SA Footy

I'm all for the game becoming a little quicker, but I'm also somewhat of a purist, and after watching last nights game (Rich v C'Wood) I think the coaches have taken it a little too far.
What I saw last night was not a game of football FFS!
Whenever the ball was turned over, the team in possession had to kick backwards as there was nobody upfield to kick to. This "rolling zone" is making a mockery of what once was a very enjoyable game to watch.
If that is the sort of crap we are going to see all year I won't be tuning in very often.

Would be interesting to hear other peoples views on this...

Rolling Zone, Flooding. Call it what you like it is going to drive us all mad in the coming months. Especially in games where one team is well aware it is fighting out of its weight division. ie: Melbourne V Geelong...

Booney, Geelong flood with the best of them

The difference is that they have mastered the quick forward movement (thanks to some gun players) when they get the turnover. How many times do you see the Cats running into vast open spaces in their forward line?

Tom Harley admitted that they have been using extensive flooding and full-ground zones the last 2 years. "Admitted" is the wrong word as it implies he was embarrassed about it, which he wasn't. He was just trying to point out that Hawthorn didn't invent the full-ground zone

Teams that don't have the talent of the Cats often times get bogged down moving forward and then the games can turn ugly to watch.

One thing the rolling zone will force is fast forward movement to break it, so the game should become faster. My issue is that it sounds like handball will be the weapon of choice, turning our game into touch football.

Note for record - none of these changes are thanks to the AFL rules committee. This is all from our coaches.

I know it is coming from the coaches, and yes I know all sides use it. Thankfully coaches will, in time, develop methods ( like Geelongs ultra fast handball based ball movement ) to break these negative tactics down. Or, God forbid, a coach decides to go man-on-man for 4 quarters, imagine that?

I understand your fears of the game becoming too biased towards handballing as the main method of disposal and as I said above all trends like this only last 2-3 years before coaches work around the ploy and a new game style comes into fashion.

Watching Geelong against the Crows I noted that at every ball up that wasn't too near one boundary Geelong set up a loose player on either side about half-way to the boundary and players who got possession automatically went for the player they knew would be there. I was surprised the Crows did nothing about blocking this manouevre by setting up with a player in the same area.

I agree entirely mypaddock. The flooding game plan is the worst thing I have ever seen in footy and to me it is disrespectful to the history and structure of our great game. Charles Brownlow must be turning over in his grave.

On paper the Tigers look to be a team on the up but they are trying to implement the Clarkson game plan. Problem is, they just don't have the footskills of the Hawks. As for the Cats we slipped back into overpossessing the football in 2008 and there was clear evidence of that happening again against Adelaide.

regards,

REB

Rik E Boy wrote:On paper the Tigers look to be a team on the up but they are trying to implement the Clarkson game plan. Problem is, they just don't have the footskills of the Hawks. As for the Cats we slipped back into overpossessing the football in 2008 and there was clear evidence of that happening again against Adelaide.

regards,

REB

Exactly.

Richmond's skills last night were third rate at times, I know it is NAB cup but what they dished up skills wise last night was just quite simply no where near good enough for this level. They have a lot of work to do in that area.

On a side note get Deledio in your SC team REB.

We always see the most of this type of play in the early part of recent seasons over the last decade or so, particularly in the pre-season when clubs have up to four more guys on the bench, are playing shorter quarters, are not yet weighed down by the niggle injuries that occur over a long season and the grounds and weather are warm and fast.
Once we get into the year, there are only four on the bench (less to run through the midfield), playing longer normal quarters (more time in the match making it harder to run in groups around the ball), players are developing little niggles (not enough to keep you out of the game but enough maybe to stop you getting to as many contests in a match and create extra pack situations) and we get some wetter weather (at least we used to, before global warming made it summer / autumn for 11 months of the year).
Against that, clubs are constantly working on player fitness and using rotations so much that players hit the wall later and later in games, and are able to keep up this rolling maul for longer and longer, until one team breaks the other.
As a purely personal view, I reckon we have to make 1-2 of the bench as subs, for use when you have a game-ending injury or want to take a player out of the game, and only have 2-3 interchange and not four, so the ability of clubs to constantly run players through the midfield is reduced.
That way, we reward our fittest and best players and also try and return the game to a contest of 18 against 18, with back up players, instead of the current trend where it's a game of 22 against 22, with just 18 happening to be on the field at any one time.

hondo71 wrote:Note for record - none of these changes are thanks to the AFL rules committee. This is all from our coaches.

What rubbish!

They bring in the 'hands in the back' rule, so now no-one wants to kick to a one on one as any contact in the back is an auto free. If someone stands in front, you cant chop the arms. So if you are caught behind there is NOTHING you can legally do. The long kicking game to a contest was due it it being just that- a contest.

They brought in the instant play on from behinds, so blokes rush points to get the quick re-start. Now that too is a free.

The coaches have simply adjusted to the rules they are given.

The monster begats the monster Hondo...

The rolling zone can always be beaten. You'll notice that a couple of the youngsters looked up and saw no options, panicked, and just tried to boot the leather off the ball. Turnover. The experienced players looked for the switch. An accurate kick broke the zone as the opposition couldn't move across fast enough and the attacking team had plenty of runners coming through on the switch side and the forwards had plenty of space to lead into.

FWIW, I do find the flooding tactics a bit tedious at times, but there's something great about watching a perfectly executed switch and seeing it completely open up the opposition.

MatteeG

Show me the offical rule that says you should play 16 men behind the ball. Or the one that says you should kick backwards for the last 2 minutes of each quarter.

These tactics have zero to do with hands in the back rule, for example. Coaches don't want contests out there because they are just that - 50-50 contests. Would you take 90-10 odds (ie, keep possession) over 50-50 bets if you could? Of course you would.

You know why the play on from points rule was brought in? Because coaches were using the time it took to wave the flags to set up defensive zones and stifle the play so everyone had to kick to the back pocket!

The AFL have to have some say in how the game evolves, it can't be left solely to the coaches. They have one goal and one goal only ... win however they can. Which is perfectly fine, so long as the spectacle isn't stuffed up.

Even your coach admitted he was basically exploiting the rushed behinds rule to his own advantage.

Show me the offical rule that says you should play 16 men behind the ball. Or the one that says you should kick backwards for the last 2 minutes of each quarter.

Show me the rule which says you cant throw 16 behind the ball- there has never been a rule to say you cant! It is a result of the fitness and professionalism of the game and its players. Show me the rule which says everyone should stay in their position.

These tactics have zero to do with hands in the back rule, for example. Coaches don't want contests out there because they are just that - 50-50 contests. Would you take 90-10 odds (ie, keep possession) over 50-50 bets if you could? Of course you would.

I disagree- previously if a big forward had one or 2 players drop in front of them they were able to 'crash' the pack, make a contest and play would go on (with the defenders re-thinking whether they are gonna get in front of the next contest). Now that players can run into a once dangerous area and know they cant really be crunched or even touched in the back for risk of a free (hands in the back/chopping arms), or a 50m penalty/report (for charging). The relentless battering of bodies used to wear blokes down and eventually open the game up. Now days with the much reduced big clashes and the 4 interchange players (another recent rule change), players are fresher for much longer, and are able to keep pushing back.

You know why the play on from points rule was brought in? Because coaches were using the time it took to wave the flags to set up defensive zones and stifle the play so everyone had to kick to the back pocket!

True- but people are bitching about the point rushing, which is arguably more damaging to the game than teams zoning up for the kick in. Plus what was wrong with the "offensive" team zoning for the kick in? They are the team who worked it into the forward line to begin with...the current rule 'rewards' the team deep in defense IMO, as they get an unhurried possession

The AFL have to have some say in how the game evolves, it can't be left solely to the coaches. They have one goal and one goal only ... win however they can. Which is perfectly fine, so long as the spectacle isn't stuffed up.

You said it- coaches have one goal in mind- to win. So they are gonna use any tactic possible. Do you think Dean Bailey would prefer to play aesthetically pleasing football and lose by 15 goals or scrap to a 5 point win?

Even your coach admitted he was basically exploiting the rushed behinds rule to his own advantage.

let me correct you there- our PREMIERSHIP coach... You will find most successful coaches have 'exploited' the rules in their time, wasnt Barassi some type of revolutionary for using bloke(s) off the bench in the 1970 GF despite the starting players not being injured? And using the previously unthought of notion of handballing?? Rules will always be exploited and coaches will always come up with new tactics, not all of which are gonna be popular. If the rules had stayed the same , there would be less new rules to exploit!

I reckon as soon as a team takes the "rolling zone" on and keeps players ahead of the ball, they'll dominate and win a premiership and then everyone will copy them. Hence killing the "rolling zone". When Geelong were winning by playing fast, flowing footy, everyone tried to copy it. So we saw a fair bit of free flowing footy. Hawthorn win a flag with zone footy, everyone will try and copy it. The next team to come up with something original that is effective will win the next premiership and everyone will follow.

LOL Hondo- I just love feudin with ya!