Run and Carry

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

I hoping for something more than Pedro's "kick it in long and fast to a leading forward". I'm pretty sure I countered that (and Neil Craig did too) by starting an extra two back.

Last time Melbourne played at AAMI against Adelaide they tried a predominantly "run and carry" / "tempo" style of play. Remember, West Coast had beaten Adelaide the week before using "run and carry" so Melbourne thought that it too would work for them. However by the time they realised that they don't have Judd, Kerr and Cousins in their team it was too late.

How much did Adelaide win by again?

Nice misquote by the way.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

So which is it Pedro? "Run and Carry" or "tempo". They are both different. But of course you cant pick it... B)

After many previous thumpings at Adelaide, we attempted to introduce "run and carry" as a means of breaking the Adelaide team game. BTW, WCE played Adelaide in Round 17 we played Adelaide in Round 22. We played it badly and lacked the training to implement it effectively against a side fully on the rebound at home in front of a rampant home crowd. Its not a matter of having Judd, Kerr and Cousins but it flosses your argument.

And that result does not condemn the tactic. The implementation needs to be improved. As Old says football game is series of ebbs and flows that requires the implementation of different plays to combat the moves and plays of the opposition. Run and carry is just one such tactic to use.

BTW,we could have hardly played tempo football as it requires you to have control of the football. We didn't have the ball against Adelaide.

I am not sure Old's quote is a misquote. Its damn accurate description of the impression you make on this site.

Sure the cap is not on too tight?

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

So which is it Pedro? "Run and Carry" or "tempo". They are both different. But of course you cant pick it... B)

After many previous thumpings at Adelaide, we attempted to introduce "run and carry" as a means of breaking the Adelaide team game. BTW, WCE played Adelaide in Round 17 we played Adelaide in Round 22. We played it badly and lacked the training to implement it effectively against a side fully on the rebound at home in front of a rampant home crowd. Its not a matter of having Judd, Kerr and Cousins but it flosses your argument.

And that result does not condemn the tactic. The implementation needs to be improved. As Old says football game is series of ebbs and flows that requires the implementation of different plays to combat the moves and plays of the opposition. Run and carry is just one such tactic to use.

BTW,we could have hardly played tempo football as it requires you to have control of the football. We didn't have the ball against Adelaide.

I am not sure Old's quote is a misquote. Its damn accurate description of the impression you make on this site.

Sure the cap is not on too tight?

Melbourne played a combination of "run and carry" and "tempo" football. That is they looked to run, carry and hand ball far too often. And when they weren't doing that they tried to hold possession though short kicks, backwards and sideways in an attempt to slow the game down and rid Adelaide of their momentum. None of it worked. Watch the game again.

It doesn't matter when WC played Adelaide, the point is still the same.

The result does condemn the tactic because it was so ineffective for that particular Melbourne side to use.

You're attempts to undermine me personally are pathetic. Argue the point, not the person Rhino.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Your posts just confirm how little you know about either tactic.

Run and Carry does not mean run, carry and hand ball far too often.Old has quite clearly outlined the case as to why ND seeks to implement something different like run and carry after previous floggings in Adelaide and Perth. However you have continually bagged such efforts while demonstrating a lack of understanding of why or when such tactics are implemented in a game. Poor execution of a tactic does not necessarily condemn the tactic itself.

MFC's holding possession though short kicks, backwards and sidewayswas not an attempt to slow the game down and rid Adelaide of their momentum was a reflection of the pressure and the uncertainty in their minds when they had the ball. It was not a deliberate tactic but a function of the impact of the oppositions tactics and the inability to create any positive outcomes from run and carry.

I dont know you personally and any undermining of you has been self inflicted.

[Nasher 33,617]

Poor execution of a tactic does not necessarily condemn the tactic itself.

This is the key point that those against R&C are missing I think. I haven't got a copy of that Adelaide game handy so my memory is fairly sketchy, but I thought it was more a case of trying to control the ball and pissing around with it too much rather than a true R&C implementation. Even if it was R&C it was completely improvised version rather than a rehearsed, clearly guided one, in a desperate attempt to gain control of a game where we clearly had none.

Like anything, it's a tactic you need to practice and redefine a few times until you get it right. Neale and the players will always need a few attempts to get it right. What chef comes up with a new dish and cooks it perfectly the first time?

[demonfanjezza 1]

Like anything, it's a tactic you need to practice and redefine a few times until you get it right. Neale and the players will always need a few attempts to get it right. What chef comes up with a new dish and cooks it perfectly the first time?

Yep, that is absolutely true in regards to cooking a meal, so likewise, this run and carry tactic with take time to perfect before it is right, but at least we had practice matches in order to try it out, and then if needed in the regular season, it can be employed

[Guest fatty]

I dont know you personally and any undermining of you has been self inflicted.

Pure genious, Rhino - one of the most insulting non-insults I’ve heard.

I’m a bit slow and its finally dawned on me what this is all about.

In previous years, when combating the flood, the best option was to kick to an unopposed team-mate to take an uncontested mark somewhere in the back pocket/flank until another team-mate leads to provide an option (Melbourne players are well-drilled in how to take uncontested marks). The disadvantage of this is that there is no incentive for his direct opponent to follow him up the ground. He just pushes back further into an already packed Melbourne forward line.

The alternative to this is to run the ball forward and hope to draw an opposition player towards you so as to create an overlap. The new strategy is actually no different to the way that has been played in the past. “Draw the player to you” has always been a well-used tactic in the game. Unfortunately, I think its going to make for an even uglier and more frustrating spectacle than what we have seen in the past years as there’s bound to be more turnovers due to applied pressure from opposition as we try and handball and create an open option.

Regardless, as much as we think its becoming more complex, its not really. Football departments are just finding ways to combat the tactics adopted by the opposition at the time. Whether ND is regarded as being reactive or proactive in this element is irrelevant.

The problem with all of this is that it doesn’t make for entertaining or “spectator” footy. I think this has been Pedro’s argument all along - that this type of football is ugly and would prefer the run through the corridor & kick long which Melbourne excelled at in the past but proved fatally flawed at the end of the day.

What I find disturbing is the same people that were lambasting the “tempo” style football last year and discrediting its impact on the game as a spectacle are now finding ways to justify its existence.

Stick to your guns, Pedro – but you ain’t ever gunna win against this mob – might have to change tactics.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

....

You are halfway there fatty.

Tactics like the flood are there to bottle up play when the opposition has the ball or to nullify the opportunity for the opposition to get it.

Kicking out has become more of a science since the days of kicking the scrubby punt as far as you could. With the abilty to generate attacks from defence, teams recognise the importance of the kick in both when they did it and when they dont have it. Huddles and zone defences are a part of trying to maintain or create a turnover of possession

The traditional team structure of six backs, six midfielders and six forwards has been replaced by team patterns where the aside from a ruckman, a power forward, a power back are typically 6ft to 6 ft 3in mobile skilled running players that can cover vast territories of ground. All sides have them to varying degrees and quality.

The impact of the greater skills and fitness together with the now four man interchange mean that the ability of the sides to really hurt teams on the scorebaord and really get a run on is an opposing coach's nightmare and difficult to reign in. One of the most interesting aspects of a game is that when momentum changes in a game the ability of a losing team with momentum to quickly whittle away a sizeable lead an win is notable.

In regard to the kick outs, the team with the ball has the option of either kicking to a contest (high risk of losing possession) or trying to find a teammate. Often they choose the initial kick to the back pocket. Teams are so well drilled that coaches will tear strips off players who aloow their opponent to get an uncontested

possession at or around the 50 metre mark.

Its not just a choice of the team kicking out but part of the plan of the opposition to corral the team to one side or area of the ground. After the kick in to the pocket, does the side change direction, seek another short pass around the flank as the opposition have manned up and have numbers in the centre corridor forcing you to play to certain parts of the ground?

Technicians will argue that the merit of the tactics but there is no doubt that to visual eye that the beauty of the AFL game is tarnished. Flooding tactics and the generation of continual ball ups by Wallace and Roos are a blight on the game. No one would argue that. The AFL has brought in a number of measures to speed up the game as it has found that each year there are more stoppages now than the previous year. Hence, you dont wait for the waving of the flags after a point to kick in.

No one on this site who has understood why tactics like "tempo" and "run and carry" are used, have not recognised what it does to the game. Please name and out those posters who dont if you dare. You made the claim.

However, as you have pointed out that running the corridor and bombing it long to a contest is fatally flawed. There are times in game to do it and its effective but not always . However, it cannot be your sole tactic and rarely for 100 minutes of the game. In past years, MFC have been picked off by smarter clubs when it has continually run the corridor.

After 40+ years in the wilderness, I would like to MFC to win a flag. I am happy for MFC to do what it has to do within the rules of the game to achieve this.

I am prepared to back a coach who has built a good list and has to date had a reasonable level of success and he deserves the right during his caocking tenure to explore tactics that will further enhance our success. For example, there is no doubt that the greater focus to the contested ball and the ability at appropriate times to implement a tempo style of footy enhanced our results last year. We need to go the next step. We have to be able to compete and win in Adelaide and in Perth if we are to go that next step. Clearly the tactics used in past years have not worked.

However the regular potshots taken on this site at the MFC coaching staff by posters who have demonstrated little or no understanding of the background and reason for such tactics or when such tactics are used in a game despite the many patient and reasoned explanations given, ridicule themselves.

[Guest fatty]

Hi Rhino,

Wasn't ignoring you but have been out of town for the last 3 weeks. The topic may be dead but just wanted to add the following.

Thanks for your input regarding the footy analysis and although I appreciate that you are streets ahead of me in your thinking, I believe we're basically on the same page.

"Please name and out those posters who dont if you dare."

You're clever enough to know that naming names is counter-productive and won't achieve anything. There's definitely a "club" on this board, and whilst I'm not complaining about it and understand that they've formed great friendships through it, there's a sameness to their thinking. They've reached a general consensus and any alternative opinions are completely disregarded or met with the

People are rarely proven right or wrong with respect to footy debate and if they are, its out of their hands anyway. Alternative opinions should be embraced as they encourage discussion and this provides the fuel for this board. Giving the in response to someone else's opinion is basically rude and does nothing to further a discussion (Please note, I'm not accusing you of this).

I am neither for nor against the MFC coaching staff but I do support their objective. Nor have I ever expressed an opinion or taken a "potshot" at them on this board. However, I do understand that if other posters do, it could be considered not without reason.

Good Luck for 2007.

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

I thought "run and carry" worked really well tonight.

It was executed perfectly.

So did the loose man in defence. But that's another topic.

[occo 2]

Ok this is my annalists of the game. I DO NOT understand why ND would change our game style when its at the G - our home ground where we rairly loose. Before tonight 9-2 win loss for melbourne at the G and i know that we have a great record there. This run and carry...well its garbage and i could pick 10,000 other words instead but ill remain polite (to some extent). This hand balling to players in trouble and surrounded by opponents is stupid. This kicking forward and back is stupid. What ever happened to PLAYING A GAME ON OUR TERMS?. Poor Batey was hand balled the ball when he had 3 saints around him on at least 3 times. There are some major issues with ND as stated above, our record at the G and y change our style. Yes the game has changed and is important that we can run and carry however i dont see the need for it at a recognisable ground. Subiacco yes and during our Pre Season opener against Hawks. During a pre season its fine to practise game styles but when it comes to the season you cant afford to. 14 games is the average games a team must win to make the 8. We play like this...i seriously reckon we will end up 12th and thats the truth.

Nathan Carroll is a major issue because i do not rate him as a FB however i guess we have to wait for Frawley. Carroll is Ok but he just gets torn up a lot with pace and reading the ball.

ND deserves to put under major pressure...which im sure he will. I can only hope that he realises the G is where we play our best footy and to leave that run and carry for Subi (where we will either adopt that game style and have a chance at winning...or play regally and get smashed).

McLean will be an issue and he is very injury prone because he puts his head over the ball a lot. Broken foot is what i have heard but only on Tripple M. Prob a 10 week injury. Although this has occurred and its devastating we cant do anything now. We havnt the technology to wave a wond and heal his foot overnight and whats done is done. There will be serious queries over his future if he keeps getting injured as players cant afford to keep being injured (both loosing game time and weaker body). The possible result is he tones down his aggression and head over the ball. This would be sad to see but at the end of the day i want the guy to have a healthy long career. Yze is the other major worry. If ND has the balls to drop him it will be the first good thing he has done for the year. As for miller...well every ball bar one was kicked at his feet and he will never be a super player to be able to be johnny brown with one hand pick-up on 2 opponents.

Our positives if any:

*Whelan's hip and shoulder on Ball. I heard the crunch on level 2 above the incident. A fair hip and shoulder so shouldn't get rubbed out. At most reprimand.

*Moloney...Hes back and hopefully take some strain off loss of McLean

*Jones...best on ground i believe

* Robbos goal....magnificent

Negatives:

*Yze

*McLean injury

* Run and Carry

*Kicking at the forwards feet

*Davey's absence

Thats it from me. A shocking game and ND needs to look closely at his style he sets.

There will be those of u who disagree but this is a forum for individuals feelings and therefore there is no right or wrong

[QueenC 74]

Great analysis there occo......

[WonnaJurah 5]

i agree with Davey he was woeful,also to many handballs that went no where and giving saints free kicks like its going out of fashion

[Scoop Junior 3,513]

McLean will be an issue and he is very injury prone because he puts his head over the ball a lot. Broken foot is what i have heard but only on Tripple M. Prob a 10 week injury. Although this has occurred and its devastating we cant do anything now. We havnt the technology to wave a wond and heal his foot overnight and whats done is done. There will be serious queries over his future if he keeps getting injured as players cant afford to keep being injured (both loosing game time and weaker body). The possible result is he tones down his aggression and head over the ball. This would be sad to see but at the end of the day i want the guy to have a healthy long career. Yze is the other major worry. If ND has the balls to drop him it will be the first good thing he has done for the year. As for miller...well every ball bar one was kicked at his feet and he will never be a super player to be able to be johnny brown with one hand pick-up on 2 opponents.

McLean got injured because he took sooooo long to get rid of the ball when he had it tonight.

He was clearly underdone in terms of match preparation. He just was not up to speed with the intensity of the game. Two or three times he just ran straight into trouble without getting rid of the footy quickly.

[Dappa Dan 2,188]

Yeah, not bad occo.

I'm way too [censored] to offer my own wrap. I counted about 20 reasons to be disgusted straight after the game, and I've counted 20 more since then.

Among them,

- We lost at the G. We lost once at the G last year and still couldn't make top 4.

- I lost more respect for ND tonight than I would have with any 6 losses from last year, including the Blues ones. But then I have liked ND a lot up until tonight.

- Yze's game wasn't the worst he's played, and he'll probably play next week only because we carried so many. Did you realise occo? He was the one that was pinged for abuse and handed Gehrig that goal? That should get your blood up if it wasn't already...

- Defence is nothing without Rivers.

- Brock out for ten weeks will do the same thing as what happened to Bruce a few years ago when he was favourite for the brownlow. He'll be back for only the second half, and even then a structural injury to his kicking foot, on which he can't run to stay fit... Let's just hope it's not 10 weeks.

- Saints were undermanned, unfit, and they didn't play THAT well. We were nearly at full strength, supposed to be fitter than ever, and have not played worse in YEARS!

- After round 3 people were saying regardless of how well we went from there we could NOT win the flag. I have that feeling already this year.

- Davey :angry:

- ND has tried to implement another game plan, but true to form has employed it at the wrong time, and failed to alter it when it failed to work. For years we've screamed at him for not having a plan-B, now that he has one, he has no idea when to use it, and has apprently completely forgotten about plan-A.

Positives.

- Neitz was admirable.

- Robbo looks ok, or at least looked ok until the second half.

- Beamer was my BOG for MFC.

- Jones was good but faded a little bit.

There were other things, but I'm going to leave you all to it and go and drown myself.

[CARN THE DEES! 14]

Completly agree, our players dont like this style and it shows, we get confused and put underpressure forcing us to handpass to another player who is under even more pressure. NO1 wanted to kick the football and i just hope Danhier is smart enough to not play this run and carry stuff on the MCG Telstra Dome or any other small ground!! I am looking forward to nxt week and am hoping that we bring bak rivers and pickett!! We really lacked some physical pressence tonight we were the best tackling side last year and tonight we got slaughtered!! With carrol occo i dont think he played to bad he was just underdone a bit and struggled against Gerdig strength and speed, some of those frees played against us were an absolute disgrace!! Especially in the backline.

Another good positives was Dutchy he was definetly one of the best on ground and as sad as it is he most disposals at 3qrt time. His kicking is improving and he is a good mark but what will happen with him i have no idea!

[occo 2]

McLean got injured because he took sooooo long to get rid of the ball when he had it tonight.

He was clearly underdone in terms of match preparation. He just was not up to speed with the intensity of the game. Two or three times he just ran straight into trouble without getting rid of the footy quickly.

I realise that. Even tho we had this game plan, he still would hve run into trouble and at the end of the day he needs to learn from it. Trying to do too much makes u look like garbage as a player i believe. Do the team thing....not the personal

[old55 23,687]

It was ugly, but it's not wrist-slashing time.

The Saints are a talented line up even without Roo and Max and they played very well. They ran very hard to form a wall 30-60 metres from where we had possession and tackled ferociously. Not just a flood in our forward line but a flood wherever we could kick to. It reminded me, not surprisingly, of our loss to the Swans at the MCG late last year. We didn't always win there ...

The fundamental idea is that against better sides like Sydney and St.Kilda you cannot kick to a contest or you'll turn it over, you need to maintain possession. As pointed out elsewhere St.Kilda let Holland and Ward get plenty of the ball because they know under pressure they'll turn it over. If you don't agree with that then don't read any of my posts. So we need to keep possession - last year vs Sydney we tried to kick to possession without any success, this game we tried run and carry without success. I know what we are trying to do, we are trying to break the line but it's just not working, yet. FWIW when the Saints went 7-7 in their foward 50 and we were 5-5 in ours I think we should have moved another one back.

The St.Kilda game plan requires a huge workrate at a ground like the MCG and IMO they were spent at 3 qtr time but because we had Whelan and McLean off we didn't have the rotation to take advantage of this. If we had a full 22 I think there is a good chance we would've run over them. That said if they kicked straight we wouln't have been within cooee so the margin was probably about right. It was telling between first game coach and 200+ game veteran. Suffice to say if the Saints win the flag, Neale will be looking for a new job, I'm pleased we're trying something new, we're not going to win it without that.

[Rampaging Demons 1]

In order to be able to run and carry the ball, you have to play as a team and do the unselfish things.. this is why Sydney is so good because they play as ateam!! Last evening there was too much one out, a lack of shepherding, we were well down on our tackle count for last year and a severe lack of hard running to position.... the running without the ball is critical to this style of play and did not see enough of it.....

Last evening the flood was just absolutely ridiculous.. but surely we knew it was coming, as this was what Sydney did and this is what other teams do to us.. the Blues are an example...

However, last year we lost a couple of games at the G and the year before one game... so why did we need to change the game style???

Disappointed that we got outmuscled, we showed no vigour or enthusiasm and a distinct lack of leadership........

Some significant pressure to perform this week..........

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

It was ugly, but it's not wrist-slashing time.

The Saints are a talented line up even without Roo and Max and they played very well. They ran very hard to form a wall 30-60 metres from where we had possession and tackled ferociously. Not just a flood in our forward line but a flood wherever we could kick to. It reminded me, not surprisingly, of our loss to the Swans at the MCG late last year. We didn't always win there ...

The fundamental idea is that against better sides like Sydney and St.Kilda you cannot kick to a contest or you'll turn it over, you need to maintain possession. As pointed out elsewhere St.Kilda let Holland and Ward get plenty of the ball because they know under pressure they'll turn it over. If you don't agree with that then don't read any of my posts. So we need to keep possession - last year vs Sydney we tried to kick to possession without any success, this game we tried run and carry without success. I know what we are trying to do, we are trying to break the line but it's just not working, yet. FWIW when the Saints went 7-7 in their foward 50 and we were 5-5 in ours I think we should have moved another one back.

The St.Kilda game plan requires a huge workrate at a ground like the MCG and IMO they were spent at 3 qtr time but because we had Whelan and McLean off we didn't have the rotation to take advantage of this. If we had a full 22 I think there is a good chance we would've run over them. That said if they kicked straight we wouln't have been within cooee so the margin was probably about right. It was telling between first game coach and 200+ game veteran. Suffice to say if the Saints win the flag, Neale will be looking for a new job, I'm pleased we're trying something new, we're not going to win it without that.

Wrong again old.

Melbourne, if lucky had no more than three players in their forward line for most of the game. Moreover, Melbourne did have a loose man in defense (it wasn't a 7 on 7 situation like you said) and it didn't work.

St Kilda had loose men everywhere in Melbourne's forward line. But Daniher refused to move extra players up forward. Instead he had potential match-winners like Davey and Bruce playing negative defensive roles in their own back line.

Ward turned it over because he had no one to kick it to in the first place. He managed to hit Neitz on the chest in a two on one situation in the first quarter but even TJ struggles to make pin-point passes to forwards who are out-numbered two, three or four on one.

You're pleased that "[Melbourne] were trying something new"? What was that pre-season that just ended for then?

Yes, St Kilda are talented, but so are Melbourne.

How about they try something that works.

For example, what they did in the first quarter (until McDonald waved his white flag in the air for all to see).

Melbourne had no forward line which meant they had to use "runs and curry" and "tempo football". That is why they lost.

[old55 23,687]

Melbourne had no forward line which meant they had to use "runs and curry" and "tempo football". That is why they lost.

Inside 50s were Saints 53 Melbourne 33 - those 6 forwards of yours would've got mighty cold.

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

Inside 50s were Saints 53 Melbourne 33 - those 6 forwards of yours would've got mighty cold.

You're right.

Another flawless coaching effort by Daniher.

[old55 23,687]

You're right.

Another flawless coaching effort by Daniher.

I agree with you. it's Daniher's list and it's Daniher's plan - he needs to [censored] or get off the pot.

But it's not as simple as it appears in Pedroworld where we didn't have as many inside 50s as St.Kilda because we didn't have enough forwards, and by the same reasoning we're must be on water restrictions because we don't have enough dams and people are starving in Ethiopia because there aren't enough restaurants ...

"Move the ball in quickly to a potent forward line" - what a great idea. While you're down there invite all those guys in Iraq to a nice morning tea and settle their differences and get some really smart scientists together to build a really cheap efficient solar cell. How hard can it be?

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

I agree with you. it's Daniher's list and it's Daniher's plan - he needs to [censored] or get off the pot.

Exactly.

But it's not as simple as it appears in Pedroworld where we didn't have as many inside 50s as St.Kilda because we didn't have enough forwards, and by the same reasoning we're must be on water restrictions because we don't have enough dams and people are starving in Ethiopia because there aren't enough restaurants ...

"Move the ball in quickly to a potent forward line" - what a great idea. While you're down there invite all those guys in Iraq to a nice morning tea and settle their differences and get some really smart scientists together to build a really cheap efficient solar cell. How hard can it be?

Priceless

[CarnTheDees 52]

...

Some fair points there Oldman. And I do understand that we are experimenting with tactics that will help us perform better in hostile territory and against the top teams.

However, last season we had a brilliant record at the MCG. We won (including a final over St Kilda) without the need for these new tactics. So why implement them in this match? A heavily undermanned and underdone St Kilda side that we've had the wood on in recent years, playing on our home turf... It does not make sense.