The wave arm signal to form a pack?

[curiouscrow]

Hi there

I don't post much but have been lurking for years and have been enjoying the forum for years. Thanks.

After such a dismal frustrating season and the firming belief that we do not have the right game plan, coach or players to be a contender, there is one thing that has frustrated me the most - a signal by the ball carrier after they have marked the ball, where he waves his arms to say that everyone should form a pack to kick to and proceeds to kick to the said pack. Sometimes it goes out of bounds but usually it's punched and roved by the opposition who thus gain possession. It happens from kicks ins, out of defence, from centre to the arc and of course the old bomb it on Tippo's head.

This is obviously a tactic that has been told to them by the coaches but what is the purpose of it? The thought process goes like this: 'We have possession of the football, great. Do not dispose of the ball - let the opposition flood back. Now, everybody lead to the boundary and form a pack! I'll give you the signal so the opposition knows. Instead of tricking them and kicking to all the space it has provided, I am going to kick it to the pack. It goes out of bounds, we lose the ensuing clearance (of course) or it gets punched and someone, normally the opposition, roves it and gains possession. The odds are at best 25%.

Sometime last year or maybe the year before, I remember we tweaked our game plan - a reaction to playing too safe and being too careful, which is often attributed to us losing finals. We changed to a mantra of 'play on at all costs'. It paid dividends. There was still chatter of working on the into forward 50 ball movement, a perennial problem, cos we were bombing it in too much and not kicking to high percentage spots but we were scoring and winning more.

The only time we looked good against Geelong were the passages where we played on fast. Why are we not doing it more? Is it a fitness issue, skills, coaching, structures, no ball carriers in the team, all of the above? When I see that hand signal, it really irks me. What the hell are they doing?

 

[mrmatt]

Personally I like the signal, it is a good indicator that the team has run out of ideas and the game is over - therefore time to get off the couch and do some jobs. :S

Seriously though - it seems like they use it as their safety net when they are out of positive ideas - but the reality is I cannot think of one circumstance where that tactic has been employed and it has had either a short term (that particular play) or long term (match in which it was used) positive result. When we use it we lose or have already lost.

I think the thing that is killing us the most at the moment is the lack of run from the guys off of the ball.

Movement off the ball is supposed to give multiple options to the guy in possession making it easier to deliver the ball effectively whether through run and carry or short/long kicks. OPTIONS!

Without this run it is so easy to see what is about to unfold - we just become a team who telegraphs their next possession - which inevitably gets picked off/turned over and comes straight back in.

We are predictable because we don't provide enough options off of the ball.

Sunday's game v the Cats was embarrassing. Our run off the ball lasted all of 5 minutes. A couple of Cats goals and we went back into our shells - no one wanted the ball, the field was stagnant and our play was predictable. Geelong took advantage and piled on even more pressure causing more turnovers and removing our run off the ball more.

Things got worse and worse until out came the big, swooping arm movement to indicate it was game over!

Imagine how good this signal makes the opposition feel? We may as well wave a big white flag and say, "We have absolutely no idea how to progress the ball from one end of the ground to the other".

I don't care if players make mistakes being creative or positive in the way they take the game on (with or without the ball)... I care more that they do. Too many guys waiting for someone else to do something.

</rant>

 

[Allefgib]

They've lost all confidence in how they are supposed to be playing.
They don't trust each other in an instinctive sense to be in the required places and not make errors.

I'm all but convinced that to build this again they'll need a release valve and significant changes. They want to make it work... but mentally they've been pushed to the wall and just don't know how to recover.

 

[Sekaj]

Good post curiouscrow. It perplexes me that our definition of "ball movement" is to kick long against the boundary hoping that the ball will go out of bounds when we are probably the worst clearance team in the comp and a throw in will almost always result in the opposition getting possession of the ball.

 

[srv23]

When I first notoiced it - my impression is that this is what we've come up with as our reaction to the opposition getting a run on and kicking a few goals in a row. We've been talking about coming up with a plan to deal with this as so often over the past few years when our opponent kicks 2 or 3 in a row you just know that another 4 or 5 are coming in pretty quick succession.

I guess the theory behind it is to play wide to the boundary, take the corridor out of the equation and force a 50:50 contest with a lot of players at the drop of the ball to create a ball up or throw in in order to slow the game down. Unfortunately we've been making it so bloody obvious the opposition know exactly what is happeneing, they are also far better than us in 50:50 contests and their stoppage work is generally far better than ours so what is meant to be a ploy to slow down the game and force contests is inaviably resulting in turnovers and fast rebound play. It is also a clear signal to the opposition that they have us on the ropes and they subsequently go for the kill and usually put the game out of reach over the next 10-15 minutes.

It's astounding really that this inability to stop oppositions momentum has been an issue over the last 3-4 years, and this is the best our coaching staff have come up with to counter it.

 

[SugarShane]

Imagine how good this signal makes the opposition feel? We may as well wave a big white flag and say, "We have absolutely no idea how to progress the ball from one end of the ground to the other".

That's exactly the feeling i get when i see them doing that. Same when we switch 3 times in a row because there's no one to kick to.

 

[Allefgib]

I believe the down the boundary kick is so we don't get caught in to much frontal pressure from excessive switching. It's the release valve to reset on the wing (so long as we geet it over the boundary).

 

[Lawrst]

Like collingwood do. But the problem is we suck at clearances.

 

[HeadWobblers]

Secret of the arm wave revealed...An unidentified source closely linked to the AFC has spoken out,,and we are glad he has had the Hart to do it..It seems the "arm wave ",is just part of an ingenious yet crazy experiment...;
'I knew it was wrong'..i did,,but there was nothing i could do about it',,our shaken source cried..'It was all Craigy's and Charlies idea..The following are extracts taken from a recorded interview..TI..(the interviewer)....BH..(the unidentified source).......
TI...So lets get this straight..what your saying is this arm wave is only stage one of the CROWBOT,,what exactly is the CROWBOT can you explain that
BH..The CROWBOT is Craigy's Remotely Operated Wave Beaming Oscillator Trigger..
TI..Gee wizz...
BH..Look ,nobody thought it would work this well..Clarkey had been studying something on lasers to control the brains of monkeys and Craigy found his book..everything went kinda crazy from there..
TI..crazy how
BH..Well Craigy ...he went crazy...no way would he give that book back,,he just was obsessed,,..,,he did'nt give a hoot about game day ,,just studying the brain control stuff..and,,and ,,i think its worked..(BH holds head in hands and cries at this point)
TI..Hang on,,are you saying it went further than just reading a few books...
BH..Exactly ..All this electronic stuff started rolling up at the club,,treasury was going mad ,,but Craigy explained it was monitoring equipment and that was that..
TI...It sounds as if it was more than simply monitoring eqipment..was it
BH..the monitoring equipment was,.. well,.... all those bits and pieces went together to make CROWBOT
TI.... Goodness.,,,beams and brain control,,.do you understand how people might find this CROWBOT a little fanciful
BH...I can ,,but you have to remember, its not perfected just yet...Its taken Craigy ages just to ensure nearly every player has had an injury and had to undergo the knife..thats when he gets Charlie to insert the chip
TI.. The chip
BH... Yeah he puts them in ,,dont ask me how..i just know the shoulder ones,leg ones,,and a few others are causing some problems
TI...Can you explain more about the chip
BH..Well Craigy has been tweaking with it at training and now in games as well,,the chip and the beam work together ,Craigy conceals the "team beam box "as he calls it, in his jacket,,points it at a player and then he can control them.. It doesn't work too well from a distance ,so Craigy has to stand on the boundary to get it to work right,,
TI...How is it controlled
BH..By voice command..Craigy has worked out how to disguise his messages by chewing gum
TI...Wow
BH..Yeah,,thats the trouble,,he's chewing as hard as he can just to get a player to move an arm
TI..And thats "the wave"..
BH...Thats "the wave"

The interview was concluded at this stage as source began making unintelligible chimp noises complete with actions.....

 

[dangerzone]

LOL I love it. if you dont understand something about football, then it must be Neil Craigs shit "gameplan".

EVERY TEAM DOES THIS.

Kicking to a pack on the boundary is a great way to reset the play in the middle of the ground, rather than inside oppositions forward 50. The reason your mad is because for us it doesnt work even 50% of the time because we're very poor at the following contest.

Anyone that says Craigs "gameplan" is the problem, you have absolutely no idea. There are probably 4 "gameplans" across the entire AFL. We switch and go around opposition zones, other teams run through zones, or try go over zones. We dont have the experience to play like Hawthorn, the bodysize to play like Sydney, or the endurance to play like Collingwood.

You cant teach kids a different way to play just because they cant make the current way work, or they'll never learn. It takes experience at a gameplan to get it to work. Commitment, mental strength and skill are all very important components....but most of all you need experience at the gameplan. You need to know where to run, how to set up, how to offensively play against an opponents defensive zone. This takes time.

While it looks like all we do is bomb to Tippett, its because we're unable to turn our defensive zone into offensive opportunities fast enough. Once the ball is inside our 50, we're very poor at keeping it there. We are, however, very good at converting inside 50's into scoring opportunities.

I suggest watching other games of football and taking note of how players that DONT have the ball move. Then take note of the Crows players doing the same thing. We just dont have the capacity at the moment to do the same thing.

If its Neil Craig at the helm or not, you wont turn this team around in 5-10 games.

 

[Lawrst]

Kicking to a pack on the boundary is a great way to reset the play in the middle of the ground, rather than inside oppositions forward 50. The reason your mad is because for us it doesnt work even 50% of the time because we're very poor at the following contest.

Anyone that says Craigs "gameplan" is the problem, you have absolutely no idea.

Sorry, Stopped reading there.

Want to know the problem with us giving up and kicking to a pack on the boundary?

We suck at clearances. Only more numbers see to help slow the bleeding there, thefore we don't get time to set our zone up, thefore the opposition find it much easier to score because our defenders are 1v1.

But i guess I have absolutely no idea.......

 

[dangerzone]

So you're saying we just dont put the ball into contested clearance positions? Thats impossible. We wont get any better playing loose, unaccountable football.

I know it looks terrible right now because we lose so many clearances, but how do you suppose we get better? By not doing it at all? If you give in and change our style just to show we can play a different way, to me thats going backwards.

You might think its hardheaded or boring or crowbot or whatever else you'd like to call it, but the only way to improve is to continue to do it until our ball movement is quicker and we have sideways options available by our players working into their positions. Right now its clear we suck at both, but just giving up isnt going to make it better in the long run IMO.

 

[Allefgib]

DZ - alot of what you says has merit.

For me though, I've been frustrated since 2008 about our desire to kick short to contests and often causing turnovers. I've been screaming for 3 years that a long kick down the line to a contest would often be a better option when we are under pressure.

So this year, possibly with the inclusion of Jacobs, we have decided to start including it as part of our gameplan.

And now it is part of our gameplan we do it FAR TO OFTEN. We go through periods in games where that is our only option used going forward.

I obviously don't undersatnd all the intricacies of its use but for me it was very apparent that we never used it enough, now we tried it and over using it. The team always seems to get in this frustrating rut where they just keep banging their head on the same wall over and over again. Whether it be clearning ball from defense or our forward 50 entries our gameplan so often seems to have a high priority on particular aspects and doesn't deviate from them. (long down the bouondary, spoil and reset; bomb on tippets head etc)

We NEED to get better at being less predictable and/or better at decision making about when to use specific tactics.

 

[Allefgib]

So you're saying we just dont put the ball into contested clearance positions? Thats impossible. We wont get any better playing loose, unaccountable football.

I know it looks terrible right now because we lose so many clearances, but how do you suppose we get better? By not doing it at all? If you give in and change our style just to show we can play a different way, to me thats going backwards.

You might think its hardheaded or boring or crowbot or whatever else you'd like to call it, but the only way to improve is to continue to do it until our ball movement is quicker and we have sideways options available by our players working into their positions. Right now its clear we suck at both, but just giving up isnt going to make it better in the long run IMO.

I would advocate a better mix of tactics and more flexibility in apply them as opposed to 'giving up'.

Otherwise you just end up with a bunch of players who just go thorugh the motions not really trusting what they are instructed to do but wanting to try and do what is asked of them.

 

[dangerzone]

Allefgib, I agree, we do it far too often AND we are predictable with the long bombs.

But I believe both of these are because our players without the ball are unable to get to their desired positions. If we are able to get to say a 50% clearance rate, it takes pressure off our defensive zone so they can start to push forward quicker. With players running to position quicker, we have more options, both long and short. With more options you get even quicker ball movement, and from there our forwards can lead without the 50 being filled with opposition players. Even though we have Jacobs now, he is still very amatuer at some basic things. Give him time to work with our midfield and you'll see the team get better quite quickly.

I just think its unfair for people that obviously know very little about football to simply say, "the gameplan is shit", when that really doesnt describe anything.

EDIT: Sorry just saw your second reply.

When you say a mix of "tactics", again that isnt really describing anything. People just look for "tippett in the ruck" "dangerfield in the middle" "move X player to Y position" when its alot more complex than that.

 

[Lawrst]

So you're saying we just dont put the ball into contested clearance positions? Thats impossible. We wont get any better playing loose, unaccountable football.

Not at all.

But to give up moving, like most of our player do because as soon as that arm wave happens we are bombing it long to a pack situation.

We never back our team mates in to win a 1 on 1 if his name doesnt rhyme
hurt.

We stop moving, stop trying to create space, don't contemplate the switch (unless it is in the back 50 )

Its crap to watch and its crap to play. What are we learning? nothing.

Sure it can happen when it naturally develops, but we seem to want to make it happen all the time.

 

[dangerzone]

Lawrst, Unless its going inside 50, no team wants to back team mates in 1v1 anymore. Because the repercussion of it going the other way is usually a very quick inside 50 the other way.

I'm sure im not saying anything you dont already know, but you switch to shift the opposition zone. Once the zone is established however, its is incredibly difficult to go through it. So bringing the ball to the wing to establish what SHOULD be a 50/50 ball in a pack situation, is usually a good option. This gives our defense time and knowledge of what to expect, rather than the ball rushing quickly into our defense, effectively giving our defensive zone no chance because we dont play 1v1 in defense.

But with better positional running, we can gain confidence by moving the ball quicker, and those long bombs to packs should decrease, but never be eliminated because its still an important defensive tool.

I agree, it is crap to watch and crap to play, but the alternatives aren't any better, and won't teach us anything. As we all know, our clearance work is terrible and needs to get better. I believe this will happen with experience, others may think differently. And I dont mean to single you out because most people here say the same thing, but at least give some reason behind your thoughts. Its easy to say what we suck at, but not so easy to find a workable solution.

EDIT: that sounded pretty arrogant, my apologies. I'm simply interested in the details and intricacies of tactics and gameplans, rather than just seeing them as a whole. I have no doubt at times this often clouds my judgement too.

 

[Lawrst]

The thing with a zone, is that if you have numbers on one side of the ground, you outnumber your opposition, so you can beat it with run and carry.

If the opposition shifts to push into where your players are, you then have space on the opposite side of the oval where a switch is viable. Nathan Bock was really good at sensing the right time when to push up to be a switching option. Who does this for us now? Stiffy when he isnt the play maker or rutten. Rutten shouldnt be doing this job.

I would also like to see us take our time with forward 50 entries, chip it around a few times if need be. Kick it backwards, switch and then thrust forward creating space at the same time.

What can we learn from? Get rid of the zone, go man on man. This teaches each and every player to defend, recover and give 2nd, 3rd efforts because you can no longer rely on numbers alone to win the contest. Also back your team mates in on a 1v1 contest for god sake, who cares if we lose, lets learn to kick to advantage for once. Lets suprise a few teams and try and expose their weaker defensive players 1 on 1.

We don't have the personel where a pack mark is a 50/50 option. Its either they mark, they spoil, or we spoil over the line. I guess thats were tip could be useful up ground more (bit like travis cloke)

Positional running doesn't happen like it should for us, especially when we are down and the arm wave comes out, no one runs to position, even though there usually is a great big whole in the middle of the ground.

 

[dangerzone]

Well thats where I disagree, playing 1v1 has no advantage going forward. If you're willing to take extreme risks, you'll look just like Essendon under Matthew Knights. No matter how much experience you have at that, you're still taking extreme risks which IMO will not net you even close to 50% success.

The reason I see us bomb into 50 is to get it closer to goal, allowing our small forwards to keep it inside. No doubt this isnt really working, but we do have a good inside 50/scoring ratio. Chipping around waiting for an option is fine, but against good teams you'll have no choice but to bomb in it, only difference is it will be under extreme pressure and the defense is setup ready to counter it.

The pack mark on the wing is not a 50/50 option, the result needs to be clearing it over the boundary line to setup a 50/50 contest, or using our superior numbers to win possession and run it with handball. We are very poor at both of these, and can only get better by experience IMO.

 

[Lawrst]

Well thats where I disagree, playing 1v1 has no advantage going forward. If you're willing to take extreme risks, you'll look just like Essendon under Matthew Knights. No matter how much experience you have at that, you're still taking extreme risks which IMO will not net you even close to 50% success.

The reason I see us bomb into 50 is to get it closer to goal, allowing our small forwards to keep it inside. No doubt this isnt really working, but we do have a good inside 50/scoring ratio. Chipping around waiting for an option is fine, but against good teams you'll have no choice but to bomb in it, only difference is it will be under extreme pressure and the defense is setup ready to counter it.

The pack mark on the wing is not a 50/50 option, the result needs to be clearing it over the boundary line to setup a 50/50 contest, or using our superior numbers to win possession and run it with handball. We are very poor at both of these, and can only get better by experience IMO.

What?

A zone, press or any type of strategy works better if all players can defend. Playing 1v1 exposes more defesive contests to players instead of Rutten, Thommo, Davis, Jacobs, Smack being the ones contesting it. You build up a plan from the ground up, laying the ground work for good defence creates a good zone.

Our small forwards? Like Dangerfield.
But still we shouldnt be concentrating on our small forwards, we should be kicking it to tippetts advantage, or walker on a lead, or up high on the 3rd defenders head so smack can take a speccie.

These players win games of football, small forwards usually just pitch hit.

Chipping it around might create an option inside 50, if not we bomb it long (Under extreme pressure) and we get the same result anyways.

Have you seen our forward 50 entry, that isnt skills. That is freaking laziness becuse we arn't told to look for the best option, we are told to get it in there.

The most effective forward 50 deliveries (besides marks taken) are between 15-30 meters out because it becomes hard for the opposition to rush it over and it creates a lot of easy snap shots. Especially from the centre corridor because it that is the highest pressure point for the opposition. This is where we need to be kicking it, and have tippett start in the goal square letting him run at it.

Also when did I say extreme risks? I said back your team mates to win a contest. If thats an extreme risk, im extreme typing right now. Craig has stated faith in the playing group, I want the players to show that faith in eachother but it is not there. Thats what results in the long kicks down the line so often.

They are not a bad thing, but the way we use them is.

 

[dangerzone]

I dont see how we can kick it to Tippett/Walker/McKernans advantage, when our movement has been so slow that they have 2 defenders hanging off them, while still having all our other forwards covered. These bombs generally are 15-30m out. I agree with the forward 50 entries not being skill, rather laziness, our inability to push up the ground quicker kills any chance of opening up a good forward lead. But this is because we're usually so entrenched in our own defensive 50.

Playing 1v1 no matter what, is risky. Just look at Hawthorn, Geelong, Collingwood & West Coast. The only risks they take are individually, their ball movement is calculated and more often than not, to the advantage of their teammates who are loose. Loose because they know where to run, how to take advantage of gaps in a zone and work their asses off to get to space. They dont rely on players winning 1 on 1 all around the ground, thats simply too much pressure. When these teams are faced with risk, they take a safe option of a long kick close to the boundary.The reasons they look so good is because when there is a contested ball to be won, they either win it, or have incredible pressure on the opposition that wins it. This simply can't be taught in a few weeks or a single pre-season.

I appreciate you expanding upon your thoughts rather than the usual sweeping generalizations of other posters, whether they agree or not.

 

[ManInTheArena]

When I first notoiced it - my impression is that this is what we've come up with as our reaction to the opposition getting a run on and kicking a few goals in a row. We've been talking about coming up with a plan to deal with this as so often over the past few years when our opponent kicks 2 or 3 in a row you just know that another 4 or 5 are coming in pretty quick succession.

Firstly, I'm still one of very few that don't want Craig gone (immediately without a bit more time) so it's not a regular bashing session, but this has shitted me to tears ever since Craig came up with it. Football has momentum like basketball does, so the idea is to create our own timeout like basketball does to stop momentum. The problem with this is that we can't call a f***ing timeout, it doesn't f***ing exist and nothing will work to same effect except for ironing out an opposition player for the stretcher.

The team that doesn't have momentum tries to keep the ball in possession, the on fire team is on fire so they invariably get the ball back and kick a damn goal, and the team with no momentum gives up even more momentum and goes into their own shells. Furthermore they go into their shells by directive; the coach may as well say "If they get a run on shit yourselves".

 

[Lawrst]

Kicking to Tip's advantage is a lot better than bombing it on his head with 2-3 defenders there licking their lips. God knows he might get a free kick a game.

About it being 15-30 meters out that was more a generalisation over the AFL about how often a kick 5 meters out is punched over the line, its stupid.

But why is our movment so slow?

Is it because we push so many numbers, including our bloody forward pockets, up the ground that it takes so much for them to push back and provide an option? We never have the release valve that other teams have, that quick switch to the open player that also takes up time as players push back.

Disagree about Geelong, they take the play on, run down the middle of the ground and handball a lot.

The reasons they look so good is because when there is a contested ball to be won, they either win it, or have incredible pressure on the opposition that wins i

They also back their team mates to win the contest and have a relief valve at the back who is there to recieve the handball and then deside what to do.

The crows go all in or nothing and lose this contest.

By going man on man, player have to get better at contested ball, have to get better at defending, holding a player up and placing pressure on their player. Its not a strategy that will win you a premiership but it is an effective tool when you have a young side that you want to improve.

Hardiwick and Bailey are encoraging their players to take the opposition on, to run and carry and to back their team mates in. Sometimes it doesnt work but they are at least improving as a side and thats more than we can say at the moment.

How many of our midfielders would have been guns as a kid, never had any accountability. This leaves them with a lack of defensive skills around the ground in a lot of cases.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Our crap kicking skills limit our options.

We cannot work our way through a zone with a series of short passes to leading players, the way Hawthorn and other teams can.

It would be turnover central.

We have to either hoof it up the line to a pack OR kick backwards across the ground to a player in acres of space, because that is all we have the ability to do.