Game's advances conspire against excitement
Tim Watson
The Age
August 11, 2006
RECENTLY, AFL club chief executives met and after a long day, discussion turned to the state of the game. Not the financial state, but the way the game is being played. By all accounts, it was a robust discussion.
Not everyone shared the view the game was losing its appeal, but there are enough men at the top who are now beginning to worry.
It's the type of chat that goes on only behind closed doors; after all, this group of men rely upon supporters turning up to watch the game and the last thing they want to be accused of is biting the hand that feeds them.
One of the chief reasons the concerns are growing is because of the downward trend for Friday night football, the jewel in the crown. This might have something to do with the scheduling of more teams with smaller followings playing, or there could a deeper reason. It's too early to lay blame solely on how the game is played, but the debate needs to be widened.
AFL boss Andrew Demetriou was roundly criticised last year when he made public his views on the style of football being played by Sydney. He retreated quickly, realising his comments might trash the brand. My personal view is the way the Swans play is far less damaging to our game's appeal than open, uncontested football.
Above all, those who love the game want to see a contest, even if fewer goals are scored. Last year's grand final is the perfect example. It was a mad scramble, few players got clear, but it was absorbing footy, ending in a great contested mark.
Our rule-makers operate in good faith under the guidance of the AFL Commission, but they don't always get it right despite moving slowly on change. The kick-in after a point, to use an example, has resulted in more uncontested football. Who decided it was going to be good for our game to have players use the ball from one end of the ground to the other without the other side touching it?
Speeding up the game to tire out players will lead only to more athletes being chosen in favour of footballers and the premature end to careers. The answer lies somewhere else, but let's gather all the smart footy people together and have the debate.
Surely our game is strong enough for us to have this without those who have charge feeling threatened. Each time someone puts their hand up to take a whack at modern football, they get accused of talking down the game and living in the past.
Former players tell me they no longer watch or like the game. Surely this is a concern.
The answer is simple yet complicated. All the great features would remain if everyone coached for the good of the game and the retention of its unique features, but naturally, coaches coach to win games of football. The two can be diametrically opposed.
If every coach in this game adopted Kevin Sheedy's philosophy, we might get more of what we have always loved about the game and less of what is sterilising.
Sheedy believes he has a responsibility as an AFL coach to produce teams that play hard, one-on-one, exciting, attacking football. He doesn't just want to win premierships, he wants his sides to be attractive to thrill fans.
These are not shallow words. Throughout this miserable Essendon season, he has maintained his faith in this brand of football. It might have cost him games, but it hasn't lost him any admirers.
When he said no side of his would be playing "that basketball crap" dished up by Richmond to defeat the Crows, he meant it. Backing up his statement, he has put his coaching record and perhaps tenure at Essendon to the test.
Thirty-three thousand people still turned up to watch the Bombers play against the Brisbane Lions two weeks ago, and they weren't disappointed. Sheedy and Leigh Matthews may be considered old-fashioned by some of the modern-day coaches, but they still know how to put on a show.
Tonight, Sheedy will go head-to-head with Mick Malthouse in the coach's box and a similar game will be played. It will be a contest. Malthouse doesn't coach with the flair Sheedy allows his sides to play with, but they agree on one fundamental of the game — ultimately, the claim for the champion team will be decided by which side best handles pressure.
The excitement of our game is its unpredictability. The advances in our game unfortunately are conspiring against this. Too many times, we are being asked to watch a game where chance is being coached out of the outcome. This may appeal to the all-controlling coach, but it is dead boring to the fans.
Fans still want to see a long, high ball kicked to a pack and someone flying in from the side to take a speccy. Fans still want to see sides charging forward with possession, even if they might be outnumbered downfield.
As frustrating as it may be for a coach, fans still want to see individuality. It's the Cam Mooney factor — there used to be one on every line, now he's a novelty.
In the next 12 months, we will see the departure of some of the best to have played the game. James Hird, Michael Voss, Anthony Koutoufides, Nathan Buckley, Robert Harvey and Chris Grant all have given fans reason to turn up on a weekend and watch the footy. All will be gone soon.
Four of them are all-time greats. Let's hope this next draft is as good as is being predicted.
http://www.realfooty.theage.com.au/realfooty/articles/2006/08/10/1154803032351.html
