The biggest criticisms of AFLW since its inception have been the fumbling skills, poor marking, scrappy play and low scoring, all of which are exacerbated by congestion and could even be keeping some potential fans away.

Without a doubt congestion can help lesser-skilled teams win games. Decreasing the ball-carrier's space and time negatively impacts skills, open playing styles and the space needed to score regularly. The result is a battle of numbers, with players inching the ball forward through rolling stoppages.

While critics bemoan these low-scoring, scrappy games, perhaps congestion is most damaging to the players themselves as it diminishes their opportunities to apply the skills they've been honing at training.

While talent pathways such as the TAC Cup happily implement a player development focus, AFL clubs' dominant success indicator is simply winning. Winning improves clubs' marketability, media interest, fanbase and ability to attract and retain players.

Clubs employing coaches to primarily win games of football will see them build and implement game plans designed to do just that. If they feel their team doesn't have the skills to match their opponents consistently, they'll increase numbers at the contest to shut down the opposition. Doing what is needed to win simply means coaches are doing their job. Given that some AFLW coaches have not yet signed for the 2019 season, and their average salaries are a far cry from their AFL counterparts, they're not in a position to push back on winning being their dominant objective.

The two sides of the congestion coin have very different implications. If we accept that congestion is OK then we accept its consequences -- lesser skills, infrequent open play, lower scoring and slower player development. For those wanting to 'legislate' congestion, a suitable solution that everyone can buy into needs to be found.

Carlton captain Brianna Davey suffered a season-ending ACL tear against Greater Western Sydney. Michael Dodge/Getty Images

Congestion is not just an issue in AFLW games. Since Terry Wallace's infamous 2000 Western Bulldogs' flood that gave eventual AFL premiers Essendon their only loss for the season, congestion has been used as a way of shutting down open play and skillful teams.

Additionally, when this style of play crept into both the boys and girls Under-18 state and national competitions because the emphasis on winning was overriding the developmental nature of those competitions, the AFL and the state bodies acted with an anti-congestion coaching philosophy that requires teams to have five players in each half, including two inside 50, at all stoppages. Enforced by severe coaching registration implications, the impact on reducing congestion was immediate, as was the increase in player development and open, entertaining play showcasing the country's future talent.

On the surface, AFLW is not a developmental competition -- it's an elite program being steered to follow in the footsteps of its older brother. Unfortunately, expecting our AFL siblings to be identical is as damaging as if they were our own children. Whilst their DNA may be the same, AFLW has been nurtured very differently.

AFLW coaches who've coached in the boys' TAC Cup will tell you there is still a very strong player development focus. With the high number of inexperienced cross sport athletes and older footballers who missed out on the new talent programs currently incubating future talent, it becomes evident that AFLW coaches are playing catch-up. When we consider this, and that over the next five years the AFLW's expansion will dilute the talent pool and rely more heavily on inexperienced footballers to make up the numbers, coaches' development mindset will need to take precedence if we eventually want the 18 team, elite kicking Rolls Royce model that it took the AFL 150 years to develop.

The AFL's infamous memo reinforcing an agreement to manage congestion has opened the public conversation around AFLW's long-term objectives -- balancing winning with development. Unfortunately with no immediate penalty applied, a guiding philosophy is unenforceable on match day. Clubs and coaches can, and will do, whatever it takes to win a close game when you consider the commercial and membership opportunities at stake, most, if not all, will happily suffer the AFL's wrath, perhaps with a premiership cup in hand.

Daisy Pearce takes control during the round two AFLW clash between Melbourne and Adelaide. Michael Dodge/Getty Images

A 'guiding philosophy' compromises coaches by making them serve two opposing masters. Do they coach to win for their clubs, or coach to develop the competition and its players for the AFL? With their families' livelihood on the line, it's easy to see which path some will choose. In summary, a guiding philosophy at AFLW level becomes a toothless tiger.

So, what should be done?

In the off-season, the AFL suggested implementing anti-congestion measures for this year which would require teams to have at least two players in each 50m zone, making it easier for players to exit stoppages, use and develop their skills, and ultimately provide more scoring opportunities.

The idea was rejected by most AFLW coaches but enforcing clearly defined match day rules that limit congestion would be preferable over a loose philosophy. This approach would ensure the AFL and clubs committed to shared goals that allowed teams to win while developing their teams, players, the competition and the AFLW fan base.

Further, implementing such a clear and simple rule to manage acceptable congestion will remove the compromising position of coaches serving more than one master, and will ensure the competition's long-term sustainability through increased player development and fan engagement.