The Huddle?

[DST]

Watching the last couple of games on TV again it has become noticable that our improved form has alot to do with us employing the huddle at our kick out's in the last few weeks (once SnDon started to kick a few points in the second half we went coast to coast a number of times without an SnDon player touching it).

I remember back in the early part of the season we would employ a zone and usually take the easy option 15 meters to the right or left of the square. Thus banishing us to the boundry line and stopping our quick movement of the ball.

Can anyone remember in what game we reverted back to the huddle for kick in's?

Would be great to have a look at our accruacy rates for goal since then to see if this has had any influence on where the ball is coming into the F50 and where we are taking our shots.

DST

[TheHood]

The Huddle is an interesting one. Worked a treat against the Dons but that was the first I had seen it in a long time.

It's not something you can employ all the time, ie a habit that can be overcome when a team is expecting it.

I think it's something you can revert to at half time if the other game plan isn't working or something along those lines.

It worked against last weekend because Sydney aren't known for it. The other thing is, it's effective almost every time.

Who invented it? Wallsy at Carlton?

[ScottH]

Can't remember which game, but about a month or more ago, we used the huddle very successfully, and Goodes more often than not received the ball, uncontested.

[motorace_182]

I think it was first used against the Doggies to great effect. Eade seemed to not even try to defend it and instead try to stop the next kick up the ground. Their plan didnt work too well at all.
Its good to have another option for the kick in if the huddle isnt working however.

[liz]

No tactic, such as a 'huddle' ought to work successfully for a whole match. If it is working you'd expect the opposition to find a way to counter it. Mark Harvey admitted on WLF last night that the Essendon coaching box was slow to find a counter-tactic.

To be fair to them, however, it wasn't until the second half that the tactic became relevant, given that the Bombers only scored one behind in the whole of the first half. By midway through the third quarter, tiredness would have started to become a factor (mental, as well as physical, especially with Essendon fielding so many young, inexperienced players) and that probably affected their ability to stop players breaking from the huddle unhindered.

[NMWBloods]

Best way to counter the huddle is probably the zone defence.

[barry]

Originally posted by TheHood

Who invented it? Wallsy at Carlton?

I'm pretty sure it was Carlton. Cant remember if it was Wallsy or Parkin.

I love the huddle. Looks great. Only thing against it is it forces you to go wide.

[floppinab]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
Best way to counter the huddle is probably the zone defence.

Yep, could not believe Essendon didn't line up in that fashion after the first couple of easy takeaways. A no-brainer I would've thought, the majority of other teams are wide awake to this one.

[Mike_B]

Agree with most of what's been said (and was going to post about WLF if liz hadn't already) - it really isn't up to us whether we play the huddle or not, it comes down to how the opposition set up to defend the kick out. If they go the zone, the huddle isn't an option.

[giant]

Originally posted by Mike_B
Agree with most of what's been said (and was going to post about WLF if liz hadn't already) - it really isn't up to us whether we play the huddle or not, it comes down to how the opposition set up to defend the kick out. If they go the zone, the huddle isn't an option.

Yes, you do look a bit silly huddling if there is no one standing you...that said, does leave the option of going straight up the middle & makes it tuffer for taggers.

I think we've been doing a combo of the huddle & the zone from the kick-out for awhile & agree that it has changed our game style. To me, this & the use of Goodes as wing/linkman are the 2 great arguments vs the alleged "non-changing" game plan fallacy.

[punter257]

it was great to see us carry the ball the whole length of the ground for a change after a kick in.

definitely better than the short 15m pass to the pocket then the long kick down the wing followed by a boundary throw in

[DST]

Originally posted by Mike_B
Agree with most of what's been said (and was going to post about WLF if liz hadn't already) - it really isn't up to us whether we play the huddle or not, it comes down to how the opposition set up to defend the kick out. If they go the zone, the huddle isn't an option.

Plenty of players play the zone and then just plonk themselves in the same spot and don't protect the space around them, which in the end falls down against thw huddle.

These days all you need is a two meters on an opponent and the disposal is in most cases good enough to pick that player out.

I think I heard a commentator on the weekend say that they were employing the zone against the huddle in another game but it was not working as the outriders were not prepared to keep moving and protect the space around them.

DST

[NMWBloods]

I think Walls invented the huddle - based it on basketball inbound plays I would guess.

[Diego]

Robert Walls came up with the huddle when he was coaching Fitzroy. Used it for the first time in 1983.

I am sure Paul Roos would have been part of the playing group who were taught the huddle.

[monopoly19]

If a team does emply the zone defense against the huddle (as they probably would if it has worked a few times), then why don't the Swans players just remain in the huddle and get the kick-in to go in that direction. Surely we'd have a massive overlap.