Connolly's Carousel
Epigram
rotatation policy has been forefront when describing his coaching of the
bench. A figure put around that he averages about 50 interchanges a game.
The general idea is that players can run themselves into the ground, then
signal when they want to come off. When refreshed, they go back on.
I used to wonder about the soundness of Connolly's Carousel, but now I am a
convert because I'm confident our team, on any given week, has the depth in
the midfield, ruck and forwards to perform, and confident in Connolly as an
innovator as well as being pragmatic.
Is this the new way of coaching tactics?
While on the subject, does anyone think that the days of Pagan's Paddock are
numbered? Over the weekend, a number of clubs used this tactic, but it
seems to me, at least, that if the defence can't break past the centre, the
ball just goes back into the attacking 50, and eventually a score will
happen.
Comments welcome. Abuse ignored :^)
Toby
--
From the Posh Nosh range:
Simon - "It's only twenty pounds a bottle. Now I know what some people may
be thinking, but sometimes the cheap ones are the best."
Bergholt
> It has been touted in many publications that Freo's Chris Connolly's
> rotatation policy has been forefront when describing his coaching of the
> bench. A figure put around that he averages about 50 interchanges a game.
> The general idea is that players can run themselves into the ground, then
> signal when they want to come off. When refreshed, they go back on.
> I used to wonder about the soundness of Connolly's Carousel, but now I am a
> convert because I'm confident our team, on any given week, has the depth in
> the midfield, ruck and forwards to perform, and confident in Connolly as an
> innovator as well as being pragmatic.
> Is this the new way of coaching tactics?
Yes, it is. The Saints do the same thing with the midfield (although
there's not quite that much power in the hands of the players). And,
like you, I'm confident that almost any combination of the 8 or so
smalls we put in the midfield have the ability to be competitive, if
not dominate. It makes it a lot harder for the opposition to get a
run on, because you've basically always got some fresh legs you can
bring on to run and hit the ball hard, in a crunch.
> While on the subject, does anyone think that the days of Pagan's Paddock are
> numbered? Over the weekend, a number of clubs used this tactic, but it
> seems to me, at least, that if the defence can't break past the centre, the
> ball just goes back into the attacking 50, and eventually a score will
> happen.
What's your exact definition of Pagan's Paddock?
Bergholt.
Jason Derby
are
> numbered? Over the weekend, a number of clubs used this tactic, but it
> seems to me, at least, that if the defence can't break past the centre,
the
> ball just goes back into the attacking 50, and eventually a score will
> happen.
> Comments welcome. Abuse ignored :^)
>
Hard to say. Port used it for most of the second half against West Coast in
R2 and managed to continually kick quick goals on the rebound out of
defence. WCE dominated possession for long periods of the second half in
that match but Port were always able to score quickly when they went
forward.
Regards,
Jason
deker19
> It has been touted in many publications that Freo's Chris Connolly's
> rotatation policy has been forefront when describing his coaching of the
> bench. A figure put around that he averages about 50 interchanges a game.
> The general idea is that players can run themselves into the ground, then
> signal when they want to come off. When refreshed, they go back on.
> I used to wonder about the soundness of Connolly's Carousel, but now I am a
> convert because I'm confident our team, on any given week, has the depth in
> the midfield, ruck and forwards to perform, and confident in Connolly as an
> innovator as well as being pragmatic.
> Is this the new way of coaching tactics?
> While on the subject, does anyone think that the days of Pagan's Paddock are
> numbered? Over the weekend, a number of clubs used this tactic, but it
> seems to me, at least, that if the defence can't break past the centre, the
> ball just goes back into the attacking 50, and eventually a score will
> happen.
> Comments welcome. Abuse ignored :^)
>
> Toby
Always liked the rotation. not true about players bringing themselves
off... hmmm bad wording.. the changes are roughly preset, but Larcom
still makes the calls. Commentators have remarked that players have
the call but that's not entirely true, according to Connolly on Press Pass.
deker19
deker19
carey and flankers out on the half forward line with no-one in the 50.
flankers stream forward when ball is delivered. that's my loose
definition.... not sure if the 50 has to be entirely empty
deker19
Epigram2
[...]
> > While on the subject, does anyone think that the days of Pagan's Paddock are
> > numbered? Over the weekend, a number of clubs used this tactic, but it
> > seems to me, at least, that if the defence can't break past the centre, the
> > ball just goes back into the attacking 50, and eventually a score will
> > happen.
>
> What's your exact definition of Pagan's Paddock?
"Exact"? Jeeezzuss, that's tough!
A bit like Dek's; the defending team has 2, maybe 3 at most players in
their forward half. Everyone else is maning up or filling holes. Ie
a "flood".
The tatic breaks down when the flooding team has the ball, and has to
stop and wait for uncontested options forward of the ball. If the
other team can run as hard and provide a contest, or hold up the ball
for a few moments, then they have a good chance of regaining
possession. Because their forward line is now opened up, it's easier
for teammates to lead into open space, or simply run into the fifty
and bomb long.
I know it's not exact, but since when has tatics been an exact
science? :^)
Toby
Epigram2
> Epigram wrote:
[...]
> Always liked the rotation. not true about players bringing themselves
> off... hmmm bad wording.. the changes are roughly preset, but Larcom
> still makes the calls. Commentators have remarked that players have
> the call but that's not entirely true, according to Connolly on Press Pass.
Larcom has his Apple iBook with important stats such as a player's
time on the ground - so he knows when they should come off for a
spell, so you're right in that respect. Mon Droit! Suddenly everyone
wants exactness!
Still, there is room to manouever for the midfielders - if they feel
they need a spell, they signal.
It's also good for passing on messages. Wait until Sheedy works that
out!
Toby
Mark Shea
"Epigram2" <epig...@dodo.com.au> wrote in message
news:d94280f6.04041...@posting.google.com...
> The tatic breaks down when the flooding team has the ball, and has to
> stop and wait for uncontested options forward of the ball. If the
> other team can run as hard and provide a contest, or hold up the ball
> for a few moments, then they have a good chance of regaining
> possession.
That's why it was developed when they had Carey. You could trust Carey to
outmark just about anyone even if he was having a bad day, and he'd rarely
fail to bring the ball to ground should, heaven forfend, he drop it. The
whole point was to aim it at him even if he was contested.
Mark Shea
Bergholt
> berg...@xsmail.com (Bergholt) wrote in message news:<d7d9581e.04041...@posting.google.com>...
> > Epigram <g...@dead.com.au> wrote in message news:<BCA8C2D3.1BB98%g...@dead.com.au>...
>
> [...]
>
> > > While on the subject, does anyone think that the days of Pagan's Paddock are
> > > numbered? Over the weekend, a number of clubs used this tactic, but it
> > > seems to me, at least, that if the defence can't break past the centre, the
> > > ball just goes back into the attacking 50, and eventually a score will
> > > happen.
> >
> > What's your exact definition of Pagan's Paddock?
>
> "Exact"? Jeeezzuss, that's tough!
Asking because I haven't heard the term used for a little while, and
all I could remember was that it involved Carey.
> A bit like Dek's; the defending team has 2, maybe 3 at most players in
> their forward half. Everyone else is maning up or filling holes. Ie
> a "flood".
> The tatic breaks down when the flooding team has the ball, and has to
> stop and wait for uncontested options forward of the ball. If the
> other team can run as hard and provide a contest, or hold up the ball
> for a few moments, then they have a good chance of regaining
> possession. Because their forward line is now opened up, it's easier
> for teammates to lead into open space, or simply run into the fifty
> and bomb long.
I haven't seen the Paddock used in any of the games I've seen live. I
find it much harder to tell anything about overall tactics on the TV.
Unless the commentators notice and point it out, you rarely get enough
overall view of the ground to see general patterns.
For the Paddock to work, you probably need some strong options across
the middle - I imagine West Coast could use Judd and Embley type for
this, or Riewoldt for the Saints. They're quick enough that they can
get to position and stay with a man, but they can also take a strong
mark or at least make a contest. Then the midfielders streaming past
can get the hands or crumbs, and just one bounce and the ball's going
long inside 50.
And it takes a lot of fitness, I'd guess, while also making it hard to
judge accountability of any individual player.
> I know it's not exact, but since when has tatics been an exact
> science? :^)
Hey, I'm happy.
Bergholt.