Play the game, it's still the same

Like a lot of oldies, I have problems with the way the game is played today.

I don’t think it’s because I am old. The game is old, but I suggest it the same formulae is the same today as it’s always been. The eras haven’t changed it, but Australian rules football from the 1990s lost its way.

The old style was slow and we have to allow for the modern professional approach on fitness and the near compulsory use of the drop punt. Viewing old games can be a painful experience when you see poor skill levels. Not all the basic rules have gone by the wayside.

In the old days
Never kick across goals
Never handpass in the backline
Never handpass or kick backwards
Kick long to a marking contest
Play your text book position
Interchange was for emergencies
(Reference: Edith Cowan study of AFL Strategy and Tactics)

While reading a biography of Norm Smith I was surprised to read that he was a Collingwood fan as a kid. He admired the Collingwood ‘Machine’ as the four consecutive premiership-winning sides were called. The game was to take it around the boundary and then into full forward. Why not, when you have the real full forward of the century, Gordon Coventry, in goal. Smith wanted and practiced in his day bringing the centre half forward and forward into an interchanging target up forward, as I understood it.

(Photo by Mark Dadswell/Getty Images)

From my observation of Brisbane during their three premierships, they didn’t vary their game plan and it appeared to me to be exactly a copy of the ‘Machine’/Smith game plan. Brisbane, no offence to Hawthorn, is the best team I have seen.

The saying, that there is nothing new under the sun, applies. As I think Leigh Mathews opined, they did it better than the other teams.

The age-old system of around the boundary then into the forward line still works in the 21st century.

The strategy and tactics in the game have evolved, and I wonder if the pendulum has swung too far to coaches being too rigid in their design of the game. And in their efforts to improve their knowledge of sporting science they have drawn on other sports. Sometimes in reading the strategy and tactics employed in other sports you can feel familiar with their ideas and see how it does or may apply to our game.

This is the tricky bit. Football (as in the 11-a-side world game) and basketball strategies and tactics are based on a rectangular playing area, that is much smaller.

In football, the field of play should be 125 metres by 85 metres (136 by 93 yards), or a minimum of 120 metres by 80 metres (131 by 87 yards). An AFL ground can be 135 metres to 185 metres long and 110 metres to 155 metres wide.

The MCG is 171 by 146. Optus Oval in Perth 165 by 130 metres.

(Photo by Paul Kane/Getty Images)

As far as I know, AFL is the only sport that plays on an oval or circular ground. The size of the surface area and its shape change the dynamics. The full ground is not brought into play when modern tactics are applied, to the detriment of the game.

Tactics are essential, but some are more than detrimental. The tactic used in a grand final where one team rushed goals was a blatant tactic against the game. Simply because they were not only not playing the game, they were playing against sporting ideals themselves.

Our game used to be quite clear in its complement: back, half backs, centres, half forwards, and full forwards, with a group of followers.

And people occupied those positions across the ground, for the most part. Of course, things change and for the most part for the better. However, progress (if that’s how you see it) has broken down the playing of the game.

I recently went to watch a local competition game here in Brisbane. I played on the ground many years ago so I had a feel for it. What I saw was shocking. There were 34 players inside one side’s 50. The bloke with the ball was undecided on what to do. He saw a player in the centre and kicked it to him. That player was on the opposing side and went down to kick a goal for his side.

This is where the game breaks down. Trying to emulate the elite level is fine in theory, but playing the game contrary to the game’s competitive ideals is causing great harm to lower competitions. Two players assigned in a position across a large space might be considered by cynics as ridiculous when winning is all that matters. However, a contest between two players is something we all love to see.

I fault no one individual.

There is a coach out there somewhere who loves the game and can design a game plan to suit his playing stocks. Perhaps we will have high-scoring hard individual contests again. And play footy the Australian way.

(Photo by Michael Willson/AFL Photos via Getty Images)

It’s an old misanthropic curmudgeon who sits in the stand and sees his team kick the ball backward from half-forward to the fullback line. The absolute helplessness of seeing teams do this is heart breaking.

While eating my gruel I decided to search some sites online seeking the tactics that games employ and promote to the public.

Please consider the football strategies and tactics that football coaches have developed, discussed in this football site. Most will recognise the intent in their use and how they would apply to AFL.

Then, compare them to the basic AFL strategies outlined in this piece, as well as this Guardian article by Russell Jackson.

It may be that the AFL rule changes have not been in force for a suitable time to be able to criticise it objectively. Regardless of any rule changes, the game needs a coach that can bring back individual competition, attacking footy, and high scoring.

The coaches are the only ones who can change the game to a more positive appeal. I am positive that there is a game plan, combined with consideration of player stocks, that can be employed to win in a way that we can admire.