Talk:Australian rules football positions

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)

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)

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)

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)

centre half forward - stub

I notcied the center half forward section is a bit of a stub... should mention that they are usually the longest kicker on the team, often kicking more than 60m. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.219.216.45 (talk) 07:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Copyediting comments

1. In the section "Utility" the opening sentence includes "in a number of various positions." Delete the extraneous word "various," or else change it to read "in more than one position."

2. In the list of utility players, Matthew Pavlich occurs twice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.123.108 (talk) 01:58, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Notable player lists

Every few months we get these expanded, normally with a bunch of current players from their favourite team. Given the fluid nature of positioning, both within a game now, and over a career in the past, should we bother with these lists at all? Put up the team of the century and maybe include in the prose any truly notable other players from those positions, but it is otherwise just a WP:POV and WP:OR nightmare to keep them verified, relevant, appropriate and accurate.The-Pope (talk) 09:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

If the latest batch (Apr 2014) are to stay, I would suggest a horizontal alignment, as the page has acres of white space and is a scrollathon.

As of October 2015 it is a long list completely lacking in information such as what team the person played for and when. I think some sort of criteria needs to be established. Brownlow medal obviously, Coleman medal for a forward, or named to X number of All-Australian teams in that position. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 06:22, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Substitutes

The substitute position shouldn't be included as its to be axed next year.Alfredopasta99 (talk) 23:43, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

The section needs to be kept as a historical record and explanation for future readers who do otherwise would not know that the position once existed. If we deleted everything that doesn't exist right now Wikipedia would be a much smaller website. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:14, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough AtHomeIn神戸 Alfredopasta99 (talk) 05:31, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Remove lists of notable players

The long lists of notable players are unwieldy and have no clear inclusion criteria, encouraging editors to add whichever players they want. The articles should be more like Association football positions, where players are mentioned in prose if they made a highly significant impact on the role. TeraTIX 12:43, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I just noticed that The-Pope beat me to the punch by five years! Well, the problem still stands. TeraTIX 12:47, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

@Teratix: I completely agree, we should do it similar to Association football positions by having prose which is supported by reliable sources. At the moment it's just any fan adding players as they wish. Flickerd (talk) 05:20, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it's helpful to have examples of key position players, but they must be supported by reliable sources, and prose is better. The lists are good starting points for expansion into prose, though. Consider them nominations, if you like. Jack N. Stock (talk) 17:43, 25 September 2018 (UTC)