Poor State of the Game

[daisycutter 29,336]

14 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

and reduce the players on the field to 16

no need to abolish interchange AND reduce players to 16

first see what abolishing interchange does after a couple of seasons

nothing revolutionary here, just returning a part of the game to where it was before

[Supermercado 2,784]

31 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

shades of alan jones and burlap bags........hmmm

I would not afford them the courtesy of a bag

[KingDingAling 3,737]

The game was done once players weren't allowed to dive on the ball. Once you had to keep your feet, it was curtains for our great game. I said to my old man at the time "the game had a good run now its finished". He thought I was getting ahead of myself, but years later he understood. To know the game of Aussie Rules, once you play around with the most basic aspect (contests), then it reshapes the whole game. The AFL played around in the name of safety, and they were not experienced enough to understand the damage it would do. 

[Hellaintabadplacetobe 4,282]

53 minutes ago, MyFavouriteMartian said:

I agree Hell Bent.  I have adopted  Mel-Stormers  as my other team.  And watch them when ever I can.

 

Of the product watch-ability;  I think for me its become, in NRL's case,  It's more Listenable.

Last night I noticed that I could here the sounds of the stadium,  & the ball being kicked and I was enjoying it,  and at the same time I noticed that the commentary paused for moments, between calls of the game...  moments of commentary silence.

This is the big thing for me;  that the NRL commentary is Not it's own Wall of Sound. 

 

The AFL commentators by comparison,  are quicker than the modern game was trying to become. 'remember speeding the game up'. Machine Gun commentary is turning me right off.

Are the commentators being payed by the word.?  Shut the F()@k Up Ch7 commentators,  take a breath,  take 5 breaths,  and let the game be the show.

 

STOP being a constant,  live,  Special Comments commentary.

 

You guys are talking,  'AT US'....   You have lost the art of talking,  TO US...  with us and give us time to think.

Stop talking so much, commentators.

We are in violent agreement with all points Martian.

Channel 7 commentary probably has a fair bit to do with the overall decline in the enjoyment of the viewing the game. It's painful and cringe worthy  to listen to at times. 

Admittedly the NRL has the advantage of at least some crowd in attendance which enhances the atmosphere,  but it's more the quality of the game that has gone forward as quick as our game has gone backwards.

And guess what,  they have made some rule changes that have had an instant impact on the speed of the game. 

Wake up AFL !!

[george_on_the_outer 7,430]

More of the same, including from one of our own former players Chris Connolly;

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/how-footy-turned-ugly-20200703-p558ps.html

 

[titan_uranus 24,615]

2 hours ago, Accepting Mediocrity said:

Good article, agree with most points. 

I disagree that the talent pool has become too thin with the addition of the suns and GWS - if that were really an issue, why are more gun players than ever being plucked from state leagues after missing out on several drafts? Also, the population is continually growing, so basic maths says the talent should be available to fill additional teams. There have always been, and always will be sub-par players on AFL lists - that's nothing new. The talent is there - it's just that any natural flair and creativity is being coached out of players.

I don't think the problem is low scoring per se. Low-scoring games can be great - think back to the Sydney vs West Coast grand finals. Similarly, high scoring does not equal quality football. 'All Star' style matches where both teams kick 20 + goals are generally rubbish.

That said, modern footy is increasingly hard to watch. You almost never see any individual player dominate entire games any more. 

As others have said, getting rid of the ruck nomination should be a no-brainer. Any other measures need to be properly trialed before they are introduced. That's half the problem - the AFL continually introduce rule changes with the best intentions, only to have them immediately backfire because they weren't tested properly. 

I don't like bonus premiership points for reaching a certain score. My solution: perhaps instead of using % to separate teams on equal points, we could just use points scored?

Agree with your post, particularly the bolded bit.

Our game vs Essendon last year was high scoring (100+ each) but devoid of all skill.

I strongly disagree with the notion that "more goals = better product".

If there is an issue with the game, it is that a higher proportion of the game is spent in stoppages with a higher proportion of the 36 on-field players within a certain radius (say, 20m) of the ball.

Reducing the number of players on the ground won't fix that. If anything, it could make things worse (there will be fewer options forward of the centre and teams may just try to roll stoppages down the wing until they have a forward 50 stoppage).

Making backwards kick play on won't fix that either. There is no evidence to suggest backwards kicks are contributing to lower scores (indeed, it's the opposite this year) or more stoppages.

IMO, three things that could be done to reduce stoppages:

1. Immediately penalise a "third" player into a tackle. Where one person tackles another to the ground, we often see others jump on the pile. The first player to do that (whether they are on the side of the tackler or tacklee) should be penalised. Keep it to one-on-one on the ground and the onus remains on the tackled player to make a reasonable attempt to dispose of the ball.
2. Remove the ruck nomination rule and permit third man up to come back into ruck contests. This is to our detriment as it weakens one of Gawn's strengths, but it allows clubs to clear the ball from stoppages. It also saves time, removing the need for umpires to slow things down by asking who is rucking. Just get the ball, throw it up, and move on.
3. Tighten the rules around holding the ball. I think we've erred too far on the side of "protect the ball carrier at all costs". I don't agree with the idea of removing prior opportunity, but I also think too many players take it, drop it in a tackle, and the game is allowed to play on. There is scope to tighten that rule without going OTT, I think.

[Lord Travis 10,461]

The increasing number of rules changes are to blame for the poor watchability of the game. There were far less rule changes in decades gone by, but over the past decade the AFL has introduced all sorts of new rules purely in an attempt to counteract coaching tactics and what is perceived as less watchable. Low scoring doesn't mean low quality e.g. Sydney vs West Coast matches.

Basically all these rules changes made by the AFL have backfired, as it's a coaches job to maximize everything they can to win within the rules. If they stopped changing the rules to combat the coaches tactics, the coaches themselves would find ways to combat each other and gamestyles would naturally evolve as they did in previous decades. The AFL need to stop trying to interfere with the game and let it evolve naturally. 

On a side note, we were a strong team in 2018 and super high scoring. Rules changes to enforce 6-6-6 crippled us with our extra men pushing up from behind the ball and into space. Our coaches still haven't adapted to those rules changes.

[Diamond_Jim 12,357]

2 hours ago, Supermercado said:

Throw the Channel 7 commentary team into the sea. Won't do anything for the quality of the game but it will help my ears.

Loved this comment from the Guardian article....

"On Channel Seven however, they cannot decide whether each football game is the biggest sporting event since the Thriller in Manila, or a bit of a lark, a bit of a [censored]-take. They often go from hyperbolic to bored senseless in the space of a quarter, sometimes in the space of one sentence. Every game is boiled down to talking points. The banter, the banality and the blokiness is a major turn off."

[MyFavouriteMartian 572]

1 hour ago, Hell Bent said:

We are in violent agreement with all points Martian.

Channel 7 commentary probably has a fair bit to do with the overall decline in the enjoyment of the viewing the game. It's painful and cringe worthy  to listen to at times. 

Admittedly the NRL has the advantage of at least some crowd in attendance which enhances the atmosphere,  but it's more the quality of the game that has gone forward as quick as our game has gone backwards.

And guess what,  they have made some rule changes that have had an instant impact on the speed of the game. 

Wake up AFL !!

There's another important point.

The  NRL commentators,  are genuinely enjoying the game they are commenting.  Their joy and excitement is genuine;  and not acted like some cheap Hollywood wannabe performer.

AFL commentators want to dissect every blooody play,  It's like pulling wings off insects,  just to see inside.

So they can exhibit they're own cleverness.

 

I think they just like talking down to the, (as they say) unwashed.

It feels condescending, self-centred,  and frustrating.

Edited July 3, 2020 by MyFavouriteMartian

[Lord Nev 13,512]

11 minutes ago, Lord Travis said:

On a side note, we were a strong team in 2018 and super high scoring. Rules changes to enforce 6-6-6 crippled us with our extra men pushing up from behind the ball and into space. Our coaches still haven't adapted to those rules changes.

This is also an interesting case for the AFL and their stubbornness in not changing back some of the rule changes that don't have the desired effect.

In 2019 the AFL recorded the lowest average score across the league since 1967. Scoring shots were down also, so it wasn't inaccuracy.

The AFL used the VFL trial games to justify the rule changes for 2019, despite the fact that the average score went down by 9 points in those games.

 

[MyFavouriteMartian 572]

13 minutes ago, Lord Travis said:

The increasing number of rules changes are to blame for the poor watchability of the game. There were far less rule changes in decades gone by, but over the past decade the AFL has introduced all sorts of new rules purely in an attempt to counteract coaching tactics and what is perceived as less watchable. Low scoring doesn't mean low quality e.g. Sydney vs West Coast matches.

Basically all these rules changes made by the AFL have backfired, as it's a coaches job to maximize everything they can to win within the rules. If they stopped changing the rules to combat the coaches tactics, the coaches themselves would find ways to combat each other and gamestyles would naturally evolve as they did in previous decades.

The AFL need to stop trying to interfere with the game and let it evolve naturally. 

Agree,  'LT'.

But revert first;  back to 1990 rules and laws of the game.  Undoing all those bloody confusing rules,  and return the game back to the one where people understood, what was happening.

Then leave it alone. 

 

This would encompass the smaller interchange bench, less players. for starters.

 

[old dee 23,492]

54 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

Loved this comment from the Guardian article....

"On Channel Seven however, they cannot decide whether each football game is the biggest sporting event since the Thriller in Manila, or a bit of a lark, a bit of a [censored]-take. They often go from hyperbolic to bored senseless in the space of a quarter, sometimes in the space of one sentence. Every game is boiled down to talking points. The banter, the banality and the blokiness is a major turn off."

Watch without sound DJ it improves the experience.  I actually feel a little sympathy for them there is usually not a lot happening the field to talk about.

[old dee 23,492]

3 hours ago, daisycutter said:

no need to abolish interchange AND reduce players to 16

first see what abolishing interchange does after a couple of seasons

nothing revolutionary here, just returning a part of the game to where it was before

I agree dc but it is never going to happen imagine the crap that would be talked about player welfare!

[Diamond_Jim 12,357]

2 minutes ago, old dee said:

Watch without sound DJ it improves the experience.  I actually feel a little sympathy for them there is usually not a lot happening the field to talk about.

I often do OD.

Will probably watch a practice F1session tonight rather than the game.

[old dee 23,492]

42 minutes ago, MyFavouriteMartian said:

Agree,  'LT'.

But revert first;  back to 1990 rules and laws of the game.  Undoing all those bloody confusing rules,  and return the game back to the one where people understood, what was happening.

Then leave it alone. 

 

This would encompass the smaller interchange bench, less players. for starters.

 

I doubt you would get objections from 90% of the public. Increasing the bench and all the inter changes is what has ruined the game.

[old dee 23,492]

Just now, Diamond_Jim said:

I often do OD.

Will probably watch a practice F1session tonight rather than the game.

Oh forgot that was back on DJ, My brother and I were going this year but as it turns out I was in hospital before they cancelled. Got our tickets refunded in 5 days.

[daisycutter 29,336]

11 minutes ago, old dee said:

I agree dc but it is never going to happen imagine the crap that would be talked about player welfare!

player welfare argument is total hogwash, od. coaches will run players into the ground no matter what the rules are. let's make it a bit harder for them. eh? they might be forced to start developing football skills and natural football instincts instead?

coaches use the interchange to get more burst effort from players by more 2-way running. net result is more strenuous.

staying on ground forces coaches to rethink continuous defensive 2-way running. forwards might be able to stay more in position and surprise, surprise actually play as real forwards. onballers would rest on flanks or pockets and as they are resting are less likely to end up at the opposite end of the ground. we also know it works, because that's the way it use to be. despite what coaches might say the interchange was brought in to increase defense and possession at all costs. not only that they just kep ramping up the interchange numbers until it became ridiculous.  

[old dee 23,492]

3 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

player welfare argument is total hogwash, od. coaches will run players into the ground no matter what the rules are. let's make it a bit harder for them. eh? they might be forced to start developing football skills and natural football instincts instead?

coaches use the interchange to get more burst effort from players by more 2-way running. net result is more strenuous.

staying on ground forces coaches to rethink continuous defensive 2-way running. forwards might be able to stay more in position and surprise, surprise actually play as real forwards. onballers would rest on flanks or pockets and as they are resting are less likely to end up at the opposite end of the ground. we also know it works, because that's the way it use to be. despite what coaches might say the interchange was brought in to increase defense and possession at all costs. not only that they just kep ramping up the interchange numbers until it became ridiculous.  

Agree totally DC. 

[Little Goffy 14,001]

No cap is neeed for interchanges, just make it so they have to be done in a batch, all four switching at once.  Boom. Not only do you have players out there for extended periods, and tactical use of resting forwards and players being held to position to minimize low-value running, and the fitness premium becomes about being able to sustain the effort in a way that will actually stand out (Robert Harvey style) instead of being managed to invisibility (87% Tog vs 83% what a star) , but also you add a whole new tactical element of who you 'deploy' in those batches. Bring all your left-footers out fresh and try to dominate their wing?  Rotate your mids in pairs or groups, or have one super-fresh at each centre bounce? 

And think of it - the need for a bteak in play to allow the batch interchange would mean every time there was a goal the 'reset' would come with a meaningful tactical/structural change.

I actually first thought of this as a joke suggestion but it is really growing on me.

[gregdemon 622]

16 a side. four less players  less congestion.  I still watch lots of games but not the same or exciting as it once was. (I am 61)

 

shame

[daisycutter 29,336]

6 minutes ago, Little Goffy said:

No cap is neeed for interchanges, just make it so they have to be done in a batch, all four switching at once.  Boom. Not only do you have players out there for extended periods, and tactical use of resting forwards and players being held to position to minimize low-value running, and the fitness premium becomes about being able to sustain the effort in a way that will actually stand out (Robert Harvey style) instead of being managed to invisibility (87% Tog vs 83% what a star) , but also you add a whole new tactical element of who you 'deploy' in those batches. Bring all your left-footers out fresh and try to dominate their wing?  Rotate your mids in pairs or groups, or have one super-fresh at each centre bounce? 

And think of it - the need for a bteak in play to allow the batch interchange would mean every time there was a goal the 'reset' would come with a meaningful tactical/structural change.

I actually first thought of this as a joke suggestion but it is really growing on me.

will never work. too complicated and too hard to adjudicate. and anyway i can't see any benefit to it other than more chaos and confusion

preferred your earlier thought

[Jjrogan 1,391]

In years past players held their positions. 

Enforcing two players from each team within the 50 metre arc at all times would effectively be analogous to reducing the teams to 16 without actually changing the number of players (for the purists).

It would also have the added benefit of different types of players being part of lists.  Lockett wouldnt get a game right now..  doesnt chase, not fit enough and not allowed to elbow jaws.  But if a player doesnt have to run 10 km a game, power forwards would make a come back.  Resting ruckman up forward would be a serious match up threat.  You would be rewarded from quick transition from half back. Right now, one sideways kick and you're facing eighteen men in a zone. 

the two enforced players dont have to be the same for the whole game.  It wont be netball because the players dont have to be specified.  Eg If you see a match up advantage it may allow senior leaders to direct on the fly.  Eg, trac goes deep goal square for 10 minutes etc.  Only issue is the umpires have to pay attention, but a quick glance and counting to 4 is not that hard. 

[Cheap Seats 3,310]

I couldn't give a hoot about the state of the gane

Just win

 

[Age 463]

I really don’t think that dropping rotations or even players on the field will have an impact. The coaches are so he’ll bent on controlling the game with their defensive measures that they will just lock the game down even more. 
They have to find a way to incentivise scoring as well as having more one on one contests. How you do that though u don’t know. 
Personally I think you need to get rid of most of the coaching staff and stop the game from being so overcoached. They would Probably find a way around it though. 

[Lou C. Fur 1,009]

8 hours ago, MyFavouriteMartian said:

I agree Hell Bent.  I have adopted  Mel-Stormers  as my other team.  And watch them when ever I can.

 

Of the product watch-ability;  I think for me its become, in NRL's case,  It's more Listenable.

Last night I noticed that I could here the sounds of the stadium,  & the ball being kicked and I was enjoying it,  and at the same time I noticed that the commentary paused for moments, between calls of the game...  moments of commentary silence.

This is the big thing for me;  that the NRL commentary is Not it's own Wall of Sound. 

 

The AFL commentators by comparison,  are quicker than the modern game was trying to become. 'remember speeding the game up'. Machine Gun commentary is turning me right off.

Are the commentators being payed by the word.?  Shut the F()@k Up Ch7 commentators,  take a breath,  take 5 breaths,  and let the game be the show.

 

STOP being a constant,  live,  Special Comments commentary.

 

You guys are talking,  'AT US'....   You have lost the art of talking,  TO US...  with us and give us time to think.

Stop talking so much, commentators.

Easy fix - Keep the TV on but turn the volume off. Put the radio on for comments instead. ABC AM are pretty good - my favourite radio commentators are Roy and HG. They used to do great calls of the Grand Final some years ago...