WTTF wrote:
This style of play appears to be the several teams' first real attempt to try something radical to beat the flood.
It's kind of like, well OK if you want to flood we'll just kick the ball amoungst ourselves out here at half back for a while, until you come out to get us. When they eventually come out of the back half and the flooding eases, you attack then.
Almost like a battle of wills.......who will cave in first and change their tactic.
This type of play requires a lot of patience and skill from the side with the ball.
I read it that we would flood, get the numbers back and stifle the Melbourne attack and then break and flood forward to the 'Paddock' where we had 1 or 2 key forwards waiting. If we turned it over, rather than just flood back aimlessley and set up the zones like robots, the players seemed to put in an extra effort to pressure the Melb ball carriers. This meant that their renowned running players, used to breaking the lines and kicking over the zones and defensive set-ups, or to delivering pinpoint passes to unstoppable leads, were being monstered by Fevola, Betts and Waite just as they were releasing the ball.
This meant cr@p delivery into the Melb forward line which, instead of going straight down Robbo or Nietz's throat, fell right into the middle of one of our defensive zones. How about the time when White took the hanger, played on, looked up, all the zones were covered, hesitated and, before he could look for another option.....bang, monstered and a turnover.
On the other hand, when Melbourne turned it over, our running was superb, Simmo, Walker, Scotland and Stevens had the ball moving very fast and we were getting the ball back into the paddock before the flood could get back and cover the zones. Simmo running away from guys and kicking over the top of the CHB wall also helps!!!
The difference in our execution was that generally I thought our skills were better (kicking for goal still a worry) than seasons past, work rate , commitment and effort was up 400% and our defensive pressure all over the ground was the best I've seen from a Carlton side for maybe 6 years. Fevola running down Pickett in the centre of the ground was testament to this!!! Eddie Betts must have caused about 5 turnovers through sheer force of will and effort!!!
I also thought the guys looked very fit. I thought they looked much more athletic than they have in the past. maybe this is the bigger bodies Dennis was talking about but there were 1 or 2 tackles that we stuck on Sunday that we wouldnt have stuck last season. Most forced turnovers. How many players did we run down??
The work rate was awesome and if they can keep doing that (big ask!!!) then they will be a difficult proposition for every team this year!!