CHANGES: Rd 18 vs Port Adelaide

[Bates Mate 3,818]

6 minutes ago, Fat Tony said:

Having two talls up in packs is deliberate and part of the game plan. 

Strange gameplan having two talls flying for the same ball spoiling each other

[Fat Tony 4,403]

2 minutes ago, Neil Crompton said:

Please tell me why that is. 
Here’s an idea - what if they spread out instead and offered a choice of 2 targets rather than one dirty big pack, where our mids and smalls never seem to prosper from the failed pack mark?

For a fast break we obviously want to kick to leading players one on one and play checkers.

But, for a slow play (when the opposition zone is set) having only one up means that the opposition can block our tall out and have their third man up take the mark. A lot of our set up is long kicks to our giant talls and having Petracca, Oliver, Viney and/or ANB at the front of the pack for the gentle crumb.

Going inside 50 (when they have numbers back) the coaches obviously feel there is too much risk if we target a one on one with a short kick. (The risk is conceding a counterattacking goal.)

[Stiff Arm 4,412]

I'd put Max in the forward line for most of the game and let Dogga ruck the majority.

Whilst Max gets a lot of taps, the oppo mids are used to working off them. We were less predictable when Dogga and even Weid were leading the ruck.

And for God sake can we please lower the eyes going i50. Geelong showed that either scrubbed, chaos entries or low, precision kicks prevent damaging intercepts. If we only have BBB as a tall target (usually with 2 or 3 opponents), what's the point of long bombs to their kpds?

Out: Bedford, Bowey

In: Hunt and Chandler (or if they want a taller forward line, Weid)

[demoncat 631]

3 minutes ago, Fat Tony said:

For a fast break we obviously want to kick to leading players one on one and play checkers.

But, for a slow play (when the opposition zone is set) having only one up means that the opposition can block our tall out and have their third man up take the mark. A lot of our set up is long kicks to our giant talls and having Petracca, Oliver, Viney and/or ANB at the front of the pack for the gentle crumb.

Going inside 50 (when they have numbers back) the coaches obviously feel there is too much risk if we target a one on one with a short kick. (The risk is conceding a counterattacking goal.)

My thoughts too. So much of our gameplan is based around the playing percentages. We clearly value kicking to the pack and backing our mids and smalls to win any groundballs rather than risk kicking to one-on-ones and having it marked by an opposition player who can then begin to counter attack through the corridor. Same when we kick to the pocket - we would rather have it spill out of bounds than risk allowing the opposition an easy mark in the centre of the ground. This works when we are fit and firing, but when we can't lock the ball in our forward 50 and aren't applying pressure around the ground, it can be frustrating to watch.

[Dondee 0]

Time to try Rivers on ball or forward for Casey. When Smith and Turner return there is backup for defence. Maybe Smith or Petty get a run in the forward half until Macdonald returns.

[Lucifers Hero 37,008]

54 minutes ago, Fat Tony said:

Having two talls up in packs is deliberate and part of the game plan. 

The problem with that last night was Geelong had a player in front of the contest facing the marking players and one roughly behind/side of the contest. 

Time and time again their tall would knock the ball down to the player in front, he got it to the player behind/side, who then turned inward and they were off, usually down the middle and our players had not time to set up the defence and they were often still over near the boundary line where the contest had been.

What surprised me is that our coaching box didn't adjust for this tactic, or much else that wasn't working from what I saw.

Edited July 8, 2022 by Lucifers Hero

[Jaded No More 57,820]

If Oliver is out, it will continue the long tradition of Geelong players doing whatever bodily harm they please to our players with zero consequences. I could scream with rage at how much I despise that club! 

[Diamond_Jim 11,746]

43 minutes ago, demoncat said:

My thoughts too. So much of our gameplan is based around the playing percentages. We clearly value kicking to the pack and backing our mids and smalls to win any groundballs rather than risk kicking to one-on-ones and having it marked by an opposition player who can then begin to counter attack through the corridor. Same when we kick to the pocket - we would rather have it spill out of bounds than risk allowing the opposition an easy mark in the centre of the ground. This works when we are fit and firing, but when we can't lock the ball in our forward 50 and aren't applying pressure around the ground, it can be frustrating to watch.

 

24 minutes ago, Lucifers Hero said:

The problem with that last night was Geelong had a player in front of the contest facing the marking players and one roughly behind/side of the contest. 

Time and time again their tall would knock the ball down to the player in front, he got it to the player behind/side, who then turned inward and they were off, usually down the middle and our players had not time to set up the defence and they were often still over near the boundary line where the contest had been.

What surprised me is that our coaching box didn't adjust for this tactic, or much else that wasn't working from what I saw.

Both excellent posts.

We back our system.. Great but it would be nice to see another system every now and then if only to keep the opposition guessing.

 

[Fat Tony 4,403]

35 minutes ago, Lucifers Hero said:

The problem with that last night was Geelong had a player in front of the contest facing the marking players and one roughly behind/side of the contest. 

Time and time again their tall would knock the ball down to the player in front, he got it to the player behind/side, who then turned inward and they were off, usually down the middle and our players had not time to set up the defence and they were often still over near the boundary line where the contest had been.

What surprised me is that our coaching box didn't adjust for this tactic, or much else that wasn't working from what I saw.

I would have to re-watch (which I won't because we lost) to see if there is a solution other than Gawn taking more marks. 

I think some options would be to kick short down the centre occasionally. Or for a long option we could put Petracca and/or Oliver one-on-one on the opposite wing, with Kossie and kick that side and try to get off to the races.

[demoncat 631]

20 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

 

Both excellent posts.

We back our system.. Great but it would be nice to see another system every now and then if only to keep the opposition guessing.

 

Good point and the rest of this year will be a real test of our 'system at all costs' strategy. We've all seen what our system can accomplish when all players are fit and firing - and I'm still firmly of the belief that should we play that way come finals that there is no team that can stop us.

Having said that, we have to make the top four first, and the risk of this strategy is that we cost ourselves too many games during the home and away season. I'm still backing us in, but we're going to have to show our class and hopefully time our run in the last three or four games like we did last year.

If we crash and burn, we'll have to reconsider how we approach both individual games and the entire season in 2023. But until that happens, we do what we did so well in the first place.

Edited July 8, 2022 by demoncat

[Lucifers Hero 37,008]

5 minutes ago, Fat Tony said:

I would have to re-watch (which I won't because we lost) to see if there is a solution other than Gawn taking more marks. 

I think some options would be to kick short down the centre occasionally. Or for a long option we could put Petracca and/or Oliver one-on-one on the opposite wing, with Kossie and kick that side and try to get off to the races.

Or occasionally switch to JJ's side of the ground which Geelong wouldn't have expected then caught on the 'wrong' side, limiting their defensive set ups on the JJ side.. 

[Diamond_Jim 11,746]

20 minutes ago, Lucifers Hero said:

Or occasionally switch to JJ's side of the ground which Geelong wouldn't have expected then caught on the 'wrong' side, limiting their defensive set ups on the JJ side.. 

This... You think you would split your talls to both sides of the ground.Kicker can give coded signal as to which way he is kicking.

In the modern day you would think most players could kick both feet. In the old days the high level players would use their other foot for a year or two at junior level to develop the skill

[Lucifers Hero 37,008]

4 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

This... You think you would split your talls to both sides of the ground.Kicker can give coded signal as to which way he is kicking.

In the modern day you would think most players could kick both feet. In the old days the high level players would use their other foot for a year or two at junior level to develop the skill

Or do it with short kicks and some run down the boundary. 3-4 kick/handballs and it is in the hands of Fritsch 40m out!

Edited July 8, 2022 by Lucifers Hero

[Queanbeyan Demon 5,932]

The most amazing thing about this thread is how amazed I am when reading it.

[leave it to deever 15,336]

7 hours ago, Sydee said:

M Brown kicks bags in the VFL regularly - gets promoted and can't deliver at AFL level 

There is a trend here - the leap is huge from VFL to AFL listen to any debutant such as Turner recently 

agreed which accounts for Weid

[Bring-Back-Powell 13,152]

Hard to believe this break into the Port game is the same length as our mid season break.

In - Weid, Rivers, Dunstan

Out - Bedford , Bowey, Oliver, Hunt (sub)

Haven’t totally written off Clarry due to the long break.

[Bring-Back-Powell 13,152]

Laurie currently 22 and 2 gls.

A chance to replace one of our small forwards?

[GCDee 3,006]

Laurie just played a ripping game, must be close

[adonski 9,144]

IN: Hunt, JVR
OUT: Oliver, Bedford

Brayshaw to the GUTS

[Lord Nev 13,511]

IN: Laurie, Dunstan, Weid, JVR

OUT: Spargo, Clarry, Ben Brown, Bedford

 

[dazzledavey36 48,736]

2 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

IN: Laurie, Dunstan, Weid, JVR

OUT: Spargo, Clarry, Ben Brown, Bedford

 

Dropping Ben Brown for Weid off the back off Weids pretty poor performance tonight?

Laughable. 

[monoccular 16,064]

JVR and Laurie just played blinders for Casey (didn't see the first half) - could we risk debuting two players in an important game?  

JVR actually took contested  pack marks in the forward line in the wet - maybe we couldn't cope with that?

[Lord Nev 13,511]

1 minute ago, dazzledavey36 said:

Dropping Ben Brown for Weid off the back off Weids pretty poor performance tonight?

Laughable. 

Poor performance? Catch Benny's last 3 quarters yesterday?

Tell me how we'd be worse with Weid and JVR instead of Brown and Bedford. (Rhetorical)

[titan_uranus 22,351]

2 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

Poor performance? Catch Benny's last 3 quarters yesterday?

Tell me how we'd be worse with Weid and JVR instead of Brown and Bedford. (Rhetorical)

Brown played his best football in months in the first half last night.

I'm not suggesting a half of football is sufficient, but it's finally a trend in the right direction, so if we've stuck with him to now, I suspect we're going to give him another game at least after last night.

[Lord Nev 13,511]

1 minute ago, titan_uranus said:

Brown played his best football in months in the first half last night.

I'm not suggesting a half of football is sufficient, but it's finally a trend in the right direction, so if we've stuck with him to now, I suspect we're going to give him another game at least after last night.

Yep, that's what I suspect Goody might do, but we're putting the changes we'd make yeah? For the sake of pressure and contested marks I'd be dropping Brown this week personally. Gives us a change up and gives Brown a chance to get some form before finals when we'll need him.

Edited July 8, 2022 by Lord Nev