I never really noticed until the Northern Blues VFL game last week, but it seems that Ratten is building a team around two tenets: (1) fast and (2) flexible.
The first point is no great secret, and it was gratifying to see it work last night in the last quarter when Richmond ran out of legs in a big way.
However, the second point is what I find interesting, and I'd be curious to know if any other team has been built around so many players being expected to play at least two roles. I know this isn't rocket science and that other teams do it, but if you look down our playing list, it seems that almost everyone has two positions they can play.
Henderson, Walker, Thornton: swingmen who can play both ends. Interesting to see that Watson and Rowe were being used in the same way in the VFL, with Hyde noting that he was having to get used to "the Carlton" way of coaching.
Armfield, Gibbs, Scotland, Yarran: smaller defensive players who are encouraged to stream forward for opportunistic goals. Four goals out of these guys last night. Also able to play short bursts in the middle.
Carrazzo, Robinson: mid/forwards who can play shut down roles.
There are others, and I'm not going to list ruck/forwards or midfield/forwards because every team has or wants those.
Obviously, positional flexibility is a bonus: if someone's having a crap day, you can throw them down the other end for a quarter and see what happens. Also invaluable for covering injuries. However, arguably you can miss out on some of the gains a player makes when they spend their entire careers in one position. Here, I'm thinking of the way that Whitnall and Koutoufides (ignoring the obvious injuries) might have been better players if they'd been allowed to spend their entire careers as a forward/ on the ball.
Anyway, that's what I took from last night's game. If Ratten can squeeze a premiership out of it, I wouldn't be surprised if it becomes standard practice across the clubs for the next few years.
The first point is no great secret, and it was gratifying to see it work last night in the last quarter when Richmond ran out of legs in a big way.
However, the second point is what I find interesting, and I'd be curious to know if any other team has been built around so many players being expected to play at least two roles. I know this isn't rocket science and that other teams do it, but if you look down our playing list, it seems that almost everyone has two positions they can play.
Henderson, Walker, Thornton: swingmen who can play both ends. Interesting to see that Watson and Rowe were being used in the same way in the VFL, with Hyde noting that he was having to get used to "the Carlton" way of coaching.
Armfield, Gibbs, Scotland, Yarran: smaller defensive players who are encouraged to stream forward for opportunistic goals. Four goals out of these guys last night. Also able to play short bursts in the middle.
Carrazzo, Robinson: mid/forwards who can play shut down roles.
There are others, and I'm not going to list ruck/forwards or midfield/forwards because every team has or wants those.
Obviously, positional flexibility is a bonus: if someone's having a crap day, you can throw them down the other end for a quarter and see what happens. Also invaluable for covering injuries. However, arguably you can miss out on some of the gains a player makes when they spend their entire careers in one position. Here, I'm thinking of the way that Whitnall and Koutoufides (ignoring the obvious injuries) might have been better players if they'd been allowed to spend their entire careers as a forward/ on the ball.
Anyway, that's what I took from last night's game. If Ratten can squeeze a premiership out of it, I wouldn't be surprised if it becomes standard practice across the clubs for the next few years.
