Scott has been consistent in his message

[SainterK]

Just google the words 'Watters Saints Defence Attacking' and you find multiple articles since his appointment late last year.

He has consistently talked about balance, the need to be sound defensively, but not to neglect the offensive side of the game. Many have got frustrated this year, but it's clear the guy has a plan and destination.

I liked this quote amongst them.

"We'll have very strong defensive principles because ultimately defence has the capacity, more than offence, to bind a group together," he said.

"At the same time, I do believe over the last 10 to 15 years, the offensive elements of the game have been neglected. There was a time when defence was the hardest thing to teach a player - to want to chase and tackle.

"But there's probably been an overcorrection. I still want the absolute defensive focus and we're not going to move from that, but ultimately you want a side that really understands what good defence means to the overall outcome and what great offence means to the overall outcome.

"They are inextricably linked.

"It's the yin and yang of the game."

He noted the weaknesses, said he needed to fix them, and is making a pretty decent effort at addressing them.

http://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/st-kild ... 6226850312

http://www.sportsnewsfirst.com.au/artic ... he-attack/

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport/afl ... 6262214561

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/sport/ ... -wise-men/

[Dave McNamara]

I have a theory... has anyone else noticed this...

Background: Defences are tighter when more blokes are placed back to help out the key defenders against their opponents. The idea is to not have the fullback or centre halfback one out with their opponents.

So if you have very good key defenders who can compete successfully one out, then you have less need to drop back extra players. This of course means you can get more blokes forward and be more potent in attack.

In other words increased attack tends to come with decreased defensive strength.

Theory: Unless, you have key defenders who require less of a chop out...

I've noticed that Cuddles seems willing to leave the key defenders one out on occassion. So far we haven't been caught out too much by this. Mostly when we've been 'caught out' it's been if we've overcommitted on the forward press, it's then been penetrated and we've been caught out over the back. (Like what Sam, Ahmed and Rhys Lightning did to Carlscum.)

So who fits this definition of the defender who needs less help?. I reckon, Shaun D (if on smalls or mediums) and the annointed one on smalls for starters aren't too bad. But most importantly - Simpko'. I noticed against Carlscum he was one out several times, including on Hampson, and I can only recall one loss.

Now if Jackson F can also come up, we may not need to flood back quite as much to cover for people (as we had to do under Ro$$y) which allows for much more attack without so much of the risk going back the other way.

I'm just wondering if that's not what Cuddles is eyeing off to develop???

[Quixote]

Thanks for the post SK.

I find the point about 'over correcting' quite interesting.

Also, the talk going around of our backline's willingness to play 1-on-1, and what this means.

Good stuff.

[Scollop]

"Scott has been consistent in his message"

And so have I...and so have a few others....Our prayers have been answered in more ways than I'd imagined...Ross 'ucked off and we've finally got a coach that understands balance. Pelchen has worked his magic, the young blokes have taken off the shackles, and even the 2011 draftees get a game or 3 in the big league...Untenable my asssssss for the former coach....but very pleasing for the rest of us and very pleasing if you are a young player on the seniors list!!!!!!!!

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=72245&p=1136889#p1136889