TOPIC:

I think it’s just part of footy, sometimes it works for you sometimes against. Teams can easily compete when it becomes 22 against 21.

Yes that happens to every team over time, shows how good the coaching panel are and how well the players adapt, I thought EP did absolutely everything they could to stay in the game as long as they did against a very fit fully manned Subi team. They were still in it up until the 10min mark of the last but it told on them in the end. Also depends on who you lose, EP lost their main ruckman so that effected their mids in a major way, you lose a flanker or wingman or pocket player its less of an impact.

You guys are contradicting yourselves, you want fast paced footy but the more players you lose the slower you have to play as the new rules are all about fast footy as evidenced by the increase in scoring.
All it does is increase the winning margin for the team in front of they have more fit players but if you are winning and lose players you will slow the game down and you will see the packs of players you guys say you hate
 

wrote:

You guys are contradicting yourselves, you want fast paced footy but the more players you lose the slower you have to play as the new rules are all about fast footy as evidenced by the increase in scoring.
All it does is increase the winning margin for the team in front of they have more fit players but if you are winning and lose players you will slow the game down and you will see the packs of players you guys say you hate

 

What I want is very simple: I want a forward line virtually 100% of the time.  I do not want 36 players in one half of the field.  Specifically I want Swans to be able to kick significantly higher scores than what we have done in the last 2-3 years at least.  Personally, I am sick of having a team 3 to 4 goals down and not have a single player forward of centre.

probably should have raised the money issue - certain it would be a major factor in this scenario here in the WAFL having another man on the pine that's for sure

What would the minimum match payment be Southerner ?
$250 a game ? Not much to cover for 22 other blokes to take a slight haircut to cover that over a year.

wrote:

What would the minimum match payment be Southerner ?
$250 a game ? Not much to cover for 22 other blokes to take a slight haircut to cover that over a year.

I do hear that mate and agree wholeheartedly with those sentiments - I believe in the right channels this could raise the standard and quality of our game if a cap on interchanging numbers can be well applied in the scenario of no injuries for example
The commission could also take that same haircut to better promote this one too , not enough coin is getting back to where this is