What an impressive and eloquent man he is!

I like the idea of the defence, and I think this year while we are still getting used to it we'll have good days and bad.  These things take a little time.

It does rely a little on Gawn getting on top in the middle and allowing our midfielders, with those half back flankers, to dictate the play.  It also means our smaller forwards need to work super hard to create plenty of pressure.

46 minutes ago, Clint Bizkit said:

Good thing Brock McLean isn't replacing Jones.

David King just advocated Fremantle tanking. I [censored] you not.

"What's the incentive for winning?"

Of all the shows to say it on

2 minutes ago, P-man said:

David King just advocated Fremantle tanking. I [censored] you not.

"What's the incentive for winning?"

Of all the shows to say it on

He's a muppet. A coach as intelligent as Ross Lyon would know that tanking hurts a club more than receiving picks a little lower in the order. Nathan Buckley on the other hand...

7 minutes ago, joeboy said:

What an impressive and eloquent man he is!

Took the words right outa my mouth Joeboy.

3 words. Impressive and eloquent.

This Diamond Defence.  I'm wondering which coach had the biggest hand in it's planning.  My first thought was that it must be something Goodwin cooked up, but then I remembered that Roos has been saying from the beginning that he wanted two running Half-backs who could break lines and kick.  Maybe this is what he needed them for and it's something he's been sitting on for years and just never got the chance to use before now? 

It would also explain how we keep seeing Nev marking guys a half a foot taller than himself.  If the HBs are out then he gets the third tall, sometimes the first or second tall if they've pushed out then cut back behind their man. 

Diamond defence didn't work on the weekend maybe a rhombus defence next time. Seems a very risky strategy that will result in a scoring chance nearly every time we lose a centre clearance.

Prefer the dodecahedron myself

6 minutes ago, chook fowler said:

Prefer the dodecahedron myself

That's all well and good, but there'd be no players anywhere else.

 

 

11 minutes ago, leucopogon said:

Diamond defence didn't work on the weekend maybe a rhombus defence next time. Seems a very risky strategy that will result in a scoring chance nearly every time we lose a centre clearance.

They did mention that it was reliant on Gawn/Viney centre wins. It was good footage, but they only showed the one example a few times, would have been nice to see a few more examples.

Also mentioned that if the half forwards follow our half backs in to try and keep numbers even that it'd throw their structure/positioning/plans off. 

I wonder if the diamond defence plan was why they were so keen on Malkshem to come in -  the half back that pushed up to provide extra midfield option and good engine to work back. 

6 minutes ago, Kumamoto_Ken said:

That's all well and good, but there'd be no players anywhere else.

 

 

That's the idea

13 minutes ago, chook fowler said:

Prefer the dodecahedron myself

Can't we keep it simple, the equilateral triangle defence? But who would be the hypotenuese? 

Just now, Earl Hood said:

Can't we keep it simple, the equilateral triangle defence? But who would be the hypotenuese? 

That's a bit obtuse

18 minutes ago, leucopogon said:

Diamond defence didn't work on the weekend maybe a rhombus defence next time. Seems a very risky strategy that will result in a scoring chance nearly every time we lose a centre clearance.

It was a coal defence on the weekend leuc.

6 minutes ago, Moonshadow said:

It was a coal defence on the weekend leuc.

More zirconium

14 minutes ago, Earl Hood said:

Can't we keep it simple, the equilateral triangle defence? But who would be the hypotenuese? 

An equilateral triangle has a hypotenuse?

Just now, mrtwister said:

An equilateral triangle has a hypotenuse?

Let's put Pythagoras at CHB. Knows how to switch play. 

Sitting behind the goals on Sunday and I can confirm this is exactly how we were setting up most of the time. 

There were two other set ups I observed, a man-on-man set up (only seen in the second half) and another that I can't quite recall (I think it was a 5 man set up with 2 on the last line like a pentagram rather than a diamond).

 

I like the diamond. It works when the midfield wins.

We need a plan B for when the midfield isn'tworking.

And we need a plan B for when the opposition exploits the zone by sending players deep and kicking long over the diamond which happened against both saint kilda and Footscray. 

I think at those times pushing the zone deeper in defence to cover the last line or sacrificing one of the extra mids might not be a bad option.  Obviously if the diamond is our plan that's what we want to stick to but a plan B set up for long enough to kill the oppositions advantage or to regain the momentum is worth considering. 

17 minutes ago, chook fowler said:

That's a bit obtuse

You have an acute sense of humour. 

I sat next to some person who had obviously read the age that morning.  The number of times she sprouted "oh, it the Bulldogs star pattern" even when it was in the midfield or their attack.  At one point I turned to her and remarked 'yes, I read that in the paper, too...'(it shut her up).

God help me, this week all I'm going to hear about is the flipping diamond!

21 minutes ago, Demon_spurs said:

You have an acute sense of humour. 

What's your angle?

Stringer kicked five goals but was a no-show for the coaches' votes this round. Would suggest the coaches know it was the set up that gave him chances, not anything brilliant he did.

I agree with buck_nekkid - we're going to have to avoid the 'diamond' or it will be ad nauseum in a hurry. Need a new name.

Half-back double thrust? Backend surge?

Ball-less rebound?

 

But more seriously, does this strategy also bring an argument for keeping a very very open forward line?

 

Edited May 16, 20169 yr by Little Goffy
error calculating piece of string

Maybe we could try a pyramid scheme against Geelong

The difficulty with the "diamond or star pattern" or whatever you want to call it, is that it is good for 30 seconds at the bounce of the ball in the middle. 

It doesn't work when the ball has been moved up the field and a turnover results.  Or as seen multiple times in the St.Kilda game, the play is on the opposite side to the interchange and Saints players were coming off the bench and slipping in behind the defenders un-marked. 

Against the Dogs we saw their mids prepared to run into the open space behind the defenders and how many times did they kick goals from inside the goal square without a Melbourne player in sight?

We saw 18 uncontested marks inside the defensive 50 with St.Kilda, and a good number again against the Dogs. 

I think Bealzebub said in another thread, who also has a baskeball background, you have to be able to transition from zone to man-on-man or even a combination of both. 

Sticking with 1 plan doesn't always work, you must adjust to the oppositions capabilities.