The Future of Our Game

[Sanctorum]

The debate about the quality and spectacle of AFL football today has been going on forever, and over the past 20 years there have been a lot of rules changes, both tried and eventually implemented, in order to make the game more attractive to fans.

It is generally agreed that the main instigators in the style of play have been the senior coaches - they ultimately live or die by their win/loss ratios, and have often introduced tactics calculated to win games, and to hell with what the football "product" looks like.

As St Kilda supporters we well understand Ross Lyon's philosophy of "team defence", originally devised I think by Rodney Eade and then refined by Paul Roos, who mentored Ross Lyon. It was a style of play that eliminated a lot of the natural talents and skills of players, and free flowing attacking styles that resulted in high scores by both teams. We are reminded of this with all of the games from the '90s that FoxFooty has been screening in recent weeks.

Earlier this week the Chairman of the NRL, Peter V'landys, spoke about this very thing in the context of Rugby League, and what he had to say applies equally to AFL:

"However, when asked whether he wanted the interchange reduced for next year, V’landys left no doubt when he took a stunning swipe at the entertainment value of the modern game.

“Look, the objective is to have a free-flowing game of rugby league that is not all about defence,” V’landys said. “We are in the entertainment business and the very loud message I got from the broadcasters is that we are not as entertaining as we once were.

“And that is because of the wrestle, the slowing down of the ruck and not as much fatigue.

“So basically we have to look at all that. We need to make our game attractive to the fans.

And I think Ricky Stuart and Wayne Bennett (two coaches who have spoken out in support of the crackdown on the wrestle) have realised that we are making a less attractive product because of the wrestle and the slowness of the ruck and making it all about defence.

“So, yes, we will certainly be looking at it. Otherwise, be prepared to take cuts because the broadcasters aren’t going to pay for a product that people don’t want to watch. I make no secret that we want a free-flowing, entertaining game and we will do everything we can to get there.

“Otherwise, it devalues our product to the broadcasters.

“You can’t expect to get the big wages and then provide an inferior product. I am going to make no apology that we will get the game to be attractive to the audience.”

V’landys doesn’t hide from the fact it will create controversy and understands that dealing with the new concussion protocols will also be a significant issue.

However, he said that wouldn’t stop him pushing forward with a plan that will have massive ramifications on NRL recruitment right down to the grassroots. There will be less focus on the “bigger is better” policy that has taken over at every level.

“You want to watch people who can crack open a game but what we are doing is shutting them out because there is not enough fatigue,” V’landys said. “Why are we scared of it?

“With due respect to the coaches, they are the wrong people to be making these decisions.

“Our job is to make the game entertaining. Their job is to win.

“At the moment, like it or not, it is not entertaining.”

Peter V'landys is obviously not universally admired, but you have to admit that he has been an exceptionally strong leader - his declaration over a month ago that NRL would restart their 2020 season on May 28 was mostly ridiculed by many commentators, but he has pulled it off. He had no hesitation in getting rid of NRL CEO Todd Greenberg when it became evident Greenberg had lost the support of club presidents, and in essence he wasn't really needed as V'landys assumed the role of Executive Chairman.

I am not suggesting that the AFL should do the same, quite the opposite, I believe the AFL Commission and CEO Gil McLachlan are doing a great job, and this structure is far superior to that of the NRL.

But I do have a strong belief that the AFL should become a lot more assertive in directing the future of our game, and make it absolutely clear to all stakeholders, especially the coaches: “Our job is to make the game entertaining. Their job is to win.

[Nick_BlueNRG]

Only one rule change is needed to fix the style of our game. Unfortunately they will not do it because a different competition thought of it decades earlier. Thats is the type of person Hocking is. He is a sook. What is the silver bullet you ask.

16 players on the field for each team and 4 on the interchange bench.

[St Plugger]

16 players on the field for each team and 4 on the interchange bench.
[/quote]

No, I don't agree!

[This is a bit like which form of Republic we should adopt.]

For me, it should be 15 aside and 3 substitutes. As per the Junior Leagues!

One less from the Mids, Forwards and Backs.
At the centre bounce, the 2 wingers line up out of the square as per usual. At the ball up, you have 2 mids and the ruck.

3 Substitutes for injury/concussion. [NB no Interchanges]

Then lets see then what happens to the congestion and speed of the game!!!

[desertsaint]

15 players is correct, but more subs and a smaller field, scrap the points posts, a few rule changes and it's all fixed.

[St Plugger]

15 players is correct, but more subs and a smaller field, scrap the points posts, a few rule changes and it's all fixed.

Nah, thats the monarchists view Vs the republicans stance!
If it kinda works, why change!
Thats not looking at the problems of the current model Vs a better way going forward with a subtle change.
I'm suggesting that you wouldn't notice the missing players, because the game will be a better spectacle overall.

[Secret Kiel]

A smaller ground is a no brainer for the future of the game to survive, about 25% shorter than Docklands and for integrity reasons all grounds must be the same dimensions so the MCG would become obsolete.

Also there needs to be equal teams in every state and each team has to play each other the same amount of times in a season and travel the same amount.

For integrity reasons teams must be financially equal and expenses controlled by the AFL. There must not be assisted and unassisted teams.

[kosifantutti]

15 players is correct, but more subs and a smaller field, scrap the points posts, a few rule changes and it's all fixed.

They’re the highlights? I’d hate to see the whole game.

[St Plugger]

A smaller ground is a no brainer for the future of the game to survive, about 25% shorter than Docklands and for integrity reasons all grounds must be the same dimensions.

SGC size?

[Secret Kiel]

A smaller ground is a no brainer for the future of the game to survive, about 25% shorter than Docklands and for integrity reasons all grounds must be the same dimensions.

SGC size?

Yep and make the arc 40m

[saynta]

Only one rule change is needed to fix the style of our game. Unfortunately they will not do it because a different competition thought of it decades earlier. Thats is the type of person Hocking is. He is a sook. What is the silver bullet you ask.

16 players on the field for each team and 4 on the interchange bench.

Leave the game alone for f***'s sake.

[St Plugger]

Leave the game alone for f***'s sake.

15/16 aside is already being played in many junior and country leagues and AFLW because it works.

Its the AFL and second level leagues that hold steadfastly onto 18 aside.

Thats mainly because of the agreements with the player associations that quite rightly act to protect their members jobs and income.

If this change is going to happen, its now, as negotiating at this level is currently occurring, dropping to 35 players on each teams lists.

[Secret Kiel]

Leave the game alone for f***'s sake.

15/16 aside is already being played in many junior and country leagues and AFLW because it work.

Its the AFL and second level leagues that hold steadfastly onto 18 aside.

Thats mainly because of the agreements with the player associations that quite rightly act to protect their members jobs and income.

If this change is going to happen, its now, as negotiating at this level is currently occurring, dropping to 35 players on each teams lists.

I think the second tier competitions are in a powerful position to completely cut ties with the AFL and discuss building a new competition that is aimed at getting back to traditional sporting values where there is fairness and integrity and the game is truly put back into the possession of the community and club members.

It's the greatest corporate con job of all time to tell us the AFL is the peoples game and is owned by the club members.

[St Plugger]

I think the second tier competitions are in a powerful position to completely cut ties with the AFL and discuss building a new competition that is aimed at getting back to traditional sporting values where there is fairness and integrity and the game is truly put back into the possession of the community and club members.

It's the greatest corporate con job of all time to tell us the AFL is the peoples game and is owned by the club members.

Absolutely! Couldn't agree more.....!!!

[Nick_BlueNRG]

Leave the game alone for f***'s sake.

15/16 aside is already being played in many junior and country leagues and AFLW because it works.

Its the AFL and second level leagues that hold steadfastly onto 18 aside.

Thats mainly because of the agreements with the player associations that quite rightly act to protect their members jobs and income.

If this change is going to happen, its now, as negotiating at this level is currently occurring, dropping to 35 players on each teams lists.

Unfortunately it won't happen while Hocking is there and to a lesser extent Gill. Sixteen players on the ground for each team would end all (mostr), of the congestion and the champions of the game will be able to shine again. Especially the full forwards who have the ability to take contested pack marks. I would go as far as saying that Membry would become an 80+ goal kicker per year. Brown and Cameron etc. would become 100+ goal kickers per year. Get rid of Hocking otherwise it will never happen.

[St Plugger]

Sixteen players on the ground for each team would end all (mostr), of the congestion and the champions of the game will be able to shine again. Especially the full forwards who have the ability to take contested pack marks. I would go as far as saying that Membry would become an 80+ goal kicker per year. Brown and Cameron etc. would become 100+ goal kickers per year. Get rid of Hocking otherwise it will never happen.

I agree for all those reasons, but prefer the 15 aside model.

As I explained above, I think it alters each of back mids and forwards equally, opens up the centre bounce, retains the wings and can have either Substitutes [3], Interchanges [3] or a mix of both, 2 Interchanges and 1 Substitute.

Structurally on the ground you'd have 2 deep backs, 3 half backs, 1 ruck + 2 mids + 2 Wings, 3 half forwards and 2 deep forwards.

But thats only notionally, as we know.

And as they say "Go hard and go early" straight to 15 aside, skipping 16 aside!

[desertsaint]

15 players is correct, but more subs and a smaller field, scrap the points posts, a few rule changes and it's all fixed.

They’re the highlights? I’d hate to see the whole game.

you're gonna be bored in heaven.

[Nick_BlueNRG]

Sixteen players on the ground for each team would end all (mostr), of the congestion and the champions of the game will be able to shine again. Especially the full forwards who have the ability to take contested pack marks. I would go as far as saying that Membry would become an 80+ goal kicker per year. Brown and Cameron etc. would become 100+ goal kickers per year. Get rid of Hocking otherwise it will never happen.

I agree for all those reasons, but prefer the 15 aside model.

As I explained above, I think it alters each of back mids and forwards equally, opens up the centre bounce, retains the wings and can have either Substitutes [3], Interchanges [3] or a mix of both, 2 Interchanges and 1 Substitute.

Structurally on the ground you'd have 2 deep backs, 3 half backs, 1 ruck + 2 mids + 2 Wings, 3 half forwards and 2 deep forwards.

But thats only notionally, as we know.

And as they say "Go hard and go early" straight to 15 aside, skipping 16 aside!

I'm not sure about 15 a side St Plugger. I think that will be cutting it to such an extent that we would not see any man on man contests. It would become too free flowing to the point where it would be just keepings off. I may be wrong but I think the ideal number would be 16 on the field and 4 interchange and rotations capped at 48.

[Trev from the Bush]

If the quarters are shortened to 16 minutes plus time-on from 20 minutes plus time-on do we get a 20% reduction in match admission price? If not, why not?

[St Plugger]

I'm not sure about 15 a side St Plugger. I think that will be cutting it to such an extent that we would not see any man on man contests. It would become too free flowing to the point where it would be just keepings off. I may be wrong but I think the ideal number would be 16 on the field and 4 interchange and rotations capped at 48.

I actually think it will bring back more accountability for your opposite number because of what could happen if players get loose. Run and gun might be part of the game but clean marking will be required as well, because any spillage probably won't end in a stoppage like many contests do now.
As I said before, not unlike the Oz Republic debate, it's about which model, not the concept.

[Secret Kiel]

If the quarters are shortened to 16 minutes plus time-on from 20 minutes plus time-on do we get a 20% reduction in match admission price? If not, why not?

See now we are getting into the smoke and mirrors area of corporate conning. Low cost operations are about maximising profits, executive manager remuneration and bonuses and shareholder dividends. Lower cost to run a business is never about lower costs being passed onto the consumers.

How much of a paycut did Gil take and how much of a paycut did 12 of his staff who are on a $1 million dollars per year salary take.

[Sanctorum]

Time to get this discussion back on topic, (rather than opinions about this shortened season being unworthy and questions about professional footballers motivation, or lack thereof, which in IMHO is a bloody insult) I was hoping that we would focus on the pros and cons of the way the game is played today, as compared to previous decades, especially the '90s when the game arguably reached its peak.

There has been a lot of discussion about reducing player numbers, down to 16 or even 15, and that may well be worth investigating. The fact that this works well in AFLW and other subsidiary competitions, and previously in the old VFA, does not necessarily mean it will work at the elite level, with players possessing much greater skills.

If you consider the winners of the Coleman Medal in the past 10 years, the highest was 86 by Josh Kennedy in 2016, this was followed by:

1917: Lance Franklin (69)
2018: Jack Riewoldt (65)
2019: Jeremy Cameron (67)

Lance Franklin has been the only player to boot 100 or more goals (102 in 2008) since Tony Lockett in 1998 (107).

In the years 1980 to 1998 the tally topped over 100 in 14 seasons!

You don't need to be Einstein to conclude from these statistics that whatever changes the AFL has wrought since 2008, in the way of new rules etc, has changed the game dramatically.

The AFL will probably respond to these stats by claiming that the popularity of the game has increased significantly in the intervening years, record attendances and TV ratings as well as club membership numbers, although the latter category is distorted by the introduction of 3-5 game memberships which has boosted numbers significantly.

I don't know exactly what rule changes have been introduced by the AFL in the past 15 years, but I am reasonably certain that the biggest factor is the way coaches exploited rotations off the bench:

"The average number of interchanges in the AFL doubled between 2007 (56 changes per team per game) and 2010 (113 changes per team per game) as coaches sought to give frequent rests to their running players." (Greg Denham, Journalist, reported in 2010)

In 2014 the AFL capped rotations to 120, followed by 90 in 2016. Neither of these 2 numbers have made any significance to the pace of the game, which I recall was the stated objective. It has certainly not brought about the element of player fatigue, which is generally considered to be the best way to slow the game down, and permit the elite players to dominate.

Has it occurred to the lawmakers at AFL Docklands that if, in the days of Lockett, Ablett and Dunstan, they were "benched" after every goal (as has been the practice for the last 7 or 8 years), none of these legends of the game would have kicked 100+ goals year after year??

Furthermore what is the mad logic of a professional football coach resting a star player after he kicks a goal - it just doesn't make sense to change your forward line setup when your forwards are scoring goals and running hot.

So, I'm advocating a major cut in rotations, maximum of 40, as a way to improve the spectacle of our game.

[St Plugger]

So, I'm advocating a major cut in rotations, maximum of 40, as a way to improve the spectacle of our game.

A well written analysis, and whilst I'm still a keen advocate for reducing the playing numbers for a variety of reasons, I'm also supportive of reducing the number of Interchanges or how many interchangers available.

In the 15 aside model I propose, but in would also work in both the 16 and 18 aside models, you could have for example 2 Substitutes and 1 Interchanger.

By having only 1 Interchanger limits the number, or duration of the rests each player gets.

However, in this case, you have the "protection" of 2 Substitutes for injury replacement, if necessary or to use should you need to alter the on field set up, while still having rotations readily available.

[Joffa Burns]

How much of a paycut did Gil take and how much of a paycut did 12 of his staff who are on a $1 million dollars per year salary take.

Who are the 12 AFL employees who are all on $1M plus salary per annum?

[Sanctorum]

So, I'm advocating a major cut in rotations, maximum of 40, as a way to improve the spectacle of our game.

A well written analysis, and whilst I'm still a keen advocate for reducing the playing numbers for a variety of reasons, I'm also supportive of reducing the number of Interchanges or how many interchangers available.

In the 15 aside model I propose, but in would also work in both the 16 and 18 aside models, you could have for example 2 Substitutes and 1 Interchanger.

By having only 1 Interchanger limits the number, or duration of the rests each player gets.

However, in this case, you have the "protection" of 2 Substitutes for injury replacement, if necessary or to use should you need to alter the on field set up, while still having rotations readily available.

You make some good points St Plugger, the only problem is that what you propose may be regarded as too radical for implementation in the short term.

The idea floated in the past couple of months to reduce player lists to 35 or 36 is going to face considerable opposition from the AFLPA so there's going to be plenty of argy-bargy to bring this about.

This question is of course linked to the proposal under consideration by the AFL to reduce the costs of the 22 round season, and one of the few ways to achieve this is to pay players less.

Under the current CBA, which expires at the end of 2022, the average player payment is $371,000, the annual salary cap sits at $12.45 million for every club.

Player payments are presumably graded according to their talent levels, and one argument is that if for example there are 4 grades, players on levels 1, 2 and 3 should earn considerably less than they do now, with only those at the elite level 4 being paid the big bucks.

It may well be impossible for the AFL to renegotiate the current CBA down, unless the players decide that this is in the overall best interests of the future of the game, but that's a long stretch....

A lot of this debate hinges on the financial status of the AFL beyond 2022, and what sort of broadcast rights deal the AFL can negotiate with the broadcasters. I would not dismiss the possibility that the new deal will be substantially higher than what exists currently, the pandemic will by then have well and truly passed on and history tells us that the economic recovery should be strong.

The NRL's Peter V'landys has made it crystal clear that the broadcasters are adamant that the quality of the game is paramount, it is all about pleasing the fans, and so it is incumbent on the AFL, as well as the AFLPA, to adopt this as their mantra at all times, and take whatever actions are necessary to bring this about!

[sunsaint]

you're gonna be bored in heaven.

a fair few here could only aspire to see the game played in heaven