No, I mean experimenting with rotations like Martin moving through there as an example.
1 Like
They’ll do it at the worst possible time and force us to hold back young talent so Brad can play his mates more often.
Our injury list has actually been one of the biggest positives for this club, in a while.
5 Likes
Is he a norf OR AFL plant tho? That’s the bigger question.
2 Likes
What??!!! ………so, we set the tables for the President’s Luncheon more accurately??
2 Likes
Slow at moving the ball
We go long laterally
We don’t go direct to goal
Ok this is system
3 Likes
I’m just glad the club is “stable” with the lowest percentage in recent memory.
Make it make sense
4 Likes
Back at the pizza shop?
And from memory, how many have actually won a game off their own effort?
Or better still, when EFC tries to make some dollars off “Champions of the 21st Century” how many would be on that list?
Because NONE of them would displace ANY of the current CoE. Or any of the next 50.
1 Like
Whynotboth.gif
Don’t understand why they’re using an impenetrable index instead of actual measures but interesting nevertheless
These numbers gel with how it feels as a spectator. Because we don’t have any stay at home forwards, we often have to hold things up in the middle of the group to assemble our forward setup (which means opposition also have time to assemble their defensive setup)
3 Likes
What does it mean though!
It mean we move the ball slowly and sideways
2 Likes
Pies move it slowly but very directly, I think…
1 Like
It means we are frustrating to watch
I reckon to sumarise post-Sheedy game styles from a spectators’ point of view:
- Knights - entertaining but not effective
- Hird - entertaining when we are winning, frustrating when we are losing
- Bomba - not so entertaining, but generally effective
- Woosha - entertaining when we are winning, meh when we are losing
- Rutten - OK when we are winning, frustrating when we are losing
- Scott - frustrating-albeit-effective when we are winning, frustrating when we are losing.
1 Like
Continuing this thought bubble:
If there’s one player who is emblematic of a coaching regime:
- Knights - Courtney Dempsey
- Hird - Stu Crameri
- Bomba - Paul Chapman
- Woosha - Orazio Fantasia
- Rutten - Mason Redman
- Scott - Jayden Laverde
4 Likes
They do a go fast when you can, but slow it down when it suits.
Slow footy does not mean a team is ■■■■. If the opposition has had a good 10 minute period where they are making you pay, the way to combat it is to slow the game down. Not speed it up.
I was interested to hear Hoyne talk the other week about trends of teams that turn a game from ‘chaos footy’ to ‘control footy’ and what that means for the result.
I’d say there is a trend for certain teams that turn ‘control footy’ to ‘chaos footy’. And I’d say there is also a trend on where the +1 is played depending on what mode of play is occurring. And if you watch other games of footy, there isn’t a message sent from the coaches box. It’s become an ‘on field’ direction. The coaching occurs in the time before this to make the team aware that if [insert situation] happens, pout a +1 behind the ball ( or put a +1 at the contest].
Of course, Collingwood can probably play slow footy because they have veterans in their 18 who have enough experience to react to the various situations that occur. Add in 10 21 year olds and I don’t think they get the same results. Last year was a good example that when you take out a handful of players and play that 25 to 30 group of depth, that the effectiveness of the system can be lost and that’s enough to be a mid ladder team.
4 Likes
My nominations,
6 Likes
Heard a bit of that too. Highlighted for me the issue we have with our stoppages at the moment. We’re struggling to convert clearances to ball control
1 Like