| TalkingCarlton http://www.talkingcarlton.com/phpBB3/ |
|
| Is this the game plan? http://www.talkingcarlton.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=24827 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | aramari [ Mon May 18, 2009 7:12 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Is this the game plan? |
There's a bit of angst at the moment surrounding Carlton's game plan (or lack thereof). I've been worried that Essendon*'s list of quick runners and hard-run-and-carry style was the way to go these days and that we lack the players to play this way. I'm no tactician, but I've put 2 and 2 together and I reckon there's evidence that Ratts wants to go a different way. Whether he's developing the plan to suit the list or developing the list to suit the plan I'm not sure. 2nd in marks per game this year doubled the Pies in marks recruited O'Keeffe and Johnson for half backs - beautiful long kicks but not runners recruited a young monster ruck recruited a strong, marking utility in Robbo We play tall teams We play a resting ruckman forward. We don't mind kicking to contests at times We don't seem to run at the opposition from half back much The rules on hands-in-the-back and chopping the arms give tall fast forwards an edge I don't understand the plan and I don't know if it's going to work, but there seems to be a trend here? Is Ratts looking to develop a tall, mobile, kick-and-mark game? If so can it work? Do we have the right players to make it work? Is it a response to the Hawks long kicking by Guerra Dew Young and twin tower forwards? I remember Carlton in the 90s weren't quick, but we always won the ball at stoppages with ruck dominance and onball stars and moved the ball forward methodically and patiently with kicking to tall marking targets. We weren't always exciting, but we played percentages and controlled the ball. Maybe that's influenced Ratts? I know it doesn't all hold up (eg what do tall backs have to do with this plan?) and maybe I'm clutching at straws out of confusion. And part of it must be adapting to the list. But i think there's enough circumstantial evidence to warrant a discussion. |
|
| Author: | yibbida [ Mon May 18, 2009 7:50 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Is this the game plan? |
I remember reading something in the Paper a few weeks back, where we were the team that had the 2nd least handballs in the Backline (Saints had least). The article was basically saying that teams that kick more than they handball in backline have less goals scored against them from turnovers. The high handballing teams (except the Cats) tended to have goals scored from turn overs by hand and were the teams that got scored against the most. You could be onto something with our long kicking half back flankers. |
|
| Author: | jimmae [ Mon May 18, 2009 7:50 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Is this the game plan? |
Would be fantastic if footy was always played indoors, but I'd suggest he's just got an emphasis on work rate and maintaining possession, and is doing his best to select the cattle that deserve the run. I think you'll see a little bit of the height drop out of the team when blokes like Walker and Johnson return. |
|
| Author: | Pafloyul [ Mon May 18, 2009 9:24 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Is this the game plan? |
What height? Who deserves do be dropped who is particularly tall? I can only think of Hampson and then we have yet to bring in Warnock. It is not the 'height' that is the issue but the fact that many of our smaller - mid-sized players play like old-fashioned flankers rather than additional midfielders. Then you have the inverse problem of having a few taller flanker types in 'key' positions. |
|
| Author: | jimmae [ Tue May 19, 2009 12:44 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Is this the game plan? |
Pafloyul wrote: What height? Who deserves do be dropped who is particularly tall? I can only think of Hampson and then we have yet to bring in Warnock. It is not the 'height' that is the issue but the fact that many of our smaller - mid-sized players play like old-fashioned flankers rather than additional midfielders. Then you have the inverse problem of having a few taller flanker types in 'key' positions. It's not just a question of who deserves it, we seem to have a glut of height in certain areas; midfield, defence. It needs to be balanced out with blokes who can get the ball off the deck and an injection of pace, particularly at either end of the ground. Even my prime 22 for later on this year is: FB: Joseph, Jamison, Bower HB: Armfield, Thornton, Johnson C: Scotland, Gibbs, Simpson HF: Walker, Waite, Stevens FF: Kreuzer, Fevola, Betts R: Hampson, Judd, Murphy Int: Warnock, Austin, Grigg, Browne And that's a team missing: Yarran - I personally think he needs to shed some tub. We've got our own version of Clayton Collard at the moment, although I don't think he's going to be anywhere near as much trouble to reign in. Carrots - Has strength, pace, has defensive skills and has aerial and ground ability. One of the next blokes in. Robinson - Another unlucky bloke but I don't envisage him being able to run out a game later on in the year. Garlett - Will probably still be too thin given the way they have handled him, next year look out Houlihan - Work rate is consistently inconsistent Russell - Mature body, versatile, no slouch and can execute but needs to shorten the time taken to do so Hadley - Experienced, good skills & touch, lacks zip and can be closed out of games regularly Looking over that team, the bench needs to get shorter and the forward line needs to get quicker, and you can see where it'll come from and at whose expense. |
|
| Author: | Big Kahuna Boot [ Wed May 20, 2009 12:00 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Is this the game plan? |
..with the emphasis nowadays on increased pressure and fierce tackling, kicking the ball out of your back half is a much smarter/safer option than dicking around with rushed handballs.. |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC + 10 hours |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|