I must say that the debate which is occurring on this thread is interesting and has been something which i've been pondering for most of the past two seasons. As i see it the debate involves the difference between the roos 2005-2006 style and the hafey 1987-88 style.
In my opinion (and this is all that it is) the current afl rules committee believes that the style of the 1980s of high flying marks and kicking to contests is the model to be emulated.
For what it is worth i actually don't like that model because unless it is played well by both sides it usually involves uncontested midfielders streaming towards goals and running forwards of the ball (circa geelong 1989-1992). Goals of themselves are actually pretty dull. Go along to a circle work training session to see how dull it can be.
I actually think the rules committee hated the way sydney played. To my mind it was indistinguishable that the rules committee was seeking to stop unattractive football aka the way sydney played. Every rule change has been designed to defeat the sydney style. Holding the ball interpretations have been changed to stop players holding seeking a ball-up. Short kicking has been interpreted much more strictly - so many of the passes buchanan and others made inside 50 no longer are paid as marks. The time granted to pass the ball has been reduced stopping our ability to delay until someone leads successfully. The chopping of the arms rule was directed as much towards leo barry as any other player. The push in the back rule was one which was n ot specifically designed against the swans but we were at the outer edge of that rule anyway.
I do like a variety of styles. I like to appreciate tackling as well as high marking. I appreciate buckley for his skills, hird for his ability to dominate. but i also really appreciate the paul kelly battering ram style.
Lastly in case anyone thinks roos is really only a one trick pony I recollect catching the train home from a game against melb at telstra dome in about 2005 where someone rightly pointed out that the style we played in 2003 was so exciting but didn't quite get us there...
-
-
When I'm watching other teams I prefer open footy - tonight's game Esendon v. Melbourne for example. When I'm watching the Swans I'd rather win ugly than lose pretty. But best of all is when we win pretty - which doesn't happen often enough.Leave a comment:
-
-
Yeah I think that is fair. Certainly it is possible to have an interesting low-scoring affair, but it generally wouldn't hurt adding a few goals. Low scoring affairs are frequently associated with lower skills. And I think it is more likely to find some interest in a low-skill game if more goals are scored.
As far as twisting viewpoints on this, I think RP has been the master of that, across a number of threads!Leave a comment:
-
I like games that generally have both elements. Tight contests, with the occasional flurry of goals bu one side, the other side locks it down and slowly gets on top before going on a flurry of their own. I think that sometimes the Swans focus too much on the defensive,especially if they are not playing well. Sometimes they are very dull to watch. Sometimes not. Depends really. BUT I would prefer a low skilled shoot out to a low skilled clamp down most Sunday afternoons.Leave a comment:
-
That is a little simplistic.
I for one - and others have too - have gone to great length to discuss the aspects of the game I really enjoy other than just goal kicking.
That is not to say that every low scoring game is of decent quality. When the Swans are playing poorly - leading to low goal tallies - I'll agree they don't always stand up to repeat viewing. But then nor do some higher scoring games - go sit through the Saints vs Freo game from a few weeks ago. The skills from both teams were appalling and the intensity pretty low too. Dreadful game, despite being moderately high scoring.
But there are also plenty of lowish scoring (Swans) games that I really enjoy rewatching, mostly where there were numerous reasons for the low scoring nature of the game other than a low skill level. Most Sydney WC games over the past few years are examples but there are others too.
The whole point I;ve been arguing is not that all Swans games are great entertainment. But that the correlation between my take on what makes an entertaining game has an extremely low correlation to goals kicked.
I am quite happy to accept that you have different criteria that determine whether you find a game entertaining. But I don't think your argument is helped by using simplistic, twisted summaries of others' viewpoints, or by an apparent disbelief that others might have different - yet equally valid for them - reasons for enjoying particular games.Leave a comment:
-
Are all our games when we score 8 goals worthy of highlight tapes? A lot of those games aren't great quality football throughout most of them. Missing goals, kicking the ball OOTF, passing to the opposition, forcing ball ups, giving away free kicks - reasons why less goals are scored - are not great football.
Obviously no one here actually likes the game of football - just winning, no matter what game they're watching.Leave a comment:
-
I'd say the opposition are at fault for not picking up their man,and i would be rapt we won the game and great skill to too.When other teams chip it around against us i yell out our players to flecking man up.Leave a comment:
-
Is a tight hard fought contest not a show piece? Particularly when you've had (arguabley) the two strongest AFL clubs of the last 2, 3 or four years seperated by a margin of no greater than 10 points at games end and a total of about 25 points across 8 games including two grand finals??
Bugger me... the way AFL promotes the crap out of such contests, you'd think that it's a big game worth watching!!Leave a comment:
-
-
Leave a comment: