My understanding is that we’ll be playing our own ‘brand’.

1 hour ago, Queanbeyan Demon said:

Just like last week ah?

They had it easy over there, but at the g different story

35 minutes ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

My understanding is that we’ll be playing our own ‘brand’.

Does our brand logo look something like this?

 

Edited September 30, 20186 yr by america de cali

Is the AFL really going ahead with the (satanic) 6 6 6 start at centre bounces?   I suspect a side that wants to play as per pre-2019 will try to ensure there is a secondary ball up more often - it  already happens much of the time.

And with the 18m square will we still have the 9m 'allowed to force through a rushed behind under pressure', or will it become 18m? More likely it will stay 9m and umpires will be guessing how far that is...

19 minutes ago, sue said:

Is the AFL really going ahead with the (satanic) 6 6 6 start at centre bounces?   I suspect a side that wants to play as per pre-2019 will try to ensure there is a secondary ball up more often - it  already happens much of the time.

And with the 18m square will we still have the 9m 'allowed to force through a rushed behind under pressure', or will it become 18m? More likely it will stay 9m and umpires will be guessing how far that is...

sue...im sure they have thought all of this through....absolutely......?

39 minutes ago, america de cali said:

Does our brand logo look something like this?

 

It almost worked for Collingwood. 

I definitely think dangerous small forwards will be on the radar. 

Do some actually watch the game, if you kick to the advantage of the tall forward,  they will mark it easily

If you don't make the intercept defender accountable, they will mark it easily

It is not rocket science, and no I can't see many teams 'copying' it, as most teams already have the above, it is whether they are utilised properly

13 hours ago, Diamond_Jim said:

An interesting discussion to be carried on over the off season.

WCE played the possession game a la the Hawks but with better forwards.

Collingwood midfield was not up to the level it was in the first three finals.

Love to hear some considered views.

It was a game of two styles. While the pressure was high and the game was scrappy Collingwood got on top in the first quarter because it suited their style and speed of play.

To West Coasts credit once they were able to make it 50/50 and stem the tide in the midfield they slowed the game down and started possessing the ball. Collingwood were then restricted in their scoring and whenever they tried to move the ball forward they rarely had a marking option which made it very hard for them to score. Cox was not really that effective apart from a couple of marks due to the body pressure put on him which Richmond were not able to do for whatever reason last week.

In the 3rd and 4th quarter the Eagles aerial dominance took over the game and they really should have been further in front at the final siren. Their marking and size prevented Collingowood moving the ball out of defence often and it allowed WC to have repeat 50 entries without actually putting it on the score board. It also nullified Collingwoods forward pressure as their marking in the back half stopped te ball from hitting the deck as much and took Collingwoods ground level players out of the game. When transitioning the ball I think I counted around 4 or 5 contested marks for Darling in the 3rd quarter alone after he has a bad first half.  This allowed WC to play a kicking or positional game. It was a good example of how to nullify a teams run and pressure. 

2 hours ago, Bonkers said:

  It was a game of two styles.While the pressure was high and the game was scrappy Collingwood got on top in the first quarter because it suited their style and speed of play............

Nah, I thought it was a game of two halves...

Just now, jnrmac said:

Nah, I thought it was a game of two halves...

West Coast were good in the 2nd quarter not just the last half. But it's ok to have different opinions.

1 hour ago, Bonkers said:

West Coast were good in the 2nd quarter not just the last half. But it's ok to have different opinions.

Yep. Its OK to have a sense of humor as well 

Weagles style is based on their resources - a plentiful supply of strong, one grab marking talls such as Kennedy, Darling, Vardy, Barrass, McGovern. Kennedy, Darling and LeCras have been the mainstay of their forward line for many years and they have had a well established and experienced core for the same time.

In time, we will develop a game style based on our resources - a strong midfield and strong marking forwards and backs. When we can regularly and consistently emulate their organised supply to their key forwards, so as to take advantage of our regular dominance of inside 50s, then we will flourish. It takes time.

With a least seven changes to our squad there is scope for major improvement.

2020.

Go dees.

 

 

7 hours ago, george_on_the_outer said:

Sorry LH, but those rule changes will do nothing for what they are designed to alleviate.  

666 only happens at centre bounces.  For the rest of the match the positioning will be the same.  Wingers will sit on the defensive corner and head straight back to cover before the ball has even touched the rucks hand.

The extended goal square will only encourage kicking down the line, as it guarantees the ball further away from the opposition goal.  We already know this leads to a throw in and more congestion.

The big thing to be learned about the GF, is the value of strong marking.  There were fine examples of one grabs, which were game changing from both sides.  Darling, Kennedy, Cox, McGovern, Ryan all came up with grabs in seriously contested situations, that gave their sides game changing opportunity.    How many of our players at the moment could be classified as strong contested marks?

The other thing to be learned was the return of the tagger.  Pendelbury and Yeo were shut down but at the cost to their tags.  How many can a side afford to tag, and how many can you devote to this task?  It probably shows we have a genuine advantage in this area, because teams don't have the numbers to tag Oliver, Viney, and Brayshaw.  

Where our advantage can be exploited is the inability to transition defensively. Oliver and Brayshaw are ordinary at this. If we're going to win a flag, our two-way-running must get a lot better and far more consistent.

7 hours ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

Fair points. 

Given their are at least 15 centre bounces there will be a lot of 6x6x6 set ups.  I can't help but think our mooted list changes (May, Preuss, Hogan) in part relate to the impact of the new rules.

It will be interesting to watch coaching reactions to the changes.

I reckon we realised that it was such a close year and next year is likely to be the same, with no absolute standout team. If we fix our obvious defensive deficiencies, we could win a flag as early as next year. So what currency do we have? Well, we have a talented KPF who has already presumably told us earlier in the year that he will not commit further than 2019 and with this, we saw an opportunity to strengthen our list with picks acquired from the trading of the talented KPF.

We have been flagging this sort of thinking in the age of FA for a while now and I think we're biting the bullet irrespective of rule changes. Although, you may well be right and they have had some impact on the decision making. It would be irresponsible not to take these impending changes into account.

Edited September 30, 20186 yr by A F

On 9/29/2018 at 9:25 PM, Earl Hood said:

Today’s win for the Eagles was also a victory for 2 legitimate ruckman, two key marking forwards and at least two big marking/spoiling key position backman. It’s like 1990’s footy reborn.

These words give me a hard on!!

12 hours ago, Satyriconhome said:

Do some actually watch the game, if you kick to the advantage of the tall forward,  they will mark it easily

If you don't make the intercept defender accountable, they will mark it easily

It is not rocket science, and no I can't see many teams 'copying' it, as most teams already have the above, it is whether they are utilised properly

tl;dr the interceptor isn't the problem. It is the other defender who isn't actually contesting the mark, but trying to prevent the attacker from contesting. 

 

 

If you kick to a one on one the attacker will mark or win a free kick a lot of the time, especially if the kick is to advantage. It is for this reason coaches work so hard to avoid defensive one on ones. The AFL seem to think that 6 6 6 will bring back one on one and reduce congestion, and it might help a little bit it won't be long until a coach works a way around it. Making the interceptors accountable won't solve the issue as they'll still leave their players,  the way Lever does. That's what zones are for.

 

A better solution is to pay a free kick for any sheparding in a marking contest. The reason the intercept is so successful is because the one on one defenders role is no longer to contest the mark, but to hold position. Force the only physical contact to be part of a legitimate attempt to contest a mark (which is almost word for word from the rulebook), and the value of the cheap uncontested interceptor will diminish quickly. 

 

 

Edited September 30, 20186 yr by deanox

On 9/29/2018 at 1:09 PM, david_neitz_is_my_dad said:

West Coast just get to sit out west accumulate wins, get a good finals draw and make it to the big day in ease. You cant draft home ground/crowd advantages.

You have to be absolutely joking. They have a home ground advantage, but so has everyone. They have the worst travel burden of any team. They have to win away from home to finish top 4. They have to finish top 2 to get the 2 home finals. And even if they make the GF they have to play it away from home at a ground they are lucky to see twice a year. (Once in 2017, twice in 2018)

Compare that to Collingwood who play 15-18 times in Melbourne, 12-15 of those at the G. They rarely travel, get to stack up easy home ground wins and then get a home GF if they make it. Talk about a rigged to succeed competition. 

There is a reason that until 2018, the last 5 Grand Finals all had an MCG home team vs. an interstate one, and every time the home team won.

4 hours ago, Aus in Engerland said:

You have to be absolutely joking. They have a home ground advantage, but so has everyone. They have the worst travel burden of any team. They have to win away from home to finish top 4. They have to finish top 2 to get the 2 home finals. And even if they make the GF they have to play it away from home at a ground they are lucky to see twice a year. (Once in 2017, twice in 2018)

Compare that to Collingwood who play 15-18 times in Melbourne, 12-15 of those at the G. They rarely travel, get to stack up easy home ground wins and then get a home GF if they make it. Talk about a rigged to succeed competition. 

There is a reason that until 2018, the last 5 Grand Finals all had an MCG home team vs. an interstate one, and every time the home team won.

For completeness, going back further 11 of the previous 21 premierships were won by non-Vic teams, so despite the tough run the last 5 seasons they've done ok in the big dance, given there was significantly less non-Vic teams for most of that time. 

That makes 12 of the last 27 premierships non-Vic, still over representing for the number of teams.

Further 11 of the losing teams in that period were non-Vic, so 23 of the 54 grand finalists since 1992 are non-Vic. Pretty good considering there was only 5 non-Vic teams out of 16 until 1995, and were 6 of 16 until GWS and GCS joined. 

 

 

 

1 minute ago, deanox said:

For completeness, going back further 11 of the previous 21 premierships were won by non-Vic teams, so despite the tough run the last 5 seasons they've done ok in the big dance, given there was significantly less non-Vic teams for most of that time. 

That makes 12 of the last 27 premierships non-Vic, still over representing for the number of teams.

Further 11 of the losing teams in that period were non-Vic, so 23 of the 54 grand finalists since 1992 are non-Vic. Pretty good considering there was only 5 non-Vic teams out of 16 until 1995, and were 6 of 16 until GWS and GCS joined. 

 

 

 

In reality it's about being there on the big day and there is no doubt that the interstate teams have a better chance of being there (ask Richmond).

11 home games plus one against the cross town rival. That's a decent start in anyone's book. Plus if you can finish first or second a high chance of getting to the GF.

Personally I agree with the GF being moved but on a rotational basis as distinct from home ground advantage. Perhaps Victoria every second year to reflect the Victorian following. Remember 60% of the crowd are predetermined.  Not going to happen as the AFL sold it for the next 40 odd years.

On 9/30/2018 at 8:44 AM, Lucifer's Hero said:

There is an interesting 'tension' between two game styles:  'possession' vs 'pressure' football. 

In the first camp is WCE, Hawks and to some extent Geelong.  The second includes (2016 Bulldogs), Rich, Pies and Demons.  The finals have shown that on any given day either style will win. 

imv it is the new rules in 2019 that will have the biggest impact on game styles:

With the 6x6x6 at centre bounces the ball will go forward very fast.  Imagine - no players behind the square and no +1 in defence.  The ball will come out so fast that defenders will be disadvantaged as their will be no time for a +1 to drop back.  

With the longer goal square when the ball is kicked in it will reach the 'fat' part of the ground, probably at its widest point.  Much harder to defend the width of the ground.  So, I can forsee Max patrolling one side of the ground and Preuss patrolling while keeping our forward structures in place ie not dragging Tom Mc or Weideman up the ground to help defend the 'fat' part.

Defending those situations, imv is what is driving our interest in Preuss and May.  

At the other end of the ground the rule changes help our fast and furious, bomb it long to forwards as initially there is no +1 to intercept.  Imagine all those i50's that won't ricochet back out again!   Most of our medium forwards (Melksham, Petracca, Fristch) are very good marks.  These factors could be why we are willing to let Jessie go. 

It will be interesting to watch how game styles evolve in 2019.  There will be a fair bit of experimenting by coaches but I think they will stick to their underlying 'possession' vs 'pressure' game styles.

It was a wonderful Grand Final played under today's rules. Makes you wonder if rule changes are even necessary. 

To answer my own question, the reason is possibly the way poor teams are coached to play. To be defensive at all costs. Still, wouldn't mind the AFL dumping all the major proposed rule changes and just stick with the following:

• abolish the "hands in the back" rule 
• clarify the "slide tackle" rule so it only applies when the sliding player takes out the legs of his opponent, not when that player falls over a player going for the ball
• enforce the 50 metre penalty given when players on the mark deliberately impede the player with the ball (this was allowed to creep into the game this season)
• reduce interchanges to 60 per quarter
• abolish runners altogether

 

This is controversial I know but one way to decrease stoppages would be to ban tacklers grabbing the ball players wrist and therefore preventing him from handballling.

It 's a very effective tackling innovation that impedes the ball player and creates many more stoppages. But I don't think it's in the spirit of flowing football.

It could be banned like too high and too low.

On 9/29/2018 at 9:25 PM, Earl Hood said:

Now that the Eagles have won the 2018 flag we know all other 17 clubs will be analysing their list, their game plan and just how they won on the day. The AFL is full of copycats as we know. It now seems to me that chaos footy and small defensive forwards, small running halfbacks with intercept marking backs may not be so much in vogue next year. Today’s win for the Eagles was also a victory for 2 legitimate ruckman, two key marking forwards and at least two big marking/spoiling key position backman. It’s like 1990’s footy reborn. Yes there are still running halfbacks, inside mids and small, crumbing forwards but there always were I think. 

The ramifications are I think that the value of secondary ruckman (Pruest), key position backman who can handle the gorillas  (May) has now gone up but so has Hogan’s value as a key forward to offset that for us. The WC structure wants the ball played predominately in the air and this would also help alleviate some of the AFL’s worries about congestion. 

Interesting to see how the recruiters react to the WC blueprint. 

kick mark game plan not the answer for everyone unless you have marking options like darling, kennedy, mcgovern, barass, natanui etc. collingwood lost because their mids got outplayed badly on the day and they don't have key backs. as for the mfc they didn't turn up to play the other week. we need another tall as a backup more so if gawn goes down 

Edited October 2, 20186 yr by Demons1858

12 hours ago, Demons1858 said:

kick mark game plan not the answer for everyone unless you have marking options like darling, kennedy, mcgovern, barass, natanui etc. collingwood lost because their mids got outplayed badly on the day and they don't have key backs. as for the mfc they didn't turn up to play the other week. we need another tall as a backup more so if gawn goes down 

Exactly. Every club has to play a game style suited to who they have. I can see Richmond changing how they play forward with both Lynch and Jack R together. They were forced to play a one tall/many mosquito game plan because that's what they had.

And as to the comment on Gawn...

Every club has players, who even if not their best (not saying Gawn isn't up there), are their most important for structure or because they are just one of a kind. I don't think that any club has a player who is more important to their game than Gawn is to MFC. If he had gone down long term towards the end of the year, MFC probably wouldn't have played finals. He is that important and as you say, need another tall/ruck.