On 1/5/2018 at 3:47 PM, old dee said:

He needs to be out of the blocks early as he only  has a contract for 2018.

Good consideration. He does not have much time from now on to secure himself in the team.

On 1/5/2018 at 3:48 PM, Dee Dee said:

What is Mr Goodwin going to say - “player x is a lazy bastard and needs a kick up the bum”! Of course not, but I do hope there is a bit of damning with faint praise when needed as well!

A bit of honesty goes a long way, now that you mention it. I find it difficult to believe that OMac is training well under Frosty's left arm, with Lever adding passing insights as the two tackle OMac's problems....

On 1/5/2018 at 2:19 PM, Bring-Back-Powell said:

It's understood Jack Watts was a frequent recipient of the above award last pre season.

Does this benchmark mean that we can expect a Balic transfer to Collingwood mid-season?

I'm actually interested in understanding whether we're going to continue to implement the frenetic high possession game plan that we clearly started last year,  or whether we fall back to the conventional zone game plan leveraging key position players. 

Understanding the 'tricks in the bag' that we might implement, and what impact that has across the lines - and for training - would be useful, but likely to be closely guarded. 

My hope is that we implement something that resembles a high OODA-loop cycle (google it if you've never heard of it). This is essentially making informed decisions quicker, than your opponent can recognise, and taking the initiative, to the point where they become reactive and are forced to play catchups. The approach (furnished during WWII) has now been adopted by investment banks, militaries and other 'industries' where two or more competitors have it out for the advantage.

Shall be an interesting year.

 

13 minutes ago, DeezNuts said:

I'm actually interested in understanding whether we're going to continue to implement the frenetic high possession game plan that we clearly started last year,  or whether we fall back to the conventional zone game plan leveraging key position players. 

Understanding the 'tricks in the bag' that we might implement, and what impact that has across the lines - and for training - would be useful, but likely to be closely guarded. 

My hope is that we implement something that resembles a high OODA-loop cycle (google it if you've never heard of it). This is essentially making informed decisions quicker, than your opponent can recognise, and taking the initiative, to the point where they become reactive and are forced to play catchups. The approach (furnished during WWII) has now been adopted by investment banks, militaries and other 'industries' where two or more competitors have it out for the advantage.

Shall be an interesting year.

 

Wow, just read up on the OODA loop - fascinating. Sounds good, let’s do it. 

On 1/5/2018 at 8:14 PM, RalphiusMaximus said:

I like the comment on Frost today.  He, OMac and Lever are working well together.  Sounds like they plan on playing all three of them. 

Sam Frost

Sam has had a really good five or six weeks in our pre-season program. Along with Oscar McDonald and Jake Lever, the three talls have been working really closely – and well together – on our defensive mechanisms and structures. The three of them have been looking really good as a unit and we’re excited to see what they can produce in 2018.

According to some learned DL posters Tmac's younger brother is not up to it and is destined to continue his development at Casey. That would make it hard for him, Frost and Lever to play as a unit. 

Still happy to take bets (with avatar of choice being the currency) that if does not get injured he will play the whole season in the ones. Bit surprised his critics have not taken up the offer. 

Edited January 6, 20187 yr by binman

13 hours ago, Deemented Are Go! said:

Wow, just read up on the OODA loop - fascinating. Sounds good, let’s do it. 

It is a great example of thought to overcome observational situations. It is rapid in its deployment. Thus, ideal for a footy team. An analogy might be kicking out from fullback to a pack loaded with opposition talls, thus unnecessarily involving these ball winners in rebound play. Solution: Create pathways that by-pass these players, consistently and at at different points of expectation (in terms of where and how it may occur). That is a pretty 'loose' example but one that annoys the hell out of supporters asking 'Why did he kick it there?' It is up to peripheral players to create rather obvious alternative pathways of thought and progress. Interesting, huh? If it happens all over the ground, you win the game convincingly. Amazing, yet again, how dated models continue to show solutions once applied to a variable series of options in the modern structures of events. These approaches can 'geneticise' decision-making up to a point and provide enhanced flexibility in the options that may be applied. By not kicking out to a pack, those opponents are withdrawn at that point from the game, perhaps. Remember the immediate effect of the backline possession game? That could be seen as part of Step 1. 

 

5 minutes ago, Deemania since 56 said:

It is a great example of thought to overcome observational situations. It is rapid in its deployment. Thus, ideal for a footy team. An analogy might be kicking out from fullback to a pack loaded with opposition talls, thus unnecessarily involving these ball winners in rebound play. Solution: Create pathways that by-pass these players, consistently and at at different points of expectation (in terms of where and how it may occur). That is a pretty 'loose' example but one that annoys the hell out of supporters asking 'Why did he kick it there?' It is up to peripheral players to create rather obvious alternative pathways of thought and progress. Interesting, huh? If it happens all over the ground, you win the game convincingly. Amazing, yet again, how dated models continue to show solutions once applied to a variable series of options in the modern structures of events. These approaches can 'geneticise' decision-making up to a point and provide enhanced flexibility in the options that may be applied. By not kicking out to a pack, those opponents are withdrawn at that point from the game, perhaps. Remember the immediate effect of the backline possession game? That could be seen as part of Step 1. 

 

Huh?

17 hours ago, bingers said:

faint ... or feint ?

“Feint” is what I hope they are learning. All the best players do it!

 

46 minutes ago, binman said:

Huh?

You beat me to it!

53 minutes ago, binman said:

Huh?

I thought it was just me...!

6 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

I thought it was just me...!

Phew, I felt all alone on that one as well....

I hope that wasn’t part of Goodys list updates. I’ll need a degree to watch the footy.

I

Observe the opposition player making a break down the wing

Orient myself so it looks like I am in a position to chase

Decide that he is too fast for me

Act and point him out to another player who is already marking an opponent

Simples

Football player IQ's to reach new levels this year, with leadership from the Toigs. We are heading in the right direction.........

1 minute ago, Satyriconhome said:

I

Observe the opposition player making a break down the wing

Orient myself so it looks like I am in a position to chase

Decide that he is too fast for me

Act and point him out to another player who is already marking an opponent

Simples

Good application, Saty. It ain't so difficult. 

8 hours ago, Deemania since 56 said:

It is a great example of thought to overcome observational situations. It is rapid in its deployment. Thus, ideal for a footy team. An analogy might be kicking out from fullback to a pack loaded with opposition talls, thus unnecessarily involving these ball winners in rebound play. Solution: Create pathways that by-pass these players, consistently and at at different points of expectation (in terms of where and how it may occur). That is a pretty 'loose' example but one that annoys the hell out of supporters asking 'Why did he kick it there?' It is up to peripheral players to create rather obvious alternative pathways of thought and progress. Interesting, huh? If it happens all over the ground, you win the game convincingly. Amazing, yet again, how dated models continue to show solutions once applied to a variable series of options in the modern structures of events. These approaches can 'geneticise' decision-making up to a point and provide enhanced flexibility in the options that may be applied. By not kicking out to a pack, those opponents are withdrawn at that point from the game, perhaps. Remember the immediate effect of the backline possession game? That could be seen as part of Step 1. 

 

To simplify:  have a set of decision rules.  Each decision rule is specific enough to be applied instinctively, but flexible enough to be altered if conditions don’t apply.

for example:  half backs should look to kick at 45 degree angles - where a player has a reasonable chance of receiving it.  If not, run like you are being chased like a bear.

The kick in example above might have a rule: don’t kick out to formed packs.  If pack is formed, the kicker should look for alternates, whilst other players should see the pack and know to create other options.

a team with simple, applicable decision rules that are well drilled becomes a very strong team.  Teams that can follow their rules look like Adelaide in the GF.

 

3 minutes ago, buck_nekkid said:

 

a team with simple, applicable decision rules that are well drilled becomes a very strong team.  Teams that can follow their rules look like Adelaide in the GF.

 

I assume mean can't follow their rules?

6 hours ago, Satyriconhome said:

I

Observe the opposition player making a break down the wing

Orient myself so it looks like I am in a position to chase

Decide that he is too fast for me

Act and point him out to another player who is already marking an opponent

Simples

Wow Jack is back

22 minutes ago, buck_nekkid said:

To simplify:  have a set of decision rules.  Each decision rule is specific enough to be applied instinctively, but flexible enough to be altered if conditions don’t apply.

for example:  half backs should look to kick at 45 degree angles - where a player has a reasonable chance of receiving it.  If not, run like you are being chased like a bear.

The kick in example above might have a rule: don’t kick out to formed packs.  If pack is formed, the kicker should look for alternates, whilst other players should see the pack and know to create other options.

a team with simple, applicable decision rules that are well drilled becomes a very strong team.  Teams that can follow their rules look like Adelaide in the GF.

 

Yep, very good interpretations. It cannot be too clay-footed. It must remain flexible and dynamic. See, think, decide, do, review. Most of us can achieve those factors within a visual array, in a second. Nice one, Buck.

1 hour ago, buck_nekkid said:

To simplify:  have a set of decision rules.  Each decision rule is specific enough to be applied instinctively, but flexible enough to be altered if conditions don’t apply.

for example:  half backs should look to kick at 45 degree angles - where a player has a reasonable chance of receiving it.  If not, run like you are being chased like a bear.

The kick in example above might have a rule: don’t kick out to formed packs.  If pack is formed, the kicker should look for alternates, whilst other players should see the pack and know to create other options.

a team with simple, applicable decision rules that are well drilled becomes a very strong team.  Teams that can follow their rules look like Adelaide in the GF.

 

Collingwood had this sort of system in place under Malthouse.  It made for very fast options as they were all on exactly the same page and knew exactly where the play was going to go. 

Using the kickout example, their frequent play was kick to a marking player on the HBF near the 50 line. 

Option A for that player was to give a quick hand pass to the runner going past. 

If that runner was covered or not in position,  option B was switch to the opposite flank.

That all sounds very simple, but they were so well-drilled in these options that they happened almost without thought.  That meant that they moved the ball faster than their opponents could react.  The marking player knew before he took the ball that there was a runner coming past.  If the runner wasn't viable, he knew exactly where the outlet player was on the far side of the ground, meaning he could play on and kick without having to look around for the option. 

I really liked that system.  It was maybe a little rigid, but it let them get a hell of a lot out of a side that really wasn't that talented. 

2 minutes ago, RalphiusMaximus said:

Collingwood had this sort of system in place under Malthouse.  It made for very fast options as they were all on exactly the same page and knew exactly where the play was going to go. 

Using the kickout example, their frequent play was kick to a marking player on the HBF near the 50 line. 

Option A for that player was to give a quick hand pass to the runner going past. 

If that runner was covered or not in position,  option B was switch to the opposite flank.

That all sounds very simple, but they were so well-drilled in these options that they happened almost without thought.  That meant that they moved the ball faster than their opponents could react.  The marking player knew before he took the ball that there was a runner coming past.  If the runner wasn't viable, he knew exactly where the outlet player was on the far side of the ground, meaning he could play on and kick without having to look around for the option. 

I really liked that system.  It was maybe a little rigid, but it let them get a hell of a lot out of a side that really wasn't that talented. 

Relied in the main on the full back playing on IIRC. Love 'em or hate them the Shaws were excellent in those running back roles

6 hours ago, buck_nekkid said:

To simplify:  have a set of decision rules.  Each decision rule is specific enough to be applied instinctively, but flexible enough to be altered if conditions don’t apply.

for example:  half backs should look to kick at 45 degree angles - where a player has a reasonable chance of receiving it.  If not, run like you are being chased like a bear.

The kick in example above might have a rule: don’t kick out to formed packs.  If pack is formed, the kicker should look for alternates, whilst other players should see the pack and know to create other options.

a team with simple, applicable decision rules that are well drilled becomes a very strong team.  Teams that can follow their rules look like Adelaide in the GF.

 

Slightly wrong mate. The real effects are highly subtle but amazingly powerful. Decision rules can be read and understood by the league, and used against us (Bernie Vincent kicking out to a pack aka 2015/16).

The key to the OODA loop is recognising that your opponents have one too. I.E. whenever you Decide and Act, the opponent is stuck Observing and Orientating before they Decide and Act. 

So how do you make it work?

You make your decision cycle (OODA loop) quicker than the opponent. Consider a mark, handball, side handball and a kick forwards. By the time you're on your kick, the opponent has scrambled to tackle the handlballer (only able to Observe and Orientate behind your action), only freeing up the marker who has run into space through anticipation - or rather - a well trained team action to assume that your fellow team mates will act in unison.

He who has the faster decision cycle wins. Like I said, for militaries who apply this (second timeframes of advantage, for banking corporations, milliseconds on the hedge funds) It's that simple. As the opponent reacting to your initial action might fall two or three possessions behind. Meanwhile, you have a paddock in front of you to push forward.

The frenetic possession pace that I referred to earlier has merit, only if used in this way.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 7, 20187 yr by DeezNuts
Additional info

6 hours ago, DeezNuts said:

Slightly wrong mate. The real effects are highly subtle but amazingly powerful. Decision rules can be read and understood by the league, and used against us (Bernie Vincent kicking out to a pack aka 2015/16).

The key to the OODA loop is recognising that your opponents have one too. I.E. whenever you Decide and Act, the opponent is stuck Observing and Orientating before they Decide and Act. 

So how do you make it work?

You make your decision cycle (OODA loop) quicker than the opponent. Consider a mark, handball, side handball and a kick forwards. By the time you're on your kick, the opponent has scrambled to tackle the handlballer (only able to Observe and Orientate behind your action), only freeing up the marker who has run into space through anticipation - or rather - a well trained team action to assume that your fellow team mates will act in unison.

He who has the faster decision cycle wins. Like I said, for militaries who apply this (second timeframes of advantage, for banking corporations, milliseconds on the hedge funds) It's that simple. As the opponent reacting to your initial action might fall two or three possessions behind. Meanwhile, you have a paddock in front of you to push forward.

The frenetic possession pace that I referred to earlier has merit, only if used in this way.

 

 

 

 

 

Good explanation, 'Nutz. It does boil down to the speed of the decision-making cycle. I guess the aim is to make the opposition 'reactionary' rather than pro-active. At any stage of a game, a one second advantage is a mighty important asset. Can I ask: do you see MFC footballers being able to incorporate observational, orientational, decision-making, action and execution variables to the necessary standards and if so, might prepared drills and practices cement predictable outcomes that create a lag in the process itself? Teamwork, as such, may well deny the series of actions/ individuality of the cycle and its entry, once in train.

7 hours ago, DeezNuts said:

Slightly wrong mate. The real effects are highly subtle but amazingly powerful. Decision rules can be read and understood by the league, and used against us (Bernie Vincent kicking out to a pack aka 2015/16).

The key to the OODA loop is recognising that your opponents have one too. I.E. whenever you Decide and Act, the opponent is stuck Observing and Orientating before they Decide and Act. 

So how do you make it work?

You make your decision cycle (OODA loop) quicker than the opponent. Consider a mark, handball, side handball and a kick forwards. By the time you're on your kick, the opponent has scrambled to tackle the handlballer (only able to Observe and Orientate behind your action), only freeing up the marker who has run into space through anticipation - or rather - a well trained team action to assume that your fellow team mates will act in unison.

He who has the faster decision cycle wins. Like I said, for militaries who apply this (second timeframes of advantage, for banking corporations, milliseconds on the hedge funds) It's that simple. As the opponent reacting to your initial action might fall two or three possessions behind. Meanwhile, you have a paddock in front of you to push forward.

The frenetic possession pace that I referred to earlier has merit, only if used in this way.

 

 

 

 

 

Where results are based upon a series of unpredictable decisions, and where individual poor decisions are ‘expendable’, I see this as useful.  However, where we are looking for coordinated outcomes and poor decision making can be costly, I’m not sure the logic applies

Example: the half back makes a snap decision to go through the corridor.  It catches everyone out, including our players further up the field.  Our players are out of position and we get back to a 50/50 contest, rather than one favour.  If, however, there are a hierarchy of team rules, applied flexibly, then rapid decision making and execution against those rules is more predictable for us, as we are better drilled in them, and turn such contests 70/30 etc.

Helter Skelter OODA will catch everyone out.  If you win more 50/50 contests, and can tolerate the cost of poor or ineffective decisions, then it may apply.  I still think it is less effective than structured, flexible rule based operation where team and coordinated action is required.