Tempo

[AnnieH]

Are all our games when we score 8 goals worthy of highlight tapes? A lot of those games aren't great quality football throughout most of them. Missing goals, kicking the ball OOTF, passing to the opposition, forcing ball ups, giving away free kicks - reasons why less goals are scored - are not great football.

Obviously no one here actually likes the game of football - just winning, no matter what game they're watching.

obviously.

[liz]

Obviously no one here actually likes the game of football - just winning, no matter what game they're watching.

That is a little simplistic.

I for one - and others have too - have gone to great length to discuss the aspects of the game I really enjoy other than just goal kicking.

That is not to say that every low scoring game is of decent quality. When the Swans are playing poorly - leading to low goal tallies - I'll agree they don't always stand up to repeat viewing. But then nor do some higher scoring games - go sit through the Saints vs Freo game from a few weeks ago. The skills from both teams were appalling and the intensity pretty low too. Dreadful game, despite being moderately high scoring.

But there are also plenty of lowish scoring (Swans) games that I really enjoy rewatching, mostly where there were numerous reasons for the low scoring nature of the game other than a low skill level. Most Sydney WC games over the past few years are examples but there are others too.

The whole point I;ve been arguing is not that all Swans games are great entertainment. But that the correlation between my take on what makes an entertaining game has an extremely low correlation to goals kicked.

I am quite happy to accept that you have different criteria that determine whether you find a game entertaining. But I don't think your argument is helped by using simplistic, twisted summaries of others' viewpoints, or by an apparent disbelief that others might have different - yet equally valid for them - reasons for enjoying particular games.

[ROK Lobster]

I like games that generally have both elements. Tight contests, with the occasional flurry of goals bu one side, the other side locks it down and slowly gets on top before going on a flurry of their own. I think that sometimes the Swans focus too much on the defensive,especially if they are not playing well. Sometimes they are very dull to watch. Sometimes not. Depends really. BUT I would prefer a low skilled shoot out to a low skilled clamp down most Sunday afternoons.

[NMWBloods]

Yeah I think that is fair. Certainly it is possible to have an interesting low-scoring affair, but it generally wouldn't hurt adding a few goals. Low scoring affairs are frequently associated with lower skills. And I think it is more likely to find some interest in a low-skill game if more goals are scored.

As far as twisting viewpoints on this, I think RP has been the master of that, across a number of threads!

[Layby]

BUT I would prefer a low skilled shoot out to a low skilled clamp down most Sunday afternoons.

I enjoy a barbie and some chilled Rhine reisling most Sunday afternoons. Although sometimes i change it up with viognier or a rose.

[dimelb]

When I'm watching other teams I prefer open footy - tonight's game Esendon v. Melbourne for example. When I'm watching the Swans I'd rather win ugly than lose pretty. But best of all is when we win pretty - which doesn't happen often enough.

[NMWBloods]

Yep - reasonable enough!

[swantastic]

Yeah I think that is fair. Certainly it is possible to have an interesting low-scoring affair, but it generally wouldn't hurt adding a few goals. Low scoring affairs are frequently associated with lower skills. And I think it is more likely to find some interest in a low-skill game if more goals are scored.

As far as twisting viewpoints on this, I think RP has been the master of that, across a number of threads!

Who said that?So what your saying is that the 10/12 games between the Swans and WC over the last couple of years have all been played with lower skill levels.

[Melbournehammer]

I must say that the debate which is occurring on this thread is interesting and has been something which i've been pondering for most of the past two seasons. As i see it the debate involves the difference between the roos 2005-2006 style and the hafey 1987-88 style.

In my opinion (and this is all that it is) the current afl rules committee believes that the style of the 1980s of high flying marks and kicking to contests is the model to be emulated.

For what it is worth i actually don't like that model because unless it is played well by both sides it usually involves uncontested midfielders streaming towards goals and running forwards of the ball (circa geelong 1989-1992). Goals of themselves are actually pretty dull. Go along to a circle work training session to see how dull it can be.

I actually think the rules committee hated the way sydney played. To my mind it was indistinguishable that the rules committee was seeking to stop unattractive football aka the way sydney played. Every rule change has been designed to defeat the sydney style. Holding the ball interpretations have been changed to stop players holding seeking a ball-up. Short kicking has been interpreted much more strictly - so many of the passes buchanan and others made inside 50 no longer are paid as marks. The time granted to pass the ball has been reduced stopping our ability to delay until someone leads successfully. The chopping of the arms rule was directed as much towards leo barry as any other player. The push in the back rule was one which was n ot specifically designed against the swans but we were at the outer edge of that rule anyway.

I do like a variety of styles. I like to appreciate tackling as well as high marking. I appreciate buckley for his skills, hird for his ability to dominate. but i also really appreciate the paul kelly battering ram style.

Lastly in case anyone thinks roos is really only a one trick pony I recollect catching the train home from a game against melb at telstra dome in about 2005 where someone rightly pointed out that the style we played in 2003 was so exciting but didn't quite get us there...

[NMWBloods]

Who said that?So what your saying is that the 10/12 games between the Swans and WC over the last couple of years have all been played with lower skill levels.

"Frequently" not "always"!

[NMWBloods]

For what it is worth i actually don't like that model because unless it is played well by both sides it usually involves uncontested midfielders streaming towards goals and running forwards of the ball (circa geelong 1989-1992). Goals of themselves are actually pretty dull. Go along to a circle work training session to see how dull it can be.

I think that's a really good point.
In the VFL days you would get a mix of games:
- fantastic, exciting football between two of the top sides.
- mixed football from the lower sides.
- some very ordinary games when top sides played lower sides.

However, I think that with the competition being evened out much more effectively in the AFL, the number of games with that old style falling into the third category would be much fewer.

I actually think the rules committee hated the way sydney played. To my mind it was indistinguishable that the rules committee was seeking to stop unattractive football aka the way sydney played. Every rule change has been designed to defeat the sydney style.

I agree that they hate the ugly style and the Swans are seen as the major proponents of that. However, I'm not entirely sure if every rule change has been directed at Sydney.

I do like a variety of styles. I like to appreciate tackling as well as high marking. I appreciate buckley for his skills, hird for his ability to dominate. but i also really appreciate the paul kelly battering ram style.

I like all these things too. And they were there in abundance in the prior days when more goals were scored.

However, the ultimate aim of football is to win, and you win by scoring more goals than the opposition, and the purpose of the skills is the goal. As I mentioned earlier, the culmination of a goal is the best way to cap off a great passage of play. It's not necessarily the goal itself. Butchering a forward thrust is a great way to disappoint the crowd. And we can see how excited the crowd gets when goals are scored. Consider how much more exciting tonight's game was with the flurry of goals and then the goal for goal, rather than one side scoring 6 goals to 5.

[Legs Akimbo]

I must say that the debate which is occurring on this thread is interesting and has been something which i've been pondering for most of the past two seasons. As i see it the debate involves the difference between the roos 2005-2006 style and the hafey 1987-88 style.

In my opinion (and this is all that it is) the current afl rules committee believes that the style of the 1980s of high flying marks and kicking to contests is the model to be emulated.

For what it is worth i actually don't like that model because unless it is played well by both sides it usually involves uncontested midfielders streaming towards goals and running forwards of the ball (circa geelong 1989-1992). Goals of themselves are actually pretty dull. Go along to a circle work training session to see how dull it can be.

I actually think the rules committee hated the way sydney played. To my mind it was indistinguishable that the rules committee was seeking to stop unattractive football aka the way sydney played. Every rule change has been designed to defeat the sydney style. Holding the ball interpretations have been changed to stop players holding seeking a ball-up. Short kicking has been interpreted much more strictly - so many of the passes buchanan and others made inside 50 no longer are paid as marks. The time granted to pass the ball has been reduced stopping our ability to delay until someone leads successfully. The chopping of the arms rule was directed as much towards leo barry as any other player. The push in the back rule was one which was n ot specifically designed against the swans but we were at the outer edge of that rule anyway.

I do like a variety of styles. I like to appreciate tackling as well as high marking. I appreciate buckley for his skills, hird for his ability to dominate. but i also really appreciate the paul kelly battering ram style.

Lastly in case anyone thinks roos is really only a one trick pony I recollect catching the train home from a game against melb at telstra dome in about 2005 where someone rightly pointed out that the style we played in 2003 was so exciting but didn't quite get us there...

I think you are right about the above. However, whilst I think Sydney came to symbolise fears about the direction of the game towards mass flooding in 2005 (it must have been a bitter sweet year for the AFL), I think the higher casue of Demetriou and co. is to reduce the physicality of the game. As I wrote in another post, they see footy as a product and they have compared their product to another competiting product, soccer, and in their minds, found it wanting in various respects. Chief amongst these is the perceived fear of their target market - mothers of 6 - 8 year old boys, that their little johnny will get hurt. I watched the 1989 Grand Final the other day and the game was a lot more physical back then (probably not a good sample, I admit, but my memory suggests the game was not atypical).

Anyway, I'll get to the point now. I have forgotten the point. Oh yeah, the rules committee is acting under the directives of the current CEO and the current CEO's bent is to 'fashion' a game which has broad appeal. He isdoing so by homogenising the game. Personally, I think we are all losers for that. Diversity is best - close games, high scoring games, arm wrestles, free flowing. Keeps me interested. When I see a 'circle work' game, which seems to be more often now, I typically drift away and start pulling weeds out of the garden, doing the dishes or the like.

[goswannie14]

I think you are right about the above. However, whilst I think Sydney came to symbolise fears about the direction of the game towards mass flooding in 2005 (it must have been a bitter sweet year for the AFL), I think the higher casue of Demetriou and co. is to reduce the physicality of the game. As I wrote in another post, they see footy as a product and they have compared their product to another competiting product, soccer, and in their minds, found it wanting in various respects. Chief amongst these is the perceived fear of their target market - mothers of 6 - 8 year old boys, that their little johnny will get hurt. I watched the 1989 Grand Final the other day and the game was a lot more physical back then (probably not a good sample, I admit, but my memory suggests the game was not atypical).

Anyway, I'll get to the point now. I have forgotten the point. Oh yeah, the rules committee is acting under the directives of the current CEO and the current CEO's bent is to 'fashion' a game which has broad appeal. He isdoing so by homogenising the game. Personally, I think we are all losers for that. Diversity is best - close games, high scoring games, arm wrestles, free flowing. Keeps me interested. When I see a 'circle work' game, which seems to be more often now, I typically drift away and start pulling weeds out of the garden, doing the dishes or the like.

I reckon you have got it in one LA. I too often finding other things to do when many of the games are on TV (unless it is the Swans), the current game is not type of football that many have grown up watching. I like the variety of game plans and styles we used to get. Unfortunately with the leveling of the playing field this has dimished somewhat. Yes there is still the odd "good" game, but with this fiddling with the rules it ismaking it into much less of a spectacle than it used to be. (Unfortunately when I tell some people that they ask if I used to enjoy the dinosaur races at half time too.)

[swantastic]

However, the ultimate aim of football is to win, and you win by scoring more goals than the opposition, and the purpose of the skills is the goal. As I mentioned earlier, the culmination of a goal is the best way to cap off a great passage of play. It's not necessarily the goal itself. Butchering a forward thrust is a great way to disappoint the crowd. And we can see how excited the crowd gets when goals are scored. Consider how much more exciting tonight's game was with the flurry of goals and then the goal for goal, rather than one side scoring 6 goals to 5.

You have a couple of fair points NMW,but buchering the ball forward and getting a goal whats wrong with that as you said the point is too score more goals than the opposition.Your right the game last night was a high scoring game and very exciting,but it still peeves me off that the bummers beat us and wc by a point and win by 2 last night,the bummers are not that good.

[liz]

Anyway, I'll get to the point now. I have forgotten the point. Oh yeah, the rules committee is acting under the directives of the current CEO and the current CEO's bent is to 'fashion' a game which has broad appeal. He isdoing so by homogenising the game. Personally, I think we are all losers for that. Diversity is best - close games, high scoring games, arm wrestles, free flowing. Keeps me interested. When I see a 'circle work' game, which seems to be more often now, I typically drift away and start pulling weeds out of the garden, doing the dishes or the like.

I reckon you're partly right but I think there may be a few different agendas going on, some of which are complementary and some not. For example, I think Kevin Barlett has his own views that are not necessarily in line with those of Andy D - I reckon he has an idealised view of what the game used to be like and wants to turn the clock back to how it was played in his time. I am not sure that is possible (even if it were desirable) since it has evolved so far since then in an incremental way. You can't just go back and reverse that evolution, and not only because the players are now far fitter, quicker and stronger than they ever were back in the 70s and 80s.

I think you're right about Andy D wanting a far less physical game, and I'm not sure how that fits in with turning the clock back 30 or 40 years. Of all the changes that have been brought in recently, I have least problem with those designed to crack down on actions that could cause serious and unnecessary injury, especially to the head. But I don't see how some of the other rule refinements aimed at reducing the ability of players to compete for the ball, especially in the air, really have much to do with the game being safer.