Not just corridor football, although that is a given in any game of footy, especially when kicking within inside 50. I find when our midfield work hard offensively we tend to run over teams. I find that our midfield become lazy during games and 1. don't run enough to support each other or 2. don't run enough to present and this is where the problems start. If we play stop/start footy we get ourselves in a big mess. Play more attacking footy and we start to win the contests.

Agree about the interesting posts Molly, but I don't agree that you have to have a strategic understanding about the game to be a positive poster. And that doesn't mean being blind about faults and problems, it just means being positive and enthusiastic about the year ahead.

I reckon you're right Surrey, when the midfield presents up forward and rolls back in defence we do alright. We look lazy in some games and come off second best.
well second out of two at any rate.
RUN MIDFIELD RUN!

_________________
This might sound extreme in the context of alleged sexual assault, drunken violence and a drug trafficking charge...

"Playing the corridor" at all costs isn't a philosophy of any team (Except Geelong)

The opportunity to play through the corridor is an outcome based on pressure, midfielders who are great at transition and defensive strength. It's no different to a fast break in basketball. If you can force the opposition to turn the ball over when they are in an offensive mindset, you can will catch them forward of the ball or at the least, running to assist or recieve. That often results in fewer opposition players retaining a defensive structure, which in turn allows a relatively open corridor.

The problem (and resultant wide, slow movement out of defence) comes when you only regain possession at a stoppage or point kick in. The opposition have the opportunity to reset their defence which results in protection of the corridor. Essendon* are OK at playing the corridor in transition because their speedsters chase down the opposition well. Conversely, they are easily scored against because their players are instructed to run ahead of the play to create options. Personally, I believe that creates too much of an individual mindset and I know at least one of their assistant coaches has similar concerns.

The challenge for Carlton (and most other young teams) is to have mids who will work hard both ways. Thats slowly coming but it takes time. The other option is to have strong backs who have the experience and courage to zone off at the right time and win the ball or create a biased contest. Geelong and to a lesser degree Hawthorn are masters at this. Their 3rd tall zones off at the right time and takes a defensive mark, creating an unexpected turnover in their back half. They're also great at creating a spoil to the advantage of their runners. Look at Milburn and Mackie. They will bring ther ball to the front of the contest and their running backmen know to get to that spot. They're confident that the ball will either be marked or spoiled to their advantage, and they're away.
That comes with experience and time.

So next time you're critical of us going wide with the ball, think about the options. If you go down the middle after a stop in play, you're more than likely playing into the oppositions structures to perfection.

As for our forward entries. The reason we often had shots from out wide is that's where Fevola had space. That space was there for a reason. The opposition knew we would a. go to Fevola every time and b. go to Fevola every time. It was the easiest strategy in AFL footy to reduce his effectiveness. They just plonked a spare in the corridor and reduced our ability to score from the corridor. That will be the biggest benefit of Fevola going to Brisbane. We'll now have 3 or 4 options up forward which will be much harder to defend.

_________________
Looking forward to seeing our potential realised.

That was also one reason we were easy to rebound against. The stats for scores against us due to rebounds from fev directed forward entries were always high even taking into account the amount of ball we sent his way. The opposition so often was just able to setup accordingly and bang off to the races

But if you just chip sideways and backwards you're also playing into the oppositions structures to perfection by allowing them time to flood the midfield.

Too many times I've seen one of our guys, like Thornton, look up and think about kicking it forward into a space to a team mates running advantage but then hesitate and take the easy option of chipping sideways or backwards allowing the opposition to zone up and we end up stuffed.

We need more workers upfield to provide more running options and we need our defenders to honour those workers and pressure the opposition into mistakes.

But the theory behind the chip is that its the better option than giving up possession too easily from a half hearted option. If you chip and control the ball then your upfield hard workers should be making that option through space, or blocking or whatever. Yep, fast break looks good if you can get it but if you cant, and I think we really suffered when we lost Waite last year as all of our key defenders stopped running forward, you have to keep trying to scrape ground away to launch your next option. Fev is so good that a) he could kick goals from 50, b) from an angle and c) could sometimes beat 2 defenders. Now it will be a different paradigm where a) Fevola isnt there to get 90% (whatever) of entries and we have to go more to the guile of our forwards to create space and be more 1 on 1.

This is where Yarran promises so much as he seems to create in traffic.

Its also what the Swans, Saints, Hawks do really well. Create when blocked - all you need is a lapse for a few seconds.

It seems to me that Bower has been given that Mackie like role of running forward etc. Hope to see more of that from all the defence, and when we do I'm also sure we'll see plenty of cockups. But that's just inexperience I suppose.

So far this plan is better than the Diamond Wedge (paganite03) or the bomb it long to Carey (Pagan 03-08).

_________________
This might sound extreme in the context of alleged sexual assault, drunken violence and a drug trafficking charge...

Chipping doesn't really apply pressure to the opposition though and it's a reactive style.
I'd rather see us be proactive and applying pressure.


Pagans paddock seems to be back on the agenda from what I've noticed.

I think BlueVain sums sums up pretty well on page 6 of this thread why some things happen as they do on the field. I would add though that Fev being forced wide should never have been an impediment to him dishing off to those in better positions It hindered a more efficient forwardline because generally the other forwards wouldn't lead after Fev had it. They would just switch off.

If Ratts was so against offensive footy then you would never see it. I think you'll find that as BlueVain points out a lot of our great offensive football came from turnovers when the oppositions defensive setups were in disarray. We were the second best team in the comp, only behind Geelong in scoring from turnovers.

I disagree with BlueVain in some detail though as I think other teams beside Geelong liked the middle a bit more. Essendon* spring to mind and I would argue that the Bulldogs did it more than the Saints or Pies did. I do totally agree with BV as I mentioned earlier that no-one exclusively goes wide or just through the middle.

Not that I think controlling the corridor is a bad idea, as Geelong certainly agree with you Teddy and they aren't a bad team It's just that for me it is defensively that we need to improve and there are safer options than tallyho down the middle all the time.

Although sometimes that is not giving credit to the opposition. If the defensive setups are right it should make it very difficult to find a way through. We at times look poor in comparison, because IMO it is the defensive side of our game that has needed the most work to progress to becoming a top side. Thus we go "gee look how easily they do it why can't we do that?"

All teams struggle at times to break a good defensive setup. That is why you see the possession football and it's not just us, although we are hampered by a lack of a gun kick or two down back. When stymied rather than just give the ball back they move it around looking for a chink to exploit. Thats why you switch hoping someone doesn't move quickly enough to readjust and you can find a hole. Where I think we have a problem sometimes is that it's a bit of a case of I don't want the responsibilty of kicking it forward so here you have have it rather than moving it around quickly looking for that chink. Some of that is a consequence of having solid kicks rather than elite ones. You are also trying to lure the opposition on to you and out of position, but as we have seen that doesn't always work either

Yep agree Molly, but just watch the hits on this thread dry up as the eyes glaze over for those not interested in this sort of stuff Unfortunately depending on your viewpoint a good stoush or windup is going to rate better

Just throw Kerr and Casboult into the analysis with a sprinkle of Ratten and you'll be fine.

I haven't tried using Kerr or Casboult that could be an idea I'm not sure using Ratten is a good idea...perhaps a more generic term instead, archdemon perhaps

I am not advocatingall out attack a la Essendon*. perish the thought we should copy anything from them. But like everything in life there needs to be a balance and Ratts is too heavily defence oriented.

Why have a great mid field if you are not going to use it as a strike weapon. We talk about unpredictability but this chip and charge around the flanks is just too defensive.

I know we don't have the skills of Geelong or the Dogs so expect a few mistakes. How long was Bomber at Geelong before things clicked? But he kept persisting without the raw material Ratts has at his disposal.

It all starts from the forward line and defensive pressure especially from the kick ins. If I see the opposition run the ball the full length of the field on a regular basis again this season ....

_________________
"Get ready, Teddy - you're on": Ron Barassi half time 1970 Grand Final

But is he too heavily defence orientated or just trying to teach a team to be better defensively. Surely you agree that a team conceding over 100 points per game for a season is never going to win a flag, although I guess it is agree to disagree time . I'm not sure that I would agree that Bomber didn't have the raw material to work with to be honest. I wouldn't mind Ablett and Scarlett under the father son. I think the GFC just had an epiphany, as it could be argued they were underperforming before then.

Get the defence right mate and hopefully there will be less of it and you won't have to wear a helmet. Although you won't totally eradicate that annoying coast to coast as the opposition does get it right on occasion

Out of interest Molsey,

you say we didn't have a rebounding tall defender after Waite went down last season. You don't think Bower played that role before Jamison went down too?

The point from Teddy Hopkins about offensive v defensive mindsets is interesting. I reckon both Adelaide games showed something different. Against them at AAMI Stadium we obviously went way too defensively and got slaughtered. Against them at Etihad, I actually thought we played our best footy for the season in the first quarter. The problem was that we didn't have the engine in our onball division to play that offensive gamestyle for the entire night. Result - we got slaughtered again (btw - when I look at the draw I think our only 'unwinnable' game in the first 8 is against Adelaide at AAMI).

So it needs to be a balance between the offensive and the defensive. But I think that second Adelaide game last year was instructive. We probably want to play offensively more often, but so far we haven't had the tanks to do it. With word coming through that the team is fitter than ever, I would expect that we are in a position to more often play an offensive style of football during larger portions of games in 2010. But the point is this - maybe Ratts has been hamstrung in his ability to instruct us to take the game up to the opposition by the fitness base of the team? Remember that when Cordy game in he felt that Carrazzo was the only AFL fit footballer. After three years under Cordy, I would expect that blokes like Joseph, Gibbs, Grigg, Armfield, Hampson, and Hadley would have far better capability of running out a game. That should give Ratts more options in terms of both offensive and defensive strategies, because the players have the physical capacity to run out games.

Bower was our attacking backman last year whilst Jamison was out (from round 16). Austin joined the injured list after round 19.

We won

Rnd 16 beat Swans by 61 points
Rnd 18 beat North by 10 popints
Rnd 19 beat Geelong by 35 points
Rnd 20 beat Port by 54 points
Rnd 21 beat Melb by 57 points


and with Bower on 1 leg with Jamo, Austin, Setanta, Waite all missing from the backline, Bower did allright on that one leg and we went down by 7 points after being in front by 30 points with 20 mins left on the clock.

Bower was a rebounding defender at the end of last year, and also at the beginning of the year when he was in AA form...and he will improve in 2010.

It would be nice to have some support back there for him, and I think Russell did and will make a difference, let alone the availability of Jamo, Austin and Setanta (if needed) With those guys there, I don't think we need Waite back there, but nice to have him available if need be.

_________________
Everyone looks good in Navy Blue

Stop it Sydney...you're giving me half a thickening.

I agree!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And that previous post highlighting the extra days break is very very important...except once when it backfired on us in round 13 after the break against the Bumbers. Following that game we really had a great run home with some consistent wins on the trot and some big scalps with big margins.

I'm expecting a good start for us, but then again I can see us winning 17 games if all goes well for us...and I hinestly don't know if we will or wont...no one does.

_________________
Everyone looks good in Navy Blue

I am agreeing and disagreeing with everybody.

I reckon our defence stacks up. Jamison, Thornton, and Bower on the talls. Throw in Austin if need be. Mids are Russell and Robinson (love to see him run in a straight line). Smalls Joseph and Armfield. I don't have a problem with it. You can throw in Carazzo, Wiggins, Houlihan, Waite etc. for variety. But they can be overwhelmed with the ball flowing through by opponents midfielders.

Midfield we are great. We all know that.

But the midfield and the forward line have the same problem. We do not exert the defensive pressure required to be a top 4 side. If there was the structured gameplan and the players were drilled properly the turnovers would occur and the offensive game I am talking about could come into play.

And that is the balance I am talking about.

Footballers aren't rocket scientists. Just keep it simple stupid. When we haven't got the ball set up the defensive structure and pressure, pressure, pressure. When we have the ball create the loose man, run into space and keep running. Preferably up the guts.

_________________
"Get ready, Teddy - you're on": Ron Barassi half time 1970 Grand Final