| TalkingCarlton http://www.talkingcarlton.com/phpBB3/ |
|
| Game plan - version 2006 http://www.talkingcarlton.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=7972 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | budzy [ Mon Jan 30, 2006 3:18 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Game plan - version 2006 |
Correct me if I’m wrong but going by training reports it seems that we are working on a swannies type style of game plan of possessing the ball and protecting the ball carrier until a clear option(s) is available to dispose to. If I’m correct in that comparison I have concerns to whether or not our playing group CURRENTLY has the poise, concentration, physical/mental strength & skill level to successfully use this style of game plan. Am I off the mark? What style of game plan would suit our young playing group at this stage of their collective development? |
|
| Author: | thegezman [ Mon Jan 30, 2006 3:22 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Quote: What style of game plan would suit our young playing group at this stage of their collective development?
probably the hawthorn model, but that going to do little to allow us to win games. |
|
| Author: | TheGame [ Mon Jan 30, 2006 3:56 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Come rd 1 it will be long to Carey..... I mean Lance. |
|
| Author: | Sydney Blue [ Mon Jan 30, 2006 4:11 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Last three years most successful sides have adopted a high possession game where we have had the bomb long and direct low possession game. The AFL change the rules to suit this game plan - eg quick kick ins from a point and quick throw ins and ball ups . And what do we do change our training to suit high possession game. I guess thats why he is a Super Coach 
|
|
| Author: | mjonc [ Mon Jan 30, 2006 5:17 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
MJONC Game plan. Give it Simmo and run boy run!! |
|
| Author: | jbee [ Mon Jan 30, 2006 7:21 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Sydney Blue wrote: Last three years most successful sides have adopted a high possession game where we have had the bomb long and direct low possession game.
The AFL change the rules to suit this game plan - eg quick kick ins from a point and quick throw ins and ball ups . And what do we do change our training to suit high possession game. I guess thats why he is a Super Coach Geez, I could have sworn Brisbane bombed it long to Lynch, Brown and Bradshaw and were pretty direct. But what the heck another opportunity to have a crack at the coach. Good to see you give us soemthing different. |
|
| Author: | jbee [ Mon Jan 30, 2006 7:25 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Sydney Blue wrote: Last three years most successful sides have adopted a high possession game where we have had the bomb long and direct low possession game.
The AFL change the rules to suit this game plan - eg quick kick ins from a point and quick throw ins and ball ups . And what do we do change our training to suit high possession game. I guess thats why he is a Super Coach Could have sworn Brisbane were pretty direct going to Lynch, Brown and Bradshaw. Oh well, it gave you another opportunity to have a crack at the coach. Thats why you are the "super poster"
|
|
| Author: | TheGame [ Mon Jan 30, 2006 7:52 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
He did say most jbee, you know the other top sides who don't have Lynch and Brown. Sydney, West Coast, Port... |
|
| Author: | Sydney Blue [ Mon Jan 30, 2006 9:52 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
jbee wrote: Sydney Blue wrote: Last three years most successful sides have adopted a high possession game where we have had the bomb long and direct low possession game. The AFL change the rules to suit this game plan - eg quick kick ins from a point and quick throw ins and ball ups . And what do we do change our training to suit high possession game. I guess thats why he is a Super Coach Could have sworn Brisbane were pretty direct going to Lynch, Brown and Bradshaw. Oh well, it gave you another opportunity to have a crack at the coach. Thats why you are the "super poster" Gees jbee I have hung off every word you have ever posted in those quality 377 post you have made And I did say most and I am not on 650-850 k per year being a super poster. When Super coach gets results I will stop until then I will keep having a crack at him. I'm sick of my side being the joke of the AFL so dont you think it is about time super coach earnt his money |
|
| Author: | TruBlueBrad [ Mon Jan 30, 2006 9:53 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
While I guess this does lead to a high possession game our focus should be on running the lines and carrying the ball. With Walker, Russell, Simpson and hopefully Chambers can remain injury free we should be able to take the ball from half-back and move it quickly into the forward line to give Fev, Fisher and Waite the opportunity to beat their man 1 out and if not Betts, Davies etc should have plenty of space to swoop on a loose ball. Sounds easy... |
|
| Author: | Synbad [ Tue Jan 31, 2006 7:55 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Sydney Blue wrote: jbee wrote: Sydney Blue wrote: Last three years most successful sides have adopted a high possession game where we have had the bomb long and direct low possession game. The AFL change the rules to suit this game plan - eg quick kick ins from a point and quick throw ins and ball ups . And what do we do change our training to suit high possession game. I guess thats why he is a Super Coach Could have sworn Brisbane were pretty direct going to Lynch, Brown and Bradshaw. Oh well, it gave you another opportunity to have a crack at the coach. Thats why you are the "super poster" Gees jbee I have hung off every word you have ever posted in those quality 377 post you have made And I did say most and I am not on 650-850 k per year being a super poster. When Super coach gets results I will stop until then I will keep having a crack at him. I'm sick of my side being the joke of the AFL so dont you think it is about time super coach earnt his money Denis is closer to the 600k mark than the 650k mark.... I think youre thinking of Malthouse (900k) Funny thing is the teams near the bottom are the ones paying big bucks to players and coaches for little reward. |
|
| Author: | bluehammer [ Tue Jan 31, 2006 8:09 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
We're going to play a high possession game? You know what this means, don't you? I'll need to have plenty of Carlton players in my dream team... |
|
| Author: | marciblue [ Tue Jan 31, 2006 8:26 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Sydney Blue wrote: Last three years most successful sides have adopted a high possession game where we have had the bomb long and direct low possession game.
The AFL change the rules to suit this game plan - eg quick kick ins from a point and quick throw ins and ball ups . And what do we do change our training to suit high possession game. I guess thats why he is a Super Coach Just to respond to a point you raised SB, I was listening to Brian Royal on SEN this morning with the dumb, dumber & dumbest, and they were discussing the ways the ferals are going to combat the quick kick-in from a point. There is a general consensus that all clubs will be combating this in pretty much the same way. Choco pretty much confirmed this as well. Teams will have about 15 players all bolt to the defensive area of the ground (at least behind centre) and concede the kick in straight away. So whoever is kicking in will have free options. The clubs want to prevent what Brian described as "coast to coast" goals. This means when teams are caught out by the quick kick-in and the opposition can virtually run the ball the length of the field for a scoring opportunity. This is their (and others teams) biggest concern. I think the feeling is that if the play is concentrated on one side of the ground, the quick kick-in can expose you badly. So the safest way to combat that is to have most of your players bolt back to defence to put up a mega flood/zone back there and stifle the attack there. I think this will lead to even uglier football. You could tell that the coaching fraternity are none too impressed by the AFL introduction of these rule changes without proper consultation and debate and thinks that the new rules will be worse for the game. The concern is with this rule in particular. Just goes to show you don't get fricken ex-lawyers to think up new rules. Should of left it as it was. Even the time limit on forwards is one that I don't like. I don't think the situation called for this rule. Forwards have always taken some amount of time to kick at goal. Its part of the game FFS!!! 
|
|
| Author: | Wild Blue Yonder [ Tue Jan 31, 2006 9:39 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I'd like to see us go the fast running ball carrying option with multiple numbers in support. Obviously this will need skill and there'll be lots of killer turnovers with our skill level but I think medium term it will suit us well. We're certainly not the big bustling KPP bomb outfit. |
|
| Author: | SOS [ Tue Jan 31, 2006 10:13 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Blokes like Eddie Betts will be important in the forward line. They have the closing speed to run down defenders who are carrying the ball out of defence. Especially if their options are limited by players flooding back. Hopefully we will see a lot of the sort of tackle that Eddie put on one of the Essendon* players last year in the Wiz Cup as he was ambling through CHB looking for options. |
|
| Author: | Elwood Blues1 [ Tue Jan 31, 2006 10:34 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I'm for the long direct game plan given the choice.....too many possies means plenty of turn overs and we dont have the players with a high skill level to over use the ball. I dont think we are even at the game plan stage yet,anyway, we are still trying to get the structure of the team in place ie work out who is playing where and who can play if at all..... We still dont have a regular FB, CHB, CHF..only Fev at FF is set in stone... when we get the players in these positions set you can talk about game plans....I dont see Sydney as a model for the future either....I thought they were lucky to win the flag and like Collingwood in 1990 were the exception rather than the norm as far as premeirship teams go..hard battling units who snuffed out teams rather than being brilliant gifted lineups. I think having Josh Kennedy succeed at CHF will be a key to any game plan as well.....Marc Murphy is a champion in the making but if Kennedy doesnt become a 10 year player equivalent or close to Tredrae, Brown etc we will battle...IMO Josh Kennedy has more riding on him than Marc Murphy.... |
|
| Author: | SOS [ Tue Jan 31, 2006 10:38 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Elwood Blues1 wrote: IMO Josh Kennedy has more riding on him than Marc Murphy....
You mean 30,000 odd members
|
|
| Author: | SurreyBlue [ Tue Jan 31, 2006 10:40 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Elwood Blues1 wrote: I'm for the long direct game plan given the choice.....too many possies means plenty of turn overs and we dont have the players with a high skill level to over use the ball.
I dont think we are even at the game plan stage yet,anyway, we are still trying to get the structure of the team in place ie work out who is playing where and who can play if at all..... We still dont have a regular FB, CHB, CHF..only Fev at FF is set in stone... when we get the players in these positions set you can talk about game plans....I dont see Sydney as a model for the future either....I thought they were lucky to win the flag and like Collingwood in 1990 were the exception rather than the norm as far as premeirship teams go..hard battling units who snuffed out teams rather than being brilliant gifted lineups. I think having Josh Kennedy succeed at CHF will be a key to any game plan as well.....Marc Murphy is a champion in the making but if Kennedy doesnt become a 10 year player equivalent or close to Tredrae, Brown etc we will battle...IMO Josh Kennedy has more riding on him than Marc Murphy.... Well said Elwood. |
|
| Author: | Chitty's Finger [ Tue Jan 31, 2006 12:06 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
There's been a bit of talk about our forward movements but I reckon we'll still be a heavy flooding team from defence. Last year we matched the Swans for playing like the Sydney Harbour and swamped teams where we could in defence with our midfield and sometimes half our forward line sitting behind half back flank. The games against Sydney and Adelaide where we got close enough for them to smell fear were full flood games, but then sometimes it looked as though we were trying different strategies. |
|
| Author: | Blue Vain [ Tue Jan 31, 2006 12:26 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
IMHO, The game is evolving past having a set "gameplan" or philosophy. Teams needs to counter changes in tempo and tactics during a game, not when the review is completed by the coaches. Sydney are the trendsetters in this regard but teams will be following their thought processes, not their gameplan. Sydney are viewed as a high possession side but if you view their stats, they were actually the 14th ranked team in the AFL for possessions. They probably average the highest contested mark per mark ratio and the most contested possessions per possession. In other words, they are a low possession, contested football side. Where Sydney excel is their ability to beat the flood. Hence they would probably have the best record against Brisbane in the AFL. It goes a long way toward explaining their defeating the Saints in the finals. In short, they control the tempo of the game and refuse to kick to flooded zones. If the fast break is on, Sydney can move the ball as well as any. If not, they control the ball at all costs. That appears to be what we are trying to achieve. The biggest problems IMO are- a. We dont have enough senior players capable of dictating the tempo b. Pagan has actively tried to turn the players into non creative, robotic type players who instinctively follow his credo completely. The ability to create and improvise was taken away from the players the day he walked in to the club. Training however appears to indicate a willingness to control the ball until we reach the centre of the ground. For the first time in 3 years drills are encompassing and encouraging lateral movement of the ball. Drills are specifically designed to facilitate changing of direction, chipping to the on coming lead and leading wide to the wings. We wont be playing a Sydney type gameplan as such, if anything our game style will go further away from theirs statistically. What we will see is an increase in chip passing, less kicking to contests and a bit more freedom for the players to create. We will become less predictable structurally and our midfield rotation will increase substantially. The rule changes implemented by the AFL will suit running teams attempting to outrun the flood. That's where I see us heading this year. The players will take quite a bit of time to adapt and that is obvious when any match simulation takes place. But we will play exciting footy. The kids will love this style of game and players with natural flair like Hartlett, Fisher, Bower, Carlos and Scotland will show out. |
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC + 10 hours |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|