This post is asking to be hijacked...
| TalkingCarlton http://www.talkingcarlton.com/phpBB3/ |
|
| Game Plans & Structures http://www.talkingcarlton.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=27494 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | DownUnderChick [ Sun Feb 21, 2010 4:14 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Game Plans & Structures |
Just wanted to get a run down on the game plans and structures of the other 15 clubs. Can someone with the smarts post them here and then I will sticky it so we can refer to it as season progresses to see why we suck so much at our game plan and structure? Crows - Play 'ugly football'. Use zones and hunt in packs defensively. Extremely well drilled and each player knows their role. Brions Collonwood - Play 'ugly football'. Use zones and hunt in packs defensively. Extremely well drilled and each player knows their role. Essenscum - Push their opposition wide so they can run down the middle unopposed. Case in point, every !@#$%& time we play them. Essendon* / Sydney games show football as diametrically opposed as it can be. Knights instructs his players to avoid shepherding/blocking for team mates and to run forward to create options. sydney are drilled to hold up the ball, sacrifice for the team and dont release the ball until the calvary arrives. Freo Cats - Rarely does one player go for the ball on their own. They support and back one another up at every opportunity. Use sequences of handballs to get into space then run it from there. Every player knows where his teammate is going to be. Hawks - Play 'ugly football'. Use zones and hunt in packs defensively. Extremely well drilled and each player knows their role. Dees Roos - play on at all costs, attempted to use the corridor wherever possible, kick to advantage and avoid kicking to contests! They also seemed to usually have options further afield and up forward usually negating the need to go backwards therefore allowing the opposition less time to set up their defensive structure. Power Tiggers Saints - Play 'ugly football'. Use zones and hunt in packs defensively. Extremely well drilled and each player knows their role. Swans - Play 'ugly football'. Use zones and hunt in packs defensively. Extremely well drilled and each player knows their role. The Swans play the most disciplined, accountable football in the AFL IMO. Their strength is forcing their opponent to play the game on Sydneys terms eg. stop, start, confined football with maximum stoppages. They put their experienced, strong bodied players around the ball and back those players in to win the ball in contested situations. They quite often release to the back of the stoppage and move the ball forward where they're happy to create a stop play again. They re-set, get their strong bodies around the ball and start again. They wont play offensive midfielders and it's no problem for them to run 3 stoppers in the middle. They'll happily close down the opposition and just hack the ball forward. Their defence is one of the best at getting numbers to the contest. Very rarely will you see a Sydney player one out with his opponent. Their talls (Robert-Thomson and Ted Richards) are mobile but lack strength in the contest. Bolton is strong but very undersized. Put them together however and they operate very effectively. Their experience allows them to zone off at the right time and they will quite often have 3 players flying to spoil. They always use a wing/sweeper and the overwhelming majority of their offensive forays are a result of defensive rebounds. Overall, their stats will make you assume they're efficient with their ball use but they aren't. It's the fact that there are so many scrimmages that ensures possession tallies are low. They often have less disposals than anyone in the AFL but they usually ensure their opponents have less. Like Collingwood, they often play wide and rarely will go to a contest unless it's inside 30. They avoid CHF (mainly due to it's redundancy at the SCG) and play through leading flankers into the forward line. Once inside 60, they're content to go long and central and back their talls in to take a contested grab. Teams that do well against them are the ones that get on top of their ruckmen. Their big men are rarely beaten and at worse they negate the opposition. If you can win the ball, get it out to your runners and break up the play, you can have them on toast. St Kilda play a contested, high pressure game but that actually suits the Swans however teams like Essendon*, Carlton, Freo at Subi and the Bulldogs can cause them problems if they can get the ball out to their front runners. Leg speed is their achilles heel around the ball but the recruitment of players like Jetta, Rhys Shaw and Rohan indicates a willingness to get more pace within their squad. Weagles Doggies - Rarely does one player go for the ball on their own. They support and back one another up at every opportunity. Use sequences of handballs to get into space then run it from there. Every player knows where his teammate is going to be. |
|
| Author: | Sydney Blue [ Sun Feb 21, 2010 4:28 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Game Plans & Structures |
dont hold your breath waiting for a response Swans over used the ball just as much as we did last night the only diffence was they were starting with a 7 and 8 man defence |
|
| Author: | Bambi Russell [ Sun Feb 21, 2010 4:35 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Game Plans & Structures |
This post is asking to be hijacked...
|
|
| Author: | DownUnderChick [ Sun Feb 21, 2010 5:38 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Game Plans & Structures |
Not at all Bambi. For those who saying we have no game plan or structure must obviously know the game plans and structures of the other teams - step up guys and you know who you are 
|
|
| Author: | Donstuie [ Sun Feb 21, 2010 5:38 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Game Plans & Structures |
Crows, Swans, Saints, Hawks: Play 'ugly football'. Use zones and hunt in packs defensively. Extremely well drilled and each player knows their role. Collonwood: Use the wings at every opportunity. Lack pace and grunt, so constantly move and shift players to all corners of the ground to throw the opposition off. Essenscum: Push their opposition wide so they can run down the middle unopposed. Case in point, every @#$%&! time we play them. Cats, Doggies: Rarely does one player go for the ball on their own. They support and back one another up at every opportunity. Use sequences of handballs to get into space then run it from there. Every player knows where his teammate is going to be. |
|
| Author: | fraser murphy [ Sun Feb 21, 2010 5:39 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Game Plans & Structures |
DownUnderChick wrote: Just wanted to get a run down on the game plans and structures of the other 15 clubs. Can someone with the smarts post them here and then I will sticky it so we can refer to it as season progresses to see why we suck so much at our game plan and structure? Crows Brions Collonwood Essenscum Freo Cats Hawks Dees Roos Power Tiggers Saints Swans Weagles Doggies I'm not going to give a detailed analysis of each individual teams gameplan. I have neither the expertise nor the inclination for such a large task. What I will say though is that the three best teams (St. Kilda, Geelong, WB) all share similar properties in the way they play the game: 1. They defend ferociously and ''tightly'' the moment they loose possession. If the ball is lost at half forward, players deeper forward will push back hard to attack the opposition ball carrier, while the backline pushes up to attack the long get out of jail kick. This squeezes the opposition's space and time to think while in possession, reminiscent of how the Socceroo's played under Guus Hiddink. 2. Every team switches play but the best teams do it a whole lot quicker and are not afraid to break from the arc and take the game on. Of course it helps if you have defenders who are quick of mind and foot, creative and can kick well. 3. Their forwards work to create space and provide options at the same time. Revolutionary. I mention these elements because these are all things we did poorly last night, but are also things I have seen us do well, if not consistently. The second half of the Freo game in Subiaco last year springs to mind. So I have hopes that we can actually play tactically astute footy. On the other hand though, we have a fair few defenders who are neat kicks, but not what you would class as creative. And a few midfielders who you could say the same about. I'm of the opinion that anyone can learn and become better at anything. I'm not always proved right though. Our forward line will naturally take a while to gell. I assume there is a gameplan in place that is being fine-tuned and tested under match conditions. I hope anyway. I'm sure what i've written is no great news to anyone, but it's an interesting topic to discuss, no? |
|
| Author: | club29 [ Sun Feb 21, 2010 6:19 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Game Plans & Structures |
Nice post Fraser Murphy. Lyon last year spoke about some subtle tactics further up the ground that allowed Milne to make the amount of tackles he was making. Freo in Subi was the best we have done using that tactic. All the top teams started using the tactic. Dogs Saints cats crows and Magpies ( who changed their game dramatically midyear). When top teams come up against each other using the same tactic the game turns into an arm wrestle. Looks scrappy but tough. 09 GF being a good example. "structures" is just buzz word. The new "its all good" or "not happy jan" .People have heard others say it so they throw it out there to explain a loss. Keyboard experts like ourselves really wouldnt have a clue though. Wouldnt be spending so much time on a fansite if we did. I watch other teams -top teams- chip chip, play the wings, go backwards, get boxed in on kickouts and still win games just as we won 13 last year. Some are cleaner stronger and mentally prepared better than others and have better players. They challenge for flags. We need to keep improving and getting more experience in the coaches box and on the ground. 4, 10, 13 wins. So far so good. |
|
| Author: | Cazzesman [ Sun Feb 21, 2010 6:47 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Game Plans & Structures |
The design of your structures are obviuosly compromised when you are also trying to find out other things about certain players. For example having all 4 ruckman in the same team isn't going to happen in the real season. Some others that played won't get much game time in the real season. Hopefully having 3 or 4 experienced players with leg speed back in the team will help. Not having Brock get kick doesn't help your structures. Carrots, Grigg, Gibbs and Juddy were messy to say the least. Poor skills by experienced players don't help your structures. They practice and practice so you can't say it is overlooked by the Coaches at training. Playing on a thin ground against a team like the Swans who choke the life out of you and make the game a slug fest doesn't help your structures. The Defense was fairly good for a 1st up effort. The forwards were strangled and the midfield couldn't hit a target so once again any structure goes out the window. We had 10 years of Fev so it takes time for the players running forward to think about finding a new target. Henderson is a babe in the woods. Kruiser had played KPP about 0 times in his AFL career. The lack of intensity doesn't help your structures and that is obviously a seperate issue. Regards Cazzesman |
|
| Author: | The Normal One [ Sun Feb 21, 2010 7:13 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Game Plans & Structures |
I can help with a couple. Brions - Kick it to Brown or Fev Essenscum - Win the ball, run as fast as you can as far as you can, handball, then repeat running ........ Freo - Pavlich kicks out from the behind, Pavlich takes the mark, Pavlich kicks it the leading forward in Pavlich. Power - Replace Pavlich with The CHAD Tiggers - Kick it the opposition player standing on his own just outside 50. If opposition player is unavailable, handball it around until you have that player free. |
|
| Author: | Navy Blue Horse [ Sun Feb 21, 2010 7:41 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Game Plans & Structures |
Cazzesman wrote: The design of your structures are obviuosly compromised when you are also trying to find out other things about certain players. For example having all 4 ruckman in the same team isn't going to happen in the real season. Some others that played won't get much game time in the real season. Hopefully having 3 or 4 experienced players with leg speed back in the team will help. Not having Brock get kick doesn't help your structures. Carrots, Grigg, Gibbs and Juddy were messy to say the least. Poor skills by experienced players don't help your structures. They practice and practice so you can't say it is overlooked by the Coaches at training. Playing on a thin ground against a team like the Swans who choke the life out of you and make the game a slug fest doesn't help your structures. The Defense was fairly good for a 1st up effort. The forwards were strangled and the midfield couldn't hit a target so once again any structure goes out the window. We had 10 years of Fev so it takes time for the players running forward to think about finding a new target. Henderson is a babe in the woods. Kruiser had played KPP about 0 times in his AFL career. The lack of intensity doesn't help your structures and that is obviously a seperate issue. Regards Cazzesman Best post on here in the last 24 hours |
|
| Author: | fraser murphy [ Sun Feb 21, 2010 7:45 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Game Plans & Structures |
Navy Blue Horse wrote: Cazzesman wrote: The design of your structures are obviuosly compromised when you are also trying to find out other things about certain players. For example having all 4 ruckman in the same team isn't going to happen in the real season. Some others that played won't get much game time in the real season. Hopefully having 3 or 4 experienced players with leg speed back in the team will help. Not having Brock get kick doesn't help your structures. Carrots, Grigg, Gibbs and Juddy were messy to say the least. Poor skills by experienced players don't help your structures. They practice and practice so you can't say it is overlooked by the Coaches at training. Playing on a thin ground against a team like the Swans who choke the life out of you and make the game a slug fest doesn't help your structures. The Defense was fairly good for a 1st up effort. The forwards were strangled and the midfield couldn't hit a target so once again any structure goes out the window. We had 10 years of Fev so it takes time for the players running forward to think about finding a new target. Henderson is a babe in the woods. Kruiser had played KPP about 0 times in his AFL career. The lack of intensity doesn't help your structures and that is obviously a seperate issue. Regards Cazzesman Best post on here in the last 24 hours Hardly. He didn't even try to answer the OP's question. He just talked about Carlton. |
|
| Author: | Cazzesman [ Sun Feb 21, 2010 7:52 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Game Plans & Structures |
fraser murphy wrote: Navy Blue Horse wrote: Cazzesman wrote: The design of your structures are obviuosly compromised when you are also trying to find out other things about certain players. For example having all 4 ruckman in the same team isn't going to happen in the real season. Some others that played won't get much game time in the real season. Hopefully having 3 or 4 experienced players with leg speed back in the team will help. Not having Brock get kick doesn't help your structures. Carrots, Grigg, Gibbs and Juddy were messy to say the least. Poor skills by experienced players don't help your structures. They practice and practice so you can't say it is overlooked by the Coaches at training. Playing on a thin ground against a team like the Swans who choke the life out of you and make the game a slug fest doesn't help your structures. The Defense was fairly good for a 1st up effort. The forwards were strangled and the midfield couldn't hit a target so once again any structure goes out the window. We had 10 years of Fev so it takes time for the players running forward to think about finding a new target. Henderson is a babe in the woods. Kruiser had played KPP about 0 times in his AFL career. The lack of intensity doesn't help your structures and that is obviously a seperate issue. Regards Cazzesman Best post on here in the last 24 hours Hardly. He didn't even try to answer the OP's question. He just talked about Carlton. Silly me.  At Rd 1 of the NAB cup I could care less about the rest. Only worry about what you can control. Work at getting your hands on the ball 1st and using it well and their structures don't matter. It's a simple game really. Regards Cazzesman |
|
| Author: | blue4 [ Sun Feb 21, 2010 7:56 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Game Plans & Structures |
Chipping the ball to the wing due to the lack of trust we have on our forwards is so Fremantle'esque. CHF is a tough position to play and we have none. We have a midfield that can drill 35-50 meter passes to a leading player but we dont have players up front that has the capcity to take a grab in our forward 50. Ratten looks lost at sea without Fev atm, but has time to condure up something. Not sure what his plan will be but definitely need to play more direct through the middle. We couldn't release players t play freely against a Swan side which is very poor - man on man footy we were slaughtered; many of Swans players were first year players against our guys that have been in the system for 2-4 years. I have seen every NAB cup match and we have clearly been one of the worst in terms of structure and game plan. I'm sure we will improve but good teams have the capacity to drill 35-50 meter footpasses to a leading player hitting them on the chest 8/10. Friday will be interesting against Brisbane. |
|
| Author: | LosAzules [ Sun Feb 21, 2010 7:56 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Game Plans & Structures |
Navy Blue Horse wrote: Cazzesman wrote: The design of your structures are obviuosly compromised when you are also trying to find out other things about certain players. For example having all 4 ruckman in the same team isn't going to happen in the real season. Some others that played won't get much game time in the real season. Hopefully having 3 or 4 experienced players with leg speed back in the team will help. Not having Brock get kick doesn't help your structures. Carrots, Grigg, Gibbs and Juddy were messy to say the least. Poor skills by experienced players don't help your structures. They practice and practice so you can't say it is overlooked by the Coaches at training. Playing on a thin ground against a team like the Swans who choke the life out of you and make the game a slug fest doesn't help your structures. The Defense was fairly good for a 1st up effort. The forwards were strangled and the midfield couldn't hit a target so once again any structure goes out the window. We had 10 years of Fev so it takes time for the players running forward to think about finding a new target. Henderson is a babe in the woods. Kruiser had played KPP about 0 times in his AFL career. The lack of intensity doesn't help your structures and that is obviously a seperate issue. Regards Cazzesman Best post on here in the last 24 hours +1 
|
|
| Author: | ColourMan [ Sun Feb 21, 2010 8:28 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Game Plans & Structures |
Cazzesman wrote: The design of your structures are obviuosly compromised when you are also trying to find out other things about certain players. For example having all 4 ruckman in the same team isn't going to happen in the real season. Some others that played won't get much game time in the real season. Hopefully having 3 or 4 experienced players with leg speed back in the team will help. Not having Brock get kick doesn't help your structures. Carrots, Grigg, Gibbs and Juddy were messy to say the least. Poor skills by experienced players don't help your structures. They practice and practice so you can't say it is overlooked by the Coaches at training. Playing on a thin ground against a team like the Swans who choke the life out of you and make the game a slug fest doesn't help your structures. The Defense was fairly good for a 1st up effort. The forwards were strangled and the midfield couldn't hit a target so once again any structure goes out the window. We had 10 years of Fev so it takes time for the players running forward to think about finding a new target. Henderson is a babe in the woods. Kruiser had played KPP about 0 times in his AFL career. The lack of intensity doesn't help your structures and that is obviously a seperate issue. Regards Cazzesman Unfortunately, the poor skills of players like Carrazzo and Grigg is not confined to match day. Carazzo's disposal was diabolical in the intraclub and below average for most of his career yet is deemed acceptable at our club. As a senior player (and part of the leadership group), his failure to consistently improve his skills and the fact that he is an automatic inclusion is now an indictment on our club. One Brad Scott preseason and the Roos seemed to have a well drilled/executed, fast tempo, attractive and effective game plan; well, after one NAB cup game anyway! 
|
|
| Author: | DownUnderChick [ Sun Feb 21, 2010 8:49 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Game Plans & Structures |
This thread isn't about Carlton - please only post about other team's game plans and structures. I'm not interested in hearing that Club X has a good game plan - tell me what that game plan is. |
|
| Author: | jimmae [ Sun Feb 21, 2010 8:54 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Game Plans & Structures |
IMO, structures are not that difficult to analyse or understand if you put a little time in. Personally I think it comes down to how teams defend without the ball, how they move the ball, how their forwards present for the ball and how they operate at stoppages. You can get down to the nitty gritty of what each individual is doing, but that's entirely pointless for this discussion. Think of each AFL team, think of those four tactical phases, and I'm sure any one here that's prepared to be sensible can identify what each team typically does. Beyond that, it's simply a matter of how each team has these instructions reinforced. Is it the the Collingwood/Essendon* model, the Geelong/Carlton model, or something in between (think Brisbane, Adelaide). |
|
| Author: | Blue Vain [ Sun Feb 21, 2010 9:42 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Game Plans & Structures |
I'll have a go, starting with yesterdays opponent. Sydney. The Swans play the most disciplined, accountable football in the AFL IMO. Their strength is forcing their opponent to play the game on Sydneys terms eg. stop, start, confined football with maximum stoppages. They put their experienced, strong bodied players around the ball and back those players in to win the ball in contested situations. They quite often release to the back of the stoppage and move the ball forward where they're happy to create a stop play again. They re-set, get their strong bodies around the ball and start again. They wont play offensive midfielders and it's no problem for them to run 3 stoppers in the middle. They'll happily close down the opposition and just hack the ball forward. Their defence is one of the best at getting numbers to the contest. Very rarely will you see a Sydney player one out with his opponent. Their talls (Robert-Thomson and Ted Richards) are mobile but lack strength in the contest. Bolton is strong but very undersized. Put them together however and they operate very effectively. Their experience allows them to zone off at the right time and they will quite often have 3 players flying to spoil. They always use a wing/sweeper and the overwhelming majority of their offensive forays are a result of defensive rebounds. Overall, their stats will make you assume they're efficient with their ball use but they aren't. It's the fact that there are so many scrimmages that ensures possession tallies are low. They often have less disposals than anyone in the AFL but they usually ensure their opponents have less. Like Collingwood, they often play wide and rarely will go to a contest unless it's inside 30. They avoid CHF (mainly due to it's redundancy at the SCG) and play through leading flankers into the forward line. Once inside 60, they're content to go long and central and back their talls in to take a contested grab. Teams that do well against them are the ones that get on top of their ruckmen. Their big men are rarely beaten and at worse they negate the opposition. If you can win the ball, get it out to your runners and break up the play, you can have them on toast. St Kilda play a contested, high pressure game but that actually suits the Swans however teams like Essendon*, Carlton, Freo at Subi and the Bulldogs can cause them problems if they can get the ball out to their front runners. Leg speed is their achilles heel around the ball but the recruitment of players like Jetta, Rhys Shaw and Rohan indicates a willingness to get more pace within their squad. Essendon* / Sydney games show football as diametrically opposed as it can be. Knights instructs his players to avoid shepherding/blocking for team mates and to run forward to create options. sydney are drilled to hold up the ball, sacrifice for the team and dont release the ball until the calvary arrives. |
|
| Author: | ColourMan [ Sun Feb 21, 2010 9:47 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Game Plans & Structures |
DownUnderChick wrote: This thread isn't about Carlton - please only post about other team's game plans and structures. I'm not interested in hearing that Club X has a good game plan - tell me what that game plan is. Perhaps this thread should be in Talking AFL if we can only mention the other clubs and can't make reference to Carlton in the Talking Carlton forum!  Funnily, you wait until now to limit discussion in this thread (see Cazzesman's very good posts etc). As for the Roos even though I'm no expert, I'll provide a more in depth analysis when I see them live (usually easier to get a feel for a team's structure); however from the couch they appeared to play on at all costs, attempted to use the corridor wherever possible, kick to advantage and avoid kicking to contests! They also seemed to usually have options further afield and up forward usually negating the need to go backwards therefore allowing the Cats less time to set up their defensive structure. 
|
|
| Author: | lily of laguna [ Sun Feb 21, 2010 9:58 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Game Plans & Structures |
Rafalution wrote: I can help with a couple. Brions - Kick it to Brown or Fev Essenscum - Win the ball, run as fast as you can as far as you can, handball, then repeat running ........ Freo - Pavlich kicks out from the behind, Pavlich takes the mark, Pavlich kicks it the leading forward in Pavlich. Power - Replace Pavlich with The CHAD Tiggers - Kick it the opposition player standing on his own just outside 50. If opposition player is unavailable, handball it around until you have that player free.  That was good Rafa, very good
|
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC + 10 hours |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|