Opinion The day basketball killed AFL

[the_champ_2004]

So I read the first half and skimmed the rest because it started to seem like dribble to me.

I'd just like to check that I've got the general idea of your writing. What you are saying is wrong with the game is:

* Players now being full time, are spending too much time studying the opposition and generating plans to limit their effectiveness.
* Bulldogs are playing "traditional' football despite the fact that they too play with zoning defence.
* Every side should line up with three players on each line despite the fact that this will leave them outnumbered at the contest and getting heavily defeated.
* There is no point developing these strategies because we should take a stand for traditional football and cop the defeats as a moral victory.
* "NOT EVEN BASKETBALL LETS THE OFFENCE CROSS BACK INTO THE BACKCOURT ONCE THEY CROSS THE MIDCOURT LINE." That's because it's against the rules. While it's not then any club will and should use this strategy.
* Soccer is football no matter what you think, why do you even get your back up about a term? (While we are at it, AFL isn't a football code, it's a league. Australian rules is a football code.)

If you'd like to be the one who says that footy isn't what it used to be, the game is ruined and I'm not going anymore then be my guest but you just come across as a bitter man resistant to change of any kind. If the traditional way of playing footy was the best way then I'm pretty sure a club would have tried and succedded it but looking at the last 10 year of premiers there have been very few "traditional" football sides.

Are footballers better skilled than they were 50 years ago? yes
Are footballers better athletes than they were 50 years ago? yes
Will football be different in 10 years time? yes
Will supporters be complaining about the changes made to the game in 10 years? yes

Now I feel like I've gone on a rant but this is just bitter crap to me and I couldn't go without commenting. I'm not saying you can't get frustrated but more that you've weakened what you are unhapy with (Buckley/defensive football) by not understanding the competitive nature of professional sport which lives by the motto - The best offence is a good defence.

Hang around as long as you like, I'm sure someone will bring back your cheese. As for me, I'll continue to enjoy the AFL spectacle that it is and watch where it is going in the future with my full support.

 

[Gone Critical]

I am an older type been watching footy since the 1960's. Love it these days. Players are bigger, stronger, braver (TV highlights every short step, a great incentive) but more than anything have incredible skills that we could have only dreamed about.

Footy back in the day was a territory game, soccer and basketball had long left that idea behind. On the bigger ground once AFL skills had reached a level that allowed it to become a possession game coaches naturally had to close down space hence the modern player operates in a shoe box that players of my time would have suffocated in. To implement most of the changes you discuss here would require a significant deskilling of players. Ain't gonna happen

 

[larrikan]

Thanks for the positive and negative comments. I'm not an "old codger" wishing the game would turn back, although Barry Price stab passing to Peter McKenna and hitting him on the chest with sublime accuracy was special, no, I was just making an observation that we have adopted so much basketball parlance and tactics that it resembled basketball more than football. Of course, that does not mean in a physical sense. IMO there are draw backs to that for the players and spectators. I just think this style makes many teams 'one trick ponies' that can be easily found out. Yes, soon the game will change again.

It was fun to have a thread without the coach and player bashing. Thanks. For those who thought i was too long, then spare a thought for this "old" regular BF reader who has to waddle through 100 pages to speculate if Scharenberg knows what a pen is.

Keep smiling, Go Pies.

 

[Bring_Back_Brad]

I think you'll find that afl borrowed much of its rules from basketball.

 

[76woodenspooners]

I think this depends how the game is watched ...

IMO ...

Watching the game from the mid to upper decks is as exciting as it's ever been. The game has become much more strategic and watching it live with a view over the whole field makes it easier to understand and appreciate.

Watching the game on TV has become more frustrating. So much happens off the ball that is lost. Basketball is played on a smaller court with fewer players and it's shown on the TV in a way that nothing is lost.

Some examples:

(1) When our backline player kicks the ball to an opposition player, at the ground you can see that the fault was by the forwards not running as hard as the opposition to provide exit options. On the TV you only see it as a stuffup by the backline player.

(2) When you are at the ground and see a team switch play you can see the defence being spread, you can see how the offence is forming up to create exit points. I've seen grown men yelling at a television in deep frustration at a switched play (or a kicking backwards) because on the TV with limited vision of the setup it doesn't make as much sense what's going on.

(3) When you're watching on TV, how often do you hear the more strategically astute commentators (eg: Brereton) predict the play and say something like "right, they're out here" or "there's a man free in the corridor if he wants to use him", or "the ball carrier totally burnt off a teammate who was sitting in space 20 meters from goal" ... They're calling the game live and pointing out so much more than what you see on TV. Contrast the less strategically minded commentators (eg: McAvaney) who is probably calling the game from his bedroom watching the TV, dressed in his silk pyjamas and slippers. Whenever you listen to McAvaney calling a game look for evidence that he's actually at the ground ... and consider that he lives in Adelaide.

(4) Discussions about went on gameday can be horribly disjointed and disputed. You see it on here. I have wondered how many folks lamenting at the "lack of a Collingwood gameplan" are doing so having watched the game on TV (or watching from a lower deck) versus those who were at the game with a view over the field. Consider that folks who go to a basketball game versus those who watch it on TV can have a rational discussion about the game because both sets of folks saw much the same thing. The same can't be said for AFL.

 

[Quicky]

Something that would influence folks' opinion about this is the way the game is watched.

IMO ...

Watching the game from the mid to upper decks is as exciting as it's ever been. The game has become much more strategic and watching it live with a view over the whole field makes it easier to understand and appreciate.

Watching the game on TV has become more frustrating. So much happens off the ball that is lost. Basketball is played on a smaller court with fewer players and it's shown on the TV in a way that nothing is lost.

Some examples:

(1) When our backline player kicks the ball to an opposition player, at the ground you can see that the fault was by the forwards not running as hard as the opposition to provide exit options. On the TV you only see it as a stuffup by the backline player.

(2) When you see a team switch play you can see the defence being spread, you can see how the offence is forming up to create exit points. I've seen grown men yelling at a television in deep frustration at a switched play (or a kicking backwards) because on the TV with limited vision of the setup it doesn't make as much sense what's going on.

(3) When you're watching on TV, how often do you hear the more strategically astute commentators (eg: Brereton) predict the play and say something like "right, they're out here" or "there's a man free in the corridor if he wants to use him", or "there ball carrier totally burnt off a teammate who was sitting in space 20 meters from goal" ... They're calling the game live and pointing out so much more going than what you see on TV. Contrast the less strategically minded commentators (eg: McAvaney) who is probably calling the game from his bedroom watching the TV dressed in his silk pyjamas and slippers. Whenever you listen to McAvaney calling a game look for evidence that he's actually at the ground ... and consider that he lives in Adelaide.

(4) Discussions about went on gameday can be horribly disjointed and disputed. You see it on here. I have wondered how many folks lamenting at the "lack of a Collingwood gameplan" are doing so having watched the game on TV (or watching from a lower deck) versus those who were at the game with a view over the field. Consider that folks who go to a basketball game versus those who watch it on TV can have a rational discussion about the game because both sets of folks saw much the same thing. The same can't be said for AFL.

That's a very good point. I dont get the benefit of live footy. The TV spectical is frustrating.

I don't see how the game can ever hope to grow in the northern states while this is true either. We need a telecast that shows these things otherwise it quite simply is confusing and not reflective of what is happening. How can we expect someone new to watching the game to understand it?

More astute commentators to help explain what is happening would help too.

 

[Gone Critical]

I think this depends how the game is watched ...

IMO ...

Watching the game from the mid to upper decks is as exciting as it's ever been. The game has become much more strategic and watching it live with a view over the whole field makes it easier to understand and appreciate.

Watching the game on TV has become more frustrating. So much happens off the ball that is lost. Basketball is played on a smaller court with fewer players and it's shown on the TV in a way that nothing is lost.

Some examples:

(1) When our backline player kicks the ball to an opposition player, at the ground you can see that the fault was by the forwards not running as hard as the opposition to provide exit options. On the TV you only see it as a stuffup by the backline player.

(2) When you are at the ground and see a team switch play you can see the defence being spread, you can see how the offence is forming up to create exit points. I've seen grown men yelling at a television in deep frustration at a switched play (or a kicking backwards) because on the TV with limited vision of the setup it doesn't make as much sense what's going on.

(3) When you're watching on TV, how often do you hear the more strategically astute commentators (eg: Brereton) predict the play and say something like "right, they're out here" or "there's a man free in the corridor if he wants to use him", or "the ball carrier totally burnt off a teammate who was sitting in space 20 meters from goal" ... They're calling the game live and pointing out so much more than what you see on TV. Contrast the less strategically minded commentators (eg: McAvaney) who is probably calling the game from his bedroom watching the TV, dressed in his silk pyjamas and slippers. Whenever you listen to McAvaney calling a game look for evidence that he's actually at the ground ... and consider that he lives in Adelaide.

(4) Discussions about went on gameday can be horribly disjointed and disputed. You see it on here. I have wondered how many folks lamenting at the "lack of a Collingwood gameplan" are doing so having watched the game on TV (or watching from a lower deck) versus those who were at the game with a view over the field. Consider that folks who go to a basketball game versus those who watch it on TV can have a rational discussion about the game because both sets of folks saw much the same thing. The same can't be said for AFL.

Agree 76 there is a real contrast between the TV and live. After going to a good game there is nothing better than coming home and watching a replay to see stuff up close while still remembering the bigf picture. You lose so much without being at the game.

 

[larrikan]

I think this depends how the game is watched ...

IMO ...

Watching the game from the mid to upper decks is as exciting as it's ever been. The game has become much more strategic and watching it live with a view over the whole field makes it easier to understand and appreciate.

Watching the game on TV has become more frustrating. So much happens off the ball that is lost. Basketball is played on a smaller court with fewer players and it's shown on the TV in a way that nothing is lost.

Some examples:

(1) When our backline player kicks the ball to an opposition player, at the ground you can see that the fault was by the forwards not running as hard as the opposition to provide exit options. On the TV you only see it as a stuffup by the backline player.

(2) When you are at the ground and see a team switch play you can see the defence being spread, you can see how the offence is forming up to create exit points. I've seen grown men yelling at a television in deep frustration at a switched play (or a kicking backwards) because on the TV with limited vision of the setup it doesn't make as much sense what's going on.

(3) When you're watching on TV, how often do you hear the more strategically astute commentators (eg: Brereton) predict the play and say something like "right, they're out here" or "there's a man free in the corridor if he wants to use him", or "the ball carrier totally burnt off a teammate who was sitting in space 20 meters from goal" ... They're calling the game live and pointing out so much more than what you see on TV. Contrast the less strategically minded commentators (eg: McAvaney) who is probably calling the game from his bedroom watching the TV, dressed in his silk pyjamas and slippers. Whenever you listen to McAvaney calling a game look for evidence that he's actually at the ground ... and consider that he lives in Adelaide.

(4) Discussions about went on gameday can be horribly disjointed and disputed. You see it on here. I have wondered how many folks lamenting at the "lack of a Collingwood gameplan" are doing so having watched the game on TV (or watching from a lower deck) versus those who were at the game with a view over the field. Consider that folks who go to a basketball game versus those who watch it on TV can have a rational discussion about the game because both sets of folks saw much the same thing. The same can't be said for AFL.

Such good points...i watched the WC game from the fourth row, level one, forward flank. It makes so much sense that at eye level, it was boring. Totally agree with your TV points. You articulated some of my points so much better.

 

[Justlokan]

I think this depends how the game is watched ...

IMO ...

Watching the game from the mid to upper decks is as exciting as it's ever been. The game has become much more strategic and watching it live with a view over the whole field makes it easier to understand and appreciate.

Watching the game on TV has become more frustrating. So much happens off the ball that is lost. Basketball is played on a smaller court with fewer players and it's shown on the TV in a way that nothing is lost.

The irony of a getting $2.5bn broadcast deal when the game is now much worse to watch on TV than it used to be.

 

[Snag Breac]

I've no idea who's right or wrong here, but it's a fascinating read. Well done larrikan

 

[Lefthanded]

Thanks for the positive and negative comments. I'm not an "old codger" wishing the game would turn back, although Barry Price stab passing to Peter McKenna and hitting him on the chest with sublime accuracy was special, no, I was just making an observation that we have adopted so much basketball parlance and tactics that it resembled basketball more than football. Of course, that does not mean in a physical sense. IMO there are draw backs to that for the players and spectators. I just think this style makes many teams 'one trick ponies' that can be easily found out. Yes, soon the game will change again.

It was fun to have a thread without the coach and player bashing. Thanks. For those who thought i was too long, then spare a thought for this "old" regular BF reader who has to waddle through 100 pages to speculate if Scharenberg knows what a pen is.

Keep smiling, Go Pies.

I can't articulate my thoughts (at least for now) as well as some others about the game style.

I can confirm with 99.9% certainty that Scharenberg knows what a pen is, I am just waiting to know for sure if it's a Collingwood pen.

I deeply share your frustration that we can get so many posts about next to nothing. We almost need a mirror thread limited to new information.

 

[Justlokan]

this is one of the better threads I've seen on BF. Thanks larrikan

The dilemma that these "basketball coaches" have is that if forwards are instructed to keep their positions, their opponents will simply go to the ball contest and by weight of numbers will keep the ball in their forward half. Of course, if the trap is sprung and defenders manage to get the ball out, they can get the ball to an unmarked forward or run into open space (the slingshot effect).

This is why Clarko has mobile forwards like Puopolo, Gunston, Breust who can play a mid/defensive role as well as their forward duties. Their mobility allows them to place defensive pressure within their fwd 50 while being able to keep defences guessing as to who to man up. The forward line we should be mimicking is the Eagles - Kennedy (cloke) with support from a mobile tall Darling (White/Darcy), a smart small forward LeCras (Elliott) and a strong supporting cast in Cripps, Shuey, Hill and Yeo.

And this is where we fall apart...our game plan relies on good kicking skills to be able to get the ball to Cloke, Billy etc in one on one situations. We have no trouble getting the ball - our issue is that we can't convert our fwd 50 entries into scores. (we also have trouble kicking for goal itself)

what we desperately need is players with elite (not just good) kicking skills. Someone like Didak in his prime would be perfect.

 

[sideswipe]

Agree 76 there is a real contrast between the TV and live. After going to a good game there is nothing better than coming home and watching a replay to see stuff up close while still remembering the bigf picture. You lose so much without being at the game.

I think you need to change your definition of "nothing better" or maybe you need to get out more.

 

[jmac70]

So I read the first half and skimmed the rest because it started to seem like dribble to me.

I'd just like to check that I've got the general idea of your writing. What you are saying is wrong with the game is:

* Players now being full time, are spending too much time studying the opposition and generating plans to limit their effectiveness.
* Bulldogs are playing "traditional' football despite the fact that they too play with zoning defence.
* Every side should line up with three players on each line despite the fact that this will leave them outnumbered at the contest and getting heavily defeated.
* There is no point developing these strategies because we should take a stand for traditional football and cop the defeats as a moral victory.
* "NOT EVEN BASKETBALL LETS THE OFFENCE CROSS BACK INTO THE BACKCOURT ONCE THEY CROSS THE MIDCOURT LINE." That's because it's against the rules. While it's not then any club will and should use this strategy.
* Soccer is football no matter what you think, why do you even get your back up about a term? (While we are at it, AFL isn't a football code, it's a league. Australian rules is a football code.)

If you'd like to be the one who says that footy isn't what it used to be, the game is ruined and I'm not going anymore then be my guest but you just come across as a bitter man resistant to change of any kind. If the traditional way of playing footy was the best way then I'm pretty sure a club would have tried and succedded it but looking at the last 10 year of premiers there have been very few "traditional" football sides.

Are footballers better skilled than they were 50 years ago? yes
Are footballers better athletes than they were 50 years ago? yes
Will football be different in 10 years time? yes
Will supporters be complaining about the changes made to the game in 10 years? yes

Now I feel like I've gone on a rant but this is just bitter crap to me and I couldn't go without commenting. I'm not saying you can't get frustrated but more that you've weakened what you are unhapy with (Buckley/defensive football) by not understanding the competitive nature of professional sport which lives by the motto - The best offence is a good defence.

Hang around as long as you like, I'm sure someone will bring back your cheese. As for me, I'll continue to enjoy the AFL spectacle that it is and watch where it is going in the future with my full support.

I read your first sentence and decided not to read anymore.

 

[Gone Critical]

I think you need to change your definition of "nothing better" or maybe you need to get out more.

Unfortunately the latter

 

[Lefthanded]

this is one of the better threads I've seen on BF. Thanks larrikan

The dilemma that these "basketball coaches" have is that if forwards are instructed to keep their positions, their opponents will simply go to the ball contest and by weight of numbers will keep the ball in their forward half. Of course, if the trap is sprung and defenders manage to get the ball out, they can get the ball to an unmarked forward or run into open space (the slingshot effect).

This is why Clarko has mobile forwards like Puopolo, Gunston, Breust who can play a mid/defensive role as well as their forward duties. Their mobility allows them to place defensive pressure within their fwd 50 while being able to keep defences guessing as to who to man up. The forward line we should be mimicking is the Eagles - Kennedy (cloke) with support from a mobile tall Darling (White/Darcy), a smart small forward LeCras (Elliott) and a strong supporting cast in Cripps, Shuey, Hill and Yeo.

And this is where we fall apart...our game plan relies on good kicking skills to be able to get the ball to Cloke, Billy etc in one on one situations. We have no trouble getting the ball - our issue is that we can't convert our fwd 50 entries into scores. (we also have trouble kicking for goal itself)

what we desperately need is players with elite (not just good) kicking skills. Someone like Didak in his prime would be perfect.

bolded 1 - I think it starts with just having one forward playing 50 to 60m from where the ball is towards the Pies goals. If we are only 1 man down at the contest then surely we can be competitive in packs or have reasonable defence through zones. Opposition then get hurt close to 100% of the time that we get the ball forward to this player. If they are manning them up then we make the one player Cloke for his contested marking and we are no longer outnumbered at the ball. If they double team him then we have numbers at the ball and instruct Cloke to provide an option on one wing so we have option of running the ball out of defence on the other wing. Alternatively the double teaming could allow another player to be unmanned on the other wing.

bolded 2 - other need is for guys like Freeman (pace & elite in repeat sprints) to be fit enough to provide another string to our bow in breaking zones. May not come to fruition until guys like Freeman & Marsh have fitness and more experience.

 

[ottoman]

If we set up with a player on or within quick vicinity of our defence goal line it would have saved us at least 20 goals this year. Which means that the coaches believe having that set up would result in more than 20 goals being conceded in a different fashion. Personally I don't see it. In soccer one player always stays back. The goalkeeper. No matter what zones or press they play he always stays back and guards the goal. I really think we need one player to hang back a bit to try to negate the easy over the top goals that clubs are kicking against us.

 

[babyJonBourgois]

Some interesting posts in this thread - particularly the observations on the differences between watching live and on TV. I've been saying it for years but the camera operators need to be in a position where they can shoot a lot wider than they currently do - very hard for people who are new to the game/Australia to gain an understanding of the sport unless they can see the play unfolding as it's happening, rather than just the consequences of the previous play.

As for the OP, I feel like your basketball comparison is a fair way off and the growth and acceptance of basketball parlance in AFL circles can be attributed to no more than a couple of dimwitted commentators unable to come up with better analogies and is not reflective of the tactical progression of the sport IMO.
Sure, there's much more emphasis on having possession of the ball and transferring it quickly from one side of the ground to another to break down the defense before attacking - but this is also true of most team sports. Similarly, the growing emphasis on moving the ball quickly in transition before the defense can get set has long been a part of basketball but again this is true of many sports and the comparison is even less convincing due to the enormous difference in ground sizes amongst many other things (you can transfer the ball from one end of the court to the other with a single pass, for starters).

I'm actually really enjoying the tactical progression of the sport and love how quickly the game shifts and develops. However, this has been the season I have accepted that I am now only a Collingwood fan and no longer care about the league in general ... This is largely due to the way the game is officiated but the rampant commercialisation of the sport and ineptitude of the AFL has also played it's part.

If you want to blame somebody for the growth of basketball parlance in AFL circles blame Pendles - the AFL's first point guard.

 

[Lefthanded]

If we set up with a player on or within quick vicinity of our defence goal line it would have saved us at least 20 goals this year. Which means that the coaches believe having that set up would result in more than 20 goals being conceded in a different fashion. Personally I don't see it. In soccer one player always stays back. The goalkeeper. No matter what zones or press they play he always stays back and guards the goal. I really think we need one player to hang back a bit to try to negate the easy over the top goals that clubs are kicking against us.

20 seems like a lot when they could just kick the ball over the players head (the obvious difference to soccer where goalie has reasonable chance of blocking)

 

[swiftdog]

I've often wondered whether players should use the torpedo more coming out of the backline. First noticed it in the West Coast (I think it was this one) where they leave space at a 45 degree angle as they're pressing the middle of the ground. Aka, they want to give you the sideways kick or the kick back into the backline as they can continually choke you out and eventually force you to kick to a contest up the line or force a turnover on poorly executed skills. Footy shares some similarities (more than you'd think) with hockey and there seems to be a few ways to deal with a press in hockey, trying to get the ball out of defence against a team that can press well can be right old pain in the backside, however, some tactics are as follows:

1) Set up quickly out of the back and don't allow the press to set up - this is pretty obvious and all clubs at even the lowest echleons of sport try to do this, including.

2) The switch - The cause of so much frustration for many supporters but is a tried and true tactic. However, it only works if done with speed as teams like West Coast can very easily move the press across the field and you're effectively back to square one.

3) The overhead - It's exactly what it sounds like. One of the defenders lofts the ball over the top of the press in the hope that a forward can get behind the press and run onto it. It does require skill and can end badly if it results in a quick turnover, but when executed it allows two things - 1) Generally an effective way to combat a press when executed and potentially a scoring opportunity (higher level teams are naturally better at restricting the effectiveness of this though) and 2) Forces future presses to spread a little more to combat the overhead (maybe, depends on the team and their tactics and whatnot). By spreading the press naturally that creates more space for shorter options.

The overhead is something I haven't really seen in the AFL. We see teams set up quickly and can burst through them but I'd attibute that more to 1 and 2 than an 'overhead' style tactic. I think the overhead could be emulated with a torpedo punt. I think AFL teams are generally very cautious (until the game's in the dying moments) and as such don't want to risk anything other than a drop punt on the whole due to the accuracy of the kick. The two advantages I see with using a torp are 1) potential for more distance on the kick, and more importantly 2) it's a fast kick and goes from kicker to the intended target faster than a drop punt, the ball doesn't hang as much. Speed's how you beat a good press (in conjunction with skill of course). Getting back to the example I noticed, when bogged down there seemed to be space on the opposite wing behind the press about a 50m kick away. I can understand not wanting to make the kick with a drop punt as the air time will almost surely see it intercepted. However, with a torp I think it could be possible to get in behind the press quickly. The kick wouldn't need to be pinpoint, you'd just need to drop it into space behind and time a runner to get to the fall of the ball first.

Just a thought I had more than anything.

 

[ThexderX]

Post too long to read.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Brain to small to read more like it.

 

[76woodenspooners]

The overhead is something I haven't really seen in the AFL.

Goldsack did this once in a previous season and it was very successful by resulting in a quick goal.

I think he only ever pulled off that trick once - every other time he's attempted it it's ended badly for us.

We see teams set up quickly and can burst through them but I'd attibute that more to 1 and 2 than an 'overhead' style tactic. I think the overhead could be emulated with a torpedo punt. I think AFL teams are generally very cautious (until the game's in the dying moments) and as such don't want to risk anything other than a drop punt on the whole due to the accuracy of the kick. The two advantages I see with using a torp are 1) potential for more distance on the kick, and more importantly 2) it's a fast kick and goes from kicker to the intended target faster than a drop punt, the ball doesn't hang as much. Speed's how you beat a good press (in conjunction with skill of course). Getting back to the example I noticed, when bogged down there seemed to be space on the opposite wing behind the press about a 50m kick away. I can understand not wanting to make the kick with a drop punt as the air time will almost surely see it intercepted. However, with a torp I think it could be possible to get in behind the press quickly. The kick wouldn't need to be pinpoint, you'd just need to drop it into space behind and time a runner to get to the fall of the ball first.

Just a thought I had more than anything.

Torpedo also is more difficult to mark.

 

[the_champ_2004]

Thanks for the positive and negative comments. I'm not an "old codger" wishing the game would turn back, although Barry Price stab passing to Peter McKenna and hitting him on the chest with sublime accuracy was special, no, I was just making an observation that we have adopted so much basketball parlance and tactics that it resembled basketball more than football. Of course, that does not mean in a physical sense. IMO there are draw backs to that for the players and spectators. I just think this style makes many teams 'one trick ponies' that can be easily found out. Yes, soon the game will change again.

It was fun to have a thread without the coach and player bashing. Thanks. For those who thought i was too long, then spare a thought for this "old" regular BF reader who has to waddle through 100 pages to speculate if Scharenberg knows what a pen is.

Keep smiling, Go Pies.

These two things I disagree with. How is kick it long into the forward line not a one trick pony? With more strategy comes more tricks in my opinon.

Also your OP started with coach bashing saying that hopefully we could get someone else eventually.

 

[the_champ_2004]

I read your first sentence and decided not to read anymore.

Great. Did you find five bucks?

 

[Jasper84]

I've often wondered whether players should use the torpedo more coming out of the backline. First noticed it in the West Coast (I think it was this one) where they leave space at a 45 degree angle as they're pressing the middle of the ground. Aka, they want to give you the sideways kick or the kick back into the backline as they can continually choke you out and eventually force you to kick to a contest up the line or force a turnover on poorly executed skills. Footy shares some similarities (more than you'd think) with hockey and there seems to be a few ways to deal with a press in hockey, trying to get the ball out of defence against a team that can press well can be right old pain in the backside, however, some tactics are as follows:

1) Set up quickly out of the back and don't allow the press to set up - this is pretty obvious and all clubs at even the lowest echleons of sport try to do this, including.

2) The switch - The cause of so much frustration for many supporters but is a tried and true tactic. However, it only works if done with speed as teams like West Coast can very easily move the press across the field and you're effectively back to square one.

3) The overhead - It's exactly what it sounds like. One of the defenders lofts the ball over the top of the press in the hope that a forward can get behind the press and run onto it. It does require skill and can end badly if it results in a quick turnover, but when executed it allows two things - 1) Generally an effective way to combat a press when executed and potentially a scoring opportunity (higher level teams are naturally better at restricting the effectiveness of this though) and 2) Forces future presses to spread a little more to combat the overhead (maybe, depends on the team and their tactics and whatnot). By spreading the press naturally that creates more space for shorter options.

The overhead is something I haven't really seen in the AFL. We see teams set up quickly and can burst through them but I'd attibute that more to 1 and 2 than an 'overhead' style tactic. I think the overhead could be emulated with a torpedo punt. I think AFL teams are generally very cautious (until the game's in the dying moments) and as such don't want to risk anything other than a drop punt on the whole due to the accuracy of the kick. The two advantages I see with using a torp are 1) potential for more distance on the kick, and more importantly 2) it's a fast kick and goes from kicker to the intended target faster than a drop punt, the ball doesn't hang as much. Speed's how you beat a good press (in conjunction with skill of course). Getting back to the example I noticed, when bogged down there seemed to be space on the opposite wing behind the press about a 50m kick away. I can understand not wanting to make the kick with a drop punt as the air time will almost surely see it intercepted. However, with a torp I think it could be possible to get in behind the press quickly. The kick wouldn't need to be pinpoint, you'd just need to drop it into space behind and time a runner to get to the fall of the ball first.

Just a thought I had more than anything.

I just want to see torpedoes unleashed more often. You know they are awesome when even collingwood fans are screaming for Fletcher to torp it.