Three Forms of Attack

[Bhima 0]

For those interested, this is an attempt to understand why we lost on the weekend and why we are still a few years away from being a legitimate contender.

In the aftermath of the Demons capitulation to the Hawks on the weekend I woke up in the middle of the night with the idea that in football post 2010 there are now three distinct forms of attack in the game, and that specific players and coaching methods are needed to be able to have all three attacking weapons...and that Melbourne is deficient in two of them

Three forms of attack

1) Transition from defence

2) Scoring from Midfield stoppages

3) Scoring from forward defensive pressure

1 - Transition from Defence:

Melbourne begin 34% percent of their scoring opportunities from defence, which is the highest of any team in the competition and has been the highest since the arrival of Dean Bailey at the club. If anyone thinks we don't have a game plan, we surely do. Melbourne are arguably one the best transition teams in the comp when up and running, as Matthew Campbell exclaimed during the Brisbane Vs Melbourne game at the G - "They are the transition Kings!".

Transition football requires a good defence that plays on quickly, needs players fleet of foot and foot skills to hit midfielders on the spread. Aaron Davey, Chip Frawley and Jack Grimes are our key weapons at running the ball out and kicking the the flanks to the likes of Colin Sylvia. It is very attacttive to watch and a style of football probably mastered by Geelong FC during their reign at the top of the ladder.

It should be noted that the team average in the AFL for scored starting out of defence is 16%, and for Collingwood, 7%...

2) Scoring from midfield stoppages

As noted a few times now, Brent Moloney is the only demon to average more than 4 clearance per game. Collingwood has 3 and I'm not sure about the Hawks but I imagine it would be the same as the Pies. Melbourne is creating approx 50% of its scores from the midfield, in contrast Collingwood is at 75%. To score from stoppages there are two vital ingredients. Firstly, you need A grade, big bodied clearance players who can win the ball at least as often as the opposition, but generally more often. Secondly, you need at least one 'power forward'. The importance of power forwards (Bid bodied players, 190cm+) is that attacks from the midfield are often long bombs into the forward line from a clearance. In transition, players set up a structure practiced at training. This is also the case in the midfield, but often players are in contested situations and have to kick long.

The Power forward is vital because when the ball is kicked long they provide a marking target, and a player around which smaller forwards can gather and either crumb the ball or lock the ball into the forward line. Without the power forward, defenders can easily win the ball and begin to transition the ball out of defence. Melbourne do not currently have a power forward and the recruiting of Cook and Mcdonald are attempts to address this situation, as was the attempt to lure D Hale from North Melbourne. Steph Martin has not been able to fill this spot, and Jamar is occasionally useful here but needed moreso in the ruck.

Not only do teams such as Collingwood and Hawthorn have gun clearance midfielders - Swan/Pendlebury/Ball/Wellingham/Beams - Mitchell/Sewell/Hodge/Burgoyne/Rioli, they also have high marking power forwards - Brown/Cloke/Dawes - Roughead/Franklin/Hale. Teams that have both gun midfileders and tall marking forwards will be successful. Melbourne currently has neither a core group of experienced mids or tall forwards. Liam Jurrah is a threat with his spectacular leap, however, that approach is one that lends itself readily to injury.

3) Forward Defensive Pressure

About 16% of Collingwoods scores come from forward pressure, which seems low to me, but the point is they have best mastered the art of locking the ball in the forward line. It is at this point that coaching becomes more important than player size or ability. In one pre-season J Hird has taught an average list how to apply forward pressure, Mark Harvey did so with the Dockers last year. It is a zone which is practiced at training and requires good positioning and tackling pressure. Again, key forwards are important as turnovers as a result of forward defensive pressure often result in high kicks back into the 50, but they are not as critical. Melbourne is getting about 10% of its scores from defensive pressure this season, but the fact the ball is so rarely in the forward 50 means that that stat is not as important as it is for a team with high inside 50 numbers.

Additional factors.

For the three forms of attack to work, 'games experience' is a critical factor. This is the average amount of games the team has played together, which will impact on the fitness, strength, skill and knowledge of gameplan within the team. A team is obviously disadvantaged by a minimal amount of games experience - that is they will find it difficult to sustain all three forms of attack throughout a game, while the opposition can.

Using this formula outlined above, Collingwood and Hawthorn are by far the two teams with right mix of players, tactics and games experience to exploit all three forms of attack. Hawthorn has more experiece, however there defence is more suspect than Collingwoods. Keep in mind that Collingwood's defence is yet to be tested to date.

Conclusion

Melbourne is currently far too reliant on one form of attack - transition. Teams that recognise this and shut down this avenus to attack will go a long way to beating us. For Melbourne to properly threaten the competition, we must develop a 'power forward' to contest the long kick into the forward line. This is going to take at least a couple of years unless we recruit one. It also depends on how quickly Scully, Trangove, Gysberts and Mckenzie can build their bodies and begin winning more clearances. It requires our coaches to improve our tactics regarding defensive presure. And finally it is simply about getting more games experience into the list.

For those who couldn't believe what happened on Sunday, that fact is teams like Hawthorn will more often than not dominate us. From time to time the opposition might be 'switched off' (as Collingwood were when we met then in round 2), but when those teams with three forms of attack are switched on we are in big trouble. In the first half Hawthorn were kicking at below 50% efficiency - Melbourne were kicking at 86% efficiency! We cannot rely on 86% efficiency by foot to win games.

I don't have the time but somebody might be able to put a ladder together on the above criteria of which teams have the right player mix for three forms of attack, and I would hold that those teams who have do, in combination with games experience, will determine the order of the ladder, with injuries to key players of course an intangeable.

Cheers

Edited April 6, 2011 by Bhima

[hrob 2]

u speak the most sense on demonland Bhima, love ur work!

[The Chazz 4,077]

Silly thread. Far too much reality and common sense for some on this site!

That forward pressure is an interesting one. Sydney could only do it in a tight manner for about 5 minutes in the last quarter the other week. It does highlight the gap between the handful of better teams when they can do it for longer periods (like Hawthorn last week).

[Allen Jakovich 516]

So does this mean we're not sending the whole forward line to Casey anymore...?

Top post.

Other than the fact I don't think you need a "power forward", just one that is able to compete and bring the ball to ground on the non-goal side to allow our forwards and mids first use following the contest.

[Redleg 40,905]

Good post and ends with the conclusion we need a power forward, the same thing I started a thread on last year, using Brown of the Pies as an example.

Edited April 6, 2011 by High Tower
No need to quote entirely long posts in full quote tags

[The Chazz 4,077]

So does this mean we're not sending the whole forward line to Casey anymore...?

Top post.

Other than the fact I don't think you need a "power forward", just one that is able to compete and bring the ball to ground on the non-goal side to allow our forwards and mids first use following the contest.

AJ - I have been harping on about getting Martin playing FF, then 2nd ruck for that exact reason. People are quick to point out he hasn't done any good there in the past, but what is the definition of "doing good"? If we can get 20 goals from him, but our crumbing forward can get 20 goals from direct contest he was a part of, then I think it's a success.

[praha 11,240]

Our transition is SUPERB. The problem was on Sunday was Hawthorn's impenetrable zone that our young players just had no idea how to counter. Games like that happen with a side like this. Hardly cause for concern. They will learn from it and improve. Our transition from defense to offense has, at times, been fantastic in the first two weeks. Quick and precise. But we need the run out of half-back for it to work, and that's where Jones, Moloney, Davey, Sylvia have let us down in the first two weeks, and ESPECIALLY against the Hawks.

Those kick-ins were just....arghhhh....pie-droppingly frustrating.

Edited April 6, 2011 by Cudi_420

[Felix 92]

Nice work Bhima.

[deefuture 1]

AJ - I have been harping on about getting Martin playing FF, then 2nd ruck for that exact reason. People are quick to point out he hasn't done any good there in the past, but what is the definition of "doing good"? If we can get 20 goals from him, but our crumbing forward can get 20 goals from direct contest he was a part of, then I think it's a success.

It all makes sense Bhima, good work. We have a lot of the pieces in the puzzle but we are not putting them together correctly. AJ I agree that if we have a player who can contest the ball (Could be watts are THAT mark on sunday) the crumbers like wonna and maric can also be brought into the game. Jurranh also has good ground skills for his size. We also need players who will cause the turnovers in our f50.

[binman 42,920]

Its not just power forwards we are lacking, we also need to improve the tackling and physical pressure from all of our forwards. Collingwood and the Hawks have both power forwards and forwards and mids that tackle like demons (metaphorical ones not us). This obviously traps the ball in, causes turnovers but almost as important creates the referreed pressure so vital in causing errors and panic. I think from Bailey's comments before the season it is something he is working on (ie forwards tackling etc) but we have a long way to go with this.Wona has to come into the side for his forward pressure

In terms of a power forward, don't laugh, but i reckon Newton is a chance to come into the side to be our power forward. He has been working to bulk up and is now big enough for the role. This might be his window of opportunity and perhaps like Brown he is a late developer.

Edited April 6, 2011 by binman

[Radar Detector 1,347]

Bhima, you are by far the poster I most enjoy reading on this site. Top example of why.

My only comment is that for sides that score heavily, such as Collingwood, the %s are less relevant. I would hazard a guess that Collingwood's actual scores from defensive pressure would be higher than most, even though their %s look low simply because they score so heavily from clearances.

[Rocknroll 1,003]

Great post Bhima.

Agree with your analysis.

Good to see some logical thinking in here

I would love to see not only the percentage result but absolute amounts. For example it is possible for a team to have a low % of transition attack but due to the weight of goals they kick the may be pretty damn good at it.

Again, top stuff, keep up the great work Bhima

[Tony Tea 2,809]

The big question is: can Bailey massage our transition-based attack into a Collingwood-like forward pressure attack? Or maybe something in between? Bailey's gameplan has always been to sit back and wait for the opposition to give you the ball in your backline, but can he modify that so as to have the team go and get the ball? There is no doubt Melbourne are aware the league's prevailing gameplan has changed from Geelong's to Collingwood's over the last three years, and it is why Melbourne have been subtly playing down expectations for 2011.

Please treat 2011 as a year of consolidation, and do not get ultra shirty if we do not storm the ramparts this season. We do not have the players with the requisite strength to duke it out over a full-court press - yet. Our list is still very much a work in progress.

[Mondê 525]

I didn't want to start a new thread, but I am convinced that we perform well below the top echelon of teams in the area of one percenters (blocks, smothers etc) and generally any act that requires passion courage and heart. I'll look up the stats at Champion Data this week.

[rpfc 28,407]

Excellent points Bhima.

I would say we are good at capitalising on turnovers in defence, and we don't know about the forward line (hasn't been there), but we struggle to get first hands on it in the middle.

Redleg is right in that we need that target, but before the target you need your midfield to get the pill. And get the pill as opposed to the opposition getting the pill (uncontested ball - read: man up, occupy space). The amount of uncontested ball the Hawks had is why I say the players get into lazy habits or retreat into their shell.

But we really need this midfield developed: Scully, Trengove, McKenzie, Gysberts, Sylvia, and Grimes (that's my opinion the last one).

Unfortunately we have to wait for that midfield to be fit, developed, and firing.

[H_T 3,043]

Nice Bhima. I took all this in on AFL Insiders last night. Is that your reference ?

[Chook 15,013]

Bhima, you are by far the poster I most enjoy reading on this site. Top example of why.

My only comment is that for sides that score heavily, such as Collingwood, the %s are less relevant. I would hazard a guess that Collingwood's actual scores from defensive pressure would be higher than most, even though their %s look low simply because they score so heavily from clearances.

Have to agree with this. Bhima, your work is great, but in a game like footy, percentages can be misleading. Sheer numbers are more significant than ratios.

[Hannabal 4]

Nice Bhima. I took all this in on AFL Insiders last night. Is that your reference ?

It looks like you me and Bhima watched the same show.

It also highlighted that Bailey's tactics are behind other clubs and that our gameplan won't cut it in finals or against the best teams. It all gets back to our mediocre midfield and poor defensive pressure. McKenzie is sorely missed.

[Axis of Bob 11,804]

Your assumption is that the game plan is behind.

Does different = outdated, or is that just what you have heard?

[Dockett 32 1,239]

Enjoyed that insight Bhima thanks.

[Maldonboy38 6,402]

Great post Bhima - good research and interpretation.

Bailey seems to have put a real development plan in place and the following steps have taken place:

1. Delist players who cannot deliver Dees to a flag (White, Yze, Robbo etc...) as difficult and sad as this was

2. Draft players based on skill and potential, knowing and planning for no short term fruit, just long term.

3. Put body size on these young bodies and game time, rotating these young kids through the 22

4. Build team in 3 sections: a) backline b)midfield c) forwards. the forwards are the last drafting piece of the puzzle.

5. Use transition as the basis of a game plan

Sunday night was a poor skills night in our back line, and poor game regarding intensity at and over the ball. But this can be rectified simply via coaching and the players having a red hot go.

Now, can Bailey develop steps 6 and 7?

6. Our midfield bodies, positioning and skills so that we win at stoppages and can defend against opposition spread, and also spread from a clearanance ourselves with pace, structure and skill

7. Forward line structure, inlcuding 1 really big body. We have the skills (Watts, green, Petterd, Maric), we have the X factor in Jurrah, but no power forward just yet. Cook? Martin? Fitzpatrick?

I reckon by the end of 2012 this development plan will be completed and the Dees will begin to be strong in 9 of every 10 matches they play. The development plan becomes a premiership playing plan. The potential, the plan and the players are almost all there (Other new kids like Viney etc... to be added).

THEN comes a huge question. Can Dean Bailey coach and inspire the list he has developed to a premiership? I can easily trust him all the way through to point 7, and people calling for his sacking are sufferng from a lack of vision and understanding of the task agreed to be Stynes, Schwab, Connolly, Bailey and the Board.

So, with all this in place and a developing game plan, between now and September 2012 I will be watching his coaching, and Green's captaincy to see if they can produce the intensity and gameday nouse to led us to where we should go.

.

Edited April 6, 2011 by Maldonboy38

[Sir Why You Little 37,034]

Please pin this thread for future reference...This is Football Department Stuff, it also Backs up what Dermott said on Monday night.

Our midfield is not yet big enough across the board. It will be, but not yet.

[Chook 15,013]

This is Football Department Stuff, it also Backs up what Dermott said on Monday night.

I find it so hard to believe that those two statements could both be true that I wouldn't be surprised if the universe collapsed in on itself from the sheer unliklihood of it all.

[Sir Why You Little 37,034]

I find it so hard to believe that those two statements could both be true that I wouldn't be surprised if the universe collapsed in on itself from the sheer unliklihood of it all.

He may have been a thug, but he does know the game well, 5 premierships later.

[Triple Jack 13]

Great Post Bhima!

My thoughts on this is that our transition attack can be extremely effective with modern zoning, etc but is also a bit of a double edged sword. When we are up and running we look superb, this was seen last year against the swans, second quarter against Hawthorn, and glimpses in many a game. When done well it is very effective against the forward press of the likes of collingwood, seen last year in our two games. This tactic has also seen great sucsess for Geelong. The downside is that when you are 2% off it all goes wrong. Because it creates constant turnovers in defence as shown by the 40 odd scoring shots on the weekend. My veiw is that it as a form of attack is exciting but very risky and maybe not prone to the ultimate sucsess (Yes Geelong have two premierships but one was close, they lost one due to their inability to perform the transition most effectively and the other was in a year where other teams weren't in the same ball park). Over the long haul the hard contested sides do well in finals. I think that while we should continue to play the transition from defence football, we must also become a GREAT clearance side in order to get our own ball and break the oppositions forward press