A good mate of mine writes this Blog. Cat's fans & ALF fans will like it. There is a little bit of cricket there too.....
bigleaguelittleleague.blogspot.com/2010/10/rebuild-reload-relax-whilst.htmlThe Pies Zone..........;
MONDAY, OCTOBER 04, 2010
Rebuild, Reload and RelaxWhilst indifferently watching ‘Giant Douche vs. Turd Sandwich II’, I found myself pondering such questions as, ‘how long has Brent Macaffer been homeless?’ and ‘guess the higher number; Cloke’s jumper or IQ’. And it dawned on me how very good Geelong has been for such a long time and how unlikely it all was/is.
In the dark days of the early 00’s, when Paul Corrigan and Derek Hall were prominently involved, I’m fairly certain Mrs Watson would have sold his mother into slavery for a Cats flag – I won’t go in to what he may have done for a second – so to say the past four years have exceeded expectation is a bit like saying Stephen Milne is a bit dodgy; a massive understatement.
Since 2007 The Cats have a winning record of 74 – 14, have finished every season in the top two and won the two previously mentioned glorious premierships. They’ve been talked about as perhaps the most dominant side ever and certainly as one of the most entertaining. They have maintained a level of excellence over four years that is, in the modern, parity driven AFL, bordering on impossible (consider that during Geelong’s 2007 flag campaign, two of their most recent rivals, St Kilda and the Bulldogs, didn’t even play finals.) And I point this out because while Collingwood continues their celebrations/sexual assaults and the media are already counting how many more flags the current “Magpie dynasty” will win, it is worth remembering that periods of long domination in the AFL are the exception, not the rule. And we’ve seen all this before.
Late in 2008, Collingwood abandoned their typical man-on-man style and adopted a “box” zone defence. As far as I can tell, this seems to be a combination of the 2005 Swans ‘numbers to the contest’ style and essentially the zone that Hawthorn made famous in 2008. It works by having all 18 players push to surround the ball (2005 Swans) but spread evenly about 15m apart guarding a space and not an opponent (2008 Hawks). The opposition find it hard to move the ball because a legal kick must travel 15m, the distance they space their defenders. The only easy kick is directly backwards, which, if taken, will only move the Collingwood “box” forward and essentially ‘shorten’ their defensive field. Trying to run and handpass through the zone is difficult because as the zone moves with the ball, help is never far away; if you get past one man, he has teammates in grid formation already closing.
This system is pretty clever as it does not rely on beating your direct opponent (indeed you may not actually have one) but on discipline and hard work. You have to trust the zone and know where to be positioned and you need the fitness to get there. Offensively Collingwood are the same as ever; ride the boundaries when coming out of defence and a quick kick forward to a contest if won out of the middle. But with this “box” defence they look invincible. For now, anyway.
In 2005 and 2006 West Coast and Sydney’s equally ugly style of man-on-man play reaped dividends and media commentators were bemoaning the future where all games would be one big scrum. Likewise in 2008, Hawthorn won a premiership playing a “cluster” defence and, despite the media anointing them, the following year they failed to make the finals.
Just like Geelong’s answer to Sydney’s tight, man-on-man play was to continually play on and run and kamikaze handball and leave the opposition gasping, so too the “cluster” or “box” is answer to The Cats daring style. And soon enough we’ll have an answer to for this too (once you do break the zone the forward line is often waaaaaaaay open).
As for Geelong, they will begin a mini-rebuild, (more on this and Travis Varcoe to come) in the shadow of their recent greatness, with a new coach who hopefully watched both Grand Finals a lot more closely, and a lot less drunk, than I.
