1 minute ago, Wrecker45 said:

If we didn't turn the ball over we wouldn't even bother with a defence.

In what Utopia do turnovers not occur. ? Is part of the game. Chess is variable and has any number of outcomes but its clinical.  Pieces cant do anything other than the rules allow.  Footy is governed by the shape of the ball. So much can happen despite the best of plans. Footy is sporting chaos theory in practice. You cant come at it with an  neatly boxed style. It will be your undoing every week.

7 minutes ago, Akum said:

The other thing about the Diamond Defence that just occurred to me. The Dogs often defended by pushing us out wide, but attacked through the corridor, which is what we were trying to do. For long periods of the game, they owned the corridor. I don't know this for sure, but it may well be that Diamond Defence works better against attacks from out wide than from through the corridor.

Interesting point.

I played Hockey at a moderately high level, and there are a lot of parallels with the diamond defence in the type of 4-man structure I mostly commonly played under. Hockey is a game where much of the attack is along the flanks, and the defence would pivot around the side of the ground the attack was coming from. This structure is very effective at guarding space and foiling attacking thrusts when there are limited angles of attack (such as from the flanks). It is harder to defend balls coming through the corridor; in this scenario we would revert to a more man-on-man set up. This was also the team rule in the 16-yard "D" (for those that don't know hockey, you can only score from within this zone). 

This is where the two-way running is paramount, and requires the mids to be 'on' all the time and force the attacks out wide, where we are better able to defend space. 

Another advantage of the diamond, which other have alluded to, is that it forces the forwards out wide. This means that whilst they may take a lot of marks inside 50, they will be wider and force the forward to take a lower % shot. This is being played out in the relatively poor conversion against us. 

3 hours ago, beelzebub said:

or teams who are quick with effective slick handballing who look to kick a shorty  quickly...BANG !! split wide open...Goal !!  every single bloody time

With the extra two numbers around the ball in the midfield we are;
1) backing our players to win the clearance
2) backing our players to provide enough pressure to/blocking space in front of the ball carrier if the opposition win the clearance that they can't hit a pinpoint wormburner to a leading forward

The strategy seems to be that if we lose the clearance the opposition will either have to kick a blind long bomb forward where our "diamond" will converge to squeeze the marking options and either mark the footy or kill the contest or be forced wide out to the wings/flanks where we can then reset and block space in the corridor forcing them wide to the pockets. Where it seems to break down is if teams get out the back quickly (ala the Dogs) and work the ball around until they can hit up a leading forward around the 45-50m mark. This is still a relatively low % shot at goal which may account for the seeming inaccuracy of our opposition.

2 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

With the extra two numbers around the ball in the midfield we are;
1) backing our players to win the clearance
2) backing our players to provide enough pressure to/blocking space in front of the ball carrier if the opposition win the clearance that they can't hit a pinpoint wormburner to a leading forward

The strategy seems to be that if we lose the clearance the opposition will either have to kick a blind long bomb forward where our "diamond" will converge to squeeze the marking options and either mark the footy or kill the contest or be forced wide out to the wings/flanks where we can then reset and block space in the corridor forcing them wide to the pockets. Where it seems to break down is if teams get out the back quickly (ala the Dogs) and work the ball around until they can hit up a leading forward around the 45-50m mark. This is still a relatively low % shot at goal which may account for the seeming inaccuracy of our opposition.

I just like that we are backing our players now. So many years we have played assuming we were going to lose each contest. Now we play assuming we will contests, and look at the results we lead the comp in center clearances and are way up the top in contested. I think some here arn't giving the dogs the credit they deserve. There were quite alot undefendable handballs and kicks. No defence is perfect and ours is still a WIP what did people expect against a top 4 side?

31 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

In what Utopia do turnovers not occur. ? Is part of the game. Chess is variable and has any number of outcomes but its clinical.  Pieces cant do anything other than the rules allow.  Footy is governed by the shape of the ball. So much can happen despite the best of plans. Footy is sporting chaos theory in practice. You cant come at it with an  neatly boxed style. It will be your undoing every week.

BS - styles/game plans are getting pretty sophisticated now. They will fall down on occasion but in the long run a team will be better off for being drilled in a specific structure and will win more often than they lose.

Look at the innovation of coaches like Roos, Craig, Clarkson, Thompson, Malthouse etc just over the last decade.

13 minutes ago, ArtificialWisdom said:

I just like that we are backing our players now. So many years we have played assuming we were going to lose each contest. Now we play assuming we will contests, and look at the results we lead the comp in center clearances and are way up the top in contested. I think some here arn't giving the dogs the credit they deserve. There were quite alot undefendable handballs and kicks. No defence is perfect and ours is still a WIP what did people expect against a top 4 side?

Yep they are a very well drilled team and had clearly done their homework. Beveridge looks the goods. Step 1 for them was nullifying Gawn to reduce our ability to win the clearances. Step 2 was to lock the ball up if we did gain first possession so we couldn't get it out cleanly (despite more numbers around the ball) and try to force it back to a 50/50 contest or turnover. Where we came undone was our inability to match their pressure around the contest/stoppages - how many times did we tackle them and/or a pack was formed only for them to get the ball out the back into space just before a ball up was called? This allowed them to go from a 50/50 in congestion to controlling the play in space. Their players immediately streamed forward in waves and at speed with our players struggling to run back with them to cover an opponent.

The other area they killed us was defensive running when we had the ball coming out of the backline. Again, if we won the midfield contest and kicked forward the ball rebounded out at speed (if it wasn't marked) due to their willingness firstly win the disputed ball and then gut run back up the ground. If we won the ball in our backline via a turnover they had already covered space across the midfield before we really even had a chance to move the ball forward or look up for options in a version of "Clarko's Cluster".

Bottom line is they attacked the contest harder, ran harder and were more disciplined in regards to their structures than us which is why they won the game.

Edited May 18, 20169 yr by Dr. Gonzo

Apologies if someone's already said this, but can we call this the "Deemond Defence"?

I was listening before to a woman on SEN talk about netball tactics against opposition. She was referring to not always going through one star player, and in the AFL she mentioned Buddy and GAJ. Aside from that, what struck me was when she talked about clubs needing a fair degree of unpredictability in their set ups and plans, not always doing the same thing. When a team plays to a similar pattern each week, any opposition who have done their homework will quickly work out ways of getting around it. The Australian water polo team in 2000 specifically mixed up their patterns which regularly lead to confusion by their opponents. Other teams never knew who was going to shoot for goal. I believe they won the gold that Olympic year. 

Whilst we are yet to master this so-called diamond defence, it will be quickly worked out and countered by teams that are well organised and sufficiently skilled to work around it, partly because it leaves us highly vulnerable when things go wrong.

Do we need a number of different patterns, defence/offence strategies or options? Or can someone point out where we have attempted this?

23 minutes ago, Moonshadow said:

I was listening before to a woman on SEN talk about netball tactics against opposition. She was referring to not always going through one star player, and in the AFL she mentioned Buddy and GAJ. Aside from that, what struck me was when she talked about clubs needing a fair degree of unpredictability in their set ups and plans, not always doing the same thing. When a team plays to a similar pattern each week, any opposition who have done their homework will quickly work out ways of getting around it. The Australian water polo team in 2000 specifically mixed up their patterns which regularly lead to confusion by their opponents. Other teams never knew who was going to shoot for goal. I believe they won the gold that Olympic year. 

Whilst we are yet to master this so-called diamond defence, it will be quickly worked out and countered by teams that are well organised and sufficiently skilled to work around it, partly because it leaves us highly vulnerable when things go wrong.

Do we need a number of different patterns, defence/offence strategies or options? Or can someone point out where we have attempted this?

Of course we do.First principals of war go to elements of surprise and presenting a camouflaged outline.

If we keep doing the same thing continually without any variation or change  we'll get beaten, by our OWN game.

People carry on about this and that or such and such is over rate.

The Pups invariably had Stringer right smack in the middle of the diamond as they collected on a turnover or clearance.

Tell that was purely coincidental.

Edited May 18, 20169 yr by beelzebub

5 hours ago, ArtificialWisdom said:

You mean Roughy moved into a less dangerous position? That is exactly what they want. They want players marking the ball deep in the pockets. A long, high contested kick out of the middle allows Tom to get to most contests aside from ones deep in the pockets whicho only results in a low % shot at goal. Thats a success. The zone leaves us vaulnerable to uncontested accurate low worm burning kicks but with an extra 2 in the middle that shouldn't happen. I emphasise shouldn't because right now while we're learning and we will make mistakes. Give it time, its gonna be frustrating to watch for now, but we will get there. 

No AW.

Tom was in the right quadrant.

Roughy moved left to almost directly in front of goals.

Just now, Barney Rubble said:

No AW.

Tom was in the right quadrant.

Roughy moved left to almost directly in front of goals.

Ok then that allows the 3 at the back of the diamond to converge on him when the ball gets kicked in. Hitting a man surounded by 3 defenders is difficult and a risk that we are willing to take. Assuming none of the converging defenders can take a grab we are backing in our mids and half backs to get to the fall of the contest and help contest the loose ball then clear it. Its a full team effort and thats why it failed at times on the weekend but you're kidding yourself if you think there weren't diamond successes during the game. I can guarantee the dogs were pointing out flaws in their own zone after that game too. We were not able to exploit them a much as they did us. Doesnt mean our gameplan was worse just means they are a better team.

20 hours ago, Sir Why You Little said:

He will spend time in the midfield

as i said no wonder Roosy ripped into him. 

He ripped into him because we want quality players on the field and he will be quality and it was dik move to get yourself reinjured after a year out - the intimation that he is pivotal to this defensive structure is a nonsense.

(if you said Gawn, Viney, Tyson or Jones then I get it  - but Petracca ? really ?) 

Edited May 18, 20169 yr by nutbean

3 hours ago, DeeZee said:

It's almost like we are sacrificing possible wins in order to practice this and get it right.

I inferred this a couple of weeks ago after the St Kilda loss. Roos and co will back their systems in and trust the players to make the right adjustments during the match. 

This is a season where Roos can take all the flack if the team appears to 'fail', so what better time to attempt to implement a really vigorous form of this Diamond Defence and learn on the job. 

It'll probably work 40-50% of the time and in return we'll therefore win between 10-12 games for the season. I think most supporters would take that. Of course we'd prefer to be playing finals and we may, but I think the biggest focus this year is working on our scoring power. As the season progresses the team and coaches will make their adjustments and learn their way into this system. I'm sure the FD will then start to layer these systems with further tinkerings. 

I know I am at odds with some modern elements. So be it but a basic problem in my view with an ideal of this defence is that you're hoping often to deny the oppos fwd much option once he has the ball. 

Anyone else see the flaw here ?

I understand the reasoning

We are 3rd in hitouts,

We are 1st in clearances and centre clearances.

So when big Maxy is in the form he has been in why wouldn't you set up an offensive plan to capitalise on it ?

I don't see the issue of losing the centre clearance as I haven't seen us burned too badly  - the ball comes into our forward line pretty quickly -  The diamond has pretty effective as it is usually a bit of bomb in an then under some pressure . The issue we have is if we get the ball and turn it over going forward as the half backs have then pushed up way tooo far and we will absolutely get hammered on the counter attack as the ball comes first to a loose on the wing/ half back line and then it is an easy entry into our back 50.

8 minutes ago, AdamFarr said:

I inferred this a couple of weeks ago after the St Kilda loss. Roos and co will back their systems in and trust the players to make the right adjustments during the match. 

This is a season where Roos can take all the flack if the team appears to 'fail', so what better time to attempt to implement a really vigorous form of this Diamond Defence and learn on the job. 

It'll probably work 40-50% of the time and in return we'll therefore win between 10-12 games for the season. I think most supporters would take that. Of course we'd prefer to be playing finals and we may, but I think the biggest focus this year is working on our scoring power. As the season progresses the team and coaches will make their adjustments and learn their way into this system. I'm sure the FD will then start to layer these systems with further tinkerings. 

Adam it may well at some point win you 10-12

How then do we win another 5-6 ?

2 hours ago, ArtificialWisdom said:

I just like that we are backing our players now. So many years we have played assuming we were going to lose each contest. Now we play assuming we will contests, and look at the results we lead the comp in center clearances and are way up the top in contested. I think some here arn't giving the dogs the credit they deserve. There were quite alot undefendable handballs and kicks. No defence is perfect and ours is still a WIP what did people expect against a top 4 side?

Helps that we are building proper foundations now and we have the cattle to implement plans like this. I'd argue there's still a bit of list work to be done to ensure this plan is a success going forward.

But the idea of backing our players is a very Hawthorn idea. For example, Clarkson will rarely tag players, he'll simply back his own mids to win their position. 

I completely agree. It's a fantastic and earnest footballing philosophy. 

2 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Yep they are a very well drilled team and had clearly done their homework. Beveridge looks the goods. Step 1 for them was nullifying Gawn to reduce our ability to win the clearances. Step 2 was to lock the ball up if we did gain first possession so we couldn't get it out cleanly (despite more numbers around the ball) and try to force it back to a 50/50 contest or turnover. Where we came undone was our inability to match their pressure around the contest/stoppages - how many times did we tackle them and/or a pack was formed only for them to get the ball out the back into space just before a ball up was called? This allowed them to go from a 50/50 in congestion to controlling the play in space. Their players immediately streamed forward in waves and at speed with our players struggling to run back with them to cover an opponent.

The other area they killed us was defensive running when we had the ball coming out of the backline. Again, if we won the midfield contest and kicked forward the ball rebounded out at speed (if it wasn't marked) due to their willingness firstly win the disputed ball and then gut run back up the ground. If we won the ball in our backline via a turnover they had already covered space across the midfield before we really even had a chance to move the ball forward or look up for options in a version of "Clarko's Cluster".

Bottom line is they attacked the contest harder, ran harder and were more disciplined in regards to their structures than us which is why they won the game.

Completely agree on this as well. The strange feeling I took away from the game was that despite winning, the Dogs beat us in the work rate stakes and each player knew exactly what role they were meant to be playing in their system. Our guys have been playing this style for eight rounds. With experience playing to this system, I think we'll surpass teams like the Bulldogs on shear talent levels. They have a manic midfield, good decision makers and ball users, but I'm not sold on their forwardline and in time, I think our midfield will match them and our forwardline could be very scary to match up on.

18 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

Adam it may well at some point win you 10-12

How then do we win another 5-6 ?

I've said it since last year. We'll win 10-12 games this year. 

This will work pretty much every second week, because our team is so wildly inconsistent. We've won 4. I reckon we'll win two in the next month that'll put us to 6 wins after 12 rounds and we'll win at least 4, 5 maybe 6 more in the second part of the year.

I know we get down on ourselves after a loss, but stay the course. Things are finally starting to turn at Melbourne. Hip hip bloody hooray.

Edited May 18, 20169 yr by AdamFarr

1 minute ago, AdamFarr said:

I've said it since last year. We'll win 10-12 games this year. 

This will work pretty much every second week, because our team is so wildly inconsistent. We've won 4. I reckon we'll win two in the next month that'll put us to 6 wins after 12 rounds and we'll win at least 3 or 4 more in the second part of the year.

I know we get down on ourselves after a loss, but stay the course. Things are finally starting to turn at Melbourne. Hip hip bloody hooray.

I understand it straight after the game and hell i feel it too but people are getting way too negative after each loss and way too positive after each win. If we win this week some people will be talking finals again 

12 minutes ago, ArtificialWisdom said:

I understand it straight after the game and hell i feel it too but people are getting way too negative after each loss and way too positive after each win. If we win this week some people will be talking finals again 

Yeah, I guess this is what you get when you've been so success-starved. 

3 minutes ago, AdamFarr said:

Yeah, I guess this is what you get when you've been so success-starved. 

Im just looking at the likes of Port and Richmond and thinking I dont want a quick fix to shove us into finals this year. I want a structure that can get us in and win finals next year and beyond. I believe the Diamond at full strength is something that can do that.

8 minutes ago, ArtificialWisdom said:

Im just looking at the likes of Port and Richmond and thinking I dont want a quick fix to shove us into finals this year. I want a structure that can get us in and win finals next year and beyond. I believe the Diamond at full strength is something that can do that.

I think you've always got to keep adapting your structures and game style, but if you find something that could work in modern footy and just requires tinkering, then I'm all for it. I'd much prefer us testing things out at this stage, because Goodwin won't have as much luxury. 

19 minutes ago, AdamFarr said:

I've said it since last year. We'll win 10-12 games this year. 

This will work pretty much every second week, because our team is so wildly inconsistent. We've won 4. I reckon we'll win two in the next month that'll put us to 6 wins after 12 rounds and we'll win at least 4, 5 maybe 6 more in the second part of the year.

I know we get down on ourselves after a loss, but stay the course. Things are finally starting to turn at Melbourne. Hip hip bloody hooray.

Adam.. I understand what youre saying and possibly I didnt quite frame the question thoroughly.

I can see how we can beat some teams this way  though I still question the logic of one effectual plan and worry over who is to carry it out. That aside, muy thinking is that some teams we'll beat with this...that goes to the 10-12, this year or otherwise. There are those teams who will best us if we stick staunchly to this ideal simply because they are more experienced and talented, hence where does the other 5-6 come from ?

We need a style(s) of play that can beat teh other team in the grand final. If we havent beaten them to get here is all seems rather moot .

1 hour ago, nutbean said:

He ripped into him because we want quality players on the field and he will be quality and it was dik move to get yourself reinjured after a year out - the intimation that he is pivotal to this defensive structure is a nonsense.

(if you said Gawn, Viney, Tyson or Jones then I get it  - but Petracca ? really ?) 

Every player from Half back to half  forward spends time in the midfield in the modern game

tracc is a competitive raw beast right now that would be a strong part of this defensive (and attacking zone) if it is to work

34 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

Adam.. I understand what youre saying and possibly I didnt quite frame the question thoroughly.

I can see how we can beat some teams this way  though I still question the logic of one effectual plan and worry over who is to carry it out. That aside, muy thinking is that some teams we'll beat with this...that goes to the 10-12, this year or otherwise. There are those teams who will best us if we stick staunchly to this ideal simply because they are more experienced and talented, hence where does the other 5-6 come from ?

We need a style(s) of play that can beat teh other team in the grand final. If we havent beaten them to get here is all seems rather moot .

Right. Well, how I reply to your final line is that I think we'll layer our style and our structures, and player expectations will become more complex as the seasons roll on. We won't rest on the Diamond Defence. We'll tinker and try to improve it. We'll start to layer B Plans into our game play. But all of this will not suddenly happen over one year. Let's get the Diamond Defence right first. Once we do, we can then start to compliment it with B Plans and alterations on the same thing, making us unpredictable. Right now we are predictable to a well coached side, I agree, but the unpredictability will come.

Edited May 18, 20169 yr by AdamFarr