The "They're out here" Get Rid of the Zone Defence Thread

[DeeSpencer 25,414]

10 minutes ago, AdamFarr said:

Completely agree. How some posters can say we have more pressing needs than fixing our midfield shows their lack of understanding of the modern game. The game is won or lost in the midfield.

Adelaide just wiped GWS with Sloane, Thompson and who knows who else in the inside midfield. We need to win clearances and get better at that, but I think we need more versatile players across the ground. There's no more pressing need than the midfield (key defender aside), but we need to start building the midfield with complete players I think. 

[Adam The God 30,105]

2 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Port conceded the hitouts and then just sat on our midfielders forcing them into a turnover or locking it up for a second bounce to get the 3rd man up. We really had no idea how to combat that - on one occasion Jones tapped the ball on instead of taking possession and earned a free for holding the man but we should've been do this all day or until Port was forced to relax their tags a little bit. Otherwise Gawn should've just hit the ball into space instead of down Viney/Jones' throat and allowed our guys to run onto it 

It's interesting. It was hard to tell not being at the game today, but we certainly reverted to an aggressive set up at the centre bounces in the last 5-10 minutes of the third quarter. This is basically when we dominated. I don't think it was the Diamond Defence, but a very simple set up and allowed our mids a bit of freedom to run and opened up space. All our mids would start at the defensive side of the bounce and one or usually two players (mainly Viney) would sprint through the contest as the ball was bounced. Gawn would tap it down our player's throat and we'd win the clearance. We could do this setup because of Gawn's height advantage and it was interesting to see.

The other regular contest that [censored] me and that we need to address occur when team's kick to a contest on our half forward line. This usually involves Gawn competing against the opposition ruckman or a pack of players. The opposition get front and centre of Gawn and rove off him, subsequently carving through our zone with numbers. The Bulldogs did it repeatedly, as did Port. We need to be awake to this, because we become so easy to beat otherwise.

[DeeSpencer 25,414]

There's no greater example of zone defending in modern football than kick outs. Every team will push players up the ground, spread them across the middle and allow forwards to make it a foot race back to goal if they can win it clean across their half back line. 

Port got us so often from kick outs. 

Now you can blame the zone being too aggressive, which it probably was, or you can look at just how terribly we were once that kick out came. 

Almost every time they kicked long to Westhoff or Dixon and gathered numbers running through the pack to get the ball over the back, and almost every time Garland and the 2 McDonald's were unable to punch the ball with authority back towards our goal. In fact more than not they could barely spoil, even though it's obvious as can be where the kick out is going. The same thing happened around the ground, but the kick outs were the worst.

Operation fixing the zone defending part 1 is: Getting some forward pressure on.

Operation fixing the zone defending part 2 is: Getting some defenders willing to either take a strong intercept mark or put a strong fist through the ball and hit it back our way. The inability to get anything resembling a strong spoil for most of the day was horrendous.

[Adam The God 30,105]

22 minutes ago, Abe said:

The Zone defense isn't the issue, it's the poor execution of basic skills that come from our inexperience and adjusting to a new way of moving the ball that lead to us being exposed. When you play 18 man offense and 18 man defense when you make a mistake and there is a turnover we're totally exposed and that's why we're allowing so many easy marks inside 50, we will get better at this over time when the players learn how to set up the zone much quicker and it becomes instinct.  

Priority 1 is fixing our midfield, when guys like Brayshaw, Petracca, Oliver and co reach A grade level we will be fine, our game plan is built around the idea we're going to be able to win more of the ball out of the middle than our opposition, which we aren't always able to do yet, but next year and into the future we'll really get on top of this area and we'll be fine. 

When you implement a new game plan to such a young team you have to expect there will be some teething issues, we're playing a totally new plan, so effectively it's like having a brand new senior coach already, we are also playing the youngest and most inexperienced side in the comp and have returned a result of 5-5 with 2-3 games we should have/could have won on top of that, i'd say all things considered we're going along quite well, we should definitely win 8-10 games which i think would be a pass for this year all things considered and could potentially win more. 

I think it's really important that we stick to the Zone, it's not working brilliantly just yet and when we make mistakes our defense looks horrible, but the biggest issue is those mistakes and not the Zone, our setup is also a huge part of why we're now averaging plus 30 odd points for every game.

Spot on, mate. 

[Adam The God 30,105]

19 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

Adelaide just wiped GWS with Sloane, Thompson and who knows who else in the inside midfield. We need to win clearances and get better at that, but I think we need more versatile players across the ground. There's no more pressing need than the midfield (key defender aside), but we need to start building the midfield with complete players I think. 

I didn't see the Crows game. Were GWS 'on'? I agree that we need more outside class if that's what you're getting at, but I actually think we are building a lot of versatility in the midfield. Pretty much all our half forwards and midfielders rotate back and forth. But it's at the coal face that we are still short. Whenever Jones plays the majority of the game in the middle we know that we're struggling. I love Jones, but he's not elite and on an ideal day this year, we'd have Viney, Oliver, Tyson/Petracca and Gawn in there. But imagine having Viney, Oliver and Prestia in there. I guess what I'm getting at is we need more guys who can consistently win effective clearances. That is, not long bombs (Jones and Vince's signature clearance), but clean clearances that result in scoring shots. We don't have that enough at the moment.

23 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

There's no greater example of zone defending in modern football than kick outs. Every team will push players up the ground, spread them across the middle and allow forwards to make it a foot race back to goal if they can win it clean across their half back line. 

Port got us so often from kick outs. 

Now you can blame the zone being too aggressive, which it probably was, or you can look at just how terribly we were once that kick out came. 

Almost every time they kicked long to Westhoff or Dixon and gathered numbers running through the pack to get the ball over the back, and almost every time Garland and the 2 McDonald's were unable to punch the ball with authority back towards our goal. In fact more than not they could barely spoil, even though it's obvious as can be where the kick out is going. The same thing happened around the ground, but the kick outs were the worst.

Operation fixing the zone defending part 1 is: Getting some forward pressure on.

Operation fixing the zone defending part 2 is: Getting some defenders willing to either take a strong intercept mark or put a strong fist through the ball and hit it back our way. The inability to get anything resembling a strong spoil for most of the day was horrendous.

Exactly. If we get our forward pressure happening, even if our defenders fail to spoil the ball back inside 50, the incoming opposition players won't be able to break the lines and get over the back if our half forwards are on top of them.

[WERRIDEE 5,433]

Defensively we have been rubbish, Rawlings must get the chop at seasons end.

[Redleg 40,805]

15 hours ago, Forest Demon said:

I don't want to act like an expert and say lets do this of that. But whatever we have done from the St Kilda game onwards...let's not do that.

Any ok side have had there way with it.

There is no doubt in my mind that other coaches are planning to beat us, while we just continue with our game plan without modification. 

If we lose the Coach trots out the, we didn't play well, or didn't stick to the plan, or they were too big and experienced for us, or we should have played player X and made more changes. 

I understand we have a game plan but sometimes it won't work or we will not be able to follow it. On those occasions we need an alternate plan or two. I haven't seen any evidence of that. 

While it is commendable to try and execute the game plan, winning games now is also invaluable. The odd scrap, man on man or whatever that gets a win shouldn't be underestimated. I fear our Coaches don't see it that way. 

[praha 11,226]

Zone demands accountability and at the moment, young, experienced players simply aren't playing accountable football.

We will be better for it.

[Bombay Airconditioning 6,324]

15 hours ago, AdamFarr said:

Also, to half time, Kennedy, Kent and Garlett had a whopping total of 0 tackles between them. If these guys don't lay tackles, there is no press! It's up to the half forwards, just as much as the pure midfielders to lay these tackles.

Not to mention, Newton in particular is too slow to play across half forward. I hope his cards are marked now, because he is a truly horrible defensive player.

Why is that?

Why on Friday night did Boomer stand there and wait for Goldy to bend down and pick the ball up and pass it out to him rather than go in and get it himself.

Why didn't Geelong come to play against the Pies last week. 

How many more times must supporters from all clubs here "we didn't come to play" or "we didn't come switched on"

How hard can it be.

(Not looking for a direct response from you AF, more so just thinking out loud)

Edited May 28, 2016 by Bombay Airconditioning

[Cheap Seats 3,310]

I really felt our forwards let us down yesterday (not only the kicking for goal), Their pressure was terrible. 

So I agree with the sentiment of this thread and the disappointment I don't agree with the argument. They need to keep doing it until they master it.

Port highlighted again our 2 biggest weaknesses. the ability to hold the ball in our offence are (zone) and ball use. Our Ball use is terrible as well.

 

The good news is these are all fixable problems, the bad news is it probably won't be this season

[Nasher 33,607]

1 hour ago, Redleg said:

There is no doubt in my mind that other coaches are planning to beat us, while we just continue with our game plan without modification. 

If we lose the Coach trots out the, we didn't play well, or didn't stick to the plan, or they were too big and experienced for us, or we should have played player X and made more changes. 

I understand we have a game plan but sometimes it won't work or we will not be able to follow it. On those occasions we need an alternate plan or two. I haven't seen any evidence of that. 

While it is commendable to try and execute the game plan, winning games now is also invaluable. The odd scrap, man on man or whatever that gets a win shouldn't be underestimated. I fear our Coaches don't see it that way. 

I think the prevailing view among our coaches is that it's hard and time consuming enough drilling a group in one game plan that you can't really expect to be able to practice a second one with any effectiveness. I know many supporters dismiss that idea; I take the view that I don't have enough hours of experience in coaching an AFL side (zero) so I can only take their word for it, but it at least sounds like a reasonable proposition to me.

I think if anything, plan 'A' failing due to poor implementation of our defensive systems is evidence that plan 'A' needs more attention and rehearsal, not evidence that we should distract ourselves by ditching it and trying something else.

[Biffen 12,940]

Too many missed tackles all over the ground.

The zone is a load of post modernist crap.

In the 90's it was "the wall".

Basically,you have  a man you must beat-that never changes.

Stand in a triangle a diamond or a circle and they will plop the ball in the centre of it and watch us spoil each other because we lack COMPOSURE.

We lack composure because there is no plan of action-particularly when the ball is in flight.

Jade Rawlings been offered another contract?

 

[Wiseblood 24,637]

Just now, Nasher said:

I think the prevailing view among our coaches is that it's hard and time consuming enough drilling a group in one game plan that you can't really expect to be able to practice a second one with any effectiveness. I know many supporters dismiss that idea; I take the view that I don't have enough hours of experience in coaching an AFL side (zero) so I can only take their word for it, but it at least sounds like a reasonable proposition to me.

I think if anything, plan 'A' failing due to poor implementation of our defensive systems is evidence that plan 'A' needs more attention and rehearsal, not evidence that we should distract ourselves by ditching it and trying something else.

Well said, Nasher.

It's easy to see how some can be frustrated and annoyed at the diamond defence we are playing - when a team gets over the press you can guarantee, 8 times out of 10, that they will hit the scoreboard.  They have free players around the wings and as long as they hit the targets there is nothing we can do about it.

This doesn't mean the defence isn't working, or going to work for us going forward.  What it suggests is that, when players don't work hard enough and play their role, then we lose.  It's that simple.  It's easy to pot the younger players but it will take time and patience for them to implement it on a consistent basis.  Patience is not something Melbourne fans have a lot of left, but we need to be patient to potentially see the fruits of what we are putting place.

The way I see it, is that when many of our younger players have 50-70 games in them, this gameplan will have been rolling for a few years and we will know not only how to implement it, but how to implement it perfectly.  They will suffocate teams and put on manic pressure each week, forcing teams into turnovers and keeping the ball in our half of the ground.

Guys like Oliver, Brayshaw, VDB, Lumumba and Dawes I think will help in this regard going forward.  We just need to be patient, even if it's hard to do.

[picket fence 17,025]

16 hours ago, AdamFarr said:

Also, to half time, Kennedy, Kent and Garlett had a whopping total of 0 tackles between them. If these guys don't lay tackles, there is no press! It's up to the half forwards, just as much as the pure midfielders to lay these tackles.

Not to mention, Newton in particular is too slow to play across half forward. I hope his cards are marked now, because he is a truly horrible defensive player.

Agree with all you have said. Some very discerning comments, I aslo think Michie is cooked as well! Too slow!

[mo64 5,852]

23 minutes ago, Nasher said:

I think the prevailing view among our coaches is that it's hard and time consuming enough drilling a group in one game plan that you can't really expect to be able to practice a second one with any effectiveness. I know many supporters dismiss that idea; I take the view that I don't have enough hours of experience in coaching an AFL side (zero) so I can only take their word for it, but it at least sounds like a reasonable proposition to me.

I think if anything, plan 'A' failing due to poor implementation of our defensive systems is evidence that plan 'A' needs more attention and rehearsal, not evidence that we should distract ourselves by ditching it and trying something else.

Plan "A" has been a bust all year, including the NAB Challenge. Sure we've beaten some sides that were either undermanned or playing poorly at the time, but it doesn't take a genius to work that our backmen don't have the ability to play a zone defence. Even Beveridge took a veiled swipe at our "Diamond Defence", when he basically said we were playing Russian Roulette. But he was also smart enough to react.

In all the games we've lost, the oppositions most dangerous forwards have carved us up. Surely as a coaching group you understand that better teams will win their share of contested ball, and you're susceptible to leaking easy goals with a zone defence? Not Roos and Co.

[Lil_red_fire_engine 11,091]

I know everyone says we need a plan B. How many sides in the AFL switch to or have a plan B? Maybe they have reactive tweak to an opposition plan ie: man up their 7th back but so much time is spent ingraining plan A and making it natural that switching it off is easier said than done. 

Our plan A relies on at a minimum halving the contest and creating good forward pressure. Both were down yesterday. I have no issue with the plan aside from a preference that we leave one man as an anchor back (preferably someone with some speed) to stop the easy 2-3 out the back goals we saw yesterday.  

Edited May 29, 2016 by big_red_fire_engine

[Mr Steve 3,820]

No defence can stop a team coming downfield that fast. The problems were up field yesterday. We are still team that can not afford to kick Seven straight points. 

[Adam The God 30,105]

I think one of our biggest problems yesterday was that our press was far too high. Some might say it was 'aggressive', but for mine it was just stupid when we press too far up the ground. It just means teams can get out so easily.

If I was one of the coaches I would have been saying watch the press and at least a couple of defenders should have pressed no higher than the centre square. It's a bit like a back four in football/soccer. If your back four is too high, teams can play through you far too easily.

This is the sort of tinker mid game that I'd expect our coaches to make, but I accept that it might be a little complex at this stage of our implementation of this game style.

Edited May 29, 2016 by AdamFarr

[dimmy 1,307]

The game plan is fine, just getting the Forwards and Midfielders to put pressure on quicker.
In other threads we are criticising the McDonalds (a new national sport it seems), Garlands etc. It must seem like a train wreck coming when the defenders see the opposition make the break at the half forward line.

Viney was tagged heavily yesterday and his frustration showed. Oliver, Brayshaw & Petracca (when they mature) will provide the strength we want in the midfield ( and the tackling and ball sense). Billy Stretch has found his genetic placement as an outside player. Alongside Billy ,ANB , Harmes and Hunt are only  second year players. Nathan Jones was a second year player once. Look at how he has come along in the last 4 years.

We need to be more than one dimensional at our stoppages, because oppositions are reading Max''s dominance.

We need a 195cm Neville Jetta,because he has adapted to the game plan and I think Tom Mac has as well. It is just two people cannot fix a dam wall collapse.

[Dr. Gonzo 24,129]

9 hours ago, Redleg said:

There is no doubt in my mind that other coaches are planning to beat us, while we just continue with our game plan without modification. 

If we lose the Coach trots out the, we didn't play well, or didn't stick to the plan, or they were too big and experienced for us, or we should have played player X and made more changes. 

I understand we have a game plan but sometimes it won't work or we will not be able to follow it. On those occasions we need an alternate plan or two. I haven't seen any evidence of that. 

While it is commendable to try and execute the game plan, winning games now is also invaluable. The odd scrap, man on man or whatever that gets a win shouldn't be underestimated. I fear our Coaches don't see it that way. 

I'm in a similar boat - on the one hand I get what they're doing but on the other I feel some moves/changes yesterday would've seen us in with a chance to win the game. Looking long term is fine but I hope we'renot sacrificing wins now doing that. 

Edited May 29, 2016 by Dr. Gonzo

[bing181 9,193]

6 hours ago, Redleg said:

I understand we have a game plan but sometimes ... we will not be able to follow it. On those occasions we need an alternate plan or two.

If we can't follow plan A, what hope in hell is there that we can follow plan B?

I'd also just make the point that changing Game Plan, isn't like changing your jocks. It takes years, or at least, a season. Getting the players to play to a plan that they haven't put serious time into is a recipe for disaster.

[CityDee 738]

The stats were similar- we won contested footy and hitouts - they had more tackles and despite our clangers efficiency was similar. 3% their way . They had more forward 50 tackles with 12  we only had 4 . 

They planned like good sides do to attack our weakness and take away a strength - the zone and forward 50 pressure. Switching play quickly and wide - clearing an area with breakneck overlap run not allowing turning a close encounter into a loose man goal fest . 

How can carlton get a defensive structure right so quickly? Although they score less we are out of whack completely. 

 

[Adam The God 30,105]

1 hour ago, CityDee said:

The stats were similar- we won contested footy and hitouts - they had more tackles and despite our clangers efficiency was similar. 3% their way . They had more forward 50 tackles with 12  we only had 4 . 

They planned like good sides do to attack our weakness and take away a strength - the zone and forward 50 pressure. Switching play quickly and wide - clearing an area with breakneck overlap run not allowing turning a close encounter into a loose man goal fest . 

How can carlton get a defensive structure right so quickly? Although they score less we are out of whack completely. 

It takes time to find the balance between attack and defence. We lead the competition for a number of stats. We score more goals and have a greater spread of goalkickers than practically anyone else. 

[Chris 2,892]

I think the biggest issue with the zone is it seems to get sucked up the ground too far. Roos said pre season he wants the ball back closer to our goal,this makes sense and would be why they push so far up, it also means if one or two players slip through then it is all over. The plan needs to be more reactive and if the forwards arent applying pressure, for what ever reason, then the zone roles back 30 meters to reduce our vulnerability. If the forwards are on top then the zone can role forward. It seems they have the same set up no matter the situation.

[Dr. Gonzo 24,129]

5 hours ago, AdamFarr said:

I think one of our biggest problems yesterday was that our press was far too high. Some might say it was 'aggressive', but for mine it was just stupid when we press too far up the ground. It just means teams can get out so easily.

If I was one of the coaches I would have been saying watch the press and at least a couple of defenders should have pressed no higher than the centre square. It's a bit like a back four in football/soccer. If your back four is too high, teams can play through you far too easily.

This is the sort of tinker mid game that I'd expect our coaches to make, but I accept that it might be a little complex at this stage of our implementation of this game style.

Agreed - the other problem yesterday was missing too many shots. In the first quarter we had close to double the inside 50s but only led by three points.  We missed quite a few set shots as well. Kick a few of those and go in 4-5 goals up at quarter time and it starts to put the pressure on them and the game turns out differently. Even in the 3rd when we were pushing we missed chances that would've seen some scoreboard pressure.  All in all I think it was our forwards who cost us yesterday both defensively and offensively.