Playing "Unsociable" or "Mongrel" Footy

[Baldrick]

Essendon and Brisbane were past examples of a good use of Unsociable football. I thought it was a pretty important part of a succesful team, untill I saw Geelong last season. By no means do they go out of their way to intimidate, or overly fly the flag. They let their football do the talking.

I didn't see the Hawks game so I can't comment there and don't think they play unsociable footy but they do have a couple of players with anger management issues.

However, Geelong can be put in the same class as past premiers like Brisbane, Essendon and West Coast in that they played hard, at the ball disciplined play. Until a team learns that they will never be a true premiership contender.

 

[Campbell's Chunky]

Unsociable journalism could be a good description of rucci.

 

[Sanguinarius]

I don't condone king hits, but who amongst us wouldn't love to see Rutten iron out that thug, Brogan. Whilst he had the ball, of course!

You have no idea how badly i wanted truck to turn bogan into road kill...

 

[Baldrick]

Truck never did and probably never will get a chance at Brogan because true to form he only applied hits to smaller players than him. As soon as a larger body's involved his cowardly instincts kick in.

 

[CaptainDangerfield]

I don't think you need to be ill disciplined type mongrel that we regularly see from Freo or Hawthorn or you don't need to be gutless snipers like the Port jellybacks. However, a key ingredient to premiership success is controlled aggression in the Geelong mould. You can guarantee Port would not have tried that rubbish on with Geelong. Guys like Mooney, Chapman, Milburn, Scarlett etc would have flattened them.

However, with the AFC, they knew that we are dangerously thin on players with natural aggression at the man since Roo, Huddo, Torney, Bode, Mattner retired/changed clubs. So like the typical cowards they are, they took advantage.

It does worry me that we have no players in the all important age group 24 and older, who can intimidate the opposition and protect our youngsters. If the 1st 3 weeks of this season are anything to go by, our kids bodies will be battered by the time they are 25.

Anyone that thinks you can win a premiership without some form of aggression is kidding themselves. Unfortunately, at the moment we don't have these sort of players in the all important 24-32 age group.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

I know I have responded to some other threads on this board in relation to the AFC's inability (or unwillingness) to employ similar tactics in games (especially when they are being used against us).

Notwithstanding other contrary comments, I still firmly believe that a lot of success is gained by those clubs that employ this type of footy.

Can a team (such as the AFC) retain its hard-fought and hard-won RESPECT whilst employing these types of tactics?

The question that needs to be asked though is why have (some) clubs who have employed this type of unsociable football gained a lot of success?

I would think that it is because, through this tactic, they are able to take their opposition's mind off the job at hand - getting the footy, using the footy and scoring goals. And stopping the opposition from doing so.

So as a club we have to make a decision. Do we;
1) Adopt these tactics ourselves and try to put other teams off their game?
or 2) Become immune to these tactics by focusing 100% on our game plan and our play?

Clearly we have gone down the path of No. 2 and this is evident in the type of players we have recruited and drafted to our club.

 

[CaptainDangerfield]

The question that needs to be asked though is why have (some) clubs who have employed this type of unsociable football gained a lot of success?

I would think that it is because, through this tactic, they are able to take their opposition's mind off the job at hand - getting the footy, using the footy and scoring goals. And stopping the opposition from doing so.

So as a club we have to make a decision. Do we;
1) Adopt these tactics ourselves and try to put other teams off their game?
or 2) Become immune to these tactics by focusing 100% on our game plan and our play?

Clearly we have gone down the path of No. 2 and this is evident in the type of players we have recruited and drafted to our club.

But you still need to have enforcers on your team. They don't need to go around wacking people they're needed more to prevent the opposition taking cheap shots and to protect the youngsters. Just the threat of retaliation is enough. You don't see teams taking pot shots at Geelongs youngsters not when the likes of Mooney, Scarlett etc are on the ground. So far this year in 3 games we have lost 2 young players to serious injury due to cheap shots behind the play.

 

[jenny61_99]

I don't think Truck would be one to mess with and I remember seeing Reilly remonstrate with a player that had taken one of our guys out in a game last year. I think Thommo could have a bit of that in him too.

 

[Campbell's Chunky]

I don't think Truck would be one to mess with and I remember seeing Reilly remonstrate with a player that had taken one of our guys out in a game last year. I think Thommo could have a bit of that in him too.

And K-Tipp.

 

[brucetiki]

Playing 'Port Adelaide' or 'Mongrel' football only works when the other team retaliates.

Port played their thuggery gameplan on Sunday. The Crows played football. Result - Crows won.

Port can keep playing like they did Sunday but it'll only be a matter of time before the likes of Brogan and Grave Danger II (Thomas) go one step too far and end up with a lengthy suspension (which we saw with Pickett in 2005).

If teams want to beat Port (that's both Power and Magpies), it's simple - play discliplined football and don't retaliate. Opposing teams will win and Port will have the reports/suspensions.

 

[King Elvis]

I don't think Knighta minds it either.

Basically, what beartoo is saying, and I agree, is that we need another few players with the physical pressure of a Roo type.

Nothing underhanded, nothing cheap or sniperish; just good, hard, aggressive football.

The type of player (like Roo) who when he's in the vicinity of the ball, he makes the opposition players have second thoughts about taking possession of the ball; and when they do take it, they crap themselves when they hear footsteps.

As has been said, who did Power target?

Edwards
Jericho
Porps
Bass
Vince

They didn't go after Truck or Bocky or Tippett, because they know the big lads won't put up with it.

We need those type of players to have an aggressive (legal) physical presence on the field, so that next time Brogan decides he's going to sit Edwards on his arse, he has a nagging voice in the back of his head telling him not to do it, because if he does, next time he's got the ball, Truck is going to smash him (legally) in return.

 

[Dandy_GO]

When was the last time we even copped a suspension?
I have a feeling Burton copped a week 2 seasons ago against Freo for roughing up Dodd (I think) in the same game that Sarge did a PCL. I can't think of any since then.
Been a couple of reports (Bassett, Bock etc), but no suspensions I don't think.
That's definately a good thing.

 

[Campbell's Chunky]

Benny would pwn him.

 

[Baron Winds]

Why would the AFC degrade itself by taking cheap shots and employing dirty tactics? We play just as hard as any other but we do it properly without the gutless side of mongrel.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

But you still need to have enforcers on your team. They don't need to go around wacking people they're needed more to prevent the opposition taking cheap shots and to protect the youngsters. Just the threat of retaliation is enough.

I don't necessarily disagree, I just don't see any of these types of players in the Crows line up. There's no point us wishing for it. It isn't going to happen and there's no way that it can. We have to find another way to deal with the opposition's tactics. If we are able to forge a reputation (and games like Sunday will help) that A physical approach taken against the Crows = A lost game of football then we are a long way towards a solution.

You don't see teams taking pot shots at Geelongs youngsters not when the likes of Mooney, Scarlett etc are on the ground. So far this year in 3 games we have lost 2 young players to serious injury due to cheap shots behind the play.

Again, I don't necessarily disagree however you've also seen Geelong flush a couple years of potential success down the toilet partly due to mis-directed enforcing.

We all want to reach the top of the mountain. There are a number of different paths you can take.

 

[King Elvis]

Why would the AFC degrade itself by taking cheap shots and employing dirty tactics? We play just as hard as any other but we do it properly without the gutless side of mongrel.

No one in this thread has suggested that; maybe try reading the thread before posting next time.

 

[showdownhero]

I don't think you need to be ill disciplined type mongrel that we regularly see from Freo or Hawthorn or you don't need to be gutless snipers like the Port jellybacks. However, a key ingredient to premiership success is controlled aggression in the Geelong mould. You can guarantee Port would not have tried that rubbish on with Geelong. Guys like Mooney, Chapman, Milburn, Scarlett etc would have flattened them.

However, with the AFC, they knew that we are dangerously thin on players with natural aggression at the man since Roo, Huddo, Torney, Bode, Mattner retired/changed clubs. So like the typical cowards they are, they took advantage.

It does worry me that we have no players in the all important age group 24 and older, who can intimidate the opposition and protect our youngsters. If the 1st 3 weeks of this season are anything to go by, our kids bodies will be battered by the time they are 25.

Anyone that thinks you can win a premiership without some form of aggression is kidding themselves. Unfortunately, at the moment we don't have these sort of players in the all important 24-32 age group.

Scott Thompson?

 

[King Elvis]

Scott Thompson?

Could do it; but needs to learn controlled aggression.

 

[Dandy_GO]

Yeah, we don't have any who will regularly run through opposition players for the hell of it, although Bock and Thompson both do it on occasion, but we have very few who will back down from a challenge, and very few who will let that kind of treatment from the opposition affect their game negatively. Porplyzia, Thompson, Edwards, Mackay and Vince were either all not affected once they'd shaken themselves off, or even went on to play better than they were before, whilst even Jericho came back on with what turned out to be a cracked sternum, which, depending on its severity, would make it somewhere between painful and near impossible to effectively use your arms (hats off and apologies again, Luke).
Whilst I love hard footy, and my only problem with Port on the weekend was that they didn't go as hard at the footy as they did at the man (though I hate Brogan and am no longer much of a fan of that little ____ Thomas, I would have no problems with what either of them did if they played for Adelaide), I don't see our lack of undisciplined mongrels as a problem.
We don't lose players to suspension
We don't get put off our game
We're tough enough to still go bloody hard at the footy regardless of what the opposition is doing.
There's enough aggression in the side, and I don't think losing players to rough play by the opposition will be a regular thing. Games like Sunday are (sadly) a rarity in modern football, and, as our win proved, the side playing the man doesn't necessarily benefit from it.

 

[RoosterLad]

Could do it; but needs to learn controlled aggression.

Yep, when Thommo decides to get ultra aggressive there are usually free kicks or 50s given away. It would be great if he could iron out a few opposition blokes with a legal hip and shoulder though.

 

[noddy]

Yep, when Thommo decides to get ultra aggressive there are usually free kicks or 50s given away. It would be great if he could iron out a few opposition blokes with a legal hip and shoulder though.

Look what happened to the Roo after R Shaw tried to change his style of play.

I'm all for flying the flag within reason but let's not go overboard with the aggression at the player even in retaliation for any act of foul play committed by an opposition player.

The style we play now will do us very well thank you very much.

 

[crowsup]

Look what happened to the Roo after R Shaw tried to change his style of play.

I'm all for flying the flag within reason but let's not go overboard with the aggression at the player even in retaliation for any act of foul play committed by an opposition player.

The style we play now will do us very well thank you very much.

Noddy; I have a hard job taking you seriously, after looking at your avatar..

Your posts belie your avatar (most of the time). This one is no different and I agree with you wholeheartedly.

 

[noddy]

Noddy; I have a hard job taking you seriously, after looking at your avatar..

Your posts belie your avatar (most of the time). This one is no different and I agree with you wholeheartedly.

It's the eyes

Have tried getting rid of it but like a bad smell it keeps coming back.

 

[Crow-mo]

The question that needs to be asked though is why have (some) clubs who have employed this type of unsociable football gained a lot of success?

no the question is inapplicable, because teams have NOT gained a lot of success with this. if we are talking about the paps at the weekend, that style of footy has not gained anyone success.

you're confusing being second to the contest, and throwing your weight around, versus attacking the ball and the ball carrier. it was lack of attack on the ball that cost them, and that style has rewarded NO ONE.

the smears only did half the job, they were physical, but did not actually go in for the hard ball. the successful teams did both.

 

[Vader]

It used to be a time honoured tradition down at the Port Adelaide Magpies. If the team were down and looking like losing, they'd start a fight. The object of the fight was to distract their opponents, making them lose concentration. The Magpies players would then be able to get back into the game.

Much though I hated them, those Magpie teams were genuinely tough. Sure, they started the fights and they played the man at times, but when their turn came to put their heads over the ball they never hesitated for an instant.

That's the difference.