aussierulesblogs last blog post..Is "Buddy" the new "Richo"?

I like the idea of having four less players on a field at a time, think it will help stop the flooding but not the interchange numbers & injuries. I know the VFL or VFA (one of them) has done it before.

I’m not sure how fewer players on the field would stop flooding (and it’s probably more correctly labeled ‘zoning’ now).

The VFA played without wingmen for many years (mainly 1959–1992) and it did create a more open and flowing game compared to the 18-afield VFL. But elite football has changed considerably and I’m not sure a benefit, similar or otherwise, could be expected now.

In the end, it comes down to money. Players at the elite level are expected to make a substantial commitment, often to the virtual exclusion of alternative career opportunities, and with the ever-present possibility of career (and livelihood)-threatening injury. For all of those who make a good living from the game for between five and ten years, there are many who are delisted after perhaps a few senior appearances, so it would be churlish to deny them appropriate recompense for their efforts and opportunities foregone.

If lists are extended, then along with increased salary, there are the increased support costs that clubs would be expected to bear. The money would need to come from somewhere.

On the issue of Malthouse and Harvey’s complaints, teams losing a key player early in a game are significantly disadvantaged. Forget Essendon’s Anzac Day performance — it was a lucky aberration that Ryder was able to pinch hit against a ruckman of similar body shape after Hille went down two minutes in.

The difference between winning and losing, perhaps getting to finals or not or making fourth rather than fifth place, is pretty fine. Simply losing capacity to rotate on and off the bench during a game is a significant disadvantage.

The downside, as I see it, is that adding ‘reserves’ to the bench might be the start of NFL-type special teams. Strategically inserting one or two ‘reserve’ players would become the new advantage. Imagine you have a dominant key forward who you know can’t get through a whole game. Name him as a reserve and bring him on in the last quarter, when opposition defenders are blown out, and you (potentially) win the game.

Do we really want this? I don’t think so, but it’s the extreme strategic manipulation that’s offensive. I don’t know if a ‘reserve’ replacement for Hille on Anzac Day would have benefitted the Bombers or not. Perhaps they played better knowing that they were up against it?

I don’t think there’s a compelling case for any change

aussierulesblogs last blog post..Is "Buddy" the new "Richo"?

I also agree that the under age comps for Victoria needs to be over hauled. Its part of the reason why WA & SA kids can come straight into the AFL and star while the VIC kids usually take a year or two as they play against other kids. In the WAFL players like Rich, Nit Nat, Yarren, Hill etc have been playing against men already for the last two odd years.

Squads should be cut to about 35 and 10-15 Rookies.

imo this just compounds the problem and games like last years Essendon v St Kilda & Hawthorn in the pre season will happen more with lower numbers in the regular playing list.