BoBo

I think the dichotomy of the current AFL being a BIG business that requires monetary decisions to be made but or the feeling of fans for the idea that it's about 'bleeding for the jumper' is very much at play here. If you see the AFL as a business then what the clubs and players do in their decision making is just that, a business decision. Not a lot of room for romanticism. If you see the AFL as being the old school tribalism that requires club loyalty and moves and trades eliciting an emotional response or betrayal then yeah, I can see how people would get [censored] at players for leaving and such. I kind of swing between the two but find trying to fit them both in to be a case of cognitive dissonance.

First posts Peeps so be kind. If the issue is congestion (and making 16 players on the field isn't to peoples liking) and the aim so it make players more tired, why not have a 5 player bench and reduce the amount of bench changes to 48. This way the amount of players on the field spend more time playing and the rest phases for players can be expanded with the 5th player, as their is a 5th player to chop out for key players to rest longer hence (maybe) reducing soft tissue issues. But obviously with fewer changes, Clubs will have to become much more tactical as to which players will need to be rested. If the issue is soft tissue injuries, then logically, you will want to have your mid-field being the one taking the majority of your changes. Kind of a happy medium?