HOT TAKES

Are player based hot takes allowed? I’ll go with a SA based theme to start:

Ollie Wines is the most overrated player in the league. Wins a few clearances but makes Jobe Watson look like Usain Bolt. Can’t kick either.

Flip side, Robbie Gray is underrated. Yeah we all know he’s good but he’s like really really good. Impacts wherever he plays, brilliant disposal and decisions. Better than Dangerfield.

If he wasn’t an overhyped #1 pick you wouldn’t know who Bryce Gibbs was. Richard Douglas with a pony tale.

1 Like

All rule changes are decided by fielding two teams, one being made up of administrative employees at the AFL and the other being made up of payers decided by the AFLPA, actually not playing a game, at Marvel.

No interchange until after the 1/2, but each team must ensure every player goes off for at least 5mins. Obvs extended bench to allow this and for seeing max admins/■■■■ decision makers getting belted.

These games also include a wild card/phone a friend where they can recruit at 1/2 time, but only from state level comps.

In the event of a tie, the point posts are removed and used to smack the ball from the new 25m line. The posts must be held by a minimum of 5 players from each side and the first team to score a goal wins.

He should get pinged for running too far if his run up is more than 15m

1 Like

It already is half… the ground

2 Likes

Quick catch up on the last 16 hours or so

These three EXTRA HOTTT

2 Likes

Three HOTTT takes here

1 Like

Boris gonna give you a Medium here for giving it a crack, however I think most of the audience will softly agree with you here, These aren’t widely discussed already because lets face it no one gives a sht about SA teams.

The rest of you… mostly L&H.

The “better back in my day” garbage is like you’re serving up boiled chicken. Go call up Kevin Bartlett’s show on SEN and get validation from him if you really need it.

3 Likes

BBB = Bring Back Bolton.

In the spirit of the French open - tennis hot take time.

The “big four” are ALL overrated. They’ve been able to rack up a huge number of slams thanks to the homogenisation of court surfaces and a subsequent decline in diversity in the men’s game. The grass season barely exists, indoor carpet tennis gone, even the dirt ballers are basically hard courters with a ■■■■ serve.

Their numbers are also boosted by the simple act of playing more thanks to professionalisation. The great players barely bothered turning up to the Aus for about 20 years.

Case in point, Nadal is a two time Wimbledon champ who has repeatedly lost to some of the biggest jobbers of all time; Brown, Kyrgios, Darcis, Rosol. But they had a serve and a touch of aggression in their game and Nadals 20ft behind the baseline crap didn’t work. He wouldn’t have gotten NEAR a Wimbledon title in an era of genuine grass specialists.

1 Like

I tend to agree with this to an extent.
I actually still reckon Federer is a mile ahead of them, but many of the things you have suggested as helping these guys (courts etc) have actually hurt Federer

My suggestion - get rid of Gill the Dill and make his position an annual rotation through all the club presidents. Steve Hocking to be replaced by the last retired Brownlow winner.

2 Likes

I want Carlton to win today

That’s just self-interest speaking.

1 Like

Homogenisation of surfaces? Disagree. Three of the Grand Slams used to be played on grass, Kooyong, Wimbeldon and Forrest Hills. Hard courts are a recent invention.

So for a long time if you were going for the UCI Hour Record (cycling in a velodrome, furthest distance you can go in 60min) you were restricted to the technology Eddy Merckx used to get the record he held for 12 years in the 70s/80s. So like a steel frame Malvern Star, instead of carbon fibre and fancy helmets.

Maybe there could be a tennis equivalent where they play on unmowed grass with wooden rackets?

Wasn’t that royal tennis?

I have a few ideas on how to improve our game.

Idea 1: The draft age should be raised to 21.
The benefits are numerous:

  • Players do a degree or apprenticeship and experience the real world, which is far better for their welfare. I know a few guys who were drafted. They would all have benefitted personally (and so would their football) from this, and a few more of them would have “made it” too.
  • It revives the struggling state leagues and makes it a bit like the NCAA (without the downsides e.g. the league making a motza but players not making a dime and the silly illusory connection to education). Some of the contests between the “next big things” in state leagues would be awesome come finals time
  • Drafting is more certain as players have their resolve and work ethic tested over a longer period and play against bigger bodies. I think you’d have slightly less busts.

Idea 2: The league should lower the number of teams.
I’m sympathetic to those that lose out with this idea and it’s a bit Darwin-esque but just because some suburb in Melbourne was lucky enough to join the VFL in the late 19th century shouldn’t mean by default they have license to carry on for the next few centuries if they aren’t financially viable. I don’t think they should be unceremoniously dumped but if clubs can’t compete at the highest level I think there needs to be a real conversation about how that can be solved either through mergers or relocations. Clubs who can thrive and demonstrate world class professionalism shouldn’t have caps on their spending (off field) because others can’t do the same.

Idea 3: Every team should play each other twice.
It is laughable and frankly classic Australian isolation and naivete/ignorance that we consider ourselves a professional league but “the draw” exists and we play a totally arbitrary amount of rounds. Everyone should play each other once, or, preferably (and facilitated by a fewer number of teams) twice. Have 2-3 byes, larger lists, teams carry 2-3 of the Ben Howletts and Michael Hartleys of the world a bit longer, and you rotate your squads a bit more if you want success. It makes the “minor” premiership more legitimate (as it should be) and eliminates the absolutely ludicrous weighting of the draw (I’m shocked that people actually accept this - it’s akin to an open directive being made to umpires to pay more free kicks to a lower ranked team).

Wildcard idea: Eliminate the “point.” Goals only.
This would never happen in a million years but it really should. My soccer coach (British) used to say to me “I don’t mind the game but I refuse to watch it until you stop giving out points for missing.” It always annoyed me because I had no response, and I had no response because he was right. You kick a goal, you get a goal, you get more goals, you win. Points/behinds make no sense, you shouldn’t get a sixth of a goal for “trying” or “getting close”. You then have to ask what you do with the rushed/deliberate rule and I’m not sure, you’d probably have to eliminate all that and go with “a goal is a goal is a goal” - it crosses the line, it’s a goal. I wonder if it’d sharpen up goal kicking across the league…

These are all pretty big changes, I’d also suggest a few about the rules of the game and the way it’s run etc. but I think most Blitzers are aligned on most of those views.

T20 saved cricket.

1 Like

I like it.

SoO could then become an Amateurs/Semi-Pro tournament made up of the best u21s and the best players not in the AFL.