Edit: Oops, realised I'm a date late... Public holidays does that to me... 

 

Great listening to the first podcast last week.

The points to discuss from watching live on Sunday.  After 1/2 time we improved to a more running style of game.  It also coincided with the injection of  more experienced players into the team compared to the first half.

We still have no clear strategy to quickly move from the backline forward.  Too often we moved left and right without any speed to spread the field.  Freo easily covered the movement.

Lastly, defending quick movement.  Freo is well drilled in moving quickly, we were better than last year in reducing the number of fast transitions, albeit in a practice match.  Form ground level I could not see a big change in out structure to counter this.  It only took one of our boys not to chase hard out of the fwd to freeing up a chain of players. 
 

Edited March 4Mar 4 by darkhorse72
realised it was the day after the podcast

Loved the "chipping around discussion" on the pod. From a bit of track-watching, I throw out the following observations:

If we intercept the ball on the half-back line (which happened quite a bit on the weekend via May and Lever), it seems the following options are explored:

1. If Windsor, or Bowey are available (or McVee when he is back) the quick overlap handball is given so that the next kick can penetrate the defensive layers set up by the oppo and we enter the forward line at pace, with reduced risk of turnover. It happened a couple of times on Sunday, but I am sure the coaches want more of that.

2. Absent (1) the inboard "45 kick", if safe, is taken to explore what is on in the corridor.

3. Absent (1) or (2), chip or switch the ball laterally or back, which by definition can only occur safely because the oppo forwards have pressed on to block the corridor. 

4. From the switch or chip, repeat from the other side of the ground until options (1) or (2) become available.

As BinMan said - Demons' supporters will groan when this happens at the G in Round 1.  They will be the same supporters who groan when we "bang it long" into the forward line.

Re long forward handballs they are always the best option at the centre bounces if we win possession because, with 6/6/6, there are fewer opponents around to intercept the act, unless the half-backs rush up - remember the 2021 GF?

Finally, surely the coaches get a mulligan on the weekend - we have trained for three months with JVR as the key target in our forward plans, and he goes off before he can reach a contest.......

 

 

1 hour ago, Harvey Wallbanger said:

Loved the "chipping around discussion" on the pod. From a bit of track-watching, I throw out the following observations:

If we intercept the ball on the half-back line (which happened quite a bit on the weekend via May and Lever), it seems the following options are explored:

1. If Windsor, or Bowey are available (or McVee when he is back) the quick overlap handball is given so that the next kick can penetrate the defensive layers set up by the oppo and we enter the forward line at pace, with reduced risk of turnover. It happened a couple of times on Sunday, but I am sure the coaches want more of that.

2. Absent (1) the inboard "45 kick", if safe, is taken to explore what is on in the corridor.

3. Absent (1) or (2), chip or switch the ball laterally or back, which by definition can only occur safely because the oppo forwards have pressed on to block the corridor. 

4. From the switch or chip, repeat from the other side of the ground until options (1) or (2) become available.

As BinMan said - Demons' supporters will groan when this happens at the G in Round 1.  They will be the same supporters who groan when we "bang it long" into the forward line.

Re long forward handballs they are always the best option at the centre bounces if we win possession because, with 6/6/6, there are fewer opponents around to intercept the act, unless the half-backs rush up - remember the 2021 GF?

Finally, surely the coaches get a mulligan on the weekend - we have trained for three months with JVR as the key target in our forward plans, and he goes off before he can reach a contest.......

 

That's a great analysis Harvey, I'll discuss it next week.

My thought was perhaps it was in part about trialling strategy to mitigate frees big advantage over us - their leg speed. 

That may well be the case but your post highlights another possible purpose - to minimise our turnovers. 

When it is all said and done our biggest issue implementing the transition game last season, and the key cause of most of our losses, was how frequently we turned the ball over in the middle third of the ground. It killed us.

So given there is no magic bullet (ie we are not magically going to improve our kicking skills - the players we have are the players we have) it makes perfect sense to develop strategies to reduce the risk of turnovers.

Think of how many games we lost last year by a goal or two  - even a small reduction in the number of turnovers will have an outsize benefit.

Controlling the ball in the way you describe decreases the risk or turnover considerably.

One, the focus is on getting the ball in the hands of the right players 

And two, it means you don't go forward until there is an option, reducing the need for the long bomb (and therefore less aerial contests for Max to get smashed in) and/or high risk kicks.

It's worth noting that controlling the ball with short kicks to a lead up target has long been a key feature of the Lions' method (albeit less side to side).

Edited March 4Mar 4 by binman