Let's just go multi-ball - two footies on the field at the same time.

24 minutes ago, Macca said:

16 a side would enhance wing play rather than see it diminished

Do people here honestly believe that the coaches would leave the wings vacant?

And I've been calling for 16 a side for at least 5 years now ... music to my ears. But 16 a side won't fix the congestion outright.

14 or 15 a side is a better solution. 

Good point 'Macca', 16 a side would make the runners like Tomlinson and Langdon even more important as there is more space to cover.

16 a side for now but with reduced interchange down to 2 players and rotations capped at a couple a Q.

Also blowing the whistle quicker on holding the ball decisions, currently see players not only being turned 360 but often 720 before a whistle is blown.

... and bring back the bounce (instead of throw up) around the ground. It increases the unpredictability and makes it harder to set up defensively. Whilst on that point, don't bring the ball back for bad bounces, play on.

...unpredictability is a coaches nightmare. It's one of the things that made our game great.

5 minutes ago, rjay said:

Good point 'Macca', 16 a side would make the runners like Tomlinson and Langdon even more important as there is more space to cover.

16 a side for now but with reduced interchange down to 2 players and rotations capped at a couple a Q.

Also blowing the whistle quicker on holding the ball decisions, currently see players not only being turned 360 but often 720 before a whistle is blown.

... and bring back the bounce (instead of throw up) around the ground. It increases the unpredictability and makes it harder to set up defensively. Whilst on that point, don't bring the ball back for bad bounces, play on.

...unpredictability is a coaches nightmare. It's one of the things that made our game great.

All good points rjay but I don't reckon they will be reducing the rotations in a hurry ... the OH&S people would step in.  And they'd probably win out too.

Thus my call for 14 or 15 a side.  16 a side will still see the coaches throwing all their players on the ball when it suits.  And with a probable expanded bench with 16 a side the players might end up with the same amount or greater reserves of energy

The rotation numbers is the real issue though but we now live in an OH&S world rjay.

While they're at it,  get rid of the ruckman nomination rule. It creates congestion while the boundary and field umpires wait for the ruckman to get to the right spot and then nominate. Ruckman lumber to position which gives the rest of the onballers plenty of time to get to the area. 

Alternatively, maybe there is no harm in allowing the third man up which is another way to abolish the need for the nomination rule.

Agree that 16 a side makes wings and people who can run, carry & deliver more valuable.
Another indirect benefit might be if they drop players on the ground, the lists could be reduced opening the way for an expanded comp without compromising player depth across the comp itself

It's a great idea as @Dr. Gonzo and @Fat Tony say.

For those who doubt less players wouldn't affect congestion.  Would it be more congested with 30 per side, less with 10 per side?

The way the game is played has changed and the rules need to adapt to maintain the free flowing essence.  Decreasing the number of players is the least invasive rule change - in fact it doesn't actually change any in-game rules. 6-6-6 and zones are horrible misdirected actions.

The sweet spot is likely to be 14-15 per side, and I'd keep the four interchange.

3 hours ago, Demonland said:

Just Great!!! Just when the cavalry arrives and we finally get some decent wingmen they want to take them away from us.

‘We don't want to be like soccer’: Alastair Clarkson’s radical solution to fix AFL scoring drought

Hawthorn coach Alastair Clarkson has urged the AFL to “pull a lever” and consider trialling 16-a-side rules to address the league’s dramatic scoring drop – because “we don't want to be like soccer”.

And the four-time premiership coach admits he and other coaches with a defence-first attitude have played a role as to why “no bugger can score anymore”.

Despite a raft of changes that were originally intended to promote goalkicking, AFL scoring reached a historic low in 2019, with the average team score being just 80.4 points – the lowest since 1967, when teams averaged 78.8 points.

Losing seems to do this to past top coaches.  Like Malthouse before him, who wanted to extend the interchange bench to 6 or more, they seem to lose the plot.

Hell why not ban full backs from playing within 30 Mtrs of the goals.   No defenders inside 30m.   That'll fix scoring issues.

 

How is it that these coaches can wake up one morning and think they have the right to change our game so fundamentally.?

Go back to sleep Clarko;... your having a bad dream.

Edited March 12, 20205 yr by MyFavouriteMartian

All these problems started when the interchange numbers went through the roof. Players could run all day.

Kevin Bartlett and Channel 7 effected a raft of rule changes over a 10yr period to speed up the game create more breaks for TV ads etc. That plan has morphed into the scrum we have today

The solution is staring them in the face

2 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Removing players from the field is the only logical solution to congestion and should have happened 10-15 years ago

AFL grounds remain the same size as 120 years ago yet players are exponentially fitter not to mention the constant rotations

Removing players from the field will break up defensive zones because the area each defender will need to cover between opponents will be too large and so will force teams into man on man game plans

There will always be "loose defenders" but removing players from the field will limit their impact as there will be greater space for players to move into which they will not be able to cover

It will have a dramatic impact on the flow of the game without changing any fundamental rules relating to how the game is actually played.

16 a side is the minimum, I would consider taking it down to 15 or 14 or perhaps even further.

I would still keep the wings but remove one midfielder, one forward and one defender to start with (5-5-5) fewer midfielders at centre bounces will make it easier to clear the ball

Or we can refuse to change this, keep implementing rules that alter the fundamental nature of the game which have unintended consequences and don't address the issues they were brought in for and watch the game continue to devolve into an unentertaining rolling scrum of players with little room for individual brilliance and skill

 

Just drastically reduce rotations off the bench

that will fix all these little problems. 

because that’s when all these problems started

2 hours ago, My name is legion said:

Let’s have five a side then. Why can’t we leave the rules alone and stop wrecking the game? It was a great spectator sport before all the rule changes. Go back to the rules in the 1960s.

Gameplans, fitness and coaching have evolved since the 60s. Going back to those rules won't reduce congestion because players don't hold their positions anymore (because they don't have to and we don't want them to)

Reducing the number of players on the ground is not a rule change as such , not like changes to "holding the ball" or deliberate out of bounds are for example. It doesn't impact the way the players on the field play or the way the umpires adjudicate

The AFL being reactionary.  How quaint.

 

edit -  I see it was actually little Al Clarksons idea.

Hes turning into Malthouse/Sheedy.  Hawks need to cut ties with him before he takes them off the cliff.

Edited March 12, 20205 yr by JakovichScissorKick

1 hour ago, jnrmac said:

All these problems started when the interchange numbers went through the roof. Players could run all day.

Kevin Bartlett and Channel 7 effected a raft of rule changes over a 10yr period to speed up the game create more breaks for TV ads etc. That plan has morphed into the scrum we have today

The solution is staring them in the face

I think Kevin Bartlett has been opposed to many of the rule changes introduced and I'm pretty sure he wants interchange numbers drastically reduced, possibly even reducing the number of players on the bench to two per side.  

7 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I think Kevin Bartlett has been opposed to many of the rule changes introduced and I'm pretty sure he wants interchange numbers drastically reduced, possibly even reducing the number of players on the bench to two per side.  

You may be right. My recollection was that he was pushing the changes early on but by the end of his tenure was trying to remove a number of the changes - particularly the interchange free for all.

3 hours ago, Macca said:

16 a side would enhance wing play rather than see it diminished

Do people here honestly believe that the coaches would leave the wings vacant?

And I've been calling for 16 a side for at least 5 years now ... music to my ears. But 16 a side won't fix the congestion outright.

14 or 15 a side is a better solution. 

Happy to start with 16 as the game will still require some positions. If the game gets to 14 it will be all elite runners. One good tall at each end maybe. 

I think those against 16 are failing to realise how messy and impossible stoppages are now. They are the games predominant defensive measure. 

We need to thin the game out to an extent that stoppages don’t occur. Which means more space and more incentives to get the ball running in to space. 

Richmond have worked it out with 18, but even they are often hemmed in for a half until there relentless running opens games up. 

3 and a sub is probably right bench number. 

I think the current rotation level is about right. Too many becomes a track meet, too few and coaches will create an on ground rotation system that will have players out of positions to keep running 

Scoring like soccer?  We are so far off that that any talk of having to increase scoring is stupid IMO.   Personally I find basketball boring because it is too high scoring.  AFL has the balance about right.

Keep it at eighteen players like is always been, then three from each side must stay in the forward fifties at all times. 

5 hours ago, My name is legion said:

Go back to the rules in the 1960s.

The rules in the 1960s won't stop coaches wanting thirty players around the ball

2 hours ago, DeeSpencer said:

Happy to start with 16 as the game will still require some positions. If the game gets to 14 it will be all elite runners. One good tall at each end maybe. 

I think those against 16 are failing to realise how messy and impossible stoppages are now. They are the games predominant defensive measure. 

We need to thin the game out to an extent that stoppages don’t occur. Which means more space and more incentives to get the ball running in to space. 

Richmond have worked it out with 18, but even they are often hemmed in for a half until there relentless running opens games up. 

The real issue is the rotations DS but the games now are more suited to 16 a side anyway.  My solution (which may not even work because who knows?) is 16 a side and 10 - 20 rotations per team per game

The league showed great foresight in the mid 1960's with the Waverley ground.  At first it was deemed as oversized but eventually it became the perfect sized ground for footy.

So we can learn from the past but modern methods with regards to fitness levels has meant that 18 a side is just too many players on the ground.  Combined with the defensive coaching (flooding,  stoppage numbers,  forward press,  zones etc etc)

High scoring games is not necessarily my wish either ... more so open,  fast, attacking, free-flowing positional football (which,  by default,  leads to higher scores anyway)

Who doesn't want that compared to the congested mess that we see too often these days.

Edited March 12, 20205 yr by Macca

1 hour ago, DeeSpencer said:

Happy to start with 16 as the game will still require some positions. If the game gets to 14 it will be all elite runners.

And they'll call it hiccup soccer

All it might take is an innovative coach who decides to attack first rather than defend. After all, innovation seems to generate Premierships. Every coach with a "Defence First" game plan is really just copying someone else.

 

it's the INTERCHANGE, stupid!

17 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

All it might take is an innovative coach who decides to attack first rather than defend. After all, innovation seems to generate Premierships. Every coach with a "Defence First" game plan is really just copying someone else.

 

Teams like Richmond and Hawthorn have bought in great offensive systems. The Hawthorn kicking game. The Richmond run and gun handballing. But they've also been built on the back of really strong defensive systems. The Hawks pioneered the full ground press and then added a zone system. Richmond's pressure is stronger than any side and they always get defenders free behind the ball waiting for the dump kicks. Their success in 2017 started with reshaping their forwards to be far more defensive and their mids applying pressure rather than chasing kicks.

The greatest similarity is that both sides aren't about directly attacking by winning stoppages and contests and forcing the game that way. They are happy to concede clearances and force bad turnovers and take the game on from there.

Adelaide might be the closest we've come to a primarily attacking team in the last decade or so and they were stomped by the Tigers pressure in the grand final. I just can't see it switching to favour a team that uses skill and attacking flair without a great defensive system. 

7 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

Teams like Richmond and Hawthorn have bought in great offensive systems. The Hawthorn kicking game. The Richmond run and gun handballing. But they've also been built on the back of really strong defensive systems. The Hawks pioneered the full ground press and then added a zone system. Richmond's pressure is stronger than any side and they always get defenders free behind the ball waiting for the dump kicks. Their success in 2017 started with reshaping their forwards to be far more defensive and their mids applying pressure rather than chasing kicks.

The greatest similarity is that both sides aren't about directly attacking by winning stoppages and contests and forcing the game that way. They are happy to concede clearances and force bad turnovers and take the game on from there.

Adelaide might be the closest we've come to a primarily attacking team in the last decade or so and they were stomped by the Tigers pressure in the grand final. I just can't see it switching to favour a team that uses skill and attacking flair without a great defensive system. 

I find everything about Richmond offensive.

Seriously, though, I have to concede you make sense. Nevertheless, I like the idea of an "attcking first" rather than "defending first" mindset. And it's precisely because coaches' interests in "not losing" outweigh any consdieration they have for the "look" of the game, that we cannot entrust the rules of the game to the coaches.

54 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I find everything about Richmond offensive.

Seriously, though, I have to concede you make sense. Nevertheless, I like the idea of an "attcking first" rather than "defending first" mindset. And it's precisely because coaches' interests in "not losing" outweigh any consdieration they have for the "look" of the game, that we cannot entrust the rules of the game to the coaches.

I think good coaching is always aggressive, proactive and looking to use skills to dictate to opponents. But at the same time you have to play the percentages, reckless risk doesn't usually work out.

One of the clearest positives in the move to 16 from 18 would be getting rid of 2 bad players a week. I'd go to 3 and a sub so it would be more like 2.5 from the team. Looking at projected round 1 teams today there's a fair bit of talent spread across the league but it's clear from recent seasons (none more so than ours last year) that the depth falls away really quickly with injuries.