Quadruple Teaming Roo DOES NOT Mean Other Forwards are Open!

[SteveStevens66]

Many on here have said that if Roo is double, triple or quadruple teamed when he goes up for a mark, that means that other players were open that would have been better options. THIS IS NOT TRUE. Teams these days do not play man on man in their backlines. If they played man on man, and 4 defenders were on Roo, then yes, 3 of our forwards would be standing by themselves. BUT, teams these days are playing a defensive zone. This means that every player guards a certain space. Now with someone like Roo, a coach might tell one of their players to follow him on all of leads BUT when he leads into another defenders designated space, it is this defenders responsibility to pick him up, block his lead, or spoil the mark.

Roo seemed to be getting quadruple teamed on Friday NOT because there were 4 players following him at all times and subsequently leaving other forwards open, but because we were bombing the ball in with very high kicks. This gives time for defenders to leave their designated space to come spoil the mark. It is very unlikely he will mark it against 4 men and when it hits the deck, they have 4 players around the ball. You would have found, that if they had tried to kick it up high to Blake, that 4 players would have rushed to that contest as well.

When the players kicked the ball up to Roo, there were not 4 players sitting next to him, probably only one, meaning it was a very enticing option.

How to combat this? I dont know. But I do know that just because 4 of their players were contesting with Roo for the mark, this does not mean that 3 of our forwards were open.

[perfectionist]

...How to combat this?...

Have Kosi there too, but that's a bit hard when he's injured. Other than that, all I can think of is to scrub it to him to create a bit of confusion on the ground. At the moment, just kicking it to a one on three in the air contest means he flies, has it punched away, gets knocked and the other team takes it away on the numbers. If it's on the ground to start with, he can use his speed to get to it and do a quick dish to (hopefully) one of our blokes running down the ground. None of which is ideal or guaranteed, but Plan A didn't work, a Kosi doesn't look like being back for a few weeks.

[plugger66]

If they get numbers back we have to at least match tham but with our defensive mindset our numbers are on the wing so we are outnumbered all the time. The bomb doesnt work with our game plan where as it suits a side like the pies perfectly.

[borderbarry]

Decent passes instead of long bombs would probably solve the problem.

[SainterK]

Decent passes instead of long bombs would probably solve the problem.

Or just get the guy back ASAP who doesn't mind them.

[plugger66]

Decent passes instead of long bombs would probably solve the problem.

Or just get the guy back ASAP who doesn't mind them.

Who is that?

[gringo]

We haven't got Kosi so Archer is the only real option that could pack crash like that, at least if he landed in your back you would know about it.

I actually think it is an opportunity for someone to show some initiative, and start kicking for goal when inside 50. I hate it when we slow down on entry and wait for another searching lead from Riewoldt, taking any spontaneity out of the attack.

I know you have to square up sometimes but often we don't get license to just give it a go. Geelong and Collingwood both just did the low percentage shots and walked away winners against us, we should be looking to do the same.

[spert]

Simple footy rule- win your contest and make as few mistakes as possible. We were beaten in the contested situations on Friday, and thats why Geelong came back on the scoreboard to the point of being able to snatch a win from Blake's dumb turnover. Some of our guys are not great in winning their individual contests. .we saw that in a big way in GF2

[philtee]

It would be nice if we could release McEvoy up forward to crash a few packs. Archer could be an alternative. The long bombs
into the forward line are a bit of a worry - too easy too repel. Daisycutter kicks onto a leading forward's chest would be 100%
more effective. But that would mean we would need to move the ball upfield faster to stop the opposition blocking space.

Still - we've got a new team of Assistant Coaches. Maybe their gameplan is gonna take a few more weeks to sink in. I haven't been
able to detect any evidence of any new tactics yet!

[bigred]

Decent passes instead of long bombs would probably solve the problem.

Out of everything, the double and triple teaming etc....our disposal going into the F50 is absolutely terrible.

Often under little or no pressure, we still manage to kick it at his toes or over his head, or even worse still, just sky the ball leaving Roo to be smashed.

It's not good enough. It's not good enough at Sandringham. Its not good enough at the East Burwood thirds.

Yet we manage to do it nine times out of ten.

[Thinline]

I think our players minds were trying to implement something their bodies weren't/aren't yet sufficiently trained to do.

Speed going forward is one thing. Speed with accuracy is another entirely.

[Solar]

Either work him up to the wing to get a cheap kick and work through the zone with runners through the line or get him deep and back roo to contest it to the front and have the midfielders be able to be front and centre for the crumb.

Strangely we worked it in closeto get the run from half back but stopped that when we got near the 50. Players need to back themselves and attack the goal front. Dal did it and if he had kicked one early things could have been different.

[Con Gorozidis]

yep. a result of our slow ball movement in the midfield. if u move it quick u leave the fwds 1-on-1 and hey presto they look geniuses all of a sudden.

opposition now have plenty of time to leave their spaces and get to a contest to spoil and clear.