What style of footy should we playing next year?

[Dry Rot]

Given discussion on some threads about last weekend's win and styles of play, I ask 3 simple questions about season 2005:

Q1: Would you rather we play shootout style, no accountablity, low numbers of tackles etc or high accountablity, high numbers of tackles, lockdown style?

Q2: Given your answer above, would your chosen style give us the best chance in finals series in subsequent seasons?

Q3: If your answer to Q1 meant that we won fewer games in 2005, would this worry you?

[mighty_west]

As long as we win, i'm not overly fussed on what style of play Eade injects into the Doggies.

There was an interview on White Line Fever (Foxtel) last night and did state that he would mould a gameplan to suit Telstra Dome.

[Ipaidmy200in89]

WE need to reduce the scoring opportunities of the opposition. The Midfield needs to be more accountable which will add support to the defensive guys.

The inside 50's have been good. But we tend to hold on to the ball and not move it quickly into the forward line.
The structure needs to be taller up forward and move the ball down the middle of the ground.

We need to play with more passion.......

[Dog Town]

Probably a bit to simplified.We dont have the cattle to play totally one on one accountable footy.We need to find a happy medium that suits the ground we play at and the type of players we have on our list.Eade will definetly encourage us to get more numbers behind the ball which I suppose is a form of accountability.Eades sides at the swans were reasonably accountable but they had plenty of run from the back half and through the middle.Eade said himself that he had identified that we had a problem with putting pressure on the opposition so he will be trying to make us more accountable but I doubt we will be going all out with it.

To answer the question I reckon any improvement on our current un accountable and indirect tripe will be a massive improvement.I am just weary of going to far the other way and taking away our strengths.

BTW Dry Rot there was a thread on how we should play Telstra Dome on Saturday that I think alot of people might have missed with all the excitement of saturday nights game.I reckon the dome will pretty much dictate how Eade wants us to play.

[Aquamarinejewel]

"Accountability" is the key word, above all else, not much of that seen the last two years. More pressure on opposition is another area. Eade would be taking notes and changes will happen. Looking forward to 2005.

[SCRAY72]

The style that wins games.

[SonOfScray]

A winning brand of footy would be ideal, I'd like to see us approach the physical side of the game with a bit more gusto. I think that there isn't much respect out there for the team in terms of their ability to hit hard and put their head of the footy so perhaps a more physcial, intimidating brand would help bring the team together.

[stefoid]

geez, I take a break from programming to relax and surf the website, and Im faced with a 6 part multi-choice questionaire!!!


to answer: well, we already play style 1, so that answers that question. we suck!

How much proof do we need that accoutnable, hard tackling physical sides win grand finals? The eagles are going OK, but they will die a horrible death come the finals. Port will probably go the same way again if their run is shut down.

just you wait and see.

[Dog Town]

Port will probably go the same way again if their run is shut down.

just you wait and see.Agreed.I backed the pies to beat them in 2002 and also the swans last year.If Thompson gets the cats up port will lose there first final again.

[whythelongface]

The style of our football depends on who we play. I believe accountable football should be the tactics used in the majority of cases with a lot of run from the backline. However, if this does not work then we should not be so inflexible not to change our game plan. At the end of the day we need a good coach (which i do believe we have) who is able to work out game plans and strategies for each team, but when this isn't working in a particular game to be able to change the style and approach during the game. Simple really.

So in answer to the above:-

1) Preferably accountable football, but this is all dependant on the team we are playing and their tactics;
2) Yes - if we are not flexible in our strategies and game plans and only choose one style of play then we won't win many finals;
3) Yes - it would worry me but i don't think it will be due to the style of football - more to do with our playing list.

[lachy]

Can someone please define accountable football?

I have read in this thread things like one on one football and so on, yet the side that has won the last three premierships does not play one on one football.

They zone off in the backline and push back (read flood) when they do not have the footy then push hard forward when they do. Once they give off the footy they either block for their team mate or run on to provide the next option. They create space around stoppages to push the ball forward and tackle hard.

Accountable football does not define what Brisbane do. Working hard both ways and supporting their team mates is what they do well.

[Dog Town]

Can someone please define accountable football?

I have read in this thread things like one on one football and so on, yet the side that has won the last three premierships does not play one on one football.

They zone off in the backline and push back (read flood) when they do not have the footy then push hard forward when they do. Once they give off the footy they either block for their team mate or run on to provide the next option. They create space around stoppages to push the ball forward and tackle hard.

Accountable football does not define what Brisbane do. Working hard both ways and supporting their team mates is what they do well.Your right.Brisbane and Sydney basically flood and it is seen as accountable.Collingwood in 2002 and 2003 was probably closer to the true meaning of accountable although even they flood a little bit.It is not really a flood so to speak.They just push back harder then most teams.I would define a flood as starting players behind the ball whereas Brisbane and Sydney just work back through general play.It helps that they dont have to push forward to hard.We are the probably the worst side for getting back to help out our defence.

[stefoid]

Lachy, its a spectrum, there isnt just on and off.
Collingwood are the most accountable team - they follow their man everywhere. We are the most unaccountable, with west coast a close second.

Im no expert on the way brisbane plays, but the thing its easy to notice about them is that they arent afraid to kick to a contest when they have to, and they like to manufacture a lot of contests in a game, because they have a lot of strong/smart players who are good at winning contests. butmore importantly, they like to get 'numbers to the contest'.

They dont seem to use that pure man-on-man strategy that collingwood employs. I guess maybe its more of a zone? they endevour to get 'numbers to the contest' regardless of if they have the ball or the opposition does, so that the opposition doesnt get so many easy posessions going the other way. So I guess its still accountable.

That differs from a running/posession style of play because (in general) those teams dont try to create a target by outnumbering the opposition at a particular spot, they try to provide a target by getting one man free on his own.

then again, maybe Im talking shyte ;)

see how this goes as an example. If we have the ball in defence, and there are 3 pairs of midfielders upfield, you can try two strategies.

1. each of our midfielders tries to free himself by running wide of all opposition players to make himself a target for an uncontested mark.

2. our midfielders converge on some location, leading their opponents, so as to create a temporary advantage in numbers 3:2 or 2:1 if they can. the defence kicks to favour the 'most free' player, with the others helping by sheparding and crumbing if neccesary, or run on for a handpass if the mark is taken.

in general, style 1 is what we do and it means that our players are further away from their opponents most of the time than style 2 teams, so they cant be so 'accountable' to aply pressure to the opposition when the ball is turned over. Where is your opponent if you werent the one to receieve the ball when you ran to space to get free? somewhere else on his own waiting for the turnover and easy posession!

[Fossie 32]

I would say whatever Brisbane are doing tactically must be worth aiming for - but you need players with the ability and determination to go along with the game plan.

[stefoid]

I wonder which players will benefit from a more contested style of play, and whic ones will suffer?

I dont think Westy, Cross or Cooney will mind either way. Johno and Eago have obviously done pretty well out of the running and uncontested mark midfield style of play. But I reckon Hahn and Faulkner arent suited to it.

Maybe if we go to a more contested style of play, hahn and faulkner will benefit, and Eago and Johno will be pushed out of the midfield? Murph might also enjoy more of a contest than run,run,run.

I would like to see our midfield rotation next year consist of:

westy, cooney, murph, guido, hahn, cross and faulkner

with johno getting a run in bursts but spending most of his time up forward.

[Leon]

An emphasis must be put upon using the centre corridor and kicking long into the forward line. This is the most effective and simple football game plan.

Overpossessing the ball has been a major shortcoming for us in the last few years. Even last week when we played well there were still moments where players handballed way too much and went around in circles when going long and direct was the only option.

If Rawlings is fit and can find some confidence again, the long kicking game plan I'm talking about should suit him, because he has exceptional marking ability. If we're leaving Darcy in the forward line, the structure should leave him one out with his opponent, he usually has the strength to outmuscle his opponent and mark when he is one-on-one.

Accountability and physical hardness are a must - they are the things that most of us are frustrated about not seeing.

[dogman22]

An emphasis must be put upon using the centre corridor and kicking long into the forward line. This is the most effective and simple football game plan.

If Rawlings is fit and can find some confidence again, the long kicking game plan I'm talking about should suit him, because he has exceptional marking ability.

I reckon you're spot on, Leon. We saw how well this game plan worked in the third quarter on Saturday night, when we kicked to the top of the square, and Crofty marked everything.

Rawlings is one of the best contested marks in the league. If we station him at the top of the square, and leave him there to fight a one-on-one contest, then I'll back him 7 times out of 10 to take the mark, or force a ground ball where Faulkner, B. Murphy, Ray et al can swoop on the crumbs and convert. Also, having Rawlings marking from the square means that he is only shooting at goal from a maximum of 20 metres out. Even with his kicking problems, you'd expect him to convert from there.