Welcome to World Footy News
Saturday, October 21 2017 @ 12:45 AM ACDT

The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
48.17 (305) to 2.3 (15) – Ouch!
Authored by: Mister Football on Tuesday, August 01 2017 @ 05:51 PM ACST

That is a frightful hiding, although it's incredible your team managed to score two goals against a team scoring nearly 50, often with these sorts of scorelines, the the losing team rarely gets near its own goal.

I've never experienced anything like that, but have experienced thrashings in the range of 90 to 120 points, and I too can recall on those occasions seeing positives.

I remember one game when we lost by 15 goals against a team which went through the season undefeated, and I honestly thought we were quite competitive on the day.

What Brett says in the comment above is spot on, that if there is even the slightest mismatch between two teams, the result is pretty much determined, that's pretty much the way the Australian game rolls - it's impossible for a bottom Division 3 standard team to be competitive against a top Division 1 standard team (whereas in soccer, an inferior team can actually be competitive against a much better team, losing by only one or two goals, or even jagging a draw).

This is one reason why splitting up the teams in the IC into two divisions is a good idea. It's absolutely pointless for the likes of PNG, Ireland and NZ to absolutely smash weak opposition, achieves nothing.

The closest we can ever come to Australia playing a team who can get within 20 goals of them would be the day when at least 18 Irish players are playing regularly in the AFL (which might happen one day).

---
Mister Football

48.17 (305) to 2.3 (15) – Ouch!
Authored by: Troy Thompson on Tuesday, August 01 2017 @ 07:02 PM ACST

While the magnitude of the numerical difference is not the same - The 7-1 defeat of Brazil by Germany in the 2014 Soccer World Cup semi final, (where probably the two best teams in the world were playing) shows a smashing can happen even in soccer. I reckon your 2.3 might be a better effort than that one Brazilian goal Wes, at any rate I definitely reckon your defence only allowing 48 Aussie rules goals was better than Brazil letting in 7 soccer goals.

48.17 (305) to 2.3 (15) – Ouch!
Authored by: Wesley Hull on Tuesday, August 01 2017 @ 10:11 PM ACST

All good points and I hope the club in question reads these comments. Troy, your comparison to the one goal in the World Cup match is a good one and I have to say we had a purple patch with our entire score coming in the second half...which sort of mirrors what you say as one goal in soccer can only happen in one half.

48.17 (305) to 2.3 (15) – Ouch!
Authored by: Harley Vague on Wednesday, August 02 2017 @ 12:12 PM ACST

This is the potential problem with 9-a-side as currently played widespread. A proficient team can rack up a horrendous score straight out of the centre.
In 9-a-side the centre 3 is 33% of the team whilst in 18-a-side the centre 4 are <25% of the team.
My junior club U16s was divided into two teams (baby boomer products) supposedly two almost equal teams. A guy just slightly taller than me rucked against Mike Fitzpatrick and we played against many who went onto be WAFL players. We did pretty well in keeping them down to about 24 goals. We might've even scored a point or two.

48.17 (305) to 2.3 (15) – Ouch!
Authored by: Mister Football on Thursday, August 03 2017 @ 10:53 AM ACST

I think the AFLX concept ( of 7-a-side on a 100m long soccer pitch) is about evening out differences such as height, athleticism, endurance and tackling strength. It will be an extremely open game where there will be less emphasis on aerial skills and where players will have a bit more space to get clean possessions and take pot shots at goal from anywhere past the centre circle.

Most of the nations who compete in the IC have a real problem with height. You can imagine a team like Nauru would absolutely excel at AFLX because the height equation is taken out of the game.

---
Mister Football

48.17 (305) to 2.3 (15) – Ouch!
Authored by: Brett Northey on Thursday, August 03 2017 @ 01:19 PM ACST

Smaller field means a weaker team has less links in the chain to get a shot on goal, less chances to lose possession. But then again the superior team is only ever going to be 1 possession away from a shot. We could see goals every 10 seconds. And the game dominated by 2 players on one side.

In summary - not sure which way it will go but I think we'll still see thumpings between poorly matched opponents.

---
Brett Northey - Co-founder and Chief Editor of WFN

48.17 (305) to 2.3 (15) – Ouch!
Authored by: Troy Thompson on Thursday, August 03 2017 @ 02:13 PM ACST

And think of a basketball match between a team of 6'6" guys and a team of 5'6" guys of even skill. AFLX will be a bit like an oversized basketball game and I am not sure height won't be a factor.

48.17 (305) to 2.3 (15) – Ouch!
Authored by: Harley Vague on Thursday, August 03 2017 @ 07:58 PM ACST

As I understand it the ball will be kicked in after goal so ruckmen will be superfluous. Height will only be an advantage if a player is extremely mobile.Basically a midfielder's game.

48.17 (305) to 2.3 (15) – Ouch!
Authored by: Brett Northey on Thursday, August 03 2017 @ 11:46 PM ACST

Yeah but midfielders are often around 185cm these days. There would be a lot of aerial one on ones potentially, and with the arm chop crack down that leaves shorter players in difficulty. But I agree it's unlikely to suit the 200cm players either. We'll see. At least the AFL are catching up with the smaller format like the rest of the world has been experimenting with for 10 to 20 years.

---
Brett Northey - Co-founder and Chief Editor of WFN