AFLW players have slammed the league over its “ridiculous” demands for clubs to adjust their tactics in the hope of producing higher-scoring games.
AFL football boss Steve Hocking has written to coaches asking them to make immediate changes after a low-scoring start to the women’s season.
A memo to coaches on Wednesday published by Fox Sports News identified congestion around stoppages and defensive flooding as two key issues they should address.
Teams will be required to set up for centre bounces with five defenders, six midfielders and five forwards, preventing them putting extra bodies around the ball as commonly happens in the men’s competition.
A protected area will be introduced for other stoppages while forwards will be asked to hold their place rather than being drawn into the congestion.
Brisbane forward Jessica Wuetschner on Wednesday took to social media to label the modifications “ridiculous”.
“This is my view only but are they bloody serious?” Wuetschner posted on Twitter.
“We are out here to win, whatever it takes.
“If you ask me, I saw some pretty exciting stuff on the weekend and I think this is ridiculous. How many rule changes do you want? Is it even AFL anymore?”
AFL chief Gillon McLachlan on Tuesday said he was comfortable with the standard of play but wanted to see coaches take a more attacking mindset.
Friday night’s primetime season-opener between Carlton and Collingwood at a near-capacity Princes Park proved particularly miserly.
No goals were scored in the entire second half as the Blues, who kept numbers back throughout the match, prevailed 3.4 (22) to 2.2 (14).
Melbourne and Greater Western Sydney shared in the highest-scoring and most entertaining match of the round with the Demons claiming a 7.3 (45) to 6.3 (39) victory.
Carlton skipper Brianna Davey insisted the Blues weren’t instructed to flood their defensive 50, instead suggesting nerves influenced the scoreline.
But while players were conscious of the need for entertainment, Davey said winning games had to remain the priority.
“As players and as teams, we probably don’t really care what it looks like as long as we’re getting that win,” she said.
“We understand from a spectacle point of view, we want people to enjoy watching the game.
“We’ll continue to do that but at the same time … we’re here to win games.”
Liam
Guest
... because people are stupid and listen to hype and marketing instead of using their own mind, hmm? Nope. I support Carlton, regardless of who pulls on the jumper. Ugly wins are still wins, and good play is still good play.
Rob
Guest
Dont be suprised... seriously!
I ate pies
Guest
My point is that the number of players makes no difference; 5 kicks to score is 5 kicks to score, regardless of the number of players on the field. The more hands the ball goes through the greater the likelihood of error. Less kicks = less errors = more goals scored.
AR
Guest
I agree with anon here. It’s a delicate product. A bit of a nervous (though exciting) experiment, which is showing potential far beyond what head office expected. Have faith. Trust the product. Let them find their way. If it works, it will find an audience. It already has. Let the audience decide.
AR
Guest
“The only sustainable way to improve the spectacle is to keep supporting women’s footy, attract the best athletes, and provide the best development pathways.“ We have a bingo.
all in the family
Guest
Agree entirely.
Doc Disnick
Roar Guru
I’d certainly be open to your last suggestion, providing a negative score was registered for a point. I can just see the fullback’s eyes lighting up as she runs into an open goal, only to f#2k it up for -6 points.
all in the family
Guest
Agreed; and it only goes to prove that when you attempt to manufacture something out of nothing, what you ultimately wind up with is nothing.
all in the family
Guest
Great suggestions which are entirely appropriate given the standard of AFLW play; LOL.
mattyb
Guest
So which current sport do you think is a wonderful spectacle Jeff?
Slane
Guest
Exactly.
Rob
Guest
So its fine to tweek the mens version which has been around for 160 years but hands of the womens game? Gettin a bit big for your boots there girls no one is suggesting you dont want to win were just saying the games are boring and anyone being honest isnt being entertained. For god sake you wanted to be professional!!
anon
Roar Pro
They're children, they're amateurs, it's not televised, it's not marketed as an elite league.
Maggie
Guest
Spot on. The Melbourne v GWS match was a wonderful match and great to watch for exactly that reason with both teams fighting it out right to the end. And in any case the final score Demons 7.3 to GWS 6.3 was equivalent to plenty of men’s matches given the shorter length. I remember a high scoring Swans v Geelong match at the SCG some years back in which the ball just pinged back and forth from one set of goals to the other. It was like watching table tennis. And it was far less interesting than a tightly fought tussle.
BigAl
Guest
Of course it's wrong ! - and it's also ridiculous. The AFL has to set the rules, and not pathetically hide behind the skirts of the coaches. This applies to both the men's and women's games. For the men in particular this applies to congestion(zones anyone?), the number of blowouts, blowouts that become obvious very early in the game !
Aligee
Guest
Look off topic, but the 3/4 time score in the under 18 AFL Canberra grand final 2017 Ainslie .... 0 .15 ... 15 Marist ..... 5. 0 ..30 Ainslie lost but kicked 3.18 for the game, Marist kicked 7,1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlQv7Cibl4E
Grobbelaar
Roar Guru
If that is yet to happen, it should be given serious consideration.
Grobbelaar
Roar Guru
or four sets of goals, so that if one set of goals appear too far away, there might be an alternative set of goals alternatively, players can pick and choose their preferred end, so if the full back grabs the ball in the clear, she is allowed to score a goal via the opponents' goals
anon
Roar Pro
And the Suns sacked their coach before season's end.
Dalgety Carrington
Roar Guru
While it is hard to take 99% of what you say seriously, it's because of the thick emotional filters that distort the "logic" you use, not because of "what you stand for". I have no idea what you stand for (although I do have a vast selection of posts that indicate what you stand against), it really means very little to me. As for shortening the field, essentially what that does is reduce the player to space ratio, yes? This would also be achieved by increasing the number of players on the field up to the standard 18. If you're worried about the distance of their kicks (or even distribution and receival proficiency), then providing more links in the chain would help transition the ball along the field. Why vary further from the regular rules (i.e. fewer players/smaller ovals), when going up to the regular player numbers achieves very similar things. Also going up to 18 players would offer indications on the effect reducing the numbers of players on the field has on scoring (essentially the player numbers become a control variable).