Roast State of the modern game; Clarkson

[mxett]

It was not coined in 2000. I already told you 1996 is the year the term flooding started to be heard more from some of the times Eade coached Swans were doing it. You are a slow learner. Also even in 1996, it was not a new thing, other times teams did it before then but more or less when they had a strong wind against them in a quarter. Sheedy famously did it one afternoon , probably in late 80's a Moorabin to halt the Lockettt dominance one afternoon. I think he put 7 or 8 men in defence for a quarter or two which was first time I personally recall the prolonged tactic of flooding was talked about in time I had been watching. But I am sure it was used plenty of other times over the decades. But what changed in 1996 was Eade was doing it in some Swans games more more than just a quarter. Sometimes he was doing it in two or three quarters. But as I already pointed out the idea of rotations on bench took it to a whole new level that did not exist as an idea until coaches realised they could abuse a new four man bench, that only came into being not long before Eade took over Swans.

My first recollection of severe flooding was bulldogs v bombers in 2000. Terry Wallace threw all 18 players behind the ball for the entire game. This tactic resulted in essendons only loss for the year. I remember think at the time that if this tactic caught on it would ruin the game

 

[theyellowsash]

I am a big fan or more HTB’s but they have overcooked this massively.

Prior opportunity is basically dead which is stupid.

I like the idea of no prior of you grab the ball on your knees. Encourage players to knock the ball on

 

[Pessimistic]

It was not coined in 2000. I already told you 1996 is the year the term flooding started to be heard more from some of the times Eade coached Swans were doing it. You are a slow learner. Also even in 1996, it was not a new thing, other times teams did it before then but more or less when they had a strong wind against them in a quarter. Sheedy famously did it one afternoon , probably in late 80's a Moorabin to halt the Lockettt dominance one afternoon. I think he put 7 or 8 men in defence for a quarter or two which was first time I personally recall the prolonged tactic of flooding was talked about in time I had been watching. But I am sure it was used plenty of other times over the decades. But what changed in 1996 was Eade was doing it in some Swans games more more than just a quarter. Sometimes he was doing it in two or three quarters. But as I already pointed out the idea of rotations on bench took it to a whole new level that did not exist as an idea until coaches realised they could abuse a new four man bench, that only came into being not long before Eade took over Swans.

they say in the Hudson era at pocket sized glen Ferris oval they used to they to leave a half free for Hudson to play in. Surely that was a form of flooding

 

[Pessimistic]

I like the idea of no prior of you grab the ball on your knees. Encourage players to knock the ball on

Or allow throwing but not if you are on your knees and not arms above shoulder height

 

[theyellowsash]

Or allow throwing but not if you are on your knees and not arms above shoulder height

No, don't allow throwing. Either you had prior and you must dispose of it properly, or you didn't.

 

[Forever North]

I’ve been watching footy for over 40 years. It’s far too over-coached and over analysed nowdays and thus has become a tactical and risk averse spectacle. Maybe only a part time senior coach, players to train 3 nights a week after working at their full time day jobs and a more traditional Sunday morning recovery ‘session’ would help rectify the above.

 

[theyellowsash]

they say in the Hudson era at pocket sized glen Ferris oval they used to they to leave a half free for Hudson to play in. Surely that was a form of flooding

Pagans paddock sounds like a flood to me. If there's not many players in the forward line, where else are they going to be.

 

[Gavin Excell]

I’ve been watching footy for over 40 years. It’s far too over-coached and over analysed nowdays and thus has become a tactical and risk averse spectacle. Maybe only a part time senior coach, players to train 3 nights a week after working at their full time day jobs and a more traditional Sunday morning recovery ‘session’ would help rectify the above.

And allowing players a couple of darts at half time

 

[kranky al]

Ahhh zoning, like netball. You were for that rule change? That’s the only thing they thought of?

Id be more interested in trialling a minimum requirement of 6 players on either side of the field.

 

[JohnnyFontane90]

Lets say we disagree, the use of the interchange has led to game plans which revolve around having numbers at the ball at all times, positions essentially don't exist.

201 points of which Collingwood scored 3/4 of them... the trend is more important than outliers

It's not just that game. The top 5 highest interchanged games of all time averaged over 100 points per team. The crows had 170 interchanges in the showdown in 2013 and lost 118 to 109.

The use of interchange increases numbers around the ball, but who cares if they're still scoring freely?

IMO reducing interchanges will further promote the energy conserving 'chip the ball around' game we're seeing now from hawthorn, collingwood, geelong et al

 

[JohnnyFontane90]

Big fan of the last to touch = kick in to the other team rule. Three benefits:

1) More play through the corridor

2) Stops those gross passages of center wing throw in > stoppage > stoppage > scrubby 30 meter kick > stoppage

3) Minimises umpires having to make deliberate out of bounds calls - which are often incorrectly called

Only issue would be - would you leave the rule as is inside either 50 arc?

I like the 'last disposal' out rule where when it's a clear disposal and ball goes out the other team gets it. Still a throw in if it comes off a spoil or spilled from a marking contest etc.

 

[1990crow]

Coaches have killed the game. It's harder to tell who is highly skilled these days such is the congestion.
It's quite sad really that the game is where it is at.

 

[1990crow]

16 on the field with 3 on the bench. That will reduce congestion and get some of the bad fringe players off the field. I'm not sure why anyone would be against it. Zones will ruin the game

I am for this. Improves the quality of players per team too so added equalisation.

 

[NeutralFan]

Still waiting for 16 on the field with reduced interchanges.
- Better quality of players on the field, more focus on the real stars of the competition.
- Less players behind the ball means it's easier for the better kicks to find a teammate and not get intercepted.
- More space for forwards to run into, 1v1 contests. (For anyone thinking it'll be the same, the slingshot impact will be far greater with less players running at once.)
- Easier to view at the ground, on TV.

I really hate the argument of recruiting athletes over 'football players'. How about not be lazy and build a tank, mass? The athletes training to last longer on a football field deserve to win more than those who think they can get away with doing the bare minimum and complain that they can't run out a game.

 

[Consolaçao]

Its because when they are drafting the put alot more emphasis on endurance and speed over actual fundamental football skills, so you get a league full of players who can run all day but cannot mark or hit a target with kicks.

I hear this a lot... can you name a player from recent years who missed out on being drafted (despite great skills) because he had poor endurance? You must have a few players in mind?

 

[Consolaçao]

And allowing players a couple of darts at half time

Allow a couple of darts? I’d mandate them.

 

[Scotland]

Pagans paddock sounds like a flood to me. If there's not many players in the forward line, where else are they going to be.

Pagan's paddock was an attacking strategy. When you attacked against North in the 90s they still had a back line, a half back line, a centre line, a half forward line and a forward line.

When they got the ball the strategy was often "everyone not named Wayne get the **** out of the way" so Carey had space to work in. In the 1997 QF vs Geelong, Carey took 10 marks out of 44, kicked 7 goals out of 11, and was second highest for possessions on the ground. I don't remember that game vividly, but it's the sort of stat line that stands out.

Modern tactics are very different. Teams defend as structures as you see in rugby and soccer which are offside games played generally in one half at a time. I went to WC vs Melbourne in 2012 and Mitch Clark playing as a key forward took no marks and kicked 5 goals. They all came because for the bulk of the game everyone was in our attacking half (inside 50s 77-32, smashing) and the few times the ball made it past half way the Melbourne 'full forward' line had half an oval of empty space to work into. TV doesn't do it justice as you don't see what you do from the stands.

 

[WillHayward]

Footy classified right.

Clarko should stop crying about the umps and look at his shit boring defence and game plan.

 

[footyfan1978]

My first recollection of severe flooding was bulldogs v bombers in 2000. Terry Wallace threw all 18 players behind the ball for the entire game. This tactic resulted in essendons only loss for the year. I remember think at the time that if this tactic caught on it would ruin the game

From memory that one was called the super flood.

 

[footyfan1978]

they say in the Hudson era at pocket sized glen Ferris oval they used to they to leave a half free for Hudson to play in. Surely that was a form of flooding

Having not seen it as it well before my time, from the little I heard about it, I think rather than have the extra players flooding opposition forward line he probably had the middle of ground congested so strictly it was probably not a flood as we think it today. But I suspect it indirectly led to the centre square eventually coming into being which only has 4 players from each side in there , rather than 20 players or more in there clogging up the centre clearances.

 

[Gunf]

Still waiting for 16 on the field with reduced interchanges.
- Better quality of players on the field, more focus on the real stars of the competition.
- Less players behind the ball means it's easier for the better kicks to find a teammate and not get intercepted.
- More space for forwards to run into, 1v1 contests. (For anyone thinking it'll be the same, the slingshot impact will be far greater with less players running at once.)
- Easier to view at the ground, on TV.

I really hate the argument of recruiting athletes over 'football players'. How about not be lazy and build a tank, mass? The athletes training to last longer on a football field deserve to win more than those who think they can get away with doing the bare minimum and complain that they can't run out a game.

What makes you think 16 a side will make it so less players are behind the ball?? more likely the coaches will take 2 forwards up the ground. and keep 6-7 back.

 

[Pessimistic]

No, don't allow throwing. Either you had prior and you must dispose of it properly, or you didn't.

They allow throwing now. one hand should not propel the ball according to rules. The fast flip up while diving - its kind of impossible according to the rules

 

[theyellowsash]

They allow throwing now. one hand should not propel the ball according to rules. The fast flip up while diving - its kind of impossible according to the rules

Agreed, the overhead handball is also not legal. but that doesn't mean they should.

 

[Pessimistic]

Among the media hysteria about the game (lets not forget they did the same in 2018 and did a 180 later in the season) some of the coaching initiators/proponents of flooding are venerated and employed by the media right now.

 

[Leeda]

Footy classified right.

Clarko should stop crying about the umps and look at his sh*t boring defence and game plan.

being a smart ass won't give you any moolah..