Printable View
I can't see how this will stop congestion completely. There will still be congestion, maybe for three quarters, and then the coach will apply plan b for the last quarter. Human beings are getting faster and can run longer distances and may not not to be rested much.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sedat
Recruiting will also change and we will go back to recruitment of long distance running athletes.
Sorry, limiting interchange doesn't work.
I think it can't be understated the effect that the AFL's half-baked expansion had on the calibre of play being seen at the moment. The style of football played by the dominant sides (Hawthorn, Sydney and Geelong) immediately before the crippling list inequalities took hold was pretty breathtaking and at a higher skill level top-to-bottom than pretty much anything seen preivously.
By taking away access to top end talent from 16 clubs and limiting access to just 2 teams, creating a glut of talent that was both over- and under-exposed to AFL that has been about 75% ruined, and the game has been robbed of their contributions. (Without doing a hard fact-check) there's never been more flame-outs from the top end of the draft since the draft mattered than between 2010-2013.
The flip-side of this is that other teams have had to look to "alternate methods" for success. The side that Richmond won a flag with last year was STACKED with players lacking in AFL-level skills, but stoked by a total team-wide commitment to pressure acts and tackling. And a lot of clubs have taken this and followed suit; there's an unprecedented amount of footballers playing in forward pockets who are more dangerous around goals without the ball in their hands.
The AFL has made some changes to rules that are counter-intuative to a mantra of open-ended footy (banning 3rd man up being the most egregious example), but I really believe a dilution of the talent pool is largely to blame for what is really a product low on talent. Hopefully it can balance itself out over the next few years.
I'm more than happy with that as the compromise. I'd rather keep aspects of the game like the throw in and allow for neutral contests like that to occur instead of making it more like basketball or soccer where it's a binary 'one team has possession and other doesn't'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sedat
I don't know why everyone is so worried about zones. The 18's have been doing it for years and it is fine. The complaints that come through are that 'young forwards take ages to get ready for senior footy because they aren't used to having to outmark 10 players...'. Well, aren't more one-v-one contests what we want?
People who complain about the rule (3 and 2) don't understand how it works. It is easy to coach, easy to umpire and easy to comply with as a player. And before anyone mentions netball, the rule applies to a players STARTING POINT, not where they end up.
As an aside, after 2-weeks everyone loved the product because scoring was at a 20-year high. After 6 weeks, everyone hates it because scoring is down. What did everyone think was going to happen? Teams losing in shoot-outs always means they are going to lock things down/slow things down in order to get the 4points...Pre-season everyone wants to move the ball. Once the year starts, it is all "Holy Hell...stop them scoring". Sorry, but I really feel like I have heard this song before. The good teams are good to watch. The bad teams are unwatchable. And it has ALWAYS been that way.
Completely agree with you, however, maybe the way the drafting is set up, we aren't identifying this talent?Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Days
Interestingly, Grant Thomas tweeted he could find another 200 players out there that could play AFL.
And that is why we have to stop this tinkering with the game as it only creates further problems.Quote:
Originally Posted by mjp
So the sky didn't fall in when zones were introduced? When they first bought it in did teams infringe very often? Did it take them a while to adjust their instincts to follow the ball everywhere. I didn't even know there were zones in the 18s until earlier this year when some one pointed it out here. I don't even know if it came in at the start of the season or introduced after.Quote:
Originally Posted by mjp
I am nominally against zones but it's not a hard and fast No with a capital n. As you say there is a difference between players starting in zones and not being allowed out and just staring there. In a way we already have a zone with only 4 players in the middle when the ball is bounced.
Get rid of the dinky kicks. A minimum of 30 metres for a mark will open up play.
Or, it will just result in the congestion moving a little further away from the kicker.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bulldog4life
Actually, is there a correlation between congestion and the minimum kick distance increasing?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeemak
You mean when they went to 15 metres? How long has that been the distance? It's seems like ages now.
I've been really happy with the number of dropping the ball frees being paid. The commentators have been objecting, that there was no prior opportunity or the ball was knocked out in the tackle, but it has always been that if you are tackled you have to dispose of it properly or at least attempt to if the ball is pinnedQuote:
Originally Posted by bornadog
I'd call throw ins a fundamental of the game.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sedat
The Champion Data guys had a very interesting discussion on this yesterday on SEN. On the full OOB only came in after the 1968 season - before that you could kick it OOB 20 rows back and it would be a throw-in. Scoring up to 1968 was approx low 80's per team per match, very similar to this season. From 1969 onwards, scoring rose significantly until the peak of 1982 when it was around 113 per team per match and remained healthy until the early 00's and the advent of the ultra defensive, congestion heavy, stoppage laden game plans that Roos finds such a turn-on.Quote:
Originally Posted by MrMahatma
Their assertion is that the boundary line is the arch enemy of higher scoring, and that any rules incentivising corridor play would help alleviate congestion and promote more open play, with higher scoring a natural by-product of that.
The centre square was also something only introduced in the early-70's and also massively helped clear congestion that had built up in the game at the time. Both of those rule changes were considered revolutionary but have immeasurably helped the game. For mine it's not a stretch to simply take these rules to the next logical level - free kick against last player to touch the ball OOB (deliberate OOB is so tough now it's heading this way in any event) and nobody except 4 v 4 allowed in the centre square until the ball has been cleared.
I don't watch the footy to see a boundary umpire take 5-10 seconds to set himself and then throw it back into play to a mass of players, and I certainly don't watch footy to see 25 players within a 20m radius of the ball as tackle after tackle keeps the ball locked in for multiple stoppages while there are acres of green space all over the rest of the ground.
I respect that some nuclear options like zoning and removing 2 players are also options that could be effective, but I think there are other options available that retain the core elements of the game and alleviate the modern day problems with mass congestion around the ball.
This should be an easy one to implement and has been suggested by a few people in recent weeks over discussions about the game.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sedat
I'm against radical changes to the game as time often helps sort issues out but this isn't a major change. The only issue I would be concerned about is if a coach brings all 14 non-square players to the edge of the square whenever the ball is bounced.
there are just a lot of low skilled footballers in the game and the coaches have so much pressure on them to win that they cannot do anything to coach for the future.