PAfolwr
2 Jun 2004, 10:55
OK another one of these threads where we have a look at lineups, BUT a comparison one on how things got changed over time and what we think of these changes.
Lets try and leave personalities out of this if we can.
The modern benchmark. Matthews and Brisbane.
When he went there he had a good team to start with, and tinkered with it to make it even stronger.
He had a good midfield base, but an erratic KPP line up.
He recruited a no nonsense FB (Michael), a third tall (Pike), and moved Leppitsch to the backline.
The forward line he has Lynch at FF permanently, plus nursed him because of his illness, and a youngster in Brown at CHF before he was mature so that he could move Leppitsch to CHB.
The third tall forward option he mixes it up by having a few options available, but all along he has used specialist KPP.
White and Bradshaw are not deemed by him as being as good KPP as the others, so he uses them wherever he needs a stopgap, be it strategy, standard KPP being beaten on the day, injury etc, but he usually has another specialist tall in the 22.
The small players are instructed to play tough, run and play quickly to the tall forwards wherever possible.
The fact that he has a brilliant midfield line up that are allowed to play a "natural" game given the talls he has put in place makes this team one of the best ever.
The next benchmark?
St Kilda has now adopted a carbon copy of the Lions "speeded up version of old fashioned strategy". Yes they have had help from priority picks and low finishes, but they are now recruiting and playing according to Brisbane type strategies.
Apart from the handballing and running, that is no different to how the game was played many decades ago. An improvement on the old game, but not too radical one could say.
We have also seen a number of coaches try different systems over the years. By that I mean placing less importance on specialist KPPs and using altered gameplans to suit.
More than one ruckman on the field instead of specialist KPP (Bulldogs, Port), gameplans that change often (Eade), "running brigades" (Neesham), and others.
Not so much the plans forced by player availability, since these coaches were there long enough to recruit/draft other players if they really wanted to, but preferred option.
Now the question is not whether one of these new wave coaches will ever win a GF as sooner or later one will win a final or two, or even more, with these "unorthodox" strategies because they have just the right "type" of players, but
Will these "new" strategies ever replace the older ones as the most successful ones over a long period of time?
Too many of these threads and I'll change my name to PlAtofolwr. :eek: :p
Lets try and leave personalities out of this if we can.
The modern benchmark. Matthews and Brisbane.
When he went there he had a good team to start with, and tinkered with it to make it even stronger.
He had a good midfield base, but an erratic KPP line up.
He recruited a no nonsense FB (Michael), a third tall (Pike), and moved Leppitsch to the backline.
The forward line he has Lynch at FF permanently, plus nursed him because of his illness, and a youngster in Brown at CHF before he was mature so that he could move Leppitsch to CHB.
The third tall forward option he mixes it up by having a few options available, but all along he has used specialist KPP.
White and Bradshaw are not deemed by him as being as good KPP as the others, so he uses them wherever he needs a stopgap, be it strategy, standard KPP being beaten on the day, injury etc, but he usually has another specialist tall in the 22.
The small players are instructed to play tough, run and play quickly to the tall forwards wherever possible.
The fact that he has a brilliant midfield line up that are allowed to play a "natural" game given the talls he has put in place makes this team one of the best ever.
The next benchmark?
St Kilda has now adopted a carbon copy of the Lions "speeded up version of old fashioned strategy". Yes they have had help from priority picks and low finishes, but they are now recruiting and playing according to Brisbane type strategies.
Apart from the handballing and running, that is no different to how the game was played many decades ago. An improvement on the old game, but not too radical one could say.
We have also seen a number of coaches try different systems over the years. By that I mean placing less importance on specialist KPPs and using altered gameplans to suit.
More than one ruckman on the field instead of specialist KPP (Bulldogs, Port), gameplans that change often (Eade), "running brigades" (Neesham), and others.
Not so much the plans forced by player availability, since these coaches were there long enough to recruit/draft other players if they really wanted to, but preferred option.
Now the question is not whether one of these new wave coaches will ever win a GF as sooner or later one will win a final or two, or even more, with these "unorthodox" strategies because they have just the right "type" of players, but
Will these "new" strategies ever replace the older ones as the most successful ones over a long period of time?
Too many of these threads and I'll change my name to PlAtofolwr. :eek: :p