The problem is not the 'diamond', or the zone defence.

The opposition simply are allowed uncontested possession from their half back, through the middle and this allows them in behind us as we press up to waltz into goal.

what is meant to happen is that we spread hard at half forward (hopefully locking it in for a repeat entry) and create a contest, or the next kick to the midfield zone is also contested.  Even if they get the ball, the contest allows time for the zone to push back and defend.  If the ball is transitioning uncontested in 10 seconds coast to coast, even Usain Bolt is not getting back there.

So when our half forwards and midfield fail to spread or make a contest, we could have the 'triple sapphire' defence and we would still be a screwed pooch.  Who had a poor game this last match?  The half forwards and most of the midfield.

The diamond defence is a good, aggressive way to start at the centre bounce, putting outside runners available for exit, or crash-bang extra bodies to thump the contest.  How it shifts to create positioning for the incoming opposition ball - to press up and ensure that there is a significant contest - only works if it can roll into position based upon contested exit of the opposition slowing things down and making adequate time.

The system itself is just a system.  It absolutely demands commitment to make repeated contests, and gain repeat entries or slow the opposition exit.  If we don't do this, our backline has no hope.  They will get in behind us and kick lots of goals from inside 30.

I would be having a hard conversation with the half forwards and midfield who simply didn't push to the next contest, or cover the spread, adequately enough.  Do that, and I think we will challenge most teams and have a functional defence.

We could also consider a Westoff style sweeper as a plan B if we aren't coping mid game.

On 30 May 2016 at 6:26 AM, Petraccattack said:

I thought the Guardian was  UK newspaper, I guess not.

The strangest part about the comments section is that it seems to be respectful discussion.  Mind you I havent been to the politics section yet...

Not just an Aus edition, but a US edition as well. If you want to descend into the abyss, visit the comments section on any article about Trump or Clinton. You'll need gumboots - and a shower afterwards. 

11 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

The diamond defenitiine set up has nothing to do with it, you itited 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.

Gonzo before you jump on the attack could you please at least be a little more accurate when quoting people here.

Never said "zones" should be banned. Never said we should go 18 player "man on man" either.

What I said was If we are using a new style of zone as most are claiming (Diamond D) then based on results so far (10 rounds Is a fair sample), It Is failing badly and based on those results It should be scrapped.

Happy to revert to a more traditional zone/man on man combo that the clubs you mentioned (and more than likely most others) would probably have used a few years ago and are still using (albeit with various tweeks of course) In today's game.

I cant say for certain but I doubt any club would be using one or the other In Isolation In the AFL today.

Just now, buck_nekkid said:

The problem is not the 'diamond', or the zone defence.

The opposition simply are allowed uncontested possession from their half back, through the middle and this allows them in behind us as we press up to waltz into goal.

This is spot on, buck.  One thing that stood out the most from the weekend was how easy they ran the ball out from a kick in.  Almost every time they kicked it outside 50 to a contest, brought the ball to ground and then just surged forward.  Often it was from a player in front of the pack, or to the side, who burst forward with the ball and released it to a player out the back... and they were away.  It was very frustrating and we didn't work hard enough to kill the ball, or at least put a few tackles on, to either kill the contest or give the players time to get back and support the defenders with a few tackles.  Hinkley set this up superbly and we had no answer for it as the game went on.

Obviously if we allow the same thing to happen this week then the Hawks are going to absolutely smash us, but I'm confident (at the moment anyway) that there will be some frank discussions on this during the week and the players are ready to make amends on the weekend.

6 hours ago, buck_nekkid said:

The problem is not the 'diamond', or the zone defence.

The opposition simply are allowed uncontested possession from theicon half back, through the middle and this allows them in behind us as we press up to waltz into goal.

what is meant to happen is that we spread hard at half forward (hopefully locking it in for a repeat entry) and create a contest, or the next kick to the midfield zone is also contested.  Even if they get the ball, the contest allows time for the zone to push back and defend.  If the ball is transitioning uncontested in 10 seconds coast to coast, even Usain Bolt is not getting back there.

So when our half forwards and midfield fail to spread or make a contest, we could have the 'triple sapphire' defence and we would still be a screwed pooch.  Who had a poor game this last match?  The half forwards and most of the midfield.

The diamond defence is a good, aggressive way to start at the centre bounce, putting outside runners available for exit, or crash-bang extra bodies to thump the contest.  How it shifts to create positioning for the incoming opposition ball - to press up and ensure that there is a significant contest - only works if it can roll into position based upon contested exit of the opposition slowing things down and making adequate time.

The system itself is just a system.  It absolutely demands commitment to make repeated contests, and gain repeat entries or slow the opposition exit.  If we don't do this, our backline has no hope.  They will get in behind us and kick lots of goals from inside 30.

I would be having a hard conversation with the half forwards and midfield who simply didn't push to the next contest, or cover the spread, adequately enough.  Do that, and I think we will challenge most teams and have a functional defence.

We could also consider a Westoff style sweeper as a plan B if we aren't coping mid game.

Whilst I agree wIth much of these points buck, when u say any type/style of zone D (Or defensive style/structure), my personal view Is that more simple ones are less likely to be broken down so easily given the ability (or Inability) of 'some' players to grasp/execute zones/defensive structures that are more complex. Especially those new to the game who are still learning "how to play/Execute/Hone their skills etc" (Not saying all newbies or even all seasoned players are Incapable/capable either) let alone complex zones/defensive structures. 

More complex/more layered Ds might be more suited to clubs with a more experienced/settled/more skilled list. Who knows, some (or one) may even be using a Diamond D (combination man on man/rolling zone diamond/forward press etc) and doing so successfully. Or they may not and might be using some other variant thru the mid/behind the main press.

What we do know Is we have the youngest/least experienced team going around at present (or equal to). Under that circumstance I would reckon the KISS principle has to be a pretty solid starting point regardless.

Having said that I totally agree that any style of D that tries to lock the ball In to a forward half of the field and score Is hard to execute effectively If a few (or more) arent capable or willing to apply the desired effort on any given day.

Somedays we use the diamond.

Somedays we present the ring.

Diamonds are quite hard to penetrate so maybe we should call it the "open ring" .

The diamond as far as I can tell is only used as a starting setup from Centre bounces to allow two flankers to push into the midfield and get extra numbers around the contest (+2).

It is not (as far as i cancan tell) the nature of our defensive structure when the opposition has the ball coming from our forward line, only a starting setup from centre bounces. 

I don't mean to come off like I'm attacking anyone Rusty, I just struggle in communicating these concepts sometimes that I've had little experience with.

10 hours 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.

Agreed.

It's also about how the opposition gets the ball back, and where.

We are committing far too many turnovers across half-forward which gives our opposition the best possible chance to rebound straight back through a zone which isn't properly formed.

At our best, we don't turn it over across half forward, we go inside 50 and we either score, or we lock it in, force repeat contests, prevent easy rebounds. That happens when our forwards and, in particular, our half-forwards are "on". By locking it in, pressuring the ball carrier coming out, our zone is then well-set to get the ball back at half-forward/wing and rinse/repeat.

Instead, by turning it over across half-forward or, just as bad, by applying no pressure when we get it inside 50, we let the ball pivot and come straight back out.

It's no surprise, then, that when we play poorly we almost always see bad games from Harmes, Kent, Kennedy and Garlett.

14 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!

I enjoy the footy we play now. Unfortunately it leaves us open on defence 

Does the new style need work - hell yeh. Will it take time? Am i disappointed with the losses to port, saint, dogs, bombers etc... bloody oath.

I want to see improvement in defensive pressure theough out the year. But im not going to lose my shizz and throw the toys out od the cot after a loss or 2

 

The team beed stability. Im hoping the Roos/Goodwin combo will continue to bring that and continue to bring improvement 

4 hours ago, Wiseblood said:

This is spot on, buck.  One thing that stood out the most from the weekend was how easy they ran the ball out from a kick in.  Almost every time they kicked it outside 50 to a contest, brought the ball to ground and then just surged forward.  Often it was from a player in front of the pack, or to the side, who burst forward with the ball and released it to a player out the back... and they were away.  It was very frustrating and we didn't work hard enough to kill the ball, or at least put a few tackles on, to either kill the contest or give the players time to get back and support the defenders with a few tackles.  Hinkley set this up superbly and we had no answer for it as the game went on.

Obviously if we allow the same thing to happen this week then the Hawks are going to absolutely smash us, but I'm confident (at the moment anyway) that there will be some frank discussions on this during the week and the players are ready to make amends on the weekend.

Only wish i had your optimism Wise.

I fear it will take more than a few frank discussions or a week of training focus on defensive issues to turn this leaky boat around. Especially against the like of the Hawks who are well ahead of most clubs, including Port, on the quick/efficient ball moving front out of (and through) defense.

Not saying we won't improve a little but i cant see us keeping this to anything but a loss of 6 to 8 goals (at best).

We would need an amazing turn around (as usual) on the previous week, which would be quite possible against lessor lights but highly unlikely against this mob.

If we could only string a few wins together (when the opportunity arises) there wouldn't be this constant pressure to perform the following week, and even more so against top line opposition. Boys might finally breathe a little easier and let loose, finally starting to win these ones occasionaly. But nope, we flail every week from a win to a loss, a win, consecutive losses and on it goes.

When you say "making amends" what do you see as making amends this week?

9 hours ago, titan_uranus said:

Agreed.

It's also about how the opposition gets the ball back, and where.

We are committing far too many turnovers across half-forward which gives our opposition the best possible chance to rebound straight back through a zone which isn't properly formed.

At our best, we don't turn it over across half forward, we go inside 50 and we either score, or we lock it in, force repeat contests, prevent easy rebounds. That happens when our forwards and, in particular, our half-forwards are "on". By locking it in, pressuring the ball carrier coming out, our zone is then well-set to get the ball back at half-forward/wing and rinse/repeat.

Instead, by turning it over across half-forward or, just as bad, by applying no pressure when we get it inside 50, we let the ball pivot and come straight back out.

It's no surprise, then, that when we play poorly we almost always see bad games from Harmes, Kent, Kennedy and Garlett.

Also compare that to previous years when our poor disposal saw us create turnovers across half back. I guess turning it over across half forward while not ideal should theoretically give us a better chance to defend downfield before the opposition gets within scoring range.

15 hours ago, buck_nekkid said:

The problem is not the 'diamond', or the zone defence.

The opposition simply are allowed uncontested possession from their half back, through the middle and this allows them in behind us as we press up to waltz into goal.

what is meant to happen is that we spread hard at half forward (hopefully locking it in for a repeat entry) and create a contest, or the next kick to the midfield zone is also contested.  Even if they get the ball, the contest allows time for the zone to push back and defend.  If the ball is transitioning uncontested in 10 seconds coast to coast, even Usain Bolt is not getting back there.

So when our half forwards and midfield fail to spread or make a contest, we could have the 'triple sapphire' defence and we would still be a screwed pooch.  Who had a poor game this last match?  The half forwards and most of the midfield.

The diamond defence is a good, aggressive way to start at the centre bounce, putting outside runners available for exit, or crash-bang extra bodies to thump the contest.  How it shifts to create positioning for the incoming opposition ball - to press up and ensure that there is a significant contest - only works if it can roll into position based upon contested exit of the opposition slowing things down and making adequate time.

The system itself is just a system.  It absolutely demands commitment to make repeated contests, and gain repeat entries or slow the opposition exit.  If we don't do this, our backline has no hope.  They will get in behind us and kick lots of goals from inside 30.

I would be having a hard conversation with the half forwards and midfield who simply didn't push to the next contest, or cover the spread, adequately enough.  Do that, and I think we will challenge most teams and have a functional defence.

We could also consider a Westoff style sweeper as a plan B if we aren't coping mid game.

Yes, it is an accountable system, but all are. The difference with a zone is you literally cannot afford even one player not playing their role. 

A football zone/diamond/whatever is no different than a basketball zone: the structure has to move like a flock of birds relative to the position of the ball. 

I have played basketball at a high level and you could have the smartest, hardest offensive player on the planet who couldn't process the zone. You need 100% awareness of the opposition but more importantly your teammates, because you need to be moving with each other.

At the moment it seems like a breakdown of player communication rather than a breakdown of the system itself. Zones are smothering and highly effective when they work, forcing long-range shots and chipping around the 50-meter arc. But the holes we leave open are akin to the Center in basketball moving too far up the key and leaving the baseline open. Anyone that has played a basketball zone knows how important communication is. Just chatter chatter chatter. No one in the backline atm seems to take control.

46 minutes ago, praha said:

No one in the backline atm seems to take control.

They're probably too worried about figuring out what they're meant to be doing without having to worry about sorting everyone else out, which is why I think with experience and tweaking we will see it improve.

The whole problem with the the diamond...or lets be  more accurate...the sacrificial  mid forward press is its a trade off.  All well and good if X=Y    currently the deficit far outweighs the benefits.  Now blind Freddy can see this...unfortunately it's blind Paul in the box 

10 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

The whole problem with the the diamond...or lets be  more accurate...the sacrificial  mid forward press is its a trade off.  All well and good if X=Y    currently the deficit far outweighs the benefits.  Now blind Freddy can see this...unfortunately it's blind Paul in the box 

'Blind Paul' in the box can see it, he calls it balance between attack and defence and openly admits the balance was wrong on the weekend and that the players aren't always getting it right. It is a work in progress which will not be fixed over night into a gameplan that is consistently applied week in week out, we do not have the experienced players to ensure this happens. If you expect us to play that way every week at this point then I suggest you find very effective stress release measures as it will be stressful for the remainder of this year, and probably most of next.

1 minute ago, Chris said:

'Blind Paul' in the box can see it, he calls it balance between attack and defence and openly admits the balance was wrong on the weekend and that the players aren't always getting it right. It is a work in progress which will not be fixed over night into a gameplan that is consistently applied week in week out, we do not have the experienced players to ensure this happens. If you expect us to play that way every week at this point then I suggest you find very effective stress release measures as it will be stressful for the remainder of this year, and probably most of next.

Our defence CAN'T apply ANYTHING consistently...  Given that cattle that directive .....might as well give kids matched....It's not going to end well...and almost by design...Thats the point.

It would have made more sense to be more incremental.  Encourage the attacking nature of our games but in a more contained fashion perhaps, more within the abilities of the personnel and maintaining and tweaking  our defence which used to work kinda ok.   This wholesale change ethic has just come unstuck big time.  Poor Engineering...

1 minute ago, beelzebub said:

Our defence CAN'T apply ANYTHING consistently...  Given that cattle that directive .....might as well give kids matched....It's not going to end well...and almost by design...Thats the point.

It would have made more sense to be more incremental.  Encourage the attacking nature of our games but in a more contained fashion perhaps, more within the abilities of the personnel and maintaining and tweaking  our defence which used to work kinda ok.   This wholesale change ethic has just come unstuck big time.  Poor Engineering...

Thanks for agreeing that the group can't do anything consistently yet, it will take time. 

I disagree about the incremental as well, last year there were signs of the incremental push to be more offensive. We weren't good at it but it was there. This year they have gone with the full game plan and the balance is out. When it works it works but if the players are off then it doesn't, it is the same at any team then only difference is that when our players are off they are off by 40% not by 5% like you get with older players. 

7 minutes ago, Chris said:

Thanks for agreeing that the group can't do anything consistently yet, it will take time. 

 

more than time Chris.....capable players

10 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

more than time Chris.....capable players

So who is the problem. Our back line consists of Jetta and McDonald who are both good, Dunn who can be good, Garland who is now only OK and on the way out over the next year or so, H who is pretty good when he has support, Salem who is pretty good when healthy and he has less than 50 games under his belt, and a bunch of players with a handful of games in Hunt, Wagner, Frost, and O Mac. 

Dunn and Garland have a couple of years left at most and as the others come on will find it harder to get a game, McDonald and Jetta are both more than capable, so that leaves the young ones, do you want to throw them out and start again?

You can also add to the defence the forwards and midfielders because with our game plan if they don't defend then the defenders job is impossible. Who are you throwing out there?

3 minutes ago, Chris said:

So who is the problem. Our back line consists of Jetta and McDonald who are both good, Dunn who can be good, Garland who is now only OK and on the way out over the next year or so, H who is pretty good when he has support, Salem who is pretty good when healthy and he has less than 50 games under his belt, and a bunch of players with a handful of games in Hunt, Wagner, Frost, and O Mac. 

Dunn and Garland have a couple of years left at most and as the others come on will find it harder to get a game, McDonald and Jetta are both more than capable, so that leaves the young ones, do you want to throw them out and start again?

You can also add to the defence the forwards and midfielders because with our game plan if they don't defend then the defenders job is impossible. Who are you throwing out there?

Chris...Garlo should be pensioned off.. Tom should never play as #1 back  Jetta is only consistent defender and even he has off days ( thats life )  Dunn is seemingly irrelevant as  he must have plssed in Roosey's cap or something.  Salem is below the level we need currently  , but yes there are mitigating reasons ( doesnt alter the outcome though )  Omac may or may not be quite ok in a year or two  but why oh why we dont adopt the philosophy of successful winning clubs and  temper things. He's too raw currently..back in the oven for a while. Frost down back....how would we gauge   Hunt ...Wagner....like mixer taps...hot cold hot cold...lukewarm....

Its all a bit like trying to cram a V8 in a Mini...thats to say  why try to apply  something that CANT work...by design...and by design I mean ..materials and specs. Its a fail on teh drawing board..its a fail at selection..its a fail on the field

 

oh Im wrong there IS consistency after all 

7 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

Chris...Garlo should be pensioned off.. Tom should never play as #1 back  Jetta is only consistent defender and even he has off days ( thats life )  Dunn is seemingly irrelevant as  he must have plssed in Roosey's cap or something.  Salem is below the level we need currently  , but yes there are mitigating reasons ( doesnt alter the outcome though )  Omac may or may not be quite ok in a year or two  but why oh why we dont adopt the philosophy of successful winning clubs and  temper things. He's too raw currently..back in the oven for a while. Frost down back....how would we gauge   Hunt ...Wagner....like mixer taps...hot cold hot cold...lukewarm....

Its all a bit like trying to cram a V8 in a Mini...thats to say  why try to apply  something that CANT work...by design...and by design I mean ..materials and specs. Its a fail on teh drawing board..its a fail at selection..its a fail on the field

 

oh Im wrong there IS consistency after all 

Agree with most of it but disagree that the players aren't worth persevering with our aren't good enough to do what we need. Most of those listed either are good enough now or don't have the experience to be consistent in application. To complain that players that have played less than 10 games are hot and cold is a little harsh. They need to be given time. 

If come the end of next year we are still at the same point then I would agree with you, not yet though. 

10 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

Chris...Garlo should be pensioned off..

Just signed a 3 year contract.....

Just now, Dr. Gonzo said:

Just signed a 3 year contract.....

I know. Just marvee

11 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

Chris...Garlo should be pensioned off.. Tom should never play as #1 back  Jetta is only consistent defender and even he has off days ( thats life )  Dunn is seemingly irrelevant as  he must have plssed in Roosey's cap or something.  Salem is below the level we need currently  , but yes there are mitigating reasons ( doesnt alter the outcome though )  Omac may or may not be quite ok in a year or two  but why oh why we dont adopt the philosophy of successful winning clubs and  temper things. He's too raw currently..back in the oven for a while. Frost down back....how would we gauge   Hunt ...Wagner....like mixer taps...hot cold hot cold...lukewarm....

Its all a bit like trying to cram a V8 in a Mini...thats to say  why try to apply  something that CANT work...by design...and by design I mean ..materials and specs. Its a fail on teh drawing board..its a fail at selection..its a fail on the field

 

oh Im wrong there IS consistency after all 

The problem isn't with our backline - when we've lost its our midfield and half forwards that are the problem.

13 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

 

Its all a bit like trying to cram a V8 in a Mini...thats to say  why try to apply  something that CANT work...by design...and by design I mean ..materials and specs. Its a fail on teh drawing board..its a fail at selection..its a fail on the field

 

oh Im wrong there IS consistency after all