binman

I'd like him to stay the team too, just not as defender. Has he had a bag kicked on him? No, but consider this. He played as a key big defender against the two worst teams in the AFL who could only manage 5 goals each. Four of those 10 goals were kicked by his direct opponent (Himmelburg - after easily out marking him, Daw, Larkey x 2). So 40% of the opposition goals in the two games he has played as a defender have been kicked by his direct opponent. Has he been thoroughly beaten? Might well have been had Goodwin not moved him in both games. Goody took him off Himmleburg after that first quarter mark and goal. And once it was obvious Larkey had his measure (after his second goal at the end of the first quarter) moved Tomlinson off him too. In both games he ended up playing basically as a half back flanker against players smaller and shorter than him. And in both games played much better once moved because he could get up the ground and use his tank. Play him on the wing, which is the role we recruited him to play and where he is best suited. Good tank, provides a marking option down the line and gets good penetration on his kicks, which is really helpful in clearing from the half back line and with the last kick inside 50. Jones out and Tomlinson take his spot. Simples

The way they man the mark is really noticeable. I reckon that is more worth of a 50 than encroaching the protected zone. Intetsing point about the smaller ground. Optus is mcg size but the others are way shorter, which on hand makes zones more difficult to penetrate wirh slow play (I assume) but ate easier to score on from centre bounces or stoppages as kicks go in deeper from the centre square.

Some terrific discussion and also some top notch descriptions of the zone system fro AoB and A F. I will try and work out how in the OP i can edit to include links to posts that explain things, such as the zones well, as i couldn't believe how hard it was to find any decent information about this and other tactical information on the web. The articles dee man linked to on ABC news are really terrific and i like how the y use giphs to demonstrate things, very helpful As dee man notes there are some videos on Youtube from FootyA2Z. They are pretty basic really, (though they don't pretend to be otherwise but the only others i could find dated back to 2012! One of their clips explains the zone defensive system pretty well, once you get past the mogodon voice over! A couple of question for AoB, A F and deanox (and anyone else who has a view) about zones: I heard a pundit say, not sure where or who but i presume on fox (though it could have been on radio) that an evolution of the zone this year has been that rather then set horizontally, as described in the video above, they are being set diagonally across the ground. The idea being that doing so provides less opportunities to switch and forces opposition teams to either kick down the ground or take on a higher risk switch or kick to the corridor. I saw vision of Port forcing Gawn to kick to a high risk spot rather than down the line after taking away the switch option (something they did to great effect all game against us) I have heard a number of commentators talk about questioning why teams so often go down the line rather than crossing more often to the fat side and i suspect this is the reason. I I'm pretty sure we employ this tactic, but have no real way of knowing (though deanox's ingenious use of the AFL app might help) The first question i have is does that observation (diagonal zone) ring true? And if so doe we employ it?

Terrific analysis AF. i'm not sue how to quote across thread. Could i ask you to pot this on the tactics thread, perhaps with the link to the guardian article. The thing that jumps out for me is the concept of set plays in attacks triggered by agreed to antecedents as opposed to allowing forwards (and others) freedom to go with the moment as take shots as the opportunities arise

I see a really strong connection, actually, in both our model and that of pies. Also see some simiarties in the AFL between the two tactical philophsies discussed in that article I am going to use that lens to look at our game against the pies on the tactics thread.

I was totally agin selecting Tmac for the roos game but in hindsight see the logic of giving him some time in a real game of AFL football, in a game we should have been very confident to win. Given there is no VFL games and it is really not possible to organise any meaningful scratch matches (goody said they had dome some work with a SANFL side?) how else could they get miles and match fitness into TMac? And he clearly needs it. But the bolded bit in the quote is spot on. When he played up forward his defender was running off him at every opportunity. The pies would do exactly the same.And it would hurt us more. And i'm amazed at any suggestion of him playing down back. Down back, his lack of mobility would be completely exploited and as Tomlinson has shown, with defensive zones and systems it is no easy thing to simply slot into the back six when you have not been training or playing there. i have been pretty harsh on tmac, perhaps unfairly so. He remains a key player for us and if we make finals and if he can get close to full fitness and his his normal mobility he may prove a difference maker. But he is a way off that i reckon. So can't see him play this week if max is fit (and maybe even if he isn't) or the following week. But maybe they might play him against the bombers if they are confident of a win going into that game.

He is a zen master

Which may well mean we are in QLD, with one maybe two games in the NT, for the remainder of the year. Which is close to optimal i would have thought.

Good point about the 666 change in terms of stifling innovation, at least immediately after a goal is scored And who knows with goody. I mean he made those comments in the context of not allowing the change to be used as an excuse. I think why 666 has not had much impact is that it only really comes into play at centre bounces. After that things go back to how they were, with teams putting play ers behind the ball etc.

Ralph said on fox footy need yesterday that it will be announced today dees to play bombers in alice springs in round 14. So pies, bulldogs and bombers. The oldest team in the league, named after the capital of Victoria, playing three proud Victorian teams in Brisbane, gold coast and the Alice. Surreal times.

Thanks, i will watch that on a tablet when i watch the game on Sat. I will find that super helpful, particularly at stoppages. I assume it helps to visualise how their zones are set? It drives me spare that on the tv coverage they don't show a graphic at say centre ball ups after a goal and after a point showing where all the players are on the ground or even match ups. It would be so easy. As would a box in the corner when teams are exiting the back half with a shot from behind the goals so you could see what options there are down the ground. As an example in the lions game after the goal umpires called for that stupid goal review the commentators said Jones was free on the wing. Why not show it? On the 666 rule Goodwin made the point a number of times befire and during the 2919 season he had stopped using the player off the back of the square about half way though 2018 so he didn't think 666 was a factor. It was at this time, probably not coincedeetally that our zone become much less aggressive in terms of how high we push up. I actually dont think the 666 rule has made much difference to footy, and not really to us either. Our issues last year were about personnel. I didn't expect it would but one surprised the ability to run out of the square after a point would see some innovation. But i guess the risk reward ratio works against taking risks kicking out of the backline.

True nuff. Though just before The whistle blew he handball it straight to a Freo player so would have turned it over anyway. That said whenever I have seen him play he had played well. Outmarked fyfe a bit later

Ahh, i knew there was someone i missed in my list of posters who have made some insightful posts about tactics of late deanox. Is the GPS on the AFL app displayed as the heat maps? I haven't really looked at them in any detail. How do you use the heat maps (assuming that is what you are reffering to)? And is there other in game data, apps etc you look at?

Fair call titan. Perhaps i was too harsh on Tomlinson. I actually rate him as player, but obviously don't see him down back. And that is not supposed to be a big knock on him. At least Smith trained as back in the preseason. As far as i know Tomlinson didn't and playing as a key defender is no easy gig. I think it is entirely possible Goody played him down there in these last two games to get some proper match time into him. They may well not see Omac as the solution to the third tall, but i'd be shocked if they are thinking tomlinson might be. But if they wanted to give him some game time and had other positions covered it would make sense to play him down there against two of the bottom sides. I suspect he will replace Jones on the wing. Not sure if that means Omac comes back in, but i hope so. Not sure what the alternative would be. They may well play only two bigs in defence this week but not sure if that is feasible going forward.

Furphies is perhaps the wrong word, as it suggest a trick. i more mean that if you asked me a few months back what is the cornerstone of Goody's game plan was(the one wood) i would have said contest out, forward half footy and intense pressure on the ball carrier, indeed intense pressure all over the ground But i am starting to reconsider this and thinking they are perhaps better thought of as the key elements of his philosophy about how footy needs to be played to win finals. And so i've been thinking that his game plan revolves around his defensive system and how attacks are both launched and defended. Which is one reason i really liked the Guardian article about the differing tactis of Man city and Liverpool you posted as it in mnay ways could be applied to the AFL.

Facts are facts. Its funny old world where people think they can have alternative facts. Or that facts can be spun. A post truth world indeed. The evidence is irrefutable, even in that first goal that involves the hand off (where the only alternative explanation is that the demons don't in fact employ a zone defence where Omac's role is to be the deepest player). And the other two are even more black and white. No grey at all. Omac is on Westhoff in both instances. That is a fact, not an opinion. How someone rates tomlinson's effort on larky are all opinion, and opinion can indeed be spun I did not 'spin' any facts about Omac. Again i think you are being unfair suggesting i did, but there you go. Each to their own And you are plain wrong about me blindly supporting Omac to suit my my own narrative. If Larkey (or himmleburg for that matter) had beaten Omac the way he did Tomlinson i would acknowledge it. Omac is one of my favorite players, but that does not mean i am blind to his weaknesses or would defend him for no reason. I will however defend him when the criticisms are simply bulltish

Great 3183. If you grew up watching soccer i suspect you have a intuitive understanding of the tactics in that game, which in turn gives you real insight into AFL tactics as my sense is that soccer and basketball (in that order) have been the two most influential sports in terms of how AFL has evolved tactically. I started going to live VFL games as an 11 year old in 1978. By and large by myself back then as no one in my family was into footy and no one i knew barracked for the dees. I reckon going by myself mean that i watched fairly intently. Pretty much from that time i have always watched the game live from behind the goals and when at the g almost always from the top deck of the Ponsford stand. I reckon this has influenced how i see the game it is always down the ground and when up high you can really get an appreciation of the running patterns, structures, who is working hard ahead or behind the ball, set ups and in the last 10-15 years zones. For this reason, I have said for years i reckon the coaches would be better off sitting behind the goals. Funnily enough i also follow the play and often do not even notice opposition players but from the Posnford stand you can't but help see all the movement etc. And of course live you are constantly looking up the ground to see what options there are and who is free. But i am the first to say i'm no expert, just interested. And i've always hated how little info there is out there about tactics etc. Years ago (maybe 20?), in the Sunday Age there was a regular article about tactics that i loved (i forget the writer's name - i think he is now the editor of the Footy record, Ashley something, but i could be wrong). In all the time i have followed footy that is just about the only regular mainstream media about the tactics of the game. Compare that to the states where the coverage of all the big national sports go includes in depth analysis across multiple media platforms in forensic detail and the fans seem to really deeply understand and love the tactical nuances and intricacies of the game. Dee man highlights above the excllent recent articles the ABC has written about tactics, by Cody Atkinson and Sean Lawson, which as Dee man notes are fantastic and like him some of the best about footy i have read. So perhaps things are shifting. And maybe the fact that people in Melbourne can't watch live games might help shift the incredibly one dimension coverage of the game by 7 and fox (7 is way worse it must be said - roaming brian is their biggest innovation for the last 30 years).

I reckon this is unfair, titan. I never 'spun' Omac's game to suggest it was better than it was. I acknowledged a number of times he had a poor game. I simply refuted the incorrect claims he was beaten by Georgiades. I did so in as objective a way as possible. i looked at the evidence. In some detail. As you did with Tomlinson. The big difference is that with Omac there was no judgement or opinion required. The clear, unambiguous FACT is Omac was not on Georgiades for ANY of his three goals. That is not an opinion. It is a verifiable fact. So not one of those goals could be blamed on omac. Lever maybe, Omac no. But that doesn't seem to suit some people's narratives Which of course does not mean he didn't play poorly. As i acknowledged, he did, though plenty played worse. And those that buy the Georgiades narrative perhaps see things so black and white that him being dropped is evidence that narrative is correct - see i told you he got dropped because he got schooled by a kid. Please. The situation with Tomlinson is completely different to that of Omac with georgiades. Let's leave the Daw goal aside and put that one down to not being great at reading the drop of the ball and not automatically protecting the goal side. A rookie defender's mistake But with Larkey's first and second goals of the game, as you yourself note it is fact Tomlinson was on him. On both occasions he was his direct opponent and therefore responsible for preventing him marking. He gave away a panicky free kick when caught out of position and then couldn't effect a spoil and so was beaten in a contested marking contest (by the by he was similarly beaten by Himelburg against the crows, another young big he had to be moved off). Sure AVB gifted the first of those but the fact remains he would not have goaled if not for the free (and may well still have done so even without the 50) It is your OPINION these goals were not Tomlinson fault. I don't share that opinion, but that's ok, we all see the things differently and apply different metrics. But facts are a different matter altogether to opinion. And the facts are larkey kicked two goals on Tomlinosn and georgiades none on Omac.

Torn on AVB. I find it really difficult assessing players not seeing them live. Can't see what they do off ball and how hard they work to stop switching etc. And of course don't know what metrics goody values most highly or what it is he asking players to do. Lockhart is a good example. Low numbers but great pressure and his impact was perhaps more evident on his absence. Few on here dont expect him to come straight back in. The big question is does AVB's work rate and physicality meet goodys kpis for him. And sufficiently compensate for his woeful kicking, low numbers and occasional brain fade? I suspect the answer is yes. If he is fit, we will see this Thursday night at selection. This is a big game for us and if goody picks him then we will know for sure where can sits in his plans

Engorded Onion, fascinating post (you first one). You bring an interesting perspective with your interst and expertise in psychology. Some reflections on your comments: I think on field team chemistry is really important part of the equation and and psycology plays a big part in building it Off field relationships are an important factor but i think on field there are other elements - trust, fitness, confidence in team mates playing their role and intuitive understanding of the game plan being just some But maybe the mots important element in building on field team chemistry is time playing together Agree risk is a key things to consider - i am not as convinced as you that goody encourages risk, but i might be being unfair - the team at time this year seemed have been afraid of losing but perhaps that is on them not Goody i'd love to see the defenders take more risk with their kicks leaving the defensive zone and i was pleased that he did so last night - lever in particular, who has been terrific, was less hesitant, went faster and took on some risky kicks On the high press i'd day we have in fact made pretty big adjustment with that - my feeling is our zone is not nearly as aggressive as it was in the first half of 2018. We tend now to keep a goal keeper deep and concede very few goal out the back. Our zone system appears very similar to that of the pies and the tigers, all team defence that looks to force opposition teams to kick down the line or risk a turnover switching or going to the corridor Langdon has been a very important recruit in this respect as he does so much running (i cant wait to watch games live to see his spread and that of his teammates) It is often said our one wood is our contest ball, forward half, pressure game but i am starting to think that is a bit of furphy Of course it is key to goody's game plan but perhaps even more so is his defensive system - we have become aside that is very, very hard to score against. A trend that began from mid 2018 when goody adjusted the zone to a less aggressive model Even last year, despite all of our injuries and how poorly we played we rarely got smashed and only Port have opened us up this year and that was result of not doing the running or applying the pressure on the ball carrier goody' defensive system demands Look at how many teams playing us struggle moving the ball forward, particularly when we get on top - i know the the roos and the crows are struggling but it is remarkable that even though both sides only managed one goals in the second half. But the most striking thing was just like the Hawks game at times the crows and roos simply could not work out how to get the ball forward - and when they inevitably turned it over or had to take risks, we sweated on it and hurt them on the rebound

Yes. And the obvious option is Tomlinson. After all that is exactly the role we got him o the club to play.

Agree. I agree the Petracca-Oliver-Viney midfield is the optimal line up but it seems seems it is mid field or nothing for brayshaw and he is too good player not to be in the side. And one thing brayshaw as on Viney is that if does get centre clearance he gets more penetration and depth with his kicks inside 50. I like Viney up forward, bu like TRIGON like him deep. That goal he kicked on his right sharking a tap out against the crows shows his natural roving skills and nose for a goal. And i love the idea of him and Kozzie smashing players inside 50 with tackles. Also he is so fit that playing forward he could play big minutes and take his tune in the middle when brayshaw and oliver is off or swapping with Tracc. So maybe 70% forward and 30% on the ball. With that mix we always have super dangerous midfield.

Good work I don't mind Tomlinson in. Just not as a defender. I'm not that critical of his work as a defender as he isn't one. Barely played any footy there, apart from stints at CHB. And it shows. I'm not wishing him bad. Honestly. I'd like to see him establish himself in the team on the wing, where how height provides a down the line marking option other than maxy, can take some throw ins and his aerobic capacity can be best used. You're right lever should have killed that ball but when it hit the ground Tomlinson read it wrong and didn't go with daw. Instead went to the boundary. A rookie defenders mistake as you need to defend the goal side The free was there. He panicked one out. Sure the 50 gave him a sure goal (brain fade by vdb) but he still would have had a shot from 50. And totally agree larkey should not have had space to run into (we were way too flat in that first quarter). But it wasn't a mark on the lead as such (it was a contested mark), Tomlinson was slow to react and should have been able to spoil that. Again looked not someone who is not a natural defender. So even if the daw one is not solely on him the other two are absolutely on tomlinson. Immediately after that larkey mark they took Tomlinson off him, so before the end of the first quarter. This threw the structure out meaning may (mainly) and lever had to play deep, when both are more damaging up the ground. Tomlinson looked much better playing higher and that is because it is closer to the position we recruited him to play - the wing.

May could for sure. But I reckon it locks him up and I reckon he is more damaging higher. I'd play May on miocheck as he is a player who is good one on one but may will be too good. And he plays up around the hf line. Hibberd could take Stephenson, or perhaps even Lockhart? Who takes Reid rjay if not omac or Tomlinson?

Skuit, really interesting connection to Ajax. And timely. I'm on phone at the moment but tommorow I planned to look at the pies demon game through the lens of the article in link to a post by EO in my OP. If you haven't read the post or article (or the subsequent posts in that thread) I think you will find it interesting in terms of the connection between soccer tactics and those in the AFL from a philosophical perspective. On the questions im no expert on tactics etc, though obviously interested. But my thoughts are: (I'll have a shot at the first one and get to the others tommorow) My assumption is that man on man (assuming you mean every player goes to a direct opponent) would create too many variables for coaches to utilise as a tactical weapon (as opposed to end if games when scores are close and time is running out). In basketball when they go to man on man the players generally man up on like players (usually, but not always, players playin in the same position, e.g. guess on guard). Would this occur in the AFL? Probably as how else would they be able to organise it? But with players coming off the bench and so many fluid roles it would be confusing and very hard to get right As a result and because of 18 opponent on the field (and four on the bench) there would be mismatches all over the place. For example Brayshaw ends up on a much faster player. Or Hibberd on a tall. If you mean just in defence then they sometimes do go man on man on key forwards, for example against the eagles when they might try and shut the two bigs and and a crumbed down. But even then they would look to clag up space and leading lanes by pushing extra players back. I don't know soccer, do they go man on man in top level soccer?