View Full Version : Injuries V Gameplan
scottydeewah
12 Jun 2007, 01:37
Dont get to watch much footy anymore as I live in the states but I did get to see the weekends game live. Just wondering if you guys play that style every week? It reminded me a lot of us circa 2004 which we followed up with a lot of injuries during 2005. If you do play like that week in week out how long has it been for and would you agree it is contributing to your long injury list?
Sanguinarius
12 Jun 2007, 03:52
depends what you mean.
if you mean do we play hard footy every week then yes.
but we are definitly more defensive becasue of our injuries.
if we had more of our first choice players back and fit, we'd be playing more like we did last year.
scottydeewah
12 Jun 2007, 07:32
I am not debating whether your team goes in hard but the close quarters, congested, low scoring, indirect, highly defensive style of play is very taxing. We did similar in 2004 as we had an awesome backline, hardworking midfielders and no forward line. So our only option was to choke sides to death. 2004 prelim was a great example where we shut down Brisbane (doubled their inside 50s) but still didnt win. If you watched that game is was SO taxing, it was no surprise they lost the next week.
I can see how you are between a rock and a hard place. You cant play open attacking direct football because you have injuries. But playing the type of indirect defensive football you played against us is just going to lead to more injuries.
maccas_no1
12 Jun 2007, 10:23
Personally Im bewildered by our current gameplan, we are playing such a tough draining type of footy at the moment that is just absolutely stuffing ourselves, and really doesnt allow any injuries that get encountered during the game, otherwise you get what happened on the w/end when you require those rotations they cant happen and physically you run out of legs and lose the game.
Im confused at the moment:confused:
Mad Dog
12 Jun 2007, 10:44
Craigy tells us that he wants players to come into the 22 and perform - and that injuries are not an excuse.....he doesn't want players to come in and tread water - he wants them to perform...
....but - it's clear that with the injuries - we have become more defensive....:confused:
these 2 things seem to be at odds.
When you look at our best 22 - there are really only 6 missing,
Biglands, Trent, Reilly, Goody, Bode, Burton.
we have some decent players come into the side.....
Griffin, Perrie, McGregor, Porps, Stevens etc......I really can't see why the attacking part of our game needs to suffer.
scottydeewah
12 Jun 2007, 10:46
Im confused at the moment
I can see that. I think though that the way the game is now days that teams really put themselves in a hard position. You need to play this game because your personal is down, yet it is going to lead to your personal going down more. Big vicious circle!
crowman_23
12 Jun 2007, 10:59
Craigy tells us that he wants players to come into the 22 and perform - and that injuries are not an excuse.....he doesn't want players to come in and tread water - he wants them to perform...
....but - it's clear that with the injuries - we have become more defensive....:confused:
these 2 things seem to be at odds.
When you look at our best 22 - there are really only 6 missing,
Biglands, Trent, Reilly, Goody, Bode, Burton.
we have some decent players come into the side.....
Griffin, Perrie, McGregor, Porps, Stevens etc......I really can't see why the attacking part of our game needs to suffer.
Exactly. We should still be attacking. I am also very confused with our gameplan currently. And lets face it, we have a couple of injuries but not such massive ones. We know Biglands and Hentschel won't play this year so we can't really count them. I feel we miss Bode and Burton quite a bit. But when Riccuito was coming back into the side the papers were all over how hard a decision it was. When he came in it was a very strong side. There should be no excuses.
maccas_no1
12 Jun 2007, 12:54
Craigy tells us that he wants players to come into the 22 and perform - and that injuries are not an excuse.....he doesn't want players to come in and tread water - he wants them to perform...
....but - it's clear that with the injuries - we have become more defensive....:confused:
these 2 things seem to be at odds.
When you look at our best 22 - there are really only 6 missing,
Biglands, Trent, Reilly, Goody, Bode, Burton.
we have some decent players come into the side.....
Griffin, Perrie, McGregor, Porps, Stevens etc......I really can't see why the attacking part of our game needs to suffer.
Those are my thoughts exactly and why I am confused about why we are playing the way we are.
Its alright on one hand to say well Bock and Welsh didnt play that great, but be honest for a moment here, did they have genuine opportunitties to kick a bag of goals with the style of game we were playing????? Not at all.
scottydeewah
12 Jun 2007, 13:01
Burton is a massive out, I love him he gives you a lot of flexibility. I think out of all your players i would almost take him down at Geelong.
But anyway enough of the man love.
I can sort of see playing a little defensive but once you had us down three goals you should have opened up and tried to attack. If you had of kicked another 2-3 quick goals the game could have almost been over.
I suppose we are all just a bit confused. The game plan doesn't appear to do your team any good or help with injuries.
I think perhaps it has got to do with the trend of having senior players start to hang up the boots, there is less experienced depth and you rely on youth more. It is not just the retirements, I think a few fringe players have been let go over the years in a bid to start developing the new generation, it has left the list a bit vulernable to injuries.
When you look at last year, off the top of my head Clark, Hart and Skipworth have been let go. There is a very good reason to let them go but it leaves the coach with fewer options when you run into injury problems.
There is just diminishing scope to absorb the loss of players when your backup is a lot of skinny kids that have played 20 games or less.
Ultimately, the Crows have really been starved in terms of their creative players. Guys like Roo, Burton, Hentschel and even Biglands can go forward and create a few goals out of nothing and NC was happy for you guys to kick the ball into the hot spot quickly because the creative players where there to make goals out of nothing. Those guys fit would add 5 goals, minimum to your side so you are looking at having to survive kicking say 10-15 goals instead of 15-20 and to try and win a match kicking 10-15 goals you really have to play defensive and stop the opposition from scoring.
Mad Dog
12 Jun 2007, 13:39
What a contrasting post -
I think perhaps it has got to do with the trend of having senior players start to hang up the boots, there is less experienced depth and you rely on youth more. It is not just the retirements, I think a few fringe players have been let go over the years in a bid to start developing the new generation, it has left the list a bit vulernable to injuries.
When you look at last year, off the top of my head Clark, Hart and Skipworth have been let go. There is a very good reason to let them go but it leaves the coach with fewer options when you run into injury problems.
There is just diminishing scope to absorb the loss of players when your backup is a lot of skinny kids that have played 20 games or less..
what a load of rot....
Our current issues have SFN to do with senior players retiring....and there's certainly not a trend. Hart and Skipworth contributed next to zero over the last year or so....13 and 6 games respectively in 2006. Griffin has come on beyond expectations and has contributed more than anyone would have hoped Maric and Meesen would have.
The kids we are playing are not skinny - Knights, van Berlo, Porplyzia have bigger bodies than most their age.
As for fringe players being let go - there is only Skipworth, Begley, and Ladhams.......hardly any impact there.
Ultimately, the Crows have really been starved in terms of their creative players. Guys like Roo, Burton, Hentschel and even Biglands can go forward and create a few goals out of nothing and NC was happy for you guys to kick the ball into the hot spot quickly because the creative players where there to make goals out of nothing. Those guys fit would add 5 goals, minimum to your side so you are looking at having to survive kicking say 10-15 goals instead of 15-20 and to try and win a match kicking 10-15 goals you really have to play defensive and stop the opposition from scoring.
This is more the issue - it was quite obvious that losing Roo and Burton at the end of last year hurt our chances a lot
Stiffy_18
12 Jun 2007, 14:32
Craigy tells us that he wants players to come into the 22 and perform - and that injuries are not an excuse.....he doesn't want players to come in and tread water - he wants them to perform...
....but - it's clear that with the injuries - we have become more defensive....:confused:
these 2 things seem to be at odds.
When you look at our best 22 - there are really only 6 missing,
Biglands, Trent, Reilly, Goody, Bode, Burton.
we have some decent players come into the side.....
Griffin, Perrie, McGregor, Porps, Stevens etc......I really can't see why the attacking part of our game needs to suffer.But then you are ignoring the impact of those players missing in our forward line. We are a stagnant, mechanical forward line with personnel down there that are similar in style. There is no variation is style and ability. We have too much of the same thing and not enough genuine goal kickers.
Roo and Welsh are similar in style of play, we got no crumber, wo don't have anyone in that forward line that was unpredictable. Last year we had a genuine crumber in Bode who would hunt the gound ball and keep it in the 50 with fantastic defensive pressure.
We had Hentschel and Burton who are both genuine match winners and they are unpredictable. They are not mechanical lead, mark and kick forwards like the others we have there.
That is the reason why we are not as attacking as we have been. We don't have the personnel in the forward line and that has an effect on the side overall. Just bring in Bode, Burton and Hentschel into that forward line and it will be raining goals because they complement the players that are already there. Now we have too much of the same thing and out forward line is made up of mismatched pieces. As individuals they are capable of kicking a bag, but as a unit they are not compatible. They are too similar, get in each others way and its very easy to blanket that forward line.
Coaching staff sees this, players see this and they adjust the game plan accordingly.
We might only be 6 players away from our best 22 but most of those players are the ones we relied on to kick a winning score (ie our forwards) and one area where we can least afford to take a hit is the forward line. Unfortunately that is the area where we have taken a real hit as far as injuries are concerned.
maccas_no1
12 Jun 2007, 14:38
But then you are ignoring the impact of those players missing in our forward line. We are a stagnant, mechanical forward line with personnel down there that are similar in style. There is no variation is style and ability. We have too much of the same thing and not enough genuine goal kickers.
Roo and Welsh are similar in style of play, we got no crumber, wo don't have anyone in that forward line that was unpredictable. Last year we had a genuine crumber in Bode who would hunt the gound ball and keep it in the 50 with fantastic defensive pressure.
We had Hentschel and Burton who are both genuine match winners and they are unpredictable. They are not mechanical lead, mark and kick forwards like the others we have there.
That is the reason why we are not as attacking as we have been. We don't have the personnel in the forward line and that has an effect on the side overall. Just bring in Bode, Burton and Hentschel into that forward line and it will be raining goals because they complement the players that are already there. Now we have too much of the same thing and out forward line is made up of mismatched pieces. As individuals they are capable of kicking a bag, but as a unit they are not compatible. They are too similar, get in each others way and its very easy to blanket that forward line.
Coaching staff sees this, players see this and they adjust the game plan accordingly.
We might only be 6 players away from our best 22 but most of those players are the ones we relied on to kick a winning score (ie our forwards) and one area where we can least afford to take a hit is the forward line. Unfortunately that is the area where we have taken a real hit as far as injuries are concerned.
Agree with all of that, but when opposition clubs play against the AFC and their preperation already know that we are going to play defensively dont we then become to predictable???
Okay we realise that we have a weakness with our forwardline.......why arent we rolling the dice and maybe just maybe trying something different, to change they way we play?? Turn a weakness into a positive............I mean to me (and I maybe wrong) we are playing a very draining type of footy that I dont think benefits our players over all in terms of their own conditioning etc and being able to run out a game the week after.
Crow-mo
12 Jun 2007, 19:33
Im confused at the moment:confused:
disagree. :)
Agree with all of that, but when opposition clubs play against the AFC and their preperation already know that we are going to play defensively dont we then become to predictable???
Okay we realise that we have a weakness with our forwardline.......why arent we rolling the dice and maybe just maybe trying something different, to change they way we play?? Turn a weakness into a positive............I mean to me (and I maybe wrong) we are playing a very draining type of footy that I dont think benefits our players over all in terms of their own conditioning etc and being able to run out a game the week after.
I think what you are saying is that we should go one on one all over the ground. That's the only thing I think we can really do.
Problem with that gameplan is that you still have to be brave, you have to back your team mates to win the ball and run forward of the ball. This could end in tears if the ball is turned over, the result being unmarked opposition players everywhere.
Another problem with this gameplan is that as soon as we go one on one, opposition coaches will flood our forward lines. We will end up having 10 forwards (with 10 opponents) while the oppsoition will have 2, they will then be able to exploit the extra space.
Regardless of what everyone says I still think that we have tried to be attacking. We have genuinelly tried to create run through handball from the backline. The biggest problem is that we are hitting a brick wall forward of centre, basically due to a failure to win 50-50 contests across that line. Poor delivery and lack of efficient ground players able to read the ball are the biggest reason for this...conetsted marking ability is no where near as important in todays football.
But then you are ignoring the impact of those players missing in our forward line. We are a stagnant, mechanical forward line with personnel down there that are similar in style. There is no variation is style and ability. We have too much of the same thing and not enough genuine goal kickers.
Roo and Welsh are similar in style of play, we got no crumber, wo don't have anyone in that forward line that was unpredictable. Last year we had a genuine crumber in Bode who would hunt the gound ball and keep it in the 50 with fantastic defensive pressure.
We had Hentschel and Burton who are both genuine match winners and they are unpredictable. They are not mechanical lead, mark and kick forwards like the others we have there.
That is the reason why we are not as attacking as we have been. We don't have the personnel in the forward line and that has an effect on the side overall. Just bring in Bode, Burton and Hentschel into that forward line and it will be raining goals because they complement the players that are already there. Now we have too much of the same thing and out forward line is made up of mismatched pieces. As individuals they are capable of kicking a bag, but as a unit they are not compatible. They are too similar, get in each others way and its very easy to blanket that forward line.
Coaching staff sees this, players see this and they adjust the game plan accordingly.
We might only be 6 players away from our best 22 but most of those players are the ones we relied on to kick a winning score (ie our forwards) and one area where we can least afford to take a hit is the forward line. Unfortunately that is the area where we have taken a real hit as far as injuries are concerned.
Absolutely, we need to be unpredictable.....we need more loose cannons in our forward line!
Johncock is a start.
Burton will be back after the break :thumbsu:
King Elvis
12 Jun 2007, 21:43
Considering all of the focus on our structures and system, to me, our Forward line has no system what-so-ever.
Considering all of the focus on our structures and system, to me, our Forward line has no system what-so-ever.
What exactly do you mean by that comment? Are you saying that our forwards just hang around in some sort of random fashion?
Suggest what sort of system you think they should have.
maccas_no1
12 Jun 2007, 22:28
What exactly do you mean by that comment? Are you saying that our forwards just hang around in some sort of random fashion?
Suggest what sort of system you think they should have.
No what he means it is very hit and miss, we each weeek have to hope that it functions somehow, that somehow either a Bock, McGregor, Welsh, Perrie have a great game, but more often than not the ball comes in and back out and this is where Bode is missed for his crumbing capabilities.
This is the reason why when we go forward our midfeilders go so deep as to try and keep posession in our F50.
King Elvis
12 Jun 2007, 23:15
What exactly do you mean by that comment? Are you saying that our forwards just hang around in some sort of random fashion?
Suggest what sort of system you think they should have.
Do they create space for each other.
Do they 'block' the other defender to give them a clear run at a lead.
When they can't mark, are they knocking the ball to advantage.
I'd almost clear it out completely, Have Johncock/McGregor starting at FF, and have everyone else across the CHF line.
I don't know if that is a solution, but I think we need to be trying something new.
Smoovy - do you think we have a clear system in place for our forward line?
what a load of rot....
Our current issues have SFN to do with senior players retiring....and there's certainly not a trend. Hart and Skipworth contributed next to zero over the last year or so....13 and 6 games respectively in 2006. Griffin has come on beyond expectations and has contributed more than anyone would have hoped Maric and Meesen would have.
Your point doesn't make much sense given you didn't have any real injury issues until late last year, your depth players were not really called on to play a significant role in the last couple of years.
The kids we are playing are not skinny - Knights, van Berlo, Porplyzia have bigger bodies than most their age.
Knights isn't a "kid", he is 23 and has been playing seniors since 2005, this is his third year of senior football, you wouldn't expect him to be skinny. He is inexperienced for his age, wouldn't call him a kid. He is okay size-wise.
VB and Porplyzia are not skinny but they have a lightly build, there is nothing wrong with a light build, Swallow and Harris are similar size to those two but it limits the kinds of roles you can play if you are light. You want to ask Harris what it was like playing on Roo in the middle when he was tossing him around like a rag doll. ;)
Douglas and Griffin are skinny for their frame.
It is just adding a few extra light players draw a bit away from the physically powerful Adelaide side that has harassed teams the last few years. The current Adelaide side isn't as physically intimidating as the 05 or 06 side, there have been more ligher players come on this year and expected to play a lot of game time and in important positions. For a defensive oriented team I don't think having too many lighter built players suits the style of play.
You wont have an issue with us as we have an excessive number of lightly built players given we play a lot of young/inexperienced players.
As for fringe players being let go - there is only Skipworth, Begley, and Ladhams.......hardly any impact there.
Yeah, they had no real impact in recent years but were not really needed in recent years. I think other than the game Skipworth went forward and kicked 5 goals on us in 2005 he really didn't do a great deal that year and wasn't really needed in 06. He would have been handy now though but you have to make room for the new generation.
I am not being critical of NC, he is doing the right thing with the list, just being caught with the kind of injury issues you haven't really had to deal with for a while so are now needing more out of the depth players.
This is more the issue - it was quite obvious that losing Roo and Burton at the end of last year hurt our chances a lot
Roo is a massive loss, one of the best players to ever play the game is always going to be a huge loss. Burton is a loss but having him up forward the way the ball is going inside 50 I doubt would allow you to get the same kind of output as you did in 05/06.
The issues are a bit more complex in my opinion.
Hudson/Griffin is not providing the same kind of drive out of the middle this year is a major cause imo. Crows went from 3rd in hit outs in 05 to 4th in 06 to 8th so far this year, supply is not what it used to be both in terms of quality and quantity. Not surprising given Hudson missed a fair bit of footy and Biglands is out injured and Clarke is not around.
Given the circumstances the ruck output has been good but it is not at the same level when you were dominating in the midfield, which explains less midfield supply.
I think the other major issue is the breakdown of your key forwards. Perrie, Welsh and Stevens are not really playing their best football. Ball seems to be rebounding out of forward 50 a lot, a lot less pressure on the defensive side rebounding and a lot less opportunities for the creative smaller forwards.
I think Burton coming back and Roo getting some more touch will definitely help but I think the other issues will still make it difficult for the Crows to dominate like they did the last two years.
crows98
12 Jun 2007, 23:36
Knights isn't a "kid", he is 23 and has been playing seniors since 2005, this is his third year of senior football, you wouldn't expect him to be skinny. He is inexperienced for his age, wouldn't call him a kid. He is okay size-wise.
http://www.afc.com.au/TheClub/Players/PlayerProfile/tabid/4506/playerId/13957/teamId/40/typeId/2/Default.aspx
25th of October 1986
Making him 20 years old.
Carl Spackler
12 Jun 2007, 23:46
I think though that the way the game is now days that teams really put themselves in a hard position. You need to play this game because your personal is down, yet it is going to lead to your personal going down more. Big vicious circle!
It is a very good observation. In David Parkin's commentary on the weekend he also mentioned that the Crows train harder and longer than any team he has seen. I am a huge Neil Craig fan and have praised/defended him in almost every aspect of his coaching but I admit that the question has to be asked.
How do we ensure that our best players are able to maintain a high workrate in games and high training workload without picking up injuries along the way? Is it possible? Are we pushing the boundaries too far? I know there are some 'impact' injuries that cannot be put down to training too hard but there are always going to be more impact injuries in contested, one-on-one footy. Is the training/match day combination making it impossible for us to keep our injury list down?
So how do we do it?. Do we need to use the Australian cricket team 'rotation' system? :eek: I know how popular that is...
Crow-mo
13 Jun 2007, 00:03
Your point doesn't make much sense given you didn't have any real injury issues until late last year, your depth players were not really called on to play a significant role in the last couple of years.
no matter how long the essay, basing it on this fatally flawed presumption isn't going to add any validity.
King Elvis
13 Jun 2007, 00:10
So how do we do it?. Do we need to use the Australian cricket team 'rotation' system? :eek: I know how popular that is...
Do we even have any fit players left we could rotate in? :(
Kickin_Goals
13 Jun 2007, 03:06
Dont get to watch much footy anymore as I live in the states but I did get to see the weekends game live. Just wondering if you guys play that style every week? It reminded me a lot of us circa 2004 which we followed up with a lot of injuries during 2005. If you do play like that week in week out how long has it been for and would you agree it is contributing to your long injury list?
It's impressive that you came to this observation being overseas as well as an interstate supporter.
The injuries that have been sustained seem of the unavoidable kind.
As for what Tas said, HO's it's a useless stat on it's own often they go directly to opposition players we are doing fine in contested ball, the ball goes forward hits the ground it is gone.
Those players you mentioned were Stevens Perrie and Welsh.
Stevens - Not often playing a forward position does on occasion after being switched up forward have an impact as he appears to have better mobility and skills at ground level then the unmentioned player that is generally our forward in Bock, Bock was probably not mentioned because of the lack of effect he has giving barely any defensive pressure due to a lack of speed and ground level ability he is no threat when the ball isn't delivered perfectly to him as in to his advantage.
Welsh - Finds himself negated most of the time now as he gets the best defender and really can't handle it, he goes to ground sometimes and applies himself but does stupid things that are telling however does put on some tackles but has never been consistant.
Perrie - When he can get on the park he cannot lay a tackle to save his life against the speed of the opposition nowadays, he tries he does some things but will be beaten by his opponent most every game his kicking generally is atrocious and he only tends to work as an assist player which works when he has support and crumbers which are not available.
Ball seems to be rebounding out of forward 50 a lot, a lot less pressure on the defensive side rebounding and a lot less opportunities for the creative smaller forwards
The thing is atm we don't have any creative small forwards nor forwards that can beat out an opponent of quality on the park only lead up players
other players
Burton - The most versatile forward we have, massive endurance runs players ragged is excellent at ground level and can actually crumb the ball when he is not taking a massive pack mark he also puts on a lot more defensive pressure then the talls due to his pace and generally has something vying for mark of the year and goal of the year he has a massive influence on the scoreboard.
Bode - Well he is the experienced crumber and puts on great offensive tackling pressure to keep it in 50 and him not being present is very apparent as on occasion he has come away from games with bags of goals.
Reilly - Is a very penetrating kick and delivers well and adds to the defensive pressure to keep it down there also this is another supporting small forward that is definitely missed.
Without these players keeping the ball down their the midfielders have no chance to catch up with the play and score like usual, if your watching Geelong and wondering where their new found winning formula came from I would think it came from watching the game against adelaide last year and drilling into their team the same style of play that flogged them as it works when executed with confidence.
I think Burton coming back and Roo getting some more touch will definitely help but I think the other issues will still make it difficult for the Crows to dominate like they did the last two years.
This depends entirely on the the teams ability to execute their skills, the other issues you suggested come down to attack on the football and this is a week in week out intensity thing, your ruckman can get as many hitouts as he wants they rarely go to advantage. Griffin in what I've seen seems to be able to win Hitouts the way clarke would due to his stature just needs some more time too get stronger Hudson may not win so many hitouts but he gets down and roves them his self and it is very telling.
When the ball hits the deck it is those lighter frame players with the quick handball out that compliment the stronger players knocking it to them and when you lose players such as Goodwin and Roo who was his replacement in that area your gonna have some trouble not too mention tired players.
Mad Dog
13 Jun 2007, 11:11
Your point doesn't make much sense given you didn't have any real injury issues until late last year, your depth players were not really called on to play a significant role in the last couple of years.
No real injuries until late in the year?......:confused:
As far as 2006 goes - of the players we would consider in (or around) our best 22......
Jason Torney didn’t play his first game until Round 12…and also missed Rounds 17 to 21…playing only 8 games in total.
Nathan Bock didn’t play until Round 16 – playing only 7 games in total.
Scott Welsh didn’t play until Round 19…..playing only 6 games in total.
Ian Perrie suffered a knee injury in Round 4 and didn’t play again until Round 21…missing 16 games – playing only 8 in total.
Ben Hart only played 13 games – missing Rounds 9 to 16.
Matt Clarke missed 6 games mid year.
sure - Roo, Burton, McGregor, Macca all went down late in the year - but those above were significant absences - pretty much our entire tall forward line.
We debuted Maric in Round 6, Vince in Round 1, Porplyzia in Round 5, Douglas in Round 21. Knights played games 2 to 12 last year.
As an example in Round 10 against Essendon last year we had no Welsh, Perrie, Torney, Bock, Hudson, Hart, Clarke.
....does that make sense....?
Knights isn't a "kid", he is 23 and has been playing seniors since 2005, this is his third year of senior football, you wouldn't expect him to be skinny. He is inexperienced for his age, wouldn't call him a kid. He is okay size-wise.
Knights is 20 and VB turned 21 last week - they are kids
I am not debating whether your team goes in hard but the close quarters, congested, low scoring, indirect, highly defensive style of play is very taxing. We did similar in 2004 as we had an awesome backline, hardworking midfielders and no forward line. So our only option was to choke sides to death. 2004 prelim was a great example where we shut down Brisbane (doubled their inside 50s) but still didnt win. If you watched that game is was SO taxing, it was no surprise they lost the next week.
I can see how you are between a rock and a hard place. You cant play open attacking direct football because you have injuries. But playing the type of indirect defensive football you played against us is just going to lead to more injuries.
I'm not sure the fundamental assumption here is correct. Surely a defensive game-style does not cause any more injuries than any other game-style? Sydney has a similarly defensive style, and their injury list is pretty small.
I think the only effect of game-style on injuries is at the individual level, any only over the long term - players who play a high-impact style will tend to break down earlier. ie inside midfielders (eg Voss) and key forwards (eg Carey) tend not to last as long as running players (eg McLeod)
Do they create space for each other.
Do they 'block' the other defender to give them a clear run at a lead.
When they can't mark, are they knocking the ball to advantage.
I'd almost clear it out completely, Have Johncock/McGregor starting at FF, and have everyone else across the CHF line.
I don't know if that is a solution, but I think we need to be trying something new.
Smoovy - do you think we have a clear system in place for our forward line?
Fair enough.
I think the forward line does have a system, whether it is working or not is another question.
From the games I've seen live this year (4 of them) Craigy seems to have two distinct types of systems.
The first one is a traditional system of 3 across the HF line and 3 across the FF line. We must see different games because I have seen a distinct attempt to block a leading forward. 80% of the time it seems to be Bock that does the blocking. Problem is he is not that effective in doing it, mainly because he tries to hide what he is doing (keep in mind that technically this is shepherding more than 5m from the ball).
The other system is more or less modelled on the old Pagan's paddock. Our forwards all push up the ground and then run backwards into open space. I've seen this work a few times, but it comes unstuck as soon as the oppposition send a loose man back.
I too would like to see something new and creative. I have for a long time argued with some mates over a few beers about the merits of starting all your forwards on the boundary line. From the boundary line they only have one place to go and that is lead towards the centre, in front of the goals. Not only does this make set shots for goal easier, it creates a much more dangerous opportunity for crumbers. I wish I could take control of a team for a day and try it. Because unless I see it proved otherwise I can't see how it could be any worse than anything else we are currently trying.
Crow-mo
13 Jun 2007, 21:05
for me, this issue is not WHETHER the game plan causes injuries? But rather, COULD it have an affect?
I'd have thought it logical that it could have an impact.
maccas_no1
13 Jun 2007, 23:04
for me, this issue is not WHETHER the game plan causes injuries? But rather, COULD it have an affect?
I'd have thought it logical that it could have an impact.
I also think it would have an impact in and make players more injury prone later in the season.
Carl Spackler
13 Jun 2007, 23:57
I'm not sure the fundamental assumption here is correct. Surely a defensive game-style does not cause any more injuries than any other game-style? Sydney has a similarly defensive style, and their injury list is pretty small.
I'm not sure about the Sydney comparison. I know we get lumped in with them (or them with us) because we're both low-scoring, defensive sides but I think that the similarities end there.
In the Sydney game style there are lots of ball ups. They get a huge number of players around these contests often with multiple ball ups in a row. I read something that said because Sydney are hitting bodies and laying tackles at extemely close quarters and not having much of a 'run up' to generate any speed, then the tackles and hits aren't as hard. And the multiple ball ups in a row and boundary throw ins means that they aren't having to cover as much ground as you might think either.
I think our style is different. Even our low scoring games are quite free flowing most of the time - the ball just rebounds quickly between the half back lines. It is more accountable, one-on-one footy all over the ground with intense physical pressure applied to the ball carrier. Lots of hard tackles. And with us pushing back so hard in defence our players have to cover an extraordinary amount of ground. This is why our game plan seems to get de-railed completely when there is an injury or two and the rotation options are limited. So basically hard hits and tired legs result.
Just my observation but I'd be interested to see if others see marked differences between ours and Sydney's 'defensive' game plans.
I'm not sure about the Sydney comparison. I know we get lumped in with them (or them with us) because we're both low-scoring, defensive sides but I think that the similarities end there.
In the Sydney game style there are lots of ball ups. They get a huge number of players around these contests often with multiple ball ups in a row. I read something that said because Sydney are hitting bodies and laying tackles at extemely close quarters and not having much of a 'run up' to generate any speed, then the tackles and hits aren't as hard. And the multiple ball ups in a row and boundary throw ins means that they aren't having to cover as much ground as you might think either.
I think our style is different. Even our low scoring games are quite free flowing most of the time - the ball just rebounds quickly between the half back lines. It is more accountable, one-on-one footy all over the ground with intense physical pressure applied to the ball carrier. Lots of hard tackles. And with us pushing back so hard in defence our players have to cover an extraordinary amount of ground. This is why our game plan seems to get de-railed completely when there is an injury or two and the rotation options are limited. So basically hard hits and tired legs result.
Just my observation but I'd be interested to see if others see marked differences between ours and Sydney's 'defensive' game plans.
Actually, I agree - just making the point that defensive equals injuries is not a straightforward observation.
The initial theory was:
playing the type of indirect defensive football you played against us is just going to lead to more injuries
Other factors are more important. Amount of impacts, amount of running...I think there is an argument that a high workload could cause more injuries.
For what it's worth, Sydney were playing pretty much the same game plan a few years ago, and I remember about 2-3 consecutive finals series where their chances were ruined by injuries to key players, before their recent golden run.
No real injuries until late in the year?......:confused:
As far as 2006 goes - of the players we would consider in (or around) our best 22......
Jason Torney didn’t play his first game until Round 12…and also missed Rounds 17 to 21…playing only 8 games in total.
Nathan Bock didn’t play until Round 16 – playing only 7 games in total.
Scott Welsh didn’t play until Round 19…..playing only 6 games in total.
Ian Perrie suffered a knee injury in Round 4 and didn’t play again until Round 21…missing 16 games – playing only 8 in total.
Ben Hart only played 13 games – missing Rounds 9 to 16.
Matt Clarke missed 6 games mid year.
sure - Roo, Burton, McGregor, Macca all went down late in the year - but those above were significant absences - pretty much our entire tall forward line.
We debuted Maric in Round 6, Vince in Round 1, Porplyzia in Round 5, Douglas in Round 21. Knights played games 2 to 12 last year.
As an example in Round 10 against Essendon last year we had no Welsh, Perrie, Torney, Bock, Hudson, Hart, Clarke.
....does that make sense....?
I understand what you are saying, and am not saying you have had no injuries, it just has not been a huge list of injuries, not at the same time, not in the same area of the ground.
Everyone has injured players throughout the year. When Clarke was out you still had Biglands doing the bulk of the ruckwork, Hudson missed a lot of football and he has had to come in with Griffin as the only support, that is much harder to pull off.
That is where depth players come in. You may not notice as much of a difference between a young kid and a depth player when there you are only missing one or two guys and when they are in different parts of the ground, a depth player is far more valuable when they come in and are really needed as a focus.
Knights is 20 and VB turned 21 last week - they are kids
That was my mistake, read the games column for age. :P My point about the change of the physical aspect of the midfield remains the same though, and Knights wasn't one of the players I was referring to either as he is about the same size as Goodwin.
Do you think your midfield is as physically intimidating now as it was in 05/06?
I've seen a few sides now that have struggled big time to match up the Crows in the middle with the physically powerful midfield, it is not giving them the same kind of issues this year. It is why I am curious as to how we will fair in the middle this week because we do not have a physically powerful midfield group and have struggled in the middle against the Crows in recent years.
Mad Dog
14 Jun 2007, 17:52
I've seen a few sides now that have struggled big time to match up the Crows in the middle with the physically powerful midfield, it is not giving them the same kind of issues this year. It is why I am curious as to how we will fair in the middle this week because we do not have a physically powerful midfield group and have struggled in the middle against the Crows in recent years.
The good news is that Roo spent some time in the Midfield last week before getting cleaned up - and added some much needed physical presence. He was starting to get his hands to the ball with some authority - so I would expect to see him spend more time there on Saturday night
The good news is that Roo spent some time in the Midfield last week before getting cleaned up - and added some much needed physical presence. He was starting to get his hands to the ball with some authority - so I would expect to see him spend more time there on Saturday night
Yeah, he is a very dangerous player, even when recovering from a injury. I think I prefer him in the middle, oddly enough, I remember the reaming he gave us up forward last year coming back from injury. :p