The Zone.

[King Elvis]

Why are we trying to play it at this point in time?

I'm a fan of the zone - we saw last year just how very effective it could be in the right circumstances; but those circumstances are currently beyond us;

• Superfit players who can run both ways all day.
• A team of experienced players who understand the game plan completely and know how to play it.

At present, we have neither of those things - meaning the Zone is consistently getting taken apart - WITH EASE.

Players aren't fit/quick enough to exploit the turnover, or run hard enough to gain space.

Players aren't experienced enough to know when to guard space, when to guard a man and when to run off a player.

I have always been a Craig supporter, and I still am... But I'm at a loss, I can't for the life of me understand why the **** we are persisting with this style of player when it is blatantly obvious that we are currently unable to execute it effectively?

Spoiler

Is Suzie Olsen involved in the development of our gameplan?!

 

[WhySoSerious]

This image leads me to believe its the other Olsen......

 

[Harris Pilton]

I don't think I fully understand the concept of the zone. I gather it means that, instead of playing on a direct opponent, you occupy and control an area of the ground. Makes sense if your side is in possession of the ball, but what's the point of owning a piece of turf if the opposition has the ball? They won't be kicking it to your patch.

Would be obliged if someone could explain the zone to me, or direct me to an explanation.

 

[jenny61_99]

I don't think I fully understand the concept of the zone. I gather it means that, instead of playing on a direct opponent, you occupy and control an area of the ground. Makes sense if your side is in possession of the ball, but what's the point of owning a piece of turf if the opposition has the ball? They won't be kicking it to your patch.

Would be obliged if someone could explain the zone to me, or direct me to an explanation.

I think, but am not sure, that the zone is used when the opposition have possession - it is aimed at making it as difficult as possible for them to retain possession - or so the theory goes. I think it is a defensive play? Like KE suggested in the OP, it looks a million dollars when executed effectively. Unfortunately we look a million miles from achieving said effectiveness.

KE - I wonder if Craig persists because he knows it works when everyone is marching to the same drum and that it will eventually fall into place again?

 

[The Sloane Ranger]

Elvis

Good post as I believe the zone is the key issue that needs to be debated

In Short, yes there is a place for the zone game plan however my concern is that depending on the situation of the game or our opposition we do not have the ability to switch from a zone to a man on man game style

My #1 issue with the zone is that it relies on the opposition turning the ball over before lauching your offensive plan, it encourages players to defend space rather than encouraging them to win the footy

have we have forgotten the art of wiinning the contested footy?

 

[King Elvis]

KE - I wonder if Craig persists because he knows it works when everyone is marching to the same drum and that it will eventually fall into place again?

Most likely, but at what cost?

By the time we're all fit and firing, we could potentially be 0-6 and our season is over; coming home in a rush isn't going to matter if it results in us finishing 9th instead of 12th.

Sloane, probably not a bad call either - surely now is time to ring the alarm bells (so to speak) and go back to basics; forget the zone (FOR NOW) and go man on man, and start demanding nothing more than accountability and a contest from every single player on the field.

 

[subaru]

Most likely, but at what cost?

By the time we're all fit and firing, we could potentially be 0-6 and our season is over; coming home in a rush isn't going to matter if it results in us finishing 9th instead of 12th.

Sloane, probably not a bad call either - surely now is time to ring the alarm bells (so to speak) and go back to basics; forget the zone (FOR NOW) and go man on man, and start demanding nothing more than accountability and a contest from every single player on the field.

Roo said that on Triple MMM yesterday...

 

[King Elvis]

I love that guy.

 

[Vader]

The thing is that the zone does work and works really well - when executed properly. Hawthorn won a flag using it in 2008. St Kilda were a proverbial away from doing likewise in 2009, having conceded fewer points than any other side in donkey's years - despite having a back 6 which aren't exactly the envy of most other teams (Zac Dawson for Pete's sake).

The thing is that it's an extremely physically onerous tactic and if one player isn't pulling his weight then the whole thing can come crashing down. Right now, we have about 15 players who aren't pulling their weight for one reason or another.

I'm not convinced that its the right tactic for us right now, due to the shortcomings in our team at present. I'm also not convinced that we've worked hard enough on our own tactics to overcome the zones setup by our opponents. However, the tactic remains a valid one if we can only get the team to execute it correctly.

 

[Crow-mo]

no. the issue is not the how physically onerous it is to setup, it takes minimal effort. it takes time and we do not even set it up very much at the moment.

it isn't failing because we don't actually get it in place.

the other big issue with the zone, and any other zone for that matter, is the players switching out of it. you do not stand your ground, and hold space when there is an opponent to close in on and shut down.

we do not setup quick enough, and most of all we hesitate and don't switch effectively.

 

[Vader]

As I said.. the tactic itself is valid. It's our execution of it which has been poor.

 

[WALL-e]

We're not rotating well. We're putting half arsed pressure on the ball, which allows an easy pass over that zone line, and behind the next line have only half pushed up so they're neither here nor there.

Really have to react quicker with more furocity.

 

[crow4life]

The thing is that the zone does work and works really well - when executed properly. Hawthorn won a flag using it in 2008. St Kilda were a proverbial away from doing likewise in 2009, having conceded fewer points than any other side in donkey's years - despite having a back 6 which aren't exactly the envy of most other teams (Zac Dawson for Pete's sake).

The thing is that it's an extremely physically onerous tactic and if one player isn't pulling his weight then the whole thing can come crashing down. Right now, we have about 15 players who aren't pulling their weight for one reason or another.

I'm not convinced that its the right tactic for us right now, due to the shortcomings in our team at present. I'm also not convinced that we've worked hard enough on our own tactics to overcome the zones setup by our opponents. However, the tactic remains a valid one if we can only get the team to execute it correctly.

Agreed Vader but what we are witnessing here is a coach who is so fixated on this particular tactic to the detriment of the team.The man is so pig headed and stubborn and will never change even if it eventually costs him his job.Blind Freddy can see we are not capable of executing this demanding style but we just persist in hope that it will all just turn rosy.The zone tactic is becoming less effective as clubs identify ways to penetrate it and as such big scores are being kicked against this defense on a regular basis.It is no surprise that the two clubs in Adelaide and Hawthorn who are heavy users of zone tactics are both struggling.
This zoning tactic was taken directly from basketball and as in basketball smart coaches are able to work out how to break it down and score against it. Same thing is happening in footy.Zoning is a tactic not a whole game plan.Makes players unaccountable and lazy.Time to give man on man a go imho to at least see if we can compete.

 

[Macjoe]

no. the issue is not the how physically onerous it is to setup, it takes minimal effort. it takes time and we do not even set it up very much at the moment.

it isn't failing because we don't actually get it in place.

the other big issue with the zone, and any other zone for that matter, is the players switching out of it. you do not stand your ground, and hold space when there is an opponent to close in on and shut down.

we do not setup quick enough, and most of all we hesitate and don't switch effectively.

Agree entirely. This is it, we don't successfully zone and starve the opposition, and when they take advantage of our failure we don't adjust quickly.

And why - fitness/form issues? I think that's what KE is suggesting in the OP.

Or confidence/headset? (Of course, I may just favour this because it is reversable ).

I think player confidence and attitude is the most significant factor at the moment, while acknowledging the serious impact injury, lack of match fitness and form have had on our playing group.

And there are other factors impacting - improvement and tactic changes in opposition teams, for example, with a very quick close and tackle, that holds the ball in or causes a spillage. A revelation over the last four weeks to see the success teams that elect to close in on rather than corral the ball-carrier have had. Effective, hard tackling is really making a difference.

And I guess a side-product of training to tackle is that tackled players get better at releasing the ball to advantage. We don't seem to do either.

 

[smoovy]

Zoning also relies on your ability to close down the opposition and force a turnover. We are ****ing useless at doing this. We get close to the opposition, but there is not enough pressure or the tackle is poor and the handball gets away.

 

[RandB]

Guys, hope you don't mind some comments from an outsider.

This thread IMO is on the money. When a club such as Adelaide has a highly engineered game plan, the losses due to injury are magnified due to inexperienced players filling the void (as has been said here). Your injury numbers have been diabolical and obviously inturrupted pre-seasons seem evident atm. Definitely a double edged sword on your gameplan - with best 22 and typical AFC conditioning you guys are awesome.

Anyhow, after the Swans game, Roos was interviewed and he interestingly said that they knew that the Crows would play a certain style of footy and stick with it all day. I doubt he put too much thought into that comment and was just making the usual polite conversation with the interviewer but when you think about it it is quite telling. Opposition teams are on to the fact that regardless of whether Adelaide have a plan B or not, they won't use it anyway. I thought I would add this to an already good discussion.

As far as Craig goes, there is no doubt he knows exactly what is going wrong and why - he has to address whether to stick with it, like he did with kids in the middle last year when you had some early losses or make changes and compromise (what he thinks) is the long term structure and plan. Will be interesting to see what happens.

 

[crowsup]

I have a question for you guys that believe we should change tactics and go man on man.
i agree I may be wrong but it is my belief that the zoning was created to hide the deficiencies of some players when going man on man.
In other words, when man on man you have to rely on individual players to out play his immediate opponent. While using the zoning tactics, allows more than one player to get to any contest. In fact, if the zoning is done in time and correctly, it forces the opposition into playing along the flanks a lot which, in turn, makes it harder for the opposition to score.
As I have said, I may very well be wrong in the above assumption, but the one thing I have noticed in the last 4 games is the fact that there has been very few times when our players have been able to win a contest when one on one. I cannot remember many players winning their position except for Burton in the last two games, Dangerfield most of the times, and maybe Rutten.
Maybe you forgot that the main reason that Collingwood overcome us last year in the PF, was in the 3rd quarter when they were able to force us into man on man.

So... I think that, at the moment with the personnel we have playing at the moment, If we were to go man on man, we would get killed. (more so than we are getting killed now)

Is this a fair assumption? Or am I delusional?

 

[Crow-mo]

i agree I may be wrong but it is my belief that the zoning was created to hide the deficiencies of some players when going man on man.

so you are saying our problems are more to do with recruiting and list quality?

 

[crowsup]

so you are saying our problems are more to do with recruiting and list quality?

I guess that what I'm saying is that the list we have '"at the moment"", is not good enough.
What surprises me the most is that the same list looked extremely promising at the end of last year.
What is in dispute is why is the list no longer as good as last year.

 

[subaru]

Too in depth for me. It's really a pretty simple game isn't it? Maybe that's the problem ...everyone is trying to be a bit too clever...zones/frontal pressure/ blah blah ..back to basics I say .....

 

[crowsup]

Too in depth for me. It's really a pretty simple game isn't it? Maybe that's the problem ...everyone is trying to be a bit too clever...zones/frontal pressure/ blah blah ..back to basics I say .....

I think that there will never be a "back to basics" era. It has been proved that it no longer wins enough games to count.

 

[Klug]

Maybe you forgot that the main reason that Collingwood overcome us last year in the PF, was in the 3rd quarter when they were able to force us into man on man.

So... I think that, at the moment with the personnel we have playing at the moment, If we were to go man on man, we would get killed. (more so than we are getting killed now)

Is this a fair assumption? Or am I delusional?

I don't think you're delusional, but we simply don't know what would happen if we went man-on-man for 4 qtrs, for 5 rounds in a row, because it hasn't been a strategy we've employed for a couple of years now.

I would actually back most of the Crows players to win or at least break even in their positions one on one when fully fit, with the exception of Doughty, Edwards, Douglas, and Reilly and Stevens when they're off the boil.

I disagree that Collingwood forcing us into man-on-man won them the final.

The turning point I believe was when they began to smash us in every centre square clearance, plus by then we had lost Knights to injury, and Burton was stuffed due to lack of match fitness. Plus Collingwood would have known we were on the backfoot officially, because all of a sudden we dropped a loose man back after 2 consecutive opposition goals!

 

[crowsup]

I don't think you're delusional, but we simply don't know what would happen if we went man-on-man for 4 qtrs, for 5 rounds in a row, because it hasn't been a strategy we've employed for a couple of years now.

I would actually back most of the Crows players to win or at least break even in their positions one on one when fully fit, with the exception of Doughty, Edwards, Douglas, and Reilly and Stevens when they're off the boil.

I disagree that Collingwood forcing us into man-on-man won them the final.

The turning point I believe was when they began to smash us in every centre square clearance, plus by then we had lost Knights to injury, and Burton was stuffed due to lack of match fitness. Plus Collingwood would have known we were on the backfoot officially, because all of a sudden we dropped a loose man back after 2 consecutive opposition goals!

It may not have won them the game, but it sure helped them get rid of 28 points deficit.

Using the loss of Knights, and Burton's lack of conditioning, cannot be used as an excuse. After all we, are not allowed to forgive the loss to Melbourne this year, even though we had no bench to call upon.

 

[subaru]

I think that there will never be a "back to basics" era. It has been proved that it no longer wins enough games to count.

I'm not advocating lace up guernseys ...

I'm just asking for accountability and better than 60% efficiency in disposals,.

 

[crowsup]

I'm not advocating lace up guernseys ...

I'm just asking for accountability and better than 60% efficiency in disposals,.

I think I misconstrued your post.
I agree that players should be berated for not producing what they have previously shown they can produce. They should be made to practice basic skills a lot longer.