Game plans, tactics and all that jazz

[Altona-demon 321]

Tend to agree @binman it will be a good barometer of the systems strength, and also the strength of belief that the team has in the system.

It was notable that when presented with a tactical puzzle against the Hawks, the nature of our ball movement seemed to revert (through the middle of the ground - and also entering forward 50), I wonder what will happen on the weekend. 

Any views on a "weakness" in the Richmond gameplan or personnel?  

[binman 43,056]

4 minutes ago, Altona-demon said:

Any views on a "weakness" in the Richmond gameplan or personnel?  

The tigers are making a case for being the best team of the last 50 years.

The proof is in the pudding in terms of their game plan. A great strength of it is that it thrives on pressure.

By that i mean a key to beating any game plan is  pressure around rhe ground and in particular the ball carrier.

This sort of pressure is super effective on game plans like the one the Eagles employ - maintain possession, precise kicking, clinical transition. And ones like the swans game plan, which involves fast ball movement.

Of course if you don't apply pressure to the rigers they will carve you up the way they did to the saints.

But their game plan is also resistant to pressure. Arguably even sometimes helps it. Under pressure or not under pressure they are a forward half territory team. As are we.

Our ace in the pack is our defensive system. We are incredibly hard to score against. Harder even than the tigers.

In fact I think we are tbe hardest team to score against.

And are intercepting and reboundimg better than any other team atm.

And we have Max.

Lets see if that systems holds up under Tiger pressure. 

[Red and Blue realist 2,051]

It was interesting to see what the Hawks did early last week, whenever they got the ball in the defensive 50, they seemed to just bang it long out. However, unlike other teams who look to have a set game plan, or try to do this with precision, they just went to wherever Max wasn't, and tried to then either force it forward through a chaos ball approach or force a stoppage.

This seemed to put our guys off a little, because the ball was never kicked far enough to bring Lever/Tomo into the equation, but also just over those defending around 60-75 meters out, so our guys either had to run onto the ball, or run back to get it, rather than getting the chance to intercept mark. Of course the longer the game went the less effective this was going to be, and that we adjusted to stand back/forward a little, but I saw it being interesting. 

[Rossmillan 589]

Did anyone see the “Ross the Boss” segment on footy classified this week?

There was a particular focus on our kick into 50 in congested situations being very pocket centric rather than more centrally.

This is something I’m constantly observing, that even if you mark it in the pocket you have next to no chance of converting.  

The flip side is if you go more centrally with the kick, you potentially open yourself up to being hit on the rebound, but also have the opportunity for better crumbing opportunities for the small forwards.

Anyone have some other ideas on the benefits of going deep into the pocket?

[Engorged Onion 10,216]

4 minutes ago, Rossmillan said:

Did anyone see the “Ross the Boss” segment on footy classified this week?

There was a particular focus on our kick into 50 in congested situations being very pocket centric rather than more centrally.

This is something I’m constantly observing, that even if you mark it in the pocket you have next to no chance of converting.  

The flip side is if you go more centrally with the kick, you potentially open yourself up to being hit on the rebound, but also have the opportunity for better crumbing opportunities for the small forwards.

Anyone have some other ideas on the benefits of going deep into the pocket?

I guess by going into the pocket, if it gets a ball up or spoilt out of bounds, then the game plan is either for our mids to win it and distribute it out, or if the opponents get it and dump kick it, there may be a greater chance of finding someone on the re-entry.

As well as backing our players to kick it from the pocket.

I guess its better to have it in our end, then flying back the other way.

[Rossmillan 589]

24 minutes ago, Engorged Onion said:

I guess by going into the pocket, if it gets a ball up or spoilt out of bounds, then the game plan is either for our mids to win it and distribute it out, or if the opponents get it and dump kick it, there may be a greater chance of finding someone on the re-entry.

As well as backing our players to kick it from the pocket.

I guess its better to have it in our end, then flying back the other way.

Good points.

I also worry with the new kick in rules that if you kick a behind it gives the opposition a chance to really clear that zone, but given our superiority in the air maybe we back ourselves to get it back.

I will be interested to see if Richmond go shorter from their kick ins, rather than a long bomb.

[Engorged Onion 10,216]

2 minutes ago, Rossmillan said:

Good points.

I also worry with the new kick in rules that if you kick a behind it gives the opposition a chance to really clear that zone, but given our superiority in the air maybe we back ourselves to get it back.

I will be interested to see if Richmond go shorter from their kick ins, rather than a long bomb.

Assuming that at some stage Gawn, Jackson and Brown are all in the team, as well as TMac, May, Lever and Tomlinson as our talls, is pretty damned impressive wall to try and get past. between the 80m-50m zone from kick outs.

Edited April 22, 2021 by Engorged Onion

[kev martin 9,950]

1 hour ago, Rossmillan said:

Anyone have some other ideas on the benefits of going deep into the pocket?

Makes it easier to hold the ball in the forward area.

Create a stoppage or a maul, pulls the opposition down the ground. Allow us to get repeat entries, if we set the kick behind play properly. 

On another area, I would like to see us play less zoning and a bit more shoulder to shoulder defence especially when they are in an uncongested area. When the Toges move the ball quickly, they seem to find loose players.

They create overlap well and have the ability to deliver with good angles. We need to continually pressure the ball carrier and the outside runners. Their swarm against ours, will be an interesting aspect of the game.

 

Edited April 22, 2021 by kev martin

[ucanchoose 1,816]

If we put the ball into the middle it makes it more likely that the opposition will spit the ball straight out to the other side of the ground.  As others have said we want to keep the ball in the forward half

[binman 43,056]

46 minutes ago, Engorged Onion said:

I guess by going into the pocket, if it gets a ball up or spoilt out of bounds, then the game plan is either for our mids to win it and distribute it out, or if the opponents get it and dump kick it, there may be a greater chance of finding someone on the re-entry.

As well as backing our players to kick it from the pocket.

I guess its better to have it in our end, then flying back the other way.

Yep.

In addition, going to the pocket creates more predictable outcomes, meaning 

- We mark it 

- As noted in the age article discussed on another thread it is less likely opposition mark it (its crowded because we are playing deeper and the boundary line creates a barrier)

- It comes to ground

- It goes over the boundary line.

This makes planning a response easier, and more effective.

If it goes over the boundary we can implement a set play, aided by having two excellent rucks and a grade inside mids.

Hits the ground and with a congested area we are better able to trap it in, create a stoppage and/or scrap a goal. 

Sure it is harder to score from the pockets than the corridor, but we take more marks, and therefore get more shots on goals, because there are usually more open leading lanes in the pockets than the corridor, so more marks, as evidenced by how many more we are taking inside 50.

And even when they kick a point from an angle after a mark, a mark means the players have time to all get set up and make it hard for the opposition to clear their defensive area from the kick out. Which is a big factor in our ability to make it hard for teams to transition end to end.

Of course these options (with the possible exception of going over the boundary line) exist with more central kicks. But there are more variables in the corridor. Not least because there is more space. 

And marks are much harder to take, so its harder to set up the wall to stop  defensive exits.

And of course if the opposition win the ball, they do so in a dangerous position as they have three lanes to choose to exit from.

This was killing us last year, and even in 2018.

And like basketball, the boundary line is an extra player because it can trap players and reduce their options in terms of the direction they can move the ball.

These reduced options make it easier to set up a structure that makes it easier to trap the ball inside 50 (eg from a hurried attempted clearing kick like the one melksham marked at the top of the goal square in the hawks game).

 

[Grr-owl 1,220]

Binman, on the podcast you appeared to change your opinion re having TMac, Brown, Weid, Jackson, Gawn and Fritsch in the same team. Maybe I missed something, but just wondering if you could elaborate....

[Adam The God 30,271]

On 4/20/2021 at 1:37 PM, Red and Blue realist said:

It was interesting to see what the Hawks did early last week, whenever they got the ball in the defensive 50, they seemed to just bang it long out. However, unlike other teams who look to have a set game plan, or try to do this with precision, they just went to wherever Max wasn't, and tried to then either force it forward through a chaos ball approach or force a stoppage.

This seemed to put our guys off a little, because the ball was never kicked far enough to bring Lever/Tomo into the equation, but also just over those defending around 60-75 meters out, so our guys either had to run onto the ball, or run back to get it, rather than getting the chance to intercept mark. Of course the longer the game went the less effective this was going to be, and that we adjusted to stand back/forward a little, but I saw it being interesting. 

I disagree with this. I'd say they constantly kicked it in Max's direction. So much so that one of my mates, his cousin is a Hawthorn defender, and his mother was mocking him for a turnover that resulted in a Melbourne goal and he said "at least I didn't kick it to Gawn like half the team!" 

2 hours ago, Rossmillan said:

Good points.

I also worry with the new kick in rules that if you kick a behind it gives the opposition a chance to really clear that zone, but given our superiority in the air maybe we back ourselves to get it back.

I will be interested to see if Richmond go shorter from their kick ins, rather than a long bomb.

It just means we set our zone deeper to prevent it getting out the back. We've done a pretty good job of keeping the ball front and centre this year for our defensive mids to crumb, or for someone like Salem  to sweep up behind the pack and redistribute. It's very Bulldogs 2016 actually.

Teams have gone shorter against us a few times, but as long as we don't let them run and carry off that first short kick, which we don't, they can't kick over the zone. We simply shift it further towards centre wing. 

And we're no longer as aggressive with our defensive set up as we were in 2018 or 2019, so we don't necessarily get caught out even if it does get out the back.

2 hours ago, Engorged Onion said:

Assuming that at some stage Gawn, Jackson and Brown are all in the team, as well as TMac, May, Lever and Tomlinson as our talls, is pretty damned impressive wall to try and get past. between the 80m-50m zone from kick outs.

It's a bit like combining Richmond's pressure game with West Coast's aerial threat. If we can get the balance right with talls and pressure smalls at ground level, we will be very tough to beat given our ability to win clearance with one less at the around the ground stoppage.

2 hours ago, ucanchoose said:

If we put the ball into the middle it makes it more likely that the opposition will spit the ball straight out to the other side of the ground.  As others have said we want to keep the ball in the forward half

True, although due to Max's marking power, we have tried this one occasionally. The corridor kick is definitely more risky though.

2 hours ago, binman said:

Yep.

In addition, going to the pocket creates more predictable outcomes, meaning 

- We mark it 

- As noted in the age article discussed on another thread it is less likely opposition mark it (its crowded because we are playing deeper and the boundary line creates a barrier)

- It comes to ground

- It goes over the boundary line.

This makes planning a response easier, and more effective.

If it goes over the boundary we can implement a set play, aided by having two excellent rucks and a grade inside mids.

Hits the ground and with a congested area we are better able to trap it in, create a stoppage and/or scrap a goal. 

Sure it is harder to score from the pockets than the corridor, but we take more marks, and therefore get more shots on goals, because there are usually more open leading lanes in the pockets than the corridor, so more marks, as evidenced by how many more we are taking inside 50.

And even when they kick a point from an angle after a mark, a mark means the players have time to all get set up and make it hard for the opposition to clear their defensive area from the kick out. Which is a big factor in our ability to make it hard for teams to transition end to end.

Of course these options (with the possible exception of going over the boundary line) exist with more central kicks. But there are more variables in the corridor. Not least because there is more space. 

And marks are much harder to take, so its harder to set up the wall to stop  defensive exits.

And of course if the opposition win the ball, they do so in a dangerous position as they have three lanes to choose to exit from.

This was killing us last year, and even in 2018.

And like basketball, the boundary line is an extra player because it can trap players and reduce their options in terms of the direction they can move the ball.

These reduced options make it easier to set up a structure that makes it easier to trap the ball inside 50 (eg from a hurried attempted clearing kick like the one melksham marked at the top of the goal square in the hawks game).

 

Does anyone have access to stats that show where our behinds have come from this year? Although we go to the pockets regularly, we get a lot of extremely gettable shots directly in front that we miss. It then heightens what appears to be our preference for pocket kicks, because we miss the easier ones and often kick the harder ones. A lot of our pocket kicks result in resets though.

Edited April 22, 2021 by A F

[deanox 9,931]

4 hours ago, Rossmillan said:

Did anyone see the “Ross the Boss” segment on footy classified this week?

There was a particular focus on our kick into 50 in congested situations being very pocket centric rather than more centrally.

This is something I’m constantly observing, that even if you mark it in the pocket you have next to no chance of converting.  

The flip side is if you go more centrally with the kick, you potentially open yourself up to being hit on the rebound, but also have the opportunity for better crumbing opportunities for the small forwards.

Anyone have some other ideas on the benefits of going deep into the pocket?

I also wonder if it's something to do with the leading patterns Fritsch has been training?

If we are planning on playing Fritsch with Weid/Brown or both, you'd expect the main leads up the middle would be Brown. Fritsch is likely to be the decoy to the pocket or flank. We may have told him to keep that structure.

 

Edited April 22, 2021 by deanox

[kev martin 9,950]

44 minutes ago, deanox said:

I also wonder if it's something to do with the leading patterns Fritsch has been training?

I haven't been to training for a while, though what I saw there and when playing, is Fritta can lead into any space that opens up. Has an uncanny ability to pop up all over the place.

[binman 43,056]

12 hours ago, Grr-owl said:

Binman, on the podcast you appeared to change your opinion re having TMac, Brown, Weid, Jackson, Gawn and Fritsch in the same team. Maybe I missed something, but just wondering if you could elaborate....

That was Grapeviney Grr-owl.

I reckon there are two questions:

• Do i think having TMac, Brown, Weid, Jackson, Gawn and Fritsch in the same team would work? 
• Will the coaches select TMac, Brown, Weid, Jackson, Gawn and Fritsch in the same team

The answer to the first question is, yes i think it can work with Tmac playing a wingmen or a hybrid high half forward/wingman. That is essentially the role he is playing now. And Jackson also plays as a high half forward/wingman

The answer to the second question is, i'm not sure but i think  they will trial that mix at some point - probably sooner rather than later.  

In term's of both questions it is worth noting that the eagles have three talls in their forward line in Kennedy, Allen and Darling. And Cripps is only 5 cm shorter than fritter but a couple of kilos heavier. 

[deelusions from afar 1,810]

Interesting hearing David King putting an asterisk against Melbourne in his review of the game in that he said we changed the way we played against the Tigers and suggested that if it were in september, their pressure would be up and they would likely break down the handball game.  He used handball stats to illustrate his point.  I'm not too phased about his opinion (he has a different one every week) but it was an interesting observation from a statistical point of view.

I think he used handballs in the back half or something - not sure where to find that stat but this year we've averaged 157 handballs a game whereas against the Tigers it was 226.

King asserted we used more handballs so that when we turned it over we would still have numbers around the ball that would provide coverage.

Part of me thought that it's because it was a wet night - although often this encourages teams to kick more.

What showed out for me was that we backed ourselves in in terms of fitness - there would be a string of handballs and then we would finally get someone free who had run harder than their opponent.

Interested to hear others thoughts

[Engorged Onion 10,216]

Great strategic analysis here, re: Richmond game

Thanks @Clintosaurus

https://www.rsn.net.au/podcast-2/ and will be in the top left box - Monday Footy Review with Jimmy Bartel.

what it speaks to me about our ability to change game plans AND execute it with aplomb.

we’ve always had plan b and c, and now we are reaping the rewards 

[binman 43,056]

2 hours ago, deelusions from afar said:

Interesting hearing David King putting an asterisk against Melbourne in his review of the game in that he said we changed the way we played against the Tigers and suggested that if it were in september, their pressure would be up and they would likely break down the handball game.  He used handball stats to illustrate his point.  I'm not too phased about his opinion (he has a different one every week) but it was an interesting observation from a statistical point of view.

I think he used handballs in the back half or something - not sure where to find that stat but this year we've averaged 157 handballs a game whereas against the Tigers it was 226.

King asserted we used more handballs so that when we turned it over we would still have numbers around the ball that would provide coverage.

Part of me thought that it's because it was a wet night - although often this encourages teams to kick more.

What showed out for me was that we backed ourselves in in terms of fitness - there would be a string of handballs and then we would finally get someone free who had run harder than their opponent.

Interested to hear others thoughts

I'm not convinced that we changed how we played or our game plan. In fact i would argue that we didn't. Why would we?

Like the tigers we have system that we will back in against any opposition. And when you have that mindset you don't flirt with a new game plan.

And more than that Goodies philosophy (and other system based coaches like Beveridge and Hardwick) as it relates to the game plan is a system that is predictable and based on repetition and role clarity. You don't mess with the system

Was that David King opinion on that show the last bounce, or whatever it is? If so I'll watch it, and I'll listen to the clip EO linked above (thanks EO). Perhaps it is matter of semantics.

By that i mean sure we made some adaptions. We put hard tag on Dusty for one.  And we definitely played more tempo footy than we have thus far (though we have employed tempo footy in every game so far), with lots of patient build up and chipping it around - hence how many more marks and uncontested possessions we had. 

Is that changing the way we played? I would say not. The system and fundamentals remained exactly the same. A tweak yes, but not a significant change to how we play. And smart too as the tigers want pace on the game, so our tempo footy frustrated them and simultaneously allowed us to make sure our zones and structures were well set up. . 

On face value more handballs is not proof of a change to how we play. i would argue that it was a logical response to how the tiger play and the incredible pressure they put on the ball carrier.

And it is [censored] that we used more handballs so that when we turned it over we would still have numbers around the ball that would provide coverage.

We are territory  team like the tigers, but unlike them we are more focused on connecting with players in transition (the tigers are just happy to take ground and back their players to win win one on ones). And we use handballs to give to a player in space to make the connecting kick. Its just that other teams put pressure on so fewer handballs are  needed to get it to a player in space. 

So far from being a negative those handballs were a positive. Which team transitioned the ball better? Which team had more efficient inside 50s? 

Which is why it is weird furphy the comment i have heard a few times in the media (and from Hardwick in his post match presser strangely enough) about the tigers having plenty of inside 50s (60 to our 56) as evidence that they were no too far off the mark and that next time they were score more.

Bollocks. They only had 18 scoring shots from their 60 inside 50s. That wasn't a function of bad luck, that was a function of how we played and our system smashing theirs. 

I don't rate King at all. He just regurgitates stats. And often draws strange conclusions from them - as he seems to have in this instance.

And I have to wonder how closely he actually watched the game. The pressure was off the charts all game. Our system stood up. Our players stood up to that pressure. We are built for September finals pressure.

The tigers are the ones who struggled with the pressure, not us. They looked like they ran out of ideas on how to transition the ball.  And got frustrated.

So any comment along the lines that the Tigers would break down our 'handball game' is stupid on two fronts.

One, because we didn't employ a 'handball game'. We simply used handballs more than we have to respond to the tigers pressure. A clever adaptation by the players. 

And two, the tigers, despite their manic pressure, failed to exploit our high number of handballs and force turnovers. Their whole game is based on pressure on and around the ball carrier. They win so many of those contests. So often hey break down opposition possession chains. And they couldn't against us.   

The question King should be asking is will the tiger's game plan stack up against ours in Spetember?

 

[deelusions from afar 1,810]

6 minutes ago, binman said:

I'm not convinced that we changed how we played or our game plan. In fact i would argue that we didn't. Why would we?

Like the tigers we have system that we will back in against any opposition. And when you have that mindset you don't flirt with a new game plan.

And more than that Goodies philosophy (and other system based coaches like Beveridge and Hardwick) as it relates to the game plan is a system that is predictable and based on repetition and role clarity. You don't mess with the system

Was that David King opinion on that show the last bounce, or whatever it is? If so I'll watch it, and I'll listen to the clip EO linked above (thanks EO). Perhaps it is matter of semantics.

By that i mean sure we made some adaptions. We put hard tag on Dusty for one.  And we definitely played more tempo footy than we have thus far (though we have employed tempo footy in every game so far), with lots of patient build up and chipping it around - hence how many more marks and uncontested possessions we had. 

Is that changing the way we played? I would say not. The system and fundamentals remained exactly the same. A tweak yes, but not a significant change to how we play. And smart too as the tigers want pace on the game, so our tempo footy frustrated them and simultaneously allowed us to make sure our zones and structures were well set up. . 

On face value more handballs is not proof of a change to how we play. i would argue that it was a logical response to how the tiger play and the incredible pressure they put on the ball carrier.

And it is [censored] that we used more handballs so that when we turned it over we would still have numbers around the ball that would provide coverage.

We are territory  team like the tigers, but unlike them we are more focused on connecting with players in transition (the tigers are just happy to take ground and back their players to win win one on ones). And we use handballs to give to a player in space to make the connecting kick. Its just that other teams put pressure on so fewer handballs are  needed to get it to a player in space. 

So far from being a negative those handballs were a positive. Which team transitioned the ball better? Which team had more efficient inside 50s? 

Which is why it is weird furphy the comment i have heard a few times in the media (and from Hardwick in his post match presser strangely enough) about the tigers having plenty of inside 50s (60 to our 56) as evidence that they were no too far off the mark and that next time they were score more.

Bollocks. They only had 18 scoring shots from their 60 inside 50s. That wasn't a function of bad luck, that was a function of how we played and our system smashing theirs. 

I don't rate King at all. He just regurgitates stats. And often draws strange conclusions from them - as he seems to have in this instance.

And I have to wonder how closely he actually watched the game. The pressure was off the charts all game. Our system stood up. Our players stood up to that pressure. We are built for September finals pressure.

The tigers are the ones who struggled with the pressure, not us. They looked like they ran out of ideas on how to transition the ball.  And got frustrated.

So any comment along the lines that the Tigers would break down our 'handball game' is stupid on two fronts.

One, because we didn't employ a 'handball game'. We simply used handballs more than we have to respond to the tigers pressure. A clever adaptation by the players. 

And two, the tigers, despite their manic pressure, failed to exploit our high number of handballs and force turnovers. Their whole game is based on pressure on and around the ball carrier. They win so many of those contests. So often hey break down opposition possession chains. And they couldn't against us.   

The question King should be asking is will the tiger's game plan stack up against ours in Spetember?

 

The King interview was with Whately on the radio but I'm sure he will say it again when he gets the chance on 360.

I actually don't mind King - a lot of his opinions are garbage but I prefer that to most of the ex-players in the media that just go along with the basic group think - he's looking for new trends (often that aren't there) so at least he offers something different.

He's also been burnt a few times (by us and the tigers coming good) so i think that affects his opinions.  And given where the tigers were for much of last season, I think it would be brave for anyone to write them off until about round 18.

 

I agree the extra handballs doesn't mean we've changed the way we play - but I thought it did feel a bit different to our other wins in the way we moved the ball.  Incidentally, I also don't think its a problem if we did change the way we play.  If you have a team stocked with talented (like ours) that is prepared to adapt / tweak things slightly to tailor the game plan to the opponent I think that makes us more scary for an opposition.

Haven't gone back to watch the replay but my sense (might be incorrect) was that we weren't looking to go inboard as much (particularly early) but move the ball wide by handballs up the wings.  I figured that its more a case of playing safer footy in slippery conditions.

 

Agree on the comment about the tigers inside 50s.  I feel like a few teams are getting a bit of their own medicine - I've heard a number of people say they still got x inside 50s and so were unlucky not to score more.  Well any dees fan knows that inside 50s count for zilch as a measurement on its own - we have dominated that stat for years.  I'm sure Hardwick knows it - but he's trying to sell a positive message (and many in the media have bought it).

 

As for the Tigers pressure - I thought it dropped away after the first quarter but not sure how this can be measured - certainly hope you're right that it was up and they barely laid a scratch on us!

[Grr-owl 1,220]

25 minutes ago, binman said:

One, because we didn't employ a 'handball game'. We simply used handballs more than we have to respond to the tigers pressure. A clever adaptation by the players. 

That's what I saw. In the past we would eventually be caught with the ball, closed down for space. This what happened during the opening burst. But then, yes, we adapted, and instead of resorting to a long-down-the-line-game, which (though we have the talls to be good at it) is a defensive reaction that means a side is being dictated to, we simply got enough troops around the ball and worked it into space for a smarter kick.

This is a minor strategic masterpiece; rethinking an accepted part of the game and making it work. It will differentiate us and work to our advantage as long as others fail to recognize it, as have Hardwick and King...

Edited April 26, 2021 by Grr-owl
Clarity and nothing else to do, really....

[ChaserJ 5,096]

A nice analysis on what we’ve changed up in our structure and how it’s helped us get to 6 and 0:

https://theshinboner.com/2021/04/29/melbourne-rising-whats-behind-the-demons-unbeaten-start-to-2021-analysis-shinboner-langdon-ben-brown-pickett/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

[rpfc 28,502]

At least King attempts to do some deeper analysis, so he is fine. 

And we don’t have a second or third game plan - it was just a tactical shift that we were pushed into and we’re comfortable with because we are good.

Brayshaw said as much in the interview on the Dees website. We fell into that. We don’t have time to work on different game plans and trust everyone to understand and buy in - there are only tactical shifts.

[jnrmac 20,101]

27 minutes ago, ChaserJ said:

A nice analysis on what we’ve changed up in our structure and how it’s helped us get to 6 and 0:

https://theshinboner.com/2021/04/29/melbourne-rising-whats-behind-the-demons-unbeaten-start-to-2021-analysis-shinboner-langdon-ben-brown-pickett/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

That is an outstanding analysis from an opposition supporter.

[Adam The God 30,271]

1 hour ago, ChaserJ said:

A nice analysis on what we’ve changed up in our structure and how it’s helped us get to 6 and 0:

https://theshinboner.com/2021/04/29/melbourne-rising-whats-behind-the-demons-unbeaten-start-to-2021-analysis-shinboner-langdon-ben-brown-pickett/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

That's great analysis and I wholeheartedly agree with it. Noice. ?

Edited April 30, 2021 by A F

[Axis of Bob 11,836]

I think the difference with the handballing we did is that most teams handball as a way of shifting the pressure away from themselves and on to a team mate, because they are under intense pressure. Handballing, in itself, isn't a bad way to play but it depends on how and why you do it.

Richmond relies on pressure around the ball to either turn the ball over or to force a longer kick down the line. Teams often feel this pressure and shift the ball to a safe player behind the ball (putting that player, who is in a worse spot, under pressure) or chip it sideways to a free player (which slows the game and forces a long kick down the line).

But there are only limited resources on the ground at any time, so you have to make choices about where to spend them. For example, we used Hibberd to tag which has advantages but also robs us of a line breaker. In Richmond's gameplan, they commit players to pressure around the ball and towards the defensive side of the contest, and commit them to defending the long kick down the line that results from that pressure. The tradeoff is that a composed short disposal forwards from the contest will be going into the gap where those pressure players have come from because they only have a finite amount of resources on ground. We exploited this gap with composed handballs to players who were taking the ball forwards. This took the pressure players out of play and forced their down-the-line defenders to come at the ball, which took away their defensive shape and allowed us to get some one on one (or better) looks near goal. 

To do this you have to be a good team with good footballers around the ball. Salem was wonderful at this by being able to absorb the pressure behind the ball and make great decisions that turned that pressure back against the Richmond tacklers.