Diamond_Jim

I would be interested to see how 7 a side works out. One of the problems with AFL when compared to soccer is the numbers required to make the game work and the size of the ground. At it's simplest soccer can be a game in the park played by around 8 people in total with a few backpacks marking the goals. In comparison AFL with that number is just kick to kick

Funny you say that.... back in the 70's the half back flank was the traditional spot for your debutant and/or your ageing player. Now it demands one of your quickest and smartest players so Robbie would fit in very well.

so what was their excuse for the Carlton debacle ?? Those two last games should not be forgotten if we are to improve beyond our present mediocrity. ( yes we have improved from poor to mediocre but there is a long long way to go.)

And now it is revealed that they have been "secretly" trialling "7 a side" football at VFL level. The idea is for it to be a summer game apparently http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/afl-secretly-trials-new-version-of-football-20160907-gral7s.html

My gut feeling is that it would favour those clubs with good rucks and midfields. The key position players would continue to disappear as the back and fro running would increase. The trick is like soccer to put your forward player into space and let them run onto the ball.

As an aside would people think this is a good idea at VFL level while leaving AFL lists and numbers the same as at present for now.

Actually in some ways it does the opposite in the sense that the talent pool is not spread as thinly as today (quality of game improves) , players salaries go up (less players to pay)

I think what he is saying is that the total ground covered by 16 players today would be the same as 18 would have covered say 10 years ago. The game needs to be opened up (most people agree) and the rule changes (deliberate out of bounds, 15 metre area around the mark, limited interchange etc) are all with this result in mind. 16 players is a drastic change but it is worth a think.

Seems that there is some support for trialling sixteen a side football. The old VFA was 16 (no wings) so it isn't groundbreaking. Not sure what I think but it could be a way of opening up the game. Would also make zoning that little bit harder perhaps. http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-09-07/afl-prepared-to-trial-16aside-matches

We are not speaking about getting an "average 32 year old" when we look at taking on a veteran. Rather we are looking at a formerly elite player who can still contribute on field. The odds of us getting a similar player in the 24-28 bracket are very low and the price in both dollars and years of contract offering would be high. Hibberd and Mellksham will hopefully be good players for the club but I do ot believe anyone is expecting them to perform at a level above being a solid contributor to a regular 22. It might be different if the likes of Grimes, Garland etc were pushing for selection but they are not in the same league as the players we are talking about It is one position on a list and at the moment it makes sense for our list. (To make it clear I am arguing for this type of player.... it does not need to be Dal Santo...happy to leave that selection to the club).

No problem with this offer We have room for a top veteran that can give us one year and then a possible second. Happy for the club to determine who this player should be. Not sure how the guaranteed coaching works with salary caps. Would like to hear more from others on this aspect. Sounds like a wonderful loophole for the richer clubs.

Very good Biffen !!!

Thanks for those explanations. I also understand that although you might list a player you do not have to take him. If so he is then available to other clubs. I like the underlying logic of all these rookie categories but the rules can sometimes be hard to fathom.

Can someone explain to me how this aspect of the draft works. Are they an extra rookie spot over and above the existing rookies. I see from the linked article that Geelong and Essendon have nominated around 6 players each yet we have nominated only one. Can you take more than one? Thanks

Lucky for the AFL that the top 4 ended up the way it did otherwise there would be zero finals in Melbourne the first week. Not impossible in future for all finals (other than the GF) to be outside Melbourne

The Storm v Cronulla game was very good. Top of the table clash with the Storm ending the season on top. Incredible how the Storm are so competitive year after year. Much to like about them but those colours are not exactly high fashion !!

Sam Hayes (200 cm ruck/foward) looks like he might be the goods but my understanding is that he is too young for this years draft. Probably go too high for us next year anyway.

I remember going to the 2006 Sandringham v Geelong grand final at Princes Park when we were aligned with Sandy. We won but I came away thinking it was not really the Dees. Not sure what I would feel if I watched Casey win

Sorry Saty for confusing you I was not meaning that they would eliminate ruck play but rather that teams would evolve in a way that the need for a ruck specialist is eliminated. Your last paragraph seems to be saying much the same. The alternative is to make ruck play more important by removing third men up, relooking at the centre bounce etc. Personally I prefer this method but I doubt that we will see any movement given that it is not in the interests of those clubs who do not have dominant ruckmen (the majority).

I think that the ruck position is probably the most vulnerable to change (elimination) of any of the traditional positions. As many have posted on this thread the ideal is to have four players at various stages of development allocated to being a specialist ruck. That is a high percentage of your list dedicated to one position especially if only one of them is played. We have Gawn who this year is All Australian. He would probably qualify in our best 22 as an around the ground player. His ruck work is a bonus. More importantly it would seem that where teams want to nullify our ruck advantage it is relatively easily done. We may see teams just going for four mobile 6 foot players rather than the traditional developing ruck team. Alternatively it may be that teams opt to take the risk of developing no one in the belief that they can get an adequate 25=28 year old player from the lesser leagues when the need arrives. (A big risk if your ruckman goes down mid -season ..... mid season draft anyone??) Came across this article from earlier this year on the various ruckmen at each of the teams. http://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/whos-your-afl-clubs-best-ruckman-combination/news-story/746a11cd0e40d04806ea49389f9fdbb4

You are so right Samael perhaps we could sub licence the rights to one of those food caravans on the outside concourse

Ah thank you Samael... at last a comment on the culinary highlight of the day. We should find a way of getting these delicacies served at the MCG (only at Melbourne games of course)

Just had a look at the 2010 draft list. It was not exactly stellar with the benefit of hindsight http://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/ft_drafts?year=2010&t=N

Imagine there's no .........?

When they built the new stand they partially funded it by increasing the membership level dramatically. Before that it was the norm that children put down at birth got restricted membership at around 20 and full membership around 25. When the stand was built my 16 year old got restricted (unrestricted when he turned 18) and the 18 year old got full membership. Not very happy as it meant I paid the not inconsiderable annual fees !! By the sound of things the waiting list has blown out again but it would not surprise if they upped the number of members. The members stand is only filled on a few days of the year.