long, men have put down women's sport as being second rate and not to be taken seriously. At the same time in many international sports people don't make the comparison. We don't compare a female 100m sprinter's time against that of Usain Bolt. Swimming, hockey, soccer similarly.   

I thought Daisy Pearce nailed it perfectly in her recent article in The Age.  

 

All that is accurate Ernest however I don't find it enjoyable to watch. It might be in five years time but right now it is a low scoring scramble. 

[Little Goffy 14,583]

On the congestion issue, I would guess that you could almost build an imaginary equation to explain it. Obviously in any game of footy congestion happens whenever the ball gets stuck in one space long enough for extra players (the peloton?) to arrive.

So, the 'trouble' is that in the women's game the player's willingnes to work hard to get to contests has reached a standard above a balance with player's ability to quickly grab and dispose of the ball.

The two main skill deficiencies in the women's game seem to be

a) collecting a loose ball from the ground

b) quick, effective handballs to a teammate to open up into space.

Both are skills that take a lot of practice. And then some more practice. And some more practice after that. They are also skills that basically don't turn up in any other sport that players might be switching across from. Not in netball, soccer, basketball, long distance running, or even ultimate frisbee.

So it makes sense that they are the skills coming through most slowly for new players. And unfortunately I expect it will continue to be a slow process improving those particular skills.

On the one hand, it'll take years to really pick up, while we wait for all those Auskick girls to have spent ten years with a Sherrin in their hands all day.

On the other hand, there's definitely no biological reason limiting women's ability to collect a loose ground ball or to execute an effective handball. So, for the fans, when you see that error, at least you'll know that it will eventually clear up.

And if you happen to know any fit young women or girls (it'd be granddaughters for most on this sight, yes? ) make sure you do chaotic handball drills with them every time you see them.

 

 

[machine11 142]

Dunno scores have been decreasing in mens ALF. Why the game has become boring for the general spectator.

[Biffen 12,944]

I think they should just play loose, regardless of the size of the field that presents itself.

Big scores are always on offer if you play it that way.

 

[John Crow Batty 8,871]

I d rather see a a hard fought game with fewer goals than a softcoque scoring spree. High scoring games with cheap goals and no pressure is like pre digested junk food. If ones wants plenty of goals better to watch manby pamby basketball. I like the contests the women put up. Skills aren’t fully there yet but the game will keep on developing as will scoring efficiency. Hate to see their game dumbed down.

Edited February 9, 2018 by america de cali

[old dee 23,801]

Well that worked well 3 goals vs 1 goal oh forgot Blues kicked 12 points as well.

GWS had four scoring shots for the game 

[Caligula's Cohort! 105]

I'm all for AFLW league, but if you want to be professional, then you need to look professional. Daisy Pearce and Mel Hickey are obviously the role models for the game. But when I see players like Cranston who to me looks 15kgs overweight, it just doesn't look good for the game. I saw several large women running around across the games on the weekend and I honestly couldn't take it seriously. Schoolboys could run all over them. I haven't even mentioned skills yet, but gosh they were atrocious and on par with a under 16's schoolboy games just from watching the first half of the Melb vs GWS game.

In short, work on your bloody fitness so you can at least resemble an athlete and learn how to kick properly and you'll make the game more bearable to watch. 

 

[Lucifers Hero 40,004]

On 2/9/2018 at 3:16 AM, praha said:

It might, MIGHT have to do with the fact that no scoring is just boring to watch and is bad for the brand of football itself. "Low" scoring in the AFL is considered 15 goals between two teams. When both can barely make it to 5, there's an issue.

The game of Soccer says hello...  Supporters love watching the tactics and the contest and go ballistic when there is a goal.  One could say that a low score enhances excitement for the crowd. 

The AFL is not giving supporters enough credit, to think they only want to see goals.  People go and watch for lots of reasons: to share with their kids and their friends; to see their favourite players.  I watch because I love the red and blue.

The AFL is sabotaging their own product (in just its second fledgling season) by their knee jerk reaction to last week's Blues/Pies game.  They further added to the sabotage by launching AFLX this week and next week will play AFLX and AFLW games head-to-head.

I'm not sure where the 15 goals comes from?  An AFL game is 120 minutes but an AFLW game is a little over half that at 68 minutes (with 16 relatively inexperienced players).  If last week's scores are adjusted for time played they would be much more like an AFL game. 

I was rapt to see a few AFL greats like Roos, Matthews, Hodge come out and tell the AFL to 'pull its head in' and let the game evolve. 

[Salems Lot 2,535]

A walk down memory lane to the first mens VFL grand final back in 1898.  Get a load of those massive scores! Woo Hoo those men really knew how to pile on the goals even back then.

Our friend Wikipedia:
The first such final was contested in 1898 between the Essendon Football Club and Fitzroy Football Club at the St Kilda Cricket Ground, which Fitzroy won scoring 5.8 (38) to Essendon's 3.5 (23)

[rjay 24,999]

2 hours ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

The game of Soccer says hello...  Supporters love watching the tactics and the contest and go ballistic when there is a goal.  One could say that a low score enhances excitement for the crowd. 

Sorry 'Lucifer', you can't compare the 2 games. It's the nature of soccer is it's a low scoring game and that you are on the edge of your seat for the whole game because at any moment the score could come.

The skills are sublime.

You can't relate that to womens football. The nature of Australian football is it's a free flowing and scoring game but despite all their best efforts in the AWFL the scores are low because the skills at this stage are poor.