Game plans, tactics and all that jazz

[Adam The God 30,421]

On 8/10/2020 at 11:11 AM, binman said:

i'd love to see the defenders take more risk with their kicks leaving the defensive zone and i was pleased that he did so last night - lever in particular, who has been terrific, was less hesitant, went faster and took on some risky kicks

I reckon the key element here is predictability. I reckon we got rid of Sam Frost for a couple of reasons, but one of them, was most certainly his unpredictability. If you're going to take the game on and the coach encourages that, then great. But you've got to be strategic about where you kick it and your team mates have to be alive to your bold move. And hopefully it's not that bold and ideally it's a set play.

The modern defensive zone being the way it is, if you turn the ball over with an attacking kick and the rest of your team mates aren't ready to cover or spread for the kick, all of a sudden there are holes everywhere and the opposition can exploit them.

I get tired of our predictability from defence to Max, but Richmond are one of the most predictable sides in the competition. You know exactly how they're going to play and where they're going to try and channel the ball, but that doesn't mean you can stop it. That surge game is powerful and overwhelming.

I really loved @Engorged Onion's first post in this thread about the system being unsustainable but that this could well be because our players aren't yet in that peak zone of premiership mode, with not only games played, but games played together on this system. I have certainly been one to comment that the system we play is unsustainable and I stand by that. But I'm referring to the system we play currently being unsustainable this season IMV. However, the Burgess recruit could well prove me wrong here. We certainly struggled to maintain it through 2018 and through the early part of 2020.

But at the very least, we have started to become predictable. We force the opposition to kick long down the line, as you say, and I've got no doubt that we've tweaked our defensive zone over the off season (I'll deal with the forward zone in more detail below), but we didn't start to get it right until the Brisbane game IMV. 

I think in these stationary situations, where the ball is in the hands of the opposition across our half forward, our deepest defenders play like a back three or four in soccer. They set the depth of the zone, but also knowing that the opposition will want to maintain their forward structure and therefore won't break from their side too much. Because the zone has the width (a shout out to @La Dee-vina Comedia  ), they know that the zone covers down the line, but also most of the corridor. If the ball is moved across our half forward (which is a risky move), our defence merely rolls the zone across the ground, so this becomes a useless option and teams will instead prefer to go down the line and create a contest and get metres on their opponent, as well as take the pressure off the defence (at least in terms of territory anyway).

When a kick goes long down the line, the opposition forwards may attack the contest in front of the back 3 or 4, but the other mids and higher defenders will try to intercept. Our mids must track back with their opponent to these contests, otherwise it pulls out our back 3 or 4 from position and this is where Langdon's gut-running is so important as the sweeper.

If our last or deepest defender has been pulled up to say 30 or 40 metres out from goal, Langdon often runs back in behind our defence to give that last defender cover. He did it quite a bit against Brisbane to great effect.

The tweak over the last few years is that Frost would often be used as a sweeper due to his pace, but he played within the defensive zone so it left us vulnerable against his opponent. Having the sweeper come from midfield is handy and it means we can play that extra behind the ball. The fact that the extra is a gut-runner, means we're not left short in offence either, because he can run the other way too.

So in conclusion, unless there are set plays, which the EPL teams do all the time (these would be part of our ball movement drills at practice), we won't be taking the game on willy-nilly. It's too risky to the defensive zone. I think set plays will tend to come off very rarely, but the longer this team plays together, the more likely they are to pull these moves off.

Quote

• On the high press i'd day we have in fact made pretty big adjustment with that - my feeling is our zone is not nearly as aggressive as it was in the first half of 2018. We tend now to keep a goal keeper deep and concede very few goal out the back.

I reckon our press at the start of 2019 was super aggressive and then we relaxed it, because we realised the zone was useless in being aggressive when the players couldn't cover the required amount of ground to implement it properly.

This year, I reckon we've added a layer to it. The double wall as it were. And this goes to the forward zone I mentioned above. So the double wall is akin to Klopp's Liverpool press, but reverses the formula. Klopp's team is aggressive as a forward press team when the opposition has the ball in the front third of the pitch. If the ball gets into central midfield and is controlled by the opposition, the zone relaxes and the midfield sits back in front of the back four. 

By comparison, Melbourne play a forward zone from kick outs that sits across the forward 50 arc. Then behind it, we have another wall, set back 20-30 metres. This usually includes the likes of VDB, ANB and our wingers and forward flankers. If the opposition pierces the first zone, the midfield zone is super aggressive and tries to dispossess the opposition as they run and carry through half back or get delay on the footy to help the defenders behind them set up.

The additional strength to our defensive press here is that a third wall sits back, which is the final fortification cemented by the deepest of our defenders (that back 3 or 4 that I allude to above), which means it doesn't leak goals out the back like it used to, because there is no 'out the back'. If the opposition are good enough, they hit up targets quickly or go long to contests deep in their forward 50 to put our defenders under pressure. This is where our mids or higher defenders try to get delay on the footy as it comes in or ensure that they roll back with their midfield opponents and make it as congested as possible in the back 50. 

Quote

• Our zone system appears very similar to that of the pies and the tigers, all team defence that looks to force opposition teams to kick down the line or risk a turnover switching or going to the corridor 
• Langdon has been a very important recruit in this respect as he does so much running (i cant wait to watch games live to see his spread and that of his teammates)

Completely agree.

Quote

• It is often said our one wood is our contest ball, forward half, pressure game but i am starting to think that is a bit of furphy 
• Of course it is key to goody's game plan but perhaps even more so is his defensive system - we have become aside that is very, very hard to score against. A trend that began from mid 2018 when goody adjusted the zone to a less aggressive model

IMO the contest is still absolutely our one wood, but we've developed a stronger team defence that is difficult to pierce (as mentioned above). I think it's aggressive, but it's not the entire team being aggressive. 

In 2018, I reckon our entire team pressed. Now, that's very rare. You mostly see two thirds of the team press and the back 3 or 4 as it were sit back and rely on the mids to get back and defend or kill the contest if it comes in long and contested. 

This is another reason I reckon Frost was moved on. He strikes me as slightly undisciplined in the way he would aggressively press, hence the headless chook nickname. He was too all or nothing.

Quote

• Even last year, despite all of our injuries and how poorly we played we rarely got smashed and only Port have opened us up this year and that was result of not doing the running or applying the pressure on the ball carrier goody' defensive system demands

This is absolutely a cornerstone of our game. If the pressure and intensity isn't there, particularly in midfield, we get carved up and teams waltz through our zones. When we're focused and bringing the intensity, teams can't get through us.

Great thread and I haven't really read it yet as I've been waiting for the weekend to roll around before I read it, because as you can see, I can't really keep my answers concise.

Edited August 14, 2020 by A F

[Adam The God 30,421]

On 8/10/2020 at 11:40 PM, Engorged Onion said:

Evidence as to why Goodwins philosophy hinges on the contested ball/clearences is found in this article, but perhaps not in the way you would think. I'm assuming all FD's across the league are abreast of this info... I need to think about it, to see how it feeds into what it looks like we are trying to do.

Great article. It absolutely feeds what we're trying to do and it also could point to our evolution under Goodwin.

I'd say our one wood for 2017-2019 was win clearance and attempt to score. If we lost the clearance, we'd often be too attacking or too loose in our defending to prevent opposition clearances resulting in goals. Particularly, last year.

But across this time period, we didn't have the balance between defending clearance that we'd lose and those we'd win. In 2017-2018. I remember there being much debate about whether we were being too aggressive from stoppages. It may have been a combination of being too aggressive from stoppage, but also being too aggressive in our press.

I think in the 2020 off season we've also developed an ability to slow teams down coming out of defence, through our new staggered semi aggressive press (that I outlined in the post above).

I'm fascinated to see now how we're defending clearance and whether our set up changes from the staggered semi aggressive press. I'll watch for this closely tomorrow.

[Adam The God 30,421]

6 hours ago, binman said:

So both Buckley and Goodwin have mastered the transition from attack to defence. The three phases of the game goody talks about.

The issue for both clubs is the coaches ability to organise an attack, particularly against deep-lying opponents.

This was a great post @binman but I just want to focus on this point.

Prior to Klopp, Liverpool's manager Brendan Rodgers (now at Leicester) was excellent at counter-attacking football and could generally transition quite well between attack and defence. Their attack was absolutely their best asset. Particularly, when blessed with the likes of Suarez and a firing Sturridge up front. But one of the big knocks on Rodgers' time at Liverpool was his side's ability to break down deep-lying opponents. 

In soccer it's called 'parking the bus' and Jose Mourinho was an expert at it. He'd basically set his team up to defend and sit back, and bank on the inevitable chance falling to one of his strikers.

Anyway, Rodgers' style worked fine against stronger opposition (aside from Mourinho) who would usually try to attack Liverpool and mirror their game back at them. This suited Liverpool because gaps would open up and Liverpool were brilliant on the counter. But when they faced well-drilled, mid-tiered teams that parked the bus, they would struggle to break them down and it basically led to too many dropped points.

I think the key difference between Rodgers' style and Klopp's is the focus on speed and clever movement from the front three attackers, but also the rotation of those in midfield roles and the gut-running from the offensive full backs in Andrew Robertson and Trent Alexander-Arnold. 

Liverpool play out from the back, as many teams try to. Man City do too. So the defenders try to beat the press with short, quick passes, keeping the ball mostly on the ground. This is used as a way of pulling the opposition out of a zone in midfield and then using the space in behind them to run and exploit as I've mentioned before.

But when teams aren't pressing and they're sitting back in midfield against Liverpool, Klopp's Liverpool is so good, because it moves the football around quickly from side to side and plays quick diagonal balls into space, thereby manoeuvring the deep lying zone. This speed catches teams off guard and by using the two full backs as wingers (the two central midfielders cover them as faux defenders in front of the back 2), Liverpool can get in behind teams at pace and with quick interplay and clever movement from their forwards, can break them down. 

It's a different game and there aren't always apt comparisons, but the similarity I'd make between Klopp's fast pace is how we hit teams on the counter with 3 or 4 passes and bang, it's a goal. Because we move it quickly, the zone doesn't have a chance to set up and we 'get in behind' in effect. 

But the other comparison I think we can draw between Klopp's Liverpool and Goodwin's Melbourne is the aggressive midfield press if the ball has been lost in transition or from a stoppage. 

I'm really looking forward to seeing how we defend clearance tomorrow, because I think we have too many that get sucked into the press in areas of the ground that don't give our defence enough cover. Essentially, what happened earlier in the season was we'd win a clearance and the opposition would see it coming, shut it down, the Melbourne press would converge around them and one player would get out or the opposition would have some overlap and like that, they'd be through the main press and be able to hit up leading forwards without adequate pressure coming on them.

Thinking on my above post further, I reckon we'll see a tweaking of the press around some stoppages tomorrow, which will mean if we win clearance, we'll be aiming to jet out of there (ala Oliver over the past few weeks) or use handball to break the outer stoppage ring and then our forwards can get to work with energy and smart leads, ala Liverpool's front three and their clever movement. This essentially how we beat Adelaide and North. The trick will be can Collingwood shut us down at the source and not allow us to jet out or use handball in space.

Quote

Which leads me to the second observation;

• 'Klopp and Guardiola favour pre-practised moves that are drilled so they can be deployed when the circumstances are right, the semi-automation speeding up exchanges. José Mourinho considers football so random pre-arranged moves are pointless; he prefers to generate in his players a mindset that will enable them to make the right decision in whatever situation is thrown up by the game. To say one approach is right and one wrong feels reductive, but what is clear is that the organisation of attacking is becoming increasingly important in differentiating the best from the rest.'

Thinking about how the dees set up our attacks on goals i have little doubt he has adopted the philosophy of employing 'pre-practised moves that are drilled so they can be deployed when the circumstances are right'.

For me this is what he is referring to when he talks about ''çonnection".  

Ah, sorry mate. I realise I essentially repeated what you'd already said here in my earlier post. We absolutely use set plays in our ball movement exercises. When we go from end to end quickly, that's a more overt example of it, but when our forwards are on the move (and not just anywhere, leading out of areas to create space for others) when we win stoppage, connection is seamless. 

Quote

And it is this semi-automation that can be so frustrating for fans. Think of all the angst about all the seemingly mindless bombing to the hot spot. Perhaps this is simply a function of the belief in semi-automation.

This is the predictable Richmond model. Quick end to end transition or if no clear option is available, up and under kicks to Riewoldt or Lynch, allowing crumbers to get to the contest and midfield waves running by in support.

Quote

I think increasingly this point Wilson makes about the EPL AFL is  becoming just as critical for the AFL:

•  'but what is clear is that the organisation of attacking is becoming increasingly important in differentiating the best from the rest'

And i think Engorged Onion is right about he influence of Klopp's philosophy on Goody.

Two years ago he tried to beat the zone by getting past it quickly, before it could be set up. Getting in behind the zone in soccer parlance. And whilst of course we will look to do so when possible more times than not we are still gong to be faced with crowed inside 50s and opponents players guarding space

And the more i think about it he more i am confident goody is on the right path and therefore so are the dees.

We are getting closer to having the perfect combination of  an excellent transition from attack to defence and an ability to organise effective attack, particularly against deep-lying opponents (which in footy is the swamp of players ahead of the ball camped inside our 50).

And in terms of our game tomorrow , leaving aside personnel and the difference in preparation, this is the key reason why  i think we win.

We have extremely similar tactical models but i think goody is becoming much better than the buckley at organising effective attacks. 

How do you see us initiating attacks from a stand-still position, say, between wing and half forward, @binman?

Edited August 14, 2020 by A F

[Trisul 664]

16 hours ago, Engorged Onion said:

That sounds brilliant. Can you write it down on a napkin and post the play for us??

It was quite similar to the below video.  A stoppage with more congestion, less opposition involvement, but the same result.

 

[Skuit 10,031]

On 8/9/2020 at 5:31 PM, AmDamDemon said:

Excellent, excellent thread. Cheers @binman, @Engorged Onion et al. Skuit I remember you pointing this out and, although it got lost in the mire of life, when Ajax had the greatest season a Dutch club has ever had a couple of years ago my reaction was ‘bloody hope Goody was looking at that.’

2018. Got sucked into supporting Ajax again (last time was up until about 1997: Kluivert). MFC + Ajax: young, dynamic confident teams based on high pressure and creative offensive freedom building up steam only to to hit a solid brick-wall. Heart-breaking. 

[binman 43,813]

14 hours ago, A F said:

This was a great post @binman but I just want to focus on this point.

Prior to Klopp, Liverpool's manager Brendan Rodgers (now at Leicester) was excellent at counter-attacking football and could generally transition quite well between attack and defence. Their attack was absolutely their best asset. Particularly, when blessed with the likes of Suarez and a firing Sturridge up front. But one of the big knocks on Rodgers' time at Liverpool was his side's ability to break down deep-lying opponents. 

In soccer it's called 'parking the bus' and Jose Mourinho was an expert at it. He'd basically set his team up to defend and sit back, and bank on the inevitable chance falling to one of his strikers.

Anyway, Rodgers' style worked fine against stronger opposition (aside from Mourinho) who would usually try to attack Liverpool and mirror their game back at them. This suited Liverpool because gaps would open up and Liverpool were brilliant on the counter. But when they faced well-drilled, mid-tiered teams that parked the bus, they would struggle to break them down and it basically led to too many dropped points.

I think the key difference between Rodgers' style and Klopp's is the focus on speed and clever movement from the front three attackers, but also the rotation of those in midfield roles and the gut-running from the offensive full backs in Andrew Robertson and Trent Alexander-Arnold. 

Liverpool play out from the back, as many teams try to. Man City do too. So the defenders try to beat the press with short, quick passes, keeping the ball mostly on the ground. This is used as a way of pulling the opposition out of a zone in midfield and then using the space in behind them to run and exploit as I've mentioned before.

But when teams aren't pressing and they're sitting back in midfield against Liverpool, Klopp's Liverpool is so good, because it moves the football around quickly from side to side and plays quick diagonal balls into space, thereby manoeuvring the deep lying zone. This speed catches teams off guard and by using the two full backs as wingers (the two central midfielders cover them as faux defenders in front of the back 2), Liverpool can get in behind teams at pace and with quick interplay and clever movement from their forwards, can break them down. 

It's a different game and there aren't always apt comparisons, but the similarity I'd make between Klopp's fast pace is how we hit teams on the counter with 3 or 4 passes and bang, it's a goal. Because we move it quickly, the zone doesn't have a chance to set up and we 'get in behind' in effect. 

But the other comparison I think we can draw between Klopp's Liverpool and Goodwin's Melbourne is the aggressive midfield press if the ball has been lost in transition or from a stoppage. 

I'm really looking forward to seeing how we defend clearance tomorrow, because I think we have too many that get sucked into the press in areas of the ground that don't give our defence enough cover. Essentially, what happened earlier in the season was we'd win a clearance and the opposition would see it coming, shut it down, the Melbourne press would converge around them and one player would get out or the opposition would have some overlap and like that, they'd be through the main press and be able to hit up leading forwards without adequate pressure coming on them.

Thinking on my above post further, I reckon we'll see a tweaking of the press around some stoppages tomorrow, which will mean if we win clearance, we'll be aiming to jet out of there (ala Oliver over the past few weeks) or use handball to break the outer stoppage ring and then our forwards can get to work with energy and smart leads, ala Liverpool's front three and their clever movement. This essentially how we beat Adelaide and North. The trick will be can Collingwood shut us down at the source and not allow us to jet out or use handball in space.

Ah, sorry mate. I realise I essentially repeated what you'd already said here in my earlier post. We absolutely use set plays in our ball movement exercises. When we go from end to end quickly, that's a more overt example of it, but when our forwards are on the move (and not just anywhere, leading out of areas to create space for others) when we win stoppage, connection is seamless. 

This is the predictable Richmond model. Quick end to end transition or if no clear option is available, up and under kicks to Riewoldt or Lynch, allowing crumbers to get to the contest and midfield waves running by in support.

How do you see us initiating attacks from a stand-still position, say, between wing and half forward, @binman?

Great posts AF. Has some comments and qustions in response but on phone so will make them later.

In regard to the last question I think you've nailed it in large part yourself.

As you say in the last few games we have been much bafter and moving away from stoppages. Oliver has been key to this by not giving a handball straight away and instead running  for a burst of say 5 metres and kicking long.

Another noticeable change has been a greater emphasis on long handball forward from stoppages.

But I reckon the key from those stoppages is tracc. He is involved in an insane amount of our score involvement. Is be guessing he'd be averaging  over 10 per game. And o suspect a high percentage of them are forward of centre and last kick inside 50 (going to EOs and deanox's point about stats it is a complete joke how difficult it is to access decent stats - its like the all don't want people to develop am understanding of the game)

Watching him on all pro at stoppages he often starys moving just as the ball is about to be tapped and more often than hits the contest moving.

If he doesn't win he often gets his hand to the ball and helps a teammate get it, or at least stop tbe oppos6getti h ut

If he does won he is often devestating - moves forward and kicking inside 50. I reckon he is just about impossible to tag too given his strength and movement.

[Adam The God 30,421]

9 minutes ago, binman said:

Great posts AF. Has some comments and qustions in response but on phone so will make them later.

In regard to the last question I think you've nailed it in large part yourself.

As you say in the last few games we have been much bafter and moving away from stoppages. Oliver has been key to this by not giving a handball straight away and instead running  for a burst of say 5 metres and kicking long.

Another noticeable change has been a greater emphasis on long handball forward from stoppages.

But I reckon the key from those stoppages is tracc. He is involved in an insane amount of our score involvement. Is be guessing he'd be averaging  over 10 per game. And o suspect a high percentage of them are forward of centre and last kick inside 50 (going to EOs and deanox's point about stats it is a complete joke how difficult it is to access decent stats - its like the all don't want people to develop am understanding of the game)

Watching him on all pro at stoppages he often starys moving just as the ball is about to be tapped and more often than hits the contest moving.

If he doesn't win he often gets his hand to the ball and helps a teammate get it, or at least stop tbe oppos6getti h ut

If he does won he is often devestating - moves forward and kicking inside 50. I reckon he is just about impossible to tag too given his strength and movement.

I wonder if we're utilising Langdon a bit like Alexander-Arnold and Robertson, in that he sweeps at one end and offers us width across half forward at the other.

It'll be interesting to see what Collingwood do when we get the ball from a stationary position in the middle of the ground or across half forward. And our forward leading patterns will be vital for opening up space for others, as well as taking pressure off the mids under the pump from stoppage.

Looking forward to it, but you're right. The lack of analytical data available to the public is strange, I reckon. Why wouldn't you release the data? After all, much of the football economy is money just floating backwards and forwards between clubs and the AFL.

[Adam The God 30,421]

We have seriously fixed our defensive transition. Incredible in all phases of defensive transition. The best I've seen it. Combine that with taking our chances at the other end and using the ball cleverly when going inside, makes a huge difference.

What was the stat regarding play ons? We played on less than 10% of the time and they played on more than 50%. Someone correct me on that, but a noticeable change in slowing our game down, looking across the ground for support or even backwards if the long kick inside 50 or up the ground is not on. We really worked hard at pulling the zone apart by spreading the ball by foot.

Makes so much difference when our talls bring the ball to the ground and our smalls bring the ground pressure, and then convert their chances when they come. 

If this is sustainable, the system will beat most teams in the comp.

Edited August 15, 2020 by A F

[Grr-owl 1,253]

In the wake of the victory against the Filth, I have a few questions for the tacticians. Are we winning because:

1. The players are implementing Goody’s tactics better?

or

2. The tactics have changed?

or

3. The opposition has been poor and we are getting away with tactics that better opposition will easily counter?

Edited August 16, 2020 by Grr-owl

[Adam The God 30,421]

51 minutes ago, Grr-owl said:

In the wake of the victory against the Filth, I have a few questions for the tacticians. Are we winning because:

1. The players are implementing Goody’s tactics better?

or

2. The tactics have changed?

or

3. The opposition has been poor and we are getting away with tactics that better opposition will easily counter?

I reckon it's a tough one to gauge because we're not on the inner sanctum. 

To me, the way we moved the ball earlier in the season was a carbon copy of 2019. Get the ball and go long into the dangerous area 20 metres out from goal, but we didn't have the contest there, so it would break down. It was actually illogical to go there because we weren't playing two talls.

Therefore, I think it's a combination of all three. I think the coaching across 2019 and early 2020 was poor, because instead of looking for lateral options, we'd just go bang and go long inside 50, usually to an outnumber or to the disadvantage of our forward in a 1v1.

I think the players are able to set up defensively a whole lot better and because our fitness is much better, we're starting to trust that team mates are in a lateral position to receive the ball or will create a contest and then crumb when the ball hits the ground.

I think the persist bombing long was down to the coaches trusting the system. I think Goodwin has shown a Hardwick-like stubbornness to change in game tactics and instead trust that the system will right itself. Maybe it's a case of short term pain for long term gain. If you don't play to the system I've devised, this is what happens, guys.

This is where I think selection was the major blunder for Goodwin earlier in the year. Not playing two talls is inconceivable given the system is clearly, we want contests from our talls and pressure from our smalls. Well, if everyone's small, how are they go to compete in the air? It's almost as if Goodwin wasn't entirely sure what make his system work. 

Now we're getting contests in those important areas offensively and we're getting great defensive transition and setting up really well behind the ball.

I think we were setting up well behind the ball earlier in the year, but the transition from attack to defence was still being learnt. 

I reckon we're close to a break out. Problem is, this season, due to the short turnarounds, is throwing up some really strange results, so I wouldn't put it past us to throw in one or two more pathetic results. I'm hoping we can maintain focus though and back our own fitness.

[Grr-owl 1,253]

Great answer. 
 

I’ve been thinking that maybe these past few weeks is exactly what the doctor ordered for the players: games that prove to themselves that 1. we are capable of playing the way the coach wants, and 2. what the coach wants will work if the players buy in, trust it, and go at it with energy. 
 

In that context, the next couple of games are about belief in the face of genuine opposition, one team pretty much even with us and the other having played significantly better this season so far.

[Kent 2,914]

22 hours ago, Grr-owl said:

In the wake of the victory against the Filth, I have a few questions for the tacticians. Are we winning because:

1. The players are implementing Goody’s tactics better?

or

2. The tactics have changed?

or

3. The opposition has been poor and we are getting away with tactics that better opposition will easily counter?

errr looks like 3

[george_on_the_outer 7,708]

I am keeping an eye on Geelong's set up at centre bounces.  Only noticed it this week against Power.

Basically they have 2 players set up either side along the goal to goal line, but 5metres + from the edge of the centre circle.  When the ball is bounced they sprint to either side of the circle.  The effect is that one of them will hit the ball at full pace, or the opponent if they get the ball first.  It also takes 2 of the opposition out of the centre congestion. 

Port didn't react to it all night, but then Hinckley didn't react to much at all. It was the worst coaching example I have seen.  It was pointed out in the match commentary, when he left Clurey ( undersized) on Hawkins for the whole match, but worse still was that he left him 1 on 1.  No zone defence, no 3rd man in.  Hawkins had a field day.  6 goals mostly from just pushing Clurey aside as the ball came in. 

Edited August 17, 2020 by george_on_the_outer

[Engorged Onion 10,223]

1 hour ago, george_on_the_outer said:

I am keeping an eye on Geelong's set up at centre bounces.  Only noticed it this week against Power.

Basically they have 2 players set up either side along the goal to goal line, but 5metres + from the edge of the centre circle.  When the ball is bounced they sprint to either side of the circle.  The effect is that one of them will hit the ball at full pace, or the opponent if they get the ball first.  It also takes 2 of the opposition out of the centre congestion. 

Port didn't react to it all night, but then Hinckley didn't react to much at all. It was the worst coaching example I have seen.  It was pointed out in the match commentary, when he left Clurey ( undersized) on Hawkins for the whole match, but worse still was that he left him 1 on 1.  No zone defence, no 3rd man in.  Hawkins had a field day.  6 goals mostly from just pushing Clurey aside as the ball came in. 

Thanks @george_on_the_outer - I'm grateful that you watch other games, to see what other innovations are in use. I guess with innovations, though - they don't always come off. 

From your perspective - as a consequence of setting up like this, what is the cost of setting up like that, and how would teams best counteract it?

postscript: I just had a look at the first two quarters and couldn't seem to see what you are talking about... I am but a simple bloke.

On the image here - are you talking about the horizontal arrows, or the vertical ones

I THINK I GET IT NOW - the horizontal players - so in the first instance it was Dangerfield (left hand side of the screen) and Guthrie (right hand side) - Dangerfield did power through... 

Yes... the distance from the Geelong players moving in is very noticeable.

So... having a leading ruckman Gawn- keeping an eye on which player is moving in and then belting it from where they came from could be a good strategy.

 

pps: sorry for stream of consciousness 

Edited August 17, 2020 by Engorged Onion

[Adam The God 30,421]

56 minutes ago, george_on_the_outer said:

I am keeping an eye on Geelong's set up at centre bounces.  Only noticed it this week against Power.

Basically they have 2 players set up either side along the goal to goal line, but 5metres + from the edge of the centre circle.  When the ball is bounced they sprint to either side of the circle.  The effect is that one of them will hit the ball at full pace, or the opponent if they get the ball first.  It also takes 2 of the opposition out of the centre congestion. 

Port didn't react to it all night, but then Hinckley didn't react to much at all. It was the worst coaching example I have seen.  It was pointed out in the match commentary, when he left Clurey ( undersized) on Hawkins for the whole match, but worse still was that he left him 1 on 1.  No zone defence, no 3rd man in.  Hawkins had a field day.  6 goals mostly from just pushing Clurey aside as the ball came in. 

Hang on, so when you say 'goal to goal line' what do you mean? Do you mean they come from CHF and CHB?

This sounds like it's akin to players off the back of the stoppage if I'm understanding this correctly.

I've only got Foxtel IQ 2, the one where you can't watch it whenever you want anyway. If someone rewatches the replay in the next few days, could you let me know where Viney was playing?

I could have sworn he played off the back of many of the stoppages. So he'd enter the contest at pace and either attempt to tackle or hopefully look for a handball receive. Most of what I saw were attempted tackles and pressure at the back of the stoppage.

I also think it's a risky move, because it leaves the Collingwood opponent by himself on the outside, so if Viney doesn't impact the stoppage, it's akin to the aggressive press failing around a stoppage, and could grant an easy takeaway. This is why I kept saying he was like a bee to honey and got sucked in too often.

Edited August 17, 2020 by A F
I wish there was an easy drawing tool that we could attach to this thread to visualise what we're talking about. I'm a visual learner, ya see.

[binman 43,813]

On 8/16/2020 at 3:53 PM, Grr-owl said:

In the wake of the victory against the Filth, I have a few questions for the tacticians. Are we winning because:

1. The players are implementing Goody’s tactics better?

or

2. The tactics have changed?

or

3. The opposition has been poor and we are getting away with tactics that better opposition will easily counter?

I think AF is pretty spot on. 

I am not sure though if i agree the tactics have changed all that much. Tweaked maybe so perhaps it is semantic more than anything.

So a combination of all 3 i probably right.

But if the question was tweaked a bit and changed to asking why we have won so well in the last 3 games i would say it is because the  players are implementing Goody’s tactics better.

As i noted in my post earlier in this thread i think the following quote about the EPL also holds true for the AFL:

'at the elite level, two attributes separate the very best managers from the rest: their capacity to manage the transition from attack to defence; and their ability to organise an attack, particularly against deep-lying opponents'

As AF has said we have got the first part of this equation completely spot on, which is why we are so bloody hard to score against. We have been hard to score against since mid 2018 but consider this: we have conceded three second half goals in the last three games (one per game). That is insane.

Sure you could say that the crows and roos are average teams but it is not small feat to keep any team in to a single goal in a half of football.  Look at the weekends games - the bombers and the hawks were woeful yet the saints and west coast still leaked goals against them.

And the pies are not an average team. In the third their pressure was huge and they had 16 to 9 inside 50s, yet could only score a single goal, Yes it was wet but our defensive pressure was awesome and carried on to the last where they couldn't score any goals (it wasn't wet then).

As AF notes the defensive zones are no easy thing to implement. Time, buy in and every player player playing their role and working hard are all critical. And hard things to see on TV. Which is why it is not always evident why some players sty in the side and other not.

But i reckon the the big difference in the last three weeks relates to the second part of the equation -  the 'ability to organise an attack, particularly against deep-lying opponents' and to this quote from the same article (which is equally relevant to the AFL)  - 'what is clear is that the organisation of attacking is becoming increasingly important in differentiating the best from the rest.'

This the connection goody is talking about, the three phases etc. And i has been getting better and was the best it has been since 2018 in the pies game i reckon. Helped by a defence that was clearly not gelling but still we were brilliant and connecting.

And again as i noted i reckon many of the connections were automated plays, 'pre-practised moves that are drilled so they can be deployed when the circumstances are right'. - like the kick from Spargo to Brayshaw for his goal (and also the one in the third to the exact same spot - but to a pies player, which cots us a goal - i have no doubt he kicked it there because of the automation). 

To me that shows Goody is getting closer to having the perfect combination of  an excellent transition from attack to defence and an ability to organise effective attack, particularly against deep-lying opponents. Good signs.

 

 

[Adam The God 30,421]

2 hours ago, Engorged Onion said:

Thanks @george_on_the_outer - I'm grateful that you watch other games, to see what other innovations are in use. I guess with innovations, though - they don't always come off. 

From your perspective - as a consequence of setting up like this, what is the cost of setting up like that, and how would teams best counteract it?

postscript: I just had a look at the first two quarters and couldn't seem to see what you are talking about... I am but a simple bloke.

On the image here - are you talking about the horizontal arrows, or the vertical ones

I THINK I GET IT NOW - the horizontal players - so in the first instance it was Dangerfield (left hand side of the screen) and Guthrie (right hand side) - Dangerfield did power through... 

Yes... the distance from the Geelong players moving in is very noticeable.

So... having a leading ruckman Gawn- keeping an eye on which player is moving in and then belting it from where they came from could be a good strategy.

 

pps: sorry for stream of consciousness 

Great pick up @george_on_the_outer and @Engorged Onion. I'm surprised more teams don't try this. I suspect it could be easy to combat too. If the ruckman taps to his feet, it takes two players out and if the opposition mids step up, it's not worth the Geelong mids staying wide without a dominant ruckman.

[rpfc 28,779]

We have tempered the frenzy and that means less panic, more running with the footy, less pointless in close hands, and therefore more effective and impactful spread. Defence is less exposed due to turnovers being further up the ground.

It’s decision making and confidence and that is on both the players and their direction from Goodwin.

[Adam The God 30,421]

Richmond just won a centre clearance with a similar set up, but with only mid 1v1 out wide. Resulted in a goal. 

The way Richmond up the tempo is so reminiscent of Liverpool upping the tempo. They've done it for 4 years. They get a little bit of a sniff of momentum and then just crank the intensity around every contest. It draws errors from the opposition and they have this interesting team sensibility to make their move at the right time.

I would be surprised if anyone beats them to the flag this year. They have gears and they've demonstrated it over almost half a decade now.

We've gotta be looking at this and using it to dominate the opposition when Gawn returns. Oliver and Petracva have bursts of speed so we won't get caught with pace.

Edited August 17, 2020 by A F

[Fanatique Demon 2,657]

Thanks to Binman for creating this thread and the others who have contributed!

i am learning a lot from this, although I confess I am not very familiar with EPL (and even less interested).

Please keep the comments coming. It would be great if this made it back to the main board.

[binman 43,813]

18 hours ago, Fanatique Demon said:

Thanks to Binman for creating this thread and the others who have contributed!

i am learning a lot from this, although I confess I am not very familiar with EPL (and even less interested).

Please keep the comments coming. It would be great if this made it back to the main board.

Thanks FD.

In the spirit of keeping this thread on page one so its doesn't disappear of Broadway to general discussion board i thought i'd throw up a topic of conversation that has been exercising my brain a bit of late.

I would interested poster's thoughts about my hypothesis that there are three types of coaches in the AFL;

Type one

• They have a very clear philosophy, system and game plan that they believe is the model that will bring the ultimate success
• They gave complete belief in that model and back it to be any any opponent (once fully implemented ie the right players, 100% buy in and enough time to make the system automatic)
• They essentially have one game plan - Plan A - and they drill this plan into their team and demand adherence to the rule the plan demands for it to work
• They are often regarded as stubborn and unwilling to change game plans when losing 
• The players have to conform to the game plan - the coach doesn't shape the game plan around the strengths of the players
• Whilst these coaches might have specific strategies and tactics for each game to negate an opposition's strengths and exploit their weakness, these are really just tweaks around the edges - the game plan essentially remains the same every game, regardless of opponent 
• They are confident if their team executes their game plan and brings the required intensity they will beat any opponent - even when they are losing
• In season adjustments to the game plan (eg shifting the zone or hand balling forward from stoppages) happen but the fundamentals don't change
• In game they make few tactical changes - tweaks yes, big changes no

Type two

• They have a very clear philosophy about the game and how it should be played to bring the ultimate success
• They have a clear system and game plan but it is more fluid, particularly from season to season and less didactic than the type one
• They also have one game plan - Plan A  but have a number of variations of that theme, so to speak
• These coaches put a lot of focus on specific strategies and tactics for each game to negate an opposition's strengths and exploit their weakness, these are more than just  tweaks around the edges -
• The game plan does not remains the same every game - it shifts depending on their opponent 
• Planning for your opponent is a key element of their coaching philosophy 
• In season adjustments to the game plan (eg shifting the zone or hand balling forward from stoppages) happen often but the non negotiable such as work effort, buy in, commitment and pressure don't change
• In game they make as many tactical changes that they think is necessary to maximise their team's chance of winning and do so proactively 
• The are more likely to shape the game plan around the strengths of the players

Type 3

• Somewhere in the middle of type one and type two 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Grimes Times 1,278]

Just on game styles anyone who claims no Plan B is just wrong IMO. Clubs dont have plans B, C D etc

It doesn't really exist with any team. The teams spend all summer training and perfecting one way to play and dont spend any time on a different style/plan. Sure there is slight/subtle tweaks to plan A but very rarely a totally different style (maybe excpet for ess ATM.) 

Plan B doesn't mean backs to forward or so fourth as some people seem to think.

[Engorged Onion 10,223]

5 minutes ago, binman said:

Thanks FD.

In the spirit of keeping this thread on page one so its doesn't disappear of Broadway to general discussion board i thought i'd throw up a topic of conversation that has been exercising my brain a bit of late.

I would interested poster's thoughts about my hypothesis that there are three types of coaches in the AFL;

Type one

• They have a very clear philosophy, system and game plan that they believe is the model that will bring the ultimate success
• They gave complete belief in that model and back it to be any any opponent (once fully implemented ie the right players, 100% buy in and enough time to make the system automatic)
• They essentially have one game plan - Plan A - and they drill this plan into their team and demand adherence to the rule the plan demands for it to work
• They are often regarded as stubborn and unwilling to change game plans when losing 
• The players have to conform to the game plan - the coach doesn't shape the game plan around the strengths of the players
• Whilst these coaches might have specific strategies and tactics for each game to negate an opposition's strengths and exploit their weakness, these are really just tweaks around the edges - the game plan essentially remains the same every game, regardless of opponent 
• They are confident if their team executes their game plan and brings the required intensity they will beat any opponent - even when they are losing
• In season adjustments to the game plan (eg shifting the zone or hand balling forward from stoppages) happen but the fundamentals don't change
• In game they make few tactical changes - tweaks yes, big changes no

Type two

• They have a very clear philosophy about the game and how it should be played to bring the ultimate success
• They have a clear system and game plan but it is more fluid, particularly from season to season and less didactic than the type one
• They also have one game plan - Plan A  but have a number of variations of that theme, so to speak
• These coaches put a lot of focus on specific strategies and tactics for each game to negate an opposition's strengths and exploit their weakness, these are more than just  tweaks around the edges -
• The game plan does not remains the same every game - it shifts depending on their opponent 
• Planning for your opponent is a key element of their coaching philosophy 
• In season adjustments to the game plan (eg shifting the zone or hand balling forward from stoppages) happen often but the non negotiable such as work effort, buy in, commitment and pressure don't change
• In game they make as many tactical changes that they think is necessary to maximise their team's chance of winning and do so proactively 
• The are more likely to shape the game plan around the strengths of the players

Type 3

• Somewhere in the middle of type one and type two 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

@binman I think the last point actually invalidates the premise behind Type 2, if I am interpreting the statement correctly.

What I mean by that is in the coaching interview process - the coach details his philosophy to the board as to why it is congruent with winning premierships. He (it could clearly be a she) details how he creates buy in. 

But then... he walks into a club with players with exisiting strengths...and just like Goodwin - moves out players over numerous seasons that he believes will not fit in to, or do not have the competence to excel in his philosophy. And then subsequently forms relationships (or has historical relationships), with people that can help him execute said philosophy that are already in the elite system...see Lewis, see Langdon, see Burgess...and drafts for those that could also fit those requirements, see Oliver, Jackson, Rivers.

I'd argue all coaches are Type 1 (in this case). 

What fan wouldn't see their coach is stubborn, reactive etc - when their coach is coaching a team that is not winning.

It's too confusing being 'so flexible' (yes it's on a spectrum) for players to commit to a style and roles that chop and change.

What I would say, is that it's the way the coaches/managers have their relationships that enable success.

There is some great stuff on Mourinho and his seige mentality - us against them whilst at Porto, Chelsea, Real Madrid - and then 3 years of that [censored], the players (and the coach) have had enough and brought in a year or 2 of success... but this is also about 'reputation' of said coach when they walk into an establishment.

Vs (what I see Goodwin, Hardwick, Clarkson doing) 

A nurturing, validating value driven environment....which creates the capacity to have players commit, whilst being flexible enough to honour the strengths that have been selected by the recruitment folk.

I'd argue Bolton(Carlton) is a very good coach and educator, and that if he had pedigree of a Roos (from a playing perspective).. Teague will get the rewards... Just like McCartney at the Dogs...

 

God sorry @binman - I have gone way of tangent here...(great thoughtful post by the way).

 

[Engorged Onion 10,223]

7 minutes ago, Grimes Times said:

Just on game styles anyone who claims no Plan B is just wrong IMO. Clubs dont have plans B, C D etc

It doesn't really exist with any team. The teams spend all summer training and perfecting one way to play and dont spend any time on a different style/plan. Sure there is slight/subtle tweaks to plan A but very rarely a totally different style (maybe excpet for ess ATM.) 

Plan B doesn't mean backs to forward or so fourth as some people seem to think.

Conceptually the idea of throwing 'magnets' around the whiteboard may be great in country footy - but when you're at the elite level and things are so structured, one person out of the system really [censored] it up. 

Metaphorically, those that ask for Goodwin (or whatever coach) to 'do something different' by putting back forward, are just wanting to see 'something' innovative...

It's like a goal keeper in soccer/football -

When they are trying to stop a penalty, they have three options, left, right and centre (staying put)... if they stay put it looks REALLY REALLY awful if the ball goes in because it looks like inaction, vs diving left when it goes right - from a viewers perspective it just looks like a really great kick! 

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,909]

It was told to me by a "friend of a friend" of a current AFL player that there are two types of coaches. One who demands players adhere to his expectations. If you don't, you're out. That's the Mick Malthouse style and that of his adherents (Mark Neeld, Scott Watters and perhaps others). The other style is the coach who works to understand the strengths and weaknesses of each player and works to try and eliminate those players' weaknesses. That's the Paul Roos style. I suspect today's players are more suited to the Roos approach.