Injuries V Gameplan

[King Elvis]

So how do we do it?. Do we need to use the Australian cricket team 'rotation' system? I know how popular that is...

Do we even have any fit players left we could rotate in?

 

[Kickin_Goals]

Dont get to watch much footy anymore as I live in the states but I did get to see the weekends game live. Just wondering if you guys play that style every week? It reminded me a lot of us circa 2004 which we followed up with a lot of injuries during 2005. If you do play like that week in week out how long has it been for and would you agree it is contributing to your long injury list?

It's impressive that you came to this observation being overseas as well as an interstate supporter.
The injuries that have been sustained seem of the unavoidable kind.

As for what Tas said, HO's it's a useless stat on it's own often they go directly to opposition players we are doing fine in contested ball, the ball goes forward hits the ground it is gone.
Those players you mentioned were Stevens Perrie and Welsh.
Stevens - Not often playing a forward position does on occasion after being switched up forward have an impact as he appears to have better mobility and skills at ground level then the unmentioned player that is generally our forward in Bock, Bock was probably not mentioned because of the lack of effect he has giving barely any defensive pressure due to a lack of speed and ground level ability he is no threat when the ball isn't delivered perfectly to him as in to his advantage.
Welsh - Finds himself negated most of the time now as he gets the best defender and really can't handle it, he goes to ground sometimes and applies himself but does stupid things that are telling however does put on some tackles but has never been consistant.
Perrie - When he can get on the park he cannot lay a tackle to save his life against the speed of the opposition nowadays, he tries he does some things but will be beaten by his opponent most every game his kicking generally is atrocious and he only tends to work as an assist player which works when he has support and crumbers which are not available.

Ball seems to be rebounding out of forward 50 a lot, a lot less pressure on the defensive side rebounding and a lot less opportunities for the creative smaller forwards

The thing is atm we don't have any creative small forwards nor forwards that can beat out an opponent of quality on the park only lead up players
other players
Burton - The most versatile forward we have, massive endurance runs players ragged is excellent at ground level and can actually crumb the ball when he is not taking a massive pack mark he also puts on a lot more defensive pressure then the talls due to his pace and generally has something vying for mark of the year and goal of the year he has a massive influence on the scoreboard.
Bode - Well he is the experienced crumber and puts on great offensive tackling pressure to keep it in 50 and him not being present is very apparent as on occasion he has come away from games with bags of goals.
Reilly - Is a very penetrating kick and delivers well and adds to the defensive pressure to keep it down there also this is another supporting small forward that is definitely missed.
Without these players keeping the ball down their the midfielders have no chance to catch up with the play and score like usual, if your watching Geelong and wondering where their new found winning formula came from I would think it came from watching the game against adelaide last year and drilling into their team the same style of play that flogged them as it works when executed with confidence.

I think Burton coming back and Roo getting some more touch will definitely help but I think the other issues will still make it difficult for the Crows to dominate like they did the last two years.

This depends entirely on the the teams ability to execute their skills, the other issues you suggested come down to attack on the football and this is a week in week out intensity thing, your ruckman can get as many hitouts as he wants they rarely go to advantage. Griffin in what I've seen seems to be able to win Hitouts the way clarke would due to his stature just needs some more time too get stronger Hudson may not win so many hitouts but he gets down and roves them his self and it is very telling.
When the ball hits the deck it is those lighter frame players with the quick handball out that compliment the stronger players knocking it to them and when you lose players such as Goodwin and Roo who was his replacement in that area your gonna have some trouble not too mention tired players.

 

[Mad Dog]

Your point doesn't make much sense given you didn't have any real injury issues until late last year, your depth players were not really called on to play a significant role in the last couple of years.

No real injuries until late in the year?......

As far as 2006 goes - of the players we would consider in (or around) our best 22......

• Jason Torney didn’t play his first game until Round 12…and also missed Rounds 17 to 21…playing only 8 games in total.
• Nathan Bock didn’t play until Round 16 – playing only 7 games in total.
• Scott Welsh didn’t play until Round 19…..playing only 6 games in total.
• Ian Perrie suffered a knee injury in Round 4 and didn’t play again until Round 21…missing 16 games – playing only 8 in total.
• Ben Hart only played 13 games – missing Rounds 9 to 16.
• Matt Clarke missed 6 games mid year.

sure - Roo, Burton, McGregor, Macca all went down late in the year - but those above were significant absences - pretty much our entire tall forward line.

We debuted Maric in Round 6, Vince in Round 1, Porplyzia in Round 5, Douglas in Round 21. Knights played games 2 to 12 last year.

As an example in Round 10 against Essendon last year we had no Welsh, Perrie, Torney, Bock, Hudson, Hart, Clarke.

....does that make sense....?

Knights isn't a "kid", he is 23 and has been playing seniors since 2005, this is his third year of senior football, you wouldn't expect him to be skinny. He is inexperienced for his age, wouldn't call him a kid. He is okay size-wise.

Knights is 20 and VB turned 21 last week - they are kids

 

[kulak]

I am not debating whether your team goes in hard but the close quarters, congested, low scoring, indirect, highly defensive style of play is very taxing. We did similar in 2004 as we had an awesome backline, hardworking midfielders and no forward line. So our only option was to choke sides to death. 2004 prelim was a great example where we shut down Brisbane (doubled their inside 50s) but still didnt win. If you watched that game is was SO taxing, it was no surprise they lost the next week.

I can see how you are between a rock and a hard place. You cant play open attacking direct football because you have injuries. But playing the type of indirect defensive football you played against us is just going to lead to more injuries.

I'm not sure the fundamental assumption here is correct. Surely a defensive game-style does not cause any more injuries than any other game-style? Sydney has a similarly defensive style, and their injury list is pretty small.

I think the only effect of game-style on injuries is at the individual level, any only over the long term - players who play a high-impact style will tend to break down earlier. ie inside midfielders (eg Voss) and key forwards (eg Carey) tend not to last as long as running players (eg McLeod)

 

[smoovy]

Do they create space for each other.

Do they 'block' the other defender to give them a clear run at a lead.

When they can't mark, are they knocking the ball to advantage.


I'd almost clear it out completely, Have Johncock/McGregor starting at FF, and have everyone else across the CHF line.

I don't know if that is a solution, but I think we need to be trying something new.

Smoovy - do you think we have a clear system in place for our forward line?

Fair enough.

I think the forward line does have a system, whether it is working or not is another question.

From the games I've seen live this year (4 of them) Craigy seems to have two distinct types of systems.

The first one is a traditional system of 3 across the HF line and 3 across the FF line. We must see different games because I have seen a distinct attempt to block a leading forward. 80% of the time it seems to be Bock that does the blocking. Problem is he is not that effective in doing it, mainly because he tries to hide what he is doing (keep in mind that technically this is shepherding more than 5m from the ball).

The other system is more or less modelled on the old Pagan's paddock. Our forwards all push up the ground and then run backwards into open space. I've seen this work a few times, but it comes unstuck as soon as the oppposition send a loose man back.

I too would like to see something new and creative. I have for a long time argued with some mates over a few beers about the merits of starting all your forwards on the boundary line. From the boundary line they only have one place to go and that is lead towards the centre, in front of the goals. Not only does this make set shots for goal easier, it creates a much more dangerous opportunity for crumbers. I wish I could take control of a team for a day and try it. Because unless I see it proved otherwise I can't see how it could be any worse than anything else we are currently trying.

 

[Crow-mo]

for me, this issue is not WHETHER the game plan causes injuries? But rather, COULD it have an affect?

I'd have thought it logical that it could have an impact.

 

[maccas_no1]

for me, this issue is not WHETHER the game plan causes injuries? But rather, COULD it have an affect?

I'd have thought it logical that it could have an impact.

I also think it would have an impact in and make players more injury prone later in the season.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

I'm not sure the fundamental assumption here is correct. Surely a defensive game-style does not cause any more injuries than any other game-style? Sydney has a similarly defensive style, and their injury list is pretty small.

I'm not sure about the Sydney comparison. I know we get lumped in with them (or them with us) because we're both low-scoring, defensive sides but I think that the similarities end there.

In the Sydney game style there are lots of ball ups. They get a huge number of players around these contests often with multiple ball ups in a row. I read something that said because Sydney are hitting bodies and laying tackles at extemely close quarters and not having much of a 'run up' to generate any speed, then the tackles and hits aren't as hard. And the multiple ball ups in a row and boundary throw ins means that they aren't having to cover as much ground as you might think either.

I think our style is different. Even our low scoring games are quite free flowing most of the time - the ball just rebounds quickly between the half back lines. It is more accountable, one-on-one footy all over the ground with intense physical pressure applied to the ball carrier. Lots of hard tackles. And with us pushing back so hard in defence our players have to cover an extraordinary amount of ground. This is why our game plan seems to get de-railed completely when there is an injury or two and the rotation options are limited. So basically hard hits and tired legs result.

Just my observation but I'd be interested to see if others see marked differences between ours and Sydney's 'defensive' game plans.

 

[kulak]

I'm not sure about the Sydney comparison. I know we get lumped in with them (or them with us) because we're both low-scoring, defensive sides but I think that the similarities end there.

In the Sydney game style there are lots of ball ups. They get a huge number of players around these contests often with multiple ball ups in a row. I read something that said because Sydney are hitting bodies and laying tackles at extemely close quarters and not having much of a 'run up' to generate any speed, then the tackles and hits aren't as hard. And the multiple ball ups in a row and boundary throw ins means that they aren't having to cover as much ground as you might think either.

I think our style is different. Even our low scoring games are quite free flowing most of the time - the ball just rebounds quickly between the half back lines. It is more accountable, one-on-one footy all over the ground with intense physical pressure applied to the ball carrier. Lots of hard tackles. And with us pushing back so hard in defence our players have to cover an extraordinary amount of ground. This is why our game plan seems to get de-railed completely when there is an injury or two and the rotation options are limited. So basically hard hits and tired legs result.

Just my observation but I'd be interested to see if others see marked differences between ours and Sydney's 'defensive' game plans.

Actually, I agree - just making the point that defensive equals injuries is not a straightforward observation.

The initial theory was:

playing the type of indirect defensive football you played against us is just going to lead to more injuries

Other factors are more important. Amount of impacts, amount of running...I think there is an argument that a high workload could cause more injuries.

For what it's worth, Sydney were playing pretty much the same game plan a few years ago, and I remember about 2-3 consecutive finals series where their chances were ruined by injuries to key players, before their recent golden run.

 

[Tas]

No real injuries until late in the year?......

As far as 2006 goes - of the players we would consider in (or around) our best 22......

• Jason Torney didn’t play his first game until Round 12…and also missed Rounds 17 to 21…playing only 8 games in total.
• Nathan Bock didn’t play until Round 16 – playing only 7 games in total.
• Scott Welsh didn’t play until Round 19…..playing only 6 games in total.
• Ian Perrie suffered a knee injury in Round 4 and didn’t play again until Round 21…missing 16 games – playing only 8 in total.
• Ben Hart only played 13 games – missing Rounds 9 to 16.
• Matt Clarke missed 6 games mid year.

sure - Roo, Burton, McGregor, Macca all went down late in the year - but those above were significant absences - pretty much our entire tall forward line.

We debuted Maric in Round 6, Vince in Round 1, Porplyzia in Round 5, Douglas in Round 21. Knights played games 2 to 12 last year.

As an example in Round 10 against Essendon last year we had no Welsh, Perrie, Torney, Bock, Hudson, Hart, Clarke.

....does that make sense....?

I understand what you are saying, and am not saying you have had no injuries, it just has not been a huge list of injuries, not at the same time, not in the same area of the ground.

Everyone has injured players throughout the year. When Clarke was out you still had Biglands doing the bulk of the ruckwork, Hudson missed a lot of football and he has had to come in with Griffin as the only support, that is much harder to pull off.

That is where depth players come in. You may not notice as much of a difference between a young kid and a depth player when there you are only missing one or two guys and when they are in different parts of the ground, a depth player is far more valuable when they come in and are really needed as a focus.

Knights is 20 and VB turned 21 last week - they are kids

That was my mistake, read the games column for age. My point about the change of the physical aspect of the midfield remains the same though, and Knights wasn't one of the players I was referring to either as he is about the same size as Goodwin.

Do you think your midfield is as physically intimidating now as it was in 05/06?

I've seen a few sides now that have struggled big time to match up the Crows in the middle with the physically powerful midfield, it is not giving them the same kind of issues this year. It is why I am curious as to how we will fair in the middle this week because we do not have a physically powerful midfield group and have struggled in the middle against the Crows in recent years.

 

[Mad Dog]

I've seen a few sides now that have struggled big time to match up the Crows in the middle with the physically powerful midfield, it is not giving them the same kind of issues this year. It is why I am curious as to how we will fair in the middle this week because we do not have a physically powerful midfield group and have struggled in the middle against the Crows in recent years.

The good news is that Roo spent some time in the Midfield last week before getting cleaned up - and added some much needed physical presence. He was starting to get his hands to the ball with some authority - so I would expect to see him spend more time there on Saturday night

 

[Tas]

The good news is that Roo spent some time in the Midfield last week before getting cleaned up - and added some much needed physical presence. He was starting to get his hands to the ball with some authority - so I would expect to see him spend more time there on Saturday night

Yeah, he is a very dangerous player, even when recovering from a injury. I think I prefer him in the middle, oddly enough, I remember the reaming he gave us up forward last year coming back from injury.