Tempo

[goswannie14]

I think you're missing the point that entertainment in watching the sport is inherent in the reason for us following it. There is more to it than just winning.

Would you rather win by kicking 5 goals to 3 or by kicking 15 goals to 13?

I don't care as long as we win.

[originalswan]

If we could rank our preferences of most important to least I don't think you'd get much argument from the following:

1. Winning in a highly entertaining game by 10 points (although the heart would feel it).

2. Winning ugly by 10 points, or as you say 5 to 3.
.
.
.
.
.
55. Losing a highly entertaining game by 10 points.

Can we at least agree on this and move on?

[NMWBloods]

There is nothing to "move on" about.

[liz]

I think you're missing the point that entertainment in watching the sport is inherent in the reason for us following it. There is more to it than just winning.

I couldn't disagree more.

Sport is inherently different from cinema, theatre, live music. It is partly about entertainment but it is about so much more than that. It is about strongly identifying with one side or the other and getting emotionally involved to an extent you almost never do with other forms of entertainment.

I have no idea why this is the case and have often pondered the psychology of the sports fan and why it means so much when one's team wins. But there is little doubt that it does.

That's not to say there is no entertainment factor, and certainly it is possible to sit and watch a game of sport as a neutral. But the whole experience is a very different one.

And the fact that the most widely followed sport in the world is notoriously low-scoring indicates there is little correlation between the excitement drawn by fans from watching the contest and the rate of scoring.

[originalswan]

I couldn't disagree more.

And the fact that the most widely followed sport in the world is notoriously low-scoring indicates there is little correlation between the excitement drawn by fans from watching the contest and the rate of scoring.

Ditto.

[NMWBloods]

I couldn't disagree more.

Sport is inherently different from cinema, theatre, live music. It is partly about entertainment but it is about so much more than that. It is about strongly identifying with one side or the other and getting emotionally involved to an extent you almost never do with other forms of entertainment.

I have no idea why this is the case and have often pondered the psychology of the sports fan and why it means so much when one's team wins. But there is little doubt that it does.

That's not to say there is no entertainment factor, and certainly it is possible to sit and watch a game of sport as a neutral. But the whole experience is a very different one.

And the fact that the most widely followed sport in the world is notoriously low-scoring indicates there is little correlation between the excitement drawn by fans from watching the contest and the rate of scoring.

There has to be an element of interest in the game itself otherwise people would have the passion to follow their local hopscotch team. That soccer is low scoring doesn't mean that AFL football will also be entertaining if it is low scoring.

Highlights of an AFL match are mainly centred around marks and goals, followed by skillful passages of play and big hits.

Yes, some or many people are so obsessed by their team that the game itself becomes secondary. I've never understood this over the long term, otherwise what is the point?

If the main spectator highlights in AFL were removed I wonder how many people would continue to follow it.

[JF_Bay22_SCG]

Perhaps other teams don't value a goal as highly as we do??

Perhaps that's why no one watches soccer... all that low scoring....

That old chestnut. No, nobody watches FOOTBALL. Just the whole world really.

The thing that the world game has that Aussie Rules at AFL level often doesn't have is flowing passages of play. Seriously watch an EPL match for 5 minutes and you'll know I'm 100% right.

If you watch to watch footy the way it used to be, take in an SANFL match on Tuesday night. Players kick to contested possessions just they have always done. And as a result there is the body contact we always had as well.

JF

[JF_Bay22_SCG]

And the fact that the most widely followed sport in the world is notoriously low-scoring indicates there is little correlation between the excitement drawn by fans from watching the contest and the rate of scoring.

It is because of the fact that goals are so rare that makes them extremely crucial (more often than not game-changing) moments.

Only really exciting last quarters in AFL footy (ie the North game at the Dome) get everyone as fired up as after a goal in the World Game.

JF

[liz]

Some would argue that soccer isn't that entertaining - or at least, that there are plenty of relatively dull matches. And the dullness isn't always related to the scoring either. I've watched plenty of really thrilling 0-0 draws and see dull as ditchwater 2-1 games.

And I have seen my fair share of soccer before becoming an AFL convert. As I have posted many times before, I grew up in the UK and was almost as much an avid Liverpool fan as I am now a Swans fan. Since discovering AFL, however, I have close to lost any interest in soccer simply because I find there are so many more inherently exciting aspects to AFL. A lot of this is social / cultural of course, because I am no longer surrounded by a media that talks of nothing but soccer, not are conversations in pubs or at work centred around which premiership teams won at the weekend and who's in the England squad for the upcoming game.

What attracted me to AFL, though, was most certainly not the fact that it was high scoring, relative to soccer. It was the range of physical skills - the running, jumping, tackling, marking - , the multi-dimensional aspect of the game compared to most other football codes (aided by the marking but also the lack of an offside rule), the fact that not only can players with varying physical attributes play the game but a team actually needs them to be successful.

The highlights they show on TV may focus on goals but the highlights I personally take away from games are just as likely to include great tackles, a one-handed pick-up at speed, a daring run through the middle, a great 50m spearing kick (especially off the boot of one N Malceski), a one-on-one battle of strength between two 'monsters', a leap over the pack to take a mark, a perfectly directed tap from a ruckman to his rover and fast break away, an intricate chain of handballs between the likes of B2 and Kennelly to clear the ball from defence, a Brett Kirk getting absolutely pancaked by Byron Pickett and getting up straight away, a defender desperately running back to get just a fingernail on what looks like a certain goal.

The list goes on. There is so so so much more to our game than merely the goals and I think this range of 'highlights' is one of the things that most distinguishes our game from so many others.

But I will happily admit that winning tops any individual highlight. I don't understand why I go about with a bounce in my step during the week after the Swans win, or why I spend Monday mornings after a loss trying not to snap everyone's head off. But whether I understand it or not, I know I do.

[liz]

It is because of the fact that goals are so rare that makes them extremely crucial (more often than not game-changing) moments.

JF

I agree that's a large part of it. Which is why - IMHO - a tight, low scoring game of AFL is often a far more entertaining contest than a high scoring shoot-out when goals become just another piece of candy to lick before the next piece arrives.

[AnnieH]

right on lizzy !!

[hot potato]

It's on record that the coaching staff have empowered the players to flick the tempo on and off, the only one who attempts to do this lately is ROK. 'Backwards' footy has been the frustrating norm for too much of this season, mark the ball or given a free and run backwards, hardly ever an over lap and move it forward to stun when their (opposition) backs are out of position. Hard to fathom - works for Hawthorn BUT BUT MORE EXPERTLY FOR WEST COAST. WHEN ITS THEIR TURN TO MOVE THEY MOVE. Its hard to endure 'backwards' or sideways footy for four quarters like last sat nite against THE PIES. No highlights for Swans among the 62,000.
Mr McVeigh, make a descision, weave, dodge, dummy... we would have beaten or drawn with West Coast... don't remind me..
Where is that beautiful marker of the footy... Vogels?
Can't wait to blouse The CATS. You can do it boys.

[giant]

The last 6 Swans/Eagles games have been amongst the most riveting I've ever seen. Not a shoot-out among them.

[NMWBloods]

What attracted me to AFL, though, was most certainly not the fact that it was high scoring, relative to soccer. It was the range of physical skills - the running, jumping, tackling, marking - , the multi-dimensional aspect of the game compared to most other football codes (aided by the marking but also the lack of an offside rule), the fact that not only can players with varying physical attributes play the game but a team actually needs them to be successful.

The highlights they show on TV may focus on goals but the highlights I personally take away from games are just as likely to include great tackles, a one-handed pick-up at speed, a daring run through the middle, a great 50m spearing kick (especially off the boot of one N Malceski), a one-on-one battle of strength between two 'monsters', a leap over the pack to take a mark, a perfectly directed tap from a ruckman to his rover and fast break away, an intricate chain of handballs between the likes of B2 and Kennelly to clear the ball from defence, a Brett Kirk getting absolutely pancaked by Byron Pickett and getting up straight away, a defender desperately running back to get just a fingernail on what looks like a certain goal.

The list goes on. There is so so so much more to our game than merely the goals and I think this range of 'highlights' is one of the things that most distinguishes our game from so many others.

Of course the goal itself may not be the highlight, but instead it is frequently the passage that leads to it. The purpose of a lot of those skills you mention is to set up the team to kick a goal.

The exhibition of great skills that result in no benefit because of a turnover through poor execution of skills or decision making undermines the quality of the game IMO. Certainly, a great passage of play that looks like being a goal but is stopped through fantastic defensive play is a great spectacle too, but these highlights are generally less often than no goal scored because of an error. More importantly though, the execution of a skill that leads to nothing, but perhaps another ball up or another sideways kick to an uncontested player is fairly meaningless.

The Swans are not alone in playing boring or ugly football, but they have done it more often than most.

[NMWBloods]

The last 6 Swans/Eagles games have been amongst the most riveting I've ever seen. Not a shoot-out among them.

Because they're close. If they're not close then they would not be so rivetting. If they were close and there more goals scored then they would probably be a better spectacle.