The vast preponderance of opinion in this thread is that the game in previous decades was a better spectacle .I fully concur with this view and have nothing to add, .However the solution is more intriguing .The WAFL adopted as we are all aware a 16 on the field model with a view to make for a more flowing game .The  ground are no bigger today than the 1980s   but the players today are  and  they cover such more ground .The problem of congestion has been exacerbated by the Rodney Eade flood .Is it time to consider the old VFA 16 player a side  formula which at least provided extremely watchable footy.

3 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

The best games from back then are superior to the best games now. They are also more common. Try and find more than 10 great games from the last 5-10 years. Great games from start to finish not just close finishes.

Again, it's completely subjective and suseptible to too many variables, especially the rose-colorued glasses.

It's very difficult to say that there were more good games, when most games weren't filmed and televised in full.  The best look you'd get is Drew Morphett offering highlights on Saturday at 6:30 or the 5 minute reel on the evening news.

 

I don't agree or disagree really. 

I loved football in the 90s, but who didn't love things when they're reminiscing back to when they were young?

 

It's true that it is too subjective and relies on ancient memories.

I learnt the world's greatest game as a boy in the park and at school in the 50s and 60s when the great game was simple and pure. It was a game of territory and contests. Kick to kick with movement and scoring.

Pick one game from the 80s, say first final demolition of roos in 1987, and one game from the 10s, say beating the [censored] in 2018, and watch both and compare. Both were first finals after many years of disappointment.

1987 wins hands down (and not just because of Robbie).

Fast, direct footy to contests. No zones, no mauls and no interfering umpires. Just pure footy. Love it.

 

Edited June 2, 20204 yr by tiers
Slip rule.

21 hours ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

I’m the same with Joel Smith, seems like a one trick pony. 

Can you please share what you think is his  one and only trick.

Also what actually is a trick in football terms, a ability, an attribute, being able to push  tacklers in the face and get away with it ?

2 hours ago, kallangurdemon said:

The vast preponderance of opinion in this thread is that the game in previous decades was a better spectacle .I fully concur with this view and have nothing to add, .However the solution is more intriguing .The WAFL adopted as we are all aware a 16 on the field model with a view to make for a more flowing game .The  ground are no bigger today than the 1980s   but the players today are  and  they cover such more ground .The problem of congestion has been exacerbated by the Rodney Eade flood .Is it time to consider the old VFA 16 player a side  formula which at least provided extremely watchable footy.

Why!!!     Why make even more changes to the rules of yesteryear,   that produced those great games,  of the 90's,  and early 2000's...

 

It was the rules/laws of the 1990 Era,    that produced those great games of the following 15 or so seasons.

 

So,  don't make even more rules changes,  getting further away from the 1990's rules.   Just take the current rule book,  and burn the bastard.   Burn all new rules,  dating back to 1991. 

Then let the game settle down,  and see what we get back from that.

1 hour ago, tiers said:

Pick one game from the 80s, say first final demolition of roos in 1987, and one game from the 10s, say beating the [censored] in 2018, and watch both and compare. Both were first finals after many years of disappointment.

 

I innocently used the diminutive of cats - sorry, didn't mean to cause any grief.

No need to apologise, tiers.  It's hard to understand why "kittens" would be censored in the first place.

 I used the other diminutive taken from the Tom Jones song "What's new ............"

You don't say ...

I used to see a heap of Melb games in the late 80s onwards and it was so much more entertaining than today’s footy. I never thought I was say this but I actually haven’t missed football that much. Last year I would often find myself falling asleep on a Friday night during the 3rd quarter. Players don’t get a chance to use their flare and skills. Too many structures and tactics which I reckon some players don’t understand. 

13 hours ago, TeamPlayedFine39 said:

Again, it's completely subjective and suseptible to too many variables, especially the rose-colorued glasses.

It's very difficult to say that there were more good games, when most games weren't filmed and televised in full.  The best look you'd get is Drew Morphett offering highlights on Saturday at 6:30 or the 5 minute reel on the evening news.

 

I don't agree or disagree really. 

I loved football in the 90s, but who didn't love things when they're reminiscing back to when they were young?

 

I watched quite a few games from the late 80's/90s a few weeks back. Yeah I agree the replay picks the best parts, but I did watch some full games (and not necessarily "classics" just run of the mill home and away games).

For me it was better because of the way the game was played, not necessarily the excitement of a close game. Back then you had the excitement of individual players being able to show their individual brilliance on a regular basis due to the space available to them to work in. Does that mean it was 120 minutes of magic? Of course not! But compare it to today's game and it's almost a different sport. Players these days have so little space to work in the game the individual brilliance and skill is suffocated. Even great players like Martin get scragged and gang tackled so frequently that the level of difficulty for them to break away and showcase their skill is next to impossible.

I am an advocate for reducing the number of players on the ground as this will limit the ability to zone and force teams to back to a more man on man gamestyle. The interchange probably needs to be drastically reduced as well but other than that I'm not sure whether anything can really be done while keeping the spirit of the game in tact. We don't want zones or onside/offside rules so maybe the genie is just out of the bottle.

11 hours ago, MyFavouriteMartian said:

Why!!!     Why make even more changes to the rules of yesteryear,   that produced those great games,  of the 90's,  and early 2000's...

 

It was the rules/laws of the 1990 Era,    that produced those great games of the following 15 or so seasons.

 

So,  don't make even more rules changes,  getting further away from the 1990's rules.   Just take the current rule book,  and burn the bastard.   Burn all new rules,  dating back to 1991. 

Then let the game settle down,  and see what we get back from that.

Because coaches have realised there is nothing stopping your full forward running down to full back and flooding the defence.

16 hours ago, rjay said:

The NRL have led the way with their changes to the game.

It's made a pedestrian game at club level suddenly more attractive.

A few simple changes the AFL could make in a heartbeat but Gill unfortunately needs to consult everyman and his dog.

We all know the rotations are a problem, cut them.

We all know the umpire takes too long to get the ball back in play asking who the nominated ruck is , telling them which way he is going to go after throwing the ball up (I've never seen an ump go forward).

Simple, cut interchange to say 4 or 5 a Q, bounce the ball up straight away( bounce not throw, it brings the unpredictability in and is hard to defend, no call back for poor bounce, play on...it's part of playing a game with an oval ball bad luck), pay free kicks that are there, don't let a scrum develop.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-06-02/nrl-shows-afl-tired-players-make-for-a-less-tiresome-game/12308318

I agree with removing the ruck nomination and reduction of interchange. I'd probably start at 10 per quarter and see what happens.

Another idea I really believe would be good for the game is to include a bonus point if a team scores over 100 points in a game, even if they lose.

Take the 2018 season for example, we scored over 100 14 times in the regular season. Those additional 14 points may have got us into the top 2 (don't have time to run the numbers for all clubs) and equates to 3.5 extra wins over the season.

It rewards the teams that play attacking footy.

I've also had people say 'oh but what about if a team plays in the wet?' Stiff! We don't have an even fixture so why do we get concerned over little things like a team playing a game in the wet.

3 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Because coaches have realised there is nothing stopping your full forward running down to full back and flooding the defence.

endurance, fatigue.

full forwards have always been able to do that.

 

your forgetting the size of the interchange, under 1990 rules dr.

18 minutes ago, MyFavouriteMartian said:

endurance, fatigue.

full forwards have always been able to do that.

 

your forgetting the size of the interchange, under 1990 rules dr.

not really, I don't think coaches will abandon full ground defense just because the interchange is reduced to 2. I don't know if anything would really get them to change their tactics initially. They would just try and control the footy more by maintaining possession and causing repeat stoppages to take the wind out of the game and allow players to recover.

Edited June 3, 20204 yr by Dr. Gonzo

1 hour ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

not really, I don't think coaches will abandon full ground defense just because the interchange is reduced to 2. I don't know if anything would really get them to change their tactics initially. They would just try and control the footy more by maintaining possession and causing repeat stoppages to take the wind out of the game and allow players to recover.

No. The game of today could not be played IF the interchange rotations were diminished drastically. 
(it’s why they want to shorten the game...)