TOPIC:

Watching the game Saturday night , perhaps it was the 7 coverage, but i was amazed by how afl like it was

Bazza wrote: Watching the game Saturday night , perhaps it was the 7 coverage, but i was amazed by how afl like it was

Baxxa perhaps it was the intrusive, constant and pervasive comments during the WAFL broadcast about the players in the context of having played in the AFL, currently in the AFL system or potentially will be drafted into the AFL system.

I had a read of the article and I was struggling a bit to follow the point he was trying to make apart from his thoughts that the WAFL should lead the way in the limitation of interchanges. I see it as the footy itself is tactically very similar to the AFL as coaches tend to base their stategies on what the successful AFL sides are doing, that is pressing and zone defence. Many of these players and coaches want to eventually graduate into the AFL so they have to "play the AFL game" to do this.

I actually see the point of difference of the WAFL being more the environment that it is played in, generally community level grounds with grass banks and the opportunity for people to walk on the oval during breaks to get close to players and coaches and for kids to have a kick. AFL by contrast is like going to the theatre in concrete canyons where you stay in your seat and watch the performance. I'm not saying one is better than the other but there is the difference.

anchorman wrote: Swan, Commetti wasn't talking about that. He was saying the football itself was very AFLish. Almost the same game.
From what I saw of games last season, I would say that the two games are very close in style.

it is pretty much the same game, the only difference is the polish. Dennis is also just talking up the WAFL to the masses because of the Ch7 connection now, and also because Den still appreciates the WAFL, unlike some media puppets. If he see's an opportunity to get the WAFL into a conversation (or westperth) he will. And good on him for that. Ive seen many AFL broadcasts and Cometti will always mention a WAFL club if a player was recruited from there, be it East Fremantle, Subiaco or of course West Perth. Its a small thing, but he always does it. I like him for that.

I have always hated the open interchange system that has ruined our game of footy from a spectator point of view. It has almost completely taken away the one on one duels that every spectator used to look forward to in each game. The rolling pack mauls just remind me of little league now and something has to be done about this or else spectators will switch off entirely.

There should be a mechanism in our system which requires a majority of clubs and members to support rule changes. It would be interesting if the AFL adopted a membership charter that allowed a petition to be bought in support of a change to the rules. It would require a certain number of signatures but surely our game should have some provision for membership input in a similar manner to the system of voting in our political system.

The WAFL should consider some simple changes to make our game more user friendly. Two I would introduce would be:

(1) Limitation of 10 changes per quarter, with a numeric paddle raised for each interchange to ensure the opposition and supporters know how many interchanges remain deep into each quarter. (Bit like the tennis)

(2) Limitation on the number of coaches we have in the WAFL. It is overkill with 6 to 8 assistants providing advice. If its good enough for the top soccer clubs to be restricted to one coach on the boundary then why should AFL/WAFL be so different? Each WAFL club could save themselves at least a hundred thousand a year if there was a cap on coaching numbers.

swan42 wrote:

Bazza wrote: Watching the game Saturday night , perhaps it was the 7 coverage, but i was amazed by how afl like it was

Baxxa perhaps it was the intrusive, constant and pervasive comments during the WAFL broadcast about the players in the context of having played in the AFL, currently in the AFL system or potentially will be drafted into the AFL system.

Im not talking about the comments, Im talking about style of play.

mikeh wrote: I had a read of the article and I was struggling a bit to follow the point he was trying to make apart from his thoughts that the WAFL should lead the way in the limitation of interchanges. I see it as the footy itself is tactically very similar to the AFL as coaches tend to base their stategies on what the successful AFL sides are doing, that is pressing and zone defence. Many of these players and coaches want to eventually graduate into the AFL so they have to "play the AFL game" to do this.

I actually see the point of difference of the WAFL being more the environment that it is played in, generally community level grounds with grass banks and the opportunity for people to walk on the oval during breaks to get close to players and coaches and for kids to have a kick. AFL by contrast is like going to the theatre in concrete canyons where you stay in your seat and watch the performance. I'm not saying one is better than the other but there is the difference.

I agree Mate, the point of difference is the way you can watch and attend th games, as you say relax in the outter, far cheaper, family friendly, far more social for members, easy to get whatever drink you want at a bar, sit where you want etc..

didnt see the game.
can someone tell me wat the commentators were like.
professional hopefully.

please tell me ken judge didn't get a gig.

please, please.

Judge led the broadcast , he was brilliant . He did the introduction, special comments, and a little jig at half time. You really missed something

Singha wrote: Judge led the broadcast , he was brilliant . He did the introduction, special comments, and a little jig at half time. You really missed something