We've all seen greater defensive numbers and forwards out-numbered by backs. The regular kick into the forward line is spoiled and the extra defensive numbers can get to position and sweep it away with an overlap.

I've been thinking about ways to combat this and have two left-field suggestions:

1. the hang-time kick: a la NFL punters, their KPI is hang-time (not distance) because it gives their team-matestime to get up the field to the ball drop and exert pressure on the ball carrier. We could adopt a similar approach to get more even numbers at the fall of the ball contest.

2. the ground ball: this one depends on forwards having greater ground skills than their opponents which with the increasing skill of backmen is not always the case. Kicking the ball in along the ground makes for a much more unpredictable outcome (particularly with our oval ball) which is what the defence hates. Highly skilled ground players like say Milne and Leon Davis will have a lot better chance with the bouncing ball coming in than the predictable regular kick on the full.

I think mixing these up could create some confusion and panic in the back-line. The strategies would be combatted in time but recently innovators like Hawthorn and Collingwood have snatched flags.

  On 04/10/2010 at 02:56, old55 said:

We've all seen greater defensive numbers and forwards out-numbered by backs. The regular kick into the forward line is spoiled and the extra defensive numbers can get to position and sweep it away with an overlap.

I've been thinking about ways to combat this and have two left-field suggestions:

1. the hang-time kick: a la NFL punters, their KPI is hang-time (not distance) because it gives their team-matestime to get up the field to the ball drop and exert pressure on the ball carrier. We could adopt a similar approach to get more even numbers at the fall of the ball contest.

2. the ground ball: this one depends on forwards having greater ground skills than their opponents which with the increasing skill of backmen is not always the case. Kicking the ball in along the ground makes for a much more unpredictable outcome (particularly with our oval ball) which is what the defence hates. Highly skilled ground players like say Milne and Leon Davis will have a lot better chance with the bouncing ball coming in than the predictable regular kick on the full.

I think mixing these up could create some confusion and panic in the back-line. The strategies would be combatted in time but recently innovators like Hawthorn and Collingwood have snatched flags.

As a defender, I would prefer the ball be on the ground to in the air - no chance of a mark.

And the more players in my area the better - more of a chance to clog it up.

I understand where you are coming from, but a decent kick to bit of space is what makes me nervous.

  On 04/10/2010 at 03:03, rpfc said:

I understand where you are coming from, but a decent kick to bit of space is what makes me nervous.

No kidding - problem solved then.

I would have thought that long air-time would be a bad thing for the forwards, allowing more defensive players to get back and out number them, creating huge packs ect.

This would help your second point regarding crumbing forwards, although i dont like the "unpredictability" of it. Why do something so unpredictable? doesnt necessarily provide us with an advantage does it?

I would much prefer fast play, precise long kicks to a leading player within our forward line. cant double team upon this type of play as easily. combat loose defenders ala Maxwell (when was the last time he played on a direct opponent?) by playing man on man, which i think we do quite well. make loose players accountable.

just my take on it, do like the thinking outside the box

Just to be clear - I'm not suggesting these tactics in preference to fast ball movement and kicking to a forward in space - unfortunately that option is not always available.

  On 04/10/2010 at 03:25, old55 said:

Just to be clear - I'm not suggesting these tactics in preference to fast ball movement and kicking to a forward in space - unfortunately that option is not always available.

I hear you. When we're in trouble and our forwards have started to leave our forward 50 because their supply has dried up, a high kick into the forward line might give them time to get back and provide a contest, and would certainly be better than a long kick to no-one. Similarly, a grubber to the boundary-line might set up a throw-in situation which is infinitely better than kicking to a two or three on one situation. But hopefully our midfield will be good enough in the future that our supply won't dry up enough for these tactics to be worthwhile.

If the opposition are well set up defensively, the high ball option to the goal square or even to deep in the pocket might be the way to go IMO. Alternatively, the team could keep possession outside 50 and transfer play to create openings i50. I think the team did this quite well at times this season with Green on the end of it.

Either way, there are risks associated that may result in turnovers ie. the more possessions you have kicking around outside50 looking for an option i50 the higher the risk of turnover. Best alternative may be decided on who has the ball at the time. One with a prestigious kicking foot (ie. Davey)? Or one with a not-so-good kick that can't find a target regularly (ie. Spencer)

Granted, the high kick with hang time may help improve numbers at the fall of the ball. Or possibly a contested mark at best. *I'm not a fan of the ground kick because a quick turnover would be more on the cards if not executed well and potentially leave us more vulnerable in the ball coming back down the ground with purchase. Whereas the hang time kick deep offers the contested mark/shot or a contest spillage potential kick for goal, or a stoppage and set-up play, deep within 50. If there is a turnover, we have numbers to create a dispute or it may result in an errant pressure kick trying to get out which may favour us. (ie. 50/50)

So old55, I prefer your first suggestion if there were a choice.

That said, with Jurrah down there, just a penetrating kick alone will allow less time for the opposition to seek out the whereabouts of Jurrah for a contest in the air, as compared to a kick with hang time.

Finally, it would provide some confusion for their backline no doubt for all in sundry.

*Whilst visualising these options, I've visualised it against the Filth.

To beat this go one on one and back your players to win the footy and break, if they put 18 players inside their forward 50m arc we have 18 players and get ready for a fast break, no attacking team would want 36 players inside their 50m and wouldn't want to be exposed to the Davey, Aussie, Jurrah pace

  On 04/10/2010 at 03:25, old55 said:

Just to be clear - I'm not suggesting these tactics in preference to fast ball movement and kicking to a forward in space - unfortunately that option is not always available.

Ok, I will play along then.

If I was the attacking team: I wouldn't pump it high - I would clean up the Watts equivalent. I wouldn't skittle it in along the ground - my teammates would bury anyone picking it up under such congestion.

I would kick it toward the boundary line and get it out of play. Leaves the other pocket, relatively, free - a bit of space created.

These tactics seem like ones you would implement if you are the lesser skilled side, so i guess if you are then thats alright. But i would have thought we want to build a very highly skilled side and this would just halt our development