Game plans, tactics and all that jazz

[Binmans PA 26,301]

As Lever intimated in his post game interview, we got our strategy wrong early and in the last quarter, we went more attacking. IMV, if we knew we were going to struggle arousal wise for 4 quarters, we should have started attacking from the top and then dug in to defend a lead.

I think we're making too much of stoppages at the moment. Of course, we need to get better, but last night we were useless in the contest, with all our mids banged up, so naturally we were smashed in stoppages.

In previous weeks losing stoppage has meant we cab slingshot, provided the post clearance pressure is good enough. Last night at times it was non existent.

Furthermore, I'm on record saying the ruck position is the most overrated position in the game. The reason Max is so good is his marking around the ground, not his tap work IMO. He taps it directly to the opposition more often than tapping it directly to team mates, and the strategy this year and towards the end of last year was to take the ball from the ruck as often as possible and get territory. I think it has its place as a strategy if we're being beaten soundly at stoppages, but not as a first option. I'd much prefer him tapping to his feet and allowing our mids to shark or defend the opposition sharking.

[Roost it far 6,239]

5 hours ago, Binmans PA said:

As Lever intimated in his post game interview, we got our strategy wrong early and in the last quarter, we went more attacking. IMV, if we knew we were going to struggle arousal wise for 4 quarters, we should have started attacking from the top and then dug in to defend a lead.

I think we're making too much of stoppages at the moment. Of course, we need to get better, but last night we were useless in the contest, with all our mids banged up, so naturally we were smashed in stoppages.

In previous weeks losing stoppage has meant we cab slingshot, provided the post clearance pressure is good enough. Last night at times it was non existent.

Furthermore, I'm on record saying the ruck position is the most overrated position in the game. The reason Max is so good is his marking around the ground, not his tap work IMO. He taps it directly to the opposition more often than tapping it directly to team mates, and the strategy this year and towards the end of last year was to take the ball from the ruck as often as possible and get territory. I think it has its place as a strategy if we're being beaten soundly at stoppages, but not as a first option. I'd much prefer him tapping to his feet and allowing our mids to shark or defend the opposition sharking.

If Max grabbing the ball and kicking it 10 metres up into the air becomes our strategy then I’m done. Max has an incredible ability to control where he puts the ball. I’d have him drop it at his feet on occasion and have our mids go to work. 

Edited April 12 by Roost it far

[Engorged Onion 9,412]

Thought it would be a good time to open up this dormant thread again. And chew the fat with some good analysis from those that see the game from a technical/tactical lens.

A question...2 months in.

What seems to be our preferred game style (understanding that we have some significant outs currently)?

 

A few questions for this week

How does this contrast against this weeks opponents (Geelong)?

Knowing how Geelong prefer to play, what do we tweak as part of our system to minimize/distrupt their game plan?

Knowing how Geelong prefer to play, what can we potentially take advantage of to maximise our outcome?

 

Thanks to those who wish to contribute.
😃
 

Edited April 29 by Engorged Onion

[binman 38,828]

11 hours ago, Engorged Onion said:

Thought it would be a good time to open up this dormant thread again. And chew the fat with some good analysis from those that see the game from a technical/tactical lens.

A question...2 months in.

What seems to be our preferred game style (understanding that we have some significant outs currently)?

 

A few questions for this week

How does this contrast against this weeks opponents (Geelong)?

Knowing how Geelong prefer to play, what do we tweak as part of our system to minimize/distrupt their game plan?

Knowing how Geelong prefer to play, what can we potentially take advantage of to maximise our outcome?

 

Thanks to those who wish to contribute.
😃
 

My take:

General comment

Under Goody, since the start of 2021 our method has been forward half (ie get it inside 50 as quickly and directly as possible and keep it there - hence the hated long bomb), territory first,  brutal football with insane pressure and huge tackle numbers.

Basically Hardwick's  template with an improved defensive system and some other tweaks (eg one less at the stoppage).

As @rpfc has noted, this year goody is trying to implement a game plan and system that has a focus on turnover and fast effective transition from the back half, ideally into an open forward line to help with 'efficiency'.

Territory is still important of course. Switching just allows oppo defences to get set up. So if we can't go fast, we try and at least hit up leads that move us towards our goal. 

And we seem to be setting up really deep defensively - deeper than other team using a similar  method ATM (Cats, Giants, Tigers and Swans - ironically one of the teams who really developed the method, the Pies, are playing our 2021-23 method, as is the blues).  

The point Turner kicked in the first q after a beautifully weighted kick from Fritter, who had pushed up to the wing (leaving our inside 50 all but empty) and marked after we turned the ball over was the perfect example of the method in action.

Fritters and Turners first goals were other good examples. 

Key categories/indicators no longer as key/critical:

• Time in Forward Half
• Metres Gained
• Inside 50s

 The 2024 Red and Blue print:

First and foremost, as has always been the case, and will always be a fundamental under goody:

• Defence
• Contest

New in 2024 to reflect the changed method:

• Transition, back half football - scores from defensive half being the key indicator
• Scores from turnover (was important last year, but critical this year)

• Clearances (on watch in terms of relevance/importance)*:

*Last season clearances were not key stats, or at least not in the way they once were.

And because we have always given up a player at stoppages, even for us, a straight-line team,  they were of limited value as key indicators. So i'm not sure how relevant clearances are.

We are down on total clearances this season, but are number two for most scores (blues #1) from stoppages and number one for least oppo score when they win stoppages. So i'm starting to think it is pretty important, though again not as important as scores from turnover (which is aprox 60-70% of scoring now - or was last year).  

Here are some of the KPIs i think are relevant for our 2024 method (the list is obviously not exhaustive and the club would have a huge number of team and individual data points they measure to assess if we are the right track):  

Key Performance Indicators

Defence Opposition score Intercepts      Intercept marks Scores from turnover Marks inside 50

Contest Contested possessions Pressure Post clearance possessions Tackles Tackles inside 50 Ground Ball Gets Contested marks  Clearances:* Centre Stoppage Scores from stoppages Hit outs Hitouts To Advantage

Transition from back half Points from defensive half Inside 50 to score ratio Rebound 50s Score sources (from most to least relevant): Turnover Stoppage* Centre bounces* Kick in* Marks: Uncontested marks inside 50  Contested marks Marks inside forward 50 Marks inside forward 50 per inside 50 Intercept marks Marks on lead

High performance program, fitness, and fatigue TBD

Edited April 29 by binman

[binman 38,828]

1 hour ago, Engorged Onion said:

Thought it would be a good time to open up this dormant thread again. And chew the fat with some good analysis from those that see the game from a technical/tactical lens.

A question...2 months in.

What seems to be our preferred game style (understanding that we have some significant outs currently)?

 

A few questions for this week

How does this contrast against this weeks opponents (Geelong)?

Knowing how Geelong prefer to play, what do we tweak as part of our system to minimize/distrupt their game plan?

Knowing how Geelong prefer to play, what can we potentially take advantage of to maximise our outcome?

 

Thanks to those who wish to contribute.
😃
 

I'll have a go at the other qs tomorrow EO.

[Binmans PA 26,301]

We are emulating Geelong's slingshot game from the back half, where centre stoppages are less important and an open forward line is generated by slingshot off turnover in D50.

I like to use Round 2 2019 as a good example of this approach. I was at the game and we mauled them from first possession clearance and they beat us by 80 points. In the game, they lost inside 50 by -24 and clearance by -15, scoring 62% of the time they went inside 50.

I'd argue this back half game has been Chris Scott's template for well over a decade. 

Meanwhile, that night, we played the same game we played between 2017-2023, which was an aggressive, gruelling forward half game. This saw us lay +2 tackles and lay 18 to 11 tackles inside 50 for the game.

This week, I expect that we'll back our new defensive slingshot system in against theirs and whilst we'll be happy to take territory when it's on offer, we'll look to follow the same blue print we've followed the rest of the season.

* -1 at stoppage

* send only 1 to the ground ball at stoppage (the rest defending or blocking)

* emphasise post clearance pressure (from the defensively positioned mids and the inside slider off the back or front of the stoppage)

* be happy to soak up pressure with a deep lying defensive zone

* and tempt Geelong's methodical kicking game from the back half and try and turn the ball over across the wing area and slingshot back in.

I think we'll play Fritta on Stewart like we did Moore last year. Fritta did some good jobs as a defensive forward last year. It meant he was often where the ball was (by way of his opponent going for the intercept) or us directly playing through him.

Alternatively, it could be a really good way of getting Petty into the game. Have him sit on Stewart.

Interestingly enough though, Stewart didn't do all the damage last year (another game I was at). Although he had the 2nd most for Geelong on the night and 8 intercept possessions, I felt Jack Henry who had 9 intercept possessions was more damaging. In a game where they lost Cameron in the first quarter to injury mindyou.

I think Geelong will manage to score with their very talented forwardline (notwithstanding Hawkins struggling this year and Cameron being kept goalless earlier in the year), but the nature of their slingshot game means it's their defenders that set up their game, less so their mids. 

Dangerfield is a big out, but if we can prevent Stewart, Henry, Kolodjashnij and De Koning from controlling the air and our A50, I think we'll win. 

Edited April 29 by Binmans PA

[binman 38,828]

44 minutes ago, Binmans PA said:

We are emulating Geelong's slingshot game from the back half, where centre stoppages are less important and an open forward line is generated by slingshot off turnover in D50.

I like to use Round 2 2019 as a good example of this approach. I was at the game and we mauled them from first possession clearance and they beat us by 80 points. In the game, they lost inside 50 by -24 and clearance by -15, scoring 62% of the time they went inside 50.

I'd argue this back half game has been Chris Scott's template for well over a decade. 

Meanwhile, that night, we played the same game we played between 2017-2023, which was an aggressive, gruelling forward half game. This saw us lay +2 tackles and lay 18 to 11 tackles inside 50 for the game.

This week, I expect that we'll back our new defensive slingshot system in against theirs and whilst we'll be happy to take territory when it's on offer, we'll look to follow the same blue print we've followed the rest of the season.

* -1 at stoppage

* send only 1 to the ground ball at stoppage (the rest defending or blocking)

* emphasise post clearance pressure (from the defensively positioned mids and the inside slider off the back or front of the stoppage)

* be happy to soak up pressure with a deep lying defensive zone

* and tempt Geelong's methodical kicking game from the back half and try and turn the ball over across the wing area and slingshot back in.

I think we'll play Fritta on Stewart like we did Moore last year. Fritta did some good jobs as a defensive forward last year. It meant he was often where the ball was (by way of his opponent going for the intercept) or us directly playing through him.

Alternatively, it could be a really good way of getting Petty into the game. Have him sit on Stewart.

Interestingly enough though, Stewart didn't do all the damage last year (another game I was at). Although he had the 2nd most for Geelong on the night and 8 intercept possessions, I felt Jack Henry who had 9 intercept possessions was more damaging. In a game where they lost Cameron in the first quarter to injury mindyou.

I think Geelong will manage to score with their very talented forwardline (notwithstanding Hawkins struggling this year and Cameron being kept goalless earlier in the year), but the nature of their slingshot game means it's their defenders that set up their game, less so their mids. 

Dangerfield is a big out, but if we can prevent Stewart, Henry, Kolodjashnij and De Koning from controlling the area and our A50, I think we'll win. 

What he said.

[rpfc 27,591]

9 hours ago, Binmans PA said:

We are emulating Geelong's slingshot game from the back half, where centre stoppages are less important and an open forward line is generated by slingshot off turnover in D50.

I like to use Round 2 2019 as a good example of this approach. I was at the game and we mauled them from first possession clearance and they beat us by 80 points. In the game, they lost inside 50 by -24 and clearance by -15, scoring 62% of the time they went inside 50.

I'd argue this back half game has been Chris Scott's template for well over a decade. 

Meanwhile, that night, we played the same game we played between 2017-2023, which was an aggressive, gruelling forward half game. This saw us lay +2 tackles and lay 18 to 11 tackles inside 50 for the game.

This week, I expect that we'll back our new defensive slingshot system in against theirs and whilst we'll be happy to take territory when it's on offer, we'll look to follow the same blue print we've followed the rest of the season.

* -1 at stoppage

* send only 1 to the ground ball at stoppage (the rest defending or blocking)

* emphasise post clearance pressure (from the defensively positioned mids and the inside slider off the back or front of the stoppage)

* be happy to soak up pressure with a deep lying defensive zone

* and tempt Geelong's methodical kicking game from the back half and try and turn the ball over across the wing area and slingshot back in.

I think we'll play Fritta on Stewart like we did Moore last year. Fritta did some good jobs as a defensive forward last year. It meant he was often where the ball was (by way of his opponent going for the intercept) or us directly playing through him.

Alternatively, it could be a really good way of getting Petty into the game. Have him sit on Stewart.

Interestingly enough though, Stewart didn't do all the damage last year (another game I was at). Although he had the 2nd most for Geelong on the night and 8 intercept possessions, I felt Jack Henry who had 9 intercept possessions was more damaging. In a game where they lost Cameron in the first quarter to injury mindyou.

I think Geelong will manage to score with their very talented forwardline (notwithstanding Hawkins struggling this year and Cameron being kept goalless earlier in the year), but the nature of their slingshot game means it's their defenders that set up their game, less so their mids. 

Dangerfield is a big out, but if we can prevent Stewart, Henry, Kolodjashnij and De Koning from controlling the area and our A50, I think we'll win. 

Yeah, it’s a balance. As @binmannotes - we are always going to be defence first and contest focussed. But that is brutal, and unless you are powering it out of centre - hard to score quickly in a final if you need 3 goals in 7 mins.

I think Goodwin wants to see us slingshot when the space allows it, and compress and keep territory when it’s fruitful, but we can’t do that until we are mature in the slingshot. 

So i hope we lean into it the next two weeks and the team can see it up against some very good teams.

[binman 38,828]

An interesting element of the changed method is a transition game is less taxing physically because there is less contests.

I think that is a key reason why we have adapted our game as as clarry noted post game we have been banged up coming into the finals in the last 2 seasons.

But it is a method that MORE taxing aerobicly because it involves more end to end running.

And as Steve may notes in this clip, a high turnover game means constantly working hard to get back defensively:

So, for the method to work teams need to be super fit aerobically across the board or it just won't work (which I think is why teams like the roos and hawks are struggling to implement it).

I think @Binmans PA makes an interesting point that it could be argued Scott was a key influence in the development of the transition game, using a slingshot style since at least 2019.

My sense is mcrae adapted that method and created a hybrid method that included some of the key elements of goody's method - fierce contest, territory first (ie not wait for the perfect hit up like cats used to), a defence that gets back hard and trap it inside 50. 

Mcraes 2022 and (most of) 2023's method feels more helter skelter than the cats method (though the cats also got noticeably more physical and hard at it in their premiership year).

But this year, and for the last third of last season, the pies are basically playing our 2021-23 method.

I suspect the reason why is they aren't aerobically fit enough to employ the method they perfected. Yet.

I suspect there is some truth to the talk that the pies have structured their high performance program to ease into the season. Use the two byes as opportunities to build their collective tank in season.

Voss said something similar about how they planned to use the early season bye, and interestingly they are alsi playing a forward half game.

If im right the pies may well start getting back to their transition, turnover game.

And as much as I hate to say it, could well come in a rush towards the end of the season. 

And the blues might go to another level.

Edited April 29 by binman

[Demon Dynasty 15,768]

My biggest concern is that in the same game POST BYE last season (courtesy of Andy's 'Last Time They Met' thread) ...

MELBOURNE 2.1.13 4.8.32 6.11.47 8.15.63

GEELONG 3.4.22 4.7.31 5.10.40 11.12.78

The Demons made the long trip down the highway and looked the winner until the final break but ran out of legs even though they were coming off their midseason bye.

 

My biggest concen here is we are effectively coming off the same rest period as the bye when we met them last season (albeit at Tax Payer Park not the G) and the same number of days (break) as the bye prior to meeting the Tigers last match.

We appeared to come out flat as a tack against the Tigers and ran out of puff in the last against the Cats last season under the same 'break' scenario.

So, if it's true that we treat the players to four days off and then attempt to cram in an extra main training session into the remaining seven days before these matches in order to make up for the longer 10 day break)...AND its not working.

Ie;  we are running out of puff in a significant way (vs the Cats 2023) or coming in flat in a signifcant way (the first half vs the Tigers last week).

If so then why do it?  You're effectively setting yourself up for a potential loss by adding the extra day's training in to the standard 7 day schedule.

We got away with it against a severely depleted team in the Tigers.  You won't against the top liners like the Cats this week.

Alternatively if the extra day's considered  a MUST from a HP POV, why not give the boys three days off instead of four and use that extra day at the end for recovery from the extra training session!?

That should, in theory, bring them into the match a little more fresh or maybe alot more and potentially set us up to have a better chance of winning vs cramming in an extra (3rd) sesh into a standard 7 day break schedule that usually only has 2 main sessions.

Bottom line... you can have all the amazing strategies, tactics and players in the world... which is fantastic.  But bring them (or a fair chunk of em) into a match where many are cooked .... well good luck as most won't be able to execute as per the plans / tactics as required or for as long as needed to beat the best.

Also, surely we wouldn't throw in an extra (3rd) serious session this week knowing we're coming up against the top of the table team and then a top eight team in great form in the Blues only 5 days later?

A potential recipe to lose both matches imho.

And IF the players MUST have their four days off for whatever reason, surely a huge match against the Cats is more than acceptable as the 3rd training session that the FD would (usually) like to throw in to this 10 day break scenario knowing we have a tough match to follow up five days later!??

We also don't bat deep in the midfield.  No point overly thrashing them...will only result in under performance and/or potential soft tissue injuries that we can't afford.

Edited April 29 by Demon Dynasty

[layzie 29,298]

Firstly, happy to see this thread back in action as it’s one of my favourites. 

I was asked last night by a fellow fan this question:

“Do you think our game style this year suits the list we have? I’m not sure if it does”

Not a terrible question but one that definitely got me thinking about it. I think right now it’s an easy knee-jerk response to say that it doesn’t but looking at it week by week probably isn’t the way to go. It’s clearly a work in progress and in my opinion a tweak that needed to happen to go to the next step. These things take time and I’m sure the FD weren’t planning on losing two of our best distributors to injury so early on in the season. Yet we sit 5-2.

As the others have said, our game under Goody will likely always be about defence and contest first. It’s the layers of a gameplan that make it what it is and can be hard to explain to people who feel that a contest game is purely about winning the ball in the middle and getting first use of it into the 50. This ‘Route 1’ style of football is what we all love but we need to give credit to AFL coaches and accept that the sport is indeed a much more complex and tactical one than many give it credit for and is the reason why the Sam Newmans of the world have no place commenting on the modern game these days. 

While many were unhappy with the performance last Wednesday I thought our defensive positioning and structure was spot on and in terms of scoring chances generated a lot by form of intercepts. I fully agree with Binman that score from turnover is the one we care about (although I was surprised to see us so high in scores from stoppage). This method in some ways puts much less importance on the personnel of our forward line whereas the previous one may have exacerbated any potential issues. When you see a stat like 26 scoring shots from 50 I50s you have to stand up and take notice. 

Taking the space when it’s there and taking any territory you can get when it’s not. Hitting up a lead when we can’t go fast is more often that not going to be better than blazing it into 50 and having to repeatedly work our rears off getting back to defend the rebound. 

I am hoping we can back this method for a period of time and embrace any imperfections that come with it. The likes of Collingwood in the last few years have challenged other teams to up their transition game and if you’re standing still with your game you’re going backwards (See Lions) so we just need to trust the process and see it through.

I do feel Binman’s PA is onto something with Petty. I think we missed a trick not playing him up forward in a negating role last year on Stewart and this could give him a different focus other than marks, kicks, goals for a week. Providing that the fitness is there of course. 

We’ll see exactly where Melbourne are at in the next two weeks but I’ll be looking much more closely at the manner of performances than the results. Though it would be nice to nab a win out of the two.  
 

[Binmans PA 26,301]

2 hours ago, rpfc said:

Yeah, it’s a balance. As @binmannotes - we are always going to be defence first and contest focussed. But that is brutal, and unless you are powering it out of centre - hard to score quickly in a final if you need 3 goals in 7 mins.

I think Goodwin wants to see us slingshot when the space allows it, and compress and keep territory when it’s fruitful, but we can’t do that until we are mature in the slingshot. 

So i hope we lean into it the next two weeks and the team can see it up against some very good teams.

I think if we are really aggressive on slingshot, which we probably need to be, it'll mean more turnovers than had we had Bowey and Salem fit. But maybe it's a really positive thing to see how we go with our best half back kickers out of the side, because if it stands up, wowee, are we going to be dangerous when the aforementioned two come back into the fold. Conversely, if we struggle and turn the ball over more, we may need to temper the slingshot.

[Binmans PA 26,301]

2 hours ago, binman said:

An interesting element of the changed method is a transition game is less taxing physically because there is less contests.

I think that is a key reason why we have adapted our game as as clarry noted post game we have been banged up coming into the finals in the last 2 seasons.

But it is a method that MORE taxing aerobicly because it involves more end to end running.

I think your analysis on the podders, boss, and your potential fears for the Carlton game aren't unfounded. I expect and hope we'll be right to go against Carlton. The intangible at this stage is how heated and charged is the Carlton v Collingwood game on Friday night. Are there injuries? How emotionally taxing is that game in front of an expected 90,000+, versus what we face on Saturday night, knowing the result of that match too.

If we lose to Geelong, it'll be interesting to see how we approach the Carlton game.

2 hours ago, binman said:

I think @Binmans PA makes an interesting point that it could be argued Scott was a key influence in the development of the transition game, using a slingshot style since at least 2019.

From 2011-2015, they had no Ablett (they lost him at the end of 2010) and no Dangerfield (they gained him in 2016), so they had to rely less on clearance. IMV, they have played a slingshot game his entire tenure. The battering ram that has become Dangerfield, was Selwood in those years, and others who were nearing the end like Bartel (retired at the end of 2016). But they had an elite defensive mix that set up attacks. Think Scarlett, Taylor, Enright, Lonergan. They've replaced these guys with Stewart, Kolodjashnij, Henry, De Koning with Bews and Z Guthrie as the support hands.

The game has changed to place even more emphasis on intercept, but I'd argue Scott has had the most influence on the modern game of any coach. This idea also explains why Geelong has been thereabouts for so many years. Now the modern game is all about intercept.

Goodwin took it to an aggressive level, with how we hemmed teams in with our modern press and with our elite mids and frenetic forward half pressure forced teams to kick it to our intercepts in May, Lever and to a lesser extent Petty. But we've clearly eventually said the slingshot game is more effective over the journey than playing a forward half game for 22/23 rounds + finals.

In one of my rare differences of opinion with you, I'm also not as convinced that the game will revert to forward half territory in finals. Collingwood played slingshot in that QF against us. Again, it'll be an interesting watch.

2 hours ago, binman said:

If im right the pies may well start getting back to their transition, turnover game.

And as much as I hate to say it, could well come in a rush towards the end of the season. 

And the blues might go to another level.

You could well be right here. Meanwhile, hopefully by the back end of our fixture, we'll have perfected our slingshot game, and with Clarry, Trac and Viney at our disposal, I'd be backing us in against Collingwood. Carlton's midfield could compete and beat us, but as you and @george_on_the_outer said on the podders, they currently lack the defensive system we do, which should give us the edge.

GWS are the team to beat I reckon, but let's see how Geelong go for the rest of the season. We've written them off many times before...

[whatwhat say what 19,311]

2 hours ago, layzie said:

We’ll see exactly where Melbourne are at in the next two weeks but I’ll be looking much more closely at the manner of performances than the results. Though it would be nice to nab a win out of the two.  

i think yr right that we'll see exactly where we are in the next fortnight

BUT

that's not necessarily where we'll be in september

form and fitness ebbs and flows and as long as we are in the top 8 at the end of this year i firmly believe we're as good a chance as anyone

we know our slightly revised gameplan stands up, now it's just about executing it better than the oppo can deploy theirs

@binman - would you say that as it stands it's more important for us to win post-clearance possession than clearance per se?

as such, is scores from stoppages >>> oppo scores from stoppages perhaps the most important statistic in our game plan?

[binman 38,828]

4 hours ago, Demon Dynasty said:

My biggest concern is that in the same game POST BYE last season (courtesy of Andy's 'Last Time They Met' thread) ...

MELBOURNE 2.1.13 4.8.32 6.11.47 8.15.63

GEELONG 3.4.22 4.7.31 5.10.40 11.12.78

The Demons made the long trip down the highway and looked the winner until the final break but ran out of legs even though they were coming off their midseason bye.

 

My biggest concen here is we are effectively coming off the same rest period as the bye when we met them last season (albeit at Tax Payer Park not the G) and the same number of days (break) as the bye prior to meeting the Tigers last match.

We appeared to come out flat as a tack against the Tigers and ran out of puff in the last against the Cats last season under the same 'break' scenario.

So, if it's true that we treat the players to four days off and then attempt to cram in an extra main training session into the remaining seven days before these matches in order to make up for the longer 10 day break)...AND its not working.

Ie;  we are running out of puff in a significant way (vs the Cats 2023) or coming in flat in a signifcant way (the first half vs the Tigers last week).

If so then why do it?  You're effectively setting yourself up for a potential loss by adding the extra day's training in to the standard 7 day schedule.

We got away with it against a severely depleted team in the Tigers.  You won't against the top liners like the Cats this week.

Alternatively if the extra day's considered  a MUST from a HP POV, why not give the boys three days off instead of four and use that extra day at the end for recovery from the extra training session!?

That should, in theory, bring them into the match a little more fresh or maybe alot more and potentially set us up to have a better chance of winning vs cramming in an extra (3rd) sesh into a standard 7 day break schedule that usually only has 2 main sessions.

Bottom line... you can have all the amazing strategies, tactics and players in the world... which is fantastic.  But bring them (or a fair chunk of em) into a match where many are cooked .... well good luck as most won't be able to execute as per the plans / tactics as required or for as long as needed to beat the best.

Also, surely we wouldn't throw in an extra (3rd) serious session this week knowing we're coming up against the top of the table team and then a top eight team in great form in the Blues only 5 days later?

A potential recipe to lose both matches imho.

And IF the players MUST have their four days off for whatever reason, surely a huge match against the Cats is more than acceptable as the 3rd training session that the FD would (usually) like to throw in to this 10 day break scenario knowing we have a tough match to follow up five days later!??

We also don't bat deep in the midfield.  No point overly thrashing them...will only result in under performance and/or potential soft tissue injuries that we can't afford.

My tip.

We will be absolutely, 1000% cherry ripe against the cats.

And I think they will have done a significant amount of planning to minimise the impact of the 5 day break into the blues game (and have great 'learnings' from the 5 day break into the crows game).

They may also revert back to a more forward half, trench warfare game against the blues as it a less aerobically taxing method.

I suspect both are target games. 

And I'm quietly confident we will win both.

[binman 38,828]

7 hours ago, layzie said:

Firstly, happy to see this thread back in action as it’s one of my favourites. 

I was asked last night by a fellow fan this question:

“Do you think our game style this year suits the list we have? I’m not sure if it does”

I think, for a number of reasons, that is a fantastic question.

One reason is it points to a key point - whatever game plan a team uses they need the right mix of players to execute it.

(It also touches on a fascinating question - to what extent should clubs build a list around a game plan or a game plan around a list?)

My short answer is, yes our list suits the new game style - this season.

I have been banging on for years how poor we are as a kicking team.

The current method requires, I think, at least 5 elite kicks, particularly from the back half, wingers and the last kick inside 50.

Last season we did not have the players to reliably hit the high risk kicks the turnover, transition game demand - particularly with salo out of sorts.

It is no coincidence we have been targeting players in the last 3-4 drafts with elite kicking skills.

Going back to the 2020 draft we picked up Bowser and Laurie. Sestan is an excellent kick as is AMW. Even JVR is a fantastic field kick.

And they drafted mcvee aheaf of the 2022 season and is arguably now our best kick.

We traded in hunter in large part because of his kicking skills.

And last year we added Windsor, who is both an excellent kick and fast (another important attribute for the transition game) and the kolt - another elite kick.

We traded in billings and McAdam- two more excellent kicks.

And we moved tmac back. Despite the nightmares he gave us when last a full time defender he has always been an excellent field kick. He just took too many silly high risk kicks on - something that he had noticeabley reined in.

I still worry about our overall kicking skills but as the pies ans cats have shown yoy don't need all players to be elite kicks, you just need 4 or 5 in the right spots.

Which raises another interesting question.

With Sidebottom out of form, pendles slowing down and teams putting heaps of time into daicos, do the pies now have the right list for a method they perfected?

Edited April 30 by binman

[Binmans PA 26,301]

Good post, @binman. I'd argue you don't even need 5 or 6 elite kicks to pull this off. 2-3 is fine, because it's really the exit kicks rather than the kicks inside 50 that are the score creating disposals. The reason being we're often kicking into space with forwards running back towards goal. Most of our mids can hit those kicks. Trac is an beautifully penetrating and attacking field kick for example.

[binman 38,828]

4 minutes ago, Binmans PA said:

Good post, @binman. I'd argue you don't even need 5 or 6 elite kicks to pull this off. 2-3 is fine, because it's really the exit kicks rather than the kicks inside 50 that are the score creating disposals. The reason being we're often kicking into space with forwards running back towards goal. Most of our mids can hit those kicks. Trac is an beautifully penetrating and attacking field kick for example.

Mmm, maybe.

With only 2-3 elite kicks I think teams then can't carry too many butchers (every team had some) for the turnover game to work.

And in that scenario teams can focus on blanketing the 2-3 elite kicks

Look at the hawks. They have 2-3 elite kicks but still contually turn the ball over on transition.

By the by i reckon if tracc was a better kick, he'd be the best plsyer in the AFL by some margin.

[Binmans PA 26,301]

13 minutes ago, binman said:

Mmm, maybe.

With only 2-3 elite kicks I think teams then can't carry too many butchers (every team had some) for the turnover game to work.

And in that scenario teams can focus on blanketing the 2-3 elite kicks

Look at the hawks. They have 2-3 elite kicks but still contually turn the ball over on transition.

By the by i reckon if tracc was a better kick, he'd be the best plsyer in the AFL by some margin.

In terms of elite kicks, we have Bowey, Salem and Fritsch, and you could argue Kozzy, Howes, McVee, JVR and maybe Windsor could qualify. 

Collingwood are similar. The Daicos boys, particularly Nick, Pendlebury and Sidebottom. I'm sure you could make the argue for a few more of their guys too.

I'd suggest you have a different definition of elite kick to me.

[Pennant St Dee 11,365]

Run and carry and a couple of elite kicking options from back half is the key. Being able to hit darts on the 45 to open the corridor or 50m fat side transition on rebound changes everything with the new game style. Lever trying that corridor kick against Richmond in the first half is an example of how it doesn’t work 

[binman 38,828]

1 hour ago, Binmans PA said:

In terms of elite kicks, we have Bowey, Salem and Fritsch, and you could argue Kozzy, Howes, McVee, JVR and maybe Windsor could qualify. 

Collingwood are similar. The Daicos boys, particularly Nick, Pendlebury and Sidebottom. I'm sure you could make the argue for a few more of their guys too.

I'd suggest you have a different definition of elite kick to me.

No I reckon that's about right (though statistically tmac actually has a case).

Buts for both us and the pies that's 4-5 elite kicks is not 2-3.

[binman 38,828]

5 minutes ago, Pennant St Dee said:

Run and carry and a couple of elite kicking options from back half is the key. Being able to hit darts on the 45 to open the corridor or 50m fat side transition on rebound changes everything with the new game style. Lever trying that corridor kick against Richmond in the first half is an example of how it doesn’t work 

Agree.

Which is why mcvee is such an important player (who i somehow forgot to highlight) for us.

And why Coleman is such a massive out for the lions.

In fact given their challenges moving the ball from their back half, an argument could be made Coleman's injury is the most impactful LTI of any club.

[Demon Dynasty 15,768]

3 hours ago, binman said:

My tip.

We will be absolutely, 1000% cherry ripe against the cats.

And I think they will have done a significant amount of planning to minimise the impact of the 5 day break into the blues game (and have great 'learnings' from the 5 day break into the crows game).

They may also revert back to a more forward half, trench warfare game against the blues as it a less aerobically taxing method.

I suspect both are target games. 

And I'm quietly confident we will win both.

Sounds promising Mr Bin.  Will keep the faith and assume we are on target 🤞🏼👍🏼

[Demon Dynasty 15,768]

Yes to those saying we are a WIP in terms of moving from a combative,  contested, clearance team trying to get the ball inside 50 quickly. 

Then looking to lock the ball in our 50 plus repeat entries.

Instead moving more towards a possession / move the ball forward whenever possible as quickly as possible style.  Less lateral and switching.

Not that we were ever a big switch team.

Hoyne also feels we are a WIP on moving away from the former somewhat and trying to head towards a more effective efficient ball movement style.

We were ranked 14th in ball movement in 2023, so far this season we're ranked 8th.  Room for improvement but that's a significant sign that we are well on our way here.

Edited April 30 by Demon Dynasty

[Watson11 1,914]

21 hours ago, Engorged Onion said:

Thought it would be a good time to open up this dormant thread again. And chew the fat with some good analysis from those that see the game from a technical/tactical lens.

A question...2 months in.

What seems to be our preferred game style (understanding that we have some significant outs currently)?

 

A few questions for this week

How does this contrast against this weeks opponents (Geelong)?

Knowing how Geelong prefer to play, what do we tweak as part of our system to minimize/distrupt their game plan?

Knowing how Geelong prefer to play, what can we potentially take advantage of to maximise our outcome?

 

Thanks to those who wish to contribute.
😃
 

Comparing Geelong and our stats is interesting.  Despite our new style, we are a way behind Geelong this year in scores from turnover and defending turnovers.  In fact, based on averages in these areas we are looking at a 20+ point loss.  Also they are +6 ahead at scoring from defensive half.

However, Geelong may be #1 at defending turnover but are #18 for stoppage clearance differential and #14 at opposition scores from stoppage.  I wondered if they had played good stoppage teams to be leaking so much, but they have only played 1 of the top 8 teams in scoring from stoppage.  So in other words they don’t defend stoppages well.  

I think we can improve our stoppages a lot as well.  Despite not being at our best this year, we are still ranked #6 at scoring from them and #1 at defending them.  So if we want to focus on where we can really hurt them, we would be working on stoppages at training and aiming to break our 2021 prelim final score from stoppage record.