Unsociable Footy goes the way of the dinosaur

[Vader]

Many posters here on BF are critical for NC over Adelaide's perceived lack of an enforcer or any really "tough" characters who are prepared to make the opposition accountable for any unduly rough play.

Alastair Clarkson's "unsociable footy" is often held up as an example of what we should be aiming to emulate. Guess what? Clarkson has now decided to abandon this tactic, due to the fact that it's costing his team too much in both 50m penalties and tribunal suspensions.
http://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/afl-premiership/hawthorn-coach-alastair-clarkson-has-told-his-players-to-tone-down-the-aggression/story-e6frf3e3-1226001309994

Like many of you, I'm sad to see him passing - but the on-field enforcer is now almost completely dead and buried, killed by the AFL's rule changes and interpretations.

 

[jo172]

I'd still wager it's cyclical.

The ability to play a bit unsociably at times is great.

Those whining wanting to see it every week (Springy) are wrong for Clarko's reasons, but the ability to draw small lines in the sand is still imperative, contrary to popular belief, recent Adelaide teams have been very good at taking it right to (but not crossing) the line.

 

[WALL-e]

The rediculous is gone, and probably rightly so. But there will still be plenty of times to get your push and shove and get inside a guys head. And yes, the old chestnut, fly the flag.

Good example was R22 last year when Sloany got stuck right into Goddard. Loved it.

 

[swanfan]

The rediculous is gone, and probably rightly so. But there will still be plenty of times to get your push and shove and get inside a guys head. And yes, the old chestnut, fly the flag.

Good example was R22 last year when Sloany got stuck right into Goddard. Loved it.

I recall yelling at the TV about time someone besides Ivan stands up and decides to be counted.

 

[SydCrow]

for posterity - here is the Angry Dwarf himself getting more than a little unsociable with Ian Aitken

 

[Vader]

We now have quite a few players who are ready, willing & able to stand up for their teammates - Walker, Sloane, Maric in particular. Unlike Hawthorn's thugs, none of them are dumb enough to cross the line and give away a 50m penalty (let alone get themselves reported).

 

[SydCrow]

I remember Luke Hodge giving Chris Knights a facial with the back of his head one day - perfect example - rough, dirty play but not enough to give away a free or be reported. Interesting to see whether Hodge changes his style.

 

[canbracrow]

It is also not just about having a tough bloke or two on the field. It is important that the whole club projects a certain toughness from the top down, in how it deals with the AFL and other clubs. This has been represented in various ways over the years...Sheedy tying the wind sock down at Windy Hill, Pies refusing to adjust their jumper colours/style etc. When that tough attitude starts at the top it will hopefully permeate down through the coaches box to the field.

Short memory perhaps but I don't recall too many incidents of recent times where our blokes haven't stood up to a bit of rough from the opposition and we seem to apply it ourselves just short of the line.

 

[SydCrow]

this is going over old ground a bit (welcome to the offseason ) but Scott Thompson became a helluva lot better player once he stopped giving away frees and 50s for over-aggressive actions.

 

[KingJames23]

Who do you think were our most 'unsociable' footballers in our history?

Roo was tough and hard, but at the footy. I dont think he was dirty, although he did like to clean a few blokes up. Weidemann was as tough as they come but never an unsociable player from what I remember.

Regardless, Im surprised Clarkson told his team to stop this after they won the flag. The suspensions and 50m penalties may cost you, but if you win a premiership, what does it matter? The question is, would you rather play the game without resorting to unsociable tactics, or would you be happy if the crows were unsociable, but won a premiership? As an outsider, you can hate the hawks for how they play but I dont think their fans would be complaining. Ideally I would rather the crows win by playing tough, disiplined footy, but if you had the choice...?

Adelaide have always been a professional side. I read a recent player survey where players from other teams say that crows trash talk the least. A few said that Edwards was a yapper but other than that, most of the guys just play footy. Craig would no doubt have a major influence on this, and tell the guys not to waste energy on external factors. Its also why we're one of the best teams when it comes to suspensions. Last one from our team to be suspended was was Burton, if I remember correctly.

 

[Huntercrow]

this is going over old ground a bit (welcome to the offseason ) but Scott Thompson became a helluva lot better player once he stopped giving away frees and 50s for over-aggressive actions.

He was trying to cover for Ricciutto's absence from the St Kilda final.
Sort of went pear shaped.

I agree with canbracrow that a club needs to be seen to stand up to the AFL.
The AFC were too quiet in regards to the Bock compensation. Could not see Eddie being so calm given the same circumstances.

But then again Carlton were busy thumping the table with the Jacobs trade while we just got it done.

 

[Vader]

The AFC were too quiet in regards to the Bock compensation. Could not see Eddie being so calm given the same circumstances.

They were on a hiding to nothing there. They were going to appeal the decision, given our manifestly inadequate compensation. They were then told that the people who would judge the appeal were the same idiots who made the decision in the first place. At this point they just threw their hands up in disgust and walked away shaking their heads... Talk about a rigged system.

Personally, I thought they should have gone ahead with the appeal - and then taken it to the law courts if the appeal failed, on the grounds that they had been denied natural justice. Might have cost them a few $$$, but it would have been worth it if it forced the AFL to fix a severely screwed up appeals system. Given that we reported a loss last year, the decision not to appeal was probably based on finances rather than any lack of backbone.

 

[swanfan]

They were on a hiding to nothing there. They were going to appeal the decision, given our manifestly inadequate compensation. They were then told that the people who would judge the appeal were the same idiots who made the decision in the first place. At this point they just threw their hands up in disgust and walked away shaking their heads... Talk about a rigged system.

Personally, I thought they should have gone ahead with the appeal - and then taken it to the law courts if the appeal failed, on the grounds that they had been denied natural justice. Might have cost them a few $$$, but it would have been worth it if it forced the AFL to fix a severely screwed up appeals system.

I would have preferred if we did this with Gibbs, Vader..

 

[Vader]

I would have preferred if we did this with Gibbs, Vader..

On what basis could we appeal that through the legal system? The AFL introduced a rule which applied to 4 clubs. The rule allowed for complete transparency as to what was & wasn't allowed. It was immediately clear that Gibbs wasn't going to be eligible for selection as soon as the rule was announced.

Compare this with the compensation pick situation. The compensation formula has never been made public, so there is no way of knowing whether or not it has been correctly applied. There is a complete lack of transparency here, which leaves the AFL open to legal challenges, not to mention the outright immorality of having the appeal heard by the same people who made the original decision...

 

[jo172]

On what basis could we appeal that through the legal system?

If you were a crazy **** you could challenge the validity of the draft itself. But that's a whole bigger can of worms.

 

[SydCrow]

If you were a crazy **** you could challenge the validity of the draft itself. But that's a whole bigger can of worms.

and the salary cap - Eddie is briefing his lawyers as we speak

 

[jo172]

and the salary cap - Eddie is briefing his lawyers as we speak

Salary caps are on alot safer footing than drafts, really depends on who's got the balls to rock the boat first.

 

[cmndstab]

"Unsociable" is just a word, of course, but playing rough footy is all about shades of grey. You can play hard at the man and not be accused of playing unsociable footy.

One of the more interesting comments I've read on here was that as a club we seem to actively choose not to go at the man in favour of working down the field, or providing a shepherd, or whatever. I'd want to watch some more matches with this concept in mind because it's not something I've noticed that much in the past, but if true then there would certainly be scope for us to play rougher without it delving into the realms of 50m penalties and tribunal hearings.

If it is correct that we have made a tactical decision to put a low priority on going for the man, I can only assume it would be because the number turnovers we force with that method is judged as less beneficial than the additional pressure we place by running up the field/applying shepherds instead. I'm not sure I like that idea though - given the potency of turnovers and the value of pinpoint disposal, I'd want to think the opposition is looking over their shoulder every time they get the ball, wondering where the hit is coming from. Every time they see a Crow jumper coming at them, I want them to think "I need to dispose of this NOW because they're not going to hang off and try to zone the next option, they're coming at me as soon as they can get here".

The more times we can rush a disposal, it's going to be a benefit to the team, and for me that's the goalof rough/tough play, and something we've lacked as a team. This junk about grabbing guernseys and flying the flag all that crap does nothing for me. What I want is for other teams to know that if they've got the ball, they're a target and we'll get into them as hard as we can - and if we do it enough, it will start to play on the minds of the opposition players.

 

[SydCrow]

One of the benefits of getting the zones and frontal pressure right is that the opposition are closed down for disposal options - this forces turnovers without necessarily having to tackle - check out R22 v St Kilda for a prime example. The Saints couldn't get the ball out of their own 50. Tackle count was 55-69 in their favour.

 

[Crow-mo]

I don't see that article as being representative of anything.

its a preseason interview

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

this is going over old ground a bit (welcome to the offseason ) but Scott Thompson became a helluva lot better player once he stopped giving away frees and 50s for over-aggressive actions.

He also has gone from being a 22 year old to a 27 year old. You would expect some improvement during this period anyway.

 

[Crow-mo]

i don't think physicality & intimidation has much to do with clumsy indiscretions and poor discipline.

 

[Allefgib]

i don't think physicality & intimidation has much to do with clumsy indiscretions and poor discipline.

I asume you mean besides being commonly misconstrued as being closely related?

 

[cmndstab]

i don't think physicality & intimidation has much to do with clumsy indiscretions and poor discipline.

Not if it's done right, sure. There's no doubt that in the case of, say, the Barry Hall saga, the two territories overlapped by a fair margin.

 

[fabs33]

This junk about grabbing guernseys and flying the flag all that crap does nothing for me.

While I tend to agree with your view in general regarding this topic I do however believe there is a time and place for most things, this includes flying the flag. If I were to see one of our younger and less experienced players being targeted with unnecessary rough behaviour then I would also expect to see some guernsey grabbing done by his teammates in retaliation. Intimidation can have a detrimental impact on an individual’s performance, and if that individual has an important role in the team then it’s safe to assume that the team will suffer as well.