9 minutes ago, Rusty Nails said:

I remember similar zoning/witches hat defencIve styles/horror results under MN and he was slammed for It and rightly so.

Similar results this time around yet some are arguing 'For' It to be given a fair go.

Any solid defensive style Is solid because It holds up well when It'ssupposed to Ie; under severe pressure. This one doesnt hold under any pressure!

DUMP THE DIAMOND AND START WINNING MORE GAMES!

The most obvious was when riewoldt was left alone to wreak havoc. Dumb, dumb, dumb.

It seems to me that we just don't have the players to play this style of football against decent sides. Too many of our players are too lazy, too stupid or too inconsistent. I'll leave others to decide which players fit where, but Dean Kent is in all three groups.

There are certain times and oppositions where it is appropriate to play in this manner, but teams such as Hawthorn and West Coast who use the ball well will cut us to shreds. We will lose by 100 points if we play the same way against Hawthorn that we have done for the past month.

 

Why cant we have a daimond for certain teams or times of the game -same for  Man on man a full ground press man on man plus 1 or two - half ground press . Whatever it is . 

Change it in an instant it always works in a basketball situation . Why not afl - the purpose should always be to find a defence that works against a certain opposition. Not stay with one that doesnt .  

Maybe the 'diamond' is a figment of David King's imagination. He saw the pattern a couple of times and decided to make up a new defensive structure for the purpose of a story.

17 hours ago, america de cali said:

Not just the defence but lack of support from the midfield and forwards to keep the ball from getting back too easily.

A lot of the coaches votes on Saturday went to Ebert, Wingard, Gray and Pittard. All midfielders. That's where we lost it.

Sure Dixon got 6 votes for kicking 5 goals, but the midfielders got it down to him.

2 hours ago, Unleash Hell said:

Im no expert i am just trying to communicate what I've seen and heard. But we are playing a completely different style of game to prior years

The keys as i understand it to our defence are 

Pressure

Winning contested ball.

If we dont do that we lose. It shouldnt be an excuse but temas like port, dogs etc who bring pressure and excellent ball.movement are able to towel us up dur to our lack of ability to execute the game atyle for 4 qtrs

What you stated is basic Football 101. Every team tries to adopt that. Our defensive gameplan starts when the opposition win the ball, and that's wehere we are falling down.

How a team structure itself and the personnel it uses in that structure is what the gameplan is all about. Simple facts are that a team is not going to win a vast majority of contested ball. 

Do you really think that O. Mac and Garland are quick in mind and body to react when the opposition win the ball? Do you think that either are strong enough at the contest?

4 hours ago, jackaub said:

Exactly

our defence has gone backwards and there is FA being said about it by the coach,we leaked like a sieve again on Saturday  and spent 3 quarters chasing tail and  it was appallling to watch. The game plan is not working, can we all agree to that?

The gameplan relies on defensive pressure in our forward half. As others have said Garlett, Kent and Harmes struggled to apply any pressure on the weekend (0 tackles between them to half time) which is why our structures crumbled. We rely on locking the ball in our forward 50 similar to the Pies and Saints circa 2009-2011. If we can lock it in we score and score heavily. When we don't the opposition has an easy run out the back unless we run back hard to cover space which we are still coming to grips with, both how to do it and when to pull the trigger.

3 hours ago, Unleash Hell said:

In repect to prior years or the general application across games?

2016 is a new style. We dont play the dour 1 v 1 or flooding/rebound style like 14/15 anymore

Exactly - previously we were trying 1:1 total lockdown footy, then the "slingshot" off half back - this year we have transitioned to a "press" style which is more attacking. Our defense has gone backwards at 1 goal a game. Meanwhile our offense has improved by 5 goals a game. Would you rather go back to last year?

3 hours ago, Rusty Nails said:

I remember similar zoning/witches hat defencIve styles/horror results under MN and he was slammed for It and rightly so.

Similar results this time around yet some are arguing 'For' It to be given a fair go.

Any solid defensive style Is solid because It holds up well when It'ssupposed to Ie; under severe pressure. This one doesnt hold under any pressure!

DUMP THE DIAMOND AND START WINNING MORE GAMES!

The diamond defensive set up has nothing to do with it, you need to get off that wagon.

Tell me, what style of footy has Hawthorn been playing over the last decade? Sydney? St. Kilda and Collingwood a few years ago? Man-on-man is becoming antiquated, you may as well be yelling just kick the bloody thing.

1 hour ago, CityDee said:

Why cant we have a daimond for certain teams or times of the game -same for  Man on man a full ground press man on man plus 1 or two - half ground press . Whatever it is . 

Change it in an instant it always works in a basketball situation . Why not afl - the purpose should always be to find a defence that works against a certain opposition. Not stay with one that doesnt .  

We've still got a decent group (almost half the team) still becoming accustomed to senior footy. You want them to make transitions on the fly? Who is going to coordinate it? Jones and Vince can't do it on their own. It takes a well drilled team, we'll see it in future years but it won't be until the young guys are up around the 40-50 game mark and others like Tyson, Gawn, Viney etc are around 80-100. What you're asking for takes on-field leadership and organisation, something we still lack.

41 minutes ago, mo64 said:

What you stated is basic Football 101. Every team tries to adopt that. Our defensive gameplan starts when the opposition win the ball, and that's wehere we are falling down.

No it doesn't. Our defensive game starts before then. 

Where do you position yourself beforehand? How many numbers do you commit to the contest? When do you start running forward?

We lost the game because we lost the contest and, when we lost it, we didn't make the possession scrappy enough to put pressure on them.

If you look at defending as simply what happens when they have the ball, then just throw 3 players behind the ball to make it harder to score. Sure, you won't win, but you'll be better defensively. Alternatively you can implement a better combination of maximising your chances of scoring while limiting the damage the other way. This means making compromises.

Man on man worked in the 80s, but you'll get smashed today.

1 minute ago, Axis of Bob said:

No it doesn't. Our defensive game starts before then. 

Where do you position yourself beforehand? How many numbers do you commit to the contest? When do you start running forward?

We lost the game because we lost the contest and, when we lost it, we didn't make the possession scrappy enough to put pressure on them.

If you look at defending as simply what happens when they have the ball, then just throw 3 players behind the ball to make it harder to score. Sure, you won't win, but you'll be better defensively. Alternatively you can implement a better combination of maximising your chances of scoring while limiting the damage the other way. This means making compromises.

Man on man worked in the 80s, but you'll get smashed today.

Your bolded statement hits the nail on the head. We don't limit the damage the other way, partly due to structures and partly due to personnel. And I'm not talking about man on man across the backline.

In comparison to previous years, our balance between defence and attack is much, much better. We have bad weeks due to our inconsistency (which will be a constant this year) but our balance is much better, as shown by our 5 wins already this year.

When we let them get easy goals, it's due to problems that occur well before the ball reaches our defence. It's all about pressure around the ball and disrupting the cleanness of the opposition's early possessions. If we don't do that (which our well out-of-sorts midfield didn't do on the weekend) then any team will be able to score. But if we apply pressure then our gameplan is able to limit the damage of the opposition while allowing us to score easily from their turnovers under pressure. 

It's all about balance.

12 minutes ago, Axis of Bob said:

In comparison to previous years, our balance between defence and attack is much, much better. We have bad weeks due to our inconsistency (which will be a constant this year) but our balance is much better, as shown by our 5 wins already this year.

When we let them get easy goals, it's due to problems that occur well before the ball reaches our defence. It's all about pressure around the ball and disrupting the cleanness of the opposition's early possessions. If we don't do that (which our well out-of-sorts midfield didn't do on the weekend) then any team will be able to score. But if we apply pressure then our gameplan is able to limit the damage of the opposition while allowing us to score easily from their turnovers under pressure. 

It's all about balance.

There's no eveidence to suggest that against good teams or even average teams playing well, we have been able to achieve what you say. Our next game against Collingwood will be telling.

25 minutes ago, mo64 said:

There's no eveidence to suggest that against good teams or even average teams playing well, we have been able to achieve what you say. Our next game against Collingwood will be telling.

North, GWS?

Ahh, I get it, it's the old "yeah they're good teams, but they must have been playing crap against us" (or my old favourite: "I can only remember the last thing that happened").

4 minutes ago, Nasher said:

North, GWS?

Ahh, I get it, it's the old "yeah they're good teams, but they must have been playing crap against us" (or my old favourite: "I can only remember the last thing that happened").

Did our defensive structures work well against North? No. Did our offensive gameplan work well against GWS? No.

12 hours ago, beelzebub said:

Chris .. we don't have decent quantity of cattle down back. Perseverance with the current inept group is misconstrued. 

Not all down there are flawed but most are Asus any delusional notion on the part of the FD that we can implement the "PLAN"

I think the biggest issue with the defence isn't so much the players but their ability to execute the game plan. McDonald and Jetta are both good. Salem, H, and Melksham can all play their role, none are available at the minute. Hunt and Wagner have shown potential and should be persevered with. The game is going past Garland unfortunately as I am a big fan and I am not sure what Dunn has done to not be getting a game but he is good as a stopping player. Frost is the other who could well be useful as a defender.

Our biggest issue with defence is that when the mids and forwards fail as defenders the game plan is too open for the backs to be effective, our current defensive issues aren't just issues with the backs. 

Ever consider that for the opposition to perform average or perform poorly - our team must be somewhat responsible for that to happen?

And if our defensive structures didn't exactly work well against North, doesn't that say more about how good North are (afterall they're 9-1 and on top) at exploiting us with their rolling structure.

And if our offensive gameplan wasn't exactly pristine against GWS, shouldn't some kudos or acknowledgment towards GWS for their defensive efforts be recognised? 

As AOB said, it's all about balance..

Edited May 31, 20169 yr by H_T
grammar

8 minutes ago, mo64 said:

Did our defensive structures work well against North? No. Did our offensive gameplan work well against GWS? No.

Was there a balance that worked? Yes.

Your solution is to find a gameplan that, despite an inexperienced playing group, will score highly whilst restricting the opposition to very low scores.

So you either a) want a gameplan that wins each week by 100 points with a mid-range team, or b) you don't know what you want.

 

5 hours ago, Diamond said:

Yes but where's the defence gone?

The defence suffers when you attack. We spent 2 years with no attack, we now attack and the defence has suffered, as it must if you are no longer 100% defence. Roos has spoken about this many many times saying that there is a balance that must be reached. His comments after the weekend said clearly that the balance is out of kilta and needs addressing.  

5 hours ago, Diamond said:

Yes but where's the defence gone?

It's 11 points worse off than the defence of 2015 (as at Round 10).  That's not per game, that's over 10 games.

3 hours ago, poita said:

It seems to me that we just don't have the players to play this style of football against decent sides. Too many of our players are too lazy, too stupid or too inconsistent. I'll leave others to decide which players fit where, but Dean Kent is in all three groups.

There are certain times and oppositions where it is appropriate to play in this manner, but teams such as Hawthorn and West Coast who use the ball well will cut us to shreds. We will lose by 100 points if we play the same way against Hawthorn that we have done for the past month.

 

Poita, how would our style be if we DID have the players to play it right?

Edited May 31, 20169 yr by billy2803

2 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

We've still got a decent group (almost half the team) still becoming accustomed to senior footy. You want them to make transitions on the fly? Who is going to coordinate it? Jones and Vince can't do it on their own. It takes a well drilled team, we'll see it in future years but it won't be until the young guys are up around the 40-50 game mark and others like Tyson, Gawn, Viney etc are around 80-100. What you're asking for takes on-field leadership and organisation, something we still lack.

Easier said than done I know but it comes from the coaches box via the runner then at a stoppage its put in place 

24 minutes ago, CityDee said:

Easier said than done I know but it comes from the coaches box via the runner then at a stoppage its put in place 

Things can be tweaked by the runner and at breaks but you said you wanted us to "change it in an instant" - that's just unrealistic considering the group we've got.

13 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Things can be tweaked by the runner and at breaks but you said you wanted us to "change it in an instant" - that's just unrealistic considering the group we've got.

Its do able there full time proffesional atheletes!! 

2 minutes ago, CityDee said:

Its do able there full time proffesional atheletes!! 

Do it and making it work are two different things. When you do it you want it to be like clockwork. Otherwise you'll end up worse off than you would've been if you just stuck to your original structures.