Using the Centre Corridor!

[PremierPie13]

In the first quarter against the Swans we used the corridor effectively twice in succession leading to Sidebottom and Blair goals. I realise our gameplan is most often going down the line and using the wings, but as teams react to our style using various tactics (like sydney taking kickouts down the middle etc), surely with skills of the team they could incorporate it into the structures?

I'm not questioning our gameplan, merely asking for your opinion. I remember somewhere hearing Buckley discuss this, stressing he would've liked to use the corridor a bit more, granted this was before we won the flag last year

 

[Zahki]

I've actually wondered this myself. One one hand you don't want to tinker with what works too much, and it's probably a bit late in the season for them to do any experimenting now but next year might be the time to start playing some corridor football again. From what I've heard from Malthouse the boundary style was to accomodate not having many elite kicks in our side, if they missed a target it would either be punched out for a stoppage or it would come back a lot slower than a turnover in the center square. Now I think we have enough players in the side who can be relied on to hit the targets it might be worth it to start attacking through the corridor a bit more, if only to prevent us from being too predictable. I suspect it might be a change that Bucks institutes, I've got a feeling he's a fan of corridor footy.

 

[Swooop]

I've actually wondered this myself. One one hand you don't want to tinker with what works too much, and it's probably a bit late in the season for them to do any experimenting now but next year might be the time to start playing some corridor football again. From what I've heard from Malthouse the boundary style was to accomodate not having many elite kicks in our side, if they missed a target it would either be punched out for a stoppage or it would come back a lot slower than a turnover in the center square. Now I think we have enough players in the side who can be relied on to hit the targets it might be worth it to start attacking through the corridor a bit more, if only to prevent us from being too predictable. I suspect it might be a change that Bucks institutes, I've got a feeling he's a fan of corridor footy.

Hope so,

We used the corridor 4th qtr v Adelaide when we were i deep doodah out of desperation...and kcked 10 or 11 goals in 18 mins or whatever.

Guess we won a flag with the boundary gameplan, so can't be all bad!!
But think we now have the players to rip the corridor a little more often than we do.

 

[Scodog10]

For mine the most frustrating times are when they don't even look into the corridor and just religiously go wide. However playing the boundary has been ultra successful for us so it would be a brave move to make such a structural change to the game plan whether it be this year or next. Put simply we're better off following the path of if it ain't broke don't fix it!

 

[10571z]

Our gameplan will evolve and hopefully we stay just ahead of the pack. With jolly back it will give us a better marking target and we have th crummers to do damage.

 

[Frankie23]

It's a common misconception that we don't use the corridor. Yes of course we chip around the boundary, and that occurs deep in defence and on the wing like any other disciplined team would do. However once we get it past centre wing more often then not we bring it inside.

And why tinker with a gameplan that is working? Using the centre corridor is overrated...

 

[Ed D]

I get why we don't use the corridor all that much. It means we have to leave it open and then run into it when we have the ball. If we have a turnover it results in a quick passage of play to our defensive 50 where our players have probably zoned off going for attack. It works both ways.

 

[Scodog10]

It's a common misconception that we don't use the corridor. Yes of course we chip around the boundary, and that occurs deep in defence and on the wing like any other disciplined team would do. However once we get it past centre wing more often then not we bring it inside.

That's not using the corridor that's taking the boundary and then kicking to the hotspot. Which we currently do extremely well! Using the corridor is getting the ball into the centre of the ground at the earliest opportunity. It's something that Melbourne, Richmond and North Melbourne all tried against us this year with varying degrees of shitness being the overall outcome.

 

[vjknight]

From what I've heard from Malthouse the boundary style was to accomodate not having many elite kicks in our side, if they missed a target it would either be punched out for a stoppage or it would come back a lot slower than a turnover in the center square. Now I think we have enough players in the side who can be relied on to hit the targets it might be worth it to start attacking through the corridor a bit more, if only to prevent us from being too predictable. I suspect it might be a change that Bucks institutes, I've got a feeling he's a fan of corridor footy.

For mine the most frustrating times are when they don't even look into the corridor and just religiously go wide. However playing the boundary has been ultra successful for us so it would be a brave move to make such a structural change to the game plan whether it be this year or next. Put simply we're better off following the path of if it ain't broke don't fix it!

watch the grand finals from last year again (not just for fun this time ) and listen for a comment of leigh matthews re:coaching against malthouse in the 90's vs the eagles. they hugged the boundary frequently too. he argued it took precise kicking to master such a tactic.
ive since watched the 92 & 94 GF's and much of their game style is exactly that used by us last year. i think once mick is comfortable he has the cattle to run with this preferred game plan, he sticks to it.
also the corridor is seemingly only used when someone is blatantly clear, rather than a policy. comments in last years GF's highlight the desire to create angles and therefore multiple options once approaching 50. that is certainly easier from the boundary rather than down the corridor.

 

[Scodog10]

watch the grand finals from last year again (not just for fun this time ) and listen for a comment of leigh matthews re:coaching against malthouse in the 90's vs the eagles. they hugged the boundary frequently too. he argued it took precise kicking to master such a tactic.
ive since watched the 92 & 94 GF's and much of their game style is exactly that used by us last year. i think once mick is comfortable he has the cattle to run with this preferred game plan, he sticks to it.
also the corridor is seemingly only used when someone is blatantly clear, rather than a policy. comments in last years GF's highlight the desire to create angles and therefore multiple options once approaching 50. that is certainly easier from the boundary rather than down the corridor.

If you go down the wing that last kick coming in you basically eliminate one third of the ground as an avenue of attack (because it means an 80 metre kick to get the ball to the far side) thus making it harder to attack than when straight in front because you have less room to work in. So when you said easier I think safer may have been more correct.

For example if you're 70 metres out on the let's say the great southern stand wing the only options you have are to kick central or to kick to the great southern stand pocket. This will mean that more players are in that area (they know that the ball will most likely be in this half of the forward 50) making it harder for the opposition to rebound it if we lose possession. It causes congestion which in turn creates a stoppage and we're the best in the league at scoring from stoppages so it really does play into our hands.

Whereas if you have the ball 70 metres out directly in front it opens up the entire forward 50 with whatever angles you please. This option may provide a better avenue for attack but conversely because there's more space if the ball comes to ground it may be easier for the opposition to rebound.

So the boundaries not really an easier avenue of attack just safer, in that if we do make a mistake we're far more likely to get a second chance to score than if we go down the corridor.

 

[PremierPie13]

Even a post on the BigFooty forums about "the best handball" is a play that gets us a goal from going down the corridor. The game vs Sydney was one of the few times we used these sorts of plays and they were extremely effective. Put the ball in pendlebury's hands in the centre corridor and he looks SO much dangerous just have a look at the steele sidebottom goal for clarification

http://www.gameanalyser.afl.com.au/...04&eventType=Goal&seek=4970&videoQuality=high

The blair one is directly after that and the handball, while it was the result of a turnover is the 3rd Cloke goal in the 3rd quarter.

While the simple mentality might be to do whats working, I can see a similar situation occurring this year to last years drawn grand final where our structures get predictable and we panic, just like when we were bombing it inside our 50 against the Saints in September. Our press is obviously irrelevant when discussing the corridor so there's no need to revamp much at all. Just give it to Thomas and let him run 1000 miles an hour down the middle!

 

[jmac70]

I'm just happy that we have a game plan that has resulted in 2 loses in 28 games and a flag.

If it ain't broke......