2011 Tactics

[Bhima 0]

We are nearly at round 1 and everyone is clearly tired of waiting, however I think it's good to have things to look forward to...

These are just my views on some of the tactics that we will see in play in 2011

After watching the Bombers playing against the Dees, it was once again evident that coaching tactics are of profound importance in the modern game. James Hird (with help from friends) has come up with some tactics that work because he uses the strengths of his players to compliment his game plan.

There seem to be three things to strategise for in footy

1) How to win contested possessions,such as clearances

2) What to do when the opposition has the ball

3) what to do when you have the ball

Hird's gameplan revolves around pressure near the ball and around the ground, hard running and a strong defence. I will attempt to elaborate.

1) Teams that won the contested possessions count and had a higher number of tackles won 80% of the football matches played in 2010. Hird has thus focussed on tackling and pressure around the ball in an attempt to create wins in these statistical columns. Although Jobe Watson wasn't playing against the Dees, it was evident that the intesity around the ball was far greater by the Bombers and they won more contests/clearances than the dees as much through desperation as skill. Win to J Hird.

2) When Melbourne had the ball, the Bombers worked hard to put pressure on the ball carrier and give their defence time to man up and get extra numbers back. Again, pressure is vital here, but so is defensive structure. With the Dees often bombing long (as Hird would have hoped), the Bombers more often than not could clear the ball. It was at this point that Hird used clever tactics to beat the Dees on the counter attack, instructing his fastest and hardest runners to remain around the middle of the ground as the Dees pumped the ball forward.

3) When Essendon regained possession in defense, they kicked long to those runners who outnumbered or outran the Demons defenders. Winderlich, Jetta, Monfries and Ryder were specifcally used here, with Ryder kicking three goals and Jetta looking very dangerous. Hird backed his players to outrun the opposition and win the ball through hard work as much as silky skills. Ryder in particular could become one of the most damaging players in the comp as he will outrun many of the big men in the game and can outmark the smaller players who can keep up aerobically. They also played on most of the time, just as Melbourne like to do, as this is dynamic and does not give the defense time to get back in defence.

Hird's gameplan is not complex, it is designed to maximise the strengths of the players on his list, and against Melbourne his coaching method was superior to Bailey's.

Inside 50s

Melbourne has had more inside 50 entries against than any other side in the last 4 years and it shows on our ladder position during that period of time. However, too much emphasis is placed on forward 50s and I would love to see a stat that shows us:

a - where the ball was when delivered into the fifty

b - who the player was kicking it and,

c - how much pressure the player was under when delivering the ball.

For example, if Clint Bartram is kicking long into the fifty because opposition players have backed off him then the stat is hardly an accurate measure as compared to Luke Hodge delivering a short pass from 60 out under little pressure...you get the point.

My reasoning for the Dees high number of entries does lie in part with a lack of midfield pressure, but I believe that is connected to point number 2 - what to do when the opposition has the ball. Melbourne has been likened to Geelong in that it attacks through the middle of the ground. This attack however is premised on running the ball out of defense via a chain of handballs, getting the ball to someone with footskills (Davey, Trengove, Grimes or Sylvia) and getting other players to run hard, spread and mark in an uncontested situation, or at least create space for forwards to lead into. Melbourne, I believe, is a team that has built one of its 'what to do when you have the ball' strategies by believing in its capacity to win the ball in defense - which is proved to do on several occasions last year.

This game plan is about getting numbers back to both thwart the forward entry and to have numbers of players on the ground to run the ball out of defense. Hird's gameplan has evolved to respond to the hard press set up by teams like collingwood who get all of their players in the forward half of the ground, exposing their defense to Hird's hard running players on the fast break. Where Melbourne tries to run and carry out of defense, the Bombers will try to kick over it. The Dees have been experimenting with this method also, but still prefers playing on out of defense in the Geelong method. Geelong came unstuck last year against the Pies and it will be interesting to see how the Dees go.

Brad Scott woke up to this against the Dees and set up play so that Melbourne could not get the ball through the middle of the ground, and by being forced wide, the Kangeroos were able to get numbers in defense and were not hurt on transition. Melbourne's counter-attacking game plan will be interesting to watch in 2011 as more teams get better as putting on forward pressure and work to ensure the dees can't penetrate through the middle of the ground (in fact, the Dees are more likely to move the ball along the right hand side of the centre square in general play, as shown on Talking Footy last year. They tend to go right down the guts when there is a turnover and the opposition does not have time to set up it's structures).

Finally, the reason why the Demons have not been winning in the pre-season relates to the fact they are not winning contested/clearance situations and have had a weakened defense. When beaten by opposition intensity around the ball, the get beaten on the scoreboard. The Dees were winning against the Hawks due to superior intensity. When the Hawks lifted, the Dees fell behind.

When Melbourne thrashed both the Lions and the Swans last year they dominated in tackling pressure and intensity, and it was obvious that both teams were not 'on' in either game. It should be noted that in round 2 when the Dees lost to the Pies by 1 point, Collingwood where all over the shop in regards to intensity and where clearly down on their pressure and skills. While Melbourne is exciting to watch on the counter-attack due to their propensity to play on at all costs out of defense, they win when they tackle well and go hard at the contest, which takes us back to that stat about tackling and contested possession counts. Not having J Mckenzie is hurting as he is our leading tackler, McDonald was our number 2 tackler.

Melbourne must find the right combination of ball winners in the middle of the ground, complimented by hard runners, with tackling and pressure the imperative for all players. When we can match teams for intensity our counter-attacking gameplan is given a chance. Without intensity, allowing the opposition to win the inside 50 count becomes a very dangerous gameplan, especially when our foot skills coming out of defense remains and issue and the best defender sits on the side line. Bailey's contract is up at the end of the year and his capacity to get his tactics right and use the strengths of his playing list to greatest effect will determine his fate.

Cheers.

Edited March 17, 2011 by Bhima

[Chicken Deelicious 0]

A very solid analysis - well done!

The big questions are:

how we are going to improve at stoppages,

How do we decrease turnovers

Who will be our link and go to players

How do we increase, and keep up, our intensity on the ball carrier and receiver?

These have been the areas that 'appear' concerning.

It seems we have been trying a few things in the pre-season from point kick-ins. I remember we had some coast to coast goals early on in the NAB cup.

I would imagine that when our game plan falls into place, and onour terms, we can do really well. When the opposition get on a roll and apply hard pressure, the younger guys may find the going tough. The real learning will be how to get the game back on our terms when the opposition start to 'smoke' us, and control the game, rather than be controlled. I think this would be one of the most valuable things for the team to learn in 2011, on their way to the 'window' 13-20.

[Guest Thomo]

Great post.

My worry with Melbourne is for the last three years we have had the same issues with lack of pressure, intensity, clearances and inside 50's. North Melbourne, Richmond and now it seems Essendon have been able to learn these things and change their style of play in one preseason, with what seem to be lists of comparable experience and resources to Melbourne. When you watch training do you see these issues being addressed or is the style of play to not include pressure and win clearances? If we are trying to address these issues, is the problem that the players are not capable or that the coaches can't teach?

[H_T 3,043]

Great post.

My worry with Melbourne is for the last three years we have had the same issues with lack of pressure, intensity, clearances and inside 50's. North Melbourne, Richmond and now it seems Essendon have been able to learn these things and change their style of play in one preseason, with what seem to be lists of comparable experience and resources to Melbourne. When you watch training do you see these issues being addressed or is the style of play to not include pressure and win clearances? If we are trying to address these issues, is the problem that the players are not capable or that the coaches can't teach?

I agree with this, but I'd like to add that the midfield has been a revolving door the last three years.

Guys like Jetta, Winderlich, Ryder, Monfries have been in the system a while longer than some of ours. They're established players and ours are arguably still finding their feet. But you're right, there is a noticeable difference with new direction after one pre-season. Let's not forget essendon were hot in patches last year (downright awful in others).

No doubt having McCartney, Thompson, Wellman & Goodwin join Hird has helped measurably - that said let's see how things transpire in '11.

I'd hope the style of play were to include pressure and winning clearances - afterall that's what the game is about.

I think we've seen that the players are capable and they are teachable, but there is good reason for them to become far more consistent and fluent with games of experience.

Good OP Bhima.

[drdrake 3,163]

I think the initial post raised the best point, we need to get the ball in the hands of the players who use it well.

Around the stoppages we need the ball in Sylvia, Davey, Trengove's hands not Moloney and Jones and even McKenzie. Last year I got the feeling that oppositions where happy to allow Jamar to tap it to Moloney as they know what he will do with it and they are even more happy to allow Jones to get it as they know he tries to be superman and it will be either another stoppage or holding the ball. We need to create space for our good ball users around the stoppages, Jamar has the ability to put the footy in a certain place on regular occasion we need these Moloney and Jones to block and position themselves to protect the space for our good ball users. West Coast did this for Judd, Kerr and Cousins, Geelong do it.

Out of defense Grimes gets his kicks to deep and does a great job but it doesn't set up attack, we need Grimes getting the ball of half back not deep in our defense. The problem then is Bartram, MacDonald, Rivers can't be caught with the footy deep in our defense. We need someone with better footskills to be back there with Grimes. We get stuck with ball to deep in our defensive 50m.

When we get stuck on the boundary we get beaten badly, we need to get better at controlling the footy around the boundary line.

I would think that our scoring percentage per inside 50m would be one of the highest in the AFL, this highlghts if we can get it in more often we will win more games.

[old55 23,413]

1) How to win contested possessions,such as clearances

2) What to do when the opposition has the ball

3) what to do when you have the ball

A long time ago Yabby Jeans said "they've got it, we've got it, it's in dispute"

Melbourne has been likened to Geelong in that it attacks through the middle of the ground.

We kick it more than Thompson's Geelong.

Finally, the reason why the Demons have not been winning in the pre-season relates to the fact they are not winning contested/clearance situations and have had a weakened defense. When beaten by opposition intensity around the ball, the get beaten on the scoreboard.

Yes it's hard to read too much into NAB Cup intensity - it's a long season - we may be pacing ourselves or we may not be able to exert consistent intensity.

Bailey's contract is up at the end of the year and his capacity to get his tactics right and use the strengths of his playing list to greatest effect will determine his fate.

We're going to be challenging for the flag in 2014, not 2011. We don't want to be playing 2010 football in 2014 - that would be like playing Swans 2006 football now. We need to be playing football that will defeat 2011 football.

We've recently recruited players who can win contests and kick well, preferably both - not all of them are in the team yet. The strengths of which players are you talking about - Bartram, MacDonald, Moloney and Jones or Strauss, Tapscott, Trengove and Blease? I think it's the latter group and that's why 2011 will be another development year.

[Akum 2,660]

Great OP Bhima.

We struggle whenever other teams are concerned enough about us to set up specific plans to counter our strengths, which is easy to do at Etihad, not so easy at MCG.

In practice matches so far, Essendon put hard tags on Davey & Sylvia, and Scully has hard tags in both the games he's played. I still think that's a bit weird for practice matches - a probable top-4 team (Hawks) putting a hard tag on a midfielder just starting his second year. But oppositions are definitely starting to do their homework on us. I may be wrong, but I can't remember this happening before in practice matches.

So this is the next development phase - to learn how to come out on top when our "A-game" is countered.

[Maldonboy38 6,390]

Great post Bhima. A lot of food for thought.

Bailey does have a game plan, and he and the assistant coaches can adapt it when the opposition is on a roll. I don't see any glaring weakness in our set up or plan. Our biggest problem is that very first instinctive movement or act from many of our ball-getting players. It is either a second too slow, or the wrong choice to make. We don't have any problems getting out hands on the pill in the first place: it is the instinctive decision making from too many of our players that leads to trouble, rather than setting up attack. How many times on this site have we lamented those dreadful suicide handballs, or that quick handball to the defensive side of the pack only to see it miss its target by 2 metres and land in the hands of the opposition? Or the un-pressured kick from half back going anywhere but on target?

Bartram, Jones, Rivers & Moloney are great ball winners but we don't want the ball in thier hands too long or too often. Scully, Trengove, Gysberts, Blease, Watts, Tapscott, Grimes, Jetta, Bennell, Bail (if he can get his kicking right) - we want these blokes to be the main players, to help out Sylvia, Green and Davey who can't stand on their own much longer.

No game plan works with turnovers and dumb decision making. Yes, we need our grunt players but only if they can effectively feed our game-makers.

.

[old55 23,413]

We've recently recruited players who can win contests and kick well, preferably both - not all of them are in the team yet. The strengths of which players are you talking about - Bartram, MacDonald, Moloney and Jones or Strauss, Tapscott, Trengove and Blease? I think it's the latter group and that's why 2011 will be another development year.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/captains-join-together-to-slam-sub-rule-20110317-1byzk.html

Watson forecast the change impacting on the way the game is played, with the defensive ''press'' mastered by Collingwood last season and now used in some form throughout the competition, becoming less effective as fatigue takes hold.

''What will happen is we will try to play the same way we did in the first half [of games] and physically won't be able to, which means the game will probably open up a lot more but the skill level might not follow due to the fatigue the players are under.''

Melbourne's Brad Green agreed that increased fatigue would open up games in second halves, meaning the ''press'' might become less effective and make football more attractive.

''I'm a football fan, I want to watch the game as much as the fans do, so I'd like to see that.''

The other thing we've recruited hard for is great endurance - I think contested ball winning, elite kicking and elite endurance is a good combo for where the games heading - hopefully where we are leading it. Fans used to reasonably complain that in the Daniher years we seemed to be adopting the previous flag winners model too late - that doesn't seem to be the case now.

[RalphiusMaximus 6,024]

The thing that we must remember, as has been raised, is the new interchange rules. The bombers played a game that was very heavy on running. They created pressure essentially by having their entire team in a third of the ground and then running like hell when they got the turnover. Obviously with 6 interchange and two substitutes this is viable, but can it hold up with three on the bench and only 1 substitute? I expect to see a significant drop in form from them if they continue to play this style, in particular in the second half of matches. We could also see a crippling injury list if they have to push themselves too hard to maintain the game plan.

[rpfc 28,266]

I'm with Old.

Bailey should work on the fundamentals of the players with an eye to the next 'theme' in AFL football.

It went from the short kicking 'keep-ball' to run-and-share in terms of ball movement.

And it went from zone defence all over the park, to a very high zone, to an incredibly pressurised press over the forward half of the ground.

I don't know what the next dominant style will be but the interchange rule means we have got to players with great endurance, body strength, and skills.

Many may say 'duh, rpfc' but it would change the requirement of someone like Morton to remain a stick to cover ground to someone who can fend off pressure in close quarters aswell as have great endurance.