The 10m rule
Posted 10 August 2010 - 09:31 PM
Posted 11 August 2010 - 08:23 AM
There would be more chance of upsets under the 5m rule, because there would be less emphasis on fitness and more on skill (which is less dependant on being ful time)
Posted 11 August 2010 - 08:31 AM
"The 10m rule pushes genuine footballers out of the game in favour of fitter athletes who are less skilled “footballers”.
"11-a-side under a 5m rule would have encouraged players to pass the ball to take up the free space (laterally), instead of encouraging (under the 10m rule) teams to simply run forward (scoots and hit-ups) to take the free space."
Posted 11 August 2010 - 08:55 AM
id like to see 5 m. trialed again, or even 7 m.
Posted 11 August 2010 - 09:10 AM
It only seems to work when you have two very evenly matched teams, who are fit in the sense of running backwards and forwards. If we'd been a global game with RL the number 1 sport in many countries, it would have been perhaps a logical way forward. However we are not. Now its almost impossible to see cup or international shocks, based purely on this silly 10m fitness and the knock on effect of the added momentum. The best way to grow the sport are to make suprises more plentiful by encouraging the skill side of the game
The negatives are plently:
- Widens gap between full time and part time encounters (bad for cup matches and internationals)
- Causes more injurys (players used to play far more games even when they were part time)
- Leads to more blow-out scorelines
- Makes it too easy to score (on the whole)
- Bad for encouraging people to take up RL for leisure/amateur level. Also people retire sooner or go off and play Union when they get older
So although maybe 20% games in SL might be superb spectacles under the 10m rule, you'll end up with far more blowouts, silly scorelines, no cup shocks and no international shocks which doesn't help develop the game. On the whole I could take a slightly less open game if the scorelines were vastly reduced with more shocks
Get shut of it now
I'm not convinced that 10 metres is best for the game but I think you're guilty of what net geeks like to call a 'Post hoc ergo propter hoc' argument, assuming something is the cause of an event merely because it happened before that event.
There are many other reasons for the lack of shocks, full time professionalism being probably the main one. This has fundamentally changed the way the game is played. The game used to be more off the cuff and obviously skillful to the untrained eye but somewhere along the line somebody has come along and realised that a structured game plan produces better results, everybody then changes suit. Later, somebody realised that wrestling techniques would improve defence and then everybody changes suit.
The game constantly evolves and full-time professionalism linked to the mass availability of games on TV and the internet has seen this happen at a much quicker rate than before. You just need to look at how Football, Union, Tennis, Golf etc have all changed relatively rapidly also in the past 15 years.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users