The State of the Game

[wolftone57]

It was scrappy but I suspect rust and the wind were to blame for that.

Lloyd and Hewett were both very busy, with Lloyd mostly using the ball well and Hewett sometimes well.

I agree with deja that it was great to see Rohan out there and looking in pretty good nick. I hadn't expected to see him. I love how he knows he can get away from players with a step or two burst and I thought he was pretty creative today.

Florent looked good in patches, especially in the first quarter. Aliir did some great stuff and some not so great stuff but he looked far closer to the 2016 model than the 2017 model.

I lament the way the game has gone. Like Kevin Bartlett I hate the fact we have scrimages all the time. If the AFL wanted to do something about that they would but they don't because it fits with their Rugby vision for the game. If they got rid of nominating the ruck, whistled the play up as soon as players hit the deck and threw the ball up before everyone was ready play would naturally move. The SANFL & WAFL do it this way and the games moved far quicker. Think of what AFL players could do with that.

I don't think the boffins at AFL House or the AFL Commission have a proper vision for the game. I can see X will be a way of attracting international interest. but as for vision as to where the game is going here and how to make it better then I think they have lost the plot. Knee jerk reactions like introducing stupid new rules, nominate the ruck, and their interpretation of holding the ball, incorrect disposal, high hits, deliberate out of bounds, push in the back, holding on, sliding, kicking in danger etc are all problematic. None of this has made the game any better, in fact I'd argue they have made the game worse. Take into the roughhouse tactics, high hits and less fitness and skills, the '70's and '80's were a far better style of footy to watch. less scrimages, far less. Why? Because they did not have crap interpretation and highly interpretive rules to cope with.

[The Runner]

I lament the way the game has gone. Like Kevin Bartlett I hate the fact we have scrimages all the time. If the AFL wanted to do something about that they would but they don't because it fits with their Rugby vision for the game. If they got rid of nominating the ruck, whistled the play up as soon as players hit the deck and threw the ball up before everyone was ready play would naturally move. The SANFL & WAFL do it this way and the games moved far quicker. Think of what AFL players could do with that.

I don't think the boffins at AFL House or the AFL Commission have a proper vision for the game. I can see X will be a way of attracting international interest. but as for vision as to where the game is going here and how to make it better then I think they have lost the plot. Knee jerk reactions like introducing stupid new rules, nominate the ruck, and their interpretation of holding the ball, incorrect disposal, high hits, deliberate out of bounds, push in the back, holding on, sliding, kicking in danger etc are all problematic. None of this has made the game any better, in fact I'd argue they have made the game worse. Take into the roughhouse tactics, high hits and less fitness and skills, the '70's and '80's were a far better style of footy to watch. less scrimages, far less. Why? Because they did not have crap interpretation and highly interpretive rules to cope with.

Have you watched an of the old games on Fox Footy? Guys just hacking it forward, hoping that the guys up field work it out. No one would tune in if it was played like the 70s. People paint the old days of footy like it was some perfect form of the game.

Go grab your old VHS recordings and watch some old thugs club each other. I'd prefer to watch fast paced, highly skilled and high impact footy in 2018.

[liz]

Have you watched an of the old games on Fox Footy? Guys just hacking it forward, hoping that the guys up field work it out. No one would tune in if it was played like the 70s. People paint the old days of footy like it was some perfect form of the game.

Go grab your old VHS recordings and watch some old thugs club each other. I'd prefer to watch fast paced, highly skilled and high impact footy in 2018.

I'm with you. Even watching games from the 90s, the skill level isn't noticeably higher than it is today, despite the pace being slower and congestion less.

[wolftone57]

Have you watched an of the old games on Fox Footy? Guys just hacking it forward, hoping that the guys up field work it out. No one would tune in if it was played like the 70s. People paint the old days of footy like it was some perfect form of the game.

Go grab your old VHS recordings and watch some old thugs club each other. I'd prefer to watch fast paced, highly skilled and high impact footy in 2018.

I have indeed. I was talking about how open the play was, and if the players were full time footballers like today, I'm sure the game would have been far better. But the game is @@@@ today. Low scoring, all defence, scrums, long periods of the ball just being kicked to between HB and wing or center with no score. While this highlights how good the defensive game is it is boring.

The 1989 GF was a classic, only 7 points in it, they scored Hawks 21.18 Cats 21.12. Your kids, if you have them will never see one of their idols kick 100 goals. I have seen this three times and believe me as a kid it was a sensational experience. The way the game is adjudicated and the new rules make this almost or I'd go as far as to say impossible.

You seem to forget the surfaces they were playing on in those days were not of the same standard they are today. The players were part timers. You only had one umpire then two. The footies were not as good. The Sherrin was an inferior footy to the Faulkner or Burley. But Sherrin learnt from Faulkner, now out if business since the AFL forced all leagues to use the Sherrin. There were no fitness regimes like today. Barrassi was the first coach, with North in '75, to introduce a part time fitness trainer. Kennedy at Hawks did it all himself.

Players today generally don't have to put up with pot holes in the surface, soaked grounds that just go to mud etc. But the game was played with a bent on attack and the rules, the way the game was adjudicated, mirrored that.

Not today. The rules are all about a type of game that suits scrumming teams. Rolling scrums are the norm. The rules and interpretation allow for players to set up defensive patterns. For instance the time taken to whistle up a scrimmage is far too long. If you whistled it up immediately and the got rid of the nomination of rucks and didn't wait for the players to get ready the game would move far quicker. More goals would be scored because the forwards would have the element of surprise.

Last night I watched the GWS v Swans match from the second round last year. There were periods where the ball just ping ponged from one team's goal line to the centre and back with little or no score. While I can marvel at the wonderful defence it was incredibly boring in the end. The forward lines were so packed with opponents players had no choice but to bomb it in and hope. This happened time and again. It was like watching a chess game with two masters playing. Like watching paint dry. Bloody boring. This whole situation was caused by rules and rule interpretation. The umpiring is a disgrace because they are incompetent or if they are not their bosses are.

Sent from my HUAWEI Y560-U23 using Tapatalk