Game plan and "structures"

[peternorth]

Hi all,

these have vexed me for sometime.

has "structures" replaced the good ol' "yeah nah" in footy player vernacular? this morning on 1116 SEN in relation to MFC, a few callers said it doesn't matter how much money you throw at the demons, it's a waste if they don't get their structures right!

So what are structures? Is it corporate hierarchy? Or when referring to the players does it insinuate the way they are positioned on the ground?

Secondly, game plan. Players continuously trot out "sticking to the game plan" whether they win, lose or in the odd occasion draw. I believe the most famous game plans have been collingwood under malthouse (boundary line), and roos under Pagan (Pagans paddock).

Are game plans just verbal BS? Or do players actually know and abide by what's preached during the week, or do they size up the situation as it comes?

 

[Bluelegs]

If you don't follow a gameplan you will lose. The gameplan won't necessarily be all that complex but every team will have one, you can see it in their positions, their movements. It could be lock it down in defence and surge forward, or maintain control of the ball, create space and run and carry the ball into attack, then lock the ball inside forward 50. It could be anything, but it is entirely dependent on the players having the skill to pull it off as well as the initiative to play with more freedom when the option presents itself.

In regards to the structures. I'm fairly sure it was SEN callers ringing up and repeating what everyone already knows. Melbourne's off-field issues must be fixed before any progress will be made on-field.

 

[AussieFTW]

Yeah nah.

 

[Tex Support]

I'm still waiting for an explaination into how "leg speed" wormed its way in.

Thats like saying "ear hearing".

 

[I am Jack]

Everyone has a game plan until they get punched in the face.

 

[Cynic]

I'm still waiting for an explaination into how "leg speed" wormed its way in.

Thats like saying "ear hearing".

There can be speed by body movement (Leg) or speed by ball movement.

 

[slashin_velvet]

I'm still waiting for an explaination into how "leg speed" wormed its way in.

Thats like saying "ear hearing".

Its refering to speed of movement via running vs passing. It would be like "ear hearing" if it were "leg walking" or "leg running".

In terms of game plans, they are very clear a lot of the time. OP's mentioned two, but other clear ones include Ross Lyons strategy, and the old Hawks coast to coast from a rushed behind (which caused a rule change).

 

[Lensen]

structures refer to the positioning of players around stoppages

if i can throw quarterback in there i can just about punch myself in the face for using stupid new-footy slang

 

[peternorth]

thanks for the posts fellas. started slowly but ive learnt a lot.

leg speed is somewhat lulzy. i think tony shaw brought the term in. cynic provided a good explanation i feel.

i think pro leg speed people may make it sound more complicated and complex than it really is in that it differentiates between the speed in which legs move, as opposed to other body functions like hand to ball. in saying that, how is leg speed different to foot speed?

next time a player says "if we stick to our structures and follow our game plan...." id like a journo to ask "what is your game plan? and what do you mean by structures"?

 

[Dazb86]

Structures is the way certain parts of the ground set up in certain situations. Ie: at a stoppage, kick out, throw in, throw in inside the F50, throw in inside D50. When they say a structure broke down it means a few players weren't supposed to be where they were.

Game plan refers to the style of game they'll be playing. Ie: Ultra defensive like Lyon, Down the boundary to reduce risk like Malthouse, Contested ball and team defence like Sydney etc etc.

 

[Collins-Langford-Ayres]

I'm still waiting for an explaination into how "leg speed" wormed its way in.

Thats like saying "ear hearing".

Disagree.

You can move the ball quickly by running it up the ground of moving it quickly by foot and hand.

 

[Kavliaris69]

Hi all,

these have vexed me for sometime.

has "structures" replaced the good ol' "yeah nah" in footy player vernacular? this morning on 1116 SEN in relation to MFC, a few callers said it doesn't matter how much money you throw at the demons, it's a waste if they don't get their structures right!

So what are structures? Is it corporate hierarchy? Or when referring to the players does it insinuate the way they are positioned on the ground?

Secondly, game plan. Players continuously trot out "sticking to the game plan" whether they win, lose or in the odd occasion draw. I believe the most famous game plans have been collingwood under malthouse (boundary line), and roos under Pagan (Pagans paddock).

Are game plans just verbal BS? Or do players actually know and abide by what's preached during the week, or do they size up the situation as it comes?

If the game plan has a nick name then it becomes "famous" as you said. Just like Clarko's "cluster" and the Pies "forward press".

 

[Westicle]

I'm still waiting for an explaination into how "leg speed" wormed its way in.

Thats like saying "ear hearing".

See also "time clock". What the fock is a time clock?

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/another-time-clock-error.1019922/#post-29225959

 

[Morris Major]

next time a player says "if we stick to our structures and follow our game plan...." id like a journo to ask "what is your game plan? and what do you mean by structures"?

I like to think structures as zonal, so in a certain situation players need to be in certain positions. Gameplan would be an extension of that, so you can execute or respond to a play depending on the circumstances.

Essentially always being in a position where you're ready to act, and carrying out the act.

I don't mind the new jargon as long as it makes sense to be honest, I don't even mind quarterback because I know what they're getting at. I did hear a player be described as a 'wide receiver' once and that fcked me off, that term is not even applicable in any way.

 

[slashin_velvet]

See also "time clock". What the fock is a time clock?

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/another-time-clock-error.1019922/#post-29225959

Generally a game time clock is different to a normal clock because they are recording different things. One stops and starts with game play, the other generally tells you the time of day in your current timezone.

 

[slashin_velvet]

I don't mind the new jargon as long as it makes sense to be honest, I don't even mind quarterback because I know what they're getting at. I did hear a player be described as a 'wide receiver' once and that fcked me off, that term is not even applicable in any way.

Even quarterback is a shitty term and hardly applicable to football. The only cross terminology position I dont mind is sweeper, but thats hardly used these days anyway.

 

[forwardflanker]

The clubs HR department instruct players to refer to "structures" when they don't understand the question being asked. It's basically an evolved version of "yeah nah" that makes them sound like less of a moron.

It's a pretty ambiguous word that sounds kind of professional and can be applied to many different things though I think most often it's used to describe a set of team rules. ie. When a Collinwood player used to say stick to their structures it was usually an elaborate way of saying move the ball around the wing and never through the corridor.

 

[slashin_velvet]

The clubs HR department instruct players to refer to "structures" when they don't understand the question being asked. It's basically an evolved version of "yeah nah" that makes them sound like less of a moron.

This is where mick is revolutionary....he refers to "the process".

 

[peternorth]

I like to think structures as zonal, so in a certain situation players need to be in certain positions. Gameplan would be an extension of that, so you can execute or respond to a play depending on the circumstances.

Essentially always being in a position where you're ready to act, and carrying out the act.

I don't mind the new jargon as long as it makes sense to be honest, I don't even mind quarterback because I know what they're getting at. I did hear a player be described as a 'wide receiver' once and that fcked me off, that term is not even applicable in any way.

gerald healy once got pissed at a caller many years ago because caller said the teams in the afl were franchises.

reckon ive heard heals call gws a franchise this year.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Are game plans just verbal BS? Or do players actually know and abide by what's preached during the week, or do they size up the situation as it comes?

I think it's highly likely that a big part of a successful game plan is an understanding of when to stick to the game plan and when to respond spontaneously.

A further dimension I'll add, as a follower of the Swans, is that I'm convinced that a big part of their game plan is striving to establish a situation where they're playing the game on their terms.

It's quite clear that it is the case; what's not clear is how much it's just a general mindset, and how much there are actual signals and cues that say for example "not yet guys, we still don't have it under control" or "right lads, we've got them where we want them, no-one goof off of course, but now we can let loose and be spontaneous and creative".

Dunno. Maybe it's just a general vibe thing all the players pick up, maybe it's more formalised.

 

[peternorth]

I think it's highly likely that a big part of a successful game plan is an understanding of when to stick to the game plan and when to respond spontaneously.

A further dimension I'll add, as a follower of the Swans, is that I'm convinced that a big part of their game plan is establishing a situation where they're playing the game on their terms.

It's quite clear that it is the case; what's not clear is how much it's just a general mindset, and how much there are actual signals and cues that say for example "not yet guys, we still don't have it under control" or "right lads, we've got them where we want them, no-one goof off of course, but now we can let loose and be spontaneous and creative".

Dunno. Maybe it's just a general vibe thing all the players pick up, maybe it's more formalised.

valid post.

i think media people go all captain obvious when teams like hawks, cats, swans, whoever is successful are winning. they point to structures, game plans, administration, coaching all being top notch.

 

[juss]

Personally I think gameplan and structures as a whole are a tad overrated. We see teams do a million different things a game given any one situation. I think every team has a basic outline of how they want to play and move the ball, but obviously it doesn't work out as the opposition is also trying to do that too. What you still end up with is a game with contest after contest after contest and the players that win those key ones will come out on top.

From a coaching perspective though "we didn't stick to our game plan and follow our structures, we'll go back and review our processes" sounds a lot better than "hell, Sydney are just a shitload better team than we are and rightly kicked our ass today"

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

The part that mysifies me is why a player suddenly has to sprint off the ground after he's kicked a goal. Nobody has ever explained that one.

 

[basashi]

The part that mysifies me is why a player suddenly has to sprint off the ground after he's kicked a goal. Nobody has ever explained that one.

Especially if he sprints 80m, sits down for 20 seconds and then sprints 80m back into play.

Thanks for the rest, buddy!

 

[basashi]

At the moment, I am a big fan of the idea of "running both ways," although I have to admit I have only ever seen players run one way.

What I have seen is players in the upright orientation (characteristic of bipeds), athletically driving each leg backwards to provide a forward propelling force from friction with the playing surface and in the process shifting their weight sequentially from one leg to the other in a regular pattern with momentary points of zero contact with the ground between each stride.

I can't wait to see a player running "the other way." It must be spectacular.