Interesting article on the direction of modern footy in the Australian newspaper today:
Officials rush to take credit for hollow victory
The Australian
September 01, 2006
The modern game was already evolving before the AFL introduced its much-hyped changes this year, Chip Le GrandTHE AFL will today claim victory over football's great divide: the way the modern game is played.
Armed with an extensive report from researcher Kevin Norton into the impact of this year's contentious rule changes, AFL football operation manager Adrian Anderson will herald the new rules an unqualified success.
Quoting from an executive summary of Norton's work, as revealed in The Australian this week, Anderson will note "significant and dramatic" changes to game speed, style and player density this season.
He will credit the new rules for making the game more continuous and slower, and for increasing the amount of total play time.
He will declare that the new rules have met their primary objective.
But as so often is the case, the best story is the one the AFL won't tell us; not the one it will.
What Anderson should highlight, though probably won't, is a previous study by Norton and his research partner, Adelaide coach Neil Craig, showing all these trends were well established by the end of 2005 - before the new rules were introduced.
What he should declare, though won't, is the information provided to the AFL commission and laws of the game committee was badly out of date.
The research the laws of the game committee relied most heavily upon in deciding this year's rule changes was an old study by Norton showing dramatic changes between 1960 and 1999. Its key findings were:
* The average speed of the game had doubled in 40 years;
* The average length of the play period was declining;
* The length and number of stop periods was increasing;
* The fraction of the total game that was play time was decreasing.
Norton subsequently updated his research, taking in the changes to football between 2000 and 2005. His previously unpublished findings are:
* Game speed has remained relatively constant or decreased across the recent seasons;
* The declining play period length has been reversed and is now increasing significantly - the game is much more continuous;
* Stops in play are becoming less common;
* The trend of a smaller fraction of the game as play time reversed and is now increasing.
Norton's conclusions are equally important. "When compared to the progression documented across the four previous decades, the greatest rate of change has occurred in the most recent season," he wrote.
"This leads us to conclude that coaching and player professionalism have been the most important factors driving recent information. Almost all of the changes described above do not involve rule changes but rather contemporary game strategy."
What Norton's work shows is that football had self-corrected before the AFL introduced its new rules. Rather than heading towards a turgid game of increased stoppages and dwindling minutes of real game time, football was running hard in the opposite direction. The game had already become more continuous and little of it had to do with rule changes. This information was not available to the laws of the game committee last year or to the commission when it ratified the rules for the 2006 season. Norton and Craig's updated research was only completed in January his year and tabled before the commission in February; three months after it had endorsed the changes. The AFL has since refused to make it available to some clubs.
The new rules, particularly the immediate kick-in after a point is scored, have had some effect on the way football is played. This is most notable in the role of midfielders.
The distance run by midfielders during a game declined considerably between 2000 and 2005. Where an average midfielder ran between 16km and 17km in 2000, he was running between 13km and 14km last season. In 2006, midfielders experienced an 11 per cent spike in their "mean game intensity".
This means they are having to run harder in the time they spend on the ground.
The result is that players are unable to reach the number of contests they once did. This has reduced player density around the ball, which in turn assists teams in clearing the ball from a stoppage without a second or third bounce.
As revealed by The Australian in May, coaches have already responded by swinging more interchanges this year than ever before. Where last season's average was 36.1, this year's stands at 45.6 after 21 rounds.
But as Norton found in his research into the 2000-2005 seasons, most changes to the game this year can be attributed to coaching tactics and strategy.
Defenders are reportedly having to work less this season, which may be explained by the development of defensive zones.
Although the average speed of the players has not changed, the ball is travelling slower. This may be explained by the evolution of the short-kicking possession game, which results in staccato ball movement.
Where the new rules have failed is their secondary objective; to "enhance and encourage the traditional highlights of the game". These include one-on-one contests, contested marks and positional play.
While there have been marginally more contested marks this year compared to the last, contested marks continue to dwindle as a percentage of total marks taken.
Similarly, contested possession continues to decline as a percentage of total possession. Traditional positional play continues to go the way of the drop kick and scoring is more difficult.
Norton describes this as "the natural evolution of invasion-type games".
None of this will prevent the AFL from declaring victory today but ultimately, it is a pyrrhic one. At best, the public brawl over rule changes is one the AFL and clubs didn't need to have because the game was already heading in the right direction.
At worst, the AFL has used selective information
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20319505-36035,00.html
