Game plans, tactics and all that jazz

[Ted Lasso 19,518]

On 3/8/2023 at 7:59 PM, Diamond_Jim said:

I like the direct play idea but what will it mean for our defence. The strategy was to lock the ball in the forward line thus encouraging the opposition defender to dump kick to our defensive gatekeeper. I likened it to a python slowly crushing its prey

As a great man said... For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

2023 could be fun !

 

On some level if feels like a game plan like we had in 2022 is more suited to a team that doesn't have the same level of talent as other teams, but is looking to close the gap. I'd say we are right up there in terms of talent so we can afford to have a more assertive gameplan based on the teams values 

 

[Engorged Onion 10,215]

Over the last 48 hours or so, and particularly after listening the podcast last night, I have been pondering the potential evolution of how we play, and more importantly why we are now (albeit 1 regular season and 2 pre-season games) doing things so apparently differently in the forward half.

Primary focus over time (at least overtly mentioned to the public)

• Goodwin initially wanted to build from the contest out, and we have been well supported by the calibre of players that we have obtained, in being able to achieve that (2017-2020)
• focus on defensive capabilties first and honing those skills (2017-2020)
• focus on transitioning without ball (2019-2021)
• focus on forward 'connection' (2020-202...

Now all these things have significantly improved - and clearly all these are ongoing works in progress, these are merely illustrative time frames.

What I am interested in now is about the last point - and the delivery and 'positive risk' to now seemingly to deliberately choose to NOT kick to pockets and play the percentages of minimising options for the defence should they obtain the ball with choices of lanes to get out of the D50.

To my surprise, this to me was exemplified by Charlie Spargo's goal on the run from 40... it was a surprise to me because, not that  the bloke cant kick far (he can), it's presumably being because he has historically being told to hit someone up.... that feels like a significant shift in philosophy.

I wonder if this is less about a reaction to how we went last year, but this was ALWAYS going to occur once a range of our young 'starlets' (Pickett, Spargo, Chandler/Bedford(😔)  eg) worked their way deeper into the system, and their capacity grew.

I can't help but think that this has been an evolution which directly corresponds to where the list is at in maturity (ie: capacity to execute specific tasks/roles, and stamina over the length of both game, and season, rather than a response to being risk averse for the sake of being risk averse into the forward line.

I dont know if we will ever get an answer, but (any coaches out there) there would surely be a version of a forensic '5 year plan, looking at what skills need to be developed, and what can occur each time we/the players 'level up', and what do we refine next. Not only from a skill acquisition perspective, but from a tactical perspective taking into account the players increased capacity to hold up to to the demands and rigor of the game.

Cheerio, and Go Dees.

 

 

[deelusions from afar 1,810]

Great post @Engorged Onion.  I love it when people well thought expansive posts like that - particuarly on this thread!  I think that what you hav e written makes sense - will be interested to hear others thoughts. 

A couple of additional thoughts to add to yours:

1. One aspect that I find interesting (but also a bit weird) is that I have heard a number of senior coaches say there are many trends in the game style that last 5-6 weeks so everyone is constantly evolving throughout the season - looking at what everyone else is doing etc.  Eg if you stick with what you have in round 1, you'll get found out by the end - it's almost like they are saying you have to be on top of the trends when the pass the parcel music stops at the end of the season.  To me that seems a bit over the top - and they are likely just trying to pad out the importance and difficulty of their job.  What do others think?

2. I have found the analysis of David King on Collingwood in the last week interesting - eg going for the coridoor each and every time.  He's spruiking it like its never been done before.  I remember when we had game plans that went through the Centre  (was it under Bailey?).  When it comes off it looks great - but we were shut down easily as teams would stack the coridoor.  So a few questions on this:

1. How hard is it in the modern game to adjust a zone type defensive setup / press for an opponent that plays the centre coridoor (eg Collingwood)?
2. Our game plan (like many others) seems to be based around  encouraging teams to kick to the boundary so that we only have to properly defend one side of the ground.  Can we adjust our setup for the coridoor style of play?
3. Is the acquisition of Grundy and the way we have played him and Gawn in the matches (1 real 2 practice) an indication that we are trying to develop strategies to thwart teams that want to use the coridoor?

 

 

[layzie 33,808]

1 hour ago, deelusions from afar said:

Great post @Engorged Onion.  I love it when people well thought expansive posts like that - particuarly on this thread!  I think that what you hav e written makes sense - will be interested to hear others thoughts. 

A couple of additional thoughts to add to yours:

1. One aspect that I find interesting (but also a bit weird) is that I have heard a number of senior coaches say there are many trends in the game style that last 5-6 weeks so everyone is constantly evolving throughout the season - looking at what everyone else is doing etc.  Eg if you stick with what you have in round 1, you'll get found out by the end - it's almost like they are saying you have to be on top of the trends when the pass the parcel music stops at the end of the season.  To me that seems a bit over the top - and they are likely just trying to pad out the importance and difficulty of their job.  What do others think?

2. I have found the analysis of David King on Collingwood in the last week interesting - eg going for the coridoor each and every time.  He's spruiking it like its never been done before.  I remember when we had game plans that went through the Centre  (was it under Bailey?).  When it comes off it looks great - but we were shut down easily as teams would stack the coridoor.  So a few questions on this:

1. How hard is it in the modern game to adjust a zone type defensive setup / press for an opponent that plays the centre coridoor (eg Collingwood)?
2. Our game plan (like many others) seems to be based around  encouraging teams to kick to the boundary so that we only have to properly defend one side of the ground.  Can we adjust our setup for the coridoor style of play?
3. Is the acquisition of Grundy and the way we have played him and Gawn in the matches (1 real 2 practice) an indication that we are trying to develop strategies to thwart teams that want to use the coridoor?

 

 

Daniher was all about owning the corridor as well and kicking back in board. 

There's no doubt game plans evolve as the season goes on. David King also talked about the 'fake football' philosophy with Freo and how they chip around to protect their back 6. We see Freo as this kind of team generally but I do recall a certain game at the G in May last year where they were down 4 goals and decided to speed it up their ball movement in the 2nd half. Probably their win of the season.

[FlashInThePan 1,893]

I think a couple of factors went into our earlier approach and the changes we are seeing now. Firstly, I don't think we kicked well enough to warrant the super risky corridor kick. We've always had players like Salem who could risk it but not enough to create a game style around it. Mark Williams has really lifted the average kicking skill at the club over the past few years and the addition of Bowey and the evolution of Brayshaw to the half back and now McVee have meant that we could do this more consistently. Secondly, the introduction of the protected zone and stationary on the mark rule has meant that there are more opportunities for playing on and changing the angle since the man on the mark can't creep across to cover the angle and no one can come into the protected zone.

We developed a high percentage style that factored out poor kicking and allowed our full team defence to work to it's best advantage, we had a massive advantage in stoppages and contest which that style really leveraged. It certainly worked for 2021 but it got broken down in 2022 and teams realised that a great way to beat us was to fold back and clog up our forward line so we couldn't score and count on a high risk run and gun style to break through our defence. We have definitely responded to that by changing the angles and opening up the ground moving the ball much faster to open  without fundamentally changing our approach. I am dying to play the Cats and Collingwood to see if our defence can hold up under that kind of pressure. that will be the real test for us.

[deelusions from afar 1,810]

1 hour ago, FlashInThePan said:

Mark Williams has really lifted the average kicking skill at the club over the past few years and the addition of Bowey and the evolution of Brayshaw to the half back and now McVee have meant that we could do this more consistently.

Yeah I agree.  It was interesting watching us v the Doggies and realising we've now got a number of players in the team that are reliable by foot and capable of high level kicks.  Eg add Hunter, McVee, Bowey, Rivers, Chandler -  to the players that were already there (Spargo, Kozzie, Brayshaw) and we are able to do things as a team we couldn't previously.  Then we have Fritsch, May and Salem all to come back in. This is a long way from where we were when Goody first came to the club!

And oh course then there's the contested beast midfielders (Clarry, Trac, Vines) and the runners (ANB and Langdon) who are capable (but maybe due to their role) less reliable by foot.

[layzie 33,808]

16 hours ago, FlashInThePan said:

I think a couple of factors went into our earlier approach and the changes we are seeing now. Firstly, I don't think we kicked well enough to warrant the super risky corridor kick. We've always had players like Salem who could risk it but not enough to create a game style around it. Mark Williams has really lifted the average kicking skill at the club over the past few years and the addition of Bowey and the evolution of Brayshaw to the half back and now McVee have meant that we could do this more consistently. Secondly, the introduction of the protected zone and stationary on the mark rule has meant that there are more opportunities for playing on and changing the angle since the man on the mark can't creep across to cover the angle and no one can come into the protected zone.

We developed a high percentage style that factored out poor kicking and allowed our full team defence to work to it's best advantage, we had a massive advantage in stoppages and contest which that style really leveraged. It certainly worked for 2021 but it got broken down in 2022 and teams realised that a great way to beat us was to fold back and clog up our forward line so we couldn't score and count on a high risk run and gun style to break through our defence. We have definitely responded to that by changing the angles and opening up the ground moving the ball much faster to open  without fundamentally changing our approach. I am dying to play the Cats and Collingwood to see if our defence can hold up under that kind of pressure. that will be the real test for us.

Really wish you posted more Flash! Always with the good insights. 

[george_on_the_outer 7,591]

I think it too early to make the suggestion that we have changed our forward entries @Engorged Onion.

In this one game the Bulldog defence was simply, utterly and completely disgraceful.

We had 17 marks inside forward 50 and for the whole game we only had 2 contested marks.  In other words, at the very worst we had 15 uncontested marks inside forward 50.!  Simply unbelievable. 

We didn't need to seek to kick to pockets because there was no zone defence.  We had players sitting unattended dead in front on multiple occasions. 

How many times did players get behind the Bulldogs defence, because they were playing man on man?  When beaten there is no-one between them and the goal, ala Kossie, Chandler, Melksham.....i.e. no goalkeeper used like when playing zone.

Spargo didn't need to kick to anyone else, because no Bulldogs defender came to him, and because in the absence of a zone defence, there was nobody in front of him in any case. 

I suspect we will see similar this week, because Brisbane haven't used a zone previously.  They depend on Harris Andrews and Daniel Rich holding the fort. 

To see if we have changed anything we need to wait to see in a game where the opposition have serious defensive structures.

 

Edited March 23, 2023 by george_on_the_outer

[Fat Tony 5,231]

19 minutes ago, george_on_the_outer said:

I think it too early to make the suggestion that we have changed our forward entries @Engorged Onion.

In this one game the Bulldog defence was simply, utterly and completely disgraceful.

We had 17 marks inside forward 50 and for the whole game we only had 2 contested marks.  In other words, at the very worst we had 15 uncontested marks inside forward 50.!  Simply unbelievable. 

We didn't need to seek to kick to pockets because there was no zone defence.  We had players sitting unattended dead in front on multiple occasions. 

How many times did players get behind the Bulldogs defence, because they were playing man on man?  When beaten there is no-one between them and the goal, ala Kossie, Chandler, Melksham.....i.e. no goalkeeper used like when playing zone.

Spargo didn't need to kick to anyone else, because no Bulldogs defender came to him, and because in the absence of a zone defence, there was nobody in front of him in any case. 

I suspect we will see similar this week, because Brisbane haven't used a zone previously.  They depend on Harris Andrews and Daniel Rich holding the fort. 

To see if we have changed anything we need to wait to see in a game where the opposition have serious defensive structures.

 

I think we sought to kick harder, flatter and straighter inside 50 on several slow/congested entries in the Richmond practice match. I think we hardly did that at all last year.

I also think we have also been looking to try and enter our 50 from a position closer to the corridor this year. Instead of kicking to the pocket from 15m inside the wing boundary, we are looking to kick from 30-40m inside the boundary. This gives us more angles to work with on entry and gives us a bit more cover if we turn it over or they rebound quickly.

I think a lot of the uncontested marks against the Dogs were a function of the way we looked to exit our defence. The Dogs lack of defensive system meant we could attack through the middle on occasion, which helped us find uncontested marks inside 50. But, our  method did also result in a few very bad and uncharacteristic turnovers (Oliver and Petty kicks as examples).

[binman 42,973]

Some terrific posts in the last little bit.

Some random reflections  on some charry picked comments from EO, layzie, DFA, Flash and george, starting with EO's post above (i'll get to other comments through the day):

What I am interested in now is about the last point - and the delivery and 'positive risk' to now seemingly to deliberately choose to NOT kick to pockets and play the percentages of minimising options for the defence should they obtain the ball with choices of lanes to get out of the D50.

I don't think it accurate to say we will be choosing not to kick to a pack in the pockets. Kicking to the pockets will still be the go to depending on the type of entry inside 50.

I can't recall which coach it was, goody or yze maybe, but in response to a question in an interview about our forward entries they said something to the effect that there were three entry scenarios.

Scenario one, the ball is in motion, and we are transitioning from the back half at speed (and i guess also from center square clearances).

In this scenario we create free players inside 50 because we run in waves and create outnumbers ahead of the ball (which is where the running power and high cruising speed of players like Nibbler, Spargo, Langdon and Hunter is so critical).

This method creates or best chance to score, particularly if they go via the corridor - as it is the best chance of creating free targets or a leadup hit (forwards often have leading lanes in this scenario because the defence has not been able to get set).

In scenario one, we will try and hit a free player, or kick to a one-on-one contest - of which there is likely to be several  becuase we have got it inside 50 quickly making it hard for oppos to set up their zone or get numbers behind the ball (and impossible in the case of clean center squares clearances). 

The video of the week, which starts with Tomo winning the ball at half back and ends with Spargo kicking a nice goal after being free just outside 50 is an excellent example of this type of entry

(on Spargo kicking that goal rather than passing to a  free Brown, my take is that is another example of Goody playing the percentages. I suspect players are under instruction to go for goal in such scenarios more often this season because it is almost as hard to hit that pass to brown as it is to kick the goal - and if he does hit the pass, brown still has to kick the goal from a tight angle. So the percentages favor Spagro going for goal. There was almost exactly the same scenario in the tigers praccy match, with Gawn completely free in the pocket and Spargo instead opting to kick for goal and/or chandler running into goal. There were several other similar examples in the 2 practice matches)

The second scenario is kicks inside 50 from a stop play (not sure what the right term is - i mean the kick after a mark or free with an oppo player standing the mark).

Based on the two practice matches and last weeks game, this scenario is the one where we seem to be kicking more often to the top of the square. The kicker can take his full 30 odd seconds to decide where to kick and the tall and small forwards can set up how they would have trained all preseason to do.  And Tmac can do what he does so brilliantly - block for BB, Maxy and/or Grundy.

It is still a risk because if we lose a ground ball contest the oppo win that ball in the corridor and have three lanes to choose from to exit their defensive area. But the dees have put a big emphasis on forward pressure this season (after being pretty average with that last season) which mitigates that risk because we are more likely to win the ground ball, but if we don't we put the kicker under tonnes of pressure, often creating a turnover. And of course, we press up and create our wall and often win the ball back (which flummoxed Daniel at least twice - costing at least one turnover goal). 

The third scenario is we've trapped the ball in our front half, front half is super crowded because oppos have flooded back, they win the contested ball, but we put them under mega pressure forcing a dump kick outside 50 - but we have set up a wall, win a turnover, the ball stays in motion and it bounces straight back inside 50. But it does so into a super crowded area. 

Goody plays the percentages, so the high kick to the pocket is the go-to play in this scenario (unless there is an obvious free player).  It's the percentage play because the kicker often has to kick it quickly (so little time to consider options), the ball is in motion, it's chaotic, the forward line is packed and there is no time to orchestrate a set play (eg talls blocking for each other, smalls positioning themselves, dummy leads etc). And the forwards know where the ball is likely to be kicked - as they do in all three scenarios. Predictability is key.

If we can't clunk a mark, a boundary line stoppage is the most likely outcome, with us winning the ground ball hopefully the next most likely outcome (which wasn't always the case in the second half of last year).

But if THEY win the ground ball, they only have one realistic exit lane option - the lane they are in. And we can set up accordingly.

Sure, they can elect to take the corridor on or switch across to the outside lane. But both options are super risky, and the dees sweat on that kick - particularly against the dogs who used to love taking those options (i think they will do so less this year). 

 

[Fat Tony 5,231]

1 hour ago, binman said:

Some terrific posts in the last little bit.

Some random reflections  on some charry picked comments from EO, layzie, DFA, Flash and george, starting with EO's post above (i'll get to other comments through the day):

What I am interested in now is about the last point - and the delivery and 'positive risk' to now seemingly to deliberately choose to NOT kick to pockets and play the percentages of minimising options for the defence should they obtain the ball with choices of lanes to get out of the D50.

I don't think it accurate to say we will be choosing not to kick to a pack in the pockets. Kicking to the pockets will still be the go to depending on the type of entry inside 50.

I can't recall which coach it was, goody or yze maybe, but in response to a question in an interview about our forward entries they said something to the effect that there were three entry scenarios.

Scenario one, the ball is in motion, and we are transitioning from the back half at speed (and i guess also from center square clearances).

In this scenario we create free players inside 50 because we run in waves and create outnumbers ahead of the ball (which is where the running power and high cruising speed of players like Nibbler, Spargo, Langdon and Hunter is so critical).

This method creates or best chance to score, particularly if they go via the corridor - as it is the best chance of creating free targets or a leadup hit (forwards often have leading lanes in this scenario because the defence has not been able to get set).

In scenario one, we will try and hit a free player, or kick to a one-on-one contest - of which there is likely to be several  becuase we have got it inside 50 quickly making it hard for oppos to set up their zone or get numbers behind the ball (and impossible in the case of clean center squares clearances). 

The video of the week, which starts with Tomo winning the ball at half back and ends with Spargo kicking a nice goal after being free just outside 50 is an excellent example of this type of entry

(on Spargo kicking that goal rather than passing to a  free Brown, my take is that is another example of Goody playing the percentages. I suspect players are under instruction to go for goal in such scenarios more often this season because it is almost as hard to hit that pass to brown as it is to kick the goal - and if he does hit the pass, brown still has to kick the goal from a tight angle. So the percentages favor Spagro going for goal. There was almost exactly the same scenario in the tigers praccy match, with Gawn completely free in the pocket and Spargo instead opting to kick for goal and/or chandler running into goal. There were several other similar examples in the 2 practice matches)

The second scenario is kicks inside 50 from a stop play (not sure what the right term is - i mean the kick after a mark or free with an oppo player standing the mark).

Based on the two practice matches and last weeks game, this scenario is the one where we seem to be kicking more often to the top of the square. The kicker can take his full 30 odd seconds to decide where to kick and the tall and small forwards can set up how they would have trained all preseason to do.  And Tmac can do what he does so brilliantly - block for BB, Maxy and/or Grundy.

It is still a risk because if we lose a ground ball contest the oppo win that ball in the corridor and have three lanes to choose from to exit their defensive area. But the dees have put a big emphasis on forward pressure this season (after being pretty average with that last season) which mitigates that risk because we are more likely to win the ground ball, but if we don't we put the kicker under tonnes of pressure, often creating a turnover. And of course, we press up and create our wall and often win the ball back (which flummoxed Daniel at least twice - costing at least one turnover goal). 

The third scenario is we've trapped the ball in our front half, front half is super crowded because oppos have flooded back, they win the contested ball, but we put them under mega pressure forcing a dump kick outside 50 - but we have set up a wall, win a turnover, the ball stays in motion and it bounces straight back inside 50. But it does so into a super crowded area. 

Goody plays the percentages, so the high kick to the pocket is the go-to play in this scenario (unless there is an obvious free player).  It's the percentage play because the kicker often has to kick it quickly (so little time to consider options), the ball is in motion, it's chaotic, the forward line is packed and there is no time to orchestrate a set play (eg talls blocking for each other, smalls positioning themselves, dummy leads etc). And the forwards know where the ball is likely to be kicked - as they do in all three scenarios. Predictability is key.

If we can't clunk a mark, a boundary line stoppage is the most likely outcome, with us winning the ground ball hopefully the next most likely outcome (which wasn't always the case in the second half of last year).

But if THEY win the ground ball, they only have one realistic exit lane option - the lane they are in. And we can set up accordingly.

Sure, they can elect to take the corridor on or switch across to the outside lane. But both options are super risky, and the dees sweat on that kick - particularly against the dogs who used to love taking those options (i think they will do so less this year). 

 

Is there much difference between scenarios 2 & 3 in terms of how the opponent is set up defensively?

[Axis of Bob 11,817]

The location of the kick inside fifty (ie, boundary vs corridor) doesn't have anything to do with the kick inside 50, it's about the events that lead up to it.

If the ball is moved really quickly and the kicker is confronted with free options or well spaced one on one options, then the probability of kicking a goal is very high from making an aggressive kick, usually deep or in the corridor. So you attack aggressively because you are so much more likely to kick a goal than of conceding from an opposition's counterattack.

If the ball moves slowly, such as being held up by the defence or marking a kick from a stacked defence, then the odds of scoring a goal are really, really low. So low, in fact, that it's actually far more likely that the opposition will score on the counterattack using the corridor or the space on the far wing. In this situation a kick into the corridor is actually a bad move because you give the opponent such a big chance to score, despite the distance from goal. As an example, look at where the Dogs kicked to when they turned it over before Melksham kicked his goal. In this circumstance, you are more likely to outscore your opponent when you kick to the pocket because, whilst you have only a relatively small chance of scoring, conceding on a counterattack is almost impossible. You can score from the entry kick, you can score from a subsequent stoppage or you can score from turnover when the opposition kick out to your numbers. 

The aim of football isn't to kick goals, it's to kick more goals than the other team. Against a set defence you attack defensively but against an unset defence you attack aggressively.

Edited March 24, 2023 by Axis of Bob

[binman 42,973]

1 hour ago, Fat Tony said:

Is there much difference between scenarios 2 & 3 in terms of how the opponent is set up defensively?

No, not a huge difference.

But there is a difference - well two really.

The first difference is the time the dees player has with his kick inside 50. 

From a stoppage (scenario two) the player can take his full allotted time to determine exactly where, and how to kick it. He's not rushed into a dump kick.

That also gives the dees forwards time to set up in designated spots - often seemingly 20 meters out straight in front (but not always - the kick to Brown that set up his banana goal is an example of set play where the forward runs into the only available space - the pocket).

Our forward 50 is still crowded (because the oppo have used the time to get back in numbers) but the defenders gravitate to the same spot as the forwards to make sure there are no free players, no one on ones and to maximize their chance of winning the ground ball.

In scenario three, the dees player has little time to dispose of it (because he hasn't marked it or got a free) and so has to kick quickly, meaning the forwards don't have time to set up in their predetermined structure, and are more likely to be spread more evenly in the area inside 50 - as are the defenders. 

On a related note, you are spot on about us kicking harder, flatter and straighter inside 50 on several slow/congested entries in the Richmond practice match. I think the idea is to make it harder  for defenders to zone off and disrupt our talls attempt to mark. They did it against the saints too - i didn't notice it so much against the dogs. 

They also seem to have been practicing the weighted kick into a hole between defenders - the kick to BB reference above is an example. Hunter is brilliant at such kicks and Langdon seem to have developed the knack of nailing a sort of soccer like cross kick from the boundary line into a hole. His beautiful kick to Spargo to set up a goal being a good example. 

Edited March 24, 2023 by binman

[layzie 33,808]

4 minutes ago, binman said:

No, not a huge difference.

But there is a difference - well two really.

The first difference is the time the dees player has with his kick inside 50. 

From a stoppage (scenario two) the player can take his full allotted time to determine exactly where, and how to kick it. He's not rushed into a dump kick.

That also gives the dees forwards time to set up in designated spots - often seemingly 20 meters out straight in front (but not always - the kick to Brown that set up his banana goal is an example of set play where the forward runs into the only available space - the pocket).

Our forward 50 is still crowded (because the oppo have used the time to get back in numbers) but the defenders gravitate to the same spot as the forwards to make sure there are no free players, no one on ones and to maximize their chance of winning the ground ball.

In scenario three, the dees player has little time to dispose of it (because he hasn't marked it or got a free) and so has to kick quickly, meaning the forwards don't have time to set up in their predetermined structure, and are more likely to be spread more evenly in the area inside 50 - as are the defenders. 

On a related note, you are spot on about us kicking harder, flatter and straighter inside 50 on several slow/congested entries in the Richmond practice match. I think the idea is to make it harder  for defenders to zone off and disrupt our talls attempt to mark. They did it against the saints too - i didn't notice it so much against the dogs. 

They also seem to have been practicing the weighted kick into a hole between defenders - the kick to BB reference above is an example. Hunter is brilliant at such kicks and Langdon seem to have developed the knack of nailing a sort of soccer like cross kick from the boundary line into a hole. His beautiful kick to Spargo to set up a goal being a good example. 

Would it be fair to say that the harder and flatter shallow kick also gives us a better chance of the 'worst case scenario' boundary throw in stoppage to lock it in our 50 than say the big bomb where opposition defenders can study the fall of the ball and rebound? 

[rpfc 28,433]

Reticent to give too many insights this early but from what I can tell and what Goodwin and Yze are saying - we want to move in the direction of Collingwood with bold and quick ball movement from defensive transition. Now, some of you will be thinking that’s what we always have done! No, we were a front half stoppage and turnover team in 2021 and went even more into that last year where we tried to move the ball down the ground through creating massive contests we can outnumber and win. Think May kicking out, HBFs kicking down wing, and mids kicking into FP.

So now the backs and wings have to be defensive side conscious but through the middle of the ground bite off quite a bit and get the mids going and it all flows through the smalls in the forward line that push up to get quick hands and give quicker kicks through to Fritsch and Brown. 

But some of our players are not built for that. Viney is at home in the ‘move by contest’ game style, and Oliver and Petracca show that old habits die hard for even the best in the league. Clayton especially was blasting away on Friday as players looked for forward handballs and releases to the fat of the wing.

If you want to know what half a group doing one thing and the other half doing another looks like - it looks like Friday night.

It’s to be expected but how long it takes to get this going will determine how far we go this year. Our stars won’t overcome this - especially with half of them under clouds or injured - all players need to be on one page and committed to how to play.

Thats how NM and StK are getting wins right now. 

Edited March 26, 2023 by rpfc

[Fat Tony 5,231]

With Max out injured for a stint on the side lines, it will be interesting how we adjust our game plan.

In the clearances, I expect to see Grundy take a lot of balls out of the ruck contests and our midfielders to be a bit more defensive. I expect we will go with JVR this week as our second ruck because he should provide a bit more energy around the ball than TMac can. (TMac's place in the side is also under pressure due to form.)

Around the ground, our defence will need to stand up without Max's marking and we will need to be a bit quicker to transition defensively without the ball.

Going forward, we will likely look to spread the ball a bit more, kicking to Petty or Petracca on the open side. (This tactic has worked well this year.)

In a post game interview, Petracca said he felt we played a bit safe with the ball. I don't think that is right and we actually transitioned the ball ok. We were just belted in the clearances (centre clearances and in our defence).

[Roost it far 8,276]

On 3/26/2023 at 10:36 PM, rpfc said:

Reticent to give too many insights this early but from what I can tell and what Goodwin and Yze are saying - we want to move in the direction of Collingwood with bold and quick ball movement from defensive transition. Now, some of you will be thinking that’s what we always have done! No, we were a front half stoppage and turnover team in 2021 and went even more into that last year where we tried to move the ball down the ground through creating massive contests we can outnumber and win. Think May kicking out, HBFs kicking down wing, and mids kicking into FP.

So now the backs and wings have to be defensive side conscious but through the middle of the ground bite off quite a bit and get the mids going and it all flows through the smalls in the forward line that push up to get quick hands and give quicker kicks through to Fritsch and Brown. 

But some of our players are not built for that. Viney is at home in the ‘move by contest’ game style, and Oliver and Petracca show that old habits die hard for even the best in the league. Clayton especially was blasting away on Friday as players looked for forward handballs and releases to the fat of the wing.

If you want to know what half a group doing one thing and the other half doing another looks like - it looks like Friday night.

It’s to be expected but how long it takes to get this going will determine how far we go this year. Our stars won’t overcome this - especially with half of them under clouds or injured - all players need to be on one page and committed to how to play.

Thats how NM and StK are getting wins right now. 

Salem, Kossie and Max are so important to what is seen as faster, more direct, corridor footy. Salem to make the kick to the corridor, Kossie for obvious reasons and Max to mop up down back if it comes unstuck. Having all 3 out really hurts us. We need to get the ball in Bowey's hands this week and I reckon Sydney know that. Big game coming up.

[Diamond_Jim 12,589]

On 3/26/2023 at 10:36 PM, rpfc said:

Reticent to give too many insights this early but from what I can tell and what Goodwin and Yze are saying - we want to move in the direction of Collingwood with bold and quick ball movement from defensive transition. Now, some of you will be thinking that’s what we always have done! No, we were a front half stoppage and turnover team in 2021 and went even more into that last year where we tried to move the ball down the ground through creating massive contests we can outnumber and win. Think May kicking out, HBFs kicking down wing, and mids kicking into FP.

So now the backs and wings have to be defensive side conscious but through the middle of the ground bite off quite a bit and get the mids going and it all flows through the smalls in the forward line that push up to get quick hands and give quicker kicks through to Fritsch and Brown. 

But some of our players are not built for that. Viney is at home in the ‘move by contest’ game style, and Oliver and Petracca show that old habits die hard for even the best in the league. Clayton especially was blasting away on Friday as players looked for forward handballs and releases to the fat of the wing.

If you want to know what half a group doing one thing and the other half doing another looks like - it looks like Friday night.

It’s to be expected but how long it takes to get this going will determine how far we go this year. Our stars won’t overcome this - especially with half of them under clouds or injured - all players need to be on one page and committed to how to play.

Thats how NM and StK are getting wins right now. 

Great points... Do you think this is why in the first round we saw Oliver launching attacks more from half back.

As another poster pointed out the Pies had around 13 goal kickers last weekend. I think we would be pushing to find more than 7 in any one game in recent times

[rpfc 28,433]

1 hour ago, Diamond_Jim said:

Great points... Do you think this is why in the first round we saw Oliver launching attacks more from half back.

As another poster pointed out the Pies had around 13 goal kickers last weekend. I think we would be pushing to find more than 7 in any one game in recent times

All the mids will have to move their centre of gravity back as the kicks out of the backline are shorter and more precise.

I am not entirely sold on us replicating Coll as I don’t think our list is built around precise skills.

Really interested to see what our wrinkles will be.

[Fat Tony 5,231]

The thing I am really liking about this season are the adjustments to our game plan for the MCG. Under Goodwin we have not really been able to create a home ground advantage. The 2021 game plan was brilliant and was ultimately successful but it actually worked better on narrower grounds.

This year we are exposing our defence a bit more but, by using both sides of the ground and the corridor, we are able to score more freely from our D50.

Year	MCG Record
2017	6 W & 5 L
2018	7 W & 6 L
2019	3 W & 9 L
2020	0 W & 2 L
2021	8 W & 2 L
2022	7 W & 6 L
2023	2 W & 0 L

Edited April 3, 2023 by Fat Tony

[Axis of Bob 11,817]

2 hours ago, Fat Tony said:

The thing I am really liking about this season are the adjustments to our game plan for the MCG

Our ability to put speed on the ball in transition and use the space available had been really noticeable.

It's a good observation.

Edited April 3, 2023 by Axis of Bob

[Diamond_Jim 12,589]

Noticed that the Swans easily pierced our set zone defence on two occasions in the same manner.

Swans player marks 65 metres out. We set up in two lines of three at about 45 and 30. Swans player on two occasions darted into the 15 metre gap between the two lines, marked and goaled. On one play he came in laterally from the boundary being left alone because where standing he was a low percentage receiver. On the other I think the player came from about the same distance out as the kicker.

Definitely set plays

[Ted Lasso 19,518]

I think Goody has kinda nailed the challenges each team is facing in his presser today. the game has opened up so to be successful you have to be more aggressive with ball movement, but it's an ongoing challenge to figure out how to defend well against a fairly big shift in how teams are attacking. 

It makes sense the Pies have started well because i think Fly has read the play well and their game style is very well suited, they're almost 12 months ahead of the pack in a way because they're used to it. 

The thing is though, teams will figure it out and it'll change and evolve and by the end of the year it'll be totally different again

[Fat Tony 5,231]

44 minutes ago, Dwight Schrute said:

I think Goody has kinda nailed the challenges each team is facing in his presser today. the game has opened up so to be successful you have to be more aggressive with ball movement, but it's an ongoing challenge to figure out how to defend well against a fairly big shift in how teams are attacking. 

It makes sense the Pies have started well because i think Fly has read the play well and their game style is very well suited, they're almost 12 months ahead of the pack in a way because they're used to it. 

The thing is though, teams will figure it out and it'll change and evolve and by the end of the year it'll be totally different again

The Pies have a list very well suited to playing ballistic football through the corridor. Not many other sides have a group of smaller players who are such good kickers (Daicos x2, Pendlebury, Sidebottom, Maynard, Elliott & Noble). It is a hard strategy to form a plan against because you need to hope they miss targets through the corridor or just give up territory and defend the D50.

[Engorged Onion 10,215]

Thanks @sue - thought I'd pop this here as well.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-04-06/cody-and-sean-melbourne-demons-wing-analysis/102195712