AFL - Good Ideas, Terrible Ideas, Too Many Ideas, No Idea


Re Gil’s comment that he did not know what was tanking - and the betting connection - I thought that Connolly and Bailey were scapegoated to avoid Schwab and the Board being charged as holders of the gaming licence.
That was the real cover up by the AFL.
No wonder the IAAF appointed Clothier as its integrity overseer.


Gil saying that Bailey did not get pinged for tanking - was it because he was not the MFC gaming licence holder?


No Bailey got intimidated and harassed by the top brass Management and branded a liar to protect the AFL’s little pure darlings.

Tanking shmacking, what is that never heard of it, have you Gill?


“I never bullied anyone”?


‘I never lied to anyone “


Not really, that was their comeback


In his Rage article, Jake Niall fills in the bits that Gil left out - like the gaming licence obligations of the CEO and Board.


I find this one a bit hard to believe, given that there were only 12 teams in 1965.


Caro tripling herself up on Offsiders, saying why does the AFL always go for the lesser lights ( in the Melbourne context). And saying that Melbourne no better than Essendon in the way they treated the players. Not holding my breath for her to compare the way the AFL treated the Essendon players .
And … no mention of the gaming licence issue


So school holidays into first week in Vic and we have no Thursday night football?




Ha! I misread the fixture :smiley:


With all the whinging (even from clarko) about the 6-6-6 and other rule changes which are not impacting on better spike in scoring

Judd on footy classified indicated he thinks its due to sides trying to emulate what WC did. Which was to counter the tackle pressure scenario by simply playing keepings off.

Can’t get tackled if maintaining possession via a mark, and work your way up the ground.

And also what’s happening is sides are not taking risks with kicking to contests etc and thus reducing inside 50’s. As per if you maintaining possession they also can’t get inside 50’s either.

On the Oval Office show after FC - Shaun Higgins & Taylor Adams basically saying similar.


It’s arguable that Hawthorn won most of their flags by having superior kicking skills which meant they had the ball more often. By not having to defend as much a team doesn’t exert as much energy and therefore can run over a team more. Therefore West Coast under Simpson have just remodifed the Hawthorn game plan.

Interestingly Richmond’s game plan which was so successful for over 12 months was also based on an energy conservation factor. They rarely switched the ball when in possession which meant they ran straight lines up the ground. They supported this with this maniac tackling pressure and by constantly moving the ball forward by any means. By making the ground narrower they conserved energy in attack and if you look at their results they often ran over the top of teams in particular in the last quarter.


Agreed on the Hawks.

Interestingly both Simpson and Hardwick had been assistants under Clarko


Didn’t they show that scores were higher in some intra club practice matches, thus endorsing the changes?


Scores are one thing, but do people think the quality of the games are better?


I can’t wait til the afl think tank come up with more rule changes trying to emulate the game they played in the 80s.


I can’t wait for the strategic leak of “potential rule changes” that will never get implemented, but will win the sports news cycle for the day


Even though I don’t understand it, the new way of kicking in makes me feel teams can clear the defensive flooding better