1 minute ago, chookrat said:

Rather than shortening the matches the AFL could pause play within quarters to show more betting ads to kids.

I'm comfortable with an April start and 18 matches when Tassie join. Appreciate this won't happen due to tv rights and revenue but any changes that make the season longer take away from the game.

Now you're thinking like an executive chookrat! 😉

When Tassie comes in there will be more one sided matches and more sub standard games. The talent pool will be stretched even further than now.

6 hours ago, Roost it far said:

The players won’t want it. I’m all for an a 20 team comp where everyone plays everyone once, the top 9 play a modified finals with 2 extra weeks and there’s a bye before the GF. 

But the leverage for getting a longer season is more dollars for the players. So that'll be the argument put to the AFLPA.

 

8 hours ago, Roost it far said:

Why?

7 hours ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

So they’re adding one more home and away game at the expense of that weekend of meaningless match simulations.

What’s the issue?

Those meaningless match sims will just occur a week earlier

The AFL and the media treat the supporters like [censored]. “the AFL is open to the conversation…”

they are the ones starting the conversation, there is no outside force dictating an agenda

round 23, round 0 and now this? playing through March through 35 or 40oC is crazy. it’s a winter sport

1 hour ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Those meaningless match sims will just occur a week earlier

I recon we still have 2 match sims and allocate 1 premiership point for a win. That way Richmond can start finishing 9th again.

Edited March 18, 20241 yr by Queanbeyan Demon
Typo

8 hours ago, Jaded No More said:

Have you seen the amount of cramping and injuries in the first two rounds? It’s far too hot to play games in early March. Especially in the northern states. The season is so long already and we are asking so much more from players. 

A practice game is just that, you get extra rotations and players on the bench and you can pick and choose who to play and for how long. Completely different to a proper season match. 

If they keep extending the season they need to also increase the bench to 5+ sub and increase rotations and probably add in a second bye. Otherwise players will break down more frequently, and nobody wants that. 

 

7 hours ago, Fat Tony said:

If they are going to extend the season, I think it would make more sense to go through to October than start in early March.

This is a real problem, and it's all because the AFL are fixated on the GF being "the one Saturday in September".

It makes a lot more sense for footy season to run into October, and cricket to run through March, especially as the climate has shifted towards warmer late summers.

There is a big struggle at elite level but especially at grass roots level for sharing of grounds between summer and winter seasons. Local cricket mostly struggles to play in October but loves Feb and March for weather. 

It just makes sense to shift it all back a month.

4 hours ago, old dee said:

When Tassie comes in there will be more one sided matches and more sub standard games. The talent pool will be stretched even further than now.

They could help this by reducing the number of players on field to 16, 15 or even 14. Would reduce the congestion we see too. They won't do it though.

11 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

They could help this by reducing the number of players on field to 16, 15 or even 14. Would reduce the congestion we see too. They won't do it though.

The ridiculous thing is that reducing the number of players to 16, would massively open up play and probably result in more fast play, more running and bouncing, more open forward lines, potentially more goals, etc.

Less players will be able to commit to the contest on-ball, creating more open play, and space to run into if they do get too close.

It could shift back to more man on man play, as zone defence gets too hard to play with extra area and distance to cover per player. 

 

It certainly isn't going to add congestion and stoppages. 

1 minute ago, deanox said:

The ridiculous thing is that reducing the number of players to 16, would massively open up play and probably result in more fast play, more running and bouncing, more open forward lines, potentially more goals, etc.

Less players will be able to commit to the contest on-ball, creating more open play, and space to run into if they do get too close.

It could shift back to more man on man play, as zone defence gets too hard to play with extra area and distance to cover per player. 

 

It certainly isn't going to add congestion and stoppages. 

It will never happen because the AFLPA would argue it will increase injuries and decrease list sizes. And they’re right. 

5 minutes ago, deanox said:

The ridiculous thing is that reducing the number of players to 16, would massively open up play and probably result in more fast play, more running and bouncing, more open forward lines, potentially more goals, etc.

Less players will be able to commit to the contest on-ball, creating more open play, and space to run into if they do get too close.

It could shift back to more man on man play, as zone defence gets too hard to play with extra area and distance to cover per player. 

 

It certainly isn't going to add congestion and stoppages. 

It would force teams to go man on man because total zone defense would become close to impossible with the grass needed to be guarded greater than the ability of players to make the next contest.

My days of being triggered by AFL clickbait media are over.

 

On 18/03/2024 at 15:03, old dee said:

When Tassie comes in there will be more one sided matches and more sub standard games. The talent pool will be stretched even further than now.

I can’t understand how more people don’t see this is an issue. I believe the best thing to do is fold a current Victorian club, yes that’s an unpopular view and won’t happen. 18 clubs works, the AFL won’t stop at 19 they’ll have to make it 20. But don’t panic anyone just think how much more they’ll make at the next broadcast deal. We are not America, they have a population of 340 million we’re hovering around 25 million. Yes Tasmania deserve a team but it must come at the expense of an existing club. 

2 hours ago, Demonland said:

 

Will the bloody bye thanks to the Tassie team count as an extra round?

1 hour ago, Bombay Airconditioning said:

I can’t understand how more people don’t see this is an issue. I believe the best thing to do is fold a current Victorian club, yes that’s an unpopular view and won’t happen. 18 clubs works, the AFL won’t stop at 19 they’ll have to make it 20. But don’t panic anyone just think how much more they’ll make at the next broadcast deal. We are not America, they have a population of 340 million we’re hovering around 25 million. Yes Tasmania deserve a team but it must come at the expense of an existing club. 

North should have been Told to move to The Gold Coast 

A very poor decision that we will have to put up with for decades