Game plans, tactics and all that jazz

[SPC 3,549]

Our gameplan is very similar to what Malthouse implemented at Carlton. Focus on drawing contests close to the boundaries and if pressure comes, force a throw in and re-set.

Single most boring slow moving game style imaginable. We are what Freo was under Lyon.. pins for the eyeballs!

[binman 42,883]

Interesting comments in this article, particularly from Jennings and not quite as deep a dive into the tactics as i would have liked but at least it is something in the media.

https://www.espn.com.au/afl/story/_/id/29840981/afl-how-three-2019-losses-spooked-simon-goodwin-demons

Here is the audio clip of Jennings from SEN quoted in the article:

https://player.whooshkaa.com/player/playlist/show/1921?visual=true&sharing=true&episode=730480 

And here is Luke Hodge on SEN from Tuesday talking about the dees after the freo game, and he touches on the game plan and culture

https://player.whooshkaa.com/player/playlist/show/1921?visual=true&sharing=true&episode=730440

I haven't listed to the clips in full, which i'll to so today, but he snippets i have listed to are a fascinating insight.

 

[binman 42,883]

44 minutes ago, binman said:

 

Here is the audio clip of Jennings from SEN quoted in the article:

 

And here is Luke Hodge on SEN from Tuesday talking about the dees after the freo game, and he touches on the game plan and culture

 

I haven't listed to the clips in full, which i'll to so today, but he snippets i have listed to are a fascinating insight.

 

Sorry - can't edit: 

the SEN links are wrong

Jennings;

https://player.whooshkaa.com/episode?id=730480

Hodge:

https://player.whooshkaa.com/episode?id=730440

 

 

[Engorged Onion 10,215]

51 minutes ago, binman said:

Interesting comments in this article, particularly from Jennings and not quite as deep a dive into the tactics as i would have liked but at least it is something in the media.

https://www.espn.com.au/afl/story/_/id/29840981/afl-how-three-2019-losses-spooked-simon-goodwin-demons

Here is the audio clip of Jennings from SEN quoted in the article:

https://player.whooshkaa.com/player/playlist/show/1921?visual=true&sharing=true&episode=730480 

And here is Luke Hodge on SEN from Tuesday talking about the dees after the freo game, and he touches on the game plan and culture

https://player.whooshkaa.com/player/playlist/show/1921?visual=true&sharing=true&episode=730440

I haven't listed to the clips in full, which i'll to so today, but he snippets i have listed to are a fascinating insight.

 

Great stuff @binman - could you bullet point what Hodge said please - if you have time.

[drdrake 3,163]

The game evolved since we formulated our current plan.  Teams that have the ability to control the football and tempo of the game are the good sides.  We haven't recruited players for this, we are all about winning the ball at the contest and surge it forward, more like the Dogs game style when then won the flag.  Clubs still us this through out games but also lock at keeping the footy once they have it, looking sideways, switching play, it isn't about the out number at the contest anymore they almost play a tradition 6/6/6 and are happy for sides to push a forward into the middle that creates an out number down back.

We can't hit targets enough to play the style we want.  We can't allow an out number in our forward line.  Our back 6 are strong back them to win the contest, don't play a loose defender unless our opponent plays a 4-5 man forward line.  If they do, we just sit back and attack of half back with over lap like teams do against us.

Forward 6 play up to a line ahead of the example HFF/CHF push to HBF/CHB, full forward line push up to half forward don't get any higher unless to are presenting for the ball.

We get beaten when we push our half forwards to the midfield contest and allow our opposition 1-2 spare players that just sit back and wait for long bomb/turnover kick.  We work so hard to win the footy at the contest, when it turns over in our forward 50m we just can't defend the lose defender and the fast switch.  If we can't keep to ball inside 50m for longer to allow our mids/defenders to set up the quick exit will always kill us.

By pushing the out number to the contest it always looks congested and our players always gravitate to the ball and not hold for the the fast break, this is why we continue to have the 1m handballing, we don't have a player holding outside for the 2-5m handball release.  The other big issue we don't have anyone running for a handball receive, that is either lack of confidence in the teams ability not to turn the ball over, defenders don't want to run off for their opponent to get the easy out the back from a turnover and also which was evident V fremantle we didn't dish it of, just simple no risk footy down the line.

Starting point would be hold our forward 6, don't push HFF into the midfield, back mids and backs to win the footy and have players in place to try and keep the ball inside our forward 50m arc for longer periods.  It the ball keeps pinging out of there at the current speed we have no chance to set defensive structure.

[billyblanks29 184]

We reverted to that 2018 attacking style tonight in the first half at least. But we again saw how leaky our defence is with that structure. Players running forward from contest but leaving backs exposed.

Then in the last quarter we clearly reverted to the defensive high uncontested possession style because GWS kicked 6 of 7 goals. 

Is the best strategy to play red mist footy in first half, get a lead then switch to defensive keeping off? We can't seem to play red mist attack AND defend decently. Only Richmond seem able to do that.

[titan_uranus 24,992]

36 minutes ago, billyblanks29 said:

We reverted to that 2018 attacking style tonight in the first half at least. But we again saw how leaky our defence is with that structure. Players running forward from contest but leaving backs exposed.

Then in the last quarter we clearly reverted to the defensive high uncontested possession style because GWS kicked 6 of 7 goals. 

Is the best strategy to play red mist footy in first half, get a lead then switch to defensive keeping off? We can't seem to play red mist attack AND defend decently. Only Richmond seem able to do that.

Not sure about that.

First half GWS had 26 inside 50s for 7 goals. That's not 2017/18 levels of MFC leaky defence.

It's definitely better than it was.

[Adam The God 30,217]

I thought we played the more aggressive territory press tonight, but their goals in transition were so simple. 

If you look at the goals they actually score, most of them I felt were weak goals to give up. Either from our completely unforced errors or a lack of two way running. Was this because they moved the ball to fast for our defensive mechanisms to have a chance to react or were our forwards and mids too slow to get back and cover?

I think we got some quite easy goals going back the other way, because I felt GWS didn't defend particularly well either. 

Shoot outs are often about leaky, poor defensive, one-way running teams. I'd characterise both teams' performance tonight as that.

I didn't feel like GWS came in to try and stop us from playing how we wanted to play. They were happy for us to play that way and felt they'd eventually come over the top as they did.

When Weideman's not marking the ball or bringing it to ground we desperately struggle. We did manage to stop them from slingshotting back the other way when he failed to compete, but he didn't look like marking it all night. Our forward structure breaks down when he's not providing an adequate contest.

I think Essendon will let us play the way we want to next week and we'll probably let them play the way they want to, so we'll probably have another shoot out.

St Kilda could still fall out of the 8, which would be fascinating.

 

[Dr.D 1,771]

Can someone please tell me how AFL listed players can set up at a stoppage like this? When your season is on the line with 17 seconds to go and we're up by 5 points we set up with this trash! This is a knock on the players and Goodwin.

The issues are as follows:

- Literally no-one on Kelly at the stoppage. Who was arguably their best player on the night.

-Petracca not playing goal side of Tom Green. He isn't even next to him. Tom Green wins the clearance gets the ball moving forward.

 -Langdon guards space and allows Perryman to run unmanned into the stoppage and get to the ball.

This is commonsense fellas and it's reasons like this that cost us clearance and games time and time again.

How is this commonsense not engrained in the players yet.

[Deefiant 441]

Thought this article was interesting about rucking.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-09-17/afl-analysis-how-ruck-strategy-has-evolved/12668180?section=sport 

I think it goes a little in explaining why we went out to get Preuss and later the drafting of Luke Jackson. Seems like we tried to switch to a dual ruck plan similar to West Coast where we drop Gawn behind the ball and have another ruck in Preuss up in the forward half of the ground. I think problem was we overestimated Preuss' forward ability and ended up with a ruckman who just wasn't good enough to fill the role we wanted. Makes the Preuss recruitment I guess a little less baffling. 

It also to me explains why we went after Luke Jackson in the draft. 

[binman 42,883]

I am of the firm opinion that changing rules to create higher scoring games will never work. Mainly because coaches will always find a way to make the game more defensive because defence wins. Always has, always will.

To be honest I'm not sure if I reckon we should try and create higher scoring game as the game looks after itself.

But if we do want to orchestrate higher scores in my view the only effective way to do so is incentivise it with premiership points, eg 1 bonus point for 100 points.

Coaches will still default to defence but have other tactical options to maximise the chance to make finals.

Use the coaches rather trying to limit their impact though stupid rules that simply never work.

Leaving aside the counter arguments (conditions, grounds etc etc) tonight's game will provide the perfect example of the difference to tactics an incentive to score creates.

The giants have to make up 3% on the dogs to have a chance of making the finals tonight so really have to win by four plus goals. How will this impact on the tactics cameron employs tonight?

He may not decide to be more aggressive and hope their standard settings get the job done. Or he might be more aggressive from the get go (eg get his defenders to press reallt high like both the dees and the giant di last week - resulting in high scoring).

Or perhaps if ahead at 3 quarter time tell his players to throw caution to the wind and take on the corridor.

And if the giants do win tonight Goodwin will face the same tactical conundrum. Lets say we know we need a 6 goal win. How best to engineer that?

From a punting perspective tonights game lends itself to a good bet on the over tmp bet (the tmp line 117).

As will the game tommorow if the giants win tonight.

[FritschyBusiness 1,478]

The game needs to get more goals into it because it's how the AFL will get more revenue.

American sports are slow and have time outs so they can place ads everywhere (ie 48 minutes of basketball takes 3 hours)  
The more ads they can put on during the game
The more the broadcaster makes
The more the tv stations pay for the rights
The more money in the system that can trickle down to the clubs.

The only time the AFL goes to advertising breaks is when a goal is scored. 

Improving scoring is a must, not only for the spectacle but for financial security of the game.
Removing the 6-6-6 rule and adding the 1 point for 100 points in a game will help get the free flowing football we saw in 2018 back.
It means coaches can be more creative.
Then theres also the Kevin Bartlett suggestion of capping rotations...

The AFL was at its best when it was possible for a forward to kick 100 goals in a season, and it's been a long time since that happened in a regular home and away season.

[binman 42,883]

The capping rotations, even nor having any, have many supporters.

But it won't work.

One  players are just getting fitter and fitter. And teams will look to draft players with huge tanks at the expense of footy skills.

And two the coaches will just find other ways to rest their players.

And some of those strategies will reduce not increase  scoring, for example slowing the game right down, chipping it around your back half, create stoppage after stoppage et eyc

[deanox 9,912]

I disagree with incentivising scoring via premiership points. It won't work. It doesn't work in rugby or netball, it won't work in an even more chaotic game,  because coaches will always focus on the win. In fact, I think it will be bad for the comp as the bonus points will go against those teams who role over on occasions, regardless of opppnent.

 

If you want to increase scoring, go hard on losing free kicks for shepparding in marking contests. It's already illegal to prevent someone from contesring a mark, unless you too are trying to mark. Penalise every screen and block, every third person body, unless they are going up realistically. 

That will open up key forwards. It will bring crumbers into play because the only way to be a 3rd player is a legimate attempt leaving your player open. 

 

The other option? Speed up all the stoppages. Pay htb quickly. Call for a bounce, run in and do it quick. Don't wait for teams to set up or for rucks to get there, just whistle, run in and throw up. 

This gets the ball moving fast and atops zones setting up leading to one on ones.

[layzie 33,793]

You know what would be a great way to increase scoring? Having players that kick through the big sticks on a regular basis!

Sorry to be that guy but it would definitely help!

[Dr. Gonzo 24,206]

On 9/3/2020 at 7:15 AM, binman said:

Another excellent analysis article on abc by Cody Atkinson and Sean Lawson

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-09-03/what-makes-afl-fremantle-dockers-captain-nat-fyfe-so-good/12620266?utm_source=abc_news&utm_medium=content_shared&utm_content=link&utm_campaign=abc_news

Love their data tables (which I'm pretty sure they have developed) and use of giphs to explain things. I'm going to have to learn how to do that as nothing beats a combination of visuals and text to make a point about some aspects of the game.

What sort of phone do you have? On the Samsung I have screen capture widget which I can swipe on at anytime which also has a gif capture option I assume other phones have something similar. Not sure about PC's though.

[FritschyBusiness 1,478]

1 hour ago, deanox said:

I disagree with incentivising scoring via premiership points. It won't work. It doesn't work in rugby or netball, it won't work in an even more chaotic game,  because coaches will always focus on the win. In fact, I think it will be bad for the comp as the bonus points will go against those teams who role over on occasions, regardless of opppnent.

 

If you want to increase scoring, go hard on losing free kicks for shepparding in marking contests. It's already illegal to prevent someone from contesring a mark, unless you too are trying to mark. Penalise every screen and block, every third person body, unless they are going up realistically. 

That will open up key forwards. It will bring crumbers into play because the only way to be a 3rd player is a legimate attempt leaving your player open. 

 

The other option? Speed up all the stoppages. Pay htb quickly. Call for a bounce, run in and do it quick. Don't wait for teams to set up or for rucks to get there, just whistle, run in and throw up. 

This gets the ball moving fast and atops zones setting up leading to one on ones.

I'd love them to pay holding the ball and incorrect disposal properly too, that would help break up the packs.

I dont think they should nominate rucks either its a waste of time

[titan_uranus 24,992]

I would love to look at the number of scoring shots compared to previous higher scoring years. Are there fewer shots on goal, or is goal accuracy down? I'm sure it's a bit of both: the skill of kicking set shots for goal has deteriorated in recent years.

[Adam The God 30,217]

I'm not convinced that removing 6-6-6 would lead to higher scoring. What's to say coaches don't put more numbers behind the ball? Yeah, some teams would put players off the back of stoppages and go more attacking, but others would use numbers to close space and set zones.

If Goodwin is to retain his job, I'd like to see him continue to innovate within the 6-6-6 set up. This is where scoring will come from IMV. 

[binman 42,883]

10 hours ago, deanox said:

I disagree with incentivising scoring via premiership points. It won't work. It doesn't work in rugby or netball, it won't work in an even more chaotic game,  because coaches will always focus on the win. In fact, I think it will be bad for the comp as the bonus points will go against those teams who role over on occasions, regardless of opppnent.

 

If you want to increase scoring, go hard on losing free kicks for shepparding in marking contests. It's already illegal to prevent someone from contesring a mark, unless you too are trying to mark. Penalise every screen and block, every third person body, unless they are going up realistically. 

That will open up key forwards. It will bring crumbers into play because the only way to be a 3rd player is a legimate attempt leaving your player open. 

 

The other option? Speed up all the stoppages. Pay htb quickly. Call for a bounce, run in and do it quick. Don't wait for teams to set up or for rucks to get there, just whistle, run in and throw up. 

This gets the ball moving fast and atops zones setting up leading to one on ones.

Some good points deanox. 

I would have to do a deeper dive but I have heard from different people bonus points have been helpful in rugby  and even more so in netball. 

Your suggested rule changes def would help, assuming they could be paid. Players might simply get better at masking blocks for instance. You might need to give boundary umpires the ability to call them (or similar).

As a rule, I'm agin rule changes. They usually never work as intended and always have unintended consequences.

But if they are looking at rule changes two i reckon worth considering to increase scoring are making kicks 20 or 25 metres for a mark to be paid and no mark paid for kicks backwards inside the degensive 50 metre arcs.

Both would make 'defence with ball in hand' tactics that are the key driver of low scores much more difficult to implement.

[deanox 9,912]

8 minutes ago, binman said:

Some good points deanox. 

I would have to do a deeper dive but I have heard from different people bonus points have been helpful in rugby  and even more so in netball. 

Your suggested rule changes def would help, assuming they could be paid. Players might simply get better at masking blocks for instance. You might need to give boundary umpires the ability to call them (or similar).

As a rule, I'm agin rule changes. They usually never work as intended and always have unintended consequences.

But if they are looking at rule changes two i reckon worth considering to increase scoring are making kicks 20 or 25 metres for a mark to be paid and no mark paid for kicks backwards inside the degensive 50 metre arcs.

Both would make 'defence with ball in hand' tactics that are the key driver of low scores much more difficult to implement.

I don't think any of my suggestions were rule changes. They were more resetting interpretation creep, and restoring the way it was umpired in earlier times. They will open up the play and make it easier to attack/ harder for defenders. So they will help from the first bounce to the final siren. 

 

My problem with bonus points is that they will always be an after thought. No coach will plan for them. It is always defence first, secure then win, bonus points if is secure. This is an older article by it says similar: extra trys do occur, but basically they only happen in blow outs. The bonus points encourage junk time rampages/floggingss, not shootouts.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274968739_Secondary_Behavioural_Incentives_Bonus_Points_and_Rugby_Professionals

Further bonus points in rugby are gamed. They are over represented amongst home teams and while they have increased average tries slightly (I read 3.7 to 4.2 per game) they have actually reduced the number of high scoring games, as once teams hit the 4 try mark (and gain the bonus point) they switch back to defence first to protect their lead. 

https://theconversation.com/points-for-tries-the-rugby-world-cup-shows-how-bonus-schemes-can-come-unstuck-124892

 

In AFL BPs will overly favour teams coming off longer breaks, playing in better weather conditions, playing without in game injuries, playing against younger sides that are more easily routed. It isn't a fair measurement or performance over a season, which is why it's a perfect 2nd measure as percentage or points difference. 

 

 

I actually don't mind the netball system,  but it doesn't necessarily incentivise scoring. A BP for each quarter and 4 for the win means 8 points up for grabs every game. This may incentivise teams who jump out of the blocks to keep attacking instead of trying to defend the lead for 3 quarters? But are we really interested in increasing both sides attack when they are already down by 6 goals and there is 3 minutes to go?

Netball is always high scoring. That's because defending in netball is really hard. And personally I think instead of incentivising scoring in AFL (which will always be secondary for the coaches) we need to make changes to free the ball up, allow it to move easier/faster, and make it harder for defenders to defend. That will mean that even the most defensive coach will only be able to do so much. 

 

 

[Engorged Onion 10,215]

"The third year is fatal."

This article is an overall analysis about a player worth to a club (Liverpool) AND also delves into keeping the momentum going for a club.

A quote struck me - and it's for all clubs, not just Grand Final winning ones in AFL.

"Players become familiar with a manager so his words lose their power; an intensity that once was motivational begins to grate; opponents work sides out – and in the age of detailed data analysis that is a process that has accelerated significantly."

My views are less about Goodwin, but more about 'clubland' overall. 

How to keep talented players in a the right age profile together, to keep pursuing performance vigorously, when 'hunger' ebbs and flows (be it week to week, season to season and in game) when there is a familiarity with a coach and 'his' responses.

 

Edited September 26, 2020 by Engorged Onion

[binman 42,883]

For those of us interested in game plans, tactics and all that jazz a couple of really interesting articles about the teams fighting out the finals this weekend. Both have relevance for us though too in terms of where we need to get to and how we might do so:

Another excellent article from Cody Atkinson and Sean Lawson:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-10-15/tigers-cats-lions-power-afl-preliminary-finals-premiership-gabba/12764676

And one from Scott Heindrvih, who has written some terrific stuff about the AFL this year:

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2020/oct/15/modern-day-coaches-win-hearts-before-minds-in-bid-to-reach-afl-grand-final

EO this article has some relevance to the quote (and article) you reference above:

"Players become familiar with a manager so his words lose their power; an intensity that once was motivational begins to grate; opponents work sides out – and in the age of detailed data analysis that is a process that has accelerated significantly."

Personally i think this is a huge challenge for Goody and i really wonder if he is where Hardwick was in 2016 and Hinkley last year in terms of struggling to get a message across and being too insular and hard.

 

[Axis of Bob 11,785]

Very interesting. I found this chart instructive because I think it highlights our challenges.

It shows that forward lines at the moment are either small or tall, whilst ours is mid sized. Maybe there's a method to what what we're trying to do, but it's different to what the top 4 are doing. Anyway, I thought I'd try to recreate this chart for Melbourne this year:

That's a very different look, with our <184cm and >195cm cohorts being less productive that any of those 4 teams. In fact, 4 or our top 5 goalkickers (Weideman aside) were between 185cm and 189cm. 

Edited October 15, 2020 by Axis of Bob

[Engorged Onion 10,215]

12 minutes ago, Axis of Bob said:

Very interesting. I found this chart instructive because I think it highlights our challenges.

It shows that forward lines at the moment are either small or tall, whilst ours is mid sized. Maybe there's a method to what what we're trying to do, but it's different to what the top 4 are doing. Anyway, I thought I'd try to recreate this chart for Melbourne this year:

That's a very different look, with our <184cm and >195cm cohorts being less productive that any of those 4 teams. In fact, 4 or our top 5 goalkickers (Weideman aside) were between 185cm and 189cm. 

Brilliant stuff @Axis of Bob

Looking at this there are only 2 conclusions that can be made about Goodwin and his coaching philosophy

either

a) Goodwin is light years ahead of the curve and so inventive that it isn't paying off... yet (think Einstein genius)

b) Goodwin is trying to work a system against all the perceived wisdom of what actually works (think Nikola Tesla, 'crazy genius' that gets unrewarded).

 

Edited October 15, 2020 by Engorged Onion