Beating the forward Press....hmmmm.

Here's a novel idea....Sheperd for the ball carrier. (sorry to those young supporters who might not know what that term means...Google it).

The current 'catch phrase' in football, besides 'forward press', is 'SPREAD from a contest'. I personally like to call it the 'kick it to me'.

In my opinion the best way to beat a zone and/or press is to PROTECT THE BALL CAERIER. That's right, just sheperd or block to allow the guy with the ball the time to make and execute a good decision or to make ground up the field and then execute.

From what I have seen in the last few years of football this basic act has almost been lost to the game.

Imagine a 'high traffic' situation on the half back flank; hand balls flying left and right with the ball eventually ending up in the hands of a player in some space. Let's say it's Aaron Davey. ALL his team mates less than 15m from him now RUN TOWARDS HIM and RUN TO BLOCK AN OPPOSITION PLAYER, instead of 'spreading' (running away) to accept a handball when he ends up uner pressure;. The result would allow him both the time and space to locate a target further up the ground or to 'navigate' his way, by foot, further up the ground.

To me it seems a natural thing. I was always taught to run TO the contest NOT away from it. And to protect the ball carrier too.

Employing this tactic may be akin to what they do in Grid Iron but I am certain it would snuff out the zone/press pretty quickly once teams realise that, if we win the ball, having players spread all over the width of the ground (outliers) is just having players standing around doing nothing while their team mates are grossly out numbered.

Essentially ALL the players without the ball, in it's general vicinity once we have won it would be focused on blocking for the ball carrier NOT running away from the contest calling out 'kick it to me', 'kick it to me' 'kick it to me'.

Go Dees

Glad someone brought this up. Its something we just do not do. Green a few times would rather try to get the handball than sheperd. I know he is a great kick but sometimes the best option is to sheperd the guy with the ball.

Also with Judd, Carlton organise the stoppages so he will get the ball, they block and protect him as much as they can. This is what we need to do with Moloney, to many selfish players around stoppages trying to get the kick themselves, this also comes down to coaching.

As a whole team we have to many players not wanting to sacrifice there game for the team. This is why teams like Richmond with King and Nahas and other like Essendon and West Coast are so far ahead of us at the moment.

Also with Judd, Carlton organise the stoppages so he will get the ball, they block and protect him as much as they can. This is what we need to do with Moloney, to many selfish players around stoppages trying to get the kick themselves, this also comes down to coaching.

this is what we need to do for davey aswell, sheppard him and get him in space!

Beating the forward Press....hmmmm.

Here's a novel idea....Sheperd for the ball carrier. (sorry to those young supporters who might not know what that term means...Google it).

The current 'catch phrase' in football, besides 'forward press', is 'SPREAD from a contest'. I personally like to call it the 'kick it to me'.

Toad (and Peter James),

Agree with what you say, but it is difficult to both shepherd the ball carrier and spread for the kick-it-to-me at the same time. You run into trouble when you expect players to do both.

I had a close look at Geelong over the last two weeks, both against Carlton and the Schoolies. The Cats were able to find space for the receiver, not so much the kicker. The kicker was backed in to hit a target, even under pressure, while the receiver was able to find good space; especially around the defensive 50 arc. It looks as though the better teams are blocking for the target, not the kicker. The trouble with blocking for the kicker is that you lack numbers further down the ground. This is what sh1ts me about the Davey run-a-round. I would much rather the defender with the ball backs himself to hit a target down the ground, rather than hand it off to a player who loops for the cheap handpass. The key, of course, is the bloke with the ball needs to be a better kick. Therein lies our problem: we have a dearth of defenders who are efficient kicks. The sooner we stock our backline with good kicks (a la Corey, Scarlett, Milburn, etc) the sooner we will be able to break out of the famous press.

this is what we need to do for davey aswell, sheppard him and get him in space!

I noticed against Carlton when Chip was kicking out after a point that he likes the little self kick then a 20 metre run with the long kick.

There were melbourne players close to the square positioned to put in a shepherd when Chip decided to play-on. Every time I noticed when they tried to put in a block or shepherd it was the most [censored]-poor effort. It was like just going through the motions. Very poor effort.

Then contrast this to the young Suns against Geelong. They were very conscious of putting in the shepherd or a the block all around the ground with genuine physicality.

We just don't do the team things even when they are relatively easy skills like blocking or shepherding.

Soccer & Hockey etc have been using the press as a vital part of defence for years. Best way to counter a press is with quick and precise passing, which is probably easier said than done in AFL than it is in soccer or hockey. Generally pressing leaves you open to be hurt on the fast break / counter attack as your defence are less likley to be marking the deep opposition forwards man on man

I noticed against Carlton when Chip was kicking out after a point that he likes the little self kick then a 20 metre run with the long kick.

There were melbourne players close to the square positioned to put in a shepherd when Chip decided to play-on. Every time I noticed when they tried to put in a block or shepherd it was the most [censored]-poor effort. It was like just going through the motions. Very poor effort.

99% of the time it was warnock

99% of the time it was warnock

Warnock does some good things and is a decent player IMO opinion but his indecisiveness and 2nd guessing his first instinct are what keeps getting him into trouble.

On another matter I would like to see Gawn get a run against the Bombers.Martin gave some decent contests against the Blues but is a basketballer trying to play a sport he doesn't seem to understand.Whereas Hampson gave leads around the ground a gave the Blues a decent target to kick to I noticed Martin a couple of times just standing in the middle of the ground not offering much at all.Martin IMO offers a good contest at the ball ups and chases ok but offers very little as a ruckman around the ground.

For this weekend I would like to see Martin left at CHF ,Gawn in the ruck with Martin giving Gawn the occasional chop out in the ruck.I know it is a bit of a risk with the inexperienced Gawn however he is a footballer first, understands th game and will one day be our number one ruckman.

...

Not sure if anyone noticed, but that strategy seemed a fairly straightforward one, and explains why Melbourne players weren't kicking the ball out quickly. The method was to wait for the ruckman/tall players (Martin, Rivers, Newton etc) to drift towards the boundary line outside the fifty, kick the ball to them and let the tall players knock the ball out of play. This, in theory, forces both teams to man up as it is now a ruck throw in 60-65 metres from goal and the press is 'beaten'. Of course, you really need to get the ball up to the true wing position before you can get a proper forward structure set up, but it is one way of slowing things down and ensuring you're not turning the ball over inside fifty, and have a legitimate chance of winning the clearance from the throw in.

...

My problem with this is that you are creating a 50/50 ball within scoring range of their goal and well outside range of ours. The numbers are going to catch up with you on this play and they will get more scores from it than we will. It's the same basic objection I have to setting our zone at half back. We are setting up at the same area they want to set up, creating a 50/50 situation and making them more likely to score than us.

I think if you want to see how to break down the forward press, look at how Collingwood play when they kick out after a point (man, it hurts to say that). They kick to a marking target near the boundary around 50m. This player immediately looks to dish to the runner who is always going past him. If the runner looks to be covered, he will hold the ball, allowing the runner to draw off nearby players as a decoy, swing infield and kick long across field for the switch. They do it almost every time. It is mechanical. They have drilled this play so hard that there is no thought involved. Your marking player has one decision to make. Is my runner covered or not? This is a team that is properly drilled, unlike our own. They know exactly what the play is and how it will unfold. We need to be the same.

Hawkers break zone

This is how Hawthorn do it. Clinical short kicks with precision and holding their nerve. We need to get some precision skills before this would work for us.

If only our forwards could kick goals from about 100metres out

It's certainly not kicking to the same flank over and over again...My theory is you need a short accurate kick as the first, which sets you up for the long kick over the back of the press or a good kick in board.

We are playing right into the presses hands by kicking long and trying to break through it.

Watching Friday night worried me deeply. Watching everyone press up and having no forward line is pretty much a reverse press. We are pressing ourselves in our own backline! Compression?? We can't get it out becuase there is no one up the ground, forcing us to handball through it. It's like extracting teeth!

Aslo, we seem to handball every time we take a relieving mark and create pressure (JMac even tried to handball lying down at full back - thankfully the umpire called it back). The instruction must be to play on whenever we can, but play on if there is no one up the ground to get it to. The game plan is flawed. If we are going to run with numbers from half back or wherever, hold the ball for a moment until the players make space in front.

Anyway, my 2 cents.

It's certainly not kicking to the same flank over and over again...My theory is you need a short accurate kick as the first, which sets you up for the long kick over the back of the press or a good kick in board.

We are playing right into the presses hands by kicking long and trying to break through it.

Watching Friday night worried me deeply. Watching everyone press up and having no forward line is pretty much a reverse press. We are pressing ourselves in our own backline! Compression?? We can't get it out becuase there is no one up the ground, forcing us to handball through it. It's like extracting teeth!

Aslo, we seem to handball every time we take a relieving mark and create pressure (JMac even tried to handball lying down at full back - thankfully the umpire called it back). The instruction must be to play on whenever we can, but play on if there is no one up the ground to get it to. The game plan is flawed. If we are going to run with numbers from half back or wherever, hold the ball for a moment until the players make space in front.

Anyway, my 2 cents.

I like the term "compression". This point about having all our players at the wrong end has been made many times on this site. It was even more obvious than usual on Friday night when, on a number of accasions, the only "forward" targets were Carlton defenders. This also happened continually last year. If we supporters keep seeing this flaw why don't our highly paid coaching staff do something about it?

Agree with most above, but surely one of the first things would be for us to actually learn how to execute it ourselves, like every other team in the comp. We are the only ones to buck the trend and look how it is working out for us.

Only problem is West Coast started training for the forward press 3 years ago and are only implementing it this year. We may have missed the boat. If it takes two or three years to change our game plan the risk is that the game has changed direction again by then. We should have gone that direction after the success of the young Hawks in '08. I could be wrong I can't see how it would take 3 years to get it to click, but this is how long Dean Cox said they had been working on it. At the moment our skills don't seem good enough to beat the press, however definitely doesn't help with a lack of movement, shepherding, etc. So obviously a move efficient forward line would help. As stated above kick more goals, avoid the press and head back to Jamar and Moloney for a repeat. Hmmm would be nice.

Edited May 31, 201114 yr by Deemort

Michael Evans - in his interview with Brent Moloney - mentioned that the Dees had been working on getting the ball out of the defensive fifty at training. Due to a number of costly turnovers against the Saints, the Dees were coming up with a strategy to beat the press.

Not sure if anyone noticed, but that strategy seemed a fairly straightforward one, and explains why Melbourne players weren't kicking the ball out quickly. The method was to wait for the ruckman/tall players (Martin, Rivers, Newton etc) to drift towards the boundary line outside the fifty, kick the ball to them and let the tall players knock the ball out of play. This, in theory, forces both teams to man up as it is now a ruck throw in 60-65 metres from goal and the press is 'beaten'. Of course, you really need to get the ball up to the true wing position before you can get a proper forward structure set up, but it is one way of slowing things down and ensuring you're not turning the ball over inside fifty, and have a legitimate chance of winning the clearance from the throw in.

To me, this is actually a good strategy when all else has failed. As is it is near the boundary line and designed to take the opposition out of the contest, and is safer than any kick inside the field of play in which the ball can be turned over to the opposition - as once that happens they have free players everywhere inside 50.

For it to be the Demons answer to the press is concerning - as it so conservative and poses little threat to the opposition, setting a very defensive tone. However, considering how poorly we were kicking the ball on Friday night (somewhere around 50% efficiency in the first quarter), it was certainly the safest option.

As others have noted - one way of beating the press is with skillful kicking to players in set positions. That option would have been death for the Dees in greasy conditions and a back line with a number of blokes who can't be trusted to pinpoint passes under great pressure.

Warnock Macdonald Rivers

Frawley Bennell Jones

Watts was taking some of the kick-ins, which I liked to see as he looked confident - but Frawley was the designated kicker and he went long and wide most of the night.

Once we get some players back with decent kicking skills we might see a more attacking approach.

I did think on Friday night how much the Dees were a shadow of the team that was so entertaining last year. For us to get a coveted friday night game and play such conservative tactics was understanding from a coaching perspective (stay close enough for long enough and you never know). It was, however, from a viewing perspective very disappointing and I hated it all weekend when everyone I knew or heard on the radio kepp saying they turned the game off at half time it was so boring.

Should we play in an entertaining style, go up the guts and give Jurrah a chance one-out and potentially get blown away, or should we play safe, lose by 47 and be so boring that people don't even want to watch the game?

I'm not saying what should have happened, but this Friday I would much prefer to see us attack and suffer the potential consequences (some of which might be positive) that than not attack at all.

Cheers

You always provide quality on here Bhima.

Interesting tactic if that is what they are trying to do. Do you think that turning possession in the backline into a 50/50 contest 60 metres from goal is considered a win? I'd say any opposition would love that tactic.

In your preseason reports, did you make the comment that Melbourne were not practicing against a press? I think that is probably the biggest issue. Looks like we are underprepared, and Bailey is to blame for that.

How is the forward press beaten?

Beating the forward press is simple!

For any of you who has played basketball you will understand that the whole idea of the press came from Basketball. There are specific plays designed to break down the press, because you only have 10 seconds to get over half court and similar principles could easily developed in footy.

So the only way is to move the ball quickly and accurately in conjunction with designed plays, it requires some gut running by all not just the back line players. Google Press Breakers for Basketball and see what it says!

Also if we had some taller lead up players to take a mark around the mid field wouldn't do any harm.

In the mean time we would be better off playing to the boundary line and taking our chances at the stoppage's rather than try and handball through with lazy runners!

Go Dees!