- Nov 5, 2009
- 10,065
- 9,272
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
Agree... It ain't netball.
Strategy The Phil Walsh gameplan
- Thread starter Elder van Berlo
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Status
Agree... It ain't netball.
Firstly why?
But 2ndly no one wants 1 particular player to be stopped going anywhere, just all 18 being in the same 15m
Spread and run both offensively and defensively looks far more active.
Covering opposition players whilst a teammate tackles also a noticeable difference.
more decisive ball movement.
Covering opposition players whilst a teammate tackles also a noticeable difference.
more decisive ball movement.
I don't want to see a situation where the ball for example has gone inside the f50 and for whatever reason, a player has to stop rather then getting the ball or be penalised with a free against.
Whether that player is a defender and the rule doesn't allow them to go into the f50 (how you'd ever determine if they are a defender, playing on the wing would be a nightmare).
Or let's use your example as such, no more than 10 players for either team allowed in the f50, the defenders manage to kick it and it falls just short of crossing that 50m line and the attacking team has a player that's standing there, would be in the perfect opportunity to mark it but by crossing that line it would be a free against.
It just wouldn't work imo and you'd also have to have another umpire basically counting players the whole time.
Like I guess a more doable idea could be that a team must always say 3-4 players in the f/b 50 at each ball up/throw in but I think it would just be a nightmare to control and it would be massively frustrating as a fan to watch.
- Jul 12, 2014
- 716
- 851
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
4 on the bench and 6 subs BUT anyone who is subbed off has to be rested for the next round.
With that penalty, the sub will be used reluctantly instead of tactically. For real injuries, it is no penalty because the injured player needs time off to heal.
The 6 subs are allowed to play in the reserves the same weekend. They really are for emergencies.
With that penalty, the sub will be used reluctantly instead of tactically. For real injuries, it is no penalty because the injured player needs time off to heal.
The 6 subs are allowed to play in the reserves the same weekend. They really are for emergencies.
- Nov 5, 2009
- 10,065
- 9,272
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
Don't mind it. But it needs work.
What about finals and in particular the grand final?
Also - it would be extremely tactical. Massive advantage for a side if they are playing Melbourne, Bulldogs, or St.KIlda the next week.
- Jul 12, 2014
- 716
- 851
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
Pencil in a win at your peril, I reckon.
But didn't you see the last quarter!!!!!!! We're done for!
I think you'll find this is why guys like Phil Walsh want an interchange rotation down at 80. It'll force more players to "stay at home" down back and up forward because you can't have them getting as stuffed and rotating them on/off.
- Jul 12, 2014
- 716
- 851
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
Never been a fan of turning sports into fuel budget economy drives, though.
CrowsAlways83
Senior List
- Mar 26, 2014
- 265
- 475
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
Yeah I think the only workable 'zoning' idea would be to set a minimum number of players at all times in the 50m arcs, on the assumption that to avoid the situation of players having to stop short of leaving the 50m arc, coaches would instruct more than the minimum to stay in them (if you require at least one player from each team to be inside the 50m arc at all times, coaches should really have two players in there, so one can go on a long lead without worrying about a free kick etc).
If they want teams to be more attacking, I would rather see restricted interchanges (80 per game seems reasonable) or start rewarding bonus premiership points if a team kicks a certain number of goals (or total score), say 100 points will earn one bonus premiership point (regardless of win or loss). Might not change game plans for awhile, but all it will take is some teams to miss out on a top 4 finish because the team above had a more high scoring gameplan (or less wins but more 100 point games) and coaches would start placing value in game plans that are less defensive (hopefully eradicating game plans favoured by Ross Lyon, Paul Roos etc). At the moment there is no incentive for coaches to favour offense over defense.
Walsh talked about team defence and it's now obvious what he meant by including our forwards in it. How many times did we see Tex and Betts down back and then have no one to kick to. Hated it.
Really? We still were outnumbered consistently
Of course our new game plan should be working perfectly game 2 NAB, at Kardinia Park where Geelong never lose!
- Oct 8, 2012
- 16,281
- 19,963
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
Poor coaching. Both players should never leave the forward 50.
Some observations tonight-
Our game now revolves around kicking. More kicks than handballs. This needed to be addressed because Craig and Sando had us handball happy and we couldn't shake it. It was "Feel pressure? Handball!"
We were handballing backwards a lot on the first quarter and this was changed pretty dramatically in the 3rd quarter.
We also have a structured group of small half-backs. Laird, Kelly and Brown in particular seemed to know their roles. Talia was good. Hartigan and Cheney will take a while to work together.
Douglas and B Crouch have no defensive action. It's borderline embarrassing. Crouch gets so much ball that he's forgiven, and I do like him.
Sloane and Danger lifted and led.
Jacobs needs another run.
Our game now revolves around kicking. More kicks than handballs. This needed to be addressed because Craig and Sando had us handball happy and we couldn't shake it. It was "Feel pressure? Handball!"
We were handballing backwards a lot on the first quarter and this was changed pretty dramatically in the 3rd quarter.
We also have a structured group of small half-backs. Laird, Kelly and Brown in particular seemed to know their roles. Talia was good. Hartigan and Cheney will take a while to work together.
Douglas and B Crouch have no defensive action. It's borderline embarrassing. Crouch gets so much ball that he's forgiven, and I do like him.
Sloane and Danger lifted and led.
Jacobs needs another run.
He was clearly experimenting in the first half. I also imagine Betts will have bursts on the midfield under Walsh. His sides always have high midfield rotation.
A game plan that involves moving your best forwards into defence leaving your weaker forwards to be outnumbered and on the end of shitty kicks will never work perfectly. It is dumb as was your post.
Red mist
Reynholm Industries
- Jun 30, 2014
- 29,143
- 34,097
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Tottenham Hotspur, East Side Hawks
Unfortunately we shoot ourselves in the foot with disposal efficiency. Too many skill errors. That old habit needs to be killed with fire.
At half time we went traditional man on man and kicked 3 quick ones. They reverted to their loose man and so did we. I thought we seemed to outnumber them at our half back in the second half actually.
First quarter absolutely they were all over us.
Absolutely - and there will be some pain. But it needs to happen. You win finals with effective disposal by foot under pressure. Having a game plan that revolves around footskills is a start, even if we don't have any yet
Red mist
Reynholm Industries
- Jun 30, 2014
- 29,143
- 34,097
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Tottenham Hotspur, East Side Hawks
Yeah I saw improvement in the pressure acts and winning the ball after quarter time. Our kicking just has to improve in so many players. I don't know of many other lists with this poor a level of disposal.
Throwing your toys out of the cot are we mate, don't be so bloody condescending.
We didn't play well obviously but it's game 2 of the new coach & his game plan. It's going to take time to get the mix right.
- Status
Similar threads
