+- Carlton Supporters Club (http://new.carltonsc.com)
+-- Forum: Princes Park (http://new.carltonsc.com/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: Robert Heatley Stand (http://new.carltonsc.com/forum-14.html)
+--- Thread: Why So Different?? (/thread-2089.html)
Re: Why So Different?? - DJC - 06-28-2015
(06-27-2015, 11:22 PM)kruddler link Wrote:That is incorrect.
The point of going around the boundary line was IF you can't make a precision kick, you'll get it to a 50-50 contest in which the defender will most likely knock it over the boundary line, then you start again with a throw in, but further into your territory.
In short, it was about territory and suited our lack of kicking skills to go around the boundary. If we turned it over there it was less likely to hurt us!
That may be the theory but Blind Freddy could see that it didn't work in practice. Opposition players knew exactly where the ball was going and were able to spoil or intercept. Rather than throw ins, the ball often went straight back down the corridor, giving our defenders no chance.
Given the opportunity, Malthouse would have persevered with his outdated, ineffective gameplan regardless of the playing list and the evolution of the game.
The answer to the question 'why so different?' is blindingly obvious; Malthouse and his archaic approach to coaching is gone!
Re: Why So Different?? - PassIt2Carrots - 06-28-2015
^^^^ This!!
Re: Why So Different?? - kruddler - 06-28-2015
(06-27-2015, 11:41 PM)PaulP link Wrote:Watching many of the games on TV lately, there are many teams that go around the boundary. It is the safe option, but it would have the most chance of success if you have strong contested marks at the end of each kick, which minimizes the chance of the ball going OOB, which I would have thought is more a plan B. If it does go OOB, you need a good, strong ruck and follower combination to capitalize. If you are weak in the stoppages, then it doesn't work as well.
I've always believed that contested marking and accurate kicking for goal are the two most valuable assets in AFL footy. If you have a reasonable number of players with these skills, you can beat anyone.
We are #1 in the competition in stoppages, which is one reason why we went with that style gameplan.
I agree accurate kicking and to a lesser extent contested marking are the most valuable.
Re: Why So Different?? - kruddler - 06-28-2015
(06-28-2015, 12:03 AM)DJC link Wrote:That may be the theory but Blind Freddy could see that it didn't work in practice. Opposition players knew exactly where the ball was going and we're able to spoil or intercept. Rather than throw ins, the ball often went straight back down the corridor, giving our defenders no chance.
Given the opportunity, Malthouse would have persevered with his outdated, ineffective gameplan regardless of the playing list and the evolution of the game.
The answer to the question 'why so different?' is blindingly obvious; Malthouse and his archaic approach to coaching is gone!
That is all well and good, but you are arguing a point that was not brought up.
EB1 misunderstood the reasons behind our gameplan. I said it suited our players (lack of) kicking ability.
As for the outdated game plan....we were #1 in the pre-season for using the corridor.
Port were #1 for using the corridor and have been 'found out' this year.
Ken Hinkley was lauded by many as the best coach in the AFL last year, this year he is outdated. Malthouse won a flag in 2010, but now is archaic. Simplistic thinking at its finest.
Ultimately, the best game plan is one that involves a bit of everything, thus making it hard to defend against.
Based on my observations last week there was 1 simple instruction on how to play the game.
"Keep the ball moving forward into space at every opportunity."
That is, if you can't find a teammate, find space.
In a stoppage, hit the ball into space.
When under pressure, forget about trying to pinpoint a teammate, look for space.
The players all knew this, so when someone had the ball, they were looking for space and ultimately would run onto the loose ball.
There were countless examples of this, but perhaps the most memorable was cripps handball over his head into the path of Bell running into space, goal.
The beauty of such a 'gameplan', the opposition don't know about it prior to the match. Will it work each and every week? No, opposition will work it out eventually like they have with Port.
Re: Why So Different?? - Lods - 06-28-2015
Bottom line is that playing the way we did under Malthouse may have been designed to compensate for our lack of kicking skills or to maximise the benefits of our advantage at stoppages.....but it didn't work!
Re: Why So Different?? - ItsOurTime - 06-28-2015
LOL "designed". The old man had run out of ideas and was just using what he knew and comfortable with - minus the Nafan additions which made it so successful at Collingwood.
Re: Why So Different?? - DJC - 06-28-2015
No, it is not simplistic thinking.
In 2010 Malthouse had a team that had been built around his gameplan and could execute it to perfection. Even so, opposition coaches had developed tactics to counter the Collingwood style.
Five years later and the game has changed dramatically and Malthouse is trying to mould a team to a gameplan that has been left behind.
Broadly speaking, there are three factors that will determine the effectiveness of a gameplan; predictability, execution and probability of scoring. The Malthouse gameplan was too predictable (and therefore easy to counter), was poorly executed (creating scoring opportunities for the opposition) and resulted in low percentage scoring opportunities for us. It also created a culture of helplessness among the playing group who must have felt that they were being asked to play with one hand tied behind their back.
I haven't seen the team play under Barker but it seems that one of the main differences is tackling with intent, a facet of the game that was sadly lacking under Malthouse.
I suspect that Barker, now that he has freed the shackles, will tailor the gameplan to counter and exploit opposition strengths and weaknesses. It will be interesting and informative to see how we go about it today.
Re: Why So Different?? - Blue Moon - 06-28-2015
Under Ratten we had the reputation of being "down hill skiers". I would have got Roos, but he was not interested or available so I think Malthouse was brought in to provide a more defensive mindset. Clearly this didn't work. I think the club misunderstood the problem which is and was that the playing group believed they could pick and choose when they would try and when they would go thru the motions. This was Malthouse's failure just as it was Ratten's, Pagen's and Brittain's failure. The tackling pressure is an indication the players are choosing to have a go at the moment. The real challenge for the next coach is to make this a part of the culture of the team and the club.
Re: Why So Different?? - PaulP - 06-28-2015
Clearly every style of play will have its downside.
Going around the boundary would also involve less manic running than the "take the game on" style of play. It is difficult, as we have seen, for any club to continue with that style of play, week after week, season after season. OTOH, going around the boundary also slows down the play, making it easier for the opposition to structure their defence, flood etc.
If you have the right personnel, the around the boundary plan is a very reasonable option. If we had one forward, a ruck man, a defender, and possibly a wingman with elite contested marking like Levi, we'd be unbeatable. Clearly, this is the stuff of fantasy, but the logic behind it is sound.
Now, we don't have such a team, so we need to try something different. And fair enough too.
Re: Why So Different?? - Baggers - 06-28-2015
Probably belongs in the 'What Does Johnny Have To Do' thread but I thought to myself just a little while ago that if nothing else we need to thank JB for giving us back our football club. Yes, long way to go and much to do, but it sure does seem that the club is once again owned by the players, supporters and all those behind the scenes.