James2
Senior List
With Carlton apparently undermanned this weekend, many of the scribes are saying that the Blues will need to flood the Essendon foward line,in order to have any chance of winning.
Whilst I have no doubt they will (they did in rd 20), does anyone actually reckon that the flooding tactic actually wins games of football?
Many believe that the Bulldogs flooding tactic was the reason behind Essendon's defeat in rd.21. I don't agree. Essendon lead by 22 points in the final quarter, they had beaten the flood. The reason Essendon lost, was because they played poorly- continually kicking to contests in the fowardline, where a teamate was outnumbered. This has nothing to do with flooding. It is a simple era, which would applies in all parts of the game. For example, if a player kicks to a 2 on 1 situation on the wing, does this mean that a team is flooding the wing? No, it is just poor disposal.
The press act as if the Bulldogs are the only team to try these tactics against Essendon. Wrong! Carlton tried it in rd.20, Sydney and WCE have also tried it. Richmond attempted it, and lost by 101 points!! Essendon won all these games and played convincingly in just one of them.
Rodney Eade says that flooding must be complemented by generally negative tactics, such as kicking the ball out, forming packs etc etc. Negative tactics, including flooding, will only be successfull against a team playing poorly or below their best. The team executing such a plan, must also play like that normally, like the Swans and WCE, otherwise it can effect that teams cahnces of winning. Carlton can flood all they want, IF Essendon play as well as they can, all the flood will amount to is a number of useless players in the Carlton backline!
What say you???
Whilst I have no doubt they will (they did in rd 20), does anyone actually reckon that the flooding tactic actually wins games of football?
Many believe that the Bulldogs flooding tactic was the reason behind Essendon's defeat in rd.21. I don't agree. Essendon lead by 22 points in the final quarter, they had beaten the flood. The reason Essendon lost, was because they played poorly- continually kicking to contests in the fowardline, where a teamate was outnumbered. This has nothing to do with flooding. It is a simple era, which would applies in all parts of the game. For example, if a player kicks to a 2 on 1 situation on the wing, does this mean that a team is flooding the wing? No, it is just poor disposal.
The press act as if the Bulldogs are the only team to try these tactics against Essendon. Wrong! Carlton tried it in rd.20, Sydney and WCE have also tried it. Richmond attempted it, and lost by 101 points!! Essendon won all these games and played convincingly in just one of them.
Rodney Eade says that flooding must be complemented by generally negative tactics, such as kicking the ball out, forming packs etc etc. Negative tactics, including flooding, will only be successfull against a team playing poorly or below their best. The team executing such a plan, must also play like that normally, like the Swans and WCE, otherwise it can effect that teams cahnces of winning. Carlton can flood all they want, IF Essendon play as well as they can, all the flood will amount to is a number of useless players in the Carlton backline!
What say you???
