The Game, the Press and the future

[binman 43,830]

2 hours ago, Diamond_Jim said:

interesting line run by Buckley and the other coaches that we need the rotations to protect the players.

That's the very point.. reduce the rotations and the coaches would be forced to come up with a game plan that allows players to rest on the ground.

Resting ruck and resting rover were once genuine positions.

Funny you should say that. I heard a fella on SEN radio yesterday arvo (a professor of biomechanics or some such) that has been advising the AFL for years on issues related to interchange numbers and a fatigue. Really interesting.

He made the point that with all the congestion and the ball being trapped in forward lines players are in fact resting on the ground more now than when the interchange cap first came in. He also mad the point that the fitness of the players has out paced the impact of reduced interchanges. He said he would go to 40 but cautioned that the impact of going to 40 in terms of players fatigue would be short lived. 

I actually don't mind the congestion and intensity. 

[DV8 2,271]

6 hours ago, Diamond_Jim said:

agree that is definitely the first step and is relatively easy ... would you also drop to 21 players.... say 3 on the bench.

Out of curiosity do you have any ideas roughly on how many interchanges you would allow and would you make the limit per quarter or per game?

IF, we kept the rotation numbers as they are now and reduced the interchange bench back to where we were going just a few years back, before we were rudely interrupted by the coaches,,, (and remember Malthouse wanted 6 on the interchange bench).

Cut the Bench back to 3 players;,,, with 2 emergencies (unavailable to the team unless a team listed player is seriously injured and sent to hospital: to be Validated by the AFL doctor in the house).

 

Same rotations, and see how that goes with this Press.

If we need to further reduce rotations after that, then do it !

[deanox 9,992]

4 hours ago, hemingway said:

...

however, in the good old days, we did watch positional footy with great contests between players across the ground, whether it be up forward or defence. There were great contests in the centre and on the wing. Flower and Greig come to mind. 

These contests are missing from today's game and that's a great pity. 

I have always thought that playing a specified number of players in the forward half and defensive half would be worth trying, however, this would fundamentally change the way the game is played.

...

I think more than arguing about a press, or any other tactics/strategies being employed, what most people are saying fundamentally is this. That we have less one on one contests these days.

I agree that's a pity, but we will never fix that. It is simple math: an attacker will win more than 50% of one on ones against a defender of similar skill, purely because a) the attacker will tend to have the ball delivered to their advantage, and b) the defender is trying to inhibit, which means they will give away more free kicks. So all coaches, from now until forever will try to avoid one on ones in defnece, and create them in attack. Which means even if we set minimum players in positions, the coaches will manufacture a reason to have spare defenders. 

Do we really think that if coaches can't set up a half ground zone in their defencive half that they will abandon all hopes of stopping goals and go into shoot out mode? Of course not. I think if we were required to leave 4 players forward of the half way line (for example) then most coaches would a) set up a permanent 8 man zone in the D50 and b) leave at a minimum a 5th or 6th defender spare behind half way when attacking. And we'd see a really shitty rebound ping-pong between the 4 v 6 at the half way line, and the D50 zone with the remaining 14 players. The only way to beat it would be kicking goals from 60 m, before it reset. This wouldn't give us new one on one contests.

 

 

18 minutes ago, AmDamDemon said:

Couple of thoughts, some with a tin-foil hat on:

The agenda for the AFL is expansion and growth. AFLX is the display of where the league wants the game to be aesthetically.

Could it be that the AFL is pushing a narrative in the media, so as to prepare the public for a bunch of rule changes to push the game in the AFLX direction at year's end? 

 

I'm not sure the AFL thinks AFLX will take the place of AFL. I think they want it to take the place of soccer and rugby at a social level. A low impact/contact version of the game, great for kids and social, played on rugby/soccer fields, with only a handful of players so everyone can play. 

Soccer is the long term threat to AFL, and they have grass roots level, but not elite support. From a business strategy perspective, the AFL need to reclaim as many grounds in suburbia as possible. If they can get groups of friends playing AFLX the same way people play mixed netball or social soccer, they win the strategic battle.

[DV8 2,271]

29 minutes ago, AmDamDemon said:

Couple of thoughts, some with a tin-foil hat on:

The agenda for the AFL is expansion and growth. AFLX is the display of where the league wants the game to be aesthetically.

Could it be that the AFL is pushing a narrative in the media, so as to prepare the public for a bunch of rule changes to push the game in the AFLX direction at year's end? 

Tin-foil hat off:

We (as a broad footballing community) are in a transition phase. The defensive era that kicked off in mid 2000s (Sydney/WCE) has been met by the competition with enhanced athleticism, pressure and speed of game, leading defensive movement to dominate. The skill-level drop off will correct itself, perhaps in a Darwinian sense, as kids will come to the fore who have the athleticism AND the skills. Hopefully this, combined with tactical innovation, will herald in an era with a bit more offensive (attacking, not rude) movement.

 

Is it possible the AFL is trying to make the game more familiar to basketball enthusiasts and soccer enthusiasts the world over for more International attention and expansion.

 

Hence the allowing this press to grow these past number of years?  Like Arnott's biscuits bought and owned by Americans so they make the biscuits less crunchy, more soggy, and less desirable to Aussies.

 

Mutli-nationals know how to destroy things at will.    Biscuits. Local Car manufacture, Tax revenues. etc.....

[DV8 2,271]

1 hour ago, Macca said:

Obviously. 

I was only referencing soccer not League or Union with regards to increased congestion.   And because we don't have an offside rule it's all the more reason to not have interchange. 

But soccer would have a congestion issue within the midfield if teams were allowed 90 rotations each.  That stands to reason. 

I don't understand why people defend rotations ... the original reason for having the interchange was so that players who had to briefly leave the field were then able to come back on.  Not to be exploited in the way that it has (by the coaches)

My call is an ambit claim - I know the rotations are never going to be brought down to zero but it would be my starting point.

And if people enjoy watching the new version of footy,  so be it.  I can't say I care for it in its present form. 

 

Coaches just know-how to,,,  bend tha Rules.  Just ask famous soccer coach,  Ben Zneise.

[DV8 2,271]

1 hour ago, Diamond_Jim said:

This is where we need sports scientists.

Just reducing the rotations without reducing the player numbers means you have longer rests. Is this sufficient to introduce the fatigue affect which people are relying upon.

Or is it people are assuming that the people rested will be limited to the "midfield" thus requiring the defence and offence to cover less ground if they are to avoid extreme fatigue.

The more I think about it you need to both reduce the rotations and the bench size to achieve the desired impact.

PS... one other thing... by reducing the rotations are you reducing the ability to bring the stars on and off... spreadsheet necessary !!

What about making it 4 rotations Per Individual Player, per game maximum, come off after that and stay off.

[deanox 9,992]

Most of the changes I'd like to see aren't about tactics, but are about consistency in interpretations and are about reverting to better umpiring rather than introducing new rules. Interestingly, I think many of these would solve a bunch of the problems we currently have:

• Only blow the whistle when the play should stop (just call advantage out loud). This will allow "lots" more free kicks to be paid without impacting the game, and will also allow it to flow better without stop starting (which allows teams to "get back" and zone).
• Faster ball ups. If it is congested, blow whistle, run in and throw up. Do it as quick as possible before teams can "set up". This will create an incentive to stay man on man so you aren't caught out of position transitioning between structures.
• Penalise the third man in who "supports" a team mate who is tackled. i.e. if I tackle you, and your teammate comes and wraps us both up, then pay holding the man against your team mete. a) I didn't have the ball, so he had no right to touch me. b) this third man in action is purely designed to "tie up" the ball and force a ball up, which slows the game down. Also, if the third and forth man are penalised, there will be less incentive to have so many packs around the ball, with those players instead maintaining a bit of space to receive the ball.
• Pay holding the ball faster and more often. Too many players get too long to hold onto it. Too many players just drop it or throw it or drag it in. This largely happens in congestion, in mauls and packs. Paying holding the ball quickly (combined with the third man in rule above) will encourage teams to move the ball out quickly, discourage as many numbers around the ball, as they'll need players "outside" to receive hurried ball. Paying it quickly, instead of saving it up and doing the dancing horse theatrical [censored], will enable the players to move the ball on quicker. Pay 10 of these per game instead of 2 and the players will learn to move it onwards.

The above are all actually part of the rules already. Nothing new, nothing controversial.

I'm unsure on these following changes. They are potentially controversial rules that don't fundamentally change the game too much:

• Any 50 m penalty awarded in the D half of the ground will bring the mark to ~75 m out from goal. 50 m penalties in the D50 are borderline useless as the opposition just gets free time to set up a zone. Unsure if this will work, but worth considering.
• If we must zone, then do it on defensive kick outs only. Minimum 4 players from each side behind the half way mark until the kick is taken. It's similar to the centre square arrangement in that it is onlt at those specific set plays, and will help break down defensive zone set ups before they start. The only problem is the "quick kick out" rule which may make this hard to enforce.

[binman 43,830]

32 minutes ago, deanox said:

I think more than arguing about a press, or any other tactics/strategies being employed, what most people are saying fundamentally is this. That we have less one on one contests these days.

I agree that's a pity, but we will never fix that. It is simple math: an attacker will win more than 50% of one on ones against a defender of similar skill, purely because a) the attacker will tend to have the ball delivered to their advantage, and b) the defender is trying to inhibit, which means they will give away more free kicks. So all coaches, from now until forever will try to avoid one on ones in defnece, and create them in attack. Which means even if we set minimum players in positions, the coaches will manufacture a reason to have spare defenders. 

Do we really think that if coaches can't set up a half ground zone in their defencive half that they will abandon all hopes of stopping goals and go into shoot out mode? Of course not. I think if we were required to leave 4 players forward of the half way line (for example) then most coaches would a) set up a permanent 8 man zone in the D50 and b) leave at a minimum a 5th or 6th defender spare behind half way when attacking. And we'd see a really shitty rebound ping-pong between the 4 v 6 at the half way line, and the D50 zone with the remaining 14 players. The only way to beat it would be kicking goals from 60 m, before it reset. This wouldn't give us new one on one contests.

 

 

I'm not sure the AFL thinks AFLX will take the place of AFL. I think they want it to take the place of soccer and rugby at a social level. A low impact/contact version of the game, great for kids and social, played on rugby/soccer fields, with only a handful of players so everyone can play. 

Soccer is the long term threat to AFL, and they have grass roots level, but not elite support. From a business strategy perspective, the AFL need to reclaim as many grounds in suburbia as possible. If they can get groups of friends playing AFLX the same way people play mixed netball or social soccer, they win the strategic battle.

Good post, with some excellent points, one being that it will be nigh on impossible to engineer one on one battles, particularly of the marking variety. 

Edited May 2, 2018 by binman

[Chook 15,022]

53 minutes ago, deanox said:

Most of the changes I'd like to see aren't about tactics, but are about consistency in interpretations and are about reverting to better umpiring rather than introducing new rules. Interestingly, I think many of these would solve a bunch of the problems we currently have:

...

Penalise the third man in who "supports" a team mate who is tackled. i.e. if I tackle you, and your teammate comes and wraps us both up, then pay holding the man against your team mete. a) I didn't have the ball, so he had no right to touch me. b) this third man in action is purely designed to "tie up" the ball and force a ball up, which slows the game down. Also, if the third and forth man are penalised, there will be less incentive to have so many packs around the ball, with those players instead maintaining a bit of space to receive the ball.
...

 

This is one that I've been on and on about for years. It just makes no sense that a bloke can come in and wrap me up as I've tackled his teammate. Pay a free to me for being held without it.

[deanox 9,992]

27 minutes ago, Chook said:

This is one that I've been on and on about for years. It just makes no sense that a bloke can come in and wrap me up as I've tackled his teammate. Pay a free to me for being held without it.

It is probably the thing that slows the game the most by generating congestion and deliberately manufacturing stoppages. It's so obvious and easy to fix too.

[binman 43,830]

8 minutes ago, deanox said:

It is probably the thing that slows the game the most by generating congestion and deliberately manufacturing stoppages. It's so obvious and easy to fix too.

Agree. The third man in rule is a no brainer.

Most, but not all of the time, it is clear who the third player in is.

If there are only two players scrapping for the ball it is really clear who is actually holding it in (so you might even get a free paid against the second player in, who so often is the one trapping the ball in). 

The ball would usually come free, so less stoppages.

And crucially it isnt really a major change to how footy is played.

[Wadda We Sing 10,685]

On 4/30/2018 at 11:17 AM, buck_nekkid said:

Professional umpires would be a welcome addition to the game.

Nah, wouldn't work. No money changing hands after the game, would likely impact too many umpires and their families.

[Mazer Rackham 14,971]

37 minutes ago, Wadda We Sing said:

Nah, wouldn't work. No money changing hands after the game, would likely impact too many umpires and their families.

The umps could walk around the boundary line after the game with a blanket and the grateful supporters could chuck coins in. Like in olden times.

(I believe the fans would be fair and reasonable and not hurl miniature metal missile full pelt at their scones.)

Edited May 2, 2018 by Mazer Rackham
maybe one glass too many of the red

[SFebes 4,884]

I just the game is played with far too many handballs these days, the fastest way forward and out of congestion is to kick it. It’s currently a game of hot potato. Can anyone look up what the kick to handball ratio was in say 2000 v 2018? Footy was much better to watch then. And stop recruiting players who are either athletes or wildcards, pick bloody footballers who can think their way through and actually dispose properly.

[Mazer Rackham 14,971]

watch this game from two good sides in 2000

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgT2qCY9kyc

the obvious: no huge packs following the ball around
ball handling pretty clean
interchange fairly sparingly used
umps have no difficulty bouncing the ball over the ground. and no recalls.
umps still missing obvious frees
the same f***ing commentators!!

[Adam The God 30,430]

14 hours ago, mongrel said:

Just listened to Buckley answer these sorts of questions on SEN. He articulated some similar view points on here perfectly.

He went through different periods of game style and how teams adjusted. E.g. Geelongs run and carry in waves after 07/09 was combated by St. Kilda and Collingwoods manic pressure across oppositions half forward. Hawthorn then changed it up by possessing the ball and kicking over the high press.

I just think the game will adapt once again and we need to let it do that. We've seen similar game styles (Richmond/Bulldogs) of high numbers around contests, manic full ground pressure and getting the ball forward at any cost. I'ts working at the moment and Melbourne have started to show they can do it as well. I look forward to the next change in style to beat it though.

Also as Bucks mentioned lowering the interchange is going to break players. They're running faster and more km's then ever, the game is still just as physical. We're going to see more injuries and less intense football. I don't think interchange is the answer. Again let be for a while and comeback once more time and research has been put in.

 

I just hope we're at the forefront of it...

[MT64 1,144]

Slightly off topic but I haven't noticed the "runners" much this season. Has anything changed that I am not aware of?

[SFebes 4,884]

9 hours ago, MT64 said:

Slightly off topic but I haven't noticed the "runners" much this season. Has anything changed that I am not aware of?

Think there was a rule change in the off season due to what Maxwell was going at GWS. Others may offer their research though

[Mazer Rackham 14,971]

9 hours ago, MT64 said:

Slightly off topic but I haven't noticed the "runners" much this season. Has anything changed that I am not aware of?

 

11 minutes ago, SFebey said:

Think there was a rule change in the off season due to what Maxwell was going at GWS. Others may offer their research though

They trialled a rule in the JLT whereby runners could only go on the field after goals. But decided not to carry it through to the home and away season.

I think as a result of the Maxwell hoo-hah, the clubs have decided to back off with the runners. They don't want to poke the bear. In case the bear does crack down with actual rules.

[SFebes 4,884]

5 hours ago, Mazer Rackham said:

 

They trialled a rule in the JLT whereby runners could only go on the field after goals. But decided not to carry it through to the home and away season.

I think as a result of the Maxwell hoo-hah, the clubs have decided to back off with the runners. They don't want to poke the bear. In case the bear does crack down with actual rules.

Thanks mate, appreciate the feedback - interesting.

[Diamond_Jim 12,628]

In last night's game... GWS v Geelong holding the ball was paid against I think Whitfield of GWS in the Geelong forward line.

His possession came from a ball up. When he took possession he was off balance and had a Geelong player clinging to his shoulder area. He stumbled forward in a press of players one and half paces and was then tackled resulting in a free and the opening goal to Geelong.

Perfect example of the ball player being penalised to the advantage of the tackler. The balance is not right.

[SFebes 4,884]

8 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

In last night's game... GWS v Geelong holding the ball was paid against I think Whitfield of GWS in the Geelong forward line.

His possession came from a ball up. When he took possession he was off balance and had a Geelong player clinging to his shoulder area. He stumbled forward in a press of players one and half paces and was then tackled resulting in a free and the opening goal to Geelong.

Perfect example of the ball player being penalised to the advantage of the tackler. The balance is not right.

The umpiring last night was as bad as you'll see, bloody woeful decisions!

[At Least I Saw a Flag 5,276]

It possibly has only marginal relevance to this thread, but does anyone else think that Bjorn from Abba looks like a big rat?

[Demon Dynasty 17,109]

On 2 May 2018 at 4:48 PM, deanox said:

Most of the changes I'd like to see aren't about tactics, but are about consistency in interpretations and are about reverting to better umpiring rather than introducing new rules. Interestingly, I think many of these would solve a bunch of the problems we currently have:

• Only blow the whistle when the play should stop (just call advantage out loud). This will allow "lots" more free kicks to be paid without impacting the game, and will also allow it to flow better without stop starting (which allows teams to "get back" and zone).
• Faster ball ups. If it is congested, blow whistle, run in and throw up. Do it as quick as possible before teams can "set up". This will create an incentive to stay man on man so you aren't caught out of position transitioning between structures.
• Penalise the third man in who "supports" a team mate who is tackled. i.e. if I tackle you, and your teammate comes and wraps us both up, then pay holding the man against your team mete. a) I didn't have the ball, so he had no right to touch me. b) this third man in action is purely designed to "tie up" the ball and force a ball up, which slows the game down. Also, if the third and forth man are penalised, there will be less incentive to have so many packs around the ball, with those players instead maintaining a bit of space to receive the ball.
• Pay holding the ball faster and more often. Too many players get too long to hold onto it. Too many players just drop it or throw it or drag it in. This largely happens in congestion, in mauls and packs. Paying holding the ball quickly (combined with the third man in rule above) will encourage teams to move the ball out quickly, discourage as many numbers around the ball, as they'll need players "outside" to receive hurried ball. Paying it quickly, instead of saving it up and doing the dancing horse theatrical [censored], will enable the players to move the ball on quicker. Pay 10 of these per game instead of 2 and the players will learn to move it onwards.

The above are all actually part of the rules already. Nothing new, nothing controversial.

I'm unsure on these following changes. They are potentially controversial rules that don't fundamentally change the game too much:

• Any 50 m penalty awarded in the D half of the ground will bring the mark to ~75 m out from goal. 50 m penalties in the D50 are borderline useless as the opposition just gets free time to set up a zone. Unsure if this will work, but worth considering.
• If we must zone, then do it on defensive kick outs only. Minimum 4 players from each side behind the half way mark until the kick is taken. It's similar to the centre square arrangement in that it is onlt at those specific set plays, and will help break down defensive zone set ups before they start. The only problem is the "quick kick out" rule which may make this hard to enforce.

There are some very good suggestions that will help to remove congestion there deanox.

- faster ball ups.

- Penalise 3rd man in

- Call holding the ball / incorrect disposal as it was once called prior to major congestion coming in post 2000.  That is, just call it when it is there which is not happening often enough.

The last one is critical.   As is reducing interchange to maximum 44.

The question is....is the AFL even listening to the fans who are, in the main, screaming for the game to be returned some way towards a game that resembles the glory years prior to 2001?  Will they ever listen?

[Fork 'em 6,992]

On ‎5‎/‎2‎/‎2018 at 3:27 PM, DaveyDee said:

Wash your mouth out with soap - "sports scientists" are the core reason we have any issues in the game today - they fill the coaches head with all these "theories" and are responsible for nothing. 

I'm with AD - not sure the science boys do add to the spectacle of the game. in reality the complete opposite.  

See Dank.