Roast I've seen Ross Lyon-coached sides play more exciting football

[Landgraft]

On exposed form this year, they're both better sides than us - particularly Melbourne.

Overall, playing attacking football for me as a supporter does have some merit on a level comparable to winning/losing. I'd honestly trade one of our wins over the last month for some far better footy to watch and to play.

That's great and all, but the club is engaged in cut-throat competition. They can't afford to sacrifice their own viability for your gratification.

If you want the club to change their style of play then it needs to be to something that will most likely deliver more wins. Aesthetics are irrelevant.

 

[kickazz]

Of course aesthetics are relevant.

All the people in the AFL industry only get a payday because people like to watch it.

 

[Landgraft]

Of course aesthetics are relevant.

All the people in the AFL industry only get a payday because people like to watch it.

People will still watch ugly footy. They will still pay to watch ugly footy, and be invested in it.

Kids and other newcomers will come to footy, learn about it and never know anything else. They will love their 'ugly' game. You're right to an extent, but not one that is relevant to the clubs areas of interests and not until it threatens the industry in a wider sense which it currently doesn't.

 

[Daitro]

But kicking is such a minor part of the game. Football isn't really an accurate description of our game. Not many players get more than 10 kicks a game yet they'll pressure, harass, shepherd, run to support, spoil, etc in total hundreds of times a game. It's no surprise that coaches care about pressure more than kicking now because players will try and apply pressure so much more than they'll get the ball and kick it. It's just basic logic to concentrate on the things that they do the most.

I went through every game played on the weekend and every winning team had 11-15 players who had 10 kicks or more. Effective kicking is one of the most important anti-dotes to pressure because a player who takes a mark is freed of pressure. On the other hand an in-effective kick that misses its mark invites pressure. People who routinely miss kicks are pressure-inviters. We are a team of pressure-inviters. Our gamestyle at the moment is totally dictated by an inability to get clean ball out of the middle and inside 50, but mostly an inability to transition out of defense through an opposition press because our backline is full of s**t kicks who are incapable of doing anything but going the safe option along the line unless Tuohy has the ball, but it's rarely Tuohy taking the important second kick because he is the one we most trust taking kickouts and he cant kick it to himself. If the kickout gets to Kolo or Blicavs as examples, we are just about forfeiting the forward foray because they will most likely just kick it along the line to a 50/50 contest or try something riskier and muck it up.

 

[Gavin Excell]

Found it rich of Scott to bemoan the unattractive nature and of the game when he is it’s architect

 

[catempire]

Found it rich of Scott to bemoan the unattractive nature and of the game when he is it’s architect

You think that game was played the way Scott wants?

 

[Gavin Excell]

You think that game was played the way Scott wants?

Essentially yes

 

[you pick one]

I watch a Geelong game now and I expect to see a 36 players rolling scrimmage in one quarter of the ground.Melbourne and W/C are two of the better sides to watch at present.Both hold their forward structures really well.

 

[Wojcinski]

The current style reminds me a little of that awful 98-03 period. Having said that, the 98-03 period brought us 3 flags..

 

[catempire]

Essentially yes

That’s a pretty bizarre interpretation.

 

[catempire]

I can’t imagine any devised strategy by any coach that involves getting beaten around the ball and starting the game from your D50 with 36 players in it.

 

[you pick one]

I can’t imagine any devised strategy by any coach that involves getting beaten around the ball and starting the game from your D50 with 36 players in it.

Happens a lot though CE against s**t sides, what does that say about Scott's coaching?or are we just another s**t side.

 

[catempire]

Happens a lot though CE against s**t sides, what does that say about Scott's coaching?or are we just another s**t side.

We may well be s**t. Certainly if it persists there’s no other reasonable conclusion. But to suggest it’s deliberate is more than a stretch.

 

[Gavin Excell]

We may well be s**t. Certainly if it persists there’s no other reasonable conclusion. But to suggest it’s deliberate is more than a stretch.

I dont suggest losing in the midfield is planned, but the painfully slow build up from the hakfback line and flooding numbers round the contest clearly is

 

[catempire]

I dont suggest losing in the midfield is planned, but the painfully slow build up from the hakfback line and flooding numbers round the contest clearly is

I don’t agree. Actually it’s precisely what we force other teams to do when we are playing well.

 

[Gavin Excell]

I don’t agree. Actually it’s precisely what we force other teams to do when we are playing well.

Interesting we see it differently.

So how then do you explain the slowness of play and ball movement? Is it solely a consequence of losing in the midfield?

 

[Sticksman]

Essentially yes

The way Geelong wanted to play was shown in the first 10 minutes of the first quarter; open, fast and instinctive. Once Carlton's coaching staff saw that another 100+ thrashing was on the cards they switched to flooding and scragging with no intention of winning the game but simply to avoid a bloodbath. There is no way that Scott and Co. wanted the game to go that way.

 

[iameviljez]

That's great and all, but the club is engaged in cut-throat competition. They can't afford to sacrifice their own viability for your gratification.

If you want the club to change their style of play then it needs to be to something that will most likely deliver more wins. Aesthetics are irrelevant.

I honestly don't think they are irrelevant. I watch the game for enjoyment, and winning is some of that equation - not the whole thing.

I can't believe I am writing this, but I actually enjoyed the Hawthorn game more than some of the awful wins we have been served up this year.

 

[iameviljez]

I don’t agree. Actually it’s precisely what we force other teams to do when we are playing well.

And yet we do it more than other sides. The fast switch in particular seems to be something we're allergic to.

 

[catempire]

Interesting we see it differently.

So how then do you explain the slowness of play and ball movement? Is it solely a consequence of losing in the midfield?

I would characterise it like this:

1. Our desired gameplan is to win the midfield comfortably and thereby win weight of i50s and play most of the game in our half. This is fundamentally not working and the coaching panel need to fix it if our season it to go anywhere.

2. We face, like all struggling sporting teams, a choice: continue to try to play the game we want to play it; or alter some elements to adjust to compensate for the things that aren’t working. At the moment we are pushing ahead with the former.

3. When you choose a style of play that dictates selection decisions, structural decisions, allocation of roles and even recruitment at a bigger picture level. As long as you are trying to play one way it is difficult to ‘flick a switch’ and play another when many of the above factors will be working against the ‘different’ style.

The interesting question is how could things be changed if we are to shift the balance here? The midfield isn’t working right now so reverting to some structures where it previously has worked is the obvious first move:

- Dangerfield mid-fwd 90-10 instead of 25-75
- More Duncan, less Kelly
- more Blicavs negating (or Guthrie when he returns)
- Ablett out of the centre square to a wing or HFF

Perhaps Constable being given a go at some point. Or even Simpson.

The answers are not straightforward. Certainly not as simple as saying “play faster” from defence.

 

[catempire]

And yet we do it more than other sides. The fast switch in particular seems to be something we're allergic to.

Are you getting to many games Jez?

Not sure how well the TV covers it but there aren’t too many sides these days that don’t have players covering the switch on the fat side of the ground. I don’t think it’s the answer. The best teams at ball movement will hit the 45 degree passes into the corridor and combine that with players running and overlapping. But that’s impossible to execute with 36 players around you.

 

[Landgraft]

I honestly don't think they are irrelevant. I watch the game for enjoyment, and winning is some of that equation - not the whole thing.

I can't believe I am writing this, but I actually enjoyed the Hawthorn game more than some of the awful wins we have been served up this year.

We all define what is important from our own perspective but to the club aesthetics are not relevant.

 

[Mad_Hatter]

So many forget the single most obvious answer.
“There are 2 teams out there.”.
Most of the time this “slow ball movement” is due to opposition tactics and structures to disallow fast ball movement, just as we also Setup to do the same.

 

[you pick one]

The way Geelong wanted to play was shown in the first 10 minutes of the first quarter; open, fast and instinctive. Once Carlton's coaching staff saw that another 100+ thrashing was on the cards they switched to flooding and scragging with no intention of winning the game but simply to avoid a bloodbath. There is no way that Scott and Co. wanted the game to go that way.

I agree with everything you say there,but it raises a few questions.
1 Are we so poorly coached or mentally weak as a side that we can let bottom sides dictate how the game will be played?
2 Is Scott happy enough just to roll with an ugly game if he feels he will get the 4 points anyway.
3 Are we as supporters over rating this group.
4 And my opinion only is we have a game plan the players are not capable of carrying out,we get up and down the ground o/k but to slowly and our skills with the ball and decision making are far to often hopeless .

 

[Goggin Our Best]

So many forget the single most obvious answer.
“There are 2 teams out there.”.
Most of the time this “slow ball movement” is due to opposition tactics and structures to disallow fast ball movement, just as we also Setup to do the same.

How do you explain then the tactics of the 1st half of the Eagles game - ridiculous short passes going nowhere - Geel looked pathetic- just keep possession - then what happened in the 3rd qtr - chalk and cheese . Eagles didnt play negative football in the 1st half - so your argument falls to bits

My worry against the G/Coast - is the Suns will come out with a fast tempo game style - and Geel will be all at sea

Not an overaction - but there was a game back in 2006 - where Collingwood beat Geel by over 100 pts . Geel at present are playing that type of football - and the best example is last week against Ess - carbon copy . An opposition team will really get hold of Geel soon