Brad Scott can you please concede that your gameplan is crap!

[Roosurgence]

Excellent post from the Freo guy in a crap thread started by a poster who thinks we all need to hear this on a weekly basis. I, for one, don't.

What part of "it's way too early to judge the coach / game plan and way too short-sighted to write both off" does she not understand?

Crap thread. I hope we start winning if only to put a stop to her posting this ad nauseum.

If you are going to take a shot then how about get your facts straight. I haven't made a judgement call on Brad Scott, in fact I have gone to lengths to point out that I actually applaud some of the things he is doing.

The only thing I have written off is his gameplan and I would think 10 weeks of rubbish would be enough to make an accurate assessment of how that is going. Also the fact that we have shown no improvement are going backwards and worst of all showing no competitive effort, is a fairly key indicator that not only does it not work, but there is a good chance the players have lost faith in the direction as well.

If you are going to say my thread is crap then at least come in and make a valid argument to support your view as to why you think the gameplan is so great, other than the it takes time crap.

But yes the old chesnut of it takes time, will solve everything.

12 more weeks of crapola will be fantastic for next years membership drive and this years crowd figures. Its hard enough to attract members and crowds at the best of times, let alone when you have a side that is non competitive and plays a style of football that that accentuates that fact.

 

[Roosurgence]

Keep the faith people - there is no use carry on and embarrassing yourselves when the tables turn - and they will turn. It takes time - i dont care what anyone says about our gameplan or the coach. Id rather get belted by playing a young team who will develop (question is on how fast) then scrape around the 8 for 10 years. Brad Scott knows what he is doing - its his first year FFS. How many games did bailey, harvey, knights and all those morons win in their first year. And at least he doesnt use the "re-building" get out of jail card. We will be fine. Our list is in great nick - he just needs to time to stamp his style on this team. Talk of game plans is bullsh.t - gameplans and defensive structures vary from week to week. Our overall intensity and attack on the ball was the thing that is most dissapointing because you can have the best structures in the world but if you dont hit targets, dont chase, dont apply pressure on the ball carrier - your an average team. I wont lose the faith in where we are headed.

All great point and I agree with all of them except for the bolded bit. Our gameplan has not changed one bit. We are still making the same mistakes and employing the same structure as we did in Round 1. I am all for teaching them to play a certain way, but to stubbornly stick to the same s**t week in week out, no matter the consequences is just plain pig headed.

 

[Roosurgence]

Basic skill errors is turning the ball over, but it is not what is gifting opposition teams easy goals.
Good teams can hit a target that is standing within the zone.
A zone does not work when you can pick your way through it.


Play to your team's strengths I say

What makes our zone even easier to penetrate is that we sag back to the middle of the ground and actually give their backs time and space to hit that option up. If he is going to persist with this zone then at least exert some forward pressure on the defenders and hopefully cause them to make a turnover.

The midfield zone became redundant after 2008 and most sides now employ a gameplan that relies on forward pressure to create turnovers. It's all about pressuring the ball carrier, not minding space.

The fact the Brian Lake could collect 41 cheap posessions showed that we have no forward pressure at all.

 

[KangaMatt]

All great point and I agree with all of them except for the bolded bit. Our gameplan has not changed one bit. We are still making the same mistakes and employing the same structure as we did in Round 1. I am all for teaching them to play a certain way, but to stubbornly stick to the same s**t week in week out, no matter the consequences is just plain pig headed.

We have won 4 games with a very young list. We need to remember that while zeibel, Bastinac, Cunnington, Wright, Grima, Anthony, Goldstein, Okeefe, Warren may all go on and become quality footballers, some even elite, at the moment they are underdeveloped kids playing against seasoned teams.

Judge the game plan against teams at a similar development stage to us. So far it has stood up. Yes there are times I wish we would employ a different tactic when teams get a run against us (Melbourne & Adelaide games), but at the end of the day we are learning. We are going to cop some beltings.

As I mentioned in another post the one area I think we are struggling on is attitude when we fall behind. Senior plyers need to take responsibilty for this. Work hard and pressure and compete at every contest. Skill and game plans need time to develop and evolve.

Again...judge our results against teams in a similar position to us and we are 4 - 2. Not bad going.

 

[GarnerSmash]

My two cents.

The idea of the zone is to lock the ball in our attacking half of the ground.

Last week we kinda did that as we limited the Bulldogs to a small number of inside 50's, but from which they scored way too easily. Against the Dees, Crows our zone worked much better because these teams do not have the skills, toughness and pace to break through, where as the Bulldogs did. The next step for our boys is to up the fitness/intensity levels to prevent good run and carry teams from getting through. This is even more difficult if don't we win the contested possession, which we are not doing at the moment against the beter sides due to playing boys in the middle. When we do start to win the contested ball we need to be able to use the pill well, which we don't do at the moment because we are constantly under pressure. Getting fitter, bigger, stronger and tougher will enable us to implement this zone and it's variants in future much more effectively.

Against the Dockers we were smashed in the contested possession and run off our feet due to inability to rotate due to too many talls (TM). They pressed up on us and locked us into their attacking half exposing our relatively poor disposal, decision making and ability to win contested possession. When we pushed forward, generally wide as we were forced that way, and turned the ball over the wide open spaces of Subi, this allowed the Freo runners to run and carry through our zone to deliver with precision to either an open player or a forward leading into space. All this equals a smashing.

Going man on man will keep us competitive and probably would have done so against Freo. We will stay in games but will still loose against better teams. When our guys develop and can compete with anyone, man on man will still loose out against a top team with strong structures. Man on man will no longer win flags.

The logic of playing a zone now is to teach our boys how to stick to a structure. Learning a basic structure will be a groundling for more flexible structures in the future. Mature bodies and brains that have been part of a structure for years will always beat a young team learning a structure from scratch. To use an analogy, this zone is like a pair of shoes your mum bought you as a kid. They were always too big but sure enough you grew into them and ultimately you got to a point where you outgrew them and were ready for a new pair. We will learn this zone, grow into it and then from that point vary the zone to suit our needs, which our guys will be able to do because this steep learning curve they are currently on will enable them to adapt to changing tactics further down the line because they are now being forced to think about more than just beating their man.

We always knew this was going to be painful period. Why the hysteria?

 

[Roosurgence]

We have won 4 games with a very young list. We need to remember that while zeibel, Bastinac, Cunnington, Wright, Grima, Anthony, Goldstein, Okeefe, Warren may all go on and become quality footballers, some even elite, at the moment they are underdeveloped kids playing against seasoned teams.

Judge the game plan against teams at a similar development stage to us. So far it has stood up. Yes there are times I wish we would employ a different tactic when teams get a run against us (Melbourne & Adelaide games), but at the end of the day we are learning. We are going to cop some beltings.

As I mentioned in another post the one area I think we are struggling on is attitude when we fall behind. Senior plyers need to take responsibilty for this. Work hard and pressure and compete at every contest. Skill and game plans need time to develop and evolve.

Again...judge our results against teams in a similar position to us and we are 4 - 2. Not bad going.

Our four wins have come against sides that have used the ball poorly. When these sides improve and start using the ball better and make better decisions, they will belt us. Just like the better sides do now.

Melbourne are going forward because they are learning to compete and take the game on. We are going backwards because we are chosing to play a style of football that relys on the other side being poor with the ball.

I would prefer to judge our football on the way it stacks up against good sides, not crap or developing ones. The first thing we should be teaching our players is to be competitive, when they can prove that then they can move onto complicated structures and zones. Seems we have the cart before the horse at the moment and players are so preoccupied with tactis and structures that they are forgetting that the key to any good side is competing and winning the football.

I can cop beltings and I wouldn't have cared less if we had lost by 15 goals yesterday, if I could see that we were playing a brand of footy that was going to take us some place.

 

[Roosurgence]

My two cents.

The idea of the zone is to lock the ball in our attacking half of the ground.

Last week we kinda did that as we limited the Bulldogs to a small number of inside 50's, but from which they scored way too easily. Against the Dees, Crows our zone worked much better because these teams do not have the skills, toughness and pace to break through, where as the Bulldogs did. The next step for our boys is to up the fitness/intensity levels to prevent good run and carry teams from getting through. This is even more difficult if don't we win the contested possession, which we are not doing at the moment against the beter sides due to playing boys in the middle. When we do start to win the contested ball we need to be able to use the pill well, which we don't do at the moment because we are constantly under pressure. Getting fitter, bigger, stronger and tougher will enable us to implement this zone and it's variants in future much more effectively.

Against the Dockers we were smashed in the contested possession and run off our feet due to inability to rotate due to too many talls (TM). They pressed up on us and locked us into their attacking half exposing our relatively poor disposal, decision making and ability to win contested possession. When we pushed forward, generally wide as we were forced that way, and turned the ball over the wide open spaces of Subi, this allowed the Freo runners to run and carry through our zone to deliver with precision to either an open player or a forward leading into space. All this equals a smashing.

Going man on man will keep us competitive and probably would have done so against Freo. We will stay in games but will still loose against better teams. When our guys develop and can compete with anyone, man on man will still loose out against a top team with strong structures. Man on man will no longer win flags.

The logic of playing a zone now is to teach our boys how to stick to a structure. Learning a basic structure will be a groundling for more flexible structures in the future. Mature bodies and brains that have been part of a structure for years will always beat a young team learning a structure from scratch. To use an analogy, this zone is like a pair of shoes your mum bought you as a kid. They were always too big but sure enough you grew into them and ultimately you got to a point where you outgrew them and were ready for a new pair. We will learn this zone, grow into it and then from that point vary the zone to suit our needs, which our guys will be able to do because this steep learning curve they are currently on will enable them to adapt to changing tactics further down the line because they are now being forced to think about more than just beating their man.

We always knew this was going to be painful period. Why the hysteria?

Did your parents teach you to run before you could walk? Would be pretty dangerous trying to running in shoes that are way to big for you as well.

I do agree with the last part though.

 

[mako_roo]

My two cents.

The idea of the zone is to lock the ball in our attacking half of the ground.

Last week we kinda did that as we limited the Bulldogs to a small number of inside 50's, but from which they scored way too easily. Against the Dees, Crows our zone worked much better because these teams do not have the skills, toughness and pace to break through, where as the Bulldogs did. The next step for our boys is to up the fitness/intensity levels to prevent good run and carry teams from getting through. This is even more difficult if don't we win the contested possession, which we are not doing at the moment against the beter sides due to playing boys in the middle. When we do start to win the contested ball we need to be able to use the pill well, which we don't do at the moment because we are constantly under pressure. Getting fitter, bigger, stronger and tougher will enable us to implement this zone and it's variants in future much more effectively.

Against the Dockers we were smashed in the contested possession and run off our feet due to inability to rotate due to too many talls (TM). They pressed up on us and locked us into their attacking half exposing our relatively poor disposal, decision making and ability to win contested possession. When we pushed forward, generally wide as we were forced that way, and turned the ball over the wide open spaces of Subi, this allowed the Freo runners to run and carry through our zone to deliver with precision to either an open player or a forward leading into space. All this equals a smashing.

Going man on man will keep us competitive and probably would have done so against Freo. We will stay in games but will still loose against better teams. When our guys develop and can compete with anyone, man on man will still loose out against a top team with strong structures. Man on man will no longer win flags.

The logic of playing a zone now is to teach our boys how to stick to a structure. Learning a basic structure will be a groundling for more flexible structures in the future. Mature bodies and brains that have been part of a structure for years will always beat a young team learning a structure from scratch. To use an analogy, this zone is like a pair of shoes your mum bought you as a kid. They were always too big but sure enough you grew into them and ultimately you got to a point where you outgrew them and were ready for a new pair. We will learn this zone, grow into it and then from that point vary the zone to suit our needs, which our guys will be able to do because this steep learning curve they are currently on will enable them to adapt to changing tactics further down the line because they are now being forced to think about more than just beating their man.

We always knew this was going to be painful period. Why the hysteria?

Brilliant sum up

 

[KangaMatt]

Our four wins have come against sides that have used the ball poorly. When these sides improve and start using the ball better and make better decisions, they will belt us. Just like the better sides do now.

Melbourne are going forward because they are learning to compete and take the game on. We are going backwards because we are chosing to play a style of football that relys on the other side being poor with the ball.

I would prefer to judge our football on the way it stacks up against good sides, not crap or developing ones. The first thing we should be teaching our players is to be competitive, when they can prove that then they can move onto complicated structures and zones. Seems we have the cart before the horse at the moment and players are so preoccupied with tactis and structures that they are forgetting that the key to any good side is competing and winning the football.

I can cop beltings and I wouldn't have cared less if we had lost by 15 goals yesterday, if I could see that we were playing a brand of footy that was going to take us some place.

Perhaps our pressure at the footy and the opposition had a lot to do with this. As we continue to get stronger, more experienced thats not going to fall away. The style of footy is holding up against teams positioned similar to us. Sure there need to be some adjustments. Im certain they will come. Its been just 10 weeks. Things take time....Unfortunatly.

 

[Brad Roo]

............

Going man on man will keep us competitive and probably would have done so against Freo. We will stay in games but will still loose against better teams. When our guys develop and can compete with anyone, man on man will still loose out against a top team with strong structures. Man on man will no longer win flags...........

We always knew this was going to be painful period. Why the hysteria?

Simple really.

Why not shelve the zone until we have the fitness, experience and strength to utilise it?

I'm sure the supporters and sponsors would prefer that.

 

[Roosurgence]

Perhaps our pressure at the footy and the opposition had a lot to do with this. As we continue to get stronger, more experienced thats not going to fall away. The style of footy is holding up against teams positioned similar to us. Sure there need to be some adjustments. Im certain they will come. Its been just 10 weeks. Things take time....Unfortunatly.

I agree 100%.

Unfortunately it seems that we have made no adjustments and continue to keep running at the brick wall in hope that one day it might fall down.

Those teams that are in a similar position are at least showing that they can compete with better sides, which is my main concern.

I couldn't care less how we go this year if I can see some genuine improvement and team that is learning. All I can see at the moment is a team doing the same thing over and over and progressively getting worse at it.

 

[TennisPlayerAndy]

Is the gameplan to be blamed for poor disposal and decision making? Or is the poor decision making and disposal to be blamed on our gameplan?

If you aint got the skills, it dont matter what you do.

 

[Roosurgence]

Simple really.

Why not shelve the zone until we have the fitness, experience and strength to utilise it?

I'm sure the supporters and sponsors would prefer that.

It would seem logical wouldn't it?

The worst thing I saw on the weekend was a lack of effort and application, which is usually a pretty good sign that the players are starting to doubt the way they are told to go about it as well.

 

[GarnerSmash]

Simple really.

Why not shelve the zone until we have the fitness, experience and strength to utilise it?

I'm sure the supporters and sponsors would prefer that.

Do you wait till they are fit enough to play a zone and then take the time to teach them, or do you give them the instructions on how to play the zone and then allow them to get fitter as they learn it? I personally can see the rational for the latter. It will be a pain in the arse for supporters but will deliver long term benefits sooner as by the time the guys are fit enough to play the zone properly they will have it mastered and be ready to learn variants.

 

[Zondor]

Zondors' take is this. :stern look

I've got no problem with Brad Scott wanting to play Zone Football.

The problem I have is that when it isn't working that he doesn't want to alter to a more man on man style of play.

I had this whinge after the StKilda game and I stand by it.

It's all about accountability and changing it up.

In the third qtr I would have moved B Rawlings into the middle, Harding into his place. Spud into the guts. Tried something to stem the flow from the middle but Scott seemed to move Goldy into the backline as a loose man and that was it.

Scott also needs to understand that Hales, Hamish and Goldy are just ordinary big men. They aren't great and quite frankly shouldn't be in our best 22 for team balance reasons. 2 out of 3 aint bad. So only pick 2 out of 3. Create competition between these guys. Is that such a bad thing?

Missing Wells, Anthony and Adams cost us a lot of run on the weekend. Replacing the likes of these guys with GIANTS was bound to be an EPIC FAIL.

I hope Scott learns or I'll be forced to call him Scotts. :stern look

 

[Brad Roo]

Do you wait till they are fit enough to play a zone and then take the time to teach them, or do you give them the instructions on how to play the zone and then allow them to get fitter as they learn it?

If we had the financial resources of the West Coast then I too would be happy to follow the latter rationale, but that simply isn't the case.

We cannot flirt with our membership/financial issues for a couple of seasons like most other clubs.

 

[snapperbowler]

Do you wait till they are fit enough to play a zone and then take the time to teach them, or do you give them the instructions on how to play the zone and then allow them to get fitter as they learn it? I personally can see the rational for the latter. It will be a pain in the arse for supporters but will deliver long term benefits sooner as by the time the guys are fit enough to play the zone properly they will have it mastered and be ready to learn variants.

Good post.

It's not only the fitness but also the players getting confidence.

If you watch the top sides playing now they kick or handpass the ball so it bounces in front of the player.

This means that the play doesn't stop and they then just cut through.

At the moment our team is hesitating and this is what is causing the turnovers.

 

[GarnerSmash]

If we had the financial resources of the West Coast then I too would be happy to follow the latter rationale, but that simply isn't the case.

We cannot flirt with our membership/financial issues for a couple of seasons like most other clubs.

Then we may as well have kept Laidley and continued down the path of getting close but not being good enough.

It is the responsibility of Euge, JB and the administration to provide Bon with the support he needs to make the team successful. Bon should not have to worry about external pressures. Otherwise, what did we fight for?

 

[Better Loosen Up]

My two cents.

The idea of the zone is to lock the ball in our attacking half of the ground.

Last week we kinda did that as we limited the Bulldogs to a small number of inside 50's, but from which they scored way too easily. Against the Dees, Crows our zone worked much better because these teams do not have the skills, toughness and pace to break through, where as the Bulldogs did. The next step for our boys is to up the fitness/intensity levels to prevent good run and carry teams from getting through. This is even more difficult if don't we win the contested possession, which we are not doing at the moment against the beter sides due to playing boys in the middle. When we do start to win the contested ball we need to be able to use the pill well, which we don't do at the moment because we are constantly under pressure. Getting fitter, bigger, stronger and tougher will enable us to implement this zone and it's variants in future much more effectively.

Against the Dockers we were smashed in the contested possession and run off our feet due to inability to rotate due to too many talls (TM). They pressed up on us and locked us into their attacking half exposing our relatively poor disposal, decision making and ability to win contested possession. When we pushed forward, generally wide as we were forced that way, and turned the ball over the wide open spaces of Subi, this allowed the Freo runners to run and carry through our zone to deliver with precision to either an open player or a forward leading into space. All this equals a smashing.

Going man on man will keep us competitive and probably would have done so against Freo. We will stay in games but will still loose against better teams. When our guys develop and can compete with anyone, man on man will still loose out against a top team with strong structures. Man on man will no longer win flags.

The logic of playing a zone now is to teach our boys how to stick to a structure. Learning a basic structure will be a groundling for more flexible structures in the future. Mature bodies and brains that have been part of a structure for years will always beat a young team learning a structure from scratch. To use an analogy, this zone is like a pair of shoes your mum bought you as a kid. They were always too big but sure enough you grew into them and ultimately you got to a point where you outgrew them and were ready for a new pair. We will learn this zone, grow into it and then from that point vary the zone to suit our needs, which our guys will be able to do because this steep learning curve they are currently on will enable them to adapt to changing tactics further down the line because they are now being forced to think about more than just beating their man.

We always knew this was going to be painful period. Why the hysteria?

Why can't a man on man style of football win a premiership these days?

Think about it, if you're a coach and you know that 90% of your opponents are going to play a zone of some sort, you're going to spend the majority of your time devising an offensive game plan to beat it.

If you come up against a man on man opponent, your offensive game plan may no longer work as there are less easy targets and uncontested possessions. All of a sudden, your team is forced to play a style of football that is largely unrehearsed and that's when you are likely to start to struggle and the cracks appear.

The Bulldogs for example play really well against zones. Their skills allow them to pick holes through it and their first option is always to chip the ball around in uncontested situations. (B. Lake 41 posessions). If, all of a sudden, they come up against a side playing man on man, those easy targets disappear and they are forced to kick to a contest which they prefer not to do.

A game plan that wins premierships is one that plays to your strengths. A game plan that is unique (like Hawthorn in 08) can also win premierships.

Our future midfielders of Ziebell, Cunnington, Swallow and Greenwood for example are in and under, bash and crash type players. The majority of our players thrive on contested footy. Considering this, a man on man, contested style of football could be a better option for us.Playing a zone style of play because everyone else does isn't going to win a premiership especially when it doesn't play to the strengths of your playing group.

 

[Shinboner Schem]

I agree 100%.

Unfortunately it seems that we have made no adjustments and continue to keep running at the brick wall in hope that one day it might fall down.

Those teams that are in a similar position are at least showing that they can compete with better sides, which is my main concern.

I couldn't care less how we go this year if I can see some genuine improvement and team that is learning. All I can see at the moment is a team doing the same thing over and over and progressively getting worse at it.

Totally agree with this.
It seems that every time we play a good side we get smashed in exactly the same manner - easy goals through our zone.

It would seem logical wouldn't it?

The worst thing I saw on the weekend was a lack of effort and application, which is usually a pretty good sign that the players are starting to doubt the way they are told to go about it as well.

This is my biggest worry, if the players are starting to doubt it, then it is doomed.

Do you wait till they are fit enough to play a zone and then take the time to teach them, or do you give them the instructions on how to play the zone and then allow them to get fitter as they learn it? I personally can see the rational for the latter. It will be a pain in the arse for supporters but will deliver long term benefits sooner as by the time the guys are fit enough to play the zone properly they will have it mastered and be ready to learn variants.

That is a very easy conclusion to come to, but it just wont work if the players don't have the skills to execute it.
We should be focussing on the improvement of basic skills - hitting players on the chest - whilst we are getting fit.
And how are they supposed to learn it when there's no-one to give it to because they're to unfit to get into position or apply pressure?

 

[Brad Roo]

Then we may as well have kept Laidley and continued down the path of getting close but not being good enough.

Huh? You can play man on man footy without being a Laidley clone. No one is talking about flooding to hold a 19 point lead.

It is the responsibility of Euge, JB and the administration to provide Bon with the support he needs to make the team successful. Bon should not have to worry about external pressures. Otherwise, what did we fight for?

We fought to survive for another day mate.

Nothing more.

If you choose to ignore the harsh realities then that is your prerogative.

 

[Shinboner Schem]

Why can't a man on man style of football win a premiership these days?

Think about it, if you're a coach and you know that 90% of your opponents are going to play a zone of some sort, you're going to spend the majority of your time devising an offensive game plan to beat it.

If you come up against a man on man opponent, your offensive game plan may no longer work as there are less easy targets and uncontested possessions. All of a sudden, your team is forced to play a style of football that is largely unrehearsed and that's when you are likely to start to struggle and the cracks appear.

The Bulldogs for example play really well against zones. Their skills allow them to pick holes through it and their first option is always to chip the ball around in uncontested situations. (B. Lake 41 posessions). If, all of a sudden, they come up against a side playing man on man, those easy targets disappear and they are forced to kick to a contest which they prefer not to do.

A game plan that wins premierships is one that plays to your strengths. A game plan that is unique (like Hawthorn in 08) can also win premierships.

Our future midfielders of Ziebell, Cunnington, Swallow and Greenwood for example are in and under, bash and crash type players. The majority of our players thrive on contested footy. Considering this, a man on man, contested style of football could be a better option for us.Playing a zone style of play because everyone else does isn't going to win a premiership especially when it doesn't play to the strengths of your playing group.

Hallelujah! Someone else believes in playing to your strengths.
When the bulldogs had a predominantly short playing list did they kick it high to a contest? of course not!

I also support Zondor's take from the previous page. For those that missed it...

Zondors' take is this. :stern look

I've got no problem with Brad Scott wanting to play Zone Football.

The problem I have is that when it isn't working that he doesn't want to alter to a more man on man style of play.

I had this whinge after the StKilda game and I stand by it.

It's all about accountability and changing it up.

In the third qtr I would have moved B Rawlings into the middle, Harding into his place. Spud into the guts. Tried something to stem the flow from the middle but Scott seemed to move Goldy into the backline as a loose man and that was it.

Scott also needs to understand that Hales, Hamish and Goldy are just ordinary big men. They aren't great and quite frankly shouldn't be in our best 22 for team balance reasons. 2 out of 3 aint bad. So only pick 2 out of 3. Create competition between these guys. Is that such a bad thing?

Missing Wells, Anthony and Adams cost us a lot of run on the weekend. Replacing the likes of these guys with GIANTS was bound to be an EPIC FAIL.

I hope Scott learns or I'll be forced to call him Scotts. :stern look

 

[GarnerSmash]

Our future midfielders of Ziebell, Cunnington, Swallow and Greenwood for example are in and under, bash and crash type players. The majority of our players thrive on contested footy. Considering this, a man on man, contested style of football could be a better option for us. Playing a zone style of play because everyone else does isn't going to win a premiership especially when it doesn't play to the strengths of your playing group.

Well, we are getting beaten in the contested stuff, aren't fit enough and not skilled enough, so man on man would be a freakin disaster at this point in time. Considering that our playing group can best be described as developing I find it hard to ascertain what our strengths are or will be in 5 years time when realistically we should be pushing for a flag.

Part of the purpose of the zone is to negate a teams weaknesses by providing a blanket defensive structure that opposition find difficult to penetrate. It ain't working too well at the moment but like big men it will take time. Considering EVERY club uses zonal structures to some extent perhaps there might be some benefit in them. But what would 16 senior AFL coaches and their countless assistants know about tactics?

I think it is best to learn now, grow into the structure and be ready to play it effectively when fit and strong enough to do so.

 

[Brad Roo]

Well, we are getting beaten in the contested stuff, aren't fit enough and not skilled enough, so man on man would be a freakin disaster at this point in time.

Play fitter stronger players and our edge in the contested stuff would be to our advantage.

Go back and look at the round 21 2009 v StKilda game.

Keep our less developed kids in the seconds, building up their strength, fitness and most importantly confidence and rotate a couple of them through the senior team every week, not 7 or 8 of them all at once.

 

[GarnerSmash]

Huh? You can play man on man footy without being a Laidley clone. No one is talking about flooding to hold a 19 point lead.

We fought to survive for another day mate.

Nothing more.

If you choose to ignore the harsh realities then that is your prerogative.

It will take longer for us to be successful if we get wait to develop our players physically before teaching them the tactics of a zone. Why not do both at the same time? Because we may loose members and sponsors? We will loose members and sponsors anyway because going man on man and waiting for our guys to develop before teaching them tactics is going to lead us to missing out on finals for a longer period of time.