Game plans, tactics and all that jazz

[Ollie fan 3,468]

6 minutes ago, Bonkers said:

What do those stats prove about winning games when you have more territory and more I50s than your opponent but don’t win the game?

Well, we win a LOT more than we lose, and if the defence is keeping our opponents well below average levels, that paints a pretty good picture.

[Bonkers 994]

3 minutes ago, Ollie fan said:

Well, we win a LOT more than we lose, and if the defence is keeping our opponents well below average levels, that paints a pretty good picture.

Yeh it’s a good foundation or footing for our game. But that can be built upon in other areas when we have the ball.

[Engorged Onion 10,223]

30 minutes ago, Bonkers said:

What do those stats prove about winning games when you have more territory and more I50s than your opponent but don’t win the game?

you can have more territory, and more inside 50's - and the context is to that - that the space is already jammed full of people. it's not a nuanced enough look at what is actually going on, rather than looking at the raw data, it's far more subtle...  it's not necessarily poor attack, or poor delivery...,

You've got to give  some credit to the opposition and their structures and game plan.*

Those stats were about the notion of us not converting well enough - we convert around the average or above average for the league over the past 4 years...

*but if you are the sort of person that doesn't, then of course we're never hitting perfection, because of our inadequacies, irrespective of whether elite footballers are allowed to make skill errors or not.

Edited May 10 by Engorged Onion

[samcantstandya 1,057]

24 minutes ago, Ollie fan said:

Well, we win a LOT more than we lose, and if the defence is keeping our opponents well below average levels, that paints a pretty good picture.

We have a great defensive game, but a crappy forward one. In defence we set up when in attack we blaze away. We rarely lower our eyes, kick to pockets and to contests. Why can't we lower our eyes, honour leads and chip to a player in a better forward position instead of kicking to a contest and then trying to score from any resultant ball up which is still a 50/50 as Gawn doesn't always tap it to our mids on a plate. This is why I like Spargo in the side he has great footy IQ and always chooses the best option. We usually lose games because we don't maximise our chances, kick from pockets and don't execute high conversions for goal. Bad kicking is bad football. 

[Adam The God 30,403]

1 minute ago, samcantstandya said:

We have a great defensive game, but a crappy forward one. In defence we set up when in attack we blaze away. We rarely lower our eyes, kick to pockets and to contests. Why can't we lower our eyes, honour leads and chip to a player in a better forward position instead of kicking to a contest and then trying to score from any resultant ball up which is still a 50/50 as Gawn doesn't always tap it to our mids on a plate. This is why I like Spargo in the side he has great footy IQ and always chooses the best option. We usually lose games because we don't maximise our chances, kick from pockets and don't execute high conversions for goal. Bad kicking is bad football. 

I think this is an overreaction to last night.

Our forward craft and entries has been improving all year. And just the previous week, we had arguably our best forward game of the year, against arguably the second best defensive set up and personnel in the league.

Last night however, for the first 2.5 quarters our forward entries were horrible. But we changed our game style to play for territory in the rain, versus the keepings off tempo game we played in drier conditions last week.

[titan_uranus 25,040]

I agree that the response after quarter time was more than encouraging given how on top they were. There aren't that many sides in the competition this year who are capable of coming back from 37 points down when Walsh, Cripps and Weitering are playing as well as they were.

But there are problems we have to address. One of them is our first quarters. We're 4-5 in first quarters, but over the last six weeks it has felt like we've struggled to get going on the scoreboard early:

1. 3.2.20 vs Port was pretty good but they were 4.1.25
2. 2.0.12 vs Adelaide against 2.5.17
3. 2.0.12 vs Brisbane against 4.2.26
4. 2.3.15 vs Richmond against 1.3.9
5. 3.2.20 vs Geelong against 2.4.16
6. 0.0.0 vs Carlton against 5.0.30

2-4 in that period. Admittedly not an easy fixture run but equally one of the two wins was against Richmond. Last night the only blowout loss but accuracy was a big part of that. Regardless, it just feels like we're too slow to get started and give ourselves more work to do in the middle of the game than we'd like.

[Engorged Onion 10,223]

13 minutes ago, samcantstandya said:

We have a great defensive game, but a crappy forward one. In defence we set up when in attack we blaze away

This idea is the biggest [censored] myth on Demonland.

All teams blaze away, all teams miss targets. All teams at times go lower than their expected score... some days that doesnt happen (see Carlton's first quarter)...

 

We are changing the game style compared to the last 3 years because

a) our midfield structure has changed, whereby we would bludgeon through clearances and pump the ball in and go for the weight of numbers philosophy...

b) the weight of numbers philosophy (when it didn't work) became amplified because 16 of your opponents are already in the forward 50, making it harder...

c) evolution - the change of style - to be more intercepting - is to reduce this effect.

 

It is analogous to having a great tap ruckman, who wins 90% of the ruck taps, so the opposition therefore no longer tries to win the rucktap in of itself, it aims to shark the ball from that great ruck tapman, knowing that their ruck will not win it...

 

In my mind, It's like people on here want perfection all the time... or at least are more accepting of it when we win, and not at all accepting of it, when there is a loss... that's a pretty [censored] up way to operate.

Edited May 10 by Engorged Onion

[layzie 33,987]

On 02/05/2024 at 18:27, binman said:

@Blistering can't quite tell if this is a wind up.

But I'll assume not and play with a straight bat.

The high half forward (HHF) role has become one of the most important in AFL football.

Daniel Hoyne from champion data said many times last season that the key reason for the blues' turnaround was sorting the HFF role. Cotteral for example has become super important to them.

That's because the HFF role is key to the transition game and turning turnovers into scores and defending turnovers.

To excel in the HHF role a player needs to be an elite athlete with a huge tank who can cover ground quickly.

Similar to the role langers plays as a winger, it Involves gut running from box to box, in soccer parlance.

In footy it's forward pocket to back pocket all game providing defensive cover in defence as part of an all team zone defensive system.

The defensive cover includes direct defensive actions in rhe opponents forward half (ie helping our defence) like spoiling, smothers and tackles.

And indirect defensive actions like blocking switch options or sprinting to a mark to stop a player immediately playing on.

The HFF does those same defensive actions when the ball is in our forward half - with the indirect actions being critical in terms of making it harder to transition the ball from their back half.

When we transition the ball from our back half the HFF gut runs to get ahead of the ball to either spread the opposition (ie an opponent has to run and cover him) or be an option to kick to.

The latter includes being a target inside 50. 

And of course in addition to all of that, snag the occasional crumbing or stoppage goal.

Some HHFs might be more forward orientated and play a bit closer to goal. Chandler is a good example.

Others might have assists as a kpi and be one of the players teams want kicking inside 50 (though all will be expected to hit up leading targets). Miers is a good example.

The best HFF in the AFL?

Nibbla hands down.

Don't believe me? Have a listen to Andy's brilliant interview with Kade Chandler.

From 13.17 in the player at the top of this page Kade discusses the small forward role (but is referring to the HHF role). 

He defines it much more succinctly than I just have and pumps up nibbla as the HHF exemplar.

I was going to ask this a few weeks ago but could never get around to it, even had visuals that I prepared earlier.

I definitely agree on the ‘box to box’ wingman concept with Langdon but I’d love to get unnecessarily complex for a moment Binman and ask you how you think they would be instructing him to perform this defensive role in relation to the all-team zone. 

Could it be like option A where Langdon has a specific section of grass that he covers but it also extends into the back 50 (Either all game or only in specific situations) or more likely option B where he isn’t designated a zone but he tracks back often to help his teammates out with the spoils, tackles and just being a back stop to avoid the opposition kicking to open space etc?

OPTION A                                                                                                                    

 

OPTION B

 

With such an intricate defensive zonal system I’m really intrigued as to how these roles are drilled into the players. 
 

[Adam The God 30,403]

Both our wingers play defensive sweeper/goalkeeper at most D50 stoppages if the opposition pushes their forwards out of the goalsquare.

[binman 43,704]

6 hours ago, layzie said:

I was going to ask this a few weeks ago but could never get around to it, even had visuals that I prepared earlier.

I definitely agree on the ‘box to box’ wingman concept with Langdon but I’d love to get unnecessarily complex for a moment Binman and ask you how you think they would be instructing him to perform this defensive role in relation to the all-team zone. 

Could it be like option A where Langdon has a specific section of grass that he covers but it also extends into the back 50 (Either all game or only in specific situations) or more likely option B where he isn’t designated a zone but he tracks back often to help his teammates out with the spoils, tackles and just being a back stop to avoid the opposition kicking to open space etc?

OPTION A                                                                                                                    

 

OPTION B

 

With such an intricate defensive zonal system I’m really intrigued as to how these roles are drilled into the players. 
 

I'm guessing layzie, but for the wingers and hhfs I think you are right that it is more likely option b.

Their 'zone' is a lane extending end to end.

But option a would reflect the role of other positions, though I doubt it's patch's of grass so to speak but rather 'shape' and where they need to be/should in that shape or grid.

Watching from behind and above  the goals you can really see that shape, and see players behind the ball pointing to teamates to cover a particular area (patch of grass if you will).

The most obvious example is a defender playing the goal keeper role. That might be one the defefenders main job (usuallya big), but all defenders would have responsibility to make sure someone gets back, for example if the main player can't.

[Fromgotowoewodin 1,606]

https://theshinboner.com/2024/05/22/the-unique-part-of-james-jordons-role-tag-on-sam-walsh-from-the-notebook-round-10-2024/?amp=1

This might trigger some people but interesting piece here on JJ tagging from half forward. Not something we do to the same degree but we do get a half forward up to stoppage to free up Trac. 

Ricky’s blog has some good stuff, though as the name will tell you it’s pretty Norf focused 

[binman 43,704]

This article is exactly the sort of analysis I wish there more of.

It extensively quotes 'an opposition team analyst with experience planning for both teams'.

Really good insight, and it uses stats and data in support of a thesis as opposed to data being used in isolation, as is usually the case, as if in isolation data explains causality.

Data is the equivalent of symptoms for a doctor trying to diagnose a patients health issue.

Symptoms are not causal factors - they provide evidence, particularly when triangulated and/or aggregated, of the undelying health issue (eg fever, chills, muscle ache suggest the patient flu might have the flu).

By the by, one symptom noted in the article provides evidence that does not support the diagnosis from Doctor Demon Myths that our midfield is a major concern:

'For the Demons, their major strength is limiting opposition scores from clearance (25.0 points, ranked No.1)'

[binman 43,704]

Battle of the backlines: Where the Demons-Dockers clash will be won - https://www.afl.com.au/news/1141258

[RedBlueandTrue 359]

On 22/05/2024 at 21:29, Fromgotowoewodin said:

https://theshinboner.com/2024/05/22/the-unique-part-of-james-jordons-role-tag-on-sam-walsh-from-the-notebook-round-10-2024/?amp=1

This might trigger some people but interesting piece here on JJ tagging from half forward. Not something we do to the same degree but we do get a half forward up to stoppage to free up Trac. 

Ricky’s blog has some good stuff, though as the name will tell you it’s pretty Norf focused 

Late to the party but thank you, really interesting. I was noticing Carlton doing this with Cincotta on Butters on Thursday. He'd start with a really hard forward tag on Houston to try and stop him intercepting if blues win centre clearance, then push to Butters at next stoppage. 

Edited June 2 by RedBlueandTrue

[Adam The God 30,403]

I was on board and ready for some growing pains with the new game plan's emphasis on counter attack over forward half territory off the back of stoppage, but dishing up 2 deplorable results in 3 weeks suggests we've overcorrected and should revert to a forward half stoppage game that again maximises the talents of Gawn, Oliver, Viney and Petracca in the middle. 

We lost a QF to the eventual premiers by 7 points, having lost a player to concussion and being forced to activate our sub early in the game and Fritta and TMac both missing extremely gettable shots that they would usually take late in the game. We also missed multiple simple shots (Max's snap from 10m out for example) against Carlton that would have closed out that game that we only lost by 2 points.

I think in retrospect we should have held our nerve and gone into this year with the same game style that saw us finish top 4 three years in a row, but with some minor tweaks. The tweaks should have focused on entries like entering 50 with flatter entries (see the practice game against Carlton early this year) and that is something I think that has worked quite well this year.

But the rest of our tweaks (deeper defensive set up and less focus on stoppage) haven't really worked and as we pass the half way mark of the year, I think it's time to revert to what we know maximises the strengths of our team and that's a forward half territory game that relies on winning repeat stoppages.

Edited June 3 by Binmans PA

[Fat Tony 5,262]

2 hours ago, Binmans PA said:

I was on board and ready for some growing pains with the new game plan's emphasis on counter attack over forward half territory off the back of stoppage, but dishing up 2 deplorable results in 3 weeks suggests we've overcorrected and should revert to a forward half stoppage game that again maximises the talents of Gawn, Oliver, Viney and Petracca in the middle. 

We lost a QF to the eventual premiers by 7 points, having lost a player to concussion and being forced to activate our sub early in the game and Fritta and TMac both missing extremely gettable shots that they would usually take late in the game. We also missed multiple simple shots (Max's snap from 10m out for example) against Carlton that would have closed out that game that we only lost by 2 points.

I think in retrospect we should have held our nerve and gone into this year with the same game style that saw us finish top 4 three years in a row, but with some minor tweaks. The tweaks should have focused on entries like entering 50 with flatter entries (see the practice game against Carlton early this year) and that is something I think that has worked quite well this year.

But the rest of our tweaks (deeper defensive set up and less focus on stoppage) haven't really worked and as we pass the half way mark of the year, I think it's time to revert to what we know maximises the strengths of our team and that's a forward half territory game that relies on winning repeat stoppages.

Oliver's Wheelo player rating has dropped from 18 in 2022 to 12.1 this year (88th in the AFL). Can we revert back to dominating territory again if Oliver is just a foot soldier? Maybe part of the shift this year has been about attempting to maximise our stoppage wins and turn them into scores, but I think a lot of it is also down to not getting our hands on the ball first.

[Adam The God 30,403]

56 minutes ago, Fat Tony said:

Oliver's Wheelo player rating has dropped from 18 in 2022 to 12.1 this year (88th in the AFL). Can we revert back to dominating territory again if Oliver is just a foot soldier? Maybe part of the shift this year has been about attempting to maximise our stoppage wins and turn them into scores, but I think a lot of it is also down to not getting our hands on the ball first.

Without knowing exactly what role we're asking each mid to play, it's hard to know whether he's playing his role or is nowhere near it. It does sound like he's nowhere near it. I hadn't caught up on those player ratings. Good old Wheelo.

[titan_uranus 25,040]

1 hour ago, Fat Tony said:

Oliver's Wheelo player rating has dropped from 18 in 2022 to 12.1 this year (88th in the AFL). Can we revert back to dominating territory again if Oliver is just a foot soldier? Maybe part of the shift this year has been about attempting to maximise our stoppage wins and turn them into scores, but I think a lot of it is also down to not getting our hands on the ball first.

Is it chicken/egg with Clarry? Is there an argument that he is struggling due to the changes? Or is his poor form a primary reason for our losses? I suspect the latter but not sure.

[Adam The God 30,403]

So I've been thinking about how we're pushing our half forwards more aggressively into the stoppages in the last few weeks. The old term for a half back or half forward pushed into the stoppage was an "inside slider".

It got me thinking about our early season set ups. We'd either win a clean clearance that would lead to a good scoring chance (lots of scores directly from stoppage) or we'd lose clearance very easily with seeming (to my eye) very little post pressure on the opposition ball carrier. Yet we weren't overly hurt by these clearances against.

Does anyone have a take on why that was? I don't recall us pushing half backs or half forwards up to the contest to pressure the ball carrier, but we were still often able to generate an intercept behind the ball or to neutralise the contest and reset for a stoppage.

My take in the first half of the year was that we were happy to get the most potent clearance, but if we lost clearance, we'd lose territory, giving us space to slingshot back into. 

Did we rely more on our defenders winning 1v1s earlier in the year and do the stats support this?

I'm not sure if @WheeloRatings has access to specific 1v1 win percentages, but it'd be fascinating to know whether this has shifted post bye?

If we relied more on 1v1 wins behind the ball earlier in the year, having gone 1v1 at stoppages recently, it means our defence is more exposed to 1v1 contests, but it hasn't stopped our interceptors from intercepting because those inside sliders that we're pushing up to the stoppages apply enough pressure to rush the opposition out of stoppage.

Anyway, keen to hear the thoughts of Demonlanders.

[WheeloRatings 1,163]

4 hours ago, Binmans PA said:

I'm not sure if @WheeloRatings has access to specific 1v1 win percentages, but it'd be fascinating to know whether this has shifted post bye?

There has been a noticeable drop off in defensive 1v1 contests over the last five weeks. Our 1v1 loss % from round 0-10 was 29.0% and from round 11-18 it has dropped to 18.5%.

Round	Opposition	Def. 1v1s	Losses	%	Key Defenders (50+% time on ground) (Adam Tomlinson, Jake Lever, Steven May, Tom McDonald)
0	Sydney	10	2	20.0%	Adam Tomlinson, Jake Lever, Steven May
1	Western Bulldogs	10	3	30.0%	Jake Lever, Steven May, Tom McDonald
2	Hawthorn	10	1	10.0%	Jake Lever, Tom McDonald
3	Port Adelaide	12	7	58.3%	Jake Lever, Tom McDonald
4	Adelaide	14	4	28.6%	Jake Lever, Steven May, Tom McDonald
5	Brisbane	10	3	30.0%	Jake Lever, Steven May, Tom McDonald
7	Richmond	7	2	28.6%	Jake Lever, Steven May, Tom McDonald
8	Geelong	12	3	25.0%	Jake Lever, Steven May, Tom McDonald
9	Carlton	12	4	33.3%	Jake Lever, Steven May, Tom McDonald
10	West Coast	10	2	20.0%	Steven May, Tom McDonald
11	St Kilda	13	1	7.7%	Adam Tomlinson, Steven May, Tom McDonald
12	Fremantle	15	2	13.3%	Adam Tomlinson, Steven May, Tom McDonald
13	Collingwood	8	1	12.5%	Steven May, Tom McDonald
15	North Melbourne	7	3	42.9%	Adam Tomlinson, Steven May, Tom McDonald
16	Brisbane	7	1	14.3%	Adam Tomlinson, Jake Lever, Steven May, Tom McDonald
17	West Coast	10	2	20.0%	Jake Lever, Steven May, Tom McDonald
18	Essendon	5	2	40.0%	Jake Lever, Steven May, Tom McDonald

Edited July 20 by WheeloRatings

[Adam The God 30,403]

55 minutes ago, WheeloRatings said:

There has been a noticeable drop off in defensive 1v1 contests over the last five weeks. Our 1v1 loss % from round 0-10 was 29.0% and from round 11-18 it has dropped to 18.5%.

Round	Opposition	Def. 1v1s	Losses	%	Key Defenders (50+% time on ground) (Adam Tomlinson, Jake Lever, Steven May, Tom McDonald)
0	Sydney	10	2	20.0%	Adam Tomlinson, Jake Lever, Steven May
1	Western Bulldogs	10	3	30.0%	Jake Lever, Steven May, Tom McDonald
2	Hawthorn	10	1	10.0%	Jake Lever, Tom McDonald
3	Port Adelaide	12	7	58.3%	Jake Lever, Tom McDonald
4	Adelaide	14	4	28.6%	Jake Lever, Steven May, Tom McDonald
5	Brisbane	10	3	30.0%	Jake Lever, Steven May, Tom McDonald
7	Richmond	7	2	28.6%	Jake Lever, Steven May, Tom McDonald
8	Geelong	12	3	25.0%	Jake Lever, Steven May, Tom McDonald
9	Carlton	12	4	33.3%	Jake Lever, Steven May, Tom McDonald
10	West Coast	10	2	20.0%	Steven May, Tom McDonald
11	St Kilda	13	1	7.7%	Adam Tomlinson, Steven May, Tom McDonald
12	Fremantle	15	2	13.3%	Adam Tomlinson, Steven May, Tom McDonald
13	Collingwood	8	1	12.5%	Steven May, Tom McDonald
15	North Melbourne	7	3	42.9%	Adam Tomlinson, Steven May, Tom McDonald
16	Brisbane	7	1	14.3%	Adam Tomlinson, Jake Lever, Steven May, Tom McDonald
17	West Coast	10	2	20.0%	Jake Lever, Steven May, Tom McDonald
18	Essendon	5	2	40.0%	Jake Lever, Steven May, Tom McDonald

Just so I'm clear, the lower the percentage, the more you've lost contests 1v1?

In other words, it could explain a more aggressive set up at stoppage? We have might have less that ends in a defensive 1v1 contest, but we lose more contests. Is that it or have I got it back to front?

[WheeloRatings 1,163]

16 minutes ago, Binmans PA said:

Just so I'm clear, the lower the percentage, the more you've lost contests 1v1?

In other words, it could explain a more aggressive set up at stoppage? We have might have less that ends in a defensive 1v1 contest, but we lose more contests. Is that it or have I got it back to front?

Nah, the lower the percentage, the fewer 1v1 contests you have lost.

[Adam The God 30,403]

1 minute ago, WheeloRatings said:

Nah, the lower the percentage, the fewer 1v1 contests you have lost.

Okay, cool, the "drop off" confused me.

So we've got better at winning contests after the bye. I guess that tracks.

[Adam The God 30,403]

If this is something you can access easily, @WheeloRatings, are our scores from stoppages up this year?

It certainly seems like we're still scoring a lot from stoppage despite the evolution of the game shifting to more points from turnover. 

[WheeloRatings 1,163]

1 minute ago, Binmans PA said:

Okay, cool, the "drop off" confused me.

So we've got better at winning contests after the bye. I guess that tracks.

Sorry, the "drop off" was in reference to the number of contests. We're having fewer contests and we're losing a smaller percentage of them.