Can we solve flooding ?

[Pessimistic]

I am convinced that being able to block or hold down opponents who want to go for a mark is essential to flooding. If we look at these tactics and rules involved with them and the way they are being interpreted we might be able to solve flooding without a rule change.
These tactics favour the team with the 'numbers' rather than the one prepared to play the ball.

Incidentally last friday night both teams were 'flooding' Its just that it happened in Hawthorn's back half. Brisbane were employing flooding to keep the ball in that area

I don't know the answer but I think I know where the 'experts' should be looking.

Thoughts anyone ?

 

[FIGJAM]

Forward flooding is pretty rare. I think it is a ploy used to expose the game-plan and type of players that the opposition has.

Hawthorn relies on key-position players and their movement along the ground through running backmen/midfielders isn't particularly flash. I think this is what Parkin was talking about when he said the game-plan was all too obvious (ie. move the ball quickly with long kicks to targets). Clogging space in front of the targets hurts them and with the likes of Croad under pressure, mistakes will occur often. Rules don't need to be changed, but the style of Hawthorn's play sure does.

As for backline flooding, Talking Richmond showed the other night how badly it hurts the flooding team's opportunity to rebound the ball. The teams that don't (or prefer not to) flood, are the teams that tend to have a running game plan (Port, Essendon, Collingwood, Carlton). Note these team's percentages!

Collingwood's plan is to play man on man, nullify any attack, go hard at the footy, slip it off to running player and kick it to a "hot-spot" (Malthouse term for player running into space with the flight of the ball) where they can mark and then keep running. Flooding would simply f*ck this up!

Although key-position players are extremely important, I think teams realise that a balance is required and will see the need not to focus their game-plan around them, by focussing on the more efficient movement of the footy at ground level. I think this change in strategy, will minimise flooding and allow for a more exciting brand of footy.

 

[CJH]

I take your point FIGJAM, but only to a degree.

When Richmond played both Carlton and Essendon this year they both employed variations on flooding, particularly Carlton. (Richmond didn't send the ball forward enough against Essendon for it to really matter! )

When we played against teams that flood like Carlton and Sydney we also flooded which led to a dull, defensive struggle. However, when playing against St. Kilda (who don't flood) last week we didn't flood either. This had the effect of keeping the game open and reasonably high scoring.

What the likes of Essendon, Carlton and Richmond (top 3 teams, just in case you didn't notice!) do is ALWAYS have players forward. That way, when they break clear of defence they always have targets to kick to.

This is where Hawthorn broke down last week, as did Sydney 2 weeks ago against us. Get the ball to the wing and then have to wait for someone to run forward. Not very good!

 

[SS11]

Who cares..

let the game and the coaches sort it out, the AFL wouldnt listen to the fans anyway.

 

[Bob_vic]

Originally posted by Pessimistic
I am convinced that being able to block or hold down opponents who want to go for a mark is essential to flooding. If we look at these tactics and rules involved with them and the way they are being interpreted we might be able to solve flooding without a rule change.

There's no rule change needed because you aren't allowed to do this anyway.

Bob

 

[Dave]

There's been a game recently that invloved a tactic that I think will limit the effectiveness of flooding.

It involved all the players manning up as well as doing something else. See if you can work out what the something else was.

 

[daddy_4_eyes]

I don't think flooding is all that effective in stopping the opposition from scoring. Coaches will soon realise that and use different tactics.

There have been some really big losses this year, and flooding didn't work in those cases. Mostly because when the defending teams did force a turnover there was no one to pass the ball to. Sooner or later the attacking team scored. They had no counter-play chances and thus had no chance of winning themselves.

The flooding is causing the game to be unattractive, but by next season the problem should be gone. Teams will figure out how to beat it and won't resort to it anymore.

 

[FIGJAM]

Originally posted by Dave
There's been a game recently that invloved a tactic that I think will limit the effectiveness of flooding.

It involved all the players manning up as well as doing something else. See if you can work out what the something else was.

You're only allowed to spend three seconds in the key?

You'd have to be f*cken fast to only spend three seconds in the fifty, especially if you start at full-forward/back!!!

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by FIGJAM
You're only allowed to spend three seconds in the key?

Warmish, not so much on the time as the location. Think a little smaller