Rotations & how it might affect the structure of the RFC.

[pahoffm]

The Tiges recent run of injuries to its defence has been noticeable this season.
Also noticeable has been the competition between players for places on the ground.
Although the injuries have hurt, there are good signs that the list's depth is growing and that not only are replacements coming through, but there are also alternatives coming up for particular positions.

Just running through the list one sees a number of options.

Defenders:
Tall: Gaspar, Kellaway
Tall-medium: J.Bowden, Thursfield, Moore,
Small-medium: Newman, Raines, Casserley

Mid-fielders:
Medium inside: Johnson, Coughlan, Tuck, Polo,
Small inside: Rodan, Foley, Hartigan, White
Medium outside: Tivendale, Humm, Roach, Deledio, Oakley-Nicholls
Small ouside: Chaffey, Hyde, Tambling

Utilities:
Tall: Hall, P.Bowden, Schulz, Pattison, McGuane
Medium: Jackson

Forwards:
Tall: Richardson, Limbach, Hughes
Medium: Pettifer, Meyer
Small: Brown, Krakouer

Rucks: Simmonds, Knobel, Stafford

Already the midfielders are being rotated. And their efforts seem to be conserved fairly well. But can we take rotations to the structure of the team to conserve our key positions. (This option does not negate casualties occurring from direct injury.)
The rotations might take place, for a player, every 3 or 4 games, helping to maintain freshness & energy.

B: Newman/Raines/Casserley, Gaspar/Kellaway, Thursfield/McGuane/Moore

HB: Hartigan/White, Hall/Schulz, J.Bowden/Jackson

C: Tivendale/Deledio/Oak-Nicholls, Coughlan/Johnson, Tambling/Chaffey

HF: Pettifer/Meyer, Richardson/P.Bowden, Hyde/Roach

F: Krakouer/Brown, Hughes/Limbach, Stafford/Pattison

R: Simmonds/Knobel/Stafford, Tuck/Polo/Humm , Foley/Rodan

I hope people DON'T view this as an either/or situation, ie having Richardson in the team meams that we can't play P.Bowden, because that would be ridiculous.

But what I'm proposing is a rotation of our structure over a season to conserve it from minor injury and soreness.

 

[Dean3]

Rodan and Roach are small outsiders Phanto. And I reckon Hall and Schulz are tall defenders.

I can't come at Pat Bowden as an 'alternate' for Richo at CHF. Maybe Hughes or Pattison? Anyway, I get your drift, but it is in the midfield that players need rotation, boith within a game and over a number of games. We need more alternatives in the inside midfield spots, Rodan is not and never will be an inside player, Hartigan is tough but he's more of a run and carry man. Coughlan Tuck and Johnson are getting smashed from pillar to post at the moment and aren't getting much help.

 

[pahoffm]

Yep. Must admit that the sorting of particular players was marginal, eg is Tuck an inside or outside midfielder? There were other examples too.

The gist is the question of overall structure rotation and the benefits thereof.
Seasons are getting harder, player lists are becoming extremely limiting.
Midfield rotation is the buzz now.
What will be the buzz in 2 years time?

 

[Tigerfan]

F:  Krakouer/Brown,     Hughes/Limbach,     Stafford/Pattison

R: Simmonds/Knobel/Stafford,   Tuck/Polo/Humm      , Foley/Rodan

did you mean to list stafford twice Phantom?

 

[Ghost of Punt Road]

Yep. Must admit that the sorting of particular players was marginal, eg is Tuck an inside or outside midfielder? There were other examples too.

The gist is the question of overall structure rotation and the benefits thereof.
Seasons are getting harder, player lists are becoming extremely limiting.
Midfield rotation is the buzz now.
What will be the buzz in 2 years time?

The buzz i can see in two years is that players in every position but defence and rovers will be required to be fast or cunning enough to get away from their opponent to get clear possession.

This means forwards need not be tall. (it does NOT mean however that this is the only type of player who can succeed. If a tall who can take an awesome contested mark comes along, they would be fine too, but it will be rare that a club takes a punt on this. These sorts of blokes will come through as late draft picks of mature recruits.)

Additionally, all players but defenders will have to have great endurance, particularly forwards, as they will need to get back to defence and then up forward many times during a game.

There is also a possibility that super quick long distance runners will be played as forwards, who take the ball from a flooded defence and are instructed simply to sprint all the way to goal. This will result in 'goalkeepers' or sweepers being standard in defence.

My visions fade at this point....

Ruck-rovers will remain pretty much unchanged. Go N.Foley!

 

[pahoffm]

F:  Krakouer/Brown,     Hughes/Limbach,     Stafford/Pattison

R: Simmonds/Knobel/Stafford,   Tuck/Polo/Humm      , Foley/Rodan

did you mean to list stafford twice Phantom?

Not intentionally, but obviously particular players are options for a number of positions.

Stafford - ruck/fp
Pattison - ruck/fp/chf/chb
etc

I tried to list a player once only because otherwise it might have led to the very large number of options and variations to almost become illegible.
The best case is in the use of utilities to 'fill in' when a particular player/position needs a rotation/rest.

 

[pahoffm]

The buzz i can see in two years is that players in every position but defence and rovers will be required to be fast or cunning enough to get away from their opponent to get clear possession.

This means forwards need not be tall. (it does NOT mean however that this is the only type of player who can succeed. If a tall who can take an awesome contested mark comes along, they would be fine too, but it will be rare that a club takes a punt on this. These sorts of blokes will come through as late draft picks of mature recruits.)

Additionally, all players but defenders will have to have great endurance, particularly forwards, as they will need to get back to defence and then up forward many times during a game.

There is also a possibility that super quick long distance runners will be played as forwards, who take the ball from a flooded defence and are instructed simply to sprint all the way to goal. This will result in 'goalkeepers' or sweepers being standard in defence.

My visions fade at this point....

Ruck-rovers will remain pretty much unchanged. Go N.Foley!

Yes, interesting.

So you, GPR, can also see the fundamental nature of Aussie Rules changing too.

This generation of coaches have become more exposed to other sports, such as soccer and basketball, in their youth than their previous counterparts. The result is that those other games are having a more profound influence on Aussie Rules. Hence, the fundamental change.
My guess is that in a few years time 'footy' will be a long way from where it is now.

There was a game in my youth/schooldays that I loved playing, European Handball. I don't know if you've seen it. I think that is where AFL footy is heading towards.
Who knows, maybe the evolution towards that game may offer our boys the opportunity of Olympic Games representation.

 

[Ghost of Punt Road]

The game could change a lot unless they introduce 'zones' to prevent flooding. Really, there is already a centre bounce zone, it wont take much to divide the ground lengthwise into thirds, and identify visually which players are supposed to be in which zones.

 

[TOT70]

Footy is borrowing so much from Basketball and Soccer it is not funny. The only stats that matter in Soccer are the final score (often only a couple of goals in total) and time in possession of the ball. The scoring usually comes at the end of a long, steady build-up where the opposition is starved out of possession for an extended period or on a quick rebound. Sound familiar?

Basketball is exactly the same, either patient build-up or fast breaks. European Handball, Hockey, LAcrosse etc are all versions of Soccer with fundamental modifications, so the same patterns apply to these sports also.

Coaches like Roos and Wallace have a deep love of Basketball and are applying the principles of that sport to AFL. The most successful Basketballers are the very tall, because of their reach advantage and the very fast because of their abilty to cover space quickly. Anyone who has poor skills is a liability. Sound familiar?

In Soccer, speed is far more important than size, except in set plays like corner kicks, where physical presence in the box scores goals- again a parallel to Footy where the physically imposing player has a role to play up forward.

The era of the tall, quick player is imminent! Clubs will be looking to recruit players who can run like crazy and have a fair amount of size.

 

[Ian4]

one sport not mentioned is gaelic footy. just compare the last 2 aussie sides and the results... speed and smaller players being the difference

 

[Tigerfan]

The game could change a lot unless they introduce 'zones' to prevent flooding. Really, there is already a centre bounce zone, it wont take much to divide the ground lengthwise into thirds, and identify visually which players are supposed to be in which zones.

they can try this but i doubt I'll bother...i'll spend more time gardening

 

[Ghost of Punt Road]

I have a strategy question for you.

Your opponents are kicking out from defence.

The Tigers strategy calls for the following:

1) man up one-on-one in our defence
2) Put all other players in our midfield (12 or more)

What would the opposition do?

As I see it, they would almost have to kick high and long over the midfield, hence no precise passes into the forward line.

--------------------------------------

Scenario two

At the centre bounce, man up your defence one on one, put a couple of fast players in our forward line, and all the rest (10 or more) in and around the ball up, with a focus on the spine (on the attacking and defending sides of the pack in the main).

What effect would this have on our centre clearances?

---------------------------------------

If you see it how I do, then this 'flooding of the centre' will do four things. It will reduce the amount of times our opponents go forward.

It will reduce the accuracy of our opponents going forward

It will send us forward more often

It will give us a better chance of effective clearance from defence.

Opinions?

 

[tiger in the night]

I have a strategy question for you.

Your opponents are kicking out from defence.

The Tigers strategy calls for the following:

1) man up one-on-one in our defence
2) Put all other players in our midfield (12 or more)

What would the opposition do?

As I see it, they would almost have to kick high and long over the midfield, hence no precise passes into the forward line.

--------------------------------------

Scenario two

At the centre bounce, man up your defence one on one, put a couple of fast players in our forward line, and all the rest (10 or more) in and around the ball up, with a focus on the spine (on the attacking and defending sides of the pack in the main).

What effect would this have on our centre clearances?

---------------------------------------

If you see it how I do, then this 'flooding of the centre' will do four things. It will reduce the amount of times our opponents go forward.

It will reduce the accuracy of our opponents going forward

It will send us forward more often

It will give us a better chance of effective clearance from defence.

Opinions?

After watching the game against Sydney a very similar thought occured to me - flooding the centre - might be a method to combat a team like Sydney that uses the flanks so well to move the ball down the ground only to slow the tempo down and metre by metre push the pill into the forward line. You just can't give Syndey the first two-thirds of the ground before effecting a contest. They'll just cook you in the forward 50.

Having said that I would implement other strategies within that very broad concept of flooding the middle. Working players in triangular patterns in the middle - both offensively and defensively - would be the fundamental approach. It is done now, obvioulsy, but I don't think its been anywhere near perfected.

A super quick three man forward line (Tambling, Deledio, Richardson, maybe Jackson and Hughes) with no one in the goal square, lined up along the half forward line with initial movements towards goal would supplement the middle flood. If you can't hit a target put it into space and let them burn off their opponents.

Zone defences have not been worked out in footy yet. Players are still way too attuned to guarding a man and not the idea of reading the passage of the ball and getting to the contest that way. No team has come anywhere near the potential of a good zone defence.

And as for rotations - you may find that whole sets of players rotated with specific strategies in mind - say a triangular midfield formation with particular defensive/offensive sets to enforce.

 

[Leysy Days]

Footy is borrowing so much from Basketball and Soccer it is not funny.  The only stats that matter in Soccer are the final score (often only a couple of goals in total) and time in possession of the ball.  The scoring usually comes at the end of a long, steady build-up where the opposition is starved out of possession for an extended period or on a quick rebound.  Sound familiar?

Basketball is exactly the same, either patient build-up or fast breaks.   European Handball, Hockey, LAcrosse etc are all versions of Soccer with fundamental modifications, so the same patterns apply to these sports also.

Coaches like Roos and Wallace have a deep love of Basketball and are applying the principles of that sport to AFL.  The most successful Basketballers are the very tall, because of their reach advantage and the very fast because of their abilty to cover space quickly.  Anyone who has poor skills is a liability.  Sound familiar?

In Soccer, speed is far more important than size, except in set plays like corner kicks, where physical presence in the box scores goals- again a parallel to Footy where the physically imposing player has a role to play up forward.

The era of the tall, quick player is imminent!  Clubs will be looking to recruit players who can run like crazy and have a fair amount of size.

top post Tottie Goldsmith

 

[Ghost of Punt Road]

Keep in mind when comparing to basketball that we play on a much bigger field, and we don't play with a round ball on a hard surface.

Direct comparisons don't work. Tall players won't cope so well with the ball work down low, nor do they usually have the same stamina, probably due to having more weight to move around.

 

[Dean3]

I know this is only a vaguely related tangent, but I was thinking that quite recently they changed the rule that said that the full forward must stand on the mark only 5 metres from the goal square (instead of 10). I think that we should revert to 10 and maybe even make it 15 metres. The rule was changed to stop players playing on from full back...but why is that bad?

Wouldn't it be better for the game if the kick-out zone defence was broken up by more playing on from a kick-in, thus increasing the area that defending teams would have to 'cover' in a zone, which may in turn force coaches to revert to a one-on-one situation at kick-outs. Teams virtually alreday concede the first kick short to the pocket, so a regular play-on from full back might give teams more options at kick-outs and thus more one-on-ones. Maybe though it would be even more like basketball, where any score meant that you basically concede the midfield and run back to your zone DEfence. :confused

 

[tiger in the night]

Keep in mind when comparing to basketball that we play on a much bigger field, and we don't play with a round ball on a hard surface.

Direct comparisons don't work. Tall players won't cope so well with the ball work down low, nor do they usually have the same stamina, probably due to having more weight to move around.

Not sure I agree with this. I think a zone as the basis for a defence would be even more effective in footy than it is in basketball if constructed and taught properly. A good offensive team in basketball will destroy a zone – not because they shoot three pointers to score but because the offensive team can create gaps through overlaps so easily against a zone because the speed of the ball movement - a la the original Dreamteam at the Barcelona Olympics.

Every other country thought that they would struggle against zone defences because they weren’t allowed in the NBA at that time and that the Dreamteam would have trouble adjusting. In the end, they never had any trouble at all, never had to revert to shooting three pointers – all their points were lay-ups against the zone or fast breaks. So a zone defence in basketball against a good team is almost useless.

In footy because the speed of ball transfer is much slower - a man placed in a zone defensive position will have much more time to adjust and cover the distance to create a contest. Once the contest has created the spillage and the ball is on the ground – you could make an argument that it is then easier to prevent scoring by manning up. Again I dispute this. The zone would then shrink to the immediate vicinity around the ball spreading thinner the further away from the ball it is - but the ball remains the target not the man.

If the whole team then adjust – creating space on the fat side, it is still much slower to get the ball over the defenders and into that space in footy than the equivalent distance in basketball – making a zone defence in footy that much more effective than one in basketball.

The finer elements, however, would need to be considered. I would still put man-on-man pressure on the ball carrier up the field and particular individuals like Barry Hall in the forward 50. But the basis of the defence would be a zone of players adept at reading the play and creating a contested situation the very first time the ball was put into the opposition’s forward fifty.

As for the shape of the ball – it is not a factor. Works for and against both teams equally.