Tagging

[thylacine60]

Being a bit of a goose on game tactics I have a few queries regarding tagging. Everyone has been saying how Murph and Stevo will have it so much better now that CJ will be taking the oppositions tag or "best" tag.

How many players get tagged? I understand you can't have one midfield tagging the other midfield (be a charming old game) and we hear that teams have a designated tagger for the role, but what if there are 3 players tearing it up - does the opposition swing the tag around? Do they tag more than 1 player? How many players can a team afford to run with before its own game suffers appreciably? Appreciate the input.

 

[HBF]

I guess you could have a look at West Coasts midfield at its prime, or Geelongs now. What I imagine opposition clubs would do is tag 1, maybe 2 mids, and then with the other mids, just play man-on-man, and try to limit the damage as must as possible.

For instance, with Carlton, Judd will take the number 1 tagger, and Stevens will take the number 2 tagger. Then, guys like Simpson, Murphy and Carrazzo, will all have opponents, and those guys will be asked to play pretty close, but not in that traditional tagging role I would suppose.

 

[thylacine60]

I guess you could have a look at West Coasts midfield at its prime, or Geelongs now. What I imagine opposition clubs would do is tag 1, maybe 2 mids, and then with the other mids, just play man-on-man, and try to limit the damage as must as possible.

For instance, with Carlton, Judd will take the number 1 tagger, and Stevens will take the number 2 tagger. Then, guys like Simpson, Murphy and Carrazzo, will all have opponents, and those guys will be asked to play pretty close, but not in that traditional tagging role I would suppose.

Cheers. I think that's pretty much what I was considering.

 

[Bomba Sheldon]

They generally wont use the nasty term of tagging but use the "run with" term for the accountability of the oppositions better midfielders.

 

[as0l0]

also need to consider that 1 or 2 of our boys need to run with the oppositions best players. That generally takes the tagger out of the game too.

 

[thylacine60]

also need to consider that 1 or 2 of our boys need to run with the oppositions best players. That generally takes the tagger out of the game too.

Top point.

 

[btdg]

There's really 3 main ways that midfield matchups can be played:
1. Standard. A players primary responsibility is to beat his opponent in contests, win as much of the ball as possible and restrict their direct opponent's output
2. Loose. A player has a primary ball-winning responsibility, and plays little or no attention to their direct opponent
3. Tight. A player has a primary objective of shutting down their opponent, and looks to win the football as a secondary objective.

In addition to those ways of playing a direct opponent, its important to remember that footballers now tend to rotate through the midfield (and subsequently their opponents), and there are different ways of managing that, too.
a) Indirect. Player rotates from midfield to flank/bench based on their own team directions, and matches up on the closest match dependent on their personal role.
b) Direct. Player follows their designated direct opponent wherever they go (even to the bench in extreme cases).
c) Limited direct. Player follows direct opponent, except when they go to a specific position. For example, Baker might tag Judd, except if Judd goes to full-forward.

With that in mind, midfield matchups are probably constructed on a holistic basis, rather than on an individual basis. The idea would be to get the best possible result, given the opposition personel, and your own personel.

For example, if we are playing West Coast next year, the midfields could be:
Carlton: Judd, Stevens, Murphy, Carazzo, Gibbs, Scotland, Simpson, Bentick
West Coast: Kerr, Embley, Priddis, Fletcher, Braun, Hurn, Nicoski, Rosa

Our midfield instructions might be along the lines of:
Judd: Loose, indirect. Opponent will stay close anyway limiting their influence
Stevens: Standard, indirect. Loose when Judd resting.
Murphy: Tight vs Kerr, limited direct rotations. Use Kerr to take him to the ball
Carazzo: Standard, indirect
Simpson: Standard, indirect
Those 5 might be our starting midfield, with Gibbs and Scotland on flanks and Bentick on the bench.

West Coast would probably match up:
Kerr: Loose, indirect (vs Murphy)
Embley: Standard, indirect (vs Stevens/Simpson)
Priddis: Standard, indirect (vs Carazzo)
Fletcher: Standard, indirect (cs Stevens/Simpson)
Braun: Tight vs Judd, direct

Note that for the standard matchups, its just a case of finding the best available. If there is a mis-match, we'll change (or they will), but unless its a direct rotation, it won't matter - it'll be up to the players to adjust. However, if Embley cuts up Simpson in the first half, we'd have 2 options - a tight matchup (with the same opponent or someone else), or a different indirect matchup. Thats what the coach does on match-day; make those minimal changes to keep us on top.

How will this affect our players from last year? Stevens may or may not have justified tight checking from opponents last year, depending on his form and his matchups. Someone like Kirk, for example, stacks up pretty well with Stevens in a 'tight' matchup, so he might have copped it there. This year, Kirk may go to Judd. The rest of our midfield almost certainly didn't cop 'tight' matchups on a regular basis - simply because they don't justify it. There were a few exceptions; Baker on Murphy, for example. But most of the time our players last year would have seen only 'standard, indirect' checking, or 'loose' checking. That includes Murphy and Simpson. After Stevens' injury, the teams who would have played him 'tight' probably just played our whole midfield 'standard', and based on physical attributes the player who would have taken Stevens probably went into a 'standard indirect' matchup with Simpson/Gibbs.

If the opposition has 3 players who deserve tags (ie, West Coast 2 years ago), most opposition would play maybe one 'tight' matchup, generally the one that is most likely to succeed. The other midfielders would play 'standard' matchups and try to do their best. Sydney occasionally play 'tight' all the way across the midfield, but it tends to be a limited strategy that they alternate mid-match, changing up to standard or loose matchups when momentum swings. But you have to be pretty well-coached and experienced, not to mention have multiple players capable of playing well in the 'tight' role in order for that to work.

 

[HBF]

also need to consider that 1 or 2 of our boys need to run with the oppositions best players. That generally takes the tagger out of the game too.

Good point. Ryan Jackson might just develop into our No.1 run-with player at Carlton I reckon.

 

[Amers]

That is an awesome post btdg!

It give a good insight into just how difficult match day coaching, tactics amd match ups would be to do!

 

[thylacine60]

Crikey btdg, remind me never to ask you for a detailed analysis! Did you get that info from your own observations or some coaching manual you use? Fabulous stuff, mate.

 

[bloods01]

When you come up against the Swans we have the depth to tag ur entire midfield out of the game;

Judd / Goodes (Only way to hurt Carlton is to have Goodes in a head to head with Judd)

Stevens / Kirk (Always done the job on Stevens and this year will be no different)

Murphy / Ablett (Ablett has turned into the next best stopper behind Kirk)

Simpson / McVeigh (Has the ability to match Simpson around the ground)

Carrazzo / Crouch (A fit Crouch will be back to his nagging best)

Scotland / Mathews (Has the defensive skills to negate his run out of defence)

 

[Blueinblood]

ok..thats good. u tag all of us and have no midfield. Dumb post egg head

 

[bloods01]

ok..thats good. u tag all of us and have no midfield. Dumb post egg head

I'm just highlighting the match ups that have been used in the past, with great success might I add. The only new one is the Judd / Goodes match up.

When was the last time Carlton beat the Swans anyway? Enough said....

 

[Blueinblood]

we play you in melbourne sunshine. we played u in your glory years in melb and i remember us being in front at 3 quater and thennbig boofhead bazza blow us away in the last quater. In melb at the dome we alwas give u a shake and with our new recruits and development we may beat u. but itll be like the over 30's against the under 23's.. just wait in 5 years. Youll be absoloutley screwed..with all your young players..jesus your in strife. Well have fun
P.S.. barry wont tear us up this time coz he cant even see properly.
and BAHAhAHAh aat goodes...to scared to play in the ruck

 

[thylacine60]

I'm just highlighting the match ups that have been used in the past, with great success might I add. The only new one is the Judd / Goodes match up.

When was the last time Carlton beat the Swans anyway? Enough said....

I know we beat you in 1945. Has to be a more recent result somewhere.

 

[bloods01]

we play you in melbourne sunshine. we played u in your glory years in melb and i remember us being in front at 3 quater and thennbig boofhead bazza blow us away in the last quater. In melb at the dome we alwas give u a shake and with our new recruits and development we may beat u. but itll be like the over 30's against the under 23's.. just wait in 5 years. Youll be absoloutley screwed..with all your young players..jesus your in strife. Well have fun
P.S.. barry wont tear us up this time coz he cant even see properly.
and BAHAhAHAh aat goodes...to scared to play in the ruck

He won a Brownlow in the ruck. Ever since his medial injury against Cox at Subiaco he hasn't played in the ruck. Why would he when we have Jolly and Spider. He just damages the opposition playing on the ball. The only reason he played in the ruck then was because Stafford had a long term injury. It just shows how good he is. He won it in his non preffered position.

Of course you'll have a good team in five years time. That's what happens when you win wooden spoon after wooden spoon. You get rewarded with priority and early draft picks.

 

[Blueinblood]

i aint talking bout us in 5 years....
would you care to name all your under 23 players

 

[bloods01]

i aint talking bout us in 5 years....
would you care to name all your under 23 players

By having early draft picks you get the best talent avaiblable. We havent had access to that, so of course your young blokes U/23 have the potential to be better than ours.

If you can get an established defender and another ruckman, I think you guys are half a chance to do some damage next year.

 

[Blueinblood]

agreed. We'd wana be good weve had the may picks

 

[swannies]

For example, if we are playing West Coast next year, the midfields could be:
Carlton: Judd, Stevens, Murphy, Carazzo, Gibbs, Scotland, Simpson, Bentick
West Coast: Kerr, Embley, Priddis, Fletcher, Braun, Hurn, Nicoski, Rosa

Our midfield instructions might be along the lines of:
Judd: Loose, indirect. Opponent will stay close anyway limiting their influence
Stevens: Standard, indirect. Loose when Judd resting.
Murphy: Tight vs Kerr, limited direct rotations. Use Kerr to take him to the ball
Carazzo: Standard, indirect
Simpson: Standard, indirect
Those 5 might be our starting midfield, with Gibbs and Scotland on flanks and Bentick on the bench.

West Coast would probably match up:
Kerr: Loose, indirect (vs Murphy)
Embley: Standard, indirect (vs Stevens/Simpson)
Priddis: Standard, indirect (vs Carazzo)
Fletcher: Standard, indirect (cs Stevens/Simpson)
Braun: Tight vs Judd, direct

Yeah, thought it was a great post btdg, but minor point, I would think we would have Stenglein have the run with against Judd, or A Selwood, leaving Braun alone on the wing. But, the other minor point is that Judd, at his peak, is unstoppable, and doesn't have to have 30+ posessions to hurt you, so the most anyone can do with him is limit the damage. If we come across you in the NAB cup or challenge and Judd is playing, I wonder if we would give McGinnity a look at him? Know he would get towelled up but it would be like Murphy being taken to the ball by Kerr, these guys can learn a hell of a lot from it.

 

[blue_boys5]

I'm just highlighting the match ups that have been used in the past, with great success might I add. The only new one is the Judd / Goodes match up.

When was the last time Carlton beat the Swans anyway? Enough said....

Why dont you just crawl back under your rock for 50 or so years!!!
Anyway you know that every time Goodes matches up on Judd he gets absolutely smashed... its actually quite comical watching Judd destroy Goodes everytime and we will probably see it again this year if Paul Roos is stupid enough to put Goodes on Judd

 

[as0l0]

When was the last time Carlton beat the Swans anyway? Enough said....

about 6 out of every 10 times.

Sth Melb/Sydney 1897 - 2007 played - 210 won - 80 lost - 124

 

[Il Naso De Gastev]

Can't believe you Carlton muppets actually attempting to pot the Sydney Swans. I'd give my left nut to have had their recent success and to extract as much from their list as what they've done... yet you blokes think you're pulling one over them by being a laughing stock for 5 years. Nice one.

 

[as0l0]

Can't believe you Carlton muppets actually attempting to pot the Sydney Swans. I'd give my left nut to have had their recent success and to extract as much from their list as what they've done... yet you blokes think you're pulling one over them by being a laughing stock for 5 years. Nice one.

they would give their left nut to have the long term success that we have had.

when i say we, i obviously mean, not you.

wocka, wocka, wocka.

 

[Il Naso De Gastev]

they would give their left nut to have the long term success that we have had.

when i say we, i obviously mean, not you.

wocka, wocka, wocka.

Long term?? Who gives a toss what happened 60, 80, 100 years ago?? I know I sure wasn't alive to appreciate it.

Yes I would like to be segregated from supporters like you.... you're the type who is unappreciative of any other club, and looks at the AFL through Navy Blue glasses... you might as well be a Collingwood supporter.... a one-eyed imbecile... someone who sits in the outer and shouts ridiculous, ill-informed comments making an embarrassment of themselves.