What is 'Accountable Footy' exactly?

[rodgerfox]

We keep hearing this.

Accountable footy. Be more accountable.

What do our guys mean byt this exactly?

When I last played, about 10 years ago now, being accountable meant you had a man - and you were accountable that he didn't get the ball.

It was pretty simple. You didn't run off and get your own ball, your priority was ensuring your man didn't influence the game for his team.

I see a couple of issues with our concept of 'accountability'.

For one, I think there is some confusion.

Are we supposed to be accountable for our direct opponent? Or accountable for your own section of the ground (ie. a zone)?

Cause clearly, with us being massively down on posessions compared t our opponents, we aren't being accountable for our direct opponent, that's for sure.

Secondly, does the concept of stopping your opponent first then worrying about getting the ball yourself second sow that seed of doubt in the heads of the clearance players?

For me, the best way to win a clearance or any contest is to attack it. Be first to the pill, get your hands on it first. Be aggressive with your intent.

We simply aren't winning enough contests. We don't have many players at all who consistently win their contests. To be frank, we even lack guys who consistently break even in a contest (ie. don't get outright beaten).

As I've posted in a previous thread, Sam Fisher, Max, Harves and Bakes are the only ones who win contests consistently. Lenny and Luke not quite, but are getting there - Saturday night aside. Roo gets beaten quite alot, but the way the ball comes in makes it very hard for him.


So, this 'accountable' footy. What is it exactly for a start? Are we confused as to what it is exactly we're meant to be doing? And thirdly, is half our list suited to being 'accountable' or do we need to wait 3 years before we negate the natural instinct from attacking players?

Or will we delist good attacking players that don't fit our negative style of play?

The best way to stop your man getting the ball is to have it in your own hands.

[vacuous space]

I think flooding or dropping loose men back is contrary to the idea of accountability. Once you've got extras back it becomes a real issue of who's responsible for whom. Too often our players are solely focused on preventing a goal and sacrifice field position without applying any pressure. We allow the opposition to chip it around outside fifty until they get a short pass option. We'd be better off having less guys in defensive fifty and applying more pressure on the ball carrier, backing our defenders to get a spoil and win the groundball.

[rodgerfox]

I think flooding or dropping loose men back is contrary to the idea of accountability. Once you've got extras back it becomes a real issue of who's responsible for whom. Too often our players are solely focused on preventing a goal and sacrifice field position without applying any pressure. We allow the opposition to chip it around outside fifty until they get a short pass option. We'd be better off having less guys in defensive fifty and applying more pressure on the ball carrier, backing our defenders to get a spoil and win the groundball.

That's what I don't get.

If we're being so 'accountable' under Lyon, why does no one have a man?

What is meant by 'accountable'?

[saint66au]

"one on one" footy in a bygone era meant lots of evenly spread contests all over the ground.

Nowadays if you are "accountable for your man" rather than a zone, you both run the length of the field 15 times a quarter

[rodgerfox]

"one on one" footy in a bygone era meant lots of evenly spread contests all over the ground.

Nowadays if you are "accountable for your man" rather than a zone, you both run the length of the field 15 times a quarter

We certainly don't appear to be playing a 'one on one' game.

So what exactly are we supposedly accountable for?

[Beej]

We keep hearing this.

Accountable footy. Be more accountable.

What do our guys mean byt this exactly?

Ross heard Paul Roos use the word in a press conference once and he thought that the word sounded cool so he decided to use it himself.

[fingers]

Made harder by the number of interchanges. A player will never bloody know who his man is. Too many times opposition players are on their own. Geelong know how to handle it - they run to space when they have the ball...then close down when they dont.

[BringBackMadDog]

This is a great point Rodger. One of my pet hates is how when the opposition gets possession across half back the entire side just fall back into defence and let them stroll down the field until they get the ball into a dangerous zone. Then if we do win possession we look up and see a wall of opposition to kick to. I watched a few games on the weekend and one thing I admired about the Hawthorn side is when the opposition took possession they were swarmed on, no eay kicks to loose men it was man on man smothering which caused turn overs and then quick movement into the forward line. Pretty simple stuff really

[rodgerfox]

Made harder by the number of interchanges. A player will never bloody know who his man is. Too many times opposition players are on their own. Geelong know how to handle it - they run to space when they have the ball...then close down when they dont.

I believe this comes down to confidence on your teammates winning contests.

As a midfielder, if you see the ball going into your defence you have two options really.

1. get down there and help either in the air, or on the ground
2. run to space in the assumption your defender will clear the ball

Currently, if I was Lenny Hayes and I saw the ball was heading for a contest in our defense, unless Max was involved - I'd get down there quick. I'd have to.
Then if we win the contest, all our mids are too deep and we become stagnant moving forward.

If I was James Bartel and the ball was heading into my defence, I'd run to space. Because I'm confident - infact I outright know, that either Scarlett, Milburn or Egan will be involved and either win it clearly, or at least break even. I end up getting the ball 30 metres in the clear and can setup going forward. Chances are about 4 other runners had the same idea I did so we can sweep through the midfield in numbers.


Now it's not as straight forward as that every time, you do need to get back and help out at times, but the point is we simply don't have guys across the ground winning contests like we did a couple of years ago.

We have the same guys, it's just that now they get beaten. Why?

[saint66au]

This is a great point Rodger. One of my pet hates is how when the opposition gets possession across half back the entire side just fall back into defence and let them stroll down the field until they get the ball into a dangerous zone. Then if we do win possession we look up and see a wall of opposition to kick to. I watched a few games on the weekend and one thing I admired about the Hawthorn side is when the opposition took possession they were swarmed on, no eay kicks to loose men it was man on man smothering which caused turn overs and then quick movement into the forward line. Pretty simple stuff really

Yep good point. But the trouble is that on Friday night the opposition didnt just stroll down the field, they ignited the afterburners and RAN HARD then thumped it 50m down field. When our HB line is faced with a similar scenario, they just jog up and down on the spot, ignoring the 40m of clear space in front of them and just look for someone to lead up for an uncontested posession. Jason Gram is a serial offender at this. Apparently backing your forward line to either take a contested mark or crumb the spilled ball is against team rules.

[joffaboy]

I find it amusing, I must say, to hear supporters yellnig 'man up" when it is patently obvious that the team zones back while in defence.

It is a bloody good question RodgerFox and one that I have not got the ability in football knowledge to answer.

However I think what you are driving at is something I have been pondering, what does the word Accountable mean in modern football nowdays, especially with a game plan that has a whole team flooding back and then trying to run and carry out of defence.??????

Got me beat.

[bigcarl]

i think there's a tendency to make football more complicated than it is.

let's face it. it is a simple game.

as yabby jeans once said there are only three possible scenarios: "either we've got it, they've got it or the ball is in dispute."

the best gameplans are simple. get the ball and kick a goal or move it quickly to a teammate. if they've got it get it back.

too many try to elevate it to some sort of tactical science.

[saintspremiers]

great post Rog.....the guts of it is that our players just don't seem to know how to play the zone defence game plan.....they understand I think what Rossy wants them to do, but just can't execute it, especially when it comes to counter attack.

Perhaps its not due to a lack of speed or fitness, but perhaps it's a lack of confidence in applying the plan???

[Richter]

The best way to stop your man getting the ball is to have it in your own hands.

Spot on. We need BALL winners in the middle. No point in having Blake AND Leigh Fisher tagging and being taken on to the ball. Their blokes will always get first possession.

That's where Bakes has become such a great tagger, because he can tag AND win the ball and do something with it when he does. I struggle to remember either of the above named players picking up a clearance last Friday night.

What's wrong with having tough players who can win the ball. We haven't adequately replaced Powell and Thompson, both of whom had their flaws, but at least they could win the football.

Problem is who to bring in who can do this? Armitage probably, Baker when the AFL deem it allowable...... ?play X more on the ball. Ditto Dal.

[ROLS-LEE]

being accountable has many meanings in a team game whether it be defence or attack and us the supporters can have different ideas than the coach.

eg Milne

can be accountable when he kicks to the hotspot (goals sqaure) if he is less likely of kicking a goal.
when picking his man up from a kick out
when staying at ground level at pass to kosi G-train Roo
Forward pressure
tackling
picking up a loose man in a kickout or stoppage.
doing a set team task
zoneing
etc.

[kalsaint]

"one on one" footy in a bygone era meant lots of evenly spread contests all over the ground.

Nowadays if you are "accountable for your man" rather than a zone, you both run the length of the field 15 times a quarter

We certainly don't appear to be playing a 'one on one' game.

So what exactly are we supposedly accountable for?

Ok I will have a go at this.

Axxountable footy does not mean standing on you oppos toes as in yesteryears. This would not allow you to help the greater team effort to close down available space.

Accountability now means:
1 keep your direct opponent within a resonable distance.
2 Assist your team mates to close down space where opposition will run to.
3 Accountability means dont give away rediculous free kicks in tghe back line (rules dont favour backmen close to their opponents any longer.
4 Accountability means - use teh corridor to take the best advantage of space between the goal posts.
5 Accountability is all about rendering your direct opponents effect on his team as non effective.
5 Accountability is all about following a game plan that involves the team rather than the individual.

So when the team "is caught watching the footy" its no longer accountable. Just like Friday night.

Look for a change in accountability this Saturday before you judge the team. If you dont see it, really check out the opposition as they probably are demonstrating it.

[rodgerfox]

"one on one" footy in a bygone era meant lots of evenly spread contests all over the ground.

Nowadays if you are "accountable for your man" rather than a zone, you both run the length of the field 15 times a quarter

We certainly don't appear to be playing a 'one on one' game.

So what exactly are we supposedly accountable for?

Ok I will have a go at this.

Axxountable footy does not mean standing on you oppos toes as in yesteryears. This would not allow you to help the greater team effort to close down available space.

Accountability now means:
1 keep your direct opponent within a resonable distance.
2 Assist your team mates to close down space where opposition will run to.
3 Accountability means dont give away rediculous free kicks in tghe back line (rules dont favour backmen close to their opponents any longer.
4 Accountability means - use teh corridor to take the best advantage of space between the goal posts.
5 Accountability is all about rendering your direct opponents effect on his team as non effective.
5 Accountability is all about following a game plan that involves the team rather than the individual.

So when the team "is caught watching the footy" its no longer accountable. Just like Friday night.

Look for a change in accountability this Saturday before you judge the team. If you dont see it, really check out the opposition as they probably are demonstrating it.

So when we hear them harp on about being 'accountable' and a more 'accountable' game plan, they're basically saying they're going to play good footy?

[saintsRrising]

More harping on on accountability.

King and Gardiner to rotate in the ruck. I would set King against Blake and keep Gardiner for West. This will create a competitive challenge for both ruckmen – especially King who can put the debate of last year’s Grand Final to rest - and give them an accountability focus.
http://wwos.ninemsn.com.au/Blog.aspx?bl ... ments=true

[rodgerfox]

More harping on on accountability.

King and Gardiner to rotate in the ruck. I would set King against Blake and keep Gardiner for West. This will create a competitive challenge for both ruckmen – especially King who can put the debate of last year’s Grand Final to rest - and give them an accountability focus.
http://wwos.ninemsn.com.au/Blog.aspx?bl ... ments=true

So what does it mean?

What are they accountable for?