Re: Will it stand up? Reply #60 – April 22, 2014, 04:00:43 pm Quote from: blue4life – on April 22, 2014, 03:48:58 pmI don't see anything particularly negative in Malthouse's style and never have.You obviously missed the first four rounds! Quote Selected
Re: Will it stand up? Reply #61 – April 22, 2014, 04:04:47 pm Quote from: blue4life – on April 22, 2014, 03:48:58 pmI don't see anything particularly negative in Malthouse's style and never have.I think you are missing the point B4L, because this debate has grown out of the MM game plans suitability to the list. It is not a pure tactical discussion on which method is better, I am sure that given a compatible list any game plan could succeed.Coaches don't have Carte Blanche, they have to work with what they have got!For people to be on here arguing the way we played on Sunday, in attacking through the midfield off the HBF, is not significantly different to the way we played in other matches is just bogus!We need to get the ball forward as quickly as possible, and that means no boundary line stop start chip kicking rubbish! That is how we played on Sunday and that is how we can give our medium sized forwards and pace laden mids a chance against Gorilla defenders and zones!Spread and run means Nada once an opponent sets up a zone! Quote Selected Last Edit: April 22, 2014, 04:13:29 pm by LP
Re: Will it stand up? Reply #62 – April 22, 2014, 04:13:28 pm Quote from: PassIt2Carrots – on April 22, 2014, 04:00:43 pmQuote from: blue4life – on April 22, 2014, 03:48:58 pmI don't see anything particularly negative in Malthouse's style and never have.You obviously missed the first four rounds!Hardly, but touche.The biggest difference was the skills as I saw it, we absolutely butchered the ball in the first quarter against Essendon and the air just went out of our tyres after that, against Richmond we missed at least 7 or 8 simple shots at goal and against Melbourne we couldn't hit the side of a barn.Somehow, for reasons that will probably never be explained, that all turned around on Sunday and we looked like a completely different football team.Confidence in yourself and your team mates is a wonderful thing, I wish we could bottle it. Quote Selected
Re: Will it stand up? Reply #63 – April 22, 2014, 04:21:05 pm Quote from: LP – on April 22, 2014, 02:25:29 pmQuote from: Thryleon – on April 22, 2014, 01:05:06 pmCarrazzo's interview yesterday.He states that the game plan didn't change but the execution of it did.Did he say that, or did he say "Didn't change much?"I would reckon it didn't change much, about the length of the center square! Warnock also agrees with Carrazzo.I think our execution of the game plan changed more than the plan did and I can't see how our plan changed remarkably in such a short space of time.I reckon we are just improving our ability to execute ithttp://youtu.be/W1UfRdO8TBo Quote Selected
Re: Will it stand up? Reply #64 – April 22, 2014, 04:22:42 pm Quote from: LP – on April 22, 2014, 04:04:47 pmCoaches don't have Carte Blanche, they have to work with what they have got!Coaches also need to go with what they know will lead to the ultimate success, there's no point milking wins out of players who ultimately aren't good enough to win a flag, even though a few wins keep the wolves at bay.Quote from: LP – on April 22, 2014, 04:04:47 pmFor people to be on here arguing the way we played on Sunday, in attacking through the midfield off the HBF, is not significantly different to the way we played in other matches is just bogus!We need to get the ball forward as quickly as possible, and that means no boundary line stop start chip kicking rubbish! That is how we played on Sunday and that is how we can give our medium sized forwards and pace laden mids a chance against Gorilla defenders and zones!Spread and run means Nada once an opponent sets up a zone!Better teams won't let us do what we did on Sunday.Most people had Footscray bottom four this season and it's not as if we've made huge strides anyway, their losing score was the highest of the round.There's more pain to come until we can get somewhere near our best 22 on the park. Quote Selected
Re: Will it stand up? Reply #65 – April 22, 2014, 04:27:04 pm Quote from: cookie2 – on April 22, 2014, 02:39:21 pmQuote from: shadesy – on April 22, 2014, 02:23:14 pmQuote from: cookie2 – on April 22, 2014, 11:53:16 amMM's style is based on hard running and workrate - he's stated that numerous times. If we try to play his style and don't put in then we get punished. We did put in for part of the games against Port and the Tigers (to a lesser degree admittedly) and for most of the game v. the Dogs. We looked OK at those times and we have to find a way to front up every week and do it. If we can, then we could gain some respectability by year end. There'll still be plenty of change to the list though IMO.Which is also true. However and this concerned me last year... Collingwood were known for the ridiculous high number of rotations. More than any other club and frequently allowing players to rest and recover to implement a high intensity gameplan. a number i seem to remember is 150 plus.Now we have a cap limit and a sub.... so surely Malthouse must himself tinker with the Gameplan to fit the rules.You'd have to think so Shadesy. Maybe a bit of tempo footy or keepings off to give the boys a breather at times during the game. That's where we've been falling down a bit though and making mistakes. It was very noticeable v Port and the Tigers. We just didn't get started against the Bummers and the Dees. On Sunday, you could see us come off the gas a bit halfway through the 3Q and into the 4Q before picking it up again. The Dogs couldn't capitalise though.If our fitness improves we may be able to keep it going longer in a game as the year goes on?You will never dominate games of footy for 4 quarters but i think Carrots mentioned, we only ever gave up 3 goals in a row. So i dont know if we took the foot off the gas, but you can throw a blanket over 12-14 teams, so they are going to get mini run ons. This Group (under both Ratten and Malthouse) give up multiple 5 goals leads over and over again. So this was a positive. There was some slow ball and boundary line play, so the gameplan "MAY" not have in fact changed, but the run and spread and take the game Attitude from the players and ultimately the coach was a huge difference from the first 4 rounds. And players are going to work harder if they know that they might get a kick at the end of it.. ;-)What I hope was Malthouse can identify and arrest this. Last year (as Kruddler pointed out and I agree) Malthouse was able to keep the team competitive in almost EVERY game (Collingwood and maybe Sydney in the wet aside) it was either the Fitness, lack of match awareness or just down right dumbness that we gave up leads of over 16 points on 11 occasions last year. lets hope our fitness does improve as does Malthouses ability to work with the group he has. Quote Selected
Re: Will it stand up? Reply #66 – April 22, 2014, 04:50:27 pm @ShadesyWhen I said "eased of the gas", I meant that you can't physically keep up a highly intense level of pressure for the whole game and you need to slow things down at times to take a breather. You try to do this in a controlled way without totally handing the initiative over to the opposition. I think we may have done that v. the Dogs, and didn't lose focus or control of the game. That has not been the case in other games, the Port game springs to mind. Quote Selected
Re: Will it stand up? Reply #67 – April 22, 2014, 04:55:08 pm @ Cookie.Sorry mate, understood, I was actually agreeing with your post.I agree.Its been a huge problem, getting 4 goals up and letting a team back in where they kick 7-8 goals and then never look back. It was only the bulldogs, but its a start. Quote Selected
Re: Will it stand up? Reply #68 – April 22, 2014, 04:59:22 pm Quote from: shadesy – on April 22, 2014, 04:55:08 pm@ Cookie.Sorry mate, understood, I was actually agreeing with your post.I agree.Its been a huge problem, getting 4 goals up and letting a team back in where they kick 7-8 goals and then never look back. It was only the bulldogs, but its a start.And when those runs occur, its the mids in the centre that need to put a stop to it. No use relying on the defenders when it comes streaming in time after time. Quote Selected
Re: Will it stand up? Reply #69 – April 22, 2014, 05:00:07 pm @ Shadesy Both on the same page Quote Selected
Re: Will it stand up? Reply #70 – April 23, 2014, 08:16:50 am QuoteRobbo HS 23/4/14THE armchair critics were wrong about Mick Malthouse’s Blues.The turnaround from chumps against Melbourne to champs against the Western Bulldogs didn’t come on the back of a radical game-plan change.They increased their numbers of playing-on from a mark or free kick and increased their tackle count, and other than that it was the same old Blues.If you categorise a more aggressive attitude as part of the game plan, then Malthouse did change it up.But when does attitude come under strategy?Attitude should be commonplace and strategy the cream on top.If anything, Carlton’s strategy against the Western Bulldogs wasn’t radical at all: Run hard, pressure, defend, have numbers at the contest, move it quick, move it better, and give your forwards an opportunity to go one-one-on.It’s just that the Blues weren’t able to execute it over the previous two weeks.Champion Data statistics show Malthouse didn’t avert from his trusted game plan.Marc Murphy and the Blues got on their bike against the Bulldogs. Picture: Michael Klein Source: News Corp AustraliaFrom Rounds 1-4, his players used the central corridor 25.1 per cent of play.Against the Bulldogs it was 25.2 per cent.From Rounds 1-4, they used the wing 34.1 per cent.Against the Bulldogs it was 35.4 per cent.From Rounds 1-4, they used the boundary, which has always been Malthouse’s love child, a majority 40.8 per cent.Against the Bulldogs, it was 39.4 per cent, a drop of just one It’s hardly a major shift in philosophy from Matlhouse.The kick to handball ratio wasn’t vastly different either. It was 1.4:1 over the first four weeks to 1.37:1 against the Dogs.No, Malthouse stuck to his 28-year-old guns and this time he was aided by an edginess from his players.They played on from the defensive 50 and through the middle 57 per cent of the time, and over the first four weeks it was 46.2 per cent, which by the way were both ranked No.1.Clearly, the biggest change in Carlton was increased tackling and better use of the pill.They recorded 88 tackles, almost 20 more than any game they’ve played in this year and hit their targets at a season-high 66.5 per cent.The forward line worked a lot better.They goaled 21.8 per cent of the time in the first month, ranked 15th, and against the Dogs it was 36 per cent, the second best of the round.They are numbers, but a fundamental change was the contribution of players.What a difference it makes having their best four running defenders _ Kade Simpson, Andrew Walker, Chris Yarran and Zach Tuohy _ in the same team and taking on the game, while Dale Thomas could be seen streaming down the ground with the ball.Marc Murphy and Bryce Gibbs won the middle, Jarrad Waite and Lachie Henderson benefited up forward, and Sam Rowe and Simon White held down the tall defensive posts.Indeed, the game style can appear different when attitude is where it should be.THE STATS THAT MATTER:R1-4 // v BulldogsCorridor 25.1% / 25.2%Wing 34.1% / 35.4%Boundary 40.8% / 39.4%Kick-to-handball 1.44:1 / 1.37:1Mark play on (D50m/Mid) 46.2% / 57.1%TACKLESR1 57R2 69R3 57R4 65R5 88Source: CHAMPION DATAMy bold. Stats don't lie. Quote Selected
Re: Will it stand up? Reply #71 – April 23, 2014, 08:41:33 am Good get Goat - thanks for sharing. Quote Selected
Re: Will it stand up? Reply #72 – April 23, 2014, 09:42:15 am Quote from: Goat – on April 23, 2014, 08:16:50 amQuoteRobbo HS 23/4/14THE armchair critics were wrong about Mick Malthouse’s Blues.The turnaround from chumps against Melbourne to champs against the Western Bulldogs didn’t come on the back of a radical game-plan change.They increased their numbers of playing-on from a mark or free kick and increased their tackle count, and other than that it was the same old Blues.If you categorise a more aggressive attitude as part of the game plan, then Malthouse did change it up.But when does attitude come under strategy?Attitude should be commonplace and strategy the cream on top.If anything, Carlton’s strategy against the Western Bulldogs wasn’t radical at all: Run hard, pressure, defend, have numbers at the contest, move it quick, move it better, and give your forwards an opportunity to go one-one-on.It’s just that the Blues weren’t able to execute it over the previous two weeks.Champion Data statistics show Malthouse didn’t avert from his trusted game plan.Marc Murphy and the Blues got on their bike against the Bulldogs. Picture: Michael Klein Source: News Corp AustraliaFrom Rounds 1-4, his players used the central corridor 25.1 per cent of play.Against the Bulldogs it was 25.2 per cent.From Rounds 1-4, they used the wing 34.1 per cent.Against the Bulldogs it was 35.4 per cent.From Rounds 1-4, they used the boundary, which has always been Malthouse’s love child, a majority 40.8 per cent.Against the Bulldogs, it was 39.4 per cent, a drop of just one It’s hardly a major shift in philosophy from Matlhouse.The kick to handball ratio wasn’t vastly different either. It was 1.4:1 over the first four weeks to 1.37:1 against the Dogs.No, Malthouse stuck to his 28-year-old guns and this time he was aided by an edginess from his players.They played on from the defensive 50 and through the middle 57 per cent of the time, and over the first four weeks it was 46.2 per cent, which by the way were both ranked No.1.Clearly, the biggest change in Carlton was increased tackling and better use of the pill.They recorded 88 tackles, almost 20 more than any game they’ve played in this year and hit their targets at a season-high 66.5 per cent.The forward line worked a lot better.They goaled 21.8 per cent of the time in the first month, ranked 15th, and against the Dogs it was 36 per cent, the second best of the round.They are numbers, but a fundamental change was the contribution of players.What a difference it makes having their best four running defenders _ Kade Simpson, Andrew Walker, Chris Yarran and Zach Tuohy _ in the same team and taking on the game, while Dale Thomas could be seen streaming down the ground with the ball.Marc Murphy and Bryce Gibbs won the middle, Jarrad Waite and Lachie Henderson benefited up forward, and Sam Rowe and Simon White held down the tall defensive posts.Indeed, the game style can appear different when attitude is where it should be.THE STATS THAT MATTER:R1-4 // v BulldogsCorridor 25.1% / 25.2%Wing 34.1% / 35.4%Boundary 40.8% / 39.4%Kick-to-handball 1.44:1 / 1.37:1Mark play on (D50m/Mid) 46.2% / 57.1%TACKLESR1 57R2 69R3 57R4 65R5 88Source: CHAMPION DATAMy bold. Stats don't lie. Mirrored my thoughts also. Better ball use and intensity at the contest was the difference between last week and the previous four weeks. Malthouse's game plan isn't just to play around the boundary line kicking to 50/50 contests. The 50/50 contest kick is just the fall back option if you don't have something better available to you. In order to be successful, this plan relies on any team Malthouse is coaching to go absolutely hell for leather at that 50/50 contest to ensure you win far more than 50% of them and then keep moving the ball forward.It's an incredibly logical game plan, really. If you can use the ball well and hit your targets when they are open, you keep control of the game and keep it going in the direction you want it to go. If you win more than 50% of the 50/50 contests you kick long to when you don't have a better option open then you're already ahead of the curve. The more of those contests you win, the more opportunity you have to keep the ball moving forward.It's not an unattractive style when it is executed properly. As much as I hate to say it, Collingwood were far from an ugly side under Malthouse, and the West Coast Eagles were electric.We made it ugly because our execution was horrendous from rounds 1-4. We were missing our shorter targets, so we gradually started losing the confidence to look for them. Instead, we fell into the back up option of kicking long to 50/50 contests... which we also lost far more than 50% of during those rounds because we weren't even attacking those contests with the gusto you need to make the game plan effective.As a result, we saw MASSIVE differentials in the number of possessions our boys were accumulating and the number of possessions our opponents were accumulating. We were effectively giving our opponents control of the game through poor execution of skills and lack of intensity at the contest.The stats in that HS article clearly show that there wasn't very much overall difference in our basic methodology against the Doggies compared with previous weeks, however most people on here, who watch a hell of a lot of football, felt like they were watching an entirely different side play.The thing is, they were right but it wasn't because of game plan. We started hitting our shorter targets with more precision, so regained the confidence to use them more. When we did kick long to contests, we busted our rings to win as many of them as we could and therefore continue moving the ball forward.We still have considerable improvements to make in both of those areas (around the ground ball use and intensity at the contests) which will hopefully result in us winning more games by bigger margins, but it's not Malthouse's game plan that has been holding us back. It has been our rubbish execution of it or inability to understand that it requires two absolute non-negotiables in order to really work.1. Excellent disposal and decision making so as to make use of the short or running targets as a first option.2. Explosive intensity at the contest when we kick to a 50/50.If you're executing item 1 efficiently and effectively, then you only need to win more than 50% of item 2 contests and you SHOULD win a football game.It's that simple. Quote Selected
Re: Will it stand up? Reply #73 – April 23, 2014, 09:48:08 am The stats don't tell you where they entered the corridor, only how often they go there!It was obvious compared to the early rounds that the players ran through the center square from HB far more than previous games. Early into the season we ran the ball deep into the HFF and often had a stoppage on the boundary line near the F50 arc.I suspect the change in game plan comes off the statements early last week implied the players would be freed up and allowed to play football. I liked the term "allowed", it suggests that probably MM didn't believe they were capable of succeeding in that style of game. From MMs perspective given our very poor DE statistics understandably so, I get why the change was so reluctant!In the first four rounds there was only one clear attacking pass into the midfield off the HBF, it stood out like the proverbial dogs balls, and came from Jammo cutting inboard to a player on the run through the midfield. So I gather he was either the only player following "The Plan", or the only player prepared to defy it! Quote Selected
Re: Will it stand up? Reply #74 – April 23, 2014, 10:26:55 am Quote from: LP – on April 23, 2014, 09:48:08 amI suspect the change in game plan comes off the statements early last week implied the players would be freed up and allowed to play football. I liked the term "allowed", it suggests that probably MM didn't believe they were capable of succeeding in that style of game. From MMs perspective given our very poor DE statistics understandably so, I get why the change was so reluctant!Does anyone honestly believe that public statements made by AFL coaches and football clubs should be taken seriously?It's all spin and gamesmanship, the general public will never know what's said behind closed doors, or what tactics will be used on game day. Quote Selected
Topic: Will it stand up? (Read 66592 times)
previous topic - next topic
Topic: Will it stand up? (Read 66592 times)
previous topic - next topic