One of the commentators over the weekend actually praised the way Carlton were doing this. Their point was that our style of game (lots of running and switching between zone and man on man) is very taxing on the players. Being able to slow the game down in the back half effectively gives our mids a well deserved breather. If we can keep possession, which is obviously the key, I am all for it. But I find it hard to accept that we do it with more than two minutes remaining in any given quarter and never if there is nothing in the game.

_________________
"our guest is dressed by hand-me-downs, hair designed by pillow"

But the first half of your post explains why they would do any time of a quarter.

The saints did it half way through the first to slow us up. It worked for them as they managed to stop the onslaught, change our mood (momentarily) and pegged a couple back.

I dont see it as a tactic for just killing a couple of mins at the end of each quarter. Also used for catching our breath and wrestling back some momentum if things are not going well.

I reckon this move is more as a breather strategy more than anything else...cuz why stop the run when its so obviously working....it must be part of a plan to give the guys a breather for the next surge and if so this is a great strategy...

_________________
"Truth, for the tyrants, is the most terrible and cruel of all bindings; it is like an incandescent iron falling across their chests. And it is even more agonizing than hot iron, for that only burns the flesh, while truth burns its way into the soul"     — Lauro Aguirre

Good tactic, we're shit at but practice makes perfect.
Wouldn't want to do it in a close game.
Agree with the original poster that we should be trying to creep forward not backwards so that we don't turn the ball over in front of our own goals.

_________________
"We used to sit around and talk about how bad the game plan was." Anthony Koutoufides

Ideally we would move the ball slowly forward and not get pushed backwards but those St pretenders are probably the best exponent of the full press and so to play the tactic against that lot and only concede a goal or two is actually a great result for our young team.

Ratts was quite clear at the start of the season that all out attack leaves you open to be scored against repeatedly (see bumbers), but if we control the footy and have possession you can choose when to go and how often. I think a few posters thought that he was saying he would prefer to play slow footy, which as evidence suggets is not the case.

Was listening to 774 when the ball went up and Gerard Waitley (?) commented something along the lines of 'oh no you wouldn't want to give up goal now'. Then Gram kicked a goal. The special comments man was Melbourne coach Dean Bailey - who said that he had no issue with what the Blues had done and that if he was coaching that is what he would expect his team to do. His rationale was that coughing up one goal close the break was better then letting the other team play free flowing football, get a run on and score 2-3 goals. He also commented that he would point out in the after match review why the goal had been scored in hope that the player(s) would learn from it.

I found that insight interesting. We expect perfection in the playing group as supporters. Mistakes can cost goals but you hope that these mistakes get minimized over time. Good teams make fewer mistakes. It is not rocket science. There has been a marked improvement in how we handle 'tempo transition football' when you compare this year to last year.

I have no problem with the tactic and believe that slowing the game at times is essential,
but, can we please get rid of the stupid signal! It's become a rallying call to the opposition
to make an extra effort, often at a time when they've become dispirited.

Players communicate with body language and subtley all the time and this group are starting
to get some games together. If they can get the message across without the hands up
announcement they might find that they can slow things down for a minute or so before the
opposition even realise what's going on.

I'll be first to admit that I've absolutely HATED this in the past- I've sworn and groaned and said WHY but I guess when it works, it makes sense.

Trouble is, in the past we've been Woeful at it. We made it look like we were panicked, inept and lazy.

But the Saints game was the first time in years that I've really stopped, watched and noticed that we are starting to get it.

Something clicked - much more so than any of our wins last year.
There were momenta when our backline actually looked COMPLETELY in control. Rusell and others were waiting patiently, and lofting beautiful pinpoint kicks through the holes in the zone. It was a zen experience seeing the ex whipping boy tapbut to himself, run out of the square, and calmly chip it between a sea of saints. Magic!

Sure there were moments when we fluffed it, like the Gram goal, but even then I wasn't too upset. Reading the post above about Bailey's comments makes a lot of sense. We are finally playing with purpose, flow and CALM, less hands on hips and less sooking. For the first time I am actually starting to open up to the possibility that Ratts might becoming a great coach.

Of course it might all come horribly undone this week against Port, as Im still not convinced we can be consistent...

But this game against the saints will definitely stick in my memory as the first time I watched the blues and felt that we were a potential top team in control, rather than just a flukey underdog.

Thanks for sharing that with us.

_________________
Everyone looks good in Navy Blue

For those that haven't quite worked this out yet........go check your tapes.

When Juddy goes off for his 3-5 min breaks we play tempo footy amd try to kill the clock and reduce the number of cente square bounces while he is off.

Waste time while your best player is resting....it's not rocket science