The Game Plan - It seems to be working

[Deespicable 2,689]

15 hours ago, mo64 said:

Exactly. I don't see why you need 2 years to focus on defensive strategies before you start on the offence. The likes of Beveridge and Simpson were innovative from the start, and have achieved results within 1-2 years. In 3 years, all we've done is gone from a bottom team to a 10th - 13th team, but with a far superior list.

Our gameplan is just a mirror image of what the successful teams have been doing for the past 3 years. By the time we master it, the game will probably evolve again, and we'll be playing catch up. 

I think you have completely missed the point on what Roosy had to work with originally.

In his first year he set about recruiting players who would add grunt and size to the midfield, so that we could win at the stoppages - Vince, Crossy, Tyson plus Michie were added by Taylor and whilst it could be argued that we erred in giving up our No.2 pick, it certainly isn't clear cut and many of us will say that we won because we got two players (Salem and Tyson) to add to our depth - although Kelly and Lobb is an impressive rebuff to anyone who reckons we won, not to mention that in giving up pick No.2, we also allowed Bontempelli to get away. So in year 1 of Roosy, we suddenly we had a bit more depth and hardness but had no way of counter-attacking because we were still the slowest team on the park - Hunt was just a project player then and our quicks Blease and Strauss proved abject failures in providing the run and were delisted. 

Then in year 2 he got Taylor to work on our speed and we drafted/traded in four mega quicks - Garlett, Lumumba, VB and Frost. We also picked up class in Brayshaw and Petracca, endurance quick smarts in Stretch and a bonus mid in Neal-Bullen and bonus tall in Oscar. But any chance Roosy had of implementing a high press and a run and carry style from defence turned pear-shaped early when he lost Kent, Frost and VB for long periods on top of Salem early in the season. So the game plan that he and Goody and others wanted just couldn't quite eventuate - yet.

Finally in his third year he and Taylor went for one more inside big (Oliver) and primarily spent the rest of the draft trying to find the talls that would take the pressure off Hoges and Gawny. As yet those kids talls are all prospects, but thankfully JW has stepped up and provided the key pressure outlet for Hoges and so far Gawny hasn't needed a back up at all.

So this is the first year we have had the list depth to try and play with a high press (you need quick forwards to do this) and with the WC/WB gung-ho defensive style that most clubs are at least trying to engender. The Hawks under Clarko are also onto the switch in defensive styles and got rid of Lake and Suckling who were perceived as too slow. Then there's clubs like Freo who missed the boat, although Ross the boss would reckon it's because they haven't had any high picks like us or the expansion sides or the Dogs. North are still trying the old school style and they are at this stage on top, although anyone who went down to Hobart will know that they are in danger of crumbling against the quicker sides - can't wait until Dogs, WC and GWS get hold of them.

Sure you could argue our gameplan hasn't evolved as quickly as some, but don't forget the cattle he had to start with.

It wouldn't surprise me if five or six more of his original Neeld squad are released at end of this season leaving only two/three regulars from the old days. That's a massive list turnover in just three years. 

As to Beveridge and Simmo being innovative from the start, please drop Simmo from that. WC wanted to get rid of him after the first year and it was only the injuries to key bigs (Mackenzie and Brown) that forced him to play with an attacking style smaller defence in his second year. Bevo was innovative from the start but he already had to tools at his disposal having had a clever list manager who benefitted from Silvagni's and Prendergast's [censored]-ups four years ago. But let's now see how Bevo goes without his quickest defender and his cleverest defender for the year.     

[Chris 2,892]

37 minutes ago, Baghdad Bob said:

It depends on what is causing the PA decline.  If you think it's the methodology of introducing the full game plan in year one you have a point.  Personally I don't think footy is that simplistic.

It comes down to what you think Roos has instilled int eh group. The other clubs mentioned have gone attacking and had some success, it seems that to sustain that success it the game plan needs to be built on a pretty standard set of non negotiables such as intensity and defence. Any game plan can be built around these and you can change at will. We were so far from having these that it was ridiculous, Roos has given us these and now we can put the cream on top. If he has done it right it means we have the solid base to work from that you need in order to evolve as you need to as the game changes. Port Adelaide especially seem to have been caught out as I don't think they have that solid base. In my view the dogs do and it was the work of Macca that gave them the base. 

[Gator 17,261]

3 minutes ago, DemonDave said:

As much as I loathe him immensely, David King brought up an interesting scatter plot graph that Champion Data use to determine how close to  premiership standard teams are. It's based on scoring 100 points a game and conceding around 86.

This was from Round 21 last year I think, and as you can see by the legend 14 of last 15 premiers have met these criteria.

 Last year we were not scoring enough, nor defending well enough.

Now the updated graph for this year after 4 rounds has us much closer to somewhere near we need to be:

Both our points for and points conceded totals have improved a lot, and we compare favourable to some good teams such as the Hawks (who have obviously underperformed by their standards so far this year).

For the first time in a number of years, like a lot on here, I can genuinely see progress onfield on a more consistent basis, and now statisically that's backing up our reason for cautious optimism.

 

I tried to find this earlier, but wasn't sure where to look.

In essence I agree with Baggy Bob, although I also agree with some of rjay's points.

Goodwin has reportedly told a couple of supporters that Roos takes matchday and he takes the rest of the week.  As Bob knows, "the rest of the week" is far more significant than the 2 hours on game-day (although Stu might need some convincing).

This is Goodwin's second year.  He'd feel more comfortable asserting himself (credit to Roos too) and we've also brought over some Bulldog/Hawk's IP with Gavin Jennings joining the club.  I put the new and improved game-plan squarely down to Goodwin and Jennings.  I suspect it has very little to do with Roos, although the defensive elements he's instilled are clearly important.

One stat I love and reckon paints an accurate picture of the ladder and a team's premiership aspirations is its spread of goal-kickers. Hawthorn have had the most or second most in the last 3 years and won flags, while Melbourne have had the least or second least in the last 3 years and been in the lower regions or bottom 2.  In fact, in the last 10 years the premier has come from a team with the top 2 spread of goal-kickers in every year except 2008, when Hawthorn unexpectedly pinched the flag.

The only club to really buck the trend is the Paul Roos coached Sydney (flag) in 2005, which had the second worst spread in the competition.  The team they beat (West Coast) had the best.  An anomaly unlikely to be repeated.

In 2014 Melbourne averaged 6.5 goal-kickers per round and in 2015 it crept up to 6.82.  We've jumped to 9 in 2016, but, yes, it's only early days.  Hawthorn averaged exactly 9 in their 2013 and 2014 premiership years. 

Hawthorn are an incredible team not just because they have some elite players, they also have the best system.  Arguably, the best game-plan and system ever to do what they've done.  Anyone that has no interest in game-plans or system in the present AFL has no understanding of the game whatsoever.

Notwithstanding the cattle at Roos' disposal (and I agree it's relevant), I have no doubt he didn't have a handle on the modern game and elite ball movement.

 

[bandicoot 1,395]

We still have no structure when kicking out of defense. It seems like we keep bombing the ball out to a contest. 

[H_T 3,040]

I like this type of game analysis including the Premiership standard. It's a good indicator and I'll certainly be keeping a close eye on the progress.

Thanks DemonDave.

[ArtificialWisdom 4,045]

1 minute ago, bandicoot said:

We still have no structure when kicking out of defense. It seems like we keep bombing the ball out to a contest. 

Credit to the opposition though, the zone from a kick in is very difficult to penetrate. I would much rather them kick out long to a contest than try and pin point a near impossible kick in the defensive 50... we all know where that leads. The risk is ok if it comes out of the kick in quick but the normal post set shot zone makes short kicks very dangerous (stkilda found that out the hard way on the weekend)

[bandicoot 1,395]

3 minutes ago, ArtificialWisdom said:

Credit to the opposition though, the zone from a kick in is very difficult to penetrate. I would much rather them kick out long to a contest than try and pin point a near impossible kick in the defensive 50... we all know where that leads. The risk is ok if it comes out of the kick in quick but the normal post set shot zone makes short kicks very dangerous (stkilda found that out the hard way on the weekend)

The top sides do not give the ball over especially when they have control out of a kick in. 

Our players aren't much worse than the top sides. Our game plan doesn't exist for these kick outs 

[Coup Cooper 610]

3 hours ago, Go the Biff said:

People are either forgetting this or have understandably blocked it out

Take your pick - our 0-9 start to 2012 or if you want a shortened version, revisit rounds 1 & 2 of 2013

We were shite. Utter, utter shite. To think that could have been turned around in a year is laughable

It's a credit to Roos and Jackson that they were prepared to take the time to do a proper sustainable rebuild

And this is still nowhere near the finished product. It's just the first glimmer of light at what's been a long and farking horrible tunnel

You can even take it all the way back to that Nightmare against the Cats in 2011.. That's when the club was bought to it knees..

But enough doom and gloom!

Richmond bringing Deledio back in after no Game time at all in 2016 makes me smirk.. Send Viney straight to him and Garry Ablett rd1 2015 the [censored] out of him!!

[bandicoot 1,395]

5 minutes ago, ArtificialWisdom said:

Credit to the opposition though, the zone from a kick in is very difficult to penetrate. I would much rather them kick out long to a contest than try and pin point a near impossible kick in the defensive 50... we all know where that leads. The risk is ok if it comes out of the kick in quick but the normal post set shot zone makes short kicks very dangerous (stkilda found that out the hard way on the weekend)

The top sides do not give the ball over especially when they have control out of a kick in. 

Our players aren't much worse than the top sides. Our game plan doesn't exist for these kick outs 

[Guest]

45 minutes ago, Bossdog said:

Port are on the same points as us.......They beat Ess by 61 pts and St Kilda by 33    Had a couple of shockers against Adel (finals contender) by 58 and smashed last week against GWS (Finals contender) by 86.   The season is so even.   The media go on about how bad Coll  Rich and Port are, Wait until they win a couple and they will be world beaters and back in final contention.     

i agree that Port's season is a long way from over, and other sides will come good.  I do believe that if we keep a healthy-ish list we can sustain some good form and win as many as we lose.  The point is that most premierships come from sides that burn slowly.

I look at the list, I look at the way we play and it feels sustainable.  Hopefully I am right. Hope is a strange and frightening thing.

Personally I think it is pointless to wonder about what we could have done in 2014 and 2015 differently to achieve the results we should achieve it 2016. 

The circumstances that exist in 2016 are different from round to round let alone year to year.  Let us just see what unfolds.

[Slartibartfast 16,951]

52 minutes ago, Deespicable said:

 

What you've done in your post is reverse engineer.  You've seen the result and you've sort to explain and justify it.  It doesn't seek to address what would have happened if another path had been taken.

I'd argue Roos can be legitimately questioned on two counts:

• failure to introduce an AFL quality game plan to the club until this year. In doing so he virtually said to the players "you aren't good enough to play AFL footy".
• publicly stating either directly or indirectly that we were/are hopeless and we've got a long way to go.

He's done many good things which have been discussed continually.  I also think he's made mistakes.

 

[The Reverend 1,736]

17 hours ago, mo64 said:

Exactly. I don't see why you need 2 years to focus on defensive strategies before you start on the offence. The likes of Beveridge and Simpson were innovative from the start, and have achieved results within 1-2 years. In 3 years, all we've done is gone from a bottom team to a 10th - 13th team, but with a far superior list.

Our gameplan is just a mirror image of what the successful teams have been doing for the past 3 years. By the time we master it, the game will probably evolve again, and we'll be playing catch up. 

Maybe it's about long term success rather than short term gain. When behaviours are embedded, they become instinctive. It doesn't happen overnight. When it's a quick fix it might work for a little while but it's often not sustainable. We saw that last year when the dogs could not bring the game plan into the finals. 

[mo64 5,608]

4 minutes ago, The Reverend said:

Maybe it's about long term success rather than short term gain. When behaviours are embedded, they become instinctive. It doesn't happen overnight. When it's a quick fix it might work for a little while but it's often not sustainable. We saw that last year when the dogs could not bring the game plan into the finals. 

The success of the Dogs and Eagles looks sustainable.

Interestingly, the Dogs have the best defensive record this year, without sacrificing on the offence. I haven't seen enough of them this year to know whether Beveridge has tweaked his gameplan, but the results speak for themselves. 

[jnrmac 19,931]

4 hours ago, Coup Cooper said:

The Bulldogs list was miles ahead of ours.. Granted it's early.. But maybe we'll see the same resurgence they did, this year? To do that though, we need to belt the bad teams! Like they did, aka us at Etihad last year..

 

4 hours ago, H_T said:

I don't buy they were a basket case.

We indeed were and we were coming further back from where they were at.

Sorry but you guys have short memories. Here is a snapshot of the odds at the start of 2015 and ladder predictions. You can spin it any way you like but the facts don't back you up. The Dogs were a basket case. And trying to say that we were miles behind them is a joke as well. If I could be bothered I would show you what the Demonland pundits were saying about us in 2015 and the Dogs. 5000 to 1 for the top 4!

They have been a major revelation and Beveridge has done an outstanding job. You can't deny it.

Edited April 21, 2016 by jnrmac

[Mt. Dee-Maaan 586]

FFS jnrmac are you seriously suggesting that Luke Beveridge got the Dogs to the finals last year based off less than a year's worth or work??! Of course the club was building prior to the sacking of McCartney... It is irrelevant if pundits thought they would come last in 2015 due to their upheavals, so there's no point in providing a ladder showing that.. The Dogs had a much better list than they were given credit for and had recruited well over the preceding years. Eventually the tide was going to turn, just as it has for the Dees. Ignoring the good development work that McCartney put in prior to his sacking is ludicrous. Their success was built on McCartney's development and then the implementation of Beveridge's new game plan (and the improvement of a few of their youngsters).

Edited April 21, 2016 by Rocky

[Skuit 10,002]

Suggesting Roos took three years to instill a game-plan is a fallacy. The team he inherited no longer exists. This has been a complete rebuild in all but publicly-stated name and was the number one priority. Just a reminder of who is no longer on the list from when he first walked through the door; (How many are AFL standard?)

Mitch Clark

Jimmy Toumpas

Jeremy Howe

Colin Sylvia

James Frawley

Sam Blease

Jack Fitzpatrick

Jordie McKenzie

David Rodan

Shannon Byrnes

James Strauss

Josh Tynan

Daniel Nicholson

Tom Gillies

Joel Macdonald

James Sellar

Michael Evans

Dominic Barry  

Luke Tapscott

Aaron Davey

Mark Jamar

Troy Davis

Rory Taggert

Rohan Bail

James Magner

Tom Couch

Nathan Stark

Mitch Clisby

(Jack Trengove lucky)

 

 

 

[H_T 3,040]

Let's use betting odds as facts/evidence of a "basket case club" before a season...way to go jnr.

[Deeoldfart 7,999]

Paul Roos' leadership and people managements abilities have been a huge part of the progress we have made during his time as senior coach (dishwater to Moet compared to his recent predecessors).  Game plans and strategies are irrelevant if you don't have the entire playing list, Footy Department and beyond working in harmony, in both the good times and the tough ones. We have made a quantum leap forward in the last couple of years, and I can't think of anyone who might have done a better job in the circumstances than Roosy.

[Radar Detector 1,347]

Jnr, whilst the odds and predictions paint a compelling picture, the fact is that the Bulldogs never once finished below us in any of their years down the bottom and won 7 games in 2014. They were expected to be hopeless because of the exits of Griffen, Cooney and Higgins but of that group, only Griffen was a key contributor for them and they already had a deep young midfield capable of stepping up to cover.

We have only now probably got a similarly talented young midfield. I would be confident we could cover the loss of a Jones or Vince much better now - last week was an example of that.

The Bulldogs were never anywhere near as bad as us, it was an expectation based on a flawed assumption - similar to the idea that Geelong would be rubbish without Ablett or the Hawks without Buddy. 

Edited April 21, 2016 by Radar Detector

[Chris 2,892]

1 hour ago, jnrmac said:

 

Sorry but you guys have short memories. Here is a snapshot of the odds at the start of 2015 and ladder predictions. You can spin it any way you like but the facts don't back you up. The Dogs were a basket case. And trying to say that we were miles behind them is a joke as well. If I could be bothered I would show you what the Demonland pundits were saying about us in 2015 and the Dogs. 5000 to 1 for the top 4!

They have been a major revelation and Beveridge has done an outstanding job. You can't deny it.

I don't think you will find many who will say Beveridge hasn't done an outstanding job PD. What he did have though is a team of young players who had been developed well for a few years, they didn't have the wins on the board, and some senior players revolted, but it was there. That is also the reason their rise may well turn out to be sustainable and Ports wasn't. 

Edited April 21, 2016 by Chris
hasn't not has.

[Dees2014 2,377]

18 hours ago, mo64 said:

Exactly. I don't see why you need 2 years to focus on defensive strategies before you start on the offence. The likes of Beveridge and Simpson were innovative from the start, and have achieved results within 1-2 years. In 3 years, all we've done is gone from a bottom team to a 10th - 13th team, but with a far superior list.

Our gameplan is just a mirror image of what the successful teams have been doing for the past 3 years. By the time we master it, the game will probably evolve again, and we'll be playing catch up. 

I think you are not only being very harsh, but also not looking to the future. We have had many instant solutions (Balm, Neeld), but we need to go through a transformation directed by people not only experienced but know what they are doing. We have that now.

I have no doubt they will be successful. I'm predicting a 2018 flag....we need to be patient.

[Wiseblood 24,637]

Just now, Chris said:

I don't think you will find many who will say Beveridge has done an outstanding job PD. What he did have though is a team of young players who had been developed well for a few years, they didn't have the wins on the board, and some senior players revolted, but it was there. That is also the reason their rise may well turn out to be sustainable and Ports wasn't. 

I think you'll find there are plenty who believe he's done an outstanding job, Chris.

I'm in the other camp though (in terms of comparisons between the Dogs and us and the implementation of game styles).  The Dogs built from within and when Beveridge took over he reaped the rewards of what Macca had put in place and he was able to put a game style and development program in place that clicked with this side.  

If we were to compare lists at the end of 2014 I think most of us would realise that the Dogs had far more talent on their list than we did.  Macca put the foundation in place, Beveridge then picked up the ball and ran with it.  When Roos took over we didn't even have a ball for him to pick up and bounce.  We came from much, much further back.

Edited April 21, 2016 by Wiseblood

[old55 23,024]

2 hours ago, binman said:

• A better comparison might be Clarkson who developed his game plan over time and recruited the right players to fully  implement the attacking game plan that has become the modern template

 

[Gator 17,261]

26 minutes ago, Deeoldfart said:

Paul Roos' leadership and people managements abilities have been a huge part of the progress we have made during his time as senior coach (dishwater to Moet compared to his recent predecessors).  Game plans and strategies are irrelevant if you don't have the entire playing list, Footy Department and beyond working in harmony, in both the good times and the tough ones. We have made a quantum leap forward in the last couple of years, and I can't think of anyone who might have done a better job in the circumstances than Roosy.

Notwithstanding earlier comments about the GP I completely agree.

Whichever way it's spun, Roos will justly receive plaudits for what he's done for the club in the years to come.

 

And I also suspect Chris left a word out which completely changed the meaning of his sentence (not hard to work out) btw).

[Chris 2,892]

14 minutes ago, Baghdad Bob said:

Wasn't he voted coach of the year last year?

The perils of a missing two letters. Was meant to be hasn't, not has. Whoops. 

Have changed the original.