binman

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?

I was against thecselection of tmac. He played ok actually and all credit to him worked hard. My knock on him is not his ability but his condition. And but his lack of mobility was evident. However I got it wrong, I'm happy to admit. Not wrong in terms of the tmac maximising our chances of winning that game. But we need tmac up and about. If for no other reason than to cover the loss of any of jackson, Weed or gawn. With no vfl how else do you get proper match conditiong into the big fella? They should have been confident about coming into that match. The roos looked depleted. Great chance to give tmac a really good run alternating between ruck and forward. I wonder if the same applies to Tomlinson? Give him a couple of games down back against average opposition and get some match practice into him.

May is quick enough for mihocek, but you're right Smith would be a good match up if told his job is to stick with all game. No zoning off. Could also take Stephenson and play a similar role.

Dazzler you can't be serious about Omac. Surely you read what i posted about that game. I don't want to play the old 'i expected more from you' card, but do. Omac got dropped for a reason, but it wasn't Georgiades, that is for sure and certain. Tomlinson was rubbish tonight. He has no idea how to defend and is terrible one one one. Which to be fair is not that surprising seeing he is not a defender. As i say, he gave them all 3 of their first quarter goals. They only kicked 5 for the match and over half were his fault! Basically schooled, in your parlance, by a 22 year old kid. Had to take him off him before the end of the first quarter. You would have gone nuts on Omac if that were him. And, by the by he is much slower than Omac. You are right about a match up for Omac next week. They play small up there so don' t need a third tall. Hibberd is in excellent form and can take either Stephenson and may will kill Miockeck, leaving Lever to be a damaging intercept player. So no Omac. And surely no Tomlinos down back. Maybe Goody might play him in the position we paid well overs for him to play. If not on the wing then he has to go out.

No chance if joeboy is voting

Omac has to come back in. If Tomlinson stays in, it cannot be as defender. He is clueless down there. The first three goals were all on him. Losing Daw and gifting him a goal, free kick to Larkey and then out marked by Larkey Had to be moved of Larkey, a 22 year old in his 21st game, 10 minutes into the first quarter and one of lever or may was then forced to play deep on him for the rest of the game. That's tow games in arow he has been embarrassed by a kid. Just imagine the vitriol that would have rained down on Omac if that had been him.

Has someone hacked you account A F? Gawn, if fit should come back? Should? if Viney is going to play again? if? I know Goodwin has made some bewildering selection decisions this year, but not selecting his AA captain and vice captain would be brilliantly surreal!

I reckon there is a typo in the name of this thread. I reckon harmes is having a little puff on the wacky tabacky before game this year. Harmes is wasted

Tomlinson - not a defender

Such a dees performance. So much work. So little reward. But if we maintain that level of pressure and take our chances we will open the roos up. Weed fantastic. Tmac has not miraculously got fit and mobile. Tomlinson not a defender. And slow. Makes Omac looks like a greyhound. Harmes goes out. A shadow of his best form. Not the brightest either. VDB less bright. Jones good. Lever terrific. Rivers good. Umpiring is simply atrocious.

They have had to move Tomlinson and now may had to play deep. Ridiculous selectuon

As I said Tomlinson is not a defender. All 3 roos goals are on 100% on him. Imagine the crap omac would be getting if he gave away three goals and was being thrashed by a kid. Where is Goodwin's head at?