My observation's

[Before I Die]

Re: My observation's

I haven't seen much footy this year - what do you mean by a rolling zone? A midfield flood wherever the ball is? How is it different to what the Swans do?

As with all zones/floods there are variations, but picture a grid of twelve players, four wide and three deep all about 20 metres apart. You can't kick over it, any pass within it has to be absolutely pin point, and any player with the ball inside it has four opponents within 10 metres bearing down on them with another wave outside that. As soon as the ball turns over the players on the grid points become overlapping free runners. It is called a rolling zone because it rolls from side to side if you try to go around it. It also helps if the players you leave in your forward line are Franklin, Roughead and Rioli. You leave one or two in the backline and have a ruckman follow the ball.

Unlike the Swans flood which falls back inside the 50 metre arc, the rolling zone sits between the arcs.

[hujsh]

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.

Sitting through yesterday's game was painful, not because of the result or because our youngsters showed little it was, as I pointed because our senior players were very poor. Hopefully they can turn it around when the proper stuff starts, but on their performances yesterday & in the first couple of games they have a fair way to go. (And the senior players I'm referring to are Johnson, Cross, Boyd, Lake, Cross, Eagleton & Gia whose decision making and skill execution have been less than satisfactory)

Was another player supposed to be a Cross or did you forget you wrote him once.

Or was he that bad he needed two mentions?

[Dry Rot]

Re: My observation's

No I think he was more reffering to the 18 man zone Hawthorn are famous for, dubbed by the media Clarko's cluster. I hope teams dont bring this crap into the regular season, terrible to watch.

As with all zones/floods there are variations, but picture a grid of twelve players, four wide and three deep all about 20 metres apart. You can't kick over it, any pass within it has to be absolutely pin point, and any player with the ball inside it has four opponents within 10 metres bearing down on them with another wave outside that. As soon as the ball turns over the players on the grid points become overlapping free runners. It is called a rolling zone because it rolls from side to side if you try to go around it. It also helps if the players you leave in your forward line are Franklin, Roughead and Rioli. You leave one or two in the backline and have a ruckman follow the ball.

Unlike the Swans flood which falls back inside the 50 metre arc, the rolling zone sits between the arcs.

Thanks.

Presume it is so deep that a quick booming kick won't clear it and open up opportunities for the forwards. Otherwise I suppose you need a good lead-up tall contested mark taking CHF?

We could be in real trouble with everyone does this stuff.

[Bornadog]

Re: My observation's

Sitting through yesterday's game was painful,

Thats why I don't go to practise matches

[Sockeye Salmon]

Re: My observation's

Thanks.

Presume it is so deep that a quick booming kick won't clear it and open up opportunities for the forwards. Otherwise I suppose you need a good lead-up tall contested mark taking CHF?

We could be in real trouble with everyone does this stuff.

A good CHF wouldn't hurt, but wouldn't necessarily be the answer either.

4 defenders are within 10 metres. Kick the ball long to him and he'll be swamped, they've all got plenty of time to get there.

[LostDoggy]

Re: My observation's

Re: Rolling Zone

Didnt we pick the rolling zone apart with clean skills when we beat Hawthorn in Tassie last year?

If so, then the answer to the rolling flood has to be clean foot skills and ability to hit targets.

Smaller quicker forwards may be the answer to get in between the zone. We have a few of those.

Personally, I reckon we are better equipped to handle the rolling zone than some other teams. (as long as our foot skills are up to scratch )

[LostDoggy]

Re: My observation's

No because the opposition would just put more number's behind the ball



This problem has been caused by the AFL fart arsing around with the rules. It is now almost impossible for a defender to play one on one with his opponent. So to counter act this teams don't allow one on one contests in the forward 50.

Spot on Mantis this is the smartest observation of have seen on this website recently.
The ridiculous soft hands in the back rule has turned into a monster with this rolling zone
or flood not allowing one on one contests anymore let alone in the forward line.

Another thing we can see is an increase in is rib,spleen & kidney damage to defenders
who stand infront of forwards who will lead with their knee rather than hands!
A la Fevola!
Do you think KB will admit they made a mistake? no chance!
The stubborn old fool still hasnt been back to tigerland has he?

Rules comittee is a joke they are continually making rules to justify their existence & ego!
Im pupdog & thats my take! (get it?)

[Bulldog4life]

Re: My observation's

Spot on Mantis this is the smartest observation of have seen on this website recently.
The ridiculous soft hands in the back rule has turned into a monster with this rolling zone
or flood not allowing one on one contests anymore let alone in the forward line.

Another thing we can see is an increase in is rib,spleen & kidney damage to defenders
who stand infront of forwards who will lead with their knee rather than hands!
A la Fevola!
Do you think KB will admit they made a mistake? no chance!
The stubborn old fool still hasnt been back to tigerland has he?

Rules comittee is a joke they are continually making rules to justify their existence & ego!
Im pupdog & thats my take! (get it?)

Yes he has.

[LostDoggy]

Re: My observation's

Re: The rolling zone..

What amazes me more than everyone jumping on the bandwagon and worrying about how to play it is that in 150 years, no one has ever tried it before! A zonal defence is as basic a field defence as they come, after man-on-man, and has been in most team field sports for over 50 years.

The fact that footy has been 'get man on man' for so long and tactically conservative means that old hat tactics like this one become 'innovations'. The saving grace, then, is that the evolution of defensive tactics has been well-documented in many other field sports, so IF THEY WANT TO, AFL coaches can study up and learn how other sports have evolved through ultra-defensive periods and what kind of offensive tactics can break it up. After all, this supposed 'cluster' is no more than an adaptation of a basic 4-4-2, or 4-1-3-1-1 zone in soccer.

Wallet has obviously tried to implement a few things (players moving constantly in between the 'lines' of zone players, handballing through the zone) but he doesn't have the cattle to implement it properly. I'm not sure we do yet -- the key ingredients are positional sense, intelligent decision making, and clean skills (especially handballing skills). I don't think most teams have the type of players required, so it will be ugly for a while..

BUT, I think in the long term this 'cluster' will be good for footy as it will force teams and players to evolve, just as soccer players evolved in the 90s to become far more technically skilled in order to break down dour defensive tactics, giving rise to some of the most gifted attacking players and teams in the history of the game.

Imagine if in 10 years time the average AFL player was a thinking, mobile player with lightning, clean disposal, and an ability to beat players on the run (like Ryan Griffen) in order to create 2-on-1 situations and and spot up players on leads 9 times out of 10. The game would be a great spectacle.

But the rules committee HAS TO LEAVE THE GAME ALONE AND LET IT EVOLVE AT ITS OWN PACE.

[Sockeye Salmon]

Re: My observation's

Imagine if in 10 years time the average AFL player was a thinking, mobile player with lightning, clean disposal, and an ability to beat players on the run (like Ryan Griffen) in order to create 2-on-1 situations and and spot up players on leads 9 times out of 10. The game would be a great spectacle.

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

But the rules committee HAS TO LEAVE THE GAME ALONE AND LET IT EVOLVE AT ITS OWN PACE.

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.

[Before I Die]

Re: My observation's

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

All those in favour say aye.

AYE!!!

[The Coon Dog]

Re: My observation's

Mantis, you raise some valid points, some even echoed by the senior coach after Friday night's game.

I guess there's 2 school of thought; on the one hand, it's only a practice match, no points are on offer & there's time to rectify any deficiencies. On the other hand the season is fast approaching & there are worrying signs, which seemed to be much more magnified on Friday night.

What's the answer? Somewhere in the middle I suspect.

There is enough skill in this side that those fundamental flaws we have been seeing should hopefully be ironed out over the next 3 weeks.

Obviously the likes of a fit Cooney, Murphy & Akermanis should alleviate some concerns.

Hard to gauge the impact too of teams not playing finals starting their pre season a little earlier & our pre season this time where an improvement to core strength/fitness prevailed at the expense of ball work.

With the older players making the same mistakes I think we just have to accept that that's part of their package & live with it; you're not going to improve Eagleton's kicking on his right foot now.

I'm not overly concerned at this stage, but Rocket will have to act quickly & be ruthless early if the same culprits are guilty of the same mistakes.

Appreciate the honest assessment too Mantis. I think we all know where you're coming from & only want to see us at our best each & every week.

[LostDoggy]

Re: My observation's

Great effort by the Doggies! They had a hit out in the heat and practiced their skills in dealing with the FLOODING tactics employed by the opposition, (Junior Footy stuff, when you hit the front put everyone on the ball) "fair dinkum" can you believe we have to pay good money to watch this rubbish.
Our guys had a hit out, used 30 players, suffered no major injuries and can look forward to seeing some new faces in our team for 2009.

[LostDoggy]

Re: My observation's

Should we be worried?

Pros:
played a good game against Essendon who were nearly full strength to lose by a point with at least 7 of our best 22 out.
We did play finals footy so our season is behind most other teams.
We still have nearly a month to go before the real stuff starts to work hard on our skills.
We are seeing some players of our future getting a chance.

Cons:
I believe there was an expectation from the club that we beat Essendon.
St Kilda also played finals footy and by all accounts beat us easily.
We had most of our senior players back in - some who were terrible.
Ala 2007, a lot of our players have had an injury interrupted pre season icnluding Cooney.

The key question for me, is can our players get back to the kind of football we have come to expect. I for one, don't care if we lose some early games, as long as we hit our straps coming up to the end of the year - no more fade outs from round 16 onwards.

[Missing Dog]

Re: My observation's

Cripes, I thought this wouldn't happen here, but it has.

What, someone giving an in depth analysis of his observations of 3 games that he has seen live.


If you have been around here long enough, you'll know that Mantis has some very strong opinions, but he will always back them up with reasons, just like he has here.

Try and find that "somewhere else"