Kick-in tactics

[Cruiser23]

Not sure if many of you have noticed but Ratten has seemed to have employed a tactic with regards to trying to counter the zone at the kick-ins over the past few weeks. Hadn't really noticed it a great deal until the game on the weekend.

Numbers push to one flank which gives the Blues a numerical advantage, only two players stay in each pocket to somewhat keep the opposition zone in place. We'd have the ruckman with a number of players around were the fall of the ball could be. The person kicking in would look for the ruckman and kick it outside 50 to that contest. The thinking seems to be if Kruezer/Hampson doesn't get their hands around the ball, we would have the numbers at the fall. Considering we have really struggled over the past few years to get a hold of the kick-ins we seem to have gone back to basics and somewhat of a junior footy concept. Makes sense as trying to pick apart the zone with our footskills isn't something we excel at. Playing the percentages it seems.

While in theory it seems sound, on the weekend it was found wanting somewhat. The flaw in it is when the opposition players punch the ball back inside 50. This means with the Blues all around the fall of the contest, the opposition has the numbers inside 50. I can remember almost half a dozen occasions where this happened and dearly cost us.

I think this tactic has plenty of merit just needs a little tinkering. Perhaps widening the players positions because they seemed very congested last week which hurt.

It is good to see he's trying to fix a negative in our game. Considering this has been a major downfall in our game for many years, anyone got any opinions or thoughts on how we should structure the kick-ins? Ratten heading in the right direction with this tactic?

 

[Alpha1]

You should send this to Ratten and the MC, because at the moment we don't have a kick in tactic, or a plan B.

 

[LemmingMaster]

We should employ our best desision maker to be the kickin specialist. Maybe Nick Stevens to kick the ball in more often?

 

[pumped]

Not sure if many of you have noticed but Ratten has seemed to have employed a tactic with regards to trying to counter the zone at the kick-ins over the past few weeks. Hadn't really noticed it a great deal until the game on the weekend.

Numbers push to one flank which gives the Blues a numerical advantage, only two players stay in each pocket to somewhat keep the opposition zone in place. We'd have the ruckman with a number of players around were the fall of the ball could be. The person kicking in would look for the ruckman and kick it outside 50 to that contest. The thinking seems to be if Kruezer/Hampson doesn't get their hands around the ball, we would have the numbers at the fall. Considering we have really struggled over the past few years to get a hold of the kick-ins we seem to have gone back to basics and somewhat of a junior footy concept. Makes sense as trying to pick apart the zone with our footskills isn't something we excel at. Playing the percentages it seems.

While in theory it seems sound, on the weekend it was found wanting somewhat. The flaw in it is when the opposition players punch the ball back inside 50. This means with the Blues all around the fall of the contest, the opposition has the numbers inside 50. I can remember almost half a dozen occasions where this happened and dearly cost us.

I think this tactic has plenty of merit just needs a little tinkering. Perhaps widening the players positions because they seemed very congested last week which hurt.

It is good to see he's trying to fix a negative in our game. Considering this has been a major downfall in our game for many years, anyone got any opinions or thoughts on how we should structure the kick-ins? Ratten heading in the right direction with this tactic?

Think much of the problem lies with the quality and mental strength of the guy who is kicking out. For example no matter how technically good a kick Johnston is he seems to mentally crack under pressure. Long kicks should be directed to the advantage side/position of the Carlton tall we are kicking too. Often the direction of our kicks in kick outs and for that matter many times going forward are not placed to the best advantage of the receiving Carlton player.

 

[Jonesi]

Not sure if many of you have noticed but Ratten has seemed to have employed a tactic with regards to trying to counter the zone at the kick-ins over the past few weeks. Hadn't really noticed it a great deal until the game on the weekend.

Numbers push to one flank which gives the Blues a numerical advantage, only two players stay in each pocket to somewhat keep the opposition zone in place. We'd have the ruckman with a number of players around were the fall of the ball could be. The person kicking in would look for the ruckman and kick it outside 50 to that contest. The thinking seems to be if Kruezer/Hampson doesn't get their hands around the ball, we would have the numbers at the fall. Considering we have really struggled over the past few years to get a hold of the kick-ins we seem to have gone back to basics and somewhat of a junior footy concept. Makes sense as trying to pick apart the zone with our footskills isn't something we excel at. Playing the percentages it seems.

While in theory it seems sound, on the weekend it was found wanting somewhat. The flaw in it is when the opposition players punch the ball back inside 50. This means with the Blues all around the fall of the contest, the opposition has the numbers inside 50. I can remember almost half a dozen occasions where this happened and dearly cost us.

I think this tactic has plenty of merit just needs a little tinkering. Perhaps widening the players positions because they seemed very congested last week which hurt.

It is good to see he's trying to fix a negative in our game. Considering this has been a major downfall in our game for many years, anyone got any opinions or thoughts on how we should structure the kick-ins? Ratten heading in the right direction with this tactic?

It certainly was noticeable on Saturday. I think going back to basics is fine when employing a kick in strategy - the only problem is that when it goes wrong it can be very difficult to recover from it.

Having a numerical advantage at the contest certainly can give us the upper hand but in my opinion there are 2 crucial aspects to it.

1. The guys at the contest/fall of the ball have to influence the contest. As we all saw on the weekend if the talls cannot take a grab or bring the ball to ground in the area of our numerical advantage then we are in a lot of trouble. If the ball is punched/deflected by the opposing ruckman away from our numbers at the contest we are looking at a quick turnaround. Against teams that are disciplined in their zone and have reasonable skills by foot (the Crows are particularly good in these areas) we get burned. Badly.

It means we need to have more influence at the contest. Either running 2 talls in the hope we can bring the ball to ground/take a grab, having a staggered attack on the ball which means players coming from 10-15 metres in front of the pack and moving towards and through the contest when the ball hits the pack and directing the kick in closer to the boundary line so that we have an 'out' if we find the setup has not worked in our favour.

2. The second possession. In my opinion this is the most important aspect of the kick in. It's great to secure the ball from the kick out but pointless if we then turn it over with the second possession and once again get burned with the ball still being in the zone. The idea is to get the ball over the back of the zone (opposition teams often employ a zone of up to 15/16 players) and through to a one out contest in the forward line. As we've all seen, when we run through the middle of the ground using hands we can look fantastic but a skill error will kill us. We need to find a more effective way of using our second possession.

Most teams seem to view a ball over the boundary line on centre wing as a break even from their kickouts. I must say - I'd be very happy if we could produce a similar result from our kick ins for the rest of the season before making them a focus over summer.

 

[C4[2]Yo`DooR]

Heres a tip:

Don't let Jordan Russell take the kick ins.

 

[Just Kreuzing]

It certainly was noticeable on Saturday. I think going back to basics is fine when employing a kick in strategy - the only problem is that when it goes wrong it can be very difficult to recover from it.

Having a numerical advantage at the contest certainly can give us the upper hand but in my opinion there are 2 crucial aspects to it.

1. The guys at the contest/fall of the ball have to influence the contest. As we all saw on the weekend if the talls cannot take a grab or bring the ball to ground in the area of our numerical advantage then we are in a lot of trouble. If the ball is punched/deflected by the opposing ruckman away from our numbers at the contest we are looking at a quick turnaround. Against teams that are disciplined in their zone and have reasonable skills by foot (the Crows are particularly good in these areas) we get burned. Badly.

It means we need to have more influence at the contest. Either running 2 talls in the hope we can bring the ball to ground/take a grab, having a staggered attack on the ball which means players coming from 10-15 metres in front of the pack and moving towards and through the contest when the ball hits the pack and directing the kick in closer to the boundary line so that we have an 'out' if we find the setup has not worked in our favour.

2. The second possession. In my opinion this is the most important aspect of the kick in. It's great to secure the ball from the kick out but pointless if we then turn it over with the second possession and once again get burned with the ball still being in the zone. The idea is to get the ball over the back of the zone (opposition teams often employ a zone of up to 15/16 players) and through to a one out contest in the forward line. As we've all seen, when we run through the middle of the ground using hands we can look fantastic but a skill error will kill us. We need to find a more effective way of using our second possession.

Most teams seem to view a ball over the boundary line on centre wing as a break even from their kickouts. I must say - I'd be very happy if we could produce a similar result from our kick ins for the rest of the season before making them a focus over summer.

If you watch the replay that was exactly the problem, we weren't feverish enough when the ball was punched away from our ruckmen. A couple of times you see Houlihan and Judd just lethargically put up a veiled attempt to tackle or chase or even want to get their hands on the ball when Vince kicked 2 goals if my memory serves me correctly.

 

[BlueGibbs2011]

I agree with the personnel comment.

At times we had Russell, Johnson and Houlahan kicking in. Each one produced a clanger making our kick-ins look woeful! Decision making and elite kicking is required and we seem to lack that in our defenders.

Think Cruiser has spotted the kick-in change nicely. It is good to see Ratten working on a solution even if it does take time!

Team system not only in kick-ins but all over the ground is currently a Carlton weakness, 1) due to a weak bottom 6-8 players and 2) a learning coaching group. We have another year or two to get it right!

Despite what people might say, Carlton has turned up 'switched on' to play twice versus Adelaide yet Adelaide soaked up everything we had, played to a team system and smashed us! Adelaide are removing the need for big name players and more training to positions! This allows them to cover any injury as backups also know how to play a position. I personally see the Carlton squad a long way behind this standard! Either Ratten does not have Craig's vision, or somehow it is just not working for him...and by working i mean the training is not coming across on game day!

Carlton right now can compete in mainly one style of play...we have struggled against teams that are very well drilled in changing the style!

With a list no better than Carltons I see Adelaides strategic path as very bright!

 

[Cruiser23]

We should employ our best desision maker to be the kickin specialist. Maybe Nick Stevens to kick the ball in more often?

That is another issue, the players taking the kick-ins. There are so many different players taking the kick-ins there is no consistency. I got no problem with the nearest player taking the kick-in to get the play moving quickly before the other team gets into position but this seems to happen no matter the situation. I or two designated kickers, whether that be Stevens, Gibbs etc, consistency is very important, right now no player can get a hold of this because they are on/off with the kick-in duties.

 

[Just Kreuzing]

That is another issue, the players taking the kick-ins. There are so many different players taking the kick-ins there is no consistency. I got no problem with the nearest player taking the kick-in to get the play moving quickly before the other team gets into position but this seems to happen no matter the situation. I or two designated kickers, whether that be Stevens, Gibbs etc, consistency is very important, right now no player can get a hold of this because they are on/off with the kick-in duties.

Jordan Russell kept miskicking the ball (he was riddled with doubt) and therefore we had no penetration or depth with our kick ins, When the crows punch that ball it is all of sudden well inside 50 with loose men everywhere and our mids/crumbers playing as soft as i have ever seen them. Need to get that kick in to travel 60 metres and get the set up and fall of the ball as far outside of 50 as possible to allow time to cover players if things turn to shit.

 

[Cruiser23]

It certainly was noticeable on Saturday. I think going back to basics is fine when employing a kick in strategy - the only problem is that when it goes wrong it can be very difficult to recover from it.

There are definitely so chinks in the tactic. I really haven't noticed it a great deal throughout the year so it seems a new thing that Ratten has just introduced. You aren't going to get this right first off and there are going to be so hiccups. Lets hope Ratts works on it and refines his ideas because i think this could be the best path for us as we aren't the best pin pointing targets and making the right decisions down back.

Having a numerical advantage at the contest certainly can give us the upper hand but in my opinion there are 2 crucial aspects to it.

1. The guys at the contest/fall of the ball have to influence the contest. As we all saw on the weekend if the talls cannot take a grab or bring the ball to ground in the area of our numerical advantage then we are in a lot of trouble. If the ball is punched/deflected by the opposing ruckman away from our numbers at the contest we are looking at a quick turnaround. Against teams that are disciplined in their zone and have reasonable skills by foot (the Crows are particularly good in these areas) we get burned. Badly.

It means we need to have more influence at the contest. Either running 2 talls in the hope we can bring the ball to ground/take a grab, having a staggered attack on the ball which means players coming from 10-15 metres in front of the pack and moving towards and through the contest when the ball hits the pack and directing the kick in closer to the boundary line so that we have an 'out' if we find the setup has not worked in our favour.

I was thinking along the lines of the staggered attack. As i said it seemed very congested and most players stand at the feet of the contests. If we spread a few players out we have got the punch forward covered, at least we'll have players to give a contest.

2. The second possession. In my opinion this is the most important aspect of the kick in. It's great to secure the ball from the kick out but pointless if we then turn it over with the second possession and once again get burned with the ball still being in the zone. The idea is to get the ball over the back of the zone (opposition teams often employ a zone of up to 15/16 players) and through to a one out contest in the forward line. As we've all seen, when we run through the middle of the ground using hands we can look fantastic but a skill error will kill us. We need to find a more effective way of using our second possession.

Most teams seem to view a ball over the boundary line on centre wing as a break even from their kickouts. I must say - I'd be very happy if we could produce a similar result from our kick ins for the rest of the season before making them a focus over summer.

That is also an issue, we may be able to get Gibbs, Stevens to pin point a pass through the zone but then that player needs to be able to do the same and this is were we often fall down. If the ball is kicked 55 metres to the contest, drops to the ground we have the numbers. No matter who picks it up they should have plenty of options as the numbers way in our favour. I think there could be a lot less mistakes which is probably what Ratten is thinking also.

As i said there are a few chinks and considering it is relatively new it may take a little time but i think it is a step in the right direction. Playing the percentages and knowing the limitations of our team is very important.

 

[Cruiser23]

Heres a tip:

Don't let Jordan Russell take the kick ins.

Wish it were that easy but i agree, no more Russell taking the kick-ins, it is a major liability.

 

[Jonesi]

I was thinking along the lines of the staggered attack. As i said it seemed very congested and most players stand at the feet of the contests. If we spread a few players out we have got the punch forward covered, at least we'll have players to give a contest.

I think this is the best way to go. Having guys moving at the contest is a big thing. Flat footed players usually come under serious pressure if they gain posession and then, as we've seen, when we are in the middle of the zone, we have a habit of transferring that pressure to a teammate with a skill error or short pass.

Having guys staggered means that not only do we have the punch forward covered but we also have plenty of release options for the players who gets the pill. Whether it's a grab and they can dish off to a player running past or the crumbers give first option handball when they get it off the deck.

Good move by Ratts to start thinking about these things and putting them in place. As you've said Cruiser it'll need refining - as all aspect of our game do - but at least there are positives signs there.

 

[Silvagnis]

You should send this to Ratten and the MC, because at the moment we don't have a kick in tactic, or a plan B.

Carlton needs supporters with computers to tell them how to coach a footy club and educate them about tactics...

 

[aic-poppy]

Heres a tip:

Don't let Jordan Russell take the kick ins.

Spot on!

 

[Bluebear]

Not sure if many of you have noticed but Ratten has seemed to have employed a tactic with regards to trying to counter the zone at the kick-ins over the past few weeks. Hadn't really noticed it a great deal until the game on the weekend.

Numbers push to one flank which gives the Blues a numerical advantage, only two players stay in each pocket to somewhat keep the opposition zone in place. We'd have the ruckman with a number of players around were the fall of the ball could be. The person kicking in would look for the ruckman and kick it outside 50 to that contest. The thinking seems to be if Kruezer/Hampson doesn't get their hands around the ball, we would have the numbers at the fall. Considering we have really struggled over the past few years to get a hold of the kick-ins we seem to have gone back to basics and somewhat of a junior footy concept. Makes sense as trying to pick apart the zone with our footskills isn't something we excel at. Playing the percentages it seems.

While in theory it seems sound, on the weekend it was found wanting somewhat. The flaw in it is when the opposition players punch the ball back inside 50. This means with the Blues all around the fall of the contest, the opposition has the numbers inside 50. I can remember almost half a dozen occasions where this happened and dearly cost us.

I think this tactic has plenty of merit just needs a little tinkering. Perhaps widening the players positions because they seemed very congested last week which hurt.

It is good to see he's trying to fix a negative in our game. Considering this has been a major downfall in our game for many years, anyone got any opinions or thoughts on how we should structure the kick-ins? Ratten heading in the right direction with this tactic?

As you pointed out......it worked fine to the point where the big spoil came in to 3 unattended crows in the F50.

Personally, I'd rather see us hit up the shorter option which was still 30-35m out on Sat......then kick it long to the ruckman and ground level players.

Why we didn't have anyone in the Crows F50 was beyond me. Even if we won the ground level ball, the run needs to come from behind to work through the zone. We did it really well a couple of times in the fourth on the dock side wing with running at a man, quick (and good) hands before getting it over the top to the F50 where the zone is vulnerable.

Can we please not have Russell doing the kick-ins........his game has progressed and he is doing well, but I really don't want him under that sort of pressure. We have enough skillful kicks in the team to at least nail the first (and most imprtant) kick.......Stevens, Scotland, Houlihan........even Thornton would have been a better option.

 

[Blue Bawls]

What a bunch of crap about Russell not kicking in. His low, hard, flat passes were as good as anyone's. Everyone who kicked in had the ball chopped off simply because Adelaide flooded the half back line. They stood Tippett (I think) right in front effectively screening a loose player who went to the most likely lead. The bombs to the HFF were met by huge packs.

And punching into the 50? That happened once, by a Carlton player, and was purely bad luck.

Adelaide blanketed that half-back line so effectively there can't have been anyone in their back half (I watched on telly so couldn't tell). This has nothing to do with our general kick-in tactic, it was Adelaide playing out of their skin.

 

[carlton2007]

What has happened to trying to change things up kicking out from a behind? we do one of two things every bloody time. we either do this stupid 15m pass to someone sitting next to the point post, which puts us into an even more disadvantaged position, and whoever recieves that pass (most of the time its thornton) doesnt know where to go next.

The other way we try to kick out is for scotty / stevo to kick it as far as they can, to kruze / hamps, and hope for the best in the marking contest. Adelaide found out this week, and showed every other team in the comp, that if u spoil the ball back into the F50, you have a great chance of scoring again. Ratts has to think of something else very very quickly, otherwise this week, we will be in big trouble. Brisbane are a fantastic team kicking out from a behind, and I hope ratts and co have looked at the tapes, and have worked out A) how to defend their kick outs, and B) leanrt how to kick the ball out.

I have a suggestion for ratts - I call for it every week, but it never happens. We get every player bunching up into a group approx 45 - 50 meters out from goal, then at someones call everyone spreads. It is important that either scotty or stevo kick out, because they can both hit a target 55meters away, with no probs.

Once the group has spread, the ruckman must push forward - down the centre of the ground - and a running player (eg. simmo, murph) leads out to the wing, where scotty / stevo will kick to them. Once they have marked the ball, they will have the chance to run 20 - 30 meters (if everything goes to plan) and pump the ball into our forward 50, where our ruckman, fev, eddie, will be waiting.

We have used this tactic only a couple times this year, and each and everyone of those times, we have been able to take the ball the full length of the ground, and score.

Looking back at the game on sat, adelaides, first possesion after a kick in, resulted in the player being uncontested, and able to run and bounce the ball forward. A couple times our zone was able to stop that, but not enough. Adelaide taught us a really good lesson of how to kick out, and I hope we have leant alot, in the space of this week.

 

[carlton2007]

As you pointed out......it worked fine to the point where the big spoil came in to 3 unattended crows in the F50.

Personally, I'd rather see us hit up the shorter option which was still 30-35m out on Sat......then kick it long to the ruckman and ground level players.

Why we didn't have anyone in the Crows F50 was beyond me. Even if we won the ground level ball, the run needs to come from behind to work through the zone. We did it really well a couple of times in the fourth on the dock side wing with running at a man, quick (and good) hands before getting it over the top to the F50 where the zone is vulnerable.

Can we please not have Russell doing the kick-ins........his game has progressed and he is doing well, but I really don't want him under that sort of pressure. We have enough skillful kicks in the team to at least nail the first (and most imprtant) kick.......Stevens, Scotland, Houlihan........even Thornton would have been a better option.

Russell is an out n out dud. I cringe everytime he gets the ball, because most of the time his disposal is pathetic. When he got dropped mid season I felt so much more comfortable watching our play out of the backline n midfield bcos russell wouldnt get the ball.

Other teams target him as the player most likely to turn the ball over when there is no pressure on him. He has cost us many goals, and I hope he gets dropped, or atleaset be nowhere near the ball at any stage of the game. Although I have been bagging him since he started, he has improved - a little - and his tackling pressure has improved. that is still not good enough to stay in the team

 

[Bluebear]

What a bunch of crap about Russell not kicking in. His low, hard, flat passes were as good as anyone's. Everyone who kicked in had the ball chopped off simply because Adelaide flooded the half back line. They stood Tippett (I think) right in front effectively screening a loose player who went to the most likely lead. The bombs to the HFF were met by huge packs.

Sure, but two of his shorter kicks were turned over resulting directly in goals. One from a smother and one going over the head of the intended recipient.

Russell is an out n out dud. I cringe everytime he gets the ball, because most of the time his disposal is pathetic. When he got dropped mid season I felt so much more comfortable watching our play out of the backline n midfield bcos russell wouldnt get the ball.

Other teams target him as the player most likely to turn the ball over when there is no pressure on him. He has cost us many goals, and I hope he gets dropped, or atleaset be nowhere near the ball at any stage of the game. Although I have been bagging him since he started, he has improved - a little - and his tackling pressure has improved. that is still not good enough to stay in the team

you have sadly mistaken me as an ally.
Russell's disposal has improved greatly this year, and particularly after he was dropped. He is now also providing run off the half back line and doing something that Judd, Murphy and co don't do often enough.......stops his direct opponent most of the time.

I just think the kick in is such an important kick to get right in terms of decision and execution that Russ isn't one of our elite kicks and he would be better served to be at the base of the pack he was kicking to in order to either win the footy, run with it if we do, or (his strong suit) apply defensive pressure if we don't win the contest.

 

[carlton2007]

haha fair enough. I have never liked russell, and im the type of person that if he has a good game, i will somehow find a fault. I dont no y, but i only do it with him and bower. I am happy that bower has stopped kicking the ball. I like it how he runs thru the middle of the ground, taking on the opposition, and then handballs it to simmo / judd / murph / gibbs to kick it to fev. Although he has improved he still has alot to go.

 

[Silvagnis]

Here's my suggestion to fix the kick-ins.

[YOUTUBE]m5RKOgAAIjY[/YOUTUBE]

[YOUTUBE]NzAgj4cCAig[/YOUTUBE]

[YOUTUBE]MWuHdN1OxWI[/YOUTUBE]

 

[The Grover]

Yeah O'Keefe could be the one for kick in duties.

I would like to see us use the tactic of playing on from kick in & the player on the mark being shepharded out so we can gain 10-20 metres before kicking a long bomb towards the wing.

 

[Silvagnis]

I like the last ROK video the most.

O'keeffe showed a good turn of speed on the last line of defence and moved it on quickly with raking kicks. There were a couple of nice one-two's from ROK after he kicked it in and followed it up to kick long to a target.

Terrific long kick.

I think Yarran runs down ROK in the last second of the third video.

The Blues have occasionally gone short and then moved it on with longer kicks following kick ins.

We just need more movement up the ground with players willing to run hard to win their own ball by providing a target. And not cheat by running ahead of the play and look for a teammate to give it to you. The Crows obviously did a great job to flood the half backline and midfield to shut down any targets.

 

[thylacine60]

My favourite tactic is hanging my head as low as possible so I can neither see the kick-out or the inevitable opposition goal. Also find a fair bit of change and un-sucked mints that way.