Skip to main content
Topic: RD 17 : Blues Defeat Kangaroos (After-Match Defibrillators) (Read 56622 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: RD 17 : Blues Defeat Kangaroos (After-Match Defibrillators)

Reply #150
That's good coming from Scott.  I'd say that Ziebell is very lucky we aren't playing in the 70's based on his previous form. You reap what you sow.
DrE is no more... you ok with that harmonica man?

Re: RD 17 : Blues Defeat Kangaroos (After-Match Defibrillators)

Reply #151
I know the Watson torp got us a goal but just looked at it again and if it wasn'tfor two North defenders horribly misjudging the flight of the ball I think it would have backfired yet again.

I'd rather not see it done unless the opposition has stuffed their zone.
thats the idea mate.  this is what the cause of this act does.  It forces an opponent to stuff up their zone.

The idea of it is to make your opposition second guess what can occur tactically.  If you do the same thing frequently you allow your opponent to figure out how to setup.  This goal may have prevented North from squeazing up and locking us in.  Do it twice, then next time run it out and all of a sudden your oppoisition is unsure on how to setup. 

Especially if you start kicking to secondary targets coming out like a medium forward.

It doesn't cause them to stuff their zone though. It only works if their zone is stuffed to begin with (ie. no one is covering the centre - and seeing as that is the most dangerous part of the ground and the area which is going to cost you the most damage, that is where most of the focus usually goes into protecting as opposed to say the pockets where zones will happily let you kick to) or someone makes a big cock up.

That's what happened on the weekend. They had the kick covered, two players had it covered actually but they somehow managed to both misjudge the flight of the kick and run under the ball. One player gets a fist on that ball and it costs you a goal.
Sorry mate, I can't agree.  We had a heap of smalls (Armfield, Garlett and Betts) surrounding Henderson who was being minded by Thompson and one other (think it was Grima). 

I was under the impression that you setup to stop the marking targets, and defend a line behind where you expect the kick to go, leaving a defender with the key forward and one loose player behind everyone to mop up any streaming forward and ensure an easy contested mark is not taken secondary to the kick.

Reason why they stuffed it, was solely because the length was longer than expected, so instead of being able to run up at the ball coming in and spoil it, they had to initially go back, and then go forward again to get to the ball drop.  Misjudge that, and your result is what we got.  Add to the fact that all of a sudden they were spoiling Hendo's ability to mark.  The subsequent kick, North HAVE to setup a further ten metres back, and push up when it becomes clear that the barrel is not coming.  All of a sudden, you have bred uncertainty in your opponents defense on where they can and cannot setup.

This kick cannot be underestimated in terms of what thoughts it would implant into your opposition.  All of a sudden when Watson is not taking the kick, they need to defend the pocket (rather than leaving it free like you suggest) as all of a sudden we can be inside forward 50 within two kicks.  One to Watson, the next one a barrel from the pocket.

Our secondary forward targets from a kick in (read Henderson) need to be manned up, as the bomb could go to him.  Would also allow our rucks to get a more even one on one contest on a flank to get out.  Then the other option of running it out.

Not everyone has a Matthew Watson kick in the team.  I would even favour going this route 2 in every 6 kickouts with the others being a mix of short kicks and longish kicks.  Would absolutely screw your opposition in terms of where do they setup.

You could even do it every time your opponents behinds hit a multiple of 5, and that could be the signal of when to setup for it.
"everything you know is wrong"

Paul Hewson