The Transition

[rpfc 28,902]

Just now, Fat Tony said:

Goodwin has been saying that he is not happy with the amount of territory we have been conceding.

We had very good efficient wins against the Dogs, Swans and Eagles last year, which looked similar to 2024.

The big change in style we made was the start of last year when we started using both sides of the ground when attacking from the backline.

 

Ideally, we wouldn’t give 20 more Inside 50s. That is not good, because it puts pressure on your backline.

But there is a concerted effort to create from the backline and to be proactive. 2024 is different to 2023.

[Fat Tony 5,303]

45 minutes ago, rpfc said:

Ideally, we wouldn’t give 20 more Inside 50s. That is not good, because it puts pressure on your backline.

But there is a concerted effort to create from the backline and to be proactive. 2024 is different to 2023.

I contend we made that change last year. In 2022 we used a near identical plan to 2021.

But in 2023 we were much bolder and used both sides of the ground, especially early on, when we had fit key forwards. This was partly due to having two genuine wingman with Hunter coming across.

 

[Adam The God 30,602]

6 minutes ago, Fat Tony said:

I contend we made that change last year. In 2022 we used a near identical plan to 2021.

But in 2023 we were much bolder and used both sides of the ground, especially early on, when we had fit key forwards. This was partly due to having two genuine wingman with Hunter coming across.

 

We still tried to play forward half in most games last year except Rounds 19-21, where we played from the back more.

[Fat Tony 5,303]

8 minutes ago, Binmans PA said:

We still tried to play forward half in most games last year except Rounds 19-21, where we played from the back more.

I think we have tried to play a forward half game this year. We’re winning due to the backline being so strong and our efficiency but I don’t think it’s by intention. 

[Adam The God 30,602]

5 minutes ago, Fat Tony said:

I think we have tried to play a forward half game this year. We’re winning due to the backline being so strong and our efficiency but I don’t think it’s by intention. 

Fair enough. I don't think you can really play a forward half game when you're sitting your defence as deep as we have this year, so agree to disagree.

[Fat Tony 5,303]

21 minutes ago, Binmans PA said:

Fair enough. I don't think you can really play a forward half game when you're sitting your defence as deep as we have this year, so agree to disagree.

I didn’t say we’ve been playing a forward half game. But that we’re trying to. 

[Tony Tea 2,814]

I've been saying for several years that we have overcommitted to defence at the expense of our attack. Fingers crossed - and I'm glass half full - that we have struck the right balance this year.

[rpfc 28,902]

1 hour ago, Fat Tony said:

I think we have tried to play a forward half game this year. We’re winning due to the backline being so strong and our efficiency but I don’t think it’s by intention. 

Just can’t agree with this. We have set deeper, the high press isn’t so high, and when we have the ball or it is contest, we have kept our forwards deeper to allow more delivery to a leading target. 

When I have the time I will delve into the comparative stats but it’s obvious to the eye, and a cursory glance of the superficial stats.

[Adam The God 30,602]

2 hours ago, Fat Tony said:

I didn’t say we’ve been playing a forward half game. But that we’re trying to. 

And I'm saying we've deliberately been sitting our defence deeper, ie not trying to play a forward half territory game.

And of course there is nuance to this. Within game we may try to take territory and push home the contested advantage.

[layzie 34,326]

It's also the type of quick ball movement that has been the difference. Going inboard at 45 degree angles and then gunning has been a welcome change. 

Forwards are definitely sitting closer to goal. Tomorrow will be a good night for the binos.

Edited April 10, 2024 by layzie

[Fat Tony 5,303]

49 minutes ago, Binmans PA said:

And I'm saying we've deliberately been sitting our defence deeper, ie not trying to play a forward half territory game.

And of course there is nuance to this. Within game we may try to take territory and push home the contested advantage.

The deeper forward press could be deliberate or personnel. We are playing a taller forward line this year with less pressure players. Brown, Petty, Fritsch and Billings don't have the same ability to apply pressure as Smith, Melksham and Spargo. So a deeper zone could be due to who is playing and who is injured, rather than being a desired tactical decision.

I still think Goodwin wants to play a similar high press to last year but we have not had the cattle this year and our midfield has been beaten more often.

[layzie 34,326]

11 hours ago, Fat Tony said:

The deeper forward press could be deliberate or personnel. We are playing a taller forward line this year with less pressure players. Brown, Petty, Fritsch and Billings don't have the same ability to apply pressure as Smith, Melksham and Spargo. So a deeper zone could be due to who is playing and who is injured, rather than being a desired tactical decision.

I still think Goodwin wants to play a similar high press to last year but we have not had the cattle this year and our midfield has been beaten more often.

The thing I'd like to know and maybe you guys can help me is why does Ben Brown work better in this setup than last year's? 

In games last year my memory is the ball hitting the deck and seeing him lumber after a running oppo defender exiting our 50. This year there doesn't seem to be a situation where that happens and we see him more for the 'run at the ball' marker that he is. 

Is it a case of having more numbers in those areas if it hits the deck or maybe not having as high defensive line as previously? Or something else?

[Ollie fan 3,628]

13 minutes ago, layzie said:

The thing I'd like to know and maybe you guys can help me is why does Ben Brown work better in this setup than last year's? 

In games last year my memory is the ball hitting the deck and seeing him lumber after a running oppo defender exiting our 50. This year there doesn't seem to be a situation where that happens and we see him more for the 'run at the ball' marker that he is. 

Is it a case of having more numbers in those areas if it hits the deck or maybe not having as high defensive line as previously? Or something else?

 I suspect he is much healthier this year - his knee is more under control.

[Fat Tony 5,303]

4 minutes ago, layzie said:

The thing I'd like to know and maybe you guys can help me is why does Ben Brown work better in this setup than last year's? 

In games last year my memory is the ball hitting the deck and seeing him lumber after a running oppo defender exiting our 50. This year there doesn't seem to be a situation where that happens and we see him more for the 'run at the ball' marker that he is. 

Is it a case of having more numbers in those areas if it hits the deck or maybe not having as high defensive line as previously? Or something else?

The 2021 game plan of hugging the boundary and making the ground small (which got worked out by the opposition in the back end of 2022) did not really suit Brown's game because there was not a lot of space to lead and we move the ball slowly. It really only worked consistently at the back end of 2021 when our midfield was on fire and Brown was holding his marks.

The 2023/24 game plan is more dual sided and gives Brown more space.

But I think Brown was injured a lot last year and also we tried to use Gawn/Grundy in the forward line, which meant less space. We could not have both Gawn/Grundy and Brown forward because it was no good from a forward pressure perspective. Having JVR as the second ruck option means that Brown's poor pressure is covered to some extent.

[layzie 34,326]

1 minute ago, Fat Tony said:

The 2021 game plan of hugging the boundary and making the ground small (which got worked out by the opposition in the back end of 2022) did not really suit Brown's game because there was not a lot of space to lead and we move the ball slowly. It really only worked consistently at the back end of 2021 when our midfield was on fire and Brown was holding his marks.

The 2023/24 game plan is more dual sided and gives Brown more space.

But I think Brown was injured a lot last year and also we tried to use Gawn/Grundy in the forward line, which meant less space. We could not have both Gawn/Grundy and Brown forward because it was no good from a forward pressure perspective. Having JVR as the second ruck option means that Brown's poor pressure is covered to some extent.

Yeah I mean there's more than one variable but that all makes sense, especially the Gawndy combo possibly crowding the space. The JVR effect probably shouldn't be understated either. 

[rpfc 28,902]

2 hours ago, Fat Tony said:

The 2021 game plan of hugging the boundary and making the ground small (which got worked out by the opposition in the back end of 2022) did not really suit Brown's game because there was not a lot of space to lead and we move the ball slowly. It really only worked consistently at the back end of 2021 when our midfield was on fire and Brown was holding his marks.

The 2023/24 game plan is more dual sided and gives Brown more space.

But I think Brown was injured a lot last year and also we tried to use Gawn/Grundy in the forward line, which meant less space. We could not have both Gawn/Grundy and Brown forward because it was no good from a forward pressure perspective. Having JVR as the second ruck option means that Brown's poor pressure is covered to some extent.

This conflation of last year with this year is misguided - we may have opened up the game about late last year in an attempt to get us out of our connection rut but that was not what we are seeing this season. The Richmond game last year that some have mentioned was a contest and clearance domination in the second half - not a transition success. 76 points from clearances in that game attests to that. 

The final against Collingwood saw them get 37 I50s - so our ‘prevention’ strategy of non-exposure to our defence was in play there. 

This year it is different - we are more efficient with our fewer I50s, and there are less repeat entries.

 

@layzie Brown is able to come at the footy more and with less onerous requests to sit under ‘out kicks’ down the line which is how we have moved the ball for the last 4 years. We are moving the ball quicker and with more space to move - forwards are always going to appreciate that.

[Adam The God 30,602]

11 minutes ago, rpfc said:

This conflation of last year with this year is misguided - we may have opened up the game about late last year in an attempt to get us out of our connection rut but that was not what we are seeing this season. The Richmond game last year that some have mentioned was a contest and clearance domination in the second half - not a transition success. 76 points from clearances in that game attests to that. 

The final against Collingwood saw them get 37 I50s - so our ‘prevention’ strategy of non-exposure to our defence was in play there. 

This year it is different - we are more efficient with our fewer I50s, and there are less repeat entries.

 

@layzie Brown is able to come at the footy more and with less onerous requests to sit under ‘out kicks’ down the line which is how we have moved the ball for the last 4 years. We are moving the ball quicker and with more space to move - forwards are always going to appreciate that.

We did score 25 points from centre clearances, but we also scored 32 points from the wing. So whilst we only scored 7 points from chains starting in the D50, this could also suggest we simply turned the ball over/intercepted it earlier. Which remains an important score source from us in 2024.

I agree with the Richmond game last year doesn't fit as aptly as the Brisbane and Adelaide games the prior weeks, but there was a distinct loosening of our defensive system to score more points.

We have clearly worked on connection over the summer though and that's your point. So we now enter with much flatter kicks from slower plays inside 50 and we start more scoring chains from our D50.

[rpfc 28,902]

On First Crack they talked about our ‘evolution’ as they called it to transition it better off half back.

King identified a stat around score percentage from ball movement from defence that had us 17th post bye last year and 3rd this year. 

Progress!

Also, like 4 of the last 5 premiers were 1st in this stat. Anomaly was us in ‘21. And that was when we beat Geelong (1st that year) from clearance score dominance).

The Transition is happening!!

[Gawndy the Great 9,011]

28 minutes ago, rpfc said:

On First Crack they talked about our ‘evolution’ as they called it to transition it better off half back.

King identified a stat around score percentage from ball movement from defence that had us 17th post bye last year and 3rd this year. 

Progress!

Also, like 4 of the last 5 premiers were 1st in this stat. Anomaly was us in ‘21. And that was when we beat Geelong (1st that year) from clearance score dominance).

The Transition is happening!!

It was scores from the defensive mid zone, which ultimately mean scores from back half turnovers.

Funny the stat was a raw number but instead a % of our overall scoring. It’s a bit misleading as we are 8th for total scores for. 

I think the main change is using the corridor more to move the ball by foot quicker to give our forwards a better chance. Simple by design but proving challenging for our team to execute. 

 

[rpfc 28,902]

7 hours ago, Gawndy the Great said:

It was scores from the defensive mid zone, which ultimately mean scores from back half turnovers.

Funny the stat was a raw number but instead a % of our overall scoring. It’s a bit misleading as we are 8th for total scores for. 

I think the main change is using the corridor more to move the ball by foot quicker to give our forwards a better chance. Simple by design but proving challenging for our team to execute. 

 

Total scores is misleading because we are not a heavily scoring team. We are defence first, so a percentage is a better indicator of progress especially when coupled with us still being competitive at 5-2.

[Demon Dynasty 17,129]

9 hours ago, rpfc said:

On First Crack they talked about our ‘evolution’ as they called it to transition it better off half back.

King identified a stat around score percentage from ball movement from defence that had us 17th post bye last year and 3rd this year. 

8 hours ago, Gawndy the Great said:

It was scores from the defensive mid zone, which ultimately mean scores from back half turnovers.

You two must've been reading the Stats Files - 2024 thread where this was covered on Saturday.

By all means feel free to pinch juicy stuff from there but in future just put a credit as to where you sourced this from pls! 😆

But on a serious note.... Gawndy is correct.

It's referred to as the 'Defensive Mid Zone' which is...  the area from the top of the D50 arc up to the centre circle.

Laptop man (Kingy) refers to it as 'the wedge'.  Not to be confused with a choc wedge or a wedgy!

My understanding is it's a carve out of how much of your total score is sourced as coming from this area of the ground as a percentage.

The source (of the possession chain) being captured to calculate this ratio might include;

Winning the ball from intercept, winning the ball at stoppage / CB (clearance) and/or winning disputed ball at ground level (eg, loose ball gets).

It may also be just score from turnovers in that part of the ground but it doesn't appear to be that as it was not mentioned and the term 'score source' suggests it is referencing 'from which part of the ground the scoring (possession) chain commenced' as a percentage of total score sources.

Don't hold me to those interpretations though.  Would need absolute clarification from a Champion Data rep (which is pretty tricky... maybe @WheeloRatingscan help on this?)

Maybe Andy, Bin & George can score a bit of a coup and get Radford our strategist in to the post match podcast and grill him on it!

Not that Sam would give much away.  Maybe Choco instead, who at leaast might give the odd tasty morsel up with a nudge and a wink 😄

Edited April 28, 2024 by Demon Dynasty

[Adam The God 30,602]

10 hours ago, rpfc said:

On First Crack they talked about our ‘evolution’ as they called it to transition it better off half back.

King identified a stat around score percentage from ball movement from defence that had us 17th post bye last year and 3rd this year. 

Progress!

Also, like 4 of the last 5 premiers were 1st in this stat. Anomaly was us in ‘21. And that was when we beat Geelong (1st that year) from clearance score dominance).

The Transition is happening!!

This King clip was played on the podders last night too.

[rpfc 28,902]

2 hours ago, Demon Dynasty said:

You two must've been reading the Stats Files - 2024 thread where this was covered on Saturday.

By all means feel free to pinch juicy stuff from there but in future just put a credit as to where you sourced this from pls! 😆

But on a serious note.... Gawndy is correct.

It's referred to as the 'Defensive Mid Zone' which is...  the area from the top of the D50 arc up to the centre circle.

Laptop man (Kingy) refers to it as 'the wedge'.  Not to be confused with a choc wedge or a wedgy!

My understanding is it's a carve out of how much of your total score is sourced as coming from this area of the ground as a percentage.

The source (of the possession chain) being captured to calculate this ratio might include;

Winning the ball from intercept, winning the ball at stoppage / CB (clearance) and/or winning disputed ball at ground level (eg, loose ball gets).

It may also be just score from turnovers in that part of the ground but it doesn't appear to be that as it was not mentioned and the term 'score source' suggests it is referencing 'from which part of the ground the scoring (possession) chain commenced' as a percentage of total score sources.

Don't hold me to those interpretations though.  Would need absolute clarification from a Champion Data rep (which is pretty tricky... maybe @WheeloRatingscan help on this?)

Maybe Andy, Bin & George can score a bit of a coup and get Radford our strategist in to the post match podcast and grill him on it!

Not that Sam would give much away.  Maybe Choco instead, who at leaast might give the odd tasty morsel up with a nudge and a wink 😄

Thank DD. I didn’t read the thread.

[Demon Dynasty 17,129]

6 minutes ago, rpfc said:

Thank DD. I didn’t read the thread.

Well that's dissapointing.  Some work required on my PR skills 😩

[WheeloRatings 1,164]

On 29/04/2024 at 08:36, Demon Dynasty said:

You two must've been reading the Stats Files - 2024 thread where this was covered on Saturday.

By all means feel free to pinch juicy stuff from there but in future just put a credit as to where you sourced this from pls! 😆

But on a serious note.... Gawndy is correct.

It's referred to as the 'Defensive Mid Zone' which is...  the area from the top of the D50 arc up to the centre circle.

Laptop man (Kingy) refers to it as 'the wedge'.  Not to be confused with a choc wedge or a wedgy!

My understanding is it's a carve out of how much of your total score is sourced as coming from this area of the ground as a percentage.

The source (of the possession chain) being captured to calculate this ratio might include;

Winning the ball from intercept, winning the ball at stoppage / CB (clearance) and/or winning disputed ball at ground level (eg, loose ball gets).

It may also be just score from turnovers in that part of the ground but it doesn't appear to be that as it was not mentioned and the term 'score source' suggests it is referencing 'from which part of the ground the scoring (possession) chain commenced' as a percentage of total score sources.

Don't hold me to those interpretations though.  Would need absolute clarification from a Champion Data rep (which is pretty tricky... maybe @WheeloRatingscan help on this?)

Maybe Andy, Bin & George can score a bit of a coup and get Radford our strategist in to the post match podcast and grill him on it!

Not that Sam would give much away.  Maybe Choco instead, who at leaast might give the odd tasty morsel up with a nudge and a wink 😄

I'm not 100% sure of the stat they're looking at, but we are 3rd this year for proportion of all points scored from the defensive midfield. Score sources are usually reported as one of (a) points scored, (b) points conceded, or (c) differential, so I would ordinarily assume it would be one of those, but I did find the following article that refers to % of points conceded by zone. So I assume your interpretation is correct in that David King was referring to % of points scored from the defensive midfield zone.

https://www.espn.com.au/afl/story/_/id/29699624/afl-understanding-geelong-incredible-team-defence-their-achilles-heel

Quote

Champion Data records scores against in five different zones: Defensive 50, defensive midfield, centre bounce, attacking midfield and forward 50.

Geelong's four losses have resulted in their highest opposition score from defensive midfield - that is the space between the defensive 50 arc and the centre line. During the losses to Carlton (39.2 percent), Collingwood (36.8), West Coast (17.8) and GWS (17.1), Geelong's opponents found a way to launch a significant percentage of scores from the Cats' defensive midfield. In their eight wins, the average is just 7.5 percent."

Average points scored per match, 2024 (including the first two matches in round 8) by zone

Team	D50	Defensive Midfield	Centre Bounce	Attack Midfield	F50	Total	Def Mid %
St Kilda	16.0	24.6	8.1	14.9	9.4	73.0	33.7%
Gold Coast	11.3	22.6	12.0	20.0	18.9	84.7	26.6%
Melbourne	12.1	20.9	11.4	22.1	17.0	83.6	25.0%
Hawthorn	11.1	15.1	8.9	22.9	9.7	67.7	22.4%
Greater Western Sydney	21.3	23.3	13.1	28.1	21.4	107.3	21.7%
Collingwood	9.9	18.6	7.4	35.2	15.4	86.5	21.5%
Richmond	16.4	14.9	3.9	21.9	12.6	69.6	21.4%
Sydney	20.0	21.4	9.6	35.0	18.0	104.0	20.6%
Essendon	13.7	17.0	13.6	23.6	15.0	82.9	20.5%
Brisbane	14.4	13.9	8.6	25.1	11.9	73.9	18.8%
North Melbourne	13.0	13.1	11.1	22.6	10.7	70.6	18.6%
Geelong	20.3	18.3	17.0	24.3	19.1	99.0	18.5%
Western Bulldogs	17.9	16.7	12.7	20.3	23.6	91.1	18.3%
Fremantle	17.6	13.4	12.4	16.9	18.7	79.0	17.0%
Port Adelaide	16.1	14.8	14.5	26.8	17.8	89.9	16.4%
Carlton	14.0	15.6	12.1	36.0	19.9	97.6	16.0%
Adelaide	20.6	12.4	11.5	17.1	15.8	77.4	16.0%
West Coast	15.3	9.6	12.9	20.0	15.1	72.9	13.1%

Average points conceded per match, 2024 (including the first two matches in round 8) by zone

Opposition	D50	Defensive Midfield	Centre Bounce	Attack Midfield	F50	Total	Def Mid %
Gold Coast	14.1	11.9	8.7	22.7	26.4	83.9	14.1%
Sydney	9.9	12.7	9.3	23.7	14.9	70.4	18.1%
Melbourne	9.0	13.0	6.0	28.3	10.0	66.3	19.6%
Fremantle	12.0	13.4	8.9	20.3	16.1	70.7	19.0%
Adelaide	11.0	14.5	11.0	22.5	17.0	76.0	19.1%
Port Adelaide	19.1	14.5	9.8	26.5	9.6	79.5	18.2%
Geelong	12.0	14.6	10.7	21.6	14.3	73.1	19.9%
St Kilda	17.0	15.4	7.9	26.1	15.3	81.7	18.9%
West Coast	24.6	16.7	12.9	23.6	20.6	98.3	17.0%
Brisbane	14.3	16.9	9.6	22.1	15.6	78.4	21.5%
Essendon	18.4	17.3	11.9	23.4	17.4	88.4	19.5%
Carlton	17.8	19.8	11.5	20.4	19.5	88.9	22.2%
Western Bulldogs	14.7	19.9	13.1	18.7	13.0	79.4	25.0%
Greater Western Sydney	11.6	20.1	15.1	18.9	13.0	78.7	25.6%
North Melbourne	28.9	20.6	17.6	29.9	26.3	123.1	16.7%
Richmond	20.9	20.6	12.4	20.1	18.1	92.1	22.3%
Collingwood	15.9	20.6	9.9	32.4	8.6	87.4	23.6%
Hawthorn	9.6	22.6	15.1	33.4	16.1	96.9	23.3%

 

I have recently added some score source data to the website (on the match stats and team stats pages), outlined in the following post. cc @binman