Let them fear Western Bulldogs - new coach Brendan McCartney

[bornadog]

Just a small question how is saying that Cross is both the youngest (fact) and fittest (fact of the list comprising Gia, Boyd, Cross, Murphy, Gilbee, Lake and Hargrave, needlessly positive?

It seems that the statement is a verifiable fact. Unless you are referring to his entire argument...

There are certain posters who just like to comment for the sake of a comment instead of having something constructive to say.

[immortalmike]

There are certain posters who just like to comment for the sake of a comment instead of having something constructive to say.

I'd like to give Desi the benefit of the doubt on this but what you say can be sometimes true of all of us. We can be a little quick to shoot down opinions we either don't like or don't agree with. I maybe have harped on about this a bit recently but I really like this board and I don't want it to turn into facebook or the other board, where all I've been reduced to doing is making fun of other posters.

[bornadog]

I'd like to give Desi the benefit of the doubt on this but what you say can be sometimes true of all of us. We can be a little quick to shoot down opinions we either don't like or don't agree with. I maybe have harped on about this a bit recently but I really like this board and I don't want it to turn into facebook or the other board, where all I've been reduced to doing is making fun of other posters.

Yes I agree, overall, the board doesn't resort to this, and certainly Desi is not in that category.

[Desipura]

Yes I agree, overall, the board doesn't resort to this, and certainly Desi is not in that category.

You see what Cross brings to the table with his fitness and immense courage.

I do not see how his fitness is superior to any other footballer playing, but what I do see is a serious lack of pace (Leigh Brown beat him in a race) in a game that is at frenetic pace. I also see how turnovers are more costly in todays game than ever before, he certainly does not deliver the ball well and in fact slows down the play so he does not turn it over).
When Cooney and Griffen are up and running I believe it masks our deficencies (lack of pace and ball use) somewhat in the midfield.

[LostDoggy]

Sorry Desi thats just not true. If you and Mantis read my post carefully you will see what I wrote. I never said that the young guys will be any good or stars or anything. I said one positive is they will have more games in them and hopefully contributing on a more consistent basis - in 2013.

I would rather go through life being positive that constantly negative like some posters.

Here Here, I'am a glass half empty type, but when it come to my beloved dogs I'am the complete opposite. Having said that Bulldogs for the 2012 flag. One thing I will get good odds !

[Ghost Dog]

I actually think we will be worse in 2013 than we are in 2012.

To be expected in the short term., Bell shaped curve. got to readjust to new situation before you can shift gears.

[Ghost Dog]

I don't know what BMac means when he uses the term (probably what you said), but I can answer the question about what it means in soccer terms -- written about it in plenty of essays over the years. From a pure tactical perspective, it was simply demanding that every player had the capacity to play every position at any time as required -- prior to that term, more conventional teams like England etc. had very static positions, a defender was a defender etc., and when you remember that soccer and rugby has shared roots, you see where that tendency comes from.

However, some soccer nations, notably Hungary, and then Brazil, had already been taking positional fluidity to new heights with attacking full-backs etc. in the 1960s and 70s.

"Total football" was taking that fluidity to the next level -- its invention as a term is generally credited to Rinus Michels as coach of Ajax and the Dutch team in the early 70s, but it was also developed at the same time by Valeriy Lobanovski of Dinamo Kyiv and Russia, which were both great, tactically advanced teams back in the day. It starts from the point of 'systems' theory, where the constant combination and recombination of the energy of 11 elements in real-time beats a static interpretation of energy -- so even though it looked a little bit like the fluid football of the Brazilians, it was a lot more systematic (the Brazilians played instinctively and systems covered for them, whereas Total Football was a commitment to a very, very developed system, with expression allowed within it).

In everyday speak, it just means that instead of starting with a 'formation' or with a 'position', every player starts with the ability to solve problems as a group, and they constantly adjust according to that. In reality, it wasn't a totally fluid system, but they did end up with a LOT more goalscoring defenders. If you watch the first half of the 1974 World Cup final (which they ended up losing), you'll see an amazing display of interchanging and passing, which the more rigid West Germans couldn't get close to. They just didn't actually score, unfortunately.

--

Some thoughts: The reality is, in footy, we have been practicing some tenets of Total Football for a long time anyway -- a lot of AFL players can play both forward and back as required, and we've had plenty of half-back flankers kicking goals on the run. However, if BMac intends it to be a tactical development, this bodes well for us -- after all, the zone and the press were developed in soccer as positional responses to Inter Milan's catenaccio (essentially an uberflood), just as it has happened in our game, and one of the tactical responses to the zone (and early press) in soccer was Total Football.

Everyone knows that the current Barcelona team is the most tactically sophisticated team in the history of soccer. Well, their footballing philosophy descends directly from that Cruyff Total Football team.. Cruyff played at Barca for years and was their director of football as well, and Michels also coached there, and they have had a massive Dutch influence over the years, especially at academy level. Barca's version of total football is far, far more developed though -- it incorporates a wide range of tactical developments, INCLUDING the press, and yes, they are so systemically dynamic that teams struggle to defend against them.

As a short-term tactical 'development', Total Football for AFL is well and fine, but the reality is, as it is for Barcelona -- truly mature tactical development takes YEARS. This is where AFL tactical development will eventually end up; after the tactical upheaval of the last 10 years (I call 1996, the year Rocket introduced the flood, 'year zero' of footy's postmodern era), where we have packed a lot of evolution into a short time after a century of stagnation, we'll end up with an entire palatte of stuff to choose from. In stockmarket parlance, tactical innovation in AFL still a growth stock, and anyone who can bring in some fully developed tactical innovation from another sport is going to get some short-term advantage and be able to sneak a flag before the game moves past you again. In five to ten years, this rate of innovation will slow down (a mature stock), and we'll only see incremental rather than revolutionary growth. At this point, teams will have to eke out marginal improvements and returns (maximise dividends) to gain advantages.

Hope I didn't bore anyone.

Jeezus C***** I feel like a dimwit after that outstanding precis. Fine reading! I think I'm gonna....just...read for a bit?
too intimidated to post now !

[G-Mo77]

I actually think we will be worse in 2013 than we are in 2012.

I can't agree or disagree as a lot of my thoughts rest on hope.

Libba and Wallis will have another season under their belts and I'm pretty positive both will be great footballers. Jones is really starting to come of age and natural progression should make him a much better footballer by 2013. Hopefully Grant (yes I still have hope), Roughead, Cordy and a few others prosper from having to shoulder a heavier load.

Sadly it all has the potential to go belly up as well and we may bottom out completely. I am concerned that we still rely on the older brigade far to much which is why 2012 we should be looking to give some of the younger players much more responsibility on the field than we have over the past few seasons.

[BornInDroopSt'54]

All I'm hearing is a lot of rhetoric

Do not underestimate rhetoric. The most powerful motivators of history have excellent rhetoric. Any great coach has it. It is essential for any leader.

I don't know what BMac means when he uses the term (probably what you said), but I can answer the question about what it means in soccer terms -- written about it in plenty of essays over the years. From a pure tactical perspective, it was simply demanding that every player had the capacity to play every position at any time as required -- prior to that term, more conventional teams like England etc. had very static positions, a defender was a defender etc., and when you remember that soccer and rugby has shared roots, you see where that tendency comes from.

However, some soccer nations, notably Hungary, and then Brazil, had already been taking positional fluidity to new heights with attacking full-backs etc. in the 1960s and 70s.

"Total football" was taking that fluidity to the next level -- its invention as a term is generally credited to Rinus Michels as coach of Ajax and the Dutch team in the early 70s, but it was also developed at the same time by Valeriy Lobanovski of Dinamo Kyiv and Russia, which were both great, tactically advanced teams back in the day. It starts from the point of 'systems' theory, where the constant combination and recombination of the energy of 11 elements in real-time beats a static interpretation of energy -- so even though it looked a little bit like the fluid football of the Brazilians, it was a lot more systematic (the Brazilians played instinctively and systems covered for them, whereas Total Football was a commitment to a very, very developed system, with expression allowed within it).

In everyday speak, it just means that instead of starting with a 'formation' or with a 'position', every player starts with the ability to solve problems as a group, and they constantly adjust according to that. In reality, it wasn't a totally fluid system, but they did end up with a LOT more goalscoring defenders. If you watch the first half of the 1974 World Cup final (which they ended up losing), you'll see an amazing display of interchanging and passing, which the more rigid West Germans couldn't get close to. They just didn't actually score, unfortunately.

--

Some thoughts: The reality is, in footy, we have been practicing some tenets of Total Football for a long time anyway -- a lot of AFL players can play both forward and back as required, and we've had plenty of half-back flankers kicking goals on the run. However, if BMac intends it to be a tactical development, this bodes well for us -- after all, the zone and the press were developed in soccer as positional responses to Inter Milan's catenaccio (essentially an uberflood), just as it has happened in our game, and one of the tactical responses to the zone (and early press) in soccer was Total Football.

Everyone knows that the current Barcelona team is the most tactically sophisticated team in the history of soccer. Well, their footballing philosophy descends directly from that Cruyff Total Football team.. Cruyff played at Barca for years and was their director of football as well, and Michels also coached there, and they have had a massive Dutch influence over the years, especially at academy level. Barca's version of total football is far, far more developed though -- it incorporates a wide range of tactical developments, INCLUDING the press, and yes, they are so systemically dynamic that teams struggle to defend against them.

As a short-term tactical 'development', Total Football for AFL is well and fine, but the reality is, as it is for Barcelona -- truly mature tactical development takes YEARS. This is where AFL tactical development will eventually end up; after the tactical upheaval of the last 10 years (I call 1996, the year Rocket introduced the flood, 'year zero' of footy's postmodern era), where we have packed a lot of evolution into a short time after a century of stagnation, we'll end up with an entire palatte of stuff to choose from. In stockmarket parlance, tactical innovation in AFL still a growth stock, and anyone who can bring in some fully developed tactical innovation from another sport is going to get some short-term advantage and be able to sneak a flag before the game moves past you again. In five to ten years, this rate of innovation will slow down (a mature stock), and we'll only see incremental rather than revolutionary growth. At this point, teams will have to eke out marginal improvements and returns (maximise dividends) to gain advantages.

Hope I didn't bore anyone.

Thanks that makes it easy to understand the development of tactics in soccer and footy. Its interesting how transferable these skills are between codes. Tactics would be more critical in soccer because of the difficulty in scoring, smaller goals and smaller playing field. The length of time it takes for a coach to develop or inculcate tactics in a playing group seems to be a few years, during which the team's results can actually go backwards.

[Mofra]

Thanks that makes it easy to understand the development of tactics in soccer and footy. Its interesting how transferable these skills are between codes. Tactics would be more critical in soccer because of the difficulty in scoring, smaller goals and smaller playing field. The length of time it takes for a coach to develop or inculcate tactics in a playing group seems to be a few years, during which the team's results can actually go backwards.

When kicking out, Terry Wallace adopted a system from basketball that worked quite well for a number of years - had it explained to me years ago by a (now) basketball hall of famer.
"Pitch & roll" or something similar was the name

[AndrewP6]

When kicking out, Terry Wallace adopted a system from basketball that worked quite well for a number of years - had it explained to me years ago by a (now) basketball hall of famer.
"Pitch & roll" or something similar was the name

Theres a basketball tactic called a "pick and roll", is that it?

[BornInDroopSt'54]

Theres a basketball tactic called a "pick and roll", is that it?

What's that involve Andrew?

[Mofra]

Theres a basketball tactic called a "pick and roll", is that it?

That would most likely be it

[AndrewP6]

What's that involve Andrew?

THis could be hard without a diagram . Here goes:

Player A (often the ball carrier) is being closely guarded. Their teammate, Player B, moves up, and stands in a spot where Player A can move forward, 'running' the defender into the teammate (This is the 'pick'). If done effectively, this should leave the defender behind the play, and give an advantage to the offensive team. The "roll" is when Player B, after setting the pick, moves towards the basket, and then often receives a pass for an easy (or easier) shot. As an old mate of mine (an American born, adopted Aussie) would often tell me... "The one who sets the picks gets the chicks"

The theory being if you work to get your teammates free, it can result in you getting the shot.

There, clear as mud?

[hujsh]

Even knowing what a pick and roll is it's hard to see how it was applied to AFL.