54 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

16 players per side cannot and should not ever happen.

It should not happen because the AFL did not spend all that money expanding into GC and GWS only to shrink the number of list spots available. The purpose of expansion is to grow AFL in those markets. We want there to be more opportunities to play AFL, not fewer.

It won't happen because the AFLPA won't let it happen.

But none of it needs to be even discussed.

I disagree completely. 16 a side should have happened 10 years ago.

On 7/11/2021 at 11:03 AM, In Harmes Way said:

Chris Scott laments that the best 22 should be out there playing every week. What he’s ignoring is that he should be trading some of his dinosaur aged best 22 to have a balanced age profile. As an example, the Hawks made some difficult decisions over the last 5 years to do exactly this. You can’t change the rules to suit the list you’d like to have.

wha ? Hawks topped up constantly and didn't 'celebrate' the draft like Clarko says. he has hung onto Burgoyne for instance when his stats this year are very underwhleming, keeping a youngster out. blokes like Smith wanted longer term deals. 

On 7/11/2021 at 8:55 AM, Kumamoto_Ken said:

What a plonker.

 

Peter Dinklage. 

Google him if you don't know who I mean.  

The dead spit....

I reckon he's a ringer for Donald Trump Jnr.

 

1 hour ago, Demonland said:

 

Literally nobody wants shorter quarters except Scott and lazy commentators who can't think of enough clichés and boring stories to fill up 30 minutes. 

17 minutes ago, Jaded said:

Literally nobody wants shorter quarters except Scott and lazy commentators who can't think of enough clichés and boring stories to fill up 30 minutes. 

That's unfair.  They are perfectly happy repeating the same ones for as many minutes as are available.

2 hours ago, Jaded said:

Literally nobody wants shorter quarters except Scott and lazy commentators who can't think of enough clichés and boring stories to fill up 30 minutes. 

They just want shorter games because they spend so much time watching footy most of them probably hate it half the time. Networks would also like shorter games to fit in to 2hr broadcast slots and they could then have back to back games with no overlap.

Wouldn't a shorter game = less goals = less commercials = less tv rights money for the afl?

7 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

They just want shorter games because they spend so much time watching footy most of them probably hate it half the time. Networks would also like shorter games to fit in to 2hr broadcast slots and they could then have back to back games with no overlap.

But longer games = more breaks = more ads. 

On 7/12/2021 at 12:50 PM, titan_uranus said:

16 players per side cannot and should not ever happen.

It should not happen because the AFL did not spend all that money expanding into GC and GWS only to shrink the number of list spots available. The purpose of expansion is to grow AFL in those markets. We want there to be more opportunities to play AFL, not fewer.

It won't happen because the AFLPA won't let it happen.

But none of it needs to be even discussed.

 

On 7/12/2021 at 1:44 PM, Dr. Gonzo said:

I disagree completely. 16 a side should have happened 10 years ago.

The old VFA gave 16 a side  away about 50 years ago - I for one never want to see it again.

Agree that major rotational reductions would make a big difference to congestion after a quarter Orr two.

8 hours ago, Demonland said:

 

Gawn nailed it plainly and simply, survival of the fittest. If Scott wants shorter quarters he’s basically admitting to the football world that he doesn’t think his players have the legs to go the distance.