Best 22 for 2014

[Captain]

Happy to give you a break, even happier to hear where you plucked that somewhat strange inference from?

From post #49.

[Ruck'n'Roll]

You can't claim to have a 7/10/5 structure when you have 2 ruckman in the forward line. It's 7/11/4 which is incorrect.

Bloody Hell, I can't have 22 players on the field at one time either, odd post.

From post #49.

I think you may be assuming something: Rampe's inclusion and LRT's exclusion are not a reflection of value, but difference. LRT is a KPP and Rampe is a mid. By choice we shouldn't play LRT, Grundy and Ted in defence. We tried it this year, it was unsuccessful.

[GordonS]

Rampe's inclusion and LRT's exclusion are not a reflection of value, but difference. LRT is a KPP and Rampe is a mid. By choice we shouldn't play LRT, Grundy and Ted in defence. We tried it this year, it was unsuccessful.

i wouldnt call it unsuccessful. lrt went back to cover the third tall role of aj, but he went down with injury himself.

[Bloody Hell]

Bloody Hell, I can't have 22 players on the field at one time either, odd post.

It wasn't a post ment to generate so much debate. To be clear:

1. You list both Mumford and Pyke as forwards.

2. One of them must be in the midfield.

3. If you move one to the midfield it becomes 7/11/4.

4. I'm finished explaining this.

5. I will be giving no further clarifications.

6. I don't care.

[Ruck'n'Roll]

PM instead

[wolftone57]

I am just confused by this thread completely. It seems we are playing NFL not AFL. 4 11 5 36 73 42 touch down. Who @@@@ing cares. The function of a team is to operate as a unit. The strategies of the new AFL are varied and game plans change these days with every team you meet. sometimes coaches, players or situations are not flexible enough to adjust to the new environment. But the basic reality of Ausie Rules is this; IT IS A SIMPLE GAME. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to work it out or Brendan Fervola would have been playing in Coburg Thirds.

If you complicate a game by making it a game of numbers instead of keeping it a game of position it becomes confusing. A coach will not confuse players by telling them we are paying 7 11 4 as it would confuse them completely as there would be 4 too many players on the field. A coach approaches a player with a board with an oval that looks like the one they are playing on and says stand here at the centre bounces. Players are also drilled on where to stand at stoppages in the offensive and defensive halves. They are different if you hadn't noticed. But asking players or supporters to do maths or separate mids, backs & forwards and say that is set is bloody stupid. At any given time there are 6 forwards whether they are resting mids or not. There are 6 defenders and 6 mids. But if we are going bad there are 18 backmen, work that one out. On kick ins later in the year we had all our players in the defensive half. This is a game of tactics, not numbers, even though numbers do count. We lost the defensive battle in the latter half of the year simply because we flooded the defense and couldn't find a way out.

Don't get caught in the numbers game as it will change according to the tactics applied in any given game in any given year depending on the players available.

[Ruck'n'Roll]

Regarding the inherent simplicity of the game, at a superficial level it still is, and while I would not pretend expert knowledge on how coaches go about their business. I suggest that today's burgeoning football departments and coaching panels suggests the game may not be as simple as you suggest. Certainly such frequently used terms as ?structure? ?process? "role" and ?system? suggest there is ?method to the madness.? The framework I used is just my way of trying to view the ?method.?

Anyway, the way I listed the 22 (7/10/5) instead of in the more familiar 3/3/3/3/3/3/4 or even the archaic 3/3/3/3/3/2/1 frameworks. Is not some attempt to turn AFL into NFL (or EPL) but simply a way for me (and possibly other interested souls) to look at the team based on contemporary structures and roles rather than having one?s thinking constrained by those earlier frameworks. As previously noted in this thread all frameworks tend to affect thinking and a different perspective can be revelatory or at least clarifying.

Although as a self-proclaimed fan of simplicity, you should be happier with the 7/10/5 framework, which contains less numbers than the traditional frameworks. That the title of this thread is the ?best 22? not the best XVIII is de-facto recognition that the bench for example are an intrinsic part of the team. That older frameworks no longer accurately describe what occurs in the 21st century is not a controversial opinion, many paid commentators hold it.


The framework I suggested, was drawn from several seasons observation of what appears to be a structure that the Swans clearly prefer to use. Reference to the 2012 GF team was merely an illustration. Exactly where the ruckmen appear in the framework is unimportant Bloody Hell. That the Swans prefer to play two ruckmen however, is a cornerstone of their structure. Other such cornerstones include their preference for a 7 defender structure. It is the Swans that created the structure. The framework offered merely clarifies it, and sometimes perhaps reveals possible structural problems more easily than the traditional frameworks.

[Jewels]

You know you're wrong when both an arch BS artist and a vilification specialist tell you so.

Best post EVER!!!!!

[aardvark]

You know you're wrong when both an arch BS artist and a vilification specialist tell you so.

Nice! Although i'm still trying to work out which one's which!

[Jewels]

Nice! Although i'm still trying to work out which one's which!

Interchangable I reckon Aardy!