Talking Carlton Index Lochie O'Brien Kerryn Harrington Lochie O'Brien Kerryn Harrington CFC Home CFC Membership CFC Shop CFC Fixture Blueseum
It is currently Tue Jun 24, 2025 12:02 am

All times are UTC + 10 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 24 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Jul 25, 2009 3:03 pm 
Offline
Rod Ashman
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:02 pm
Posts: 2826
Location: melbourne
Last night was a torrid night out.

As has been discussed at length for quite a few weeks, nay years, now we don't really seem to have a forward line structure. Well, that's unfair, we do. It's called "Kick it to Fev and let's pray he's going to have a good day".

We all know that when he has a good day it's, well it's downright spectacular, isn't it? but, when he doesn't, whether that be by his own hand or, in the case of last night the ball simply not getting to him, where do we go? and what do we do?

Plan A
Image

Here the players are, as I hope you can see, Kruezer, Fevola, Walker, Garlett and Betts.

Now, I know the Kruezer deep was used last night... with little success, but there is merit in it.

I mentioned in another thread I started last night that we needed structure. Well, how intuitive I can hear you all saying, where ever did you come up with that genius ploy? I mean structure as borrowed from other sports. Basically it's like a line in ice hockey. Each line consists of 4 or 5 players, different players match up together to form different lines. For example, players like Brendan Fevola are more or less going to feature in every set-up. But, the most important thing is how they feature. It's not about fostering a reliance on Fev, far from it. He's our most devastating attacking weapon, so it makes perfect sense for him to be out there. It's about using him and the players around him to kick winning scores. Simple, eh?

For this post/thread I've decided to focus on the offensive or attacking line as it would exist inside our 50 meter arc. I only had time to draw up two because I have work soon, but if anyone wants to contribute please, by all means, do.

The idea is each line has a specific set play or instruction set that they follow. They set up and, consequently, execute a very specific way.

I was going to add arrows and directions, a la football manager, but time constraints didn't allow for that, so instead I'll explain them.

This first line is all about creating space.

Walker starts at the traditional CHF spot, Fevola stands 30m out and Kruezer is in the goal square. Garlett and Betts stand 15m either side of Fev, forming what is essentially a diamond.

When Walker leads up onto the wing or through the corridor Garlett and Betts push up on the flanks to create an option in themselves and open up the forward 50.

When the ball is kicked in, they both retreat back into our F50, after dragging their opponents upfield away from our 2 Big Men, to lend support, guard the corridor of the F50, Walker, to the best of his ability, does the same, creating the same diamond that we started with, this time with the ball inside 50.

If it falls to ground Eddie, Garlett and Walker are there, and, if we get it in quickly either Fevola is on the lead in space 40m out, or Kruezer is one out in the goal square, or on the lead 25m out. The idea is, if the ball falls to ground, trap it in. if not, we have players running in to support.

The key to this line, in my mind, is the pressure and run of Eddie, Garlett and Walker. In these three we have guys who work hard, run to space and try to create. This line is also good for giving a player like Kruezer a rest up forward. He's great overhead, and in all reality, means the opposition has to sacrifice a tall defender, or better for us, ruckman, to mark him. It also gives Fevola a better run at the footy, a footy that will hopefully be kicked from the corridor, straight in front. Too often we go too wide. We can't be afraid of using the middle of the ground. The idea of the diamond is Eddie and Garlett hopefully straighten us up, they're almost the boundary line in terms of how narrow/wide we play.

It's not about 100% conversion rates, it's about creating an opportunity and having the opposition react to us and how we set up. It's about time opposition clubs had to figure out what we're doing on the fly. It's about setting up a structure that gives everyone a role.

Will it work every time? nope. But that's not the idea, the idea is to have it work as often as it can. And, at least it's an option.

Plan B
Image

Plan B uses the diamond again (It's a great shape, no doubt about it). Eddie and Garlett once again are used to straighten us up, to push up and down on the flanks, kind of like that old foosball hockey game, they're on rails, really. They push up onto the flanks depending on how and where we're attacking from, criss crossing as well like Wingers in football, taking their opponents from side to side, more to confuse than anything.

Kruezer takes up post in the middle, essentially, leaving O'hAilpin the space to lead into across CHF.

Fevola is stationed in the square this time, and can choose to either lead or stay put when the ball is coming in. Ideally he leads, thus getting the ball 30ish meters out from goal.

The key to this is unpredictability. O'hAilpin needs to work hard, with Eddie and Garlett supporting. Those two help massively when the ball goes to ground. Setanta basically has a 40m axis to work off. He can lead up the ground to CHF, or dart back to the goal square as Fev overlaps and takes his place. Kruezer sits 70-80 out from goal, meaning if he gets the ball we have the option to go a 30m kick to setanta at CHF or a 50m kick to Fev.

Look, I will admit that these are slapped together, and that clubs work on stuff like this. But we really need to figure something out. This is more to inspire constructive conversation, not "he said/she said" arguments about who will help us win a flag or who we should trade. We have the cattle to set up an imposing and multi-pronged forward set-up, we can be very difficult to contain. We just need more options, more drills and more plans/methods/modes of attack. It's about knowing exactly what we are doing every time we go forward, or at least 90% of the time. It's about setting up in such a way that Gibbs or Judd or Murphy or whoever is streaming forward with the ball, doesn't even need to look up to know that player x will be in this spot.

Training is a time to have this stuff drilled into our guys. Run the plays and the set-ups until they could run them in their sleep. In the NFL how many plays do those guys know? how many variants of plays do they know? And, to their credit, they execute them time and time again just right.

What do you think?

_________________
"In fairness it did seem in the early days of the draft teams would just pick a name totally at random out of a hat. I'm pretty sure we picked James Cook at #2 one year. The mediocre forward, not the explorer" - Me, 12/9/2011

Carlton 2012: Lets remind them why they once feared the Dark.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 25, 2009 3:10 pm 
Offline
Robert Walls

Joined: Sat Sep 09, 2006 6:03 pm
Posts: 3510
Location: East Brunwick
I like your thinking and effort.

Our problem is lack of hit up targets. Last night we had no one creating leads or being hit up moving forward

I know some people here (including me) have rubbished Wiggo but he offered exactly that.

John Anthony was taken before Jake Edwards and look how far John Anthony has come compared to Edwards. Why the bloody hell have we persisted with Cloke and Houlihan when Edwards could be playing a mobile target up forward, the hit up type player who can also play a negative role if needed.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 25, 2009 3:20 pm 
Offline
Bruce Doull
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 12:04 pm
Posts: 48548
Location: Prison Island
Anthony has more desire in his left foot than Edwards seems to have at all

Edwards has shown very little effort or desire to better himself and earn a spot in the seniors

_________________
*(grow - fun - gah) :fight:

Yeah but whatabout your whataboutism.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 25, 2009 3:30 pm 
Offline
Mike Fitzpatrick
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 8:57 pm
Posts: 4307
Location: Strathmore
Welcome to TalkingCarlton Brett Ratten.

If the ball is kicked over your head, at your feet and you take a week to get the ball there to allow for flooding, then it doesn't matter how the forward line is structured or who is in there, the weight of numbers usually win.

_________________
31-3-2015 - R.I.P AFL, corrupted lying pricks
12-5-2015 - Go WADA
18-8-2015 - Suffer Hird* u lying flower
12-1-2016 - CAS goes bang, happy new year.. Drugcheats forever..


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 25, 2009 3:39 pm 
Offline
Harry Vallence

Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2007 6:36 pm
Posts: 1057
Location: melbourne
jake carlisle - calder cannons
jack fitzpatrick - western jets
ben griffiths - eastern rangers
matthew panos - adelaide boy
daniel talia - country victoria
john butcher - country victoria, prob go to melbourne

watch the names above.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 25, 2009 3:39 pm 
Offline
Rod Ashman
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:02 pm
Posts: 2826
Location: melbourne
bosman wrote:
Welcome to TalkingCarlton Brett Ratten.

If the ball is kicked over your head, at your feet and you take a week to get the ball there to allow for flooding, then it doesn't matter how the forward line is structured or who is in there, the weight of numbers usually win.


You've missed the point.

The point of playing with structure(s) is that there's an option there 9 time out of 10. If we know what we're doing it makes it so much easier.

The reason we floundered so badly last night was because we just kept kicking in hope to speculative situations.

The beauty of the set-play is that the opposition don't have any idea how it's happening. They can't really pre-empt something they don't understand or expect. We don't seem to know what we're doing when our backs are against the wall, so the opposition aren't flustered by us.

Disciplined, organized and structured play is the name of the game going forward.

_________________
"In fairness it did seem in the early days of the draft teams would just pick a name totally at random out of a hat. I'm pretty sure we picked James Cook at #2 one year. The mediocre forward, not the explorer" - Me, 12/9/2011

Carlton 2012: Lets remind them why they once feared the Dark.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 25, 2009 3:49 pm 
Offline
Stephen Kernahan
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 11:17 am
Posts: 18662
Location: threeohfivethree
For any of that to work wouldn't they have to select Setanta, Walker and Garlett in the team?

_________________
“When a clown moves into a palace, he doesn't become a king. The palace turns into a circus.”
Turkish Proverb


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 25, 2009 4:22 pm 
Offline
Bruce Doull
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2005 2:32 pm
Posts: 33043
Location: Back in reality
Melvey wrote:
I like your thinking and effort.

Our problem is lack of hit up targets. Last night we had no one creating leads or being hit up moving forward

They were there, but they weren't pushing the zones with any cuts and zig-zags.

Quote:
John Anthony was taken before Jake Edwards and look how far John Anthony has come compared to Edwards. Why the bloody hell have we persisted with Cloke and Houlihan when Edwards could be playing a mobile target up forward, the hit up type player who can also play a negative role if needed.

Because Edwards has shown he is not willing to do the team things. As for the Anthony comparison, anyone who had a clue about their respective junior careers would know that it was a case of chalk and cheese.

They'd also know we took Edwards first.

_________________
29 different attributes,
And only 7 that you like;
20 ways to see the world,
Or 20 ways to start a fight.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 25, 2009 4:53 pm 
Offline
Rod Ashman
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:02 pm
Posts: 2826
Location: melbourne
GWS wrote:
For any of that to work wouldn't they have to select Setanta, Walker and Garlett in the team?


It all depends on who is in the team and who isn't.

We're a professional football club. There is the time and the means to prepare as such. Preparation is so, so important no matter what the task at hand.

I remember seeing Viv Richards, at least I think it was Viv, say after a batsman faced a ball, was beaten by the pace and bounce and proceeded to re-enact the shot, as so many batsmen do, striding forward and playing the ball through mime, "I don't know why batsmen do this, they're not going to get the exact same ball again".

For opposition defenders and defence we need to try to ensure they have no idea what's coming next, confuse them, put their own structure through the ringer and test their weaknesses. We need to attack with certainty and unpredictability.

I'm not naive enough to suggest that this sort of thing be implemented overnight, that's not possible. But, over pre season, in preparation for 2010, something like this demands to be looked at. Yes, it's complex. Yes, it'll take time and match practice to perfect. But, if successfully implemented it affords us flexibility, it provides us greater avenues to goal, it allows us the discipline and structure needed to succeed and be successful.

I want teams and journos to sit scratching their heads over something revolutionary we've put into practice. I wan't them trawling through hours and hours of match footage, chasing up loose ends and realising although similar, different set-ups have different designs. I want opposition coaching panels sitting in the box on matchday expending ridiculous effort and energy to understand what system we're playing at the moment, only to have us change at by the the time they do.

This can be done. Yes, it would take time and it'd require maximum effort, but something like this could be our ticket. theres a long time between September and March.

As I said in the initial post the system as I envisage it works like the Lines in Ice Hockey. They work around who is in the team, and it places them in groups that then pursue a specific goal. Defence, containment, attack and then variants of those and more. These specific groupings of players would be based on whatever the task desired of them at that time is. Obviously like players would be grouped together, they'd work together and rotate together.

_________________
"In fairness it did seem in the early days of the draft teams would just pick a name totally at random out of a hat. I'm pretty sure we picked James Cook at #2 one year. The mediocre forward, not the explorer" - Me, 12/9/2011

Carlton 2012: Lets remind them why they once feared the Dark.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 25, 2009 4:57 pm 
Offline
Alex Jesaulenko
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 7:13 pm
Posts: 21075
Location: Missing Kouta
Melvey wrote:
I like your thinking and effort.

Our problem is lack of hit up targets. Last night we had no one creating leads or being hit up moving forward

I know some people here (including me) have rubbished Wiggo but he offered exactly that.

John Anthony was taken before Jake Edwards and look how far John Anthony has come compared to Edwards. Why the bloody hell have we persisted with Cloke and Houlihan when Edwards could be playing a mobile target up forward, the hit up type player who can also play a negative role if needed.

Do you even watch football?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 25, 2009 5:24 pm 
Offline
Mike Fitzpatrick
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 8:57 pm
Posts: 4307
Location: Strathmore
seanpb wrote:
bosman wrote:
Welcome to TalkingCarlton Brett Ratten.

If the ball is kicked over your head, at your feet and you take a week to get the ball there to allow for flooding, then it doesn't matter how the forward line is structured or who is in there, the weight of numbers usually win.


You've missed the point.

The point of playing with structure(s) is that there's an option there 9 time out of 10. If we know what we're doing it makes it so much easier.

The reason we floundered so badly last night was because we just kept kicking in hope to speculative situations.

The beauty of the set-play is that the opposition don't have any idea how it's happening. They can't really pre-empt something they don't understand or expect. We don't seem to know what we're doing when our backs are against the wall, so the opposition aren't flustered by us.

Disciplined, organized and structured play is the name of the game going forward.



Don't think so, all Collingwood did last night was flood our forward line, left no space to lead and with the weight of numbers and just ran the ball out, we had numbers in backhalf and it was just basketball up and down crap until the last qrt.
Doesn't matter what forward line structure you have when you can't kick and hit a target on the lead because your so used to kicking the ball into space and having somebody run onto it, but when that space is gone and you can't kick, geez your skills look average.

_________________
31-3-2015 - R.I.P AFL, corrupted lying pricks
12-5-2015 - Go WADA
18-8-2015 - Suffer Hird* u lying flower
12-1-2016 - CAS goes bang, happy new year.. Drugcheats forever..


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 25, 2009 5:52 pm 
Offline
Rod Ashman
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:02 pm
Posts: 2826
Location: melbourne
quote="bosman"]
seanpb wrote:
bosman wrote:
Welcome to TalkingCarlton Brett Ratten.

If the ball is kicked over your head, at your feet and you take a week to get the ball there to allow for flooding, then it doesn't matter how the forward line is structured or who is in there, the weight of numbers usually win.


You've missed the point.

The point of playing with structure(s) is that there's an option there 9 time out of 10. If we know what we're doing it makes it so much easier.

The reason we floundered so badly last night was because we just kept kicking in hope to speculative situations.

The beauty of the set-play is that the opposition don't have any idea how it's happening. They can't really pre-empt something they don't understand or expect. We don't seem to know what we're doing when our backs are against the wall, so the opposition aren't flustered by us.

Disciplined, organized and structured play is the name of the game going forward.



Don't think so, all Collingwood did last night was flood our forward line, left no space to lead and with the weight of numbers and just ran the ball out, we had numbers in backhalf and it was just basketball up and down crap until the last qrt.
Doesn't matter what forward line structure you have when you can't kick and hit a target on the lead because your so used to kicking the ball into space and having somebody run onto it, but when that space is gone and you can't kick, geez your skills look average.[/quote]

So how do you combat that, then?

My point was that by implementing something like this, not this exactly, when it's not your night and things aren't rolling your way, when you really have to dig in to make it happen, you have something you can fall back on.

What would you have tried to do, Bosman, when it became apparent last night wasn't our night?

_________________
"In fairness it did seem in the early days of the draft teams would just pick a name totally at random out of a hat. I'm pretty sure we picked James Cook at #2 one year. The mediocre forward, not the explorer" - Me, 12/9/2011

Carlton 2012: Lets remind them why they once feared the Dark.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 25, 2009 5:54 pm 
Offline
Horrie Clover

Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2008 12:25 am
Posts: 356
It's a little difficult to build a balanced forward line when you only have 2 quality forwards and one is the size of a jockey.

The best structure in the world can't turn Hartlett, Edwards etc into viable forwards. We should be focusing on acquiring real talent to surround Fev with.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 25, 2009 8:28 pm 
Offline
Mike Fitzpatrick
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 8:57 pm
Posts: 4307
Location: Strathmore
seanpb wrote:
What would you have tried to do, Bosman, when it became apparent last night wasn't our night?


Watch the geelong/hawthorn game today and see how good teams kicks and handball. Once we can master the fabric of what the game is about and the other 1% that take you a long way, then you can worry about have a forward structure to kick to.
Gotta learn to crawl before you can walk, gotta learn to walk before you can jump, and our skills are somewhere in between crawling and walking.

_________________
31-3-2015 - R.I.P AFL, corrupted lying pricks
12-5-2015 - Go WADA
18-8-2015 - Suffer Hird* u lying flower
12-1-2016 - CAS goes bang, happy new year.. Drugcheats forever..


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 25, 2009 9:29 pm 
Offline
Stephen Kernahan
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 10:56 am
Posts: 19501
Location: Progreso, Yucatan, MEXICO
It doesn't matter whom we put there if they have no legs.

_________________
Let slip the Blues of war (with apologies to William Shakespeare) (and Sir Francis Bacon, just in case)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 26, 2009 2:03 am 
Offline
Ken Hands
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 5:31 pm
Posts: 408
Sean, excellent ideas in theory. And as you said if the team was well disciplined and organised these structures would work 8 or 9 times out of 10.
For all of you that are saying it just doesn't work like that, you are right. It doesn't. And it hasn't because like an U12 team we go kick chasing thus completely ruining any structure that was in place and as much as you may not want to believe it there is always some sort of structure. Say in Sean's plan A, Fev decides to lead up to the wing and Walker decides to drop back to the goal square, (examples of a lack of discipline and organisation) The 'diamond effect' gets ruined. And instead of Kreuzer having a one on one in the goal square which he would win most times, he'll have a two on two. And instead of us having a leading option from fev around 40 meters out we have noone, or betts might have to lead in there thus eliminating a crumber. So you see how easy it is for a structure to get ruined by one or two players kick chasing.

I remember watching a Geelong game earlier this year in which Bartel played on one wing and Chapman on the other. And every time Geelong had the ball in there defensive 50, they had a get out kick to bartel on the left wing who would always lead to the defensive 50 or Chapman on the right wing. Both players despite the ball perhaps not being on there wing, would hold and then wait and then lead to there spot, and when i say eevery time i mean every time. SIMPLE DISCIPLINE!!!

Any way enough on that, back to the thread, love the ideas Sean! If only we implemented them properly!!!!

_________________
Loooook OUT!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 26, 2009 3:07 am 
Offline
Harry Vallence
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2007 4:50 pm
Posts: 1122
apologies, but just a quick note because im rather obsessive. . .


Shouldn't it be 'visual AIDES' ?

visual aids to me implies Something else. . Lol

_________________
Cuck Follingwood


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 26, 2009 12:49 pm 
Offline
Robert Walls

Joined: Sat Sep 09, 2006 6:03 pm
Posts: 3510
Location: East Brunwick
Kouta wrote:
Melvey wrote:
I like your thinking and effort.

Our problem is lack of hit up targets. Last night we had no one creating leads or being hit up moving forward

I know some people here (including me) have rubbished Wiggo but he offered exactly that.

John Anthony was taken before Jake Edwards and look how far John Anthony has come compared to Edwards. Why the bloody hell have we persisted with Cloke and Houlihan when Edwards could be playing a mobile target up forward, the hit up type player who can also play a negative role if needed.

Do you even watch football?


Football?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 26, 2009 12:50 pm 
Offline
Robert Walls

Joined: Sat Sep 09, 2006 6:03 pm
Posts: 3510
Location: East Brunwick
in8 wrote:
It's a little difficult to build a balanced forward line when you only have 2 quality forwards and one is the size of a jockey.

The best structure in the world can't turn Hartlett, Edwards etc into viable forwards. We should be focusing on acquiring real talent to surround Fev with.


Bulldust. If Ratten was a great developer of kids these guys could have a chance

He isn't.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 26, 2009 1:18 pm 
Offline
Harry Vallence
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 4:10 pm
Posts: 1718
Location: Romsey, Victoria
Bring Cloke in and play him out of the goal square. Play Fevola 25-55m out. It will reduce Fev's goal output but we'll become less predictable. We have the small forwards who can create goals and put the opposition under pressure should the ball hit the ground and Fevolas skill once the ball hits the deck is underrated.

Sounds much easier in writing though :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 24 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC + 10 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 56 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group