I read with interest the comments from Alastair Clarkson about his criticism of the state of the game.
However, even now I am still unsure what Clarkson was really on about.
Was it about the state of the game? Was it about the lack of free kicks for tackles? Maybe it was about the free kicks that were paid against Hawthorn in the ruck?
Interestingly, Clarkson has been the coaching genius that has shaped how the game is played today. Now he is complaining!
However, as per normal, all the commentators jumped on board with ideas rehashed from last year and the year before and from before that. Same old crisis every year.
Why is the tackle issue suddenly so important to Clarkson?
(Photo by Cameron Spencer/AFL Photos/via Getty Images)
Not paying free kicks for good tackles has been building since the Tigers’ grand final victory in 2017. Last July, when Steve Hocking was talking on breakfast radio about Geelong’s win over St Kilda and the 161 tackles applied, he said: “Certainly we don’t want (tackling) as a skill”.
He wanted to “balance out” the tackling but did not explain how he intended to do that. Maybe “balancing out” is code for “don’t reward the tackler”.
Maybe Clarkson should be blaming him, not the umpires?
Tackling has always been an integral part of our game. The ability of players like Scott Pendlebury to avoid being tackled and still find good options is a skill. This is what makes him a star even for us non-Collingwood supporters.
The problem according to all the old-timers is that the improvement in the skill of tackling has been at the detriment of free-flowing footy. But has tackling caused the congestion around the ball or has the congestion increased the number of tackles?
Let’s assume for a moment that the real problem is congestion. Will paying a free kick for a good tackle change anything? I think not.
Let’s just say it takes ten seconds for the free to be paid and the ball to be returned to the tackler. In ten seconds, most AFL players can run the 50 metres to the next line of scrimmage. The defence will reset, and the next crowded contest will ensue.
A free kick in modern footy is a bit like trench warfare. The defence is arranged in lines one kick forward of the ball. As the ball moves forward, the defence folds back and reforms until all the defenders are back in the defensive 50 metre arc. Each retreat condenses the space and increases the congestion.
The defensive structures are so good, I really question whether winning a free kick is better than a ball up. At least winning a clearance from a ball up means breaking into free space.
(Photo by Michael Willson/AFL Media/Getty Images)
At some stages against the Tigers, Hawthorn had 12 or more defenders in their defensive 50. Tigers forwards had no space to lead into. Their tall forwards were blocked from even getting to the contest.
Once the ball was turned over, the Hawks did a series of shorts kicks to give their forwards time to run into their own forward line. I assume the Hawks did the same to the Roos. Clearly this was a strategy from Clarkson.
I suspect some of the problem was created by the shortened quarters. The players can sustain this mad-dash type of footy for 16 minutes. I doubt they could do it for 25 minutes for four quarters. Clarkson is a master of seizing the advantage.
These tactics were clearly well thought-out and very effective against the Tigers’ chaos. That’s why I am confused as to why Clarkson is panning the state of the game. It’s his game plan!
The Hawks saturation-style defence inside the 50-metre arc does, however, demonstrate flaws with the solutions to congestion put forward by the commentators that jumped onto Clarkson’s comments.
For example, take the idea of reducing the number of players to 16 per side. In reality, if Clarkson can get 12 out of 18 players into the back 50, he could just as easily get 12 out of 16.
The same applies to restricting interchanges. If you must rest players on the field, the best spot to rest them is in the back 50-metre arc. Restricting interchanges may decrease congestion in the midfield but actually increase congestion inside the 50-metre arcs.
One suggestion may work. Forcing forwards and defenders to stay in their own half combined with restricting some to within their 50-metre arc may work.
It could be done using electronic transponders that flashed after a present time when a player crosses a buried signal wire.
However, before it should even be considered, we should spend a lot of time trying to work out how Clarkson might turn the system to his advantage. Then complain about it. Just joking.
DingoGray
Roar Guru
The whole reducing numbers argument for me doesn't hold strong. There is nothing stopping (in current format) if it was to dropped further that after the starting bounce, that coaches wouldn't direct their players to just clog on space. Whether that's 16,14, 12 or whatever numbers, current regime still allows for congestion.
Simoc
Guest
Just on the 16 player thing, it would reduce costs enormously and only the two worst players miss out. Hence the standard of play improves across the league. Sounds good to me if as you say nothing changes.
Marty
Roar Rookie
The guy is a hypocrite. He whinges about the fact that there’s too much congestion and not enough ball movement, however he invented the ‘cluster’ which is specifically designed to increase congestion around the ball and stop ball movement. And they he has the audacity to complain about a situation that he created, and act as if it’s the umpires and AFLs fault! If his idea of ‘fixing ‘ the game is to decrease congestion and increase ball movement then he should start by getting rid of the cluster or, as I suggested, quit. Is that straight forward enough for you?
6x6 perkele
Roar Rookie
They're scared to, you saw what he did in an exhibition match, guy is a lose cannon
Mooty
Roar Rookie
Did anyone at the press conference question his comments? No
Mooty
Roar Rookie
And your small minded reasoning behind that statement would be!
The Dom is good
Roar Rookie
Victorian sook
6x6 perkele
Roar Rookie
Did clarko do a follow up presser with data and video analysis to back up his post game rant? Answer is nup so isn't the big deal being made it was deflection and gave him control of ant narrative from that game
RT
Roar Rookie
I disagree but one day we might find it who is right I guess.
Marty
Roar Rookie
The greatest contribution Clarkson could make to ‘fixing’ the game would be to resign.
Boo
Guest
100 percent paying frees for tackling matters not necessarily because of its immediate impact on the game but rather its influence on players mindsets.If a player knows they may be pinged for holding the ball then logically he or she will move the ball on as quickly as possible.What impact would umpires not paying in the back have on marking it would reduce one of the great skills of the game .Watching greats like Robbie Flower and Keith Greig avoid tackles because of there balance and talent was a skill of the game you don't see so much any more.
Rowdy
Roar Rookie
It's that the player's are much better aerobically. This is a major change to the dynamic. I believe a 10% (2) reduction in player numbers is the key.
RT
Roar Rookie
I understand what you are saying about numbers. Reducing to 16 is one thing, but what if that is not enough? Do we go lower? Before long we have large scale AFLX. So to me, reducing numbers is a last resort and the other ideas should be looked at first. Plus they don’t actually change any fundamentals.
Rowdy
Roar Rookie
Yes to getting rid of the grey area of "no prior opportunity". ------ As for Hocking saying we don't want tackling. I can't believe he did say that, l remember he did, but it beggars belief!!! :angry: :angry: :angry: . I think he should leave his position. ----- As for reducing numbers l think player fitness has effectively made the area smaller. That coupled with the defensive strategies, that dominate the game, have caused the congestion. It is a blight. I think Packer did the same for cricket and had similar ideas for footy. I love our game but I'm not blinkered to it's shortcomings and l don't think you are either. And I'm not usually of the rule changing mentality but this congestion is a major blight. Number reduction, zoning off players, existing rule enforcement and rule simplifications are a mix of responses needed.
Marty
Roar Rookie
Totally agree. Clarkson is paid to win games of footy for the HFC, end of story. This idea that he is concerned for the ‘good of the game’ is absolute baloney. As the author quite rightly points out, he’s one of the main reasons the game is played the way it is at the moment. He knows how to manipulate the media, as well as a few pundits on this site, by feeding them the whole ‘good of the game’ line, which they eat up gleefully. Hilarious.
Don Freo
Roar Rookie
Clarko's point is still valid. If a free is there pay it. When it is not, don't pay it. The rules are there. Steve Hocking's 'emphasis of the week' is not in those rules. Fanciful umpires seeing what they choose to see almost changed a result last night. Umpires need the discipline of umpiring the rules; not the admin, not the media, not the crowd. They need to practise that without the white noise.
RT
Roar Rookie
Good article. You are right, Clarkson should not blame umpires, they are just umpiring as they are told to do. The defensive structures are so good, I really question whether winning a free kick is better than a ball up. At least winning a clearance from a ball up means breaking into free space. This is an interesting statement. After a free kick, the player can kick it in any direction, so while a pack will form further up the ground as you say, players will still be spread out more after a free than they would have with a ball up. I think coaches agree with you and that is why we get so many ball ups. Players take the ball and let themselves get tackled to get a ball up. However, following the reset, they don’t really just kick to free space but try and work the ball out of the pack with a series of handballs (to someone without space, hence another ball up often results). This is why I have been saying we should get rid of prior opportunity but also do more to protect the player with the ball which means paying free kicks that are there. This idea of letting the play go and not paying free kicks has led to congestion as much if not more than coaches’ tactics and player fitness. It doesn’t take much to change things. In the game last night between Collingwood and Essendon, there didn’t look to be many ball ups (= coaches tactics). Other ideas are reducing interchange (fitness), next is paying frees that are there (no rule change) and removing prior (rule change but not new). As you suggest, reducing numbers to 16 probably won’t do much. Reducing any further and we are inventing a new game.