8 hours ago, Chris said:

Why complitin about the defence of thisdiamsyouingsters, who still need to learn, when your solution is bringing in players who aren't playing due to injury? If they weren't injured they would be playing and we may not have the issues we are. Seems you are putting all the failings at the feet of the youngsters who between them would be lucky to rustle up 30 games!

Not at all Chris. Not sure how you arrived at that conclusion. Im happy for some youngsters to be playing and remain In the team provided they perform to whatever standard the FD Is setting and some sort of reasonable standard generally. I never said 'youngsters'. I mentioned 2 players who make me shudder when I see them picked In our backline. One Is a veteran of over 140 games and nearly 10 seasons of footy.

If we have absolutely no seasoned options and we have no other obvious choice then I guess Omac It Is but he Is way off being at an acceptable level at this point IMO

1 hour ago, beelzebub said:

Its a very good explanation  and a much better hybrid than our diamond.   The Weagles will grapple and interface their opponents as required...we seem to line up the runway for them...chalk and cheese

Are you saying the diamond is employed in every game at every Centre bounce contest?

4 hours ago, Chris said:

It is reality that they are hot and cold, so are all inexpinrienced players, that is why it is harsh as it is not unexpected. Not sure how you plan to draft in experienced either unless you are talking the trade period

A mid season draft.... preferrably In the next few weeks. Is Taylor avaIlable?

Pretty sure BZ Isnt adverse to playing youngsters Chris, just as I aren't. More the amount of them In the squad (especially down back/mid field) at any one time. Sometimes we have no choice. I get that

19 minutes ago, Unleash Hell said:

Are you saying the diamond is employed in every game at every Centre bounce contest?

No, not at all. But center  bounces comprise a reasonable part of the game. Purely observational but when we lose this  oppo's are more than likely to score.

To be quite honest Im not too sure how to represent the defence at other times 

I think most  are In agreement on the mids/forwards maintaining reasonable pressure In order to assist the defence In setting up Dr. But the back half also needs to be able to defend quick kicks out of the center bounce effectively also as well as quick transition entries that will occur from time to time regardless of how good forwards/mIds Implement the forward press/& Zone.

The success of any defence Is also a reflection of Its depth/experience and quality along with the the points you mentioned.

2 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

No, not at all. But center  bounces comprise a reasonable part of the game. Purely observational but when we lose this  oppo's are more than likely to score.

To be quite honest Im not too sure how to represent the defence at other times 

Thid is just my opinion obviously. But the diamond would be but one of many structures employed. I cant comfirm without watching hours of footage and most of it wouldn't show the structure.

Back to the orginal quote I agree we are a work in progress but the eagles web has been found lacking in 2016.

Bad application doesnt mean it doesn't work, teams need to master it eg Cats, hawks u get the drift 

Our problem is iur talent is young and with youth will come error and inconsistency. Im.not ready to call this a failure yet.

In the grand scheme of 2016 alone it may fail. It doesent make it a failure imo

UH...i have no dount you are possibly correct about the diamond at bounces but if you looK to our actual defending we give away an enormous amount of space....at any time

I dont disagree bb

But is it a short term on long term problem?

I personally dont think its long term 

11 minutes ago, Unleash Hell said:

I dont disagree bb

But is it a short term on long term problem?

I personally dont think its long term 

I hope it's not long term

2 hours ago, Rusty Nails said:

Not at all Chris. Not sure how you arrived at that conclusion. Im happy for some youngsters to be playing and remain In the team provided they perform to whatever standard the FD Is setting and some sort of reasonable standard generally. I never said 'youngsters'. I mentioned 2 players who make me shudder when I see them picked In our backline. One Is a veteran of over 140 games and nearly 10 seasons of footy.

If we habe absolutely no seasoned options and we habe no other obvious choice then I guess Omac It Is but he Is way off being at an acceptable level at this point IMO

Agreed O Mac is a way off and wonder why Dunn isnt in in his place. My conclusion is from you bagging the defence and saying how bad they are while saying we should be playing players who arent available. The only other option, except for Dunn, is the young players, hence you are paying out on the young players. You cant expect players with 5 games experience to be great every game, it is unrealistic. Unfortunately we have had little choice but to keep playing at least 2 of them. 

Is anyone able to confirm when the diamond is in use? From my understanding it is only employed at centre bounces but the way some like bb above talk about it it is our defensive zone structure at all times, including when the opposition have the ball. I don't think this is the case. 

Dr. I can't say it's at all times. All I notice is currently there's often a paddock for opposing teams to run/ kick into

2 hours ago, Chris said:

Agreed O Mac is a way off and wonder why Dunn isnt in in his place. My conclusion is from you bagging the defence and saying how bad they are while saying we should be playing players who arent available. The only other option, except for Dunn, is the young players, hence you are paying out on the young players. You cant expect players with 5 games experience to be great every game, it is unrealistic. Unfortunately we have had little choice but to keep playing at least 2 of them. 

If Dunn was an option he should have been played ahead of Omac agreed. But like some d'landers, you are jumping at too many assumptions and conclusions of my views based on your view of things, not the actual view/argument put forward by the poster you are rebutting.

My expectations are very realistic when young blokes are in the mix and as i have said on many occasions in other posts, that where we have no choice (or by choice, whichever it might be), if the club decides or has to play a very young/inexperienced backline, then don't ask too much of them in terms of the complexity/layers of defensive rules/game style/method. As stated earlier i feel the KISS principle needs to increase in importance and practice as you inject more and more inexperience/youth. Further complexity/layers added as you inject more experience. In effect i am actually defending the youth who are playing by suggesting they not be 'overloaded' with too much too soon.

The argument as to whether i think some individual rookies new to the scene are up to the fight or not, is a completely different one to that of the club's injection of 'youth as a whole' team wise.

As I understand it the "Diamond" is an offensive strategy that is utilised at disputed ball opportunities such as centre and near centre bounce. It may also be utilised at throw ins but I am not sure.

Where the opposition is in a static kicking position (free kick or mark) the zone or press is what we adopt. As in the illustration given by Fox Footy the zone "ignores" the players who are beyond the perceived danger zone. (Around 60 metres from the kicker.)  If however the opposition "penetrates" or "breaks" the zone these outside zone players have an easy receive.

Not sure why we keep complaining about 1 or 2 defensive players who are on the extreme of the zone. The zone often falls down because it is penetrated at its inner core thus allowing disposal beyond the zone. While this may make the outer zone player look inept perhaps the failure is with others. Perhaps also as many writers suggest the zone as a tactic is too easily broken by teams with good foot skills.

Not sure what the answer is. I have considered having an outrider that or two that sits beyond the "non dangerous" opposition players but I assume the problem is that it weakens the zone.

1 hour ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Is anyone able to confirm when the diamond is in use? From my understanding it is only employed at centre bounces but the way some like bb above talk about it it is our defensive zone structure at all times, including when the opposition have the ball. I don't think this is the case. 

You would need to watch a decent amount of behind the goal footage or observe the game from a fair height to know how often/when it's being used Dr. Unfortunately none of us are privy to any behind the goal footage so may i suggest grabbing a top tier seat at your next game. Then you can let us all know!

My understanding is that it's used at some center bounces, whether we retain a similar structure and roll it up the field if we gain possession who knows. Others may have observed details of this from behind the goals in some matches?

As we all know if the ball is turned over quickly at HF or higher and it's transistioned quickly back in to the opps forward line, and if the 2 flankers pushing up aren't able to recover quickly enough and/or find a man quickly enough, then we are toast. In addition the 2 forwards that are on their own from the opposition (4 v 6 in their forward line) are effectively able to roam and do as they wish. Again potentially setting us up for a horrid result if we don't win first clearance at the center or a there's an easy turnover clearance in the mid field or slightly forward of mid as we attack.

Personally i would just prefer the old +1 being thrown into the middle off HB (randomly) giving our opponent only one extra up forward rather than 2 and hope that a disciplined zone/quality defence can handle the extra on most occasions, provided there's decent pressure forward and through the middle when we turn the ball over. Allowing them 2 extra is just too gung ho IMO.

8 hours ago, beelzebub said:

Dr. I can't say it's at all times. All I notice is currently there's often a paddock for opposing teams to run/ kick into

I would say that's due to a traditional zone defense rather than three diamond tactic.

I think Diamond Jim has it right.

4 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

in would say that's ifue to a tratditional zonin defense rather than three diamond tactic.

I think Diamond Jim has it right.

Not sure about that Dr. Anytime you're going into give your opponent a +2 In their forward line you are running a big risk If you turn the ball over In mid field or HB.

Even If the +2 are Initially pushed wide to avoid the diamond (Ie, away from the hot spot as Intended) they will find ways to exploit It on the way back just as Port did multiple times on Saturday.

Let's hope we dont use the diamond against the Hawks. Generally considered the best by foot the outcome could be even more horrendous. With no genuine KPF they rely heavily on Gunston, Puopolo and Cyril to run Into space or crumb and goal also In the case of the latter 2. Giving them the added advantage of the extra space and a +2 up forward would be like giving Usain Bolt a 10 meter head start.

2 hours ago, Rusty Nails said:

Not sure about that Dr. Anytime you're going into give your opponent a +2 In their forward line you are running a big risk If you turn the ball over In mid field or HB.

Even If the +2 are Initially pushed wide to avoid the diamond (Ie, away from the hot spot as Intended) they will find ways to exploit It on the way back just as Port did multiple times on Saturday.

Let's hope we dont use the diamond against the Hawks. Generally considered the best by foot the outcome could be even more horrendous. With no genuine KPF they rely heavily on Gunston, Puopolo and Cyril to run Into space or crumb and goal also In the case of the latter 2. Giving them the added advantage of the extra space and a +2 up forward would be like giving Usain Bolt a 10 meter head start.

But Rusty if there is +2 in their forward line after a turnover where the hell are our +2 before the turnover.

Are they not able to influence the contest and avoid the turnover. If they cannot for what ever reason then it is a completely flawed plan. On saturday I watched 2 sometimes 4 port players on their own behind our full backs.

Surely we must have had 2, 3 or 4 players loose further up the ground. What the hell were they doing or were the caught between contests. I just cannot fathom it and obviously we are incapable of playing to this plan at the moment.

I don't mind the zone, but there comes a point where players (especially in the back half of the ground) need to be accountable to an opponent and not just let them run wild like we see too often.

7 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

I would say that's due to a traditional zone defense rather than three diamond tactic.

I think Diamond Jim has it right.

So its seems we lack precision come either version employed 

1 hour ago, jackaub said:

But Rusty if there is +2 in their forward line after a turnover where the hell are our +2 before the turnover.

Are they not able to influence the contest and avoid the turnover. If they cannot for what ever reason then it is a completely flawed plan. On saturday I watched 2 sometimes 4 port players on their own behind our full backs.

Surely we must have had 2, 3 or 4 players loose further up the ground. What the hell were they doing or were the caught between contests. I just cannot fathom it and obviously we are incapable of playing to this plan at the moment.

It's certainly frustrating to watch when you're conceding 4-5 goals on a silver platter to the opposition. I don't recall the Eagles or Bulldogs experiencing this amount of teething problems when implementing their defensive game plans, though I could be mistaken.

1 hour ago, jackaub said:

But Rusty if there is +2 in their forward line after a turnover where the hell are our +2 before the turnover.

Are they not able to influence the contest and avoid the turnover. If they cannot for what ever reason then it is a completely flawed plan. On saturday I watched 2 sometimes 4 port players on their own behind our full backs.

Surely we must have had 2, 3 or 4 players loose further up the ground. What the hell were they doing or were the caught between contests. I just cannot fathom it and obviously we are incapable of playing to this plan at the moment.

Good question. Not even sure the Diamond is responsible for Saturday's bleeding Jack. Could be some other standard zoning that's responsible or just a few not following instructions or not working hard enough etc etc. Would need to watch replay but doubt the angles would reveal the whole story either.

Only those who have access to behind the goal (or birdseye view if available) footage would be able to truly answer (& obviously the inner sanctum). If you were at the ground you might get a bit more of an idea but even then, the game's so quick now and so much happening across the park you would still need some footage for a more accurate 'total reveal' story.

I don't necessarily think the Diamond is all bad though. As you said if the + 2 who push into the mid are able to assist then it should result in some quick entries and scoring opps and probably has done so at times. Personally i think a +1 is less risky and means we are only one down in our back half if the opponent gets first use or we turn it over somewhere horrid and/or our forwards don't apply the pressure needed to avoid a slingshot rebound. We don't know how often the FD is using it either so it may be just a random surprise strat to try and unsettle the opponent and give them a diff look plus add a quick goal or 2 as a bonus if it comes off. Then the team reverts back to 'standard' zone/press set ups for X amount of time. Back to diamond again at a specific center bounce etc. All speculation of course.

Maybe some players are having trouble adjusting/learning to change up from one option back to the other. Like you i'm very curious to know why we had so many 'out the back' scored against us. Might take another look at the replay if i can find the time and ignore the scoreboard! Probably a waste of time though.

5 hours ago, P-man said:

It's certainly frustrating to watch when you're conceding 4-5 goals on a silver platter to the opposition. I don't recall the Eagles or Bulldogs experiencing this amount of teething problems when implementing their defensive game plans, though I could be mistaken.

I watch a few games but not a whole lot. I can assure you teams that press do give up a lot of goals.

I dont watch a heap though so i can't really compare our press to say dogs. 

It is frustrating no doubt how many goals (and against port it was a lot) we do easily give up.

I do believe it is a result of youth and inconsistency and not the structure for us at this stage 

On 6/1/2016 at 10:50 PM, beelzebub said:

Dr. I can't say it's at all times. All I notice is currently there's often a paddock for opposing teams to run/ kick into

That's the forward press! And the Diamond Defence is employed occasionally at centre bounces only...