Bulldogs style killing the game!

[Guest]

If I hear one more person comment on how great the Bulldogs win over Essendon was I'm going to puke!

Nobody can convince me that the Bulldogs ultra defensive flooding the defence style is good for footy. This negative blight on the game is the complete antithesis of what the game should be, hard fast and exciting.

It seems like every team which has not got the skill or talent too readily falls back into flooding the defence causing an almighty bore where the team attacking can't score because there are 30+ players clogging the forward line, and the team doing the flooding if it gets possesion has to chip and wait for his teamates to run forward of the ball then chip and wait - not good footy!

Rodney Eade has a lot to answer for taking the game backwards, let's hope something is done to outlaw this regressive style.

 

[sainter]

I disagree with you hawker.

While you could argue that flooding the backline is a blight on the game, I thought the way that the bulldogs ran the ball out of the backline and turned defence into attack was great to watch.

If Sheedy was too stubborn to put a few players into the bulldog forward line then so be it. Because the fact remains, guys like Steve Kolynuik should not be allowed to take marks on leads.

The openness of the bulldog forward line was as much a reason for their victory as their flooding of defence.

 

[Westy Boy]

Point taken- we don't have the talent to keep up with sides like Essendon.
But what do you suggest we do?
Play an attractive free flowing kind of game and get pumped by 80 points, destroying our percentage and severly denting our finals aspirations?
OR
Implementing a defensive unnatractive game, giving us our best (but small) chance of winning or at worst saving some percentage?

Put yourself in our position.
If Hawthorn was playing Essendon this week, with a finals berth on the line, would you like to see your team playing attacking "pretty looking" football whilst getting pumped and getting knocked out of the finals race?
It got the job done- which I'm sure is what most people want.
If it was the hawks being the first team to beat 'em with ultra flooding, you would be hailing Schwab as the Mesiah.

 

[Guest]

It's interesting Sainter that you think it was an exciting game, really for the first 3 and a bit quarters it was not exciting although it was close.

The Bulldogs were never going to win the match flooding the backline - Wallace finally moved Grant forward, freed up his midfield who eventually ran the Bombers off their feet.

So for less than a quarter it was a very exciting match, but for the rest of the match, well best forgotten.

BTW flooding the backline is very efective and an excellent tactic no doubt, if I were Wallace I would have done the same thing. I just think it is an awful feature of the game.

 

[Guest]

Your right Westy I would be delirious if the Hawks beat Essendon, even with the flood.

But there is a big difference between defensive play and almost 36 players in one half of the ground. There has to be a way of stopping this style, I don't think the natural evolution of the game is going to find an answer.

 

[Arch]

how long before teams start having to flood their own forward line ????
I can imagine sheedy's move in the finals.

Lucas marks outside 50, and 15 bombers flood into the 50, to outweigh all the defense and midfeilders which have drifted back.

but seriously-I think bombers fans complaining about the tactic is a bit hypocritical, because we ourselves have been doing it all year. You see an oppositon player who marks outside 50, and waits just a bit too long to move it, and all of a sudden, were having a sit down teaparty in their Def 50.(although thats different to camping guys down there from the get-go)

it also comes down to players fitness, because it wears them out.

I think the "natural evolution" of the game will stop it (or the bombers) - but we dont need new rules- although im stoked asa bombers fan that our attack is has been so potent that teams need to resort to this, and that commentators think rules need to be changed.

 

[fef]

Boy it sounds like all doom and gloom doesn't it.
The game has evolved to adapt to a number of changes over the years, the torpedo and drop kick are no longer seen due to the fact of their unreliability,the centre square was introduced to eliminate the ugly pack around the centre, zone defences were created for kick outs to make the soft fast break an increasingly rare sight.
The fact that Footscray's game plan revolves around numbers of fast running midfielders, due to the fact that Kingsley- hunter , Ellis and Darcy are all injured, they are able to adapt to a number of game plans depending on player availability.
When Essendon had injuries for the two years before last, they adapted an almost sixties-type game plan of prop,and kick to the best height option in an attempt to slow the game against the doggies.
The beauty of our game is it's unpredictability,sides will always attempt to stop the strengths of the opposition, whilst attempting to enhance their own.The game has evolved into a wonderful spectacle,and Friday night was one of those great spectacles, albeit in a different way from the Carlton Essendon game.

 

[Shinboners]

I was listening to Jon Anderson on radio this morning and it seems that the first time that the "flooding" tactic was used was by John Kennedy at Hawthorn in the 60s.

I agree with Westy Boy in that I'd much rather see my team go ultra defensive and try to win by attrition than to play a more open game and lose in a shootout, especially when there's a finals position at stake. But what people forget is that the Bulldogs had enough skills, confidence, and discipline to execute the strategy. Don't forget that just a couple of months earlier, Ken Judge got his Eagles to play defensively.....not to win, but to minimise the losing margin.

As Arch said, the game will evolve. Maybe clubs will set up attacks not from the half back line, but from the back line to allow long kicking running players to have shots at goal from just outside 50 (thus avoiding having to work through the forward 50). Or maybe the forwards will get into their own huddle (similar to the kick out from behinds) and the ball gets sent to that huddle making sure that 1. the forwards have the numbers and 2. the zoned off defenders not near the huddle become irrelevant.

The backline flood makes for low scoring games. But if you look back through the newspapers of about 10 years ago, you'll find articles about how football had become too high scoring! Our game will always find its balance one way or another.

 

[Bomber]

Of course clubs have to do whatever they have to to win, thats fair enough.

However I dont think the flooding technique is all that effective. Essendon and Carlton, who played each other last week in a physical and draining game, both ran out of legs the following week against Foots and Port respectively. Carlton had the wind too. Had Essendon run out that game, from being 22 points up, could have won by 7-8 goals and that floody technique is made to look stupid. There is no way Footscray would have beaten Carlton without the help of an extra 14 or so free kicks in the second half! That last free kick was no there, as werent many others. Footscray got a very good run with the umps too against Essendon, (19-10).

Essendon played into Footscrays hand too, by not attacking intelligently at all. Clubs will work it out, dont worry. Either of two things can be done, one, chip the ball around and take your time, which will be easier on the bigger grounds, ie MCG. Two, for every player they flood back, you throw the opponent down there too. Make your players lead out of the area, and they opponents should follow and clear the hole. If they dont follow, pass it to the leading player for a set shot!

 

[Bloodstained Angel]

There is an interesting article defending the practice by Jake Niall in today's Age.

I wont repeat what he said here but what he is saying in a nutshell is that flooding enhances the gritty, competitive aspects of football. Sure it might be harder to get a kick or score goals fluently but so what ?

The games themselves remain tough, competitive and, in the end, entertaining.

 

[Pessimistic]

Ironic how hawthorn's last two games have been called 'the worst this season' yet flooding went on.

Commentators were excited on friday because it was something new and Essendon were beaten

If it became the weekly fare they would soon complain

Perhaps someone will come up with a counter plan naturally and no rule changes will be needed.

Also Ironic is the complaints about flooding becoming more commonplace yet there have been more big margins this year than previous

A rule change ? If needed forget about more lines on the field and quotas on numbrs of players. The doggies relied on extra bodies 'blocking' the attackers trying to mark the ball. This is part of the shepherding rule which sometimes could be viewed as 'obstruction'

Slant the rules to favour the player going for the ball rather than the ones obstructing, hanging back then tackling and other sneaky manoevres.

Anyone witnessing defensive soccer tactics would not want to see this develpment in the australian game.

 

[Bernie]

Interesting views. I still think that the style used by the Dogs showed great discipline and loyalty, and that it was those attributes that showed out. The last half of the last quarter had Wynd, Libba, West and Romero on the ball - as hard a group of players that have probably played footy. The triumph of the in-and-under.

Sometimes these types of players fail - witness McLeod on Libba in finals - and it's the super classy blokes that win out.

It gives us ALL hope. Another example of the nature of our game, especially the use of the available players by the coaching staff. I'm sure there's a similar tactic in Basketball when you lose your tall players.

 

[Drakey]

How about decreasing the size of the bench back to 2 players. You can't rotate your runners as easily so they loose some leg power over the length of the game & can't get back into defence as often.

 

[Woof]

Talk about bitter and twisted, bomber reckons the only reason footscray beat essendon was a hangover from the "blockbuster", the only reason they beat Carlton was because it was pre - blockbuster, what about when footscray beat them by 40 points earlier in the year was that pre- pre pre- pre- pre etc etc etc blockbuster.
When they beat North was it something to do with el ninio, or when they beat melbourne was it something to do with the Beaumont dissapearance.
Jeez, and all I thought you had to do was outscore the opposition, shows you what a dick I am.

 

[gocatsgo]

It wasn't the Bulldogs style that is ruining the game.

The Bulldogs knew that they weren't as talented as Essendon and had to try to do something to combat it. AND IT WORKED.

I'm sure this week, they'll be back to their tagging, Scragging, Scrapping Best and let's hope (for Geelong's sake) that they win again, because I just can't see us beating Sydney to secure a spot in the finals.

 

[RICE80SF]

Bulldogs won fair and square, no excuses. We've come up again from big games the previous week, so we can't use that one. As Shiners said, at least the Dogs we're always out to win it.

I said in a previous post that Gary Lyon reckoned the Bulldogs are probably the only side who could carry out the tactic with success. He said this is due to there discipline and skill, and I agree. Other teams have tried and failed with a similair tactic.

Sheed's was outcoached and our guys (Longy excluded) used the ball badly going into the forward 50. B.S. is right, Jack Nial's article has a previously not discussed angle and he highlighted how Longy's vision broke the flood on occasions. Sheedy better come up with something more substantial than "can't do it on the 'G" or else the flood will cause us grief in the finals.

 

[Grendel]

Great thread this one.

Im with sainters view of the match. Firstly it was a good game to watch, close and hard fought all the way. Re the tatics employed to do so, well that to was brought up by Arch. The Dons have made an art form of flooding this season. Its just they also clear it from half back so much quicker than anyone else. Also is Hird (when fit) and Long they have to masters at setting up free players capable of creating space for others.
I would think one G.Williams would love this type of footy. Its all about reaction and distribution of the ball. If you can move with quickness ot thought and clean disposal then you can counter flooding.
Pess also had an interesting view, in that how far of the play can you be allowed to take a mans run at the ball? Ive seen a few frees given up field for illegal blocks, but many many more have either been ignored or not seen by the umpires (duh some suprise that). Maybe if this area was looked at by the so called 3rd umpire thats meant to be back in that area, it to may see more frees being paid when infringments occur. If that were to happen and multiple goals were being given up each week from the resutant free kicks, how long before flooding while not vanishing altogether, might be 'reviewed' as a tatic by the games coaches?

 

[Bloodstained Angel]

Bitter and twisted is the word Woof

But I'm not offering any excuses for our Round 10 (SCG) encounter

You whacked us good and proper, no excuses. We couldn't get near the Sherrin all day while you guys kicked on and won by 10 goals.

well done on a terrific performance and a thoroughly deserved 4 points.

 

[Bomber]

Woof - why dont you read what I wrote before jumping on your high horse!

Im not making excuses, you did what you had to do to win (as I said before), but I still question the effectivness of the flooding technique to win teams games. It was obvious Ess and Car were both drained after their game, both teams stated this during the week before the Footscray game - Essendon hardly trained that week (I was there). I simply said that if Essendon had of run out the game like they should have, and not slow down (probably a combination of losing some players on the night and the week before), then we would have won it by 7-8 goals. Flooding has been around for a long time, its not a new thing like some people think. However usually it is used to limit the extent of loses, and not to really win games. The impression I got during the game was that Foots were trying to not get belted, as opposed to win it. In the end, and good luck to them, they won it.

Re the Carlton game, I never said they were flat or sore, I said that had it not have been for some very dubious umpiring decisions (something like 16-2 in a HALF) then you would not have won. I hate Carlscum, but I know that Foots were VERY lucky to win that game, and I was rapt they did! Forget about the round 3 or 4 game, I am referring to games where you employed a deliberate flooding tactic.

I am not bagging Footscray, I grew up there and they are my second team (if I had to have one), but I am questioning the tactic used. Its not the be all and end all of the modern game, thats a load of crap.

Also, whoever comapred it to soccer - thats niave because of the style of games. Soccer is a primarily defensive game, Italians are the masters at 'catenaccio' and have done it for years succesfully. Why? The real aim in soccer is to stop the opposition from scoring more than you, not necessarily scoring more than the opposition. Its a subtle difference and some may find it hard to understand. As a general rule, in soccer, the higher the scoring 'generally' the lower standard the game, unless of course one team are doing all the scoring. Look at USA 94, Brasil were a fantastic scoring unit, Italy were good all round, and had R.Baggio on fire up front. The final - a nil all draw that went to penalties.

This flooding tactic may work in one-off games, but as a general rule has not and will not be effective in 'winning' games.

 

[Guest]

Firstly fantastic responses by all.

Some points though.

1. I agree the Bulldogs are a supremely fit and diciplined outfit and one of only a few sides in the comp. which can execute the flood effectively.

2. I love to watch low scoring defensive man on man contests, I have no desire to see games with 50 goals.

3. Games where the flood occurs cause great problems for the umps. where blocking and shepherding in the D50 is much more prevalent and harder to detect.

And finally let's hope the doggies are comlpetely stuffed after the draining encounter with the bombers.

Go Hawks!