1 minute ago, george_on_the_outer said:

This strategy is all about percentages. See Moneyball again....

While it is frustrating to watch, the coaches and statisticians have worked out that the ball 60m away from the goal, close to the boundary will probably produce a stoppage or boundary throw in more times than not.  i.e. the opposition don't score from this position.  We then expect our stoppage skills will win the ball...more times than not.  It is rare that a mark is achieved, and this is just a bonus if it happens. 

Other teams may use short kicks initially, but they are looking for the same thing further up the ground.  Short kicks are not 100% guaranteed.  When they fail ( not often) it results in opposition scores, usually the 6 point variety. 

Up the middle puts the ball in a dangerous position to counter, particularly if punched straight forward into the 50m area, which oppositions are trained to do if this is employed.

Same reason players are directed to kick to pockets in the forward line.  It is about percentages and stopping the opposition gaining access to the corridor.  More often results in boundary throw in and the stoppage argument comes to the fore again. 

What it reminds me of though is the Houston Rockets (Morey/Harden era) v the Golden State Warriors.

Both cutting edge analytics organisations.

But the Rockets leaned all the way in to the maths and made their entire offense based around James Harden's shooting and fouls, where the Warriors always kept a focus on moving the ball, diversifying their scoring and keeping every player involved. Sure, they had nights where they had a heap of turnovers that cost them games but that's part of the learning process.

The warriors were fresher and deeper come the playoffs. The Rockets faltered as Harden wore down and didn't always get foul calls in big moments.

If our entire game plan is the pound the ball forward, field position, stoppages, get some front half turnovers then we're limiting what our players can do. Our players lose the ability to make decisions based on what they see. The unrewarded running drops off. Clear opportunities to switch or use the corridor go begging. 

We've got a fleet of players: Salem, May, Bowey, Langdon, ANB, Harmes, Pickett, Spargo, Fritsch who have the run and/or skills to really impact games in a more kicking and running style. We have to use their strengths.

46 minutes ago, Redleg said:

Joke meter turned off R & B?

I was joking.

Sorry. In a bad mood since Thursday night for some reason ... I guess May kicking it out means he gets a great view of it if it comes back over his head ... 😄

On 7/8/2022 at 11:57 AM, Sydee said:

there needs to be some level of flexibility

Surely, with nearly three quarters of the ground absolutely free, there must be some level of flexibility for May to kick to advantage - not hope - for a change. All it would take is two leads, two kicks and we are in the hot zone or ready to line up a big one should we have two players with initiative, opportunity and an understanding of the potential within May's rhs vision.

53 minutes ago, Deemania since 56 said:

Surely, with nearly three quarters of the ground absolutely free, there must be some level of flexibility for May to kick to advantage - not hope - for a change. All it would take is two leads, two kicks and we are in the hot zone or ready to line up a big one should we have two players with initiative, opportunity and an understanding of the potential within May's rhs vision.

Interesting Casey don’t use the May approach 

What are the possible reasons for the FD to be so seemingly rigid on this approach? What advantage is given to the team? What risk is reduced? Any thoughts?

7 hours ago, george_on_the_outer said:

This strategy is all about percentages. See Moneyball again....

While it is frustrating to watch, the coaches and statisticians have worked out that the ball 60m away from the goal, close to the boundary will probably produce a stoppage or boundary throw in more times than not.  i.e. the opposition don't score from this position.  We then expect our stoppage skills will win the ball...more times than not.  It is rare that a mark is achieved, and this is just a bonus if it happens. 

Other teams may use short kicks initially, but they are looking for the same thing further up the ground.  Short kicks are not 100% guaranteed.  When they fail ( not often) it results in opposition scores, usually the 6 point variety. 

Up the middle puts the ball in a dangerous position to counter, particularly if punched straight forward into the 50m area, which oppositions are trained to do if this is employed.

Same reason players are directed to kick to pockets in the forward line.  It is about percentages and stopping the opposition gaining access to the corridor.  More often results in boundary throw in and the stoppage argument comes to the fore again. 

Thanks George. But it is frustrating to watch. Though last September I don’t think many complained. 

I’d love to see a stat on how many of our  kick ins lead to another f50 entry. I reckon it would be quite high. 
Of we kicked elsewhere every 5th it means the opposition would need to be more aware but everyone knows what’s about to happen. 
Just another thing we do exactly the same each week even once it’s broken.

There are so many ways to transition why can’t we have 4-5 options that we practise and use to keep the defence guessing? set plays for example.

Love big Maxy but you can see he’s starting to lose his impact here and BBB and LJ are not very good at it. 

I showed this to my wife and she went on a five minute annoyed football rant about predictability and the need for variety even if that is still our '80%' option. It was beautiful.

Relationships need these lovely moments and I for one thank Steven May for giving us this to share.

I think there's some valid point raised above about playing the percentages but geez it's one dimensional and totally predictable.

Watching the cats pull us apart on Thursday was really worrying.

We seem to just play down the line as compared to their switching and corridor use.

IMO it's got little to do with a narrow field and a lot to do with our failure to adapt to where we are getting well and truly beaten. We would have been thrashed if the cats weren't so poor with their field and goal kicking.

Tmac is out, Gawn and LJ are not fit, you gotta adjust your game plan and also counter where the opposition is beating you in the first half.

Why didn't we counter their spread?

We need to nail that kick in, switch and spread. I haven't seen much switching around HB lately either, maybe a confidence thing. IIRC, our form changed last year when we switched, spread and took the game on around HB. Langdon is the play-maker in this scenario, among others. What worked last year certainly isn't working this year, its up to the coaches to find a way now but its got to stop, same thing - kick it to Max every bloody time.

I don't have a problem with it at all. It puts the onus on the players. Talls need to take the contested mark or bring it to ground and the smalls need to win the ground ball or lock it in. We get it outside our D50 immediately.

We go short occasionally too if teams give us that and then we still go slow.

It's about maintaining structural integrity as well as predictability and as George says, playing the percentages. As these situations on defensive wing are congested it plays into our hands. Either our frontal pressure draws a quick hack kick forward that our defenders intercept with our 1+ behind the footy (which plays into our slingshot and has the opposition out of position) or we get a mark or we move the ball forward via chaining by hands, take territory with a quick kick or slap forward to centre wing and then re-set and break even or win at the contest.

But few sides are going to win games when they lose clearance to quite the extent we did against Geelong, particularly on the narrower ground that makes finding space for an interceptor trickier.

In short, I'm quite happy putting the onus on our players to break even in these situations or win it and get it forward. Clearing the ball 70m out of your D50 reduces pressure on our backs and allows us to set up.

The other aspect to having a predictable game plan is exhaustion. Having predictable, simple set ups allow better decision-making under duress.

Edited July 10, 20222 yr by A F

The first step is asking the question:

"How often do you score from a kick out?"

The answer is "hardly ever". As a result why would you take risks from the kick out when the rewards are so tiny? So you kick it to a defensive part of the ground where you have more resources to win the next contest ... from where you may actually be able to score.

It's all about winning the next contest, so if you are predictable then you can have the resources to win that contest whilst the opposition has to spread theirs it over the whole ground.

It may look boring but I really enjoy winning.

15 minutes ago, Axis of Bob said:

The first step is asking the question:

"How often do you score from a kick out?"

The answer is "hardly ever". As a result why would you take risks from the kick out when the rewards are so tiny? So you kick it to a defensive part of the ground where you have more resources to win the next contest ... from where you may actually be able to score.

It's all about winning the next contest, so if you are predictable then you can have the resources to win that contest whilst the opposition has to spread theirs it over the whole ground.

It may look boring but I really enjoy winning.

I also enjoy winning.

Are you saying that a player making space on the opposite wing or corridor, should be ignored on the kick out, in order to go the usual kick to the left and to a pack?

I would love to know the stat of how often we have control of the ball, 70-80 metres out, on our kick outs.

I personally think it is madness to not try and create quick ball movement, when it is available. It gives a better chance of scoring, with less defenders able to flood back.

I think the current kick it to the pack on the left no matter what, is hurting us badly.

Edited July 10, 20222 yr by Redleg

On 7/9/2022 at 2:04 PM, DeeSpencer said:

What it reminds me of though is the Houston Rockets (Morey/Harden era) v the Golden State Warriors.

Both cutting edge analytics organisations.

But the Rockets leaned all the way in to the maths and made their entire offense based around James Harden's shooting and fouls, where the Warriors always kept a focus on moving the ball, diversifying their scoring and keeping every player involved. Sure, they had nights where they had a heap of turnovers that cost them games but that's part of the learning process.

The warriors were fresher and deeper come the playoffs. The Rockets faltered as Harden wore down and didn't always get foul calls in big moments.

If our entire game plan is the pound the ball forward, field position, stoppages, get some front half turnovers then we're limiting what our players can do. Our players lose the ability to make decisions based on what they see. The unrewarded running drops off. Clear opportunities to switch or use the corridor go begging. 

We've got a fleet of players: Salem, May, Bowey, Langdon, ANB, Harmes, Pickett, Spargo, Fritsch who have the run and/or skills to really impact games in a more kicking and running style. We have to use their strengths.

Great comparison DeeSpencer! Hopefully Danger is Jimmy Harden. 

17 hours ago, Redleg said:

 

Are you saying that a player making space on the opposite wing or corridor, should be ignored on the kick out, in order to go the usual kick to the left and to a pack?

I would love to know the stat of how often we have control of the ball, 70-80 metres out, on our kick outs.

 

Yes, that is exactly the case.  In our game against Geelong both sides had 70+ turnovers. Disposal efficiency both below 70%.

The coaching staff for every club employ these statistics realising that footballers are just not that good at hitting targets. So you go for the option that provides you with better than 70% chance i.e. kicking to a pack when no-one is likely to mark it. 

That creates stoppage.  If you back your team to win stoppages, this is the best outcome.

Even if you don't, the ball is 70m away from the goal.  This is all about defence not attack.  Attack occurs after you have cleared the zone where the opposition are likely to score. 

It is boring to watch.  Everyone prefers to watch their team cutting it up through the corridor....it just doesn't happen all that often. 

Once again look at the Moneyball scene with all the scouts.  It worked for the Oakland A's.  They did something which produced definite positive outcomes......."he gets on base".  In AFL " it stops the opposition scoring easily"

 

Sadly Geelong seemed to be the team taking risks & using creative kicks to open up play.

Melbourne looked like a tired old Geelong side of 2021 doing the same stuff for no results.

 

We had almost equal turnovers, and if you look at the heatmap you’ll see they happened predominately in the same place. No prizes for guessing that this was the left side, coming out of defence just short of the true wing.

 Our actual problem was getting smashed in clearance (both centre and stoppage). Watching the game I thought we got smashed in contested possession as well but looking at the stats we were actually +12 for the game. That really surprised me.

2 hours ago, Cranky Franky said:

Sadly Geelong seemed to be the team taking risks & using creative kicks to open up play.

Melbourne looked like a tired old Geelong side of 2021 doing the same stuff for no results.

 

Agree. Geelong have kept their A game (short uncontested kicking) whilst adding some riskier long kicking (often to Cameron) and skill behind the ball.

Plus they countered our stoppage strength by sitting on our mids and tackling very early/aggressively.

No one is suggesting we completely abandon plan A, but we need to adapt to the way teams defend us by rounding out our game. We don’t need to add in high risk kicks, we simply have to look for and take the low risk options as they present.

On 7/9/2022 at 1:50 PM, george_on_the_outer said:

This strategy is all about percentages. See Moneyball again....

While it is frustrating to watch, the coaches and statisticians have worked out that the ball 60m away from the goal, close to the boundary will probably produce a stoppage or boundary throw in more times than not.  i.e. the opposition don't score from this position.  We then expect our stoppage skills will win the ball...more times than not.  It is rare that a mark is achieved, and this is just a bonus if it happens. 

Other teams may use short kicks initially, but they are looking for the same thing further up the ground.  Short kicks are not 100% guaranteed.  When they fail ( not often) it results in opposition scores, usually the 6 point variety. 

Up the middle puts the ball in a dangerous position to counter, particularly if punched straight forward into the 50m area, which oppositions are trained to do if this is employed.

Same reason players are directed to kick to pockets in the forward line.  It is about percentages and stopping the opposition gaining access to the corridor.  More often results in boundary throw in and the stoppage argument comes to the fore again. 

Good explanation

Geelong were instructed to smash the ball in contests to stop Max or Jacko marking AND to keep the ball away from our ground level players.If you watch the contests closely you can see the Geelong players further away at the contest.

If they didnt win the ball the tackled our guys fiercely.

Then they utilised the switch or the corridor successfully. We looked slow in countering

Fast movement into our defensive zone counters our ability to set up the defensive zone.

All in all well played to Scott but I suspect we have now seen their cards and expect we will be able to counter in the next match.

I’m just as worried about our kicking inside 50 strategy, bombing it long to nobody, don’t understand why we’ve gone back to 2019 type stuff

Good to see we tried one kick in the other way today. Unfortunately the chai. broke down due to a poor Rivers kick. 

Merits of the strategy aside, has anybody else noticed that the camera is already positioned to the left side of May’s kick-ins before he’s even collected the ball? 

On 7/10/2022 at 3:14 PM, Redleg said:

I also enjoy winning.

Are you saying that a player making space on the opposite wing or corridor, should be ignored on the kick out, in order to go the usual kick to the left and to a pack?

I would love to know the stat of how often we have control of the ball, 70-80 metres out, on our kick outs.

I personally think it is madness to not try and create quick ball movement, when it is available. It gives a better chance of scoring, with less defenders able to flood back.

I think the current kick it to the pack on the left no matter what, is hurting us badly.

You have my vote Mr. Leg. It is the most predictable thing in AFL football. Every team just sets up for our kick inns. 

Variation at the kick-ins is needed and rather urgently. Like our selection procedures and decisions, it appears 'stuck in drying mud' - out to the left-of-centre - rarely valuable and highly predictable. Can we not have a few tricks up our sleeve?