Dr. Gonzo

About a month ago I had a fever (over 40 degrees) combined with a pretty swollen throat (but not infected and wasn't too sore), chills, body/muscle aches, fatigue, headaches for 4 or 5 days etc and was the worst I have felt since I had glandular fever. GP did a swab test for flu which came back negative but I was off work for a week and so was everyone in my team who had it as well (I caught it off someone in the team and it went through almost all of us). Did I have coronavirus? I dunno maybe ?‍♂️

I don't really understand the question. If there's a premiership to win then I want us to win it. Premierships aren't weighted the one won by Fitzroy in 1916 in a 4 team comp when they finished last is worth the same as every other flag.

There's no way crowds are allowed back by Anzac Day. They've cancelled all Anzac ceremonies today haven't they? This might allow us to negotiate with the AFL/Tigers/Pies to allow us at least one of Anzac Eve or Queens Bday next year so we won't have the feast or famine and will be guaranteed one of them each year. I'd push for anzac eve in 2021 because hopefully we'll have crowds back by queen's Bday (though who knows...)

Shorter games will be to play make up games mid week later in the year (assuming the season is suspended and is able to recommence in time) The AFL will pull out all stops to meet their tv commitments (198 h&a games and 9 finals)

Thank god our capitalist system is built to withstand such crises ?

I'm sure you will, were you invested when we played in Alice Springs or Darwin?

My mfcss is telling me we get off to a flyer on top of the ladder and then the season is called off OR we break the drought but no one is allowed in to watch it ?

Or they have WA umpires like Dean Marghetts who blatantly favours them. If it was just the crowd why don't the Dockers get afforded the same luxuries?

I'm not saying don't try that. I just don't think it will work.

They also need to pay free kicks against the scraggers holding/tackling players at contests before theyve taken possession of the footy. Every club does it.

Yes the increased interchange was a significant factor. But it wasn't the only factor. Total football, full team defensive zones etc these tactics coincided with the increased interchange. They are both contributing factors to the lack of flow in the modern game.

But the centre square??? Out on the full? That's not Australian Football, not how it was played for the majority of the first 110 years anyway.

In your example 12 a side would make defensive zones untenable. The ground is too big and players can kick the ball too far too quickly to be able to cover distance between the opposition in a 12 man zone. There were always be some congestion around the ball but it would be drastically reduced and coaches would be forced to play man on man due to the zones being unworkable

Pretty sure the SANFL and VFA have had 16 a side. Australian Football began with 20 a side before being culled. Changes have been made throughout the history of the game to maintain the aesthetics. The centre diamond/square wouldve been anathema to you in the 70s as well as the out of bounds on the full rule because "thats not Australian Football"

How will taking two players from each team off the field take us further away from what football was and what made it great?

Maybe we could try him in defense?

Why do you say that? Aflx had fewer players on the ground yes, but there were a multitude of other rule changes/factors that meant that abortion of a publicity stunt was never going to succeed. There will still be bumps, tackles, ovals etc It's just that there will be more space for the players to play in instead of being suffocated by a scrum of players when they take possession of the ball

Fair enough, I don't necessarily disagree. More scoring isn't necessarily the aim for me it's more the aesthetic of the game. Opening up the play to remove the rolling scrums and providing some space for the game to breathe and players to be able to show off their talents instead of being suffocated by 25-30 players around the ball is the aim. Higher scoring is just a consequence of that. If you like the game as it is now that's fine. The best games are still great. But for me they're few and far between and I often find myself bored for large patches of games which never happened previously. Maybe I'm just getting older but I don't think so, the more open game of the 90s and early 00s is still great to look back on and watch

Defense generally wins championships and it's the same the world over. Look at the NFL. The Rams had an offense that was seen as so high powered and revolutionary that anyone who ever had a coffee with McVay was offered a head coach role. In the Superbowl their high octane offense was brought to a screeching halt by one of the best defensive minded coaches of all time, Bill Belichick and they only scored 3 points for the whole game! This year the high powered offense overcame the brutal defense when Mahomes turned the game around in the final 7 minutes scoring 3 Touchdowns. But up to that point the 49ers defense had them covered leading 20-10 and were only brought undone by a combination of conservative playcalling, laissez faire officiating and a generational player catching fire. Coaches will always want to build off a solid foundation of defense, it's in their nature.

It's on the decline. During the 80s and 90s you would frequently see triple figure scores and both teams topping the tonne. That is a rarity these days. Even as little as 5 years ago over/under lines for matches were generally set at around 190-192 points now it's usually around the 170 mark.

The increased interchange has certainly been a factor bit it's not the only factor. The change in coaching strategies that have evolved over the last 2 decades won't go away just because you cap the interchange though. Coaches did a lot of research in the 90s and 00s into other sports and realised there was nothing forcing them to keep players in their traditional positions on the ground. This led to total defense strategies such as the Flood, Clarkos Cluster, the Press the Eagles Web etc Coaches aren't going to abandon these strategies just because rotations are limited. In fact it would likely see them become even more defensive as they would want to preserve their players energy so would stack the defense/maintain possession soccer style and try and score on a fast break. Additionally they would revert to focusing on recruiting athletes over footballers again which would be a shame considering the pendulum seems to have swung back to getting genuine footy players over the last 3-5 years. Having said that I'm not opposed to capping interchange first and see if it works. I just don't think it will and eventually we'll end up still needing to reduce players on the field I would reduce player numbers (maximum 16 a side but maybe less) Cap rotations at 5 per quarter (or even revert back to substitutions instead of interchange such as with the old 19th man rule) Consider a "last touch" rule between the 50s, similar to what they had in the 1920s-40s. This would prevent teams reverting to defensive tactics of playing the boundary line Get rid of ruck nomination rule

Why is it a terrible idea?

Gameplans, fitness and coaching have evolved since the 60s. Going back to those rules won't reduce congestion because players don't hold their positions anymore (because they don't have to and we don't want them to) Reducing the number of players on the ground is not a rule change as such , not like changes to "holding the ball" or deliberate out of bounds are for example. It doesn't impact the way the players on the field play or the way the umpires adjudicate

Removing players from the field is the only logical solution to congestion and should have happened 10-15 years ago AFL grounds remain the same size as 120 years ago yet players are exponentially fitter not to mention the constant rotations Removing players from the field will break up defensive zones because the area each defender will need to cover between opponents will be too large and so will force teams into man on man game plans There will always be "loose defenders" but removing players from the field will limit their impact as there will be greater space for players to move into which they will not be able to cover It will have a dramatic impact on the flow of the game without changing any fundamental rules relating to how the game is actually played. 16 a side is the minimum, I would consider taking it down to 15 or 14 or perhaps even further. I would still keep the wings but remove one midfielder, one forward and one defender to start with (5-5-5) fewer midfielders at centre bounces will make it easier to clear the ball Or we can refuse to change this, keep implementing rules that alter the fundamental nature of the game which have unintended consequences and don't address the issues they were brought in for and watch the game continue to devolve into an unentertaining rolling scrum of players with little room for individual brilliance and skill

Bonafide AA key back you've gotta be having a laugh. Unaccountable, lazy and prone to turnovers. Refused to listen to instruction and play to team rules even under Roos and was sent packing.