The Midfield Flood

[LENNY LEADS THE WAY]

Anybody watch on the couch last night?

Was very interested to watch Clarko's game plan where they flood the midfield and play zones rather than play the man.

Looked really effective. causing great pressure for teams coming out of defence trying to use the corridor.

[BackFromUSA]

easy to beat this zone ... run at it and take it on (draw it out) and then 50 to 60 metre kicks to tall targets 40 out from goal with crumbers at their feet.

[Beej]

easy to beat this zone ... run at it and take it on (draw it out) and then 50 to 60 metre kicks to tall targets 40 out from goal with crumbers at their feet.

I would've thought the point of a zone like that was to force the opposition to kick it long as opposed to running it dangerously through the corridor with quick one-two's.

I saw On the Couch and I thought that segment was fascinating. That movement off the ball is exactly how a soccer team defends. A well organised soccer team keeps the same compact "shape" all over the pitch, the shape just moves around the pitch depending on where the ball is.

Didn't come as a surprise when Clarkson shortly after said the Hawks had a link with Bolton Wanderers.

[cwrcyn]

Isn't that exactly what Sydney does?

Hardly a new strategy. And the hawks are being caoched by a neanderthal thug.

[Beej]

Isn't that exactly what Sydney does?

Hardly a new strategy. And the hawks are being caoched by a neanderthal thug.

Sydney get numbers around the ball.

The entire Hawthorn side zone up the length of the park.

Most teams do what Sydney is do. Hawthorn is revolutionising the game.

Nathan Brown recently came out and said that what the Hawks were doing is different to anything he's ever seen.

Terry Wallace, in his post-game presser, was marvelling at Clarkson's tactics and said that what he saw that day was pretty fascinating.

So no, that strategy hasn't been around for ages.

[spert]

Just make the forwards work harder in one-on-one contests and tackle harder, or find forwards that will.

[The_Dud]

so what, move our flood from the backline to the midfield....?

[saintsRrising]

Every team floods...even the CATs...

It is just that some do it more often than others....and so overdo it or do it baddly.

With the Hawks....part of the reason for their midfield set-up is that they believe that they have an edge up forward if they can keep the numbers there limited to maximise the room and opportunities for Buddy.


Think back to Pagans Paddock where North based their game plan around Carey.


Their forwards would flood into the midfield to leave space for Carey.

They complemented this with some nimble types that could also run forward quickly for goals.

[Otiman]

Have thought this for years, flood 1 kick from the contest rather than too deep, because if you let them have it at half forward they can be dangerous. Keep them bottled up in their back half and you're set.

There is one easy way of beating this type of defensive setup that isn't part of the soccer defensive tactics, and that is pick out targets that are mismatched with their zone opponent.

[Mr Magic]

Every team floods...even the CATs...

It is just that some do it more often than others....and so overdo it or do it baddly.

With the Hawks....part of the reason for their midfield set-up is that they believe that they have an edge up forward if they can keep the numbers there limited to maximise the room and opportunities for Buddy.


Think back to Pagans Paddock where North based their game plan around Carey.


Their forwards would flood into the midfield to leave space for Carey.

They complemented this with some nimble types that could also run forward quickly for goals.

We all recall last years dismal game against the Hawks when we were accused of super flooding.
When you looked back at the video you saw we only had 6 defenders whilst Hawthorn had 4 forwards. They chose to send their 2 HFF to the defensive side of teh centre and got p1ssed that we didn't send our 2 defenders to man them up. Hence we had a game where they would kick it into their forward line where we had 2 extra men and when we kicked it over the centre they had 2 extra.

Last year Gerard Healey called it 'Buddy's Box'. A gameplan designed to put as many players behind the ball and open up as much space as possible for Buddy to run into.

[bobmurray]

Interesting the way some people are able to disect a teams "gameplan"
in a way that others just don't see.......

An interesting concept from Alistair,i wonder if he ran that game style
past Tim when he was at StKilda....

I doubt whether Watson would have understood the concept or been able to implement it......

[Saints Premiers 2008]

so now the cat is out of the bag with clarkson his next move will be interesting...all teams will begin to de-construct his rolling zones etc

his next move/gameplan will define him as a coach...

[BAM! (shhhh)]

There's a bit more to Buddies Box than just the 4 man forward line. It also is important to how Hawthorn set up and time their leads (2 men coming out, 2 men going in, with the guys in trying to block the defenders of the guys coming out).

Similarly, the midfield zone they're using right now is paying dividend - it DOES allow for a man to be spotted free around CHF, e.g. Daniel Bradshaw. However, it leaves the Hawks well placed for a rebound - and the risk/reward has paid off so far... for all the goals Bradshaw scored (and at 29.13 Bradshaw is kicking with deadly accuracy), I'm sure Hawthorn would take that if you told them Buddy's going to get 14 shots at goal at the other end.

IMO, Hawthorn's been the best drilled team in the comp for a couple of years now. They've been building towards this for a long time, and Clarkson's learned a lot in their time at the bottom that he's now putting to good use and his players have faith. The more players in a zone setup, the harder it is to pull off well, it takes communication, teamwork, patience and perseverence.

Every team zones. It's no co-incedence that Hawthorn and Geelong do it better than anyone else. Knowing they do it and how to beat it is very different to beating it.

I honestly doubt we could pull off a midfield press zone if we tried. Without forward pressure to force a decision and absolute discipline, the risk of losing out on the hail mary pass is too high.

[Saints Premiers 2008]

so zoning is the new flooding

it went on before the mainstream media jumped all over it and thought it was collectively clever tactically by telling the public about it on every telecast, newspaper or television show

[fingers]

For mine it was one of the best pieces of analysis I have seen. The way that they showed the footage and the way Healy explained was great. Interesting to see how well drilled the Hawks are in the way the midfield zone responded to the movement of the ball carrier....and then were able to close down around the ball carrier and force a turnover.

Great to watch.

[BAM! (shhhh)]

so zoning is the new flooding

it went on before the mainstream media jumped all over it and thought it was collectively clever tactically by telling the public about it on every telecast, newspaper or television show

I think at times the media ignores trends like this for as long as possible because they're not sure how to explain them... I'd much rather see channel 10 use it's "NAB analyser" to explain zones and floods than to show off a clean clearance or too - we all knwo that clean clearances are gold, it's not requiring extra analysis to tell us so.

On the other hand, people who don't go to a lot of games aren't going to see the different styles of zone and rebound setup that teams employ, because it just doesn't fit on the screen, and the closest the TV guys come to explainging is to say "the reason he's not kicking is because <team x> has flooded back". Show a zoomed out view on the replay. Draw all over the screen. Show people the x's and o's that teams work very hard to set up. The flood is/was just one type of zone.

I don't understand why they don't do a better job of telling viewers what they're seeing - it IS their job... if people understand better, they're less likely to get turned off - how many times do you hear an irate fan yell "man up" when manning up would be a disaster (manning up is great for stopping lateral, backwards and short movement of the ball, but zoning is much more effective at stopping direct movement, and with good forward pressure will tend at most times to be superior. Admitedly, it is fun to yell)... that fan is going to get frustrated with their team, and with football, and stop supporting the game "because it's gotten worse"...

[saintsRrising]

The is a good article of the Hawks Rolling Zone in todays (saturday) Age.

http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/news/h ... 60860.html


Part of the article is:

In basic terms, the Hawks force their opponents to play wide, taking the long route to goal. At an opposition kick-in, they'll form a central grid of up to 15 players, leaving the only free space along either defensive flank. There's nowhere else for the kicker to go.

And there the fun begins. If the kicker takes the obvious option, his team will be forced to hug the boundary or run into a wall of Hawthorn jumpers. If he switches direction, the Hawk zone simply slides across the ground in formation to block that space, too. Go back the other way again, and the Hawks go as well. It's intense defensive pressure, non-stop.

"As soon as you go wide, they rush in to hold you up," explains a rival club coach who has watched the Hawks intently.





"That's the first player's job, then he'll move around laterally on the mark so you've got to kick over him to go through the corridor.

"If you draw a line straight down the ground from the bloke manning the mark, they'll put a man 20 metres back from that, then another 40 metres back, and another 60 metres back. Inside of that, about 15-20 metres, there'll be another row of three or four, and then the same again getting towards the other side of the ground.

"But they won't go wider than the line on the edge of the centre square. Basically, they box up the whole corridor, allow you to go wider than that, and try to trap you into playing that wide football."

[Mr Magic]

so zoning is the new flooding

it went on before the mainstream media jumped all over it and thought it was collectively clever tactically by telling the public about it on every telecast, newspaper or television show

I think at times the media ignores trends like this for as long as possible because they're not sure how to explain them... I'd much rather see channel 10 use it's "NAB analyser" to explain zones and floods than to show off a clean clearance or too - we all knwo that clean clearances are gold, it's not requiring extra analysis to tell us so.

On the other hand, people who don't go to a lot of games aren't going to see the different styles of zone and rebound setup that teams employ, because it just doesn't fit on the screen, and the closest the TV guys come to explainging is to say "the reason he's not kicking is because <team x> has flooded back". Show a zoomed out view on the replay. Draw all over the screen. Show people the x's and o's that teams work very hard to set up. The flood is/was just one type of zone.

I don't understand why they don't do a better job of telling viewers what they're seeing - it IS their job... if people understand better, they're less likely to get turned off - how many times do you hear an irate fan yell "man up" when manning up would be a disaster (manning up is great for stopping lateral, backwards and short movement of the ball, but zoning is much more effective at stopping direct movement, and with good forward pressure will tend at most times to be superior. Admitedly, it is fun to yell)... that fan is going to get frustrated with their team, and with football, and stop supporting the game "because it's gotten worse"...

One of the things I enjoy most about teh NFL games shown on Fox is when they 'freeze fram' the previous play and show you in detail how the 'play' was constructed and why it did/didn't work. N ow I reralize the 'stop/start nature of NFL lends itself to this sort of analysis, but there would be some opportunities during an AFL game broadcast/repeat where the 'experts' could do something similar?

[supersaints]

so what, move our flood from the backline to the midfield....?

Thats what we did last year in what was the most boring game of football ever seen, It was a matter of who was going to breakdown first and it was us... hope RL comes up with a better plan this year or I'll fall asleep

[BAM! (shhhh)]

One of the things I enjoy most about teh NFL games shown on Fox is when they 'freeze fram' the previous play and show you in detail how the 'play' was constructed and why it did/didn't work. N ow I reralize the 'stop/start nature of NFL lends itself to this sort of analysis, but there would be some opportunities during an AFL game broadcast/repeat where the 'experts' could do something similar?

That's exactly the kind of thing I'm getting at. NFL's a tough game to learn for those who don't grow up on it, it's not similar to anything we play here in Australia... but that kind of commentary is not only excellent education, it's interesting to watch too, and helps give and understanding and respect for what goes on.

I really think by not doing similar things with AFL (and in the context of the money spent on broadcasting a game, how much is a couple of long range wide angle cameras really going to add?) they make the game tougher to learn for outsiders, and make tactics and strategy mysteries for many who don't go to a lot of games.

Last weekend I was up in Queensland, and watching the Saints with people from outside of Brisbane who don't get to many games at all, let alone those of multiple teams. Explaining the 3 quarter press and why they kept seeing short kick ins after behinds is much harder without it in front of you - and the 3/4 press is a standard strategy for most teams these days. The comment from these guys? "Why don't they explain that on TV?"

[saintsRrising]

One reason is that many commentators do not have the knowledge to explain the game as it is now played.

While some as Healey have kept up to date....many have not since they last played.....and the game has markedly evolved in recent years.


I mean how many times have you heard commentators of late calling for a team to man up and play 1 on 1...when to do so would actually be a bad thing?

[LENNY LEADS THE WAY]

All i can say is good look using the centre corridor whenever u play the Hawks geez they're well drilled and a talented bunch.

Collingwood was pushed wide all day and couldn't handle the rolling midfield zone that is the hawks.

Well done Clarko.

[saintsRrising]

There are many gameplans...but if are not well drilled it all counts for squat.

[BAM! (shhhh)]

One reason is that many commentators do not have the knowledge to explain the game as it is now played.

While some as Healey have kept up to date....many have not since they last played.....and the game has markedly evolved in recent years.


I mean how many times have you heard commentators of late calling for a team to man up and play 1 on 1...when to do so would actually be a bad thing?

It annoys me that the broadcasters want a name more than expertise.

Can't remember which game, but I was shocked at myself to be enjoying Buckley's commentary as he contradicted Schwarze again and again... Though to be fair, the Ox tries, he's just not a tactical kind of thinker, and when he's talking about effort and skills he's tolerable (when he sticks to his strengths). The one's that really annoy me are those you're pointing to, who call for rule changes to stop innovation instead of continuing to learn as the coaches keep developing.

[saintsRrising]

I have found Buckley to be very good as a commentator...with great insights.

A breath of fresh air compared to many.