Thanks Dr Gonzo....... great and simple explanation.

That explains perfectly why teams who have players who can run and carry for say twenty to thirty metres such as Harvey at North Melbourne are so vital to overcoming a zone defence. Similarly while over commitment to a zone (moving up too far) can come back to bite you so easily.

Another question.... how many players are usually playing the zone defence at any one time. I realise it can vary but in this thread we are criticizing our backs in the main whereas the zone seems to encompass a few more than 4-6 players.

Since "Clarkos Cluster" maybe even earlier, usually teams will have an 18 man zone across a portion of the field. This would only be when the opposition have the ball and usually in a static position (free kick or mark). There was some footage of Geelong vs Adelaide last week where the Cats had an 18 man zone across the midfield down one flank/wing side and moved across as the Crows tried to switch play.

Not sure what teams do when the ball is in dispute, I'd say they're more likely to have a traditional defence (man on man) with one or two loose men dropping back rather than a zone because like you said previously it's too hard to zone off the big field while also trying to win the ball and attack yourself. So zones are likely only used when the opposition gets a free kick or mark.

Edited May 23, 20169 yr by Dr. Gonzo

Beveridge was pretty effusive in his praise of this on Fox tonight. 

"It might be a tactic if you're really pressing back into the game. For me it's up to Roosy and his crew to... they're on the front foot, you know, they've been scoring outrageously well. Some of the changes they've made in their game is as significant as you'd ever see from one year to the next. It is rolling the dice to a degree, but I think they can afford it because of Gawn and their inside mids. They're trusting that, and credit to them."

Of course, all respect gained for Beveridge was immediately lost when he chose Stringer over Hogan in their "Best Modern Key Forward" contest, after giving effusive praise for how important Tom Boyd to their structure. 

In fairness, Jonesy didn't hesitate choosing Chunk last week. 

Edited May 23, 20169 yr by SaberFang

38 minutes ago, SaberFang said:

Beveridge was pretty effusive in his praise of this on Fox tonight. 

"It might be a tactic if you're really pressing back into the game. For me it's up to Roosy and his crew to... they're on the front foot, you know, they've been scoring outrageously well. Some of the changes they've made in their game is as significant as you'd ever see from one year to the next. It is rolling the dice to a degree, but I think they can afford it because of Gawn and their inside mids. They're trusting that, and credit to them."

Of course, all respect gained for Beveridge was immediately lost when he chose Stringer over Hogan in their "Best Modern Key Forward" contest, after giving effusive praise for how important Tom Boyd to their structure. 

In fairness, Jonesy didn't hesitate choosing Chunk last week. 

Yeah, I'm not convinced by what Luke said here. If you write it out, I think it sounds very effusive, but I thought he was being more diplomatic. I sensed he felt it wasn't the right course, but he's a coach with his own philosophies, so I guess he wouldn't agree with it completely. Particularly as he beat us when we played it.

Obviously, we're yet to see this system really click for us and it'll be interesting to see whether we can limit our turn overs against good sides. If we can do that, the Diamond Defence may well work this season, but the Bulldogs will back in their systems, we'll back in ours. At least we're being proactive and trying something relatively new. It'll be interesting to see how the FD tinkers with it across the year.

Edited May 23, 20169 yr by AdamFarr

Realistically I think it should probably be used more as a tactic than a strategy in the future, being deployed on occasion or against an oppositon where we think we would have the advantage. Obviously if we're getting killed in the centre clearances there's no point as we will leave ourselves wide open.

Going back to "zoning" in general and teams employing 18-man zones, I've thought for a couple of years now that a good way for the AFL to combat zoning (if that's what they want to do) and try and get teams playing man-on-man is to reduce the number of players on the field. The size of the oval means that with only 14, 15 or 16 players it would make it pretty difficult to implement a zone as it would be stretched too thin with the gaps between the defenders too big to cover. If you have a player on the back flank and have 18 men zoned in front and to the side of him about 50-60 metres it makes it almost impossible to work through with kicking. Removing 2, 3 or 4 links in the chain would make it less effective and I wonder whether clubs would continue to employ it.

The other factor is we have the same amount of players on the field as we did at the turn of the 20th century when players were amateur and nowhere near the elite fitness levels of players today. This means that we have the same number of players on the same sized fields but now able to cover a far greater area of the ground in a shorter amount of time and for longer periods with elite endurance. Even just 15-20 years ago the interchange was used nowhere near to the extent it is today. The "quick burst" style of play encouraged by the explosion in interchange numbers from sub-20 numbers up to 130 (now limited to 80) in under 15 years has seen the evolution of the defensive style of play as clubs have now been able to push players to their limits in covering ground and running back hard to cover space. The reduction in interchange has limited this somewhat but the numbers are still ~400% greater than they were when the Lions three-peated.

1 hour ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Realistically I think it should probably be used more as a tactic than a strategy in the future, being deployed on occasion or against an oppositon where we think we would have the advantage. Obviously if we're getting killed in the centre clearances there's no point as we will leave ourselves wide open.

 

Great point Gonzo. If you have a strategy set in stone, it will get picked apart by good coaches. I've often feared the Roos' tenure as our coach has been all about what we do on the field, rather than how the opposition sets up it's structures. I don't sense any plan B, and the Saints and Dogs games were a classic case.

1 hour ago, mo64 said:

Great point Gonzo. If you have a strategy set in stone, it will get picked apart by good coaches. I've often feared the Roos' tenure as our coach has been all about what we do on the field, rather than how the opposition sets up it's structures. I don't sense any plan B, and the Saints and Dogs games were a classic case.

It's definitely been a teaching role as coach for Roos. I think you need to bed down your own structures and style of play first and once your comfortable with that you can then tinker around the edges to try and combat the opposition plan. No doubt we've done some of that but the major thing for Roos/Goodwin is to try and teach the players how we want to play and how to get the opposition playing on our terms. Otherwise we'll always be playing to the oppositions strengths by letting them dictate the terms of the game.

I think you'll start to see us combat opposition game plans more next year once Goodwin takes over. You can't deny Roos has pretty much accomplished what he said he would in the 3 years by moving from a defensive to a more balanced game. We are 3rd in the comp for points for, unimaginable over the last 5 or 6 years.

30 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

It's definitely been a teaching role as coach for Roos. I think you need to bed down your own structures and style of play first and once your comfortable with that you can then tinker around the edges to try and combat the opposition plan. No doubt we've done some of that but the major thing for Roos/Goodwin is to try and teach the players how we want to play and how to get the opposition playing on our terms. Otherwise we'll always be playing to the oppositions strengths by letting them dictate the terms of the game.

I think you'll start to see us combat opposition game plans more next year once Goodwin takes over. You can't deny Roos has pretty much accomplished what he said he would in the 3 years by moving from a defensive to a more balanced game. We are 3rd in the comp for points for, unimaginable over the last 5 or 6 years.

Blind Freddy could see that in the games against Essendon, North, Saints and Dogs, we needed to shut down their most dangerous forwards in Daniher, Harvey, Reiwoldt and Stringer. In each case, the opposition mids got on top, but there was no plan B to lock down on their most dangerous forward, and limit the damage.

12 hours ago, SaberFang said:

Beveridge was pretty effusive in his praise of this on Fox tonight. 

"It might be a tactic if you're really pressing back into the game. For me it's up to Roosy and his crew to... they're on the front foot, you know, they've been scoring outrageously well. Some of the changes they've made in their game is as significant as you'd ever see from one year to the next. It is rolling the dice to a degree, but I think they can afford it because of Gawn and their inside mids. They're trusting that, and credit to them."

Of course, all respect gained for Beveridge was immediately lost when he chose Stringer over Hogan in their "Best Modern Key Forward" contest, after giving effusive praise for how important Tom Boyd to their structure. 

In fairness, Jonesy didn't hesitate choosing Chunk last week. 

Beveridge is a little like what Daniher was like in that he is completely one-eyed and unforgiving of his team's assessment. Of course he'd have Stringer over Hoga.

2 hours ago, mo64 said:

Great point Gonzo. If you have a strategy set in stone, it will get picked apart by good coaches. I've often feared the Roos' tenure as our coach has been all about what we do on the field, rather than how the opposition sets up it's structures. I don't sense any plan B, and the Saints and Dogs games were a classic case.

Who's to say that we aren't only implementing this as a tactic though? We certainly don't use it all the time.

55 minutes ago, AdamFarr said:

Who's to say that we aren't only implementing this as a tactic though? We certainly don't use it all the time.

We've played zone defence all year, but in different guises. I'm saying that at times you need to lock down on certain opposition players, but that doesn't necessarily mean man on man across the ground. 

I love it. We back our mids in and attack. It will come unstuck fairly often now but as the team develops it could be a major srength. The alternative is to go man on man and score 60 points a game.

The thing I noticed during the Brisbane game is that our mids generally play in offensive positions at centre stoppages, knowing that the half backs have the other side covered. Towards the end of the game, the half-backs for whatever reason weren't there and Brisbane were outnumbering 4 to one on their side of the contest. We got away with it through Brisbane's complete lack of skill and our contested work but for this to function properly, those half backs have to reach the contest very quickly.

It's a bold strategy and I hope we hold our nerve and continue to refine it.

34 minutes ago, mo64 said:

We've played zone defence all year, but in different guises. I'm saying that at times you need to lock down on certain opposition players, but that doesn't necessarily mean man on man across the ground. 

Yeah, I meant we haven't played the Diamond Defence all year and certainly not the same guise, as you put it.

19 minutes ago, WAClark said:

I love it. We back our mids in and attack. It will come unstuck fairly often now but as the team develops it could be a major srength. The alternative is to go man on man and score 60 points a game.

The thing I noticed during the Brisbane game is that our mids generally play in offensive positions at centre stoppages, knowing that the half backs have the other side covered. Towards the end of the game, the half-backs for whatever reason weren't there and Brisbane were outnumbering 4 to one on their side of the contest. We got away with it through Brisbane's complete lack of skill and our contested work but for this to function properly, those half backs have to reach the contest very quickly.

It's a bold strategy and I hope we hold our nerve and continue to refine it.

I agree, it's quite an attacking tactic and I like it. Better than watching dour footy, if it's not working you can always readjust.

We are third on the ladder for points scored 978, Adelaide 1017  Giants 1012. We are ninth for points conceded 861. I think our defensive structures are helping us score more. As we get better at it we will win more games. I know that clubs will counter the DD and that we will have counter plans to their plans. Footy is becoming more like chess every year, and finally we have coaches that can play.

 

 

Edit- I left a word out.

Edited May 25, 20169 yr by ManDee

The concept of man on man defence is one which forwards will thrive in, find the mismatch, take them to the square allow for players to play up the field and drag their opponents with them, which is why the way teams are moving is towards a more zone dependent backline allowing for team mates to help out in marking contests.

But the real reason it is important is for intercept possession all around the ground. Score of turnover is almost the most important stat in creating a high scoring team, but also creating a lower points against. Plain and simply, the major understanding of high pressure from our forward half, creating turnovers up the ground or at the very least a balloon ball that allows for a spoil/stoppage creation.

When our team defence gets picked apart, the biggest issue is the midfielders having little pressure on the football, and this usually was a combination of us spreading forward and making a turnover but also the defence not being able to press up to create pressure on the opposition player benefiting from the turn over. This will improve with time, with players gaining more experience and therefore more likely to win the contest rather than make a fumble or from team mates being able to read the situation better and respond adequately.

The way forward is through zoning correctly and our massive offensive improvement this year is majorly due to our defensive aspects being right.

21 hours ago, WAClark said:

The thing I noticed during the Brisbane game is that our mids generally play in offensive positions at centre stoppages, knowing that the half backs have the other side covered. Towards the end of the game, the half-backs for whatever reason weren't there and Brisbane were outnumbering 4 to one on their side of the contest. We got away with it through Brisbane's complete lack of skill and our contested work but for this to function properly, those half backs have to reach the contest very quickly.

 

WAClark - can you just clarify these terms? Is offensive positioning lining up goalside/forward of the ruck or do you mean in front of their direct opponents? Where were the Brismids going when we set up like this? A bit confused.

I don't find myself as worried about our team/zone defence as others appear to. Clearly there are games where we get beaten on the rebound more than others but IMO the main problem isn't the zone, it's the way the opposition team gets the ball in the first place - almost always from a turnover across half-forward. Even Brisbane on Sunday were able to get some easy inside 50s when we were on the attack but turned it over going inside our 50. Teams are going to find it harder to score against us when we stop turning it over as much as we do.

I think the positioning and the set ups are pretty good, really, though I agree that at times both our last line in defence or our deepest forwards are pressing too high up the ground. But in a zone-style defence, I think the best thing for us is to continue to play the same core players together as much as we can. They'll learn and feed off each other, they'll know when someone pushes up where to cover behind them, etc.

On 25/05/2016 at 11:52 AM, Skuit said:

WAClark - can you just clarify these terms? Is offensive positioning lining up goalside/forward of the ruck or do you mean in front of their direct opponents? Where were the Brismids going when we set up like this? A bit confused.

Yeah, goalside of the centre bounce or stoppage. Both midfields running the gaunlet.

Very interested to know if the Diamond Defence was employed today and particularly whether it was used in the first five minutes of the third quarter.

It does rely upon a clear win in the ruck which was something lacking today.

On the AFL site it mentioned that as at the start of the final quarter:

"Melbourne ruckman Max Gawn has averaged 37 hitouts at the MCG this season. So far today he has 34, including 12 to advantage. He has had the better of his Adelaide counterpart, Sam Jacobs, who has 22 hitouts, of which seven have gone to a teammate. "

The Diamond defence was utilised, but in the 3rd quarter the Crows dropped either Cameron or Betts to CHB and then ran straight into the middle. 

Gawn kept hitting the ball forward to their hands or those players skirted the pack and took the receive to drive the ball deep into attack. 

It took the coaches nearly the whole quarter to wake up to it. 

Thanks George

Interesting listening to Leigh Matthews over the weekend where he was saying that the ruckman is almost irrelevant. All you need is someone to make a contest and that it is the old fashioned "follower" who has become the key clearance man.

While we have a dominant ruckman we need to continue to work on strategies to maximise that dominance. At the very least we need to negate quick movement by the opposing side at our expense.

The other thing he was saying is that some teams deliberately play from behind which allows them to sit on the player who receives the tap out and who then suffers an immediate tackle. This results in a secondary ball up which is of course a different tactic in that all players and a third man up are allowed near the ball thus negating the ruckman's dominance.

 

 

Gawn hits it to 10 o'clock nearly every time.

One day we might realise this before "them".

47 minutes ago, george_on_the_outer said:

The Diamond defence was utilised, but in the 3rd quarter the Crows dropped either Cameron or Betts to CHB and then ran straight into the middle. 

Gawn kept hitting the ball forward to their hands or those players skirted the pack and took the receive to drive the ball deep into attack. 

It took the coaches nearly the whole quarter to wake up to it. 

We had Kent, Petracca and Garlett from half back ALL DAY. They had Cameron, Betts and Douglas do the same. 

They started with 7 back on our 5 forwards. We had 5 defenders and the rolling in half forward set up in the diamond against their 5 forwards.

We then placed the spare half back flanker (usually Hunt) out near a wing, and therefore had 2 on 1 on that wing. Our plan was for Gawn to hit it out towards the wing with the spare and then get clearances that way. Obviously for the first quarter and at the start of the 3rd it was awful. Watts went back in the 3rd to give us an extra number deep back. 

Both teams were happy to roll the dice at centre clearances with a forward coming through. With Adelaide's extra down back and ours on a wing. It was an interesting tactical battle.

16-15 centre clearances a piece and most of the early 3rd quarter stuff came from the team being asleep. Maybe we didn't capitalise on Gawn enough, but then again Sloane/Thompson/Crouch bro's is probably a stronger midfield than what we had out there today in Jones/Viney/Tyson/Vanders

3 hours ago, Diamond_Jim said:

Thanks George

Interesting listening to Leigh Matthews over the weekend where he was saying that the ruckman is almost irrelevant. All you need is someone to make a contest and that it is the old fashioned "follower" who has become the key clearance man.

While we have a dominant ruckman we need to continue to work on strategies to maximise that dominance. At the very least we need to negate quick movement by the opposing side at our expense.

The other thing he was saying is that some teams deliberately play from behind which allows them to sit on the player who receives the tap out and who then suffers an immediate tackle. This results in a secondary ball up which is of course a different tactic in that all players and a third man up are allowed near the ball thus negating the ruckman's dominance.

Just another totally out of touch comment from Leigh Matthews. That bloke is embarrassing these days and has been for quite a while now.

You can't tell me if you took out Gawn, we be doing as well in the clearances.