A loss is a tragic event in this day and age – it garners hours of talkback, inches of journalist speculation, insults on social media, and nightly admonishment through the soapbox that is AFL 360.
Coaches are hauled before us all to explain why, and thanks to the omniscience of highlight reels and in-depth statistics services, we know exactly who is under-performing.
That’s the price they pay for their big salaries you say, and that is true. Six-figure salaries should come with a fair amount of heat. And those who withstand the heat best are rewarded with glory.
But to many spectators, winning has become boring. Everyone is so fit they can run up and down the ground for two hours. Everyone can tackle like a demon. Not even Hercules could break an 18-man press.
Thus, it’s almost become an accepted truth that if we tire out our AFL stars, the game will become more exciting as games open up. This argument is flawed. It’s not the coaches who are to blame for ‘boring’ footy. It’s us.
It’s the increasingly potent microscope we use to analyse our game.
Through traditional media, internet media, social media, and live betting, the importance of winning has never been higher. Or dare I say, the importance of not losing.
If footy were an equation of supply and demand, the interchange cappers would have you believe that a fixed ceiling will lead to a surplus of attacking skill through a shortage of fitness. Instead, we are seeing the opposite.
Despite the introduction of an interchange cap, stoppage numbers are at all-time highs and scoring levels at 50-year lows. As pointed out by David King, players use the stoppages to catch a breath, and when they get tired, they don’t take more risks – they take less!
Aware of the importance of winning and the scrutiny of losing, that tired bunch of players who are up by 3-points with ten minutes to go are not trying to kick another goal – first and foremost they are trying not to concede. If people believe exhausted teams are suddenly going to start rushing forward in a Flying V, ala the Mighty Ducks, at the risk of falling behind once more, think again.
Encouraging coaches to play more exciting brands of footy, due to some ‘duty to the game’, is hypocritical hogwash. Nobody gave Brad Scott sympathy for North Melbourne losing ten games by under 18 points in 2013. Or Matthew Knights for playing an attacking brand that also turned Essendon into the league’s highest conceding team.
Nor should we expect it from the players.
Again, nobody gave Melbourne sympathy for not throwing men behind the ball against St Kilda earlier this season, and Bachar Houli is getting very little benefit of the doubt for taking the game on against Freo.
Those trying to kill off defensive footy should remember the words of Medgar Evers: “you can’t kill an idea.” They certainly can’t kill our constant scrutiny of the weekly losers.
So if the powers that be want a higher risk, higher scoring brand of footy, maybe they should incentivise it.
Sensible
Guest
I don't agree with this. One of the reason I believe the game is like it is now is because we have changed from having quality players running around with very few interchanges to a lot of players who are more of the athlete type who can interchange a lot. There is no doubt a significant number of players are getting drafted based on athletic performance and the ability to be molded into a certain type of player rather than their pure football ability or brain. We have a draft camp where we measure and recruit players based on their beep tests, or jumping measurement or sprint test. Quality footballers will still have the skills and abilities when they are tired. Average footballers or athletes will not. That can be seen at local footy levels. It's exactly the footy I played for 20 years. One of the most frustrating things for me is watching the first quarter of a game with a lot of young footballers who have terrible skills, and drop marks etc. But these days they are considered elite because they can do that for a whole game. Limit interchange. Recruit quality footballers for football ability not for anything else and the game will return to it's heights.
Bill C
Guest
Agree. Less interchange will mean more fatigued players if the coaches expect all 18 to converge on the ball as they do now, but surely with fewer interchanges, the players simply won't be able to and the coaches will have to modify their tactics. Otherwise the teams that have run themselves ragged won't be able to run the game out. The game will open up because players will be spread wider.
Jack Smith
Roar Guru
It will. But it won't lead to more goals but lead to poor turnovers due to tired players. It is a different game now due to the strategies involved. I'm not sure that reducing the interchange will stop that. Players will want MORE stoppages because they are so damn tired. Plenty of teams run out of legs now and get the floor wiped with them.
conchie
Roar Rookie
I am convinced that unlimited I/C with 4 players on the bench or what we have now has led to congestion football, even whilst playing football a number of years ago, the coaches cry was to get in and help your teammates out, now the cry is numbers to the ball, the fitter and more rested you are, the more numbers you will get to the ball/contest, unlimited I/C combined with 4 I/C players has lead to 10 ruckrovers or midfielders tracking the ball. It is pretty simple, wind back the I/C and the game will slow and hopefully spread out.
simonjzw
Roar Pro
Couldn't agree more Jack Too all those advocates of reduced interchanges ... So the best way to make the game more entertaining is to fatigue the players? That seems highly counter intuitive because as the players tire, they can't run as fast, can't jump as high and make more skill errors, in my book that does not make for a better spectacle. As to zoning? Beware the Law of Unintended Consequences before making such a radical change. Just play a free kick if the bloke being tackled doesn't immediately attempt to legitimately dispose of the ball or if the disposal is not strictly legitimate. Be more stringent with the deliberate out of bounds rule to stop players taking the safe option of gaining metres by kicking up the line. And start each stoppage more promptly, just get in there and throw the ball up, or in, straight way don't wait for teams to "set up" too bad if one or both ruckman aren't there to contest. The game isn't as bad as everyone is making out and doesn't need "radical change"
Jack Smith
Roar Guru
I think the whole reducing interchange numbers is a stupid idea fraught with danger. Ditto on zoning. There are infinitely better options. First you can actually have an umpire call ball up when a pack forms and the ball isn't coming out rather than the rolling maul that exists now. The maul allows all players to get to the ball. A quick ball up wouldn't. Second of all, for the same reason, can we call deliberate out of bounds out of bounds? This seems like a rule that was brought in and now isn't being used except incorrectly on kicks that were simply horrible. For the third reason surrounding this single issue is a dropped ball. A dropped ball is basically the same thing as trying to give the ball to another player, to try and rid yourself of the free kick possibility. Here it is in the laws of the game: Incorrect Disposal and Payment of Free Kick - When the football is in play, a Free Kick shall be awarded against a Player who hands the football to another Player or throws the football. The other rule, not far from this one, is a player not making a genuine attempt to get rid of the football which causes all the players to bunch up and causes more congestion. The umpire needs to call ball up or if he isn't making an attempt, pay the free. Let a player actually use his body in a marking contest. It was one of the good things Adam Goodes did on the weekend that got Sydney their first goal. He never laid his hands on the back, he simply used his body weight. Good forwards can do it. Don't let this art die out and also give defenders who are actually infringing a consequence - a free kick against. Stop questionable bench tactics - I've seen many a time when a player has just come off the bench into the way of a running man on the wing. Is the player just waiting there fore him, as his teammate only just came off? I don't know but I feel like I have seen a lot of this. NOTE: The reason this is an issue is because it stops that quick running play that exposes forward lines.Just for clarification. Rant over.