So in the lead up to the second year of the fledgling competition, I find it surprising the AFL would make it harder for fans to embrace the format by introducing some naff features and rules, at a time when trying to convince fans about its merits would seem to be important.
The AFL has abandoned the club-based format in favour of an All-Star, captains-pick concept. Four autonomous, unaffiliated teams have been created, each with a star player as captain, who then picks their side from the available player pool in a 'draft'.
I don't mind that teams are not club-based, and I like the idea of the All-Star teams. I didn't even mind the draft. It showcased the personalities of the captains, and we picked up on the peculiar (and at times humorous) motivations behind some of their decisions.
The All-Star teams are also a good way to get fan interest over the pre-season, where teams usually play fringe players, who have minimal interest for the fans. Now, I'm looking forward to seeing Nat Fyfe play with Patrick Cripps, Scott Pendlebury, Alex Rance, Aliir Aliir, Isaac Heeney and Josh Kennedy (Yes, I'm on #TeamFlyers).
But I think Leigh Matthews had a really interesting comment, when he Tweeted:
What a innovative idea. We'd get to see the return of State of Origin competition (at least in some format), and captains could still pick teams based on the players available from their state, although there would be much less need for a draft. You could then have a round robin competition, with the top two teams playing for something. It could be done in one day, but might stretch over two days, with a finals series on the second day.I’m for the AFLX concept even though I’m sure my generation is not the target audience anyway,however competitive sport without caring who wins is meaningless ,what if they dropped the gimmicky team names and made the 4 teams Vic,SA,WA and the Allies?Would increase my interest— Leigh Matthews (@LeighRMatthews) February 8, 2019
However, what I find really disenfranchising as a fan is what has happened to the rules. I struggle to see the upside of a "Forward Zone", a "Launch Zone", the ball returning to the middle after a super goal, and the "Gamechanger".
I like the idea of a super-goal, but instead of using the "Launch Zone", why not just say, "Any goal kicked from over half-way"? Is it just trying to improve the nomenclature? What is the point of the "Forward Zone"? The only reason for it being there, from what I can tell, is a player can mark a ball kicked backwards in that area, and not be called to play on. Why not just make it that all balls kicked backwards are called play-on, except in the front half, or the front third?
And what is the point of returning the ball to the center after a super-goal? Perhaps attacking players will try to kick more of these goals, but it could just as easily result in more points being kicked, and defenders will work harder to try and stop these goals, possibly resulting in regressive, lock-down play in the midfield. I also like players being allowed to play-on from full-back. I believe it promotes faster play, as seen in the AFLW this year with the play-on from full-back rule.
Another rule that adds complexity for fans, umpires and timekeepers is the "Gamechanger". Yes, it might add more scoring, but I see defenses applying a hard tag to the "Gamechanger" player, so that they don't score, further restricting the action on field.
Moreover, this rule seemingly has little purpose other than being opportunity to activate sponsorship. The "Gatorade Gamechanger". Seriously? And if defenders do apply a hard tag to the "Gamechanger" player, it could in turn actually reduce the sponsorship recognition that would come with every "Gamechanger" goal.
I could stomach the "Zooper" goal last year, because it was basically an existing rule (i.e., the super-goal) with a brand name thrown on top. But to create an entirely new rule, with little purpose than to activate a sponsorship seems like an unnecessary commercialisation of the game, which fans usually have a distaste for.
The possible implications of this increasing complexity shouldn't be underestimated. If the code is trying to sell this game to new, young fans in non-traditional markets, as they've suggested they are, then I can't think of a better way to alienate those fans than by making the rules of the new format so unnecessarily difficult to follow.
As Max Laughton from Fox Sports explained, imagine trying to get your head around this new game as one of those young players in the target market: "All we need is ten players - oh, hang on, it’s 14 now. And we need to mark out the launch zone, and the forward zone, and nominate our Gatorade Game Changer, and someone needs to watch the clock in the second half for them... you know what, maybe let’s play something else.”
I've played AFL 9's quite a lot, which is also based on a rectangular field, and it's fantastic. One of the attractions in that version of the game is the rules are so simple, meaning any newcomer who joins us for a game can pick the rules up in the first 5-10 minutes of play. But these new AFLX rules could be harder on umpires, broadcasters, commentators, and players, while simultaneously making it harder for fans to embrace a non-traditional version of the code.
As I've said before, I actually enjoyed watching the game last year, and I'm looking forward to watching the star-studded games this year. Just make it easier for fans to follow, and add some substance by building it around the State of Origin format.
No comments:
Post a Comment