Game plans, tactics and all that jazz

[Grr-owl 1,075]

Anyone see On the Slouch this week? Seems three teams in the comp have one plan but two modes, or perhaps that’s the same as Plans A & B.

[Axis of Bob 10,156]

I'd argue that all successful modern AFL coaches are your 'type one', but the development of the game plan can either be done taking account of your players or not. But this is done over the course of many seasons of drafting/trading rather than season to season.

A coach will come in to a club with a long term plan of what they want to do to win a flag. But you need to have a competitive advantage in order to win a flag. For Richmond it's defensive pressure, and Dustin Martin. For West Coast it's intercept marking and Nic Naitanui. Brisbane have excellent small, buzzy attacking midfielders, Charlie Cameron and Harris Andrews. Ultimately, you're committed to playing the style you you have envisioned because you are building the list according to that plan. 

We've clearly built a game around our best players (ie, Gawn, Oliver, Petracca, Viney, Brayshaw) and then gone about trying to find the players that would allow us to maximise their dominance. Playing Brisbane's short possession style wouldn't suit us, but we haven't recruited for that either. 

I suppose my point is that I think all successful modern coaches are type one, because it's just so hard to win a flag that you you don't win on in season tactics but rather on the culmination of a longer strategic plan involving identifying the game style based on your strengths and recruiting over time to maximise your ability to execute it.

 

[binman 37,724]

Some good points AoB.

I might not have made the distinction clear enough.

My type one is all about the system. System first. Everything second.

Type two still has systems but they are not the foundation of their approach to coaching.

For me goody is an example of type one and Clakson type two.

In my view Clarkson key philosophy has been about ball movement through excellent kicking. That philosophy has influenced recruitment and game style. But it is not a system. Obviously he uses systems but they don't appear as fundamental to his approach 

[640MD 2,742]

On 8/14/2020 at 6:33 PM, binman said:

This is a great thread,  not sure I understand it all.
I can see that some of the players have tweaked their method of play.  

And it’s working.  If we can win the next couple of games, I might believe in Goodwin again. I will certainly re read this thread. 
just live watching Ollie burst forward or Tracca  and having the Weid step up with Kossy and last week Spargo at the drop. 
our backline is SOLID does not seem to matter who is in or who is out. May, Lever, Salem and Hibbo seem to handle it. 
let’s stay a bit unpredictable. And the opposing teams only have a few weeks to work out how to handle our winning ways.

its good  to have a bit of confidence 

Go Dees !!

[640MD 2,742]

And as I said.  Great Thread

[Binmans PA 25,886]

I think the idea of 'brand' is a prevalent construct in modern footy. It's a powerful unifier when it comes to the style that the club is going to play and what the club itself stands for culturally. That could be based on pace of ball movement, controlling the ball by foot, the contest, surge at every contest, any of these and all of these themes, and whilst some coaches will let certain very talented players get away with more, they'll usually demand that their players adhere to the philosophy the club stands for under the banner of 'brand'. So in effect, both 'types' you mention @binman, I believe enable some players to play their own way and demand that others fit into the system or ultimately fail. There isn't a strict rigidity to the modern day coach in this sense. A bit of 'let people be people' mentality. We've seen this play out with Dustin Martin within Hardwick's 'rigid' system at Richmond.

But as @La Dee-vina Comedia points out, there are certainly the authoritarians and the life coaches. However, the days of authoritarian coaches are numbered IMO. Clarkson is the last one and he is running on the back of being the greatest coach of the modern era. 

The authoritarian coach does not resonate with how the next generation communicates in the modern world, whether that be the corporate world or otherwise. 

As a sports coach myself for the last 15 years (I'm 33), I see the younger coaches that come up around me and their style is very different from mine. I try to balance the authoritarian with the life coach. The younger coaches are very much life coaches. Whereas, I won't tolerate stuffing around, but I will try to offer as much personal support to my team as individuals, in order to make them grow as people and as players.

I very much started as an authoritarian and have drifted more towards the life coach, or at least the balance of both, as well as being friendly and overly encouraging. I see it as just merely reading the room and the way the world is moving and how to connect with people. I think you've got to be able to take a player under your wing and they've got to know you're trustworthy and will be there for them. This to me is the modern day coach, the teacher, the mentor, but I'd agree with @Engorged Onion (I think I'm agreeing anyway) by saying that the modern day coach has all of the traits you listed across Type 1 & 2.

Let's examine Simon Goodwin. I think he fits many of the Type 1 traits you list (stubbornly backs in his system and his players, and has a clear philosophy on how the game should be played), but I think he's shown Type 2 traits such as flexibility within that system, even to the philosophy that his system seems to stands for. He moved on Jack Watts because he was not combative enough for Goodwin's contested style and chose to sacrifice Jack's skill in order to do that. Yet two years later, he brings in Harley Bennell who exhibits many of Jack's traits. Goodwin has compromised here IMV, for the benefit of the list. Bennell brings a skillset that others do not and can play through the midfield. We desperately need that skillset through our midfield. FWIW, I'd also argue Goodwin substituted Watts for Fritsch in our forwardline, so we haven't lost anything there, but what this illustrates to me is that the contested style doesn't apply to everyone, clearly.

So whilst I do think there's far more grey and coaches tend to exhibit many of the traits you listed, rather than either or, I do think there is some validity to your two types framework, @binman, in that some coaches are definitely more capable of flexibility than others. The spectrum that @Engorged Onion mentions is probably a better way for viewing this flexibility. I'd put Chris Scott in the very flexible category, for example. But I think all successful coaches have to believe in a brand that they've built over their time at the club. It is their blueprint, their vision and their philosophy, and goes to the heart of their integrity as a coach. They have to be willing to back it in until it's clear it doesn't work. If it doesn't work, they've got to be able to outline why and how they'll get their team to play a different way with some tweaks or major to minor surgeries. Most coaches don't get to admit this and try again before being sacked, but I reckon Hardwick and Buckley have both had chances to admit that the style they played was not adequate and have evolved as coaches along the way. They were backed in again because clearly they brought other characteristics and traits to the role of head coach that their respective clubs felt would still lead them to the ultimate success. 

This might sound strange, but I'd compare modern day coaching and the constant evolution of the game, with the innovation and competition within the computer software industry. When each competitor discovers a new function or operation that works, others look to incorporate into their system, what clearly works from these other competitors, whilst maintaining the integrity of their own 'brand'. This ultimately makes a stronger end product. So coaches, just like software companies, have to have the vision of Steve Jobs, but be willing to be adaptable with the competition around them, in order to be successful. For our sake, I hope Goodwin is willing to be continually adaptable, without undermining the brand he's been selling since 2017.

Edited August 19, 2020 by A F

[Binmans PA 25,886]

4 hours ago, Axis of Bob said:

I'd argue that all successful modern AFL coaches are your 'type one', but the development of the game plan can either be done taking account of your players or not. But this is done over the course of many seasons of drafting/trading rather than season to season.

A coach will come in to a club with a long term plan of what they want to do to win a flag. But you need to have a competitive advantage in order to win a flag. For Richmond it's defensive pressure, and Dustin Martin. For West Coast it's intercept marking and Nic Naitanui. Brisbane have excellent small, buzzy attacking midfielders, Charlie Cameron and Harris Andrews. Ultimately, you're committed to playing the style you you have envisioned because you are building the list according to that plan. 

We've clearly built a game around our best players (ie, Gawn, Oliver, Petracca, Viney, Brayshaw) and then gone about trying to find the players that would allow us to maximise their dominance. Playing Brisbane's short possession style wouldn't suit us, but we haven't recruited for that either. 

I suppose my point is that I think all successful modern coaches are type one, because it's just so hard to win a flag that you you don't win on in season tactics but rather on the culmination of a longer strategic plan involving identifying the game style based on your strengths and recruiting over time to maximise your ability to execute it.

See, I'm increasingly of the belief that we're trying to combine the defensive pressure of Richmond, with the intercept marking of West Coast, driven by our own excellent midfield as the elite trait.

I reckon Goodwin is using numerous traits from both of @binman's 'types', in order to go about continually refining the system and making it more powerful. 

The biggest challenge this season, now that we're fit, is illustrating to the players how effective the system can be when it's running at close to full capacity.

So we're in the process of feeding confidence into the system and have borrowed various traits, IMV, from other elite teams, and we have improved 'the system' by incorporating our own elite midfield to exceed the capabilities of our competitors.

Edited August 19, 2020 by A F

[binman 37,724]

41 minutes ago, A F said:

See, I reckon we're trying to combine the defensive pressure of Richmond, with the intercept marking of West Coast, driven by an excellent midfield as the elite trait. I reckon Goodwin is using numerous traits from both 'types' in order to go about continually refining the system and making it more powerful. 

The biggest challenge this season now that we're fit is illustrating to the players how effective the system can be when running at close to full capacity. So we're in the process of feeding confidence into the system and have borrowed various traits, IMV, from other elite teams, but brought our own elite midfield to exceed the capabilities of those clubs.

Refining the system is a good way of describing Goodwin approach. He has made a number of adjustments to his system.

I guess it an exercise in semantics  in terms of how immutable a system needs to be over time to be considered the same sytem but I agree with aob that he had a model in mind and he has been putting the blocks together.

As an example I think he is prepared to add Harley now (and for that matter take the punt on Jackson and kozzie) only because he thinks he has got all the pieces of the puzzle in place. 

It is really interesting, in the last couple of weeks (coincidentally since this thread has started- though that might be classic confirmation bias hey EO?) all the talk from goody and players about our game plan is how critical defence is. Variations on, it all starts with our defence.

I listened to lever on the zoom session tonight and he said much the same. Said they pride themselves on how hard they are to score against.

He made a couple of very interesting comments relevant to our game plan.

He said that in the early 2000s defence was your back six versus the forwards. But that now it is an all team concept that requires all team buy in. No surprises there.

But he said that what many fans perhaps don't grasp is that low possession numbers are not an indication a player has not played well. That they often don't see how hard that player has worked to play their role in the all team defence and how important their contribution is.

Specifically mentioned harmes in this respect, saying his numbers are much lower this year but he is as valuable.

On possessions he said they can be a misleading stat for us as we are a low possession team that looks to kick long to a contest and battle from there.

The really interesting comment was that the big improvement in our defence wasn't as result of the back six or forwards defending better it was the midfield buying into the all team defence and now really working hard both ways. He used gus getting six (I think) intercept marks in the pies game as an example.

Said mids have all been star juniors used to being offensive. Working hard the other way takes some time to learn. Implied the penny has dropped.

And I reckon we are seeing the result. Conceding three second half goals in the last 3 games, in total, is evidence of that.

Edited August 19, 2020 by binman

[RDBhero 65]

Once the training and playing systems become automatic...its all about on field communication to react to opposition challenges by leaders who have the gut-feel or instinct.Coaches and onfield leaders bring out natural talent which is hard for the opposition to match or beat...IMV.

[Axis of Bob 10,156]

1 hour ago, A F said:

See, I'm increasingly of the belief that we're trying to combine the defensive pressure of Richmond, with the intercept marking of West Coast, driven by our own excellent midfield as the elite trait.

You certainly need to be able to do all aspects of the game, but there are some things you do better than other teams and you need to ensure that your strategy exploits that.

Richmond does that with their forward pressure by drafting and playing a bunch of quick, agile small forwards. West Coast does a lot of different things well, but their success is mostly based on Hurn, McGovern, Shepperd and Barrass marking the ball at half back, so they defend very aggressively and rebound before the zone can set up by going for intercept marks more than other teams.

We are, generally, about setting up strongly behind the ball with our gun talls (May, Max, Jake) to force teams to slow down and chip to a team mate. That usually leads to slow play and a long kick to a contest which we can kill out of bounds or ball up (or win a fall of the ball contest). This then allows us to play our one wood, by getting Max and our big mids together, where we have a big advantage and can use that to win games. It has taken time to get us strong enough behind the ball to let us use our strength in this way, but our strong defence allows us to use our biggest strength more often to win games.

You would love to be perfect at everything, but you've only got a certain amount of draft/trade/financial resources to spend on players so you have to prioritise your strategy to give you competitive advantages that you can use consistently. 

[Binmans PA 25,886]

1 hour ago, Axis of Bob said:

You certainly need to be able to do all aspects of the game, but there are some things you do better than other teams and you need to ensure that your strategy exploits that.

Richmond does that with their forward pressure by drafting and playing a bunch of quick, agile small forwards. West Coast does a lot of different things well, but their success is mostly based on Hurn, McGovern, Shepperd and Barrass marking the ball at half back, so they defend very aggressively and rebound before the zone can set up by going for intercept marks more than other teams.

We are, generally, about setting up strongly behind the ball with our gun talls (May, Max, Jake) to force teams to slow down and chip to a team mate. That usually leads to slow play and a long kick to a contest which we can kill out of bounds or ball up (or win a fall of the ball contest). This then allows us to play our one wood, by getting Max and our big mids together, where we have a big advantage and can use that to win games. It has taken time to get us strong enough behind the ball to let us use our strength in this way, but our strong defence allows us to use our biggest strength more often to win games.

You would love to be perfect at everything, but you've only got a certain amount of draft/trade/financial resources to spend on players so you have to prioritise your strategy to give you competitive advantages that you can use consistently. 

Absolutely, but as we've seen, our ability to win clearance means nothing if the forward pressure isn't there. 

IMV, the first building block was the contest ('building from the contest out' was the talk at the time).

We then laid the next building block, which was an 18 man aggressive press (as I've outlined in this thread and others, we no longer play 18 man press, so that's been tweaked). This was very Richmond.

And with the recruitment of May and Lever we've focused on laying the next building block, which is a mean defence (where the acquisition of Langdon and Tomlinson as defensive and offensive runners help transition between attack and defence).

Each block only makes us stronger.

The next block I think will be mastering the gear shifts between neutral ball possession and attack or defence, and adding the irresistibly of a Richmond-like surge to our artillery.

I think this mix will take us close to the ultimate success and as we've seen, once you have that ultimate success you can start to pillage other clubs through FA. This is where you might add the cherry on top of a smooth moving ball user akin to Hawthorn's acquisition of Burgoyne.

[binman 37,724]

AF that's a great description of the development of our game, the sequence of the blocks so to speak. 

I reckon the gears shift you mentioned is their ability to play tenpo footy when re we hired (or even when forced to by the opposition). We started to do that last year and are getting good at it now. The diferential in play on from marks v the pies was remarkable.

I see what you mean about the way the tigere can surge when needed. For me that is all about getting control of the game's momentum, which arguably the most important thing in any sport.

Our surge is a little different i reckon. Like the tigers it starts with pressure and resting the oppositins charge. 

But the tigers surge is a bit more of a blunt weapon. We can be lethal, and are getting better, at creating scoring chains and opportunities. We can suddenly flick the switch and be a bit more aggressive with our options and overlap run and also this is where the automated plays come in. Nothing beats score board pressure for writing back momentum.

[hemingway 7,583]

14 hours ago, A F said:

I think the idea of 'brand' is a prevalent construct in modern footy. It's a powerful unifier when it comes to the style that the club is going to play and what the club itself stands for culturally. That could be based on pace of ball movement, controlling the ball by foot, the contest, surge at every contest, any of these and all of these themes, and whilst some coaches will let certain very talented players get away with more, they'll usually demand that their players adhere to the philosophy the club stands for under the banner of 'brand'. So in effect, both 'types' you mention @binman, I believe enable some players to play their own way and demand that others fit into the system or ultimately fail. There isn't a strict rigidity to the modern day coach in this sense. A bit of 'let people be people' mentality. We've seen this play out with Dustin Martin within Hardwick's 'rigid' system at Richmond.

But as @La Dee-vina Comedia points out, there are certainly the authoritarians and the life coaches. However, the days of authoritarian coaches are numbered IMO. Clarkson is the last one and he is running on the back of being the greatest coach of the modern era. 

The authoritarian coach does not resonate with how the next generation communicates in the modern world, whether that be the corporate world or otherwise. 

As a sports coach myself for the last 15 years (I'm 33), I see the younger coaches that come up around me and their style is very different from mine. I try to balance the authoritarian with the life coach. The younger coaches are very much life coaches. Whereas, I won't tolerate stuffing around, but I will try to offer as much personal support to my team as individuals, in order to make them grow as people and as players.

I very much started as an authoritarian and have drifted more towards the life coach, or at least the balance of both, as well as being friendly and overly encouraging. I see it as just merely reading the room and the way the world is moving and how to connect with people. I think you've got to be able to take a player under your wing and they've got to know you're trustworthy and will be there for them. This to me is the modern day coach, the teacher, the mentor, but I'd agree with @Engorged Onion (I think I'm agreeing anyway) by saying that the modern day coach has all of the traits you listed across Type 1 & 2.

Let's examine Simon Goodwin. I think he fits many of the Type 1 traits you list (stubbornly backs in his system and his players, and has a clear philosophy on how the game should be played), but I think he's shown Type 2 traits such as flexibility within that system, even to the philosophy that his system seems to stands for. He moved on Jack Watts because he was not combative enough for Goodwin's contested style and chose to sacrifice Jack's skill in order to do that. Yet two years later, he brings in Harley Bennell who exhibits many of Jack's traits. Goodwin has compromised here IMV, for the benefit of the list. Bennell brings a skillset that others do not and can play through the midfield. We desperately need that skillset through our midfield. FWIW, I'd also argue Goodwin substituted Watts for Fritsch in our forwardline, so we haven't lost anything there, but what this illustrates to me is that the contested style doesn't apply to everyone, clearly.

So whilst I do think there's far more grey and coaches tend to exhibit many of the traits you listed, rather than either or, I do think there is some validity to your two types framework, @binman, in that some coaches are definitely more capable of flexibility than others. The spectrum that @Engorged Onion mentions is probably a better way for viewing this flexibility. I'd put Chris Scott in the very flexible category, for example. But I think all successful coaches have to believe in a brand that they've built over their time at the club. It is their blueprint, their vision and their philosophy, and goes to the heart of their integrity as a coach. They have to be willing to back it in until it's clear it doesn't work. If it doesn't work, they've got to be able to outline why and how they'll get their team to play a different way with some tweaks or major to minor surgeries. Most coaches don't get to admit this and try again before being sacked, but I reckon Hardwick and Buckley have both had chances to admit that the style they played was not adequate and have evolved as coaches along the way. They were backed in again because clearly they brought other characteristics and traits to the role of head coach that their respective clubs felt would still lead them to the ultimate success. 

This might sound strange, but I'd compare modern day coaching and the constant evolution of the game, with the innovation and competition within the computer software industry. When each competitor discovers a new function or operation that works, others look to incorporate into their system, what clearly works from these other competitors, whilst maintaining the integrity of their own 'brand'. This ultimately makes a stronger end product. So coaches, just like software companies, have to have the vision of Steve Jobs, but be willing to be adaptable with the competition around them, in order to be successful. For our sake, I hope Goodwin is willing to be continually adaptable, without undermining the brand he's been selling since 2017.

Interesting stuff AF.  

A good coach has to lead his players and his team. He or she needs to be knowledgeable, experienced, intelligent, insightful, flexible and empathetic. They need to know their players and know their buttons. They need to practice the old adage of different strokes for different folks. Most good coaches have this ability and insight regarding player management. In other words they are good people managers. The great Norm Smith despite his image as an authoritarian, used different approaches with different players. He would pick out and criticise  Barassi because he knew that he reacted to personal criticism. Anger drove Barass on the field. However, he would leave others, like Brian Dixon and the scholarly Geoff Tunbridge well alone. Both were secondary school teachers and not receptive to a roast. Tunna told me once that Norm never criticised him even when he was having a shocker. He knew that Tunna was a free spirit who may not get a kick for 3/4 of the game but could win the match with 2 or 3 goals in the last quarter. 

Good coaches have the ability to inspire individual players to perform their best for the team. 

At the end of the day,  the coach has to have a good list. Norm Smith had great lists but in his early coaching days at Fitzroy and Melbourne, he struggled. Irrespective of the tragic end to his coaching days at Melbourne, the days of the great Demon sides were over and arguably Norm’s remarkable record would have suffered if he had continued to coach MFC. 

There is no doubt that times have changed and coaches can no longer abuse or intimidate players. About 6 years ago, Ron Barassi told me that he realised that his coaching days were over at Sydney when he was giving his young players a spray and realised that they were not listening or paying any attention. 

[Binmans PA 25,886]

20 minutes ago, hemingway said:

Interesting stuff AF.  

A good coach has to lead his players and his team. He or she needs to be knowledgeable, experienced, intelligent, insightful, flexible and empathetic. They need to know their players and know their buttons. They need to practice the old adage of different strokes for different folks. Most good coaches have this ability and insight regarding player management. In other words they are good people managers. The great Norm Smith despite his image as an authoritarian, used different approaches with different players. He would pick out and criticise  Barassi because he knew that he reacted to personal criticism. Anger drove Barass on the field. However, he would leave others, like Brian Dixon and the scholarly Geoff Tunbridge well alone. Both were secondary school teachers and not receptive to a roast. Tunna told me once that Norm never criticised him even when he was having a shocker. He knew that Tunna was a free spirit who may not get a kick for 3/4 of the game but could win the match with 2 or 3 goals in the last quarter. 

Good coaches have the ability to inspire individual players to perform their best for the team. 

At the end of the day,  the coach has to have a good list. Norm Smith had great lists but in his early coaching days at Fitzroy and Melbourne, he struggled. Irrespective of the tragic end to his coaching days at Melbourne, the days of the great Demon sides were over and arguably Norm’s remarkable record would have suffered if he had continued to coach MFC. 

There is no doubt that times have changed and coaches can no longer abuse or intimidate players. About 6 years ago, Ron Barassi told me that he realised that his coaching days were over at Sydney when he was giving his young players a spray and realised that they were not listening or paying any attention. 

Great insights to our golden era, mate. 

I'm surprised to hear Barassi felt his bakes didn't work in the 90s either, given the players in those days were Gen Xers and the communication shift hadn't fully occurred, but I guess it had to a degree by the sounds of it.

One of my mates is in the Hawthorn FD and has been for years. He's told me of some of the bakes Clarkson has given over the years, hence I can say with reasonable authority that Clarkson is a baker and authoritarian. 

It's fascinating to think how the world around impacts on the coaching of the sport. Of course, it naturally follows as the AFL is not played within a vacuum from society. It is still very much apart of the world around it and reflects many of those views. Sometimes it's slower to catch up, but eventually it aligns itself with the modern society of the time.

 

[Skuit 9,109]

I've been a backer of Goodwin (and remain so) since day one - despite having reservations about some aspects of his game-plan. Because type A. He sold me on a vision and I want to see it play out even if I'm not sure it will ultimately work. It's true that the brains-trust on here is usually at least a few matches ahead of Goody on the required adjustments, but these are probably the easy calls. He may come across as stubborn, and it's probably cost us some H&A games, but that's the mark of a successful innovator - to give any idea room to grow. When it hasn't worked out, he has in the end made the right changes.   

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,381]

1 minute ago, A F said:

Great insights to our golden era, mate. 

I'm surprised to hear Barassi felt his bakes didn't work in the 90s either, given the players in those days were Gen Xers and the communication shift hadn't fully occurred, but I guess it had to a degree by the sounds of it.

One of my mates is in the Hawthorn FD and has been for years. He's told me of some of the bakes Clarkson has given over the years, hence I can say with reasonable authority that Clarkson is a baker and authoritarian. 

It's fascinating to think how the world around impacts on the coaching of the sport. Of course, it naturally follows as the AFL is not played within a vacuum from society. It is still very much apart of the world around it and reflects many of those views. Sometimes it's slower to catch up, but eventually it aligns itself with the modern society of the time.

 

There's probably been some research done somewhere, but whether it's coaching, being CEO of a company or leading a country (or hosting a daytime TV show. Hello Ellen), I suspect you can get away with authoritarianism while you're successful. For everyone else, it probably doesn't work. And similarly, I suspect it doesn't work once you cease to be successful.

[Binmans PA 25,886]

22 minutes ago, Skuit said:

I've been a backer of Goodwin (and remain so) since day one - despite having reservations about some aspects of his game-plan. Because type A. He sold me on a vision and I want to see it play out even if I'm not sure it will ultimately work. It's true that the brains-trust on here is usually at least a few matches ahead of Goody on the required adjustments, but these are probably the easy calls. He may come across as stubborn, and it's probably cost us some H&A games, but that's the mark of a successful innovator - to give any idea room to grow. When it hasn't worked out, he has in the end made the right changes.   

I've definitely wavered on Goodwin last year and this year.

The last three weeks, albeit against weakened opposition, has won me over again. Fickle, I know.

It's not that we've merely belted sides, it's how we've gone about it. And I think the guys on the podcast discussed this. Minus the Port game, since the Brisbane game, I believe we've finally got our zones working and our defence gelling. The midfield is also finally pushing hard both ways to defend.

I think the penny may have dropped. I can't remember who it was (sorry) who framed it this way a week or so ago, but our elite talent in the midfield is still a year or two off from entering their prime. However, they've all played together now for 4+ years and understand each other's strengths and weaknesses in a clearer light, and are starting to learn what it takes to properly defend and strangle sides. They are starting to see what happens when they bring the intensity and work rate for 4 quarters. They're miserly in defence and devastating in attack. And there's something about the way we're attacking that as @binman said is increasingly automated.

I think we had this automation at stages of 2018, but our defence was never like this. The press was more aggressive, more could go wrong, there wasn't the same focus on defence. It was more about playing simple territory and because our press was so aggressive, it meant when teams got through, they were out the back for easy scores. No longer.

I'm not saying we'll win the flag this year, but I think we've turned a corner and will make finals now. Bookmark it.

Edited August 20, 2020 by A F

[binman 37,724]

10 minutes ago, Skuit said:

I've been a backer of Goodwin (and remain so) since day one - despite having reservations about some aspects of his game-plan. Because type A. He sold me on a vision and I want to see it play out even if I'm not sure it will ultimately work. It's true that the brains-trust on here is usually at least a few matches ahead of Goody on the required adjustments, but these are probably the easy calls. He may come across as stubborn, and it's probably cost us some H&A games, but that's the mark of a successful innovator - to give any idea room to grow. When it hasn't worked out, he has in the end made the right changes.   

The other challenge is Goody (and any coach who comes to a club to build premiership winning team) is on the clock and losses create fugazzi. This means he needs to stay the course and have an admin that supports him.

But the reality is improvement is important because fans get restless and the media loves to fan those flames. Many coaches don't get second chance if the admin blinks (which is stupid part of the AFL landscape - i was really pleased ratten got another shot, should never have been sacked by the blues, and no should bailey for that matter).

In this respect 2018 was a bit of millstone as we dared to dream of flag, which if it came would have been 2-3 years ahead of goody's schedule 

[Skuit 9,109]

13 minutes ago, A F said:

It's not that we've merely belted sides, it's how we've gone about it. And I think the guys on the podcast discussed this. Minus the Port game, since the Brisbane game, I believe we've finally got our zones working and our defence gelling. The midfield is also finally pushing hard both ways to defend.

 

Yep. The super-high-press was both exhilarating and wildly frustrating. We backed ourselves in in a shoot-out and accepted leakage - with the notion that if we could shave off a couple goals defensively we would come out on top. One issue is that we never had our preferred back-six in together (and we were obviously recruiting accordingly), so we won't ever really know if we could have pulled it off. Goody already loosened it in mid-2018, and with our early-season offensive impotence this year he's had to remodel completely. I like where we're now at. It's curious though to look back at the Port teams when Burgess was at their club and after. I think we have scored some- back-door Hinkley IP.  

[Binmans PA 25,886]

9 minutes ago, Skuit said:

Yep. The super-high-press was both exhilarating and wildly frustrating. We backed ourselves in in a shoot-out and accepted leakage - with the notion that if we could shave off a couple goals defensively we would come out on top. One issue is that we never had our preferred back-six in together (and we were obviously recruiting accordingly), so we won't ever really know if we could have pulled it off. Goody already loosened it in mid-2018, and with our early-season offensive impotence this year he's had to remodel completely. I like where we're now at. It's curious though to look back at the Port teams when Burgess was at their club and after. I think we have scored some- back-door Hinkley IP.  

Go on...?

[Skuit 9,109]

1 minute ago, A F said:

Go on...?

Just that it's seldom recognised that the Port teams while offensively creative were between roughly 2015-2019 actually the hardest to score against. I would have to go back and look at some footage to pick up on any notable pattern though as to defensive set-ups. It may just be a result of fitness, belief and two-way running. The shortened quarters muddy the sample, but we do seem to be developing a 2015 Port last quarter vibe. 

[Engorged Onion 9,218]

Clearly, someone should collate the data on this thread, put it in a powerpoint preso with the aim to overthrow Goodwin, Pert and Bartlett and become a legitimate fan's run, democratically voted organisation like Ebbsfleet United/MyFootballClub ?

Edited August 20, 2020 by Engorged Onion

[Grr-owl 1,075]

1 hour ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

There's probably been some research done somewhere, but whether it's coaching, being CEO of a company or leading a country (or hosting a daytime TV show. Hello Ellen), I suspect you can get away with authoritarianism while you're successful. For everyone else, it probably doesn't work. And similarly, I suspect it doesn't work once you cease to be successful.

Swings and roundabout, though, so we have to be vigilant. Authoritarianism is rife outside the West...

[titan_uranus 22,210]

20 hours ago, Grr-owl said:

Anyone see On the Slouch this week? Seems three teams in the comp have one plan but two modes, or perhaps that’s the same as Plans A & B.

I saw this.

IIRC, they were discussing the ability of teams to generate scores from their forward halves, as well as from their defensive halves.

The analysis suggested that Geelong, West Coast and Richmond were in the top bracket for both, whereas Port and Brisbane were only in the top bracket for one of them (I don't remember for Brisbane, but for Port it was scores from forward half).

Essendon would be a side which traditionally under Worsfold generates scores from its defensive half, as a counter-example.

Their argument was that successful sides can do both, which is as close to Plan A vs Plan B as you'll get.

Obviously with us we know what Goodwin wants: aggressive forward half press, high % time in our forward half, turnovers in our forward half, generating scores (and limiting scores to our opponent). The knock on us, under Goodwin, has been whether (like Port this year) we can generate winning scores when the game isn't played in our forward half. Our win over Collingwood was hugely important on this issue because we didn't dominate time in forward half (at least I don't think so, I haven't seen figures), yet we didn't go to water but instead were able to absorb, rebound and score.

If we can now have the confidence that our system is beginning to hold up well enough to ensure we can generate scores from anywhere on the ground, that is IMO the missing step to taking us beyond what we were capable of achieving in 2018.

[Axis of Bob 10,156]

2 hours ago, Engorged Onion said:

Clearly, someone should collate the data on this thread, put it in a powerpoint preso with the aim to overthrow Goodwin, Pert and Bartlett and become a legitimate fan's run, democratically voted organisation like Ebbsfleet United/MyFootballClub ?

Why do I have to be the creepy looking one? ?