One hopes that Simon Goodwin and his team are watching what’s going on at the MCG. The Swans have torn the Tigers’ game to shreds and are doubling their score at 3/4 time. It could be the game changer.

1 hour ago, Whispering_Jack said:

One hopes that Simon Goodwin and his team are watching what’s going on at the MCG. The Swans have torn the Tigers’ game to shreds and are doubling their score at 3/4 time. It could be the game changer.

Could you give a synopsis @Whispering_Jack?

2 hours ago, titan_uranus said:

Been looking at scoring maps on statsinsider.com.au. Here's a comparison of heat maps of all our shots on goal from Round 1 2019 to date, compared with Richmond.

Obviously Richmond have generated more shots through that time than us given our relative poor form, but we seem to generate too many shots from 30+ metres whilst Richmond are more central and closer to goal.

Hopefully we see more shots from closer/straight in 2021 than this.

Wow those hotspots in the pockets for Richmond have to be a set play

We definitely struggle to kick goals from centrally 20-30m out

 

 

 

Edited April 3, 20214 yr by Hellish Inferno

14 hours ago, titan_uranus said:

Been looking at scoring maps on statsinsider.com.au. Here's a comparison of heat maps of all our shots on goal from Round 1 2019 to date, compared with Richmond.

Obviously Richmond have generated more shots through that time than us given our relative poor form, but we seem to generate too many shots from 30+ metres whilst Richmond are more central and closer to goal.

Hopefully we see more shots from closer/straight in 2021 than this.

 

11 hours ago, Hellish Inferno said:

Wow those hotspots in the pockets for Richmond have to be a set play

We definitely struggle to kick goals from centrally 20-30m out

 

 

 

This was actually a big part of our game plan in 2017/2018.

The Diamond defence? All based around protecting the areas where it was easy to kick goals and forcing opponents to shoot from pockets and flanks.

Up forward we also went through a period where we constantly played on or gave off inside 50 to try and find a player in a better position.

 

On 4/2/2021 at 9:00 AM, Kent said:

"Collingwood coach Nathan Buckley says “the hit-out stat is a furphy” after the Magpies won the count 63-4 but still lost to the Brisbane Lions at Marvel Stadium on Thursday night."

In the modern game its a non issue. Brisbane weren't even contesting the ruck on some occasions. Grundy blew himself up getting meaningless  Hit outs.

The Dees are in a similar position but  thankfully we are not as reliant on Max hitouts as we were

Bucks should have watched Nic Nat last night, he was serving hitouts on a platter to Gaff and co giving them a huge advantage

5 hours ago, deanox said:

 

This was actually a big part of our game plan in 2017/2018.

The Diamond defence? All based around protecting the areas where it was easy to kick goals and forcing opponents to shoot from pockets and flanks.

Up forward we also went through a period where we constantly played on or gave off inside 50 to try and find a player in a better position.

 

I've double checked and the Diamond Defence started in 2016, not 2017, which is actually supported by the change in ratio from 2015 to 2016.

   3 hours ago,  The Jackson 6 said: 

Conceptually like the idea but you’ll lose a small (eg Sparrow) to achieve that which might throw the defensive balance and mid-rotation plan out. 

The Jackson 6 wrote that in response to the idea of three talls  - Weid, BBB, and Jacko - in the forward line. Responses to the response might be interesting...

Contemplating the Geelong game this week I thought about the Hawks late run at them last round and all the talk around the great rivalry between those two teams over recent years. What suddenly struck me is the fact we now have the Hawks game day strategy coach on our side. All the knowledge and plans that have been used by Clarkson and Yze are now ours. I will be fascinated to see how we try to break down the game style used to frustrate and break us apart last year.

For all the naysayers who have whined on about us not having a "plan b" or being prepared to change anything during games when thing aren't working please listen to our Captain during his RSN interview.

 

Geelong appeared to have a go slow in the quarters.

My guess is that they try and save energy so they can hit hard during time on.

It didn't seem to work well against the Hawks as they failed to transition well between fast and slow play. They had the green GT sign up but found it difficult to get the contested ball. The Hawks errors kept them in it.

Melbourne's fitness will give us the edge if they use to play the GT sign in time on.

Will the Cats start the keeping off game?

Can we pressure them enough so as to get the turnover, or play man on man with some zoning and flood so they can't find an avenue forward when they decide to "go".

Our style is to still get the ball and go fast. Though we are learning to temper ourselves. 

The Cats seem to flood the forward area, force the turnover and then retain the ball?

I wouldn't trust them to play the same way against us and they may try the manic style themselves. 

Goody won't play the dour game. He loves the high scoring exciting style.

I wonder if Geelong can go with us?

20 hours ago, Grr-owl said:

 

   3 hours ago,  The Jackson 6 said: 

Conceptually like the idea but you’ll lose a small (eg Sparrow) to achieve that which might throw the defensive balance and mid-rotation plan out. 

The Jackson 6 wrote that in response to the idea of three talls  - Weid, BBB, and Jacko - in the forward line. Responses to the response might be interesting...

Its a fair question.

I think part of the answer is that Jackson would almost directly replace the small/medium (eg sparrow), both up forward and for midfield rotations.

For context (thanks AOB) Jackson led Melbourne for ground ball gets on the weekend, along with Jack Viney (9 each), had a career high 15 possessions, 11 contested possessions (behind only Viney, Oliver and Gawn) and ran close to 15 odd ks in the game. 

Jackson is phenomenal below his knees as evidenced by those ground ball gets and i'm convinced he'll do some mid field time with max rucking. And even when he takes the ruck solo he is almost another mid the way he plays. 

He might have to improve his tackling but my point is he can play as a small/medium.

The other part of the answer is that which ever two players  of Tmac, Brown and Weed are selected they  have to make sure they are applying pressure and tackling.

I'm on the record as saying weed was woeful at that last year, and i wouldn't lay him if doesn't improve this aspect of his game dramatically.

Whereas  Tmac as been terrific in this respect this year, and for this reason I have him ahead of Weed at this point in time.  

I don't know how Brown goes with forward half pressure, but he too has to pull his weight when he comes in. 

So, I think three tall forwards can work, assuming one of them is Jackson.

If it doesn't - and maybe it is a week to week call -  then i am 100% positive it won't be Jackson coming out. Jackson will play every game he is fit and available for. He is a star. And will become the dominant ruck man in the AFL within the next 4-5 years. 

In the meantime opposition coaches are going to have work out how to deal with him and Max tag teaming.

And if he does play as a small/medium alongside two genuine talls, work out who the heck they are going to play on him (something they don't have to worry about with Sparrow).

 

33 minutes ago, binman said:

Its a fair question.

I think part of the answer is that Jackson would almost directly replace the small/medium (eg sparrow), both up forward and for midfield rotations.

For context (thanks AOB) Jackson led Melbourne for ground ball gets on the weekend, along with Jack Viney (9 each), had a career high 15 possessions, 11 contested possessions (behind only Viney, Oliver and Gawn) and ran close to 15 odd ks in the game. 

Jackson is phenomenal below his knees as evidenced by those ground ball gets and i'm convinced he'll do some mid field time with max rucking. And even when he takes the ruck solo he is almost another mid the way he plays. 

He might have to improve his tackling but my point is he can play as a small/medium.

The other part of the answer is that which ever two players  of Tmac, Brown and Weed are selected they  have to make sure they are applying pressure and tackling.

I'm on the record as saying weed was woeful at that last year, and i wouldn't lay him if doesn't improve this aspect of his game dramatically.

Whereas  Tmac as been terrific in this respect this year, and for this reason I have him ahead of Weed at this point in time.  

I don't know how Brown goes with forward half pressure, but he too has to pull his weight when he comes in. 

So, I think three tall forwards can work, assuming one of them is Jackson.

If it doesn't - and maybe it is a week to week call -  then i am 100% positive it won't be Jackson coming out. Jackson will play every game he is fit and available for. He is a star. And will become the dominant ruck man in the AFL within the next 4-5 years. 

In the meantime opposition coaches are going to have work out how to deal with him and Max tag teaming.

And if he does play as a small/medium alongside two genuine talls, work out who the heck they are going to play on him (something they don't have to worry about with Sparrow).

 

In addition, and perhaps Jackson’s biggest asset, is he frees up Max to rest forward...

loved Jack Vineys low hard kick into the forward pack and Max. It was considered and I suspect practiced by the forward (plus Max) group. 

Edited April 7, 20214 yr by PaulRB

56 minutes ago, PaulRB said:

In addition, and perhaps Jackson’s biggest asset, is he frees up Max to rest forward...

loved Jack Vineys low hard kick into the forward pack and Max. It was considered and I suspect practiced by the forward (plus Max) group. 

Absolutely. Max is next level marking threat up forward.

If we play two talls and Jackson, they have the option of giving Tmac, Brown or Weed a rest when Max goes forward if they are worried about being too tall.  

The other thing have so many mobile talls in the teams is their ability to push up the ground and provide down the line marking options from long kicks out of defence or kicks from the half back to high half forward. 

West coast use their three tall forwards  (Darling, Allen and Kennedy) for this all the time, and it is a huge weapon, particularly late in quarters and games.  

It also has the effect of pulling defenders out of the forward line, which creates space for the small,  mediums and the other bigs to go to work.

Think about how often it is one of Darling, Allen or Kennedy kicking it inside 50, often to one of the other bigs or setting up Ryan to take an unimpeded fly at a pack mark. They killed Port with this tactic.  

No doubt the kick from Viney to Max was a set play. Langdon did an almost identical kick, with much the same result. 

Edited April 7, 20214 yr by binman

 

13 hours ago, kev martin said:

Geelong appeared to have a go slow in the quarters.

My guess is that they try and save energy so they can hit hard during time on.

Interesting - my take on this was that either:

(a) - Geelong are not fit / know their players are not suited to the fast footy played at the moment.

(b) - Geelong are conscious of how taxing the game is and so are about conserving energy as much as possible while banking wins so that they can go up a gear when the whips are cracking.

Scott said on FC that they tried to go quicker vs the crows and got burnt which is why they've gone back to what they know.  But if we think a coach like Scott is going to publicly give people an idea of their game plan / strategy then we are absolute fools - he wouldn't give people an inch.

My sense is that the cats looked cooked - even with some quality to come back into the side, it looks like age is catching up with them.  But my fear is that it is more option b - and even if we knock them over now they are all about timing their run.

 

Having said that, the fact we have so many players fit and ready to come into the side is going to make a huge difference from the middle of the season onwards.

Thought this was worth sharing, we have noticed how sound we are defensively, our set up is going really well and we are only conceding scores  31% of the time when teams enter there 50, a CD record (albeit only after 3 rounds) but its a great start.

Check out the below for context.

 https://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/purefooty/pure-footy-david-king-and-daniel-hoyne-crunch-the-numbers-on-the-games-biggest-trends/news-story/9c70972651c6b56d2870be29f204af2b

 

1 hour ago, binman said:

Absolutely. Max is next level marking threat up forward.

If we play two talls and Jackson, they have the option of giving Tmac, Brown or Weed a rest when Max goes forward if they are worried about being too tall.  

The other thing have so many mobile talls in the teams is their ability to push up the ground and provide down the line marking options from long kicks out of defence or kicks from the half back to high half forward. 

West coast use their three tall forwards  (Darling, Allen and Kennedy) for this all the time, and it is a huge weapon, particularly late in quarters and games.  

It also has the effect of pulling defenders out of the forward line, which creates space for the small,  mediums and the other bigs to go to work.

Think about how often it is one of Darling, Allen or Kennedy kicking it inside 50, often to one of the other bigs or setting up Ryan to take an unimpeded fly at a pack mark. They killed Port with this tactic.  

No doubt the kick from Viney to Max was a set play. Langdon did an almost identical kick, with much the same result. 

A bunch of great ideas here and in the previous posts. Yeah, I'm totally onboard with three talls + Max ... as long as one of them is Jackson. 

My only caveat is that he is young, and though he ran a lot of K's and got a fair number of possessions he hasn't been an overwhelming presence, yet. But that is a big 'yet.' He's young, obviously, and bursting with potential, for sure; I just hope the footy gods allow it come to fruition.

The though of Jacko ruck-roving to Max in the middle has me salivating. Next season, I reckon, once the young fella has another preseason in the gym.

Much more worried about Weid. 

Edited April 7, 20214 yr by Grr-owl
Dun some bad speelling.

19 minutes ago, Grr-owl said:

Much more worried about Weid. 

I think he had problems finding separation.

Weid will benefit from an open forward area that comes about by quick ball movement.

Hoping he works well with Big Ben.

2 hours ago, binman said:

No doubt the kick from Viney to Max was a set play. Langdon did an almost identical kick, with much the same result. 

That kick of Langdon's was the best i50 kick he's done. I didn't think he had that sort of low direct pass in him. If he can do that consistently it takes him to another level. 

2 hours ago, Demon3 said:

Thought this was worth sharing, we have noticed how sound we are defensively, our set up is going really well and we are only conceding scores  31% of the time when teams enter there 50, a CD record (albeit only after 3 rounds) but its a great start.

Check out the below for context.

 https://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/purefooty/pure-footy-david-king-and-daniel-hoyne-crunch-the-numbers-on-the-games-biggest-trends/news-story/9c70972651c6b56d2870be29f204af2b

 

This is brilliant. Good get. This says our midfield is working both ways a lot better too.

1 hour ago, kev martin said:

I think he had problems finding separation.

Weid will benefit from an open forward area that comes about by quick ball movement.

Hoping he works well with Big Ben.

I'm hoping he learns a bit off Ben and when Ben retires, he takes over his mantle. Brown is one of the best lead up forwards in the competition. Only West Coast's Kennedy would be stronger IMO or maybe Hawkins.

2 hours ago, Demon3 said:

Thought this was worth sharing, we have noticed how sound we are defensively, our set up is going really well and we are only conceding scores  31% of the time when teams enter there 50, a CD record (albeit only after 3 rounds) but its a great start.

Check out the below for context.

 https://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/purefooty/pure-footy-david-king-and-daniel-hoyne-crunch-the-numbers-on-the-games-biggest-trends/news-story/9c70972651c6b56d2870be29f204af2b

 

That's a great stat. Ta

It really provides some evidence for my observation that our defensive set up/zone  makes us a really hard team to score  against - something that i think i fundamental to goodies tactics. 

Add to that stat this comment from AOB easlrier in this thread and you start to get a great picture of  key elements of our tactical model - and how effective it is:

'We are currently first in intercepts (quite comfortably) and first in intercept differential (by an absolute mile)'

There has been lots of talk about the new rules and the supposed more open play they have created. Whilst they have had an impact i tend to think a bigger impact has been a mindset one - teams have been more aggressive.   

And i actually don't think they had been a big factor on how we are playing from tactical perspective.

I think the stats noted above are the biggest shift in our game and they are largely independent/unrelated to the rule changes.

And i reckon our defensive system nullifies the fast ball movement that many teams have adopted this year by:

• closing space  in front of  players transitioning the ball down the ground (with the the fluid, cell like zone i talk about).
• and through our structure/set ups around the ball at stoppages as noted by its time when he called into the podcast last night (thanks for the call IT - terrific stuff) and so well described by AOB in this post

Edited April 7, 20214 yr by binman

16 hours ago, kev martin said:

Geelong appeared to have a go slow in the quarters.

My guess is that they try and save energy so they can hit hard during time on.

It didn't seem to work well against the Hawks as they failed to transition well between fast and slow play. They had the green GT sign up but found it difficult to get the contested ball. The Hawks errors kept them in it.

Melbourne's fitness will give us the edge if they use to play the GT sign in time on.

Will the Cats start the keeping off game?

Can we pressure them enough so as to get the turnover, or play man on man with some zoning and flood so they can't find an avenue forward when they decide to "go".

Our style is to still get the ball and go fast. Though we are learning to temper ourselves. 

The Cats seem to flood the forward area, force the turnover and then retain the ball?

I wouldn't trust them to play the same way against us and they may try the manic style themselves. 

Goody won't play the dour game. He loves the high scoring exciting style.

I wonder if Geelong can go with us?

They did that to us last time we played them. Took huge amount of marks & slowed our game right down. Made it a very unattractive game to watch . Shouldn’t work this time round .

20 hours ago, kev martin said:

Geelong appeared to have a go slow in the quarters.

My guess is that they try and save energy so they can hit hard during time on.

It didn't seem to work well against the Hawks as they failed to transition well between fast and slow play. They had the green GT sign up but found it difficult to get the contested ball. The Hawks errors kept them in it.

Melbourne's fitness will give us the edge if they use to play the GT sign in time on.

Will the Cats start the keeping off game?

Can we pressure them enough so as to get the turnover, or play man on man with some zoning and flood so they can't find an avenue forward when they decide to "go".

Our style is to still get the ball and go fast. Though we are learning to temper ourselves. 

The Cats seem to flood the forward area, force the turnover and then retain the ball?

I wouldn't trust them to play the same way against us and they may try the manic style themselves. 

Goody won't play the dour game. He loves the high scoring exciting style.

I wonder if Geelong can go with us?

Wasn't it the Hawks who had the "GT" sign?

2 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Wasn't it the Hawks who had the "GT" sign?

 It was the cats

Edited April 7, 20214 yr by kev martin

I've been a very vocal critic of Simon Goodwin, and if i had my way would have replaced him for this season, however it's undeniable that he's significantly changed the game plan and it now looks much better, we look solid behind the ball, dangerous up forward despite key players missing and haven't compromised our midfield which is out greatest strength 

though i don't underestimate the impact of Mark Williams and Adem Yze in this regard. 

Bumping this topic to see what the collective thinks is the strategic approach to this weekend's blockbuster.

Can we take anything from the Swans game - if so, what?

 

4 minutes ago, Altona-demon said:

Bumping this topic to see what the collective thinks is the strategic approach to this weekend's blockbuster.

Can we take anything from the Swans game - if so, what?

 

Not in terms of how we might tactically respond. 

By that I mean we won't make any tactical changes. We will back our system. They will back theirs.

Whilst there are some tactical differences (primarily our defensive set up and use of max) i reckon the dees have the closest game plan to the tigers.

Should be a great game.