Changes vs. North

[DeeSpencer 26,269]

1 hour ago, ArtificialWisdom said:

Yeah i see your point but i still feel that it is very vulnerable to miss matches becase of the area they need to protect. I hope im wrong and they can sort it out. Short term pain for long term gain... but god i think after all the pain we have had over the years. Seeing players kick easy goals or take contested marks against little blokes due to this defence breaking down is rough. I'll wear us not being tallented enough but this made us look so out coached 

Daniher took mark after mark opposed to Garland and McDonald, often both! It wasn't like he was one on one against Jetta all that often if at all. What made us look outcoached was the way Essendon rebounded from half back and waltzed through our midfield so easily. Some of that might have been due to a zone set up, but most of it was surely due to terrible effort. 

1 hour ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I don't understand the concept of a zone defence when playing a clear mix of tall and small defenders. If every defender was a similar size it might make sense.

The shortest Hawthorn defender is Taylor Duryea listed at 179cm and he's a back flanker. Every other defender is above 185cm, similarly every West Coast defender is above 185cm and strong in the air. So with pressure up the ground kicks are likely to either favour the defensive player who can then mark or punch from good position or be high up and unders that allows a tall to come across and mark/punch. 

We'll likely play 3 talls and Jetta, Lumumba, Vince, Salem who are all good in the air for their size and shouldn't be outmarked when they are in best position. 

Mainly though it's what I've said before. Talls still take talls, smalls still take smalls, just they then off their opponents in zoned positions

[DeeSpencer 26,269]

1 hour ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Of course, there is the minor problem that you have to get the ball into your forward half before this will work.

But I still don't get the zone defence argument. If you believe small defenders are picked to play on small forwards and tall defenders are picked to play on tall forwards, then it would seem to me that you can't also argue for a zone defence. 

Ever played or watched basketball? Almost any basketball team has talls who mainly rebound and shoot in close, and smalls who are traditionally outside shooters and run and pass, then on defense smalls cover the smalls and talls defend their opponent and often cover the rim. Yet basketball has the type of defending that AFL teams are implementing and has had for years. Not in a traditional basketball zone defense which is a fixed zone with guys in positions but in the way players cover their opponents and guard space at the same time. As it's a non contact spot you can't be physically holding your opponent so you have to play off them and you have to do things like rotate opponents and help other team mates.

It works best when you have guys who are versatile who can defend big or small, but AFL teams have that as well. The best team in basketball right now is Golden State who have the luxury of defenders who can switch match ups all the time. Every AFL team would love that. A bunch of guys who can defend the biggest talls, but also play up the ground and use their skills and gather the ball. It's part of Hawthorn's success with Gibson, Birchall, Burgoyne, Stratton, Hodge etc at half back. But no AFL team will probably find 6 amazing defenders who are all 190-195cm and can stop bigs, smalls and rebound with skill. Hence why the Hawks have Frawley and why GSW still play Bogut. 

In basketball if every man just plays tight against their similar sized opponent one on one then there's half a chance 4 guys will drag their opponent to one side of the court, a player will beat his opponent or fire off a clever pass to a guy who gets open and in his goes for a dunk or lay up. So a tall usually covers the rim and other players try and play between the ball and their opponent.

The good teams know when a tall needs to swap to make sure a tall is covered and are awake to it. They make sure they don't get beat over the back. And they stay aggressive to force errors or turnovers. 

[JV7 2,375]

2 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Of course, there is the minor problem that you have to get the ball into your forward half before this will work.

But I still don't get the zone defence argument. If you believe small defenders are picked to play on small forwards and tall defenders are picked to play on tall forwards, then it would seem to me that you can't also argue for a zone defence. 

Well obviously your still going to have 1 on 1 match ups. Your not going to pick a defense full of mid size running defender when there key forwards to be manned. Just because sides play a zone defense doesn't mean there still isn't 1 on 1 contests. 

[What 18,810]

Going to go ahead ans say we will beat North.  Have the same feeling as last year when we ventured down to the Cattery.  Go Dees

[picket fence 17,971]

Here it is the "Fence" Blueprint to topple NORF!

B GARLAND   DUNN   TERLICH    

 

HB TRENGOVE  PEDERSON  VINCE  

 

C STRETCH   OLIVER   LAMUMBA   

 

HF PETRACCA   HOGAN  VAN DER THING   

 

F  GARLETT   WATTS  WEEDS  

 

R/RR ROV  GAWN JONES  VINEY   

 

INTER   TYSON ( LUCKY)   SALEM  MC DONALD ( VERY VERY LUCKY)  BRAYSHAW

Also, Mc Donald become the swingman in this ins

Edited April 7, 2016 by picket fence

[What 18,810]

3 hours ago, picket fence said:

Here it is the "Fence" Blueprint to topple NORF!

B GARLAND   DUNN   TERLICH    

 

HB TRENGOVE  PEDERSON  VINCE  

 

C STRETCH   OLIVER   LAMUMBA   

 

HF PETRACCA   HOGAN  VAN DER THING   

 

F  GARLETT   WATTS  WEEDS  

 

R/RR ROV  GAWN JONES  VINEY   

 

INTER   TYSON ( LUCKY)   SALEM  MC DONALD ( VERY VERY LUCKY)  BRAYSHAW

 

So 6 changes to last weeks team

Two teenage debutantes who have both barely played the last 18 months

A guy who hasnt played in 2 years

 

Thats a blueprint to lose by well over 100

Edited April 6, 2016 by Petraccattack

[dee-luded 2,959]

3 hours ago, Petraccattack said:

Going to go ahead ans say we will beat North.  Have the same feeling as last year when we ventured down to the Cattery.  Go Dees

I wonder if we were setting ourselves & took our sights off last week ?

[What 18,810]

2 hours ago, dee-luded said:

I wonder if we were setting ourselves & took our sights off last week ?

Not sure deeluded but Im already looking to Sundayweek vs the FIlth....

[Bells 155]

On 4/5/2016 at 1:27 PM, frankie_d said:

I agree, but the difficulty is then do you apply the same standard to Watts - 0 (None, doughnuts) tackles?

 

I watched the first quarter last night.  It was actually a hard fought competitive quarter.  Jack Watts clearly tackle a player who releases the ball.  Jack actually had a pretty good first quarter.  

I have been thinking about the whole big head theory thing and it stinks.  Also, saying the players are lazy and just not competitive...  I know one of the players, have done his whole life and  he is a competitive beast, he never gives up so I cannot imagine him deciding he can't be bothered.  I think they had planned the style they thought Esd would play, and how the styles Dee's intend to play would counteract that and they were rolled over by a completely different style to what they expected.

Edited April 6, 2016 by Bells

[Bitter but optimistic 22,289]

10 hours ago, picket fence said:

Here it is the "Fence" Blueprint to topple NORF!

B GARLAND   DUNN   TERLICH    

 

HB TRENGOVE  PEDERSON  VINCE  

 

C STRETCH   OLIVER   LAMUMBA   

 

HF PETRACCA   HOGAN  VAN DER THING   

 

F  GARLETT   WATTS  WEEDS  

 

R/RR ROV  GAWN JONES  VINEY   

 

INTER   TYSON ( LUCKY)   SALEM  MC DONALD ( VERY VERY LUCKY)  BRAYSHAW

 

More a laxative than a spine tingle picket.

[Devil is in the Detail 883]

13 hours ago, DeeSpencer said:

Ever played or watched basketball? Almost any basketball team has talls who mainly rebound and shoot in close, and smalls who are traditionally outside shooters and run and pass, then on defense smalls cover the smalls and talls defend their opponent and often cover the rim. Yet basketball has the type of defending that AFL teams are implementing and has had for years. Not in a traditional basketball zone defense which is a fixed zone with guys in positions but in the way players cover their opponents and guard space at the same time. As it's a non contact spot you can't be physically holding your opponent so you have to play off them and you have to do things like rotate opponents and help other team mates.

It works best when you have guys who are versatile who can defend big or small, but AFL teams have that as well. The best team in basketball right now is Golden State who have the luxury of defenders who can switch match ups all the time. Every AFL team would love that. A bunch of guys who can defend the biggest talls, but also play up the ground and use their skills and gather the ball. It's part of Hawthorn's success with Gibson, Birchall, Burgoyne, Stratton, Hodge etc at half back. But no AFL team will probably find 6 amazing defenders who are all 190-195cm and can stop bigs, smalls and rebound with skill. Hence why the Hawks have Frawley and why GSW still play Bogut. 

In basketball if every man just plays tight against their similar sized opponent one on one then there's half a chance 4 guys will drag their opponent to one side of the court, a player will beat his opponent or fire off a clever pass to a guy who gets open and in his goes for a dunk or lay up. So a tall usually covers the rim and other players try and play between the ball and their opponent.

The good teams know when a tall needs to swap to make sure a tall is covered and are awake to it. They make sure they don't get beat over the back. And they stay aggressive to force errors or turnovers. 

Who also have a guy called Stephen Curry who is shooting the lights out every match.

But I understand the theory coming from a basketball background. The biggest thing with the zone defenses is working as a team. If a team mate gets beaten then the closet person needs to come across to help out. And if the next person gets beaten then the next person steps over to help. And so on. Then when the offensive push is stopped eg. stop the first switch, the defense must work hard to reset back into the original position and start again for the next offensive push. I reckon that our players stop the first offensive push and go awesome our work is done. Then they don't reset for the next switch.

Edited April 6, 2016 by Devil is in the Detail

[stuie 7,374]

11 hours ago, picket fence said:

Here it is the "Fence" Blueprint to topple NORF!

B GARLAND   DUNN   TERLICH    

 

HB TRENGOVE  PEDERSON  VINCE  

 

C STRETCH   OLIVER   LAMUMBA   

 

HF PETRACCA   HOGAN  VAN DER THING   

 

F  GARLETT   WATTS  WEEDS  

 

R/RR ROV  GAWN JONES  VINEY   

 

INTER   TYSON ( LUCKY)   SALEM  MC DONALD ( VERY VERY LUCKY)  BRAYSHAW

 

Haha not only a rubbish lineup, but you've spelled half their names wrong.... That says it all.

 

[Skuit 10,031]

FF:       Garlett     Hogan      Kennedy

HF:       Kent        Watts      Tyson

C:       Brayshaw   Jones     Vince

R:        Viney      Gawn        Vanders

HB:     Salem       TMac     Lumumba

FB      Jetta        Dunn       Pedersen  

INT:    M. Jones   Bugg   Oliver   Harmes

In:     Dunn

Out: Garland (no match-up - i dread him going to Waite or Brown)

Pedersen to go down back to counter an extra tall.

Tyson and Vanders to swap roles. Vanders needs to get his hands on the ball and Tyson can find space forward.

Kent to stay. His invisibility cloak should come in handy if our players can work out where he's stationed.

ANB in for Brayshaw if he needs a little more R&R.

[Demon_JB 1,389]

I'd like to bringin ANB, Stretch, Dunn. Not sure for who you. I think Kent needs to play and H as they at least make us look quicker on paper. 

[Bring-Back-Powell 15,240]

I reckon Vandenberg is one week away from the magoos.

Has been poor this year and is severely overrated on this board. I can recall one poster even likening him to Fyfe.... 

[La Dee-vina Comedia 17,012]

13 hours ago, JV7 said:

Well obviously your still going to have 1 on 1 match ups. Your not going to pick a defense full of mid size running defender when there key forwards to be manned. Just because sides play a zone defense doesn't mean there still isn't 1 on 1 contests. 

I maintain that it can't be a zone defence and 1 on 1 contests when the 1 on 1 is small against small or tall against tall. (I think I'm accidentally channeling Dr Seuss). However, I can accept an argument that it's a "modified" zone defence which tries to guard space while also trying to keep the smaller defenders on the smaller forwards, etc. And in my view, it is doomed to fail unless the 6 players in the defence are significantly better than the 6 players who make up the opposition's forward line...in which case the one on one would win out anyway.

[stuie 7,374]

FB: Jetta  Dunn  Frost

HB: Salem  TMac  Vince

C: Tyson  vandenBerg  Lumumba

HF: Kennedy  Watts  Jones

FF: Garlett  Hogan  ANB

FOL: Gawn  Viney  Oliver

INT: Brayshaw Bugg  Harmes  M.Jones

EMERG: Stretch

 

IN: ANB, Dunn, Frost

OUT: Kent, Pedersen, Garland

 

[Devil is in the Detail 883]

6 minutes ago, stuie said:

FB: Jetta  Dunn  Frost

HB: Salem  TMac  Vince

C: Tyson  vandenBerg  Lumumba

HF: Kennedy  Watts  Jones

FF: Garlett  Hogan  ANB

FOL: Gawn  Viney  Oliver

INT: Brayshaw Bugg  Harmes  M.Jones

EMERG: Stretch

 

IN: ANB, Dunn, Frost

OUT: Kent, Pedersen, Garland

 

In the GWS game Nat Jones went behind the ball which I thought kick started the team. Wondering whether we would swap Vince and Jones.

And probably prefer Hogs further up the ground.

Edited April 6, 2016 by Devil is in the Detail

[stuie 7,374]

1 minute ago, Devil is in the Detail said:

In the GWS game Nat Jones went behind the ball which I thought kick started the team. Wondering whether we would swap Vince and Jones.

And probably prefer Hogs further up the ground.

To me, I think we need Jones' goalkicking from the midfield, that's why i thought to try him there, and leave the rebounding to Salem and Vince.

Was tempted to swap Hogan and Watts, but just concerned about the knock he copped last week that seemed to restrict his running a bit.

 

[Devil is in the Detail 883]

4 minutes ago, stuie said:

To me, I think we need Jones' goalkicking from the midfield, that's why i thought to try him there, and leave the rebounding to Salem and Vince.

Was tempted to swap Hogan and Watts, but just concerned about the knock he copped last week that seemed to restrict his running a bit.

 

Still think we need 3 tall forwards. The forward line looks a little short.

[Wiseblood 24,637]

Just now, Devil is in the Detail said:

Still think we need 3 tall forwards. The forward line looks a little short.

Particularly when they have 3 key backs in Thompson, Firrito and Tarrant.  We need to keep all 3 accountable to a man, because if we leave one of them with the option of zoning on regularly on Hogan then we are in for a very long day.

[stuie 7,374]

1 minute ago, Devil is in the Detail said:

Still think we need 3 tall forwards. The forward line looks a little short.

I hear ya, I'm just trying to uncrowd the forward line. Plus we don't tend to get many goals out of the 3rd tall forward (Frost, Pedo, Dawes).

Basically I'm wanting to try some things without being too ridiculous. We need to change it up a little.

 

[stuie 7,374]

1 minute ago, Wiseblood said:

Particularly when they have 3 key backs in Thompson, Firrito and Tarrant.  We need to keep all 3 accountable to a man, because if we leave one of them with the option of zoning on regularly on Hogan then we are in for a very long day.

Works both ways though. Should one of their talls double on Hogan, then he only needs to bring it to ground and we have either Jeffy or ANB unmanned.

[Wiseblood 24,637]

Just now, stuie said:

Works both ways though. Should one of their talls double on Hogan, then he only needs to bring it to ground and we have either Jeffy or ANB unmanned.

True, and I see what you're saying as well Stuie.  What we've done the last 2 weeks hasn't exactly worked, so why not try something a little different?  Their backline is extremely disciplined though, and it would take some excellent work from our forwards to make it work in terms of getting the ball to ground on a regular basis.  It would be good to see them challenged with that task this week.  

If we start just bombing away blindly, though, then we would be playing right into their hands.  We need to be smart about it if we're going to go a little smaller up forward than we have in the first 2 rounds.

[picket fence 17,971]

10 hours ago, Petraccattack said:

So 6 changes to last weeks team

Two teenage debutantes who have both barely played the last 18 months

A guy who hasnt played in 2 years

 

Thats a blueprint to lose by well over 100

Yeah well, stick with the same and get done by 150 plus pionts!! Onwards and upwards!! Bring on the changes I say!! both positional and personel!

We are far too conservative in these matters

Edited April 7, 2016 by picket fence