48.17 (305) to 2.3 (15) – Ouch!

Welcome to World Footy News Friday, March 27 2026 @ 02:48 pm ACDT

48.17 (305) to 2.3 (15) – Ouch! | 15 comments | Create New Account

The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.

Comments are closed and no new posts are allowed.

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

---
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

---
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.

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

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.

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

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

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

RSS news	RSS events
Twitter	Facebook

World Footy News

Search

Translate

User Functions

Events

Featured Sites

Older Stories

Friday 11-Apr

Sunday 30-Mar

Thursday 27-Mar

Friday 21-Mar

Thursday 06-Mar

Wednesday 05-Feb

Tuesday 04-Feb

Socials

Who's Online

Random Image

What's New

Articles last 2 weeks

Comments last 2 weeks

Links last 2 weeks

Advertisements