Forward Half Concerns

[rpfc 27,791]

9 minutes ago, DemonWA said:

The better stat would be kicks inside 50 resulting in turnover. That would tell the story that they're trying to articulate here imo.

These stats need to be reviewed in context of playing alot of the year with one AFL standard KPF. No doubt these guys could improve their delivery inside 50, but often they're kicking to a 3 on 1 (BBBB outnumbered) or a massive pack because there aren't too many other options on.

I am sure not having a Curnow or McKay impacts their options - however, it has to be direction for them to pump it into the pocket. They are too good to be so blasé and hamfisted for that much of the game. They don’t want to attempt the hit up to avoid being smashed on the turnover - however, I would argue that they are weighting that pocket kick too heavily. They need to use hands or lower eyes and into the corridor. They leave so many lateral kicks on the table and it looks rushed. And the flip side to the ‘our talls ain’t great’ is the question of - if that is the case, why are we so keen to pump it in there? Spargo dwells on the footy and waits for an option and it is damning his much more vaunted and celebrated teammates.

Edited August 8, 2022 by rpfc

[DemonWA 3,774]

12 minutes ago, rpfc said:

I am sure not having a Curnow or McKay impacts their options - however, it has to be direction for them to pump it into the pocket. They are too good to be so blasé and hamfisted for that much of the game. They don’t want to attempt the hit up to avoid being smashed on the turnover - however, I would argue that they are weighting that pocket kick too heavily. They need to use hands or lower eyes and into the corridor. They leave so many lateral kicks on the table and it looks rushed. And the flip side to the ‘our talls ain’t great’ is the question of - if that is the case, why are we so keen to pump it in there? Spargo dwells on the footy and waits for an option and it is damning his much more valued teammates.

I feel like these discussions only get airtime when we loose. Gawn kicks straight and the narrative becomes that he is the GOAT and how dominant our mids were, rather than our forward half connection woes. 

[rpfc 27,791]

3 minutes ago, DemonWA said:

I feel like these discussions only get airtime when we loose. Gawn kicks straight and the narrative becomes that he is the GOAT and how dominant our mids were, rather than our forward half connection woes. 

I have been saying similar things when we were 10 and zip - not exactly our blasting away, but the rest of it. 

We flirted with our form IMO and we are paying the price.

[layzie 30,940]

8 hours ago, rpfc said:

I have been saying similar things when we were 10 and zip - not exactly our blasting away, but the rest of it. 

We flirted with our form IMO and we are paying the price.

It's not far fetched to say it may have had an effect on our overall mentality. 

[mo64 5,293]

13 hours ago, SFebes said:

 

You’d  hope Viney, Petracca and Oliver would be a fair bit more above AFL average. This is what I was taking about today. We need more from them than possessions, we need more quality, not quantity 

I've been harsh on Trac all year because I've thought his ball use has been poor, in addition to his goalkicking woes. But come Monday, he's regularly getting votes in the Coaches Award. Does Goody just see these stats as part of Chaos Ball?

[Fork 'em 6,705]

13 minutes ago, mo64 said:

 Does Goody just see these stats as part of Chaos Ball?

You hear it all the time.
"Usually if you get 60 inside 50's, you're going to win the game."

Problem is far too many of those inside 50's are just garbage.
Goody likes to keep the opposition to under 60pts as well.

Neither of the above happened.

Edited August 9, 2022 by Fork 'em

[Macca 16,191]

13 hours ago, SFebes said:

 

You’d  hope Viney, Petracca and Oliver would be a fair bit more above AFL average. This is what I was taking about today. We need more from them than possessions, we need more quality, not quantity 

Interesting how Spargo is the outlier here

Incapable of bombing it long to the left forward pocket?  Yep! Tick!

We need more Spargo types (little fellas that can't kick over a jam tin!)

I'm not being entirely serious but Spargo should be stationed 65m - 75m out from goal (in the corridor) used as a link up player to the forwards (when the ball is in general play)

Play to your strengths

A strike rate of nearly 1 in 2 means we get a shot at goal every 2nd time Spargo kicks the ball into the forward 50.  That's handy

2 or 3 more Spargo types* and we're cookin' with gas

 

*We have any number of players who can use the ball like Spargo with regards to forward forays but they are obviously coached to kick long to the forward pocket ... so it's more of a coaching issue

Edited August 9, 2022 by Macca

[mo64 5,293]

44 minutes ago, Macca said:

Interesting how Spargo is the outlier here

Incapable of bombing it long to the left forward pocket?  Yep! Tick!

We need more Spargo types (little fellas that can't kick over a jam tin!)

I'm not being entirely serious but Spargo should be stationed 65m - 75m out from goal (in the corridor) used as a link up player to the forwards (when the ball is in general play)

Play to your strengths

A strike rate of nearly 1 in 2 means we get a shot at goal every 2nd time Spargo kicks the ball into the forward 50.  That's handy

2 or 3 more Spargo types* and we're cookin' with gas

 

*We have any number of players who can use the ball like Spargo with regards to forward forays but they are obviously coached to kick long to the forward pocket ... so it's more of a coaching issue

Trac hit up Sparrow in the corridor when he lowered his eyes. I initially thought it wasn't meant for Sparrow, but upon watching the replay, it was a superb pass. 

The ability is there if the coaches allow them some freedom to take a small risk.

[Macca 16,191]

6 minutes ago, mo64 said:

Trac hit up Sparrow in the corridor when he lowered his eyes. I initially thought it wasn't meant for Sparrow, but upon watching the replay, it was a superb pass. 

The ability is there if the coaches allow them some freedom to take a small risk.

Yep it's safety first a lot of the times, mo

So deep to the pockets also worked last year and for a fair bit of this year

Not so much in the last 10 weeks as the other teams are counter-acting 

Even against North we wasted a number of inside 50 entries.  74 inside 50's for 30 scoring shots and 14 goals (against a team who are below average defensive-wise)

We should have cut them to ribbons that day but didn't

In a lot of ways we are a systems based team but we need to tweak the system

[Jjrogan 1,318]

1 hour ago, Macca said:

Interesting how Spargo is the outlier here

Incapable of bombing it long to the left forward pocket?  Yep! Tick!

We need more Spargo types (little fellas that can't kick over a jam tin!)

I'm not being entirely serious but Spargo should be stationed 65m - 75m out from goal (in the corridor) used as a link up player to the forwards (when the ball is in general play)

Play to your strengths

A strike rate of nearly 1 in 2 means we get a shot at goal every 2nd time Spargo kicks the ball into the forward 50.  That's handy

2 or 3 more Spargo types* and we're cookin' with gas

 

*We have any number of players who can use the ball like Spargo with regards to forward forays but they are obviously coached to kick long to the forward pocket ... so it's more of a coaching issue

His numbers are off the charts.  He's kicking to the same forward line as the other blokes (without his towering marking presence admittedly).  As another poster mentioned he hangs on to the ball and waits for the leading patterns to develop and then you can almost see him working out which is the best option and then executing.  Only Melksham imo has this spatial awareness and execution (on both feet too).   Rather than looking to get more Spargo types, how about he simply gets a bit of a run in the midfield.

Our coaches and game plan is so inflexible to give him a run for even 5 minutes to see what it looks like?!?!   There's trusting your process, but there's also a concept of trying something new (with solid rational reasoning) when something isnt working consistently.  

Edited August 9, 2022 by Jjrogan

[Sydee 3,850]

Not sure of posted elsewhere but interesting article on Fritta 

Melbourne Demons forward Bayley Fritsch is two games away from joining exclusive club of kicking a goal in every game of an AFL season

[John Crow Batty 8,390]

On 8/6/2022 at 5:51 PM, monoccular said:

"..coaching philosophy of low risk play .."  except that it is high risk when we repeatedly get outworked by interceptors.

"...We've forgotten that the Harmes fat side kick to Fritsch in the G/F turned the tide."   I must say I have hardly seen it tried since.

Sparrow repeated it as well for a Brown goal at start of 4th GF quarter. I cant recall similar much if at all since then. I recall that Goodwin's instructions for the GF last quarter was to take territory quickly at all cost to snuff out a possible dogs comeback. That’s something we don’t seem to do anymore. A few hack kicks forward or off the ground and less handballs adding a little chaos would have upset the pies structure against us.

Edited August 9, 2022 by John Crow Batty

[Macca 16,191]

49 minutes ago, Jjrogan said:

His numbers are off the charts.  He's kicking to the same forward line as the other blokes (without his towering marking presence admittedly).  As another poster mentioned he hangs on to the ball and waits for the leading patterns to develop and then you can almost see him working out which is the best option and then executing.  Only Melksham imo has this spatial awareness and execution (on both feet too).   Rather than looking to get more Spargo types, how about he simply gets a bit of a run in the midfield.

Our coaches and game plan is so inflexible to give him a run for even 5 minutes to see what it looks like?!?!   There's trusting your process, but there's also a concept of trying something new (with solid rational reasoning) when something isnt working consistently.  

In my post I made mention that we have any number of players who can use the ball like Spargo. So more so a Spargo-like kick into the 50 from the other 10 or so midfield-types rather than recruiting more Spargo types

Although, you've always got to be needing to get better so recruiting better users of the ball is always on the agenda

But a strike rate of 1 in 2 (the forward marking the pass) also means that 1 in 2 either miss the target, the target misses the mark or is spoiled or Spargo has kicked to a pack (or the forward picket) ... Or the kick is intercepted

But a shot at goal from a marked pass every 2nd time from all our forward forays is a terrific strike rate if it happened all the time ... it also must be remembered that we are still a chance to score even if the mark doesn't eventuate. 

We might gain a free kick or crumb the spoil ... or if a stoppage eventuates, we can win the stoppage

I can understand the forward pocket thinking but it's not working well in a general sense

Edited August 9, 2022 by Macca

[Deemania since 56 6,426]

49 minutes ago, mo64 said:

Trac hit up Sparrow in the corridor when he lowered his eyes. I initially thought it wasn't meant for Sparrow, but upon watching the replay, it was a superb pass. 

The ability is there if the coaches allow them some freedom to take a small risk.

I question whether it is a 'risk'; risks definitely occur during games with a high proportion of negative outcomes. Sparrow strikes me as a player who might well be capable of some 'initiative' producing positive results. Some of his great goals have been a result of this characteristic - though seldom used (presumably seldom encouraged by the coaching staff). He is tough as nuts, he can be a glorious, wilful goal snapper and he pleases me each time he moves towards the ball in the forward midline. He really can kick 'em. In  a previous version of our game, Sparrow would have made an knockout utility and for this reason, we should encourage his contained forays into 'kicking distance' onfield. 

[fr_ap 2,299]

I'm not sure why anyone is surprised after 2 years of this game plan. 

I'll be very clear:

The players are under coaching instruction that says "unless you are confident you can hit the lead up or lateral kick, play the %s and kick to the pocket". 

It is the #1 building block of our much vaunted defence as it narrows the opposition's exit, allowing us to set up the full ground zone accordingly. This plays to the strengths of our key & intercepting defenders. 

It is also why we have so many inside 50s - from the pocket, you're the least likely to score but the most likely to get repeat entries. This also comes with an advantage of tiring the opposition's defence & mids, and giving our defence a break (adopted from the NFL). The longer you play front half footy, the theory is the more you score. 

We play a mathematically conceived system that ignores low conversion & low efficiency in favour of sheer quantity. If you unflinchingly play the %s every time, those %s are realised in the results. This is not to say anomalies can't occur, but its a system designed to keep us competitive for long periods of time in winning positions, somewhat irrespective of personnel. Sprinkle some luck, skill or moments of class onto this system, and you'll be OK a lot of the time.  

If you're complaining about kicking to the pocket, then you can't laud our high i50 count or laud the fact we have conceded the least points all year. They're fundamentally connected. 

Where this falls down is:

1. The majority of our players are not confident they can hit the lead up or lateral kick, so they don't bother, because if they miss it the defensive system falls down & our 'defence first' gameplan falls apart. Lacking this confidence, they play the %s, ignoring blatantly open options. Spargo is told by all and sundry he's our best i50 kick - he now knows it implicitly and is the only one who takes the chances others are too scared to try. 

2. Our bigs need to be able to contest the pocket-kick & at least bring it to ground or get it out of bounds. With one tall (often taking the bail out kick on the wing), it falls down and we get intercepted. 

3. Having intercepted, teams like Collingwood move it out from the pocket incredibly fast. This negates the defensive benefit we were getting whilst still limiting our chances to score. It is however for them a risky strategy that relies on supreme fitness. Teams can do this, but they'll not often succeed. 

#1 and 2 can be addressed by encouraging players to be bold (they have the skill; they've been coached out of it) and simply picking a competitive 2nd tall. #3 has emerged this year and is a challenge for the coaches. 

On the eve of finals we're not going to change this plan. It is the reason we are competing for top 4. 

[bobby1554 1,185]

55 minutes ago, fr_ap said:

I'm not sure why anyone is surprised after 2 years of this game plan. 

I'll be very clear:

The players are under coaching instruction that says "unless you are confident you can hit the lead up or lateral kick, play the %s and kick to the pocket". 

It is the #1 building block of our much vaunted defence as it narrows the opposition's exit, allowing us to set up the full ground zone accordingly. This plays to the strengths of our key & intercepting defenders. 

It is also why we have so many inside 50s - from the pocket, you're the least likely to score but the most likely to get repeat entries. This also comes with an advantage of tiring the opposition's defence & mids, and giving our defence a break (adopted from the NFL). The longer you play front half footy, the theory is the more you score. 

We play a mathematically conceived system that ignores low conversion & low efficiency in favour of sheer quantity. If you unflinchingly play the %s every time, those %s are realised in the results. This is not to say anomalies can't occur, but its a system designed to keep us competitive for long periods of time in winning positions, somewhat irrespective of personnel. Sprinkle some luck, skill or moments of class onto this system, and you'll be OK a lot of the time.  

If you're complaining about kicking to the pocket, then you can't laud our high i50 count or laud the fact we have conceded the least points all year. They're fundamentally connected. 

Where this falls down is:

1. The majority of our players are not confident they can hit the lead up or lateral kick, so they don't bother, because if they miss it the defensive system falls down & our 'defence first' gameplan falls apart. Lacking this confidence, they play the %s, ignoring blatantly open options. Spargo is told by all and sundry he's our best i50 kick - he now knows it implicitly and is the only one who takes the chances others are too scared to try. 

2. Our bigs need to be able to contest the pocket-kick & at least bring it to ground or get it out of bounds. With one tall (often taking the bail out kick on the wing), it falls down and we get intercepted. 

3. Having intercepted, teams like Collingwood move it out from the pocket incredibly fast. This negates the defensive benefit we were getting whilst still limiting our chances to score. It is however for them a risky strategy that relies on supreme fitness. Teams can do this, but they'll not often succeed. 

#1 and 2 can be addressed by encouraging players to be bold (they have the skill; they've been coached out of it) and simply picking a competitive 2nd tall. #3 has emerged this year and is a challenge for the coaches. 

On the eve of finals we're not going to change this plan. It is the reason we are competing for top 4. 

That is a really good analysis and it would explain why we kick to the pocket so often. With regards to #3, what is the answer? Do we need a JVR type to at least contest? It again highlights the loss of TMac. 

[Macca 16,191]

1 hour ago, fr_ap said:

I'm not sure why anyone is surprised after 2 years of this game plan. 

I'll be very clear:

The players are under coaching instruction that says "unless you are confident you can hit the lead up or lateral kick, play the %s and kick to the pocket". 

It is the #1 building block of our much vaunted defence as it narrows the opposition's exit, allowing us to set up the full ground zone accordingly. This plays to the strengths of our key & intercepting defenders. 

It is also why we have so many inside 50s - from the pocket, you're the least likely to score but the most likely to get repeat entries. This also comes with an advantage of tiring the opposition's defence & mids, and giving our defence a break (adopted from the NFL). The longer you play front half footy, the theory is the more you score. 

We play a mathematically conceived system that ignores low conversion & low efficiency in favour of sheer quantity. If you unflinchingly play the %s every time, those %s are realised in the results. This is not to say anomalies can't occur, but its a system designed to keep us competitive for long periods of time in winning positions, somewhat irrespective of personnel. Sprinkle some luck, skill or moments of class onto this system, and you'll be OK a lot of the time.  

If you're complaining about kicking to the pocket, then you can't laud our high i50 count or laud the fact we have conceded the least points all year. They're fundamentally connected. 

Where this falls down is:

1. The majority of our players are not confident they can hit the lead up or lateral kick, so they don't bother, because if they miss it the defensive system falls down & our 'defence first' gameplan falls apart. Lacking this confidence, they play the %s, ignoring blatantly open options. Spargo is told by all and sundry he's our best i50 kick - he now knows it implicitly and is the only one who takes the chances others are too scared to try. 

2. Our bigs need to be able to contest the pocket-kick & at least bring it to ground or get it out of bounds. With one tall (often taking the bail out kick on the wing), it falls down and we get intercepted. 

3. Having intercepted, teams like Collingwood move it out from the pocket incredibly fast. This negates the defensive benefit we were getting whilst still limiting our chances to score. It is however for them a risky strategy that relies on supreme fitness. Teams can do this, but they'll not often succeed. 

#1 and 2 can be addressed by encouraging players to be bold (they have the skill; they've been coached out of it) and simply picking a competitive 2nd tall. #3 has emerged this year and is a challenge for the coaches. 

On the eve of finals we're not going to change this plan. It is the reason we are competing for top 4. 

Good post, fr_ap and well explained

The way I see it is the strategy either needs some tweaking or we need to get back to the overall plan being adhered to, properly

i.e. players not just taking the fail-safe option of bombing it to the FP plus the biggie, forward line defensive pressure (at high octane levels)

So we either get back to doing things as we once did with the existing crew up forward, change the make up of the crew or tweak the strategy.  Or do whatever it takes to maximise our forward 50 entries

[Demon3 2,541]

Some really valid points on this. I think obviously composure is king going inside 50. I know the kicking to pockets is to allow for better setting up for the rebound and exit of our Fwd 50. But surely, this team, who looked pressure straight in the eyes last year can hit up a 20m kick inboard to allow a better entry.. surely.. its not that hard.

 

[Gawndy the Great 8,240]

40 minutes ago, Demon3 said:

Some really valid points on this. I think obviously composure is king going inside 50. I know the kicking to pockets is to allow for better setting up for the rebound and exit of our Fwd 50. But surely, this team, who looked pressure straight in the eyes last year can hit up a 20m kick inboard to allow a better entry.. surely.. its not that hard.

 

You’d think so given how easy the Pies and other corridor teams were able to move it out with ease with our top of square kicks. 

[1964_2 2,357]

5 hours ago, fr_ap said:

I'm not sure why anyone is surprised after 2 years of this game plan. 

I'll be very clear:

The players are under coaching instruction that says "unless you are confident you can hit the lead up or lateral kick, play the %s and kick to the pocket". 

It is the #1 building block of our much vaunted defence as it narrows the opposition's exit, allowing us to set up the full ground zone accordingly. This plays to the strengths of our key & intercepting defenders. 

It is also why we have so many inside 50s - from the pocket, you're the least likely to score but the most likely to get repeat entries. This also comes with an advantage of tiring the opposition's defence & mids, and giving our defence a break (adopted from the NFL). The longer you play front half footy, the theory is the more you score. 

We play a mathematically conceived system that ignores low conversion & low efficiency in favour of sheer quantity. If you unflinchingly play the %s every time, those %s are realised in the results. This is not to say anomalies can't occur, but its a system designed to keep us competitive for long periods of time in winning positions, somewhat irrespective of personnel. Sprinkle some luck, skill or moments of class onto this system, and you'll be OK a lot of the time.  

If you're complaining about kicking to the pocket, then you can't laud our high i50 count or laud the fact we have conceded the least points all year. They're fundamentally connected. 

Where this falls down is:

1. The majority of our players are not confident they can hit the lead up or lateral kick, so they don't bother, because if they miss it the defensive system falls down & our 'defence first' gameplan falls apart. Lacking this confidence, they play the %s, ignoring blatantly open options. Spargo is told by all and sundry he's our best i50 kick - he now knows it implicitly and is the only one who takes the chances others are too scared to try. 

2. Our bigs need to be able to contest the pocket-kick & at least bring it to ground or get it out of bounds. With one tall (often taking the bail out kick on the wing), it falls down and we get intercepted. 

3. Having intercepted, teams like Collingwood move it out from the pocket incredibly fast. This negates the defensive benefit we were getting whilst still limiting our chances to score. It is however for them a risky strategy that relies on supreme fitness. Teams can do this, but they'll not often succeed. 

#1 and 2 can be addressed by encouraging players to be bold (they have the skill; they've been coached out of it) and simply picking a competitive 2nd tall. #3 has emerged this year and is a challenge for the coaches. 

On the eve of finals we're not going to change this plan. It is the reason we are competing for top 4. 

Well explained. The tactic has worked when we are playing more tempo style football against a team that is not using aggressive ball movement (corridor, switching etc). As we can wear out an opposition defence with repeat entries, and strangle their ball movement, as they try and make their way out of defence via down the line kicking.

What I am a little confused by, is in a shoot out style game (Coll, dogs), why are we applying more attacking ball movement from defence, through the middle, and then sticking with the defensive kick to the pocket?   When we take an aggressive ball movement team on head to head, we can handle the game style in most areas (contest, mids, run etc), but then we stick with the defensive kick to the pocket, which doesn’t really bother the aggressive ball movement team, who can switch, or even take a kick through the middle.

What am I missing? 
 

[Oakridge Demons 27]

Forward line connection has been our problem for 5 years, except for last 2 games last year, my issue is our coaches have seem to have done nothing, we still move ball the same, kick long and hope someone marks it !!!

We continue to dominate out of center but just bomb it long and hope to mark it or break even, when is the last time we broke out of centre and hit a leading forward !!!

[1964_2 2,357]

13 minutes ago, Oakridge Demons said:

Forward line connection has been our problem for 5 years, except for last 2 games last year, my issue is our coaches have seem to have done nothing, we still move ball the same, kick long and hope someone marks it !!!

We continue to dominate out of center but just bomb it long and hope to mark it or break even, when is the last time we broke out of centre and hit a leading forward !!!

As explained by fr_ap above, it is our game plan to kick to a contest in the pocket, unless someone is wide open. 

Last year (and selective games this year - St.Kilda, Freo, a couple of others) it did allow our defence to setup, and strangle teams ability to get good looks inside their 50. Then when oppo is fatigued (use to be 3rd qtr), we would capitalise with aggressive movement and 4-5 quick goals.

Whether or not we need to adjust the style against fast ball movement teams is the uncertainty. Partly dependant on whether we have enough forwards able to mark or worst case bring the ball to ground. 

 

[layzie 30,940]

23 minutes ago, Oakridge Demons said:

Forward line connection has been our problem for 5 years, except for last 2 games last year, my issue is our coaches have seem to have done nothing, we still move ball the same, kick long and hope someone marks it !!!

We continue to dominate out of center but just bomb it long and hope to mark it or break even, when is the last time we broke out of centre and hit a leading forward !!!

Well I think Centre clearances aren't too bad scoring wise because of our ability to get it in quick. 

[fr_ap 2,299]

2 hours ago, 1964_2 said:

Well explained. The tactic has worked when we are playing more tempo style football against a team that is not using aggressive ball movement (corridor, switching etc). As we can wear out an opposition defence with repeat entries, and strangle their ball movement, as they try and make their way out of defence via down the line kicking.

What I am a little confused by, is in a shoot out style game (Coll, dogs), why are we applying more attacking ball movement from defence, through the middle, and then sticking with the defensive kick to the pocket?   When we take an aggressive ball movement team on head to head, we can handle the game style in most areas (contest, mids, run etc), but then we stick with the defensive kick to the pocket, which doesn’t really bother the aggressive ball movement team, who can switch, or even take a kick through the middle.

What am I missing? 
 

You're not missing anything - it's a fair question. I can only surmise that given the opportunity, our players are trying to make it look like a "Melbourne game", gain control and command the tempo. The more they do it, the more we revert to type and the system can take over. 

It's just a gameplan - there are many moments within games when they won't adhere and we will go fast and direct. To some extent, we potentially rely on those moments to kick a winning score despite doing the pocket stuff so frequently. 

Instinct when it's clear & obvious (e.g Jackson's kick to Fristch one out with Murphy in the 1st Q on the weekend), pocket kick when it's not. Noting that 'instinct' differs for many - some will still put it to the pocket by type (Clarry). Doesn't mean we don't score from the pocket - we had several scores from it on the weekend - but if we do it 70% of the time it allows the system to take over.

On good days, the other 30% will help us score in spite of ourselves...

I hold some hope that in finals, the energy and excitement take over and we go more on instinct - clearly, Bang Bang Bang was not the product of the pocket kick. 

To the poster questioning how we stop #3 - teams playing on quickly after intercepting - its two fold:

-play a competitive tall to halve the marking contest

-stay switched on. Requires all who are not involved in the pocket contest to avoid ball watching, running to space, or zoning off too far. 

[1964_2 2,357]

10 minutes ago, fr_ap said:

You're not missing anything - it's a fair question. I can only surmise that given the opportunity, our players are trying to make it look like a "Melbourne game", gain control and command the tempo. The more they do it, the more we revert to type and the system can take over. 

It's just a gameplan - there are many moments within games when they won't adhere and we will go fast and direct. To some extent, we potentially rely on those moments to kick a winning score despite doing the pocket stuff so frequently. 

Instinct when it's clear & obvious (e.g Jackson's kick to Fristch one out with Murphy in the 1st Q on the weekend), pocket kick when it's not. Noting that 'instinct' differs for many - some will still put it to the pocket by type (Clarry). Doesn't mean we don't score from the pocket - we had several scores from it on the weekend - but if we do it 70% of the time it allows the system to take over.

On good days, the other 30% will help us score in spite of ourselves...

I hold some hope that in finals, the energy and excitement take over and we go more on instinct - clearly, Bang Bang Bang was not the product of the pocket kick. 

To the poster questioning how we stop #3 - teams playing on quickly after intercepting - its two fold:

-play a competitive tall to halve the marking contest

-stay switched on. Requires all who are not involved in the pocket contest to avoid ball watching, running to space, or zoning off too far. 

Makes sense. Agree regarding potential for finals to naturally fix entry method. Also have my doubts whether Coll and others will be able to execute the slick ball movement against us come finals, but I guess we have to plan for the chance that they might.