For those of you  who, like me, did not understand our failure to play man-on-man against the Saints, and again on Sunday, it was explained last night by King.

Here it is:

http://www.geelongadvertiser.com.au/video/id-dkczdqMzE6LndKLOC0cqCBdRAmrq9zUW/The-Demons-Diamond-Defence

Ok, does it work though?

On 5/17/2016 at 10:42 AM, Petraccattack said:

Ok, does it work though?

All depends on Max, if we lose out of the middle we're going to get scored against heavily, if we win it's going to allow us to score heavily from clearance. 

i like the idea but i do think we need a plan B because while it allows us to have the patches where we kick 5-6 goals quickly, it allows the opposition to do the same at times.

Who came up with the observation  first? The Age 3 days ago or the Geelong Advertiser?

http://www.smh.com.au/sport/opposition-analyst-western-bulldogs-defence-learn-new-tricks-20160513-goukwu.html

I had just posted this on another thread:

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 basketball 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. 

I noticed it since preseason and I like it.

Usually teams follow the half backs up and then it becomes 4 v 4 down back with the Dees defenders in perfect position to win the ball back and our 2 half backs are aggressive up the ground.

What concerns me is whether the plan B is there.

Riewoldt followed the half backs up against the Saints and shredded us in transition, as McDonald never got back on him and Lumumba and co were confused.

I also think it highlights the need for versatile defenders. Every defender has to be a strong aerial defender, strong intercept mark, good reader of the play and good at ground level. 

Jetta, Hunt, Wagner, Lumumba, Salem and Vince all have good attributes to play this style but they also have weaknesses. Tommy McDonald's endurance and ability to attack the ball in the air and mark is made for this game plan, but he has to be reading it well and jumping for his marks. On the days he has confidence issues he turns a strength in to a weakness. The less said about Dunn and Garland the better.

1 hour ago, DeeSpencer said:

I noticed it since preseason and I like it.

Usually teams follow the half backs up and then it becomes 4 v 4 down back with the Dees defenders in perfect position to win the ball back and our 2 half backs are aggressive up the ground.

What concerns me is whether the plan B is there.

Riewoldt followed the half backs up against the Saints and shredded us in transition, as McDonald never got back on him and Lumumba and co were confused.

I also think it highlights the need for versatile defenders. Every defender has to be a strong aerial defender, strong intercept mark, good reader of the play and good at ground level. 

Jetta, Hunt, Wagner, Lumumba, Salem and Vince all have good attributes to play this style but they also have weaknesses. Tommy McDonald's endurance and ability to attack the ball in the air and mark is made for this game plan, but he has to be reading it well and jumping for his marks. On the days he has confidence issues he turns a strength in to a weakness. The less said about Dunn and Garland the better.

It works fine if the ball is bombed into the forward line.

It's a good basic plan but it needs to be tweaked to adjust to different situations. I guess we study "tweaking" in Semester 2.

The philosophy here is actually great. It's a bit like the triangle offense in the NBA: every player has a role, and if every player plays that role perfectly, the offense is unbeatable. That translate into defense, with more fast breaks, better transition. We saw it with the Bulls in the 90s, Lakers last decade, and the Warriors now who have tweaked it and incorporated it into their defense.

As King said, it puts the onus onto the midfield to win the ball. If they don't, it is then the responsibility of the midfielders and the half-backers to run both ways and get back into defense to block the hole.

It absolutely has to work like a well-oiled machine. There is zero margin for error. Many on here bemoan Melbourne for playing an "outdated" style but we're trying something new and unique and once (if) it works, then everything will be fine.

It demands accountable football 100% of the time. 

I don't think we lost against the Saints or the Bulldogs because of this. We lost in other areas of the ground. They were flat against the Saints, who won too much of the ball at the stoppage. The Bulldogs played the MCG better than we did and had players those few extra feet out of stoppages. They got the handball out and they had a few meters of space to deliver forward.

Ultimately I think that in our losses this year excluding the North loss, we've lost it in the middle, not down back. In matches where Vince, Gawn, Jones and even Oliver aren't particularly influential -- they might get the stats but don't really provide us with much run or drive -- we tend to struggle.

2 hours ago, george_on_the_outer said:

 you have to be able to transition from zone to man-on-man or even a combination of both. 

I wish that bit could be rammed home. Its the quintessential key to it all. The ability to morph.   When predators attack in nature they often start with a coralling  movement then transition to attacking the prey. Ive never figured out why we dont do this. More times than I ever care to remember I see a player (s)  moving to thwart an opponent only to then inescapably shadow them as opposed going the jugular..aka  TACKLING

The notion of being able to do both in tandem , in a fluid manner is really what the very best teams do . You just don't notice it as such.

I realise there are team plans, team orders, role-playing etc but this ought not out rank common sense. We seem rooted in the idea of "this is what we MUST do"  Good teams adapt all parts of their play to overcome whatever is placed in front of them.

In nature its adapt or die . We can be a little more generous in footy; Adapt or LOSE

It's heavily reliant upon Gawn winning it to the midfield IMO. If the opposition win the ball out with a quick clearance kick we're out of position around the 50m line/half forward. (See example on replay). 

Risk for reward. If there is a sudden turnover on our forward line. Quick movement by the opposition can also put us out of whack. 

I like the initiative shown and I see the positives; it's critical we (i) win the ball/clearance (ii) maintain possession (iii) get the right execution - effective disposal.

Obviously the opposition analysts of teams will back their plan to win the ball, or try nullify Gawn's influence - see Hickey on Gawn, Dogs v Gawn.

We were quite well drilled in our defence as a team ( Bball ) Some games just went all over the place though as players on one team worked out how to best an opposition. We then had to change up to deny this. Sometimes  it was double manning...one being man a man the other effective zoning, but not a zone in the classic sense. We adapted.  Sometimes things just werent going our way so  we'd reboot, stem the flow and slowly grind out a game based on WHATEVER was working  and minimising whatever wasn't

I accept the FD ?Coaches are trying to keep things fairly simple  and not over load the guys with too many plays  but I think they are doing this as a disservice to our goal , that is, to win.

 

There is always I suppose the reality we just arent good enough at any  of this  to not be torn apart when it falters. A work in progress as it were. An Engineer always has a back up, a fall back position for when the unexpected happens, though in truth it cantbe totally unexpected as its planned for ..lol

I dont lke this throwing all eggs into one basket approach of defending

Modernized Bailey-ball. All attack off half back and we either score heavily or get done.

Would prefer we don't push both halfbacks up as our defense gets sucked up the ground too in our losses. Seeing guys like N Reiwoldt just standing by himself inside 50 is just stupid.

Edited May 17, 20169 yr by Lord Travis

3 minutes ago, Lord Travis said:

Modernized Bailey-ball. All attack off half back and we either score heavily or get done.

Would prefer we don't push both halfbacks up as our defense gets sucked up the ground too in our losses. Seeing guys like N Reiwoldt just standing by himself inside 50 is just stupid.

Stringer seemed to have his own paddock at times.  Just does my head in at times.

Something else that occurs to me was , and I acknowledge its a different sport Bball , was that going into many games we knew we had to be wary of this bloke or another..or whatever, i.e a certain style press of something that was the forte of the team we played. We would have been foolhardy to stick regimentally to one method only.

 

By all means teach and deploy various style of attack or defending but they are only elements,, arrows to a quiver as it were. 

How many times have we watched at a game , even at the center bounce  and it can depend simply on which way it favours. Sometimes you can see the disaster even before it plays out..

 

funny game footy at times

3 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

Stringer seemed to have his own paddock at times.  Just does my head in at times.

Yeah he kicked 5 goals but had zero impact on the game as evidenced by the fact neither coach game him a single vote out of the 10 despite the 5 goals. Just stood there and made the most of his teammates work. He's so overrated Stringer, crumbled the second he has any pressure on him and kicks a bag in did matches when no one is near him.

How exactly does someone kicking 5 goals not impact a game ?

We lost by how much again ?

22 minutes ago, H_T said:

It's heavily reliant upon Gawn winning it to the midfield IMO. If the opposition win the ball out with a quick clearance kick we're out of position around the 50m line/half forward. (See example on replay). 

Risk for reward. If there is a sudden turnover on our forward line. Quick movement by the opposition can also put us out of whack. 

I like the initiative shown and I see the positives; it's critical we (i) win the ball/clearance (ii) maintain possession (iii) get the right execution - effective disposal.

Obviously the opposition analysts of teams will back their plan to win the ball, or try nullify Gawn's influence - see Hickey on Gawn, Dogs v Gawn.

Nullify, the first centre bounce to create a second stoppage. Then the opposition ruckman jumps early to negate Gawn; their third man up punches it clear - sideways towards their Wingman who then clears to their free man wide on the half-forward flank who pinpoints a pass to the free player alone in the centre of 'the diamond'.

Not yet sold on this Diamond set-up. Think the top-sides will rip it apart (my apologies for this veil of negativity).

 

3 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

How exactly does someone kicking 5 goals not impact a game ?

We lost by how much again ?

Because Isaac Weetra could've kicked 5 in the same position. He did zero work for the goals and could've been replaced by anyone and the outcome wouldn't have changed.

The scoreboard flattered us, this was a 10 goal loss. 

It came down to the midfield, as it always does.

Edited May 17, 20169 yr by Lord Travis

2 minutes ago, Lord Travis said:

Because Isaac Weetra could've kicked 5 in the same position. He did zero work for the goals and could've been replaced by anyone and the outcome wouldn't have changed.

The scoreboard flattered us, this was a 10 goal loss. 

It came down to the midfield, as it always does.

Geez, I think you're flattering Weetra.

6 minutes ago, Lord Travis said:

Because Isaac Weetra could've kicked 5 in the same position. He did zero work for the goals and could've been replaced by anyone and the outcome wouldn't have changed.

The scoreboard flattered us, this was a 10 goal loss. 

It came down to the midfield, as it always does.

Irrelevant of who it actually was...he was given largess by our ODD defending to do as he did. Thats the point

Never should have been given that space

3 hours ago, Peter Griffen said:

All depends on Max, if we lose out of the middle we're going to get scored against heavily, if we win it's going to allow us to score heavily from clearance. 

i like the idea but i do think we need a plan B because while it allows us to have the patches where we kick 5-6 goals quickly, it allows the opposition to do the same at times.

Bloody hell, no pressure Maxy!

24 minutes ago, TRIGON said:

Nullify, the first centre bounce to create a second stoppage. Then the opposition ruckman jumps early to negate Gawn; their third man up punches it clear - sideways towards their Wingman who then clears to their free man wide on the half-forward flank who pinpoints a pass to the free player alone in the centre of 'the diamond'.

Not yet sold on this Diamond set-up. Think the top-sides will rip it apart (my apologies for this veil of negativity).

 

The Diamond will work more often than not but we need to get good enough that opposition needs to follow our half backs. The dogs didnt show our half backs respect because they were beating us in the middle. We get control there and we will rip any team apart with those kinds of numbers and space. Unfortunatly as we are inexperienced we will make mistakes and its going to sting every time it happens. As we know already

The numbers don't seem quite right as a risk v reward calculation. It begins with a even contest in the middle. We clearly lose that and end up with a 50% disadvantage in defence. We clearly win the initial contest and go forward to an even contest. If the initial contest is split we get an additional 27ish% advantage in the next immediate contest to again go forward to an even contest while the 50% disadvantage remains in defence.

Things to note:

My maths is terrible.

Football doesn't necessarily work like that. 9v7 in the middle and 4v6 up forward have different ramifications when spatial elements are factored in.

We clearly believe that the initial contest is not even and we have the starting advantage - but then, wouldn't the overall rewards be greater if we pressed this advantage alone?

But: This is probably why we're seeing a lot of attacking handball chains through the middle. We have the numbers but not the space. These chains are especially high risk in this scenario as the turnover is immediately to opposition advantage. Our hand-balling execution was notably down on the weekend (even half our goals came at the end of sloppy chains).

It's the kicking forward to an even contest which is the biggest problem in this equation. The % gain in the middle might win the middle but the disadvantage in defence persists should we lose the next even contest - i.e. teams consistently having ample space and numbers out the back when earning possession off half-back. Clearly, we're looking to counter this by splitting the forward contest and pressing the numbers' advantage up to the next line.

Conclusions: 

This apparent tactic goes a long way to explaining certain things going on at the selection/trade tables.

Expect to see Dawes come in soon with his expertise at bringing the ball to ground (aka dropping marks).

It's possibly not an issue of Dunn not getting it but perhaps an attitude/frustration problem as an old fashioned defender being constantly outnumbered in defence when you would normally hold yourself to certain levels of accountability for scores against.

 

Bb i see your point about tge beed for a plan b and not having one comes at the exspense of maximizing the chances of winning.

 I wonder though with such a big strategic change combined with such an inexperienced  side that they only really can focus on plan a. The hawks can have plan a, b and c

Well at least we know why fefenders stand all by themselves. 

Yet another year of learning. 

I still back our CEO

MAKE THE 8 Demons

4 minutes ago, binman said:

Bb i see your point about tge beed for a plan b and not having one comes at the exspense of maximizing the chances of winning.

 I wonder though with such a big strategic change combined with such an inexperienced  side that they only really can focus on plan a. The hawks can have plan a, b and c

It had occurred to me also. Seems too rigid an ideal .. Imho