Tweet
Patrick Dangerfield has put forwards a surprising (to me) and interesting fixture proposal: Dangerfield's radical fixture plan for AFL season - AFL.com.au. He suggests that there be a 34 round season with all teams playing each other home and away and, to balance out the extra demands, games be shortened by having fixed 18 minute quarters. It's a significant proposal because he's such a senior and esteemed player, involved in the Players Association etc. It surprised me because it is such a radical change in length to the current season.
I'm not sure how I feel about it. On the one hand:
*it would be great to have a longer footy season!
* Also, it would be the fairest possible fixture.
* Presumably it would be good for players and the AFL in that it would generate more money (more weeks, more games).
* It's also in keeping with the zeitgeist leaning towards a shorter, faster product.
On the other hand:
*I feel a sadness and a resistance every time there is unnecessary tinkering with the game.
* I like (or at least am used to) the game being the length it is. The gnawing uncertainty of not knowing how long is left in the quarter (when you are at the game) is part of the footy experience I know.
* Shorter games will likely mean the game is faster and perhaps result in increased congestion on the field. For this reason the change might have to be accompanied by a dramatic cut in the interchange cap.
* Hotter weather at either end of the season might also be an issue, especially in the hotter states.
* Finally (and I'm not sure if I even count this as a 'con' or just a difference) while the fixture would be fairer it will not be able to be used as an occasion for equalisation (by giving the top, bottom and middle teams (based on previous season's results) more games against one another) and equalisation is something I mostly really in favour of. Reflecting, this last factor doesn't trouble me at all. Teams' rankings shift over the off season and rather than being an equalising measure sometimes these fixture quirks just give teams an unfair advantage (probably applied to Richmond in 2017). I also really like the fact that it will give the AFL less opportunity to meddle in the game.
So, in summation: a really intriguing proposal. I will be interested to hear what responses it garners. If the players are receptive, I think I am too.
I'm not sure how I feel about it. On the one hand:
*it would be great to have a longer footy season!
* Also, it would be the fairest possible fixture.
* Presumably it would be good for players and the AFL in that it would generate more money (more weeks, more games).
* It's also in keeping with the zeitgeist leaning towards a shorter, faster product.
On the other hand:
*I feel a sadness and a resistance every time there is unnecessary tinkering with the game.
* I like (or at least am used to) the game being the length it is. The gnawing uncertainty of not knowing how long is left in the quarter (when you are at the game) is part of the footy experience I know.
* Shorter games will likely mean the game is faster and perhaps result in increased congestion on the field. For this reason the change might have to be accompanied by a dramatic cut in the interchange cap.
* Hotter weather at either end of the season might also be an issue, especially in the hotter states.
* Finally (and I'm not sure if I even count this as a 'con' or just a difference) while the fixture would be fairer it will not be able to be used as an occasion for equalisation (by giving the top, bottom and middle teams (based on previous season's results) more games against one another) and equalisation is something I mostly really in favour of. Reflecting, this last factor doesn't trouble me at all. Teams' rankings shift over the off season and rather than being an equalising measure sometimes these fixture quirks just give teams an unfair advantage (probably applied to Richmond in 2017). I also really like the fact that it will give the AFL less opportunity to meddle in the game.
So, in summation: a really intriguing proposal. I will be interested to hear what responses it garners. If the players are receptive, I think I am too.
Comment