Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
Rusty Nails

Is Goody right starting with Plus 2 down back almost every quarter!??

Recommended Posts

Guys with Goody persisting with this strategy all year i am interested in other's views here.

We've had to come from behind too often against lessor rated opponents (at the time) IMO, often ending in close results.  Not all of them to our gain.  Some examples.....The Pies (W), Freo (L) and Norf (L) just to name a few off the top of my head.  If we win two of those losses (and IMO we should have won them convincingly) we would now be sitting firmly entrenched in the 8.

It is my opinion that we are down early in too many matches (at least by half time), when we should have been well up, especially against lessor rated (or out of form) teams at the time we played them and i believe a significant reason for this (but not the only one obviously) is Goody persisting with starting plus 2 behind the ball!

I don't mind this strat when looking to defend a lead late in a quarter or match, but to persist with it for most quarters during a match AT THE START of each quarter??  Surely not.

In my opinion our greatest strength, when we have most available and fit, is our mid field.  Yet we allow our opponents to gain an extra number or two around many stoppages which allows them to negate this strength much of the time by throwing 2 behind the ball.  They usually also end up winning the clearances or at least matching us as a result, although i havent checked the numbers.  This is purely based on what i've been seeing.   Goody obviously prefers the counter but IMO playing this game style limits our ability to win more center and/or mid field stoppage clearances, and prevents us getting the ball into our forward 50 quickly.  We are then seeing more opposition numbers in our forward line as a result, placing our forwards under more pressure when trying to shoot. 

Relying mostly on the counter to score, we allow our opponents to get numbers behind the ball too easily and also place pressure on ourselves as there's usually no stay at home forward under Goody's game style and no one to kick to when we do find a way to fast break through lines on the counter.  We are then forced to wait and or kick latterly or behind, often resulting in a turnover.  Relying too much on the counter also allows opponent defenders to easily leave their man and kill the ball.  We also don't have a genuine tall that can take advantage of so many long bombs that we are accustomed to seeing from many of our entries.  Teams like Sydney, Adelaide and West Coast can get away with a little more bombing as they have this tall talent.

Terry Wallace always says...."you have to take something away from your opponent when you play footy if you are going to give yourself a chance of winning".  It would seem in our case, we may well be giving our opponent that advantage right from the first bounce!  Good luck winning with a disadvantage,  giving a free hit to your opponent from the start of every bounce!

So am i out on a limb on this?  Or do other D'landers see this is a significant issue that is impacting our ability to win more often and potentially our ability to play our first finals series in 11 years?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Always starting a quarter with a set play is madness. Mix it up, for Pete's sake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not 'an extra 2 down back' it is an extra two coming off the defensive side of the square and allows us to have extra numbers on the periphery of a contest. And it only lasts for a few seconds until they reset forward of where the ball is.

It is very smart IF you don't bomb away and IF you win the footy.

Goodwin's biggest mistake last week, ironically, was not having a loose man in defence in the first quarter. As TT says above - going to it always at the same time is a problem.

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, rpfc said:

It is not 'an extra 2 down back' it is an extra two coming off the defensive side of the square and allows us to have extra numbers on the periphery of a contest. And it only lasts for a few seconds until they reset forward of where the ball is.

It is very smart IF you don't bomb away and IF you win the footy.

Goodwin's biggest mistake last week, ironically, was not having a loose man in defence in the first quarter. As TT says above - going to it always at the same time is a problem.

RP regardless of where they are coming from we still start with 2 extra behind the drop of the ball at the start of every quarter and from my observation Goody continues with this strat during most center bounces within quarters also.

Aren't we taking away from our biggest strength (our mid field) by allowing our opponent to gain an extra number or two, even if only a tad earlier, at many stoppages?  Surely a leg up to our opponent and one they would be happy to take all day every day giving them early momentum also as well as potentially more quick entries i50 and more opportunities to score!??

Edited by Rusty Nails

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Rusty Nails said:

RP regardless of where they are coming from we still start with 2 extra behind the drop of the ball at the start of every quarter and from my observation Goody continues with this strat during most center bounces within quarters also.

Aren't we taking away from our biggest strength (our mid field) by allowing our opponent to gain an extra number or two, even if only a tad earlier, at many stoppages?  Surely a leg up to our opponent and one they would be happy to take all day every day giving them early momentum also!??

No, Viney and Oliver don't need help in the contest to win the footy - they need players on the periphery to get it to.

It is the right idea, I just think they make it so overt with the set up that it is now easily defendable.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, rpfc said:

No, Viney and Oliver don't need help in the contest to win the footy - they need players on the periphery to get it to.

It is the right idea, I just think they make it so overt with the set up that it is now easily defendable.

And that's my point.  We are initially at least one (maybe two) players down.....on the periphery, to assist with effective and quick clearances i50.  Instead we give this potential short term advantage up to our opponents preferring instead to rely on the slower counter off HB!

Edited by Rusty Nails

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Rusty Nails said:

And that's my point.  We are initially at least one (maybe two) players down.....on the periphery, to assist with effective and quick clearances i50.  Instead we give this potential short term advantage up to our opponents!

We are a player or two down for a quick kick forward because we don't want to just do a 'quick kick forward' - they have an extra player or players on the periphery of the contest that are supposed to kick it over the line that is now 'down on Melbourne players.'

It is basically putting an emphasis on our execution of hands, winning the footy, and getting the ball deeper into the forward line.

It is frustrating when we panic and kick it to an undermanned HF line but that is not the plan, and that needs to be worked through - either by discipline and commitment to the game plan or by abandoning it as you say and going back to one-on-one footy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's strength is that you have players streaming through the midfield to take immediate possession of the ball after the bounce. It's weakness is that once we then have the ball we have an outnumbered forward line to kick it to.

Having watched us do it with one or sometimes two players all year, I've come to the conclusion that it only works with some players who seem to be able to run forward with speed and who have deft touch. Otherwise, it doesn't seem to add much at all. And the players who seem to make it work? Neal-Bullen is by far the best with Harmes and Garlett equal second. The others seem not to have the intensity or courage (psychological, not physical) to make it work.

Would I persist with it? Yes, not because it necessarily is as effective as I would like it to be, but because it's been part of the gameplan all year and I would not change now what the players have been drilled to do. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The strategy has been found out:  the opp mids do not always try to get win the clearances.  They simply gang tackle our player at the stoppage and spill the ball out or get a free kick.  Result is we don't get the chance to get it out to someone on the outside or we have a frenzied kick forward. 

Meanwhile, our two behind the ball are fast running forward and can't turn around fast enough to defend against their mids who have hung back for the receive once the ball spills free or the free kick is granted.

The surprise value of the tactic has worn off.  As rpfc has said it is too easily defended.  We persist with it at our peril.  It will not stand up in finals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, rpfc said:

No, Viney and Oliver don't need help in the contest to win the footy - they need players on the periphery to get it to.

It is the right idea, I just think they make it so overt with the set up that it is now easily defendable.

This ∆∆∆

Might as well set up deckchairs for them.... So predictable.

Ol' SG still has much to perfect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rusty Nails said:

Guys with Goody persisting with this strategy all year i am interested in other's views here.

We've had to come from behind too often against lessor rated opponents (at the time) IMO, often ending in close results.  Not all of them to our gain.  Some examples.....The Pies (W), Freo (L) and Norf (L) just to name a few off the top of my head.  If we win two of those losses (and IMO we should have won them convincingly) we would now be sitting firmly entrenched in the 8.

It is my opinion that we are down early in too many matches (at least by half time), when we should have been well up, especially against lessor rated (or out of form) teams at the time we played them and i believe a significant reason for this (but not the only one obviously) is Goody persisting with starting plus 2 behind the ball!

I don't mind this strat when looking to defend a lead late in a quarter or match, but to persist with it for most quarters during a match AT THE START of each quarter??  Surely not. 

In my opinion our greatest strength, when we have most available and fit, is our mid field.  Yet we allow our opponents to gain an extra number or two around many stoppages which allows them to negate this strength much of the time by throwing 2 behind the ball.  They usually also end up winning the clearances or at least matching us as a result, although i havent checked the numbers.  This is purely based on what i've been seeing.   Goody obviously prefers the counter but IMO playing this game style limits our ability to win more center and/or mid field stoppage clearances, and prevents us getting the ball into our forward 50 quickly.  We are then seeing more opposition numbers in our forward line as a result, placing our forwards under more pressure when trying to shoot. 

Relying mostly on the counter to score, we allow our opponents to get numbers behind the ball too easily and also place pressure on ourselves as there's usually no stay at home forward under Goody's game style and no one to kick to when we do find a way to fast break through lines on the counter.  We are then forced to wait and or kick latterly or behind, often resulting in a turnover.  Relying too much on the counter also allows opponent defenders to easily leave their man and kill the ball.  We also don't have a genuine tall that can take advantage of so many long bombs that we are accustomed to seeing from many of our entries.  Teams like Sydney, Adelaide and West Coast can get away with a little more bombing as they have this tall talent.

Terry Wallace always says...."you have to take something away from your opponent when you play footy if you are going to give yourself a chance of winning".  It would seem in our case, we may well be giving our opponent that advantage right from the first bounce!  Good luck winning with a disadvantage,  giving a free hit to your opponent from the start of every bounce!

So am i out on a limb on this?  Or do other D'landers see this is a significant issue that is impacting our ability to win more often and potentially our ability to play our first finals series in 11 years?

Not sure you know what your talking about RN sorry.

Its not a defensive tactic so why use it late to defend a lead

 Its used at the center bounce when numbers are equal around the ball, not sure how our opponents can have an extra numbers around the ball at a centre bounce??. Its not scoring on the counter when the ball in the middle from a stop play??

Id say it allows us to get it into the 50 quicker.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shithouse mindset shows you have no faith in your midfield !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fascinating discussion ...keep it up.

Traditionally the quick kick out of the centre to the leading forward was the most effective play. Is this plan really any more effective? I suppose you get better controlled delivery but it seems to come at the cost of a more crowded forward line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The plan is to either deliver fast moving outside runners to feed off the midfield (if we have possession) or to smash 2 more into the contest to shut it down.  A good idea - but if the opposition get a quick clearance, it sails straight over the heads of 2 guys running the wrong way.  This seems to be where this tactic causes us grief.  When the opposition block our running lanes and rove to Max, this happens more than we would like.  

When we win the contest in tight and hit a player moving past the contest at speed, it allows us to aimlessly bomb it inside 50 for an intercept mark and opposition clearance.  This also causes us grief.  When we hit up a leading player, it looks pretty spectacular.

The concept itself is fine, it is just when and how we use it.  If we are losing in the midfield, it is stupid to use this tactic.  When we are being thrashed in our forward 50, we would be better to have a 6 man forward line and create defender accountability.  We need to be more agile in its application - which will come with the guys responding to scenarios better rather than just running the one structure that they know.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the tactic but not every time, if you mix it up you keep the oppo guessing.

I think the fact that we are so predictable when kicking out after a behind is much worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really like Goodwin's innovation with this tactic, but the discussion around how often we use it is a valid one.  Is it something we use at the start of every quarter?  Do we just use it when we need to push for a few extra goals to get back into or kill a contest?

I don't think the tactic has been 'found out' as such, as there are still times where it works well, I just think we need to be smarter with how we use it.  It wouldn't hurt to have a few tweaks to it that we can implement on the fly when the situation requires it.

I do think it's a tactic we can build off, though, and this year will have allowed our coaching team to assess and hopefully make the changes required so that it works more often than it doesn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My problem is the +1 down back (Jetta), versus the Roos at the death when we had to score.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, rpfc said:

No, Viney and Oliver don't need help in the contest to win the footy - they need players on the periphery to get it to.

It is the right idea, I just think they make it so overt with the set up that it is now easily defendable.

I agree with what you've said but in fairness teams and the competition as a whole have evolved.

In response we to thr topic - we lack midfield class. That's not entirely the coaches fault 

Edited by Unleash Hell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a dumb tactic, because the likes of Neal-Bullen and Kent, who have been used in that role, are not smart enough to read the play and get themselves in the right spot. More often than not, the ball disappears back over their heads..

Secondly, it is a waste of effort having players who aren't impacting the play then having to run 100 metres to find their position and / or opponent. 

Thirdly, even if it does work, you are kicking into a forward line that is outnumbered 6 to 4.

Opposition coaches would laugh themselves silly if we pulled this rubbish in a final.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a dumb tactic, because the likes of Neal-Bullen and Kent, who have been used in that role, are not smart enough to read the play and get themselves in the right spot. More often than not, the ball disappears back over their heads..

Secondly, it is a waste of effort having players who aren't impacting the play then having to run 100 metres to find their position and / or opponent. 

Thirdly, even if it does work, you are kicking into a forward line that is outnumbered 6 to 4. And it is blatantly obvious that our forwards are either out of form or not working hard enough.

Opposition coaches would laugh themselves silly if we pulled this rubbish in a final.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, poita said:

It's a dumb tactic, because the likes of Neal-Bullen and Kent, who have been used in that role, are not smart enough to read the play and get themselves in the right spot. More often than not, the ball disappears back over their heads..

Secondly, it is a waste of effort having players who aren't impacting the play then having to run 100 metres to find their position and / or opponent. 

Thirdly, even if it does work, you are kicking into a forward line that is outnumbered 6 to 4.

Opposition coaches would laugh themselves silly if we pulled this rubbish in a final.

 

It's been a large part of our 10 wins this season, so I would hardly call it 'dumb'.  Not to mention the fact that ANB has been one of our most improved players because of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, rpfc said:

It is not 'an extra 2 down back' it is an extra two coming off the defensive side of the square and allows us to have extra numbers on the periphery of a contest. And it only lasts for a few seconds until they reset forward of where the ball is.

It is very smart IF you don't bomb away and IF you win the footy.

Goodwin's biggest mistake last week, ironically, was not having a loose man in defence in the first quarter. As TT says above - going to it always at the same time is a problem.

Exactly it's an offensive move not a defensive move

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is the AFL right serving only light beer at night games when everyone wants beer that actually tastes like real beer?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Grimes Times said:

Not sure you know what your talking about RN sorry.

Its not a defensive tactic so why use it late to defend a lead

 Its used at the center bounce when numbers are equal around the ball, not sure how our opponents can have an extra numbers around the ball at a centre bounce??. Its not scoring on the counter when the ball in the middle from a stop play??

Id say it allows us to get it into the 50 quicker.

 

GT you are assuming they always run forward quickly into the contest or to provide an option around the periphery of the contest....and get there in a timely manner.    Im not sure players being used in this aspect are capable of doing that all of the time allowing us to match the opposition who are probably feeding theirs in off the boundary side of the square and getting into the position their mid field inside clearance players want them to be, a tad quicker than ours for the outside recieve IMO.

Running extras off HB can also be easily negated as well if you push the ball back towards your sweeper (your own goal side) who then feeds it outside and shoots the pill over the top over the heads of those one or two oncoming extras, who are now in no mans land and helping no one....as Buck has also described nicely below and expanded on further.....

 

2 hours ago, buck_nekkid said:

The plan is to either deliver fast moving outside runners to feed off the midfield (if we have possession) or to smash 2 more into the contest to shut it down.  A good idea - but if the opposition get a quick clearance, it sails straight over the heads of 2 guys running the wrong way.  This seems to be where this tactic causes us grief.  When the opposition block our running lanes and rove to Max, this happens more than we would like.  

When we win the contest in tight and hit a player moving past the contest at speed, it allows us to aimlessly bomb it inside 50 for an intercept mark and opposition clearance.  This also causes us grief.  When we hit up a leading player, it looks pretty spectacular.

The concept itself is fine, it is just when and how we use it.  If we are losing in the midfield, it is stupid to use this tactic.  When we are being thrashed in our forward 50, we would be better to have a 6 man forward line and create defender accountability.  We need to be more agile in its application - which will come with the guys responding to scenarios better rather than just running the one structure that they know.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×