On 4/30/2018 at 1:16 PM, praha said:

I have a wild idea:

Let it play out and allow teams to adjust.

The same thing was said of Sydney's style in the mid 2000s. The league adjusted.

Torally agree.

We need to stop fiddling with it.

Coaches will adapt to beat the press.

I dont know why you started this thread Gil

Every couple years, there are people that complain about the current trends in the game. And then two years later, a new set of trends emerge and surpass the last one. The same will happen here. You have to keep on evolving, otherwise you become too easy to counter.

I'm not concerned by the press. I find it exciting.

I'm confident Goodwin and his team have a few more tricks up their sleeves for the coming years ahead. 

There are too many rules. The game's being over managed.

Go back to 2 field umps. Get rid of the'review'. Scrap the deliberate rule. 

Unlimited rotarions...but only 2 on bench . 2 Emergencies can only be used  to replace a player hurt and removed from field. You want to tire out players running off and on..up to you.

Holding the ball is holding the ball..prior is irrelevant. If you want to kick the ball through your opponent's posts...go for it. Is likely to bring you unstuck.

Keep it Simple

 

16 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

Go back to 2 field umps. Get rid of the'review'. Scrap the deliberate rule. 

Unlimited rotarions...but only 2 on bench . 2 Emergencies can only be used  to replace a player hurt and removed from field. You want to tire out players running off and on..up to you.

Holding the ball is holding the ball..prior is irrelevant. If you want to kick the ball through your opponent's posts...go for it. Is likely to bring you unstuck.

Good ideas I would have three on the bench but with no replacement rule. If your injured that's bad luck.

27 minutes ago, A F said:

Every couple years, there are people that complain about the current trends in the game. And then two years later, a new set of trends emerge and surpass the last one. The same will happen here. You have to keep on evolving, otherwise you become too easy to counter.

I'm not concerned by the press. I find it exciting.

I'm confident Goodwin and his team have a few more tricks up their sleeves for the coming years ahead. 

Hi AF.. highly respect your posts but this problem is not new.. The press...first adopted by the Bulldogs in 2000 to give Essendon their only loss for the year. 18 years and the tactic has  been continually honed to the detriment of the traditional playing sides.

The press has now become the "squash". 36 players in one sixth or thereabouts of the ground.

FWIIW soccer is the same in the sense that the players are so aerobically fit they can run back and forward all day.

To counter the squash you need to break through and race to goal... sounds like the counter attack in Soccer.

As I mentioned in my opening post the television spectacle is not that bad as they focus on the squash anyway.

20 years is enough perhaps to say we might be losing what makes our game unique. In a way we have been protected by the growth in player stamina and skills... (a two edged sword I admit.)

By the way I don't have the solution but like so many others I can see the problem.

 

 

 

 

 

 

33 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

Hi AF.. highly respect your posts but this problem is not new.. The press...first adopted by the Bulldogs in 2000 to give Essendon their only loss for the year. 18 years and the tactic has  been continually honed to the detriment of the traditional playing sides.

The press has now become the "squash". 36 players in one sixth or thereabouts of the ground.

FWIIW soccer is the same in the sense that the players are so aerobically fit they can run back and forward all day.

To counter the squash you need to break through and race to goal... sounds like the counter attack in Soccer.

As I mentioned in my opening post the television spectacle is not that bad as they focus on the squash anyway.

20 years is enough perhaps to say we might be losing what makes our game unique. In a way we have been protected by the growth in player stamina and skills... (a two edged sword I admit.)

By the way I don't have the solution but like so many others I can see the problem.

DJ, your last paragraph summed up probably a lot of folks "lounge chair" thoughts, including mine and friends.

 That said, the press, the squash and the crush, have all been thrashed with possible solutions.

I worry about the great outside distance handball, the evasion between skilfull players, the lovely palm over the back and the Fair bump... Are they nearly gone? They are certainly under threat....

Back in my day footy was much better, then my dad said no back in my day footy was better, then Mr granddad said no son back in my day, them me great granddad said no son back in my, this  argument comes up every generation. Leave the game alone every rule change brings unattended consequences.

DJ, I'd ask you though. Have you disliked the press since 2000? It's been tweaked and evolved to an 18 man press in some forms.

I think we'll see certain sides take different pathes this year as team's try to defeat the 18 man press.

Edited May 1, 20187 yr by A F

On 4/30/2018 at 1:16 PM, praha said:

I have a wild idea:

Let it play out and allow teams to adjust.

The same thing was said of Sydney's style in the mid 2000s. The league adjusted.

Agree entirely.

The game countered Sydney's mid-2000s "ugly" football with the late-2000s/early-2010s skill of Geelong and, then, Collingwood's press. The press was countered with Hawthorn's "web". That was countered with the Dogs' run-and-gun approach. That was countered with Richmond's aggressive mauling around the contest.

The game will evolve from this, like it always does.

The way the game is being played leaves a huge amount of space. I can easily see teams starting to take a number out of the contest and hang them on the "fat side" of the ground, instructing inside mids to go to that spot with the clearance. We might have been experimenting with Stretch in such a role on ANZAC Eve, possibly.

All this talk is just knee-jerk crap (which the AFL loves), OTT media hyping (to fill news columns) or, with the greatest respect, people who yearn for "the good old days".

On 4/30/2018 at 4:36 PM, loges said:

I've got a novel idea, when a player goes to ground with the ball under him, or pulls the ball in, he has to hit it out, fine. But if someone sits/lays/ jumps on his back why not pay an in the back free kick, I'm sure this would reduce the amount packs and mauls that develop. Funny I"m sure they used to pay it that way in the old days instead of penalising a player who can't lift his body with 3 players on top of him to hit the ball out.

I'd support this.

I don't know how much difference it would make, given that most of the time once the player is down then the ball isn't coming out so the same result is achieved, but it might assist in the ball coming out from a tackle more often.

At any rate, it is completely unnecessary to have two or three extra players jump on a player on the ground.

3 hours ago, titan_uranus said:

Agree entirely.

The game countered Sydney's mid-2000s "ugly" football with the late-2000s/early-2010s skill of Geelong and, then, Collingwood's press. The press was countered with Hawthorn's "web". That was countered with the Dogs' run-and-gun approach. That was countered with Richmond's aggressive mauling around the contest.

The game will evolve from this, like it always does.

The way the game is being played leaves a huge amount of space. I can easily see teams starting to take a number out of the contest and hang them on the "fat side" of the ground, instructing inside mids to go to that spot with the clearance. We might have been experimenting with Stretch in such a role on ANZAC Eve, possibly.

All this talk is just knee-jerk crap (which the AFL loves), OTT media hyping (to fill news columns) or, with the greatest respect, people who yearn for "the good old days".

I'd support this.

I don't know how much difference it would make, given that most of the time once the player is down then the ball isn't coming out so the same result is achieved, but it might assist in the ball coming out from a tackle more often.

At any rate, it is completely unnecessary to have two or three extra players jump on a player on the ground.

Ban the flop tackle

All these speculations about the way the coaches are going to evolve our way out of the problem make the assumption that the new strategies are going to make for more attractive footy.

I think they won't. They'll still involve crowds of players surrounding the ball, flopping it between them randomly like a chip being chased by seagulls, until one random movement gets it far enough away from the pack that a player has enough time to throw the ball on his boot and gain space and time. then the pack forms again, repeat.

The coaches don't have the interest of the game in mind the way we do. They manipulate the rules to get in the W column, and hang the look of the game. It goes all the way back to Norm Smith having Brian Dixon kick out of bounds all the time. Leading to the new rule "out on the full". And it goes probably further back than that.

(And of course the AFL put two coaches on their new super panel of experts, and NO FANS.)

The only thing that has alleviated this in recent times when when the AFL capped interchange. Then we stopped seeing groups of players dashing on and off in relays, as if the game was combined rugby and track and field. We stopped seeing huge packs around the ball.

But then teams got the fitness levels even higher, and we're back to Australian Rules Rugby again.

Get rid of interchange or severely limit it. Ten per team per quarter, and they can't be banked. Use them or lose them.

 

 

TLDNR: coaches can't be trusted with the future of the game. Interchange is the problem.

10 hours ago, A F said:

DJ, I'd ask you though. Have you disliked the press since 2000? It's been tweaked and evolved to an 18 man press in some forms.

I think we'll see certain sides take different pathes this year as team's try to defeat the 18 man press.

Hi

when the press first came out I found it entertaining when at the ground. If you recall that first version was slow kicks forwards and backwards until you reached just past your wing. To a watcher it was akin to a chess game and most clubs conceded their own back half to you. Mind you after a year or so I took to reading my newspaper while waiting for them to move the ball up the ground.

Probably around that time if not a little earlier that clubs introduced "tempo football" which we now see very occasionally. Do you remember the countless kicks across the half back line in an attempt to drag the press back towards the kicker.

At the core of the problem is that while the fitness of the players has seen the average player develop much higher skills the price for that fitness is that they can cover a lot more ground. If anything the problem will just get worse as overall endurance increases.

Listening to Leigh Matthews last night on 3 AW .... no one had an easy solution.

Hate the idea and it would be as another poster points out like "bibs" in netball but do we need nominated forwards and defenders (say 6 for each team) and only those nominated can enter the scoring zone.

The AFL have a comp called the VFL which they may as well use to trial some alternatives the first of which is to reduce any or all of rotations, bench players and perhaps the number on the field.

PS: The in the back rule for some tackles is worth thinking about. Players had become so good at falling forward in the tackle that the interpretation was changed. I also see merit in favouring the ball player over the tackler say by allowing two opportunities to dispose of the ball. Funnily the crowd now calls "BALL" almost as soon as an opposition player touches the ball these days. (Come to think about it I cannot think of another sport that has the crowd screaming rule interpretations so frequently... perhaps it should stay for that reason alone.)

Off to the World Cup in a couple of weeks so I shall have lots of time to watch the art of the slow build up !!

Hmmm. I'm quite conservative when it comes to AFL. I wouldn't implement netball-like zones. I reckon the game will sort itself out and evolve to something else, without the AFL's interference.

I've been enjoying the footy the last few years, but that may be because Melbourne are performing better.

Quite simply I'd hate to see the addition of zones, less players, or a reduction in holding the ball (players already get away with it).

I'm also sick of hearing about "what rules can we change" this week. It's got to epidemic proportions. There will always be people complaining about the game, mentioning how it was better in the old days, and how they believe they can fix it.

If the congestion is truly that big of a problem (a general consensus among most AFL fans) the only change I can see or accept would be a reduction in interchange to say 40 - 80 (instead of 90) (keeping in mind there was once no interchange). Most other proposals are more likely to damage the very essence of our game.

But as above, I'm happy with how it currently is, and as AF has said the game will likely evolve to something else regardless.

Edited May 1, 20187 yr by ignition.

10 minutes ago, ignition. said:

I've been enjoying the footy the last few years, but that may be because Melbourne are performing better.

 

Spot on ignition... when watching the Dees I really don't care how they win.

As an AFL member I have free entry to the MCG and Docklands so I often drop along to watch the Melbourne clubs play the interstate teams (very low crowds and a pleasant day). As a neutral observer you certainly notice the difference.

12 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

Spot on ignition... when watching the Dees I really don't care how they win.

As an AFL member I have free entry to the MCG and Docklands so I often drop along to watch the Melbourne clubs play the interstate teams (very low crowds and a pleasant day). As a neutral observer you certainly notice the difference.

I'm confused - so you are now agreeing this is just a media beat up - because you enjoy the game. 

So on balance the game is in good shape - in your opinion 

2 hours ago, Mazer Rackham said:

(And of course the AFL put two coaches on their new super panel of experts, and NO FANS.)

 

So what does that tell you?

The AFL dont even trust MFC members to elect their own board & president - so what does that tell you?

 

13 minutes ago, DaveyDee said:

I'm confused - so you are now agreeing this is just a media beat up - because you enjoy the game. 

So on balance the game is in good shape - in your opinion 

quite the opposite ...

it is the neutral observer that largely keeps the game alive... if you just had club supporters watching their own game just watch your TV ratings and money plummet.

Edited May 2, 20187 yr by Diamond_Jim

Interchange caused the problem because braodcasters wanted a faster game.. Interchange is the solution. Cut it drastically.

 

1 minute ago, jnrmac said:

Interchange caused the problem because braodcasters wanted a faster game.. Interchange is the solution. Cut it drastically.

 

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?

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.

 

Edited May 2, 20187 yr by mongrel

Hawks midfielder floats interchange eradication

Hawthorn midfielder Isaac Smith says the state of the game might benefit from 'nearly' putting a stop to rotations on the bench

http://www.afl.com.au/video/2018-05-02/headlines-ross-speaks-bomber-bailed

1 hour ago, DaveyDee said:

So what does that tell you?

The AFL dont even trust MFC members to elect their own board & president - so what does that tell you?

 

Nothing. It only confirms what I already thought.

1 hour ago, daisycutter said:

Hawks midfielder floats interchange eradication

Hawthorn midfielder Isaac Smith says the state of the game might benefit from 'nearly' putting a stop to rotations on the bench

http://www.afl.com.au/video/2018-05-02/headlines-ross-speaks-bomber-bailed

Its a thought. Mine was if you have less on the bench then rotations would/ should decrease in tow.

I can't see the game returned to none. Make it less appealing ( to rotate )by denying so many fresh legs

Edited May 2, 20187 yr by beelzebub

13 hours ago, don't make me angry said:

Back in my day footy was much better, then my dad said no back in my day footy was better, then Mr granddad said no son back in my day, them me great granddad said no son back in my, this  argument comes up every generation. Leave the game alone every rule change brings unattended consequences.

There is truth to this.

I get frustrated today and at times feel that the game as a spectacle has taken a nose dive. There are exciting passages of play followed by terrible stacks on the mill footy that is awful to watch.  

At the same time, back in the good old days, there were also awful games, when the grounds were wet or covered in mud and defenders went to the boundary line at every opportunity. Whilst there were great skills, there were also poor skills particularly on wet days. There were great players back then, but there were others who would not get a game today. 

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. It would also result in many frustrating free kicks that would frustrate all fans. 

So I suspect that you are right "Angry"