Game plans, tactics and all that jazz

[dpositive 1,663]

I have found this thread fantastic, overwhelming in the intellectual content.

i hope our opponents are not reading it as I believe it has exposed some very salient points.

i also hope that there is similar examination of our opponents structures, patterns and actions, and that that analysis is handed on to the club. You have identified some specific individual and group weaknesses. I have not finished all the content but feel compelled to make some comments so apologise if I do repeat something that arises after p3.

Many  years ago I was overly examining Chaos theory. When our group went to the footy we often talked of what was the reason for MFC apparent lack of success. We talked of structures and personnel. Richmond eventually ievolved Chaos football after Footscray broke the Hawthorn Sydney structured models. We didn't have enough time or nclination to put the effort that contributors to this thread have done so congratulations.

To return to the Chaos theory, I believe that you have identified the key feature of that theory there are patterns in Chaos. 

You need enough data a and sophisticated techniques to identify those patterns but they are there. You then need to recognise how to exploit those patterns. Consistency of action to establish bifurcation and create the expected outcome is what you have identified.

i look forward to your continued data collection an analysis and hope there's is some aspiring younger generation who can undertake a Phd on this thread.

But again I hope we are using this approach on our opponents to ensure we control the Chaos rather than react.

 

[dpositive 1,663]

I am also nterested in the analysis of umpiring decisions. Without discussing how I believe the umpiring affects confidence. The umpires may well be the "strange attractors" of Chaos theory. 

[Engorged Onion 10,215]

@dpositive - I know nothing of Chaos Theory and the pillars behind it and I see that you have said that there are patterns in Chaos.

I feel the language in the media, which then feeds in to fan's view of things, is that 'chaos ball' is condescending to the teams that are allegedly playing it.

There are clearly structures in 'chaos ball'...  ie:the Bulldogs would handball on quickly, The Tigers would tap the ball on at all costs, we would get multiple I50 entries,  as part of their modus operandi... 

But the language of chaos feeds into this concept that there is no plan...AND if you're losing, it's a bloody awful plan, that any person could come up with.

I think there have been some great posts in here, contrasting our style against other teams plans as well.

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,734]

34 minutes ago, Axis of Bob said:

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

You mean you can't see the similarity between the two of you? Absolute doppleganger.

[Grimes Times 1,278]

2 hours ago, titan_uranus said:

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

But being able to score from the front and the back isnt a plan A or B its just A. Teams dont go out and plan to only score from the back for a game and change it to score only from the front the next week. They try to do both and only some teams can currently do that.

[Adam The God 30,212]

2 hours ago, titan_uranus said:

I saw this.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for letting us know about what was said mate.

I'd just debate the bolded part. I don't think that's how Goodwin wants to play anymore. That was definitely how we played in 2018 and for parts of 2019 (if not all). I reckon since the Port game, we've been looking to score akin to on the counter, from mostly choking up the opposition, forcing them to go down the line and in the best case scenarios using the ball back through the corridor or around the opposition boundary line. 

I absolutely agree that turnovers in forward half are still an important trait, but I reckon we value turn overs in the back half/intercepts to mount attacks from half back or deep. 

IMV, Goodwin's changed the system this year and it just hasn't clicked since around the Hawthorn or Brisbane game.

[Adam The God 30,212]

3 hours ago, Engorged Onion said:

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

I have to say this is what I've always felt SWYL looked like.

I'd be taller than Skuit, but I'd probably look just as dopey in a photo as I do here, so I'll take it.

[old55 23,530]

1 hour ago, Axis of Bob said:

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

I thought it was a very good likeness - particularly height-wise

[titan_uranus 24,990]

2 hours ago, Grimes Times said:

But being able to score from the front and the back isnt a plan A or B its just A. Teams dont go out and plan to only score from the back for a game and change it to score only from the front the next week. They try to do both and only some teams can currently do that.

I see what you're saying but I'm not sure I agree.

I think teams do set out to generate their scores in particular ways and in our view, based on what Goodwin has been saying for a long time, our plan is to do so from our forward half. So is Port's.

Where we've struggled traditionally is reacting to games where our opponent stops us from doing that, usually by beating us in clearances and CPs.

You could call it just improvement, but IMO it's also a situation of having a Plan B sort of option to fall back on, where we identify that we're not going to win by forcing forward half turnovers and bringing May/Lever up to the centre circle, but instead we revert to generating scoring chains out of our defensive 50.

2 hours ago, A F said:

Thanks for letting us know about what was said mate.

I'd just debate the bolded part. I don't think that's how Goodwin wants to play anymore. That was definitely how we played in 2018 and for parts of 2019 (if not all). I reckon since the Port game, we've been looking to score akin to on the counter, from mostly choking up the opposition, forcing them to go down the line and in the best case scenarios using the ball back through the corridor or around the opposition boundary line. 

I absolutely agree that turnovers in forward half are still an important trait, but I reckon we value turn overs in the back half/intercepts to mount attacks from half back or deep. 

IMV, Goodwin's changed the system this year and it just hasn't clicked since around the Hawthorn or Brisbane game.

Not sure I agree. There have been HT interviews during matches where Goodwin says "we need to get the ball in our forward half".

IMO, he's still very much focusing on forward half dominance first, but he's accepting now that we need to be able to adjust in games where we can't dominate clearances and CPs.

[Adam The God 30,212]

8 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

Not sure I agree. There have been HT interviews during matches where Goodwin says "we need to get the ball in our forward half".

IMO, he's still very much focusing on forward half dominance first, but he's accepting now that we need to be able to adjust in games where we can't dominate clearances and CPs.

Good call. I think this is the key. He wants us to play a forward half game ideally, but is settled enough if we have to counter punch from our back half.

I maintain that our press is quite markedly different from what it was in 2018 and 2019, and perhaps I'm being a pedant here, but I don't think it's that aggressive. Our defensive back 6 or 7 certainly don't press anymore, but our half forwards and mids do.

[Skuit 10,031]

5 hours ago, titan_uranus said:

I saw this.

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

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

Summary here: https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/afl-2020-afl-finals-afl-grand-final-premiership-odds-predictor-champion-data-premiership-profile-2020/news-story/d1ce45ef3111bb82cad8d2157664b922

[dpositive 1,663]

20 hours ago, Axis of Bob said:

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

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

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

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

AoB this is the kernel of Chaos theory.

The theory is a mathematical  evolution from many different fields (commodity prices, electrical interference, meteorology) and was really fundamental through and for computer development. Pixels were a direct outcome of Ct mathematics.

it is premised on patterns within apparently chaotic environments and with its own language of bifurcation and strange attractors held that the significant number was 6.34343 Or something similar. It had been proven in scientific circumstances and I presented a paper applying it to human resource practice.

You may have stumbled on the genius of Goodwin in establishing a pattern exactly as you outline, resetting with the one wood.

Only question is how does opposition fit into this theory, and my own abandonment of exploring further due to disgust with umpiring

[dpositive 1,663]

8 hours ago, hemingway said:

Interesting stuff AF.  

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

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

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

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

That could have come from any good HR text with your personal interaction and football anecdotes proving the relevance.

I reckon your right and I reckon it's still applies today. I just hope Goody understands it.

[Engorged Onion 10,215]

So... just to wedge another Jonathon Wilson (from The Guardian) article in here (and I wonder if this is my own confirmation bias, trying to force this upon Goodwin and the FD strategy or philosophy).

"bayern-munichs-thomas-muller-relocates-interpretation-of-space"

But what did resonate with me was this.

The article is about one person's role in the game, someone who wouldn't be normally be seen in anyones All Australian (all Deutschland??) - so essentially a version of the cliched moneyball theory.

It talks about systems and how one person helps the system...

"It was in that same interview that, asked to describe himself as a player, Müller coined the term “Raumdeuter”. A pun on “Traumdeuter” – an interpreter of dreams, like Sigmund Freud or Daniel – it means something like an interpreter of space, and it’s remarkable for two reasons. Firstly, as he showed in his awkward attempts to popularise “Lewangoalski” on Friday, word play seems not to come naturally to him.

But more, because it shows such acute self-awareness. Space is what he deals in; manipulating it is what is what he does. Müller is a little clumsy. His oddly long arms perhaps make him look a little gawkier than he actually is. He isn’t a great dribbler. He isn’t the cleanest striker of the ball. He isn’t unduly quick or strong. But his reading of the game, his instinct for where space and chances will appear and his work rate are remarkable.

Müller didn’t touch the ball in the immediate buildup to any of the three goals. Statistically his contribution didn’t register. And yet his movement was integral to each goal. "

But there is another comment that I thought...'ohhhhh, [censored] yeah, this is where we are at now...transitions'...

"It’s not counterattacking as such, but Flick’s (Bayern's coach) approach is very characteristic of the modern Bundesliga,  A game based in transitions."

and so my head goes back to the OP - which referenced 

"Those two attributes – controlling the transition from attack to defence, and organising an attack – can be used as a simple test of managers. Klopp excels at both"

As @A F has discussed AND some others on here (apologies for not naming) -as evidenced by the win against Collingwood - whereby we lost clearances and I50's - we transitioned really well, to then organise the attacks.

 

Jake Lever spoke about all the things that are done by players not seen on TV, that are not possession based that our team(midfield) is now really believing in the utility of, and are now getting the evidence that it is worthwhile in the pursuit of success. Again this is about transition...(in my eyes)

Jake also spoke about 'That counting possesion stats by media or supporters is now redundant in what is truly valuable to the team'.

I thought this article also said much the same.

Edited August 20, 2020 by Engorged Onion

[Adam The God 30,212]

27 minutes ago, Engorged Onion said:

So... just to wedge another Jonathon Wilson (from The Guardian) article in here (and I wonder if this is my own confirmation bias, trying to force this upon Goodwin and the FD strategy or philosophy).

"bayern-munichs-thomas-muller-relocates-interpretation-of-space"

But what did resonate with me was this.

The article is about one person's role in the game, someone who wouldn't be normally be seen in anyones All Australian (all Deutschland??) - so essentially a version of the cliched moneyball theory.

It talks about systems and how one person helps the system...

"It was in that same interview that, asked to describe himself as a player, Müller coined the term “Raumdeuter”. A pun on “Traumdeuter” – an interpreter of dreams, like Sigmund Freud or Daniel – it means something like an interpreter of space, and it’s remarkable for two reasons. Firstly, as he showed in his awkward attempts to popularise “Lewangoalski” on Friday, word play seems not to come naturally to him.

But more, because it shows such acute self-awareness. Space is what he deals in; manipulating it is what is what he does. Müller is a little clumsy. His oddly long arms perhaps make him look a little gawkier than he actually is. He isn’t a great dribbler. He isn’t the cleanest striker of the ball. He isn’t unduly quick or strong. But his reading of the game, his instinct for where space and chances will appear and his work rate are remarkable.

Müller didn’t touch the ball in the immediate buildup to any of the three goals. Statistically his contribution didn’t register. And yet his movement was integral to each goal. "

But there is another comment that I thought...'ohhhhh, [censored] yeah, this is where we are at now...transitions'...

"It’s not counterattacking as such, but Flick’s (Bayern's coach) approach is very characteristic of the modern Bundesliga,  A game based in transitions."

and so my head goes back to the OP - which referenced 

"Those two attributes – controlling the transition from attack to defence, and organising an attack – can be used as a simple test of managers. Klopp excels at both"

As @A F has discussed AND some others on here (apologies for not naming) -as evidenced by the win against Collingwood - whereby we lost clearances and I50's - we transitioned really well, to then organise the attacks.

 

Jake Lever spoke about all the things that are done by players not seen on TV, that are not possession based that our team(midfield) is now really believing in the utility of, and are now getting the evidence that it is worthwhile in the pursuit of success. Again this is about transition...(in my eyes)

Jake also spoke about 'That counting possesion stats by media or supporters is now redundant in what is truly valuable to the team'.

I thought this article also said much the same.

Nice article, mate.

The first bit jumped out to me was this:

"It’s not counterattacking as such, but Flick’s approach is very characteristic of the modern Bundesliga, a game based in transitions. It is certainly not based on control: just as Barcelona created chances by getting behind the defensive line on Friday, so too did Lyon."

In other words, the German league has shifted from control to transitions. I think it's fascinating to chart international sports and how trends in one game become very much trends in others. Perhaps it's mere coincidence, but I can't help but think that AFL coaches are connected with the international environment and are viewing their own 'brand' in these sorts of broad brush strokes such as 'transition' versus 'control'. 

Likewise, I have no doubt that forward coaches and forwards think about space in the following way:

"Müller didn’t touch the ball in the immediate buildup to any of the three goals. Statistically his contribution didn’t register. And yet his movement was integral to each goal. It was his run to the near post that dragged Marçal away from Robert Lewandowski in the heart of the box in the build-up to the second. It was he who was fouled, having regained possession, late on high up the pitch, to win the free-kick for the third."

It absolutely equally applies to our game. The clever movement of forwards coming up the ground, double back, and leading away from and to certain dangerous areas in the forward 50. To the casual eye some of it may look ordinary, but the more you realise how the forwards interact and the importance of space when you have zone defences, the more you realise some stats are immeasurable. 

It's not a like for like, but Jack Riewoldt's rise in 2017 from selfish but high scoring FF -> to middle of the road scorer but integral target within Richmond's game style (bringing the ball to ground for surging smalls), is exactly this idea. You don't have to be kicking goals or marking it, or even going anywhere near the ball to be impacting on any one play.

Jackson showed this in the Adelaide game where he stepped across in front of Talia to block him and allow Weideman to read. That's overt and clever game sense and body use. The operations of the rest of the forwardline would only be known to those within the walls of a football club.

I guess what we're seeing is an evolution of the modern AFL role player and AVB fits this nicely too.

[Grr-owl 1,219]

14 hours ago, titan_uranus said:

I saw this.

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, there’s evidence that we can join G, WC and R in sharing those characteristics. That’s as good news as we’re going to get, assuming those stats really are as key as the show asserted. But what, then, happens when these teams meet? I’ll have to go back and watch the G v WC game a couple of weeks back...

Edited August 20, 2020 by Grr-owl

[binman 42,842]

This is an interesting game from a tactical perspective. 

Both teams have a huge emphasis on pressure. Though really every team now does.

Both teams also are contest out.

I'm not sure teally what their defensive system is, so can't say if differs from ours (though my vibe is it is)

The dogs style reminds me a bit of how we played in the first half of 2018. Running in waves  quick handballs, breaking down zones with speed of movement.

When it works it can be devastating. But as we found the weak link is if the ball carrier is pressured super hard all game it breaks down.

And I reckon that is where now differ.

We zero in on the ball carrier and we more often look to get territory by kicking long, with less chains of handballs and/or neat kicks.

When we do tic tac down the ground now we look to do so with the style the cats and West Coast do.

Which when I think about it is a pretty big tactical shift.

 

[rpfc 28,368]

Very late to this thread - got a 4 month old so I won't be able to post in depth but some of the coaches that I talked to in the last few years up here in Canberra and around Coaching Clinics and the like is not only stealing from soccer in much the way @A F describes but also from basketball; the transition.

The key thing from my point of view is that 'transition' in bball highlights defence and offence as important as each other and that (most) players love transition bball; it's open, it's quick, and involves the players more. It's pretty much: 'if you run enough, you will touch the ball'

That's what I see now watching the Dees in the last few weeks (and of course the best teams) - Charlie Spargo works hard, gets into space, takes an uncontested mark 25 out. You don't have to be a world beater you just have to work hard, and trust your teammates to work hard.

[Nasher 33,613]

On 8/20/2020 at 4:29 PM, Pollyanna said:

I thought it was a very good likeness - particularly height-wise

You’re not exactly Max Gawn yourself from memory! Long time ago now though.

[Dr. Gonzo 24,206]

On 8/19/2020 at 3:57 PM, Engorged Onion said:

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! 

Great thread thanks to all the contributors and all the links to read/watch

Just picking up on this part of the discussion and a post prior to this that mentioned clubs do not have plan B's and players train all off season practising to implement their game plan. If a coach does start throwing things around when the team is losing and changing the message about how the team is to play it would send a message to the players that the ciach has lost belief that the system they have been drilled with is strong enough to overcome. Either the system is strong enough and the players just need to implement it better or the players are good enough but the system can't beat the opposition. It may result in a one off win if the players play with a bit more freedom and flair but it is likely to be a dead cat bounce similar to when a coach is sacked.

Footy has changed since the 80s/early 90s when Sheedy could swing the magnets around and rely on individual skill and brilliance to win a game. Players are so well drilled now and so well structured and coached in their own groups (mids, fwds, backs) I think it would be difficult to really make too many changes in game without completely disrupting the balance of the team.

[Skuit 10,031]

1 hour ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Just picking up on this part of the discussion and a post prior to this that mentioned clubs do not have plan B's and players train all off season practising to implement their game plan. If a coach does start throwing things around when the team is losing and changing the message about how the team is to play it would send a message to the players that the coach has lost belief that the system they have been drilled with is strong enough to overcome.

Goody confessed to as much last year. They were underdone at the start of the season, the confidence quickly evaporated and then the  pressure came on: the end result was a series of aimless weekly tweaks. 

[Dees2014 2,377]

On 8/9/2020 at 12:17 PM, Engorged Onion said:

Thanks for starting a stand alone thread @binman, I really enjoy this type of analysis.

For a bit of context in how I view games, and my lens is slightly different from most I suspect, I'm a psych by trade and have worked in a high performance space across a range of sports - this lens always colours what I write in my posts.

Beyond the oft announced commentary from Goodwin, from the media that we are a contested ball team, there are a range of nuances in the game plan that I feel fly under the radar. It's a lot to do with the personnel that Goodwin has brought in in the pre season, namely Burgess and Richardson.

•  Fitness (Burgess) - it hasn't been on show this year due to the shortened format of our game, but in high stress games (read finals) capacity to execute when under pressure and fatigue will come to the fore...BUT not in one preseason. Over 2-3-4 is when we will reap the rewards
• Age profile (Richardson/development/guidance) - this will also feed into our midfield and some forwards compliment hitting 25-29yo age bracket...which evidenced on experience profile is peak premiership winning time...so we are still 2 years or so away, or still 2 years of development phase.
• Tactically - The High press/I50's - I still think it's a workable way of operating. It breaks down due to fatigue and poor structure at times, and this is something for the FD to work on... but there is enough evidence to suggest when it works it works... the question most rebut is, it's not sustainable... I'd feed this back into where we are developmentally. 
• Success, Culture is built on relationships. There is a lot of love from Goodwin to the players and players to Goodwin. More importantly I want to see the players taking risks during a game. I've said it before on here but the ability to take risks (and this looks like a myriad of things for each individual)and 'practice' them in real games to have the evidence that you CAN execute when it counts...not just in training. The obvious example last week was for Oliver to finally finally start to accelerate out of the pack once he had the ball. We all know he is highly skilled at handballing, we all know he can get the ball. BUT for Clayton, it would have felt uncomfortable emotionally to test this out in a real life AFL game... yep he has subtle emotions too, it's uncomfortable to do a different behaviour. So I cant undersell how important for Clayton  it was to test this and ultimately be BOG... it bodes good things for the future.
• Risk Taking also looks like Brayshaw on the wing.. playing to role..which sucks for some(him) emotionally, yet importantly contributes greatly to our structures around the ground. The risk is actually all about, what are you emotionally willing to have, in service of what matters. 
• It also looks like Bennell building competence in getting tackled, having body on body and not seagulling the ball..but this will come..he of course is coming back with a lot of trauma (I assume) -that cannot be understated.
• It also looks like Weiderman - backing himself to kick goals from 50m - he is such a beautiful kick..and he is also developing capacity to have his body knocked around. God knows I don't like it when my 4.5yo punches me when I'm not expecting it, so I wouldn't expect anyone to really really want to have to experience, even if they are competing professionally.

Essentially when I watch, I look for positive risk taking behaviour, whether it comes off or not... and Goodwin...like the best across a range of sports, keeps promoting it, empathically. 

Great post EO and Binman. 

 

Question: how much of our greatly improved last quarter performance this year is simply better physical training methods, or more psychological, or a bit of both. Or superior tactically. I assumed we have always trained hard, but this year seems like a standout, not only compared to our past performance, but also the rest of the competition. Seems like a competitive advantage, which no doubt the rest of the competition will be studying intently...

Edited August 21, 2020 by Dees2014

[Dr. Gonzo 24,206]

On 8/20/2020 at 7:44 AM, binman said:

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

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

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

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

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

 Love the enthusiasm binman but I reckon you're overestimating our ability based on 3 games against mediocre opposition. The potential is certainly there for this team to explode but until they do it against the better sides and do it consistently I think it's incorrect to compare us favourably to the Tigers who have won 2 of 3 and are challenging for a 3rd in 4.

Edited August 21, 2020 by Dr. Gonzo

[binman 42,842]

9 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

 Love the enthusiasm binman but I reckon you're overestimating our ability based on 3 games against mediocre opposition. The potential is certainly there for this team to explode but until they do it against the better sides and do it consistently I think it's incorrect to compare us favourably to the Tigers who have won 2 of 3 and are challenging for a 3rd in 4.

Agree. I'm more talking about model than outcome.

But where it useful to compare us to the tigers is where we are at in terms of our development as a team.

The tigers are the best team of the last 3 years. But it 5 years of development  and plenty of heartache,  prior to that to get there.

We are building. No guarantee we will get there but what the tigers show is there are no shortcuts.

[Dr. Gonzo 24,206]

On 8/20/2020 at 4:03 PM, Grimes Times said:

But being able to score from the front and the back isnt a plan A or B its just A. Teams dont go out and plan to only score from the back for a game and change it to score only from the front the next week. They try to do both and only some teams can currently do that.

Yeah this is exactly what I was going to say. Being good at scoring in different situations shows that the overall gameplan in all three phases (defensive structure/pressure, ball movement and stoppages) holds up against different opposition. This is generally due to a well drilled team who also has key players with individual brilliance.