Our Kick Outs

[MikeyJ 60]

I'm less concerned by how we start a game with our kick-ins than how we end it.

There will be some weeks (Essendon, Sydney) where our preferred strategy of going long to Jamar/Johnson and a numerical advantage of runners will work all day. And there will be others when it doesn't and we have to think our way through it as the game progresses.

I was a little worried by our struggles in the first quarter and a half, but as others have said, it was a function of Richmond's outstanding man-on-man pressure. The fact that we improved dramatically throughout the game, to the point where we absolutely dominated them from our kick-ins for much of the second half, is worthy of praise.

Those who are overly concerned by our kick-in strategy tend to lose the forest for the trees. We often forget that even though it's a set play that theoretically gives us an advantage, it's also a set play for the defending team.

I worry much more about our ability to win clearances (which was average in the first half and outstanding in the last quarter) and our clean hands in traffic and contested situations (which were verging on dire for much of the game).

Now that's worthy of a thread - why did we fumble so much yesterday? Cost ourselves so many opportunities on the fast break - opportunities which were often generated from an effective kick-in strategy.

[MikeyJ 60]

FWIW, I don't want Davey anywhere near kick-in duties. He might be good at it, but the opposition would love seeing him with the ball in his hands at that point because it means he's not going to have the ball in the centre square, delivering to our forwards.

[stevethemanjordan 6,952]

I didn't belittle anyone, I just think this topic has been done to death amd no new light is ever shed on the topic.

I'm allowed to express my surprise.

So don't contribute? Pretty simple.

No one wants to hear you expressing your surprise.

[Jumping Jack Clennett 1,799]

Our point kick-ins, and defence of Hawthorn's kick-ins, were lamentable again on Sunday.

It was noticeable how quick they were to get the ball back in play....and how hesitant we were.

So often we had to resort to the long kick to Jamar amongst several opponents. (It's not worth considering doing that with PJ). (But Garland is a magnificent long kick when he roosts it)

It seems our club tacticians have the same interest in this topic as the poster "E 25", since there appears to be no attempt to experiment with change in this crucial tactic.

[Jaded No More 68,966]

You do know we are one of the best sides in the competition at converting kick-outs into goals, right?

I laugh every time this thread is bumped up, because our kick-ins are no worse than any other teams'. In most cases, we are actually better.

[Jumping Jack Clennett 1,799]

You do know we are one of the best sides in the competition at converting kick-outs into goals, right?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The statistic that suggests we are good at converting kick-ins is very misleading. It counts "coast-to-coasts"( at the end of a game it reads "3goals 1, to 2goals 2 etc), but it cannot take into account the number of times kick-ins are ineffective, resulting in pressure building up in the backline, sometimes directly resulting in a goal, but always resulting in a loss of attacking momentum.

How do we stack up statistically on defending opposition kick-ins? You haven't considered that when ridiculing this post.

One only has to watch the games live(it's not so easy detect on TV),to be aware that it's glaringly obvious that we are deficient in this aspect of tactical planning and execution.

[Dr. Mubutu 855]

You do know we are one of the best sides in the competition at converting kick-outs into goals, right?

I laugh every time this thread is bumped up, because our kick-ins are no worse than any other teams'. In most cases, we are actually better.

The issue really is the same issue we have across the board: lack of consistency. When it works, jeez it looks bloody impressive and definitely are gems for the highlight reels. But when it doesn't, it barely looks above amateur level. I would, however, argue that the weekend's shockers notwithstanding, that this particular facet of the game is improving really well.

[e25 5]

Sorry, kick-in tactics?

What's the point? We just close our eyes, kick and hope, don't we..?

[e25 5]

So don't contribute? Pretty simple.

No one wants to hear you expressing your surprise.

Stmj, it's not like you to be presumptuous and speak for "everyone".

If you don't like my posts, you are free to ignore them, just like I am this thread.

[DeezMan 4]

Via Brad Gotch's VFL player review for the recent match vs Bullants:

James Strauss: He was good. In the second half, he got a lot better and worked hard and got plenty of the ball. He used it well and did his kick ins well. He hit targets, which was really important.

[stevethemanjordan 6,952]

You do know we are one of the best sides in the competition at converting kick-outs into goals, right?

I laugh every time this thread is bumped up, because our kick-ins are no worse than any other teams'. In most cases, we are actually better.

We seem to somehow get lucky with the long bomb kick out to a contest. Sometimes we win them

and then continue to run the ball until we score. Sometimes we lose them and get scored against easily. Too many are either hit out of bounds or

the ball is tied up and it's a ball up.

Jaded. It seems like you have misinterpreted stats. If we win the 50-50 kick out to a contest and then score easily from that with free flowing football then

that's great and I am guessing that's the sort of stat you have looked at. The question still remains: How many times do we win these 50-50 kick outs?

Please watch some football and let me know.

We need other avenues out of defence. Not only the "long bomb".

I don't understand how people can disagree with that?

Look at how easily Hawthorn moved the ball out from a kick out. Efficiently and effectively.

Stmj, it's not like you to be presumptuous and speak for "everyone".

If you don't like my posts, you are free to ignore them, just like I am this thread.

Your only input to this thread initially was something along the lines of.. "Oh no, not this stupid thread again".

Do you have anything thoughtful to say? I haven't heard much from you on demonland except for a few one liners here and there

and something about dropping Nathan Jones this week.

Really proves your worth.

You are correct. I should ignore your posts. They bare no substance.

Edited August 17, 2010 by stevethemanjordan

[DeezMan 4]

Sick of the long bomb straight to a pack where the opposition ruckman takes a nice grab.

I am wondering if the coaching staff have looked at this area? Mr Sean Wellman, can you answer this??? It happens every week and is really my only concern with our game style at present.

[e25 5]

You are correct. I should ignore your posts. They bare no substance.

*bear no substance.

Selective reading again Steve.

Jones to be dropped conditional on Moloney coming in.

Which I don't think will happen.

I think you'll find I don't respond beyond one-liners to your posts because there is just so much twaddle to wade through.

You should learn to be more concise.

[stevethemanjordan 6,952]

*bear no substance.

Selective reading again Steve.

Jones to be dropped conditional on Moloney coming in.

Which I don't think will happen.

I think you'll find I don't respond beyond one-liners to your posts because there is just so much twaddle to wade through.

You should learn to be more concise.

Apologies for the spelling.

Instead of worrying about the way I write, why not comment on the content?

[daisycutter 29,622]

Whichever way you look at (and you really need to be at the game, not watching on TV) our offensive and defensive tactics at kick-ins is a glaring deficiency this year and appears to be lacking any coherent strategy. It is an area we could gain some real benefits in the future.

However in defense of last Sunday's tactics of kicking long (mainly to the wings), it wasn't too bad a tactic given the appalling weather conditions. It wasn't a time for pinpoint short passes. Players downfield however could have been smarter in positioning themselves, covering the packs, tapping over the back etc

Just my 2c worth

edited spelling

Edited August 17, 2010 by daisycutter

[stevethemanjordan 6,952]

Whichever way you look at (and you really need to be at the game, not watching on TV) our offensive and defensive tactics at kick-ins is a glaring deficiency this year and appears to be lacking any coherent strategy. It is an area we could gain some real benefits in the future.

However in defense of last Sunday's tactics of kicking long (mainly to the wings), it wasn't too bad a tactic giving the appalling weather conditions. It wasn't a time for pinpoint short passes. Players downfield however could have been smarter in positioning themselves, covering the packs, tapping over the back etc

Just my 2c worth

Glad to read a couple of posts that are on the same boat.

It's something that definitely needs work in the offseason.

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

You do know we are one of the best sides in the competition at converting kick-outs into goals, right?

I laugh every time this thread is bumped up, because our kick-ins are no worse than any other teams'. In most cases, we are actually better.

Melbourne's kick ins have been great over recent weeks. I've noticed that they never go for the chip to the pocket sideways anymore which usually ends in disaster.

Edited August 17, 2010 by Clint Bizkit

[stevethemanjordan 6,952]

Please tell me that some people share similar concerns especially after yesterdays game....?

[H_T 3,049]

Please tell me that some people share similar concerns especially after yesterdays game....?

I do. But sometimes it says just as much about the opposition and how they set up, than it does about our system(s). For example, some sides are awake to us finding Rivers as the marking target on occassions.

When it comes off, we look good leaving the kickouts. Granted, we still need further work in this area when sides zone or implement their strategy well to nullify us. Dare I say it, plan D,E,F,..,.. on kickouts.

In high pressure games though, such as yesterday, defences tend to crack, poor decisions are made by those who don't stand up, and sides will punish you. ie. last quarter.

[Jumping Jack Clennett 1,799]

Please tell me that some people share similar concerns especially after yesterdays game....?

I do, Steve, but I'm ridiculed for repeatedly bringing up the subject!

It's enlightening when the TV cameras show the "straight down the ground" view when we're kicking in . No-one's moving.! Poor old Garland's looking upfield desperately hoping someone will run, but his time expires, and he has to "roost" in the general direction of Jamar, who's surrounded by opposition.

I think that's the time to "buy" more time by the short kick to the pocket, expecting the pass back to the square. The clock starts ticking again, and often opportunities open up downfield.

Edited August 30, 2010 by High Tower
quoted all skewiff !

[Nasher 33,616]

Melbourne's kick ins have been great over recent weeks. I've noticed that they never go for the chip to the pocket sideways anymore which usually ends in disaster.

Genuine question, do people consider chipping it to the pocket better or worse than the more recent "hoof it as hard as possible to the middle of the ground" tactic that seems to have prevailed recently? The latter tactic seems to be hit and miss with the opposition marking it just as often as not.

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

Genuine question, do people consider chipping it to the pocket better or worse than the more recent "hoof it as hard as possible to the middle of the ground" tactic that seems to have prevailed recently? The latter tactic seems to be hit and miss with the opposition marking it just as often as not.

Much worse, it is better to have the ball out of your oppositions forward line than be stuck in the back pocket, under pressure where a likely turnover can more easily translate into an opposition goal.

EDIT: On a side note Melbourne's game plan has involved a lot more kicking than handpassing as when compared to the first half of the season.

Edited August 30, 2010 by Clint Bizkit

[stevethemanjordan 6,952]

Much worse, it is better to have the ball out of your oppositions forward line than be stuck in the back pocket, under pressure where a likely turnover can more easily translate into an opposition goal.

EDIT: On a side note Melbourne's game plan has involved a lot more kicking than handpassing as when compared to the first half of the season.

How can hitting a short 15 - 20 meter pass be more risky than bombing long to a contest? That makes no sense.

A kick to advantage when going long could help but usually Garland just puts it straight up in the air and from there it's

complete chance if we actually get a role on from it.

I would like to see some other avenue out of the backline !!! Garland never elects to go short. What baffles me even more is

when Frawley or one of our other backmen pick the ball up after an opposition point, they just wait to give it to Garland, allowing time for

the opposition to create their zone. Everyone knows we no longer need to wait for the umpires flag to be waved so why don't we take advantage of that

and whoever has the ball at the time can at least turn around and have a look what's on offer !!!

Look at the what the roos did. Quick movement out as soon as we scored a point.

We really need to work on it over pre-season.

Edited August 31, 2010 by stevethemanjordan

[H_T 3,049]

Genuine question, do people consider chipping it to the pocket better or worse than the more recent "hoof it as hard as possible to the middle of the ground" tactic that seems to have prevailed recently? The latter tactic seems to be hit and miss with the opposition marking it just as often as not.

Hoofing it hard as possible to the middle of the ground can be a 50/50. Even Malthouse last night fessed up to having spoken with Goldsack about his torps from full back. Looks great when it comes off, terrible when it doesn't.

There is risks associated with alot of things, although Nasher, I'm of the opinion if there is someone available to hit up in the pocket such as Chip, you take it if nothing is on outside 50. Especially if there is no time permitting to kick ie. if the ump has blown whistle to play on.

I've notice this has been successful in order to get the ball outside 50 - even though some non efficient disposals may occur, which unfortunately happens all over the field from time to time. Most times though I see it being efficient. It might mean continuing around the boundary or back into the centre i50 which enables runners to overlap and enter centre corridor. Other times Chip might kick it back to a moving Garland (who kicked out from the goal square in the first place) who then transfers play to the other side outside 50 and we are away.

The beauty of it all is the more the back 6 continue to play together the better the understanding of the options at hand and the gradual improvement in transition. The youngsters in the midfield will play a major part in ensuring things become more fluent as they become accustomed to timed leads; presenting as targets and creating flow on. In time this will hopefully result in (should result in) improved inside 50 numbers and hence improved *scoreboard pressure having hit up forward targets.

* Improvement in goals coming from the mids would be nice too.

[Chook 15,013]

I'm of the opinion that a Chip to the pocket is always better than a launch to a 50/50. At the very worst, you should be able to get a boundary throw-in, and if you set-up right, you can still launch it from the pocket, which is around 10 metres further out than you would have otherwise been. Not to mention the switch of play that you can sometimes get away with. But the most important thing in this situation is to, for god's sake, do it quickly.