In 2020, when Melbourne wins the inside 50 count, we are 4 wins - 4 losses. When we lose the inside 50s, we are 5 W - 4 L.

So we are more likely to win a game of football when we give up more territory and inside 50s. Bear in mind that of those 4 wins we had when also winning inside 50s, two of those were absolute shellackings over Adelaide and North.

Effectively we are a better counterattacking team territory team. Or, more precisely, our forward line only really functions when it has space and fast ball movement caused by a quick transition.

19 hours ago, Engorged Onion said:

Looking at this there are only 2 conclusions that can be made about Goodwin and his coaching philosophy

either

a) Goodwin is light years ahead of the curve and so inventive that it isn't paying off... yet (think Einstein genius)

b) Goodwin is trying to work a system against all the perceived wisdom of what actually works (think Nikola Tesla, 'crazy genius' that gets unrewarded).

I've always been a Tesla fan. Edison can get stuffed. ?

19 hours ago, Axis of Bob said:

Very interesting. I found this chart instructive because I think it highlights our challenges.

It shows that forward lines at the moment are either small or tall, whilst ours is mid sized. Maybe there's a method to what what we're trying to do, but it's different to what the top 4 are doing. Anyway, I thought I'd try to recreate this chart for Melbourne this year:

That's a very different look, with our <184cm and >195cm cohorts being less productive that any of those 4 teams. In fact, 4 or our top 5 goalkickers (Weideman aside) were between 185cm and 189cm. 

As pointed out on the other thread, I copied the wrong graph. It should be this one: 

It still mostly says the same thing. Except that Geelong has fewer smalls and more Dangerfields.

On 10/15/2020 at 5:22 AM, binman said:

Personally i think this is a huge challenge for Goody and i really wonder if he is where Hardwick was in 2016 and Hinkley last year in terms of struggling to get a message across and being too insular and hard.

I am kinda hoping he is. If Goody approaches his own shortcomings as Hinkley and Hardwick have, we’re onto something, right?

On 10/16/2020 at 11:51 AM, Axis of Bob said:

I've always been a Tesla fan. Edison can get stuffed. ?

Edison was a crook who was more interested in business than inventions Manipulated investors and fellow scientists

stole and improved most of his work

Urban myth?

Fellow DLanders - watching the way Richmond played in the Grand Final got me to thinking about the strategic role that shepherding plays in the modern game. 

Why? It's clear that Richmond apply a high degree of "tackle pressure" especially inside their forward 50 through their small forward brigade. 

To diffuse the pressure the defending exiting team has got a few options:

1. Hand pass (requires players within an immediate vicnity - and naturally contracts the space in the defensive forward 50 leading to a higher chance of locking the ball into stoppage).

2. Kick short (potentially a higher risk version of 1).

3. Kick long (low chance of retention of possession, but clearing the "immediate" goal scoring threat - however, creating high risk of re-entry into goal kicking positions). 

4. Run the ball out - risk holding the ball or poor disposal version of 1,2, or 3. 

In addition to these options, it seems to me that the natural way to reduce the pressure on the ball player in the defensive 50 is to lay some HEAVY shepherds on small forwards - who by the nature of being small, should not be strong enough to ride through the shepherd. 

The question I have is around the officiating of the shepherd.  If for example the shepherd causes the small forward to fall over and be taken out of the play - but the arm is extended and minor contact with the hip is made - is that likely to result in a free kick against the defensive team?

I just wonder if the shepherd could be used more strategically to diffuse this small forward pressure, especially where it could be used to physically intimidate smaller players through strategic, planned and DELIBERATE use of shepherding.

Has it been done before?

 

Bumping this thread as it is a great offseason read for anyone wanting to sink their teeth into a bit of tactics/strategies.

Lots of great links posted and the EPL articles have more context for me now since I have started filling Spurs this season.

Interesting discussion in today's Age of the new standing the mark rules.

Basically the player must stand on the designated mark and not move their feet until play on is called.

According to the writer this opens up a number of angles to the kicker that were not previously there.

The “stand” rule has opened up the ground to the attacking team and in particular opened up the corridor for the ball-carrying team to be far more aggressive with their ball use.

“It is pretty significant,” one coach said. “It’s much harder to defend so you can be a lot more attacking with ball in hand.

“It’s a bigger change than the cut in rotations or the kick-in one [pulling the man on the mark back at kick-ins a further 10 metres].

Umpires will be encouraged to give more latitude to the player with the ball to move off their line before “play on” is called.

The AFL’s head of football, Steve Hocking, said the man on the mark was the first line of defence and teams structured their defence behind that player. Initial signs were that the change was having the desired effect, promoting faster, more attacking play.

“The man on the mark has been taking up more and more real estate and slowing the game down, directing where play could go,” Hocking said.

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/standing-room-only-the-small-afl-rule-tweak-changing-the-game-20210129-p56xv0.html

I agree that it's a big change. 

Having an active person on the mark cuts down the angles you can kick on until it just ends up being sideways or long down the line. This should allow for teams to be able to chip pass their way up the ground more easily than they have been. There may well be less playing on from marks now, as a set mark against a set defence may not be as much of a dead end as it has been.

This ease of chipping the ball may have one of two effects:

1- Teams pull their players back behind the ball more and defend inside 50 where they can compress the ground more, rather than relying on slowing the ball down and forcing a long kick down the line to defensive numbers. Or,

2- Teams actually push their defensive players further up towards the ball to defend the shorter kick, at the expense of camping numbers behind the ball for the long kick down the line. 

It provides more options for attacking teams, although it may be quite frustrating to watch the chipping game.

the new standing the mark rule seems to be a direct reaction to the behaviours of hawks and the filth over the last decade who have become adept at using the mark as the first defensive mechanism to stop quick play

waiting for the over-officiating to get the 'interpretation' of it wrong in round 1...

Really interesting thread. 

I may be in the minority but nothing irks me more than the seemingly recent phenomenon of wanting the game to be higher scoring. 

I feel footy is at it's best when it is heavily contested (not congested, there's a difference). Free-flowing, end-to-end, high-scoring encounters don't do much for me as the value and excitement of a goal diminishes.

Don't get me wrong, I don't want to see a skill-less scrap but I want to see goals earned. Personally, I like today's game more than the 90s game.

 

What frustrates me is that this whole situation could have been avoided my umpiring it correctly originally.

They allowed players more and more latitude to play on sideways and not get called play on, so the man on the mark started creeping sideways to counter.

11 hours ago, Cheesy D. Pun said:

Really interesting thread. 

I may be in the minority but nothing irks me more than the seemingly recent phenomenon of wanting the game to be higher scoring. 

I feel footy is at it's best when it is heavily contested (not congested, there's a difference). Free-flowing, end-to-end, high-scoring encounters don't do much for me as the value and excitement of a goal diminishes.

Don't get me wrong, I don't want to see a skill-less scrap but I want to see goals earned. Personally, I like today's game more than the 90s game.

 

sort of second this

gimme a close, exciting game over a one-sided high scoring drubfest any day of the week...unless it's the dees! then more of the latter in our favour please

modern football's atrocious skills is more by dint of too many teams, too many poor players running around

in the 90s there were 14 and then 16 teams with 20 taking the field every week; now there's 18 with 22 and the focus has shifted from ball skills to incredible athleticism 

 

I don't think the score is the defining factor in my enjoyment of the game, but I like to see 1 on 1's or 1 on 2's. 

The rugby scrum style and forwards having to compete 1 out against 3-4 defenders is embarrassing.

 

 

1 hour ago, whatwhatsaywhat said:

sort of second this

gimme a close, exciting game over a one-sided high scoring drubfest any day of the week...unless it's the dees! then more of the latter in our favour please

modern football's atrocious skills is more by dint of too many teams, too many poor players running around

in the 90s there were 14 and then 16 teams with 20 taking the field every week; now there's 18 with 22 and the focus has shifted from ball skills to incredible athleticism 

 

I reckon it's pretty hard to assess this, given the way teams setup in the modern game.

If I was forced to make a call, I'd lean towards it being less about a drop off in skill level and more about rise in the difficulty level of kicks due to numbers around the ball.

I do think there might be a tendency to over rate the specific skill of kicking for players of a bygone era.

I'd love to be able to compare the amount of pressure placed on a midfielder today, compared with the 80s or 90s. That would probably answer the question, either way.

2 hours ago, BW511 said:

 

forwards having to compete 1 out against 3-4 defenders is embarrassing.

 

 

I can't see this ever changing - unless they implement some sort of radical netball style zones with only designated players allowed in the 50 metre arcs.

Which I sincerely hope never happens because that idea contradicts the foundation of Australian rules football - the philosophy that it is a 360 degree game and unlike all other football codes (with the possible exception of Gaelic football) players can go wherever they want on the field.

I also don't mind contested, crowded footy but understand the desire for more one on one contests and with it more scoring.

My issue is that this desire (harking back to a perceived golden era in footy in the 1980s before footy became uber professional - a time we are not going back to by the by) has driven almost all of the rule changes in the last decade.

Which is all well and good - except for the fact that, perhaps with a handful of exceptions, the changes have been spectacularly unsuccessful in terms of increasing scores or one on ones.

And almost all the rule changes - and almost as significantly, changes to how some rules are interpreted   - have had  unintended consequences that more often than not have made the game less attractive and more messy (third man in says hi)    

I'm not against rule changes per se, but I'm definitely in the camp of minimizing rule changes and letting the game find its level and sort itself out.

The way footy evolves is one of things i most like about it. I'm no expert on soccer or gridiron but my feeling is that AFL football evolves more fluidly. I'm sure those other codes are constantly evolving but AFL seems never to stand still tactically.

Perhaps it is function of the sport having been fully professional for only  30 odd years (as opposed to 50 plus for gridiron and soccer) and maybe  the size of the ground, the aforementioned 360 degree nature of the game and the number of participants are all factors but footy seems to be in a constant state of evolution. I have heard coaches say footy evolves tactically within seasons, let alone year to year.  

Look at last year. After 5 rounds people were going crazy about the chip and mark, go slow tactic teams were employing and the resulting low scores. The sky was falling. Footy was dead.

But by the end of the season coaches took a more aggressive tack, the ball was moving faster, there was much more switching, more run and carry, scores went up and the issue was forgotten.

And that quicker ball movement meant that across the board there were more one on ones inside 50 as teams could not flood back as effectively. 

That tactical shift happened without any intervention by the AFL in terms of rule changes.

Freo was the perfect example of this shift -  unfortunately for us, as they decided to be more aggressive with their switching and ball movement when they played us. And we were hopeless and shutting their movement down.

 

Edited February 2, 20214 yr by binman

21 hours ago, Axis of Bob said:

I agree that it's a big change. 

Having an active person on the mark cuts down the angles you can kick on until it just ends up being sideways or long down the line. This should allow for teams to be able to chip pass their way up the ground more easily than they have been. There may well be less playing on from marks now, as a set mark against a set defence may not be as much of a dead end as it has been.

This ease of chipping the ball may have one of two effects:

1- Teams pull their players back behind the ball more and defend inside 50 where they can compress the ground more, rather than relying on slowing the ball down and forcing a long kick down the line to defensive numbers. Or,

2- Teams actually push their defensive players further up towards the ball to defend the shorter kick, at the expense of camping numbers behind the ball for the long kick down the line. 

It provides more options for attacking teams, although it may be quite frustrating to watch the chipping game.

It's going to be interesting.  Is it mandatory to have someone on the mark who has to stand there?  I'm guessing for this to work it is, otherwise you can have that player 5m back from the mark (i.e. not "on the mark") and free to move laterally.

45 minutes ago, binman said:

I can't see this ever changing - unless they implement some sort of radical netball style zones with only designated players allowed in the 50 metre arcs.

Which I sincerely hope never happens because that idea contradicts the foundation of Australian rules football - the philosophy that it is a 360 degree game and unlike all other football codes (with the possible exception of Gaelic football) players can go wherever they want on the field.

I also don't mind contested, crowded footy but understand the desire for more one on one contests and with it more scoring.

My issue is that this desire (harking back to a perceived golden era in footy in the 1980s before footy became uber professional - a time we are not going back to by the by) has driven almost all of the rule changes in the last decade.

Which is all well and good - except for the fact that, perhaps with a handful of exceptions, the changes have been spectacularly unsuccessful in terms of increasing scores or one on ones.

And almost all the rule changes - and almost as significantly, changes to how some rules are interpreted   - have had  unintended consequences that more often than not have made the game less attractive and more messy (third man in says hi)    

I'm not against rule changes per se, but I'm definitely in the camp of minimizing rule changes and letting the game find its level and sort itself out.

The way footy evolves is one of things i most like about it. I'm no expert on soccer or gridiron but my feeling is that AFL football evolves more fluidly. I'm sure those other codes are constantly evolving but AFL seems never to stand still tactically.

Perhaps it is function of the sport having been fully professional for only  30 odd years (as opposed to 50 plus for gridiron and soccer) and maybe  the size of the ground, the aforementioned 360 degree nature of the game and the number of participants are all factors but footy seems to be in a constant state of evolution. I have heard coaches say footy evolves tactically within seasons, let alone year to year.  

Look at last year. After 5 rounds people were going crazy about the chip and mark, go slow tactic teams were employing and the resulting low scores. The sky was falling. Footy was dead.

But by the end of the season coaches took a more aggressive tack, the ball was moving faster, there was much more switching, more run and carry, scores went up and the issue was forgotten.

And that quicker ball movement meant that across the board there were more one on ones inside 50 as teams could not flood back as effectively. 

That tactical shift happened without any intervention by the AFL in terms of rule changes.

Freo was the perfect example of this shift -  unfortunately for us, as they decided to be more aggressive with their switching and ball movement when they played us. And we were hopeless and shutting their movement down.

 

Agree, I think rule changes have been responsible for a lot of the issues we see.

Will be interesting to see if teams setup their zones with players in the area that could normally be occupied by the man on the mark.

 

 

I like this rule change.

One other they must change is the 50m penalty for " encroaching " on the player with ball from a free kick or mark. 

Rarely is the "encroacher" slowing the player down. It's also completely random when umps pay it or not. 

A blight on the game. 

55 minutes ago, Hell Bent said:

One other they must change is the 50m penalty for " encroaching " on the player with ball from a free kick or mark. 

Rarely is the "encroacher" slowing the player down. It's also completely random when umps pay it or not. 

A blight on the game. 

A shocking rule.

As you say it is totally random in its application. Not just because different umpires interpret it differently, but sometimes it paid when the player with the ball happens to turn one way or when a player tricks his opponent. 

And like all really bad rules (in sport and life) the penalty almost always outweighs the potential impact of the actual infraction. 

4 hours ago, binman said:

A shocking rule.

As you say it is totally random in its application. Not just because different umpires interpret it differently, but sometimes it paid when the player with the ball happens to turn one way or when a player tricks his opponent. 

And like all really bad rules (in sport and life) the penalty almost always outweighs the potential impact of the actual infraction. 

Hey binman I've been meaning to post a big thank you to you for starting this thread. Gets my vote as the most interesting, positive and informative thread I've read on DL. At various stages have planned to contribute but there's been so much to read to catch up on I've never had a chance. Still haven't had the time to do that but I will. It's well worth it. There's some great contributors on here. 

9 hours ago, binman said:

A shocking rule.

As you say it is totally random in its application. Not just because different umpires interpret it differently, but sometimes it paid when the player with the ball happens to turn one way or when a player tricks his opponent. 

And like all really bad rules (in sport and life) the penalty almost always outweighs the potential impact of the actual infraction. 

I'm not in love with the rule but players that encroach on the mark do need to be dealt with as they are impact the field of vision of the player and potentially stop the 45 degree kick.

I'd like to see a bit of wiggle room in the rule, so that umpires can decide whether the infringing player is impacting the game. For example, if a player is about to kick 45 degrees right and a player encroaches from the left, let it go.

11 hours ago, Cheesy D. Pun said:

I'm not in love with the rule but players that encroach on the mark do need to be dealt with as they are impact the field of vision of the player and potentially stop the 45 degree kick.

I'd like to see a bit of wiggle room in the rule, so that umpires can decide whether the infringing player is impacting the game. For example, if a player is about to kick 45 degrees right and a player encroaches from the left, let it go.

Agree. Sort of.

I'd just can the rule and if an umpire thinks a player has impacted the game by inadvertently or deliberately preventing the ball being moved on a free is paid. 

That's to say simply pay the free they have always been able to pay.

Classic example of introducing an unnecessary rule that just creates confusion.

Edited February 3, 20214 yr by binman

4 hours ago, binman said:

Agree. Sort of.

I'd just can the rule and if an umpire thinks a player has impacted the game by inadvertently or deliberately preventing the ball being moved on a free is paid. 

That's to say simply pay the free they have always been able to pay.

Classic example of introducing an unnecessary rule that just creates confusion.

Yep. Agreed, @binman. Great thread, by the way. 

One thing I noticed last year. Maybe it was due to the fact that our playing list got more tired as the year went on living in the Bubble Boy!

Correct me if I'm wrong. But we recruited Jake Lever as an intercept CHB right? and then we went out and got May who can lock down but also intercept.

SO!

Why on earth does Max Gawn continually float back and take intercepting marks in the back line and always remain a kick behind the play?

I have always thought his best and most damaging football is when he floats forward and hits the scoreboard? IE his QB game he kicked 3 in 2016/7. The Geelong and Hawthorn finals we won? Last I checked there aren't many defenders that can stand eye to eye and spoil or out mark him? 

REST HIM AND PUSH HIM FORWARD FFS Goodwin!