Talk:Australian rules football positions
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Australian rules football positions is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale. | ||
| Low | This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale. | ||
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject AFL. | ||
|
Assessment comments
|
|||
Contents |
[edit] Midfield and followers merged? Seperate ruck part?
In my opinion the midfield and followers should be merged. Centre's, rovers and ruck-rovers are pretty much the same now (although it should be noted they used to be different) and people trying to learn the game using this page will be confused. I think the midfield consists of at least 5 players (centre, 2 wings, ruck rover, rover) and thats excluding the ruck. Even wingman are pretty much midfielders now, except that they are USUALLY more "outside" players who don't get in and under as much. There aren't many true wingers out there, and the wings are used to rotate the midfield around. Ruckmen may be considered an important part of the midfield/on-ball division but they play entirely different to midfielders.
To be honest, this is how I propose the positions article to be done. Positions (in the modern game):
The Midfield Subsections:
Ruck - different styles of: classic tap ruckman/following ruckman
On-ballers or "midfielders": - different styles of: outside "receivers"/inside "in and under players", taggers
Wingers
Defence Subsections:
Small Defenders - different styles: rebounding or attacking small defenders/tight marking small defenders
Tall defenders
Split into two sections, Centre half back and full backs.
Also add a note on: Medium Defenders (these are players who can match it against tall and small players example Clement)
Forwards: Full forwards (different styles: quick leading full forward/strong "gorilla full forward" Centre half forwards Small forwards Maybe add a note on 3rd/4th tall forwards.
Also in writing the descriptions of each "position" we explain where they usually line-up on a traditional positional line-up, or we have another section on this. Example BP: Usually small defenders but also include a 3rd tall defender (alot of teams use 3 tall forwards) HBF: Same as BP except half-back flankers are traditionally more attacking so would include the more attacking small defenders. C/RR/RO: Midfielders.
And so on. What is everyone's opinion on this, obviously it would be a lot of work but remember it is only a suggestion.
Jabso 04:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I rekon the positions on this page should be kept traditional. Also can you call the oval the oval, not the pitch. I know you could be saying pitch for the sake of European people but call it by it's real name. Kwp 17:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Propose move
to Australian rules football positions (it redirects here currently) since the main article is Australian rules football instead of Football (Australian rules). --Dodo bird 06:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- You make an interesting proposal. I named it like this because it was similar to the soccer article similar to this. But I don't see why we shouldn't move it. Sounds logical enough to me. Normy 08:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- Sounds like a plan. Grumpyyoungman01 00:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] TOC
Should we put the template that hides the table of contents on this page and just use the table of positions at the top of the page as the TOC? I think it looks quite ugly with pretty much two TOCs. Normy 06:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Assessment completed for Australian rules football positions
As per either a recent request at section for assessment requests or because this article was listed as fully or partly unassessed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/Assessment I have just now completed a rating of the article and posted my results to this page. Those results are detailed above in the template box. Unfortunately, due to the volume of articles that need to be assessed, I am unable to leave detailed comments other than to make the following brief observation: article needs to be wikified - eg: see WP:Lead etc, language needs to be altered to read less more like an encyclopedia
However if you have specific questions, please write to me on my talk page and as time permits I will try to provide you with my reasoning. Please put my talk page on your watchlist if you do ask such a question because in the case of these responses I will only post my answer underneath your question.
ALSO if you do not agree with the rating you can list it in the section for assessment requests below, and someone will take a look at it.--VS talk 12:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
