The general consensus at the moment seems to be that itās not a problem if the opposition gets a lot of contested ball, what matters is when you allow the ball in the hands of their best decision makers. Itās those guys, who can create space and slice through defences, that are the most damaging and who are the most important to stop
The other issue as well is that itās easier it seems to tag an outside player than an inside player.
So thereās no point trying to turn off the tap at the source, the point is to stop the water getting into the water pistol. I acknowledge this is an extremely cr@p analogy
Another way of putting it is;
Which Selwood would you see rather have 25 possessions?
Gibbs by foot, and Sloane running with the ball into space are more dangerous than either Crouch.
Given theyāll probably get their 25 possessions one way or another, current coaching would like to see them get these with pressured short handballs, and force Sloane to hoof it round his body from the back of packs.
Still potentially dangerous but it doesnāt slice you apart downfield.
Its an interesting question, in last years grand final youād have to say that both Crouchās were in Adelaideās best on the day. Contested ball around the stoppages wasnāt specifically were they lost it but they couldnāt match Richmond for overall pressure & better ball use. I donāt think we can necessarily use the same tactics as Richmond because when we get beaten for the contested ball it usually means a lot more inside 50ās to the opposition & we still look very vulnerable down back.
Well that sounds like a load of rubbish to me. If the opposition win a lot of contests, then of course their best players will get a lot of possessions.
Saying that itās necessary to stop their damaging players getting a lot of the ball is really only saying that we need to win the contested ball.
You donāt see how the above may not be the case? Is it inconceivable that the opposition may win the ball at the coal face, the inside mids are not the best users of the ball on their team, and the best users - their outside mids, for example, are hindered from receiving the ball?
In the 2nd paragraph, you are telling the poster āwhat they are really sayingā. Translating that paragraph reads to me āthe only way to stop their damaging players is by winning the ball ourselvesā. That is partly true, but is it exclusively true? Is that really the only alternative?
In short - if we tied up their most damaging players - with Gaffa tape, say, would their most damaging players receive the ball unless we won it ourselves?
Hmmmā¦maybe youāre right, after all, and it is a load of rubbish.
I was fearing he was going to miss multiple weeks so if thereās some chance for this week then thats fantastic news. Having said that zero risk needs to be applied - heās far too important to our year to risk him returning too early.