Dan Warna wrote:Washedup wrote:I feel for you SRr, its extremely hard to explain things to Dan, he doesn't seem to grasp things as quick as most and you generally have to make the same point at least a dozen times before it sinks in. One can only hope his learning of the game improves with time
perhaps he can explain it to all the journalists, football comenentators and other fans who thought we flooded against hawthorn in the early rounds as well, and why when all our players were within 5 metres of the D50 for vast portions of the game that isn't the flood
![Rolling Eyes :roll:](./images/smilies/icon_rolleyes.gif)
What amazed me about that game was that the Saints were roasted for flooding as if they'd solely caused it, when the balance of flooding was as far as I could count, far a result of the Hawks gameplan even more than ours...
but, since it's being debated, let me quantify what I mean by that:
Defensive: I think a lot of people get confused and think it's the defensive side of centre that the Saints are accused of flooding. The Saints kept all 6 backs inside 50, and moved teir on ballers inside the arc as well. Non of the wingers and forwards came inside defensive 50, but when you've got 10 players as opposed to 7 or 8, while technically nobody is out of position, that's still 18 players in one arc, and in a low scoring game, to those who aren't there to admire tactics and gamesmanship, it can fairly be called a flood.
Offensive: This is where the Saints are accused of flooding, and where I think it's a bit unfair - as well as their onballers, the Hawks wingers were going back inside defensive 50 (which is I believe where some draw the line as being the beginning of a flood)... and when the Saints would try and even the odds with numbers, that meant that there were up to 24 players (2/3s of those on the ground) in one 50 meter arc... now typically, a couple of saints at least would start or lead out of that arc as we chipped it around, but nontheless, that's flooding in anyones book.
It astounded me after getting home and seeing on 7's extreme delay Mitchell's comment that Clarkson wanted the goals to be like a soccer match, and that "Clarko would be happy" that the media decided to pin it on Lyon - but clearly, when both teams are moving the ball slowly and numbers are congesting the destination, that's going to be viewed as flooding. Whatever the technical definitions may be.
For mine, when the onballers start getting shifted to space instead of following the ball, it's as good as flooding - for all a lot of teams on ball brigades are a product of position on field as much as anything, it's a rebound tactic.
That game was a flood fest, even if both coaches can make a technical case they didn't flood. (Can't you just imagine the thrill the footy fans will get when lawyers start giving the post-game press conferences!)
The media view has nothing to do with it (not everyone had the same view), and neither does the majority view, which is oft driven by the media view (how many times have we all heard someone in the crowd at the footy spouting the latest Robert Walls as if it was their own incisive insight?)... I'm sure everyone here is capable of making up their own mind.