Apologies if this has been covered elsewhere but the bits of threads that I've been reading seems to show that many people don't get this.

I was there on Friday night and watched in frustration in the second quarter (and really the whole game) as we kicked repeatedly to a magical spot in the forward pocket on the members side, close to the boundary.  It rarely lead to marks, or crumbs to goals and was usually swept away by Collingwood's defence or got knocked out of bounds.  The old dees supporter behind me kept saying "oh what a terrible kick" every time it went there as if it wasn't what the player intended to do.

But this is our game plan!

We have the best contested players in the game and a defence that can outsmart and outmark their opponents (if it doesn't come in too quick).  Unless we are breaking away from centre clearance or whizzing it forward from a turnover, we go forward and kick there as it allows us (playing the percentages) to use our advantages.  If we kick to the top of the goal square there is less likely to be a stoppage if we don't mark and good teams with fast ball movement will have both sides available (and the centre corridor) to quickly move the ball up the field with little pressure which puts enormous pressure on our defence.

 

But obviously there's a trade off:  When we do mark, they are tough shots.   Equally when we do crumb it requires brilliance - either in handball chains or snaps like you saw from Petracca in the grand final.

 

Clearly it works - particularly if with our (once) superior fitness, we can play our game far longer than the opposition.  But after Friday night, I'm wondering:

(a) are the best opposition teams we've faced - Collingwood / Geelong, Swans, even the dogs a few weeks back - able to get us because of their aggressive ball movement and determination not to get caught in our trap of playing on the side we want them to.  I.e. Would these teams have troubled our team last year as they have practiced a strategy designed to beat ours?

(b) would we play differently if we had key forwards we could be more confident in - say Naughton or Curnow?  Part of me thinks not because we still do this when Gawn is down there and he looks as dangerous as anyone in a contested mark situation.

(c) Is this really just about the pressure from our forwards / midfielders in closing down the outlets.  I.e. do they just need to go a bit harder for a bit longer and then we win the game?

(d) If we aren't able to defeat any of these teams in the finals, should we be tweaking this style over summer (not unlike Geelong last summer).

 

As I've mentioned on here previously, although I understand the strategy, I also wish we took a few more risks.  A player kicking to that pocket when they are kicking over the mark from 70m out is very predictable.  Would love to see some handballs off to a runner who has the odd ping from 55m.  Even at an estimated strike rate of 1/3 that is better than what kicking to that pocket every time is getting us.

Thoughts?

If you do the same thing again and again, teams work it out and come up with plans to address it.  On Friday, Collingwood expected the kick to the pocket and always counterattacked from the subsequent stoppage (or intercept) to the other side and always had the outnumber and overlap on the far wing (Langdons wing).  We did nothing to address it and gave up 5 easy goals due to that switch (we also gave up 1 goal from a switch to Jordan’s wing). That’s incredibly poor coaching by Goodwin and the support coaches. The dogs game was just as bad.

I think we should stick with the kick to the pocket as it is the percentage play, but we need to setup to stop the counterattack to the other wing. It seems an easy thing to fix.  

If our best game plan is to kick to the same pocket ignoring all other options, then I’m now even more concerned about our chances this year… 

We've played pretty much the same way all through Goodwin's tenure, and with one obvious period where it all came together, we've struggled against organised defences.

In my opinion we are strong from the backline through to centre/half-forward but weak in the last third of the ground because we overcommit behind the ball at the expense of someone to give the ball to running from the centre to just inside the arc. This means our all important kick to forwards is always drawing them outwards away from goal rather than allowing them to double back into space. Defenders can then set up in front of our forwards and not have to worry about the forwards running different patterns. Compounding the problem is that defenders intercepting inside our arc, say, 40 from goal means that they have an easy break with space behind our now out of position ball carriers so the ball is whisked down the ground. It's our kick to 35-40 that's killing us because we can't get the opposition guessing where we might kick it. If we make them worry that a kick might go to 10-20 out from goal, we open up a kick to 30-45. For that reason a line breaking runner is essential in the off season. 

That said, if we took our chances on Friday, and Pies weren't gifted free kick goals, we win easy.

Also, our front line players are made for finals and I don't half fancy a final against the other contenders (except Sydney). Hopefully we can finish top 4 and get to play Geelong or Collingwood in the first week.

22 minutes ago, SPC said:

If our best game plan is to kick to the same pocket ignoring all other options, then I’m now even more concerned about our chances this year… 

One trick ponies 

At times our entries have improved. Lloyd and Barrett point out a couple of examples today of where we took the wrong option and it cost us. Adding to that easy set shots being missed and small fwds flying for marks when a teammate is already contesting leaving no one at ground level. 
 

My question is why does it take a pre season to tweak our game plan? Professional and highly skilled footballers that have been learning different game plans and tactics since under under 8’s.

16 minutes ago, IRW said:

One trick ponies 

Thanks, Mr Ed.

“If You Always Do What You've Always Done, You'll Always Get What You've Always Got.” ~ Henry Ford.

 

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 

We’re also ranked 18th for scores from forward half turnovers. Last year we were 5th.

 

Its fine to have this kicking it to the pocket as the game plan the go to spot when there are no better options, but if you see a player free you have to hit them up... also it would make us less predictable. Doesn't seem like a hard thing to unjust, hopefully!

16 minutes ago, Fat Tony said:

 

Has been going on all season.

36 minutes 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 

Or alternatively,  why don't we say these guys are pretty ordinary kicks, so how about we try and find a way to get Spargo more of the ball going inside 50?  Wouldnt kill us to give him a run on the ball for 5 minutes a quarter. 

I wish the thread title was called "Its the gameplan stupid" 

1 hour ago, SPC said:

If our best game plan is to kick to the same pocket ignoring all other options, then I’m now even more concerned about our chances this year… 

I would have thought a logical plan would be...

A. Kick it to a team mate 15m clear directly in front forty metres out.

If not,

B. Kick to the same pocket.

It seemed like option A was ignored multiple times on Friday night. 

There's playing the percentages and keeping it simple and then there's just plain dumb and predictable.

We've been worked out.

God I hope Tmac is talking to Weideman because it might just mean we have a bigger impact, and I mean big impact,  letting all opposition players who are in their backlines right from the first entry, that things are going to get ugly.

HINT...marking isn't the initial object, collateral damage is. It's been done before very effectively.

The issue I have with TMAC is it takes him 6wks or so to get back into form, this worries me.

23 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 

Spurge needs to be used as an option more:  he rarely misses a target in a good position.  Smart and clean deliverer.

22 hours ago, SFebes said:

The issue I have with TMAC is it takes him 6wks or so to get back into form, this worries me.

I cannot realistically see TMAC back in any useful position / form / fitness this season.

23 hours ago, Jjrogan said:

Or alternatively,  why don't we say these guys are pretty ordinary kicks, so how about we try and find a way to get Spargo more of the ball going inside 50?  Wouldnt kill us to give him a run on the ball for 5 minutes a quarter. 

I love stats, and sometimes I completely misinterpret them... in interpreting the image on the screen, have I mucked this up?

 

CP = 124 @ 14% =17.36 at AFL Average 19% = 23.56 = that's -6 marks difference over 20 games...

CO = 94 @ 13% =12.22 at AFL Average = 17.86 = that's -5.5 marks over 20 games...

MG = 59 @ 12% =7.08 at AFL Average =  11.21 = that's -4 marks over 20 games...

CS = 56 @ 46% =25.76 at AFL Average = 10.64 = that's +15 marks over 20 games... (in the positive)

TS= 54 @ 7% =3.78 at AFL Average = 10.26 = that's -6.5 marks over 20 games...

JJ= 53 @ 15% =7.95 at AFL Average = 10.07 = that's -2 marks over 20 games...

EL= 50 @ 18% =9  at AFL Average = 9.5 = that's -5. marks over 20 games...

 

Total amount of marks difference negativeve and Spargo's postitive of a 20 game stretch behind AFL average, is 14 marks over a 20 game stretch..  less than .75 of a mark a match.

Just one more request on this before I shut up. I'd really like the thread title to be changed to 'Forward 50 connection? It's the gameplan, stupid' 

4 minutes ago, layzie said:

Just one more request on this before I shut up. I'd really like the thread title to be changed to 'Forward 50 connection? It's the gameplan, stupid' 

I started the thread but have no idea how to do this - maybe its for the moderators?

Just now, deelusions from afar said:

I started the thread but have no idea how to do this - maybe its for the moderators?

Maybe just assure me that this is the spiritual thread title and I'll be satisfied 😀

On 8/8/2022 at 8:46 PM, Fat Tony said:

 

Damning vision - we see it weekly - we talk about it in its various forms, there are space-makers available with room to turn and move closer to goal for a really positive shot, including considerable time before a defender can attempt to intercept or spoil. Golly, eyes up, best options, and no leading forwards actually available. That level of player control just does not work well or often enough, so coaches, make the adjustments. If we play close to the boundary line to put the ball in the pocket, the chances of turnovers or 'defensive out of bounds' are extremely high and the alternative set shots or snaps go into the 'hope and a prayer' category. We often see Clarrie up between CHF and FF in space - there is room there, significantly often, and Sparrow is usually in support or creating space for himself further back towards the midfield. The only player who seems to take advantage of this scoring zone is ANB, and even that is rare because of the delivery method dictated and ingrained in our 'going forward' ball movement. We had the Cats on toast, we had Footiskry on toast, we had the Filth unable to make an impact - yet we let it all slip by in predictability. 

9 hours ago, layzie said:

Maybe just assure me that this is the spiritual thread title and I'll be satisfied 😀

It absolutely was.  In fact it was my intention from the beginning, but in my haste to get my thoughts to the page (screen) the most critical aspect of the post was lost (but not forgotten).

Does that suffice? 😀

3 hours ago, Deemania since 56 said:

Damning vision - we see it weekly - we talk about it in its various forms, there are space-makers available with room to turn and move closer to goal for a really positive shot, including considerable time before a defender can attempt to intercept or spoil. Golly, eyes up, best options, and no leading forwards actually available. That level of player control just does not work well or often enough, so coaches, make the adjustments. If we play close to the boundary line to put the ball in the pocket, the chances of turnovers or 'defensive out of bounds' are extremely high and the alternative set shots or snaps go into the 'hope and a prayer' category. We often see Clarrie up between CHF and FF in space - there is room there, significantly often, and Sparrow is usually in support or creating space for himself further back towards the midfield. The only player who seems to take advantage of this scoring zone is ANB, and even that is rare because of the delivery method dictated and ingrained in our 'going forward' ball movement. We had the Cats on toast, we had Footiskry on toast, we had the Filth unable to make an impact - yet we let it all slip by in predictability. 

The thing for me is that surely this is not a difficult fix.  We have seen enough examples - surely these scenarios can be practiced at training where rather than kicking long they go for a shorter central option.  I haven't been to training in a while so have no idea if its a focus.