Is the game making players soft?

[Booney]

Is the game making our players soft?

Modern day football is played out mid-week by the plethora of coaches and assistant coaches and in the media training rooms more so than ever before. Each week coaches prepare players in the game style they wish to adopt against this weeks opposition.

The modern day footballer is “trained” on what to do in each and every conceivable situation he may, or indeed may not find himself in on the field .No doubt, he will also find himself in many moments in time on the ground that any number of coaches could never prepare them for.

Modern football is so structured, each player is given a specific task to do within that structure. You hear of terms ( as much as I dislike many ) like quarter-back, out side runner, in and under, go to and many many more. So my question is, for these ‘out side runners’, are they,through no fault of their own being made ‘soft’ by the game? Indeed if they are it is also the fault of the coaching staff who ask them to play that role. We hear of players who don’t play within the structure being dragged to the bench, or worse still being sent back to play in the lower league until such time that they ‘conform’ to the structure.

With the structure of the modern game players are drilled from Monday to Friday on when to be in certain spots, what to do when they get there and how to react when it all unfolds, all while playing with 35 other men on the field with an oblong shaped ball in all sorts of weather conditions.

Of late, players like Danyle Pearce of Port Adelaide have been labelled as soft ( as a Port fan I find it hard to argue ), but is it Danyle’s fault, or is it the role he gets asked to play? ( I think Danyle could try a lot harder than he does and I am not putting him in the same class as the next few players I am about to mention, he was my starting point)

In all reality, does Pearce play much of a different role to a Dane Swan of Collingwood and a James Bartel of Geelong? Neither of these players tend to spend much time getting ‘down and dirty’ like a Shane O’Bree or Joel Selwood in the same game and the same jumper.

More often than not all these three find themselves with the ball being shoveled out to them and find themselves in space to use the skills they have,both of mind and body. Does this make them soft? Not so.
To cross the line and play AFL football you need courage, strength in mind and body yet we still hear players being labelled as soft.

For mine I think the game is making some players soft while also making it difficult for those of us who love the game to see players play with flair and natural ability. No wonder we gaze upon Leon Davis when he does the extra ordinary, Daniel Motlop and his freakish skills, we go to see these players play, we pay good money for it, yet the game is not letting them play the game.

Mathew Knights is a breathe of fresh air in my opinion, not just for Bomber fans but for football fans in general. I only hope his willingness to let his team play with the flair it does is not hindered by structure and zones and footballers are once again allowed to play without the fear of being labeled as soft for doing exactly what their coach has requested of them.

[Dogwatcher]

Great piece Booney.
You know my thoughts on Pearce
I don't reckon he'd be a hardman in any era.

[Rik E Boy]

WTF?? James Bartel doesn't get down and dirty? Is that why every time it pisses down at Geelong he is the one who bobs up with the match winning performances. You could have at least used James Kelly or David Wojinscki if you wanted a Cat example. Bartel is poles apart from Pearce as he regularly puts his head over the ball and is a strong contested mark overhead for his size..something I have yet to witness from Pearce.

To quote you Booney BZZZZZZZZZT WRONG!!

regards,

REB

ps - I agree with most of what you said though. The ability to run hard all day long also requires a special kind of courage and hardness.

[Booney]

Perhaps a poor choice for the examples,granted.

[Hondo]

There are plenty of examples of "receivers" in the past too Booney. List the wingmen or half forward flankers from 1980 - 2000 and I think we'll find a few examples of (arguably) "soft" players. eg, Simon Tregenza. Was he that different to Pearce?

There are certain players that have speed and skill as their strength so no point sending them into the bottom of packs and then having the free footy being handed to someone like Josh Carr or Michael Doughty waiting on the outside.

Granted, some guys are "softer" than others but I'm not sure the modern game is creating any more of these types than we've had before.

On your point about the drilling of roles into players removing some of their natural creative flair, I think that's valid. These days disposal skills are more valued than the guy who can take the big spekky or can dodge 5 players. A Josh Drummond type who can pinpoint kicks to 50m seems more important than the opportunistic small forward. There is still room for the creative guys up forward though.

I'm not sure it's all as bad as you make out but the there was something about those games in the 80s and 90s (and earlier) that's missing from the game today.

[mal]

Great post BOONEY
Pretty soon they will make guernseys with top pockets
Pockets for the players to have notes in them with all the instructions for the game.

[Psyber]

Great post BOONEY
Pretty soon they will make guernseys with top pockets
Pockets for the players to have notes in them with all the instructions for the game.

They'll keep their iPhone in them so the coach can just tell them in case they can't read.

[nuggety goodness]

There are plenty of examples of "receivers" in the past too Booney. List the wingmen or half forward flankers from 1980 - 2000 and I think we'll find a few examples of (arguably) "soft" players. eg, Simon Tregenza. Was he that different to Pearce?

There are certain players that have speed and skill as their strength so no point sending them into the bottom of packs and then having the free footy being handed to someone like Josh Carr or Michael Doughty waiting on the outside.

Granted, some guys are "softer" than others but I'm not sure the modern game is creating any more of these types than we've had before.

On your point about the drilling of roles into players removing some of their natural creative flair, I think that's valid. These days disposal skills are more valued than the guy who can take the big spekky or can dodge 5 players. A Josh Drummond type who can pinpoint kicks to 50m seems more important than the opportunistic small forward. There is still room for the creative guys up forward though.

I'm not sure it's all as bad as you make out but the there was something about those games in the 80s and 90s (and earlier) that's missing from the game today.

good old fashioned knuckles!