What's interesting is that instead of tinkering with the rules to try to improve scoring the AFL appears to have adopted a competely different strategy: rewarding higher scoring teams with more prime time slots. I don't recall that being a strategy used before and I welcome it. I'm not necessarily saying that I think the aim of the game should be more high scoring; rather, that achieving an aim by not playing around with the rules of the game itself seems to be a better approach.

The key take away from that article for me was Richmond's so called unique approach. Tbat they won a second grand final in three years, having dominated all season in 2018, shows the chip and hold possession style favoured by so many clubs is not the optimal model. Which is in direct opposition to many the on dl who maintained we had an outdated game style and tactically the game had hone past goody.

I maintain, whilst there are some differences, goody's preferred  game style is, with the doggies, the closest to the tigers. High pressure, move it, forward at all costs, forward half footy. Exciting to watch and often high scoring.

The consistent low scoring games week in, week out has been a very disappointing evolution in our game.

In 2019 we had just 3 games where both sides kicked 100 points. Melbourne and Carlton were involved in 2 of the games.

Compare that to the heady days of 2000 when we already had four 100-100 games by the Sunday of round 1.  

I continue to dispute the proposition that the AFL is consistently more entertaining when the scores are high.

A game where both sides score over 100 might be entertaining, but it sure as hell might not. Games with high scores routinely involve poor/non-existent defence. Melbourne v Essendon this year is a perfect example. That game was hardly a spectacle.

Scoring is what broadcasters want, but IMO the league is better off with whatever ensures an even competition with fewer blow outs and more tense finishes. That will regularly mean stronger defences and lower scores, and we should be fine with that.

48 minutes ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

The consistent low scoring games week in, week out has been a very disappointing evolution in our game.

In 2019 we had just 3 games where both sides kicked 100 points. Melbourne and Carlton were involved in 2 of the games.

Compare that to the heady days of 2000 when we already had four 100-100 games by the Sunday of round 1.  

And how long have we  been seeing Coleman medal winners with pitifully low totals of 60-70 goals?

In the 1990s you had Lockett, Ablett, Dunstall.. they all had seasons of 120+ goals and kicked 100+ probably 15 times combined  ...

 Footy has really gone downhill and is so much less entertaining now

9 minutes ago, JakovichScissorKick said:

And how long have we  been seeing Coleman medal winners with pitifully low totals of 60-70 goals?

In the 1990s you had Lockett, Ablett, Dunstall.. they all had seasons of 120+ goals and kicked 100+ probably 15 times combined  ...

 Footy has really gone downhill and is so much less entertaining now

yet no one stops watching...

Good that the rules are not changing.  We need another year to learn them.

8 hours ago, JakovichScissorKick said:

And how long have we  been seeing Coleman medal winners with pitifully low totals of 60-70 goals?

In the 1990s you had Lockett, Ablett, Dunstall.. they all had seasons of 120+ goals and kicked 100+ probably 15 times combined  ...

 Footy has really gone downhill and is so much less entertaining now

Lockett, Dunstall and Co never left inside 50. The only time they moved out of the goal square was to lead. They were given a huge amount of space and never had to chase or give the ball to a team mate in a better position.  Players like them big and powerful and excellent one on one contesters now have to contend with maximum pressure from multiple defenders. It was a different game then and some of those aces would struggle to kick more than 40 in the modern game. 

 

Edited November 4, 20196 yr by america de cali