Better way

[Red]

Originally posted by cressakel in the Parkin is a ****head thread
Roosy was known throughout last season as playing an attacking brand of football coaching, but now he wants to tinker with the game plan and play the above mentioned crap short chip kicking to a contest football game plan - not good enough from my point of view !!

I expect a premiership or two with Roos and that is why I am critical of his game plan at present.

Me too, cressakel.

Last year we were pretty to watch. Bold, fast and high-scoring. It made everyone pretty excited about this season.

But we seem to have gone backwards in terms of game plan -- high-possession, kicking too short, too wide and far too many handballs -- remisicient of the way we played immediately before Roos took over.

Why this apparant regression has occured is beyond me. Thinking optimisticly, I wonder if Roosey is using this season to instill another style of play -- a 'backup' plan against teams that could shut our free-flowing game down (ie. North & Hawthorn). And that once this is mastered, we'll be able to switch between the two as the needs arises.

On the negative, I wonder if it's a result of the new midfield coach. IMO the jury is very much out on Ross Lyon -- seeing as he's old mates with Roos, and that the teams he was previously involved with didn't exactly set the world on fire. In fact, Carlton look much straighter this year through the midfield than they did last -- and we're almost the opposite. People may point to his record in taking the Blues magoos to successive finals. But Eade won <i>flags</i> in the reserves, and look how far that got him with the Swans.

I hope that the first scenario is right, and that I'm wrong about Ross. We have, after all, only lost 3 games -- narrowly at that. But somehow we haven't looked as dynamic while doing it. Time will certainly tell whether it's the better way, of course.

[DST]

Originally posted by Red
Me too, cressakel.

Last year we were pretty to watch. Bold, fast and high-scoring. It made everyone pretty excited about this season.

But we seem to have gone backwards in terms of game plan -- high-possession, kicking too short, too wide and far too many handballs -- remisicient of the way we played immediately before Roos took over.

Why this apparant regression has occured is beyond me. Thinking optimisticly, I wonder if Roosey is using this season to instill another style of play -- a 'backup' plan against teams that could shut our free-flowing game down (ie. North & Hawthorn). And that once this is mastered, we'll be able to switch between the two as the needs arises.

On the negative, I wonder if it's a result of the new midfield coach. IMO the jury is very much out on Ross Lyon -- seeing as he's old mates with Roos, and that the teams he was previously involved with didn't exactly set the world on fire. In fact, Carlton look much straighter this year through the midfield than they did last -- and we're almost the opposite. People may point to his record in taking the Blues magoos to successive finals. But Eade won <i>flags</i> in the reserves, and look how far that got him with the Swans.

I hope that the first scenario is right, and that I'm wrong about Ross. We have, after all, only lost 3 games -- narrowly at that. But somehow we haven't looked as dynamic while doing it. Time will certainly tell whether it's the better way, of course.

How about quite simply, we are trying to play our usual game plan, the other team are stopping us doing that and at this present time we are not playing well enough to get around that !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There has been no change to the game plan this year, it is simply a case of we have not played as a team as well as last year for a full 4 qtr's.

Nothing sinister with tinkering with the plan, the loss of Malaxos or the appointment of Lyon, just simply beaten by 3 teams who played better on the day.

DST
:D

[Gunn]

I mentioned this in an earlier thread and it was tonight mentioned on Fox footy. I am talking about the game plan Essendon used against us. It was similar to the Melbourne one in many ways.

The Essendon plan was to zone off when we had a kick out from a behind. They zoned en masse about 30-40 metres from the kicker leaving space for the kicker (player 1) to kick to a short option (player 2) 10-20 metres out from goal. Essendon then manned up every swans player forward and behind player 2 . This only allowed player 2 to safely kick to a short break away target (player 3) running towards the kicker or sideways. If player 3 managed to mark the ball he was still only 30 -40 metres from our defensive goal. Again the Essendon players manned up leaving player 3 with the choice of kicking to a contest or again trying a very short pass to a break away player (player 4) only a short distance forward or evne latterally or backwards. This absolutely shut down our running game with no loose players to run by and take a hand pass.

I don't know how we are to beat that tactic and I am sure it will be used against us every week now. I suppose the only way is to zone ourselves so we are kicking off to a pack of our own players or a break away. Of course if we were winning the ball at the stoppages they would be chasing us instead of the other way around. I think that is the key.

[Thunder Shaker]

Originally posted by Gunn
I don't know how we are to beat that tactic and I am sure it will be used against us every week now.

Bring back the place kick ... and learn how to impersonate a mad scientist while rubbing your hands together and muttering "Secret weapon!" Place kicks can go almost as far as a torp and are more accurate. Who needs men free in the midfield when one can get the ball from defensive 50 to attacking 50 with one big kick?

I'm kidding of course...

[chammond]

Originally posted by Gunn

I don't know how we are to beat that tactic and I am sure it will be used against us every week now.

It's not a new tactic though. Rodney Eade used it very successfully to neutralise faster teams . . . . the Dockers are one that comes to mind . . . but it can also go spectacularly wrong.

The way to beat man-on-man tactics is to set up mismatches . . . that's what we pay the coaches for. There's no problem in kicking to a contest if your team mate is the better player!

[liz]

Originally posted by chammond
It's not a new tactic though. Rodney Eade used it very successfully to neutralise faster teams . . . . the Dockers are one that comes to mind . . . but it can also go spectacularly wrong.

The way to beat man-on-man tactics is to set up mismatches . . . that's what we pay the coaches for. There's no problem in kicking to a contest if your team mate is the better player!

It's also what we did against the Power in the final last year.

What interests me is the psychology of the protaganist vs reactor response of this tactic. Against Port we were playing man on man when they had the ball, but seemed to have free men and runners galore when we had the ball. Similarly, the Bombers had no trouble getting men free last week when they were in possession. I guess it comes down to whichever team gets to dictate the structure of the game will be on the front foot. They know what is unfolding and are able to play to what they have been planning for all week, while the other team is desparately trying to impose its preferred structure on the game.

[ScottH]

You are right, Liz when a team is on top it seems to have players all over the field as if they had all 22 players on the ground at once. This happened regularly last w/e.
Once we turned it over, there were Dons running everywhere and a swan trying to catch them from 20 mtrs away.

We did the same against Kangas. We just have to come up with an alternative if, we are on the back foot.

We also need a tall reliable option roaming just outside 50 for the kick ins, as most other teams do. We don't seem to employ this longer kick tactic too often or too well. It might be just a confidence thing, but Ball doesn't seem to have that touch he had last year for this to happen. Hopefully it will come soon..

[Red]

Originally posted by Gunn
The Essendon plan was to zone off when we had a kick out from a behind. They zoned en masse about 30-40 metres from the kicker leaving space for the kicker (player 1) to kick to a short option (player 2) 10-20 metres out from goal. Essendon then manned up every swans player forward and behind player 2 . This only allowed player 2 to safely kick to a short break away target (player 3) running towards the kicker or sideways. If player 3 managed to mark the ball he was still only 30 -40 metres from our defensive goal. Again the Essendon players manned up leaving player 3 with the choice of kicking to a contest or again trying a very short pass to a break away player (player 4) only a short distance forward or evne latterally or backwards. This absolutely shut down our running game with no loose players to run by and take a hand pass.
That's a very good tactical anaylsis Gunn, and looking back at that game seems to be spot on. Of course that tactic wouldn't work so well on us if we had a fullback (like Essendon) that could kick the ball into the centre square! I wasn't refeering so much to our kick-outs though, 'cause I reckon we've improved a lot in that area in the last couple of years.

The point I'm trying to make is that our <i>attitude</i> seems to have changed: slower, shorter, more careful, less risk-taking. Last season we played with a kind of abandon, which 9 times out of 10 resulted in some awesome-looking play and imposing scorelines. The mantra from Roos and the boys was to 'go out and have a go, back yourselves and try to enjoy your footy'. Maybe we can't play like we've got nopthing to lose now because of the expectation that we're a top-4 team.

I'm probably completely wrong though. These days it seems risky to post your impressions or feelings about the way the teams plays, at least without a heap of stats and careful post-match analysis to back it up!

[chammond]

Originally posted by Red

I'm probably completely wrong though. These days it seems risky to post your impressions or feelings about the way the teams plays, at least without a heap of stats and careful post-match analysis to back it up!

Not sure where this is coming from?

If you play the ball and not the man, then your opinion will always be welcome.

But if you're not prepared to have people disagree with you, then you're right, it is risky.

[gloveski]

Teams are not using the Zone against as they did last year instead they are going man on man (the same thing we did to Port in last years final).To try and stop our run

I think the best way we can combat this is to go straight up the middle...........why would you not with Barry Hall in white hot form?

[NMWBloods]

I agree, plus we need to move the ball quicker, we need more run off half back and we need to run in numbers more. Occasionally we should also simply look to kick the ball long to a one-on-one and rely on our players being good enough to beat their man.

[Charlie]

I know I'm starting to sound like a broken record, but putting Goodes in the middle can only help us clear it out of defence.

Goodes and Ball on each wing, and Baz at CHF... that's a very good triangle of marking players capable of dominating the middle of the ground. It gives us a lot of options to move the ball quickly out of defence, with a better than even chance of keeping the ball. Now, have Williams, Crouch and Fosdike running through the centre, and the potential for really quick movement into the forward line is enormous.

[Bleed Red Blood]

Originally posted by Charlie
I know I'm starting to sound like a broken record, but putting Goodes in the middle can only help us clear it out of defence.

Goodes and Ball on each wing, and Baz at CHF... that's a very good triangle of marking players capable of dominating the middle of the ground. It gives us a lot of options to move the ball quickly out of defence, with a better than even chance of keeping the ball. Now, have Williams, Crouch and Fosdike running through the centre, and the potential for really quick movement into the forward line is enormous.

Ball as in Jason?!?!?

I don't see this happening with Ball's speed or lack of it wouldnt make much sense for him to be on a wing.

I would much rather see Kennelly on a wing with Williams moved to the vacant HBF were I believe he coul provide as much run as Tadgh.

[thommoone]

i think he means Ball and goodes at either flank/wing for the kick ins. am i right, or way off?

[Bleed Red Blood]

Originally posted by thommoone
i think he means Ball and goodes at either flank/wing for the kick ins. am i right, or way off?

Which I wouldnt argue with.

Also it makes alot of sense now that you say it.

[Bear]

Roos seems to be very 'anti-contested marks'.

Whilst I'm sure that some would argue that we don't have the cattle to take contested marks, I would argue we do have this capacity (Ball, Doyle, Goodes, Hall, O'Keefe, Saddo (as the 3rd man in) immediately come to mind). In any case, kicking long to the danger zone creates contested situations that put REAL presure on backlines. 5-10 chips from the back line do not.

If we are trying to build a premiership-winning side, I suggest we should be working on our contested marks... during games.

When was the last premiership won by a short chipping team with little or no reliance on contested marking??

[Charlie]

Originally posted by thommoone
i think he means Ball and goodes at either flank/wing for the kick ins. am i right, or way off?

Yep. Not Ball as an actual wingman, but in the vicinity. Providing a marking option.

Even if it just stops them from putting an extra guy on Hall and Goodes, it'd do the job.

[DST]

None of this talk of tinkering with the game plan overides the basic fact we have lost 3 games by close margins while still not playing four good qtr's of football.

Get the team as a whole into some decent form and discussions about do this do that, play him here etc will be meaningless as the side will be winning.

DST

P.S Just my two cents worth..................:)