“Switching”

[Jumping Jack Clennett 1,799]

The commentators kept saying on Thursday night how well the Dees set up “ behind the ball”.

But the Sydney defenders countered this very effectively by switching…….a long kick slightly backwards to an unattended player wide on the other side of the ground. Options often then open up along the wings, and sometimes in the “corridor”.

Most other sides switch a lot more often than the Dees.

Sometimes switching fails ,and the wide receiver has no options upfield. In this case, there’s nothing wrong with switching again, even though it’s frustrating for fans.

Did anyone else notice how switching worked for Sydney.?

[Dee Viney Intervention 1,939]

Couldn’t agree more. By and large we do set up incredibly well behind the ball. Our method there is very sound. Our set up ahead of the ball is poor, personal does play a part but I think it is more method based. 
 We don’t really commit to a switch. We chip it around to shuffle the zone. But when we are a team that is poor by foot or overuses it in wet / slippery conditions I don’t understand why we don’t use the switch more aggressively and play a bit more direct football. I also think we are vulnerable to a switch as I don’t think as a team we have a great deal of pure leg speed. 
 We have drafted / traded for speed and skill. I do look forward to see how we play with Petty, McAdam, Windsor and Kozzie in the side. Hopefully we play with more commitment to speed on the ball and a more attacking mindset. Then we will truly know whether it is personal or method.

[Newport34 380]

I was very surprised at how easily Sydney were able to switch against us. George and/or Binman told us the switch was dead on the pod last week (perhaps I misheard that - was knee deep into the Johnnie Walker at the time of listening!)

[Sydee 4,446]

37 minutes ago, Jumping Jack Clennett said:

The commentators kept saying on Thursday night how well the Dees set up “ behind the ball”.

But the Sydney defenders countered this very effectively by switching…….a long kick slightly backwards to an unattended player wide on the other side of the ground. Options often then open up along the wings, and sometimes in the “corridor”.

Most other sides switch a lot more often than the Dees.

Sometimes switching fails ,and the wide receiver has no options upfield. In this case, there’s nothing wrong with switching again, even though it’s frustrating for fans.

Did anyone else notice how switching worked for Sydney.?

Well to switch play effectively you need a couple of things 

First is players who have good field kicking - we are terribly light on in this area 

Second is players who are prepared to work hard to run to space even if they aren’t used - I lost count in the game against the Swans the number of times we had possession in the D50 only for our guys to look upfield and see zero movement - it really was quite amazing 

I saw GWS last night and they work extremely hard to spread and create options and their skills in terms of kicking and handball to advantage seem way better than ours at least at this stage 

[george_on_the_outer 7,604]

33 minutes ago, Sydee said:

Well to switch play effectively you need a couple of things 

First is players who have good field kicking - we are terribly light on in this area 

Second is players who are prepared to work hard to run to space even if they aren’t used - I lost count in the game against the Swans the number of times we had possession in the D50 only for our guys to look upfield and see zero movement - it really was quite amazing 

I saw GWS last night and they work extremely hard to spread and create options and their skills in terms of kicking and handball to advantage seem way better than ours at least at this stage 

The other thing needed to switch effectively is space.  That doesn’t exist on the SCG.  While there were kicks for both sides which were “not down the line” the switch becomes ineffective, since the opposition don’t have to run as far to fill the defensive space, unlike the MCG.

The GWS comparison is very valid, since it was played on a bigger ground, and the game becomes more open. 

[DeeSpencer 25,717]

2 minutes ago, george_on_the_outer said:

The other thing needed to switch effectively is space.  That doesn’t exist on the SCG.  While there were kicks for both sides which were “not down the line” the switch becomes ineffective, since the opposition don’t have to run as far to fill the defensive space, unlike the MCG.

The GWS comparison is very valid, since it was played on a bigger ground, and the game becomes more open. 

The SCG is 8m wider than Giants stadium and only 5m narrower than the MCG.

It’s condensed end to end but absolutely a ground where you can and should switch.

 

[DeeSpencer 25,717]

With Bowey, McVee, Howes, May, Tomlinson we have a number of a quality kicks in our back half. Even without Bowser.

One very fit winger and one very fast winger too. Salo folding lback from the midfield.

There’s no reason why we shouldn’t switch, switch back and try all sorts of methods to retain possession, alter tempo and change the attack.

Plan A should always be a quick rebound out, but there’s no reason why from things like kick outs on deep intercepts after a brisk passage of play that we shouldn’t move the ball around.

[DeeSpencer 25,717]

FWIW I thought we defended Sydney’s switching and rebound game for 3 quarters then ran out of puff once our pressure dropped away 

[58er 6,456]

13 hours ago, DeeSpencer said:

FWIW I thought we defended Sydney’s switching and rebound game for 3 quarters then ran out of puff once our pressure dropped away 

Yes we were stuffed at 3/4 time. Like a racehorse needing a run in those conditions. 
Sunday we will run out the game but will ae kick enough goals? 

Look for a good rebound We have not generally ( other than the 2 Finals in 22 and 23 ) played two games poorly since 2020 consecutively. 
 

[Kent 2,910]

16 hours ago, DeeSpencer said:

The SCG is 8m wider than Giants stadium and only 5m narrower than the MCG.

It’s condensed end to end but absolutely a ground where you can and should switch.

 

That would require a coach that is flexible and offensively oriented 

Goodwin is neither. Rabbit in head lights again Lets just kick it to Max and Thrash him

[Ollie fan 3,419]

I'm not sure of this thread is about defending against the switch, or proposing that we use it more. 
 

In terms of defence, all teams can get caught out by it if it is well done; that is why it is used. But our method is to use our fitness to switch sides in defence, in response. I think we do it pretty well, like most things in our defence system.

Edited March 10 by Ollie fan
Typo

[rjay 24,939]

2 hours ago, Kent said:

That would require a coach that is flexible and offensively oriented 

Goodwin is neither. Rabbit in head lights again Lets just kick it to Max and Thrash him

 

[Bombay Airconditioning 6,396]

19 hours ago, Sydee said:

Well to switch play effectively you need a couple of things 

First is players who have good field kicking - we are terribly light on in this area 

Second is players who are prepared to work hard to run to space even if they aren’t used - I lost count in the game against the Swans the number of times we had possession in the D50 only for our guys to look upfield and see zero movement - it really was quite amazing 

I saw GWS last night and they work extremely hard to spread and create options and their skills in terms of kicking and handball to advantage seem way better than ours at least at this stage 

First of all don’t need to be an elite kick to kick the ball to the fat side of the ground. Elite kicking is an advantage when going through traffic and / or the corridor.
 

Secondly we have players like Langdon and Nibbler.

Edited March 10 by Bombay Airconditioning

[dl4e 5,851]

Sydneys switching on thursday reminded me of the game against the Dockers at the G last year.

[Sydee 4,446]

1 hour ago, Bombay Airconditioning said:

First of all don’t need to be an elite kick to kick the ball to the fat side of the ground. Elite kicking is an advantage when going through traffic and / or the corridor.
 

Secondly we have players like Langdon and Nibbler.

First I said good kicks not elite - yes I agree it’s not that hard to kick to the fat side of the ground however there is a stark difference between hacking a kick in the general direction and kicking it flat , fast and to the advantage of your teammates. High , slow kicks sometimes short, long or behind your teammates just helps buy time for the opposition to defend easily. I think May and Lever in particular are very suspect when kicking unless they are just bombing long to packs. 
 

Agree that Landon and Nibbler work extremely hard to make space but there are 18 guys on the field and they all have to contribute - it is just as important for teammates to run in a pattern to create space as it is to run into the space available 

Not sure if you watched the Sydney game on TV or at the ground but if the latter I’m surprised you didn’t see the lack of movement up the field when we had possession, particularly in the second half 

Edited March 11 by Sydee

[Jumping Jack Clennett 1,799]

On 11/03/2024 at 08:54, Ollie fan said:

I'm not sure of this thread is about defending against the switch, or proposing that we use it more. 
 

In terms of defence, all teams can get caught out by it if it is well done; that is why it is used. But our method is to use our fitness to switch sides in defence, in response. I think we do it pretty well, like most things in our defence system.

It’s about both.

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,805]

On 10/03/2024 at 14:14, Dee Viney Intervention said:

Couldn’t agree more. By and large we do set up incredibly well behind the ball. Our method there is very sound. Our set up ahead of the ball is poor, personal does play a part but I think it is more method based. 
 We don’t really commit to a switch. We chip it around to shuffle the zone. But when we are a team that is poor by foot or overuses it in wet / slippery conditions I don’t understand why we don’t use the switch more aggressively and play a bit more direct football. I also think we are vulnerable to a switch as I don’t think as a team we have a great deal of pure leg speed. 
 We have drafted / traded for speed and skill. I do look forward to see how we play with Petty, McAdam, Windsor and Kozzie in the side. Hopefully we play with more commitment to speed on the ball and a more attacking mindset. Then we will truly know whether it is personal or method.

When did the expression "speed on the ball" first get used? It seems to me to be a recent addition to the AFL commentary lexicon. And is it an expression derived from another sport?

Edited March 12 by La Dee-vina Comedia
typo

[Viney Vidi Vici 148]

Yep noticed we were getting done by it toward the end of the first. Shut down the corridor early than the wide kicks started to get us. I actually we did seem to restructure in the second and third but that Sydney camerawork did me no favours for trying to keep track… 

i wonder what a more dominant CHF does for shutting down opposition options. I feel like the good ones influence those wing high kicks and they would influence decision making. 

[jnrmac 20,097]

When Sydney switched they moved it with speed and purpose.

When we switched (rarely) we stopped and propped, giving time for Sydney to cover.

Also, nearly every time we go to Max. Its so predictable and sooooo frustrating. (He will cop a battering this year and we are playing with the injury fire every game.)

So much so that our players don't even bother to run to space. The number of times that we had a loose man for short hit up that was totally ignored was also frustrating.

When leads are ignored players stop doing it. Hence we look stagnant with no player movement.

Like last year totally opposite to how we played in pre-season.

It's like ***** groundhog day with this team

Edited March 12 by jnrmac

[Earl Hood 6,086]

7 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

When Sydney switched they moved it with speed and purpose.

When we switched (rarely) we stopped and propped, giving time for Sydney to cover.

Also, nearly every time we go to Max. Its so predictable and sooooo frustrating. (We will cop a battering this year and we are playing with the injury fire every game.)

So much so that our players don't even bother to run to space. The number of times that we had a loose man for short hit up that was totally ignored was also frustrating.

When leads are ignored players stop doing it. Hence we look stagnant with no player movement.

Like last year totally opposite to how we played in pre-season.

It's like ***** groundhog day with this team

And the few times we do switch from the full back line, the second and third overlap players aren’t there for it to succeed, instead the first receiver on half back stops and has to identify a target as the opposition floods back. We don’t seem to have a set play for it, where a number of players would know to just run to space as soon as they see the first move. 

[jnrmac 20,097]

18 minutes ago, Earl Hood said:

And the few times we do switch from the full back line, the second and third overlap players aren’t there for it to succeed, instead the first receiver on half back stops and has to identify a target as the opposition floods back. We don’t seem to have a set play for it, where a number of players would know to just run to space as soon as they see the first move. 

Our style of play is all about predictability to our team. Unfortunately its predictable to everyone else.

We kick to Max. If he doesn't mark it we often get a stoppage outside of our D50. 

Stubborn Simon obviously feels this is the best way of minimising turnovers in a dangerous spot and plays to defence first. Whilst this has been successful its also easy to set up against. Geelong started double teaming Max with Blicavs leaping from behind to smash the ball fwd - and kneeing Max in the back in the process, The Swans did a similar thing.

In the process Max is getting killed every time we kick it in.

Our players don't bother running to space because they know it will rarely be kicked to them. They all crowd the down the line kick as it goes there 90% of the time. And our forwards move up the ground to the defensive side of the stoppage to give us more numbers. But when we get the ball and move it forward there is often no-one home in our fwd line.

It wasn't until the 3rd qtr against Sydney that our fwds manned up the Sydney defenders and the game opened up. This is Simon's strategy of keeping it a tight contest until the second half

Its not working any more and Simon has no other strategy.

[george_on_the_outer 7,604]

56 minutes ago, Earl Hood said:

And the few times we do switch from the full back line, the second and third overlap players aren’t there for it to succeed, instead the first receiver on half back stops and has to identify a target as the opposition floods back. We don’t seem to have a set play for it, where a number of players would know to just run to space as soon as they see the first move. 

But that is what Sydney and other good teams do. They flood across the ground faster than the switch. The switch was effective 5 years ago. But the HBF’s and especially wingers have already blocked the path, before ANY team can kick the ball the 2 to 3 times to move it to the other side.

[Roost it far 8,290]

39 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

Our style of play is all about predictability to our team. Unfortunately its predictable to everyone else.

We kick to Max. If he doesn't mark it we often get a stoppage outside of our D50. 

Stubborn Simon obviously feels this is the best way of minimising turnovers in a dangerous spot and plays to defence first. Whilst this has been successful its also easy to set up against. Geelong started double teaming Max with Blicavs leaping from behind to smash the ball fwd - and kneeing Max in the back in the process, The Swans did a similar thing.

In the process Max is getting killed every time we kick it in.

Our players don't bother running to space because they know it will rarely be kicked to them. They all crowd the down the line kick as it goes there 90% of the time. And our forwards move up the ground to the defensive side of the stoppage to give us more numbers. But when we get the ball and move it forward there is often no-one home in our fwd line.

It wasn't until the 3rd qtr against Sydney that our fwds manned up the Sydney defenders and the game opened up. This is Simon's strategy of keeping it a tight contest until the second half

Its not working any more and Simon has no other strategy.

Whilst it has proven a very effective strategy I think the toll it's taking on Max is too costly. It's time for something new but losing Bowey just made that more unlikely than ever.

[Pates 9,660]

I'm reserving my judgement until after a couple of rounds but one thing that really did frustrate me was how poorly we transitioned out of defence last week. Now it's very possible the smaller confines of the SCG weren't suited to whatever style we wanted to implement but it's fair to say we simply weren't up to it. 

Hopefully the return to the MCG will bring better games from Lever and Rivers who definitely were below their best, these two at their best are huge to our transitions. 

[jnrmac 20,097]

1 hour ago, george_on_the_outer said:

But that is what Sydney and other good teams do. They flood across the ground faster than the switch. The switch was effective 5 years ago. But the HBF’s and especially wingers have already blocked the path, before ANY team can kick the ball the 2 to 3 times to move it to the other side.

George

What I saw in Sydney was the few times we tried to switch we then stopped thus allowing Sydney to move across to cover us. If you switch it has to be done swiftly with the next two or three in the chain. At worst hopefully you get a stoppage on the wing or HFwd line. At best you can cut back into the middle to enter the F50.

We broke down because we were slow in moving it and/or honouring the lead up the ground. Sydney on the other hand kept the ball moving once they switched. 

Players like Jordon for us were masters at holding up the chain. He nearly always stopped and propped So much so that it must be to instruction. 'Don't kick to a one on one, wait till the cavalry arrive' 

I think that is part of Simon's defence first mantra but its worn thin and is now too predictable.