Bomb it long!

[Young Blood 2,620]

10 minutes ago, binman said:

True, however the advent of the zone defensive structures and all ground pressure has meant that it is really rare to have the option to have a free, open kick to leading forward such as the one Jones kicked to Garlett on Sat (and Jones was still in a bit of traffic) and often forwards are forced to lead to the pockets or flanks such as the kicks to Melk and Trac on Sat.   

Yeah I agree with this. I don't think the demons are kicking long to contests more often then not for no reason. Most of the time teams now plug up the areas forwards lead into. Like binman mentioned you only really get that opportunity if there is a scramble at half foward and players become loose able to lead freely into holes OR of course if the defense slacks off. I think when the ball stops either with a free kick or mark on half forward, opposition teams get back and fill the backline leaving leads pretty difficult sometimes. If you miss kick to a lead the opposition can rebound so much quicker and effectively then if you send a high long ball in which gives us more time to set up across half forward to lock it in? maybe?

[Deeoldfart 8,033]

Flexibility and unpredictability are key planks of our forward half strategy, but right now we don't have all the pieces of the puzzle to make it work to our advantage as often as it should, especially given our high number of forward half entries.  I reckon we are still trying to find the best mix of players, and that will change anyway, depending on availability, form and to some extent, the opposition.  An important missing ingredient at the moment is a contested marking power forward, and most of us expect TMac to fill that void in the medium term.  When he is back fit and firing the 'long bomb' will become a more viable scoring option, but that does not discount its value right now, if there are no alternative available options to goal. 

[Dappa Dan 2,188]

Tmac + Hogan + Small forwards who are pound for pound better contested marks than they should be (Jeffy, Hannan, Fritsch)... Plus some of the better guys going round in the AFL when the ball hits the deck (same 3 guys).

I get why he does it. As they say in chess, the best move isn't necessarily your most aggressive or defensive... it's the move your opposition LEAST wants you to make. And for this reason, bombing it long worries me. I'm all for it at the right time... When pushed when there's no other option... I'll take my chances with Jesse 1 vs 2... so often he will destroy two players and leave them sprawling on the ground, cutting a swathe for the mosquito fleet...

But that's not what has us worried. It can't be an all the time thing. We have foregone a good running option many times to go for this tactic, and we've gotten ourselves in trouble for it. We're still vulnerable to a rebounding team, even with our top four inside fifty defensive pressure (courtesy of SEN today).

I'm confident we'll change things up when Tmac gets back. In the meantime though, Hawks will slice us, and Tigers will smash us if we keep trying it.

[Diamond_Jim 12,588]

1 hour ago, 640MD said:

What a great set of texts

 

Fully agree ... always great to see tactics discussed

[binman 42,956]

48 minutes ago, Dappa Dan said:

Tmac + Hogan + Small forwards who are pound for pound better contested marks than they should be (Jeffy, Hannan, Fritsch)... Plus some of the better guys going round in the AFL when the ball hits the deck (same 3 guys).

I get why he does it. As they say in chess, the best move isn't necessarily your most aggressive or defensive... it's the move your opposition LEAST wants you to make. And for this reason, bombing it long worries me. I'm all for it at the right time... When pushed when there's no other option... I'll take my chances with Jesse 1 vs 2... so often he will destroy two players and leave them sprawling on the ground, cutting a swathe for the mosquito fleet...

But that's not what has us worried. It can't be an all the time thing. We have foregone a good running option many times to go for this tactic, and we've gotten ourselves in trouble for it. We're still vulnerable to a rebounding team, even with our top four inside fifty defensive pressure (courtesy of SEN today).

I'm confident we'll change things up when Tmac gets back. In the meantime though, Hawks will slice us, and Tigers will smash us if we keep trying it.

Maybe, but i suspect we won't deviate from the plan much. Your game plan is your game plan. You might adjust it depending on the opposition but the best teams play their game and challenge the opposition to react.

I agree it is an issue when one strategy is used all the time and i think too often we take the long option as a function of adhering to the game plan rather than taking a better option. But in some ways this is a natural outcome of implementing a new or different strategy. However once the strategy becomes second nature i think players will get better and not following it blindly. It will take time to get there though.

I really like Skuits analogy of rugby to describe the strategy as in some ways it not just about the long bomb. of course if we can rove the spill or trap the ball inside 50 and force a stoppage that's a winner.

But an important part of the strategy is pushing up and not allowing the opposition to take it back out. When on we do this really this really well and get the repeat inside 50 entries that Roos was saying on sat are so critical. On those re- entries we often chip short or cross low balls to about 30 out dead in front.

The strategy requires our mids and half backs to be super switched on, read the bail out ball, be super accountable and be prepared to gut run to cover players who get out the back. When those things don't happen  (and sometimes even when they do) we will always be at risk of giving up easy transition goals, often in bunches. 

I was really surprised that Saturdays score of 123 was our highest under goody. They were not too bad defensively so it sees our strategy is working pretty well.

[DeeSpencer 25,706]

We had a number of hit up leads not quite work out on the weekend. A ball bounced just in front of Bugg who tried to claim it. Hibbo lasered one in that just dropped short. Other examples where I remember the play but not the players. Buggy turned his man and had the free paid against.

One thing we don't do - so far anyway - is get stuck going to the slow and wide leads that become even slower entries or bad shots on goal.

Less bombing please  but it's not at the top of my list of concerns.

[Axis of Bob 11,811]

We are playing a style of footy designed to work in finals.

Running into space and chipping it to leading forwards inside 50 require space to work in and time to make decisions/execute. When the pressure is at its highest (like a GF) the decision making is at its most difficult. So you need to develop the easiest possible workable game plan that will hold up under the most intense pressure. 

This is almost the entire reason why Richmond won last year. Their game plan was basic, revolved around applying and absorbing the most intense pressure, and meant that relatively talentless hacks were able to execute the game plan on the biggest stage and become premiership players. Adelaide, despite being vastly more talented, lost because their plan didn’t work when you took away the time and space required to make more complex decisions.

We are trying to develop a style of play that is very difficult to break down and easy to execute for even the least talented players in our team.

[Its Time for Another 4,217]

2 hours ago, binman said:

True, however the advent of the zone defensive structures and all ground pressure has meant that it is really rare to have the option to have a free, open kick to leading forward such as the one Jones kicked to Garlett on Sat (and Jones was still in a bit of traffic) and often forwards are forced to lead to the pockets or flanks such as the kicks to Melk and Trac on Sat.   

At one stage Roosy had the Swans pinging the ball around the 50 metre circle laterally like in basketball until a clear option became available. Sometimes that involved doing set plays where forwards blocked defenders and created avenues for other forwards to lead into. Not sure why teams don't do this nowadays it worked very well for them back then. It's a great way of breaking up zones 

 

[Skuit 10,031]

A few points being made here. 

It's difficult to find space inside-50 in the modern game.

Long bombs may be fine on occasion but you can't keep doing them all day as the opposition can easily set up for it.

We've been 'adjusting' and lowering our eyes as our games go on. 

Put them together and maybe it's a tactic? Bomb it early - especially when defenders are still fresh and haven't been run up the ground - and make sure the the opposition are having to set up for it and coming to expect it. Introduce more ball on the lead as the game goes on - hopefully with more space and less tight checking by that time.  

[Jumping Jack Clennett 1,798]

4 hours ago, Scoop Junior said:

Obviously our game plan revolves around winning the clearance (particularly centre clearance), getting the ball forward quickly, if not scoring then locking it in with a high press to play the game in our forward half and getting repeat entries through pressured opposition disposal out of the backline.

In that context it is pretty easy to see why, on occasion, the chaos ball or torp is being used as a Plan B or C when nothing is on.

The other tactic I was thinking of was the intentional free against when the opposition are able to get out of our press and look to break up the ground. It's occasionally used in soccer when a team looks to counter-attack and gets beyond the high press of the opposition. The problem with soccer is you can get carded and then sent off for repetitive fouling. But not in footy.

The idea would be to stop the quick break of the opposition while our defenders are in an aggressive press position and allow them to re-set. We seem to leak goals easily when teams break on us from half back due to our aggressive pressing. If we gave away a free, forcing a player to go back over the mark, stop and look up for options, it allows us time to re-set and get in position. We seem to set up and defend the slow ball movement really well and have good intercepters across half back - what gets us is the fast clean rebound ball when we are caught out of position.

Superficially it would seem that the idea of the "intentional free" ("professional foul") would not work, because the umpires should pay" the advantage". However, several times in every match, the umps fail to pay the advantage, so the tactic of deliberately infringing  is occasionally effective. Players might as well try it....there's nothing to lose.

Edited April 10, 2018 by Jumping Jack Clennett
Accidentally posted before written!

[binman 42,956]

31 minutes ago, It's Time said:

At one stage Roosy had the Swans pinging the ball around the 50 metre circle laterally like in basketball until a clear option became available. Sometimes that involved doing set plays where forwards blocked defenders and created avenues for other forwards to lead into. Not sure why teams don't do this nowadays it worked very well for them back then. It's a great way of breaking up zones 

 

Roosy coached the swans a long time ago. I think in today's footy there is no way players would be allowed to ping it around the arc looking for a way forward as there is such an emphasis now on making sure each possession is under intense pressure. The risk of turnovers would be too great. Much better to turn it over 20 metres out from goals than from the half back line

[Dappa Dan 2,188]

2 hours ago, binman said:

I was really surprised that Saturdays score of 123 was our highest under goody. They were not too bad defensively so it sees our strategy is working pretty well.

Good post.

My fear currently is the post Roos malaise. Under him he took 3 years getting a really super defensive game together. The mentality carried over into 2017, which is natural I guess. But now it's slipping. The narrative that Goody is all offense is starting to look accurate too. He's making inside fifty players look like All Australians that weren't before (Bugg, Melksham, Hogan, Tmac). Meanwhile class defenders are starting to look second rate (Lever, Hunt, Hibberd)... Omac and Jetta obviously a pass.

Coaching up what amounts to a retooling of the Mick Malhouse press is ok... As long as it's mixed in with some other things. I hope you're right about the fact he's pushing this gameplan for now to drill it in. It's a small sample size, only three games... and two of those games were against developing teams. I feel like we're gonna be in for some Goody hate over the next couple of games though, on demonland at least.

[stevethemanjordan 6,952]

Great thread.

I agree that the way we're being drilled to play means quick entries inside 50 are of most benefit given we've adopted the 'in vogue' high pressure forward-line.

However, there are many times in which we have plenty of space and options for players to see and hit. But they don't and that's a weakness that we have across the board.

 

[dpositive 1,665]

Enjoyed this thread.

It seems there is a strong argument for including Peterson the older or Weiderman the next generation as the replacement for T Mac in the second tall forward role.

Weid played well against Hawks last year but they may have underestimated him then and won't do so again. It might be worth selecting both and having them rotate through the bench.

[leave it to deever 17,511]

10 hours ago, poita said:

Quality teams with good intercept marks will destroy us if we persist with this strategy. With Hogan roaming far and wide, and Pedersen and McDonald out of the team, who exactly are the big bodies that are crashing packs and creating opportunities for the crumbers?

So far we have been lucky that Taylor & Henderson at Geelong, and then Tarrant at North have been missing. Arguably Majak Daw was our best forward on the weekend.

Hawthorn and Richmond will be licking their lips if we try it against them. Rance might just set a new record for marks in a couple of weeks.

Pedo needs to go back in if we continue with this method.

[Dee Zephyr 19,267]

6 hours ago, Dappa Dan said:

We're still vulnerable to a rebounding team, even with our top four inside fifty defensive pressure (courtesy of SEN today).

Was that the Pure Footy hour on SEN today DD?

I’m not sure what his name is but he went on and talked about quantity ( forward entries) vs quality ( scoring from forward entries). 

Please correct me if I heard wrong, he stated that Richmond and us are standouts in this stat so far. We both rank in the top 4-5 in the comp. 

He also made a mention about our forward structure, how we like to mix it up and cause opposition defenders to second guess themselves. For example, Hogan up the ground, Trac deep, then change it when Trac goes in the middle and Hogan goes deep again. Kind of a revolving forward line. He said there’s no right or wrong with a system like this and he compared it to Adelaide where their set-up is almost always Walker, Jenkins and Betts as forwards.

In regards to our forward pressure it was interesting to hear that Pedersen was ranked as elite in the first two weeks along with Garlett. Fritch also rated highly in that aspect.

Apologies if this has been posted already or not belonging in this thread. It was interesting listening nonetheless.

Edited April 10, 2018 by Demon77

[D4Life 2,473]

10 hours ago, mauriesy said:

Thoroughly agree with this. And many times it's not possible to do anything BUT "bomb it long". Where there's no leads forthcoming, or crowding inside the arc,  it still gets an inside 50 with about a 40-50% chance to score. And a chance to lock it in.

NOT "bombing it long" can lead to a tackle or a turn-over further up the ground through pressure or hesitation on the ball carrier getting caught looking for options. And a shorter distance back to the opposition goal.

I put the mantra of "don't bomb it long" in the same category as "just kick it". Both meaningless without qualification.

What happens if more players lead, and the leads are honoured? We will take more marks inside 50!

Also if we go with bomb it long, we don’t need 3-4 guys to try mark it. Small forwards did a better job at this on Saturday.

While on that thought, we still have too many players try & mark or spoil in the backline and not enough stay down.

Once we make these minor changes and also keep chasing and not let oppposition players take off on their own. We are a long way towards a top 4 spot. 

[binman 42,956]

Good thread. Annoys me how with the endless footy talk in the media how little analysis of stats and strategy there is

[Dappa Dan 2,188]

8 hours ago, Demon77 said:

Was that the Pure Footy hour on SEN today DD?

I’m not sure what his name is but he went on and talked about quantity ( forward entries) vs quality ( scoring from forward entries). 

Please correct me if I heard wrong, he stated that Richmond and us are standouts in this stat so far. We both rank in the top 4-5 in the comp. 

He also made a mention about our forward structure, how we like to mix it up and cause opposition defenders to second guess themselves. For example, Hogan up the ground, Trac deep, then change it when Trac goes in the middle and Hogan goes deep again. Kind of a revolving forward line. He said there’s no right or wrong with a system like this and he compared it to Adelaide where their set-up is almost always Walker, Jenkins and Betts as forwards.

In regards to our forward pressure it was interesting to hear that Pedersen was ranked as elite in the first two weeks along with Garlett. Fritch also rated highly in that aspect.

Apologies if this has been posted already or not belonging in this thread. It was interesting listening nonetheless.

It was Kingy and Scotty Lucas I think. And yeah you summed it up well. I always find those things a bit meh, as they really do go looking for something to get statistical on. But in terms of just us following our club, it was introduced as something that's a shift in how we play, at least through 3 weeks.

It's also worth pointing out they said we were up there with Tigers, which is good... and GC. So you take it with a grain of salt. 

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,754]

14 hours ago, Dappa Dan said:

Good post.

My fear currently is the post Roos malaise. Under him he took 3 years getting a really super defensive game together. The mentality carried over into 2017, which is natural I guess. But now it's slipping. The narrative that Goody is all offense is starting to look accurate too. He's making inside fifty players look like All Australians that weren't before (Bugg, Melksham, Hogan, Tmac). Meanwhile class defenders are starting to look second rate (Lever, Hunt, Hibberd)... Omac and Jetta obviously a pass.

Coaching up what amounts to a retooling of the Mick Malhouse press is ok... As long as it's mixed in with some other things. I hope you're right about the fact he's pushing this gameplan for now to drill it in. It's a small sample size, only three games... and two of those games were against developing teams. I feel like we're gonna be in for some Goody hate over the next couple of games though, on demonland at least.

Hibberd was an All Australian last year. I accept that he hasn't been in All Australian form so far this year but on the totality of evidence to date, it would seem that since Goodwin has been coaching him, Hibberd has not been second rate. 

[jnrmac 20,065]

19 hours ago, mongrel said:

Yeah I agree with this. I don't think the demons are kicking long to contests more often then not for no reason. Most of the time teams now plug up the areas forwards lead into. Like binman mentioned you only really get that opportunity if there is a scramble at half foward and players become loose able to lead freely into holes OR of course if the defense slacks off. I think when the ball stops either with a free kick or mark on half forward, opposition teams get back and fill the backline leaving leads pretty difficult sometimes. If you miss kick to a lead the opposition can rebound so much quicker and effectively then if you send a high long ball in which gives us more time to set up across half forward to lock it in? maybe?

I think we are winning a lot more clearances and with our set up that means we are often outnumbered in the fwd line. 

We are also still fine tuning how to have our mids pressure their defenders and hold the ball in. Its a work in progress but the signs are good.

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,754]

Just now, jnrmac said:

I think we are winning a lot more clearances and with our set up that means we are often outnumbered in the fwd line. 

We are also still fine tuning how to have our mids pressure their defenders and hold the ball in. Its a work in progress but the signs are good.

I noticed in the North game that for most (or perhaps all) of the second half we dispensed with the standard plan of having an extra forward running off the back of the square whenever there was a centre bounce. This may have been because North was playing a three-man forward line at each bounce (complemented by 4 wingmen and 7 defenders). Nevertheless, this meant we had 6 forwards at the bounce instead of the usual five, thereby only allowing North one extra defender. So, still outnumbered, but we would have been outnumbered by two instead of one if we had persisted with the plan of having a forward start from behind the square.

[Jumping Jack Clennett 1,798]

4 hours ago, Dappa Dan said:

It was Kingy and Scotty Lucas I think. And yeah you summed it up well. I always find those things a bit meh, as they really do go looking for something to get statistical on. But in terms of just us following our club, it was introduced as something that's a shift in how we play, at least through 3 weeks.

It's also worth pointing out they said we were up there with Tigers, which is good... and GC. So you take it with a grain of salt. 

I think a guy by the name of Daniel Horne is on Pure Footy, and sometimes Glen Luff. These two blokes have encyclopaedic knowledge of stats, and,it seems to me, incredible understanding of football trends and tactics.

"Horney" is very ( appropriately) bullish about the Demons.

[DV8 2,271]

22 hours ago, binman said:

True, however the advent of the zone defensive structures and all ground pressure has meant that it is really rare to have the option to have a free, open kick to leading forward such as the one Jones kicked to Garlett on Sat (and Jones was still in a bit of traffic) and often forwards are forced to lead to the pockets or flanks such as the kicks to Melk and Trac on Sat.   

reduce the rotations. Please, reduce.  Get us all back a little bit of running space.  With this will return spontaneity & creativity.

[binman 42,956]

16 minutes ago, DV8 said:

reduce the rotations. Please, reduce.  Get us all back a little bit of running space.  With this will return spontaneity & creativity.

It would reduce pressure no doubt, particulalry near the end of quarters but i for one love the pressure and are happy where things are at atm. I really enjoy watching footy as it is now. Well Melbourne at least