I have been reading with interest the discussions around contested possessions.

As opposed to the old days where Craig Bradley made a career of getting of his man and receiving, due to the more defensive nature of the game, the pure "receiver" really doesn't exist.

There seems to be some confusion surrounding an in and under player and contested possession. All a contested possession is, is winning a ball in dispute. Many of these happen in a one on one contest away from the bulk of players. Robbie Flower was never what you would call an in and under player but his contested possession rate would have been good because he was constantly at a contest on the wings beating his opponent.

So when we discuss Toumpas, he does need to lift his contested possessions. So far his main source of ball is peeling off and getting a receive. This is ok but as a sole source of ball does not cut it in today's football and especially against the good sides. If you become successful at this as your mainstay then you will quickly receive a tag. He needs to get to, and win contests against opponents . He will always be what I consider an outside footballer but he needs to get to more contests ( not necessarily congestion) and win some ball.

Dangerfield is the perfect example of this. Wins one on ones against opponents but is not your diving into the bottom of 5 players packs to extract the ball.

You win some you lose some.

http://blog.tomwaterhouse.com/afl/afl-knowledge-010812/

Interesting article..

We were 16th in contested possession in 2013, so yeah....we need to improve this area as priority 1.

We were also a long way behind in Uncontested Possession so we need to get better there too. Getting the ball from a contest will obviously give us more chances of keeping hold of it.

Edited November 30, 201311 yr by jabberwocky

We were 16th in contested possession in 2013, so yeah....we need to improve this area as priority 1.

We were also a long way behind in Uncontested Possession so we need to get better there too. Getting the ball from a contest will obviously give us more chances of keeping hold of it.

I think you can see we tried to address that through the draft/trade with big bodied mids and some outside run.

I have been reading with interest the discussions around contested possessions.

As opposed to the old days where Craig Bradley made a career of getting of his man and receiving, due to the more defensive nature of the game, the pure "receiver" really doesn't exist.

There seems to be some confusion surrounding an in and under player and contested possession. All a contested possession is, is winning a ball in dispute. Many of these happen in a one on one contest away from the bulk of players. Robbie Flower was never what you would call an in and under player but his contested possession rate would have been good because he was constantly at a contest on the wings beating his opponent.

So when we discuss Toumpas, he does need to lift his contested possessions. So far his main source of ball is peeling off and getting a receive. This is ok but as a sole source of ball does not cut it in today's football and especially against the good sides. If you become successful at this as your mainstay then you will quickly receive a tag. He needs to get to, and win contests against opponents . He will always be what I consider an outside footballer but he needs to get to more contests ( not necessarily congestion) and win some ball.

Dangerfield is the perfect example of this. Wins one on ones against opponents but is not your diving into the bottom of 5 players packs to extract the ball.

Hang on is this a thread about Jimmy Toumpas of Contested possessions.. Bit unfair to single him out when majority of our senior players who are suppose to be leading the way aren't exactly getting the contested possession themselves.

I can see what this thread is going to turn into..

Hang on is this a thread about Jimmy Toumpas of Contested possessions.. Bit unfair to single him out when majority of our senior players who are suppose to be leading the way aren't exactly getting the contested possession themselves.

I can see what this thread is going to turn into..

I think that is partly the problem who are our senior midfielders (apart from Jones of course).

I like the addition of Cross and Vince - senior players that can lead by example on-field (unlike Byrnes and Rodan)

Uncontested possessions will improve with the confidence gained from positive coaching. Players will take a risk and present rather than fear admonishment for not covering their man. Contested possessions will improve because the coach will allow players to be instinctive and therefore be where the contest is. For too long Melbourne players have been oppressed by what might go wrong rather than trust their instincts as to where to be. They would not have been drafted if they couldn't put themselves where the action is. Primary skill! Contested and uncontested are in essence the same. Get to where the ball is or where it should be. Only players who know this are drafted. Set them free!

Just to get back on this argument that is in a thread not related to this - UPs and CPs are equally important. And yes, at a fundamental level - it is best to be proficient at getting the ball out of contested situations, the modern game is driven by players running to space and running to receive the footy.

Uncontested possessions will improve with the confidence gained from positive coaching. Players will take a risk and present rather than fear admonishment for not covering their man. Contested possessions will improve because the coach will allow players to be instinctive and therefore be where the contest is. For too long Melbourne players have been oppressed by what might go wrong rather than trust their instincts as to where to be. They would not have been drafted if they couldn't put themselves where the action is. Primary skill! Contested and uncontested are in essence the same. Get to where the ball is or where it should be. Only players who know this are drafted. Set them free!

Wholeheartedly agree.

Be bold and trusting of your ability and of your teammates and you really can ride on your own confidence.

If uncontested possessions were as important as contested ones Joel Bowden would have been lauded as a great player.

A chain of posessions that good sides create originate largely from a contest.

If you believe that uncontested posessiion is as important as contested posession then you should take it up with our current coach.

He will tell you that you are wrong.

It is so incredibly obvious.

yawn....

we were 16th to 18th in nearly every stat

Need to improve everywhere.

yawn....

we were 16th to 18th in nearly every stat

Need to improve everywhere.

I think you'll find that if we improve in our ability to get our hands on the pill then we are likely to improve in a whole raft of other stats including the ones that count at the end of the day.

I have been reading with interest the discussions around contested possessions.

As opposed to the old days where Craig Bradley made a career of getting of his man and receiving, due to the more defensive nature of the game, the pure "receiver" really doesn't exist.

There seems to be some confusion surrounding an in and under player and contested possession. All a contested possession is, is winning a ball in dispute. Many of these happen in a one on one contest away from the bulk of players. Robbie Flower was never what you would call an in and under player but his contested possession rate would have been good because he was constantly at a contest on the wings beating his opponent.

So when we discuss Toumpas, he does need to lift his contested possessions. So far his main source of ball is peeling off and getting a receive. This is ok but as a sole source of ball does not cut it in today's football and especially against the good sides. If you become successful at this as your mainstay then you will quickly receive a tag. He needs to get to, and win contests against opponents . He will always be what I consider an outside footballer but he needs to get to more contests ( not necessarily congestion) and win some ball.

Dangerfield is the perfect example of this. Wins one on ones against opponents but is not your diving into the bottom of 5 players packs to extract the ball.

I like your points especially re Robbie Flower.

I think many perceive contested possessions as all being won at the inside of, or under a pack, and tend to neglect the one-on-ones out on the flanks in particular.

Then of course if you are quick enough in body and mind in the latter type situation you can quickly convert what would have been a contested possession (to a lesser player) into an uncontested one. Your contested stats will be down and the uncontested stats up not because you don't want to go in and get it but because you are just that little bit shrewder than your opponent. AKA turning your opponent inside out.

So, stats ain't everything.

Edited November 30, 201311 yr by monoccular

If uncontested possessions were as important as contested ones Joel Bowden would have been lauded as a great player.

A chain of posessions that good sides create originate largely from a contest.

If you believe that uncontested posessiion is as important as contested posession then you should take it up with our current coach.

He will tell you that you are wrong.

It is so incredibly obvious.

You need both. James Magner is an excellent contested possession winner in the AFL - Top 100 last season for ave CPs.

But if you cannot advance the footy properly with players running into space it doesn't matter who won the football - you are going to lose it.

If CPs were more important we could stack our team with Magner's but we can't - you need a balance and that is what good teams have (and great players).

It's a balance. I know that when Craig took over from Neeld in the second half of the year his first focus was just slowing down the ball movement and sharing it around a bit more and using the entire ground to keep possession. In turn that had a positive effect in most games as we held the ball for longer and when we did turn it over we didn't get burnt on the scoreboard. In turn that increased our contested ball ability I believe.

Besides the belting from North and getting crunched in short periods by an overpowering Freo it worked a fair bit.

You only have to look at the mature midfield inclusions - Cross, Vince, Michie, Tyson and Riley to see contested ball is clearly a priority. Besides Vince the other 4 are brought in for their inside game more than their outside game. So I'm sure Roos' number one priority will be to teach how to win clearances and lock the ball in. That's how he did it at Sydney. But outside ball movement will be just as important because

Neeld's teams were paralysed by poor coaching of fundamentals, a poor list that didn't have the capacity to produce the required effort and a poor game plan that was never going to work with the crop of players and their current skill sets. Roos has made a move to bring the list up to scratch, he's now teaching fundamental skills at training and hopefully he crafts a game plan that instead of restrictive of the players actually enhances their ability.

The Bulldogs of 2013 are a great example for us in 2014. They won contested ball game after game in the first half of the year but couldn't actually win matches. In the second half of the year due to increased form and fitness of some players they managed to get the balance right and actually use the ball on the outside as well and get some forwards to get on the end of play and ended up winning games.

You need both. James Magner is an excellent contested possession winner in the AFL - Top 100 last season for ave CPs.

But if you cannot advance the footy properly with players running into space it doesn't matter who won the football - you are going to lose it.

If CPs were more important we could stack our team with Magner's but we can't - you need a balance and that is what good teams have (and great players).

Just a stupid post for someone who should know better.

Magner is a poor user which is nearly as useless as a good user who doesn't get it.

Of course you need to be efficient at both, but how do you propose to get the football into your hands to start a chain of possession?

Still cannot believe that reasonable people can make a debate of this. It is footy kindergarten stuff.

I tell you what. I will stick all only contested ball winners in my team at 50% de and you can have all uncontested players in your team with 100% de. Reckon my boys will win.

http://blog.tomwaterhouse.com/afl/afl-knowledge-010812/

Edited December 1, 201311 yr by jabberwocky

A contested posession that is turned over is as useless as a contested posession that is turned over. An efficient CP however will always be of more value than an efficient UP.

Contested means that you have defeated an opponent to the footy. The opponent is with you and that opponent is accountable.

Uncontested means that your opponent is not with you. Whilst your opponent is not with you he is able to affect a contest in another part of the ground reducing your ability to attack.

= CP > UP

Edited December 1, 201311 yr by jabberwocky

Just a stupid post for someone who should know better.

Magner is a poor user which is nearly as useless as a good user who doesn't get it.

Of course you need to be efficient at both, but how do you propose to get the football into your hands to start a chain of possession?

Still cannot believe that reasonable people can make a debate of this. It is footy kindergarten stuff.

I tell you what. I will stick all only contested ball winners in my team at 50% de and you can have all uncontested players in your team with 100% de. Reckon my boys will win.

http://blog.tomwaterhouse.com/afl/afl-knowledge-010812/

I think you need to calm down.

They are both important - one without the other is bad football - that was my 'stupid' point about Magner and his ilk. It is why McKenzie frustrates so many.

Let's take an example: Nathan Jones is in a contest and has just won the ball, he is about to have his 'contested possession,' the good team has a player in space about to maximise that with an Uncontested Possession, the bad team has no-one in space and the ball is turned over or is a ball-up.

They are both important but rely on each other to be effective.

You are deliberately ignoring arguments and information. And using poor disposers like McKenzie and Magner in order to try and prove a backward hypothesis.

So I am frustrated and disappointed. I thought that you would be more objective.

Evidence and logic are the basis of my argument.

There is not an educated person in the football world who would not agree that an efficient contested possession is of more value than an efficient uncontested posession.

Edited December 1, 201311 yr by jabberwocky

Let's take an example: Nathan Jones is in a contest and has just won the ball, he is about to have his 'contested possession,'

This quote of yours is it in a nutshell.

Edited December 1, 201311 yr by jabberwocky

A contested posession that is turned over is as useless as a contested posession that is turned over. An efficient CP however will always be of more value than an efficient UP.

Contested means that you have defeated an opponent to the footy. The opponent is with you and that opponent is accountable.

Uncontested means that your opponent is not with you. Whilst your opponent is not with you he is able to affect a contest in another part of the ground reducing your ability to attack.

= CP > UP

I think that you are oversimplifying what can't be simplified.

For example, a top team vs a very ordinary one (all too familiar stuff??): the outstanding team may just need just one CP that leads to a long string of UPs because they are so good at running off their opponents, > goal. The underdog, on rare occasions winning a CP just can't break clear to make the next UP > turnover or dispute.

So really adding up CP vs UP does not solve the issue.

You are deliberately ignoring arguments and information. And using poor disposers like McKenzie and Magner in order to try and prove a backward hypothesis.

So I am frustrated and disappointed. I thought that you would be more objective.

Evidence and logic are the basis of my argument.

There is not an educated person in the football world who would not agree that an efficient contested possession is of more value than an efficient uncontested posession.

An efficient contested possession leads to an uncontested possession. To win games of footy you are going to have to have efficient uncontested possessions most of the time.

I have my view - to win games of footy you have to do both well.

Having some existential question of whether one is more important than the other at an atomic level is not interesting. We have to do both well to win games.

Ignoring the issues and not answering the question.

You can't hold a discussion like that.

I'm done. I won't engage you further.

I think about soccer sometimes. 2 holding midfielders will give you contested possession. You'll win the ball back in one on one in your back halve. But then to move the ball forward you'll need uncontested possession (unless you have a really good striker who you can belt it long too).

Geelong this year played counter attacking just as a soccer side does. Let a team advance the ball under pressure by them winning contests in the middle of the ground, then sweep it from the back in to open space and score.

Above all the very good teams have very few players who can't win contested possession but also who will contribute to uncontested possession and ball retention.

From the Hawthorn Grand Final team I think Sewell is one who I don't want getting many uncontested possessions (even though he still will run hard and link up and provide options) and Brad Hill is one who wont win too many contested possessions. Probably the rest of their team is adept at both.

A contested posession that is turned over is as useless as a contested posession that is turned over. An efficient CP however will always be of more value than an efficient UP.

Contested means that you have defeated an opponent to the footy. The opponent is with you and that opponent is accountable.

Uncontested means that your opponent is not with you. Whilst your opponent is not with you he is able to affect a contest in another part of the ground reducing your ability to attack.

= CP > UP

Well you know that is not strictly true. If Nick Riewoldt has completed 5 long leads and lost his opponent only to mark 30m out from goal that is of the same value as Jono Brown just taking a contested mark 30m out from goal. Same as if Kieran Jack has run 100m away from a stoppage to get on a chain of possessions to leave his opponent 30m behind.

Their opponents might be filling in space in another part of the game but if the ball isn't there then that's no use.

The simplest bit of this argument is to say all plays start with contested possession when the ball is thrown up and all finals are played with intense pressure and contests. Therefore it all starts with contested possession. But over the top statements dont mean anything.