Can you read this and post in 10 seconds ?

[NYMets]

WHat is ROcket on about ? IS it ironically true that he wants to speed up disposal time to overcome flooding, something he helped entrench?

Will this be easy to enforce, umps running around with stopwatches? Will it speed up the game...does the game need speeding up?

 

[Shinboners]

Originally posted by NYMets
WHat is ROcket on about ? IS it ironically true that he wants to speed up disposal time to overcome flooding, something he helped entrench?

I would have thought that speeding up the disposal time would have had the opposite effect. The teams with good disposal skills combat flooding by holding up the ball and taking their time, either waiting for an opening or trying to create one. The teams with bad disposal just seem to send the ball blindly forward, with the players looking a bit dopey as the ball rebounds out just as quickly.

 

[Malibu#27]

Originally posted by NYMets

WHat is ROcket on about ? IS it ironically true that he wants to speed up disposal time to overcome flooding, something he helped entrench?

Will this be easy to enforce, umps running around with stopwatches? Will it speed up the game...does the game need speeding up?

I haven't read the article, but if what your saying is that Rocket wants a rule brought in that forces a player to kick the ball faster after a mark or freen kick, this would probably make the flood more effective forcing players to kick hurried kicks into flooded forward lines as opposed to waiting for a free player to present themselves.

Speeding up disposal time is only effective against the flood if the team with the ball is continually playing on and effectively racing up the field before the defensive flood can get back.

There are probably three ways to beat the flood:

1) Get the ball forward quickly so that the flood doesnt get time to form.
2) Have long kickers stationed across half forward that can kick set shots over the flood.
3) hold the ball up and simply wait for a free man to present himself.... even if its outside the attacking 50 eventually the defence will come out and attack the man with the ball and gaps open up.
Theres no point simply bombingthe ball in to the flooded forward line if its going to bounce straight back out.

 

[moomba]

No

 

[Portia]

Rocket wants to make his own gameplan easier. Thats the only reason you'd propose this rule - to encourage flooding.

He's already had a 15 metre for a mark rule brought in to encourage flooding, he doesn't need any more.

 

[Malibu#27]

Originally posted by Porthos

Rocket wants to make his own gameplan easier. Thats the only reason you'd propose this rule - to encourage flooding.

He's already had a 15 metre for a mark rule brought in to encourage flooding, he doesn't need any more.

I can understand Rocket asking for the rule change. Sydney has been getting an armchair ride from the AFL up until now, so why not bring in another rule to help Sydney out.

Perhaps if Sydney started concentrating on developing their own attacking style of football instead of working on negative flooding tactics, they wouldn't need new rules to force attacking opponents to give up the ball.

 

[dogboy23]

That would be 2 rules brought in to supposedly beat the flood that have actually made the flood more effective.What great initiatives by the afl.

 

[Syd Swan]

All this talk about Sydney and flooding is crap. I have been playing for 25 years, and have always been coached to get back and help your defenders. Isn't this flooding? Quite simply if you move the ball on quickly, you will be able to overcome flooding, but to say Sydney started it all and are the only ones to usie it is utter and total crap.

 

[Portia]

Were you coached to have everyone but one player in the back half of the field?

And Sydney always flood, as opposed to other teams who sometimes do it for whatever reason.

 

[Malibu#27]

Originally posted by Syd Swan

All this talk about Sydney and flooding is crap. I have been playing for 25 years, and have always been coached to get back and help your defenders. Isn't this flooding? Quite simply if you move the ball on quickly, you will be able to overcome flooding, but to say Sydney started it all and are the only ones to usie it is utter and total crap.

Simply getting back and helping your defenders is not flooding. Flooding is an extension of getting back and helping out where not only onballers but forwards all stream back to fill up space and congest the oppositions forward line.

If you think it has been happening for 25 years I'd suggest you find a game from the early nineties or earlier that contains flooding. Id suggest there may have been the odd game where for the last couple of minutes everyone was at the ball, but even this isn't flooding.

Finally, if you think flooding doesnt occur, I'd suggest oyu ask Rocket himslef who was on SA radio soon after Christmas and spoke about the flood and the reason he developed and started implementing it.

 

[NYMets]

Re: Re: Can you read this and post in 10 seconds ?

Originally posted by Shinboners


I would have thought that speeding up the disposal time would have had the opposite effect. The teams with good disposal skills combat flooding by holding up the ball and taking their time, either waiting for an opening or trying to create one. The teams with bad disposal just seem to send the ball blindly forward, with the players looking a bit dopey as the ball rebounds out just as quickly.

I get it...I see why it's Eade who's suggesting it now.

Oh, See also.. http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,3983670%5E11548,00.html

 

[Syd Swan]

Originally posted by Malibu#27


Simply getting back and helping your defenders is not flooding. Flooding is an extension of getting back and helping out where not only onballers but forwards all stream back to fill up space and congest the oppositions forward line.

If you think it has been happening for 25 years I'd suggest you find a game from the early nineties or earlier that contains flooding. Id suggest there may have been the odd game where for the last couple of minutes everyone was at the ball, but even this isn't flooding.

Finally, if you think flooding doesnt occur, I'd suggest oyu ask Rocket himslef who was on SA radio soon after Christmas and spoke about the flood and the reason he developed and started implementing it.

I didn't say flooding doesn't occur, I said getting players back and helping out defenders is the same as flooding, regardless of whether its 1, 2 or 12 players back there, as the saying goes many hands make light work. Maybe you should also criticise defenders running off the forwards, as this also contributes to flooding.

 

[jim440]

One of the best suggestions I've heard in ages. Should be brought in as quickly as possible.

 

[Malibu#27]

Originally posted by Syd Swan


I didn't say flooding doesn't occur, I said getting players back and helping out defenders is the same as flooding, regardless of whether its 1, 2 or 12 players back there, as the saying goes many hands make light work. Maybe you should also criticise defenders running off the forwards, as this also contributes to flooding.

I dont believe 1 or 2 players getting back into defence is flooding. This has been going on for eons ... every been kicking against a 6 goal breeze and your coach sends back a sweeper to help out the defenders?

My point is that there is a difference, between having an additional 1 or 2, and an additional 12. Jut like there is a difference between going outside and noticing that its raining lightly, and going outside and finding that there are torrential downpoors.

Should I criticise defenders running off their forwards?? I think this is a slightly different example because their objective when running off is normally to take the ball forward and to score... in addition I dont think many coaches would instruct their defenders to all run forward at once (without the ball !!!) leaving their opponents standing alone in the goalsquare.

I can understand why coaches use flooding as it is a tactic that can stop the opposition scoring, but it does detract from high scoring free flowing football, and adding additional rules that will only beneifit the teams doing the flooding will not help teams find ways to overcome it.

Id prefer to go and see 35+ goals kicked for a match as opposet to 20.

A problem I see is that most of the rules that are being introduced to prevent sides running down the clocks (short kicking backwards to run the clock down) will have the adverse effect that they will help teams that are flooding.

 

[RadioShark]

Well...In radio terms...

In the radio industry 10secs is a bloody eternity!!! I can get certain elements of a brekky shift organised within 10 seconds...Even to the point where we sell advertising space on-air in 15sec intervals...at @ $50-$75 per hit on average...

As in a footy sense I'd say 20secs is ample...Enough time to scan out a player ahead or slow they play to reset for a new direction...I personally like Eade's idea, Essendon are the masters of kick to kick to milk the clock in pressure situations, I hate it in basketball and now it's a factor in close footy games...BUT, Any good player say...The calibre of a Buckley or Harvey will have a general idea where his teammates are further ahead in play and 10 secs in this type of instance would be sufficient...If we were dealing with the likes of Warwick Capper or Justin Madden...We may have to allow say 3 or 4 minutes, a set of building blocks and a pack of colourful crayons...

 

[Mr Ripper]

Originally posted by Malibu#27
I dont believe 1 or 2 players getting back into defence is flooding. This has been going on for eons ... every been kicking against a 6 goal breeze and your coach sends back a sweeper to help out the defenders?

My point is that there is a difference, between having an additional 1 or 2, and an additional 12. Jut like there is a difference between going outside and noticing that its raining lightly, and going outside and finding that there are torrential downpoors.

Should I criticise defenders running off their forwards?? I think this is a slightly different example because their objective when running off is normally to take the ball forward and to score... in addition I dont think many coaches would instruct their defenders to all run forward at once (without the ball !!!) leaving their opponents standing alone in the goalsquare.

I can understand why coaches use flooding as it is a tactic that can stop the opposition scoring, but it does detract from high scoring free flowing football, and adding additional rules that will only beneifit the teams doing the flooding will not help teams find ways to overcome it.

Id prefer to go and see 35+ goals kicked for a match as opposet to 20.

A problem I see is that most of the rules that are being introduced to prevent sides running down the clocks (short kicking backwards to run the clock down) will have the adverse effect that they will help teams that are flooding.

Comments endorsed!