A week or so ago, the AFL captains got together and answered a bunch of questions, stood around holding the premiership cup (even those who have zero chance of winning it this season) and had a good old chinwag at the annual gathering of club leaders.
Photos were taken, bread was broken, washed up old journos hovered around like dags on a sheep’s bum hoping to rub shoulders with the twam leaders, and opinions were exchanged.
Yes, the last bit is where we find the crux of this article, as one of these opinions made me sit up and take notice.
Of all people to refute the claims of the AFL Players Association President, Patrick Dangerfield, it was Toby Greene going into bat for the other camp.
Of course it was Toby. It’ll always be Toby. In this case, thank God for Toby.
Dangerfield had previously opened up the subject of reducing the length of quarters to, as he stated, to help bring footy back to its “heyday”.
*Sigh*
The heyday he spoke of was the 1980s, before West Coast, before Adelaide, before any other Non-Victorian side was in the competition except for Sydney. Back then, you played each other twice, as there were only 12 teams.
Also, the league was almost going under in this “heyday”, but we’ll let that one slide for the moment and look back through rose-coloured glasses… kind of.
Grounds were mudpiles, king hits were plentiful, and if you were extremely adept at flicking a lit cigarette, you could land one in the opposition cheer squad’s floggas, and start a fire.
What fun. The heyday.
Danger has floated a return to that type of equality, which would mean a 34-game season. That’s not going to happen; let’s be real.
But people love what they grew up with, and I understand pining for aspects of what the game was. I do it too, sometimes. What I cannot understand is how reducing the length of quarters will help achieve a return to anything remotely like this.
Our case study for reduced quarters produced the worst football since the AFL’s inception. Aside from Richmond supporters, the consensus of the 2020 AFL season is that it was complete dogshit as a spectacle. A reduction in playing time meant more games (which is what Dangerfield likes), but it meant that the contests, themselves, were failing to induce fatigue in the athletes, and the game was simply not opening up, as a result.
And so, what we had was low-scoring, largely defensive affairs that failed to impress.
Maybe that’s the heyday he was referring to?
Tom Morris was lucky enough to have a chat with Greene about how he saw it.
“I was sitting next to him (Dangerfield) last night, and we are against each other on this. I like the game where it’s at. I love it. The game opens up, everyone gets tired… I’m against him. We had a good debate though. I reckon it’s probably a 50-50 split.”
A 50-50 split, huh?
Hmmm, then allow me to ask you this question – why the hell is Dangerfield, as the representative of 100% of the AFL players, out there floating significant rule changes, when according to Greene, half the players don’t want it? Has there been a vote? Was he talking out of turn? Or does he, as President of the AFLPA, believe that what he thinks holds sway over the players as a collective?
Before I continue, I understand completely that Dangerfield has every right to air an opinion. He has a hell of a lot more right than I do, given his standing in the game. However, when I write a column and get a few thousand reads (not the flex you think it is), most nod or shake their head, and move on. When he pipes up with unsolicited takes, it carries weight, and it makes headlines in the mainstream.
Is he wearing his AFLPA hat when he does this?
Should he have to make a clear distinction, rather than just having this grey area that bleeds into both his own personal, and professional opinion on a matter?
Imagine being a player whose greatest asset is your gut running, and here is the President of the AFLPA President (who is on his last legs, and has many people stating he is making these statements in an effort to prolong his own career – right or wrong) floating a change that drags you back to the pack? You’d be sitting there wondering why the hell he felt the need to mouth off about it, wouldn’t you?
I would… if I were ever good enough to play at the highest level.
Which I evidently wasn’t!
There is a fair amount of disgruntlement about where the game is at, currently. The removal of physicality in a contest continues at a rapid rate. Rules are brought in that are not asked for, and in some cases, not needed. And decisions made by the AFL honchos are continually pushing the boundaries of common sense. What the game definitely does NOT need right now, is the AFLPA President feeling a bit lippy, and deciding to throw another wholesale change out there.
But if he is going to do that, why not concentrate on some of the areas that the league can improve immediately?
- Ruck contests. Why the umpire has to go through the whole “nomination” and “stand a metre apart” shenanigans continues to baffle me. Get rid of nominations, throw the footy up and be done with it.
- Recalled centre bounces waste time. See above. Give the umps a break, throw the footy up, and save time/effort.
- Warning for six-six-six violations are completely unnecessary. Why the hell is the ump even talking to the rucks about it? They didn’t commit the violation!
- And my pet peeve – boundary throw ins. The amount of time wasted going to collect the footy – sometimes from over the fence, wait for rucks to nominate and run in from 50 metres away, get in position, and then, the boundary ump taking another five seconds to compose himself before throwing it back.
There ya go – how bloody hard is that? On the last one, why not have people stationed around the ground with footies ready to replace one that flies into the crowd? Eight people stationed around the ground – ball goes out, they throw another to the umpire. Easy!
Every one of those suggestions cuts down on wasted time, shortens the game, and does not detract from the actual playing time.
Of course, that would require the AFL and AFLPA to sit down and think things through, rather than just nod their heads and agree with a bloke who has been setting himself up for life after footy for quite a while now.
Before I sign off, maybe there is the chance that Danger really does believe that all the players are behind him on this. Maybe he believes the split is more like 75-25 in his favour. Perhaps all he is doing is being the messenger?
Do you believe that?
A lie is not a lie if you believe it to be true.
From where I sit, right at this time, we need more people with the opinion of Toby Greene, and less with the opinion of Patrick Dangerfield.
Just leave the bloody game alone for a while.
At least until you take your seat on the AFL Commission, where you can really do some legitimate damage.
As always, massive thanks to those who support this work. You can see the amount of care that goes into it. I love footy, I love writing about it, and I hope you enjoy reading it. Without you, this whole thing falls over. Sincerely… thank you – HB
Like this content? You could buy me a coffee – I do like coffee, but there is no guarantee I won’t use it to buy a doughnut… I like them more. And I am not brought to you by Sportsbet or Ladbrokes… or Bet365, or any of them.
[/arm_restrict_content]
