Game plans, tactics and all that jazz

[Its Time for Another 4,223]

1 hour ago, Axis of Bob said:

There is an element of dumb luck in clearances and, indeed, almost all contested possession. Anyone who has played footy and been inside a stoppage will understand exactly how random a lot of it is. The hit out is about a 50/50, the ruckman can't really see what's happening on the ground, the tap is hard to direct under pressure, the ball takes a lot of time to hit the ground, opposition players trying to stop a clean possessions,  .... and, on top of this, the ball is a weird shape and could bounce anywhere. All of it means that both teams need to balance defence and attack, so even a dominant ruck cannot run basketball style set plays ... because one bad bounce or deflected tap could mean the opposition goes bang, bang, bang. 

But some teams are better than others, but even the best and worst teams are pretty close to each other. The best and worst centre clearance teams were still only 3.4 centre clearances a game away from each other, which is a big deal but demonstrates that, in a match between the best and worst using season averages, the best team would still only win 57% of the centre clearances (and only 54% of total clearances).

It took a lot of luck to go bang, bang, bang, but you need to set your team up to take advantage of that. We were able to turn clearances into goals, whilst preventing the opposition doing so, which is a big tick for the setup. The Dogs were not able to do that .... they had too much faith in their ability to win clearances without investing enough into what happens if they don't.

Brilliant analysis. Thanks AOB. I played a bit of ruck in my time and you are so right. When you are looking up towards the sky to tap the ball you obviously can’t see the ground until after the hitout. This is Jacko’s point of difference. His speed of switching from looking up to his awareness of what’s going on at ground level and being able to impact is unique. Gerard Healey apparently thinks he is going to change the way the game is played. Or I assume at least the ruck. I wonder if this will impact the trend of getting taller and taller rucks to going back to hybrids like Jacko. Although his vertical leap more than compensates for his lack of height. As we saw in Bang Bang Bang all he or Gawny have to do is be a post hitout physical presence to create blocks and open corridors to take us to another level in 50/50 contests. 

[Watson11 2,240]

Not related to clearances, but I wonder if Goody and his use of Brayshaw has started to change the way wingman will be used.  On afl.com today it mentioned that Mitch Wallace at the dogs is spending all preseason on the wing, which you would assume would be to copy Brayshaw’s role.

[dpositive 1,665]

46 minutes ago, Its Time for Back to Back said:

Brilliant analysis. Thanks AOB. I played a bit of ruck in my time and you are so right. When you are looking up towards the sky to tap the ball you obviously can’t see the ground until after the hitout. This is Jacko’s point of difference. His speed of switching from looking up to his awareness of what’s going on at ground level and being able to impact is unique. Gerard Healey apparently thinks he is going to change the way the game is played. Or I assume at least the ruck. I wonder if this will impact the trend of getting taller and taller rucks to going back to hybrids like Jacko. Although his vertical leap more than compensates for his lack of height. As we saw in Bang Bang Bang all he or Gawny have to do is be a post hitout physical presence to create blocks and open corridors to take us to another level in 50/50 contests. 

I've been on for years that creating space and shepherding were two of the most significant attributes we were lacking . It is interesting that as selfless team play became more recognised attributes, improvements in the former happened.

I notice the same lack in the AFLW side and wait for an awarness to correct the style

[Axis of Bob 11,829]

12 minutes ago, Its Time for Back to Back said:

I wonder if this will impact the trend of getting taller and taller rucks to going back to hybrids like Jacko.

I think that there might be a trend off the back of Jackson but I reckon that they are probably still going to be missing a trick with it. At that's because he isn't a hybrid, which is a combination of some elements of a ruck and midfielder, but rather he's two different players ... a fully functional AFL ruckman during the ruck contest and a fully functional AFL midfielder after the ruck contest. There's no sacrifice being made in fitting between the roles.

There are two parts to Jackson's game in the ruck, and I think there's a danger in looking at one of them in isolation.

Jackson has genuine midfielder athleticism and movement, rather than just being 'really good for a ruckman' (like Cox, Grundy, Fraser, Kreuzer etc). This is the bit that everyone sees because it is special and we haven't really seen this except for Goodes when he rucked. Teams have tried this before and it hasn't really worked out well for them (especially since the third man up rule). Players like Tim English have had good games but get destroyed against strong, decent opposition because of their lack of competitiveness in the ruck contest, which brings major issues. The lesson to learn is that it's OK to lose the ruck, but you can't get smashed. Teams default back to strong, competitive (and cheap) battering rams rather than pseudo midfielders because of it.

Jackson is still a genuine ruckman but he plays the ruck taps very differently, which is difficult to emulate. He takes away the natural advantage of his opponent (ie, his physical size and strength) by dodging and weaving, but being big enough still to tap the ball once he dances his way to good position. He jumps quickly, not requiring a run up or balance step, letting him get position on his opponent and disrupting him. The end result is that his style is so awkward and disruptive that, even for a big strong opponent, he's nearly impossible to dominate in ruck contests.

I think there will be a trend towards trying to find a Jackson type ruck, and those efforts will likely see people select tall midfielders to play ruck or athletic rucks to play around the ground. But they will all be making sacrifices in one of their roles, either they will be passable midfielders that are big enough to play some ruck time (eg. taller versions of Grigg) or slightly underwhelming rucks that are athletic enough to win more ball around the ground (eg, English). It's a wild goose chase because Jackson is special and different .... it's like everybody trying to pick up the 'next Buddy' or 'next Judd'. You can't because they're unique players. People weren't leaving Chris Judd undrafted in the past because they didn't like his style combining line breaking speed and contested possession, it's just that there generally aren't any Chris Judd's around to draft! 

We're just lucky that, when we had pick 3, there was a Luke Jackson around for us to draft.

[monoccular 17,431]

9 minutes ago, dpositive said:

I've been on for years that creating space and shepherding were two of the most significant attributes we were lacking . It is interesting that as selfless team play became more recognised attributes, improvements in the former happened.

I notice the same lack in the AFLW side and wait for an awarness to correct the style

Good comment - way back even in our relatively successful times in the 1990s and early 2000s, I used to get so frustrated when a player made a great move or play, then left it at that.  

Little shepherding, second efforts (Kozzie v North early 2021 was such a great example, and Ed Langdon's GF goal, Kozzies under recognised block freeing Track for "that goal" in the GF), or "dummy leads" knowing they would not get the ball but instead drawing their opponents leaving space for others.

We saw far more of these selfless acts in 2021 and long may they continue.  ❤️💙

[Its Time for Another 4,223]

5 hours ago, Axis of Bob said:

We're just lucky that, when we had pick 3, there was a Luke Jackson around for us to draft.

You're elevating my MFCSS fear he's going to do a Hogan. Show me the 5 year contract extension to calm the nerves. 

[Its Time for Another 4,223]

I'd love to be a fly on the wall and hear what aspects of the game the coach's decide to improve on over the summer. I put together the table below of the % goal kicking accuracy and also goals per i50. I've only calculated the % of goals i50 not also points. The AFL i50 efficiency stat is based on goals and points. I don't see the point of that. I've only done them as %'s not totals because of the different number of games played by different teams. 

In summary we were 13th for goal kicking accuracy. That puts us at the bottom of last year's final 8. We were 7th for goals scored from i50's. Only Port and Cats in last year's 8 were worse than us which I find interesting because they both had key power forwards and much more settled forward lines during the season than us. 

Stat's are only as useful as the quality of analysis applied to them so my analysis is probably pretty low standard. Nevertheless I think these two are pretty straight forward but the causes and cures for them are not.

My first comment is that if you were to take these stat's from round 17 when BBB came back in and stayed in the forward line I'm sure they would be considerably improved. But the rd 20 98 pt blow out v Suns would skewer this stat.

In the Grand Final our goal kicking accuracy was 60% and i50's per goal was down to 3.05. That puts us comfortably ahead of any other team's season averages. I'm not sure how representative these stats are in the bigger picture as the game was such a blow out.

For our 3 game finals series goal kicking accuracy was 57.11% and goals per i50 were 3.53. They are both comfortably ahead of the rest of the competition's averages. But again there were 2 blow outs and a comfortable win in those 3 games. So also probably not representative other than to say wow what a sensational finals series against the 3 other best teams. 

Looking ahead to this season interesting that Swans were ranked 1 for accuracy and 2 for goals per i50. Lions ranked 2 for accuracy and 1 for goals per i50. Dogs 10 for accuracy 4 for goals per i50. 

 

[Watson11 2,240]

1 hour ago, Its Time for Back to Back said:

I'd love to be a fly on the wall and hear what aspects of the game the coach's decide to improve on over the summer. I put together the table below of the % goal kicking accuracy and also goals per i50. I've only calculated the % of goals i50 not also points. The AFL i50 efficiency stat is based on goals and points. I don't see the point of that. I've only done them as %'s not totals because of the different number of games played by different teams. 

In summary we were 13th for goal kicking accuracy. That puts us at the bottom of last year's final 8. We were 7th for goals scored from i50's. Only Port and Cats in last year's 8 were worse than us which I find interesting because they both had key power forwards and much more settled forward lines during the season than us. 

Stat's are only as useful as the quality of analysis applied to them so my analysis is probably pretty low standard. Nevertheless I think these two are pretty straight forward but the causes and cures for them are not.

My first comment is that if you were to take these stat's from round 17 when BBB came back in and stayed in the forward line I'm sure they would be considerably improved. But the rd 20 98 pt blow out v Suns would skewer this stat.

In the Grand Final our goal kicking accuracy was 60% and i50's per goal was down to 3.05. That puts us comfortably ahead of any other team's season averages. I'm not sure how representative these stats are in the bigger picture as the game was such a blow out.

For our 3 game finals series goal kicking accuracy was 57.11% and goals per i50 were 3.53. They are both comfortably ahead of the rest of the competition's averages. But again there were 2 blow outs and a comfortable win in those 3 games. So also probably not representative other than to say wow what a sensational finals series against the 3 other best teams. 

Looking ahead to this season interesting that Swans were ranked 1 for accuracy and 2 for goals per i50. Lions ranked 2 for accuracy and 1 for goals per i50. Dogs 10 for accuracy 4 for goals per i50. 

 

That's a good analysis.  In games we didn't win our accuracy was 46% which is 17th and our inside 50 conversion was 5.44 (18th).  If we just went at the average we had for the rest of the season for accuracy and i50 conversions, we would have probably only lost one of those games.

[binman 42,988]

1 hour ago, Its Time for Back to Back said:

I'd love to be a fly on the wall and hear what aspects of the game the coach's decide to improve on over the summer. I put together the table below of the % goal kicking accuracy and also goals per i50. I've only calculated the % of goals i50 not also points. The AFL i50 efficiency stat is based on goals and points. I don't see the point of that. I've only done them as %'s not totals because of the different number of games played by different teams. 

In summary we were 13th for goal kicking accuracy. That puts us at the bottom of last year's final 8. We were 7th for goals scored from i50's. Only Port and Cats in last year's 8 were worse than us which I find interesting because they both had key power forwards and much more settled forward lines during the season than us. 

Stat's are only as useful as the quality of analysis applied to them so my analysis is probably pretty low standard. Nevertheless I think these two are pretty straight forward but the causes and cures for them are not.

My first comment is that if you were to take these stat's from round 17 when BBB came back in and stayed in the forward line I'm sure they would be considerably improved. But the rd 20 98 pt blow out v Suns would skewer this stat.

In the Grand Final our goal kicking accuracy was 60% and i50's per goal was down to 3.05. That puts us comfortably ahead of any other team's season averages. I'm not sure how representative these stats are in the bigger picture as the game was such a blow out.

For our 3 game finals series goal kicking accuracy was 57.11% and goals per i50 were 3.53. They are both comfortably ahead of the rest of the competition's averages. But again there were 2 blow outs and a comfortable win in those 3 games. So also probably not representative other than to say wow what a sensational finals series against the 3 other best teams. 

Looking ahead to this season interesting that Swans were ranked 1 for accuracy and 2 for goals per i50. Lions ranked 2 for accuracy and 1 for goals per i50. Dogs 10 for accuracy 4 for goals per i50. 

 

Agree that accuracy is an area we can improve - particularly by non regular forwards like Oliver and Tracc (Brown, Fritter and Tmac are all statistically very accurate i would have thought).

But i think it is actually pretty hard to compare teams because the pure accuracy number does not take into account where the shots are taken from.  

Much to some fans frustration we often kick to the pockets, meaning many shots are from difficult angles. I suspect that Brisbane and Sydney (who top the accuracy table) go more centrally and therefore have more shots from better angles than we do. 

The other issue is how close to goal kicks are - obviously if you get lots of goals running into open goal squares your accuracy is going to be better.

When we open up sides, as we did in the Grand final, we swarm teams and get more of those goals where we tic tac and get it to a free player running into an open goal. I reckon Jackson got half of his goals that way last season and fritter also got a bunch of them.  When on top we also use the corridor more often, as we did in the GF.

There was discussion about us kicking to the picket in this thread back in April last year. This post from that discussion covers why i think we go via the pockets so often.

[Jaded No More 68,922]

Goodwin mentioned in the members brief tonight that they’re looking to continue our offensive improvement which obviously got better in the end part of 2021. 
The focus seems to be on getting bigger scores and increasing score board pressure, which a fit BB, a firing and confident Fritsch and a competitive battle between Tmac and Weid will absolutely help. Then you have Chandler and Bedford pushing for selection as well and guys like Oliver, Sparrow and Harmes increasing their focus on going forward and kicking goals. 
Oliver is capable of kicking 1-2 goals a game if he can work on his goal kicking accuracy. 

[Its Time for Another 4,223]

2 hours ago, Watson11 said:

That's a good analysis.  In games we didn't win our accuracy was 46% which is 17th and our inside 50 conversion was 5.44 (18th).  If we just went at the average we had for the rest of the season for accuracy and i50 conversions, we would have probably only lost one of those games.

That's an impressive stat. How did you work it out? I'm still trying to find the best sites for stats. 

[monoccular 17,431]

1 hour ago, Jaded No More said:

Goodwin mentioned in the members brief tonight that they’re looking to continue our offensive improvement which obviously got better in the end part of 2021. 
The focus seems to be on getting bigger scores and increasing score board pressure, which a fit BB, a firing and confident Fritsch and a competitive battle between Tmac and Weid will absolutely help. Then you have Chandler and Bedford pushing for selection as well and guys like Oliver, Sparrow and Harmes increasing their focus on going forward and kicking goals. 
Oliver is capable of kicking 1-2 goals a game if he can work on his goal kicking accuracy. 

Thanks JNM

And you of course left out the Norm Smith medalist from that list - when he kicks clutch goals in pivotal moments NB GF x2, and ANZAC Eve the whole team lifts. 
Scoreboard pressure can absolutely crush opposition morale and spirit. 

[Watson11 2,240]

44 minutes ago, Its Time for Back to Back said:

That's an impressive stat. How did you work it out? I'm still trying to find the best sites for stats. 

Footywire has a good set of stats. But only on a web browser, not mobile.  Go to Teams, pick Melbourne, and then pick Splits and it breaks all of the key stats down in home, away, wins, losses etc 

[Its Time for Another 4,223]

2 hours ago, binman said:

But i think it is actually pretty hard to compare teams because the pure accuracy number does not take into account where the shots are taken from.  

Much to some fans frustration we often kick to the pockets, meaning many shots are from difficult angles. I suspect that Brisbane and Sydney (who top the accuracy table) go more centrally and therefore have more shots from better angles than we do. 

The other issue is how close to goal kicks are - obviously if you get lots of goals running into open goal squares your accuracy is going to be better.

When we open up sides, as we did in the Grand final, we swarm teams and get more of those goals where we tic tac and get it to a free player running into an open goal. I reckon Jackson got half of his goals that way last season and fritter also got a bunch of them.  When on top we also use the corridor more often, as we did in the GF.

There was discussion about us kicking to the picket in this thread back in April last year. This post from that discussion covers why i think we go via the pockets so often.

I think whatever the cause it's still interesting we were 13th for accuracy. As you say one reason for that is where we are taking the shots from and the other is how accurate individual players are. Very interesting analysis of why we were having so many shots from the pockets but clearly it's not optimal. An enormous amount of work has to go into Hopefully now there appears to more of a settled front 6 they can start to work better on forward systems of play to create leading avenues in a better position than the pocket. This requires the whole 6 and midfielders coming in to work together to open those corridors so that there is an understanding who is going to lead where and who is going to work as decoys to draw defenders away. Then an understanding with the players delivering the ball to them to know which is the set option. I expect all of that to have been happening this pre season in a way we haven't been able till now.

Oliver kicked 11.18 last season (3.1 2020). Viney 4.7 (3.1 2020) Harmes 7.10 (3.1 2020) Brayshaw 3.7 Gawn 16.17 Weid played 5 games and only kicked 3.4. Jordan 6.6 There's great scope for improvement if this group's goal kicking is improved over the summer.

As a comparison Trac kicked 29.19 (15.14 2020). Fritsch 59.24 (22.24 2020) BBB 25.13 ANB 15.11 (7.0 2020) Kossie 40.28 (7.13 2020) Jacko 16.9 (3.2 2020) 

[FlashInThePan 1,893]

If Binman’s analysis is correct then we are happy to trade off a certain reduction in scoring efficiency in order to control the play more effectively. Lower score for us but even lower score for our opponents as we spend more time defending in our forward half.

I tend to think he may be onto something here. So much of our game relies on closing down the size of the field and establishing an impenetrable zone. This forces the long kick to a pack or a risky switch, which we are very comfortable shifting our zone rapidly to block. As he mentioned, going to the pocket closes down the amount of space we need to guard on turnover. Obviously, it also means a lower percentage shot in goal if we mark or gain possession.

 We do still have our second quarter yips. Where we have opportunities to close out the game entirely but we kick a string of points rather than goals and leave the door open. I’m hoping that as our self belief and confidence grows, this will happen less and less. 

[binman 42,988]

12 hours ago, Its Time for Back to Back said:

Very interesting analysis of why we were having so many shots from the pockets but clearly it's not optimal. 

I think the coaches believe it is optimal and i very much doubt we will change the tactic much. 

As flash notes above kicking to the pockets as opposed to more centrally supports our model of trapping the ball and the opposition in particular areas, in this instance tour forward line, and making it super hard for them to transition.

As Flash also notes, it is a trade off - sure it is harder to be accurate but that is offset by the fact that teams simply do not hurt us on transition (I'm pretty sure we conceded the least number of points from our back half). This really hurts teams, like the dogs, that rely on scoring on transition.

So many of our strategies are underpinned by a philosophy of playing the risk/reward percentages. For example playing along the boundary, kicking long to Gawn after a point, getting territory and our (much anaylsed) clearance system are all examples of playing the percentages ie approaches that statistically over the journey will concede less goals and create more for us. Kicking to the pockets is in the same boat.

The other element, one that i hadn't thought of last year, relates to my comment on the previous page in this thread about how we use the clock as a weapon. That's to say we suck time out of the clock and in doing so give the opposition less time to score and less opportunity to seize and/or take advantage of any momentum. 

I'm guessing at least half the time the ball is kicked to the pocket we get a stoppage of some sort. And then we crowd our inside 50 zone and often there is a secondary stoppage. If the opposition win and dump kick it out it often comes straight back in. All of this sucks heaps of time from the clock. And no doubt is super frustrating for the opposition, again particularly at team like the dogs, who are used to winning the ground ball in their back half and sweeping it up the other end of the ground.

And if a point is kicked, we allow the short kick to the pocket but then make it super hard to clear the zone, usually forcing frustrated opposition players to kick long down the line to one of our talls.

How many times last year did we see frustrated defenders holding onto the ball for ages looking for options. Again all this sucks valuable time from the clock and doesn't allow the opposition to get into any rhythm or to play fast.  

There was a fantastic example of our approach in one of the late season games i watched recently (i can't recall exactly which one, but i think it was the hawks game).

One of our players had the ball at center half forward (Fritter?) and there was no one in our 50 metre arc expect Kozzie who was running toward goals, with a defender on his hammer. The ball could of easily have been kicked out in front of Kozzie in the corridor and there was every chance he would have run on to it and scored an easy goal. Instead it was kicked towards the boundary, had too much on it and went over for a throw in. BT was flummoxed.

But going to the boundary was the percentage play because whilst Kozzie might have been a 70-30 chance of scoring if the ball had been kicked into the corridor, if his opponent won the ball it would have been easily rebounded as it would haver been in the corridor, and all our forwards had pressed up to help our defence so there was no help.  

Instead, whilst we had lower chance of an easy goal, there was still a good probability of doing so  (maybe 50-50?) and when we didn't, we got a stoppage, reset, gave our forwards and mids time to crowd the forward line and gave our defenders time to press up and create the wall to stop transition. 

Goody's comments are interesting about looking create more scoreboard pressure, and perhaps being more offensive. My feeling is that rather than than that being an indication we will use the corridor as the go to spot, it will mean we look to surge and go all out attack more often, and in doing so turn the risk/reward dial to risk for longer.

Which will mean more kicks to the corridor, but also perhaps more rebounds and scores on transition from the opposition.  

  

[Fat Tony 5,231]

5 minutes ago, binman said:

I think the coaches believe it is optimal and i very much doubt we will change the tactic much. 

As flash notes above kicking to the pockets as opposed to more centrally supports our model of trapping the ball and the opposition in particular areas, in this instance tour forward line, and making it super hard for them to transition.

As Flash also notes, it is a trade off - sure it is harder to be accurate but that is offset by the fact that teams simply do not hurt us on transition (I'm pretty sure we conceded the least number of points from our back half). This really hurts teams, like the dogs, that rely on scoring on transition.

So many of our strategies are underpinned by a philosophy of playing the risk/reward percentages. For example playing along the boundary, kicking long to Gawn after a point, getting territory and our (much anaylsed) clearance system are all examples of playing the percentages ie approaches that statistically over the journey will concede less goals and create more for us. Kicking to the pockets is in the same boat.

The other element, one that i hadn't thought of last year, relates to my comment on the previous page in this thread about how we use the clock as a weapon. That's to say we suck time out of the clock and in doing so give the opposition less time to score and less opportunity to seize and/or take advantage of any momentum. 

I'm guessing at least half the time the ball is kicked to the pocket we get a stoppage of some sort. And then we crowd our inside 50 zone and often there is a secondary stoppage. If the opposition win and dump kick it out it often comes straight back in. All of this sucks heaps of time from the clock. And no doubt is super frustrating for the opposition, again particularly at team like the dogs, who are used to winning the ground ball in their back half and sweeping it up the other end of the ground.

And if a point is kicked, we allow the short kick to the pocket but then make it super hard to clear the zone, usually forcing frustrated opposition players to kick long down the line to one of our talls.

How many times last year did we see frustrated defenders holding onto the ball for ages looking for options. Again all this sucks valuable time from the clock and doesn't allow the opposition to get into any rhythm or to play fast.  

There was a fantastic example of our approach in one of the late season games i watched recently (i can't recall exactly which one, but i think it was the hawks game).

One of our players had the ball at center half forward (Fritter?) and there was no one in our 50 metre arc expect Kozzie who was running toward goals, with a defender on his hammer. The ball could of easily have been kicked out in front of Kozzie in the corridor and there was every chance he would have run on to it and scored an easy goal. Instead it was kicked towards the boundary, had too much on it and went over for a throw in. BT was flummoxed.

But going to the boundary was the percentage play because whilst Kozzie might have been a 70-30 chance of scoring if the ball had been kicked into the corridor, if his opponent won the ball it would have been easily rebounded as it would haver been in the corridor, and all our forwards had pressed up to help our defence so there was no help.  

Instead, whilst we had lower chance of an easy goal, there was still a good probability of doing so  (maybe 50-50?) and when we didn't, we got a stoppage, reset, gave our forwards and mids time to crowd the forward line and gave our defenders time to press up and create the wall to stop transition. 

Goody's comments are interesting about looking create more scoreboard pressure, and perhaps being more offensive. My feeling is that rather than than that being an indication we will use the corridor as the go to spot, it will mean we look to surge and go all out attack more often, and in doing so turn the risk/reward dial to risk for longer.

Which will mean more kicks to the corridor, but also perhaps more rebounds and scores on transition from the opposition.  

  

I think we were more aggressive in terms of going inside 50 (and not kicking to the pockets) later in the year. This may have been due to playing on narrower grounds and due to Brown coming into form, but I think it was also probably a direction from Goodwin.

While we were winning early on, I think the balance was actually too conservative at the start of the year and I was happy to see an adjustment. Going deep into the pocket made no sense to me when Max was in the forward line and we did not take advantage of his contested marking ability often enough IMO.

From the defence and the midfield, I doubt we will see many changes in terms of our ball movement this year. The advantage you get from going into the corridor is not worth the risk of a turnover goal. That said, I think we might see a few more short kicks from the wings on the 45 degrees but I don't expect to see us switch the ball into the centre square very often.

Overall, I don't think the football public has realised how good our tactics were last year. We were happy to lose possession and defend so long as we had numbers behind the ball rather than risk maintaining possession without cover. This meant that when we lost possession, the opposition could only beat us with a patient, slow movement.

[binman 42,988]

12 minutes ago, Fat Tony said:

I think we were more aggressive in terms of going inside 50 (and not kicking to the pockets) later in the year. This may have been due to playing on narrower grounds and due to Brown coming into form, but I think it was also probably a direction from Goodwin.

While we were winning early on, I think the balance was actually too conservative at the start of the year and I was happy to see an adjustment. Going deep into the pocket made no sense to me when Max was in the forward line and we did not take advantage of his contested marking ability often enough IMO.

From the defence and the midfield, I doubt we will see many changes in terms of our ball movement this year. The advantage you get from going into the corridor is not worth the risk of a turnover goal. That said, I think we might see a few more short kicks from the wings on the 45 degrees but I don't expect to see us switch the ball into the centre square very often.

Overall, I don't think the football public has realised how good our tactics were last year. We were happy to lose possession and defend so long as we had numbers behind the ball rather than risk maintaining possession without cover. This meant that when we lost possession, the opposition could only beat us with a patient, slow movement.

I totally agree with the bolded bit.

My feeling is that rather than it being about Brown etc it was more to do with conscioulsy deciding to being more aggressive - turning the risk/reward dial to risk for longer.

Our scores from round 20 through to the ground final reflected this aggression (something like an average of 120 points a game, which is just nuts)

But that sort of aggression is pretty taxing, and i think that part of the logic of being less aggressive through the season is about load management and being cherry ripe for the finals. And perhaps also not showing all your attacking cards too early.

My feeling is we will see a similar pattern next year, which some will find frustrating no doubt as for much of the season we will win games in the four to five goal range again, as opposed to going all out and smashing teams.

But the pay off is unleashing the beast come the last couple of rounds of the home and away and finals.

Also totally agree with your last paragraph.

I'd add that in addition to being ok with losing possession so long as we had numbers behind the ball, we were also happy to give away free kicks and basically stop the game so we can set up our defensive system - something that became apparent for me when watching the replays in the last month or so.  

[Diamond_Jim 12,590]

Accuracy from set shots is definitely an easy improvement area.

All we need is a 10-20% improvement and we add 60 plus goals for the season.

Fritsch going from 22:24 in 2020 to 59:24 is a perfect example.

[Axis of Bob 11,829]

When there are many players around the footy it is really difficult to score, especially if both teams are committed to defending. In the GF, this was the case for 3 quarters of football.

We didn't start scoring in the third quarter because we started playing attacking football, we ground 3 tough goals that quarter (the Harmes pass to Fritsch from a wing stoppage, the Brayshaw mark after we turned over the Daniel kick, and the Petracca boundary goal). These weren't kamikaze attacking plays but rather just good tough goals from contests or turnovers. The reason we scored so heavily that quarter was because we kicked 4 more goals directly from centre bounces, which is the only time where there is space all over the field to attack. Then, in the last quarter, only one team was committed to defending (us) whilst the other was chasing some quick goals from behind .... that's why it became a bloodbath.

Our style smothered teams and this allowed our best players to win us games. I'd say that any attempt to be more attacking this year will be more focused on making our forward line function better than it will be on sacrificing our ability to defend. 

[Watson11 2,240]

3 hours ago, binman said:

I totally agree with the bolded bit.

My feeling is that rather than it being about Brown etc it was more to do with conscioulsy deciding to being more aggressive - turning the risk/reward dial to risk for longer.

Our scores from round 20 through to the ground final reflected this aggression (something like an average of 120 points a game, which is just nuts)

But that sort of aggression is pretty taxing, and i think that part of the logic of being less aggressive through the season is about load management and being cherry ripe for the finals. And perhaps also not showing all your attacking cards too early.

My feeling is we will see a similar pattern next year, which some will find frustrating no doubt as for much of the season we will win games in the four to five goal range again, as opposed to going all out and smashing teams.

But the pay off is unleashing the beast come the last couple of rounds of the home and away and finals.

Also totally agree with your last paragraph.

I'd add that in addition to being ok with losing possession so long as we had numbers behind the ball, we were also happy to give away free kicks and basically stop the game so we can set up our defensive system - something that became apparent for me when watching the replays in the last month or so.  

You would have to say that even in the GF the kicking to the pockets worked a treat when the game was really on the line.  If you look at our last 9 minutes in the 3rd qtr a lot of our inside 50's, unless they were quick centre clearances to a one on one or straight through the goals, went to pockets.  Harmes kick to Fritsch to kick start it is a classic example.  Harmes knew where to kick it (space in the pocket), and Fritsch knew where to run.  The centre clearance that Brown marked shortly after was not deep in the pocket, but enough in that direction that it was a one on one to Browns advantage rather than 4 players up in the goal square.  The best example of what we practised all year was 5 minutes to go in the third, when May intercepted around the centre and passed to Brayshaw who had a few bounces and kicked deep into the pocket.  It was a poor kick and bounced on the boundary line, but it resulted in 2 stoppages and then we went to work, resulting in the Brayshaw goal which put us in front.  Traccs goal with 58s left was another example.  Brown could have kicked anywhere, but kicked to the pocket and Tracc and Kossie both were ready.  Worst case is that goes out of bounds and we maybe get another goal (rather than the 3 we got).

I am sure all the other coaches would have been studying what we did intently, but I honestly don't know how they will stop it as it is not a risky strategy at all. 

With your last point re free kicks, I could not agree more.  The dogs Bigfooty board postgame on GF day is interesting to read regarding this issue, as there was commentary from their supporters about our tackling (brutal) versus theirs (soft).  Basically, they were bemoaning the fact that the dogs are so focussed on not giving away frees, that we just consistently stood up in tackles and got the ball to the outside which really hurt them.  When the other happened, we just didn't care and were tackling them into the turf every time.  We gave away a few frees but they did not hurt us at all.  

Edit Grammar

Edited February 17, 2022 by Watson11

[Its Time for Another 4,223]

3 hours ago, binman said:

I totally agree with the bolded bit.

My feeling is that rather than it being about Brown etc it was more to do with conscioulsy deciding to being more aggressive - turning the risk/reward dial to risk for longer.

Our scores from round 20 through to the ground final reflected this aggression (something like an average of 120 points a game, which is just nuts)  

23 minutes ago, Axis of Bob said:

I'd say that any attempt to be more attacking this year will be more focused on making our forward line function better than it will be on sacrificing our ability to defend. 

It makes sense to me that when you have a settled forward line and a good connection into the forward line that logically you are going to be more attacking. We were still tinkering with the forward line set up right to the end of the season. It's no surprise as this became more settled that the scoring started going up. It's likely that having that set up meant that the philosophy changed rather than the other way around. This season we will be starting with the best most settled forward line we've had since back in the Neater days but with a much better midfield and a preseason to perfect the system and delivery. I'd say that's why Goody mentioned at the Forum that we will be more attacking this season. 

[Grr-owl 1,220]

4 hours ago, Axis of Bob said:

any attempt to be more attacking this year will be more focused on making our forward line function better

Maybe we are a little hazy in the GF aftermath, but our forward line was dodgy most of last season. If not dodgy, then at least unsettled or less than optimal..... or some other politically pedantic term or phrase. I reckon this season will see that piece of the puzzle in place, and I'm backing BBB for the Coleman and another two of us in the top ten to fifteen. 

[binman 42,988]

4 hours ago, Axis of Bob said:

We didn't start scoring in the third quarter because we started playing attacking football, we ground 3 tough goals that quarter (the Harmes pass to Fritsch from a wing stoppage, the Brayshaw mark after we turned over the Daniel kick, and the Petracca boundary goal). These weren't kamikaze attacking plays but rather just good tough goals from contests or turnovers.

The reason we scored so heavily that quarter was because we kicked 4 more goals directly from centre bounces, which is the only time where there is space all over the field to attack. 

Agree with both paras. 

Watson11 makes an really good point about those three tough goals you mention - all involved our strategy of going to the pockets

In terms of the third quarter center clearance goal, my sense is that they were examples of what i mean of being aggressive and consciously dialing up the risk factor. And also an example the point i made earlier in this thread about the way we look to really take advantage of periods where we get the momentum by kicking bursts of goals, something that we did all season - time and again we withstood opposition pressure and then in 10 minutes took the game away from them.   

One, they went against what they would normally do in such circumstances, which would be to put Max in the center for those bounces. Instead they left Jackson in there, which was definitely risky given his inexperience, the critical point the game was at, and the fact that max is the best ruck in the game. The safe option was definitely to put  Max back in there. 

Two, i think the mids took up pretty offensive starting positions.

And three, related to number two, i read somewhere on DL (in this thread perhaps) that after the first of those goals Tracc and Oliver considered going more defensive but decided bugger it lets go for it. Now perhaps that is apocryphal, but it gels with the outcome. 

Edited February 17, 2022 by binman

[Adam The God 30,261]

On 2/16/2022 at 4:39 PM, Its Time for Back to Back said:

I'd love to be a fly on the wall and hear what aspects of the game the coach's decide to improve on over the summer. I put together the table below of the % goal kicking accuracy and also goals per i50. I've only calculated the % of goals i50 not also points. The AFL i50 efficiency stat is based on goals and points. I don't see the point of that. I've only done them as %'s not totals because of the different number of games played by different teams. 

In summary we were 13th for goal kicking accuracy. That puts us at the bottom of last year's final 8. We were 7th for goals scored from i50's. Only Port and Cats in last year's 8 were worse than us which I find interesting because they both had key power forwards and much more settled forward lines during the season than us. 

Stat's are only as useful as the quality of analysis applied to them so my analysis is probably pretty low standard. Nevertheless I think these two are pretty straight forward but the causes and cures for them are not.

My first comment is that if you were to take these stat's from round 17 when BBB came back in and stayed in the forward line I'm sure they would be considerably improved. But the rd 20 98 pt blow out v Suns would skewer this stat.

In the Grand Final our goal kicking accuracy was 60% and i50's per goal was down to 3.05. That puts us comfortably ahead of any other team's season averages. I'm not sure how representative these stats are in the bigger picture as the game was such a blow out.

For our 3 game finals series goal kicking accuracy was 57.11% and goals per i50 were 3.53. They are both comfortably ahead of the rest of the competition's averages. But again there were 2 blow outs and a comfortable win in those 3 games. So also probably not representative other than to say wow what a sensational finals series against the 3 other best teams. 

Looking ahead to this season interesting that Swans were ranked 1 for accuracy and 2 for goals per i50. Lions ranked 2 for accuracy and 1 for goals per i50. Dogs 10 for accuracy 4 for goals per i50. 

 

I remember often saying last year that our defensive system was so solid that providing our accuracy was decent, we'd beat anyone.

My big fear approaching the final series was that given we were the best team in the comp, we'd only blow it with inaccuracy.

There's a piece of commentary late in the GF, from I think Luke Hodge IIRC, and he says our accuracy in the GF was incredible. Something like 16.4 from when the game turned in the 3rd.

Providing we take half our chances, that usually means we win the game, as we're decent at generating inside 50s, but also brilliant at defending opposition inside 50s. 

If we can improve our efficiency, and BBB could definitely help here, we could take another step ahead of the pack. Unless of course, we become too BBB focused.

Edited February 18, 2022 by A F