06-04-2018, 11:57 AM
(06-04-2018, 11:19 AM)IvanAwfulbigone link Wrote:Maybe, just MAYBE, the strategy of stemming the flow of heavy losses by shoring up our defence was the wrong horse to back. I mean, on the surface it seemed logical. If I was on the interview panel and the prospective coach pitched a game plan based on sound defence after which the focus would shift to forward structure and scoring, I probably would have bought it.
However ... WHAT IF some maverick, crazy-son-of-a-b*tch waltzed in there and said, "Pfft, don't care how many points the opposition scores. Recruit me 4 or 5 natural born forwards, help me build a decent midfield, then let the other clubs try and catch us."
Much easier to play back than forward which is why I put the emphasis on natural born.
Unfortunately, we'll never know. The horse has already bolt(on)ed.
For whatever reason, most coaches seem to be either ex defenders or ex mids. There are, as always, exceptions, but it's generally the case. I think the emphasis on defence starts from there. I also think that as you imply, it's easier to defend than to attack. I would say attacking is a more creative act than defending. Coaches talk a lot about defensive structures and defensive mechanisms, but rarely about attacking structures and attacking mechanisms. I think coaches also feel a little uneasy about high scoring, shoot out footy, because they don't have as much control over the players - it tends to be more instinctive when you play that way.
Many coaches preach the mantra of a strong defence, and regard building from the back as important to a successful attacking game - Malthouse, Leigh Matthews, even Ratten started out trying to shore up our defence in late 07 and 08.