I Have A Question

[NoMore]

Now i know that alot of people on here probably find my posts negative and repetitive but if someone can seriously answer this it would be great.

I have followed footy for my whole life. I love it. I love the aggression of the old days and i enjoy the tactics of the game now. It is one of the things that draws me to watch gridiron. But i don't understant St Kilda.

Why did we on saturday night and for most of last year play and incredibly defensive game for the first 2 quarters. You would almost say we were trying not to lose by to much. Then when all seemed lost we think hang on to win this game you have to actually go out and kick goals. So we start playing on and running and attacking.

I am not trying to be negative here i just don't understand the mindset of this.

Oh one more thing. Do we get better in the second half or do the other teams slack off?

[saintbrat]

I suggest you Ask Archie - to Ask SOS-

was it our plan or response to Voss Plan

[Teflon]

thats a great question and one i also struggle with.....how can this side continually just "turn it on" after half time?

OR

Is it just a case of we still cant put 4 qtrs together.

[Mr Magic]

Now i know that alot of people on here probably find my posts negative and repetitive but if someone can seriously answer this it would be great.

I have followed footy for my whole life. I love it. I love the aggression of the old days and i enjoy the tactics of the game now. It is one of the things that draws me to watch gridiron. But i don't understant St Kilda.

Why did we on saturday night and for most of last year play and incredibly defensive game for the first 2 quarters. You would almost say we were trying not to lose by to much. Then when all seemed lost we think hang on to win this game you have to actually go out and kick goals. So we start playing on and running and attacking.

I am not trying to be negative here i just don't understand the mindset of this.

Oh one more thing. Do we get better in the second half or do the other teams slack off?

Since nobody on here can give you a definitive answer, only conjecture, I'll take your post as being serious and give you my opinion.

Ross Lyon was appointed coach prior to season 2007 on the basis that GT couldn't get us any further than what he had (I'm not trying to start another 'war' over whether this was accurate or not, just giving the reasons the Board stated why he was replaced)

Lyon decided we needed to be better defensively than we were (and GT's gameplan of attack, attack, attack hadn't achieved the ultimate result) so he instituted a new gameplan. He obviously felt he needed a change of personnel as well, but that could not be achieved in one draft/trading period.

We had a dissapointing season in 2007 and missed out on the Finals for the first time since 2004. The players were learning the new gameplan and it seemed to be taking some time.
2008 seemed to be similar to 2007 except there was more change of personnel. Also the coaching staff as well as the players stated publicly that the gameplan was being 'tweaked'.

The results in the first half of the season were again inconsistent not only from game to game but from quarter to quarter (remeber the first Bulldogs game)

I personally don;t believe the gameplan is one of nothing but boring 'flooding' - I believe that the 'flooding' so many decry on here is only part of the gameplan. There were numerous instances, particularly in the second half of season 2008 where we went on the 'attack' and played pretty impressive footy.

We seem to come out at the start of games with a 'defensive mindset'. I believe that the coaching staff and players believe in their fitness and the ability to over-run the opposition, therefore they tend to 'arm-wrestle' the opposition in the first half of games, hoping to limit the deficit.

If the opposition gives us the opportunity to all out attack (a la the final against the Pies) then we do that, but more often than not the oposition is also playing defensively on our guns (NDS, double teaming Roo etc).

I truly believe that the coaches and players feel that as long as we are within striking distance at half time we have the fitness to run over the top of our opponents.

I'm sure that everyone involved would love to play each week like the Rnd 22 game vs Bombers, but how often do we play against no opposition.

For the 4-5 years prior to 2008 we were unable to win a game after getting more than 24 points behind - not any more. We came back from bigger deficits than that last season on a number of occasions and I think the players now believe that they can do it.


It's almost like we're using the Ali vs Foreman 'rope-a-dope' tactic in the first half of games, allowing the opposition (Foreman) to tire themselves out before we (Ali) go on the attack.

I hope that answers your question?

[Solar]

really good explaination Mr Magic, best I have seen

[Bernard Shakey]

The Lyon game plan is obviously to watch the first half, see what happens, and to then react and start coaching after the main break.

How else can anyone explain that we never start playing before half time?

[bigcarl]

Why did we on saturday night and for most of last year play and incredibly defensive game for the first 2 quarters.

you can only assume that the players are following direction.

on saturday night we kicked the first goal and then, before brisbane had even scored, we had virtually all 18 players behind the ball.

i thought "here we go again".

the problem was addressed in the second half with the addition of a component to our structure known as a forward line.

i've had enough of the numbers behind the ball thing. i could forgive the fact that it is incredibly boring to watch if it brought us results.

but the plain truth is that it hasn't improved our results one iota.

we've stood still while others that we used to have the measure of (hawthorn, geelong and even the bulldogs) have gone past us.

my sincere hope is that the gameplan we take into 2009 is much more like the second half on saturday night and much less like the first half.

[bigcarl]

It's almost like we're using the Ali vs Foreman 'rope-a-dope' tactic in the first half of games, allowing the opposition (Foreman) to tire themselves out before we (Ali) go on the attack.

you make some fair points, but why give the opposition the chance to build a lead that in many cases has proved unassailable?

i'd much rather be four goals up at half time than four goals down.

[Mr Magic]

It's almost like we're using the Ali vs Foreman 'rope-a-dope' tactic in the first half of games, allowing the opposition (Foreman) to tire themselves out before we (Ali) go on the attack.

you make some fair points, but why give the opposition the chance to build a lead that in many cases has proved unassailable?

i'd much rather be four goals up at half time than four goals down.[/quote]

Which is what a number of teams were last season and yet we over-ran them.
Can I ask you if they deliberately stopped playing the way they were, or did other things happen that were maybe beyod their control?

Don't get me wrong,
I'm neither endorsing nor criticising the gameplan - I'm not in the know enough to pretend that I know what it actually is.

All I'm trying to do is to explain what it looks like to me, and I'm certainly no expert on the intricacies of an AFL team's gameplan.

[Teflon]

Good post Magic.

Im also not convinced that we have a "flood" only game plan that some on here constantly argue but Im also not sure a professional AFL side deliberately go out to play 'rope a dope' for half a game before coming home with a wet sail. Thats not to say I disagree with you regarding their self belief in over running teams (I do agree) but I cant believe theres an instruction to 'hang with sides' till we get a chance to break the shackles....to think that way excludes us from the opportunity to place extreme pressure on the opposition early....Geelong certainly dont shy away from that.

What I think is this is a mental issue - it cant be easy to instinctively know when the 'shift' in game plan is required....although I must say its concerning that the second qtr fall overs are so common. Whats impressive is we now know AT THE LEAST we are capable of 2 very different styles of play in 1 game.......styles that enable us to weather the storm under attack and also go on the assault when the opportunity presents. We really need to THIS YEAR get the timing of these game styles in sync or we risk being too far behind,like Saturday, when the run is required.

The only ones who can say whether this approach is contrived/switched on/off or still being learnt is the coach/players....its a question Id like to ask Ross.

[Mr Magic]

I pretty much agree with you on this one Teffers.

My Ali vs Foreman analogy may have been a little wide of the mark - what I was trying to say is that there appears to be a belief within the coaching panel and players that they can 'hold on' whilst the opposition is attacking in the knowledge that we're going to at some stage cut loose ourselves, and 'we're fitter then them'!

[Teflon]

I pretty much agree with you on this one Teffers.

My Ali vs Foreman analogy may have been a little wide of the mark - what I was trying to say is that there appears to be a belief within the coaching panel and players that they can 'hold on' whilst the opposition is attacking in the knowledge that we're going to at some stage cut loose ourselves, and 'we're fitter then them'!

Yeah I think thats right and a good thing, as you pointed out, that Ross has bought us.

Must say this is a good thread - this question has had me stuffed for some time. In 2007 I could write it off as "coach/players still learning"......I dont think we can do that this year. Its got to gel. I actually believe its the right path its all about implementing conisistently for mine now. At least fitness wise we are runnijg games out........I wonder what combining the defence/offensive approach with superior fitness now wouldve meant to IMO a 2004 side in its prime and with less weak links.

My worry now is we have the plan, fitness, coach. IMO.....and only some of the cattle...(if you honestly look at our side - to me - there are still players in it that should struggle to get games in senior AFL teams at the top).

[WayneJudson42]

I pretty much agree with you on this one Teffers.

My Ali vs Foreman analogy may have been a little wide of the mark - what I was trying to say is that there appears to be a belief within the coaching panel and players that they can 'hold on' whilst the opposition is attacking in the knowledge that we're going to at some stage cut loose ourselves, and 'we're fitter then them'!

Yeah I think thats right and a good thing, as you pointed out, that Ross has bought us.

Must say this is a good thread - this question has had me stuffed for some time. In 2007 I could write it off as "coach/players still learning"......I dont think we can do that this year. Its got to gel. I actually believe its the right path its all about implementing conisistently for mine now. At least fitness wise we are runnijg games out........I wonder what combining the defence/offensive approach with superior fitness now wouldve meant to IMO a 2004 side in its prime and with less weak links.

My worry now is we have the plan, fitness, coach. IMO.....and only some of the cattle...(if you honestly look at our side - to me - there are still players in it that should struggle to get games in senior AFL teams at the top).

Are you saying that every "top team" player would get a game with us?

I doubt it, Teffers. It's the sum total of all parts.

I put it to you that we've had players that wouldn't get a game in top teams for the last 7 years.

[Saint Bev]

I have put this in another post but this is what we were told by St Kilda at last Sunday's breakfast.

SOS coached the first half of the game, they did say why, but I missed what was said. They have a new game plan which the young guys found hard to put into action during the first half of the game. At half time they regrouped, Ross took over and we all know what happened in the second half. St Kilda did not flood on Sat night, but the Lions did from about half way during the the last quarter. I have no doubt we would have won that game if it wasn't for some very questionable decisions in the last quarter. I thought the young kids did pretty well considering.

A point to note to is, when GT was coach we had 32 on our list. We now have the largest list in the AFL in 49 including the new school boy from Sydney this week. Also we have the youngest.

[plugger66]

I have put this in another post but this is what we were told by St Kilda at last Sunday's breakfast.

SOS coached the first half of the game, they did say why, but I missed what was said. They have a new game plan which the young guys found hard to put into action during the first half of the game. At half time they regrouped, Ross took over and we all know what happened in the second half. St Kilda did not flood on Sat night, but the Lions did from about half way during the the last quarter. I have no doubt we would have won that game if it wasn't for some very questionable decisions in the last quarter. I thought the young kids did pretty well considering.

A point to note to is, when GT was coach we had 32 on our list. We now have the largest list in the AFL in 49 including the new school boy from Sydney this week. Also we have the youngest.

Please explain the 32 on the list. You cannot just come out with lies like that to make an arguement sound better. Also we do not have the youngest list.

[saintly]

I have put this in another post but this is what we were told by St Kilda at last Sunday's breakfast.

SOS coached the first half of the game, they did say why, but I missed what was said. They have a new game plan which the young guys found hard to put into action during the first half of the game. At half time they regrouped, Ross took over and we all know what happened in the second half. St Kilda did not flood on Sat night, but the Lions did from about half way during the the last quarter. I have no doubt we would have won that game if it wasn't for some very questionable decisions in the last quarter. I thought the young kids did pretty well considering.

A point to note to is, when GT was coach we had 32 on our list. We now have the largest list in the AFL in 49 including the new school boy from Sydney this week. Also we have the youngest.

according to big footy we still have one of the oldest with 23.8 (approx number)

[bigcarl]

I have put this in another post but this is what we were told by St Kilda at last Sunday's breakfast ...

St Kilda did not flood on Saturday night.

sounds like there was a bit of spin doctoring going on if that is what you were told. our first half was the biggest flood seen since noah's ark.

[saint66au]

I have put this in another post but this is what we were told by St Kilda at last Sunday's breakfast ...

St Kilda did not flood on Saturday night.

sounds like there was a bit of spin doctoring going on. our first half was the biggest flood seen since noah's ark.

Either that or Milney is being trialled as our new back pocket this year

[Sobraz]

Good discussion...

However, I think while this gameplan, detailed well by Mr. Magic, worked for us a number of times this year, is extremely dangerous, particularly around finals time...

Both Geelong and the Hawk crushed us last year after getting big 1st and 2nd quater starts... When it comes to finals you cannot give your opponants an inch, and if Mr. Magic's rationale is correct, Ross gameplan will not hold up in finals...

Finals footy is what we are all about... In the last 2 years, the finals have been much more attacking, open, free flowing games than most in the regular home and home season... This is the time of year we need to plan for IMO, and we cannot afford to be staring at elimination with a quater to go, in the confidence we can come back...

[bigcarl]

Both Geelong and the Hawk crushed us last year after getting big 1st and 2nd quater starts... When it comes to finals you cannot give your opponants an inch, and if Mr. Magic's rationale is correct, Ross gameplan will not hold up in finals.

to beat them we need to be much more free scoring and potent in attack.

to me that means 1) scaling back "numbers behind the ball" and 2) better resources for the forward line in the way of players, ie getting dangerous players in dangerous positions more often.

as you point out, there is nothing whatsoever wrong with starting well and piling on scoreboard pressure from the outset.

[NoMore]

Thank you all for debating this.

Mr Magic you had a really good crack at explaining it to me.

I will say this about ur explanation though. If we are going to play rope-a-dope as a permenent game plan i am really worried about our future this year. We can't afford to give quality opposition these sort of starts. My other issue is that although we are trying to limit the damage early, we seem to actually be causing more damage. We put our mediocre skills under way to much pressure by playing like that in the first half.

I am really worried for us if we contiue to start as we have been for a while now

[Shaggy]

I have put this in another post but this is what we were told by St Kilda at last Sunday's breakfast.

SOS coached the first half of the game, they did say why, but I missed what was said. They have a new game plan which the young guys found hard to put into action during the first half of the game. At half time they regrouped, Ross took over and we all know what happened in the second half. St Kilda did not flood on Sat night, but the Lions did from about half way during the the last quarter. I have no doubt we would have won that game if it wasn't for some very questionable decisions in the last quarter. I thought the young kids did pretty well considering.

A point to note to is, when GT was coach we had 32 on our list. We now have the largest list in the AFL in 49 including the new school boy from Sydney this week. Also we have the youngest.

Please explain the 32 on the list. You cannot just come out with lies like that to make an arguement sound better. Also we do not have the youngest list.

You should show more respect to people.

For 32 read 42 (and 2 short ) as you should know.

Our team on the weekend probably was the youngest.

Saint Bev I assume is repeating what she was told or thought she heard at the breakfast.

Saint Bev makes a major contribution to the Saints in Queensland.

You said BJ was not a FF and ex players as Chairmen were a thing of the past.

Does that make you a liar?

[Teflon]

I pretty much agree with you on this one Teffers.

My Ali vs Foreman analogy may have been a little wide of the mark - what I was trying to say is that there appears to be a belief within the coaching panel and players that they can 'hold on' whilst the opposition is attacking in the knowledge that we're going to at some stage cut loose ourselves, and 'we're fitter then them'!

Yeah I think thats right and a good thing, as you pointed out, that Ross has bought us.

Must say this is a good thread - this question has had me stuffed for some time. In 2007 I could write it off as "coach/players still learning"......I dont think we can do that this year. Its got to gel. I actually believe its the right path its all about implementing conisistently for mine now. At least fitness wise we are runnijg games out........I wonder what combining the defence/offensive approach with superior fitness now wouldve meant to IMO a 2004 side in its prime and with less weak links.

My worry now is we have the plan, fitness, coach. IMO.....and only some of the cattle...(if you honestly look at our side - to me - there are still players in it that should struggle to get games in senior AFL teams at the top).

Are you saying that every "top team" player would get a game with us?

I doubt it, Teffers. It's the sum total of all parts.

I put it to you that we've had players that wouldn't get a game in top teams for the last 7 years.

Perhaps analysing a little more than I meant for Wayne.

What I am clumsily fumbling round in the back seat for is IMHO our weaker links now, as opposed to 2004/05 sides particularly, are weaker.

IMO a hard bodied Thompson/Powell/Peckett over the likes of Jones/Mqualter/Gwilt/Fiora's of recent times demonstrates in both exoerience, body and balance we have larger holes in our starting 22 and perhaps the gap between our bottom 6 and the rest has widened.

[Shaggy]

I pretty much agree with you on this one Teffers.

My Ali vs Foreman analogy may have been a little wide of the mark - what I was trying to say is that there appears to be a belief within the coaching panel and players that they can 'hold on' whilst the opposition is attacking in the knowledge that we're going to at some stage cut loose ourselves, and 'we're fitter then them'!

Yeah I think thats right and a good thing, as you pointed out, that Ross has bought us.

Must say this is a good thread - this question has had me stuffed for some time. In 2007 I could write it off as "coach/players still learning"......I dont think we can do that this year. Its got to gel. I actually believe its the right path its all about implementing conisistently for mine now. At least fitness wise we are runnijg games out........I wonder what combining the defence/offensive approach with superior fitness now wouldve meant to IMO a 2004 side in its prime and with less weak links.

My worry now is we have the plan, fitness, coach. IMO.....and only some of the cattle...(if you honestly look at our side - to me - there are still players in it that should struggle to get games in senior AFL teams at the top).

Are you saying that every "top team" player would get a game with us?

I doubt it, Teffers. It's the sum total of all parts.

I put it to you that we've had players that wouldn't get a game in top teams for the last 7 years.

Perhaps analysing a little more than I meant for Wayne.

What I am clumsily fumbling round in the back seat for is IMHO our weaker links now, as opposed to 2004/05 sides particularly, are weaker.

IMO a hard bodied Thompson/Powell/Peckett over the likes of Jones/Mqualter/Gwilt/Fiora's of recent times demonstrates in both exoerience, body and balance we have larger holes in our starting 22 and perhaps the gap between our bottom 6 and the rest has widened.

There is no way the 2004-5 sides could run out the RL game plan.

RL needs his top players to be elite endurance runners. We were much more of an explosive team back then.

[St Loxton]

yep great question. Have too been banging my head against the coffee table regards this tactic, we have had great targets in the forward half in recent times. Just seems inconcievable that this defencive mindset at the start (when you should be busting them up and stamping your authority on the game) is taught to our boys. Especially nowadays when footy is played more and more by athletes with increasing endurance.