The death of offensive footy

[mehow2g]

Its a trend but most of the time its what the team is capable of... Ill use Eagles as an example.. Kerr Cousins Judd with these guys its pretty obvious youll play offensive game with their capabilities and talent, same as the Geelong Mid's.

As the poster above said I too believe Melbourne will be one of the most attacking sides weve ever seen they have a spread of speed and talent all over the ground not Essendon Speed with no skills but Speed with talent.

 

[Better_Than_You]

It's better if there are contrasts in game styles. Geelong v St. Kilda for instance. West Coast were pretty attacking in their duels against the Swans. If every team played like the Saints it would be a snooze-fest.

Yep I will agree with you there bombermick, the Saints have a very unique mix in their team with more defensive negating types than most other teams but they play their game style to perfection and almost force the opposition into a tough, hard game especially come finals time when the intensity lifts

 

[Bonuspoints]

I think the words attacking/offensive football are a poor choice of words. I think daring football is more apt.

Collingwood and St Kilda play a very risk adverse brand of football relying on organisation and pressure to win games. Geelong and Essendon take far more risks in the way they play relying on individual brilliance.

I think it's fair to say that Geelong beat teams because nobody had a comparable level of talent. The game plan worked perfectly provided we had better players who would regularly win individual battles. This is no longer the case at Geelong.

Regarding strategy I think what were seeing in AFL mirrors very closely with what's happening in Soccer in particular last years Champions League Final (Barcelona vs Inter Milan).

Barcelona play with frontal pressure and high defensive line working extremely hard to win the ball back. They dominate possession and are the world best team at the moment.

Inter Milan are not worried so much about possession but rather holding their shape.

To me that's Collingwood vs St Kilda as far as strategy goes.

Agree with the bolded part. I think footy is best when there are a number of different styles and strategies, particularly with the top teams. I hope we get another Geelong style team rise up in the next few years to replace the Cats when they're no longer a contender. Dees look like they could be that team in a few years, so heres hoping they rise up soon. Footy would be pretty stale if everyone plays the same way.

 

[bombermick]

Melbourne and Freo do play an attacking style and I was neglectful in not mentioning them. But neither are premiership contenders, at least for the moment. The Dees will have a scary midfield if they can convince young Viney to sign up with them, which will mean they can play a Geelong-like style and become a contender. They may end up a bit like Carlton in having a great midfield, but having an attack based around medium and small targets, due to a lack of a quality key forward (Jurrah not a monster forward).

 

[King Elvis]

I'm not arguing that Knights was a good coach or that Essendon had the capabilities to play his style of football. I'm simply worried that a pressurized, risk-adverse style of game will become the norm-at least for a few years.

Tough, inside battles can be fantastic games such as last week's GF. But they can also be terrible blights on our game eg: Saints v Bulldogs from this year.

If you asked me if I would prefer Knights coaching us and getting spanked every second game, or having a more defensive style and climbing up the ladder, I am obviously choosing the latter. But if you told me I could either watch Geelong or the Saints at their peak, I'm choosing Geelong every time.

If they change the interchange rule, it'll reduce that kind of thing; that level of pressure and intensity isn't sustainable without massive rotations.

That aside, hopefully it's 'beaten' by Clubs coming up with different tactics - simple one; if teams are pressing up and hammering the ball carrier, start kicking it longer and backing your guys in one on one again.

 

[bombermick]

If they change the interchange rule, it'll reduce that kind of thing; that level of pressure and intensity isn't sustainable without massive rotations.

That aside, hopefully it's 'beaten' by Clubs coming up with different tactics - simple one; if teams are pressing up and hammering the ball carrier, start kicking it longer and backing your guys in one on one again.

A lack of rotations will certainly change things once again, although I'm not sure they'll be reduced below 100.

 

[bighit006]

We play offensive footy. The opposition always pile it on against us, really a pleasure to behold.

 

[Ron The Bear]

Its a trend but most of the time its what the team is capable of... Ill use Eagles as an example.. Kerr Cousins Judd with these guys its pretty obvious youll play offensive game with their capabilities and talent, same as the Geelong Mid's.

Agree with this, although it's a vicious circle - some coaches have become adept at winning with less skilled outfits through an emphasis on discipline; this in turn forces talented teams to sacrifice individual flair for discipline/structure.

Dale Thomas is an example of a very talented player who has had to adapt his game. Crowd-pleasers are becoming a thing of the past.

While most supporters are content to see their own team "win ugly", I don't know that too many are prepared to sit through a lot of "neutral" games which share that sameness.

 

[rose jam]

Attacking is not the right word, it should be "fast moving".

Pies move the ball out of defense wide, but move it very fast. Saints slow the ball down, regather their structure and look for holes to jam the ball through so move it slow and that's why a lot of people bag Saints footy because they hold it for so long and slow the game down.

 

[kelvin_sheedy]

The OP is spot on.

It's taken a long time for the AFL to catch up to other sports like soccer and basketball in defensive aspects of the game.


Jose Mourinho has won all before him in soccer implementing a defensive game. Every team now plays with a lone striker and stacks the midfield. Most goals are scored on quick counter attacks.

AFL teams have got smarter about zones and pressuring in the right spots and cramping space just like soccer.

Instead of defensive footy I like to use the term counter attack. Most teams play a counter attack type of game. Safety first going forward. Pies play safety down the boundary line. They chip the ball up that way so as not to open themselves up.

All are slight variations of one anther and Collingwood has the right mix right now. A bunch of good ordinary players looking like a great team.

 

[The 747]

Collingwood only averaged 7 points per game less than Geelong this year despite having a much tougher draw than them and fewer home games against bottom sides where they can boost their average.

Collingwood had a tough draw? Orly?

 

[ScoobySnacks]

What goes around comes around. And then goes around again

 

[Hodgepodge]

I'm tired of this 'Geelong saved footy' rubbish. There are plenty of other teams who played attractive offensive footy at the same time. The Eagles for example.

 

[Reckoner Tiger]

Will people stop bitching about this?

Geelong 2009 and Collingwood 2010 have averaged 1 goal a game more than the Saints 2009 side.

To be honest, I don't think anything is more satisfying that seeing hard, brutal football where we tackle and chase and worry the hell out of the opposition. Us putting them out of their depth in an absolute physical sense is such a great thing to watch.

People whinge and bitch because whenever we can't put a blowtorch to our opponents we shut them down and retain the ball. So? Your side should man up. It's a clever defensive tactic and nothing is wrong with it. It's been proven that if you simply play better than us in the right way, you can beat it. If you can't, you're not good enough.

St Kilda's football over the past few years has produced some incredible football. Yet once or twice a year there's a stinker that the other team had a hand in and everyone is flooding the message boards crying about how we ruined the game and how us winning is bad for the game. Never mind the fact that we've been involved in two of the greatest Grand Finals of all time. Never mind R14 2009 that everyone goes on and on about being amazing. What of us kicking 10.0 in a quarter against the Eagles, or the 8.1 against North this year?

Fast, outside, flowing, high-scoring football is lame. Especially when the main stars are soft hacks who only got in for running fast and being on the end of fast play. If you've ever played football, you'll know that there is nothing exciting about running around in space. The real fun is had in packs and hunting as a group. This is what St Kilda has done best. It's what Sydney did best and it is the most important part of football and should be preserved above all else. Once you appreciate the physical and mental toughness required to win the ball in close by actually experiencing it yourself, I think you see the more engaging side of "Saints Footy" and Collingwood's "Swarm" tactic.

If you enjoy your Carlton and Essendon sides at the moment, good for you. But I call it fast food football and it's a blight on the true values of our game.

F***ing, this

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Collingwood had a tough draw? Orly?

Have a look who Collingwood played twice (and who they played once) and compare it to who Geelong played twice (and once) and the comparative ladder positions.

There is no question about who had the tougher draw.

 

[kranky al]

Have a look who Collingwood played twice (and who they played once) and compare it to who Geelong played twice (and once) and the comparative ladder positions.

There is no question about who had the tougher draw.

ummm every single interstate team?

 

[rose jam]

ummm every single interstate team?

Swans - 1
Port - 1
West Coast - 1
Brisbane - 1
Adelaide - 1
Fremantle - 1

Once for all. And against the other top 8 sides

Geelong - 2
Saints - 2
Bulldogs - 2
Fremantle - 1
Sydney - 1
Carlton - 2
Hawthorn - 2

Toughest draw in the league this year

 

[tropicaltiger]

Yes, they certainly offended me in the elimination final

LOL & CSL (Couldn't stop larfin)

 

[DanA]

If they change the interchange rule, it'll reduce that kind of thing; that level of pressure and intensity isn't sustainable without massive rotations.

That aside, hopefully it's 'beaten' by Clubs coming up with different tactics - simple one; if teams are pressing up and hammering the ball carrier, start kicking it longer and backing your guys in one on one again.

That's essentially what St Kilda did in the 2nd half of the GF

 

[bombermick]

I'm tired of this 'Geelong saved footy' rubbish. There are plenty of other teams who played attractive offensive footy at the same time. The Eagles for example.

The Eagles did, but they struggled in beating the Swans who were widely lambasted for 'winning ugly.' Geelong then blew that sort of game-style out of the water. Other coaches, including Matthew Knights, used almost the same game plan. Now it has turned again and defense is the name of the game. Collingwood do play a relatively free-flowing game but they don't play as a risky and aesthetically pleasing game as Geelong at their peak.

 

[CarnThePiesfor09]

Will people stop bitching about this?

Geelong 2009 and Collingwood 2010 have averaged 1 goal a game more than the Saints 2009 side.

To be honest, I don't think anything is more satisfying that seeing hard, brutal football where we tackle and chase and worry the hell out of the opposition. Us putting them out of their depth in an absolute physical sense is such a great thing to watch.

People whinge and bitch because whenever we can't put a blowtorch to our opponents we shut them down and retain the ball. So? Your side should man up. It's a clever defensive tactic and nothing is wrong with it. It's been proven that if you simply play better than us in the right way, you can beat it. If you can't, you're not good enough.

St Kilda's football over the past few years has produced some incredible football. Yet once or twice a year there's a stinker that the other team had a hand in and everyone is flooding the message boards crying about how we ruined the game and how us winning is bad for the game. Never mind the fact that we've been involved in two of the greatest Grand Finals of all time. Never mind R14 2009 that everyone goes on and on about being amazing. What of us kicking 10.0 in a quarter against the Eagles, or the 8.1 against North this year?

Fast, outside, flowing, high-scoring football is lame. Especially when the main stars are soft hacks who only got in for running fast and being on the end of fast play. If you've ever played football, you'll know that there is nothing exciting about running around in space. The real fun is had in packs and hunting as a group. This is what St Kilda has done best. It's what Sydney did best and it is the most important part of football and should be preserved above all else. Once you appreciate the physical and mental toughness required to win the ball in close by actually experiencing it yourself, I think you see the more engaging side of "Saints Footy" and Collingwood's "Swarm" tactic.

If you enjoy your Carlton and Essendon sides at the moment, good for you. But I call it fast food football and it's a blight on the true values of our game.

Godly post

 

[absfab]

This shite is really lame.

Footy follows fashion, and if Geelong had got up in 2008 then every team in football would be trying to immitate Geelong football for the next ten years, becuse we'd all be convinced that it couldn't be beaten.

Face the truth. The Flood, and it's successors, are easier to produce. And as a bonus require more discipline than talent. Don't let that blind you to the fact that the defence/offence battle will continue forever.

And most of us will be scratching our chins and wisely declaring that whichever is ahead this year is the "natural superior".

 

[rose jam]

Collingwood do play a relatively free-flowing game but they don't play as a risky and aesthetically pleasing game as Geelong at their peak.

Collingwood play an intense physical energetic style of footy. Geelong played loose off each other with downhill skiing cheats that made hacks like Matthew Stokes stay out of jail

 

[huggy_b]

The onset of what appears to be the demise of the mighty Geelong and the sacking of Matthew Knights got me thinking. Both St.Kilda and Collingwood rely on defensive game styles. It's all about defensive pressure on the ball carrier. Although both can score heavily, "Saints footy" is a replica of "Bloods footy", while the Pies don't attack the corridor for fear of a turnover.

Geelong played a very attractive gamestyle that was a pleasure to watch (except when you were on the end of a 100 point belting). Even Essendon, in the shadows of regular heavy defeats played a kamikaze style of play that regulary left the slow Saints in their wake. Will the game return to a more attacking style, or has the game forever changed thanks to Paul Roos and Ross Lyon.

In 2008 we scored 2126 points, 2197 in 2009 and 1935 this year. And champ, for all your "attacking" footy under Knights, Essendon scored 2130 in 2008, 2080 in 2009 and 1930 points this season.

And please remember that we had our attacking focal point out injured for 12? weeks of an 22 week season. Add his missing 25 or so goals and we are back up around 2100 again.

So explain why you are so much more "attacking" than St Kilda because your scoreboard does not reflect this. You leak points like a sieve though.

 

[caitsith01]

2007 - attacking team won GF
2008 - attacking team won GF
2009 - attacking team won GF