Structure

[stevethemanjordan 6,952]

26 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

Not talking about any of that. Just saying that Strauss was recruited as an elite kick and we never saw it. Nothing to do with development,.

Salem's kicking is not about development. He actually is an elite kick and had that when he came to the club. Strauss was nowhere near that,.

He was an elite kick.

But without confidence, even the best kickers can crumble. So it was completely to do with development. 

 

[george_on_the_outer 7,606]

1 hour ago, Clint Bizkit said:

Our plan is to simply nullify the opposition in our own forward line?

That should win us a lot of games, reminds me of 2007 under Daniher.

Yes, that is exactly it. 

\You have to find a way to counter when the opposition play a spare man in defence ( who sits usually 40m out from goal). 

It is why teams set up "the wall" to keep it in the forward line. 

It is why you have players nominated these days as "defensive forwards".

And all teams set up in the same way, not just us.

[Akum 2,660]

19 hours ago, Clint Bizkit said:

At the centre bounces today we had no one within 40 metres of the goal in our forward line, if we win the centre clearance where are our forwards meant to lead to?

Around the ball we still have too many players go in and get it, leaving no one on the outside to receive the ball.

When we have the ball on a half back flank all of our players crowd the area down the line on the boundary, we don't use the width of the ground to create space to lead into.

I really struggle to see what our coaches are teaching our players if after two and half years of Paul Roos we have a worse structure than the Auskick kids at halftime.  This inability to maintain a strong attacking structure is one of the key reasons we tend to overuse the ball, kick sideways and backwards, continually kick under pressure and always look so indecisive with ball in hand. There needs to be a full overhaul of this part of our game if we are to improve at all, Simon Goodwin has an almighty job on his hands.

Watch Hawthorn next week effortlessly move the ball around, they will always have targets forward of the ball to kick to who in turn will have space to lead to into as they use the full width of the big MCG. They won't overcrowd the ball at stoppages and will always have a player on the outside for the quick release who can run and kick.

Very good OP. In a number of games this year that we've been vulnerable to teams funnelling back to their own 50 and then attacking from there, usually around the flanks.

Our most common centre bounce play is for whoever wins the clearance to just bomb it forwards. We don't often try to move the ball into the forward line with precision, and when we do, we tend to miss the target. Opposition defences know that and just sit in wait to cover the long bomb, knowing there's almost no chances of a forward on a lead being hit on the chest. And our forwards know that if they do lead, they'll get taken out of the play when the ball misses them by metres.

So I don't mind them trying something different with the forward set-up at centre bounces. It's sort of like: "if you're going to bomb it forwards, we'll give you space to bomb it into and get their defenders running back towards goal." Doesn't mean it's going to work, but it's worth trying something different.

It's also accepting the reality that, although we're usually very good at winning clearances, we're not good at getting results from them when we do.

[Diamond_Jim 12,592]

Hi

came across this great post on Big Footy from 2011 on the subject of the forward press. It seems to describe MFC to a tee. Have looked at Shaw of the GWS on the kick outs. He almost always takes off from the square which gives them a chance to break the press. Interestingly the writer below does not include that in his/her 3 ways to break the press

From a kick out, you start with your 18 man zone from 25-75 meters from the opposition goal. This means anywhere from 25-75 meters there should be no free space for opposition players to run and present an option for the kick out. Often you will see the full back (or 'kicker inner' now the FB doesn't really do that any more) kick to a target in the pocket (say the broadcast side pocket) where a free player is because the zone only starts 25m out. Because the player is now in the pocket on one side the effective '1 kick' length means he can now no longer reach say 65m out on the non broadcast side. Because of this you can start to collapse the zone towards the side where the player with the ball is (broadcast side in this instance) this congests the space further and means he if he wants his team to keep posession of the ball he has to kick back to the full back who is now near the goal line. Now because the man on the mark is 2-3 out from the goal line (as opposed to 15 out for a kick in) you shift the zone across to cover the field equally again but you move it 10-12 meters closer to goal. now because of the shape of a footy field a zone from 15-60 (as opposed to 25-75) won't have to cover as much ground there for is tighter with even less space for an opposition player to be free and you end up with the situation where all the FB can do is kick to the player in the pocket again (or the other pocket) really close to the line, now the zone collapses to that side and tightens up a little more, then the player in the pocket kicks it back to the FB (maybe not 15 and you can pressure and tackle) and the cycle repeats with the 'inferred' pressure building each kick. Eventually the player will have to kick it to a contest and give up effective posession of the ball.

At any stage of my previous scenario the player in defense with the ball could kick it long, but if the zone is working properly it will be to a contest which is the whole point. Now the attacking team either gets the ball back (turnover) or causes a stoppage (neutral contest).

The 3 ways I can think of that teams can get out of their defensive half from a kick in are;

1. Pinpoint passing with perfect skills (which theoretically shouldn't be possible with a well structured zone)
2. Kick to a big pack marking target 55ish out on the boundary line (Ben McEvoy for us when he is on song, I notice Freo use Sandi for this)
3. Long kick to the contest, ball is brough to ground, win the contested ball and spread.

As you can see, none of these 3 options are guaranteed to come off which is perfect for the attacking team. It's also one of the reasons you hear coaches always talking about the contested ball stat.

Here's the link to the Big Footy post

https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/explain-the-forward-press-to-me.839514/page-2

 

[jnrmac 20,103]

1 hour ago, stevethemanjordan said:

He was an elite kick.

But without confidence, even the best kickers can crumble. So it was completely to do with development. 

 

nah.

[old dee 23,792]

5 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

nah.

Nah two!

[stevethemanjordan 6,952]

1 hour ago, jnrmac said:

nah.

Solid response.

Anyone who watched James before he was drafted would know that he was rated one of the best kicks in the draft.

Clearly you didn't watch nearly enough of him to know or see that. At Casey it was on display. He wasn't able to showcase his best attribute at senior level. For various reasons. 

End of.

 

 

Edited August 1, 2016 by stevethemanjordan

[buck_nekkid 5,877]

From a structure point of view, we also suck the big ones at managing contested ball scenarios inside our front 30.  We must be the worst for this (also, are we the worst at defending this at the other end?).

Opposition teams seem to be able to get the sneaky kick in (GCx3 yesterday) and get goals from inside 30 contests.  We can't find anything, and usually just cough it up.  

For me, this is a structural issue.  Rather than playing 36 stacks on the mill. We need a better system.  Opposition teams are completely onto the tap over the back to Viney running through.  We set up poorly around these forward contests and get little reward when there.

we also need Garlett and the other small forwards to earn their money in these moments.  It feels like we have zero 'x factor'.

[binman 43,060]

3 minutes ago, buck_nekkid said:

From a structure point of view, we also suck the big ones at managing contested ball scenarios inside our front 30.  We must be the worst for this (also, are we the worst at defending this at the other end?).

Opposition teams seem to be able to get the sneaky kick in (GCx3 yesterday) and get goals from inside 30 contests.  We can't find anything, and usually just cough it up.  

For me, this is a structural issue.  Rather than playing 36 stacks on the mill. We need a better system.  Opposition teams are completely onto the tap over the back to Viney running through.  We set up poorly around these forward contests and get little reward when there.

we also need Garlett and the other small forwards to earn their money in these moments.  It feels like we have zero 'x factor'.

Agree buck. I said the same thing to my mate yesterday at the game. It all but cost us the game.

Their last three or four goals were all of that variety and we couldn't get one despite the innumerable contested packs in our forward line as a result of our bomb it to the top of the square tactic. And as you say this is why Garlett and players like Kent are in the side.

[DeeSpencer 25,719]

6 hours ago, stevethemanjordan said:

Good post.

I agree that we have too many players who gravitate to the contest purely out of instinct. I've banged on about the imbalance we have on our list in regards to inside/outside players.

We have too many who are purely insiders with a weakness in running power and kicking skills.

That will hopefully change over the course of the coming years but the theme at our club from day one has been to build our list up of tough ball winning machines. It's certainly what Roos loves and yes we know Grand Finals are mainly scrappy contested games of footy.

I'm just baffled that the Dogs and GWS are the only teams that have seemingly followed Hawthorn's lead in regards to injecting players with elite kicking skills and running power from all over the field but namely from the half backline through to the half forward line. 

The dogs and GWS, like Hawthorn, have a really great balance of inside/outside players through their midfield too.

The way we are building is certainly sustainable, but there are still major weakness areas that I'm hoping Goodwin will fix. 

 

 

I'd agree with this. Adelaide are another team who have focused on getting outside run. GWS have been blessed with being able to draft a bunch of everything then keep the ones they want. 2 number 1 picks in Scully and Whitfield who haven't done all that much the last 3 years but came on this year as the team started to feed the ball to them.

I'd say this year there's been a focus on making sure there's run in the team. 3 of Matt Jones, Stretch, Grimes, Harmes, Vince and Bugg have played nearly every week so that we have rotations through the wings of hard runners. Newton was trialled but his tank and speed was found wanting which is a shame as his skills are very good. Harmes has been moved to half back, so that along with Hunt we have guys who can run with the ball from the backline.

I don't mind the focus on talls and ball winning mids first and outside players are often up for trade as they can really struggle in bad sides. 

I'm hoping increased fitness for Oliver, Petracca, Brayshaw and Tyson + a healthy Salem can improve outside speed and skills as well. I'd even include Hogan in that. Salem's the clear classy kick from that bunch, but they are all classy footballers who can get the ball in good spots and move it forward. With more run in their legs I think they'll use the ball better. Tracc especially has so much power that he can turn a contested ball in to free running in just a few steps. Brayshaw has the ability to kick on both sides that should be encouraged as it can lead to fast ball movement. Kent's improved a lot and is working hard on his ball use. I haven't given up on JKH just yet as he can run and kick. 

We still struggle when teams play a man behind the ball as we can't play our sling shot brand and have to be more patient or creative with it. It's also why we struggle at Etihad. The trade off is when Gold Coast did it to us we stopped them scoring for most of the game as well. Unfortunately we will cough up at least 1 or 2 goals a quarter from dumb mistakes due to the inexperience of our backline/Bernie Vince having a shocker/Tom McDonald. 

Despite the 2 ugly games I haven't been all that disappointed with the Gold Coast and Eagles games as they are very good learning in how to attack teams that sit back and our backline has had a chance to compose themselves. We didn't need to work on forward structure in the first half of the year when we were getting over the back of teams consistently. Had we continued like that we wouldn't have learnt anything that we are hopefully learning now.

[DeeSpencer 25,719]

30 minutes ago, binman said:

Agree buck. I said the same thing to my mate yesterday at the game. It all but cost us the game.

Their last three or four goals were all of that variety and we couldn't get one despite the innumerable contested packs in our forward line as a result of our bomb it to the top of the square tactic. And as you say this is why Garlett and players like Kent are in the side.

Petracca is the one for that play, we have to get the ball hit down to him I think, he'll make things happen. Ben Ken is another who can do it. Kent's really a half forward who can crash and bash a bit but most of his good work comes from his hard leading and run. Jeffy just seems off and a bit scared of contact at the moment. He dropped a chest mark with a minute to go, missed a snap earlier, tried to slide/fall on the ball several times instead of backing his speed, step and strength. It was there for him against Collingwood, has been largely missing since.

[Earl Hood 6,086]

9 hours ago, mauriesy said:

We are trying to move the ball quickly, wth the intent of getting our forwards one out. Unfortunately we overdo it, the movement is almost manic and beyond our current skill level. Either we need to slow down just a little and make better decisions, or get better at the skills to keep moving it faster. The speed is why the error level rises and why kicks and handballs miss their target..

I think this will come over the next year or two. We have so many players under 50 games who have such a lot of development left in them. I just wish supporters would be a little more patient with this team (previous years are irrelevant).

I'm totally over the nuffies who just yell out "kick it". Yes, you can overdo handball, but the aim is to keep possession and work your way out of trouble. At one stage yesterday, the crowd around me were yelling "just kick it" when we were handballing out of trouble then switching the play in the backline. The ball ended up going downfield with an overlap on the far side for a mark to Hogan (he missed). If "we'd just kicked it" it would have been to a contest with a 50% chance of losing the ball (or maybe more given they have a lot of tall marking targets who intercepted well at times), or worse still to a lone Suns player.

I can see what this side is trying to do, and it doesn't always (or often) come off. It will get better.

I am not sure I always see what we are trying to do.

Watching yesterday I could not understand our obsession with looking to move the ball into the corridor. Passing into the middle from the back pocket or flank is fraught with danger and we coughed it up numerous times. If it had come off we were still not in a great position as there are plenty of opposition players there to defend because we are so predictable. And we are not using the full width of the MCG because we are always looking for the Middle option, this played into the Suns game plan yesterday as they were determined to clutter up the play at all costs to cover their deficiencies. We aided them by reducing the area of play. A number of times on the southern wing I saw our players coming out of defence who did not see MFC players on their own on the HF boundary and chose instead to kick to a contest at CHF that set up the Suns defenders for a run back their way. 

My other related issue is our penchant for switching play in the back line, you do it to open up loose players on the opposite flank I thought but we just do it, then find there aren't targets up field so we go back or across to the other flank or kick inboard to a contest at CHB. The switch seems to be an incomplete set play, the backs are programmed to do it but the mids and forwards up the line are not Aware of the plan. 

 

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

Fair to say the structure was far better against Hawthorn.

We didn't have every player sucked into the contest and the forwards had far more room to work in. Oliver's creative handpasses in close helped a lot too.

It was like watching a completely different team out there, I'm still excited about the win.

[Lucifers Hero 39,916]

3 hours ago, Clint Bizkit said:

Fair to say the structure was far better against Hawthorn.

We didn't have every player sucked into the contest and the forwards had far more room to work in. Oliver's creative handpasses in close helped a lot too.

It was like watching a completely different team out there, I'm still excited about the win.

I noticed that also.  The teams that have done well against Hawks are those that run, denying them the ability to set up their defensive structures.  That was also our game plan and our team delivered on the 'get ball and run and run' tactic perfectly.  Clarkson said in his press conf that our rebound goals (from deep in their fwd line) was at 50% - he had never heard of anything that good!   

The Hawks expected us to play 'crowd the contest' at stoppages (our usual game) where they stand off then tackle the player who gets the clearance spilling the ball out or getting a free.  Instead we opened up space at ball ups for Max and whoever was at his feet (usually Viney) who got the ball and stepped into the 'uncrowded' space (Hawks found flat footed) and our player got the ball to another player running past.  The overlap continues and bingo we are off to the racesl! 

The Hawks didn't wake up to what was happening, thinking they could pull a rabbit out of the hat, again!

In his press conf. Roos said we focused on getting the ball to within 20-30 mtrs of goal where we can dominate.  When it goes to the 40-50 mtr area the Hawks dominate.  It worked.

We have also modified our so called 'Diamond Defence' denying Hawks the easy goals (I think they had 2).

My conclusion:  Clarkson was comprehensively out coached!! 

This season's attacking game plan has not changed but has been significantly refined as our players have become educated enough (Roos favourite word for our young team) to play different game plans for different opponents.

We have come a long way.

Edited August 8, 2016 by Lucifer's Hero

[deanox 9,932]

I was sitting on level 2 behind the goals on Saturday.  In the first quarter we were absolutely all over them with our zone.  It was beautiful to watch.  They had absolutely no movement at all and no free space any time they got the ball anywhere on the field. The only way the got passed us was free kicks which disrupted our set up and positioning by changing the phase of the game from contested or attacking to defensive, without giving us the chance to reset accordingly. 

Honestly, I have never seen melbourne do anything like it. 

This didn't last all day: the second quarter opened up for both teams and the third was more of a contested ball game. But we controlled possession in the last and when they got it they coughed it up under pressure to our defensive set ups again. It wasn't as noticeable in the last because it was a higher risk, less controlled period; instead of trying to work through the zone (and thus making it easier to observe) Hawthorn took it on quicker but stumbled. 

[monoccular 17,432]

On 1 August 2016 at 11:17 AM, stevethemanjordan said:

He [Strauss] was an elite kick.

But without confidence, even the best kickers can crumble. So it was completely to do with development. 

 

May well have been but didn't get the pill often enough to show whether he was or not.  A bad recruiting strategy.  (I was a reasonable kick as a junior, but couldn't get it either).

[Mach5 4,767]

On 8/1/2016 at 11:15 AM, mauriesy said:

We are trying to move the ball quickly, wth the intent of getting our forwards one out. Unfortunately we overdo it, the movement is almost manic and beyond our current skill level. Either we need to slow down just a little and make better decisions, or get better at the skills to keep moving it faster. The speed is why the error level rises and why kicks and handballs miss their target..

I think this will come over the next year or two. We have so many players under 50 games who have such a lot of development left in them. I just wish supporters would be a little more patient with this team (previous years are irrelevant).

I'm totally over the nuffies who just yell out "kick it". Yes, you can overdo handball, but the aim is to keep possession and work your way out of trouble. At one stage yesterday, the crowd around me were yelling "just kick it" when we were handballing out of trouble then switching the play in the backline. The ball ended up going downfield with an overlap on the far side for a mark to Hogan (he missed). If "we'd just kicked it" it would have been to a contest with a 50% chance of losing the ball (or maybe more given they have a lot of tall marking targets who intercepted well at times), or worse still to a lone Suns player.

I can see what this side is trying to do, and it doesn't always (or often) come off. It will get better.

 

Just as bad, is when there is a couple of switch kicks to get the ball on the opposite HBF/wing/HFF, nothing opens up, so there's anothr switch kick or 2 in the opposite direction, leading to cries of "now we're back where we started!"
Happened on Saturday against Hawthorn at least once.
What these luminaries fail to realise, is that by moving from one side of the other, the defenders are forced to adjust their structures and the hope is that weak links leave holes. Going back the other way allows a second chance for gaps to open up.
Lo and behold, they did, and I believe we kicked a goal as a result of this movement (or at least found a target further afield).

[ArtificialWisdom 4,045]

1 hour ago, Mach5 said:

Just as bad, is when there is a couple of switch kicks to get the ball on the opposite HBF/wing/HFF, nothing opens up, so there's anothr switch kick or 2 in the opposite direction, leading to cries of "now we're back where we started!"
Happened on Saturday against Hawthorn at least once.
What these luminaries fail to realise, is that by moving from one side of the other, the defenders are forced to adjust their structures and the hope is that weak links leave holes. Going back the other way allows a second chance for gaps to open up.
Lo and behold, they did, and I believe we kicked a goal as a result of this movement (or at least found a target further afield).

My only problem is we often switch slowly, we need to switch faster do find those holes more frequenty. But that will come with time playing together. And sometimes we need to bite the bullet and go down the line to a contest quickly rather than going back and forth then kicking to a contest when the zone is completely set. All experience that we will have to wait for them to get.

[Diamond_Jim 12,592]

Did you notice how close the Hawks player was on our kick outs.

It meant that when McDonald played on as he did several times he was doing so under extreme pressure.

I was wondering if this is a normal Hawks structure and if so why is Shaw at GWS who plays on all the time not subjected to a similar tactic.

Also I wonder if we should be scared to kick to a pack and bring the ball to a stalemate. With a dominant ruckman and good midfielders we should a la Brisbane at its height back ourselves to win the ball up/throw in. Not saying it should be the only tactic but it should be one we work on in certain parts of the ground.

Finally it seemed to me that the Hawks gave us more space yesterday by comparison to other teams. They were content to stand just that little bit back and then hope to pick us off thus winning clean possession. That few inches of space made our game plan work. Not sure if it is as good with a team that sweats on the ball winner.

All in all a great win and I am looking forward to seeing a strong showing against Port.

[deanox 9,932]

7 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

...

Finally it seemed to me that the Hawks gave us more space yesterday by comparison to other teams. They were content to stand just that little bit back and then hope to pick us off thus winning clean possession. That few inches of space made our game plan work. Not sure if it is as good with a team that sweats on the ball winner.

...

I don't think they gave us the space, I think we created it by paying more outside and less congested than we have been. 

Our loose men were outside the contest not inside it. This was deliberate against Hawthorn who are structurally at up to lose clearances and rebound back by foot from high half back. 

[FarNorthernD 5,861]

On 1 August 2016 at 1:17 PM, stevethemanjordan said:

He was an elite kick.

But without confidence, even the best kickers can crumble. So it was completely to do with development. 

 

If you wanted a one picture summary of the woes, pitfalls and debacles to befall the Melbourne Football Club from 2008-14 a poster of James Strauss could possibly do the trick nicely

Drafted way too high at pick 19 he promptly suffered injuries including a shoulder reconstruction, ankle issues and then later that horrific broken leg and then the ignominy of being kicked in the face in a match involving the AFL's new baby, the Gold Coast Suns. Symbolism galore. 

But the greatest injustice for him was to debut Rnd 1 2010 in a typical almost 10 goal loss to a rampaging Hawthorn. Plenty of Melbourne players have debuted in losses over the past few years but not many are asked to take the responsibility of kicking out. The Hawthorn players could smell blood and applied maximum pressure. The media still carry on (until recently) about Jack Watts' debut game ruining his development but the stupid premature pressure put on James in his first AFL game was infinitely greater. The measure of how far our club has come is that would never happen today. 

James suffered from a poor recruiting, dumb bad luck, haphazard development and poor coaching which pretty much sums up the MFC during those dark years

 

[Akum 2,660]

54 minutes ago, ArtificialWisdom said:

My only problem is we often switch slowly, we need to switch faster do find those holes more frequenty. But that will come with time playing together. And sometimes we need to bite the bullet and go down the line to a contest quickly rather than going back and forth then kicking to a contest when the zone is completely set. All experience that we will have to wait for them to get.

Succession of great posts in this thread.

Your point about needing to switch faster at times was well illustrated by Brayshaw's pass to O-Mac that Gunston picked off & goaled. The decision was great, but the execution somewhat less so, even though it was a straight kick that covered the distance. But a 40m floater takes a long time to come down, & gives anybody within about 20m who anticipates the situation (as Gunston did) an easy pick-off, and there's very little the poor sod waiting underneath it can do.

Brayshaw (who I thought had a great game overall) is actually good at low hard passes over 30-40m, but only when he's running at speed (note that the two best passes of the day, Kent to Watts & Watts to Pedo, were both hit over 30-40m while running at speed). If, instead of kicking off a couple of steps, Brayshaw had sprinted 5-10m inboard and hit it low & hard, it would have been a devastating play ending up well inside our f50.

Now there's a place for the low-and-hard and a place for the floater, and both have their risks. But it's important to know when to use one or the other, providing you have the skills, of course (weren't we practising low-and-hard ball movement earlier in the year?) And to be fair to Brayshaw, he'd just been crunched in a dubious tackle to get the free in the first place. This is definitely something we're getting better at though.

[ArtificialWisdom 4,045]

4 minutes ago, Akum said:

Succession of great posts in this thread.

Your point about needing to switch faster at times was well illustrated by Brayshaw's pass to O-Mac that Gunston picked off & goaled. The decision was great, but the execution somewhat less so, even though it was a straight kick that covered the distance. But a 40m floater takes a long time to come down, & gives anybody within about 20m who anticipates the situation (as Gunston did) an easy pick-off, and there's very little the poor sod waiting underneath it can do.

Brayshaw (who I thought had a great game overall) is actually good at low hard passes over 30-40m, but only when he's running at speed (note that the two best passes of the day, Kent to Watts & Watts to Pedo, were both hit over 30-40m while running at speed). If, instead of kicking off a couple of steps, Brayshaw had sprinted 5-10m inboard and hit it low & hard, it would have been a devastating play ending up well inside our f50.

Now there's a place for the low-and-hard and a place for the floater, and both have their risks. But it's important to know when to use one or the other, providing you have the skills, of course (weren't we practising low-and-hard ball movement earlier in the year?) And to be fair to Brayshaw, he'd just been crunched in a dubious tackle to get the free in the first place. This is definitely something we're getting better at though.

I feel a little for Brayshaw he does everything right 9 times out of 10 then lets himself down with a really bad turnover. Personally I think that kick was unnecessary (should have been 50 and a set shot but lets ignore that) Given his position a kick down the line should have been taken. Especially kicking across the ground to the last man.

Take the inboard kicks Vince to Bugg or Vince to Watts in the last. Both of them were kicked to players who were in also in space but also backed up. If there was a mistake on either there were defenders behind the ball to cover them if there was a turnover. Oscar was left to wait with nobody behind him to back him up if the kick was poor. There is a time and a place to make the risky inboard kick but you need to be aware of what will happen if there is a turnover. 

[Akum 2,660]

4 hours ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

I noticed that also.  The teams that have done well against Hawks are those that run, denying them the ability to set up their defensive structures.  That was also our game plan and our team delivered on the 'get ball and run and run' tactic perfectly.  Clarkson said in his press conf that our rebound goals (from deep in their fwd line) was at 50% - he had never heard of anything that good!   

The Hawks expected us to play 'crowd the contest' at stoppages (our usual game) where they stand off then tackle the player who gets the clearance spilling the ball out or getting a free.  Instead we opened up space at ball ups for Max and whoever was at his feet (usually Viney) who got the ball and stepped into the 'uncrowded' space (Hawks found flat footed) and our player got the ball to another player running past.  The overlap continues and bingo we are off to the racesl! 

The Hawks didn't wake up to what was happening, thinking they could pull a rabbit out of the hat, again!

In his press conf. Roos said we focused on getting the ball to within 20-30 mtrs of goal where we can dominate.  When it goes to the 40-50 mtr area the Hawks dominate.  It worked.

We have also modified our so called 'Diamond Defence' denying Hawks the easy goals (I think they had 2).

My conclusion:  Clarkson was comprehensively out coached!! 

This season's attacking game plan has not changed but has been significantly refined as our players have become educated enough (Roos favourite word for our young team) to play different game plans for different opponents.

We have come a long way.

Great post with great insights LH. Tho' I thought that the Hawks DID wake up to what was happening, and for a time there in the second quarter we did wobble a bit. They tried to double- and triple-team Max at stoppages, but that left them one or two short at ground level, and this was when Clarrie and Tyson started to blitz the clearances until Viney took over. They definitely closed it up & went the biff in the second quarter, backed up by some Santa-level generosity from the maggots, and we started to make a few mistakes and they got a couple of lucky goals. But for the first time in years we didn't drop our heads, we just kept going and hit them back harder.

I thought they did wake up to it, but we just kept taking it up to them and in the end whatever they tried had no effect. 

[monoccular 17,432]

59 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

Did you notice how close the Hawks player was on our kick outs.

It meant that when McDonald played on as he did several times he was doing so under extreme pressure.

..........

Aaron Davey was great at this.  I vividly remember a WCE game at the G - he hovered 10 metres in front of the kick off line.  The WCE guy tried once or twice to chip and run only to be run down.  He was terrified to do it again for the rest of the match.   We should try again with our fastest chaser camped there to pressure the kicker-in.