Bomb it long!

[dee-tox 4,769]

One of the more disturbing tactics from a supporter point of view this season is the bomb it in long forward entry.

Time after time our midfielders run foward and rather than hit up a leading forward, kick to what seems to be a designated spot.

Now I am sure there is a method in the coach's madness but it also means we don't maximize the marking options we have. For instance, young Fritsch ran to create space many times on Saturday and was ignored on every occasion. He is a terrific overhead mark.

Are we doing this to make use of a smaller forward line? Are we playing the percentages?

Thoughts/theories?

[RalphiusMaximus 5,993]

This has been Goodwin's tactic (and my complaint) from the moment he took over.  I suspect that they are working on the theory that they will either take the mark or one of our small forwards will crumb after Hogan/McDonald/Pedersen/Gawn crash the pack.  Unfortunately there are a couple of glaring issues with this plan. 

Firstly, our forward line coach as yet to teach our forwards to work together.  When the high ball comes in we invariably see every forward in the vicinity try to mark it, often spoiling each other and winding up with most of them falling over.  With nobody staying down it is a simple matter for the opposition to crumb and run the ball out of the 50. 

Secondly, because we are so very predictable in this tactic, defences are setting up specifically to counter this play and generally getting their structure in place before ours. 

I think a great illustration of this came last year when the Weed was playing.  In one of his games he twice took a mark just outside 50 on the boundary.  Both times he looked around for options before deciding to follow the team rule and hit up the Hot Spot.  Unfortunately on one occasion the only people there were from the opposition and on another we had a single forward against three or four.  To me it looked like he had clearly been told that that was what he had to do after taking a mark at HF, and sadly he did as he was told instead of making a smart football decision. 

[Skuit 9,109]

There's one minor anomaly in the bomb-it-long for the crumbers theory that makes me think it's also tactically a percentages thing; the extra numbers off half-back.

I recall reading last year that Goody was a student of all sports, and I think he's been drawing from rugby with his set-up. Win the break-downs, kick for territory, and drive forward with numbers behind the ball to force the opposition to work their way out. Unfortunately, like rugby, when the opposition break the lines they're a pretty good chance of scoring.

It would probably work better if it was a non-designated spot and we just fired in low, wonky chaos balls. In saying that, we're currently the highest scoring team in the league.

I've also detected a strange rugby element in our in-tight handball movement since the start of 2016. Possibly just because we have the the extra numbers coming from the rear for the receive, but it seems like it's something more in the angles and lines. I wonder if we keep the first receiver running a tight straight line to the pack for a quick little flick - difficult for the opposition to quickly adjust to if we break through - but should there be a turnover error the ball remains close to the pack for another attempted stoppage. ?

The other method in the madness may be that Goodwin recognises our poor relatively foot-skills across the group and has simply set up differently to capitalise on what we're best at?

Edited April 9, 2018 by Skuit

[Melb-A-Toast 257]

I saw that after the first quarter, the attempted torpedo from the middle or wing.

This aligns to the chaos ball. The torp can pass the defensive line providing opportities for easy marks or run on goals for the faster forwards. If the kick is not well-connected then it has a randomness that our forwards should be bringing to ground for the front and centre rovers.

I don't mind the tactic as long as our players are set up for it. The challenge is that the kicker needs to read the play just as well.

On a similar note, the kick to the top of the square is being defended quite well by most teams. Looking at variations, kicking to 25 out could provide run out goals for the defensive team. Chaos ball is probably best option after exhausting short pass, and handball to running receiver. 

[Gorgoroth 12,305]

3 times in the first half Tyson was along in the centre square and the players with the ball ignored him and went down the line. 

The one time I think the long bomb is worth doing is out of th centre square and we don’t, Oliver once again has space in front of him, but turned and hand balled behind himself that didn’t work.

We are still working this out and tbh I think when Max is dominating the ruck like he did on the weekend we need to have less of the back of the square and more in our f50 for the quick entries.

[Constant Mongrel 571]

loving the analysis guys.. i reckon continuing to utilise this strategy will eventually pay off, once the players perfect it and everyone is on the same page. we will DEMOLISH teams. however, its not the most beautiful way to play and after the imitators (and maybe a flag), we will get loads of criticism for how ugly it is. 

[Diamond_Jim 11,670]

The interesting thing about many of those bombs on the weekend were that they were to around the 40-45 metre mark in front of the players.

I get the bomb behind the forwards and let them run onto them but dropping it in front of them just begs the opposition to rebound.

Would be interested to hear from the tacticians whether the bombs were simply short or whether this is the strategy.

[poita 3,571]

Quality teams with good intercept marks will destroy us if we persist with this strategy. With Hogan roaming far and wide, and Pedersen and McDonald out of the team, who exactly are the big bodies that are crashing packs and creating opportunities for the crumbers?

So far we have been lucky that Taylor & Henderson at Geelong, and then Tarrant at North have been missing. Arguably Majak Daw was our best forward on the weekend.

Hawthorn and Richmond will be licking their lips if we try it against them. Rance might just set a new record for marks in a couple of weeks.

[sue 8,402]

Seems to me that when there is no clear easy marking target near the goals, kicking a grubber down there may be a better bet.  Wouldn't look good of course but may make it harder for a rebound, make it more likely the ball can be locked in.    Since I doubt any team will do that, I reckon those players who are not near the contest near the goals should be focussing on oppo players who are likely to rebound.  I suspect too often those players relax when the ball gets bombed in.

[PaulRB 5,897]

I don’t mind the long bomb when we’re simultaneously setting up to deny the opposition rebound, hold it in and pressure them until we score. 

To use a boxing analogy, it’s akin to throwing a big punch to nail your opponent, or to put them on their back foot or onto the ropes, so you can limit their space and work them over.

Edited April 9, 2018 by PaulRB

[nutbean 8,837]

Firstly, it is dangerous strategy with a small forward line as good intercept/marking defenders will have a field day. We went in on Saturday  with only one genuine tall in Hogan and he played further up the ground. I would like to see a second tall in the forward line and you then you always try to hit up a leading forward which we did quite successfully on Saturday but if that fails then you can go long. The key is to have a tall deep to bring the ball to ground.

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

Nothing wrong with "bombing" it long to the froward line, but you must have three things:

1. Key forwards who can mark, contest or bring the ball to ground
2. Small forwards to crumb if the ball comes to ground
3. Not allow a loose player in defence

Last week in the first quarter we bombed it long but allowed Daw to play loose and Hogan was our only genuine marking target.

[george_on_the_outer 6,940]

Look at who kicked our goals on the weekend....

Bugg 4, Kent, Garlett 3, Oliver 2, Hogan, Petracca, Vince, Fritsch, Lewis, Jones

12 from the small crumbers....and you can argue about the remainder. 

The fact is there are few contested marks taken in the forward line these days, simply because defences are set up to spoil.  That is where the value lies....getting hold of the ball when it hits the ground. 

So kicking it long into the forward line does 2 things. 

It puts the ball over the top and behind the press.  If you try to run it through, you will get caught ala Richmond and Dogs. 

It then creates the chances for the smalls to gather when the ball hits the ground, as it inevitably does. 

In other situation e.g. quick turnovers then a one-on-one can arise, so a directed ball is the best option.  But that doesn't happen often enough. 

 

[Tony Tea 2,784]

Bomb it long is going to lose us too many games. Teams like WC and Hawthorn set up to defuse the long bomb and will slaughter us going the other way.

We must find a smarter way to take the ball inside 50. We certainly now get enough of the footy into the forward 50, but the slingshot sides will eat us up.

#ClarkoFooty 

[Red and Blue realist 2,026]

I thought they adjusted pretty well around the middle of the second quarter and started to lower their eyes, early in the game North picked off a few higher balls that came in (and if you listened to the commentators Magic Door was the greatest player on earth for a couple of seconds). Once we did adjust, Hogan then spent more time higher up the ground although Garlett & co, dropped a few easy marks that should have been shots on goal. That long bomb seemed to be reserved for the 'get out' or pure congestion kicks, which due to our ability to hold the ball in the forward 50 happened a fair bit. As we managed to retain the ball, it meant our forward 50 was crowded more often than not, so it was harder to find that free target.

I noticed in the second half Hogan and Petracca even directing the small forward who was matched up to Daw, Bugg, Harmes, ANB or Garlett, to stand around 25 out directly in front at center square bounces, then they themselves moved to one side of the f50. Seemed to be to ensure we didn't do the long bomb, but also seemed to confuse the hell out of Daw who had no idea where to go if he didn't have a big player to lead him to the ball. 

[Tony Tea 2,784]

Compare the 2016 game at the Dome against StKilda with the three games this year.

That Saints game was the infamous "they're out the back here" game.

We are slowly developing our forward defensive game so that we are able to better trap sides in our forward line. North snuck out early, but we were able to put the clamps on them before too much damage was done.

The key is to replicate the forward press effectively against the better sides.

[mauriesy 6,783]

53 minutes ago, george_on_the_outer said:

Look at who kicked our goals on the weekend....

Bugg 4, Kent, Garlett 3, Oliver 2, Hogan, Petracca, Vince, Fritsch, Lewis, Jones

12 from the small crumbers....and you can argue about the remainder. 

The fact is there are few contested marks taken in the forward line these days, simply because defences are set up to spoil.  That is where the value lies....getting hold of the ball when it hits the ground. 

So kicking it long into the forward line does 2 things. 

It puts the ball over the top and behind the press.  If you try to run it through, you will get caught ala Richmond and Dogs. 

It then creates the chances for the smalls to gather when the ball hits the ground, as it inevitably does. 

In other situation e.g. quick turnovers then a one-on-one can arise, so a directed ball is the best option.  But that doesn't happen often enough.

Thoroughly agree with this. And many times it's not possible to do anything BUT "bomb it long". Where there's no leads forthcoming, or crowding inside the arc,  it still gets an inside 50 with about a 40-50% chance to score. And a chance to lock it in.

NOT "bombing it long" can lead to a tackle or a turn-over further up the ground through pressure or hesitation on the ball carrier getting caught looking for options. And a shorter distance back to the opposition goal.

I put the mantra of "don't bomb it long" in the same category as "just kick it". Both meaningless without qualification.

[nutbean 8,837]

I also think that you need to mix it up. Bomb long, hit up leading forwards. feed it wide.  If you are unpredictable it keeps defenders in two minds as to what to do. Bomb long too often and defenders sit back and spoil or mark.

Against Richmond we need to be very mindful as Rance just loves the long ball coming in regularly. He needs to be made accountable and run around.

[TeamPlayedFine39 8,137]

It's always struck me as the Mick Malthouse style repeat entries and forward pressure.  We aim to get the ball inside 50 as quickly as possible and bring the ball to ground.  If our forwards are committing and applying pressure they can either gather and score, or force the defenders to rush a kick out of their defence into the arms of our half backs who have pushed up the ground.  

This tactic offers us heaps of inside 50s, but can be damaging if the defenders have the time, skill and poise to penetrate our forward-defensive press.  This is how we're so often exposed on the rebound; it sometime feels like we've locked-up the ball in our half for 10 minutes, then the opposition suddenly gets a quick and easy one on the break.

[Moonshadow 16,099]

Long bomb to the advantage of a strong kpf is OK. But kicking on top of Hogan's head when there are 3 on 1 doesn't often get results. Nor does the long bomb when Hogan is playing midfield and our tallest forward is Fritsch or Trac. We leak turnovers too often and the better teams will not let us get away with it. 

Looking forward to return of Tmac or an in form Weid

Edited April 10, 2018 by Moonshadow

[Its Time for Another 4,051]

It will never be better than a low pass to a lead. It’s always a bail out kick when nothing better is available. Like the bail out kick to the line out of defence. 

The 2011 GF is an interesting example of this. In the first quarter the Cats kept bombing it long because they had multiple tall targets. It wasn’t working and the ball just kept rebounding out. Podsiadly went down which forced them to stop bombing and start putting their heads down and doing low passes to leading forwards. Ironically Podsiadly going down was the turning point in the game for them. It’s s a prime example against bombing it in. 

[Scoop Junior 2,963]

Obviously our game plan revolves around winning the clearance (particularly centre clearance), getting the ball forward quickly, if not scoring then locking it in with a high press to play the game in our forward half and getting repeat entries through pressured opposition disposal out of the backline.

In that context it is pretty easy to see why, on occasion, the chaos ball or torp is being used as a Plan B or C when nothing is on.

The other tactic I was thinking of was the intentional free against when the opposition are able to get out of our press and look to break up the ground. It's occasionally used in soccer when a team looks to counter-attack and gets beyond the high press of the opposition. The problem with soccer is you can get carded and then sent off for repetitive fouling. But not in footy.

The idea would be to stop the quick break of the opposition while our defenders are in an aggressive press position and allow them to re-set. We seem to leak goals easily when teams break on us from half back due to our aggressive pressing. If we gave away a free, forcing a player to go back over the mark, stop and look up for options, it allows us time to re-set and get in position. We seem to set up and defend the slow ball movement really well and have good intercepters across half back - what gets us is the fast clean rebound ball when we are caught out of position.

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,381]

I think "chaos ball" is the AFL phrase of 2018 to date.

(I also think last year it was probably "running patterns".)

[binman 37,724]

1 hour ago, It's Time said:

It will never be better than a low pass to a lead. It’s always a bail out kick when nothing better is available. Like the bail out kick to the line out of defence. 

The 2011 GF is an interesting example of this. In the first quarter the Cats kept bombing it long because they had multiple tall targets. It wasn’t working and the ball just kept rebounding out. Podsiadly went down which forced them to stop bombing and start putting their heads down and doing low passes to leading forwards. Ironically Podsiadly going down was the turning point in the game for them. It’s s a prime example against bombing it in. 

True, however the advent of the zone defensive structures and all ground pressure has meant that it is really rare to have the option to have a free, open kick to leading forward such as the one Jones kicked to Garlett on Sat (and Jones was still in a bit of traffic) and often forwards are forced to lead to the pockets or flanks such as the kicks to Melk and Trac on Sat.   

[640MD 2,742]

What a great set of texts

you all look at the footy   Closer than I do