Players go out and play to their best of their abilities and try to win. I haven't seen any evidence otherwise this year from any Carlton, Collingwood and Hawthorn player. Part one of puzzle.
Part two of puzzle. Team selection. I'll do this team by team.
Collingwood have had injuries and are doing their best to play to a structure with what they have to field a team, particular without key forwards. Tarrant is missing but he was playing injured and hasn't had much influence before he took his break, so him not playing out the season doesn't bother me.
Hawthorn in 2005 have played the system. They trade their key forward in Thompson and the coach says we would have won six more games with Thommo still at the Hawks in 2005. Their list is playing to win but the Hawks have manufactured their list knowing they won't get over the line most weeks without a key forward. Personally I'd get rid of Whitnall for a similar reason but it's not like Lance is winning us games, he's just helping us lose by less.
Carlton. Play the kids or play the bigger bodies? Pagan is doing what he's always done, trying to field a combatitive line up. If the kids can add something to this ethic they get a game ie. Simpson, Betts, Bentick, Carrazzo. And they've been given midfield roles and key forward roles (ie. Fisher, Waite) because the senior players haven't been pulling their weight, not because we're willing to lose games with them in central roles.
Part three of the puzzle. Team gameplan or tactics. This is where people could put some justifiable cases. Last week Pagan went man on man against Port Adelaide. Terry Wallace said he loved watching the Carlton Port clash, probably because it was a clash. All offensive but minimal defensive tactics. Except for when Port pushed all their big men into our forward fifty to stop our run on in the 2nd quarter.
Man on man is the way Pagan has always liked to coach but in modern day football when defending a forward fifty there is always part manning up and part blocking/filling of space. Last week our players followed their direct opponent at all costs and left huge clear spaces for any number of Power players to lead into. There wasn't any flooding. It was a very unusual tactic. It was quite possibly to instill responsibility into players to see who was upto it and who wasn't, that's fair enough but to my eyes it did seem a little naive if you were all about winning the game as a team.
The other point here was the complete lack of instruction for our players to man up on the defensive side of stopages and throw ins; leaving Port players with free paths towards goal if they won first possession. I really did find this part mystifying, that a coach could sit there and not instruct his players to fulfil such a fundamental of football. Port kicked five plus goals thru this oversight, Kouta deliberately stood on the defensive side once at a throw in during the last quarter. When you're near goal you block the defensive side to the goals blocking the path to the goals.
Pagan's man on man tactics can lead to some exciting play like we saw in the second quarter but really, five minutes into the first quarter I could see one on one our players were never going to outplay the Port line up, they have too many quality players. So on this ground I'd say Pagan's main priority was about judging the player's individual capabilities and teaching individual basic skills and applications over providing any alternative tactics which are harder for players to fulfil to maximise the potential of a win. Good teams play offensive football but are defensively and tactically drilled. Maybe our players aren't up to applying tactics as a team and win? Maybe for where we are at strict man on man is the best way Pagan has to win?. But Carlton footballers were playing some pretty naive defensive football on the weekend.
_________________ Blue is the colour, Blue is our colourful conversation, football is the game, talking carlton is our aim, we're all together, we're all together, winning is our aim, arguing is a pain, let's debate for gain. .. .!
Last edited by 79Vintage on Wed Aug 10, 2005 10:33 pm, edited 2 times in total.
|