2 minutes ago, praha said:

Is the AFL right serving only light beer at night games when everyone wants beer that actually tastes like real beer?

Worthy of its own thread!

Good reading demon landers 

Anyone who doesn't realise its plan A of plan ABC when you become a good side and something yp2u change to within 5 mins of a run on has  NFI

1 minute ago, Pennant St Dee said:

Anyone who doesn't realise its plan A of plan ABC when you become a good side and something yp2u change to within 5 mins of a run on has  NFI

English is our friend.

Make it yours PSD ...please 

2 hours ago, Clint Bizkit said:

I have been and always will be a fan of having players forward to kick it to.

Count me in Clint, or at the very least no worse than alongside (lateral) of the bounce/stoppage.  Cats 2007, 2009, 2011 silverware.... top 4 this year and a chance.

I can't help but see this set up as more defensive than offensive.  I would rather back my mid field, provided i rate them when they're on the park and fit (which i do....we are easily top 6 material in the mid field IMO but presently sitting in 10th position) and have a player lateral and/or pushing up as an extra high forward option for the over the top HB or short pass or alternatively as a cheap marking option for the short pressured shallow kick i50.

Just now, beelzebub said:

English is our friend.

Make it yours PSD ...please 

Its Friday BB and quick reaction to spell check is not my thing on Friday. But standby the capability to change game plan mid run on is something we lack

1 minute ago, Pennant St Dee said:

Its Friday BB and quick reaction to spell check is not my thing on Friday. But standby the capability to change game plan mid run on is something we lack

Actually , the ability to change in-game HAS been demonstrated, just as the lack of awareness to weather !!

2 hours ago, Diamond_Jim said:

Fascinating discussion ...keep it up.

Traditionally the quick kick out of the centre to the leading forward was the most effective play. Is this plan really any more effective? I suppose you get better controlled delivery but it seems to come at the cost of a more crowded forward line.

And that's another critical point DJ, by the time those extras have provided the outside run or gotten to the contest off HB, assuming the ball is in dispute or we then win the contest via these extra numbers, by the time this occurs the Opp will have enough time to flood numbers back much of the time.  We are also not the greatest delivery team coming i50 anyway so the value of our long bombs will surely pay off on the scoreboard more often if there are less numbers up forward to pressure our attempts at marking and shooting for goal with more one on one passages.  Less numbers i50 and a quicker entry would surely suit Jeffy more also.  He has been strangled the last few weeks with pretty much no room to move and work his magic with the time they've had to set up and flood.

There is clearly some merit in the gameplan, though.  At times this year we have overwhelmed sides and looked absolutely terrific.  This is down to the gameplan.  As someone mentioned earlier it's far more offensive than defensive, and we probably need to get the balance right for it to become consistently effective. 

It's an effective tactic when you win the ball and are able to stream it forward together. By having the players come off the backline and into the contest we have forward momentum which means we can move the ball quickly win numbers around for support. I also feel there is also the theory that it prevents opposition from streaming it forward quickly as we have guys on the defensive side of the pack.

Where I feel it falls down is when we win the ball in a tight struggle and the only option is the quick kick forward. We are hugely outnumbered in the forward line and it allows an easy gather for the opposition teams. From what I've seen recently this in particular is where it's been falling down. We need composure to get the ball out to those runners to move it forward effectively but we seem to have lost it in the last 4-5 weeks. I am concerned that teams are working us out with this, it also seems to rely on out ruckmen to tap effectively to the correct spaces.

I do wonder whether Goodwin has a plan B completely separate from this. I see he has been willing to throw people around at times (TMac to FF, Hunt into the forward line, Melksham forward), but as to whether he has a solid plan B the players can work to, I'm not sure. For that matter I feel that is common with most coaches.

But to the original posters beliefs that the players starting behind the ball is a defensive tactic, it most certainly isn't. That isn't Goodwin's style, he is attack not defence.

13 hours ago, Pennant St Dee said:

Its Friday BB and quick reaction to spell check is not my thing on Friday. But standby the capability to change game plan mid run on is something we lack

Oh, so that's what you were saying. In that case I agree. It appears, to me anyway, that the emphasis during the game is to rectify the problem with the game plan or where we're falling down rather than adapt or react to the opposition's strategy (as well as conditions, ground considerations etc)

On 8/11/2017 at 4:52 AM, Rusty Nails said:

 . . . we allow our opponents to gain an extra number or two around many stoppages which allows them to negate this strength much of the time by throwing 2 behind the ball.  They usually also end up winning the clearances . . .

?

While this OP is all over the shop (we're not starting Oliver and Viney at HB with just Jones in the middle, but are adding extra numbers from the flanks), I have come to question this tactic - in combination with other tactics. (They also interviewed Ross Lyon before the Freo game re. the tsunami and he outlined the Docker's approach on a white-board. Quite extraordinary).  

The issue as I see it is that we are looking to get extra numbers into the centre contest  - which is great when it's a contested ball. But with Max attempting to hit to advantage at every opportunity then it negates the contest somewhat and opens up the middle to whoever can best read the fall in open space.

If the opposition gets clear possession in the middle with the Tsunami in motion then we are toast (See Adelaide in Darwin). The flip-side is, is that if we do win the hit to advantage in space for a quick entry we have no-one to kick it to. The tactic relies on win-the-ball and then feed-out-to-runners or else-wise shut-it-down and reset.

I think we need to run with one or the other - attempt to get a traditional tap advantage in the middle with even numbers in defence and up front in the event of a win/loss, or drop it to the feet and use those extra numbers to win the contest and move forward in a uniform wave to trap it in. Love Big Max, but his return has coincided with our diminishing dynamic.

 

Well I certainly hope that Goody and the coaching team know what they are doing

we must beat saints and if we can do so without Watts  great

if we lose 

well it's getting close to crunch time 

 

When we have had certain setups it has worked well. Petraccas intensity and penetrating kick to the disadvantage of the extra 2 or sometimes 3 backman has worked well. Garlett and hunts speed and ive seen frost but not as effective work well. Anb has improved but still misses that simple handball give to another streaming player. But the other one that gets unnoticed is when jones or lewis are the outlet and no good option forward they use our extras at the contest. Vince and hibberd seem to just hack snap it forward with no depth. Or try more than they are capable of.