Tempo

[NMWBloods]

Funny how each time an opposing opinion is offered you want to see facts. Yet when we get told ny yourself that the game isn't as good as it was, there's no facts to support that comment. Just your opinion. If that's the case, then allow others their's without deriding them.

I only ask for facts when there could be facts to support an opinion. They are two quite different scenarios.

No kidding. That old media machine of the AFL getting out on the telegraph and wiring the good news across the land!!

I assume like the earlier part I snipped this was meant to be somehow witty or cutting...?

[reigning premier]

Doesn't mean the football is better quality.

Doesn't mean it is worse either.

Some people do and some people are simply commenting on what they used to see.

Yep. Like the great depression, WWII, Our war against those communists in the 50's, Vietnam or the oil crisis of the 70's. Yep THOSE good old days....

You may think so, but it's just my opinion, and the opinion of a number of other people too.

Funny how each time an opposing opinion is offered you want to see facts. Yet when we get told ny yourself that the game isn't as good as it was, there's no facts to support that comment. Just your opinion. If that's the case, then allow others their's without deriding them.

It's also partly to do with less games per day and population growth and that the AFL's marketing campaigns, including some of these rules changes, are working.

No kidding. That old media machine of the AFL getting out on the telegraph and wiring the good news across the land!!

People still go to the football in spite of some games that are boring - not all are

Well now, we're finally getting somewhere.

[NMWBloods]

That's an incorrect and a purely sentimental statement.... The game has never been more popular, with as many members or had a higher attendances....

Doesn't mean the football is better quality.

People get all misty eyed talking about "how it used to be" and "in my day", etc, etc, etc.

Some people do and some people are simply commenting on what they used to see.

What a load of old bollocks.

You may think so, but it's just my opinion, and the opinion of a number of other people too.

The way in which the cash is rolling in and the turnstiles are ticking over would suggest that, if anything, people are enjoying their football more and more regardless of the suggested "boring" and "dour" play that is supposedley occuring...

It's also partly to do with less games per day and population growth and that the AFL's marketing campaigns, including some of these rules changes, are working.

People still go to the football in spite of some games that are boring - not all are.

[reigning premier]

Yep - I think this is a key factor. The AFL is selling a product and want to make it as appealing to as many groups as they come.

I also agree with Liz's point that KB has a slightly different agenda.

So now we get a couple of different drivers and the game has gone off into some strange tangents, and I believe the quality of the football we get these days is nowhere near as interesting as it used to be (and Plugger agrees with me FWIW! )

That's an incorrect and a purely sentimental statement.... The game has never been more popular, with as many members or had a higher attendances....

People get all misty eyed talking about "how it used to be" and "in my day", etc, etc, etc.

What a load of old bollocks.

The way in which the cash is rolling in and the turnstiles are ticking over would suggest that, if anything, people are enjoying their football more and more regardless of the suggested "boring" and "dour" play that is supposedley occuring...

[NMWBloods]

Anguish is as much a part of the emotional roller-coaster as elation of a goal. And just think how much fun it is when the opposition misses a sitter.

I like the occasional bit of anguish - it makes the highs even better. But I prefer more highs!

[NMWBloods]

I think the higher casue of Demetriou and co. is to reduce the physicality of the game. As I wrote in another post, they see footy as a product and they have compared their product to another competiting product, soccer, and in their minds, found it wanting in various respects. Chief amongst these is the perceived fear of their target market - mothers of 6 - 8 year old boys, that their little johnny will get hurt.

Yep - I think this is a key factor. The AFL is selling a product and want to make it as appealing to as many groups as they come.

I also agree with Liz's point that KB has a slightly different agenda.

So now we get a couple of different drivers and the game has gone off into some strange tangents, and I believe the quality of the football we get these days is nowhere near as interesting as it used to be (and Plugger agrees with me FWIW! )

[liz]

No - I meant butchering, as in messing up a forward thrust disappoints the crowd. As in, great play upfield, the team goes coast to coast, fantastic and exciting to watch, and then the player running into goal puts it out on the full (think Barry-Kennelly-Schneider-Davis-McVeigh). That's a let down.

Anguish is as much a part of the emotional roller-coaster as elation of a goal. And just think how much fun it is when the opposition misses a sitter.

[NMWBloods]

You have a couple of fair points NMW,but buchering the ball forward and getting a goal whats wrong with that as you said the point is too score more goals than the opposition.

No - I meant butchering, as in messing up a forward thrust disappoints the crowd. As in, great play upfield, the team goes coast to coast, fantastic and exciting to watch, and then the player running into goal puts it out on the full (think Barry-Kennelly-Schneider-Davis-McVeigh). That's a let down.

[Hazcam]

forget where we are mid sentence

hahaha your too funny
thats what i get for not concentrating on my report and posting on the swans blog!

the finished sentence is
"what usually happens after a 2-3 qtr dour display is that we get our act together and play direct and free flowing only to just win or lose by less than 3 goals and flatter the scoreline"

[liz]

Anyway, I'll get to the point now. I have forgotten the point. Oh yeah, the rules committee is acting under the directives of the current CEO and the current CEO's bent is to 'fashion' a game which has broad appeal. He isdoing so by homogenising the game. Personally, I think we are all losers for that. Diversity is best - close games, high scoring games, arm wrestles, free flowing. Keeps me interested. When I see a 'circle work' game, which seems to be more often now, I typically drift away and start pulling weeds out of the garden, doing the dishes or the like.

I reckon you're partly right but I think there may be a few different agendas going on, some of which are complementary and some not. For example, I think Kevin Barlett has his own views that are not necessarily in line with those of Andy D - I reckon he has an idealised view of what the game used to be like and wants to turn the clock back to how it was played in his time. I am not sure that is possible (even if it were desirable) since it has evolved so far since then in an incremental way. You can't just go back and reverse that evolution, and not only because the players are now far fitter, quicker and stronger than they ever were back in the 70s and 80s.

I think you're right about Andy D wanting a far less physical game, and I'm not sure how that fits in with turning the clock back 30 or 40 years. Of all the changes that have been brought in recently, I have least problem with those designed to crack down on actions that could cause serious and unnecessary injury, especially to the head. But I don't see how some of the other rule refinements aimed at reducing the ability of players to compete for the ball, especially in the air, really have much to do with the game being safer.

[swantastic]

However, the ultimate aim of football is to win, and you win by scoring more goals than the opposition, and the purpose of the skills is the goal. As I mentioned earlier, the culmination of a goal is the best way to cap off a great passage of play. It's not necessarily the goal itself. Butchering a forward thrust is a great way to disappoint the crowd. And we can see how excited the crowd gets when goals are scored. Consider how much more exciting tonight's game was with the flurry of goals and then the goal for goal, rather than one side scoring 6 goals to 5.

You have a couple of fair points NMW,but buchering the ball forward and getting a goal whats wrong with that as you said the point is too score more goals than the opposition.Your right the game last night was a high scoring game and very exciting,but it still peeves me off that the bummers beat us and wc by a point and win by 2 last night,the bummers are not that good.

[goswannie14]

I think you are right about the above. However, whilst I think Sydney came to symbolise fears about the direction of the game towards mass flooding in 2005 (it must have been a bitter sweet year for the AFL), I think the higher casue of Demetriou and co. is to reduce the physicality of the game. As I wrote in another post, they see footy as a product and they have compared their product to another competiting product, soccer, and in their minds, found it wanting in various respects. Chief amongst these is the perceived fear of their target market - mothers of 6 - 8 year old boys, that their little johnny will get hurt. I watched the 1989 Grand Final the other day and the game was a lot more physical back then (probably not a good sample, I admit, but my memory suggests the game was not atypical).

Anyway, I'll get to the point now. I have forgotten the point. Oh yeah, the rules committee is acting under the directives of the current CEO and the current CEO's bent is to 'fashion' a game which has broad appeal. He isdoing so by homogenising the game. Personally, I think we are all losers for that. Diversity is best - close games, high scoring games, arm wrestles, free flowing. Keeps me interested. When I see a 'circle work' game, which seems to be more often now, I typically drift away and start pulling weeds out of the garden, doing the dishes or the like.

I reckon you have got it in one LA. I too often finding other things to do when many of the games are on TV (unless it is the Swans), the current game is not type of football that many have grown up watching. I like the variety of game plans and styles we used to get. Unfortunately with the leveling of the playing field this has dimished somewhat. Yes there is still the odd "good" game, but with this fiddling with the rules it ismaking it into much less of a spectacle than it used to be. (Unfortunately when I tell some people that they ask if I used to enjoy the dinosaur races at half time too.)

[Legs Akimbo]

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...

I think you are right about the above. However, whilst I think Sydney came to symbolise fears about the direction of the game towards mass flooding in 2005 (it must have been a bitter sweet year for the AFL), I think the higher casue of Demetriou and co. is to reduce the physicality of the game. As I wrote in another post, they see footy as a product and they have compared their product to another competiting product, soccer, and in their minds, found it wanting in various respects. Chief amongst these is the perceived fear of their target market - mothers of 6 - 8 year old boys, that their little johnny will get hurt. I watched the 1989 Grand Final the other day and the game was a lot more physical back then (probably not a good sample, I admit, but my memory suggests the game was not atypical).

Anyway, I'll get to the point now. I have forgotten the point. Oh yeah, the rules committee is acting under the directives of the current CEO and the current CEO's bent is to 'fashion' a game which has broad appeal. He isdoing so by homogenising the game. Personally, I think we are all losers for that. Diversity is best - close games, high scoring games, arm wrestles, free flowing. Keeps me interested. When I see a 'circle work' game, which seems to be more often now, I typically drift away and start pulling weeds out of the garden, doing the dishes or the like.

[NMWBloods]

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 think that's a really good point.
In the VFL days you would get a mix of games:
- fantastic, exciting football between two of the top sides.
- mixed football from the lower sides.
- some very ordinary games when top sides played lower sides.

However, I think that with the competition being evened out much more effectively in the AFL, the number of games with that old style falling into the third category would be much fewer.

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.

I agree that they hate the ugly style and the Swans are seen as the major proponents of that. However, I'm not entirely sure if every rule change has been directed at Sydney.

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.

I like all these things too. And they were there in abundance in the prior days when more goals were scored.

However, the ultimate aim of football is to win, and you win by scoring more goals than the opposition, and the purpose of the skills is the goal. As I mentioned earlier, the culmination of a goal is the best way to cap off a great passage of play. It's not necessarily the goal itself. Butchering a forward thrust is a great way to disappoint the crowd. And we can see how excited the crowd gets when goals are scored. Consider how much more exciting tonight's game was with the flurry of goals and then the goal for goal, rather than one side scoring 6 goals to 5.

[NMWBloods]

Who said that?So what your saying is that the 10/12 games between the Swans and WC over the last couple of years have all been played with lower skill levels.

"Frequently" not "always"!