Game plans, tactics and all that jazz

[Cheap Seats 3,300]

10 hours ago, binman said:

For me this is the critical question.

Goody and bevo are the perfect example of my type one and type two coaches.

With type one being fully committed tho their system (eg Longmire, Buckley and goodwin) and making few big changes on game day.

And type two having a system of course but being more flexible and focused on responding to the opposition strengths and weakness. And much more likely to make structural and positional changes.   

The problem with type one is every  player has to buy in for it to work. Maybe they thought they did yesterday but it was clear our defensive and forward pressure was appalling. pretty much for the whole game (it improved in the last). 

So leaving aside march day coaching for me the critical questions i why weren't the players ready.

Of course the players have personal responsibility for being ready but in team sports there is another intangible aspect - the collective enegery of the team

And graz i'm with you on this - it is the job of the coach to have his charges ready. Preparation plays a roles but it is also where the ability to motivate comes. I'll bet Bevo has this ability. it was on did play yesterday i reckon. Does goody?

Twice in big games we have failed to be ready. To be honest the failure this time was worse than against Port, because we had a seven day break and then Port experience to learn from. And still came out flat.

And worst of all we came out flat after half time.  That speaks to me of a coach who struggles to find a way to motivate - to get his players to dig deep deep and push though the barrier, to commit to the system, to gut run, to tackle, to harass.

Too often this year that effort has come n the last quarter when scoreboard pressure does the job of motivating - just as it again seemed to yesterday.  

Another  issue raised its ugly head yesterday. And that was on field leadership. Who in the third said enough, i am going to stand up and gut run, tackle like a crazy man, kick a goal against the run.

Instead we got our stand in captain giving utterly pathetic 50 and looking a petulant teenager. That was the only time i got really angry in that game as i knew that 4 goals was likely going to be bridge too far.

 

So let me sum.this post up for those playing at home.

Its Goodwins fault.

But its also Melkshams fault.

And if the players are more "ready" then the other team we'd win.

There weren't enough oranges at half time.

The players arent trying and Goodwin can't coach.

Pretty in depth summary of modern starategy i reckon.

Oh i almodt forgot, And no one ran hard enough because the dogs players and our players qualities are clearly equal so that means our players didnt try.

Edited August 23, 2020 by Unleash Hell

[whatwhat say what 18,829]

after half time was an utter disaster in terms of workrate, and it wasn't our own play that stopped them, it was shortened quarters and the siren

footscray are pretty good and they really put us to the sword in the premiership quarter

the way we didn't respond at all was really disappointing from a coaching perspective - if me sitting grumpily in front of the live stream can see the lack of effort put in to work hard defensively then i don't see how the coaching dept can't respond, and they really didn't change anything at all in the third

before we knew it the game was gone once melksham did his usual dumb give-away-a-goal thing - he's one of the biggest culprits for poor discipline and lack of workrate

we looked capable of getting back into it in the last but we completely fell away mentally after giving up ANOTHER goal on turnover; the amount of turnovers and reaction to perceived pressure just continues to show that the group don't react well to be under the kosh at all

[drdrake 3,035]

One thing I've noticed a lot the past 3-4 weeks is our players running ahead of the ball looking for the easy touch instead of getting front and square of the contest. It looks great is we can win the ball at the contest as the flick over to an open player looks great.  But when we don't win the footy or turn it over at the contest, we are out of position and have no chance to defend the ball getting out.

[3183 Dee 2,602]

I watched the Champions League final this morning and it prompted me to make a couple of comments regarding our game style, especially after Saturday. Please note that these comments are not based on any statistical research or any other in-depth knowledge - just my own observations and gut feel, as someone who grew up with soccer and fell in love with AFL:

The comparison with Klopp and the German system of play is very interesting. Some people have claimed that Goodwin has looked at Klopp’s strategy to form our own game plan. If this is correct, I can see similar patterns emerging in our game, although we are still a little way off. 

As I see it, the club has addressed the traditional defence set up with the acquisition of May and Lever. After an inconsistent and shaky start, we are starting to see a credible and tight defensive unit being built around these two players. The next keys in the defensive unit are to find ‘wing-backs’ who can transition the ball out of defence successfully and skilfully, whilst still being able to provide a contest. We have been much more successful this year at bringing the ball out, but I don’t think that we have 100% found the right personnel, although I think Rivers is well on his way to being one of these players. Whilst the system looks to be built around a high press and attacking aggression, it is fundamentally important to have a solid defence as, if the high press is breached, there is a certain counter attack. Had it not been for the defensive efforts of Lever and May on Saturday, I believe the Doggies could have scored quite a lot more.

Regarding the high press - the key to making this work, is aggressive pressure from the forward line. Against Collingwood, we saw this to great effect - against Footscray, we saw the opposite: if the forward line is not committed/fast enough to put constant pressure on the opponent’s backline, the game plan is negated, essentially meaning that the midfield line must now try to exert defensive pressure on a greater number of players, who have already started to build momentum in their movement forward. This restricts the midfield to concentrating on a negating role first and foremost, and when they do start forward movement, it is almost always from the D50 as they have had to track back so far.

However, when the forward line is maintaining great pressure on the opposition defence, the game plan works perfectly: the defence are bullied and harassed into mistakes and turning the ball over in our A50. If they are able to clear the lines, our midfield are waiting to pick up the ball coming out and launch another attack, with quick and precise ball movement (which we have also got better at, this year).

Our fitness is also key here: to try and defend against this type of attack is mentally and physically exhausting for an opposition. We saw in the three games prior to Saturday, that by applying pressure for 2.5 quarters, we were able to overrun the opposition for the remainder of the game.

I stress that this is only my opinion - if it is correct, then I think that it’s a sustainable game plan, but we are still a couple of players off making it work successfully and continuously. The lack of pressure from the forward line on Saturday was inexcusable -  apart from Kozzie  and occasionally Spargo, the aggression was non-existent. The Doggies were able to start their transition out of the backline without any hindrance at all, which kills us and some of the attempted tackling was borderline pathetic. Also, it must be noted that Goodwin must accept some of the responsibility  for the 3Q capitulation, by not making any tactical change to stymie Bont’s influence. This isn’t a get out for him, but the players must also learn to take initiative todirect things and make changes out on the field - I think back to that ‘Sounds Of The Game’ clip featuring Luke Hodge.

Regarding changes for this week: I think TMac has pretty much had it - although with the absence of Jackson, he has had a reprieve, but it will be interesting to see if they swap Mitch Brown in this weekend or maybe stick with Preuss and play a double ruck with Max. Preuss is obviously not a great forward, but does apply pressure, as long as he’s not too gassed. I would stick Jones into that high half forward position as he is often able to lock the ball into our attacking 70-50, same with Viney. I’d be tempted to put Bedford in for Hannan, who just goes missing too much for the return on his upside. I’ve never been a massive fan of ANB, but he definitely brings contest after contest. I’d probably give Harmes a break and bring Rivers in.

I’d be interested to hear what others think about my theory - even if it’s a completely opposing viewpoint.

[titan_uranus 22,236]

41 minutes ago, 3183 Dee said:

I watched the Champions League final this morning and it prompted me to make a couple of comments regarding our game style, especially after Saturday. Please note that these comments are not based on any statistical research or any other in-depth knowledge - just my own observations and gut feel, as someone who grew up with soccer and fell in love with AFL:

The comparison with Klopp and the German system of play is very interesting. Some people have claimed that Goodwin has looked at Klopp’s strategy to form our own game plan. If this is correct, I can see similar patterns emerging in our game, although we are still a little way off. 

As I see it, the club has addressed the traditional defence set up with the acquisition of May and Lever. After an inconsistent and shaky start, we are starting to see a credible and tight defensive unit being built around these two players. The next keys in the defensive unit are to find ‘wing-backs’ who can transition the ball out of defence successfully and skilfully, whilst still being able to provide a contest. We have been much more successful this year at bringing the ball out, but I don’t think that we have 100% found the right personnel, although I think Rivers is well on his way to being one of these players. Whilst the system looks to be built around a high press and attacking aggression, it is fundamentally important to have a solid defence as, if the high press is breached, there is a certain counter attack. Had it not been for the defensive efforts of Lever and May on Saturday, I believe the Doggies could have scored quite a lot more.

Regarding the high press - the key to making this work, is aggressive pressure from the forward line. Against Collingwood, we saw this to great effect - against Footscray, we saw the opposite: if the forward line is not committed/fast enough to put constant pressure on the opponent’s backline, the game plan is negated, essentially meaning that the midfield line must now try to exert defensive pressure on a greater number of players, who have already started to build momentum in their movement forward. This restricts the midfield to concentrating on a negating role first and foremost, and when they do start forward movement, it is almost always from the D50 as they have had to track back so far.

However, when the forward line is maintaining great pressure on the opposition defence, the game plan works perfectly: the defence are bullied and harassed into mistakes and turning the ball over in our A50. If they are able to clear the lines, our midfield are waiting to pick up the ball coming out and launch another attack, with quick and precise ball movement (which we have also got better at, this year).

Our fitness is also key here: to try and defend against this type of attack is mentally and physically exhausting for an opposition. We saw in the three games prior to Saturday, that by applying pressure for 2.5 quarters, we were able to overrun the opposition for the remainder of the game.

I stress that this is only my opinion - if it is correct, then I think that it’s a sustainable game plan, but we are still a couple of players off making it work successfully and continuously. The lack of pressure from the forward line on Saturday was inexcusable -  apart from Kozzie  and occasionally Spargo, the aggression was non-existent. The Doggies were able to start their transition out of the backline without any hindrance at all, which kills us and some of the attempted tackling was borderline pathetic. Also, it must be noted that Goodwin must accept some of the responsibility  for the 3Q capitulation, by not making any tactical change to stymie Bont’s influence. This isn’t a get out for him, but the players must also learn to take initiative todirect things and make changes out on the field - I think back to that ‘Sounds Of The Game’ clip featuring Luke Hodge.

Regarding changes for this week: I think TMac has pretty much had it - although with the absence of Jackson, he has had a reprieve, but it will be interesting to see if they swap Mitch Brown in this weekend or maybe stick with Preuss and play a double ruck with Max. Preuss is obviously not a great forward, but does apply pressure, as long as he’s not too gassed. I would stick Jones into that high half forward position as he is often able to lock the ball into our attacking 70-50, same with Viney. I’d be tempted to put Bedford in for Hannan, who just goes missing too much for the return on his upside. I’ve never been a massive fan of ANB, but he definitely brings contest after contest. I’d probably give Harmes a break and bring Rivers in.

I’d be interested to hear what others think about my theory - even if it’s a completely opposing viewpoint.

Well written, @3183 Dee.

I agree that the way we play is a sustainable brand of football, with one caveat: we're yet to prove that our current list can sustain it for four quarters and/or for long enough within a season to make finals, win finals, and win a flag.

When we speak about the importance of forward half pressure, we look to the same players who fail to deliver the requisite level of pressure consistently: I'd suggest Pickett and vandenBerg, and ANB when he plays, generally do well with pressure acts (where can that stat be found, does anyone know?) but players like Fritsch, Hannan, Melksham, Spargo, Hunt, Jones, ANB, previously Garlett and Kent, have all been inconsistent. None of them bring the same output on a weekly basis when it comes to defensive pressure. Some weeks they are up and about, chasing every defender, tackling hard, repeat efforts. Other weeks they look disinterested, or too slow to impact the contest, or too weak to stick tackles, or a combination of all of those. And of course, of the three I've mentioned who are more consistent pressure-wise, vandenBerg commits far too many turnovers/clangers and ANB's a poor kick and doesn't get enough of the ball.

So the question for me is whether we're capable of raising the consistency across the forward half of the ground to a level which can prevent the lapses we see within games (e.g. first quarter vs West Coast, second quarter vs Brisbane, third quarter vs Bulldogs). If we can, the rest of the way we play means we can challenge. If we can't, we'll never get there. 

Edited August 24, 2020 by titan_uranus

[Binmans PA 25,921]

Great post @3183 Dee and @titan_uranus.

This is partly why I've been disappointed with Salem's conservative play from the back. He may not have the leg-speed of a Trent Alexander-Arnold or Andrew Robertson, but he's no slouch and has beautiful delivery, as those two do. I completely agree on Rivers. Could Rivers and Salem be our 'wing backs'?

I'd also play Harmes forward, with Viney and Jones. That's three guys you know are going to more consistently than not, give you a contest and tough tackling pressure. I'd play Weideman, Melksham, Fritsch, Kozzie and Spargo as the other five rotating through there. And I'd use Fritsch as the lead up player across half forward and the wing. I agree that McDonald is a liability with his foot.

However, I think we'll get murdered by St Kilda if we play two ruckman. They'll use this weak link to waltz off half back. It's an idea dipped in poison IMV.

As for our defence, I think it's slightly more complex than Liverpool's set up, in that our game involves more players and moving parts, but it is certainly true that as soon as Liverpool shored up their central defence with the acquisition VVD, the rest of the defence flowed.

I think in our game, May and Lever are both great acquisitions because they not only defend (spoil or intercept) well, they help us set up the rest of our defence and the mids in front of them. This is very VVD and what he brings to Liverpool.

I think we have the players on our list to implement the system Goodwin wants to play, but I think we're being a bit stubborn in hoping others can fill the need. Harmes, Jones and Viney should play forward, not rest forward. They are all capable of hitting the scoreboard too.

And as TU says, the question remaining is around consistency. Those three hardened mids bring consistency. It's logical IMO.

Edited August 24, 2020 by A F

[Axis of Bob 10,185]

31 minutes ago, 3183 Dee said:

Regarding the high press - the key to making this work, is aggressive pressure from the forward line.

This is what I think is most important.

We have a game plan that relies of the contest and defence. We have a big, brutal defence and a big, brutal midfield. They thrive on the contest and drive the ball forward. We have a silky, attacking forward line that is good at turning chances into goals .... but they're mismatched with the rest of our side. We have two tall forwards (Weid and TMac), three mediums (Fritsch, Hannan and Melksham) and two smalls (Kossie and Spargo) rotating through over the course of a game.

This works just fine against teams where we can defend easily with our midfield/defenders (like we have the last 3 weeks) because these players are very good at turning this dominance into goals. But when you play these 7 forwards then you are effectively playing with 4 non-tackling forwards (Weid, TMac, Fritsch and Melksham) and our ability to slow down the opposition's attacks is really compromised. 

We currently have a bifurcated team: forwards and everyone else. 

We win games when we can make the game a slog, because we have a real advantage in the hard, contested football. We don't win shootouts, and haven't for a while because we have drafted and selected a team of big, brawling bruisers. This highest score we've conceded in a win this year was 63 against Gold Coast. In our others wins we conceded only 53, 48, 37, 35 and 44. Our losses in low scoring contests (against Brisbane and Geelong) were by 4 points and 3 points. 

So we should be trying to make each contests a contested slog, because we are well placed for that but we have selected a forward line for a free flowing, high scoring match. It's trying to have your cake and eat it too rather than doubling down on your core strengths and bludgeoning your opponent into submission week in and week out by selecting a fast, high pressure forward line that can play the same high pressure game as the rest of our team. 

That might mean that we have to leave some of our better players out of the side and bring in some clearly less talented players to play more defensive roles in order to help our team play more cohesively.

[Binmans PA 25,921]

Great post @Axis of Bob. Agree with that too.

So what would you do with our forward make up this year?

[3183 Dee 2,602]

Thanks for the replies and comments. Further to @Axis of Bob’s point, I believe that we do have a bit of silk in our midfield, in the shape of Petracca and Oliver. Whilst they are not out-and-out silk merchants, they do have a combination of skill and brutality, which makes them invaluable. I see our game plan as needing a spine of this type of player, as well as 100% fast and skilful types and 100% all-out brutes. Langdon has been a great acquisition, but we need another skilful outside mid.

Edited August 24, 2020 by 3183 Dee

[Binmans PA 25,921]

13 minutes ago, 3183 Dee said:

Thanks for the replies and comments. Further to @Axis of Bob’s point, I believe that we do have a bit of silk in our midfield, in the shape of Petracca and Oliver. Whilst they are not out-and-out silk merchants, they do have a combination of skill and brutality, which makes them invaluable. I see our game plan as needing a spine of this type of player, as well as 100% fast and skilful types and 100% all-out brutes. Langdon has been a great acquisition, but we need another skilful outside mid.

Bennell?

[titan_uranus 22,236]

35 minutes ago, A F said:

Great post @Axis of Bob. Agree with that too.

So what would you do with our forward make up this year?

Lends support to the argument in favour of getting Viney into the forward half.

I would argue Harmes also would be an improvement on our forward line. 

[3183 Dee 2,602]

26 minutes ago, A F said:

Bennell?

Definitely - I think he was well worth the risk. He might not show it this season, but this was all about whether he would even play again. Another pre-season and he could be a fantastic addition.

[Axis of Bob 10,185]

2 minutes ago, A F said:

So what would you do with our forward make up this year?

Well it was interesting earlier in the year where Goodwin played with just one tall forward. It was hailed as a failure, but it was certainly more geared around our strengths and weaknesses of our forward line. The difference, of course, was that the forward was McDonald rather than Weideman. The games were we did this were against Geelong (TMac and Fritsch barely touched it) and Richmond (we were constantly outmarked up forward), before the plan was dumped and we brought Weideman in for the Gold Coast game. Interestingly, even though we played better, our second forward didn't get near it and 4 of our forwards didn't even register a tackle (Weid, TMac, Fritsch and Bennell) as we thoroughly destroyed them in the midfield. 

Let's look at the top teams at the moment: Port (Dixon, Ladhams and Georgiades), Brisbane (McStay, Hipwood), Geelong (Hawkins), West Coast (Kennedy, Darling), Richmond (Lynch, Riewoldt). Those teams have a range of styles in the forward line but, with probably the exception of Port, the common thing is that they play the minimum number of non-defensive tall forwards they can whilst still being able to stop the opposition marking the high ball. Geelong only need one because Hawkins is enormous, and Richmond and West Coast can play two because their second forwards (Darling and Riewoldt) are excellent defensively. 

I would be trying to do the same thing, where I have the minimum number of non-defending talls up forward whilst still bringing the ball to ground. Weideman can do this with another player who also has a secondary role - that could be either Jackson (forward ruck) or Fritsch (tall / medium). I actually think that we should be looking at getting Fritsch into a half back role to use his marking, and kicking whilst being protected by a defensive zone, whilst giving Jackson the second tall forward role (or McDonald doing the same until Jackson returns). After that you can have Melksham playing as a defensive medium (which he has done more effectively prior to 2020), Kossie and then a choice of the best performing of Spargo, Bedford, ANB (who is by far our best defensive forward), C Wagner or Chandler. I've always liked the idea of Viney forward, but I think the issue is with the types of player in the forward line (and balance) rather than the specific personnel. 

[binman 37,870]

 

2 hours ago, 3183 Dee said:

 

1. Had it not been for the defensive efforts of Lever and May on Saturday, I believe the Doggies could have scored quite a lot more.
2. Our fitness is also key here: to try and defend against this type of attack is mentally and physically exhausting for an opposition. 
3. I think that it’s a sustainable game plan, but we are still a couple of players off making it work successfully and continuously.
4. The lack of pressure from the forward line on Saturday was inexcusable -  apart from Kozzie  and occasionally Spargo, the aggression was non-existent. 

 

Great post 3183. Won't get an opposing view from me. Spot on.

A couple of responses to the points above

1. Agree, particularly may who gave Naughton a toweling - and it think it is an important point in terms of the discussion we could have got close if we had kicked straight. That may be true but really we were lucky to not get beaten by a lot more 
2. Agree defending against our system (assuming of course we are actually implementing it) is mentally and physically exhausting for an opposition - but i would also say it is mentally and physically exhausting to play. It is built for finals and is hard to sustain in the home and away season. And for me a key question i have started to ponder is the mental side of this equation - surely coming out after the half time break and not working hard enough is mental not physical. It tells me we have a way to go to get to the next level and that Goody has work to do on his ability to get his players fully switched on and motivated
3. Agree, i think, but only we have the players with the  mental fortitude to dig deep week, week out - we are a relatively young side but so is Port and a number of times, this week included, i have seen them come out very flat but dig deep after half time to win games they easily could have lost
4. 1000% agree - this week losing Jackson really showed because he works super hard in our front half. To be fair so did tmac but he is simply too slow and lacks agility and mobility. And like the roos, the dogs took full advantage of these issues. One thing i'd say though is i don't give kozzie a pass mark. Not only did he miss goals he is in the side to kick his pressure was way, way off what it has been.
5. Bonus points Axis for the use of the word bifurcate

 

Edited August 24, 2020 by binman

[binman 37,870]

3 minutes ago, Axis of Bob said:

 

Let's look at the top teams at the moment: Port (Dixon, Ladhams and Georgiades), Brisbane (McStay, Hipwood), Geelong (Hawkins), West Coast (Kennedy, Darling), Richmond (Lynch, Riewoldt). Those teams have a range of styles in the forward line but, with probably the exception of Port, the common thing is that they play the minimum number of non-defensive tall forwards they can whilst still being able to stop the opposition marking the high ball. Geelong only need one because Hawkins is enormous, and Richmond and West Coast can play two because their second forwards (Darling and Riewoldt) are excellent defensively. 

I would be trying to do the same thing, where I have the minimum number of non-defending talls up forward whilst still bringing the ball to ground. 

I can't see how Tmac can play with his lack of mobility. The saints will torch him.

I know opinion is divided on Smith but for me now that Jackson is out i'd swap him for Tmac.

Let him loose down forward. Be manic.

Don't think. Do

Encourage him to be aggressive in the air and fly for everything. Bring the ball to ground and any mark is bonus. He is an excellent tackle, is quick and spread and cover the switch in away that Tmac simply can't. 

[layzie 28,543]

1 hour ago, Axis of Bob said:

This is what I think is most important.

We have a game plan that relies of the contest and defence. We have a big, brutal defence and a big, brutal midfield. They thrive on the contest and drive the ball forward. We have a silky, attacking forward line that is good at turning chances into goals .... but they're mismatched with the rest of our side. We have two tall forwards (Weid and TMac), three mediums (Fritsch, Hannan and Melksham) and two smalls (Kossie and Spargo) rotating through over the course of a game.

This works just fine against teams where we can defend easily with our midfield/defenders (like we have the last 3 weeks) because these players are very good at turning this dominance into goals. But when you play these 7 forwards then you are effectively playing with 4 non-tackling forwards (Weid, TMac, Fritsch and Melksham) and our ability to slow down the opposition's attacks is really compromised. 

We currently have a bifurcated team: forwards and everyone else. 

We win games when we can make the game a slog, because we have a real advantage in the hard, contested football. We don't win shootouts, and haven't for a while because we have drafted and selected a team of big, brawling bruisers. This highest score we've conceded in a win this year was 63 against Gold Coast. In our others wins we conceded only 53, 48, 37, 35 and 44. Our losses in low scoring contests (against Brisbane and Geelong) were by 4 points and 3 points. 

So we should be trying to make each contests a contested slog, because we are well placed for that but we have selected a forward line for a free flowing, high scoring match. It's trying to have your cake and eat it too rather than doubling down on your core strengths and bludgeoning your opponent into submission week in and week out by selecting a fast, high pressure forward line that can play the same high pressure game as the rest of our team. 

That might mean that we have to leave some of our better players out of the side and bring in some clearly less talented players to play more defensive roles in order to help our team play more cohesively.

Totally nailed it, Goodwin talks all the time about how we want to be a contested ball team that wants to lock the ball in the 50 yet the ball comes back out repeatedly and when we actually do force a stoppage in the 50 we rarely do anything with it. 

I couldn't agree more that if this is the kind of side we are then we should be trying to create as many contests as possible, force stoppage after stoppage and frustrate other backlines. 

[Binmans PA 25,921]

24 minutes ago, Axis of Bob said:

Well it was interesting earlier in the year where Goodwin played with just one tall forward. It was hailed as a failure, but it was certainly more geared around our strengths and weaknesses of our forward line. The difference, of course, was that the forward was McDonald rather than Weideman. The games were we did this were against Geelong (TMac and Fritsch barely touched it) and Richmond (we were constantly outmarked up forward), before the plan was dumped and we brought Weideman in for the Gold Coast game. Interestingly, even though we played better, our second forward didn't get near it and 4 of our forwards didn't even register a tackle (Weid, TMac, Fritsch and Bennell) as we thoroughly destroyed them in the midfield. 

Let's look at the top teams at the moment: Port (Dixon, Ladhams and Georgiades), Brisbane (McStay, Hipwood), Geelong (Hawkins), West Coast (Kennedy, Darling), Richmond (Lynch, Riewoldt). Those teams have a range of styles in the forward line but, with probably the exception of Port, the common thing is that they play the minimum number of non-defensive tall forwards they can whilst still being able to stop the opposition marking the high ball. Geelong only need one because Hawkins is enormous, and Richmond and West Coast can play two because their second forwards (Darling and Riewoldt) are excellent defensively. 

I would be trying to do the same thing, where I have the minimum number of non-defending talls up forward whilst still bringing the ball to ground. Weideman can do this with another player who also has a secondary role - that could be either Jackson (forward ruck) or Fritsch (tall / medium). I actually think that we should be looking at getting Fritsch into a half back role to use his marking, and kicking whilst being protected by a defensive zone, whilst giving Jackson the second tall forward role (or McDonald doing the same until Jackson returns). After that you can have Melksham playing as a defensive medium (which he has done more effectively prior to 2020), Kossie and then a choice of the best performing of Spargo, Bedford, ANB (who is by far our best defensive forward), C Wagner or Chandler. I've always liked the idea of Viney forward, but I think the issue is with the types of player in the forward line (and balance) rather than the specific personnel. 

This is outstanding analysis, Bob.

I'd be up for reverting to the one key tall as I've discussed elsewhere. Our forward entries have been markedly better than they were during the West Coast, Geelong and Richmond games.

When Weideman's been switched on in the early part of his career, he's often tackled well playing up the ground. I think he has the capacity to evolve his defensive game to a Lynch level.

I think when Jackson's fit again, I don't think there'd a question about whether we'd play two talls, he'd be straight in for mine. But until he returns, I'd look at mixing it up too.

Fritsch, for whatever reason, is a turnover merchant at half back, but in the forward half of the ground, he's far more accurate. Maybe this is something he can improve on, having already played down there?

I like Melksham as the defensive forward, but it means we need another connector, leading up half forward, otherwise the chances the second defender drops off and isolates Weideman in a two on one is very high. That lead up forward at this stage (if Melksham is playing defensive forward) is probably Fritsch IMV. I'd then play mids around this. 

All great for food thought though.

[Axis of Bob 10,185]

Just looking at the stats, during the 2 weeks where we played a single tall setup (Geelong and Richmond) Fritsch's had an almost hilariously low (for a forward) 3 and 4 pressure acts. By comparison, our number one key forward, Tom McDonald, had 10 and 8 in each game, whilst Kozzie had 16 and 19. Yikes!

I'm not doing this to single out Bayley, I'm just showing that kicking goals isn't the only thing we need to look at. Currently the balance of the forward line doesn't seem quite right, IMHO, because our highest quality forwards are of a different style to the midfield and defence.

[Binmans PA 25,921]

12 minutes ago, Axis of Bob said:

Just looking at the stats, during the 2 weeks where we played a single tall setup (Geelong and Richmond) Fritsch's had an almost hilariously low (for a forward) 3 and 4 pressure acts. By comparison, our number one key forward, Tom McDonald, had 10 and 8 in each game, whilst Kozzie had 16 and 19. Yikes!

I'm not doing this to single out Bayley, I'm just showing that kicking goals isn't the only thing we need to look at. Currently the balance of the forward line doesn't seem quite right, IMHO, because our highest quality forwards are of a different style to the midfield and defence.

Absolutely.

They're interesting stats, because it's like clockwork that you look down at the stat sheet and see almost all our forwards or at least a number of our players registering zero tackles.

Against Collingwood, when our pressure was high, we laid less tackles than against the Bulldogs and the following players from our forward or mid system had zero or one tackle each: Melksham, Vandenberg, Fritsch, Weideman, Petracca, Pickett.

It's not like the rest of the forwards laid a stack either. Jones, Spargo and McDonald only laid two tackles each.

Successful tackling pressure isn't necessarily the best measurement, clearly. How do these stack up against pressure acts? 

Whatever the result, it's clear that we're not getting the most out of all of our forwards. 

Another thing that has been noticeable over the last few weeks is our want to keep our forward structure and always keep one or two forwards deep.

"Currently the balance of the forward line doesn't seem quite right, IMHO, because our highest quality forwards are of a different style to the midfield and defence." - This is great. Agreed. That's why I'd be playing Viney, Harmes and Jones, the same style as our mids, as forwards. They don't have to be defensive forwards necessarily either. Each can hit the scoreboard and I'd argue Viney and Harmes are quite quick.

[dpositive 1,547]

On 8/22/2020 at 7:13 PM, A F said:

So today was a very good example of what happens to the systems and zones when the work rate isn't up to scratch.

How many of you think that it's incumbent on the coach to shift things in game versus trusting the systems will right themselves and empowering the players to lift their performance in order for things to be successful?

It's an interesting question, because I'm inclined to think if you're going to play a system that relies on pressure, if the players don't bring it, there's really no amount of flicking the magnets around that will change the result.

True, (but again as I have said perhaps too much) that's the coach's job. Make em inclined.

 I understand that familiarity may bred contempt and that message from the coach each game may not work it's why I suggested that a rev up from a Dland supporter may help.

I recall sitting in a barber shop in Collingwood while Len Thompson was having a trim. He told the barber and the few customers that the worst thing about losing was that you couldn't get on a tram or run to training without being spat on by a Collingwood supporter. It gave added incentive to not be responsible for the loss.

[Binmans PA 25,921]

26 minutes ago, dpositive said:

True, (but again as I have said perhaps too much) that's the coach's job. Make em inclined.

 I understand that familiarity may bred contempt and that message from the coach each game may not work it's why I suggested that a rev up from a Dland supporter may help.

I recall sitting in a barber shop in Collingwood while Len Thompson was having a trim. He told the barber and the few customers that the worst thing about losing was that you couldn't get on a tram or run to training without being spat on by a Collingwood supporter. It gave added incentive to not be responsible for the loss.

I think this is tongue in cheek here, mate, but Len Thompson played a long time ago. In the early part of this thread, a few posters talked about the autocratic coach being from a bygone era. It's close to irrelevant in the modern game IMV. 

I'm not convinced we'll see another autocratic coach again. I get what you're saying though. I'd argue the coach's job is partly to motivate and inspire, but with the systems in place these days, it's just as much about teaching and reassuring players of their roles and efforts within the systems.

Edited August 24, 2020 by A F

[58er 5,604]

14 hours ago, Axis of Bob said:

Just looking at the stats, during the 2 weeks where we played a single tall setup (Geelong and Richmond) Fritsch's had an almost hilariously low (for a forward) 3 and 4 pressure acts. By comparison, our number one key forward, Tom McDonald, had 10 and 8 in each game, whilst Kozzie had 16 and 19. Yikes!

I'm not doing this to single out Bayley, I'm just showing that kicking goals isn't the only thing we need to look at. Currently the balance of the forward line doesn't seem quite right, IMHO, because our highest quality forwards are of a different style to the midfield and defence.

While I think Bont and Wallis were elite ( no Tagger  snd Poor defensive one on Ones mainly ) and largely contributed to the Digs win we had Bayley Fritsch have a number of opportunities to be BOG.

Again  his goal kicking accuracy from average difficulty AFL shots even allowing fir the breeze was very disappointing.His panic attempt at kicking the third quarter goal on the run ( surely could have run further ) a bad skill error.

Snd his tackling ( tries hard but his body strength fails him rather than technique) is below par.

BUT As we know he can mark and create more opportunities than any other forward.  He leads well BUT why o why so deep to the boundary in the pockets????

Wallis hit his 4 goals from 40 m out in a small arc and never looked like missing from about the same no of shots.

SO what is our forward Coach trying to improve  Bayley's  footy ? Clearly he has above average skills but he is negating these with dumb and disappointing errors in his game. We are getting only 2 at most goals ( some time only one) from 4/5/ or 6 Shots  each game at conversion.

( BTW What a shocker shot from Melky fir a point also coach killing error not befitting him ) in the second quarter.!!) 

SO Fritta needs to work on his game to be an A grader in out firward setup ( say like Breust is/was to the Hawks.

He needs to lead straighter got over his point kicking  and put in some weight/ muscle to be even better in one on ones and for defensive pressure ie tackling!

PLEASE BOB no he is best up forward but we can't afford his skill ratio of lower than 50 % in most categories!!! He is no better now than last year but his conversion and tactics are holding back his devroplment to a very good player who can win games fir us.

Just seems as though everyone inc himself are satisfied with his out put and don't  want him to improve WHILE we are losing out big time as a result!
 

Goody etc What are you going to do? Urgently please?????

 

 

[pitmaster 3,058]

On 8/10/2020 at 3:57 PM, Axis of Bob said:

The real issue that makes a zone so effective in AFL is the speed of the ball through the air, and the man on the mark. 

You can cover space because the ball generally travels relatively slowly through the air as well as from decision to kick (ie, a step or two, drop the ball, then swing the leg .... it takes time) and defenders are able to use this time to cover territory. So you don't need as many people to cover the ground against the medium/long pass and instead you can use these extra numbers where you need them .... to cover the long kick down the line. 

 

I'm going to need to think about this highly praised analysis some more because AoB there is a fundamental flaw in your introduction. Simply, the fastest way to move the ball forward is by kicking it. Run and carry does not move the ball at anything like the speed of a kick, unless it's a mistimed "up and under".

For speed of movement a kick is the best way to go; "relatively slowly" ain't right, with respect.

[BW511 2,238]

1 hour ago, 58er said:

While I think Bont and Wallis were elite ( no Tagger  snd Poor defensive one on Ones mainly ) and largely contributed to the Digs win we had Bayley Fritsch have a number of opportunities to be BOG.

Again  his goal kicking accuracy from average difficulty AFL shots even allowing fir the breeze was very disappointing.His panic attempt at kicking the third quarter goal on the run ( surely could have run further ) a bad skill error.

Snd his tackling ( tries hard but his body strength fails him rather than technique) is below par.

BUT As we know he can mark and create more opportunities than any other forward.  He leads well BUT why o why so deep to the boundary in the pockets????

Wallis hit his 4 goals from 40 m out in a small arc and never looked like missing from about the same no of shots.

SO what is our forward Coach trying to improve  Bayley's  footy ? Clearly he has above average skills but he is negating these with dumb and disappointing errors in his game. We are getting only 2 at most goals ( some time only one) from 4/5/ or 6 Shots  each game at conversion.

( BTW What a shocker shot from Melky fir a point also coach killing error not befitting him ) in the second quarter.!!) 

SO Fritta needs to work on his game to be an A grader in out firward setup ( say like Breust is/was to the Hawks.

He needs to lead straighter got over his point kicking  and put in some weight/ muscle to be even better in one on ones and for defensive pressure ie tackling!

PLEASE BOB no he is best up forward but we can't afford his skill ratio of lower than 50 % in most categories!!! He is no better now than last year but his conversion and tactics are holding back his devroplment to a very good player who can win games fir us.

Just seems as though everyone inc himself are satisfied with his out put and don't  want him to improve WHILE we are losing out big time as a result!
 

Goody etc What are you going to do? Urgently please?????

 

 

I think Fritta is a little too comfortable. He doesn't really have any challengers for his position and the other bloke playing a similar role is in a horrible form slump (Melksham). 

He's also a fairly easy match up for opposition defenders, you just sit goal side of him and let him lead away from contact for his low percentage shots. He is having 4-6 shots a week, but if he's only making 1-2 of them, it isn't going to be the difference between a win or loss.

The issue I have with Harmes, Viney or Jones as permanent forwards is that none of them have any tricks. With zones, there is always plenty of players around the contest and those three can't regularly manufacture goals on their own in the way a Papley, Butler, Rioli, Henry, Cameron, Miers or Bolton could. Not one of them has an elite side step, pace or leap.

Wallis on the weekend was a good example, he had plenty of space to operate due to the speed the dogs transitioned and he was absolutely sensational in the way he used his brain to beat opponents - Through strength, body position and timing

 

 

Edited August 24, 2020 by BW511

[3183 Dee 2,602]

46 minutes ago, pitmaster said:

I'm going to need to think about this highly praised analysis some more because AoB there is a fundamental flaw in your introduction. Simply, the fastest way to move the ball forward is by kicking it. Run and carry does not move the ball at anything like the speed of a kick, unless it's a mistimed "up and under".

For speed of movement a kick is the best way to go; "relatively slowly" ain't right, with respect.

I’d suggest that maybe a combination of the two is the most effective. Quick run and carry/passing through the middle of the ground and then an accurate kick over a shorter distance, either to lead or contest in A50 or to another position around the A50 to set up an opportunity.