5 questions about Round #1

[LostDoggy]

Re: 5 questions about Round #1

Didn't go far enough. It should be 2 interchange and 2 subs.

I'd say go even further. 4 subs no interchange.

[LostDoggy]

Re: 5 questions about Round #1

I'd say go even further. 4 subs no interchange.

Wow. Forward presses, possession footy, kicking backwards, 2 goal halves, 4 subs to use as you please but no rolling interchanges.. I'll be damned if it's not becoming soccer.

[LostDoggy]

Re: 5 questions about Round #1

Wow. Forward presses, possession footy, kicking backwards, 2 goal halves, 4 subs to use as you please but no rolling interchanges.. I'll be damned if it's not becoming soccer.

Either 4 subs or 4 interchange, not sure why they are having an each way bet here.
They want to slow things down(the only real reason why they changed the rule), then subs are the way to go. Plenty of trainers and runners on field already to give them drinks/messages.

[Bornadog]

Re: 5 questions about Round #1

Either 4 subs or 4 interchange, not sure why they are having an each way bet here.
They want to slow things down(the only real reason why they changed the rule), then subs are the way to go. Plenty of trainers and runners on field already to give them drinks/messages.

Lets go all the way like Grid iron, with backs and forwards moving on and off the ground.

The sub rule change is the biggest joke of all time and will only achieve greater injuries.

[ratsmac]

Re: 5 questions about Round #1

The general consensus is that if you cop an injury early then the other team has a 4 on 3 advantage for the balance of the game and this historically has been a huge hurdle to overcome.
However, with the new rule now you sub off a player and it's still 3 on 3.

It make a lot of sense when you look at it that way. However if that's the case then why not have 3 interchange and 5 subs for example then the playing field will always be fair.

[Sockeye Salmon]

Re: 5 questions about Round #1

Wow. Forward presses, possession footy, kicking backwards, 2 goal halves, 4 subs to use as you please but no rolling interchanges.. I'll be damned if it's not becoming soccer.

Actually, it will be ruckmen and rovers changing in the forward pocket. No flooding.

If they leave the "defenders-aren't-allowed-to-defend" rules as they are we could end up with 65 goal halves!

[LostDoggy]

Re: 5 questions about Round #1

Lets go all the way like Grid iron, with backs and forwards moving on and off the ground.

The sub rule change is the biggest joke of all time and will only achieve greater injuries.

It was subs or a sub til the 70s I beleive, they kept changing it because Sheedy said so in the 90s. The big issue is that the new rule has changed the game, and the afl has done it without even really thinking of the full consequences.
Its obvious its changed game in many ways eg recruiting strategies, yet it was only 6 months ago we knew nothing of this.

[Topdog]

Re: 5 questions about Round #1

The general consensus is that if you cop an injury early then the other team has a 4 on 3 advantage for the balance of the game and this historically has been a huge hurdle to overcome.
However, with the new rule now you sub off a player and it's still 3 on 3.

However as Brisbane saw the other night when the player they subbed off for injury it doesn't always make it even.

By all reports Beams could have come back on the ground but not subbing him meant that Brisbane would be short on interchange players for a quarter or more.

It puts coaches and players in an impossible position. If a player gets a corkie but will have to rest for 20-30 minutes can you afford to be short a player when you have someone fresh waiting in the wings. Do you risk subbing off a guy who misses 30 minutes only to be left short later in the game?

Injuries are part and parcel of the game and part of the luck of sport. Any claim that players will collide at less speed has surely been demolished with the Selwood hit which was worse than Harbrow's cleaning up of the Hawks player which I'm sure is 99.95% responsible for this rule being introduced.

[Sockeye Salmon]

Re: 5 questions about Round #1

Injuries are part and parcel of the game and part of the luck of sport. Any claim that players will collide at less speed has surely been demolished with the Selwood hit which was worse than Harbrow's cleaning up of the Hawks player which I'm sure is 99.95% responsible for this rule being introduced.

The Selwood hit happened early in the 1st quarter before anyone was fatigued.

Selwood went off and it remained 21 on 21.

[Topdog]

Re: 5 questions about Round #1

and Harbrow hit was in the 2nd quarter IIRC.

[westdog54]

Re: 5 questions about Round #1

I'd be interested in your thoughts about the following questions:

1) The new sub rule - What are the positive and negatives or is it just too easy to call?

2) Are Essendon a better side under Hird or has he just been given a free hit the the list development work that Knights had done?

3) Have the Crows rebuilt their playing list and playing style so quickly or were the Hawks just poor on the day?

4) Is the Saints playing style just wrecking the visual aspect of games?

5) Which team is likely to give the Pies the biggest test this season?

1) Too early to call, match committees are still getting their heads around the whole thing.

2) Bit of Column A, Bit of Column B. Whilst not necessarily a better side purely due to Hird, they've had a complete re-structure of their football department and brought in an essentially brand new coaching staff. It would be naive to think they haven't made a difference.

In saying that, I think Knights' legacy will be keeping Jobe Watson when Sheedy thought he wouldn't make it.

3) Again, a bit of A and a bit of B. The Crows do have some very good players but they should never have had a chance in that game, Hawthron should have been able to hold that lead.

4) I think I can handle one crap game per week. They're only ruining the visual aspect of the game for their own supporters as far as I'm concerned. There was a damning stat shown on One Week at a Time on Monday night. Long story short, the implication is that the Saints can't kick a flag winning store. Some might point to the Swans/Eagles to refute that but scoring Machines like the Pies are better than that.

5) At the moment Collingwood are like Roger Federer circa 4 years ago. Capable of being beaten by anyone on their day, but that anyone needed to do something extraordinary to do it. They're about as complete a team as I've seen in a long time.

[westdog54]

Re: 5 questions about Round #1

and Harbrow hit was in the 2nd quarter IIRC.

I think the Harbrow/Lewis hit has done more to fuel the 'Concussion Rule' debate than it has the Sub debate. The AFL were relying on a fairly comprehensive study ranging a larger period of time and even though I don't think its a particularly well thought out rule, I don't think there's any one particular incident that has been the catalyst for the change.

[Ghost Dog]

Re: 5 questions about Round #1

1) The new sub rule - What are the positive and negatives or is it just too easy to call?
To early to call. Wait and see.
2) Are Essendon a better side under Hird or has he just been given a free hit the the list development work that Knights had done?

Agree with Flamethrower. They have a top coaching panel. We were out played, on the field and tactically and mentally.

3) Have the Crows rebuilt their playing list and playing style so quickly or were the Hawks just poor on the day?

Adelaide were the fitter side. Playing at AMMI makes an enormous difference. Also, it was their 20th Anniv as a club. they had plenty to be revved up about. Poor Kicking form Hawthorn kept the door open.

4) Is the Saints playing style just wrecking the visual aspect of games?

For TV audiences, less.
For those who go to the ground, a resounding yes. Still, they do what it takes to win and I don't hold it against them. I also don't feel it will be a winning strategy for them with the new sub rule.

5) Which team is likely to give the Pies the biggest test this season?
Based on round one, Cats, Saints, Adelaide at home.

[Mantis]

Re: 5 questions about Round #1

5) Which team is likely to give the Pies the biggest test this season?
Based on round one, Cats, Saints, Adelaide at home.

What did you see in the rd 1 performances of Geelong & St.Kilda that the rest of us missed?

[Ghost Dog]

Re: 5 questions about Round #1

What did you see in the rd 1 performances of Geelong & St.Kilda that the rest of us missed?

IMO, an arm wrestle is still a fight. Albiet of a different kind.
I know alot of posters hated it, first half especially, but I enjoyed the contest. It pushed the players to their limits, was a tight contest.
Geelong look hardened and are a great team, with excellent fighting spirit. St Kilda not as convincing, less skilled, but this is the team that pushed Collingwood to a draw 6 months ago. Collingwood won't be taking either of them lightly as opponents.