Stopping the Flood - A solution

[ok.crows]

Are you saying Sydney don’t flood a lot or that tempo and flood are mutually exclusive?

How about this. Sydney flood back, win the footy and retain possession if the opposition have men forward or if they counter flood back but primarily try first to fast break. Throw this tempo stuff around all you like but it doesn’t mean there is not flooding let alone that there is not a lot of it.

I don't know if you can say Tempo and flood are mutually exclusive, but it is certainly true that you can't do both at the exact same time.

Tempo implies your own side has possession, and keeps it.

Flood implies the opposition has possession, and all your own side has gone back to crowd out the oppostion forward line.

Both tempo and flood occur in your own side's back half. The difference is, with tempo you have possession and there is no opponent to be seen. With flood, you don't have possession and one half of the ground (your backline, their forwardline) is filled with players.

"Mutually exclusive" is a bit too strong. "Can't both be done at the same moment" is how you should describe it.

 

[MarkT]

Sigh! Not another deluded Pies fan.

In both games against the Pies this year, the Crows copped flack for playing "tempo". "Bassett to Rutten to Bassett to Rutten" ... there was even a thread on Bigfooty by that very title.

OK, Bassett & Rutten are Crows backline players. When they are passing it to one another "tempo fashion", they do that uncontested. If they are uncontested, and they are Crows backmen, where are their opponents, the Collingwood forwards? ????? ?????

Hmmmmmm?

Flooded back is where they are. Refusing to man up on Bassett or Rutten.

The Pies did it all game long in the second match against the Crows, and all but the last quarter of the first encounter. In the first encounter, the only time of the match that Malthouse opened it up (in the last quarter) ... the Crows ran away with the game.

I don’t know what tram you are on but I didn’t say Collingwood don’t flood. IMO MM is too defensive. I was happy to see how attacking he was early in the year. As I said, we weren’t good enough to carry it off for long enough. Not enough quality running mids and too much ball won off opposition rucks in tight contets. By the end of the year we rarely went forward without going back and sideways much to my immense frustration. MM floods, they all do.

 

[StefanoRoccoWhite]

MM floods, they all do.

But its usually interstate teams that cop it from melbourne fans and the media without having a look at their own backyard.

 

[Couch Coach]

I think the game will sort it's self out after a while once the coaches have a bit more time to develop anti flooding tactics.

If not other sports like one day cricket, super 14, etc. give bonus points for high scoring. In future could there be 4 points for a win, 2 for a draw and 1 for scoring over 100 points?

 

[Hap Hapablap]

there was a segment half way through the 3rd qtr showing the flood taking place. there was no player past the centre line of the swans all the players were into wce defence. although i hate the flood with a passion i dont see it as unfair but it is disgusting.

 

[ok.crows]

Are you saying Sydney don’t flood a lot or that tempo and flood are mutually exclusive?

How about this. Sydney flood back, win the footy and retain possession if the opposition have men forward or if they counter flood back but primarily try first to fast break. Throw this tempo stuff around all you like but it doesn’t mean there is not flooding let alone that there is not a lot of it.

How about this: - Pies attack, lose possession, vacate the Crows backline (Pies forward line). Ghost town. Crows move it forward slowly, kicking to uncontested players, from backline up to almost the forward 50. All Pies players inside Crows forward 50. Pies trying to get Crows to bomb it in to a contest inside 50, Pies cause a turnover, Pies rush it back downfield to score. Crows tring to be patient, looking to keep possession as they move it inside 50.

Classic scenario: Pies = flooding, Crows = tempo.

Pies did it virtually all game twice against the Crows this year.

Games where it wasn't done against the Crows: Crows v Essendon, Crows v Geelong, Crows v Melbourne (round 22), Crows v Bulldogs (twice).

You can tell when a team is NOT flooding if the teams forwards, having lost possession, are trying to keep it inside their own forward 50, trying to cause a turnover, putting pressure on the opposition players who are bringing it out. Bode is especially good at this, and Welsh gives it a go too. I have seen Sydney doing this as well at times.

 

[MarkT]

I don't know if you can say Tempo and flood are mutually exclusive, but it is certainly true that you can't do both at the exact same time.

Of course you can. If you have a lot of men back, win the ball and outnumber the opposition you are probably short up forward so you “tempo”. As I said, it’s just a buzzword though.

Tempo implies your own side has possession, and keeps it.

You are not “tempoing” up forward are you? Of course not. It may be a lack of your own number ahead of the ball or an excess of the oppositions. Either way it can happen whether or not you have flooded back your self and I’d suggest more often when you have.

Flood implies the opposition has possession, and all your own side has gone back to crowd out the oppostion forward line.

Yes that makes sense. It is irrelevant though.

"Mutually exclusive" is a bit too strong. "Can't both be done at the same moment" is how you should describe it.

Perhaps but again it’s an irrelevant concept. It’s like saying you can’t run forwards and backwards at the same but you can alternate between the two in quick succession in the space of a few meters for hours on end if have the stamina. In other words using 1 has no bearing on whether you use the other as a tactic. You don’t play or the other you play either, both or something else.

 

[plugger47]

hmmm - why weren't they free?? because the eagles manned them up

let me assure you woosha wasn't trying to play a loose man in attack

sydney start with one extra man back - woosha goes and mans them up

roos sends another - woosha mans them up

roos sends another - woosha mans them up

etc etc

the result is heavy congestion - now you can argue back and forth over who is the better tactician - but to argue they didn't flood becuase it was a man-on-man contest is bollocks and is either naivety or stupidity

You haven't a clue have you. Check out Kenneally's stats off the half back line. He killed you attacking out of defence. This is not flooding. Our defenders attack. Play the tape over and watch the last goal. A fantastic young footballer who had been decked by the chicken man attacked out of defence, ran the lines and hit schnieder with a fifty meter pass. Repeat over again - this is not flooding. It is total football. Defenders attack and forwards defend. If you don't get it just call it a flood. Simple

 

[MarkT]

How about this: - Pies attack, lose possession, vacate the Crows backline (Pies forward line). Ghost town. Crows move it forward slowly, kicking to uncontested players, from backline up to almost the forward 50. All Pies players inside Crows forward 50. Pies trying to get Crows to bomb it in to a contest inside 50, Pies cause a turnover, Pies rush it back downfield to score.

Classic scenario - Pies = flooding, Crows = tempo.

Pies did it virtually all game twice against the crows this year.

Again, Collingwood flood. No question about it. We did it a lot less early in the season and a lot more late. That is besides the point. You have described one facit of a game, or in your opinion two games, and concluded the Crows are victims and counter with something brilliant. At least that's what it seems like to me. See me earlier post re flood/tempo for my views on that aspect. I am not claiming Collingwood are better or occupy any moral high ground.

 

[MarkT]

But its usually interstate teams that cop it from melbourne fans and the media without having a look at their own backyard.

Rubbish. It’s not interstaters, it is often Sydney and probably because of Eade who took it significantly to a new level. Now you want to make a Vic v non Vic issue? Sydney cop it as much in the West as anywhere by the sound of it. If anything West Coast copped it in Melbourne on the weekend for not doing it enough.

 

[ok.crows]

there was a segment half way through the 3rd qtr showing the flood taking place. there was no player past the centre line of the swans all the players were into wce defence. although i hate the flood with a passion i dont see it as unfair but it is disgusting.

If the players are all in WCE defence, that of course is WCE flooding, not Swans.

Just to be clear.

 

[Timbothecat]

Best way to stopping flooding is for an attacking coach to aim to kick it long and quick to the forwards either a big CHF/FF (ie Brown or Hall). If they can't mark, then get crummers to score the goals (ie O'loughlin, milne etc).
Eventually a coach will realise that scoring goals is the aim of the game, not racking up possessions. Suddenly when a team is scoring 20 goals + every week, or being up by 40+ points at quarter time, playing 8 in defence is no longer a good idea for the team getting thrashed

Have to admit Sir_Adrian that I've always felt the best way to counter the flood is to NOT do it yourself and move the ball quickly out of defence. Why don't teams move the ball quickly once they get hold of it in their defensive 50? They have no one to kick it too because they're all back in the back half as well. If you leave targets up forward you can move the ball on quickly to them.

I know this is pretty simplified but you know how they saying goes... KISS! Keep It Simple Stupid.

 

[FixterFan]

It's very simple - sides "flood" when they get back in defence in numbers, but then for whatever reason (lack of skill, lack of stamina, good forward pressure from other team) fail to run it out in numbers and get to the other side quickly.

On the other hand, when sides get back in defence in numbers, but manage to run it out, they don't "flood." Even though they've done exactly the same thing in principle.

That's essentially what it boils down to on this board.

What's confusing is that these days some people use the word "flooding" to describe Sydney's "numbers at the ball" - even though it is anything but. But that's another story.

 

[ok.crows]

Again, Collingwood flood. No question about it. We did it a lot less early in the season and a lot more late. That is besides the point. You have described one facit of a game, or in your opinion two games, and concluded the Crows are victims and counter with something brilliant. At least that's what it seems like to me. See me earlier post re flood/tempo for my views on that aspect. I am not claiming Collingwood are better or occupy any moral high ground.

Neither would I claim any "moral high ground" for the crows, or Sydney for that matter.

There are some who have claimed a "moral high ground" for the Pies, and a "ruining the game" for the Crows, when it was the Pies doing the flooding and the Crows playing tempo for most of the match twice this year.

That is my comment.

 

[ok.crows]

Have to admit Sir_Adrian that I've always felt the best way to counter the flood is to NOT do it yourself and move the ball quickly out of defence.

Stacking your own backline, trying to cause a turnover in your own backline, and then ... yes ... moving it as quickly out of defence and fast break into your own vacant forward line is CLASSIC flooding tactics.

Moving it quickly out of defence is an essential part of the whole flooding gameplan.

Years ago, this same gameplan used to be called "Pagan's paddock".

 

[pazza]

Here's a way to stop it - I've said this before - kick the thing long, over the flood. No stufing around with short passes. First option is long..and the longer, the better. Find a flood that could stop it.

 

[DanA]

How can you try an argue that Sydney weren't flooding? They had three guys playing as forwards. Compared to West Coast who had seven most of the game. That its self tell you they were flooding

 

[floki]

The answer to flooding,congestion, stoppage football (call it what you will) lies in the coaching box ,not changing the rules (again),not designating players fixed zones but in the coaches boxes and the tactics used to counter it . At present the prevailing tactic is to hold onto the ball to draw defenders out of a forward line ,block and lead.
But what if a team was to run at the defenders ,initiate ,create panic in the minds of the defenders what would happen ? free kicks ,indecision ? ,goals?
A flood could be undone through the use of attacking "corridors", a flying wedge of 3-4 players running at goal at speed ,handballing where neccessary, blocking ,shepparding the ball carrier till he got a shot at goal .
My point being it just needs coaches to be more creative and proactive in the coaching box, at the moment fear of being beaten is the motivation driving tactics not the ambition to win !

 

[DanA]

Here's a way to stop it - I've said this before - kick the thing long, over the flood. No stufing around with short passes. First option is long..and the longer, the better. Find a flood that could stop it.

Err no........ that doesn't work. If they have a loose man in defence and you kick long to the contest 9 times out of 10 the loose man will chop it off uncontested in front of the two contested players.

You need to actually run the ball up (drawing the loose man in), or run dummy leads (drawing the loose man away). Bombing it long is a terrible option.

 

[liz]

A lot of people who have posted on this thread have barely watched Sydney play by the sounds of it.

If flooding is stationing extra, spare men in defence, the Swans rarely do it. Not never - every team tries everything just occasionally, but it is certainly not their MO. Roos likes man-on-man football just as much as Worsfold.

Yes, when the opposition is attacking and moving the ball forward they crowd the contest, including in the opposition attacking zone. But this is akin to a larger than normal on-ball division, rather than stationing extra men in defence.

What happened on Saturday, though, was Roos knew that if he sent a man back, Worsfold would man him up. So he did it, and sure enough he was manned up. So he sent another, and the same thing happened. Why wouldn't he do it if he could predict exactly how Worsfold was going to react and the outcome was advantageous to his side. Any coach who had Barry Hall and Micky O' in their team would much rather set up so they are two on two rather than in amongst an 8 on 8. Just common sense.

If Worsfold had sent an extra man back and the Eagles had been successfully picking off Swans attacks, how long do you think it would have been until Roos manned him up? Hardly any time at all.

All coaches have ways they prefer to set up but sometimes they need to diverge from this for short periods to land up with the tactical match-up that best suits them. It was Worsfold's predictability and unwillingness to change the set-up even for short periods that resulted in the lop-sided player distribution and probably enabled Sydney to just sneak over the line.

 

[pazza]

You bomb it long enough to clear that bloke. And it shouldn't be the last option, as it has become. A quick long kick is harder to defend than being patient with it.

 

[DanA]

The answer to flooding,congestion, stoppage football (call it what you will) lies in the coaching box ,not changing the rules (again),not designating players fixed zones but in the coaches boxes and the tactics used to counter it . At present the prevailing tactic is to hold onto the ball to draw defenders out of a forward line ,block and lead.
But what if a team was to run at the defenders ,initiate ,create panic in the minds of the defenders what would happen ? free kicks ,indecision ? ,goals?
A flood could be undone through the use of attacking "corridors", a flying wedge of 3-4 players running at goal at speed ,handballing where neccessary, blocking ,shepparding the ball carrier till he got a shot at goal .
My point being it just needs coaches to be more creative and proactive in the coaching box, at the moment fear of being beaten is the motivation driving tactics not the ambition to win !

First bold bit is classic Adelaide
Second bold bit is classic Bulldogs

 

[nobbyiscool]

i'm still trying to decide if the innitial post is a **** take or not... FF, R1? come off it- that is the stupidest thing i've ever heard.

i'm as big an eagles man as ur likely to find- but there was no flood in last weeks game. do sydney crowd me around the ball? yes, but thats not a flood.

and the talk about sydney dropping men behind the ball and whoosha manning them up was more a case of questionable coaching by worsfold i thought- especially when west coast were in the lead!

 

[Sir_Adrian84]

You bomb it long enough to clear that bloke. And it shouldn't be the last option, as it has become. A quick long kick is harder to defend than being patient with it.

exactly
it is proven to work yet anyone who supports it is called a dinosaur

 

[Sir_Adrian84]

the worst thing about flooding was that the dogs beat essendon in 2000. Had essendon won that game by their usual 10 goals, won 150-90, i wonder if football would be like it is now.

Plus if a team like the dogs win the premiership this year or next year and play an attacking brand of football, I wonder if other teams would dump the flood in say 2008.