Footy skills worst in 50 years: Mike Sheahan ......... (Fox Sports)

[one-eyed]

Hall of Fame AFL writer Mike Sheahan says skills concern him in footy for first time in 50 years

    Max Laughton
    FOX SPORTS
    July 16, 2015

HALL of Fame journalist and former Herald Sun chief football writer Mike Sheahan says players’ skills in the AFL concern him for the first time in 50 years.

Sheahan made the comments on Wednesday night’s AFL 360 when discussing the current congested state of football.

“Probably for the first time in watching this game for half a century, I’m concerned about the skills of the game,” Sheahan said.

“The ball being turned over as often as it is now, the lack of the one-on-one stuff and the lack of pure highlights” were some of the complaints Sheahan had about the state of the game.

Sheahan said he didn’t know why it was happening, suggesting that it could have been the AFL’s recent expansion.

“Now whether that goes to too many teams, I’m not sure,” he said. “Maybe it is that 18 teams are too many.”

Fellow panellist and former Carlton premiership captain Mark Maclure suggested the high pressure applied by most teams was to blame.

“Maybe there’s too many people around the ball so you can’t get any clarity.”

Sheahan agreed, saying that current players “can’t get a clear kick, can’t get a clear handball. You can’t get anything.”

“Skills are terrible.”

During the discussion, David King suggested instead that the biggest issue was the lack of scoring.

“People go to the football to see highlights, to see players do the absolutely wonderful acts,” King said.

Only two teams are currently averaging over 100 points per game — Hawthorn and West Coast, with the fourth ranked team (North Melbourne) not averaging 90.

“It’s all linked, it’s all part of the stoppage argument as well,” he pointed out.

“We’re just losing too many minutes of football, it’s become so structured.”

Mark Maclure said that the biggest issue was instead the number of interchanges allowed.

Maclure called for the AFL to cut it down from 120 interchanges per game to 40.

“Sports science has actually hijacked that area,” Maclure said.

“We’ve got to start somewhere … if we go back to 90, go back to 100, that’s not change.”

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/hall-of-fame-afl-writer-mike-sheahan-says-skills-concern-him-in-footy-for-first-time-in-50-years/story-fni5f22o-1227443321002

[Stalin]

18 v 18

No bench.  Easy.   Next. 

[Penelope]

yeah and you will be the first to whine when we finish a game with 17 or less on the ground and lose.

mclure hit the nail on the head. it is the pressure and rolling zones.

the overall kicking skills are much better than 50 years ago, where the ball was just kicked from contest to contest, as often as not.

there are very few blokes running around with the kicking skills of duncan kellaway, tony shaw, darren gaspel et al

[Stalin]

yeah and you will be the first to whine when we finish a game with 17 or less on the ground and lose.

mclure hit the nail on the head. it is the pressure and rolling zones.

the overall kicking skills are much better than 50 years ago, where the ball was just kicked from contest to contest, as often as not.

there are very few blokes running around with the kicking skills of duncan kellaway

Erm, no  I'd be fine with injury

It'd be good to watch 17 v 18

Worth it. It worked it the past its the way the game is sposed to be


Rolling Zones like wce press are effective and can not be stopped. Unless there is netball types rules, or 18 v 18. The current game is very ugly

[Stalin]

In the VFL/AFL, the number of interchanges allowed has followed the following time-line:

Prior to 1930 – there was no means for either substitution or interchange. A team played with 17 on the field (19 prior to 1899) if a player was injured.
1930 – the introduction of a single substitute
1946 – the introduction of a second substitute
1978 – the replacement of two substitutes with two interchanges
1994 – the introduction of a third interchange
1998 – the introduction of a fourth interchange
2011 – the replacement of four interchanges with three interchanges and a substitute
2014 – the addition of an interchange cap at 120




1930 or 1946 rules for me.

[Penelope]

i thought you didnt like the sub rule?

[Stalin]

i thought you didnt like the sub rule?

One, or two subs.That can come on once, with no other interchange bench.  Is a very different kettle of fi

I think in its current form, its unfair to the player choosen.

I most don't like the current state of the game as its ugly

18v18 (maybe with one or two sub's) would fix everything Returning tthe beauty of the game, better skills even if the players are more tired, the forward pocket and rover would come back etc. 

[Penelope]

wot?

how is playing 1 quarter unfair now, but fair in the 1930s?

[Stalin]

wot?

how is playing 1 quarter unfair now, but fair in the 1930s?

In regards to ranking things I do not like: first would be the game is crap and very ugly. Like wce defending with everyone 70 meters from the attacking goal. (Yet very effective)

To fix this, play 18v18

[Penelope]

ahh, i see.

changes to suit

[Stalin]

ahh, i see.

changes to suit

no

changes to make the game less pooe than its been for 15 years

I feel we are not developing c ellis , lennon, McIntosh  by giving them ten mins as a sub

but in the greater universe the priority should be fixing the game from a rugby maul running, backwards kicking fest

[Yeahright]

wot?

how is playing 1 quarter unfair now, but fair in the 1930s?

Because back then there was no interchange to give them a chance to come on and off, so I somewhat agree. The argument that it's unfair on the young ones because of limited game time is silly though because nothing will stop them from being the sub if this eventuated anyway (the one sub no interchange)

[Penelope]

ahh, i see.

changes to suit

no

changes to make the game less pooe than its been for 15 years

I feel we are not developing c ellis , lennon, McIntosh  by giving them ten mins as a sub

but in the greater universe the priority should be fixing the game from a rugby maul running, backwards kicking fest

yet under your proposal, collectively they will get less game time.

you dislike having a young bloke get small game time as a sub, yet you propose a system than promotes this?

as i said, changes to suit. ie you are all over the place like a mad woman.

[Penelope]

exactly.

[Stalin]

under the current set of circumstances we find our self in:

Richmond are at times not developing players well - lennon, McIntosh, c ellis - by playing them ten mins as the sub instead on in the twos. Or the senior 21. They current laws of game means someone has to play this role.



under the ideal set of circumstance that Mr Kevin Barlett and I agree would be better, football like it was in the past
less players would play because it would be 18 v 18. Yet every team would be in the same position.

And the game would benefit cause it would go back to the way it was intended to be