The Diamond Defence

[Binmans PA 26,780]

 

20 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

We are playing the long game. We could do a Terry Wallace and come up with a style to beat the top team in round 6 or 21 but which won't get us to finals let alone win a flag. Should we focus on getting our structures right and trying to get the players to learn to play the game on their terms or panic and fold when things don't go our way and play to the oppositions strengths? We are looking to implement a sustainable system that can get us to finals, GF's and hopefully premierships. Sacrificing that to try to win a game in round 8 that we would be a good chance to lose anyway won't benefit us.

Bottom line is we'd be stupid to not mix things up or have a "plan B / C" but we also need to drill the way we want to play into our players. We are the youngest team in the comp- Petracca Oliver Hunt Wagner haven't even played 5 games. Another chunk haven't made 50 yet including Viney, Gawn and Hogan. We all want success now but the fact we are even trying something innovative is heartening, I'm not sure I've ever seen that from a Demons coach/team, maybe Balme's handball/possession game he brought over from SA but even that wasn't original as other teams had already implemented something similar, notably the Crows.

Spot on, my Gonzo friend. Viney's played 50 games now, but agree with everything else. This is about a sustainable Melbourne. Prolonged footballing success.

[Binmans PA 26,780]

3 hours ago, Barney Rubble said:

OD.

I know we are still developing but We get done by Messendrugs and the Saints.

Not what you call top 8 teams.

Stone Age thinking, Barney.

Edited May 18, 2016 by AdamFarr

[Dr. Gonzo 22,848]

14 minutes ago, Chook said:

I just hope one day I see a Melbourne game in which our coach makes a tactical move that wins us that game, even though it might not be 100% in line with our predetermined gameplan. That would be nice.

Yes match day flexibility would be great, haven't seen that since, maybe ever. That will come but these days it is generally just tweaks or reverting to something that has been practiced not a spur of the moment restructure.  The days of Sheedy switching his forwards and defenders to bamboozle the opposition are done, not least of which is because nowadays all players are drilled in both offence and defense.

[Thrice 216]

8 hours ago, Chook said:

I just hope one day I see a Melbourne game in which our coach makes a tactical move that wins us that game, even though it might not be 100% in line with our predetermined gameplan. That would be nice.

Roos did it in the game against GWS at 3/4 time, and we won.

He switched Jones and Vince between m/f and hbf, put Garlett to a wing, pushed Watts to a higher hf and isolated Hogan deep forward. He spoke about it in the presser after the match.

You might recall him putting hogan in the middle for the third term after a quiet 1st half to get him a feel for the ball... Which was repaid with 3 goals in the final term.

I surmise it was because we were on top in the contest all day, so we backed ourselves to continue that and had the pace and creativity of Garlett and Watts delivering into the forward line. Kennedy was killing it on the other wing all game as well.

[ManDee 7,101]

14 hours ago, beelzebub said:

If nothing else youd think there was an option for when Max WASNT taking the bounce 

Diamond defence of topaz tokenism, good when it works. Apologies to Mr Tilbrook.

Beeb we could reverse it and have the forwards rush in. The forward diamond when big Max takes a rest.

[beelzebub 22,766]

1 minute ago, ManDee said:

Diamond defence of topaz tokenism, good when it works. Apologies to Mr Tilbrook.

Beeb we could reverse it and have the forwards rush in. The forward diamond when big Max takes a rest.

Not bad idea . Would confuse the F out of everyone. Amongst the mayhem we squirrel out some goals. Genius ManDee, memo the club !! 

[nutbean 8,837]

15 hours ago, Sir Why You Little said:

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

I'll give it one more go - you intimated that Roos was extra dirty on Petracca due to him being a  key component  to this "diamond defense"and his absence hurting this structure

The diamond defense relies on Gawn winning the tap to the inside mids and the HBF's pushing hard into the square to give us more numbers around the clearance.

Petracca this year was always going to be a half forward with a run or two into the centre square - this is exactly what has transpired.

Every player is important to a game plan but as to key components to the diamond strategy.  Let's not overstate players importance who are not crucial to this strategy. Number one is Gawn  - it is essential he gets the tap to advantage or at worst halves the contest. Number two  - the inside mids - that would be Viney, Jones and Tyson (Oliver now being the addition to this trio with his great early form) must feed off Gawns tapwork or at worst not let the opposition mids clear the ball. Number three - the hbf's - Hunt, Wagner, Salem, Jetta, "H", ( and Vince when he plays there)  - push up hard to outnumber opposition at the contest. Number four - the four defenders left  - positioning is important for when the ball comes back in to minimise the damage.

So your original assertion ( read carefully what you wrote)

No wonder Roosy tore strips off Petracca over Summer. A fit and firing Trac would have helped get this Zone cement itself. 

Fcuking Slam Dunks. What an absolute Clown to be doing that. 

He must have been told he was a ley ingredient

He would not have been told he is key ingredient to the diamond defense because plainly he is not. ( he would have had strips torn off him as a player of his potential quality is needed in the team )

 

( actually there is only one key ingredient to the diamond defense and that is Gawn - if we did not have the best centre clearance ruckman in the league the aggressive nature of this  strategy would probably not be considered - interestingly both Jones and Tyson have now both confirmed that this diamond defense is only "a few weeks old" - that would be because it has been borne out of Gawn's amazing centre clearance work  - whilst it was hoped that Gawn would go to the next level his rise has been outstanding - another reason why Petracca would not have been told he is "key ingredient" )  

Edited May 18, 2016 by nutbean

[Dr. Gonzo 22,848]

2 hours ago, Thrice said:

Roos did it in the game against GWS at 3/4 time, and we won.

He switched Jones and Vince between m/f and hbf, put Garlett to a wing, pushed Watts to a higher hf and isolated Hogan deep forward. He spoke about it in the presser after the match.

You might recall him putting hogan in the middle for the third term after a quiet 1st half to get him a feel for the ball... Which was repaid with 3 goals in the final term.

I surmise it was because we were on top in the contest all day, so we backed ourselves to continue that and had the pace and creativity of Garlett and Watts delivering into the forward line. Kennedy was killing it on the other wing all game as well.

Very true, forgot about this. Hogan also started in the middle vs North from memory after a dirty day against the Dons.

[Skuit 9,382]

11 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

We are playing the long game. We could do a Terry Wallace and come up with a style to beat the top team in round 6 or 21 but which won't get us to finals let alone win a flag. Should we focus on getting our structures right and trying to get the players to learn to play the game on their terms or panic and fold when things don't go our way and play to the oppositions strengths? We are looking to implement a sustainable system that can get us to finals, GF's and hopefully premierships. Sacrificing that to try to win a game in round 8 that we would be a good chance to lose anyway won't benefit us.

Bottom line is we'd be stupid to not mix things up or have a "plan B / C" but we also need to drill the way we want to play into our players. We are the youngest team in the comp- Petracca Oliver Hunt Wagner haven't even played 5 games. Another chunk haven't made 50 yet including Viney, Gawn and Hogan. We all want success now but the fact we are even trying something innovative is heartening, I'm not sure I've ever seen that from a Demons coach/team, maybe Balme's handball/possession game he brought over from SA but even that wasn't original as other teams had already implemented something similar, notably the Crows.

I don't disagree with anything you've said here Gonzo. But the question then is is this a sustainable finals-proof system? And is it readily reversible/adaptable? As in, are we potentially teaching our players bad habits and trading/drafting with a game-plan in mind which may come unstuck (such as the Bailey-ball era - which, incidentally, was something of a mirror to the Roos approach but never reached an assessable conclusion due to a possibly premature abort. And one that left us in a world of trouble)?

[nutbean 8,837]

I think it can be switched on and switched off.

If Gawn is dominating then I think it is an excellent strategy.

When Gawn is resting and Pedo is rucking  - you would go back to a more traditional structure - I will watch carefully to see what they do on the weekend when Gawn isn't in the centre square for a bounce.

 

(further to this - a lot of strategies are not locked in for an entire game - for example Watts and Hogan both rotate playing further up the ground however when Hogan is on fire, as he was against the Saints they played him deep and left him deep)  

Edited May 19, 2016 by nutbean

[ManDee 7,101]

2 minutes ago, nutbean said:

I think it can be switched on and switched off.

If Gawn is dominating then I think it is an excellent strategy.

When Gawn is resting and Pedo is rucking  - you would go back to a more traditional structure - I will watch carefully to see what they do on the weekend when Gawn isn't in the centre square for a bounce.

More reason to play Spencer, The Pedo/Dawes/Frost experiment does not work. Gawn & Spencer has worked, time to give it another try.

[nutbean 8,837]

1 hour ago, ManDee said:

More reason to play Spencer, The Pedo/Dawes/Frost experiment does not work. Gawn & Spencer has worked, time to give it another try.

I'm of a different mind.

Spencer has not shown enough for mine.

He has had one good game against Geelong and a couple of other serviceable games.

I compare Spencer's best and Pedo's best.

Pedo never wins the ruck but to mind we have not been killed when he is rucking. That is more than compensated for when he has his serviceable games and he takes a few marks and kicks a few goals. 

Spencer has not dominated when he is the ruck and besides the Geelong game hasn't offered anything other than the centre bounce.

(I won't discuss Frost as he has been a fail as a forward/ruck and Dawes just cannot get himself fit)

Please note that I have no love for Tyrone Vickery but we need someone that has had his productivity.

Vickery - 14 goals 11 pts = 25 scores. 30 marks and 25 hit outs - 70 disposals

Pedersen  - 5 goals 5 pts = 10 scores. 30 marks and 30 hit outs   - 103 disposals

So Vickery hits the scoreboard way more from way less disposals and has about the same amount of hitouts.

It tells me that neither Spencer or Pedo are the answer.

( i would use Spencer as first ruck if Gawn goes down)

Edited May 19, 2016 by nutbean

[ManDee 7,101]

1 hour ago, nutbean said:

I'm of a different mind.

Spencer has not shown enough for mine.

He has had one good game against Geelong and a couple of other serviceable games.

I compare Spencer's best and Pedo's best.

Pedo never wins the ruck but to mind we have not been killed when he is rucking. That is more than compensated for when he has his serviceable games and he takes a few marks and kicks a few goals. 

Spencer has not dominated when he is the ruck and besides the Geelong game hasn't offered anything other than the centre bounce.

(I won't discuss Frost as he has been a fail as a forward/ruck and Dawes just cannot get himself fit)

Please note that I have no love for Tyrone Vickery but we need someone that has had his productivity.

Vickery - 14 goals 11 pts = 25 scores. 30 marks and 25 hit outs - 70 disposals

Pedersen  - 5 goals 5 pts = 10 scores. 30 marks and 30 hit outs   - 103 disposals

So Vickery hits the scoreboard way more from way less disposals and has about the same amount of hitouts.

It tells me that neither Spencer or Pedo are the answer.

( i would use Spencer as first ruck if Gawn goes down)

2015 comparison Spencer V Vickery followed by Dawes and Pedersen.

 

Player Statistics Comparison   Jake Spencer Name Tyrone Vickery Melbourne Demons Team Richmond Tigers Ruck Position Forward 36 Career Games 110 Redwood Origin Sandringham Dragons October 9, 1989 Date of Birth May 31, 1990 Turned 26 in 2015 Age Turned 25 in 2015 203cm Height 200cm 108kg Weight 99kg 2010 National Draft Last Drafted In 2008 National Draft Round 6, Pick #96 Last Draft Position Round 1, Pick #8 Melbourne Demons Last Drafted By Richmond Tigers 2015 Stats for Season 2015 7 Games 15 2.9 Kicks Per Game 7.2 4.9 Handballs Per Game 3.3 7.7 Disposals Per Game 10.5 1.3 Marks Per Game 4.9 0.4 Goals Per Game 2.1 0 Behinds Per Game 0.6 5.0 Tackles Per Game 1.5 24.7 Hitouts Per Game 5.7 1.7 Frees For Per Game 0.9 1.6 Frees Against Per Game 0.9 4.9 Contested Possessions Per Game 4.7 2.9 Uncontested Possessions Per Game 6.1 6.1 Effective Disposals Per Game 7.1 79.2% Effective Disposals % Per Game 67.6% 2.4 Clangers Per Game 2.0 0.6 Contested Marks Per Game 1.3 0.4 Marks Inside 50 Per Game 2.4 2.3 Clearances Per Game 0.8 0.3 Rebound 50s Per Game 0.1 3.4 One Percenters Per Game 2.1 0 Bounces Per Game 0 82.0 Time On Ground % Per Game 85.9 66.4 AFL Fantasy Score Per Game 66.0 72.4 Supercoach Score Per Game 77.9     Player Statistics Comparison   Chris Dawes Name Cameron Pedersen Melbourne Demons Team Melbourne Demons Forward Position Forward 115 Career Games 59 Sandringham Origin Box Hill Hawks May 16, 1988 Date of Birth March 17, 1987 Turned 27 in 2015 Age Turned 28 in 2015 193cm Height 193cm 101kg Weight 98kg 2006 National Draft Last Drafted In 2011 National Draft Round 2, Pick #28 Last Draft Position Round 5, Pick #84 Collingwood Magpies Last Drafted By North Melbourne Kangaroos 2015 Stats for Season 2015 14 Games 7 7.1 Kicks Per Game 6.6 4.8 Handballs Per Game 6.0 11.9 Disposals Per Game 12.6 4.3 Marks Per Game 5.3 0.8 Goals Per Game 0.9 0.9 Behinds Per Game 0.9 1.5 Tackles Per Game 2.6 3.1 Hitouts Per Game 3.3 1.5 Frees For Per Game 1.0 1.1 Frees Against Per Game 0.7 5.3 Contested Possessions Per Game 5.6 6.4 Uncontested Possessions Per Game 7.0 8.6 Effective Disposals Per Game 9.1 72.3% Effective Disposals % Per Game 72.2% 2.1 Clangers Per Game 1.9 1.1 Contested Marks Per Game 1.4 0.9 Marks Inside 50 Per Game 1.3 0.7 Clearances Per Game 1.3 0.5 Rebound 50s Per Game 0.6 1.1 One Percenters Per Game 1.9 0 Bounces Per Game 0 88.9 Time On Ground % Per Game 82.0 56.8 AFL Fantasy Score Per Game 66.0 59.1 Supercoach Score Per Game 70.7   Edit:- Stats from footywire.com

Edited May 19, 2016 by ManDee

[nutbean 8,837]

So ManDee what did you glean from the stats ?

My take is that Spencer has one string to his bow - he is tap ruckman. Doesn't take nearly enough marks or kick goals or get disposals

Vickery hits the scoreboard more than any of the players listed and that is why if you need a second string behind Gawn you want someone who can have some value when Gawn is rucking. To me if Gawn is rucking then Spencer sits on the pine. He doesn't mark and he doesn't kick goals. 

Dawes is hard to gauge as his body fails him but if he got to his 2010 form, he could pinch hit in the ruck.

If Pedo hit the scoreboard as frequently as Vickery he would be the answer IMO.

 

[ManDee 7,101]

12 minutes ago, nutbean said:

So ManDee what did you glean from the stats ?

My take is that Spencer has one string to his bow - he is tap ruckman. Doesn't take nearly enough marks or kick goals or get disposals

Vickery hits the scoreboard more than any of the players listed and that is why if you need a second string behind Gawn you want someone who can have some value when Gawn is rucking. To me if Gawn is rucking then Spencer sits on the pine. He doesn't mark and he doesn't kick goals. 

Dawes is hard to gauge as his body fails him but if he got to his 2010 form, he could pinch hit in the ruck.

If Pedo hit the scoreboard as frequently as Vickery he would be the answer IMO.

 

We do not currently have a good forward/second ruck. Frost, Dawes & Pederen are not good enough. Spencer as a forward is not that far behind but is far superior in the ruck. Max get tired and needs help. I think at this point in time Spencer is a better option.

Edit: As a forward/second ruck Spencer would put the wind up most sides with his aggression and size, it may force other sides into playing 2 monsters against us. We should try it for a few weeks if only to give Max a break.

Edited May 19, 2016 by ManDee

[nutbean 8,837]

57 minutes ago, ManDee said:

We do not currently have a good forward/second ruck. Frost, Dawes & Pederen are not good enough. Spencer as a forward is not that far behind but is far superior in the ruck. Max get tired and needs help. I think at this point in time Spencer is a better option.

Edit: As a forward/second ruck Spencer would put the wind up most sides with his aggression and size, it may force other sides into playing 2 monsters against us. We should try it for a few weeks if only to give Max a break.

I think that Spencer is miles behind Dawes and Pedersen - but you are right in that it might make other teams play another very tall to combat him.

I think we can both agree that none of the suggestions are ideal.

Edited May 19, 2016 by nutbean

[ManDee 7,101]

17 minutes ago, nutbean said:

I think that Spencer is miles behind Dawes and Pedersen - but you are right in that it might make other teams play another very tall to combat him.

I think we can both              that none of the suggestions are ideal.

agree

[Dr. Gonzo 22,848]

So - anyone at the game taking notes yesterday? Did we utilise this setup? Was it at every centre bounce or just haphazardly through the day? Was it only when Gawn was rucking?

[ArtificialWisdom 3,965]

8 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

So - anyone at the game taking notes yesterday? Did we utilise this setup? Was it at every centre bounce or just haphazardly through the day? Was it only when Gawn was rucking?

It was used quite a lot but i didnt take notice all that much. We got a few good handballs out the back because of it coming from the centre bounce and some turnovers as we wanted. But as against the GC it was aided but opponent ineptitude. I'll be interested to see how it goes in the next 2 weeks. Against a team about our level and one who is well above.

[boydie 653]

The diamond defences biggest test will be Hawthorn.

It will either help us cause an upset by winning it from the centre or it will cost us a heavy defeat.

In that being said going man on man in the past has still seen us beaten convincingly by Hawthorn, might as well keep rolling with it.

Edited May 23, 2016 by boydie

[george_on_the_outer 7,112]

32 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

So - anyone at the game taking notes yesterday? Did we utilise this setup? Was it at every centre bounce or just haphazardly through the day? Was it only when Gawn was rucking?

FIrst of all, the talk about Diamond defence is wrong to be frank. 

The fact that David King put it up under that name doesn't bear much resemblance to what is going on.  It is a diamond set-up for the back 4 at centre square bounces.  It lasts for 30 seconds in that form.

We set up differently from the GC game where the wingers were swung around to come in from the HB line.  In the Brisbane game we varied their starting location, sometimes wing sometimes HB.

The problem with what is a Zone defence ( which is what it should transition to after the bounce) is that we don't have the players who can execute it well.  At the moment defenders are getting sucked up toward the ball and forgetting about the man behind them or coming in from the opposite boundary or from the middle.  We were cut apart by St.Kilda and the Bulldogs time and time again.  GC and Brisbane haven't got the players or nouse to do the same.  We are still defending with the same ineptitude, it's is just the standard of opposition that determines how much it leaks.

Garland and Michie were serial offenders on the weekend.  They just lose the opponent time and time again.  Michie was the extra man back for at least 1/2 the game and didn't pick up anyone at any time.  Wagner went back and showed how it should be done. 

[Diamond_Jim 12,120]

Hi

I have been following this site for many years including the down years which seem to have lasted most of my life !!

Would just like to say that I love threads like this where rather than one line comments, many knowledgeable posters have taken the time to analyse the tactics employed by the team.

I must say I have difficulty imagining how a zone defence works on such large expanses as the MCG by comparison to a basket ball court or even an NFL field. In the first example one is a relatively small sized court while with NFL each play starts with players in an almost identical position as compared to the previous play. By contrast in AFL the permutations for where a ball can come from and how it can arrive are enormous.

Keep it up and many thanks to the administrators for this valuable and entertaining resource.

[Dr. Gonzo 22,848]

1 hour ago, Diamond_Jim said:

Hi

I have been following this site for many years including the down years which seem to have lasted most of my life !!

Would just like to say that I love threads like this where rather than one line comments, many knowledgeable posters have taken the time to analyse the tactics employed by the team.

I must say I have difficulty imagining how a zone defence works on such large expanses as the MCG by comparison to a basket ball court or even an NFL field. In the first example one is a relatively small sized court while with NFL each play starts with players in an almost identical position as compared to the previous play. By contrast in AFL the permutations for where a ball can come from and how it can arrive are enormous.

Keep it up and many thanks to the administrators for this valuable and entertaining resource.

I agree, threads like these are why I sought out footy forums in the first place!

I guess one aspect of "zoning" in AFL is you really can contract or expand the ground if you are good at executing a zone. For example, you don't need to zone the entire field, only the area between where the ball is and how far the opposition can kick it (so about 60 metres in any direction). If a team is stagnant and finds themselves stuck on a flank or back pocket it is easy to contract the ground and suffocate a teams ball movement - this is why teams try switching the play but it only works if it is down quickly and aggressively. Otherwise you just end up in the same position on the other side of the ground.

This is why zones often break down from fast ball movement off half back because clubs have been in "attacking" mode and haven't had the time to reset their zones. It can also fall down during open or 50/50 play towards the corridor of the ground because the entire front half of the oval is open and difficult to defend with a comprehensive zone while also setting up players to attack.

[beelzebub 22,766]

2 hours ago, george_on_the_outer said:

The problem with what is a Zone defence ( which is what it should transition to after the bounce) is that we don't have the players who can execute it well. 

Not to disregard as to what else you wrote as it was  interesting but this single  line above , in a nuitshell,  describes our predicament presently.

We're short a FB .Tom is better as a CHB imho  and not needing to be the General down there.  This may be a way back in for Trengove for mine as he is an astute reader of the ball and clever in what he does with it  Ill be interested to see if Jack gets a run soon and where he plays. I think he could really make a difference with this newish perspective of defending.

[3Dee 1,153]

On 19/5/2016 at 11:46 AM, nutbean said:

Pedo never wins the ruck but to mind we have not been killed when he is rucking. 

Not confident in this statement, getting slaughtered when Gawn was resting during NM game immediately comes to mind.