An alternative gameplan...

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Guzzitza
Ruckman, i consider "ill buy 4 star midfielders" not a realistic option

I think you'll find that's exactly what Ruckman was saying too!!

[Guzzitza]

Originally posted by Ruckman
And despite his comment that "ill buy 4 star midfielders" doesnt count it's amazing and a little depressing that some people are incapable of not retreating into fantasy recruitment land. God help us if the Football department thought like that!

Sorry, lol, i took "God help us if the Football thought Dept thought like that!" as suggesting that we should be thinking like that...
? err confused...

[SwallowdaFonz]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
Here are a few ideas:

• [snip]
• Players to run hard to find space in the corridor or on the fat side of the ground to open up space and get a more direct route to goal
• No more than 2 players to contest marks - remainder to scout packs
• When players do not have the ball they should either run to make space or shepherd the player with the ball
• After delivering the ball, whether by foot or hand, the player should continue running either to offer a fresh target or to provide a shepherd to the receiver

One of the problems with running hard to create options when we have the ball is that we get cut up when the ball turns over (which is a lot with our current poor disposal). The match committee have the choice of making players accountable for their man - in which case they may be loathe to run off them even when we are in attack - or encourage the riskier attacking style.

Like others I'd be happy to see the Swans start taking some more risks, even with our crap disposal, but we have to realise that the downside will be easy posessions (and perhaps a direct route to goal) for the opposition when the ball turns over. No wonder the other sides play comparatively attractive footy!

[SimonH]

Originally posted by SwallowdaFonz
One of the problems with running hard to create options when we have the ball is that we get cut up when the ball turns over (which is a lot with our current poor disposal). The match committee have the choice of making players accountable for their man - in which case they may be loathe to run off them even when we are in attack - or encourage the riskier attacking style.

Like others I'd be happy to see the Swans start taking some more risks, even with our crap disposal, but we have to realise that the downside will be easy posessions (and perhaps a direct route to goal) for the opposition when the ball turns over. No wonder the other sides play comparatively attractive footy!

One of the reasons why Sydney's games are so low-scoring is that our defence is so desperate and disciplined. When the ball does get turned over and we're exposed on the rebound (which, due to dodgy disposal, happens more than it should), that other teams don't get the easy turnover goals that they would get against a weaker defence. If all defenders were instructed to keep running after they deliver, they would be 80 metres rather than 20 metres from their opponents in the event of a turnover, and the Croydon Park U/10s could kick a goal on the rebound.

To avoid another epic post, I won't go through all of NMW Bloods' suggestions (some good, some bad, some of which I'm sure are already part of the game plan). However, suffice to say that 'when in doubt, kick it long' is (if you're not less than 2 kicks from goal) inconsistent with 'move the ball quickly forward and give the forwards more one-outs' and inconsistent with the risk-taking that people often associate with exciting football.

It is only by kicking the ball sideways to a free defender on the fat side of the ground, running in numbers and sharing handballs etc that you are able to ultimately create the loose man that allows you to stream through and deliver the long, fast ball that defenders hate. If the opposition is so undisciplined that you've got an unmarked teammate 50 metres down the ground from you, great-- but it don't happen a lot in senior footy. Kicking your longest dob to another big marking contest like the last one is a recipe for slow, boring football. Senior footy hasn't been played that way since the 1970s for a good reason-- teams with mobile targets running free all over the place just chop up teams who rely on two or three players to take 'speccies' in static marking contests.

[NMWBloods]

I don't think it's inconsistent.

It's about recognising that you can't always create the change of direction play with the loose man and the running option. Sometimes it simply works to bash the ball forward.

Brisbane and Essendon and the Kangaroos in their premiership years were successful at using both options.

[Schneiderman]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
Here are a few ideas:

Actually quite good.

I would add this too:

• When in a pack situation, do a quick count as to how many of us there are versus how many of them. If we are in the greater, stop watching the ball and find your player dammit!
• As a general rule: spread out! Dont be afraid to zone off your player if they are rushing into a pack as the fifteenth man in. Trust that the ball bill come out in our favour and you will then have space to use it. This is not U12 footy any more.

Of course these suggestions reflect the last game mostly. But its so frustrating when you see a five to three pack situation in our favour as we did on Saturday. How are those extra two bodies going to help win the ball??

[SimonH]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
I don't think it's inconsistent.

It's about recognising that you can't always create the change of direction play with the loose man and the running option. Sometimes it simply works to bash the ball forward.

Brisbane and Essendon and the Kangaroos in their premiership years were successful at using both options.

Agreed there's nothing inherently long with going the long tonk if Barry Hall is in your sights and there's a crumber somewhere near him. It might be worth trying as a surprise tactic if the opposition runners are zoning off defensively so we can't create a loose man. And if you've just grabbed the ball in the pack, there's no handball on and you're about to get jumped, of course you're just going to sink the boot in and hope for the best.

But it shouldn't be a first instinct. The phrase 'if in doubt kick it long' implies that if there's any doubt that this short pass/handball/create the loose man maneouvre might not work, we should instead just pump it as long as we can to a contest. That mentality ('we're a good chance of losing it anyway, so we might as well lose it 50 metres up rather than 15 metres up the field') is my definition of defensive and negative football.

Completely agree that once enough players are at the contest that it qualifies as 'congested', no-one else should go in-- even following a direct opponent-- but instead should ask themselves, 'where will it be most useful for me to be when it comes out?'

[NMWBloods]

I agree that throwing it on the boot as first instinct doesn't work, but then again neither does handballing it blindly. It's about decision making, which our guys seem to sorely lack. It's also what I meant by - only handball when it is a good option that creates opportunities rather than as the first resort.

[SimonH]

Completely agree that blind handballing doesn't work. However, I don't think that almost all of our handballs that miss the mark are blind-- they're intended for a certain player-- they're just incompetent!