binman

AF that's a great description of the development of our game, the sequence of the blocks so to speak. I reckon the gears shift you mentioned is their ability to play tenpo footy when re we hired (or even when forced to by the opposition). We started to do that last year and are getting good at it now. The diferential in play on from marks v the pies was remarkable. I see what you mean about the way the tigere can surge when needed. For me that is all about getting control of the game's momentum, which arguably the most important thing in any sport. Our surge is a little different i reckon. Like the tigers it starts with pressure and resting the oppositins charge. But the tigers surge is a bit more of a blunt weapon. We can be lethal, and are getting better, at creating scoring chains and opportunities. We can suddenly flick the switch and be a bit more aggressive with our options and overlap run and also this is where the automated plays come in. Nothing beats score board pressure for writing back momentum.

I just saw this thread. Happy for Jim to receive the award but like all great ideas they need some work to take to the next level. I shined Jim's diamond and made it sparkle. Even wrote to the AFL to ask them to pass 'our' idea on to Gill

Refining the system is a good way of describing Goodwin approach. He has made a number of adjustments to his system. I guess it an exercise in semantics in terms of how immutable a system needs to be over time to be considered the same sytem but I agree with aob that he had a model in mind and he has been putting the blocks together. As an example I think he is prepared to add Harley now (and for that matter take the punt on Jackson and kozzie) only because he thinks he has got all the pieces of the puzzle in place. It is really interesting, in the last couple of weeks (coincidentally since this thread has started- though that might be classic confirmation bias hey EO?) all the talk from goody and players about our game plan is how critical defence is. Variations on, it all starts with our defence. I listened to lever on the zoom session tonight and he said much the same. Said they pride themselves on how hard they are to score against. He made a couple of very interesting comments relevant to our game plan. He said that in the early 2000s defence was your back six versus the forwards. But that now it is an all team concept that requires all team buy in. No surprises there. But he said that what many fans perhaps don't grasp is that low possession numbers are not an indication a player has not played well. That they often don't see how hard that player has worked to play their role in the all team defence and how important their contribution is. Specifically mentioned harmes in this respect, saying his numbers are much lower this year but he is as valuable. On possessions he said they can be a misleading stat for us as we are a low possession team that looks to kick long to a contest and battle from there. The really interesting comment was that the big improvement in our defence wasn't as result of the back six or forwards defending better it was the midfield buying into the all team defence and now really working hard both ways. He used gus getting six (I think) intercept marks in the pies game as an example. Said mids have all been star juniors used to being offensive. Working hard the other way takes some time to learn. Implied the penny has dropped. And I reckon we are seeing the result. Conceding three second half goals in the last 3 games, in total, is evidence of that.

Gold. Love it. I am going to get that slogan printed on a T shirt. Or even better some masks

Some good points AoB. I might not have made the distinction clear enough. My type one is all about the system. System first. Everything second. Type two still has systems but they are not the foundation of their approach to coaching. For me goody is an example of type one and Clakson type two. In my view Clarkson key philosophy has been about ball movement through excellent kicking. That philosophy has influenced recruitment and game style. But it is not a system. Obviously he uses systems but they don't appear as fundamental to his approach

Thanks FD. In the spirit of keeping this thread on page one so its doesn't disappear of Broadway to general discussion board i thought i'd throw up a topic of conversation that has been exercising my brain a bit of late. I would interested poster's thoughts about my hypothesis that there are three types of coaches in the AFL; Type one They have a very clear philosophy, system and game plan that they believe is the model that will bring the ultimate success They gave complete belief in that model and back it to be any any opponent (once fully implemented ie the right players, 100% buy in and enough time to make the system automatic) They essentially have one game plan - Plan A - and they drill this plan into their team and demand adherence to the rule the plan demands for it to work They are often regarded as stubborn and unwilling to change game plans when losing The players have to conform to the game plan - the coach doesn't shape the game plan around the strengths of the players Whilst these coaches might have specific strategies and tactics for each game to negate an opposition's strengths and exploit their weakness, these are really just tweaks around the edges - the game plan essentially remains the same every game, regardless of opponent They are confident if their team executes their game plan and brings the required intensity they will beat any opponent - even when they are losing In season adjustments to the game plan (eg shifting the zone or hand balling forward from stoppages) happen but the fundamentals don't change In game they make few tactical changes - tweaks yes, big changes no Type two They have a very clear philosophy about the game and how it should be played to bring the ultimate success They have a clear system and game plan but it is more fluid, particularly from season to season and less didactic than the type one They also have one game plan - Plan A but have a number of variations of that theme, so to speak These coaches put a lot of focus on specific strategies and tactics for each game to negate an opposition's strengths and exploit their weakness, these are more than just tweaks around the edges - The game plan does not remains the same every game - it shifts depending on their opponent Planning for your opponent is a key element of their coaching philosophy In season adjustments to the game plan (eg shifting the zone or hand balling forward from stoppages) happen often but the non negotiable such as work effort, buy in, commitment and pressure don't change In game they make as many tactical changes that they think is necessary to maximise their team's chance of winning and do so proactively The are more likely to shape the game plan around the strengths of the players Type 3 Somewhere in the middle of type one and type two

Good thing he was annoyed not furious

Is that a metaphysical riddle?

Low grade annoyance? Tightness sin his annoyance? My diagnosis is a mild case of exasperation. Grumpy Gary Baker avatar tells me he will be fine to play. And that is is his constant state

1,500 views of a fella walking off a footy oval ground. What is our collective diagnosis?

Is his injury being annoyed? If so i have the same injury 20 times day with my two kids and our shared learning and work space!

To be honest i'm more worried about both the dogs and the saints than i was the pies. I have a theory. Which, in contrary to my normal tomes about such matters i will try to explain succinctly. I think there are number of teams who have similar game plans to Goody. Not exactly the same of course but similar in terms of their philosophy, defensive system and zones. The Pies are one. And there are a number of teams with different game plans, albeit not radically different. The saints and dogs are two examples. My theory is we struggle against the teams with different game plans.

Naughton is the real deal. A natural football. Agree Smith could do ok, and agree pressure on the ball carrier and blocking up leading lanes and space important. But the only player at the demons i think is good enough to take Naughton is May.

I think AF is pretty spot on. I am not sure though if i agree the tactics have changed all that much. Tweaked maybe so perhaps it is semantic more than anything. So a combination of all 3 i probably right. But if the question was tweaked a bit and changed to asking why we have won so well in the last 3 games i would say it is because the players are implementing Goody’s tactics better. As i noted in my post earlier in this thread i think the following quote about the EPL also holds true for the AFL: 'at the elite level, two attributes separate the very best managers from the rest: their capacity to manage the transition from attack to defence; and their ability to organise an attack, particularly against deep-lying opponents' As AF has said we have got the first part of this equation completely spot on, which is why we are so bloody hard to score against. We have been hard to score against since mid 2018 but consider this: we have conceded three second half goals in the last three games (one per game). That is insane. Sure you could say that the crows and roos are average teams but it is not small feat to keep any team in to a single goal in a half of football. Look at the weekends games - the bombers and the hawks were woeful yet the saints and west coast still leaked goals against them. And the pies are not an average team. In the third their pressure was huge and they had 16 to 9 inside 50s, yet could only score a single goal, Yes it was wet but our defensive pressure was awesome and carried on to the last where they couldn't score any goals (it wasn't wet then). As AF notes the defensive zones are no easy thing to implement. Time, buy in and every player player playing their role and working hard are all critical. And hard things to see on TV. Which is why it is not always evident why some players sty in the side and other not. But i reckon the the big difference in the last three weeks relates to the second part of the equation - the 'ability to organise an attack, particularly against deep-lying opponents' and to this quote from the same article (which is equally relevant to the AFL) - 'what is clear is that the organisation of attacking is becoming increasingly important in differentiating the best from the rest.' This the connection goody is talking about, the three phases etc. And i has been getting better and was the best it has been since 2018 in the pies game i reckon. Helped by a defence that was clearly not gelling but still we were brilliant and connecting. And again as i noted i reckon many of the connections were automated plays, 'pre-practised moves that are drilled so they can be deployed when the circumstances are right'. - like the kick from Spargo to Brayshaw for his goal (and also the one in the third to the exact same spot - but to a pies player, which cots us a goal - i have no doubt he kicked it there because of the automation). To me that shows Goody is getting closer to having the perfect combination of an excellent transition from attack to defence and an ability to organise effective attack, particularly against deep-lying opponents. Good signs.

I hope he plays and is fully fit so we play the strongest side possible so when we win no excuses from the peanut gallery are trotted out. Jokes.

It might be as simple as omac's lack of flexibility keeping him out WB. Goody loves players who can play mutiple roles, which make sense as it gives him options.

I understand the perception my fandom of Omac might affect my assessment of Tomlinson, and that is fair enough. But i i don't think they are like for like WB. Omac had a poor game against Port, but as acknowledged by many a poster he was excellent in the weeks prior. I reckon Omac was playing better in those weeks than tomo has in the last three weeks (games where our all team defence has been a million miles better than v port) but that is by the by. The reason they are not like for like - and the reason i suspect why Tomo is playing ahead of Omac - is that really Omac can only play as the last big defender. He would be lost out on the HB line. Tomo can't play that deep role (or at least that is my assessment), but has been tried there. Perhaps they will try again. And if it doesn't work put him up to HB, an option they don't have with Omac. So it could be simply a matter of greater versatility and flexibility with Tomo. The other factor is crows, roos or pies didn't stretch our defensive bigs. Naughton is genuine star and bruce is a solid marking forward, who although out of form is crafty and has troubled us before. With English pushing forward the dogs will stretch our defensive much more than the case in our last three games. Selection will be interesting. I expect Tomo will be selected and play as defender. It will fascinating to see where he plays and who he plays on.

At the risk of being labelled a Tomlinson basher, he is a poor defender and has been poor to average in all three games he has played. He can't play deep as any decent big forward will towel him up, which is why he was moved off Himmleburg and Lankey. And why it is a big risk playing him on Bruce, who is out of form but would still have Tomlinson's measure. Tomlinson is better up on the half back flank, which makes sense as it is more analogous to the position we got him to play - the wing - and he can use his tank to get up and down the ground. That is where he played after being moved off Himmleburg and Lankey and where he started against the Pies (by the by he was on Miochek and the signs were not good for Tomo before he was VDBed - he was too slow and reactive). May will take Naughton and so they will need another match up for Bruce. Lever is not great one on one either and putting him on Bruce robs us of his intercepts skills, which doesn't make sense. It would appear Omac is out of favour so maybe they will try Tomlinson on Bruce but i think that would be a mistake. An out of form Bruce will still beat Tomlinson. As i have noted a number of times I like him in the team and would keep him in it. But i'd like to see him take Jones spot on the wing as that is where we will get most value form him.

7 day break. And no travel. Doggies have a six day break, which can't bit be a positive for us. And then another one to the saints game (who by the by also have a six day break after a tough game v the lions). Two seven day breaks (after our 6 day break post roos game) is terrific for planning and getting recovery and preparation spot on. We then have a five day break to the swans game in cairns, wirh the swans also coming off a 5 day break following their game v port in Adelaide.

Agree on spargo. And agree score involvement is, unlike so many stats, a really useful measure of performance. The key part of it is that it records who are the links in the scoring chain One stat I'd like to see is the reverse. That is, instantances where a turnover breaks a scoring chain. Impossible I know if too far away from goal as there is no way of knowing if the chain was going to break before a shot on goal. But the focus is usually on turn overs, either in isolation or when the opposition scores a goal from them. But lost opportunities at scoring because of a missed 20 metre kick or handball on the hb line are just as a big an issue, even if it doesn't cost a goal to them., as it cost a potential goal to us. That is why a player like spargo is important. He makes the simple 20 metre kick. Unlike say vdb (who has other charms) or viney.

There they are. But they leave WA soon and don't go back

The bolded bit is exactly right. Port did it too. Clever coaching, An interesting part of the pies game is we did something quite similar to them. We sweated on their mids and if we didn't strip or win the ball off them we often forced them to either kick under pressure or have to retreat towards our goal to get space to kick it forward. And then in both scenarios more often than not then we marked or rebounded it at HB. Clever coaching,

I meant Port's game against the cats was a carbon copy of our game against Port. They were awful in that game, as bad we were v them. They just didn't spread and cover and gave the cats so much space, particular inside 50. And because they were not applying any pressure the kicks by the cats had time and space with their kicks and hit target after target. And unlike Port against us the Cats put the cue in the rack and were just doing what they pleased in that last quarter. Could have won by 15 goals if they kept the peddle to the metal. Pies worked way harder than we did against Port, or Port did against the cats. So i'm not wanting to take too much away from our win. We were terrific. As you say their back half were all over the place, which is not surprising given all the changes down there. So that helped with our excellent ratio of inside 50s to scores. But no doubt their fatigue was factor. Grundy looked out on his feet almost from the start and Pendles was a shadow of his normal self.

I dont think the issue is four games in 14 days. It is the four day break. Every team has struggled after the four day break. Port won but were far from their best. The pies looked as shagged as we did v port and it was obvious in both games 10 mins in who was going to win.

The weird thing about that photo is he wasn't kicking. Just walking to full forward right before the game started