4 hours ago, whatwhatsaywhat said:

i would have thought our gameplan was fairly self-evident in the way we have played for several years

• win stoppages and clearances is the #1 mandate
• move the ball via overlap run
• fan wide on the rebound / entering 50
• clear out / block central corridor and force teams to use the boundary thus theoretically maximising repeat stoppages and limiting oppo run (doesn't work if we don't defend exits effectively)
• defend maniacally
• limit turnovers (which can mean we sometimes look overly cautious when in possession)

what i like is that it's not overly complicated, which is genuinely a good guide to the kiss principle; tiggas' game plan to me essentially appears to be defend maniacally, force turnover, run in waves on the rebound

It is, IMO, a balance and diversity of strategy and tactics.

The elements that you mention strike me as a game plan (a recipe or strategy to kick a winning score and restrict the scores of other teams). This is a strategic intent. 

The tactics used to achieve this strategic intent should be variable, not predictive by an opposition team/coach. Tactical acuity needs to be developed across a team with as many players as possible exhibiting footballing skills to a level greater and more varied than those skills exhibited by an opposing team. It is great to have a pathway that is primarily successful in defence and attack at all points of the playing field. It is not wise to consistently use the same tactical, 'readable' and predictive methodology; thus, several applications of varying footballing tactics need to be established across the playing group - both individually and collectively. (ie: success can be demonstrated in many ways by many players when confronted with many challenges in a game of footy.) 

Tactics are thus the complex area of footy; the more you have and develop, the more success you will have as a team. Player diversity is a key; recognising and exploiting varied opportunities is another. Selecting that tactic for that opportunity is crucial to team management and deployment. If these qualities are not there, you lose.

9 hours ago, skills32 said:

Many people here and in the media talk about game plans.

What I would like to know is; what is a game plan. Is it an algorithm or something?

What is the MFC game plan.  We seem  to play on a lot.  Is that it?- our game plan?  

I have been here for yonks see the phrase 'game plan' and gloss on without thinking about it.  

That stops here. I want to know all about  game plans.                                  

Can some one actually explain to me what a game plan is and why it is important to have one.                                     

PS I played footie for 40 odd years  and  in that time I never  knew I was part of a plan or  that one existed.      

Read David Wheadons ‘The Art of Coaching’. 
 

Good detail on game ‘plans’ and team ‘rules’ - particularly during his time at Essendon. 

9 hours ago, McQueen said:

Read David Wheadons ‘The Art of Coaching’. 
 

Good detail on game ‘plans’ and team ‘rules’ - particularly during his time at Essendon. 

Following on from this, I think a ‘game plan’ is reliant on strong leadership and direction from a couple of key players, rather than the whole group intending to play deliberately for 120 minutes.

The Lions, Hawks and current Tigers side have/had a few very smart operators on field who control what goes on - when to attack, when to press defensively, when to grind it out. 
 

I’ve said a few times before that we don’t have enough on field generals directing traffic. I’m not the biggest Goodwin fan, but it must be infuriating having to hold the players hands all game to get a result.

We are also very shaky at winning contests individually, so we have to setup defensively as our default. There’s so many important 1 on 1 contests in a game and I’d guess we would go at 40% or less in them.

The only two players on our list I would be 100% confident of winning their position on any day, against any opponent are Steven May and Max Gawn. Even then, a Gawn win can be very hollow

 

Our game plan over the past couple of years has been about winning the football at the contest.  Our Number one strategy was to push an out number to the contest control the football mainly by hand till we get a player in the clear to kick it forward.  To achieve this  outnumber has severely effected our forward structure, most clubs will push a forward into the midfield to ensure we had the outnumber at the contest we often pushed 2 to 3 forwards to the contest.  Our opposition knew this held their back six structure and basically allowed us to win the ball at the contest and get us on the forward 50 turnover/rebound.  

The main issue with our game plan is we don't have the skill set to keep the football, as soon as we turn the football over which we often did due to over handballing at the contest trying to free up the ball, there was always space outside the contested area and as soon as the ball escaped this area it was an easy take away by our opponents.

Teams knew that we couldn't hit a forward target by foot which is vitally important as we are kicking into a outnumbered forward 50.  Scoring of a rebound and setting up across half back was the way to beat us.  They win the ball and flick it out to the fat side and we had no chance to get over to defend the exit.

To me, we need to stop this consistent out number up forward it was often 2 -3 loose defenders against our forwards.  Back our mids to win the footy, if you look at Richmond and Bulldogs, that is what they do keep pushing the ball forward knowing the that they have players forward of the ball that will apply pressure.

 

16 minutes ago, BW511 said:

Following on from this, I think a ‘game plan’ is reliant on strong leadership and direction from a couple of key players, rather than the whole group intending to play deliberately for 120 minutes.

The Lions, Hawks and current Tigers side have/had a few very smart operators on field who control what goes on - when to attack, when to press defensively, when to grind it out. 
 

I’ve said a few times before that we don’t have enough on field generals directing traffic. I’m not the biggest Goodwin fan, but it must be infuriating having to hold the players hands all game to get a result.

We are also very shaky at winning contests individually, so we have to setup defensively as our default. There’s so many important 1 on 1 contests in a game and I’d guess we would go at 40% or less in them.

The only two players on our list I would be 100% confident of winning their position on any day, against any opponent are Steven May and Max Gawn. Even then, a Gawn win can be very hollow

 

Very very good point BW

Even when our guys are on top in a game there is always a critical turnover at some point in the game  that we seem incapable of recovering from and then the momentum changes and we are  very soon on the back foot defending grimly> How many times we see this. 

It is very frustrating to watch and if Goodwin cannot fix this flaw then our improvement and results will not be forthcoming

Edited January 4, 20214 yr by Kent

1 hour ago, BW511 said:

Following on from this, I think a ‘game plan’ is reliant on strong leadership and direction from a couple of key players, rather than the whole group intending to play deliberately for 120 minutes.

The Lions, Hawks and current Tigers side have/had a few very smart operators on field who control what goes on - when to attack, when to press defensively, when to grind it out. 
 

Agree.

Having leaders who can provide on field direction is super important in any team sport, but perhaps even more so in footy given the challenge a coach of getting a message (even more of challenge with the stupid restriction on runners) to players, the size of the playing field and the complexity of having 18 players on the ground.

I reckon another key element is players who show leadership with their effort. It has always been the case but more than ever lazy players are exposed in modern footy and it infests the team.

In the latter third of the season, Fox and 7 were using more down the ground shots and when watching games i started using the Telstra tracker on the AFL live app (thanks for the tip on that Deaonox).

Both reminded me of how many players are within a 50 metre radius of the footy at when the ball is in motion (something you can see siting high in the stands at games), how much running is involved and how critical hard running is in term of both offensive and defensive transition (in particular defending the switch).  

There is a well established psychological theory called social loafing. Social loafing refers to the concept that people are prone to exert less effort (unconsciously or consciously) when working collectively as part of a group compared to performing a task alone. Applied to sports it can be the difference between winning and losing, particularly I would have though in sport like AFL  where a team has 22 players (as opposed to say 10 playing basketball) so plenty of scope for loafing.

Leaders play a key role in mitigating against social loafing as the two key strategies to address it are accountability and team cohesion.

True leaders apply maximum effort (in games and training), which serves as an important benchmark and supports accountability ('people can see i'm not working as hard as Steve May, i better lift my game').

Their work rate also means leaders are more able to hold team mates accountable for not working hard enough - hard to challenge a teammate for not working hard enough if you don't.

His teammates wouldn't have been down on May for giving  Frost an on field bake, but i can't imagine they'd be too thrilled with Gus giving anyone a bake (or Melksham for that matter- who seems to do his fair share of on field criticism, which reckon would rankle a bit)

And leaders play a critical role in building and maintain team cohesion. During a game of footy this might manifest with the sort of direction BW511 notes, or reinforcing team rules, or standing up for a teammate who has been roughed up, or words of encouragement to a player who who has made a mistake or at quarter time huddle. 

Conversely something known as the sucker effect suggests if one person starts social loafing more group members will then social loaf. Colin Sylvia was the perfect example of this phenomenon I reckon.  

Edited January 4, 20214 yr by binman

15 hours ago, Pickett2Jackson said:

We didnt even have one in 2018.  We won through sheer weight of numbers by dominating clearances and getting an ungodly amount of inside 50's

West Coast showed in the prelim final how easy we were to beat.  Now they had a gameplan.

That's the 2018 game plan right there.

Goodwin's game plan has focused first and foremost on dominating time in forward half. He has always believed that successful footy sides ensure the ball is in their forward half more than their opponents. I don't have the stats to hand to say whether he's right about that or not.

In 2018 we achieved this through prioritising stoppages and clearances. We ran one off the back of the square to ensure we had an extra number at centre bounces and we regularly swapped out our sixth forward for an extra number through the middle. We then scored heavily through locking the ball in our forward half. And we used a high forward half press, with our key defenders in the middle of the ground, to lock the ball in that forward half. It largely worked, we scored heavily, and we won 16 games doing it.

So we had a game plan. Since 2018 it's fallen apart for a number of reasons, including that it wasn't a particularly sustainable game plan to begin with. We've changed things since then, although Goodwin's core focus appears to me to remain time in forward half dominance.

Game plan. Nullify every other Team's good players either by fair or foul, especially  if coached by Sheedy progeny.. I remember playing Cricket with Eric Moore and Billy Brown and they knew....we weren't talking about the weather..

Thank you all for replying. My question was genuine.

I now understand the intricacies of modern football which I had not considered.

And what a pleasure to be involved in a thread  without the usual  sniping etc.

My thanks to you all.

 

17 hours ago, binman said:

Agree.

Having leaders who can provide on field direction is super important in any team sport, but perhaps even more so in footy given the challenge a coach of getting a message (even more of challenge with the stupid restriction on runners) to players, the size of the playing field and the complexity of having 18 players on the ground.

I reckon another key element is players who show leadership with their effort. It has always been the case but more than ever lazy players are exposed in modern footy and it infests the team.

In the latter third of the season, Fox and 7 were using more down the ground shots and when watching games i started using the Telstra tracker on the AFL live app (thanks for the tip on that Deaonox).

Both reminded me of how many players are within a 50 metre radius of the footy at when the ball is in motion (something you can see siting high in the stands at games), how much running is involved and how critical hard running is in term of both offensive and defensive transition (in particular defending the switch).  

There is a well established psychological theory called social loafing. Social loafing refers to the concept that people are prone to exert less effort (unconsciously or consciously) when working collectively as part of a group compared to performing a task alone. Applied to sports it can be the difference between winning and losing, particularly I would have though in sport like AFL  where a team has 22 players (as opposed to say 10 playing basketball) so plenty of scope for loafing.

Leaders play a key role in mitigating against social loafing as the two key strategies to address it are accountability and team cohesion.

True leaders apply maximum effort (in games and training), which serves as an important benchmark and supports accountability ('people can see i'm not working as hard as Steve May, i better lift my game').

Their work rate also means leaders are more able to hold team mates accountable for not working hard enough - hard to challenge a teammate for not working hard enough if you don't.

His teammates wouldn't have been down on May for giving  Frost an on field bake, but i can't imagine they'd be too thrilled with Gus giving anyone a bake (or Melksham for that matter- who seems to do his fair share of on field criticism, which reckon would rankle a bit)

And leaders play a critical role in building and maintain team cohesion. During a game of footy this might manifest with the sort of direction BW511 notes, or reinforcing team rules, or standing up for a teammate who has been roughed up, or words of encouragement to a player who who has made a mistake or at quarter time huddle. 

Conversely something known as the sucker effect suggests if one person starts social loafing more group members will then social loaf. Colin Sylvia was the perfect example of this phenomenon I reckon.  

Sorry BW 511 and Binman don't agree with your summary at all.

 Game plan is a style of football set up by the coach to go about playing footy AS A TEAM and therefore requires ALL players to be committed.

Yes your leaders are involved but it's ALL the team not just a few stronger individuals and when played together the team is very hard to beat.

We need to still strengthen our Game Plan and If we do the results will follow.

From what I can gather the big bloke with the beard in the middle tries to tap the ball to one of the smaller blokes gathered around. If the little blokes can get it they usually close their eyes and boot it as far as they can in the hope some other bloke in the same colour jumper can get it and kick it between the two biggest sticks.

Hard to watch , rarely works.

So where are we at with this 10 days out from our season opener?

I was pleasantly surprised with our willingness to look into the centre corridor against The Tiges, didn’t come off every time due to skill error but when it did it looked awesome and we became less predictable with I50 entries.

That completely disappeared against The Dogs. Was it as a result of the players sidelined, or do we simply crumble when too much pressure is put on which The Dogs did beautifully.

We have not changed the kickouts where we kick to Max at every opportunity (the same side of the ground most of the time) and we continue with a hard press that leaves us vulnerable when we turn it over. Still lots of long bombing inside 50 too.

Anyone notice anything different from previous years?