Is Inside 50 Dominance now a Strategy to Exploit?

[Lou C. Fur 1,009]

IS INSIDE 50 DOMINANCE A STRATEGY TO EXPLOIT?

In 2013, on 13 July, Geelong beat Melbourne in the inside 50 count by (70-19)¹. Geelong also easily won the game.

This hurt and embarrassed Melbourne. But Melbourne learnt a lot from this.

Fast forward to 7 September 2018, Elimination Final, Melbourne v Geelong. Melbourne dominated with a +17 inside 50 count². Melbourne famously won the game.

This famous victory of Melbourne over Geelong in the 2018 Elimination Final inflicted hurt and embarrassment on Geelong. Good. GO DEES! But Geelong also took some learning from this...

 

Yesterday (Saturday 30 March 2019) at Kardinia Park, Melbourne again smashed Geelong in the inside 50 count by (72-48), but this time, Melbourne staggeringly, lost the game by 80 points.

The Melbourne Football Club is again hurting and the learning necessarily continues. These are not isolated incidents and Melbourne has lost other recent games after regularly dominating the inside 50 count. These losses whilst dominating the inside 50 count need examination.

Melbourne’s conundrum of yesterday is not isolated: Gold Coast also smashed West Coast yesterday in the inside 50 count (62-46) but Gold Coast lost the game by 52 points.

How can AFL football sides be so dominant in the inside 50 count and still lose?

 

Simon Goodwin touched on this regarding what the MFC needs to do to address this in his press conference yesterday after the game:

We had 72 entries which is a lot, and we need to connect better forward of centre. We need to win more contests ahead of the ball. We need need to move the ball better in a way that's going to connect better to maximise those entries.

These are astute observations, as usual, from Goodwin. However, Jude Bolton focussed the attention on how Geelong used Melbourne’s inside 50 dominance to their advantage:

The ability of the Cats midfielders to spread and get on the outside and really start to pick away this Demon’s outfit particularly off the half backline - I thought they were able to stymie any offence moving forward and then just cut them on the way back³

Leigh Matthews was even more specific:

If the ball is locked in the 50 metre line for a while you might get a crumb and goal. But basically its hard to set up goals actually if the defence is set. So basically the best way to score is to allow the opposition to go into the backline, do this, mark it and run it out of defence whilst the opposition is out of position.⁴

Matthew’s comments in this particular case align with some of my ideas.

 

Anyway, I was there at Kardinia Park yesterday. I saw it all with my many vocal and supportive fellow Melbourne supporters under the rain on seats adjacent to the half forward flank. The game was a spectacle of Melbourne’s 72 (or was it 73) forward 50 entries mostly repelled by a Geelong defence well prepared to do so. Geelong then took full advantage of an open football field and their players were regularly well organised and able to receive so many uncontested possessions on the way to link possessions on the way to far too many easy goals. This was extremely frustrating to witness.

A rare highlight was the unforgettable moment of 1st gamer Jay Lockhart and his brilliant 1st AFL goal (You Byooty!) in the 1st quarter which put us in front and raised us to our feet, elicited a grand collective yell of celebration and engendered a real sense of belief. Long may Lockhart prosper with the MFC!

I also feel it necessary to say that you cannot doubt the collective Melbourne players effort yesterday. They were as usual voraciously fierce at the contest and delivered the ball to the forward line on an excitingly regular occasion.  I think the reason goals were not scored once the ball was in the forward 50 line was less a matter of effort and more a matter of strategy.

Sun Tzu (in “The Art of War”) said:

Appear weak when you are strong, and strong when you are weak.⁵

 

Geelong may or may not have used this Tzu strategy, but they certainly prepared a defence accepting Melbourne’s forward 50 strength, and allowed Melbourne to deliver the ball into their defensive 50 knowing that defending that area was Melbourne’s strength and carefully prepared for multiple counter attacks in open spaces once Melbourne made mistakes.

Will Tzu provide the MFC strategists with some new and helpful ideas?

It’s only round 2, but maybe these ideas will help the Melbourne Football club to continue its climb and improve again this year as it has done for the last 5 years.

GO DEES!

 

References:

1. http://sit.geelongadvertiser.com.au/article/2013/07/13/369199_gfc.html

2. http://www.espn.com.au/afl/story/_/id/24601335/afl-melbourne-demons-vs-geelong-cats-there-no-finals-demons-melbourne

3. “Game Day” broadcast on HSV7 television, Sunday 31 March

4. “Game Day” broadcast on HSV7 television, Sunday 31 March

5. Sun Tzu, c. 512 BC “The Art of War”

Edited March 31, 2019 by Demonia

[DV8 2,271]

25 minutes ago, Demonia said:

How can AFL football sides be so dominant in the inside 50 count and still lose?

If you can lock the ball inside our F50, then stoppage we can win contested ball and hopefully score.  (666) has changed things, and we don't seem to have the numbers to lock it inside F50.

Otherwise bomb it in and create stoppage.

Its not working for whatever? This week the Cats ran the ball out of our F50 and got thru our midfield (wings mostly, iirc)  easily.

31 minutes ago, Demonia said:

Leigh Matthews was even more specific:

If the ball is locked in the 50 metre line for a while you might get a crumb and goal. But basically its hard to set up goals actually if the defence is set. So basically the best way to score is to allow the opposition to go into the backline, do this, mark it and run it out of defence whilst the opposition is out of position.⁴

Matthew’s comments in this particular case align with some of my ideas.

The game has so far opened up a little, like it was back in Leigh's time around the Lions 3 peat.

[rjay 25,306]

15 minutes ago, DV8 said:

If you can lock the ball inside our F50, then stoppage we can win contested ball and hopefully score.  (666) has changed things, and we don't seem to have the numbers to lock it inside F50.

Otherwise bomb it in and create stoppage.

Its not working for whatever? This week the Cats ran the ball out of our F50 and got thru our midfield (wings mostly, iirc)  easily.

The game has so far opened up a little, like it was back in Leigh's time around the Lions 3 peat.

Here's an interesting alternative.

Forget locking it inside 50, forget bombing it in to create a stoppage...

How about a forward leads and we kick it to him. He then kicks a goal.

Simple strategy but we struggle with it.

[Watson11 2,246]

15 minutes ago, rjay said:

Here's an interesting alternative.

Forget locking it inside 50, forget bombing it in to create a stoppage...

How about a forward leads and we kick it to him. He then kicks a goal.

Simple strategy but we struggle with it.

Another idea.  If plan A doesn’t work, make sure we get a stoppage, and then instead of 10 of our players going in to win the ball, we structure up properly and make sure there are no easy kicks coming out.  Most scoring comes from turnovers.  At the moment we can’t create them.

[Lou C. Fur 1,009]

33 minutes ago, DV8 said:

If you can lock the ball inside our F50, then stoppage we can win contested ball and hopefully score.  (666) has changed things, and we don't seem to have the numbers to lock it inside F50.

Otherwise bomb it in and create stoppage.

Its not working for whatever? This week the Cats ran the ball out of our F50 and got thru our midfield (wings mostly, iirc)  easily.

The game has so far opened up a little, like it was back in Leigh's time around the Lions 3 peat.

On Saturday, Melbourne's forward line was congested and Geelong's forward line was open. The preparation and set-up of this by both teams was vastly different. 

[Lou C. Fur 1,009]

43 minutes ago, DV8 said:

If you can lock the ball inside our F50, then stoppage we can win contested ball and hopefully score.  (666) has changed things, and we don't seem to have the numbers to lock it inside F50.

Otherwise bomb it in and create stoppage.

Its not working for whatever? This week the Cats ran the ball out of our F50 and got thru our midfield (wings mostly, iirc)  easily.

The game has so far opened up a little, like it was back in Leigh's time around the Lions 3 peat.

 

Edited March 31, 2019 by Demonia

[DV8 2,271]

We were congested around the middle when we had the ball, we couldn't get time and space to send good disposal inside 50,  and Weide is very green.   this i why I want Keilty in so they can spread the defenders apart.  But this depe4nds on us carrying the ball across the centreline mostly so we can choose  a target.

With (666) this is more feasible,  IF we have the run and carry players in the side.

 

IMO, TMc should not play deep... he's always dangerous when he's free-roaming, and he pops up with the opposition un-aware.  He too can drag his opponent up the ground to the wing or further,  helping to open up our front 50.

TMc can turn & burn his opponent, on the way back to F50.

That's 3 Talls in F50,  all with instructions to spread and create space.  So with these 3 talls,  I'd like to see Lockhart, Melksham, Hunt to use their pace.

So TMC starts at H/Forward-line,  leading up thru the middle to Wing and beyond...  And Hunt starts from the F/Pocket, doing likewise,  leading when we have the ball in our Mids hands. To lead at the ball carrier.  If our Mids turnover the ball, then TMc can continue into defence,  to help close down the space.

 

Weide and Keilty spread, offering options.  And our small-forwards need to feel what the ball carrier is likely to do.   Has to be a super mobile forwardline.

[Lou C. Fur 1,009]

12 minutes ago, Watson11 said:

Another idea.  If plan A doesn’t work, make sure we get a stoppage, and then instead of 10 of our players going in to win the ball, we structure up properly and make sure there are no easy kicks coming out.  Most scoring comes from turnovers.  At the moment we can’t create them.

Creation of turnovers. A skill that must be developed, procured regularly and upon each occasion should be fully capitalised.

[DV8 2,271]

14 minutes ago, Demonia said:

On Saturday, Melbourne's forward line was congested and Geelong's forward line was open. The preparation and set-up of this by both teams was vastly different. 

 I agree  'Dm'... we were atrocious,  and ballsed it all up defensively.   IMO because our old defensive structures no longer work,  in 2019.

[DV8 2,271]

A rolling press in front of the oppositions ball,  might be the way to go.   Blocking space for the Oppo' ball carrier.  Have to kick thru it, or over, or around it the long way.  Risky to take it on.

 

Our half forwards would have to work much harder,  to contribute to the press.   And then work back again.

Edited March 31, 2019 by DV8

[Adam The God 30,603]

I think some teams try to turn other teams strengths into weaknesses. Our inside 50 dominance is clearly one of our strengths, as is our ability to win clearances. If you don't have those strengths, then you surrender the inside 50 and set up to repel and play slingshot. Geelong are brilliant at this and have literally played it for close to a decade now. Since Hawthorn have reinvented themselves, they do a similar thing.

[Skuit 10,031]

29 minutes ago, A F said:

I think some teams try to turn other teams strengths into weaknesses. Our inside 50 dominance is clearly one of our strengths, as is our ability to win clearances. If you don't have those strengths, then you surrender the inside 50 and set up to repel and play slingshot. Geelong are brilliant at this and have literally played it for close to a decade now. Since Hawthorn have reinvented themselves, they do a similar thing.

One of the issues of our game-plan - forward territory/forced contested - is that we create our own flood against while exposing our back-line. This is obviously an accepted compromise from the footy department, with I believe the view that if we can improve efficiency just slightly at both ends - say two goals each way on average - we'll come out on top.

Yet, as you say, we'll continue to struggle against teams which deliberately set-up to counter this and have the applicable attributes to do so. Goody, and Roos before him, are not reactive or interested in the opposition or what the opposition might be planning/doing to counter us. It's always about our brand - executing the way we want to play. We're still have the training-wheels on.

Yet, coaches like Scott and Clarkson have footy nous combined with mature leaders and a win at all costs mentality. Hopefully we'll get there, but I don't think it's the players and footy department who are ahead of themselves - rather the fans. We thought we might be ready for a tilt, but the team is still being developed for a dynasty - under our current system.

What's hard to fathom with the 666 is that when we get a clearance and bomb we still seem to be outnumbered or it goes directly to the opposition - I think demonstrating that our opponents are clearly playing against our style. If we insist on bombing it (and I accept that this is one part of the plan), then we need to sort out our forward patterns and inside bombing style.

Kick it for touch. Or at least not the goal-square/40-45 meters directly out. The biggest problem right now is that we don't have the forward personnel for our style. No pack-markers and no crumb. Mid-fielders instead of half-forwards. A lack of opportunists and special talent. Slow and not particularly agile. And who's going to lead when they expect to be overlooked?

 

[What 18,810]

Its only exploitable if we don't fix our system/delivery going inside forward 50.

If we do that we will be hard to beat.

[SPC 3,571]

This has been an issue for Goodwin since he came in. We seem to have players with low IQ who feel that a quick kick inside 50 means their job is done.. We will have at least 4-5 similar games like this for the remainder of the year, then Goodwin will address it and we improve for a few weeks- then repeat the cycle. 

 

[Fanatique Demon 2,680]

It seems to me that our forward flankers and pockets don't start wide enough, so when the ball is bombed in, it is to a pack instead of to a one-on-one contest. Watch how they set up after a goal. No one is on the boundary.

[Wrecker45 3,378]

Great post. It is worth mentioning we have spent big in the last 2 drafts on established backs who will, when on the park, be elite at repelling opposition inside 50’s.

Hold tight we also have better forwards to come back in that can capitalise on the inside 50’s.

[Bitter but optimistic 22,289]

8 hours ago, rjay said:

Here's an interesting alternative.

Forget locking it inside 50, forget bombing it in to create a stoppage...

How about a forward leads and we kick it to him. He then kicks a goal.

Simple strategy but we struggle with it.

I too have been perplexed by our lack of ability to offer genuine forward leads. One reason is that our forwards seem to push forward to quickly meaning that a lead, even if successful, leaves them too far out. As @Fanatique Demon alludes to above it is a structural or set up issue.

Why doesn't one key forward always stay back near the goals? It would provide a leading option, Also it would split the defence to some extent and avoid being constantly outnumbered at forward contests.

Unless you have a Wayne Carey or Tony Locket up forward then expecting to win contested pack marks regularly is a dream.

[Wiseblood 24,637]

@Demonia - I don't have anything massive to add right now, but I just wanted to say that was a ripping OP.  Thoughtful, concise, looked at both sides and didn't need to go over the top.  Nicely done.

[tiers 2,875]

After the first game against Geelong in 2018, Goodwin lamented the fact that they had rebounded 49 times out of 64 entries into the forward line.

Here we are, 12 months later, and the same toxic game plan is exposed. At times on Saturday I saw a ball kicked high and long into the forward line only for the defence to punch it away and the only player front and square was the opposition.

I used to think that it was only because players were aiming for Jesse's head in the goal square. It now seems that the disease has spread to all players trying to position in the forward line. No good saying that they should be leading because most kicks are not well directed.

I don't mind long (and quick) kicks into the forward line but we must find a way to hold the ball in. That's where we are struggling. A first gamer, a second gamer and the occasional mid passing through is not my idea of a structure that can hold the ball in.

Time for a re-think on strategy and, most importantly, selection.

[jnrmac 20,276]

None of this should be news to Goodwin and Co. It is also well telegraphed that our strategy has been to get the ball in side 50 quickly. We saw this last year. The news rules however make it easier for teams to clear the ball from defence.

Geelong's defence was very well organised. Ours is frankly a rabble.

1.Too many players going for a contest with the number of times the ball fell to the back where Geelong had two or three players to run into easy goals

2. Starting Ablett at FF knowing that May would be the deepest defender was obvious and worked to unsettle our defence. May ended up further up the ground

3. Last year Scott dragged Lever back to defence one on one where he is weakest. That worked as well.

4. We had 3 or 4 players commit to many contests. 2 or 3 Geeling players sat on the outside meaning if we won the contest they could tackle. If they won the contest they could run and spread.

5. Fumbling was almost our worst enemy. They handled the ball cleanly and with intent. We were like 12 yo's with a bar of wet soap.

6. Our defenders are among the worst in the comp at defending one on one. Yes the structure of our defence with injuries has made it difficult but we have major issues with OMac and Frost. May like Lever will take a while to settle in but he can't do it on his own. I would start trialling Kielty and Petty.

7. As for ANB and our mid tier players. There are a swag of them that just need to do more. They are possibly worse than ineffective. They are becoming a liability. Why do teams like Geelong have new players that come in and look like they have been playing for 5 years?

We need major gameplan surgery. And perhaps it wasn't such a wise idea not to review the Perth loss.... 

[stevethemanjordan 6,952]

10 hours ago, Demonia said:

We had 72 entries which is a lot, and we need to connect better forward of centre. We need to win more contests ahead of the ball. We need need to move the ball better in a way that's going to connect better to maximise those entries.

These are astute observations, as usual, from Goodwin. However, Jude Bolton focussed the attention on how Geelong used Melbourne’s inside 50 dominance to their advantage:

 

Astute?! Ha!

Goodwin telling us what we already know doesn't help. 

Him addressing it at some point would be nice though.

[rjay 25,306]

19 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

The news rules however make it easier for teams to clear the ball from defence.

They should make it easier for us to score...less congestion, one on one starting positions.

...but we are not using it to our advantage.

The new rules, if we use them to our advantage should make it a lot harder for teams to defend.

We are playing dumb football.

[spirit of norm smith 16,615]

47 minutes ago, tiers said:

After the first game against Geelong in 2018, Goodwin lamented the fact that they had rebounded 49 times out of 64 entries into the forward line.

Here we are, 12 months later, and the same toxic game plan is exposed. At times on Saturday I saw a ball kicked high and long into the forward line only for the defence to punch it away and the only player front and square was the opposition.

I used to think that it was only because players were aiming for Jesse's head in the goal square. It now seems that the disease has spread to all players trying to position in the forward line. No good saying that they should be leading because most kicks are not well directed.

I don't mind long (and quick) kicks into the forward line but we must find a way to hold the ball in. That's where we are struggling. A first gamer, a second gamer and the occasional mid passing through is not my idea of a structure that can hold the ball in.

Time for a re-think on strategy and, most importantly, selection.

Exactly. Bombs high and long into the 50 don’t work. Neither to kicks to pockets.  What about a look up to see what’s ahead?

[buck_nekkid 6,068]

This tactic has previously been known as ‘rope a dope’, and is the whole basis of Druggies gameplan.  

On Saturday night we couldn’t slingshot back up the field because we never got near it.  Defensively, we were unbelievably bad.  Geelong got numbers back, made f50 entries a contest then spread so much harder than us.

they let our ability to win the middle ‘rope a dope’ and 80 points later there isn’t too much glory in either of our arcs.

[Demon Dynasty 17,130]

11 hours ago, rjay said:

Here's an interesting alternative.

Forget locking it inside 50, forget bombing it in to create a stoppage...

How about a forward leads and we kick it to him. He then kicks a goal.

Simple strategy but we struggle with it.

Rjay could you please stop making so much sense so early on a Monday morning!

Lucifer forbid we should get the basics of solid footy right!  I much prefer our panic manic method with mostly horrid hacking and bombing forward and watching a forward line that has no crumbing or defensive capabilities struggle with the very thing they have trouble doing when the pill hits the deck.

Are you seriously saying you would prefer to watch us link up and hit targets on a regular basis and take more shots at goal like good teams do?

Boring!

Edited March 31, 2019 by Rusty Nails