 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
5 from the wing on debut
Joined: 27 May 2016
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
| K wrote: | I'm aghast. Football has already gone too much in the direction of rewarding negative things rather than positive things. (I hope this is just a fluctuation, not a long-term trend.)
The obvious concern is that with a ball in dispute you'd be better of hanging back a fraction and then tackling the ball-getter rather than going in and getting it first.
And coaches in general are not the best people to ask about rule changes. |
When you mention a fluctuation, have a look at some games from the 1970's. My recollection is that the idea that Buckley is suggesting (which I agree with) is going back to the way things used to be. "Prior opportunity" has crept into the game more recently. In the past, if you grabbed the ball under pressure then failed to dispose of it properly you had a free kick paid against you. That was the case even if you had no prior opportunity, or if the ball was knocked out in the tackle. The question asked was "did you dispose of it properly?" It was that way in the local and junior leagues as well.
I agree that generally coaches are not the best people to listen to with respect to the rules. Most coaches comments in that regard are ill considered and made at press conferences straight after a game, and made with a self interested view. They don't care about the game or the way it looks, they care about winning the game when they are coaching, and slowing down and controlling the game. For that reason when I heard that Buckley was commenting on the rules I thought "what BS has he said?". He has really surprised me though because he has not done that. He has considered the big, rather than the narrow picture. Those at AFL house should listen to what he has said. |
|
|
|
 |
5 from the wing on debut
Joined: 27 May 2016
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| RudeBoy wrote: | I actually disagree with Bucks on this.
I'm in favour of eradicating the interchange completely. Have 4 or even 6 on the bench, but when a player comes off, he can't come back on. This would significantly slow the game down and reduce the ability of masses of players continually running up and down. There would also be far less burst speed going on. It might even lead to a bit of a return to position football, since players would need to pace themselves to last the whole game. Then again wtfwik? |
I agree with Buckley.
And I agree with you.
Doing both just may take the game style back to the way it was in the 70's and early 80's, but with a lot more skill.
Individual contests, the ball moving reasonably quickly, and the game may become an exciting spectacle again. |
|
|
|
|
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| How does doing that make you feel? |
|
|
|
|
5 from the wing on debut
Joined: 27 May 2016
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Pies2016 wrote: | If you are in the camp that believes a lack of skills is part of the reason for congestion, then the answer is simple.
Raise the draft age to nineteen and no umpiring rule changes are required.
Give the kids an extra 12 months in the TAC system after their year 12 exams and their AFL preparedness will improve dramatically. They will develop their strength, skills and have the extra time needed to do the “ whiteboard learning “ while still at a TAC feeder club.
There is usually a direct correlation between poorly performed clubs and high numbers of young players in the team. The more kids you play, the more likely you will lose ( particularly against more mature opposition )
The kids simply aren’t capable of executing the skills required at AFL level after only a couple years of part time training at a TAC club. |
If congestion is caused by poor skills, how will not playing highly skilled draftees (for example, Stephenson) and playing older and less skilled players that are slower, help to ease congestion? |
|
|
|
|
David 
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
The Scott brothers are right. It is a very silly idea. Holding the ball does need to be called more – such as when a player with clear prior opportunity does a twirl or fend-off, gets caught, and then grazes the ball woth a knuckle without getting penalised. But prior opportunity itself is a crucial principle that actually keeps the ball moving. The minute that is scrapped, there’ll be free kicks every thirty seconds, and the game will be barely watchable.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Pies2016 wrote: | If you are in the camp that believes a lack of skills is part of the reason for congestion, then the answer is simple.
Raise the draft age to nineteen and no umpiring rule changes are required.
Give the kids an extra 12 months in the TAC system after their year 12 exams and their AFL preparedness will improve dramatically. They will develop their strength, skills and have the extra time needed to do the “ whiteboard learning “ while still at a TAC feeder club.
There is usually a direct correlation between poorly performed clubs and high numbers of young players in the team. The more kids you play, the more likely you will lose ( particularly against more mature opposition )
The kids simply aren’t capable of executing the skills required at AFL level after only a couple years of part time training at a TAC club. |
Um, how many teenagers are generally out there in a given match, though? It’d be something like one per side nowadays on average, wouldn’t it? Not sure how much of a factor that is, given that most draftees spend the bulk of their first year or two in the VFL or other second-tier comps.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
Pies2016
Joined: 12 Sep 2014
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^^^
You might have misread my thoughts.
There will always be some kids who are ready to go from day one in the AFL and they simply play on raw talent.
I’m more about raising the drafting age to make every drafted player more prepared for the transition. IF you are in the camp that poor skills cause congestion, then an extra year of ( potentially ) full time preparation for the AFL, makes a huge difference to a players ability to execute. It wouldn’t take much for a 19 year old full time training draftee to be a better footballer than a scrubby 30 year old good club man who fills holes on game day when required.
Every club is trying to either move the ball quickly or pick a way through a zone with pin point precision. The more skill you have available in those chains, the less likely you have congestion on the back of retaining the ball without disruption.
I’m also a bit of a traditionalist, so I’m more about changing something without further fundamental changes to the laws of the game. The other reason im against rule changes, is that no matter whatever ever rule we bring in, some coach will eventually find away to take advantage of it.
Most of what people are offering as solutions to congestion won’t work, simply because when one team gets behind, the short term quick fix is to throw extra numbers around the ball. As long as that trend remains, then the best solution is to have a team of highly skilled players who can still use the ball cleanly in traffic.
It is a great topic and while we continue to have the preseason comp, we should at least be trialling a number of ideas mentioned in this thread. |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| 5 from the wing on debut wrote: | | K wrote: | I'm aghast. Football has already gone too much in the direction of rewarding negative things rather than positive things. (I hope this is just a fluctuation, not a long-term trend.)
<snip> |
When you mention a fluctuation, have a look at some games from the 1970's. My recollection is that the idea that Buckley is suggesting (which I agree with) is going back to the way things used to be. "Prior opportunity" has crept into the game more recently. <snip> |
I was thinking more generally about "negative things" being rewarded (by wins). For example, consider sling-shot footy. It's fine as a component of the game, but do we want that to be the dominant means of scoring? It's not great seeing play where 36 players are in a defensive 50 for 10 minutes of nothing, and then the ball spills out and disappears to the other end for a goal. The percentage of goals from turnovers is also too high this year. Again, skill levels and game plans likely both contribute to that. |
|
|
|
|
5 from the wing on debut
Joined: 27 May 2016
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| K wrote: | | 5 from the wing on debut wrote: | | K wrote: | I'm aghast. Football has already gone too much in the direction of rewarding negative things rather than positive things. (I hope this is just a fluctuation, not a long-term trend.)
<snip> |
When you mention a fluctuation, have a look at some games from the 1970's. My recollection is that the idea that Buckley is suggesting (which I agree with) is going back to the way things used to be. "Prior opportunity" has crept into the game more recently. <snip> |
I was thinking more generally about "negative things" being rewarded (by wins). For example, consider sling-shot footy. It's fine as a component of the game, but do we want that to be the dominant means of scoring? It's not great seeing play where 36 players are in a defensive 50 for 10 minutes of nothing, and then the ball spills out and disappears to the other end for a goal. The percentage of goals from turnovers is also too high this year. Again, skill levels and game plans likely both contribute to that. |
I understand what you are saying. It comes down to perceptions of what is negative and what is not.
I see the current game style as a negative. There are rolling scrums with both teams waiting for the chance to break free and move the ball quickly. One player will grab the ball in a pack. In that situation that player almost always has the ability to choose to punch the ball onwards or to make an immediate, but risky, handball. They are coached not to do that though. The coaches rely on their structures at stoppages, so want the game to stop so that they can set up and start as they have planned. The prior opportunity rule is what allows for this to happen, save for the obscure and random free kick that is paid from time to time for failing to dispose of the ball.
Buckley’s go back in time suggestion should force the players to have the mindset to move the ball along, not to hold it up so the other team doesn’t obtain a clear possession. I don’t see that as a negative thing. I see it as a positive.
My interest in the game has waned over the years as I just don’t enjoy watching the current style of play as much as I enjoyed the game in years gone by. Judging by the crowd numbers though many others don’t share my view.
For me, the game isn’t just about whether we win or lose, although that is obviously very important. I want to enjoy the game as a spectacle.I want to come away from the game thinking about something memorable that occurred in it. I am not seeing that so much any more. Jeremy Howe is an outlier.
I am saddened as I am at least the third generation of males in my family that lived and breathed football and has had a connection to the club. I have two mid teenage sons, both good athletes/ sportsmen, both well over 6 feet tall, but they have no interest in football or Collingwood despite my efforts to indoctrinate them. They say that footy is boring. I hope that belief is not too widespread. |
|
|
|
|
Mugwump
Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Between London and Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^ similar experience, 5. My kids think the game is ugly and boring. They reckon it gets more watchable as it progresses, which is because fatigue sets in and space starts to open up.
It’s why I would reduce on field player numbers to 16 and cap rotations. They would have to play more positionally, as they used to, because the ground just cannot be covered.
_________________
Two more flags before I die! |
|
|
|
|
Invigoration
Joined: 22 Sep 2010
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Pies2016 wrote: | If you are in the camp that believes a lack of skills is part of the reason for congestion, then the answer is simple.
Raise the draft age to nineteen and no umpiring rule changes are required.
Give the kids an extra 12 months in the TAC system after their year 12 exams and their AFL preparedness will improve dramatically. They will develop their strength, skills and have the extra time needed to do the “ whiteboard learning “ while still at a TAC feeder club.
There is usually a direct correlation between poorly performed clubs and high numbers of young players in the team. The more kids you play, the more likely you will lose ( particularly against more mature opposition )
The kids simply aren’t capable of executing the skills required at AFL level after only a couple years of part time training at a TAC club. |
If you're in that camp, you're flat out wrong. The talent pool has been a bit more diluted by the nature of having additional teams, but it's outweighed by having a larger number of people vying to play AFL as a dedicated job with dedicated training hours etc.
The skills are just as good (in my mind, better), the difference is the fitness bases of players and therefore the increase in ability to cover ground and apply more pressure more often. The only reason the forward press and similar tactics work is because AFL players have the fitness base to be able to play in the backline but push up to the centreline to assist with applying pressure.
Do you reckon a Mick Martyn would have the ability to contribute to a successful current day pressing strategy? It's a lot easier to get a kick away coming out of the back half when Sav Rocca is chasing you compared to Darcy Moore etc
_________________
Brown re his GF omission:
"It’s not about me & it never has been. It’s about the team & it’s about Collingwood & it’s about the 22 other blokes out there on the park. That’s all that matters to me" |
|
|
|
|
RudeBoy
Joined: 28 Nov 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Invigoration wrote: | | Pies2016 wrote: | If you are in the camp that believes a lack of skills is part of the reason for congestion, then the answer is simple.
Raise the draft age to nineteen and no umpiring rule changes are required.
Give the kids an extra 12 months in the TAC system after their year 12 exams and their AFL preparedness will improve dramatically. They will develop their strength, skills and have the extra time needed to do the “ whiteboard learning “ while still at a TAC feeder club.
There is usually a direct correlation between poorly performed clubs and high numbers of young players in the team. The more kids you play, the more likely you will lose ( particularly against more mature opposition )
The kids simply aren’t capable of executing the skills required at AFL level after only a couple years of part time training at a TAC club. |
If you're in that camp, you're flat out wrong. The talent pool has been a bit more diluted by the nature of having additional teams, but it's outweighed by having a larger number of people vying to play AFL as a dedicated job with dedicated training hours etc.
The skills are just as good (in my mind, better), the difference is the fitness bases of players and therefore the increase in ability to cover ground and apply more pressure more often. The only reason the forward press and similar tactics work is because AFL players have the fitness base to be able to play in the backline but push up to the centreline to assist with applying pressure.
Do you reckon a Mick Martyn would have the ability to contribute to a successful current day pressing strategy? It's a lot easier to get a kick away coming out of the back half when Sav Rocca is chasing you compared to Darcy Moore etc |
The players are definitely fitter, and possibly even more skillful, but as a spectacle, the game is much, much worse than it was 20 yrs ago. The modern game has no place for a McKenna, Lockett or Fevola. There are also far fewer great pack marks. This trend began with the introduction of the interchange bench which allowed for a faster, continual running game. I recall the heads of the AFL stating their aim was to make the game much faster. Why, I don't know. |
|
|
|
|
Mugwump
Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Between London and Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^ in making the game much faster, they have made it far slower via stoppages. Reality very often twists simplistic good intentions into evil. Understanding that fact is a hallmark of intelligent maturity, and so off-limits to the AFL.
_________________
Two more flags before I die! |
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw 
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Just quietly, the game never had a place for a Fevola. |
|
|
|
|
5 from the wing on debut
Joined: 27 May 2016
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Pies4shaw wrote: | | Just quietly, the game never had a place for a Fevola. |
That’s right.
He did his best work behind cameras and bars. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
