Tactics

although this forum would be a great platform for counter intelligence

oups did i let something out...

__________________
top of de mornin to yeh

you unleashed the beast. You should have kept the doors locked. Now the KGB, CIA and SOVA are after you. you better run .

Why dont we play cold war forever ? I got nothing to hide, but it looks many of "top ranked players" are afraid, that in 5 yrs, they wont be "top ranked" anymore.

Sven thanks for all the information that you unselfishly released in public.

All the best Marko

__________________
kurac pička govno sisa RASMC
http://www.phljubljana.si/pictures/razno/uwh_gloves.htm
http://forum.phljubljana.si

so this is how the rules are made ? One is not satisfied with opponents tactics, and he has to change the rules of the game ? So why for example can opponents back lie in his bin defending his goal wih his body? Maybe couse you have big backs.

__________________
kurac pička govno sisa RASMC
http://www.phljubljana.si/pictures/razno/uwh_gloves.htm
http://forum.phljubljana.si

yes thats how rules are made... when someone plays in a way thats not in the best interests of the game, the rules are changed to prevent it.

...how about you give us your view on that tactic mareh? slovenia was at that tournament, i remember playing you guys.

what do you think about what the dutch did in the corners and how the rules were consequently affected?

__________________
it's more polite on the grating than on the subs bench

The corner rule was *refined* at the next worlds. It was created, in a way, in '92 (I think) at half time no less, in response to what some would call a sound tactical strategy in a round robin game for seeding based on goal differential, others might call it a response to making a mokery of the game. Duck was there he can expand, Jason Meizes as well, Gav8 and Kelly maybe? USA vs. OZ final RR game.

As far as the Dutch tactic in 2000? Not sure rules need to be made, it was an interesting strategy for one tournament, but everyone would have adapted, and the fact that they were not still doing it in 2002 says alot about the soundness of the tactic. hold it in the corner till you have made a bunch of subs, then bash up the wall would have been less and less successful the next year and the next.

__________________
An aquifer is a water bearing layer of rock or soil. Aquifers are separated by impermeable layers of rock or clay called an aquitard. Aquitard, however may sound a bit offensive to some, and therefore we will be changing the name to Aquachallenge.

making the corner/end wall the basis of driving out of defence with fresh subs was a very sound basis for a strategy for NZ team in 2002, we did o.k. with that - but our emphasis was on doing it [the subbing] quickly, then being patient going up the pool.
side subbing ruined that scheme to a large extent. so, as Tuck points, out we needed to change.

fyi - i reffed the notorious puck in the corner game at 92 worlds. from a purely neutral viewpoint, i always thought the instruction to interpret the rules in a different manner after 1/2 time was shabby - but chief ref made that call after hearing argument from both team captains and he da boss in these situations.
i also thought that the aussies were sufficiently put off their game by the tactic in the first 1/2 that the usa could have run the game a lot closer on the scoresheet than the eventual 5-2. but that's just my opinion and Kelly has informed that he was in the water too and has a markedly different opinion.

__________________
http://snorkelbattlesafari.blogspot.com/

I thought the final was 5-1, but anyway the way it was explained to me is that much of the US team was feeling they were getting hosed by a change in rule interpretation at half time they pretty much removed themselves mentally from the game, they may have been able to make a closer game of it, but again i'd like to here from Kelly as I have never heard an Aussie opinion of the game.

__________________
An aquifer is a water bearing layer of rock or soil. Aquifers are separated by impermeable layers of rock or clay called an aquitard. Aquitard, however may sound a bit offensive to some, and therefore we will be changing the name to Aquachallenge.

the only aussie opinion you need is the one on the scoresheet in the final that said "we owned this tournament"

mucking round with tactics like that is merely damage control when you are too out-classed to play your own game,lets face it.

__________________
it's more polite on the grating than on the subs bench

It was the last game of the round robin and we were tied for 6th going into it. With goals against or goal differential as the tiebreaker that mattered, we had figured that we needed to hold Aus to 1 goal. At that time no one was able to do it. Aus was pure domination then. What this would have given us was the 6th seed rather than the 7th. Obviously it was in our best interest to play the 3rd seed rather than the 2nd.

So we played Aus straight up until they scored one. Then we went into playoff seeding preservation mode. Whether we were in our offensive or defensive corner we committed to letting is sit there unless a good opportunity to make a run occured. And we had a few chances that we just couldn't finish with. Even the Aussie players would let the puck sit in the corner unattended for 10 seconds or more at a time. So the Aussie Aussie Aussie Oy Oy Oy crowd started chanting BOOOOORRRRRRRING, BOOOOORRRRRRRING, BOOOOORRRRRRRING, (I bet Lena could fill you in on the other stuff they were yelling) which captured the attention of Murray Brooks who stopped the game during the first half and came up with, "each player can only hold it in the corner for 10 seconds at a time".

Looking back at the video, I doubt anyone held it there that long more than a couple of times. But now that a mid game, mid-World's rule had suddenly been created and no one made a stink about the chief ref so blatantly bypassing the rules about adding rules other than our Captain, we had to live with it. I know there is a protest option, but up until that point I don't think anyone ever had a protest upheld and we were advised by our Party Coach to not waste good party money on a lost cause.

So with this new rule in place, our players would take it into the corner, count to ten in their heads (which was really about 3 seconds -- amazing how psychological this game is), and then get out of the way to let the next guy come in. So we make it to halftime and talk about it that we need to keep it up and stay longer because we can't count right. And not to be afraid to run given the chance cause a tie woud be just as good. And we played this way until Aus scored a second time at some point in the second half, then we played them straight up after that. We still moved the puck up the pool when we had good opportunity and had a couple more runs toward the goal but not enough and then it was too late.

We got all kinds of crap from the Aussie Coach about not playing to the Olympic Spirit, but I think we did. We played to give us the best shot at winning in the playoffs and did it without hurting anyone while following the rules of the game. Isn't that what every team should try to do? It sure seems more in the spirit than going 19-0 against a team back in the days when they didn't stop the clock. Maybe they were still upset they never got to the 20 mark. We even made a wine commemorating the occassion which we proudly displayed at the banquet.

And I'm with Scott, would love to hear the Aus Player perspective.

__________________
Just in case you weren't sure, it's official -- CMAS sucks.
Oh yeah, and now they're broke.

No argument with you there Liam. But we were trying to get our first medal and the path through 3rd would have been easier.

__________________
Just in case you weren't sure, it's official -- CMAS sucks.
Oh yeah, and now they're broke.