LONG gone are the days when footy was all about kicking long to man-on-man contests. I would go anywhere to see Bruce Doull play on Leigh Matthews or more recently Glen Jakovich play on Wayne Carey. But nowadays, poor old Lethal would be double and triple-teamed and would be instructed to provide a diversion by leading away from the action to create space and free up "lesser" forwards.

There was a time when the only thing that decided the outcome of a game of footy was effort. If the better team came to play, it generally won. Today, we have two different philosophies that dictate how a game is set up. On one hand you have the team that knows it can win if it comes to play, and on the other hand you have the team that can only win if it uses tactics to suppress and strangle its opponent's strengths. This is accepted as commendable and necessary, especially when one considers the enormous pressure and stress associated with consistent defeats, as Richmond and Melbourne are experiencing this season.

Now, more than ever, winning is the overriding consideration for a coach — and that means paying more attention to tactics. While the consequences of a lesser team's efforts to contain the opposition's strengths can be an eyesore and quite unpalatable for most fans of the game, it is critical if a coach is to give his team any chance of success.

The anomaly in all this is that the style of game used to defeat a more highly credentialled opposition can work in a one-off game during the home-and-away season, but it will not sustain a finals campaign and history proves it will not win a premiership.

These are some of the options available in preparing a team for a match. Putting the emphasis on either option can result in victory, but the key is whether the players have the ability to execute the plan well.

■Accountability v zone (also support behind ball, stay at home and defensive "press").

■Win the ball v win the tackle count.

■Quick ball movement v tempo.

■Direct movement v indirect movement.

■Inside set-up v outside set-up at clearances.

■Long kicks v short kicks (ratio).

■Kicks v handballs (ratio).

■Clearances v hitouts.

■First possession v last possession.

■Contested ball v uncontested ball (hard-ball gets v loose-ball gets).

■Soft zone v huddle.

■Space in front v space behind.

■Big forwards v small backs and big backs v small forwards.

This makes a simple game confusing at times for players and at times most frustrating for spectators, especially when all the players want to do is go out and express their god-given talents. Most players honestly believe they can beat their direct opponent; such is the evenness of the competition. It is the weight of numbers of good players in any given team that makes them more formidable.

Every current AFL coach can attest to using all of the above options — for a period of time or phase — equally effectively. They all work depending on circumstances, conditions, personnel and the opposition. And simply sticking to your game plan may not be enough — a team needs to be able to adapt to whatever is thrown at it.

There are similarities between world championship boxing bouts and AFL matches at the moment. A boxer will go to the centre of the ring to feel his opponent out; won't take risks early, but will jab and move. He'll stay away from his opponent's strengths and won't put himself in a position to get knocked out or embarrassed.

The recent Floyd Mayweather-Oscar De La Hoya bout was just like that. It was something of a paradox the way they went like cut cats for the final 30 seconds of the 12-rounder. It was as if they were out of the danger zone and all strategy went out the window for the sake of doing what they do best — fight. Throwing punches, pitting their skill, power and courage against their assailant. It was gripping stuff and I felt cheated when the final bell sounded.

Detect the similarities in footy? Often, teams are reluctant to take risks early for fear of a turnover and a score against them. When there is a turnover, players reactively bolt behind the ball to shore up their defence. A counterpunch or counterattack philosophy prevails. It is as though they lack the belief to win a contested situation regularly.

Perhaps it is a result of most coaches setting their teams up to be at least competitive. The Western Bulldogs-Melbourne match last Sunday did at least buck the trend and was a great example of two teams backing themselves and having a red-hot go. Richmond's recent style is also an example of a team that has decided to play traditionally and educate its players for finals football, which is a tremendous initiative by Terry Wallace. I am sure the Tigers will grow and develop, although they may cop more defeats in the short term.

The players would like a chance to win a game they are not expected to in a more dignified manner than applying some of the negative tactics that frustrate all stakeholders.

Unfortunately, the modern game generally does not allow players to express themselves as they would like. I know what Rocky Balboa would do, and it wouldn't be jabbing and moving!