No Oppo Supporters 2020 General AFL Discussion

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
I remember Eade was revolutionary for having a spare in defence

pagan for giving carey space over his head and walls for having a huddle to kick in
The thing about Pagan's paddock... if there is all that space in the forward line to isolate Carey, where are all the other players? As @Krummerspeck said, it only became "flooding" when we did it, but the tactic had existed long before our implementation of it under Roos.

This trajectory started long before Roos.
 
You'd never know unless it was tried . I'm sure if Buddy stayed in the square , his opponent wouldn't be leaving his side !
If Buddy stayed in the square I'm sure his opponent would stay by his side.

I'm also sure that if we tried to clear out the rest of the 50 to give Buddy space then the opposition would just implement a zonal defence or drop a loose man back to play in front/double team him.

The idea that any team could succesfully replicate such a "Pagan's paddock" these days is simply not credible. Teams wised up on how to negate it, and they would immediately do the same to us.

If we started playing 1980s football against teams playing 2020 football we would get smashed. You don't need to try it to know that.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

If Buddy stayed in the square I'm sure his opponent would stay by his side.

I'm also sure that if we tried to clear out the rest of the 50 to give Buddy space then the opposition would just implement a zonal defence or drop a loose man back to play in front/double team him.

The idea that any team could succesfully replicate such a "Pagan's paddock" these days is simply not credible. Teams wised up on how to negate it, and they would immediately do the same to us.

If we started playing 1980s football against teams playing 2020 football we would get smashed. You don't need to try it to know that.
Fyi Pagan's paddock didn't have anyone in the square . WDIFB
 
The thing about Pagan's paddock... if there is all that space in the forward line to isolate Carey, where are all the other players? As @Krummerspeck said, it only became "flooding" when we did it, but the tactic had existed long before our implementation of it under Roos.

This trajectory started long before Roos.


he used to leave Sholl, crocker sometimes and allison forward, then push others wide or into the middle rather than back to defence IIRC.

This wasnt a crack at our flooding, coaches are there to win, every team has 18 around the contest now, its just not very watchable imo, some might say its smarter, I think its just gone from smarter to ultra conservative
 
wasnt it like carey CHF, and the other 5 basically bunched close and kick over their head, get longmire or Sholl to lead deep, bit basically exploit careys pace and strength one on one

no coach thought to double team carey until eade

As Darren Crocker picks up the story, he reflects on 1996 after a belting at the hands of Sydney in Round 11.

“It was the first time we’d ever encountered a team really dropping numbers back against us and basically surrounding Wayne Carey,” Crocker explained.

“Basically what the opposition and Rodney Eade (Sydney coach) were doing, they were using Carey as a reference point. Thinking we’d always go forward and kick it to him, in that particular game they played with eight defenders.

“They brought two wingers back, brought their half forwards up to the wing and only played with four genuine forwards.”
 
I wish we could go back to 2003... everyone written off the Swans back then. That team played above their weight and saw Goodes win the Brownlow. Emerging players like LRT and Schenider. Then won the PF against Port in Adelaide (probably one of Sydney's top 10 wins). Would love this crop to pull off something like that. Fun times...
 
Fyi Pagan's paddock didn't have anyone in the square . WDIFB
I didn't say it was. I was just using it as an example of a past attempt to limit congestion and isolate a key forward in a one on one contest in space in the 50. Something that no AFL team would allow you to do in 2020, no matter how you attempted it.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

100% a bluff from Cameron.

The 'go home to Victoria' trump card only works when you're from Victoria

Agreed. Will be interesting how the COVID stuff influences contracts from now. I'm sure Cameron could rightfully claim to want a nicely increased contract based on performance but I wonder how much of an impediment clubs will make of the current situation in terms of offering increased cash.
 
This year I’ll exclude so last year the 5th highest scoring side west coast averaged 86.45 a game

In 1993 Richmond the lowest scoring side by a fair way average 87.65


Even the best sides are defensive sh*te

I was talking about the 2016-2017 Crows. Averaged 110 points per game. Very attacking football by modern standards.

They also easily played with the most men behind the ball. ~30% of the time they’d start with 2 extra in defence!

56EF25A9-7FC7-4BFF-A87B-47588B4D7DD2.jpeg


As for this year, if we’re talking about backwards kicking:



The decision makers in the AFL (and the AFL media) need to wise up. They’re not that smart, and they don’t understand unintended consequences.
 
Last edited:
I was talking about the 2016-2017 Crows. Averaged 110 points per game. Very attacking football by modern standards.

They also easily played with the most men behind the ball. ~30% of the time they’d start with 2 extra in defence!

View attachment 903077


As for this year, if we’re talking about backwards kicking:



The decision makers in the AFL (and the AFL media) need to wise up. They’re not that smart, and they don’t understand unintended consequences.

Almost all the best attacking sides have been built off of a good defensive structure.
 
Almost all the best attacking sides have been built off of a good defensive structure.

True, but i think the point here is playing numbers behind the ball wasn’t even a ‘defensive structure’. Pyke used it to
- get one or two extra players (like Cameron or Betts) running at speed through the square
- create more room in the 50 for the 4 forwards to work in
It was an attacking setup.

But the geniuses at the AFL see it and go ‘durr, he’s standing in defence, he’a a defender’
 
True, but i think the point here is playing numbers behind the ball wasn’t even a ‘defensive structure’. Pyke used it to
- get one or two extra players (like Cameron or Betts) running at speed through the square
- create more room in the 50 for the 4 forwards to work in
It was an attacking setup.

But the geniuses at the AFL see it and go ‘durr, he’s standing in defence, he’a a defender’
I think they go hand in hand but creating space in attack was definately a huge part of it
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top