So where will we improve?

[DaveW]

But going wide means it also takes more time to get the ball into the forward line... which also allows the opposition to flood back.

 

[maccas_no1]

Originally posted by naughty monkey
Playing down the corridor is exactly what teams that flood the half back line want. That is why there was a deliberate change in the game plan from round 20 onwards.

As Brisbane and Port have shown time and again, they way to beat the flood is DONT kick to a contest (i.e down the corridor). You play wide to spread the defence to create the space that a quick leading forward or a hard running midfielder can use.

You need forwards who move (i.e lead) lots and the ball carrier to constantly move the ball and switch the play form side to side (Kenny M's biggest flaw). This also helps to create the space for the forwards. The longer you hang onto the ball the worse of you are. A defending team loves nothing more than time to reposition itself.

It requires very good skills to work because it means handling the ball a lot and you also need pinpoint disposal because of the confined space available inside 50.
The game plan itself will work against a flood, but you need a far better drilled and skilled squad than we have to do it.

How many of the teams we played in Rnd's 20,21 and 22 did 'flood' though??????? NONE lets face it in those three weeks the AFC lost the plot, we go from an absolute high of being the only team to win in the West, 2nd spot on the ladder and having a real showing in the finals, to just a complete flop, and from a supporters point of view came down to a couple of things:

*Poor coaching, why change a game plan that is working?????Why have a game plan that suits if the other team is flooding when they arent??????
*Poor Game Plan see above
*Im not sure on this one but also lack of commitment from the players, especially against Kangaroos, that was just woeful

Play that gameplan when it suit otherwise go the quick and direct road to home DOWN THE CORRIDOR

 

[tribey]

Originally posted by Kane McGoodwin
Using the draw as excuse is pathetic IMO. If you are good enough, you can beat the odds.

If we're good enough...
If we get Welsh, Carey and Stevens up and going...
If McLeod, Bode and Goodwin improve...

All we have to go on is Ifs - and so do the rest of the league in that regard.

What is a fact is that our draw in the first 12 rounds is an absolute bloody shocker. Even if everything falls into place form and fitness-wise for us, we'll need to be on the top of our game to turn at the halfway mark with at least a 50% win-loss record.

 

[ok.crows]

Originally posted by napsyd
This all depends on what you mean by improvement.

If we had a complete injury free 2004 with all of our players playing at their optimum then would be improve our overall results?

...

Hence my conclusion that we won't "improve" as such. There is nothing negative about it really. "Improvement" based on player X not getting injured, well, to my mind that is luck, not improvement.

I agree with what you say here, you are of course correct.

However, if you take "improvement" to mean - can our result from next year be an improvement over 2003 ? - then absolutely !! "YES" is the answer to that question.

In 2003 we had a reasonable season (but let ourselves down at the end), despite having no settled forward line, despite improtant players to our structure missing most of the year, and despite losing nearly every one of our close but quite winnable matches.

If it is just "unlucky" to have had a downer year with injury & close results, then there is some optimism to be had in thinking that most years we won't be that unlucky again.

 

[Stiffy_18]

Originally posted by maccas_no1
How many of the teams we played in Rnd's 20,21 and 22 did 'flood' though??????? NONE lets face it

Marty, are you serious??????

Rd20: Collingwood, they flood a lot
Rd21: Kangaroos play the Collingwood style, which means they flood
Rd22: Port, They flood too.

Even Brisbane floods at times.

 

[tribey]

Originally posted by Stiffy_18
Marty, are you serious??????

Rd20: Collingwood, they flood a lot
Rd21: Kangaroos play the Collingwood style, which means they flood
Rd22: Port, They flood too.

Even Brisbane floods at times.

I have the answer:

- "Pick #14... Adelaide Football Club."

- "Player number 1216370, Noah, Japhethite Football Club"

 

[macca23]

Originally posted by dyertribe
I have the answer:

- "Pick #14... Adelaide Football Club."

- "Player number 1216370, Noah, Japhethite Football Club"

We already have him dyertribe.

Noah was the Old Testament name for Nigel.

 

[maccas_no1]

Originally posted by Stiffy_18
Marty, are you serious??????

Rd20: Collingwood, they flood a lot
Rd21: Kangaroos play the Collingwood style, which means they flood
Rd22: Port, They flood too.

Even Brisbane floods at times.

In THOSE games DID THEY FLOOD NO THEY DIDNT , they played an attacking game of football, in those particular games

 

[Stiffy_18]

Originally posted by maccas_no1
In THOSE games DID THEY FLOOD NO THEY DIDNT , they played an attacking game of football, in those particular games

Yes THEY DID. The way they play is to flood their half back line get the possesion and then chip it around to keep possesion

 

[Portia]

I'd say that most sensible sides would flood (specifically play a loose man) against the Crows with their current game plan....the patented Adelaide long bomb forward is like manna from heaven.

In fact, those three teams named are all particularly notable for playing a loose man back, be it Cloke, Montgomery or White/Brennan.

A fit Carey should go some way towards correcting this problem.

 

[HighReeve]

Originally posted by Kane McGoodwin
If sides finished based on their draw, Essendon & Collingwood would be top-2 most years!

They seem to get all there wishes fulfilled because they are ''non-interstate'' teams pathetic this is the AFL

BTW whats so wrong about your draw? I haven't seen much of it

 

[HighReeve]

I looked at your fixture and you do have it bad I had thought we ''Sydney'' have a bad draw but that it must be hard to take.