Key difference between Roos and Crows

[Mailman]

For those who are able to see a replay of the game, watch closely.

Adelaide players rarely go to ground in a contest. Roos players invariably do. That means the Crows are able to link through the loose man/men and run clear. It happened over and over again resulting in several goals.
The style that Craig has his team playing is based on total support for your teammates. You do not fall over...You always provide an option for your teammates. They are just so selfless.

A lesson should have been learnt by Dean and the team last night....I doubt it though.

 

[gokangas]

I have made this same point many times this year. Why do we always fall over? Keeping your feet in footy, or being able to recover quickly, makes you a much better player - Wellsy is a good example.
I'm not a coach so I don't know the answer but why can't we stand up?

 

[Ghostwriter]

Without looking for excuses, also watch the Crows when they stand the mark, invariably they over step, which should be 50 m, if the umps start paying 50 everytime they overstep the mark, their gameplan will start to unravel.
Also they tend to play on from frees marks etc, but they don't go back behind the mark or kick over the mark, the umps are under pressure and miss these things but if (1) the umps start giving 50 m penalties and (2) make them kick over the mark, it will slow the gameplan down a bit I'd imagine.
Point number 1 is exacerbated by the oppositions willingness to move the ball on quickly, thus the ump watches the next contest and forgets about the mark encroachment, just little things.

 

[KingyOrTheKing]

The style that Craig has his team playing is based on total support for your teammates. You do not fall over...You always provide an option for your teammates. They are just so selfless.

Gee. I'd love to see just 1 shepherd laid by our players. Just 1. The only player I've ever seen perform one is Pratt.

 

[gokangas]

Gee. I'd love to see just 1 shepherd laid by our players. Just 1. The only player I've ever seen perform one is Pratt.

Someone mentioned in another thread that the Kangas just seem to be going through the motions. Thats what happens when there is no pressure to perform.

 

[Devil Fish]

I fell the main difference is Adelaide's coach has a brain.

 

[R00StaR]

For mine its a few things.

1. They have Zero passengers

2. Skill level, they not only hit targets they hit em for advantage for the next play. Like hitting a running target so they dont break stride. We not only turnover way too much but also set our guys up for delay. This allows the Crows time to push back and clog it up the nest play.

3. Once they have it clogged up we lack the guys who can run the lines. They have many more how can do this, and allows them to clear the congestion and hence this run with the flight foward plan. Basically they flood, but they run it foward with precision, purpose and skill, like no other.

4. The crows are easily the most disciplined team i can ever recall seeing. The 1% from everyone every time is amazing. A great team we can learn much from. Its hard to see how they can be knocked off playing this way, as it not only produces a great game, but also consitency game in game out.

Other teams have to match the skills and disipline to compete, easier said than done.

They are simply an awesome team atm.

 

[RoyalBlue]

I have made this same point many times this year. Why do we always fall over? Keeping your feet in footy, or being able to recover quickly, makes you a much better player - Wellsy is a good example.
I'm not a coach so I don't know the answer but why can't we stand up?

Leigh Brown Board.

 

[Mr Reliable]

Going to ground is often mental rather than physical. "Look at me, I was so desperate I fell over" when actually it's taking the easy way out and excusing yourself from any further contest. Shows a lack of commitment IMHO.

Most coaches hate it and discipline their players if they go to ground too readily/easily.

I don't know what our coach does about it, but I've never seen him drag anyone for it. Saw Deni$ drag our players lots in the 90s. One example was Simmo very early in his career.

 

[Big Mick from Arden St]

Oh Mate I rekon the diff betwee nus and da cows is dat we are s.h.i.t. 'n dey are goood.

i rekon we fall oveer cause we're like sheilas mate.

 

[Shagga is all Class]

I fell the main difference is Adelaide's coach has a brain.

Yeah and if we could afford those GPS thingos Deano would put one on the ball and still come to the conclusion that 500m is a perfectly reasonable distance for the ball to travel to reach our forward line.

 

[Lidge]

IMO THE main difference is the physical conditioning.

The Crows are trained and prepared as elite athletes do.

Extra strength & stamina enables them to run in waves, run in numbers, stand up in contests and run out games.

The difference in actual talent is not as big as the scoreboard suggests.

Coaching and having a gameplan to suit your strengths & weaknesses also doesn't hurt.

 

[grEEk_rOO]

Without looking for excuses, also watch the Crows when they stand the mark, invariably they over step, which should be 50 m, if the umps start paying 50 everytime they overstep the mark, their gameplan will start to unravel.
Also they tend to play on from frees marks etc, but they don't go back behind the mark or kick over the mark, the umps are under pressure and miss these things but if (1) the umps start giving 50 m penalties and (2) make them kick over the mark, it will slow the gameplan down a bit I'd imagine.
Point number 1 is exacerbated by the oppositions willingness to move the ball on quickly, thus the ump watches the next contest and forgets about the mark encroachment, just little things.

This was driving me f**kn crazy on friday nite. They just play on from wherever. Good pick up.

 

[PJK]

The crows also broke out of numerous tackles. So many of our tackles just didn't stick. They have very strong bodies. And they have several players who can run straight and hard through congested play and are rarely caught with the ball.

 

[True_Roo]

key difference for me is midfield pressure...
Adelaide do it in bucketloads; they actually try and attack/tackle the opposition player with the ball. Which in turn forces rushed kicks/mistakes/turnovers

We're into more of a lame "corral" of the opposition... there's no defensive pressure. Opposition players can play on, run and then put in a nicely executed kick to a team-mate.
This is something we used to be the BEST in the competition at, frankly now we're a bit soft.

 

[Mailman]

some excellent posts in this thread....Wish Laids would read it

 

[mav-1]

some excellent posts in this thread....Wish Laids would read it

some very good posts, and yep the going to ground was giving me the shytes on Friday ngt. Lower got a very good lesson from Bode with respect to this.

There are so many differences from the use of 3 or 4 handballs to find the running player to the fact their forwards took their grabs while Concrete Hands Green couldn't.

It was also interesting to watch Charlie Walsh on the side lines talk to the players when they had come off, (especially when they had been dragged). Here is someone who knows the psychology of sport stars better than anyone and the positive attitude just shows through out their team.

 

[Lidge]

It was also interesting to watch Charlie Walsh on the side lines talk to the players when they had come off, (especially when they had been dragged). Here is someone who knows the psychology of sport stars better than anyone and the positive attitude just shows through out their team.

The AIS Cycling Academy lab rats also know their performance boosters pretty well.

 

[Tas]

There are many, many differences between Adelaide and us. I will try and list some of the more obvious.

a) Their senior players are very consistant players with very high skill level who lead by example. Ours are inconsistant and most of them are receivers, it is hard to inspire your side when you are not going in and getting the ball.

b) Skill level is miles apart. How our coach can even consider a possession game when we can not hit targets under pressure is truely mind-numbing.

c) They play to win, we do not. We tried to just keep possession to reduce the damage they could inflict on us, we only delayed the inevitable and never really threatened them because chipping the ball around just does not put their defense under any real pressure. They got their pants pulled down by the Tigers, it wont happen by a side that just does not have the leg speed and skills required to exploit that aspect of the Crows. Richmond has, bulldogs have, eagles have... we do not. You would have to be an idiot to think we do.

d) We do not put the opposition under the same pressure. Our tackles do not stick, we do not man up on the rebound like they do. The reason players go to ground is not conditioning, they are caught flat footed, they are under pressure and they lack the confidence to back themselves so rather than attack the player or the ball they are in doubt about what to do and are easily confused by a change of direction or some pressure and tend to just go to ground. Condifent teams do not go to ground, only those that lack confidence do.

e) We do not pick a side that will trouble the opposition. Crows, like many sides, are vulnerable to a tall forward line because they are a bit short on key defenders. Our best or only chance for beating the Crows is to play to our strengths and their weaknesses. This game called for a very aggressive attacking game. Put four tall forward on the forward line and pull all the loose players out of there, the small forwards should be outside 50m running in to meet the ball when it hits the ground, they should never be sitting there allowing their opponents to block the space to lead into.

Crows do not win shootouts, they win a lot of games by restricting sides from scoring, if you only have one key forward it just makes their job that much easier to bring numbers to the contests.

It would give us the opportunity to expose weaknesses in their defense and exploit mismatches. Rather than congest our forward line and make it easy for them to rebound we pull surplus forwards and congest the midfield making it harder for them to rebound and makes it easier for us to push back into defense when needed.

That is what Adelaide does best, they congest the midfield and from there they are able to push back or run forward as needed.

 

[PokerRoo]

Crows, like many sides, are vulnerable to a tall forward line because they are a bit short on key defenders. Our best or only chance for beating the Crows is to play to our strengths and their weaknesses. This game called for a very aggressive attacking game. Put four tall forward on the forward line and pull all the loose players out of there, the small forwards should be outside 50m running in to meet the ball when it hits the ground, they should never be sitting there allowing their opponents to block the space to lead into.

You serious? Lets look at the ladder..Adelaide points for: 1779 Points Against:1032 Percentage: 172.38 This tells me that they have the best Attack and Defence. To say that the best attacking team dont win shoot outs is a bit crazy. We would have lost be more if we had of had a forward line of Rocca, Hale, Hamish and Thompson. Adelaide are the best flooders and ALL thier defenders zone of as soon as the ball is in the air. Bomb it in long to a big slow forward line, great idea!

For those who couldn't work out what we where trying to do, we were trying to spread thier defence and get one on ones in the forward line. Did it work? No. Why didn't it work, they put on way to much pressure, and we wern't good enough to keep it up for a whole game. We where 11 points down half way through the third Qtr.

Adelaide's game plan is pretty simple, sit back and wait for the opposition to kick to where a group of them are waiting, then run in waves and kick it too an open forward line. Counter attack as it known in Soccer.

 

[NeoBlaze]

Yeah and if we could afford those GPS thingos Deano would put one on the ball and still come to the conclusion that 500m is a perfectly reasonable distance for the ball to travel to reach our forward line.

post of the year