 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
5 from the wing on debut
Joined: 27 May 2016
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
| K wrote: | | 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.
.... |
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. ... |
When talking about relative skill levels, I think you have to consider what timescale you're referring to. Skills were not great in the 70s, but since some time in the 90s the players have been fully professional. I don't think there's a greater desire to be an AFL footballer now than a couple of decades ago. The population has grown a bit, but I'm not sure if that really increases the junior talent pool. |
A few points in relation to this.
Our population has grown rapidly but the percentage of boys playing football competitively is probably far smaller than it used to be. There were few other sporting options decades ago, now there are many.
The expansion teams have obviously diluted talent.
I was at a small function recently which was addressed by a Collingwood assistant coach that will remain nameless. He clearly stated his view that the goal kicking skills of players now are inferior to the skills of players a couple of decades ago. Several reasons were provided. One of the reasons was not that they do not practice goal kicking enough at training, which he disputed. One reason was the fatigue levels of current players as they run so much further and so much harder now. However, he believes that the main reason is the lack of practice of the current day players when they were children. As a child, I went to training on two nights each week. On the other nights I was playing "kick to kick" in the street with a mob of other boys. That was replicated everywhere. It doesn't happen now. At school, every recess and lunchtime was also kick to kick on the school oval. There was a big pack at each end and quite a few balls were simultaneously used. Kicking and pack marking was a developed skill. I understand that kick to kick is banned at most schools now as someone may be hurt. |
|
|
|
 |
Toppi 
Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Location: Melbourne, Victoria
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I have heard Buckley previously state, and I agree with, is the rules don't need to be changed, but just enforce the ones that we currently have. Reward the tackler and actually pay the dropping / throws. These days it appears that it doesn't matter how you get rid of the ball, "if you try."
It is simple, pay holding the ball if they have prior opportunity, and if the ball gets out and it wasn't handballed or kicked, pay the free. Sounds pretty easy to me.
_________________
When it's all said and done, and the Premierships won. It's Collingwood forerver more. |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
|
|
|
|
didick
didick
Joined: 17 Jun 2009
Location: Brisbane
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Toppi wrote: | I have heard Buckley previously state, and I agree with, is the rules don't need to be changed, but just enforce the ones that we currently have. Reward the tackler and actually pay the dropping / throws. These days it appears that it doesn't matter how you get rid of the ball, "if you try."
It is simple, pay holding the ball if they have prior opportunity, and if the ball gets out and it wasn't handballed or kicked, pay the free. Sounds pretty easy to me. |
How does this stop/reduce congestion? Won't it drive even more of a defensive focus? Something that annoys me is when players tackle and dive on an already tackled player and attempt to hold the ball in, rather than extract if for themselves. That's the same as holding the ball.
It's interesting. Was watching Bill and Boz on Fox last night and they were discussing this again, and how both the AFL and NRL are not the spectacles and entertainment they used to be. For both sports, the common denominator is the coach trying to win games with defense, rather than attack and flair. And that is the opposite to what the TV channels and administrators want, as the fans want entertainment.
It is a little strange though when you think about how attacking we were in 2010-2011, because we were able to monster the opposition with the press. However that's only fun and enjoyable for one team's supporters. It was great for us at the time, knowing every week we were going to win! But in the end teams get figured out and coaches come up with defensive strategies to negate a teams advantages, and we get to where we are now. So unless there are rule changes I think it will always be cyclical and there will be a lot of dire, or boring games, full of congestion, while coaches want to stay in games or win ugly to keep their jobs, and there will be a couple of standout teams above the rest who can defend well and attack.
_________________
"The night is a very dark time for me" Chaz Michael Michaels |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
|
|
|
|
RudeBoy
Joined: 28 Nov 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Get rid of the interchange completely.
If players had to pace themselves - as they did for a hundred years - then there would be a return to more positional football, as they would not be able to run all over the ground for the whole game. We'd get great midfielders 'resting' in the forward pocket, rather than sitting on the bench. |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| ^ My fear is that, whether or not it achieved its intended aim, such a rule change would break the players physically. For a hundred years, the game was not fully professional. |
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw 
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| RudeBoy wrote: | Get rid of the interchange completely.
If players had to pace themselves - as they did for a hundred years - then there would be a return to more positional football, as they would not be able to run all over the ground for the whole game. We'd get great midfielders 'resting' in the forward pocket, rather than sitting on the bench. |
I look forward to that coming back. I so enjoyed watching KB29 resting in the forward pocket in 1980. |
|
|
|
|
RudeBoy
Joined: 28 Nov 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| K wrote: | | ^ My fear is that, whether or not it achieved its intended aim, such a rule change would break the players physically. For a hundred years, the game was not fully professional. |
So they should be better equipped to deal with no interchange.  |
|
|
|
|
VicParkTragic
Joined: 17 Oct 2010
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Incredible improvement in fitness over the last 30 years at this level has contributed to the changing nature of he game. I actually think some of the skills have improved as well. Remember it wasn’t that long ago players atbtthis level worked full time, ate steak. bacon and eggs on the morning of the match and had a cigarette in the rooms at half time. They did fairly limited training. The game has evolved because the players can execute it.
I like it as it is. It’s different to the ‘70’s. It’s now a game that reflects what is possible by super fit elite athletes.
_________________
Living in Geelong, barracking for the 'pies! |
|
|
|
|
Pies2016
Joined: 12 Sep 2014
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| On the back of two players in the same year, succumbing to heart problems on the field, I can’t see the AFL putting themselves in a position to lower the number of interchange rotations any time soon ..... unless of course some corporate giant wants to sponsor the rotation numbers. |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| VicParkTragic wrote: | | ... Remember it wasn’t that long ago players atbtthis level worked full time, ate steak. bacon and eggs on the morning of the match and had a cigarette in the rooms at half time. ... |
Sadly, some players still smoke, though presumably not in the rooms at half time. (Does anyone know for sure the identities of any current Pies players who smoke?) |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| RudeBoy wrote: | ...
So they should be better equipped to deal with no interchange. |
I might possibly take more joy in seeing players break if they were all playing for enemy clubs, not our own. Even then... |
|
|
|
|
Mugwump
Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Between London and Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^ players are breaking already, every week. Look at the rate of injury compared with the 1970s. Joints, especially knees and ankles, are not designed to stand the current level of throw-to-the-ground tackling. The game suffers from losing the best players too regularly, and the players will suffer later in life from the trauma injuries they have suffered in youth.
A return to a more man on man style of play, necessitated by the limits of running endurance, would do a lot less damage. I think we should reduce on-field numbers to 16. It is not traditional, but neither is the present style of football in any way traditional.
_________________
Two more flags before I die! |
|
|
|
|
5 from the wing on debut
Joined: 27 May 2016
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Pies2016 wrote: | | On the back of two players in the same year, succumbing to heart problems on the field, I can’t see the AFL putting themselves in a position to lower the number of interchange rotations any time soon ..... unless of course some corporate giant wants to sponsor the rotation numbers. |
I don't understand your logic. The heart issues are not related to how much rest the players have had. The heart issues are most likely caused by the effect of stressing an inherently defective heart. That is, it was going to happen to those athletes at some time or other. I am sure that we all know at least one athlete that had died in that manner when playing sport.
Players only have a certain amount of maximal efforts (intervals) in them in each game. That is when the greatest stress to the heart and the rest of the body is felt. If there is less rest between hard intervals (that is, no rest on the bench), the intervals are less intensive than they would be than if more rest was obtained, as it is impossible to lift the heart rate to maximum levels without adequate rest. Any athlete that uses a heart rate monitor and does interval training (ie. almost every runner, cyclist etc.) can attest to that.
There is a very simple reason why marathon runners are slower than 100m sprinters. They pace themselves, because they have to. With no bench rotations I expect that would occur in football as well. That may also result in gorillas in goal squares again. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
