Has 2016 Ruined Football For You?

[comrade]

Losing Dalrymple hasn’t exactly helped my indifference.

[Ozza]

Revisionist history - plenty of teams including us had numerous chances to win a flag in that 2005-2015 period you mentioned and earlier. We (and others) just weren't good enough when it counted. In 2016 and 2017 the best teams at the pointy end of the season won the flag just as they have done in 99% of seasons previously.

What you consider "absolutely boring" and "constant whining" is actually great concern for how the game has been played in the last 10 or so years and how it will be played in 5, 10, 20, 50+ years from now. You clearly like the product and think it is awesome how the game has virtually abandoned one-on-one positional play in favour of highly tactical and structural set-ups designed to minimise risk. I don't share your wildly optimistic view. If others are turned on by low scoring, multiple stoppages, congestion, incessant tackling, glorified circle work, reduced contested marking and Joe the Goose out the back cheapies they are in for a treat with the modern game. For mine it is a vastly inferior product today compared to the brilliant spectacle the game produced from the early 90's to the early 00's pre Paul Roos.

I find the view of on the product as compared to the 90s & 2000s also revisionist history. All eras have had ordinary games, and terrific games on any given weekend. The game moves on and evolves through different styles through different eras also and it is influenced far more by the coaching, levels of professionalism, fitness, and whatever the 'in vogue' game plan is at the time (usually the game style of the team who won the most recent premiership). The game is more even that it ever has been, any team can beat any other team on any given day.

I don't necessarily think the game is any better or any worse than previous eras - it just evolves I appreciate it for what it is, and enjoy the outlet.

On the style of play - the league is damned if they do, damned if they don't. Play gets more defensive and congested - so they look to make rule changes to manouevre around the coaching strategies - but then the league is potted for tinkering with the rules.

[Sedat]

I find the view of on the product as compared to the 90s & 2000s also revisionist history.

In 1992 there were 2 teams who scored under 2000 points for the entire season - and minor premier Geelong scored in excess of 3000 points, which is insane. In 2017 there were 11 teams who scored under 2000 points, including the eventual premier. It is not only disingenuous, it is blatantly wrong to suggest there were as many poor games back then compared to now.

Scoring was so much higher throughout the 90's and early 00's compared to recent seasons, with 2017 plumbing new depths in scoring not seen since the days of the waterlogged suburban grounds of the 1960's. With pristine ground conditions, games going longer than ever, and a fully professional environment, it is an indictment on the AFL that they have presided on such a downward spiral of scoring in the modern game.

[Ozza]

In 1992 there were 2 teams who scored under 2000 points for the entire season - and minor premier Geelong scored in excess of 3000 points, which is insane. In 2017 there were 11 teams who scored under 2000 points, including the eventual premier. It is not only disingenuous, it is blatantly wrong to suggest there were as many poor games back then compared to now.

Scoring was so much higher throughout the 90's and early 00's compared to recent seasons, with 2017 plumbing new depths in scoring not seen since the days of the waterlogged suburban grounds of the 1960's. With pristine ground conditions, games going longer than ever, and a fully professional environment, it is an indictment on the AFL that they have presided on such a downward spiral of scoring in the modern game.

Ok, your point is clear. High scoring = better football.

And your comment that it's disingenuous and blatantly wrong to suggest there were as many poor games back then....of course, it was all classics back then with the Bears, the Swans, Fitzroy and others putting together some classics - we must have just missed them seeing as only a handful of games were on tv each week.

[Sedat]

Ok, your point is clear. High scoring = better football.

Its not that simple an equation. Positional play + one-on-one contests + fast ball movement - congestion and stoppages = high scoring and attractive football. There are poor games in every era but there has never been so many dull, low scoring, congestion and stoppage heavy games as there are today. And as a 40+ year rusted on fan of the game, I've never been so disengaged in non-Bulldog matches as I am today.