The boundary line

[BeinPurplenGreen]

Why do we suddenly love it so much??

Why does every backline rebound or kickin after a point play lately seem to involve kickins that go wide (whether short or long) and then repeated attempts to run or kick it around the outside part of the wings??

Is our forward and half forward structure really so variable that we have given up on kicking it up the guts from kickins??

We still seem to try to get centre clearances from bounces straight down the middle, I just can't work out why we don't go down the guts more from kickins (especially with Sandi as a target).

End rant.

I guess it gives the fans on the boundary a closer look at the play??

 

[Scham]

Its the Collingwood plan that teams are adopting.

The theory is that opposition teams guard the corridor like there's no tomorrow so therefore you should be able to get an easier route out of defense along the boundary.

It does require very good foot skills though.

 

[Rob]

If you turn the ball over up the middle, you're in deep shit on the rebound with options on both sides and all the defenders out of position.
If you turn the ball over on the boundary, then it limits options for the attacking side and it's easier for defenders to cover.

 

[Freo_4eva]

If you turn the ball over up the middle, you're in deep shit on the rebound with options on both sides and all the defenders out of position.
If you turn the ball over on the boundary, then it limits options for the attacking side and it's easier for defenders to cover.

This.. Pretty much most sides are doing this now.. lower risk, you either take possession or it invariably goes out of bounds and you can re-start. We are def. going to be one of the sides that sticks with this more than most because of Sandilands.

Geelong, Melb and Richmond are the 3 i can think of which tend to do this less and still go up the guts.. high risk, high reward

 

[Nickos66]

Kicking it up the guts from full-back would be suicide. If it turns into a 50/50 ball we're in trouble as the opposition has a 360 degree scope for options to move it on and get out of congestion. Keep the boundary line kick ins and once we're in posession think about running it back through the corridor.

 

[straw]

Teams will only switch through the corridor when there is a clear path, otherwise a turnover will kill you. I would expect the trend to use the boundary line to increase too.

 

[yakka man]

I understand going along the boundary coming out of defence. But why do we insist on kicking to the boundary in our forward line. It's no wonder we kick so many points when often our shots are from difficult angles.

We do it all the time and it is so annoying because even if we do take a mark we will miss the set shot.

 

[TIME IS NOW]

I understand going along the boundary coming out of defence. But why do we insist on kicking to the boundary in our forward line. It's no wonder we kick so many points when often our shots are from difficult angles.

We do it all the time and it is so annoying because even if we do take a mark we will miss the set shot.

This is again a structural and game plan thing. We are number 1 side scoring from stoppages.

We kick to boundary line for a few reasons:

1) To obviously hit a target and shoot at goal
2) If out of bounds we play to our strength in Sandilands
3) To lock it up in our forward line which we are great at doing

If we pass down middle and miss, because of our press we can get caught on the break.

Part of the most frustrating part of our play is the ease in which opposition scores goals due to our press.

 

[BeinPurplenGreen]

If you turn the ball over up the middle, you're in deep shit on the rebound with options on both sides and all the defenders out of position.
If you turn the ball over on the boundary, then it limits options for the attacking side and it's easier for defenders to cover.

I get that this is the theory.

What worries me is that the "go along the boundary 'cause if you screw up you get hurt less" approach encourages a mindset where:

1. it is OK to have "poorish/average" footskills 'cause if you miss it will mostly go out of bounds for a throw-in which is OK; and
2. (especially) players become scared to kick back into the corridor because if they turn it over they will cop extra criticism.

From my seat in the 'G against Richmond, I saw us repeatedly ignore free players in the middle to not just kick along the boundary BUT ALSO kick along the boundary to the boundary side of packs which then meant free players both in the middle and on the inboard side of the packs were ignored.

This trend from the second half against Richmond was repeated for the whole game against West Coast.

Not only did we insist on kicking along the boundary, we almost always kicked boundary side of the boundary line pack.

I don't care if we have Sandi or not, this kind of negative football both says that:

• poor footskills are OK as long as you miss along the boundary and
• really stifles the flair, attacking thrusts and reward for good leading and accurate kicking that modern footy demands.

We seem almost to have become scared to play the corridor because, god forbid, every single attack might not be fully successful.

Actually, if we play the corridor aggressive and hard, we need less than 60% of our attacks to be scores for us to be in the top 4 sides.

Please, Sandi or no Sandi, let us just get away from the boundary fetish and get back to direct, courageous, attacking football.

Kicking it up the guts from full-back would be suicide. If it turns into a 50/50 ball we're in trouble as the opposition has a 360 degree scope for options to move it on and get out of congestion. Keep the boundary line kick ins and once we're in posession think about running it back through the corridor.

But, my point is, we've become so obsessed with the line that we almost always elect not to turn it inboard, even when players are free!!

I understand going along the boundary coming out of defence. But why do we insist on kicking to the boundary in our forward line. It's no wonder we kick so many points when often our shots are from difficult angles.

We do it all the time and it is so annoying because even if we do take a mark we will miss the set shot.

Exactly. Don't mind if a rushed kick out of the back half is along the line, but by Christ why are we always running it into our forwards along the line or on 45 or 50 degree angles???

This is again a structural and game plan thing. We are number 1 side scoring from stoppages.

We kick to boundary line for a few reasons:

1) To obviously hit a target and shoot at goal
2) If out of bounds we play to our strength in Sandilands
3) To lock it up in our forward line which we are great at doing

If we pass down middle and miss, because of our press we can get caught on the break.

Part of the most frustrating part of our play is the ease in which opposition scores goals due to our press.

I just can't agree with this. Many many of the Tigers and Eagles goals were from turnovers which were caused by our refusal to go inboard and our insistence to play along the boundary.

Up the guts boys, up the guts - you'll turn it over at least 30 % of the time, but 8 out of ten of the other thrusts will be scores!!

 

[Avid_Avenger]

I think the long kick backwards, slow switch to the opposite side of the ground, eventually turn the ball over routine we did against the Eagles shows that BPG is on the right track.

We need to at least mix up our ball movement to keep the opposition guessing.

1) If you go up the boundary line every time, very easy to defend and counter attack.

2) It promotes a defensive, stop start mindset. Mark, kick. Mark, kick. Out of bounds.

3) It curtails our run and creativity from half back becoz we're constantly kicking down the line over the zone.

4) We're only going to win if we're dominating contested marks, contested footy, tackles and stoppages, which we're not even close to doing.

It's a combination of problems. Our running backs are out of form but our game plan also denies them the chance to run and switch the play through the corridor.

I think we were far better set up last year. We'd run and spread from the back flank and head up via the edge of the centre square. Only if that was covered we'd head down the boundary.

And really, unless you're absolutely killing the game plan everyone is using you might as well try something different. Teams expect us to go down the wings. We expect teams to go down the wings.

There's a reason we've been opened up through the centre square a few times this year.

 

[Sman-21]

Also completely goes against what made us succesful last year.

It was working great
teams had no answer to our pressure all around ground.
Then when we had the ball we tried to take the game on through the corridor was always plan A.
It meant we got it down our end quicker an also alot easier to score as when kicking into 50 it can be kicked anywhere.
Whereas along boundary your cutting down your options making it easier to defend.

People can blame injuries and find many other excuses but imo the change in our gameplan an playing players out of position is our biggest problem.

Maybe if we had 2 big key forwards who could take contested marks the collingwood gameplan would be more succesful for us.
But we dont so we need to get the ball in their quickly an go through the corridor so theres more space an options when kicking inside 50.

 

[Scham]

I think the long kick backwards, slow switch to the opposite side of the ground, eventually turn the ball over routine we did against the Eagles shows that BPG is on the right track.

We need to at least mix up our ball movement to keep the opposition guessing.

1) If you go up the boundary line every time, very easy to defend and counter attack.

2) It promotes a defensive, stop start mindset. Mark, kick. Mark, kick. Out of bounds.

3) It curtails our run and creativity from half back becoz we're constantly kicking down the line over the zone.

4) We're only going to win if we're dominating contested marks, contested footy, tackles and stoppages, which we're not even close to doing.

It's a combination of problems. Our running backs are out of form but our game plan also denies them the chance to run and switch the play through the corridor.

I think we were far better set up last year. We'd run and spread from the back flank and head up via the edge of the centre square. Only if that was covered we'd head down the boundary.

And really, unless you're absolutely killing the game plan everyone is using you might as well try something different. Teams expect us to go down the wings. We expect teams to go down the wings.

There's a reason we've been opened up through the centre square a few times this year.

When have we ever done that. We have one maybe two players that consistantly take contested pack marks. It was so obvious in the Derby how much better the Egirls were at this. Lynch, Kennedy and Darling are better than every one of our players at this apart from Sandi - maybe.

Its such an advantage if you can take contested marks, especially with the zones/presses. The Egirls get it to a player out wide on his own who's got space in front of him (ala rugby) who then runs 10m and kicks 50 odd metres direct at goal, the three players mentioned know exactly where the ball is going and more often than not mark it. If they do, the team has advanced 60m (and usually over the back of the zone defense) with the prospect of moving it another 50m. If they don't mark it, the chances of their small brigade roving the pack are great as they know exactly where the pack will be and can get to it quicker and smarter.

We need Kepler and Pav taking contested marks for us. Neither do though. Mayne and McPhee try but are undersized. Sandi takes a few a game but drops more than he takes and McPharlin who's our best is forced to spoil more often than not. Fyfe is improving and can take one or two a game but even he needs to get better (which I'm sure he will).