Coaching tactics - will Macca change our game plan?

[bornadog]

I was reading an article on the weekend about Clarkson at Hawthorn. (see here) (http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/coach-alastair-clarkson-prepared-to-tinker-with-his-premiershipwinning-hawks-20140125-31fmf.html) He basically said in 2008 he created the Clarko Cluster which was a success, so he continued to use it in 2009. By 2009, every club had worked it out and Hawthorn were left behind.

For 2014, he will tinker with the game plan and create something different to be a step ahead. He cites a good example of Collingwood 's 2010 premiership year. They had a young team, they looked like they were going to create something big, but every other club came up with ways to beat their defensive style.

My question, is, will Macca look at our style of play and change things up in 2014, or will he stick with the past and hope that works for us, or will he try and emulate the two grand finalist style of play.

[Mofra]

I don't think he has exposed much of a gameplan - still seems in teaching mode.
First 18 months - contested football
Second phase - working harder on the run & spread with contested football a non-negotiable.

Once contested football & our run & spread is developed, the next phase will determnine how we play when we are challengers.

[always right]

Macca has already stated that the coaching staff had identified how opposition teams were able to score pretty easily at times against us late last year and that has been one his clear focuses in the pre-season. Clearly he sees our gamestyle as a constant evolution.

[BornInDroopSt'54]

Macca has already stated that the coaching staff had identified how opposition teams were able to score pretty easily at times against us late last year and that has been one his clear focuses in the pre-season. Clearly he sees our gamestyle as a constant evolution.

That makes sense, allowing it to be organic, a living developing thing rather than imposing an artificial structure on the team. Having said that, it is war out there and battles are won with the general's tactics, countering the day's opposition and offence being the best form of defence.
One tactic, not so much a game plan, that seemed to work for us late last season was contested possession. Carlton and others just could not match our intensity and were worried out of the contest. It is amazing that a young team was able to maintain that hardness right through to the second last game. The last game was a bit of a joke, both teams had little to give in the second half.

[Dazza]

I actually thought the fact our outside work had improved a lot towards the end of the year got us some wins more so than the inside work.

[Remi Moses]

Personally I think they went with the hardest aspect to teach first( you know what)
Outside run and quality ball movement on a consistent basis is next.

[bornadog]

i tend to agree with Clarkson, football is continually evolving and coaches have to try and be ahead of the game. I don't see Macca as that type of coach, but then again, he hasn't got the team to experiment with. (yet)

[Ghost Dog]

Helps if you have someone to kick to! Crameri will help in this department.

[Nuggety Back Pocket]

Our poor disposal is still a major concern and whilst Macca is to be congratulated in the way he has turned us into a competitive unit through tough contested footy our lack of skill needs to be urgently addressed. Apart from Roughead our overhead marking is also deficient. Hopefully Crameri and Stringer will provide a lift in this department.
It would be good to study the foot skills of Hawthorn who IMO have stolen a march on the rest of the competition.

[The Bulldogs Bite]

i tend to agree with Clarkson, football is continually evolving and coaches have to try and be ahead of the game. I don't see Macca as that type of coach, but then again, he hasn't got the team to experiment with. (yet)

Based on what?

Time will tell but I am interested to know why you don't see him as somebody who can evolve and prosper with change. It's obviously a key ingredient to success and it's largely why Eade failed - he kept the same game plan throughout 05-2011 and it was well and truly expired after 09.

[Greystache]

Team's style will develop from season to season as the game evolves, but I don't see any point in trying to develop a revolutionary game plan for a team full of kids. With how fast things move from season to season a one off strategy eg. The cluster or the press, can give a team the edge, but only if that team had the maturity to be a contender anyway. I'd much prefer a team in the development phase concentrating on getting the fundamentals right, then when they reach the point of being in contention look to gain those extra few percent from a short term strategy. Anything else I see as trying to take short cuts and I've seen enough of that over the years.

It's about being able to balance the fundamentals with continuing to evolve and even get ahead of the curve. As TBB said, this is where Eade lost his way 2 years before he got moved on. As for McCartney I doubt he's even looking at that side of things yet, or at least not looking to start teaching it to his players.

[BornInDroopSt'54]

I wonder if any AFL coaches other than Malthouse, study older military tactics, like outflanking the enemy, exploiting prevailing weather, force concentation (concentrating a military force to bear overwhelming force against a portion of an enemy force), counter ambush drill or whatever. It makes sense, you know it does.

[Happy Days]

Does anyone else think that being the best contested ball/clearance side (or at least one of) should enable far stronger play across the board?

Maybe that's where he's heading with it. I don't think all the cards are on the table yet.

[ledge]

Team's style will develop from season to season as the game evolves, but I don't see any point in trying to develop a revolutionary game plan for a team full of kids. With how fast things move from season to season a one off strategy eg. The cluster or the press, can give a team the edge, but only if that team had the maturity to be a contender anyway. I'd much prefer a team in the development phase concentrating on getting the fundamentals right, then when they reach the point of being in contention look to gain those extra few percent from a short term strategy. Anything else I see as trying to take short cuts and I've seen enough of that over the years.

It's about being able to balance the fundamentals with continuing to evolve and even get ahead of the curve. As TBB said, this is where Eade lost his way 2 years before he got moved on. As for McCartney I doubt he's even looking at that side of things yet, or at least not looking to start teaching it to his players.

Don't forget the age factor in Eades last few years, a big influence on why we deteriated.

[bornadog]

Based on what?

Time will tell but I am interested to know why you don't see him as somebody who can evolve and prosper with change.

Based on what I have seen to date - just an opinion and happy to be wrong.



It's obviously a key ingredient to success and it's largely why Eade failed - he kept the same game plan throughout 05-2011 and it was well and truly expired after 09.

Failed is a harsh word. Four finals campaigns makes him our most successful coach since 1954 - yes I know we didn't make it to the big dance.

If you want to debate Eade and his game plans that is a whole different thread, but I don't agree we stayed with the same for all those years. Eade is a master tactician and changed the face of football with the Flood in his early days then the running style with us. He adapted game plans to suit the opposition, but in the end we never had the cattle, or luck to go to the next step.

[Mofra]

I wonder if any AFL coaches other than Malthouse, study older military tactics, like outflanking the enemy, exploiting prevailing weather, force concentation (concentrating a military force to bear overwhelming force against a portion of an enemy force), counter ambush drill or whatever. It makes sense, you know it does.
The switch and spread seems to be based largely on the "Oblique Order" which was the first real military field tactic that enabled an out-numbered army to defeat the Phalanx formations of the anchient Greek world.

Basketball tactics are based on certain basic field tactics, and some AFL tactics are based on basketball zones.

[BornInDroopSt'54]

The switch and spread seems to be based largely on the "Oblique Order" which was the first real military field tactic that enabled an out-numbered army to defeat the Phalanx formations of the anchient Greek world.

Basketball tactics are based on certain basic field tactics, and some AFL tactics are based on basketball zones.

Very interesting. There is an obvious parallel between a unit or army of soldiers in a battlefield and sport which of course was used to prepare soldiers. Both use drills and formations, which once analysed can be countered. As you say, tactics can help an outnumbered group combat a greater force.
Here are the names of some military tactics, of which I know little yet that are interesting in themselves and you can imagine how they may be applied in AFL:
Military tactics that scream out to be used in AFL:
• Reconnaissance
• Rapid dominance
• Holding attack - to hold the enemy in position while other offensive or defensive activity takes place
• Envelopment tactics
• Shoot and scoot
• infiltration tactics
• ambush
• Guerrilla warfare
• Highland charge
• skirmish line
• Peaceful Penetration was an Australian infantry tactic
• human wave attack
• shock tactics
• swarming
• flying wedge
• Encirclement
• Hammer and Anvil tactic
• The inverted wedge
• frontal assault
• pincer movement
• Interdiction
• Force concentration
• Make love not war
All of these would have an application in AFL that an astute coach, as general, could adapt.

[Torpedo]

I'd love to see some "Shock and Awe" over coming seasons.

[GVGjr]

Macca has set the foundations of contested football and the group has embraced that. I suspect now that his game plan will evolve because the players are now better placed to execute that.
So much of any game plan requires on skill execution and I think this now needs to be the focus of the pre-season training.

[GVGjr]

Eade is a master tactician and changed the face of football with the Flood in his early days then the running style with us. He adapted game plans to suit the opposition, but in the end we never had the cattle, or luck to go to the next step.

I'm not bashing Eade in the slightest and I still believe he is either the best or 2nd best coach that's been at the club but the highlighted areas is what I'd like to comment on.

In his first few seasons he was outstanding and used every rule the AFL implemented (and they implemented a lot) to our advantage. Things like the automatic playing on after a point was scored that most coaches underestimated but Eade however, turned it into a real strength of the team and that season we clearly won the coast to coast goals scored. It was a massive advantage for us. The last two seasons though I think he struggled with the changing game. The sub rule was certainly one he seemed to really struggle with and I also think he was slow off the mark in combating the spread that teams had started to employ.

The challenge for Macca much like Eade experienced towards the end is still around if we have the cattle to execute a a successful game plan. The training and development of the younger players has been a huge priority for him and instilling an accountable ethic to the group is another. I think he has been somewhat successful in those efforts. I'm confident the game plan will come but 2014 might still have a greater focus on the player development.

[The Bulldogs Bite]

I'm confident the game plan will come but 2014 might still have a greater focus on the player development.

Along with Greystache, you've summed it up well GVG.

This year is still a development year, it really isn't until you're able to contend that you start employing certain/different game plans to try and be a step ahead of the rest. Until that point, you're best off developing the fundamentals, which I think we're doing - as Grey said.

The thing is, when you finish around the bottom and receive early picks, the initial improvement is usually the easiest (unless you are Melbourne). The hardest part is developing into a finals side/contender, time will only tell if Macca is successful in this pursuit.

[lemmon]

Agree that there isn't much to change, its a very meat and two veg gameplan and I mean that in a positive way. We play hard, contested footy on the inside and are gradually developing the outside, running game to make best use of it. We do play a lot of 1 on 1 footy on the turnover which is interesting and probably has as much to do with Macca wanting to develop the kids as much as anything else. We aren't a particularly strong team in terms of a rigid zone to my eyes at least.

[w3design]

I don't buy into the philosophy that you try to emulate the previous season's premiers game style/plan. That is trying to play catchup footy. If premiers are to stay on top, they need to move on. If all you do is emulate what they did 12 months ago, playing catch up is all you will ever do.
Surely what a good coach needs to do is not to emulate in some vain hope that you will do it better than they can, but to create a game plan that will nullify those who were last season's best.
Become innovators, rather than followers.

Yes a team needs to reach certain standards, and have and achieve basic non negotiables. But beyond that I believe a top coach builds a game plan/style that suits the cattle he has, rather than imposing a game style on players unsuited to a predetermined system. [ Think in terms of Barassi's handball at all cost GF rescue].

Take BMac's non negotiables, and add something unique to the playing group we have, don't try and get there by becoming a poor man's Hawthorn or Freo. Create a Bulldog's style of football or game plan that looks at where the competition is moving, and jump ahead of the game.

[bornadog]

I don't buy into the philosophy that you try to emulate the previous season's premiers game style/plan. That is trying to play catchup footy. If premiers are to stay on top, they need to move on. If all you do is emulate what they did 12 months ago, playing catch up is all you will ever do.
Surely what a good coach needs to do is not to emulate in some vain hope that you will do it better than they can, but to create a game plan that will nullify those who were last season's best.
Become innovators, rather than followers.

Yes a team needs to reach certain standards, and have and achieve basic non negotiables. But beyond that I believe a top coach builds a game plan/style that suits the cattle he has, rather than imposing a game style on players unsuited to a predetermined system. [ Think in terms of Barassi's handball at all cost GF rescue].

Take BMac's non negotiables, and add something unique to the playing group we have, don't try and get there by becoming a poor man's Hawthorn or Freo. Create a Bulldog's style of football or game plan that looks at where the competition is moving, and jump ahead of the game.


Good post

[Nuggety Back Pocket]

I don't buy into the philosophy that you try to emulate the previous season's premiers game style/plan. That is trying to play catchup footy. If premiers are to stay on top, they need to move on. If all you do is emulate what they did 12 months ago, playing catch up is all you will ever do.
Surely what a good coach needs to do is not to emulate in some vain hope that you will do it better than they can, but to create a game plan that will nullify those who were last season's best.
Become innovators, rather than followers.

Yes a team needs to reach certain standards, and have and achieve basic non negotiables. But beyond that I believe a top coach builds a game plan/style that suits the cattle he has, rather than imposing a game style on players unsuited to a predetermined system. [ Think in terms of Barassi's handball at all cost GF rescue].

Take BMac's non negotiables, and add something unique to the playing group we have, don't try and get there by becoming a poor man's Hawthorn or Freo. Create a Bulldog's style of football or game plan that looks at where the competition is moving, and jump ahead of the game.

I agree with your sentiments but at the end of the day it comes down to the depth of talent that the Coach has to work with in the next 2-3 years. That is why the likes of Hawthorn Swans and Geelong have enjoyed recent successes. There has been a lot to like with our recruiting in the past two years which needs to continue at a rapid rate before we can be seriously considered a final 4 prospect. The recruiting of Crameri is a coup as our attack for sometime has been sadly lacking,hence our falling away in the three prelim losses.Macca's decision to recruit Campbell from the Bendigo Bombers should eventually bear fruit.The influx of quality young players gives us renewed hope. There is still 6-7 players on the list whose careers are at the crossroads IMO and their form needs to be closely monitored in 2014 to ensure we are developing the best list possible.

[w3design]

Look, I am a huge fan of recruiting as many 'natural footballers' as possible. But, obvious talent is not the only route that you can go down. If anyone had said 3 years ago that Roughy would not only be our first choice FB,but would be seriously good in the role, most would have thought that person was totally delusional.
Truth is most players recruited have some level of talent. If they make the most of it, is a separate question. But, getting the very best out of of a talented kid, or even more so, a battler, is what makes a good coaching group.
I believe that our front 6 is capable of far more than we have seen so far.
Yes there have been many factors that have limited the performance so far, but for mine talent has been the least of them.
No doubt at all, delivery to them has been below par. But personally I think structure and organization has been far more implicated as the primary factor.

People keep bemoaning our lack of a tall target. Basically it is pretty simple. If you don't have that tall target, then just bombing the ball in long, is plain dumb. Sorry but I don't buy the argument that if your midfield is under pressure your only option is the long bomb. How often have we seen the Geelongs of this world bomb in hope. No, they flick the ball around till someone does have time and space. Then their forwards, regardless of size provide a lead.
The front 6 needs to design space for itself, lead into that space, and protect the guy making the lead. It matters not a jot, if the guy leading is 200cm's or 175cm. If he leads quickly into space, and is protected by his team mates, more often than not he will put the opposition backs under pressure.

I believe BMac is of the belief that if he can teach the troops he has at his disposal to play to their potential, we can have a winning formula. You don't necessarily need to replace large sections of the squad to achieve success. Just get who you have to play smart football.

It will be fascinating this year to not only see who our front 6 are, but to see if we can make far smarter use of the troops at our disposal.
Injury, or lack of it plays a far greater role in any teams year, than flashy new recruits.

[jeemak]

I like to use the example of what Malthouse did with Collingwood leading up to 2010 as a good example of how a game plan evolves over years and can either almost reach success or just fall short (like ours did in 2009 when we ended up bombing the ball forward in the 2009 prelim when our midfield and defensive six lost composure).

Collingwood leading up to 2010 was lambasted for their insistence of attacking or moving the ball forward from wide on the ground. They learned how to kick a reasonable score doing this over those years however, and once they were good enough at that they added a vital ingredient to make the most of that ability. That ingredient was the press they used in 2010, which made teams look wide moving the ball out of defence (Collingwoods offensive forward 50) pretty much playing into their hands.

We're pretty much at a stage where we're going to be strong around stoppages as a given to he point where we're more than an even money chance to win them. The next stage is making sure that each player on the ground gives themselves a good chance of winning or drawing even in a one on one contest away from the stoppage. At worst, this will create more stoppages at which we're a good chance of gaining an advantage.

From there I see an open and quick forward line being fed by players using quick hands away from stoppages in close at first until a break occurs. If a break doesn't occur, and the opposition stifles the movement by marking individual players closely then our breaking players should be confident in their ability to at the very least neutralise and create another stoppage.

The next phase will rely on our individual players developing their skills to be better at using the ball in close, and being clever enough to use a wider and more creative option if they see one. This will be driven by confidence in their ability and predictability in positioning.

That's one to two years away.

[w3design]

I think it will be interesting this season to watch how the evolution of Sydney's game style/plan evolves. This because theirs has been one of, if not the most evidently evolving games in the competition.
After the Locket and Hall and Rocket's flooding eras, they moved into that Kirk/Kelly dour stoppage dominated style. To this they then added some real pace to their makeup [ think K Jack and co]. Now over the last 2 off seasons they have brought in two tall, quick and highly mobile goal kickers in Tippet and Buddy.
So how will that alter how they play now?

What I am getting at is that they are getting to the finals, and staying there not by imitating other's game plans or styles, but developing their own. And it clearly continues to evolve. In part by varying it to suit the cattle they have, but also targeting players capable helping to both continue and push that evolution in the specific directions their coaches wish to take it.
I am quite happy that B Mac has been developing us along the Geelong model so far, but would love to see us take some of the Sydney system to add to it, while all the while creating a specifically Bulldogs game plan.
We now have a lot of good young talent on our list. Good teaching and games of experience are what they need now. That and the one common necessity of success in this comp. A bit of luck with injuries.

[bornadog]

I think it will be interesting this season to watch how the evolution of Sydney's game style/plan evolves. This because theirs has been one of, if not the most evidently evolving games in the competition.
After the Locket and Hall and Rocket's flooding eras, they moved into that Kirk/Kelly dour stoppage dominated style. To this they then added some real pace to their makeup [ think K Jack and co]. Now over the last 2 off seasons they have brought in two tall, quick and highly mobile goal kickers in Tippet and Buddy.
So how will that alter how they play now?

What I am getting at is that they are getting to the finals, and staying there not by imitating other's game plans or styles, but developing their own. And it clearly continues to evolve. In part by varying it to suit the cattle they have, but also targeting players capable helping to both continue and push that evolution in the specific directions their coaches wish to take it.
I am quite happy that B Mac has been developing us along the Geelong model so far, but would love to see us take some of the Sydney system to add to it, while all the while creating a specifically Bulldogs game plan.
We now have a lot of good young talent on our list. Good teaching and games of experience are what they need now. That and the one common necessity of success in this comp. A bit of luck with injuries.

Summed it up beautifully. We can't just keep going along the same lines as the old Geelong model, we have to continue to evolve and eventually have our own style.

Macca is taking it one step at a time and still has lots to teach the young group.

[GVGjr]

Summed it up beautifully. We can't just keep going along the same lines as the old Geelong model, we have to continue to evolve and eventually have our own style.

Macca is taking it one step at a time and still has lots to teach the young group.

I don't think there is anything wrong with copying the Geelong model, it's been proven over a long period to be a successful one. What I think will happen is a lot of what we do in setting up our football department will be along the lines of the Cats but our playing style might be closer to the way Essendon execute things

[LostDoggy]

I wonder if any AFL coaches other than Malthouse, study older military tactics, like outflanking the enemy, exploiting prevailing weather, force concentation (concentrating a military force to bear overwhelming force against a portion of an enemy force), counter ambush drill or whatever. It makes sense, you know it does.
Intelligence is what wins any battle. To employ the right tactics, you need to know your enemy. You analyse his strength, and his weakness, and exploit both. In turn, you deny him intelligence, making sure he cannot guess at what your plan is until he has lost the battle.

So turning that to football: you ensure your team can counter another's offensive strategy, with strength and tenacity to repel their attack. I think we've made large strides in this area, and I think most would agree. How we then turn the tide of battle towards our attack is something I don't want to see until the time is right, because the more you show now, the more intelligence you give away.

I'm ex-Navy. Our tactics were always to deny the enemy your position, course and speed, whilst moving heaven and earth to ascertain his. Deny him as much knowledge of your tactics and your capabilities as you can, until the finger is on the trigger. Then boom! Five-inch time!!

Based on what?

Time will tell but I am interested to know why you don't see him as somebody who can evolve and prosper with change. It's obviously a key ingredient to success and it's largely why Eade failed - he kept the same game plan throughout 05-2011 and it was well and truly expired after 09.



If you want to debate Eade and his game plans that is a whole different thread, but I don't agree we stayed with the same for all those years. Eade is a master tactician and changed the face of football with the Flood in his early days then the running style with us. He adapted game plans to suit the opposition, but in the end we never had the cattle, or luck to go to the next step.

I agree with both of you, in a way. From 2005-09, you were right bornadog, then from 2010 onwards TBB has it correct. Eade, to be fair, was chasing a flag, and was less inclined to want to try and teach a different style in fear of upsetting the ship. He was too conservative, that's all, and given the club and circumstances, I can understand that approach.


I think it will be interesting this season to watch how the evolution of Sydney's game style/plan evolves. This because theirs has been one of, if not the most evidently evolving games in the competition.
After the Locket and Hall and Rocket's flooding eras, they moved into that Kirk/Kelly dour stoppage dominated style. To this they then added some real pace to their makeup [ think K Jack and co]. Now over the last 2 off seasons they have brought in two tall, quick and highly mobile goal kickers in Tippet and Buddy.
So how will that alter how they play now?

What I am getting at is that they are getting to the finals, and staying there not by imitating other's game plans or styles, but developing their own. And it clearly continues to evolve. In part by varying it to suit the cattle they have, but also targeting players capable helping to both continue and push that evolution in the specific directions their coaches wish to take it.
I am quite happy that B Mac has been developing us along the Geelong model so far, but would love to see us take some of the Sydney system to add to it, while all the while creating a specifically Bulldogs game plan.
We now have a lot of good young talent on our list. Good teaching and games of experience are what they need now. That and the one common necessity of success in this comp. A bit of luck with injuries.

I said many times last year that I believe his ‘copy Geelong’ philosophy was just a front: I see us emulating Sydney far more than Geelong. Develop that Bloods culture, then let it loose. Every player trained to trust his team mate, and to engender that same trust in himself. Hard. Accountable. The flexible will come with experience.

[Ozza]

I don't really agree with notion of the gamestyle being the 'Geelong model'/'Geelong copy' to date.
The players may be being developed based on the principals and culture developed at Geelong, but I don't think our gamestyle has been that similar to Geelong. You only had to see us play them last season - the gamestyle couldn't have been more different.

Obviously we evolved as the season went on - but I would still say we are developing our own style. To a large extent - the personel that end up as our best 22/core group over the next couple of years will dictate how we play. For instance - if all of Dahlhaus, Honeychurch and Hunter are all forwards - or alternatively if Jones, Stringer, Crameri, Campbell, Cordy & Williams are all around the mark - the game style has to vary.