Generally speaking, top-end – or even Western Australian – football is more open, faster and arguably more skilful than the Victorian or Tassie style of the game, which traditionally was played on wetter, colder, smaller grounds and was a far more physical.
It was said for many years that Victoria Park was too small, which is why Collingwood lost so many premierships as they were found out on the wide-open expanses of the MCG in September, when the weather was better and more running, open football won the day.
There is almost a zealot defensive mentality that many coaches bring to AFL football – parking the bus, zones, filling up space, flooding back, defensive plans – that come from basketball, football and probably other areas.
Which brings me to my point.
I would describe myself as a football purist. I hate seeing a rolling, Auskick-type maul, where you can see 30 players around the ball. At least in Auskick or junior footy the umpire tells players to get out and back to position.
Ask Fremantle fans what they think of for their side’s strangulating game plan under Ross Lyon, and they don’t care as long as they win, but many football lovers see it as boring, slow, offputting and ugly.
Likeiwse, the worst games of football I have seen were St Kilda under Lyon years ago – a dog’s breakfast at best.
Meanwhile, top-end football is exciting, open, fast and unstructured – what footy is meant to be. I have seen some top-end footy where – happily – a ball up was rare.
The unbelievable fitness, extra interchange, increased tackling and lack of set positional play has changed the game in ways that many find unpalatable. Perhaps AFLX is a counter to that, which will see an open, fast game. This is not to say that all AFL games are defensive, overly structured and over coached, they aren’t, but many are.
Having said that, many people find low-scoring, defensive, gruelling, methodical contests fascinating and point to football and rugby as proof of popularity.
So do fans care about the style of game their team plays, or just about winning? The tribal nature of the game leads me to believe that most have a win-at-all-cost mentality, which is normal human behaviour, but is it conducive to growing the game?
Does the slow decline of rugby in this country, despite a growing world presence, provide proof that ugly, maul-type games lose their popularity when in competition with games that attempt to provide the opposite and can change the rules as easily as the AFL does? When AFL was first played in Sydney in the 1880s, rugby actually changed some rules to counter it – impossible to do now, as there is a world body.
Is it just the AFL’s job, as the self-proclaimed keeper of the code, to ensure the game is attractive, or do the clubs and coaches have a responsibility as well? Should the game be attractive to watch anyway?
Does the football community need an attractive open game? Should a free-flowing, open game be an imperative?
For that matter, should the AFL be the keeper of the code or should an independent body control that?
dontknowmuchaboutfootball
Guest
"many people find low-scoring, defensive, gruelling, methodical contests fascinating " yet others continue to call this kind of footy "ugly", as though beauty were not in the eye of the beholder. Also: it's funny "ugly" continues to be associated with "low-scoring" and "defensive", and Ross Lyon's name is typically trotted out as the exemplar. Richmond were pretty low-scoring for a premiership-winning side, and very reliant on defensive forward pressure. Would be interested to know if their footy is generally thought to be "ugly". Time to leave the cliches about ugliness behind and start to think a little more carefully about different tactics. E.g. one thing that might distinguish 2013-15 Freo and 2017 Richmond is that Freo's "game plan" was not just defensive, but stoppage-based (not just pressure the ball-carrier, but also force the stoppage) to exploit Sandi's dominance in the ruck. I didn't watch enough Richmond games to be able to say for sure, but from those I did watch, I saw Richmond prioritise speed over stoppages. "Defensiveness", in other words, is only ever a component of a game plan, and put to different uses by different teams (even the "defensively minded" ones).
Paul D
Roar Guru
You have been banging on about this for years Cats. "define prior opportunity" How do you define something that is a combination of space, time, and observation, and occurs over the space of 1-2 seconds? You either have to have a hardline time based definition of a couple seconds, which would be damn near impossible for the umpires to judge - or alternatively, keep it as it is, where the umpire makes a judgment call as to whether or not the player could have disposed of the ball before they were tackled. Moreover, it's pretty obvious that if a player gets tackled while they're still in the window of "opportunity", they can just drop the ball and it's play on. Surely you have worked all of this out by now. It's what makes your continued insistence prior opportunity needs a definition so baffling because the fact you've called for it for years without ever offering a solution means you must have worked out how hard it is to have a concrete, repeatable, definition of it.
Aligee
Guest
Yes good comments and would agree with the point about an ' independent body'
Aligee
Guest
I did a bit more research and it appears the ground was extended over 10m by the Ranald McDonald admin, and yes that is his real name, from memory owner of the Age newspaper at the time, around 1983, it was probably extended at the dights falls end or Trenerry cres, for anyone who knows the ground, the thinking at the time was to make the ground the same size as the MCG - a bigger ground where Collingwood was found out in September
Aligee
Guest
I personally can't stand the name AFL, although I understand the marketing in NSW and QLD, even this article has changed the word football which I wrote to AFL - that seems a bit silly considering it can't be confused with other codes of football on its own TAB.
Leighton
Guest
The last sentance is the critical factor in much of the discussions about rules, rule changes and game style. The AFL is a commercial operation - its primary purpose is to run a league of professional Australian Rules football, i.e. sell a commercial product. It shouldn't be the rule setter of the game. This conflict of interest is at the heart of so many of the difficulties it digs for itself. Unfortunately the small market in Australia, and the deliberate construction over time of an all consuming behemoth in the form of the AFL means the conflict of interest isn't going away anytime soon. The AFL wants to swallow all and has done so mostly over the years by buying everyone out. So we all tow the line. An example of this is the tendancy, intentional or not, for people to call the game 'AFL'. Exactly what the AFL wants.
Cat
Roar Guru
Paul D
Roar Guru
I think the umpires are under instruction to keep the game going where possible - they don't call ball ups for a dropped ball either if they judge the player didn't have prior, they just call play on I think the pace of AFL makes for a different definition of prior opportunity than you would find years ago or in state/local leagues too. They're trying to strike a balance between players having a second or two to make a decision on what to do with the ball so the football played can be a bit more tactical then just pure instincts, while also rewarding tackling players. Is congestion really that bad anymore? I don't recall it being as bad in 2017 as it was in previous years. Winning ugly will always trump losing pretty.
Lroy
Guest
Cat, you've actually answered your own observation. Umpires are not rewarding the tackler... I don't know why.... but that's the problem in today's game. Tackling is a distinct skill same as kicking, marking etc and its an integral part of our game. Back in the day, guys would get picked purely because they had a bit of mongrel and were really good at laying a tackle. Fast forward to today and it seems a player has no reason to release the ball at all. A player caught with the ball can simply shrug their shoulders and two things happen, a.) they drop it cold, so its a ball up...or b) The tacklers arms slip high and they get a free. Pay the free, open up the game.
Aligee
Guest
Collingwood extended its ground in 1983 after GF losses in 77,79,80 and 82, my own father and his mates who had been going to the ground since the 1920's repeatedly bought up ground size as an issue since the 1960's in conversation about Collingwood performances in September. Not sure of the ground dimensions pre 1983.
Cat
Roar Guru
If only it was that simple. It isn't. I have seen countless times players, I would judge to have had prior opportunity be told there was no prior after being tackled.
Lroy
Guest
Prior opportunity means just that. You had a chance to dispose of the ball BEFORE you got tackled. If you get tackled the same instant you take possession you didn't have prior opportunity.... so its a ball up. Everything else is holding the ball!! If it was never defined its because everyone knew what ''prior opportunity'' meant. Get caught, get hurt was always the mantra at my old club. So don't get caught.
Cat
Roar Guru
The easy first step would be to define what 'prior opportunity' is. Without a definition, everyone is going to see it differently.
Tricky
Guest
Nail, head! This is exactly the issue and why we see what is perceived as incorrect disposal. I know it is head scratching but it is very difficult to adjudicate and then add in the umpires vision etc tends to become very grey. On top of that coaches and strategists will use these grey areas to "advantage". How do we fix it? Dunno, reckon if I could nut it out that'd be above my pay grade.
DrWildare
Guest
Whoever said Victoria Park was to small, actually needed their eyes examined. The MCG’s dimensions are 171m x 146m Although initially it was 172.7 x 149 In contrast Victoria Parks Dimensions were and are 175.5m x 141.7m so it was essentially the same area although slightly narrower. This compared favourably to Princess Park, the Western Oval which while long was very narrow, and Subiaco which while 188 metres long is only 134 metres wide. In theory these narrow boundaries would lead to more not less congestion. The dimensions at Subiaco, should lead to less skilful play rather than the more skilful that you claim. Perhaps in the future you will ensure the facts you are relying on actually support your argument.
Cat
Roar Guru
The problem is with 'prior opportunity'. If a player is judged to have had 'prior opportunity' the rules do state a player must either handball or kick it. How does an umpire judge a player has had 'prior opportunity'? Who knows, no where in the Laws of the Game is 'prior opportunity' ever defined. That is the issue.
Johnny Dalmas
Guest
Yes, yes, yes! Holding the ball interpretations are the biggest blight on the game. I wish we could just keep it simple: if you don't corrctly dispose of the ball on when tackled it's a free kick. I watched some old State of Origin games and some old WAFL finals on YouTube not too long ago and one thing that really stood out was that the umpires were quick with the whistle with both holding the ball and calling for a ball up.
Gyfox
Guest
Collingwood won several premierships 80 years ago, playing on Victoria Park. Now they train & play on an MCG size oval.....& don't win!
Lroy
Guest
debate on congestion has been done infinitum. Most pundits agree its caused by umpires not awarding '' holding the ball'. Players are consistently caught red handed, drop the ball and the umpire calls ''play on'', which drags more players into the congestion. Pay the 'ball'' frees and open up the game.
Vocans
Guest
Almost any game of footy, from youngsters to the AFL has its own style of interest. Sometimes I’d be hard put to nominate an AFL game as a better experience than down the local park. Certainly, it’s always a pleasure to see Top End footy, especially when the Tiwis are up and about.