Richmond, us, and a few other teams rely heavily on zone defence. Richmond have been by far the best at it, but last night they were completely dismantled by Collingwoods game plan to counter it.

Did Collingwood just have an amazing night, or will good teams now consistently dismantle zone defences?  

We're an extremely inconsistent example of a zone defence. I've always hated it. 

May and Lever in the same side will change that somewhat though. 

666 makes it harder ( not impossible ) to get numbers at the back to corral the opposition..Ie guard a zone.

Now he who HAS the ball will win.

Collingwood HAD. the ball...and won.

 

Edited March 28, 20196 yr by beelzebub

I don't think it is zone defence that makes the difference.  Richmond broke down in the middle and forward.

The difference is the underlying game plan:  'chaos vs control' football. 

Like Richmond we play 'chaos' style whereas Collingwood more and more play 'control' style like WCE and Hawks.  They amass huge uncontested possessions and marks and can control the tempo.  Very difficult for 'chaos' style to stop that when they are marking and the ball doesn't come to ground for a contest.

6-6-6 and other rule changes aid the 'control' style more than 'chaos' by creating open space, as Port showed last week.

'Control' football requires a team with very good foot skills and to be very disciplined.  We don't have the foot skills to play 'control' football.  And tbh I'm not sure we have the on-field footy nous to implement it.

Edited March 28, 20196 yr by Lucifer's Hero

1 minute ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

I don't think it is zone defence that makes the difference.  Richmond broke down in the middle and forward.

The difference is the underlying game plan:  'chaos vs control' football. 

Like Richmond we play 'chaos' style whereas Collingwood more and more play 'control' style like WCE and Hawks.  They amass huge uncontested possessions and marks and can control the tempo.  Very difficult for 'chaos' style to stop that when they are marking and the ball doesn't come to ground for a contest.

The latter requires a team with very good foot skills and to be very disciplined.  We don't have the foot skills to play 'control' football.  And tbh I'm not sure we have the on-field footy nous to implement it.

So I should book a round the world holiday, settle down in a kibutz after meeting a girl, have kid/s and come back in 3-4 years when we have the nous?

2 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

I don't think it is zone defence that makes the difference.  Richmond broke down in the middle and forward.

The difference is the underlying game plan:  'chaos vs control' football. 

Like Richmond we play 'chaos' style whereas Collingwood more and more play 'control' style like WCE and Hawks.  They amass huge uncontested possessions and marks and can control the tempo.  Very difficult for 'chaos' style to stop that when they are marking and the ball doesn't come to ground for a contest.

The latter requires a team with very good foot skills and to be very disciplined.  We don't have the foot skills to play 'control' football.  And tbh I'm not sure we have the on-field footy nous to implement it.

Footy cycles are a fascinating thing. If what you’re saying is true then we’ve done a full loop. It was only five years ago that Richmond were playing the slow, uncontested style of football that got them to finals but no further.

I think the key is what holds up in the home and away season may not necessarily hold up in September.

4 minutes ago, P-man said:

Footy cycles are a fascinating thing. If what you’re saying is true then we’ve done a full loop. It was only five years ago that Richmond were playing the slow, uncontested style of football that got them to finals but no further.

I think the key is what holds up in the home and away season may not necessarily hold up in September.

Hawthorn managed quite well in September

2 minutes ago, P-man said:

Footy cycles are a fascinating thing. If what you’re saying is true then we’ve done a full loop. It was only five years ago that Richmond were playing the slow, uncontested style of football that got them to finals but no further.

I think the key is what holds up in the home and away season may not necessarily hold up in September.

Quite a few articles about 'chaos' vs 'control' (or 'possession') football were written during our 2018 finals. 

The contest is still key if the ball comes to ground.  Both styles can hold up in September as shown by Bulldogs/Rich on the 'chaos' style and WCE and Hawthorn on the 'control' style.  That is no coincidence as Simpson was a Clarkson protege during Hawks halcyon days.

As noted I don't think we have the skills to play 'control' football so we need to find a way to counter it.

 

9 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

Hawthorn managed quite well in September

Not since 2015.  Haven’t won a final.

5 minutes ago, Watson11 said:

Not since 2015.  Haven’t won a final.

Possibly because they gave away some of their best kicks and smartest players (Hill, Mitchell, Lewis, Hodge) in the following years; guys who had the nous to control the team on the field.  Their replacements need time to catch on and mature.

It will be interesting to see how the Lions evolve this year - wouldn't be surprised to see them go the 'control' style as their players mature.

Edited March 28, 20196 yr by Lucifer's Hero

3 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

Quite a few articles about 'chaos' vs 'control' (or 'possession') football were written during our 2018 finals. 

The contest is still key if the ball comes to ground.  Both styles can hold up in September as shown by Bulldogs/Rich on the 'chaos' style and WCE and Hawthorn on the 'control' style.  That is no coincidence as Simpson was a Clarkson protege during Hawks halcyon days.

As noted I don't think we have the skills to play 'control' football so we need to find a way to counter it.

 

If you think back to early 2000’s control footy started at Port Adelaide when Clarkson was an assistant.  Port consistently finished top after home and away playing it, but consistently bombed out in finals.  Back in those days there was no such thing as zones, it was all man on man defence.  Port had to develop extra plans to win the flag, and they did.  

Is man on man defence a better counter to the control game plan. Definitely sides would need to work harder to defend.

4 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

Quite a few articles about 'chaos' vs 'control' (or 'possession') football were written during our 2018 finals. 

The contest is still key if the ball comes to ground.  Both styles can hold up in September as shown by Bulldogs/Rich on the 'chaos' style and WCE and Hawthorn on the 'control' style.  That is no coincidence as Simpson was a Clarkson protege during Hawks halcyon days.

As noted I don't think we have the skills to play 'control' football so we need to find a way to counter it.

 

Granted Hawthorn were ridiculously good at keepings off. Eagles were still strong in the contest and the numbers were fairly even in the GF.

Even though it’s Round 2 I think you’re right in that early signs are showing the teams with a greater ability to retain possession will fare better this season. One thing we have in our favour is an innovative coaching team.

Richmond constantly allowed the Pies to chip the ball around half back. From the TV, the Tigers has 5-6 players in a line in the middle going across the ground and seemed happy to allow the Pies to methodically move the ball from one side of the ground to the other hoping eventually it would be turned over up the field and rebound.

It felt like I was watching the round ball where a team parks the bus and waits for a counter. A poster here a while back started a thread about a basketball team that plays a full on press all game for good results. Richmond rarely pressured the controlled slow Collingwood ball movement out of defence. 

FWIW Hawthorn just about lost all the stats last week, possessions -73, contested -18 and uncontested - 64, inside 50s yet walked away with a 32 point win in Adelaide. 

Probably a bit early to determine whether the zone defence is dead, but a good talking point nonetheless.

I disagree that we don't have the personnel to implement the control game style. Collingwood's kicking is pretty ordinary at times. This was even demonstrated last night at times and I don't think they could have played much better as a team.

The key to the control game style is that the kicks are going to uncontested situations. It's far easier to nail a kick to an uncontested position rather than kick to the advantage of a team mate where there is less room for error. There is a tendency to bite off more tha  you can chew with a contested kick and the contest can be halved easily if the kick to advantage is not precise.

A lot of it's about spread IMO and that's where Collingwood's speed is helpful to their list and suited to their game style.

Whereas, we've built a list around contested beasts whose contested possessions will stand up in finals.

Given our lack of speed (particularly in the forward half), it makes perfect sense that we adopt a fast and chaotic style that can be implemented directly after winning the contested possession.

The problem with the chaotic style is that it solely relies on much more taxing work rate to execute pressure and when it is non existent, as it was last night for Richmond, or even slightly off, the game style is severely compromised.

The control game style however is less taxing on the team in possession of the ball and just requires spreading, but makes the opposition work overtime even to regain possession. 

I think we could play the control game style and we were playing it at times across 2015-2017. But given our lack of contested marks and our lack of speed, I would potentially still lean towards us playing chaotic football.

However, given our seeming lack of fitness at the moment, it might actually be better to try the control game style (with less fitness needed) for a few weeks until we've gained some much needed fitness.

Ideally, I'd like us to cultivate a third unique style. It'll be interesting to see if we change things up tomorrow.

Edited March 28, 20196 yr by A F

18 minutes ago, Watson11 said:

If you think back to early 2000’s control footy started at Port Adelaide when Clarkson was an assistant.  Port consistently finished top after home and away playing it, but consistently bombed out in finals.  Back in those days there was no such thing as zones, it was all man on man defence.  Port had to develop extra plans to win the flag, and they did.  

Is man on man defence a better counter to the control game plan. Definitely sides would need to work harder to defend.

Clarkson may well have been the one who put the finishing touches on Port's 'control' style.  He left when they won the premiership and refined it at Hawthorn and importantly recruits players who can play that style.

I'm not sure man-on-man defence has gone out of the game but equally not sure if it is enough to counter 'control' football when a team is very good at it.

I think it is true to say that defence evolves from game style.  I would think that zone and man-on-man defence can work with 'chaos' and 'control' game styles.

A third unique and innovative style? Yes.

Play two big ruckman, set up mismatches (tall v short, fast v slow, one on one match ups) and attack the perceived weak links in the opposition.

Oops, without runners how do we set this up as a dynamic model during the game? Smoke signals from the bench or cleverly crafted code messages on the sign boards?

I know it will work but how do we implement it?

 

 

24 minutes ago, A F said:

The problem with the chaotic style is that it solely relies on much more taxing work rate to execute pressure and when it is non existent, as it was last night for Richmond, or even slightly off, the game style is severely compromised.

The control game style however is less taxing on the team in possession of the ball and just requires spreading, but makes the opposition work overtime even to regain possession. 

Agree the chaos game requires possession. If the opposition denies possession there is simply not enough forward forays to kick an adequate score.Last season while we kicked good scores we were relatively inefficient.

Great discussion.

It's far far too early to tell and too easy to jump to conclusions

obviously new game plans are required both offensively and defensively and these will take months (or more) to evolve

toss in the fact that it is season start and many players and teams are still a little rusty

we may not have a very clear picture till the bye time

I actually thought our game...chaos footy was more about ball movement, relentless pressure etc.  Not.... possession as such.

Just my thoughts

32 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

I actually thought our game...chaos footy was more about ball movement, relentless pressure etc.  Not.... possession as such.

Just my thoughts

Well, you need possession in the first place in order to get the footy into dangerous areas to pressure and creating scoring chances.

We rely on our contested possessions to gain metres and then pressure the opposition into giving up scores in their defensive 50. Same idea as Richmond, except their play was/is based more off slingshot, given their centre clearance work was/is ordinary.

1 hour ago, Watson11 said:

Richmond, us, and a few other teams rely heavily on zone defence. Richmond have been by far the best at it, but last night they were completely dismantled by Collingwoods game plan to counter it.

Did Collingwood just have an amazing night, or will good teams now consistently dismantle zone defences?  

The key factor missed here is that, as with the prelim final, it was mild night. Richmond's manic press works best under greasy conditions and both times against the Pies they copped perfect conditions for kicking and marking and both times they went small in the hope that the ball would be spilling onto the ground - which it wasn't.

   

It is not possible to read anything in terms of defensive structures from the Richmond-Collinwood game. 

Richmond lost Rance, their best defender.  Collingwood have Cox the tallest player in the league. 

 

1 hour ago, george_on_the_outer said:

It is not possible to read anything in terms of defensive structures from the Richmond-Collinwood game. 

Richmond lost Rance, their best defender.  Collingwood have Cox the tallest player in the league. 

 

Richmond had the 2nd most inside 50s last year because even though they lost centre clearances, they would intercept and transition quickly to their forward 50 and then lock it in.  They zone up and pressure well when sides are trying to transition out of defence and create lots of intercepts and repeat inside 50s.  Watching last night, Collingwood just picked their zone apart repeatedly and Cox and Rance were not the reason.  In fact, Rance would have made zero difference last night as Richmond’s defence last night was defending a lot of uncontested kicks into the forward 50.

 

3 hours ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

 

As noted I don't think we have the skills to play 'control' football so we need to find a way to counter it.

 

Something that is exacerbated by our lack of pace. And the wide spaces of the G

And if we are not switched on and really prepared (and able it must be said - if not fit enough we will struggle. Port played us n break spreading and absolutely smashed us in uncontested ball, in large part because we ran out of gas) to gut run to limit the uncontested ball we are in trouble

Against the Hawks we had clear plan to reduce the number of uncontested possessions and get across to hold up players up if they did get an uncontested mark (as i remarked on the DL podcast i could see the message board in the dug out with my binos from my seat and there was big emphasis on this). It worked and Hawks could not control the game.

Conversely we simply could not achieve this against West Coast  who were relentless at spreading and hitting up uncontested player (and then suddenly  rushing it forward). A combination of the heat, payers running out gas, the occasion, the huge and very taxing preceding  weeks, the size of the ground and how well West Coast executed their plan meant we were toast.

I think kardina park suits us because the cats do not have the space to spread us and there is invariably more congestion. 

Another aspect of last night is that the game allowed the Collingwood defence to sit back around the halfback line. Accordingly when Richmond got the ball and tried to go forward the Collingwood defenders were there ready and waiting.

The way to counter Collingwood is to relax the zone slightly. Sure it makes the zone easier to penetrate but it denies the continued uncontested possessions which were allowed to Collingwood. Just need a few turnovers and the Pies game would have looked second rate.