11 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

the chaos game is inefficient. You need quick skilful players etc and you need very high possession rates.

It has a role but as an only gameplan it will be unlikely to get you there. Sure you can luck in but statistically the odds are low.

Do we have the players for an alternative gameplan. Who knows as we've never tried it.

This is it...chaos as a component..has a place.

By definition you can't control chaos. And we try...and with inadequate provision.

Any wonder really as to the results.

Our game is flawed by design.

On 4/3/2019 at 8:03 AM, Lucifer's Hero said:

The way it looks to me:

WCE, Pies, Hawks, Cats:  Control and Possession football:  Use the width of the ground, stretch the defence.  Precision kick/ mark to move the ball downfield.  Zone and man-to-man defence.  Need great disposal skills and discipline to follow the game plan/positioning/leading etc.

Richmond, Bulldogs, Demons:  Chaos football:  Get the ball to ground, move it forward as fast as possible in any way possible.  Predominately zone defence.  Highly dependent on winning contests.

Adelaide:  don't know but looks like a hybrid.

Ess, Carlton, Freo, GCS, Saints, North:  no discernible system that looks like either of the top two.

Port, Sydney, Brisbane, Giants are more like the first group but not as refined/skilled at it.

I would be interested in the thoughts of other track watchers but when I look at our full ground match simulations at training I see ball movement more akin to the “control and possession” game style described where we switch plays from one flank to the other, look for the player in space or on the lead. I don’t see this on game day. We don’t play how we train in my opinion. 

22 minutes ago, Earl Hood said:

I would be interested in the thoughts of other track watchers but when I look at our full ground match simulations at training I see ball movement more akin to the “control and possession” game style described where we switch plays from one flank to the other, look for the player in space or on the lead. I don’t see this on game day. We don’t play how we train in my opinion. 

Might the idea that REAL opposition play with fair dinkum intent ?

Drills are just drills. 

4 hours ago, titan_uranus said:

I honestly think that 6-6-6 is being completely overplayed. It affects the initial centre bounce only. 

If I had to pick a rule change which has hurt us the most, I'd pick the kick ins.

Our game focuses on CPs and clearances and keeping the ball locked in our forward half with a high forward press. The new kick in rule lets our opponents get out of their back 50 much easier

This is why we are not making mass changes rapidly, IMO.  Because we are yet to see the results on our game style, with out list intact.

We aren't playing well, leaving open spaces all over the park.  Having players hurt and not able to run hard, is hurting us. TMc, Viney, Jones.

 

TMc playing deep, I think was a big mistake in all this.   Setting us off, from the wrong foot.

23 hours ago, Earl Hood said:

I would be interested in the thoughts of other track watchers but when I look at our full ground match simulations at training I see ball movement more akin to the “control and possession” game style described where we switch plays from one flank to the other, look for the player in space or on the lead. I don’t see this on game day. We don’t play how we train in my opinion. 

Good feedback, thanks.

Would be interested in your thoughts why do they do a jekyll and hyde from training to game day?  Also have you noticed changes in set-ups at training for the new rules?

On 4/3/2019 at 8:03 AM, Lucifer's Hero said:

The way it looks to me:

WCE, Pies, Hawks, Cats:  Control and Possession football:  Use the width of the ground, stretch the defence.  Precision kick/ mark to move the ball downfield.  Zone and man-to-man defence.  Need great disposal skills and discipline to follow the game plan/positioning/leading etc.

Richmond, Bulldogs, Demons:  Chaos football:  Get the ball to ground, move it forward as fast as possible in any way possible.  Predominately zone defence.  Highly dependent on winning contests.

Adelaide:  don't know but looks like a hybrid.

Ess, Carlton, Freo, GCS, Saints, North:  no discernible system that looks like either of the top two.

Port, Sydney, Brisbane, Giants are more like the first group but not as refined/skilled at it.

Really good thread and awesome summary there LH. I think we all know our own game plan pretty well but not others. 

I found it a bit funny on Sat night when Richo said if the Pies get to 180 marks the Eagles won't go with them despite the fact that West Coast play the kick-mark style probably better than anyone. 

Thought it was worth bumping this after last night Freo v WC game.  I thought Lyon showed how to beat the control and possession game plan after qtr time.

After the first qtr Freo seemed to allow WC uncontested possessions in the back half  when they lost the ball.  They played something resembling the old flood.  They did not press or waste energy trying to shut down WC forward of centre.  If they had better skills the Dockers would have won.

WC won uncontested possessions by 72, marks by 54, stoppage clearances by 13, but didn’t look like they knew what to do once they got it forward of centre because  the flood of Freo players cut all of WCs space.  Dockets were +13 in intercepts, probably mostly in defensive half and were effective in getting the ball back forward.

Is this what we’ll start seeing to counter the WC type game plan.

1 minute ago, Watson11 said:

Thought it was worth bumping this after last night Freo v WC game.  I thought Lyon showed how to beat the control and possession game plan after qtr time.

After the first qtr Freo seemed to allow WC uncontested possessions in the back half  when they lost the ball.  They played something resembling the old flood.  They did not press or waste energy trying to shut down WC forward of centre.  If they had better skills the Dockers would have won.

WC won uncontested possessions by 72, marks by 54, stoppage clearances by 13, but didn’t look like they knew what to do once they got it forward of centre because  the flood of Freo players cut all of WCs space.  Dockets were +13 in intercepts, probably mostly in defensive half and were effective in getting the ball back forward.

Is this what we’ll start seeing to counter the WC type game plan.

Maybe...need a team that runs both ways all day to do this

33 minutes ago, Watson11 said:

Thought it was worth bumping this after last night Freo v WC game.  I thought Lyon showed how to beat the control and possession game plan after qtr time.

After the first qtr Freo seemed to allow WC uncontested possessions in the back half  when they lost the ball.  They played something resembling the old flood.  They did not press or waste energy trying to shut down WC forward of centre.  If they had better skills the Dockers would have won.

WC won uncontested possessions by 72, marks by 54, stoppage clearances by 13, but didn’t look like they knew what to do once they got it forward of centre because  the flood of Freo players cut all of WCs space.  Dockets were +13 in intercepts, probably mostly in defensive half and were effective in getting the ball back forward.

Is this what we’ll start seeing to counter the WC type game plan.

I didn't see this match but bulldogs and pies tried to copy the eagles control/possession game in the first half.  Neither looked very skilled or confident using it and they also fell down fwd of centre.  The first half was like backyard footy playing kick-mark.  Awful game to watch.  Pies dropped this style after half time.

WCE usually go fast into i50 once they have the ball fwd of center and do it very well.  Interesting that freo may have found the way to stop that. 

Good observations W11 - will be interesting to see how the styles evolve this year. 

Once interchange rotations took over the game, running both ways on the ground is the only constant. 

2 hours ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

I didn't see this match but bulldogs and pies tried to copy the eagles control/possession game in the first half.  Neither looked very skilled or confident using it and they also fell down fwd of centre.  The first half was like backyard footy playing kick-mark.  Awful game to watch.  Pies dropped this style after half time.

WCE usually go fast into i50 once they have the ball fwd of center and do it very well.  Interesting that freo may have found the way to stop that. 

Good observations W11 - will be interesting to see how the styles evolve this year. 

Yes and Freo totally blunted it.  Last night, after WCE the first 5 goals from 13 inside 50s they scored 5 more from 38.  In the first 6 minutes of the 2nd qtr WCE had 30 uncontested marks in the back half.  They just didn’t know what to do, and the dockers didn’t allow the eagles to play how they wanted.  Freo should have won but for poor kicking for goal.  Yet the eagles had almost 80% disposal efficiency versus freo 65%.

4 hours ago, Watson11 said:

Thought it was worth bumping this after last night Freo v WC game.  I thought Lyon showed how to beat the control and possession game plan after qtr time.

After the first qtr Freo seemed to allow WC uncontested possessions in the back half  when they lost the ball.  They played something resembling the old flood.  They did not press or waste energy trying to shut down WC forward of centre.  If they had better skills the Dockers would have won.

WC won uncontested possessions by 72, marks by 54, stoppage clearances by 13, but didn’t look like they knew what to do once they got it forward of centre because  the flood of Freo players cut all of WCs space.  Dockets were +13 in intercepts, probably mostly in defensive half and were effective in getting the ball back forward.

Is this what we’ll start seeing to counter the WC type game plan.

That's the obvious answer under (666) for the turnover inside our own F50...  is a rolling flood of the space in front of the opposition ball.  To win the ball back after we've hopefully drawn their runners forward and out of our own F50.

This will mean a congested midfield.

Half backs like Daniel Rich will be handy.  As will Tall powerful overhead marks inside the midfield and across the F50.   Plus foot speed inside F50.

53 minutes ago, DV8 said:

That's the obvious answer under (666) for the turnover inside our own F50...  is a rolling flood of the space in front of the opposition ball.  To win the ball back after we've hopefully drawn their runners forward and out of our own F50.

This will mean a congested midfield.

Half backs like Daniel Rich will be handy.  As will Tall powerful overhead marks inside the midfield and across the F50.   Plus foot speed inside F50.

That’s not what Freo did.  They just flooded back and setup in the defensive half.  Rolling flood is more like the high press Melbourne and Richmond play which has been picked apart by WC and Collingwood.  

666 is overhyped.  There are more scores from centre clearances this year, but it is still a small percentage of overall scores.

3 hours ago, Watson11 said:

That’s not what Freo did.  They just flooded back and setup in the defensive half.  Rolling flood is more like the high press Melbourne and Richmond play which has been picked apart by WC and Collingwood.  

666 is overhyped.  There are more scores from centre clearances this year, but it is still a small percentage of overall scores.

We flood the F50 trying to lock the ball in our half. and cutoff the escape kick. 

What I mean is to not  flood the F50,  but to leave it relatively open...  but flood the area in front of the Oppo' ball carrier, congesting all areas the opposition has to kick to.

 

Whether It is solely (666) is questionable,  but whatever it is,  there is more open areas to run into, atmo.   Which I think is a good thing.

9 hours ago, Watson11 said:

Thought it was worth bumping this after last night Freo v WC game.  I thought Lyon showed how to beat the control and possession game plan after qtr time.

After the first qtr Freo seemed to allow WC uncontested possessions in the back half  when they lost the ball.  They played something resembling the old flood.  They did not press or waste energy trying to shut down WC forward of centre.  If they had better skills the Dockers would have won.

WC won uncontested possessions by 72, marks by 54, stoppage clearances by 13, but didn’t look like they knew what to do once they got it forward of centre because  the flood of Freo players cut all of WCs space.  Dockets were +13 in intercepts, probably mostly in defensive half and were effective in getting the ball back forward.

Is this what we’ll start seeing to counter the WC type game plan.

I haven't seen the game and I found this interesting, so I had a look at some other stats from the game.

After quarter time WC kicked 5.8, whilst Fremantle kicked 7.9. So that's only three more scoring shots to Fremantle, trying to cover come a 26 point quarter time deficit. I suppose your comment that a side with better skills than Fremantle could have used this plan to win the game, but they only generated 33 inside 50s after quarter time (to WC's 38).

Still, will be interesting to see whether this becomes a trend.

Two other game plans.

Freo - Death by flood. Flood the back half (very 2010-2015 idea), kill the ball at every opportunity and hope the opposition and their supporters all die of boredom. Then, when everyone has given up the will to live, meander the ball forward and hopefully score.

Essendon - Get 'em on the counter. Pressure in the back half and hit hard with run on the counter. When it works can be devastating. Watch the mid 2018 match where they totally destroyed WC to see how it can work.

The Chaos vs. Precision games can be absorbing to watch. Does Precision cut apart the Chaos? Or does Chaos overwhelm and crack the Precision? If WC or Collingwood make very few mistakes they can beat Richmond 75%+ of the time. If Richmond can start to force mistakes they can crack the game plan and win 75%+ of the time.

And TitanU, I think WC just made too many mistakes in the forward half more than anything else. JK and Darling dropped far too many marks you would expect them to take. The running and marking patterns were off with 2, sometimes 3 talls flying for the same mark. Freo just weren't good enough to take advantage.

fascinating.. but which game plan gets you there and which wins on the day.

The answer of course is both.

Think how Port sacrificed Tredrea's game in the GF. Toby Thurstans... a useful player kicked the goals as a decoy (or was it real) forward.

That's coaching...

We should've hired Wallace as a consultant and flooded the 2000 granny. ?

Edited April 16, 20196 yr by John Demonic

The best teams quite obviously, dare I use this word play "tempo" football. Or more importantly these days, the players on the ground recognise when they need to go fast or play "chaos" ball and when they need to slow things down or which defensive set-ups they need to slow down against. 

For example, if we're playing West Coast and have a stoppage on our half-back flank, they are likely to have McGovern, Hurn and/or Barass, guarding space in a hole or peeling off their player. Sure, an inside mid's nature is to get the ball out and forward at all costs, but surely they are coached against certain teams, or someone behind that stoppage can realise what is forward and say "righto fellas, we can't simply put this ball forward we're going to have to find targets or run this up to and over their loose players." 

Obviously that is far easier said than done, and with pressure around the ball that isn't always possible, but surely a "plus one" at the stoppage or behind the ball for us can be directing that and making sure we are aware of this in game? Against a side like West Coast would you even bother kicking forward immediately from a stoppage?

I would suggest that our lack of conditioning, whilst an excuse, has caused a few brain fades early in the season, where players under fatigue simply boot the ball forward rather than looking for options. 

 

Game plan?

1. Outscore the opposition.

Very simple game is footy.

get ball kick goals

plan b - they get ball stop them from kicking goal then revert to plan A

 

21 hours ago, John Demonic said:

We should've hired Wallace as a consultant and flooded the 2000 granny. ?

Is that Bulldogs game on youtube? I would not mind watching it again.

Friday night prime time with the Bulldogs given no chance against the unstoppable Bombers. A coaching masterpiece.

In the history of football it was probably as important a game as the second half of the 1970 GF where Barassi gave the instruction at half time to handball at all costs.

Edited April 17, 20196 yr by Diamond_Jim

The Hawks under Clarko have been fabulous over the years at adapting their set up / style to suit their players' strengths and also presenting a set up on match day that the Opp would least like to see.  One of their big strengths is they almost don't have a set and forget game plan week in week out that an Opp can easily pick apart.

Clarko brings different styles and often a few of them within a season and/or occasionally within a match itself.  Whether that involves the rolling zone cluster (2008), high possession precision by foot - working through or around a zone (2012ish onwards?), slow play for momentum, putting numbers behind the ball, slingshot run and gun off HB, sweating on the ball carrier, pushing up hard into the face of their opponent to take away angles and time, playing off them a little to take up space ahead, sending an extra in to even up the clearances and slow the game down with extra stoppages etc when the inside balance is out of wack or simply just looking to exploit an obvious mis-match at a particular point within a match if the opportunity arises.

Rnd 4 against us last year was a great example (and others in previous years) where i recall we came out all guns blazing in the first quarter (the first half in another early round match in 2010 i think).  Clarko would adjust a few aspects of set ups and match ups .  Eg.,  Rioli into the middle in the 2nd quarter in Rnd 4 2018.  He sat off the back of a slower mid field opponent at the time in Vince (did we send Vince to Riolli or was Riolli sent to Vince!?) and worked his magic out of the middle and congestion.  They cut a swathe through our ordinary defence in that match (with Lever still finding his feet), lead by Rioli's brilliance, and carried that momentum and ease of hit ups and scoring inside 50 to completely obliterate us in the next 3 quarters.

Obviously Clarko has the odd miss, no one is infallible, but he is very switched on to exposing the opponents' weakness/es and limiting / negating their strengths, while playing an attacking style that utilises as many of their strengths as possible.

Adaptation plays a big part.  Not to mention the myriad of talent that's gone through there over the years!  I'm sure Clarko sets himself and his team to play a certain brand on the day and if it works fine he probably sticks with it in the main.  But he is very very willing to adapt and swing the changes if it isn't and has his crew extremely well drilled in carrying out those alternate instructions (most likely having trained/been drilled for such change ups team wise during the week....or in prior recent training sessions).

I wonder if Clarko plays chess as he comes across as a great forward thinker and a mind that looks at all aspects of match ups and set ups during a match to eke out any advantage possible, no matter how small (this also applies to pushing the envelope on any exploitable rules of the game!).

Edited April 17, 20196 yr by Rusty Nails