All season we have wondered about the Malthouse game-plan and whether the players were capable of carrying it out.
There was the hog-the-boundary scheme which frustrated everyone, then there was the quick-transition-to-the-corridor add-on which did seem to garner some strong results.
Now, after a long period of losses, neither option is as apparent and has to be part of the onfield failing.
Has anyone noticed something different to this recently ??
Is the problem that we don't have the players with the skills to make any game-plan work ??
Or, is there a better option that could be implemented ??
It's variable.
There is no right answer. No opponent plays the same way twice which automatically tells you nothing about the plan. We have not been consistent this season making it difficult to gauge whether the players can or cannot do it, and often your mind will change during one match let alone a long run of games. Weather is variable, form, venue (we have played better at Etihad this season) and even team selection has chopped and changed a lot.
We are a consistently inconsistent football side that can mix it with the best and fail against the rest at any given week.
This is not recent but I have noticed some forward structure at times this year for the 1st time in a long time. I don't know if the kudos should go to MM or Greene but I have definitely noticed a change for the better down there this year!!
This is not recent but I have noticed some forward structure at times this year for the 1st time in a long time. I don't know if the kudos should go to MM or Greene but I have definitely noticed a change for the better down there this year!!
Hmmm interesting observation. This improved structure doesn't seem to get results though. Let's hope we don't continue to head down the Pagan like statistics..
Year - Avg points
2014 - 87.8
2013 - 96.5
2012 - 94.5
2011 - 101.1
2010 - 97.4
2009 - 103.1
2008 - 100.8
2007 - 98.5
2006 - 81.5
2005 - 91.6
2004 - 82.9
2003 - 81.1
2002 - 76.5
Scores are down across the board.
Since 2000, the average AFL score has shrunk continuously, from more than 15 goals per team per game to barely 12.5 now. This is despite constant improvement in conditions at all grounds, and from 2001 the utility of a ground, now called Etihad Stadium, where conditions don't matter at all.
This year, the paucity is especially marked. Only Hawthorn and Port Adelaide are averaging more than 100 points a game. The bottom three teams - Melbourne, Brisbane and St Kilda - are all averaging fewer than 65 points. The Demons, Roos-ian goodwill notwithstanding - are scoring almost a goal a game less than last year and nearly two goals a game less than in 2012.
Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/afls-conundrum-where-have-all-the-goals-gone-20140716-ztrb0.html#ixzz37nvX721E
2.5 goals over 14 years is nothing compared to 9 points in a year.
Scores are down across the board.
Since 2000, the average AFL score has shrunk continuously, from more than 15 goals per team per game to barely 12.5 now. This is despite constant improvement in conditions at all grounds, and from 2001 the utility of a ground, now called Etihad Stadium, where conditions don't matter at all.
This year, the paucity is especially marked. Only Hawthorn and Port Adelaide are averaging more than 100 points a game. The bottom three teams - Melbourne, Brisbane and St Kilda - are all averaging fewer than 65 points. The Demons, Roos-ian goodwill notwithstanding - are scoring almost a goal a game less than last year and nearly two goals a game less than in 2012.
Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/afls-conundrum-where-have-all-the-goals-gone-20140716-ztrb0.html#ixzz37nvX721E
I50 are down but so are marks and points.
Feel free to do a more thorough analysis about where players are and whether the ball is going or seeing how we've changed relative to the entire competition but if the structure is better it doesn't seem to be significant and it isn't producing results. We have to work just as hard for our scores.
I'm not sure which plan they used tonight against North, anyone care to enlighten me ??
I'm not sure which plan they used tonight against North, anyone care to enlighten me ??
Cautious building up from the back.
Norf score heavily from rushing out of defence and that was taken away.
We appeared to take the ball off them a lot between the 50's and had plenty of guys heading into defence.
BTW Norf are scrubbers.
I'm not sure which plan they used tonight against North, anyone care to enlighten me ??
Thought it was the old MM Collingwood plan.....boundary line chain of kicks and then chipped to the leading forward or squared up about 20m out....Waite and Henderson had better delivery and also
led to better psoitions where there shots on goal were easier.
Nth were very loose and allowed players like Murphy freedom to get loose and it made life easier....their manning up was atrocious......Murphy didnt have an opponent for most of the game....
I would expect Crowley to keep him company next game...
Voss and King said that North's free flowing running game plan is to give off the quick handball after they mark the ball. They showed a whole heap of footage of Carlton players not allowing their opponents to get the easy handball which was forcing the guy who marked the ball to kick.
Yep, it was clear that the team was well-organised last night. They handed off well when manning the mark and protected the right areas to prevent North running from behind. You'd have to give a fair part of the credit to MM. The question would be whether our boys were strong in that area prior to MM arriving so that he was able to rely on them getting that part right. I don't think so. I reckon our previous strategy would have been to match North's desire to free up players to run the ball out of D50 and we'd be happy for it to be a shootout. Gibbs and Yarran in particular are more defensive now.
It helps, though, that we finally have 3 marking targets to spread their defenders. I can't remember the last time we had that spread of marking power in F50.
So Mick Malthouse can change, he proved it last night! :D
If I were Jeff Garlett I'd be nervous, the sluggish Graham showed what real footballers can do without needing to be blessed with pace. The Goldstein bump, goal! The quick chip kick over the pack instead of our usual bombing of the ball, goal!
The tackling from them all, superb, Jeff Garlett take note!
^^
That nine iron was gold, and that's what I've been trying to say for a long time re Graham, you can't write these guys off until they've had a fair go and even last night the plan was to not give him a fair go but thank God it turned out the way it did. He could very well have gotten another 6 possies and ended up back in the twos. Just terrible treatment of a player, not sure how he's expected to develop under those circumstances. Without naming names, I've had people try to tell me we'd be damaging the club's culture by playing him as little as 3 weeks ago. I guess some will do whatever it takes to oppose me, even if it means coming up with tripe like that.
Really looking forward to seeing the G-man strut his stuff for the rest of the year. I think we saw what his strengths are. Beautiful disposal and great peripheral vision to pick the right option in traffic. He still has to prove himself, hopefully he gets the opportunity to do so.
You wanted Watson to play last time didn't you carrots?
Yes I want Watson to be given a go for sure but he has been given much more of a chance than Graham and I don't see Watson with the green vest on every time he gets picked. I would have Watson play and try to develop over playing Simon White who IMO is never going to be good enough. But the two situations don't compare.
Yes I want Watson to be given a go for sure but he has been given much more of a chance than Graham and I don't see Watson with the green vest on every time he gets picked. I would have Watson play and try to develop over playing Simon White who IMO is never going to be good enough. But the two situations don't compare.
At the moment White gives us some mongrel that Watson doesn't offer!
I agree about playing Watson, but I am not sure White won't make it as he has footballer type attributes!
I agree re White, he's strong, physical, a decent kick and reasonably courageous, you'd think with all those attributes he's a monte to make it but at the age of 26 and with the same stupid errors being made I don't think he's worth persevering with.
SEN Today.
The lunchtime crew claims the most efficient team at converting F50 entries into goals is Hawthorn at ~30%, Carlton is in 2nd place at ~27%! :D
Offsetting our joy is apparently the fact that we are one of the poorest at stopping scores when opponents enter their F50! :(
Hard to imagine isn't it, especially given the defensive mindset of our coach. Those stats reads like we are succeeding in spite of the coach instead of because of the coach! :o
our game plan has to change for 2015.We have to stop the long bomb into the fwd line because i am sick of watching opp sides read the play and run it out with ease.
our game plan has to change for 2015.We have to stop the long bomb into the fwd line because i am sick of watching opp sides read the play and run it out with ease.
Thought we looked better v. Nth though M1. Our forwards were leading better and there was some nice F50 delivery.
our game plan has to change for 2015.We have to stop the long bomb into the fwd line because i am sick of watching opp sides read the play and run it out with ease.
I disagree to an extent.
The North game last week was the first game that I absolutely enjoyed for a very long time, our brand of football.
It was not a long bomb-it was strategic long kick placed between CHF and HFF.
For the first time in 20 years I cannot recall 3 tall forwards at Carlton - hence I will never miss the outside running whippet like sides we had with garlett, betts, yarran all in one side - that brand - being the Ratten brand, will never win Premierships...
Pretty sure all those players were at the club when Ratten was coaching. Only hendo wasn't playing forward but that was because he was struggling there. Maybe his plan for them was to play back pocket, I dunno?
our game plan has to change for 2015.We have to stop the long bomb into the fwd line because i am sick of watching opp sides read the play and run it out with ease.
Shows you how wrong your perception is, we rate 2nd in the league at scoring efficiency for Inside 50s only behind Hawthorn!
our game plan has to change for 2015.We have to stop the long bomb into the fwd line because i am sick of watching opp sides read the play and run it out with ease.
Shows you how wrong your perception is if we rate 2nd in the league at scoring efficiency for Inside 50s!
I would be interested in knowing what the stat is for clearing the ball out from our 50 is. That number could still be very high as we're only scoring from less that 1 in 3 entries so 2 of the 3 might be getting cleared very easily which account for mina' s observation
our game plan has to change for 2015.We have to stop the long bomb into the fwd line because i am sick of watching opp sides read the play and run it out with ease.
Shows you how wrong your perception is if we rate 2nd in the league at scoring efficiency for Inside 50s!
I would be interested in knowing what the stat is for clearing the ball out from our 50 is. That number could still be very high as we're only scoring from less that 1 in 3 entries so 2 of the 3 might be getting cleared very easily which account for mina' s observation
Very true, and in the "Lock it inside F50" stats we are apparently low but the Swans are #1.
But we shouldn't be too unhappy, you have to give credit where credit is due and we sit 2nd! 1 F50 entry out of every 4 results in a Carlton goal, Dawks are not far off 1 in every 3 which would be really nice!:
Should we one day make the big game whilst Yarran is playing for us he will be the one that can win it for us IMO.
It is hard to have a set-play Game Plan in a game with so much variable, but it seems there is no substitute for amazing skills. Judd and now Gibbs can create unimagined opportunity in centre scrummage.
I think Gartlett could achieve more than a crunching Bell or electric Armfield.
The future has to be with players with slick slick skills - Docherty and Lucus are in that category.
We have done well to Slot Rowe. We wasted years before giving Walker a position where he could use his dash..
We all thought Hansen would one day repay trust..
I think MickM is doing a great job seeding talent and polishing defensive and attacking skills. is Game Plan essentially Discipline?
Sadly, other teams have more talented players
OK, I think I have a good grasp on where we are going now, and I think the game plan is flawed.
I wondered why we are so focused on moving the ball around the boundary line, why stoppages are a key part of the game plan, and what benefit doing so can have?
I suspect the "sales pitch" for the game plan is that it is designed to get the team late into the season with the most amount of "run in their legs" left to compete in the finals. Almost like planning to run a marathon with a limited resource that you cannot waste too early, so you minimise the waste early by doing lots of stop / start ground work and preparation "around the boundaries."
But I think it is flawed, I think the problem with the plan is that it ignores fatigue caused by other aspects of play, mental fatigue, stress, collisions and frustration. Your legs might be fine but that doesn't mean you aren't physically and mentally shattered. It's not a natural way to play football, it is more like a rugby scrum, wrestle or tug-of-war!
The apparent game plan never gives players a break, they usually teeter between a couple of goals down and a couple of goals up. It's like getting to the lead in the race then deliberately slowing to keep your opponent at your shoulder. You just won't ever see that cruise mode that Adelaide or Hawthorn experience. In my opinion those cruise moments give players a mental break as much as a physical break. Our game plan appears to be relentless burden, a wrestling or boxing match without a bell, just a non-stop slog.
It must be so draining on the players, like flagellation, you bash yourself towards the finals and are relieved if you actually get there!
I think a further flaw in the plan is if you make every contest an arm wrestle, you basically leave your fate to the toss of a coin late in a game. You are hardly ever going to be comfortable because your game plan doesn't allow you to escape the opponent. The opponents are nearly always in the zone with a genuine shot at beating you.
I think our opponents know this, the MM plan is well understood, and all those close loses are an indicator that it is doomed to fail.
Port, Dawks, Adelaide, all appear to do the complete opposite. They do their very best to put the opponents down early, remove the opponents motivation and brace against a potential second wave. If they get that break on a club with a game plan like ours, we have no hope of closing the gap, our plan gains ground one step at a time while the others sprint ahead in leaps and bounds!
We are the Tortoise in "The Tortoise and the Hare", our wins rely on the Hare being a complete idiot!
Finally,the area we lack the most, the creative area of the game, the forward line. How does it flourish under this regime? It must surely wither, is that what we are seeing now?
Nah, i think our players just make poor decisions and basic skill errors. Big looping kicks that fall somewhere near a target is not kicking to advantage, nor giving anyone an opportunity. It also gets there slowly meaning its easier for a defender to cut off.
We lack intensity at the contest. Contested footy is king. you get first use, and odds are if you use the ball well, you should be able to cut up your opposition.
We get killed on the turnover. Errant kicks directly to opponents, rather than controlled footy. The best sides in the competition dont make these mistakes.
We lack intensity at the contest. Contested footy is king. you get first use, and odds are if you use the ball well, you should be able to cut up your opposition.
Intensity is mind set, mind set is the coach.
Intensity is mind set, mind set is the coach.
True dat.
.............and running out of puff halfway through the second quarter is the fitness coach.
OK, I think I have a good grasp on where we are going now, and I think the game plan is flawed.
I wondered why we are so focused on moving the ball around the boundary line, why stoppages are a key part of the game plan, and what benefit doing so can have?
I suspect the "sales pitch" for the game plan is that it is designed to get the team late into the season with the most amount of "run in their legs" left to compete in the finals. Almost like planning to run a marathon with a limited resource that you cannot waste too early, so you minimise the waste early by doing lots of stop / start ground work and preparation "around the boundaries."
But I think it is flawed, I think the problem with the plan is that it ignores fatigue caused by other aspects of play, mental fatigue, stress, collisions and frustration. Your legs might be fine but that doesn't mean you aren't physically and mentally shattered. It's not a natural way to play football, it is more like a rugby scrum, wrestle or tug-of-war!
The apparent game plan never gives players a break, they usually teeter between a couple of goals down and a couple of goals up. It's like getting to the lead in the race then deliberately slowing to keep your opponent at your shoulder. You just won't ever see that cruise mode that Adelaide or Hawthorn experience. In my opinion those cruise moments give players a mental break as much as a physical break. Our game plan appears to be relentless burden, a wrestling or boxing match without a bell, just a non-stop slog.
It must be so draining on the players, like flagellation, you bash yourself towards the finals and are relieved if you actually get there!
I think a further flaw in the plan is if you make every contest an arm wrestle, you basically leave your fate to the toss of a coin late in a game. You are hardly ever going to be comfortable because your game plan doesn't allow you to escape the opponent. The opponents are nearly always in the zone with a genuine shot at beating you.
I think our opponents know this, the MM plan is well understood, and all those close loses are an indicator that it is doomed to fail.
Port, Dawks, Adelaide, all appear to do the complete opposite. They do their very best to put the opponents down early, remove the opponents motivation and brace against a potential second wave. If they get that break on a club with a game plan like ours, we have no hope of closing the gap, our plan gains ground one step at a time while the others sprint ahead in leaps and bounds!
We are the Tortoise in "The Tortoise and the Hare", our wins rely on the Hare being a complete idiot!
Finally,the area we lack the most, the creative area of the game, the forward line. How does it flourish under this regime? It must surely wither, is that what we are seeing now?
Great analysis LP. Reading that really resonated with what I saw on Thursday night, although there was a touch of the 'put the opponent down early' approach.
Intensity is mind set, mind set is the coach.
I disagree. Intensity is ingrained in the player.
Some players have it. Others dont.
You can make a player be intense, but it will happen infrequently (sound familiar?). Some blokes who are built that way just play that way all the time. They dont need to be taught, or shown, they just do. The trouble occurs when they can't control that intensity and just play that way all the time without control like a loose cannon.
That energy needs to be there to be tapped into when its required. Luke Hodge is the epitomy of it. When the time came for him to face Buddy, he gave him a kiss. Why? Because going hard in that moment would have achieved nothing for him or his team. He harnassed that energy and used it well. Next 50-50 he draws upon it, and bang throws a hip out to hit an opponent and take the ball because he was built that way.
Chris Judd does it. He goes hard often and goes up a level precisely when he feels that the game is slipping. Its a pity it cant be taught. That competitive edge, but its really hard to teach it to one who isnt built that way from a young tacker. Have a look at our very own Matthew Watson. Finds that killer instinct for one game a season and then goes straight back into his shell.
Setanta had it. White has it. Most of our blokes dont.
@LP
it was a concern when we first hired Malthouse. His gameplan at Collingwood was intense and relied on 4 interchange players being rotated heavily (the most in the competition) to keep up that intensity. The Sub rule came in, and here we are, trying to run the same high intensity game plan, with one rotation down... We run out of legs so often, and lead games then just fall away (I even started a thread on it).
@Thry
Apart from being untouchable, what is Malthouse's role then. You have in two separate posts, absolved him of all responsibility and blamed the players (Who aren't blameless I get that). We may as well go in with no coach then?
I disagree. Intensity is ingrained in the player.
Some players have it. Others dont.
You can make a player be intense, but it will happen infrequently (sound familiar?). Some blokes who are built that way just play that way all the time. They dont need to be taught, or shown, they just do. The trouble occurs when they can't control that intensity and just play that way all the time without control like a loose cannon.
That energy needs to be there to be tapped into when its required. Luke Hodge is the epitomy of it. When the time came for him to face Buddy, he gave him a kiss. Why? Because going hard in that moment would have achieved nothing for him or his team. He harnassed that energy and used it well. Next 50-50 he draws upon it, and bang throws a hip out to hit an opponent and take the ball because he was built that way.
Chris Judd does it. He goes hard often and goes up a level precisely when he feels that the game is slipping. Its a pity it cant be taught. That competitive edge, but its really hard to teach it to one who isnt built that way from a young tacker. Have a look at our very own Matthew Watson. Finds that killer instinct for one game a season and then goes straight back into his shell.
Setanta had it. White has it. Most of our blokes dont.
Mate, Port had no intensity at all, they were a rabble. Enter Ken hinkley, hey presto, they have mindblowing intensity. Intensity IS mindset and IMO that falls at the coaches feet, Port Power being a great example. Freo are another great example, look what Ross Lyon has done with the same list as the previous coach.
Mate, Port had no intensity at all, they were a rabble. Enter Ken hinkley, hey presto, they have mindblowing intensity. Intensity IS mindset and IMO that falls at the coaches feet, Port Power being a great example. Freo are another great example, look what Ross Lyon has done with the same list as the previous coach.
THIS ^^^^^^
It is all in the mind :o
@LP
it was a concern when we first hired Malthouse. His gameplan at Collingwood was intense and relied on 4 interchange players being rotated heavily (the most in the competition) to keep up that intensity. The Sub rule came in, and here we are, trying to run the same high intensity game plan, with one rotation down... We run out of legs so often, and lead games then just fall away (I even started a thread on it).
@Thry
Apart from being untouchable, what is Malthouse's role then. You have in two separate posts, absolved him of all responsibility and blamed the players (Who aren't blameless I get that). We may as well go in with no coach then?
Sorry, but these players have been here for in some cases 10 years.
Im not making Malthouse untouchable. The club needs to either do that, or tap him on the shoulder and move him on.
Regarding Port, for every Port, there is a Richmond, Melbourne, St. Kilda, Western Bulldogs and finally a CARLTON waiting to happen.
We all look starry eyed at the way Port play footy, but we dont have 3 or 4 top 5 draftees not getting a regular run in our team, waiting for an opportunity to prove their worth.
THIS ^^^^^^
It is all in the mind :o
Bulldogs players have come out and said the same thing this morning, they are enjoying football under the new coach and they win despite having 3 or 4 of their expected starting lineup on the sidelines.
the game plan has to change for 2015 so what do we see long kicks to contest ,rich players running out of def, no leading fwds ,opp players on there own,like we said on thur night NOTHING CHANGED
Bulldogs players have come out and said the same thing this morning, they are enjoying football under the new coach and they win despite having 3 or 4 of their expected starting lineup on the sidelines.
Yes, very interesting comments about the Doggies' game plan too. Going straight to the goals and not chipping the ball around and has a few adherents now.
Regarding Port, for every Port, there is a Richmond, Melbourne, St. Kilda, Western Bulldogs and finally a CARLTON waiting to happen.
We all look starry eyed at the way Port play footy, but we dont have 3 or 4 top 5 draftees not getting a regular run in our team, waiting for an opportunity to prove their worth.
But we weren't talking about class we were talking about intensity and effort. That is what took Port from a bunch of plodders to a competitive beast.
We all look starry eyed at the way Port play footy, but we dont have 3 or 4 top 5 draftees not getting a regular run in our team, waiting for an opportunity to prove their worth.
Port was a laughing stock. They get Kochie on board, appoint Hinkley and they're monties for top 4. Their list has hardly changed but the club has off field leadership and a coach who gets the best out of his players.
Our list may have some deficiencies but it's not as bad as some folk seem to think. If our coach could come up with a competitive game plan that works to our strengths, and pick a balanced side, he wouldn't have to worry too much about intensity and effort
My analysis of the game plan was, get the ball, kick it to an opponent, miss easy shots at the goals, always be behind your opponent when going for marks, don't run and spread when your team mate has the ball, stand in one position and point your fingers at a team mate and say pick him up, as things go badly do not go in hard and win the ball but hang out and try and tackle an opponent, do not make your tackles stick, and if you do win the ball, don't move the ball forward quickly. It was pretty much what it has been for the past 15 years, despite changes to coaching panel, players and administration. I think the philosophy at the club is that as long as we achieve mediocrity, we are reaching out goals. The target for this year is to achieve mediocrity. but judging on last Thursday's effort, we will need to work a lot harder to achieve it.
My analysis of the game plan was, get the ball, kick it to an opponent, miss easy shots at the goals, always be behind your opponent when going for marks, don't run and spread when your team mate has the ball, stand in one position and point your fingers at a team mate and say pick him up, as things go badly do not go in hard and win the ball but hang out and try and tackle an opponent, do not make your tackles stick, and if you do win the ball, don't move the ball forward quickly. It was pretty much what it has been for the past 15 years, despite changes to coaching panel, players and administration. I think the philosophy at the club is that as long as we achieve mediocrity, we are reaching out goals. The target for this year is to achieve mediocrity. but judging on last Thursday's effort, we will need to work a lot harder to achieve it.
As MM as said before, "Don't put a limit on it!" ;)
I heard that Frawley copped a spray from team mates for carrying the ball half the ground a roosting a 60m shot at goal that was marked by a Geelong defender. He missed spotting a team mate 30 metres away and running ahead of him.
We've got a long way to go before those disciplines are built into our game plan.
My analysis of the game plan was, get the ball, kick it to an opponent, miss easy shots at the goals, always be behind your opponent when going for marks, don't run and spread when your team mate has the ball, stand in one position and point your fingers at a team mate and say pick him up, as things go badly do not go in hard and win the ball but hang out and try and tackle an opponent, do not make your tackles stick, and if you do win the ball, don't move the ball forward quickly. It was pretty much what it has been for the past 15 years, despite changes to coaching panel, players and administration. I think the philosophy at the club is that as long as we achieve mediocrity, we are reaching out goals. The target for this year is to achieve mediocrity. but judging on last Thursday's effort, we will need to work a lot harder to achieve it.
You forgot:
- Don't attempt to smother a kick when on the mark;
- Don't try and intercept the footy
- Don't have a manic need to win the footy back after you have lost it
- Dont shepherd or block for your team mates
- Don't drop in the hole to help a team mate in defence who's caught out of position, just stare at the footy and watch it unfold (hello T Menzel)
Basically, watch Hawthorn play and inverse it.
Not sure what happened - a double post of sorts ::)
You forgot:
- Don't attempt to smother a kick when on the mark;
- Don't try and intercept the footy
- Don't have a manic need to win the footy back after you have lost it
- Dont shepherd or block for your team mates
- Don't drop in the hole to help a team mate in defence who's caught out of position, just stare at the footy and watch it unfold (hello T Menzel)
Basically, watch Hawthorn play and inverse it.
You are right, I apologise for not fully analysing the game plan.
THIS ^^^^^^
It is all in the mind :o
Agree, I have seen individuals change/grow in intensity on teams that I have played in.
we are fair dinkum minnows.
we have gone backwards since almost playing deep into sept 2011.
Whats worse, it took us 9 years to get to that point. The group lacks fierce intensity that is
going to be applied in spades by others this year. Murphy is not an AFL captain, the sooner he is relieved of this position
the better things start happening. Im sorry, but the Malthouse thing isnt going to work, he is an excuse merchant, that will
mirror the team on the field. We need a walsh hinkley type, hungry for success, not a coach that plays for $$$ and has climbed the mountain
and broken records
Did anyone catch AFL 360 last night. Both Roos and Buckley were commenting how the game has even changed this year, good teams have now become more offensive and old defensive structures and plans are being broken down easily. This is allowing a lot more momentum shifts and good players picking up 35+ possessions a week, creating chains of possessions to pick through outdated defensive Mindsets and structures.
Both coaches also said the old school lock down player is dead. you cannot have only player solely focuses on another without picking up 25 themselves in the midfield. If that player is solely focussed on another, they break down the team defence and allows opposition to expose and open them up.
No wonder we are falling further and further behind. Where is the modern coaching staff that can read changes in styles from year to year and implement new and innovative measures both defensively and offensively?
Did anyone catch AFL 360 last night. Both Roos and Buckley were commenting how the game has even changed this year, good teams have now become more offensive and old defensive structures and plans are being broken down easily. This is allowing a lot more momentum shifts and good players picking up 35+ possessions a week, creating chains of possessions to pick through outdated defensive Mindsets and structures.
Both coaches also said the old school lock down player is dead. you cannot have only player solely focuses on another without picking up 25 themselves in the midfield. If that player is solely focussed on another, they break down the team defence and allows opposition to expose and open them up.
No wonder we are falling further and further behind. Where is the modern coaching staff that can read changes in styles from year to year and implement new and innovative measures both defensively and offensively?
Firstly, good post.
Secondly, derr, it's obvious our game plan is outdated by how easily it gets dismantled!
Did anyone catch AFL 360 last night. Both Roos and Buckley were commenting how the game has even changed this year, good teams have now become more offensive and old defensive structures and plans are being broken down easily. This is allowing a lot more momentum shifts and good players picking up 35+ possessions a week, creating chains of possessions to pick through outdated defensive Mindsets and structures.
Both coaches also said the old school lock down player is dead. you cannot have only player solely focuses on another without picking up 25 themselves in the midfield. If that player is solely focussed on another, they break down the team defence and allows opposition to expose and open them up.
No wonder we are falling further and further behind. Where is the modern coaching staff that can read changes in styles from year to year and implement new and innovative measures both defensively and offensively?
They're at Syd, Freo and Hawthorn.
Can't remember which luminary was pumping up the Hawks mids the other day, suggesting they've changed even the way they contest the ball.
If it looks like they will be tackled they will keep knocking the ball to advantage or quick handballs but in the hope another player gets it. Because all the players are on the same page more often that not they know where to go before the ball is even tapped there. If it ends in the hands of the opposition it doesn't matter because they get tackled immediately. It means the Hawks mids always believe they are in control of the situation.
Who is the Hawks midfield coach again?...........
They're at Syd, Freo and Hawthorn.
Can't remember which luminary was pumping up the Hawks mids the other day, suggesting they've changed even the way they contest the ball.
If it looks like they will be tackled they will keep knocking the ball to advantage or quick handballs but in the hope another player gets it. Because all the players are on the same page more often that not they know where to go before the ball is even tapped there. If it ends in the hands of the opposition it doesn't matter because they get tackled immediately. It means the Hawks mids always believe they are in control of the situation.
Who is the Hawks midfield coach again?...........
The biggest difference I have noticed in AFL over the last two seasons in that the better clubs don't take possession of the ball!
They tap it free, fumble it free, drop it free, all apparently by complete chance in their favor! If an opponent is stupid enough to step in and try and pick it up he is smashed. The bloke picking up the ball is target fodder!
Further some of the KPPs deliberately fail to mark the ball because a mark breaks momentum. Often they fudge the mark to try and make sure it falls to their team-mates advantage rather than take control and slow the play!
Another thing, have a look at a the first few rounds this season and watch the amount of tunnel ball, it is just bizarre! That used to be deemed a throw in the old days regardless of how the ball came to be on the ground!
You may also have noticed that twice this season Hodge has run past the ball and buried his shoulder into an opponents chest. No free kick, not report, not even a mention at the MRP. Last year and for the last few years this was a charging offense. When did that change?
Finally, the number of throws, gives, Crow throws, incorrect disposals has gone up exponentially! The AFL may as well just give the handball rule away because they way they police it now it's become unenforceable!
They're at Syd, Freo and Hawthorn.
.................................
Who is the Hawks midfield coach again?...........
How does he get along with SOS?
How does he get along with SOS?
He (Ratts) was a Kernahan appointment.
Not sure what the dynamic is with these old '95 guys.
How does he get along with SOS?
Ask Fraser Brown! ;)