View Full Version : Bad loosers on the Hawks board.
http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showpost.php?p=10218205&postcount=99
Aparantly we were 'flooding'. They're very bitter.
The Royal Sampler
1 Mar 2008, 22:43
They may be bad losers, but I'll bet they can spell it. :thumbsu:
Back Pocket Rocket
1 Mar 2008, 22:45
For starters I was at the game. I don't think you flooded the forward line but the Crows are masters at flooding the midfield. We just couldn't get any free run through there. A great tactic! Your midfield and backline are great! The only thing I would be concerned with is your forwards. It would be great to see Tippett and Sellar come on but I don't think that will be til next year!
Anyway, too good tonight and good luck against the Sainters!
Someone has to swim in the shallow end of the gene pool.
For starters I was at the game. I don't think you flooded the forward line but the Crows are masters at flooding the midfield. We just couldn't get any free run through there. A great tactic! Your midfield and backline are great! The only thing I would be concerned with is your forwards. It would be great to see Tippett and Sellar come on but I don't think that will be til next year!
Anyway, too good tonight and good luck against the Sainters!
on the contrary. You guys killed us at free posession, most of the ball we had in the midfield was under pressure and usually followed by a tackle.
For starters I was at the game. I don't think you flooded the forward line but the Crows are masters at flooding the midfield. We just couldn't get any free run through there. A great tactic! Your midfield and backline are great! The only thing I would be concerned with is your forwards. It would be great to see Tippett and Sellar come on but I don't think that will be til next year!
Anyway, too good tonight and good luck against the Sainters!
A very realistic appraisal of both our game tonight and our relative strengths and weaknesses. :thumbsu:
Cheers, and all the best for this year. :thumbsu:
FancyNancy
1 Mar 2008, 23:00
the numbers in the back line put the Hawks under great pressure and forced the ball to the ground and ultimately out of danger for the crows.
I think the hawks were out coached tonight.
Both clubs put on a great show for March and I cant wait for the season proper.
Leather Poisoning
1 Mar 2008, 23:21
What's a looser?
Opposite of a tighter?
Evidence of brain damage?
Anyway,
If hawthorn have four forwards in our forward fifty, and adelaide have 8 defenders - it's up to you if you call it flooding.
We really don't counter it very well.
Congrats on the win guys. I really believe it was basically a matter of forward line effectiveness, in which case you guys outplayed us.
The Crows beat us at our own game plan from last year as far as I could see,
Numbers at the ball in the back half surging forward.
Markthirtytwo
1 Mar 2008, 23:38
The Crows beat us at our own game plan from last year as far as I could see,
Numbers at the ball in the back half surging forward.
To be honest I think you lost it yourselves by the continual turnovers and the bad kicking from in front.
CouchPotato
1 Mar 2008, 23:38
http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showpost.php?p=10218205&postcount=99
Aparantly we were 'flooding'. They're very bitter.
Disagree, you played smarter football. Actually thought both teams played well and all looks good for season proper. Good luck against the saints
SA Tricolours
1 Mar 2008, 23:43
What's a looser?
Opposite of a tighter?
Evidence of brain damage?
Anyway,
If hawthorn have four forwards in our forward fifty, and adelaide have 8 defenders - it's up to you if you call it flooding.
We really don't counter it very well.
Congrats on the win guys. I really believe it was basically a matter of forward line effectiveness, in which case you guys outplayed us.
If the Crows had 4 extra defenders, then maybe the 4 loose Hawks were extra players in the midfield or still in the Crows backline ?
Fat Tony
1 Mar 2008, 23:46
To be honest I think you lost it yourselves by the continual turnovers and the bad kicking from in front.
Please... we lost this game thanks to the one and only ZAC DAWSON.
Quite possibly the worst player to have stayed on any list for 5 or more seasons ever.
Anyway great game tonight, good luck for the year and dont waste too much energy against the Saints, it's just a glorified practice match after all (in your case more so considering you dont need the money)
http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showpost.php?p=10218205&postcount=99
Aparantly we were 'flooding'. They're very bitter.
what is a bad looser?
If hawthorn have four forwards in our forward fifty, and adelaide have 8 defenders - it's up to you if you call it flooding.
if Hawthorn have 4 forwards in their fifty, and adelaide have 8 defenders It's up to you whether you go to the optometrist and get your eyes tested ;)
Seanason
2 Mar 2008, 02:22
First off, i dont care if or how bad the flooding was the umpires were shocking in the consistency - the deliberate out of bounds, what a joke. And then to not pay one that was four times as bad? these games are good to weed out the umpires that need a little closer attention in the next 2 weeks.
James_37
2 Mar 2008, 03:07
Please... we lost this game thanks to the one and only ZAC DAWSON.
Quite possibly the worst player to have stayed on any list for 5 or more seasons ever.
Anyway great game tonight, good luck for the year and dont waste too much energy against the Saints, it's just a glorified practice match after all (in your case more so considering you dont need the money)
Dare I say it???
Starts with a J and ends with an O!:D
Although already had a similar fight with a port supporter over Lonie tonight!:eek:
Southerntakeover
2 Mar 2008, 03:37
Im loving the way these hawks buggers can see how many are in the defensive 50 all the way from vicbloodytoria, when the camera isnt showing it.
http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showpost.php?p=10218205&postcount=99
Aparantly we were 'flooding'. They're very bitter.
FOOOOTY, you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:
Your user account may not have sufficient privileges to access this page.Just go call them a rabble mate, trust me you won't even know there is a Hawks board. :thumbsu:
Leather Poisoning
2 Mar 2008, 08:07
If the Crows had 4 extra defenders, then maybe the 4 loose Hawks were extra players in the midfield or still in the Crows backline ?
I'm not arguing with you here - the hawks just didn't counter it.
It was clear as day that you guys had numbers back and dominated the corridor. We had a couple of patches where we sent it into the forward line smartly, but when we did it was still too wide. Luckily for us Buddy and Hodge kicked some great set shots, but all up we just didn't attack effectively.
Well done crows - great defensive pressure for the entire game.
Leather Poisoning
2 Mar 2008, 08:08
Im loving the way these hawks buggers can see how many are in the defensive 50 all the way from vicbloodytoria, when the camera isnt showing it.
The camera did show it.
Leather Poisoning
2 Mar 2008, 08:09
First off, i dont care if or how bad the flooding was the umpires were shocking in the consistency - the deliberate out of bounds, what a joke. And then to not pay one that was four times as bad? these games are good to weed out the umpires that need a little closer attention in the next 2 weeks.
I thought Rutten was definitely going for the boundary line - but just can't agree with the free kick against.
The ladson incident was more blatant, but not entirely conviced that should have been a free kick either. (biased?)
flukeyluke
2 Mar 2008, 08:11
Adelaide was better on the night. Pretty simple folks.
Cheeseman
2 Mar 2008, 09:03
Adelaide was better on the night. Pretty simple folks.
What he said, now do the right thing, and belt those Aints next week, best of luck. :thumbsu:
When you decide to only have 3 players in your forward line but we still have our 5-6 players in defence of course it will look like flooding but it isn't.
FancyNancy
2 Mar 2008, 09:56
[/list]Just go call them a rabble mate, trust me you won't even know there is a Hawks board. :thumbsu:
I see you have Melbourne 12 flags under your posts, are you old enough to have seen any of them? And by the way clubs like Hawthorn and Adelaide will keep pouring in a million dollars a year to keep your pathetic club in the competition.
Simon_Nesbit
2 Mar 2008, 10:01
Our problem wasn't the Crows flooding (every team does it now) - although I did get a little smirk at the commentators "pushing men behind the ball" comments at half-time. (As when we did it last year, we were "flooding" according to the same Commentators).
Our gameplan revolves around opening up the space around 50m. Missing Crawford, Bateman, McGlynn to run through 50m; Clarke playing poorly; Roughy rusty/Boyle injury; Williams out so no leading and Young deep in defence meant we fell apart along there.
Rutten, Bassett and Bock were all exceptional, but were constantly able to sit back and help each other out - we made their job incredibly easy.
If you must put it into 'lineups', we played a 1-3-4-4-3-3 (FF-HF-Wing-Foll-HB-FB), while the crows played a more traditional line-up, just pushing players back through the contest.
It's the gameplan to play against us, and unfortunately we will see it used more against us, as it is so effective. (All that being said though, I think we got 90% of what we wanted out of the game - Muston's knee and the final result the missing 10%).
Well done Crows. Impressive teamwork.
If the Hawks fans are complaining about Adelaide's flooding last night (and the Hawks fans who have posted here have been most gracious in defeat), then I'd hate to see what they would have had to say about St Kilda if they had made it through to the GF.
I went to the Geelong vs St Kilda game last week, at Manuka. I lost count of the number of times, when Geelong had the ball in their forward half, that St Kilda had only one solitary player in their forward half of the ground. In contrast, Geelong never had less than 4 players in their forward half - at least not that I observed. The Saints put on a flood which would have made Noah proud.
Like it or not, it's a highly effective weapon against the Hawks. They like to give their tall forwards room to move, flooding deprives them of this.
We were just rubbish. Beaten by a bigger, more skillful side with a tactically superior coach.
When the good sides come to town, or we go to theirs, it is clear to see this. We have a long way to go.
Someone has to swim in the shallow end of the gene pool.
Whats it like in?
Re flooding: Who cares; We won a scrappy game umpired by some average blokes. They should be more concerned about the two gimme goals their captain shouldve kicked;)
What's a looser?
Opposite of a tighter?
Evidence of brain damage?
Anyway,
Ok yes I spelled it wrong, sue me.
If hawthorn have four forwards in our forward fifty, and adelaide have 8 defenders - it's up to you if you call it flooding.
How are 8 players in the defensive 50 flooding?
In conventional football there should be 9.
You have 6 players whose positions are in the defence:
LBP
FB
RBP
LFF
CHF
RFF
Which one of these do you disagree with being in the defending 50? and why?
Then you have 3 on-ballers whose job is to follow the damn ball.
Ruck
Rover
Ruck-Rover
(are rover and ruck-rover even terms used anymore, haven't heard them in years, they have both become 'followers')
That is 9 players who wthout using any tactics of getting behind the ball should be in the defence when the ball gets there.
So you claim 8 which would seem to indicate the crows pushing forward, no?
FancyNancy
2 Mar 2008, 11:17
Ok yes I spelled it wrong, sue me.
How are 8 players in the defensive 50 flooding?
In conventional football there should be 9.
You have 6 players whose positions are in the defence:
LBP
FB
RBP
LFF
CHF
RFF
Which one of these do you disagree with being in the defending 50? and why?
Then you have 3 on-ballers whose job is to follow the damn ball.
Ruck
Rover
Ruck-Rover
(are rover and ruck-rover even terms used anymore, haven't heard them in years, they have both become 'followers')
That is 9 players who wthout using any tactics of getting behind the ball should be in the defence when the ball gets there.
So you claim 8 which would seem to indicate the crows pushing forward, no?
Pushing back players is common practice these days, I don't see why your so defensive or in denial about it.
The Hawks just didn't counter this tactic very well, cudos to your coach.
Pushing back players is common practice these days, I don't see why your so defensive or in denial about it.
The Hawks just didn't counter this tactic very well, cudos to your coach.
Again, how is it pushing players back when it is their position anyway?
Leather Poisoning
2 Mar 2008, 11:30
Ok yes I spelled it wrong, sue me.
How are 8 players in the defensive 50 flooding?
In conventional football there should be 9.
You have 6 players whose positions are in the defence:
LBP
FB
RBP
LFF
CHF
RFF
Which one of these do you disagree with being in the defending 50? and why?
Then you have 3 on-ballers whose job is to follow the damn ball.
Ruck
Rover
Ruck-Rover
(are rover and ruck-rover even terms used anymore, haven't heard them in years, they have both become 'followers')
That is 9 players who wthout using any tactics of getting behind the ball should be in the defence when the ball gets there.
So you claim 8 which would seem to indicate the crows pushing forward, no?
Pushing players back
Flooding
Getting numbers behind the ball
etc
etc
etc
Like I said - it's up to you if you want to call it flooding - Adelaide had twice as many players in our 50 as we did and we played into your hands.
I don't know why you're getting so emotional - nobody is actually arguing with you.
Pushing players back
Flooding
Getting numbers behind the ball
etc
etc
etc
Like I said - it's up to you if you want to call it flooding - Adelaide had twice as many players in our 50 as we did and we played into your hands.
I don't know why you're getting so emotional - nobody is actually arguing with you.
I'm not getting emotional I'm just trying to clarify with you a basic football concept. There are 6 defensive positions and 3 on-ballers = 9 players should be with the ball in defence.
You can call it flooding if you want but it shows that you really have no idea what you're talking about.
NikkiNoo
2 Mar 2008, 11:41
Pushing players back
Flooding
Getting numbers behind the ball
etc
etc
etc
Like I said - it's up to you if you want to call it flooding - Adelaide had twice as many players in our 50 as we did and we played into your hands.
I don't know why you're getting so emotional - nobody is actually arguing with you.
Well if our defenders were actually placed in the defensive 50, where they are supposed to be, I think it says more about your forwards forgetting that their job is to be in the forward 50.
It can't be flooding when it is the DEFENDERS in the defensive 50 area. :rolleyes: So yes, you are incorrect when calling it flooding.
Oh and btw there was many a time when none of your forwards were to be seen in your forward 50 last night, in fact most of them were camped around our forward 50 area.....
pinkcrows
2 Mar 2008, 12:05
hawks are sooks !
Leather Poisoning
2 Mar 2008, 12:13
Well if our defenders were actually placed in the defensive 50, where they are supposed to be, I think it says more about your forwards forgetting that their job is to be in the forward 50.
It can't be flooding when it is the DEFENDERS in the defensive 50 area. :rolleyes: So yes, you are incorrect when calling it flooding.
Oh and btw there was many a time when none of your forwards were to be seen in your forward 50 last night, in fact most of them were camped around our forward 50 area.....
It says a LOT about our forward set up. The only time this 4-man forward line thing works is when we pump it in VERY quickly. In all other instances we need a constested mark or we lose the ball. Adelaide saw to this, made sure we didn't get up there quickly and when it did get up there we were drastically out-numbered.
So like I said, call it what you want. Our gameplan went to shit last night because of Adeliade's pressure and running.
It says a LOT about our forward set up. The only time this 4-man forward line thing works is when we pump it in VERY quickly. In all other instances we need a constested mark or we lose the ball. Adelaide saw to this, made sure we didn't get up there quickly and when it did get up there we were drastically out-numbered.
Exactly, pressure and running, not crowding the defence to make it extremely hard to score.
So like I said, call it what you want. Our gameplan went to shit last night because of Adeliade's pressure and running.
You can call it flooding but if you do you're just demonstrating your ignorance of the game.
Dandy_GO
2 Mar 2008, 12:46
Our flooding hasn't been all that bad this NAB cup, and all of our games have been reasonably high scoring affairs.
It seems people just think FLOOD when they see the crows play, regardless of whether it's happening or not - probably thanks to our scrappy ass gameplan last year and late 06 when we were rooted with injury.
I thought it a good game of footy last night. Defensive pressure by both sides was good all over the ground. We clogged the corridor and pushed them wide for most of the night. Also, I thought we ran harder to the back half than they did. Great to see our midfield youngsters break even with their vg midfield.
Hawks shouldn't be too down about losing this one. They are a top side and will probably finish top 4 this year.
RoosterLad
2 Mar 2008, 12:47
Get used to it ladies. We are awesome and other teams are jealous, that is a fact.
The Hawthorn board has the highest % of wankers on BigFooty.
Good win btw.
Leather Poisoning
2 Mar 2008, 14:44
Exactly, pressure and running, not crowding the defence to make it extremely hard to score.
You can call it flooding but if you do you're just demonstrating your ignorance of the game.
My god.
You are getting so ridiculously caught up on the definition of a single word. You're actually arguing with yourself - I'm not rebutting anything you say but you just keep coming back for more.
I mean, you had your defenders there and followers but you weren't playing man-on-man, just shoving players defensively. Therefore it's fine to call it a flood. There was nobody playing in a part of the ground they shouldn't, but it's all just semantic bullshit and you're an idiot if you get caught up in it.
FWIW there is no macquarie dictionary definition of flooding in football, so it's not even an argument worth having.
Bottom line - the hawks forward line had many more adelaide players than hawks players on many occasions.
Disclaimer:
Adelaide didn't cheat
I think Adelaide played well and deserved to win
Both sides can take positives from the game
Hawthorn should have made sure we had more/better forward targets and more effective thrusts.
My god.
You are getting so ridiculously caught up on the definition of a single word. You're actually arguing with yourself - I'm not rebutting anything you say but you just keep coming back for more.
I mean, you had your defenders there and followers but you weren't playing man-on-man, just shoving players defensively. Therefore it's fine to call it a flood. There was nobody playing in a part of the ground they shouldn't, but it's all just semantic bullshit and you're an idiot if you get caught up in it.
FWIW there is no macquarie dictionary definition of flooding in football, so it's not even an argument worth having.
Bottom line - the hawks forward line had many more adelaide players than hawks players on many occasions.
Disclaimer:
Adelaide didn't cheat
I think Adelaide played well and deserved to win
Both sides can take positives from the game
Hawthorn should have made sure we had more/better forward targets and more effective thrusts.
Think of it this way. If I said that Hawthorn played chip around, time wasting football and that cost them the game would you disagree?
Most teams play that way from time to time but it is not an accurate description of what happened last night.
Implying that Adelaide flooded is just plain wrong it didn't happen. I'm not debating your other points just your flawed observation of how the game went.
Leather Poisoning
2 Mar 2008, 15:00
Think of it this way. If I said that Hawthorn played chip around, time wasting football and that cost them the game would you disagree?
Most teams play that way from time to time but it is not an accurate description of what happened last night.
Implying that Adelaide flooded is just plain wrong it didn't happen. I'm not debating your other points just your flawed observation of how the game went.
SIGH!
You define flooding as having players in the backhalf such as wingman and forwards.
I define flooding as having several players in the back half without direct opponents.
Get over it.
Adelaide played better.
SIGH!
You define flooding as having players in the backhalf such as wingman and forwards.
I define flooding as having several players in the back half without direct opponents.
Get over it.
Adelaide played better.
Players who are supposed to be there...
Where were your forwards????
Perhaps our defenders had no opposition because your forwards were down our end.....flooding?
Implying that Adelaide flooded is just plain wrong
Especially when coming from a Hawthorn supporter. :)
RoosterLad
2 Mar 2008, 15:12
Players who are supposed to be there...
Where were your forwards????
Perhaps our defenders had no opposition because your forwards were down our end.....flooding?
Their forwards were extremely lazy. Franklin played well at the end and kicked a few goals but he's so lazy, stood in the square with his hands on his hips most of the time.
What I don't get when supporters whine about one team flooding using the 8 Crows Defenders to 4 Hawthorn Forwards example is where the hell the other 4 Hawks players are?
Because if they are in the Crows forward line or midfield aren't they just flooding too?
And just on another point, ever seen a supporter whine about flooding after a win?
Baron Winds
2 Mar 2008, 18:00
I define flooding as having several players in the back half without direct opponents.
Zoning would be the correct terminology, I guess, for the politically correct
Vic Crow
2 Mar 2008, 20:05
I skimmed through the thread and hadn't noticed mentioned anything of this point, but I thought the Hawks major problem was their penchant towards kicking it deep to a one on three.
I skimmed through the thread and hadn't noticed mentioned anything of this point, but I thought the Hawks major problem was their penchant towards kicking it deep to a one on three.
Which they're trying to blame on us 'flooding'
stevie20
2 Mar 2008, 21:24
hawks are sooks !
Yep they sure are and have always been!!
Leather Poisoning
2 Mar 2008, 22:36
Which they're trying to blame on us 'flooding'
This is where you're wrong.
We tried to play a 3 or 4 man forward line and you guys out-played it. I'm not trying to "blame" I'm trying to say well done to Adelaide for beating our gameplan (as simple as stubborn as it was).
You played smarter than us which meant our forward line was ineffective for most of the night. Our forward line produced goals when we had guys marking VERY wide or when Hodge, Stokes and Rioli were putting tons of tackling pressure on in our forward half.
Leather Poisoning
2 Mar 2008, 22:38
Zoning would be the correct terminology, I guess, for the politically correct
Fine - I agree, better terminology but still of no consequence to the argument. The point is that I thnk you guys won the game in our forward half. The rest of the game was quite even and I enjoyed the contest.
The camera did show it.
lol. must have a been a real slow tracking shot for you to count all those players.
give it up, you're fooling nobody.
Leather Poisoning
2 Mar 2008, 22:44
lol. must have a been a real slow tracking shot for you to count all those players.
give it up, you're fooling nobody.
Foxtel IQ.
Deal with it.
Southerntakeover
2 Mar 2008, 22:59
Foxtel IQ.
Deal with it.
So, now you paused midgame in order to count the number of players in the defensive 50?
Thats hillarious.
Markthirtytwo
3 Mar 2008, 07:35
So, now you paused midgame in order to count the number of players in the defensive 50?
Thats hillarious.
Perhaps he should have done that at the beginning of the third qtr and reported his own side for having an extra man on the field. ;)
Did happen.
It's highly ironic that this thread has more than its fair share of bad winners mocking Leather Poisoning on his fairly well rounded argument. I don't know how many times he repeated "Adelaide deserved the win" or "Adelaide played better", but still you all just launch on him like children.
Plus a couple of serial Hawk-haters from Geelong and North chime in for good measure.
Apologies to the remaining Adelaide fans.
Congrats Adelaide. We were beaten at our own game fair and square.
Buddy the Brave
3 Mar 2008, 14:56
Especially when coming from a Hawthorn supporter. :)
Coming from a Roos supporter:eek:
Congratulations to all of the Hawks supporters who have posted on this thread. You have all been most gracious in defeat.
I do wish that some of the Crows fans could be a little more gracious in victory!
Reading through the thread, it often seemed like you were arguing two sides of the same coin. Whether you choose to call it "positional play", "having numbers behind the ball", or simply "flooding", the end result was the same. Adelaide had more players in their defensive 50 than Hawthorn had forwards in the same space. To quote Shakespeare (badly).. "a rose by any other name would smell as sweet".
It's highly ironic that this thread has more than its fair share of bad winners mocking Leather Poisoning on his fairly well rounded argument. I don't know how many times he repeated "Adelaide deserved the win" or "Adelaide played better", but still you all just launch on him like children.
Plus a couple of serial Hawk-haters from Geelong and North chime in for good measure.
Apologies to the remaining Adelaide fans.
When he is implying that he believes Adelaide flooded of course we're going to disagree with him.
If Hawthorn had won and we said that you deserved to win it but claimed that your tactics to do it were questionable you wouldn't debate that assertation with us?
I don't disagree that Adelaide deserved to win ar that they played better hence there is nothing to debate as we both agree so I haven't mentioned it. Where we disagree is on whether or not Adelaide flooded, hence that became the topic of discussion.
He hasn't been able to offer any evidence of Adelaide flooding above defenders playing in the defensive 50 (Where they're supposed to be) and expects us to accept that we flooded according to his definition. His definition being when Hawthorn forwards go from the forward lines to defence leaving their opponents to stand their position then Adelaide has flooded. That is a rediculous assertation as it is the Hawthorn players leaving their designated positions to crowd our defence not the other way around.
Some of us are just sick of the pissy clubs with an inferiority complex whinging about every different game style we have. First we score too much then we score too little then we go too fast then we go too slow then we're too old then we're too young.
All this while playing 3 Preliminary finals and a Semi Final in 5 years.
cschreuder61
3 Mar 2008, 15:07
Who really cares if you did flood.
I didn't watch the game, but I've seen Adelaide flood before and win. Its a good tactic if it works.
The word is considered very negative for some reason in the AFL circles, but really every side does it to some degree, some more than others, but all at some stages. Its a tactic allowed to be employed. Dropping numbers back in defence.... who cares.
If you didn't (again, I didn't watch the game), that's fine... but who cares either way. Its just a tactic and its about perception.
Congratulations to all of the Hawks supporters who have posted on this thread. You have all been most gracious in defeat.
I do wish that some of the Crows fans could be a little more gracious in victory!
So because we won we have to falsely concede that we flooded?
Reading through the thread, it often seemed like you were arguing two sides of the same coin. Whether you choose to call it "positional play", "having numbers behind the ball", or simply "flooding", the end result was the same. Adelaide had more players in their defensive 50 than Hawthorn had forwards in the same space. To quote Shakespeare (badly).. "a rose by any other name would smell as sweet".
The difference being flooding involves pushing players back to clog the oppositions forward 50 not simply having the numerical advantage.
Our players weren't pushed back they were the defenders.
Flooding = negative play
what we did was defend our standard designated positions. Defenders defending.
Southerntakeover
3 Mar 2008, 15:07
Congratulations to all of the Hawks supporters who have posted on this thread. You have all been most gracious in defeat.
I do wish that some of the Crows fans could be a little more gracious in victory!
Reading through the thread, it often seemed like you were arguing two sides of the same coin. Whether you choose to call it "positional play", "having numbers behind the ball", or simply "flooding", the end result was the same. Adelaide had more players in their defensive 50 than Hawthorn had forwards in the same space. To quote Shakespeare (badly).. "a rose by any other name would smell as sweet".
Ahh, look at you. Becomes a mod, and first thing he does is sell out to the Vics. :):p
As far as having more players in their forward line than they did... if thats the criteria then we were flooding in the Showdown final, when Bassett was the only player in the Port Adelaide forward 50. :D
Who really cares if you did flood.
I didn't watch the game, but I've seen Adelaide flood before and win. Its a good tactic if it works.
The word is considered very negative for some reason in the AFL circles, but really every side does it to some degree, some more than others, but all at some stages. Its a tactic allowed to be employed. Dropping numbers back in defence.... who cares.
If you didn't (again, I didn't watch the game), that's fine... but who cares either way. Its just a tactic and its about perception.
If you went to game with your mates and at the pub after the game were talking about it and one of your mates started talking about how great franklin was and how he killed his opponent when you know that franklin was held goalless, got 3 touches for the night and absolutely shat all over by his opponent, would you tell your mate that he is mistaken?
NikkiNoo
3 Mar 2008, 15:19
Ahh, look at you. Becomes a mod, and first thing he does is sell out to the Vics. :):p
As far as having more players in their forward line than they did... if thats the criteria then we were flooding in the Showdown final, when Bassett was the only player in the Port Adelaide forward 50. :D
Bassett wasn't in the Port Adelaide forward 50 - he was standing in the centre square most of the time.
When he is implying that he believes Adelaide flooded of course we're going to disagree with him.
If Hawthorn had won and we said that you deserved to win it but claimed that your tactics to do it were questionable you wouldn't debate that assertation with us?
I don't disagree that Adelaide deserved to win ar that they played better hence there is nothing to debate as we both agree so I haven't mentioned it. Where we disagree is on whether or not Adelaide flooded, hence that became the topic of discussion.
He hasn't been able to offer any evidence of Adelaide flooding above defenders playing in the defensive 50 (Where they're supposed to be) and expects us to accept that we flooded according to his definition. His definition being when Hawthorn forwards go from the forward lines to defence leaving their opponents to stand their position then Adelaide has flooded. That is a rediculous assertation as it is the Hawthorn players leaving their designated positions to crowd our defence not the other way around.
Some of us are just sick of the pissy clubs with an inferiority complex whinging about every different game style we have. First we score too much then we score too little then we go too fast then we go too slow then we're too old then we're too young.
All this while playing 3 Preliminary finals and a Semi Final in 5 years.
Nick, again, if you've missed the irony of you whinging away in a thread calling the Hawks bad losers, then i'm not going to explain it to you.
Apparently we're just one of these pissy clubs that bothers the big boys, so i'm sure it's all water of a ducks back to you anyway.
Again, well done on the win, but supporters like you just make goals before the siren in the Preliminary Final all the more sweet.
Eastern Crow
3 Mar 2008, 15:29
some of these comments are unbelievable
1. The crows played negative football
The crows easily ended up the highest scoring team in the NAB by about 10 goals
2. The Crows flooded
When a side has a forward line that includes Buddy, Boyle and Roughhead, of course you are going to deny these forwards time and space, what do Hawks supporters expect from opposition sides, not to try and deny Buddy the ball.
The crows do not flood the back half, we have a very fit side that works it butt off both ways, most importantly, protecting the coridoor and forcing sides wide, secondlly working hard to get back and help the defenders, once the crows win back the footy they attack with skill and hard run, these are signs from a fit and disciplined side that is prepared to work 2 ways
The hawks slow ball movement, over use of the h/ball and their continue obsession to bomb the ball forward were the real issues
And for those Hawks supporters who rather see no defensive action, well tou will enjoy your game against the WB, however, when you play the AFC expect a contest
I would of thought this club's supporter base would of had an appreciation for an opposition side that had a tough and discipline defensive action, given that the hawks sides of the 80's and 90's were the masters of applying defensive pressure and winning back the footy
I seem to recall Sellar getting pinged for "Holding the Ball" at one stage (3rd quarter from memory). He was pounced upon by 3 Hawks players, with no chance of disposing the ball to another Crows player because he was the only one in our forward line at the time.
Actually, the Crows had to use several extra possessions before they even got the ball to him, as they had nobody to pass it to further downfield.
Now, the TV didn't show a whole-ground view, but I'm guessing Sellar may well have been the only Crows player in our forward half of the ground at the time when the ball was turned over. Certainly this was implied by the commentary team at the time.
If the Crows were playing "positional football", with 6 defenders (plus followers) in their defensive area, where were the other 5 forwards who should have been in Adelaide's attacking half of the ground?
The truth is that Adelaide do flood from time to time, and almost certainly did at times on Saturday night. I have no problems admitting this. It was a tactic which did precisely what it was designed to do - clogging the Hawthorn forward line, ensuring that the Crows came up with the ball pretty much every time it was bombed deep into attack.
Why do people have such difficulty accepting what seems to be a self evident truth?
BTW, if you want to see a real flood, keep an eye on St Kilda this week. I went to the StK vs Geelong game in R2 of the MMC and the Saints put on a flood which would have made Noah proud.
Nick, again, if you've missed the irony of you whinging away in a thread calling the Hawks bad losers, then i'm not going to explain it to you.
I'm not whinging, I'm disagreeing. His assessment of the game is wrong. I stated that and reasons why. It's a football discussion forum is it not?
Again, well done on the win, but supporters like you just make goals before the siren in the Preliminary Final all the more sweet.
What preliminary final?
The truth is that Adelaide do flood from time to time, and almost certainly did at times on Saturday night. I have no problems admitting this. It was a tactic which did precisely what it was designed to do - clogging the Hawthorn forward line, ensuring that the Crows came up with the ball pretty much every time it was bombed deep into attack.
That is where the disagreement is. Sure when they bombed it deep we out numbered them but their forward line was anything but clogged. They were trying to drag us away from the defence by having most of their forwards move back. Our guys didn't go with them and stood their ground hence as there were players in the pockets, flanks and CHF it left them with bomb in high which we used to do a few years ago and is very ineffective if you don't have a really dominant tall forward.
You cannot flood with less than 10 players in the defence.
RoosterLad
3 Mar 2008, 16:43
Again, well done on the win, but supporters like you just make goals before the siren in the Preliminary Final all the more sweet.
Have another beer dude.
cschreuder61
3 Mar 2008, 18:00
I seem to recall Sellar getting pinged for "Holding the Ball" at one stage (3rd quarter from memory). He was pounced upon by 3 Hawks players, with no chance of disposing the ball to another Crows player because he was the only one in our forward line at the time.
Actually, the Crows had to use several extra possessions before they even got the ball to him, as they had nobody to pass it to further downfield.
Now, the TV didn't show a whole-ground view, but I'm guessing Sellar may well have been the only Crows player in our forward half of the ground at the time when the ball was turned over. Certainly this was implied by the commentary team at the time.
If the Crows were playing "positional football", with 6 defenders (plus followers) in their defensive area, where were the other 5 forwards who should have been in Adelaide's attacking half of the ground?
The truth is that Adelaide do flood from time to time, and almost certainly did at times on Saturday night. I have no problems admitting this. It was a tactic which did precisely what it was designed to do - clogging the Hawthorn forward line, ensuring that the Crows came up with the ball pretty much every time it was bombed deep into attack.
Why do people have such difficulty accepting what seems to be a self evident truth?
BTW, if you want to see a real flood, keep an eye on St Kilda this week. I went to the StK vs Geelong game in R2 of the MMC and the Saints put on a flood which would have made Noah proud.
Well said.
Its just a tactic, and its perfectly acceptable, especially if it is enabling you to stop the opposition doing what they want.
If you allow Hawthorn space in terms of in the midfield or up forward, we'll cut the game open and use our strengths. If you deny us this, slow our ball movement down, and clog up space in our forward 50, we are inexperienced and struggle in a good old fashioned slog. Look at the teams we lost to by big margins durinig the year. It was only Sydney and Adelaide. Both are the best two sides in the competition when they don't have the ball, its a strength.
Flood is a dirty word these days, and people do use it to degrade sides around here, but it merely a tactic, and an extremely legitimate one.
I've seen the reply on tape, and there certainly were occassions where Adelaide had more defenders in there back half than we had forwards, but there were also large periods of time we didn't score. How this is considered in any form negative is beyond me. Leaving our forwards 1 out, and trying to turn the game into a shoot out would have been a poor tactic from Adelaide's point of view.
cschreuder61
3 Mar 2008, 18:06
That is where the disagreement is. Sure when they bombed it deep we out numbered them but their forward line was anything but clogged. They were trying to drag us away from the defence by having most of their forwards move back. Our guys didn't go with them and stood their ground hence as there were players in the pockets, flanks and CHF it left them with bomb in high which we used to do a few years ago and is very ineffective if you don't have a really dominant tall forward.
You cannot flood with less than 10 players in the defence.
10?
What's a definition of a flood anyway?
If you leave your back 6 there its just positional, but increase those numbers for a period of time I'd say its dropping numbers back and clogging up space. Adelaide were manning the space, causing the turnover (we kept bombing for some reason and Craig knew it) and then running to create play.
We do this a lot ourselves (we like to call in zoning though ;) ) get numbers to help down back due to our under-sized defence, then run it out and use our fitness and creativity. We play a very different over-all game plan to the Crows, but we use similiar tactics at time, and want to copy a few things you and the Swans do, and one is defensive work without the ball.
10?
What's a definition of a flood anyway?
I think wiki's is pretty accurate
Flooding is a tactic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactic_%28method%29) used in the sport of Australian rules football (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_rules_football). It involves the coach releasing players in the forward line from their set positions and directing them to the opposition forward area, congesting the area and making it more difficult for the opposition to score. It is commonly deployed to protect a lead, or prevent a rout. This is possible due to the lack of an offside rule or similar restrictions on players field movements.
If you leave your back 6 there its just positional, but increase those numbers for a period of time I'd say its dropping numbers back and clogging up space. Adelaide were manning the space, causing the turnover (we kept bombing for some reason and Craig knew it) and then running to create play.
Back 6 plus on-ballers is standard defence. As defence was long before flooding.
We do this a lot ourselves (we like to call in zoning though ;) ) get numbers to help down back due to our under-sized defence, then run it out and use our fitness and creativity. We play a very different over-all game plan to the Crows, but we use similiar tactics at time, and want to copy a few things you and the Swans do, and one is defensive work without the ball.
I'm not saying flooding is necessarily bad, just that it wasn't used by the Crows on saturday night.
It's highly ironic that this thread has more than its fair share of bad winners mocking Leather Poisoning on his fairly well rounded argument. I don't know how many times he repeated "Adelaide deserved the win" or "Adelaide played better", but still you all just launch on him like children.
Plus a couple of serial Hawk-haters from Geelong and North chime in for good measure.
Apologies to the remaining Adelaide fans.
oh please, stop the persecution complex.
he used 'flooding' in the perjorative sense, and couldn't even substantiate it without inventing his own definition.
cschreuder61
3 Mar 2008, 19:18
No stages in the game where Adelaide dropped extra numbers back?
Of course there was, especially when they didn't have the wind.
So did Hawthorn.
Who cares
Simon_Nesbit
3 Mar 2008, 19:56
Amusing thread, given the OP's intention.
Start of the game (1st bounce), Adelaide had 9 men on the defensive side of the square. (Two wingers and a HFF? pushed up on defensive side). All three were unmarked, and we had three loose men on the wing sides of the square. Deliberate tactic which stopped us from breaking straight from the midfield.
To the poster that implies having 9 men in defense isn't flooding (6 defenders and 3 followers)...
...shouldn't your 'followers' be 'following' the ball?
Legitimate tactic, we use a zonal defense as much as anyone (how often do we have someone in 40m of space on the 'fat' side when rebounding?
Congrats on winning the game, thought we played right into your hands (not unexpectedly mind you).
To the poster that implies having 9 men in defense isn't flooding (6 defenders and 3 followers)...
...shouldn't your 'followers' be 'following' the ball?
errr yes. hence when the ball made it to our defensive line, they did too.
Sure they got to where the ball was going by the time it got there. Followers doesn't imply they chase the ball like the Auskick kids.
Simon_Nesbit
3 Mar 2008, 21:27
I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say.
Imagine the ball on the wing/centre circle. The middle of the ground. Hawthorn in possession. Probably got there through a kick to the back flank, then ran with a series of handballs to the middle, using the overlap. In the centre (around the ball), it's 4 Hawks v 3 Crows, so the players 'flip' the ball around to the open man.
At the 50m line, there is a 'wall' of 5 Crows, with 2 Hawks (Rioli and Osborne - both crumbers) there...neither can take a contested mark in that situation, so push upfield. Two Crows follow, now there is 3 Crows at 50m and 0 Hawks. We are still pissing around with it in the middle (having played on to 'run and create' we are now forced into quicker and quicker short passes.
Eventually either someone takes them on (runs past/through a tackler), we bomb it long (to your numerical advantage), or we stuff up a possession. In this situation, we rely on "run from behind" as one of our HBF's has to run to, through, and past the contest, in order to beat your wall.
If we don't do it quick enough, the Crow defensive wall simply sags back, keeping the 50-60m distance up, until they reach about 30m out, where they sit, blocking space.
It's a good tactic, as it works, and all teams do it - admittadly some more than others. What frustrates me is the inability of commentators, the media, and a large % of people to realise the "chicken and egg" of the resultant play.
Your followers, should be at/near the contests...if they are sitting 40-50m behind the play, and your HFF's are at the contest in the middle, then (apart from being GOOD accountable play) that's a version of "flooding".
Your followers, should be at/near the contests...if they are sitting 40-50m behind the play, and your HFF's are at the contest in the middle, then (apart from being GOOD accountable play) that's a version of "flooding".
Not so much our followers as our wingmen.
What Adelaide does is to flood the corridor between CHF and CHB by bringing it's HF line up towards the centre and its wingmen drop back towards HB. This forces the opposition wide and holds them up from crossing effectively towards CHF.
Hawthorn tried to do a similar thing but brought too many forwards up too far from home which created the 3 on 1 thing closer to their goal.
Craig took the honours on the night IMO with his tactics proving more effective than Clarkson's.
Great game though, and played at a high intensity by both sides which gave all parties the ideal hit-out in preparation for the season proper. :thumbsu:
I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say.
Imagine the ball on the wing/centre circle. The middle of the ground. Hawthorn in possession. Probably got there through a kick to the back flank, then ran with a series of handballs to the middle, using the overlap. In the centre (around the ball), it's 4 Hawks v 3 Crows, so the players 'flip' the ball around to the open man.
At the 50m line, there is a 'wall' of 5 Crows, with 2 Hawks (Rioli and Osborne - both crumbers) there...neither can take a contested mark in that situation, so push upfield. Two Crows follow, now there is 3 Crows at 50m and 0 Hawks. We are still pissing around with it in the middle (having played on to 'run and create' we are now forced into quicker and quicker short passes.
Eventually either someone takes them on (runs past/through a tackler), we bomb it long (to your numerical advantage), or we stuff up a possession. In this situation, we rely on "run from behind" as one of our HBF's has to run to, through, and past the contest, in order to beat your wall.
If we don't do it quick enough, the Crow defensive wall simply sags back, keeping the 50-60m distance up, until they reach about 30m out, where they sit, blocking space.
It's a good tactic, as it works, and all teams do it - admittadly some more than others. What frustrates me is the inability of commentators, the media, and a large % of people to realise the "chicken and egg" of the resultant play.
Your followers, should be at/near the contests...if they are sitting 40-50m behind the play, and your HFF's are at the contest in the middle, then (apart from being GOOD accountable play) that's a version of "flooding".
Sure if you want to call that flooding. I saw this team once at half time..they were ALL in a group. OMG Flooding to the max.
Flooding always has been the deliberate crowding of the opposing teams offensive 50 by moving wingman and forwards to the back line.
Sanguinarius
4 Mar 2008, 22:50
we did flood onccasions.
there were a number of times when there were only two key forwards in our attacking half, and one or two times when even they crossed over to the defensive half.
to saw we didn't flood on occasions is to simply deny what happened.
we did flood onccasions.
there were a number of times when there were only two key forwards in our attacking half, and one or two times when even they crossed over to the defensive half.
to saw we didn't flood on occasions is to simply deny what happened.
Flooding isn't about what happened in our attacking half. As I have said flooding is when you deliberately crowd the oppositions forward 50 with forwards and wingers. It is not when you have your forwards in the middle or even just past the centre.
Leather Poisoning
4 Mar 2008, 23:11
oh please, stop the persecution complex.
he used 'flooding' in the perjorative sense, and couldn't even substantiate it without inventing his own definition.
I didn't use it in the pejorative sense at all.
I just said that you can call the tactic of having more playesr in our attacking 50 than us whatever you want.
Then I congratulated you guys on the win.
If you can tease out a pejorative angle from that then you are one very sensitive individual.
As for the definition - 'flooding' in AFL footy is a colloquilism. As such its meaning changes every season. it used to mean putting your wingman in the defensive fifty. Some people decide that you have to put forwards in your defensive half, some say within the defensive footy. THERE IS NO DEFINITION THAT IS BETTER THAN ANY OTHER DEFNITION. Now all of a sudden we're using wikibloodypedia to settle debates that aren't even debates!
Flooding - whether you're doing it or not - is a tactic that is part of footy today. Every team does it at one point or another. It's a good way to win games. I emplore coaches to beat the flood - not complain about the flood!
I didn't use it in the pejorative sense at all.
I just said that you can call the tactic of having more playesr in our attacking 50 than us whatever you want.
Then I congratulated you guys on the win.
If you can tease out a pejorative angle from that then you are one very sensitive individual.
As for the definition - 'flooding' in AFL footy is a colloquilism. As such its meaning changes every season. it used to mean putting your wingman in the defensive fifty. Some people decide that you have to put forwards in your defensive half, some say within the defensive footy. THERE IS NO DEFINITION THAT IS BETTER THAN ANY OTHER DEFNITION. Now all of a sudden we're using wikibloodypedia to settle debates that aren't even debates!
Flooding - whether you're doing it or not - is a tactic that is part of footy today. Every team does it at one point or another. It's a good way to win games. I emplore coaches to beat the flood - not complain about the flood!
did it take you that long to try and work an angle to spin?
utter toss.
Haha talking about bad Hawks loses check out this facebook comment i got from a friend of mine the day after the match btw it is very sarcastic:
Hey Benny!! help me out here... i was talking with some friends about the crows team they put out tonight against Hawthorn and we were listing players that weren't playing who would have if it were a regular season game!! for Hawthorn we came up with Crawf, Bateman, M Williams, Baily and Brown. We couldn't name any crows players and we came 2 the conclusion that they were at full strength. Is that right or is there a player/s that didn't come 2 mind?? if there isn't i'd b a little disappointed coz without the mention hawks players u almost 2 a considerably weaker Hawks side without 5 of their better players!!
-Ben
Simon_Nesbit
6 Mar 2008, 10:34
Considering it's NAB cup, I don't think leaving players out really counts...but out of interest, who DID Adelaide have not playing?
(For comparison sake, Crawford, Bateman, McGlynn are arguably our three best wing/hff options (where we fell down), Bailey a ruck we have high hopes for, and Brown our #2 defender - who probably would have matched Burton). We also had five blokes having their first run for the season (Dew, Guerra, Ladson, Roughead, ? someone else)
Peri Peri Sauce
6 Mar 2008, 10:41
Considering it's NAB cup, I don't think leaving players out really counts...but out of interest, who DID Adelaide have not playing?
(For comparison sake, Crawford, Bateman, McGlynn are arguably our three best wing/hff options (where we fell down), Bailey a ruck we have high hopes for, and Brown our #2 defender - who probably would have matched Burton). We also had five blokes having their first run for the season (Dew, Guerra, Ladson, Roughead, ? someone else)
Our best ruck & CHF.
To be fair, the Crows WERE pretty much at full strength.
The only players I can think of who might be added are Hentschel & Massie, Hentschel being nowhere near fit while Massie was not selected.
Of the remainder, only Bassett was playing his first game of the season.
Our best ruck & CHF.
"Our best ruck" will in all likelihood never play another game of AFL in his career. Time to move on with this one.
As for who is our new "best ruck", that title is still well and truly up for grabs.
Considering it's NAB cup, I don't think leaving players out really counts...but out of interest, who DID Adelaide have not playing?
(For comparison sake, Crawford, Bateman, McGlynn are arguably our three best wing/hff options (where we fell down), Bailey a ruck we have high hopes for, and Brown our #2 defender - who probably would have matched Burton). We also had five blokes having their first run for the season (Dew, Guerra, Ladson, Roughead, ? someone else)
In fairness, while you might have high hopes for Bailey, he's probably vying for your number 3 ruck slot with Renouf, behind Taylor and Campbell, is he not?
And you had 4 blokes having their first run that I saw. Dew had a walk, at best. :D
Missing for Adelaide were Hentschel, Massie, Jericho and Gill (as well as Biglands, obviously). Having said that, there's been several enforced changes to the list from the EF last year, with the retirement of Roo, the delisting of Torney, and the departures of Mattner, Hudson and Welsh. It's kind of hard to define who is out, because it's less clear who the best 22 are at this stage of the season than arguably any year since 1997. Other players on the fringe of selection who missed who may feature this year are Bryce Campbell, and a slew of untested rookies.
Bassett had his first run for the season (and I could be wrong, but Griffin might have too? He didn't play in Dubai).
James_37
6 Mar 2008, 11:45
As much we may never see biglands again, he is still on our list and was in our game plans for this year. So I'd say Biglands, Hentschell and Gill were probably the big 3, now I'd say thats our best ruckman and 2 best KP forwards. Massie wasn't playing, but that wasn't through injury at all.
Also, another small point, you've got to take into account that we wern't playing Edwards or Goodwin in the midfield, now thats around 500 games worth of experience taken away from the center bounces, if we'd been playing our "full-strength" side, these blokes would play a decent amount of footy in the middle.
Simon_Nesbit
6 Mar 2008, 16:54
Cool thanks for that. I'm generally not too bad with who's in/out of opposition teams (except Freo, Sydney and Kangaroos for some reason), but I was struggling to name any.
General feeling is Bailey will assume our #1 ruck (like McIntosh did at Kangas) within the season, should he be/get/keep fit. Depends who you talk to whether it's Taylor or Campbell that goes out though.
Probably haven't watched enough of your guys recently, but I've always through of Edwards as a solid HBF, rather than a genuine midfielder (and he had his hands rather full as it was last weekend anyway). Goodwin is another who I've never really rated highly (good midfielder, but behind Roo, McLeod, and for us Hodge/Mitchell/Crawf)...but that's probably just me.
Agree the 'full strength side' can be misleading, especially to the media. When we played Swans we had 8 of our 22 out, but had 8 senior players only play a half, and mostly around the pockets/flanks. In fact we were on average one week older, and one game less experienced than the Swans, yet were portrayed as the "Full Strength, Experienced Hawks" v the Swans "Rookies".
Simon_Nesbit
6 Mar 2008, 16:55
Geez Bassett looked good for a first run. Helped there were 35 blokes kicking it to him though.
raikkonen
6 Mar 2008, 17:03
Geez Bassett looked good for a first run. Helped there were 35 blokes kicking it to him though.
36 early on in the last quarter. Brent Guerra put a new meaning to the term 'loose man in defence.' He was a 19th player on the field. :thumbsd:
http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,8659,23327549-23211,00.html