Grand Final - your predictions?

[Smokey]

All of the things you mentioned, the introduction of handball etc. improved the game at the time, because they made it better as a spectacle. The drop-kick was phased out because it was too unreliable if it was mis-kicked.
Geelong were one of the teams who played good attacking football through the corridor, which is why I was barracking for them in last year's Grand Final over St.Kilda who, like Collingwood and the Swans thrive on bottling up play.
The drawn Grand Final last week yielded a miserly score of 68 apiece. That's not even worthy of a 3/4 time result in my books. What's wrong with wanting to see some goals being kicked???? This aint rugby or soccer we're following theoretically.
And don't point to the scoreline last week. These sort of blowouts are common when one side gets caught out on the rebound spread because they don't run hard enough to subject the opposition to the same sort of congestion they've been battling against. The same sort of thing used to happen to us against Sydney with their negating tactics all the time.
Finally, it's not wetting my pants just because I yearn to see more of the game that I used to love, and less of this rugby crap that everybody's too apathetic to try and change. 

So you would be an advocate of going back to 2 substitutes and no interchange then?  After all, it was this improvement to make the game "better as a spectacle" by opening up the scoring that paved the way for flooding and clogged up garbage.  You don't want a game like rugby or soccer and I don't want a game like basketball.  And facts are on my side when you look back at scoring over the past 100 years - it has hardly changed.  I don't like the poorly played spectacle of flooding or zones but it is just a challenge for the opponent to deal with and beat, and Geelong have proved that it can be done with devastating and long term effect.  No need for bullsh1t like offside and enforced zones.  Leave the game as it is - it's in fine health.

[RollsRoyce]

I'm certainly an advocate of putting a cap on the number of interchanges to -say-80.( Look how Collingwood have blown their match average out to a ridiculous 140-150 which helps them stifle the opposition.)
If this in itself isn't enought to open the game up, then I'd be looking at cutting the number of players on the interchange bench to, say two (it was Sheedy who first pushed to have the bench extended many moons ago.)
Beyond that, perhaps just drop the wings and have four less players on the ground. See, there are ways around it without having to resort to drastic measures like an off-side rule. That might be a last resort.
I just want to see forwards one out with their opponent again. I want to see onballers with flair being able to display their natural skills, without being chased down by a pack of wild dogs. I don't think it's too much to ask.   

[Judge Roughneck]

I do not buy the argument "high score good, low score bad". Did you not enjoy the 2005 gf?

Some of the worst afl games I has seen are high scoring. Some of the best soccer games low scoring. I have massive respect or Paul roos and the way that team plays football last half half doZen years.

If you do not like the way afl us going pray Richmond start getting coaches and players that will be better at the full court press and more skillfull. if other teams are using roman legion box formations as inspiration Richmond need to relise its a war for 4 quarters on match day and they need the heart and tactics to beat the collingwoods and st kildas.

Kicking the ball backwards to retain possession and full court press to attempt win ball back in forward line is here to stay. The game has been like rugby/netball for a lo time now.

:helpAll of the things you mentioned, the introduction of handball etc. improved the game at the time, because they made it better as a spectacle. The drop-kick was phased out because it was too unreliable if it was mis-kicked.
Geelong were one of the teams who played good attacking football through the corridor, which is why I was barracking for them in last year's Grand Final over St.Kilda who, like Collingwood and the Swans thrive on bottling up play.
The drawn Grand Final last week yielded a miserly score of 68 apiece. That's not even worthy of a 3/4 time result in my books. What's wrong with wanting to see some goals being kicked???? This aint rugby or soccer we're following theoretically.
And don't point to the scoreline last week. These sort of blowouts are common when one side gets caught out on the rebound spread because they don't run hard enough to subject the opposition to the same sort of congestion they've been battling against. The same sort of thing used to happen to us against Sydney with their negating tactics all the time.
Finally, it's not wetting my pants just because I yearn to see more of the game that I used to love, and less of this rugby crap that everybody's too apathetic to try and change.  

[Judge Roughneck]

Might need to buy some 1970 football videos then

I'm certainly an advocate of putting a cap on the number of interchanges to -say-80.( Look how Collingwood have blown their match average out to a ridiculous 140-150 which helps them stifle the opposition.)
If this in itself isn't enought to open the game up, then I'd be looking at cutting the number of players on the interchange bench to, say two (it was Sheedy who first pushed to have the bench extended many moons ago.)
Beyond that, perhaps just drop the wings and have four less players on the ground. See, there are ways around it without having to resort to drastic measures like an off-side rule. That might be a last resort.
I just want to see forwards one out with their opponent again. I want to see onballers with flair being able to display their natural skills, without being chased down by a pack of wild dogs. I don't think it's too much to ask.   

[RollsRoyce]

No, I did not enjoy the 2005 Grand Final. It was a bloody snore-a-thon, and me and my mates spent half the game in the back yard shooting the breeze we were so fed up with the "spectacle" on offer.
If that was your idea of good footy then you're obviously easily pleased. And the AFL is cutting down the number of interchanges next year which is a start. So I'll be putting those 1970 videos on hold. Maybe the public is finally starting to wake up and smell the coffee.

[one-eyed]

With Gold Coast making a playing for Cloke, Sheeds and GWS knowing the Pies will have to pay $$$ to keep Cloke has thrown a $1m per season offer out there publicly for Swan. Two things will stop any Collingwood dynasty talk - fewer interchanges and salary cap pressure forcing players to leave. Sheeds would know the later all too well after 2000 at Essendon.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/greater-western-sydney-eyes-dane-swan-with-1m-lure/story-e6frf9jf-1225934567395

[Oiafi]

... thrown a $1m per season offer out there publicly for Swan. ...

  Funny!!! 

Make it happen Kev!