Any more proof of the "modern gameplan"?

Oh When the Saints · Fri 14 Sep 2007 10:56pm

Both Collingwood and West Coast in particular are showing us a game of football between to sides who are highly disciplined, and attempt to execute the "modern gameplan".

Flood back in numbers, give your opposition some ground and then pressure the ball carrier as they attempt to move it forward.

Win the footy in the back half and then carry it as quickly as possible into your own forwardline.

Intense tackling pressure through the middle of the ground in 50/50 contests.

It might not be pretty to watch, but it works in finals, and it has seen the Eagles and Swans reach to GF's ... and will see either team tonight reach a PF.

Geelong play the same way, make no mistake.

They are just better drilled and have the talent to execute it with more precision that some other teams.

It is the ultimate gameplan that stands up in finals and in pressure, and most teams now use it.

I can see why Ross Lyon believes in it.

choowy · Post: # 456499Post **choowy** » Fri 14 Sep 2007 10:59pm

thanks ross
________
Weed

Cam1lla · Post: # 456501Post **Cam1lla** » Fri 14 Sep 2007 11:01pm

choowy wrote:thanks ross

what?

Stephen Theodore · Fri 14 Sep 2007 11:03pm

At 1/2 time, is a game completely ruined by the maggots and their inconsistent rulings.

saintsRrising · Fri 14 Sep 2007 11:13pm

During 2007 the team learnt how to pressure and check an oponent when they have the ball.

This will stand us in very good stead in 2008 and beyond....

meher baba · Post: # 456659Post **meher baba** » Sat 15 Sep 2007 9:05am

OWTS

I think you are bundling a few different gameplans up together here.

Ross's gameplan - as we've seen it so far - involves retreating and corralling when they have the ball until they bring it forward to a point where they are outnumbered and kick it to a contest. This, more often than not, creates a turnover. This is the Swans style of play.

Last night, Collingwood in particular were going for the ball and the tackle all over the ground.

This week and last week, the Eagles were flooding a lot more than they usually do: probably because they didn't have the midfield dominance that they generally have.

I don't recall seeing the Eagles flooding a great deal during finals in previous seasons.

Some of it is horses for courses: Port Adelaide are not a major flooding team either, but they did it in a big way in the 2004 GF because Williams figured out that it would upset and panic the Lions.

Like the Eagles players and the Port players, the Saints players already knew how to flood back and how to apply intense tackling pressure before Lyon appeared on the scene.

What we didn't used to have was a rigid gameplan which we played in a highly disciplined manner: a la the Swans. Is that what we needed to "go to the next level"? I'm still not sure: let's ask the Swans. (Oh no: where are they? That's right, they've gone away on their end of season trip already.

)

Baz1970 · Post: # 456669Post **Baz1970** » Sat 15 Sep 2007 10:11am

Last night's game broke the myth about the importance of a ruckman. Cox dominated the ruck, but Collingwood smashed them in the clearances and won the game. It goes to show it's all about quality in the midfield. I'm sure Kerr, Judd and Cousins would have made a difference. We should concentrate on stockpiling midfield talent, rather than giving up the world to get a Jolly.

bigcarl · Post: # 456670Post **bigcarl** » Sat 15 Sep 2007 10:14am

Baz1970 wrote:Last night's game broke the myth about the importance of a ruckman. Cox dominated the ruck, but Collingwood smashed them in the clearances and won the game. It goes to show it's all about quality in the midfield. I'm sure Kerr, Judd and Cousins would have made a difference. We should concentrate on stockpiling midfield talent, rather than giving up the world to get a Jolly.

good post. i agree

plugger66 · Post: # 456671Post **plugger66** » Sat 15 Sep 2007 10:16am

Baz1970 wrote:Last night's game broke the myth about the importance of a ruckman. Cox dominated the ruck, but Collingwood smashed them in the clearances and won the game. It goes to show it's all about quality in the midfield. I'm sure Kerr, Judd and Cousins would have made a difference. We should concentrate on stockpiling midfield talent, rather than giving up the world to get a Jolly.

You could also say that if Cox wasnt so dominent in the ruck they would have lost by more considering the players out. So there are always 2 ways to look at things. But I do agree lets not worry about Jolly.

rodgerfox · Post: # 456672Post **rodgerfox** » Sat 15 Sep 2007 10:16am

meher baba wrote:
This week and last week, the Eagles were flooding a lot more than they usually do: probably because they didn't have the midfield dominance that they generally have.

Bingo.

saintsrus · Post: # 456677Post **saintsrus** » Sat 15 Sep 2007 10:31am

Baz1970 wrote:Last night's game broke the myth about the importance of a ruckman. Cox dominated the ruck, but Collingwood smashed them in the clearances and won the game. It goes to show it's all about quality in the midfield. I'm sure Kerr, Judd and Cousins would have made a difference. We should concentrate on stockpiling midfield talent, rather than giving up the world to get a Jolly.

Thanks Grant

Cox plus Judd and Cousins = Win

Dan Warna · Post: # 456679Post **Dan Warna** » Sat 15 Sep 2007 10:38am

saintsrus wrote:
Thanks Grant

Cox plus Judd and Cousins = Win

cox + grant + crack + cousins = win.

plugger66 · Post: # 456681Post **plugger66** » Sat 15 Sep 2007 10:40am

Dan Warna wrote:
saintsrus wrote:
Thanks Grant

Cox plus Judd and Cousins = Win
cox + grant + crack + cousins = win.

Who is grant?

Dan Warna · Post: # 456691Post **Dan Warna** » Sat 15 Sep 2007 10:55am

just mix and matching for no apparant reason

meher baba · Sat 15 Sep 2007 12:56pm

When Grant used to wear his tracky daks, we were quite frequently all treated to a bit of crack.

Is that what you were referring to Dan?

Brewer · Post: # 456753Post **Brewer** » Sat 15 Sep 2007 1:26pm

meher baba wrote:When Grant used to wear his tracky daks, we were quite frequently all treated to a bit of crack.

One man's 'treat' is another man's emetic...

meher baba · Post: # 456756Post **meher baba** » Sat 15 Sep 2007 1:34pm

Brewer wrote:
meher baba wrote:When Grant used to wear his tracky daks, we were quite frequently all treated to a bit of crack.
One man's 'treat' is another man's emetic...

Not that there's anything wrong with that, either way (or both)

saintsRrising · Sat 15 Sep 2007 3:12pm

Baz1970 wrote:Last night's game broke the myth about the importance of a ruckman. Cox dominated the ruck, but Collingwood smashed them in the clearances and won the game. It goes to show it's all about quality in the midfield. I'm sure Kerr, Judd and Cousins would have made a difference. We should concentrate on stockpiling midfield talent, rather than giving up the world to get a Jolly.

Or it could be set that having a very good ruckman kept the Weagles with only their second string mids available on the game.

Was most interesting to observe the importnace ofa very good Full Back.

Glass shut Rocca out..Glass goes over ground and Rocca snages 2 golas.

Glass comes back on and rocc does not geta sniff after that.

The REALITY is that many things are important in having a good team.....you can still win without some of them....but if you lack in some areas then you need to be extra good in others.

No one thing wil win youa flag....but you need to get MOST things right...not ALL...but most.