We’ve lost 14 last quarters this year, which is amongst the worst in the league. It’s the complete opposite to last year where we dominated third and fourth quarters.

Our fitness is an issue this year. If we’ve had a loading plan, it’s been an outright failure. Fitness department needs to change strategy or personnel over summer.

It's probably a bit early for this as whoever wins the flag should be looked at very closely as to how they achieve it.

Our FD will also be looking at likely trends in the game and how to exploit them, and how to ensure our weaknesses are minimised.

But I've been thinking about our ball movement specifically.

It's clear we tried to use the handball more often in the second half of the season, but it wasn't used in game to try and get players into space (except from centre clearances) or break lines. Geelong, Collingwood and Sydney tellingly all use handball to break lines and move the ball quickly.

Had we been on this year, our pressure up, I think we probably don't allow the handball to break lines against us and it turns into a dump kick to our likely outnumber behind the ball.

If you look at Collingwood they've got some good kicks in the Daicos boys, but the rest are certainly not elite. We have Salem and Bowey that could be employed in a similar way, and essentially I'd argue we employed Salem and Bowey at times in this way last year. 

I think maybe one of the factors I was wrong about this year and I think posters like @Lucifers Herowere spot on about is our pressure rating meant we were vulnerable to this faster, line breaking ball movement, and the pressure rating meant we were vulnerable to conceding scores in ways we didn't last year (minus that Collingwood game in 2021 when our players couldn't get out of first gear).

It's likely we'll still have the best defensive set up next year, so having a fit back 7 with continuity could go a long way, both to improving our scores against, and our own offence. As strong defence for us turns into offence.

However, there is no doubt in my mind, and there seems to be a bit of a consensus on Demonland about this, we need to move the ball quicker. Even if we had Curnow and McKay in our forwardline, we move the ball too slowly and I think we have to be prepared to give up a few more slingshots, back our defenders to stop them and be more daring going the other way to increase our unpredictability on game day.

But if we're going to be more daring, we have to be smart about who has the capability to hit those kicks. May, Salem, Bowey, Petracca and even Petty if he stays behind the ball are about it I reckon.

What do others think about improving ball movement?

Edited September 10, 20222 yr by A F

On 9/10/2022 at 4:15 PM, A F said:

It's probably a bit early for this as whoever wins the flag should be looked at very closely as to how they achieve it.

Our FD will also be looking at likely trends in the game and how to exploit them, and how to ensure our weaknesses are minimised.

But I've been thinking about our ball movement specifically.

It's clear we tried to use the handball more often in the second half of the season, but it wasn't used in game to try and get players into space (except from centre clearances) or break lines. Geelong, Collingwood and Sydney tellingly all use handball to break lines and move the ball quickly.

Had we been on this year, our pressure up, I think we probably don't allow the handball to break lines against us and it turns into a dump kick to our likely outnumber behind the ball.

If you look at Collingwood they've got some good kicks in the Daicos boys, but the rest are certainly not elite. We have Salem and Bowey that could be employed in a similar way, and essentially I'd argue we employed Salem and Bowey at times in this way last year. 

I think maybe one of the factors I was wrong about this year and I think posters like @Lucifers Herowere spot on about is our pressure rating meant we were vulnerable to this faster, line breaking ball movement, and the pressure rating meant we were vulnerable to conceding scores in ways we didn't last year (minus that Collingwood game in 2021 when our players couldn't get out of first gear).

It's likely we'll still have the best defensive set up next year, so having a fit back 7 with continuity could go a long way, both to improving our scores against, and our own offence. As strong defence for us turns into offence.

However, there is no doubt in my mind, and there seems to be a bit of a consensus on Demonland about this, we need to move the ball quicker. Even if we had Curnow and McKay in our forwardline, we move the ball too slowly and I think we have to be prepared to give up a few more slingshots, back our defenders to stop them and be more daring going the other way to increase our unpredictability on game day.

But if we're going to be more daring, we have to be smart about who has the capability to hit those kicks. May, Salem, Bowey, Petracca and even Petty if he stays behind the ball are about it I reckon.

What do others think about improving ball movement?

When I look at the Pies and Swans back 6 I see one thing in common. Dash. They have some serious dahs when it comes to rebounding the ball out of 50 and while some would look to the skill in which they can hit targets it is the run out of the back that really gets things started through the middle with 1 or 2 guys riding shotgun. With Collingwood in particular it has been so hard to stop especially late in games when they have hung in there and then turn the burners on against and already tired opposition. 

Looking at our rebound from defensive 50 (when we aren’t kicking long down the line from a mark), I can’t remember many times where we’ve just gotten it and gone. Yes there are a handful of times when Jayden Hunt takes the game on but those are almost novelty plays. I know this doesn’t really sound like a speed of ball movement thing but I feel like these sequences are started at the moment with run and carry, drawing opposition in and then using quick chains to break away. I’m not sure but I feel like this is only going to become more of a thing as score from transition becomes more apparent again.
 

I just hope we don't go for Williams, because he is the sort of player off half back (on a smaller contract, with more consistency and younger) that would make us better.

27 minutes ago, layzie said:

When I look at the Pies and Swans back 6 I see one thing in common. Dash. They have some serious dahs when it comes to rebounding the ball out of 50 and while some would look to the skill in which they can hit targets it is the run out of the back that really gets things started through the middle with 1 or 2 guys riding shotgun. With Collingwood in particular it has been so hard to stop especially late in games when they have hung in there and then turn the burners on against and already tired opposition. 

Looking at our rebound from defensive 50 (when we aren’t kicking long down the line from a mark), I can’t remember many times where we’ve just gotten it and gone. Yes there are a handful of times when Jayden Hunt takes the game on but those are almost novelty plays. I know this doesn’t really sound like a speed of ball movement thing but I feel like these sequences are started at the moment with run and carry, drawing opposition in and then using quick chains to break away. I’m not sure but I feel like this is only going to become more of a thing as score from transition becomes more apparent again.
 

We are the best example of why we need to adopt change.

Our defensive half is considered the best in the business (or very close to).

The thing that upsets us is speed of ball movement and dare. If the opposition is forced into our areas, we look great, anything outside that and we are as susceptible to scoring as anyone

51 minutes ago, BW511 said:

We are the best example of why we need to adopt change.

Our defensive half is considered the best in the business (or very close to).

The thing that upsets us is speed of ball movement and dare. If the opposition is forced into our areas, we look great, anything outside that and we are as susceptible to scoring as anyone

Yes, but you have to acknowledge that this is a delicate balancing act. Bring more dare and you may no longer have a defensive half considered the best in the business, but rather one that leaks too many soft goals on slingshot or turnover.

Edited September 12, 20222 yr by A F

10 minutes ago, A F said:

Yes, but you have to acknowledge that this is a delicate balancing act. Bring more dare and you may no longer have a defensive half considered the best in the business, but rather one that leaks too many soft goals on slingshot or turnover.

Absolutely. 

34 minutes ago, BW511 said:

We are the best example of why we need to adopt change.

Our defensive half is considered the best in the business (or very close to).

The thing that upsets us is speed of ball movement and dare. If the opposition is forced into our areas, we look great, anything outside that and we are as susceptible to scoring as anyone

Our backline is stacked with talent....The more i think about our actual gameplan though we have many issues created by the way we defend as a team.

Literally our whole forward line is often inside the opps forward 50. It makes scoring hard for them, sure.   It also makes scoring hard for us as we have nobody to transfer the ball up the field.    Why are we doing this when our back 6 is stacked with talent and both our wings work hard defensively?

Have said for fair part of this year that we simply don't put nearly enough pressure on their ball carriers....Sure we run back hard to d50 to defend but we allow them to waltz the ball up the field, often uncontested til in their half of the ground.

For the dare to come to our game i think we really need to look strongly at teams like Sydney/Collingwood/Geelong as to how we can improve our ball movement and  player positioning  all over the field, both offensively and defensively. It concerns me with Goodwin he may just double down on what we have been doing defensively, and think we just need to do it better for longer.

Last year there was  trust amongst the players within games.  This year it seems like when under the pump the structures and that trust diminishes.  Maybe it is warranted as some bust their guts and others don't? Maybe some of our players have unconsciously been picking or choosing when to go, i am not sure what the real issue is, but trust certainly has come into it!

Fremantle and Carlton to a certain degree took our blueprint this year.   It worked for both of them in large parts.  Ultimately though some teams have evolved into much more attractive game style that actually counters a lot of these defensive type styles.  Come finals the defensive styles did not hold up vs Collingwood/Sydney/Geelong. Ironically, all of these teams changed in part due to the dominant type finals we had last year.  

I think we need to change quite a bit to actually contend again next year, an exciting style that keeps both the players and the supporters invested and excited.  If we don't evolve and our gameplan stays the same or similar, sure we will make finals but very unlikely to do damage against the new breeds of teams when it matters.

1 hour ago, NeveroddoreveN said:

I think we need to change quite a bit to actually contend again next year, an exciting style that keeps both the players and the supporters invested and excited.  If we don't evolve and our gameplan stays the same or similar, sure we will make finals but very unlikely to do damage against the new breeds of teams when it matters.

It would be bloody hard to front up every week and play in this fashion. It's taxing mentally & physically, as our walking wounded shows. 

Hopefully there is a refresh in game style for the players sake, as much as ours

 

 

Sorry I just like this thread,  so many varying views and so little written animosity. 
 

when I make points to my friends who follow other clubs I am looked at as knowing. That’s BS but I like it. 

so. Was it really simple in that we had no rest after the GF in 21 and then no rest to players around the time of the the byes 

so really poor player management. I know the longer the season went the more we faded in the last.  Loading seemed the reason but if we had too many sore players . Then we were stuffed.  Comments please 

The 6–6–6 rule: a rule introduced in the AFL from 2019 to reduce flooding that says that at centre bounces each team must have six players in their forward-50 arc, six players in their defensive-50 arc, and six players between the arcs.

Based on this information - can someone explain to me why we couldn't use set up with 5 players on the arc and 1 in the square (i.e. Fritch OR BBB). Means we could get quick players to the square to stop quick outlet (out the back by other team) AND also creates plenty of room for a lead by the FF - and also the other 5 could be surging towards the ball location or the additional space created. This is more likely to suit our kick it in the air /bomb long approach and reverts to our style when we had two extra players off the back of the square before the intro of the rule.

1 hour ago, 640MD said:

Sorry I just like this thread,  so many varying views and so little written animosity. 
 

when I make points to my friends who follow other clubs I am looked at as knowing. That’s BS but I like it. 

so. Was it really simple in that we had no rest after the GF in 21 and then no rest to players around the time of the the byes 

so really poor player management. I know the longer the season went the more we faded in the last.  Loading seemed the reason but if we had too many sore players . Then we were stuffed.  Comments please 

I think it's a bit of both really. We had too many banged up players and a loading program that clearly diminished our second half abilities after Round 10.

13 minutes ago, #11-TonyAnderson said:

The 6–6–6 rule: a rule introduced in the AFL from 2019 to reduce flooding that says that at centre bounces each team must have six players in their forward-50 arc, six players in their defensive-50 arc, and six players between the arcs.

Based on this information - can someone explain to me why we couldn't use set up with 5 players on the arc and 1 in the square (i.e. Fritch OR BBB). Means we could get quick players to the square to stop quick outlet (out the back by other team) AND also creates plenty of room for a lead by the FF - and also the other 5 could be surging towards the ball location or the additional space created. This is more likely to suit our kick it in the air /bomb long approach and reverts to our style when we had two extra players off the back of the square before the intro of the rule.

i suspect it's because if you won the centre clearance but had 5 charged from i50 arc to the square you'd have one player to kick toward

and all teams play a zone defence so they wouldn't be sucked up into the contest with their oppo as 1:1 defense doesn't work

we tend to play an arrowhead f50 structure at centre square contests - 3 across the arc and the other three in a line to the bounce behind them to the one in the square

15 minutes ago, whatwhat say what said:

i suspect it's because if you won the centre clearance but had 5 charged from i50 arc to the square you'd have one player to kick toward

and all teams play a zone defence so they wouldn't be sucked up into the contest with their oppo as 1:1 defense doesn't work

we tend to play an arrowhead f50 structure at centre square contests - 3 across the arc and the other three in a line to the bounce behind them to the one in the square

I like these tactical discussions (mostly because they would only work in theory).  But to counter your response, what if the team that had 5 forwards run into the centre square then (assuming they win the ball with weight of numbers) run and carry the ball forward to goal rather than kicking to the deep forward?  Surely they would get through each defender with handballs and shepherds.

Apologies about my clip art aesthetic.

With Grundy coming on board, and an allusion that it will provide longevity for both players in the game, what are peoples opinions  likely structure for "Grawny'/Gawndy" within the team system?

One of them 'stationed' at one end of the ground, or both still running between the arcs (box to box?) as required?

Imagine the team meetings with teams that run a single ruckman.

'At one end you have Max and when it leaves his zone you get Grundy - Good luck today son, you'll need it'

I think we might look to change up our intercept game next season, but a few things play into this.

Does Petty move forward to partner Max and JVR? If he does, we have another decision to make. Do we replace him with a tall like Turner (or Tomlinson if he's still here) to free up May or Lever to intercept, or do we look to go smaller and more mobile at ground level behind the ball?

With the acquisition of Grundy, and I'm going to offer my opinion to your question above @Engorged Onion, I think there's less need for this extra tall down back as Grundy or Gawn will play behind the ball. Of course, this leaves us potentially vulnerable against a taller set up from a direct centre stoppage situation, but Goodwin is a percentages coach, and I think he'll back our centre square work to win more often than not. This means I think we may look to go smaller and replace Petty with a medium quicker player.

Our back 6-7 from centre stoppage could be the following:

Bowey - May - Hibberd

Salem - Lever - someone like Woey / Brayshaw

If we were really getting beaten in the air (from say 3 talls), we could even play Max behind the ball from a 6-6-6 position.

From a non centre bounce stoppage situation, I think more pressure on the ball carrier will bring in the intercepting of either Grundy and Max (I think they'll mostly rotate behind the ball, based on who is the central ruckman), plus May and Lever. I also think we may not always play a ruckman forward of the ball. We may push two rucks behind the ball to clog up space and conversely open up space for our slingshot going back the other way, and let our smaller quicker players go to work.

I think a better pressure rating from our forwards and mids will strengthen our intercept game, but I also wonder if our FD thinks a chink in our armour this year was our interceptors being scragged or knocked off the ball, and the danger this presented us once the ball hit the deck. If they're thinking this way, it would make sense to get players who are good at ground level behind the ball. Bowey is our cleanest, but even an acquisition like Hunter might be an option at half back.

Get a lefty to lick out to the right wing instead of the left.

 

On 10/10/2022 at 8:54 AM, BW511 said:

Imagine the team meetings with teams that run a single ruckman.

'At one end you have Max and when it leaves his zone you get Grundy - Good luck today son, you'll need it'

If it does go to 5 Players on the bench and no medi sub, would be curious to see how many teams run 2 rucks.

It's clear that one of our problems in 2022 was other coaches watched, analysed and,  after a while, came up with effective countermeasures for our game plan.

Thus, I suggest this scheme for 2023.

Rounds 1-10. Blitz with Plan A. Win 10 on the trot.

Rounds 11 to end of Home and Away. Switch to Plan B because other coaches will have worked out Plan A. Win all matches and leave rivals hastily trying to come up with ways to counteract Plan B.

Finals. Change to Plan C, a radical departure from Plans A annd B. Win all games easily, bamboozling all and sundry.

It's straightforward. 

Just in case anyone is wondering, this is tongue in cheek, a joke poking gentle fun at those who think complex problems have simple answers  

42 minutes ago, Demonised said:

It's clear that one of our problems in 2022 was other coaches watched, analysed and,  after a while, came up with effective countermeasures for our game plan.

Thus, I suggest this scheme for 2023.

Rounds 1-10. Blitz with Plan A. Win 10 on the trot.

Rounds 11 to end of Home and Away. Switch to Plan B because other coaches will have worked out Plan A. Win all matches and leave rivals hastily trying to come up with ways to counteract Plan B.

Finals. Change to Plan C, a radical departure from Plans A annd B. Win all games easily, bamboozling all and sundry.

It's straightforward. 

Just in case anyone is wondering, this is tongue in cheek, a joke poking gentle fun at those who think complex problems have simple answers  

Disappointing you had to spell out it was tounge in cheek... I assumed it was poking non gentle fun at the [censored] who think Goodwin has no Plan B.

Nice work!

I can already see goodwin explaining that the plan is for may to kick out to gawn on left wing. Gawn kicks high to Grundy on forward flank. Gawn runs down and marks the high kick from grundy in the forward pocket and kicks the goal. I'm absolutely certain it's his 'plan A'. 

Musing over 2022 during the off-season has been an interesting process. I’m sure all of this has been discussed six ways to Sunday but it’s January and I’ll do anything to spur more MFC discussion to temper the withdrawals.

For me, one of the big challenges during 2022 was the number of physically challenging games. Teams were well aware of our strength around the contest, and often tried to get lots of numbers to stoppages and make the game a bruising encounter to have a chance of winning. Ignoring the games against the top 8 (as you expect these to be challenging), there was a few of these against the bottom 10.

Round 2 against Gold Coast was warm and humid and the Suns really competed hard. Round 10 against the Kangaroos was similar, with the first half full of fake aggression from them (Langdon had his ribs broken in this game). In Round 16 against Adelaide, they pushed heaps of numbers around every contest to make it ugly and the game was tough. A lot of Dees players looked sore after the game. Round 18 against Port in Alice Springs was an exhausting game on a warm day on that large ground. The game was very end to end so the players looked pretty exhausted afterwards. In the Round 22 game against the Blues, they played man on man the entire game making every contest and stoppage a battle.

When the Dees have looked their best during 2021 and 2022 it was when more of our players were getting to the next contest / spill of the ball. But due to small injuries and decreased fitness we were unable to sustain this during the second half of the year. That made more games more physically taxing – either by turnover (forcing more defensive running) or by more fiercely contested stoppages.  It's a bit of vicious cycle – due to injuries and decreased fitness, the players were unable to move from contest to contest and win more post clearance possession, which in turn created more physical burden on their bodies leading to new or aggravated injuries and fatigue.

This is highlighted in the Round 22 game vs Carlton – that game was a slog because the players didn’t have the fitness to push forward and back to get any sort of outnumber or overlap. Because our few elite level kicks were out of form (Salem, Bowey), having to constantly kick or handball to a contested situation meant our disposal efficiency was down, and turnovers were up. A lot of our goals come from outnumbering teams as we transition from defence to attack, rather than from elite disposal that cuts through a tightly packed defence.

My question is – will the coaching team develop a strategy to combat overly physical games to help protect players from fatigue and injury, or will they continue to see contested ball as something we always have to win on the day. There is merit in having a tactic that can be engaged at times during quarters to try slow the game down and/or reduce stoppages. This will give opposition teams something else to consider. I remember two games - Sydney (vs Freo in Perth) and Carlton (first game vs Pies) - where they adopted slow deliberate ball movement to get themselves back into the game and swing momentum their way.

If the team is fit enough to play the field position, surge style game play, they’re also fit enough to lead into space to hold possession through short kicks. I know there is a limit to how long you can do this before a long kick to a contest is needed, but given we have very good marking defenders it’s something we can probably repeat several times in a row once we win back possession.

The longer off season (compared to 2021) and no longer being reigning premiers will (on its own) increase our chances of not having as many bruising encounters. Teams won’t be quite as ‘up’ for games against us as they were in 2022. But I hope lessons have been learnt, and the coaches have some strategies for trying to protect the players so they are fresher at the pointy end of the season. If we start strong again this year, teams will start to focus a lot of attention of us and I hope we have strategies for dealing with it better than we did in 2022.

Edited January 16, 20232 yr by Stu

I have a cunning plan*

Kick the ball to the wing. Winger to hold the ball for an eternity, then kick to forward (left) pocket where everyone is congregated, ignoring any leads from teammates elsewhere.

 

*Well, Baldrick should take some of the credit.

It was a feature of most losing games that we were leading well into the match but ran out of fitness/strength/ideas/steam/puff and were overrun.

Without fitness and injury issues, I believe that we would have won most games simply because we were the better team on any given day.

If we have the equivalent fitness and injury year like 2021, then with the depth and quality of our list other teams will struggle to keep up.

If we develop better forward options and play to our strengths, then other teams will fold before our even, brilliant team.

It is up to the coaches to make this work.

GO DEES