Was that THE HUDDLE I saw both teams employing at times?
| TalkingCarlton http://www.talkingcarlton.com/phpBB3/ |
|
| Kick-outs: Carlton's strategies forward and back http://www.talkingcarlton.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2410 |
Page 1 of 4 |
| Author: | simonverbeek [ Mon May 23, 2005 1:46 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Kick-outs: Carlton's strategies forward and back |
In the highly skillful modern game, kickouts have become a crucial component of success. Why? In a game where the players are highly skilled and well prepared tactically, the opportunity for a 'free kick' with open possession allows set plays to be run to perfection. Kicking points in footy now can be very dangerous if the other team perform kickouts well (it's almost better to kick it on the full, cutting off half the ground for the opposition) In case anyone hasn't noticed - WE GET SLAUGHTERED EVERY WEEK IN THE KICKOUTS!!!! Here is my summary of kickouts for and against. 1) Defending kick outs We play a zone defence which, if performed correctly is the best way. The idea is to concede the first kick short, but force a 50/50 situation on the second kick. The second kick is crucial. Either through poor coaching, or through players not carrying out the plan, we do not do this properly. Too many times this year, especially in the last three games, have we conceded scores from kickouts. It's very damaging to the team. Way too many times, Melbourne players took uncontested marks on or over the 50 metre line, with more loose players running past. It's UNFORGIVABLE. 2) Carlton's kick outs We, on the other hand, rarely damage teams when they kick a point. We like to hammer the ball to a 50/50 situation at 55 metres which has no great success. Otherwise, we butcher the ball and give a turnover near the wing. It looks like we have no good plans. Melbourne paid us the ultimate insult on Saturday. Midway through the game they changed to a Man-on-MAn defence - in my opinion the ultimate insult. It's as if Daniher was saying: "These blokes can't hit three passes in a row, if we go man on man they'll just give it to us". In my opinion this is part coaching fault and part lack of player ability. It really annoys me at games so I'd like others' opinions. And if Jarusa has any stats on kickout clearances they may be interesting. |
|
| Author: | TruBlueBrad [ Mon May 23, 2005 1:55 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Was that THE HUDDLE I saw both teams employing at times?
|
|
| Author: | 7dominator [ Mon May 23, 2005 2:00 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Agree entirely.I have raised the same concerns myself in the past.Further exasperating the problem is our inability to take a contested mark.From smalls to talls we are deficient in players who can take a strong mark overhead. Is it any wonder that when we kick to a contest, we invariably lose! I've yet to see anyone credit our Wizard Cup performance to our kick-ins in this Competition.Under Wizzer rules there is a spare ball always available and the play moves on without first awaiting the Goal Umpire.This suited us to a tee because we never had to kick to a contest! |
|
| Author: | simonverbeek [ Mon May 23, 2005 2:00 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I should have mentioned that the HUDDLE is a response to man-on man tactics. Carlton began to huddle when Melbourne went man-on-man. The huddle is a reaction. Our oppositon don't need to huddle cos they run the ball away without giving us a sniff. |
|
| Author: | AGRO [ Mon May 23, 2005 2:39 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
At present most teams consider kicking a point against Carlton as a "7 Point Play". 
|
|
| Author: | TruBlueBrad [ Mon May 23, 2005 2:51 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
AGRO wrote: At present most teams consider kicking a point against Carlton as a "7 Point Play".
Or at least a very good chance at one. In the end we were just kicking it to Kouta at every kick-in. I could see it happening and so did Melbourne, Jeff White just followed him. |
|
| Author: | BlueMark [ Mon May 23, 2005 3:18 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Well observed Simon, we hang onto the ball way to long not only at the kick in but also around the ground from mark and frees. This gives time for our opposition to either zone or go man on man. When we actually move the ball on quickly we look quite good. In the second quarter against both Melb and Geelong we started to move the ball quikly and had both teams chasing us. We know how to do it as we practise it at training and we do it occassionally in games, but most of the time it seems we are going "Duh, whatta I do next?" |
|
| Author: | molsey [ Mon May 23, 2005 4:55 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
... except for the fact that the Demons used the huddle for most of the game? |
|
| Author: | simonverbeek [ Mon May 23, 2005 5:08 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
molsey wrote: ... except for the fact that the Demons used the huddle for most of the game?
Depends what you define as a huddle Molsey. I only deem it to be a true huddle when the team without the ball plays man-on-man, forcing the team kicking out to huddle and break free. SInce Carlton play a zone, if Melbourne huddled they would only be 'huddling' themselves. What you're probably referring to is a small huddle of manned up midfield players that they Melbourne did use. Either way, they and all other opposition clear it too easily. Maybe we should drop the zone in favour of man on man and force the huddle. Anything would be an improvement. |
|
| Author: | molsey [ Mon May 23, 2005 5:12 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
understood, but if someone is playing the huddle you never play man on man. you have the outriders to stop it. either way beeker, i agree that we ain't good enough at this. |
|
| Author: | simonverbeek [ Mon May 23, 2005 5:13 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
For those who attend training regularly, I'd like to know whether we practice kicking out set plays at all. What have you seen at training re: kickouts??? Do people think that our definciencies in attacking and defending kickouts are due to a lack of coaching input, or simply due to the fact that as a side we aren't much chop?? |
|
| Author: | Blue Vain [ Mon May 23, 2005 5:18 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I agree Molsey. We were confused at the kick ins. Melbourne employed the huddle. Some of our players were outriders and some remained in a zone. They appeared confused and looking for direction. Perhaps we dont practice these skills as huddles are rarely used anymore. (except Carlton who used the huddle recently  )
Either way, we need to sort it out. As for our kick ins. I think we are actually quite effective. From memory, last year we scored quite a bit from kick ins. |
|
| Author: | simonverbeek [ Mon May 23, 2005 10:14 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Blue Vain wrote: As for our kick ins. I think we are actually quite effective. From memory, last year we scored quite a bit from kick ins.
Perhaps teams have worked out our kick-in plan and the coaches haven't developed a new one. Do any of the stats gurus on this site have any 'score from kick-out' stats or anything that might show how we're going numerically (cos to the naked eye it's costing the side big time)? |
|
| Author: | KoRn [ Mon May 23, 2005 10:27 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
How many times have we seen this: Our players do kick-outs by kicking the ball to himself and runs to the right back pocket, causing an enormous pressure to themselves and force to kick the ball no matter what to a team mate who aren't in the best position, and eventually loses the possession of the ball and the opposition team kicks a goal. |
|
| Author: | molsey [ Tue May 24, 2005 8:23 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
simonverbeek wrote: Blue Vain wrote: As for our kick ins. I think we are actually quite effective. From memory, last year we scored quite a bit from kick ins. Perhaps teams have worked out our kick-in plan and the coaches haven't developed a new one. Do any of the stats gurus on this site have any 'score from kick-out' stats or anything that might show how we're going numerically (cos to the naked eye it's costing the side big time)? pretty sure up until 3 weeks ago we were comign #1 or #2 on that, so it may be a strong point. perhaps ont he weekend we were a bit hamstrung without frenchy |
|
| Author: | Elwood Blues1 [ Tue May 24, 2005 9:53 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Same old story no one can take a contested mark and nothing annoys me more than seeing Stevens or Campo kicking in ..should be up the ground waiting to get it...get Thornton or whovever the FB is too kick the ball in... |
|
| Author: | molsey [ Tue May 24, 2005 9:54 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Elwood Blues1 wrote: Same old story no one can take a contested mark and nothing annoys me more than seeing Stevens or Campo kicking in ..should be up the ground waiting to get it...get Thornton or whovever the FB is too kick the ball in...
But aren't you arguing for one less target when you ask for a big guy to take the kick-ins? |
|
| Author: | Elwood Blues1 [ Tue May 24, 2005 10:23 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I think the FB should be kicking in and your targets dont all have to be talls...I remember the old way was to have tall marking wingman as targets....Gavin Brown, Brian Wood..even further back to Dick Clay. Kouta used to be a marking target in his peak years. I'm not crazy about seeing my best player down at FB and out of the action ie Stevens...I want him to carry the ball and be around the middle of the ground...wonder how many times Stevens kicked the ball in for Port.... Its a bad reflection on our defense that we cant trust any of them to kick the ball in properly....you want Stevens, Campo, Lappin etc down the field and creating..not back in the goal square. |
|
| Author: | Jarusa [ Fri May 27, 2005 2:24 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
*bump* So far Carlton is middle of the pack with regards to getting goals from kick-ins. Goals from kickins 2005 (From Prowess Sports) No of goals, Rank, Team, Chances, Percentage Goals from Chances 18 1 Western Bulldogs 134 13% / 11 2 Collingwood 110 10% / 12 3 Hawthorn 123 10% / 9 4 Essendon* 109 8% / 11 5 West Coast 134 8% / 9 6 Kangaroos 114 8% / 8 7 Adelaide 111 7% / 10 8 Melbourne 141 7% / 8 9 Carlton 117 7% / 6 10 Brisbane 118 5% / 6 11 St Kilda 126 5% / 7 12 Geelong 153 5% / 4 13 Port Adelaide 101 4% / 4 14 Fremantle 126 3% / 3 15 Sydney 99 3% / 3 16 Richmond 135 2% / Source: http://www.prowess-sports.com/pro-stats ... ofweek.pdf |
|
| Author: | simonverbeek [ Fri May 27, 2005 3:25 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Thanks Jarusa. Interesting. It shows that we're around average in scoring from kickins. Only part of the picture though. Some stats that I think would be damning regarding our kick-ins would be: 1) Amount of opposition re-scores. i.e. "7 point plays" or 2 point plays when we turn the ball back over after the opposition kicking a point. 2) The exact opposite of stat Jarusa showed, which would be how often the opposition score after we kick a point. I reckon we'd be near the worst in the league on this. If you can find the above anywhere Jarusa - ur a genius  ! I don't even know if they record them.
|
|
| Page 1 of 4 | All times are UTC + 10 hours |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|