AFL Thread

Page 9 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
FoxxyBrown1111 said:
About the style: I am not yet into tactic details, so what changed in the style of play from 2001 to 2014?

gee that's a tough one to explain foxxy.

I'll give it a go though, I see the big differences are in how teams approach the use of the ball, how they aim to move the ball around the field and how they ultimately score.

In recent years the skills of players have become extremely good, players for the most part have great accuracy with their kicking (on both feet) and as such you see the ball moved around with a lot more intent and purpose.

Following on from this, teams can now aim to keep possession of the ball, working it around the field much like a good soccer team or basketball team might do, working the ball into the forward line and trying to get it to someone who can mark it near goal and then score.

Back in the early 2000s (and before) however, while there were a number of very skilful players, but you wouldn't have a whole team's worth, so this would mean there was a greater element of chance in the team's ball movement. More often you would find a team would get to a certain point of the field and then have no option but to kick it long to a contest (a big pack of players).

You were also more likely to find a Full Forward in a one on one contest with a Fullback, as players held their positions a lot more.

These days however teams will more often than not have a loose man, or even a few loose men move back into the area they are defending so there isn't a big bit of space that will allow a highly skilled player to go one on one against the fullback (in NFL terms, instead of having a WR in single coverage against a CB, you would have a WR with a CB and a FS and SS providing support as well).

So this was another big change, a huge change infact, in AFL it's called flooding and you can't underestimate how much it has changed the game.

It was first recognised as a tactic after being used by the Western Bulldogs who beat the Dirty Drug taking Essendon Bombers druggies in round 21 of 2000 (it was essendon's first defeat of the year, COME ON BULLDOGS YES!!)

So in footy of yesteryear you would have players that played in their positions and more or less stayed in those positions for the game, aside from the midfielders (Ruck, Ruck-rover, rover) who followed the ball around.

fieldplanpic.jpg


After flooding was introduced teams just pushed everyone around the ball all the time, it got ugly for a while, sometimes you would see all 36 players in one half of the field, but it has calmed down a bit but the game has changed noticeably as a result of it - again a bit like basketball how teams follow the ball up and down the court.

So now players, as well as being highly skilled, must also be superfit, as each player is expected to follow the ball around the field a lot more, this has also lead to teams using the interchange a lot more, with players doing 5 minute stints and then swapping off (much like lines swap in ice-hockey) so people can stay fresh and put in shorter sharper faster paced efforts and then rest on the bench for a bit.

Short version: Skills got better and ball movement became more precise and the game got faster.
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,529
1
0
Ok. Thanks.

So it means the superstars got less space to work with (1 offensive player vs 3 defensers for example, than 1 on 1 contests in the past?), thus scoring is down? Especially since flooding is used more as a defensive tactic (I just got that from wiki now ;))?

OTOH, the more skillfull it got, the better the quality got. Right?
I especially like the fast forward moving handballs and kicks with great accuracy. Once a player is about to be tackled, I see it often how he precisely gets rid of the ball to another player. I love that...

So if scores are more like 81-70 instead of 118-110, it´s not really a problem, right? Still plenty of scoring, amazing marks & handballs, and awesome kicks...
 
FoxxyBrown1111 said:
So it means the superstars got less space to work with (1 offensive player vs 3 defensers for example, than 1 on 1 contests in the past?), thus scoring is down? Especially since flooding is used more as a defensive tactic (I just got that from wiki now ;))?

OTOH, the more skillfull it got, the better the quality got. Right?
I especially like the fast forward moving handballs and kicks with great accuracy. Once a player is about to be tackled, I see it often how he precisely gets rid of the ball to another player. I love that...

So if scores are more like 81-70 instead of 118-110, it´s not really a problem, right? Still plenty of scoring, amazing marks & handballs, and awesome kicks...

Scoring is definitely down, in yee olden days the top Full Forwards could kick +100 goals a year, these days they are more likely to score 60-70 or thereabouts.

Though I hear and read of a lot of people complaining about the way the game has gone, it's not a problem for me, I actually think evolution of the game has been a good thing, the footy being played these years is light-years ahead of footy from the 80s and 90s, I'd much rather see players think and work their way out of a situation than just shut their eyes and bomb the footy long.
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,529
1
0
leftover pie said:
than just shut their eyes and bomb the footy long.

Yeah. Even though I am a bloody rookie to the game, I see what you mean...
Higher skill is always better, as long it doesn´t kill scoring completely (like in soccer; yeah I know its getting tiresome, but I never can resist :D)... But I don´t think that ever will be a problem in footy.
How would Ablett senior fare in todays game? Would he still rule, even if crowded by defenders?

Edit: Yes, I will search. Next weekend (if everything will work out) I can watch live and good quality with AFL pass. Looking forward to this. :)
 
FoxxyBrown1111 said:
How would Ablett senior fare in todays game? Would he still rule, even if crowded by defenders?

another tough question, I think fitness-wise he would be way way way down on everyone else, which would put him at a big disadvantage, but in a marking contest he might do even better these days with the rules such as they are that favour forwards.

In his time he was amazing, he dominated, I saw him play a few times, in normal games and in State of Origin, whenever he went near the ball everyone would be on the edge of their seat, he didn't get called "god" for nothing.

FoxxyBrown1111 said:
Edit: Yes, I will search. Next weekend (if everything will work out) I can watch live and good quality with AFL pass. Looking forward to this. :)

Foxxy's first grand final day!!!
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,529
1
0
leftover pie said:
another tough question, I think fitness-wise he would be way way way down on everyone else, which would put him at a big disadvantage, but in a marking contest he might do even better these days with the rules such as they are that favour forwards.

In his time he was amazing, he dominated, I saw him play a few times, in normal games and in State of Origin, whenever he went near the ball everyone would be on the edge of their seat, he didn't get called "god" for nothing.

Yeah it´s always tough to estimate past legends to nowadays (even in other sports). Certainly fitness levels are wayyy up compared to the past in any sport. But I guess skill-wise the past legends would fit in today no matter the sport.

leftover pie said:
Foxxy's first grand final day!!!

Fingers crossed my computer can handle it. :eek:
afl.au described something of minimal standards needed. But I hope/guess, as long youtube and cycling feeds work, it should be no problem to watch the Grand Final in good quality...
 
thrawn said:
Homebush needs 65k+ to generate an atmosphere. I've been to multiple matches from different sports and the atmosphere can be dead. State of Origin's are quite good though.

This game was the first time I've been there for anything... it's simply not a venue for oval sports in both a sporting and spectating sense. Atrocious, not sure when the current deal is up but guess the AFL will continue to sell out.
 
May 2, 2010
1,692
0
0
Ferminal said:
This game was the first time I've been there for anything... it's simply not a venue for oval sports in both a sporting and spectating sense. Atrocious, not sure when the current deal is up but guess the AFL will continue to sell out.

Probably. My understanding is that teams get 100k+ to play there, irrespective of crowd figures.
 
May 2, 2010
1,692
0
0
Freo should have been ahead by 50 at half time. Not having their dominance reflected on the scoreboard cost them in the end.
 
Great to see Port & North win & upset the norm for a change !

Glad that a Ross Lyon coached team is beaten.

Really love the way Port play with their run and carry.

Actually all four teams left in the competition are quite attacking ! and this augurs well for the future as hopefully the boring defensive tactics of coaches like Lyon, Roos are put aside.

Wouldn't mind any of the four teams winning.

On a side note, the stupid conservative Aussie Govt has stopped funding for the Aussie Network, so probably the last season I'm going to watch AFL.
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,529
1
0
So my first ever live game will be a blowout... Swans 29, NM 8 after one Otr. Anyway, the AFL pass works nice. 10 € for two games is fair. I enjoy it. :)
 
May 2, 2010
1,692
0
0
FoxxyBrown1111 said:
So my first ever live game will be a blowout... Swans 29, NM 8 after one Otr. Anyway, the AFL pass works nice. 10 € for two games is fair. I enjoy it. :)

Listening on the radio at work here. Sounds like a flogging, but bigger comebacks have occurred. It would be surprising if North could win after 2 tight encounters in a row.
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,529
1
0
thrawn said:
Listening on the radio at work here. Sounds like a flogging, but bigger comebacks have occurred. It would be surprising if North could win after 2 tight encounters in a row.

The comentators said "the Swans are not the Bombers" ;)
But the little I have seen so far, in the AFL everything is possible.

There was a great mark by Swans Parker 3 mins before halftime. I like Franklin and Adam Goodes as playing very good. NM, well... can´t say much, they are down 28-64 at HT now.
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,529
1
0
So who´s going to beat the Swans in the final?
Parker does the beauties (great mark, and just some mins ago great goal from angle), Goodes the goodies, and Franklin is every where.
It seems the Swans are constantly moving forward. Hope we get at least a tight Grand final into the 3rd Qtr. ;)
 
FoxxyBrown1111 said:
So my first ever live game will be a blowout... Swans 29, NM 8 after one Otr. Anyway, the AFL pass works nice. 10 € for two games is fair. I enjoy it. :)

It's a shame you missed last week's games because they were both very good. Not all matches can be close unfortunately.

Sydney are a very good team and North Melbourne had run its race by getting this far.

A Sydney - Hawthorn grand final should be a very good and entertaining affair I think. Especially since Sydney stole Franklin:p.
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,529
1
0
Have read a little about AFL history... :)
So, the Hawks are lucky to only be down 2 goals. PA dominating, but missing some kicks.
BTW, in the statistics, is a hitout scored to a player (who wins it) everytime the ump makes a "ball up"?
 
May 2, 2010
1,692
0
0
FoxxyBrown1111 said:
136-65........... Did there have been such demolition in a pre final in the last 20 something years?

Well in 2007 Geelong beat Port Adelaide by around 120 points in the Grand Final.