There is a lot of talk of modern football on this site and Pagan's lack of understanding of it. This got me thinking as to what exactly modern footy is, and I had a few thoughts.

1. Which side best represents modern footy? Is it the Dogs and there running style? Adelaide and their "zoning ( I say flooding)", Sydney and their game plan?
2. The Eagles play a one on one contested style without much frills. I wouldn't say their style is any different to what has been around for years. It is the style we look best at when we do it well.
3. Is is not much the style of play, but a club's approach to the game, from the board down. ie, Training techniques and fascilities, always looking for an edge etc..
4. Is it match day tactics, ie bench rotation, flooding?

I would be interested in hearing other's thoughts on what modern footy is, where they think we stand against this and what we need to do to achieve this.

Great question SA.

If I was to define what "modern football" means to me I'd say it's the capacity to be flexible. For years coaches have been seen as pushing a particular game plan (when they have one at all). Barassi handballs, Hafey bombs, Walls huddles, Pagan follows Hafey, Sheedy avoids the issue and talks about "stuff"...etc etc. All are identifiable by a particular play or type of football.

The coach of a team playing "modern football" should be adaptable enough to be able to swing his players around in much the way a basketball coach changes formations throughout a match depending on circumstances. A well drilled, talented side should almost start to shift before the coach says it's time. We're a long way from that at the moment.

I'm no fan of flooding but I can see it as a valid technique once every 5 or 6 quarters both for its shock value and its capacity to stem the bleeding when necessary. Use it constantly, like any style of play and unless you're by far the most talented side going around you'll be predictable and beatable.

I'd like to watch a Carlton side that played the game hard and fast and had a capacity to shift gear up or down depending on circumstance. That would be "modern football".

_________________
“When a clown moves into a palace, he doesn't become a king. The palace turns into a circus.”
Turkish Proverb

It's all about hard running and plenty of rotations. Some of our players get accused of coasting through games but that's what you have to do if you're expected to play every minute.

_________________
"We used to sit around and talk about how bad the game plan was." Anthony Koutoufides

Exactly...Stevens was injured for most of the 2006 season but played the majority of the minutes in the many games he played...

_________________
"Dont count the games, make the games count"

i hope nick stevens will come back from injury with the same sort of impact that fevola did this season.
if we could get stevens up and firing again our midfield would be starting to look ok again.

_________________
dane's trolling again

I thought it was not wearing caps and those long pants and Black and White replays of yesterday and tight shorts and wool jumpers of the 70s and 80s

Modern football is about swooping on an opposition miskick, handballing to a teammate under pressure, getting it straight back - handballing to another teammate under pressure - getting it straight back - handballing to a player who drops it - chasing the ball getting it back then taking on the opposition player and getting caught. 2 handballs a hardball get a looseball get and a couple of 1 percenters - or maybe thats just Heath Scotland

_________________
Ecclesiastes 1:4, "One generation passes away, and another generation comes: but The Blues abide forever."

For me, the question is really about also how do we want Carlton to play in the coming years and are we buidling a side that will get us there.

For us to get there we need to know how we want to play and be as a club. We have done a lot of whinging about the past, but it is time to forgot that and look forward and plan for the future.

I think we have started to see a change in football and a return to contested one on one football. The flooding, chip game was never really used extensively in games but was highly publicised in the media. The best teams are (Eagles and Swans) and their brand of footy is contested and hard bodied.

Looking at what makes a successful team I think the key areas we need to concentrate on are-

a. Physical conditioning - All successful teams have a majority of hard bodied strong players who either break or hold tackles. With us being a young side, we have a great opportunity to build this into our team. This also underlines the importance of the new fascilities.

b. Hit a Bloody Target! - Whether this be hitting the leading player or kicking the goal, it is so important. Roos conducted a study of the key characteristics of the premiiership teams and this was the no 1 factor in all of them (not hardball gets, clearances etc). For this reason, when recruiting players, we must look at their skills and ability to kick.

c. Versatility - Whether this be mid field rotations, or a Hunter type of player, the good teams have a few key players (normally KPP) and the rest really are mid fielders. Adelaide is a good example of this, and their use of wingers and flankers as mids.

d. Running Ability - This ties in with physical conditioning, and is not about pace, pace, pace. It is about being able to being able to break the lines and link up. This also ties in with versatility in having enough players to be able to run all day and play man on man all day.

We are almost in a unique position as we are building a team from scratch and have the ability to build it as we see fit. With low draft picks, we have access to the best talent, and this drafting needs to reflect where we want to be.

All of the above.

Skill and pace of the game keeps going up a level. Av height has increased. More 193-196 players.

Ruckmen need to be mobile and add to the midfield.

There's also a skill to know when and how to turn on flooding.

Leadership groups or leaders of forwardline, miidfeld or defense. Directors and communicators pass on messages faster than any runner can.

Well drilled in many types of game plans.

WCE and Swans play a different style of footy, but there's only a kick between them for the last 10 games.

Must still have (old fashioned) structure. Strong spine with plenty of height 194-198cm. Ruckmen must have a giant leap or be 200+cm, and need 2 of them to rotate as with midfielders.

Once upon a time there was only one Kouta; the modern footballer. Athlete and footballer; 190+cm. Now there's plenty of them taller than Kouta going and doing the same thing (but just not as good).

Skill, height, mobility and pace.

FB....... ...Russell 187........Setanta 198.......Bower 194
HB...............Flint 193........Hartlett 196 ...Thornton 193
W/RUCK...Walker 189.........Aisake 202....Edwards 192
HF..............Waite 194......Kennedy 198.......Fisher 192
F................Gibbs 187.........Fevola 190....Whitnall 190

_________________
Everyone looks good in Navy Blue

I could well be wrong, but I thought the whisper was that Flint had grown to 190cm not 193cm.

Simply from observation from the stands, I also have my doubts about Thornton being 193cm.

However the overall point is well made. Skill, athleticism and height (I think in that order) are at a premium in the modern game.

I think we could improve in the general area of skill and that would allow us to at least play the one on on contested type play a lot better.

Kicking to position and hitting a target - with long and low kicks instead of the ridiculous high kicks on top of the heads of targets which allows opposing defenders ample time to come from behind to spoil (yet every time we spoil umpires penalise us for chopping the arms but thats another story ).

A mid-field containig Murphy, Simpson, Stevens and Gibbs will remedy a lot of those problems - Fevola should kick around 120 goals next season with the silky skills of that foursome being responsible for delivery.

_________________
"Hence you will not say that Greeks fight like heroes but that heroes fight like Greeks"?

Winston Churchill

It's almost as simple as players running more and getting to more contests so the strategical side of things is becoming more important as you can't guarantee that your super players will win the contest because it is no longer a one on one....they now have 2 or 3 to beat instead of just their direct opponent.

As some have also mentioned emphasis is now on strength and athleticism which means they run faster and are getting bigger, so that ups the chance of injuries too.

_________________
The problem will be made. for the solution to be sold, to your face before your eyes, tolerance is now the new danger

I think it's about having 3 or 4 gameplans and adjusting your syle of gameplan throughout the games according to what works best based on the oppositions' tactics.

3 to 4 gameplans could include - flooding, one on one, free running (loose man), pagan's paddock

It's then having the right players to execute.

_________________
For some silly reason, you people want to assassinate him, and it's just rubbish. You people. All of you, ALL of you!

Rebound from the half back line - using run to carry it 20 or 30 then kicking it 50-60

_________________
"You are being watched. The government has a secret system. A machine that spies on you every hour of every day. I know because I built it." - Finch

Howabout the part where the players are meant to know what theyre doing....

_________________
Due to recent budget cuts and the rising cost of electricity, gas, and oil....... the Light at the End of the Tunnel has been turned off. We apologize for the inconvenience.

Synbad wrote



Yeah, you have to start out with a gameplan that is based around the strength of your players. Then drill them.

In other words we have to adopt gameplan 1 in 2007 to overcome the indecision we have been plagued with in 2006.

Then we need to ensure that they are drilled in gameplan no.2, 3 and 4, and the leaders know when to command execution.

Leaders with the knowhow....well that's another issue we need to address.

_________________
Everyone looks good in Navy Blue

I think Modern Football can be summarised as follows:

- a more "keepings off" possesion orientated game with greater skill level required.
- players taller, fitter, faster and more versatile.
- more flexible/adaptable game plans are required.

_________________
There is no footy god

My take on this is modern football is about developing a game plan that works with the list of players you have.

Its why the so called 'Super coaches' are sturggling as they seem unable to adapt.

I think Pagan is struggling in this area and Roos is a shining example of what can be achieved. He has taken a solid team, worked out what they can achieve and what style works best for them and has drilled them in that style. The discipline within that unit as they adhere to a game plan they know works, is a huge credit to him.

Contrast that to ours which sees a bunch of blokes attempting to play a game plan that we can simply not play. Remember Brittains possesion game and how it came unstuck because we didn't have the skills?

Modern football is about adapting to what you have not trying to find players that fit your plan. Take Eade. Is he trying to play the same plan he used at Sydney? No, hes taken the cattle he has and adapted accordingly.

_________________
Everything before the word "but" is horseshit - J Snow

I don't think there is any such thing as the so-called 'modern game'. It evolves constantly, and, like paper, rock, scissors, there is always a way to beat any particular style of play.

A core of KPP like we had in '95 of SOS, Sexton, The Duke and Sticks along with quality mids and flankers should beat many of the teams today. We need to build that KPP structure and when you include Gibbs, Murphy, simmo and Blackers we'll be getting close.

Look at WC, for all their midfield dominance they've only just scraped in in 1 GF. With a Fev and Johnno Brown they'd have two by now and odds on for a 3rd.

Let's hope JK, Hartlett and Thornton can give us that structure.

...and, oh yeah, we need a ruckman too

_________________
end of message

I think that some of our players are not really played to there strengths. I also think we try to squeeze too much out of players who are just not up to the task. Instead, we should be giving those few that have more up their sleeves an extra challenge or two.

_________________
Just because I'm offended, doesn't mean I'm wrong.