CHB it aint that hard | PUNT ROAD END | Richmond Tigers Forum
  • IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.

CHB it aint that hard

Let's be honest....the way footy is going (and to a degree, its already there)......its a game of "one size fits all".

The days of the speedy wingman, the little nuggety rover, the lumbering beanpole ruckman, the gorilla full-forward, and equally gorilla-like full-back, are just about gone.

We have players now that have to be equally adept at playing forward, playing in the backline, as well as rotating through the middle.

With the tactics and flooding, there isn't any real FF and CHF anymore......as players run down and defend, they more or les only leave one (maybe two) forwards across the centreline ready for the turnover, and then the sprint is on to get back the other way.

The All-Australian team positioning is an antiquated system.
Yes, its nice for traditional purposes and all to have FF, CHB, FB, etc....but really, they'd be better off, and much fairer, if they just named the "Best 22 players in the AFL for 2006", instead of trying to squeeze players into positions that they never really played to begin with.
 
Its been close to 30 years since players lined up in the positions that were named in the paper but the tradition is a nice one. I have no problem with things like the AA team being named in traditional positions.

It reminds me of a simpler time when a big move for a coach to make was switching his wingers at half-time. Who can forget Tommy Hafey's match-winning move of Francis Bourke from half-back flank to full forward one day in the late sixties/early seventies? It was the Monday headline!

Crazy stuff.
 
TOT70 said:
Its been close to 30 years since players lined up in the positions that were named in the paper but the tradition is a nice one. I have no problem with things like the AA team being named in traditional positions.

It reminds me of a simpler time when a big move for a coach to make was switching his wingers at half-time. Who can forget Tommy Hafey's match-winning move of Francis Bourke from half-back flank to full forward one day in the late sixties/early seventies? It was the Monday headline!

Crazy stuff.
Click to expand...

:hihi Northey did something like it with... Maxfield? 20 years later. No headlines.

Joel didn't play too many games at CHB in 2006. Basset did. They should all get the arse, especially, Demetriou. :hihi

I think Australian Football teams still have structure, TOT. Although dynamic.

You have a #1 forward, a #2 forward, a #3 forward and their opponents. He may switch from FF to CHF but Richo is still our #1 forward and will take the #1 back with him.

Midfielders probably have numbers. L.Hayes plays #1 mid (Stationary at the fall) -like Bolton or Kirk but not like R.Shirley who plays a defensive #1. C.Judd plays #2 (Running through for assaults or receives). Cousins plays #3 (Running to receive or hoover loose ball).

The fact is that nomenclature for Australian Football desperately needs an overhaul. (I hate the numbers I use to define the roles but they are pretty accurate.) At the very least it needs a tweak. And has done for forty years- Wayne Judson and Rex Hunt were both back-pocket players. :o Totally different roles.

To compare, Association Footballers may be named as CD's but end up sweeping for periods or playing effective Defensive mid roles- that is playing lowere or higher (basketball lingo). Point guards may spend peiods getting loose to shoot. It's tough to give a pigeon-hole name to a dynamic role.

Still, we can do it better.

I think it would be very good to define the nomenclature of Australian Football. I suppose I mean to re-define it.

Some people dislike flooding in the modern game. I was six years old the first time I heard Alan "Butch" Gale cry "Stack the back-line!". It didn't start last year. What's the difference between "flooding" and "stacking the back-line"? The play which best combats this tactic- "The Freeze" has no Australian Football jargon. It's a basketball term. Any ideas? "Icing the clock"- basketball. Transition, Coast-to-coast, Fast-break, Pick and roll- all basketball. Swingman- basketball. (I like "Versatall" for Footy.)

What's the difference between a #6 midfielder and a HFF (R.O'Keefe)? A wingman and a #4 mid (Nick Dal Santo)? It needs to be sortid, geezer.

Am I applying for a job? :thinking
 
Dyer'ere said:
TOT70 said:
I think it would be very good to define the nomenclature of Australian Football. I suppose I mean to re-define it.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Nice work Jack but the variations are infinite.

How about we just name a squad (possibly consisting of backs, forwards, mids and onballers ) instead of the antiquated yet traditional "positions"?
 
as the great man said

you have 1 big bloke fwd who can catch it and kick it straight
you have 1 big man in the middle to knock it to your advantage
you have 1 big man back to play on the opponents big fwd

all the rest must be able to run, carry and kick the ball???

simple as that
 
Big Jack- a lovely attempt at redefining positions but Basketball terms will drive us all crazy- pick 'n' roll is closer to what the naughty boys used to do when they were bored in class at school than anything that happens on a footy field.

Maybe we should look to Soccer and talk about a 7-6-5 configuration to describe a loose man in defence, 8-6-4 to describe 2 LMIDs and 10-7-1 to describe the old Danny Frawley game plan? Adelaide are probably a 9-6-3 on this scale.

The only problem is Sydney: 18-everywhere doesn't quite sound fair!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
< Tucky & Krak | RFC draft history >
Top Bottom