Forward 50 connection? It's the gameplan

[Demon17 5,203]

On 8/8/2022 at 8:02 PM, Watson11 said:

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.  

Exactly. So frustrating last week.

And the Pies had Howe and Moore to defend the incoming ball with ease.  With Ed left to fix the problem coming out the other side often without help.

If nothing changes this week I fear for the rest of the seson and will start to query just what's happening in the box or in planning meetings during the week.

I had great trust in Yze coming in with his strategy background with Clarkson. Time will tell in the  next month.

[layzie 34,003]

25 minutes ago, deelusions from afar said:

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? 😀

Certainly does, good post too!

[NeveroddoreveN 1,034]

If our gameplan is to burn teammates in better positions we are going nowhere.

Selfish, predictable, boring, lazy, vomitworthy.

I am sure the instructions are if there are no options on....kick it to "that" pocket...surely you take the easy options if they are on though.

Too many are not even looking,  just blazing..

At training they are constantly hitting up players from 15-40 metres.

It is our plan so we are predictable to each other.....But it has become even more predictable to the opposition.

i can't remember the last time someone like Kozzie/Spargo or ANB took a mark on a lead into space....there has to be plenty around as generally we have 10 players in that hot spot.

Cut out the predictability going forward and actually start pressuring the ball carrier we can still win the whole thing.    If we continue to be lax in these 2 areas we will look back on this season as one we let slip.

Get it right players/coaches ffs.

[Gawndy the Great 9,011]

When this game plan is coupled with slow ball movement, which to me is also part of the problem, the issues with f50 connection are compounded. 

There is no space in f50 a lot of the time, because we are moving it slowly from half back and not taking on the corridor. This is also part of the broader plan in 'defending with the ball in hand'. It gives the opposition plenty of time to flood back and take up all the space, giving us no option but to kick it to the forward pocket. 

This is why i wanted to advocate having Salem / Bowey at HF. Gives us elite distribution by foot in the forward half. 

Sadly, we all know that none of this will change this year and probably next year either. So just suck it up, grind your teeth, clench your fists all you like...nothing is changing. 

[layzie 34,003]

8 minutes ago, CYB said:

When this game plan is coupled with slow ball movement, which to me is also part of the problem, the issues with f50 connection are compounded. 

There is no space in f50 a lot of the time, because we are moving it slowly from half back and not taking on the corridor. This is also part of the broader plan in 'defending with the ball in hand'. It gives the opposition plenty of time to flood back and take up all the space, giving us no option but to kick it to the forward pocket. 

This is why i wanted to advocate having Salem / Bowey at HF. Gives us elite distribution by foot in the forward half. 

Sadly, we all know that none of this will change this year and probably next year either. So just suck it up, grind your teeth, clench your fists all you like...nothing is changing. 

I'd love to see us just hang on to possession a little longer around the HF line. If the ball movement is ever going to be slow I want it to be there, not all the time obviously but just be patient and make the opposition back line guess a bit. Lately it feels like the time spent having to defend us in our 50 is not long duration and they stay fresher for longer, I want to see us wear them down a bit. You do more running without the ball than with it. 

It would help having a good distributor of the ball in the forward half to pick out some nice passes as well, something needs to be altered. 

[Deemania since 56 6,718]

2 hours ago, deelusions from afar said:

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.

Hence, the frustrations! It is a direct and relatively straightforward - almost easy - way to play footy, so who, what and why is holding us back? 

[layzie 34,003]

I don't believe it needs a massive overhaul but it does need a few tweaks. We need to lower the eyes more, we need to be looking for those open teammates. Get back to some basics and doing them very well. We don't need to stop kicking to the pocket or bombing entirely but there are moments where we need to take the first option. 

Maybe a change personel wise up front but I don't think it is that far off, the frustration is seeing the same problems over and over again. 

[Diamond_Jim 12,628]

3 hours ago, NeveroddoreveN said:

It is our plan so we are predictable to each other.....But it has become even more predictable to the opposition.

 

100% correct but why not have modes A, B, C & D

You can change the mode during a quarter even. Prevents the opposition anticipating your strategy

[Jjrogan 1,439]

14 hours ago, Engorged Onion said:

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.

Thats right but the way its concluded, it won't sound like much because once you represent it as 'over the average', standard devations become relevant. 

In this case, +0.75 marks is many standard deviations over the mean. I look at it this way, an extra 0.75 marks is worth 50 points (15 shots at goal, 50/50 conversion).   That's 3 percentage points.  Over a season an extra 50 points to points for is arguably worth an extra win. 

For sure, I'm not saying he is the sole answer to our forward woes, but when you have someone clearly better than the rest delivering the ball and who struggles to hit the scoreboard himself, Im a believer you at least try something.  They tried Fristch as a back (fail), tried Gus on a wing (win), try Spargo into midfield rotation (?). 

Our game plan is too dogmatic in the belief of big body contested ball winning in the midfield but we are still the number 1 contested ball team. I suggest we could suffer a small loss in that aspect for statistically signficantly better ball use. 

[NeveroddoreveN 1,034]

1 hour ago, Diamond_Jim said:

100% correct but why not have modes A, B, C & D

You can change the mode during a quarter even. Prevents the opposition anticipating your strategy

We should have multiple ideas on how to go forward.

Plan A should be to hit up the obvious free targets, Plan B or even C or D should be to kick it to that pocket, but definitely not plan A.

We look amateur in this regard to many teams.

Edited August 10, 2022 by NeveroddoreveN

[kongwacker 69]

I think our poor forward entries and predictable bang it long to the pocket is down to a game plan devised to overcome our shortage of players who are reliable and skilful in the basic art of the game - kicking. I don’t understand why this issue hasn’t been addressed in our recruiting.

Too many of our entries to forward half by foot are up and under kicks that give opposition enough time to impact the result.

Salem, reputedly one of the best kicks in the team does not deliver low flat hard kicks, why. Not enough of Mays forward attacking kicks are low, flat and hard, nor Petty, nor Jordan, nor Gus , nor Lever.

Is it that difficult for professional footballers to properly execute the basic skill of the game, kicking? Maybe running has overtaken kicking as the basic skill of the game. The fastest way to move a football remains a low flat hard kick.

[layzie 34,003]

We love a good up and under kick for sure.

[Willmoy1947 4,140]

I'm thinking the changes need to be more from May's  kick in and intercept mark and delivery options.

[Diamond_Jim 12,628]

35 minutes ago, layzie said:

We love a good up and under kick for sure.

Not sure Lever knows any other kind. Langdon can be similar I think

[Engorged Onion 10,223]

4 hours ago, NeveroddoreveN said:

 

 

We look amateur in this regard to many teams.

Melbourne have the second best differential (+5.5) by some margin (Sydney at +5.0) - aside from Geelong +8.5 and that depends on how much weight you put on the Kardinia Park advantage and the options to play North twice.

Edited August 10, 2022 by Engorged Onion

[Stiff Arm 4,419]

I get that players want to kick goals. Who wouldn't want to be the one that scores, particularly when they might've been burnt earlier by a team mate.

However, score assists should be the highest bench mark and point of praise: selfless footy.

Too often we see player's eyes light up when the goals are in sight, despite having team mates nearby in a better position. The 3 examples given by Matthew Lloyd are a weekly occurance.

Is it selfishness, stiff team rules or lack of vision?

The team usually swamps the goal kicker after a major when they would be better to first congratulate the 'assistee'

Edited August 10, 2022 by Stiff Arm

[NeveroddoreveN 1,034]

9 minutes ago, Engorged Onion said:

Melbourne have the second best differential (+5.5) by some margin (Sydney at +5.0) - aside from Geelong +8.5 and that depends on how much weight you put on the Kardinia Park advantage and the options to play North twice.

Yeah i totally get that because we generally keep teams to low scores.

The difference would be much larger if we actually hit up the  easy targets.

We are not taking many marks, we hold it in there for long periods and get very little reward for our entries.

I know we can be so much better than we currently are showing...the 2nd half fadeouts are in part happening because we are getting not enough rewards for all the forward half dominance....We play with so little trust at times, way too many safe/gameplan options of slow and wide, then into the pocket.  Most of the top teams seem to have a field day intercept marking then rebounding from there.

i stand by the we look amateur compared to many other teams in this regard! Our forward craft is below what i see at local footy at times. Makes me wonder what the forward group do together at training!

 

*Do we train to simply bomb it to the pocket for repeat entries? It should be a last resort if nothing else is on.   Unfortunately it seems to be our go to play.    Would love to see a heat map of our forward entries and the position the ball is kicked to.   Would almost put money on that we would be tracking close to 50% bombed to that little area deep in the left forward pocket

[Demon Dynasty 17,109]

On 8/8/2022 at 8:13 PM, 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… 

Max pulled the ball twice to that pocket on Friday night.  Its a silly silly strategy that just doesn't pay off often enough unless you bring a manic high press pressure game and lock it in for repeat entries....and convert at a high % from those entries.

Our chancez of kicking goals from the FP dump kick are pretty slim and the low percentage nature says this strat should be dumped immediately and we go for the jugular into the hot zone and / or look to kick to leading forwards/players on the fat side.

The FP dump is a smelly skunk that's seen us slowly ebb away as a force this season.  The pay off (or lack thereof) just doesn't justify this crappy set play.

Would much rather see us switch kick around mid field as the Pies did so often, hit a target out wide towards the HFF, then switch it back in again to the hot zone.  This is how the Pies hit so many targets either directly in front or close to it on Friday night allowing them to accurately convert on much fewer entries than we had.

Bringing the ball inside 50 in straight lines off HB, be it coming from up the line kicks or fat side line kicks (and for us ....we then often FP dump it) aint going to see you connect up forward too often for a relatively easy % conversion angle.

Need to change lanes occasionally as well.  And not just via a switch kick... a great lateral handball can also sometimes do it.  We rarely do.

Edited August 10, 2022 by Demon Dynasty