4 hours ago, Gorgoroth said:

If we do it a few times then switch it up to the other side in a planned move to have say, Hunt, Bakker, Langdon on that side alone and to kick it past them and let them run onto it, not many catch them if it gets out the back.

It's way too predictable at this stage. I'd add Weids or Brown to your suggestions as well? 

9 minutes ago, Biffen said:

We need to attack through the centre more with runners each side of the target.

We need to attack through the centre more in general if we are playing to win.

The problem is Biff when we do try that we cough it up. Skills let us down.

I was heartened to see Kozzie start a chain of handballs from half back which led to Spargo's first qtr goal. More of that please.

May is good with the kick outs. He uses his brains and off loads to Salem, in essence, allowing Salem to gain an extra 20-30m he otherwise wouldn't gain if he taken the kick outs himself. Its brilliant by May. He makes the right call most the time. Not perfect, but its our best option in a long while.

9 minutes ago, Better days ahead said:

The problem is Biff when we do try that we cough it up. Skills let us down.

I was heartened to see Kozzie start a chain of handballs from half back which led to Spargo's first qtr goal. More of that please.

And in the 4th- 40 metre handball by someone -cant recall who but lead to goal.

2 hours ago, Fat Tony said:

6,6,6 rule requires one in the square. 

If you take a mark in the square the angle of the kick is straight in front.

Also, the square is a starting point for where you need to be before a kick in. 

Well you learn something new every day FT. 

32 minutes ago, Biffen said:

We need to attack through the centre more with runners each side of the target.

We need to attack through the centre more in general if we are playing to win.

True. You can only create that space in the centre (while also creating a fat side) by sending all of the defence to one side.

I'd love to see stats on our success from kick outs. Being boring on the kick outs should, in theory, allow us to be more bold with the next kick.

The defence has absolutely no choice but to break structure and crowd Max. 

All we need from there is one contested ball win and we're facing an out of position defence.

That said, a bit more variation would be nice.

59 minutes ago, Better days ahead said:

It's way too predictable at this stage. I'd add Weids or Brown to your suggestions as well? 

The idea was to use their speed. Even start them closer and kick it over their heads and let them run.

Prob just one of those in theory plays but like NFL teams do with their trick plays, only has to be used once and if it works great, set up similar again and watch them drag another player over for cover.

1 hour ago, Skuit said:

I don't understand why teams haven't come up with a better strategy for kicking straight down the guts. I get the angles create a risk, but if you were well-drilled to set up both defensively and offensively for the kick then I think it could be a huge advantage. Even with even numbers it never seems to come off in favour of the attacking team. 

Also going down the middle often makes it easier to find a loose player on the wings occasionally 

My junior team did a drill where we would try to get it from a kickout to a goal in under ten seconds.

It's something all teams should try.Especially if you are down 5 goals in the last quarter.

I feel like the kick outs are symptomatic of one of our issues, which is boring ball movement.

We aim to not turn it over - so if we get a stoppage on the flank/wing, that's preferable to trying to go straight down the middle but turning it over.

I don't actually have a problem with that as a general idea, but we need to spice it up from time to time. If we send everyone to one wing, have someone break into space on the other wing and see if we can't use that space.

Last night. 8 kick outs. 7 were kicked to Gawn and the other was May to Salem. 
 

The kick out to Gawn (7) is not effective. Four times it was a turnover and twice led to Giants goals.  The Giants knew what was coming and got extra players over to that contest.  
 

May had two or three options and had the distance to find alternatives but chose the standard.  I know footy is all structured but this is too predictable imo and easily blocked.  

Richard Little posts some really interesting graphics around ball movement on his twitter. Here is one he posted last night around both teams ball movement in the back half. It does seem repetitive but we retained the ball well and it was effective enough for the win. Defensive half turnovers are a massive momentum killer and disposal efficiency has been an issue for us this year. Did we have enough players in our back line last night who you can trust taking the kick into the corridor?

Edited September 13, 20204 yr by Canary M Burns

7 hours ago, Gorgoroth said:

The idea was to use their speed. Even start them closer and kick it over their heads and let them run.

Prob just one of those in theory plays but like NFL teams do with their trick plays, only has to be used once and if it works great, set up similar again and watch them drag another player over for cover.

How cool would this be - Trick play where the kick in guy plays on out to the left but there's a runner coming by in the opposite direction who takes a quick handball and transfers play out to the other flank, then another one straight back the other way like a HB sweep then reverse!

Oops forgot where I was!

9 hours ago, Redleg said:

This type of play would make us a more dangerous side and increase scoring opportunities, but for some unknown reason it is not in our play book.

May was very close to pulling the trigger, but there wasn't quite enough space between Hunt and his man so May chose not risk the 1 on 1.