The Evolution of the flood, or, Neil’s Ark

The Adelaide Crows took Geelong apart on the weekend and look so much better than everyone else at the moment it’s almost as if they’re playing a different game; and in a way, they are. And in another way, they’re playing the most traditional type of football in the league. Strap in folks, as I present a brief evolution of the flood.

When AFL football was conceived, it would be safe to assume it was meant to be a positional sport, that is, one with assigned spots for each player to operate in. That is, after all, how we define players, by position. These positions refer to a geographical territory on the football field, and are not just a nominal name; Full-forward for example, is for the player operating at his attacking goal face. Now, the positional nature of the game is not enforced, such as in Netball where certain players are not allowed into certain parts of the court. For one, it would be near to impossible to enforce, and two, up until recently, it was thought advantageous for teams to maintain these positions. But let’s not get too far ahead of ourselves.

The traditional positional structure of an 18 man AFL team consists of 6 defenders, 6 midfielders, including ruck and wings, and 6 forwards; and this is still how teams are named and presented on paper. The beginning of what we now term ‘flooding’, began with the ‘loose man in defence’. This works by moving one of you forwards into defence, creating 7 defenders vs. 6 forwards and leaving 6 defenders against 5 forwards at the other end. This practise began before my time, and continued unabated throughout the 80’s and most of the 90’s. I say most of the 90’s because it became a problem when Paul Roos was getting 35 possessions each week for Sydney as a centre-half back without an opponent. All of sudden opposition coaches decided they wouldn’t let him get away with it and manned him up. This was often with a defensive player, or a forward whose sole purpose was to take Roos out of the play, often by standing right alongside the point post in the forward pocket. This left Sydney with 5 vs. 5 in its forward line and 7 vs.7 its opposition’s forward line. But it’s what happens next that’s interesting: Is Sydney happy with the extra space in their forward line this arrangement affords, or do they still want an extra defender? If they push another ‘loose man’ into defence, will their opposition continue to match them up, and if not, at what point do they stop?

People often credit Terry Wallace with the concept of flooding (who admits getting the idea from American football coaches) but really it is an extension and reaction to the loose man in defence; if teams and coaches are willing to give up on, or allow, the opposition a loose man in defence (as opposed to men, plural), then that’s probably as far as the flood will go. If they insist on manning them up, then they are at the mercy of the opposition coach. Take the Geelong vs. Bulldogs game in Round 4; Geelong was hell bent on not allowing any loose WB players and thus stuck to a strict man-on-man plan all over the ground. It was adhered to so rigidly that a couple of times the man who kicked in from full-back, Lindsay Gilbee from memory, played on and ran the length of the ground, unchallenged by any Geelong player because they refused to leave their man, and either had a shot for goal or set someone up for one. That is not ‘strong, man-on-man, contested football’, that, is insanity.

So, the answer lies somewhere between blind, one-on-one chasing and a full blown flood; wow, who’d have the thought the middle ground is once again correct? (Tao people, Tao). But how does this translate in practical terms, and what does all this have to do with the Crows?

All teams are cognizant of the need to ‘open up’ their forward line and also get numbers back in defence; all teams flood to some extent, including Adelaide. The game becomes interesting, and sometimes ugly, based on the counter measures of the coaches. Looking back to Round 8 when the Tigers upset the Crows, Richmond played an immense flood when the Crows had the ball and when Richmond got it they chipped the ball around, methodically moving it forward and maintaining possession to such an extent that they set a new AFL record. Now, when this is happening it is simple to say, ‘Man them up!’, but as I hopefully explained earlier, you are then becoming reactive and are at the mercy of none other than Terry Wallace, somewhere you don’t want to be. No, instead the Crows chose to retain some semblance of structure and attack them on their own terms. The Crows ended up with more scoring shots, but lost by 3 points. I’d like to think they looked at it as a moral victory, however.

I also think the Crows learnt a lot from that game, and to some extent evolved. They would not be bullied into playing down to Richmond’s or anyone else level. As I said, they needed to find the middle ground; retaining some positional structure yet being flexible enough to negate an opposition flood and, if required, flood themselves.

The midfield has long been recognized as the most important part of the ground; at the beginning of each quarter and every time a goal is kicked the ball is brought back there to restart play. Likewise, if a team is bringing the ball out of their defence, they must inevitably pass through the midfield to reach their forward line. Neil Craig, being aware of this, has thus given birth to the mid-field flood!

The Crows let their key defensive players go head-to-head with opposition forwards while their flankers and wingers push up, back and across, filling the middle third of the field between the two 50m arcs. Teams coming out of defence, Geelong on the weekend for example, are forced to kick to an out-numbered team-mate in the middle or to one who has pushed wide, the only space available. If the outside option is taken this limits the attacking team to one side of the ground, giving the Crows time to get back and also knowledge of where they will be vulnerable. This also means Crows players only need to cover between the defensive 50’s, resulting in less, or, smarter running. This makes sense; there can not be a huge fitness gap between any of the 16 teams, it must come down to how they use it.

If the ball is moved quickly however, from a centre break or otherwise, and the kick is direct and over the congestion of centre-half forward, then there is space available to operate in. During the first quarter Geelong took advantage of this, particularly in the resulting goals of Kingsley and Chapman. Quick and direct play, however, is often the remedy no matter who the opponent or what the tactic.

Neil Craig should be applauded for evolving a style of play that maintains the traditional positional structure of our forefather’s game, while also allowing for fast, modern and free flowing football. (It also helps that his players are quick, strong, agile, adaptable, have exceptional disposal skills and excellent tackling technique). Hats off, Neil!

Oh, one last thing, if anyone would like to contribute to ‘Get Neil Craig Fund’, please email us. The money will go towards either getting him to coach Geelong or an assassin. I could go either way.