Terminology of spatial position

[voyagers_uk]

I do not think anyone has said it is, however players in BB are more likely to find a role match in AmFo than they are in other Ball games.

I find that a reasoned arguement works better than shouting to get my point across.


if you describe the game to a friend who has never seen it, you are more likely to go with American Football with Monsters than Netball with Elves or Cricket with Lizards.

After all we score Touchdowns not trys or Runs or baskets....

[Leipziger]

Definitely agree with Voyagers here. Explaining it to others, I always say it's American Football with fantasy characters.

However, to get back on topic. I was enjoying the positional debate started by Matt, even though it's too much detail for my tastes.

[thechosengobbo]

I don’t see cricket fans referring to their Werewolves as “slips” and their Ghouls as “silly mid Offs”, nor the rugby fans insisting there troll slayers are “hookers” or “Fly Half’s”

No, but now you've mentioned it it's too amusing for me to NOT do at my next tourney

[Joemanji]

To be fair to mattgslater, I think his argument is:

a) it would be useful to have some terminology to describe players not in terms of their rostered position name, but in terms of where you place them in your defensive setup. He isn't saying that a Dwarf Runner should be called something else, just that you could use him as either a safety, corner or winger.

b) AmF is the natural place to steal that terminology from, since BB is a kind of AmF played by the GW races.

Now it is possible to disagree with either of those points. Maybe even easy. So there's no need to put new arguments in his mouth and then bash him for them instead.

My own opinion is that a) is correct should you even end up having an in-depth discussion about defensive setups. I just don't think that is likely to happen very often.

Cheers
Joe

[Ikterus]

Just to add some Rugby references.

Winger is a great name for an guy on line on offense.

Flanker is suitable for a player running the line on defense.

Concerning the terminology as per se: I feel that the level of detail you're going into is going to scare away alot of us in the old world (This from a guy that acctually has some knowledge of AmFB).

I feel that a term that covers the LOS guys (good term if you ask me) as a whole might be enough. The four guys in the centre backfield can also go by one name and the flankers/wingers can get a term that covers them.

This way you get three distinctive positionals. Those you can later subcathegorize and describe their specific role.

As valiant as your effort might be I fear that the system might be unusable for us on the other side of the pond.

Not to stop you Matt, go on, but try to find a system that we all can grasp.

Cheers

[voyagers_uk]

If I can grasp it in Essex, you can grasp it anywhere

[Grumbledook]

I'm impressed stick knows rugby positions ;]


I agree there could be some clarification of players, though I wouldn't take from american football as I've said on here before when it has been bought up.

the guys on the line i call line fodder, no need for ends and noses, middle left and right work fine

the guys at the back are placed there more to protect them cause you don't want them getting blitzed easily, not cause you want them there for "safeties" unless the team is highly developed

winger and flankers do suggest they stay out wide which may not be the case, on defence players out here are often going to go after the ball carrier, or a loose ball (pass rushing in american football terms which is quite often done by the ends right?)

where you place your players in your defensive line up isn't as fixed as american football and you often have to use players to adapt to do different jobs, it is this fact that I don't think the american football terms work (and the pass rush example)

also arguing the other side with the introduction of wrestle a lot of blitzing is being done by non blitzers as blitzers usual start with block, while the blitzers do more of a blocking job due to usually also having strength skill access (skaven teams being the typical example of this)


I think what this thread is really getting at is matt often gives some great tactical advice but it gets lost in translation as he applies terms from american football which a lot of coaches aren't at all familiar with

this is why i describe the role of the player when i give advice, but bear in mind that they shouldn't be stuck to just doing that and have to be flexible as bb is a different game to american football

[mattgslater]

Joe, Voyagers and Grumbledook get my point at least.

The goal isn't to talk about BB in AmFB terms, it's to come up with a term, so one doesn't have to say "the Blitzer I put on the inside wide zone spot," and can instead say "The flanking Blitzer." I don't care where the terms come from, and I'm not making any effort to preserve AmFB. But BB is clearly a football game, so if one is going to draw terms from existing games, they should be taken from football games, like Rugby, American Football or Association Football, as opposed to, say, Cricket or Basketball.

Funny enough, the line is an AmFB line much more than either of the other two popular football games, and the AmFB defensive back terminology translates fairly well. But that doesn't mean that I'm really using AmFB terms in the same way even in those cases. Two different games, however clear the parallels might be. The goal is to draw terminology from several places, using the best terms for the circumstances, both in applicability and in clarity.

I like the idea of using Winger as an offensive term, by the way!

[ombwiri]

I think its great that someone is trying to create a common terminology to aid discussing tactical and positional issues.

Using American Football terms is probably easier than spending time creating a new lexicon and AmF does fit BB better than any other sport I can think of and I speak as someone who has no interest in AmF.

My only thoughts at the moment are whether it's neccessary to differentiate between Flanker/Corner and Safety/Midfield.

[mattgslater]

My only thoughts at the moment are whether it's neccessary to differentiate between Flanker/Corner and Safety/Midfield.

Well, Flankers are outside and generally can get hit, strategic or not, while Safeties are generally protected from blitzes. Corners need to be fast and tough, while midfielders just need to be tough. In some alignments, Flankers may need to be able to soak up the blitz just like a corner, while in others only an idiot would blitz the flanker. In an inverted formation, a flanker is basically a wide safety.

Or are you saying the difference between Flankers and Corners? In that case, the difference is in development. Safety vs. Midfielder is night-and-day: the midfield is where you put your hogs (or schmoes), and the safety spots are for fragile players or guys you don't want marked.

[ombwiri]

My only thoughts at the moment are whether it's neccessary to differentiate between Flanker/Corner and Safety/Midfield.

Well, Flankers are outside and generally can get hit, strategic or not, while Safeties are generally protected from blitzes. Corners need to be fast and tough, while midfielders just need to be tough. In some alignments, Flankers may need to be able to soak up the blitz just like a corner, while in others only an idiot would blitz the flanker. In an inverted formation, a flanker is basically a wide safety.

Or are you saying the difference between Flankers and Corners? In that case, the difference is in development. Safety vs. Midfielder is night-and-day: the midfield is where you put your hogs (or schmoes), and the safety spots are for fragile players or guys you don't want marked.

Sorry I wan't too clear. Yes I was more referring to whether you could meld corners and flankers into one position and safeties and midfielders into another. But I think you are right, they are significantly different.

Have you considered using Wing Back instead of Flanker? It covers the position, location and dual offensive and defensive roles (at least to a Euro Football ear winger is always wide and attacking).

[Ikterus]

Well, Flankers are outside and generally can get hit, strategic or not, while Safeties are generally protected from blitzes. Corners need to be fast and tough, while midfielders just need to be tough. In some alignments, Flankers may need to be able to soak up the blitz just like a corner, while in others only an idiot would blitz the flanker. In an inverted formation, a flanker is basically a wide safety.

True.

So what if you divide into First Line / Second Line and then subdivide into "wide zone, First Line" and "centre, First Line". Yes those terms aren't short nor catchy but they are easily understandable and makes little room for misunderstandings.

Or you can go the First Line Winger, Second Line Winger route if that's more catchy. Giving the two wingers different names might be hard to remember.

I do think that it would be great to have a terminology like the one you're introducing but if it is supposed to improve things it has to be easily understandable for swedes as well as americans and noobs as well as vets.

[Ikterus]

So...

First Line Centre = FC
First Line Winger = FW

Second Line Centre = SC
Second Line Winger = SW

--------FC--FC--FC--------
--FW------------------FW--
----SW---SC--SC--SW----

Well I'm lousy at ASCII but you get what I mean...

More specifics might be called for?

[Mad Banker]

So...

First Line Centre = FC
First Line Winger = FW

Second Line Centre = SC
Second Line Winger = SW

--------FC--FC--FC--------
--FW------------------FW--
----SW---SC--SC--SW----

Well I'm lousy at ASCII but you get what I mean...

More specifics might be called for?

good, but you are two players short...

[voyagers_uk]

shhh don't tell him