My observation's

[LostDoggy]

Re: My observation's

I honestly don't take anything out of pre season games, it all counts for nothing when the real thing starts.

You just have to look at previous seasons to know that.

NAB Cup

2005 Carlton (finished 16th)
2006 Geelong (finished 10th)
2007 Carlton (finished 15th)

I honestly don't think anything you see in pre season counts, all it's about is running players into match fitness & that's all.

[alwaysadog]

Re: My observation's

I am not predicting doom & gloom, well not yet, and as muttley picked up it's a observation thread NOT a 'bagging' thread... . And yes they are just my observations.

I could take issue with you about this and that Mantis, but I think the general impression you reflect is valid. It's not all doom and gloom, but as of now there's very little evidence of the hot to trot super fit bunch who have made the significant strides, that we expected.

I don't think the way we rotated we could have won but I didn't like our lack of competitiveness. It well may be that in terms of match readiness we have been working on things which will pay off in the longer term. We have to hope so. As often happens some sides peak for round one and then flutter briefly... and some improve as the season unfolds.

As you said the observations so far haven't been flash hot. We just have to hope that we start to heat up over the next few weeks and make round one on the boil and stay there.

[Bornadog]

Re: My observation's

I honestly don't take anything out of pre season games, it all counts for nothing when the real thing starts.

You just have to look at previous seasons to know that.

NAB Cup

2005 Carlton (finished 16th)
2006 Geelong (finished 10th)
2007 Carlton (finished 15th)

I honestly don't think anything you see in pre season counts, all it's about is running players into match fitness & that's all.

Carlton beat Hawthorn today, wow, hooray they are going to win the premiership this year

[LostDoggy]

Re: My observation's

More likely that in 10 years time we'll have finals decided by away goals or penalties.




No, that's what they should have done.

What they should do now is admit how wrong they were and CHANGE THE ****ING RULES BACK.

What's absolutely funny is that after I went away after writing that thread, I thought almost exactly the same thing -- I was thinking: then games will become low scoring affairs with scorelines of 1.1.7 - 2.1.13.

Not all that fanciful: In the first 70 years or so of soccer after it was codified in the 1880s, scores of 17 - 12, or 13 - 10 were common, very high scoring. As the game evolved defences improved to the point where now the average goals per game hovers around 2 to 2.5 (depending on the league).

AFL has never had that evolution of possession and zonal defence until very recently. I believe the first real game of 21st century possession footy was Sydney vs. Brisbane, round 1 2004 [I think]). Brisbane were reigning champions and Sydney was playing their first full season under Roos, and they came out determined to hang on to the ball and keep the scores as low as possible (lost by less than a goal in a very slow, low scoring affair). If some teams are intent on using these tactics (like Roos and Sydney were) change is inevitable -- English soccer teams refused to evolve for a long time, even as teams like Italy and Hungary were starting to play short-passing, possession football, and England were torn apart many a time when they rejoined international competition. English football (national team, not their mutinational club sides) has been catching up tactically ever since.

I totally agree with the no-farking-about-with-the-rules-in-the-first-place principle. Good luck (really!) changing them back. Behind you all the way -- just let us know where to sign the petition!

[alwaysadog]

Re: My observation's

What's absolutely funny is that after I went away after writing that thread, I thought almost exactly the same thing -- I was thinking: then games will become low scoring affairs with scorelines of 1.1.7 - 2.1.13.

Not all that fanciful: In the first 70 years or so of soccer after it was codified in the 1880s, scores of 17 - 12, or 13 - 10 were common, very high scoring. As the game evolved defences improved to the point where now the average goals per game hovers around 2 to 2.5 (depending on the league).

AFL has never had that evolution of possession and zonal defence until very recently. I believe the first real game of 21st century possession footy was Sydney vs. Brisbane, round 1 2004 [I think]). Brisbane were reigning champions and Sydney was playing their first full season under Roos, and they came out determined to hang on to the ball and keep the scores as low as possible (lost by less than a goal in a very slow, low scoring affair). If some teams are intent on using these tactics (like Roos and Sydney were) change is inevitable -- English soccer teams refused to evolve for a long time, even as teams like Italy and Hungary were starting to play short-passing, possession football, and England were torn apart many a time when they rejoined international competition. English football (national team, not their mutinational club sides) has been catching up tactically ever since.

I totally agree with the no-farking-about-with-the-rules-in-the-first-place principle. Good luck (really!) changing them back. Behind you all the way -- just let us know where to sign the petition!

One thing that is a constant in all this is the AFL's determination to micromanage the game in the direction they want; they would say hasten and assist its development.

To ask for less tinkering or an undoing of recent changes is not only anti axiomatic; it would tantamount to accepting on their part, that they have been wrong.

Now that is not possible, recall George W's difficulty at his final press conference. He not only had no regrets he couldn't think of things he would have done differently. Thus spake Zarathustra!

If the changes so far have not produced a non-stop all action, high-scoring game then dig a bunker and brace yourself for more changes. You ain't seen nothing yet.

[LostDoggy]

Re: My observation's

One thing that seems to have become abundantly clear with the recent "evolution" of the game is that 3 things- disposal skills, the importance of players who can evasively 'break the lines', and forward defensive pressure seem to be essential to success, and not just 'bonuses' as they might have been 3 years ago.
In terms of the doggies I'm thinking of Griffen as a line breaker and penetrating, fast through the air kick and why we all seem to rest alot on his shoulders, Eagleton- whose previously game changing disposal skills have appreciably declined, and now faces derision from many of us when he stuffs up- Johnson and Akermanis who despite their sublime skills and footy intelligence can nonetheless expose the team when there are turnovers.
In fact "ageing" footballers are at higher risk these days possibly because: they are less adaptable to new game plans, and this, added to their inevitably reduced athleticism means their "turn around" time results in reduced effectiveness
(ie: ability to recover from changes when a pattern of play is disrupted).
I'm wondering whether modern footy is increasingly becoming a dictatorship of youth.

All a bit pseudo- analytical I know- but I suspect thats why so many people seem to be recently ambivalent about Johnson and Akermanis and their value to the team. Both have clearly won games off their own boot throughout their mature careers, but is there a trade off the other way worth paying for?
If its not worth the trade off, I think the game is at risk of becoming 'strategized' out of existence.

[LostDoggy]

Re: My observation's

Good read, Mantis, well written.

There aren't too many things that I would disagree in this piece. Having had the displeasure of watching all 3 of our games as well, 2 live and one on fox replay, I can say that we have a lot of work to on our skill level and decision making before now and the begining of the season.

I barely watched the second half, we looked like we weren't trying and I spent o most of the half chatting to mates and St Kilda supporters abouyt how bad the spectacle was!

I didn't interpret this piece as Mantis predicting gloom and doom for the season, I think he has outlined the obvious deficiancies in style and what we need to improve on. Nobody that has been there over the last 3 weeks can honestly say that we are setting the world on fire. We look like a team that hasn't had a lot of footy in our hands of late. Mantis has given a snap shot of where we are at right now and most of what he has commented on is indicative of some long standing problems we've had.

Gee whiz, super impressed with the back 3 of Tiller, Callan and Addison. I really think we are building a very solid backline, with the inclusion of a fit Williams??????? we will be very strong back there. Our skills out of defence are atrocious, without Gilbs back there we look bad. Everitt kicking is hopeless at the moment and his choice of targetr is severly lacking in advantage to the team.

Higgins needs find more time when he has the ball, he gets leather poinsoning but uses the ball poorly. He looks rushed when he gets the ball and his left peg is horrible. He needs to slow down a bit and hit his targets, having said that he is only a kid and will be the captain of our club down the track.

[Missing Dog]

Re: My observation's

Hargrave is very important to. He isn't quite as good a kick, but at least he takes the pressure off Gilbee and it can release Gilbee to play further up the ground

[Mantis]

Re: My observation's

Hargrave is very important to. He isn't quite as good a kick, but at least he takes the pressure off Gilbee and it can release Gilbee to play further up the ground

That's probably something that will be and should be looked at.

With the development of Callan, Addison & Tiller as defenders and hopefully Everitt & Williams we look ok in defence with Hargrave, Morris & Lake as the constants.

Gilbee looks to have fine downed this year so hopefully he could play off a wing and use his exceptional kicking skills going forward. It would severely weaken the skill level in the back half, but hopefully the younger guys down there relish the challenge because they have all shown the ability to use the ball well.

[azabob]

Re: My observation's

Hargrave is very important to. He isn't quite as good a kick, but at least he takes the pressure off Gilbee and it can release Gilbee to play further up the ground

As strange as it may sound, I dont think Gilbee would suceed in the midfield. I dont think he would be able to handle the physical pressure and presence of opposition players around him. I know that sounds strange as he doesn't panic in defence but I think its a different type of pressure down there, you know where the opposisiton is coming from but in the midfield you dont.

[GVGjr]

Re: My observation's

As strange as it may sound, I dont think Gilbee would suceed in the midfield. I dont think he would be able to handle the physical pressure and presence of opposition players around him. I know that sounds strange as he doesn't panic in defence but I think its a different type of pressure down there, you know where the opposisiton is coming from but in the midfield you dont.

It's a valid observation and one that has been bandied around here a fair bit but I still don't necessarily agree with it. The quality of his kicking to the forwards would result in some easy goals and well worth a trial.

[azabob]

Re: My observation's

It's a valid observation and one that has been bandied around here a fair bit but I still don't necessarily agree with it. The quality of his kicking to the forwards would result in some easy goals and well worth a trial.

Yep I cant see the harm in trying it. Or maybe play him more off half back line where he will play majority in the middle anyhow rather than play him as the 3rd tall defender. But that all depends on wether Williams, Everitt or Tiller stand up and play as the third defender. At this stage for whatever reason injuries, poor form only Tiller seems to be making a case for this position from what I have read on this forum in pre season games.

[Bornadog]

Re: My observation's

Yep I cant see the harm in trying it. Or maybe play him more off half back line where he will play majority in the middle anyhow rather than play him as the 3rd tall defender. But that all depends on wether Williams, Everitt or Tiller stand up and play as the third defender. At this stage for whatever reason injuries, poor form only Tiller seems to be making a case for this position from what I have read on this forum in pre season games.

Like a Hodge role.

[LostDoggy]

Re: My observation's

Carlton beat Hawthorn today, wow, hooray they are going to win the premiership this year

Exactly my point.

[LostDoggy]

Re: My observation's

More likely that in 10 years time we'll have finals decided by away goals or penalties.




No, that's what they should have done.

What they should do now is admit how wrong they were and CHANGE THE ****ING RULES BACK.

Rules tinkering is backfiring: Roos
Michael Cowley, Sydney | March 4, 2009

SYDNEY coach Paul Roos says the AFL's desire to speed up the game by continually tinkering with rules each season has backfired and been the catalyst behind what critics are calling ugly, defence-based, football.

After the rolling-zone defence proved successful for Hawthorn in last year's grand final win over Geelong, many teams have adopted a similar strategy in the pre-season.

It was only four years ago that Roos's team was being tagged with a similar moniker by chief executive Andrew Demetriou but then because they played hard, man-on-man, defensive-style football.

"It is good for a change that we're not being called ugly," Roos said jokingly. "The ironic thing is that the two grand finals that were the most one-on-one contests and the most physical, and with no flooding and no zones, were the '05 and '06 ones and we were criticised in 2005 for ugly footy.

"My concern is some of the rule changes are starting to catch up with us a little bit. In a sense, the lawmakers have got what they want, but that was my point all along, you had better be careful what you wish for because this is what you're going to get. A lot of the rule changes have contributed to what we are starting to see now.

"With all the rule changes it has lent itself to zoning and flooding, and that's probably the disappointing thing, and now people are talking about changing more rules to stop what's going on now. A number of people have said all along, let the game evolve, but unfortunately they have tampered with the rules, which has now meant there is greater incentive for zoning and that's the frustrating thing.

"Blokes now have less time with the footy. Three or four years you could have 20 seconds to make a decision then they brought it down to 15 seconds, then to 10 seconds. You just haven't got time now. You haven't got time to go back and take your kick and hit a target. Basically, the ball is in motion so often because the umpires are calling play on so quickly.

"And the kicking backwards (which is now play on) is a disaster and falls right into the trap of the zoning teams all the time. Then you have the rushed behind rule (a free kick is now awarded for intentionally rushed behinds), you can't rush it through, so what are teams going to do? If you could rush it through, teams are more likely to go man on man, but you can't rush it through so they just set up in their zone and let you kick it back in.

"If you ask me I'd wind the clock back and change all the rules back to what they were, but they are not going to do that, so I think you've got to weather the storm and see what happens."
Roos says his side will not use the tactic, because they are "not set up for it as a team".

He agreed with Collingwood's Mick Malthouse and Essendon mentor Matthew Knights that "you can't change a style based on what someone else does if you can't deliver the style".

"Some clubs will do it I suspect it will be about 50-50, eight teams will zone and eight teams won't but what every club will do is try to find a way through it and we've been working really hard to find a way through it," Roos said.

Roos confirmed the Swans will field their strongest line-up of the pre-season this Saturday against the Western Bulldogs, with Brett Kirk, Paul Bevan and Heath Grundy back after a week's break, and Lewis Roberts-Thomson returns from injury.