Saintsational Fan Forum - A passionate community of St Kilda Football Club fans discussing news, history, players, trade rumours, results, AFL stats and more.
shanegrambeau wrote: ↑Mon 13 Jul 2020 9:17pm
I am happy to read the analysis on this thread and I am sort of putting together a little jigsaw of the picture for my footy brain cell.
1) We charged out of the blocks in our new running ways with this 'overlapping' thing, which I am calling redundancy running attack plan (RRAP). Freo couldn't match our tempo and we kicked well enough for it to work
2) Freo decided to flood slow and basically drove a giant cement mixer onto the park, and held onto the ball. We stopped in our tracks and they found free players thanks to our RRAP, where they zoned.
3) Our coach tell our players to do something else, (not sure of this bit) and we couldn't or wouldn't do it. We couldn't apply pressure either
4) Now the mystery. How did we manage to fight back at the death? We must have been doing something right?
5) At the very end we charged forward again and the Freo forwards stayed back, got the final goal.
Point 3. After half time we should have stacked the back half and let them come at us and just absorb the pressure in a zone with only 2 small forwards Kent and Butler, in our half between CHF and the goals, restricting them to play only in the forward 50.
Id have forced the battle to the middle of the ground where we just go ugly from scramble to scramble and challenging them to score through pressure. We should have pressed back
We still had a lead to defend.
I'd have placed Marsh and Battle permanently posted on the back of the square as 7th and 8th defenders. The mids and Membrey and King running lanes on the square lines from HF to half back, constantly switching the play from side to side. Advance, switch, retreat, repeat.
I'm not sure what the messages from the coaches were, but there was frantic rotations going on and lots of players switching positions. Watching the bench was doing my head in.
Interesting. (and in a way hopeful)
Obviously we responded. Perhaps the moves/orders etc., were too hard to follow. It means there might be hope, as we learn to gel as a team and work with instructions from the coaching set up? However, I think you, or someone else, reported no pressure acts in the third. What would be the reason for that? Players were still having a go?
We got conned into playing one side of the ground from our back half. Freo let us by conceding 2 on 1 from our back pocket and our mids pushed in that direction. That was our way out. They were playing our game better than we were. They were bottle necking us.
Their mids moved across from the other side trailing ours and their defenders advanced to cut off the wings in numbers. They were making the playing field smaller. We had no where to go but we just kept heading into congestion (edit) or scaled the boundary. Our half forwards got sucked out with them leaving heaps of space behind them and then tried to spread on the way back. We were lobbing bombs from midfield to our deep forwards across the 50 and the marks weren't sticking. We got caught out of position and couldn't pressure the rebound. Time and time again.
Ratts may have encountered the GT conundrum: How does a team that likes to attack counter the Uber Flood? Mass numbers behind the ball.
I’d much prefer that we find an attacking way to overcome it, but I’m not sure there is one with 16-minute quarters and 90 interchanges allowed.
FWIW, I think it’s a blight on the game.
It takes one-on-one contests out of the equation and makes it a dour slog if both teams commit to it. If only one team commits to it, it drags just about any opposition into an arm wrestle and the percentages may favour the flooding team. Worse still, it may penalise the team that is attempting to score as oppositions rebound off half back into an open forward line.
KB has been right about this all along. I favour just two on the bench - maybe even go back to 19th and 20th man - and let natural attrition open the game up.
bigcarl wrote: ↑Tue 14 Jul 2020 10:54am
Ratts may have encountered the GT conundrum: How does a team that likes to attack counter the Uber Flood? Mass numbers behind the ball.
I’d much prefer that we find an attacking way to overcome it, but I’m not sure there is one with 16-minute quarters and 90 interchanges allowed.
FWIW, I think it’s a blight on the game.
It takes one-on-one contests out of the equation and makes it a dour slog if both teams commit to it. If only one team commits to it, it drags just about any opposition into an arm wrestle and the percentages may favour the flooding team. Worse still, it may penalise the team that is attempting to score as oppositions rebound off half back into an open forward line.
KB has been right about this all along. I favour just two on the bench - maybe even go back to 19th and 20th man - and let natural attrition open the game up.
Not the immediate solution for this season, or St Kildas present dilemma, but IMHO, the reduction of playing numbers in the AFL to preferably 5-5-5 5 aside, will open up the game and favour attacking style football and make shutdown football difficult to execute.
bigcarl wrote: ↑Tue 14 Jul 2020 10:54am
Ratts may have encountered the GT conundrum: How does a team that likes to attack counter the Uber Flood? Mass numbers behind the ball.
I’d much prefer that we find an attacking way to overcome it, but I’m not sure there is one with 16-minute quarters and 90 interchanges allowed.
FWIW, I think it’s a blight on the game.
It takes one-on-one contests out of the equation and makes it a dour slog if both teams commit to it. If only one team commits to it, it drags just about any opposition into an arm wrestle and the percentages may favour the flooding team. Worse still, it may penalise the team that is attempting to score as oppositions rebound off half back into an open forward line.
KB has been right about this all along. I favour just two on the bench - maybe even go back to 19th and 20th man - and let natural attrition open the game up.
Good post. Flooding has been a factor for 20 years, and I think the 16 min quarters and longer breaks make it worse. The fatigue factor is not really present. The Sydney vs Richmond game was awful. Hopefully the arguments arising from that game will be closely looked at by the AFL, the game was more evidence of a problem that must be looked at. Natural attrition may be one answer.
bigcarl wrote: ↑Tue 14 Jul 2020 10:54am
Ratts may have encountered the GT conundrum: How does a team that likes to attack counter the Uber Flood? Mass numbers behind the ball.
I’d much prefer that we find an attacking way to overcome it, but I’m not sure there is one with 16-minute quarters and 90 interchanges allowed.
FWIW, I think it’s a blight on the game.
It takes one-on-one contests out of the equation and makes it a dour slog if both teams commit to it. If only one team commits to it, it drags just about any opposition into an arm wrestle and the percentages may favour the flooding team. Worse still, it may penalise the team that is attempting to score as oppositions rebound off half back into an open forward line.
KB has been right about this all along. I favour just two on the bench - maybe even go back to 19th and 20th man - and let natural attrition open the game up.
Good post. Flooding has been a factor for 20 years, and I think the 16 min quarters and longer breaks make it worse. The fatigue factor is not really present. The Sydney vs Richmond game was awful. Hopefully the arguments arising from that game will be closely looked at by the AFL, the game was more evidence of a problem that must be looked at. Natural attrition may be one answer.
Maybe in time the AFL will take a look. However, right now - the AFL couldn't give a flying fvck about how the game looks. All they're really interested in is getting the remaining ~100+ games finished as quickly as possible without further delay
bigcarl wrote: ↑Tue 14 Jul 2020 10:54am
Ratts may have encountered the GT conundrum: How does a team that likes to attack counter the Uber Flood? Mass numbers behind the ball.
I’d much prefer that we find an attacking way to overcome it, but I’m not sure there is one with 16-minute quarters and 90 interchanges allowed.
FWIW, I think it’s a blight on the game.
It takes one-on-one contests out of the equation and makes it a dour slog if both teams commit to it. If only one team commits to it, it drags just about any opposition into an arm wrestle and the percentages may favour the flooding team. Worse still, it may penalise the team that is attempting to score as oppositions rebound off half back into an open forward line.
KB has been right about this all along. I favour just two on the bench - maybe even go back to 19th and 20th man - and let natural attrition open the game up.
Good post. Flooding has been a factor for 20 years, and I think the 16 min quarters and longer breaks make it worse. The fatigue factor is not really present. The Sydney vs Richmond game was awful. Hopefully the arguments arising from that game will be closely looked at by the AFL, the game was more evidence of a problem that must be looked at. Natural attrition may be one answer.
Maybe in time the AFL will take a look. However, right now - the AFL couldn't give a flying fvck about how the game looks. All they're really interested in is getting the remaining ~100+ games finished as quickly as possible without further delay
I doubt the AFL - or at least the current administration - ever will look at it. They seem cowered by the coaches and players and are content to let them make policy. The game is poorer for it.
We can still attack but we can't afford to carry players with poor balance, poor skill and poor spacial awareness. Aerobic capacity isn't as important as skill in defeating the flood.
Flooding is a game of attrition, so slowing the pace and switching our attack avenues, drawing the opposition out of their zones and seperating their numbers is vital. You have to hold possesion of the ball.
Jones and Hill aren't 100%, Clarke, Paton and Long, havent fully develop their running capacity and Geary.and Ross have limited kicking skill. The AFL want to reduce stoppages so we can't just absorb tackles and burst off stoppages.
If we can keep the good start going and then effectively defend a lead, we will break teams.
Steele, Billings and Gresham need to continue to take the lead. King needs to get on his bike and create marking opportunities as a running target and we have to be prepared to play 7 and 8 defenders and maximise space and speed in our forward 50 when rebounding. We need to stretch the oppo defensive zones.
Devilhead wrote: ↑Sat 11 Jul 2020 8:05pm
That's 2 devastating losses now after being 6 goals up - one is a blip - two should not be tolerated
Team changes need to be made - time to send a message to the playing squad ...... and the supporters
And what better way to herald a new beginning than to have both the captain and the vice captain dropped! What’s the point of just Paton or Lonie or Kent being dropped?
Yes, I know it’s not conventional. I know it’s controversial, but the two leaders need to pay a price.
Both are going to slot straight back in and both will no doubt play a huge part if we are going to play finals this year or next year, so I think it can only help the team as a whole if the loudest and clearest message is sent via these scalps
King needs to start holding some those contested marks, as that's what he is there to do and his inability to kick vital goals and take vital marks against Free cost us as much as other issues- I just don't think he's ready yet.
spert wrote: ↑Tue 14 Jul 2020 1:43pm
King needs to start holding some those contested marks, as that's what he is there to do and his inability to kick vital goals and take vital marks against Free cost us as much as other issues- I just don't think he's ready yet.
He isn't. He has played a hand full of games and isn't ready to stand under a rushed kick from a struggling midfield.
The answer is there though and it isn't dropping him. Put Marshall at FF, ruck Ryder and let King loose as a leading high forward and take some pressure off Membrey.
spert wrote: ↑Tue 14 Jul 2020 1:43pm
King needs to start holding some those contested marks, as that's what he is there to do and his inability to kick vital goals and take vital marks against Free cost us as much as other issues- I just don't think he's ready yet.
He isn't. He has played a hand full of games and isn't ready to stand under a rushed kick from a struggling midfield.
The answer is there though and it isn't dropping him. Put Marshall at FF, ruck Ryder and let King loose as a leading high forward and take some pressure off Membrey.
Yes, that sounds like a plan. Marshall was in too good a form last year to be cooped up at FF but not so now. Ryder isn’t a great forward. Let him ruck. Marshall as FF or decoy. King to be free roving perhaps running all the way to half back. Haven’t got a clue but going on hearsay here.
We can’t drop Ross and the captain. (Famous last words)
I wonder how Robertson and Webster are fitness wise?
