First Option

[FireInTheBennelly 4,024]

Something's been on my mind for a while now and has become far more noticeable recently, so I thought I'd throw it out there.

Back when Roos took over, and certainly for all of his time with us and even into the Goodwin era, the coaches were all 'take the first option'. It was pretty much our mantra.

That's no longer the case from what I see, and we now choose the right option. Taking a stab I reckon the right option is only 40% of the time the first one.

My question is for the track watchers I guess, are the coaches still barking that instruction, or have we moved beyond that?

For everyone else, agree/disagree?

[layzie 28,687]

I think there's definitely more of a 'have a think for a split second and then choose the best option' mentality. In 2020 our push button instant reaction way of thinking was holding us back and now seeing us work through situations mentally is one thing that has taken us to that next level, even if it is just that split second extra hanging on to the footy. 

There's also more situations where we are thinking a few steps ahead and on Sun night I realised just how good we work as a team to get the ball out of dangerous positions down back with a handball to a guy who may not be in the best position to run and carry or sink his boot into it but he is able to get it on to the next guy who can. We'd be a great side to coach right now.

[binman 37,926]

9 minutes ago, layzie said:

I think there's definitely more of a 'have a think for a split second and then choose the best option' mentality. In 2020 our push button instant reaction way of thinking was holding us back and now seeing us work through situations mentally is one thing that has taken us to that next level, even if it is just that split second extra hanging on to the footy. 

There's also more situations where we are thinking a few steps ahead and on Sun night I realised just how good we work as a team to get the ball out of dangerous positions down back with a handball to a guy who may not be in the best position to run and carry or sink his boot into it but he is able to get it on to the next guy who can. We'd be a great side to coach right now.

Agree.

There has definitely been a change to the option we take when we get a mark or free - and even when a player is running with ball in hand.

The rule appears to be go quick and take the first option, but only if tbat option is the best one. 

But if there is not a good option, then hold onto it and wait until either a good option appears (eg a player leads up for a short hit up) or until the players ahead of the ball, and behind, can get into their structure (eg tall marking targets an crumbers to a specific spot).

It works well for a number of reasons.

It supports our tactic of controlling the tempo of the game.

It helps us keep our shape offensively, but more importantly defensively as players who have pushed forward or back can reset.

It means we are not always going flat chat, so when we need to go we have the energy to do so.

It supports the option of giving a handball to a player running from behind.

It reduces the opportunity for opposition teams to bounce it off half back and slingshot because we are not kicking it to a one on one or outnumber. Which is important because some teams rely on doing so to generate scoring, for example the hawks and dogs.

And it reduces turnovers.

A lot of the turnovers we win are on the back of opposition teams going fast and taking the first option.

Freo have implemented a lot of our key tactics and that includes not taking the first option all the time.

[Lord Nev 13,511]

8 hours ago, FireInTheBennelly said:

Something's been on my mind for a while now and has become far more noticeable recently, so I thought I'd throw it out there.

Back when Roos took over, and certainly for all of his time with us and even into the Goodwin era, the coaches were all 'take the first option'. It was pretty much our mantra.

That's no longer the case from what I see, and we now choose the right option. Taking a stab I reckon the right option is only 40% of the time the first one.

My question is for the track watchers I guess, are the coaches still barking that instruction, or have we moved beyond that?

For everyone else, agree/disagree?

For mine, one thing that has had a major impact on the options available is that we're now an elite team at running without the ball. Used to always drive me crazy watching our players just stand around waiting for the ball to come. How many times a game do we see the 'give and go' now? Particularly Langdon, Petracca, Oliver, ANB, Jackson and Gawn too. I would say the first option for us is now the right option a higher percentage of the time given our movement without the ball.

Edited April 25, 2022 by Lord Nev

[Olgreybeard49 229]

Good point although I think the mantra was slightly more nuanced.

I recall Bernie Vince and others yelling '3 seconds' at training indicating that was the time the player had to receive, decide and dispose.

[MrFreeze 1,364]

Joel Smith took the first option lol

[tiers 2,761]

Vision and decision making are the key elements of taking good options.

I have noticed how Spargo and ANB, when in confined spaces, will always look for the best option and more often than not succeed for the teams benefit.

As for taking good options, how about Fritsch's handball to Petracca. Both of them took the first and best option.

[pineapple dee 2,892]

3 hours ago, MrFreeze said:

Joel Smith took the first option lol

And what a good option it was...….. resulted directly in a goal !!!!

14 minutes ago, tiers said:

Vision and decision making are the key elements of taking good options.

I have noticed how Spargo and ANB, when in confined spaces, will always look for the best option and more often than not succeed for the teams benefit.

As for taking good options, how about Fritsch's handball to Petracca. Both of them took the first and best option.

 

[pineapple dee 2,892]

I think taking the first option nowadays is working well for us because, as another smart poster mentioned in a different thread, the opposition has usually flooded back so much that once we get the turnover in our backline and start moving it forward there are acres of wide open space with our forwards and mids streaming into it

[Little Goffy 12,549]

We are a lot fitter than we were a few years ago and we are committed to creating options.

Fact is, not so long ago if you didn't take the first option then there probably wouldn't be any other good ones come up. Now, if a player isn't sure of that kick then they can look around confident that at any time there will be teammates working to create both a good attacking option and a good escape hatch and defensive outlet.

You wouldn't dig up your garden unless you actually thought there was buried treasure. Similarly, now that there is a real prospect of good options being available, our players have built the habit of looking for them.

We are a very good, maybe even great, football team.

[Bigred 494]

Remember the cry of the anguished Demon supporters ….. across the wilderness years 

Hasn’t  been heard for the last 3 or 4 years 

‘Just KICK it!!!!’ 

 

[Maldonboy38 5,846]

Two sides of the coin here.

With ball in hand we are smarter, fitter and more experienced to take what time we have to make a decision. We also have some great natural decision makers.

However, the amount of times Trac, Clarry, Spargo, TMac, ANB and probably others, try to get around the first tackle, only to get pinged for holding/dropping the ball is really frustrating. We seem to do this for one period in each game and get scored against, usually in the 2nd quarter. 

 

[tiers 2,761]

6 minutes ago, Maldonboy38 said:

With ball in hand we are smarter, fitter and more experienced to take what time we have to make a decision. We also have some great natural decision makers.

We also have great option givers - player who run to places where the ball can be securely delivered. Best example is Petracca's goal.

[Mazer Rackham 14,969]

We rarely chip backwards. We sometimes switch play to the opposite flank.

Mostly we go forward, and directly, picking our way through the morass, and can nearly always do it because someone, usually more than one player, has led into space to give an option. And that player in turn has options. All over the field, all the time. It wears out the opposition having to man up all these multiple leads.

We see other teams trying it. Every team does it. Kick short trying to find someone in space. But within 1 or 2 kicks they have nothing. And I'm not talking about when they play us! They just don't have players all over the ground busting their behinds to give continual options. That's when they have to kick backwards or switch play or kick long to a contest where they're outnumbered.

We also throw in fake options. Like when May kicks out. We all know he'll go long to the left flank. But one or two players make short leads, which have to be guarded by the opposition. They just don't know for sure, because just sometimes May will kick short. When we're moving the ball along the flanks there are often leads made and not honoured. Sometimes because they're not the best option and sometimes because we want to stretch the oppo and keep them guessing, and wear them out at the same time.

Our superior fitness has us literally and figuratively running rings around our opponents.

[Mazer Rackham 14,969]

42 minutes ago, Little Goffy said:

You wouldn't dig up your garden unless you actually thought there was buried treasure.

Ha! ha! I'm not that stupid. It's oil I'm looking for.

[binman 37,926]

3 hours ago, Mazer Rackham said:

We rarely chip backwards. We sometimes switch play to the opposite flank.

Mostly we go forward, and directly, picking our way through the morass, and can nearly always do it because someone, usually more than one player, has led into space to give an option. 

That is a really good point.

In addition to the benefits you note of looking to go forward, another benefit is we can control the tempo of the game AND take territory.

Other teams try and control the tempo, for example when wanting to slow opposition momentum, by kicking it side to side in their back half.

Under pressure, Geelong reverted to type and did exactly that in the last quarter in their loss to the hawks. And got marooned in their back half.

You can't score when the ball is in your opponents 50 metre arc. And if you turn it over there you get scored against in quick time.

[Binmans PA 25,985]

12 hours ago, binman said:

Agree.

There has definitely been a change to the option we take when we get a mark or free - and even when a player is running with ball in hand.

The rule appears to be go quick and take the first option, but only if tbat option is the best one. 

But if there is not a good option, then hold onto it and wait until either a good option appears (eg a player leads up for a short hit up) or until the players ahead of the ball, and behind, can get into their structure (eg tall marking targets an crumbers to a specific spot).

I'd add after this that the alternative is to kick it high to a wing near the boundary, a flank or a pocket. Langdon often does a deliberately skyed kick to a contest as it gives our guys time to swarm the crumb. It's straight out of the Richmond playbook too.

[Binmans PA 25,985]

12 hours ago, binman said:

A lot of the turnovers we win are on the back of opposition teams going fast and taking the first option.

As going fast is basically the only way to beat our zone. Which puts us in a good position to create turn overs.

You could see it with Richmond the other night. They'd chip to about 50m, then another quick chip, which if they then went quickly, could actually enable them to kick over the top of the zone or to a leading forward between centre wing and half forward.

I felt our transition was a little off in the first half and they were actually able to hit up three consecutive passes from the kick in to their half forward by moving it quickly. When we tightened this up in the second half, they had to look for the riskier in board option rather than kick it to our numbers down the line, and they turned it over quite a bit. Eventually that will happen over 2 hours of football, and weight of numbers gets you.

It's the genius of our system. It requires occasional bursts of anaerobic defensive transition to get into position, and then anaerobic bursts when we turn it over, otherwise it's mostly standing in holes waiting for the opposition to pull the wrong trigger or literally kick it back to us.

[Graeme Yeats' Mullet 6,277]

Good thread, good observations 

I agree, and found myself yelling first option on Sunday night when we were pinged for 3 or 4 HTB in 1st half or so

But thinking about it more, this is clearly noticeable, particularly breaking out of traffic pushing forward. We've really created good movement through a quick bypass of nearest option to release another runner into better space

[binman 37,926]

1 hour ago, A F said:

I'd add after this that the alternative is to kick it high to a wing near the boundary, a flank or a pocket. Langdon often does a deliberately skyed kick to a contest as it gives our guys time to swarm the crumb. It's straight out of the Richmond playbook too.

Totally agree. The super high kick is a really noticeable strategy isn't it. 

Langdon is the master at it, perhaps because he gets so many of possession hard up up the boundary and ahead of the play (ie he is often on the end of the outlet kick and has to wait for teammates to get set ahead of him), meaning if we don't mark it, which is often the case, if not crumbed by us it smashed over the boundary line. Which means we don't turnover the ball often, if we do it is not in a dangerous spot and if it goes over the line we can reset. 

But other players do that kick too.

A variation on the same theme is deliberately scrappy long mongrel kicks forward when we don't have a clear target that are all but impossible to mark - deliberately so. Some go t packs, others just not space. Tracc is the mater of these kicks

I feel like this latter kick is more the tigers go to - we have added the high kick (though they do them too, just not as often) 

 

[Roger Mellie 3,487]

8 hours ago, binman said:

A variation on the same theme is deliberately scrappy long mongrel kicks forward when we don't have a clear target that are all but impossible to mark - deliberately so. Some go t packs, others just not space. Tracc is the mater of these kick

 

This is Gawn's go to kick out of the ruck contest. I suspect it's more natural than deliberate.

[Guest]

On 4/26/2022 at 8:47 AM, Lord Nev said:

How many times a game do we see the 'give and go' now? 

Langdon gets the return give into space now before he's even gone, on the assumption that he'll go. It's great, but hasn't always worked out for best over the past few weeks. 

[Wrecker46 2,652]

I'll go the opposite here. I reckon if we are in range of goal we take the first option and have a ping.

We used to try and do what was once considered "the team oriented option" under Roos and chip it to first available option in forward 50 with a better angle or whatever.

Now we don't care. Have a shot from where ever. If it goes through the opposition cops Gawn, Oliver, Petracca at the centre bounce. 

If it misses they cop Spargo,ANB and kozzie In a very effective zone.

 

[Dwight Schrute 16,749]

The take the first option mantra was adopted because our skill level as a footy side was very poor, these days we're one of the most skillful teams in the comp! Mark Williams has had a huge say in that, as have others. 

I think we're really missing Salem at the moment, but all of our players are much much better at hitting a target under pressure these days