When posters say "Plan B" - What do they mean??

[mjp]

I just want to ask a question.

When posters say we have "no plan B" - what does that mean and what do you WANT to see??

My thoughts are as follows:

- Players need to be PREDICTABLE to one another in order for a team to be successful.
- If "Plan B" is (for example) to play possession footy for 5-mins and settle things down...well - I don't really think that's "Plan B". That's just a 'red time' or 'park the bus' or whatever you want to call it temporary strategy...and most of the time, strategies such as that are predicated on ONE simple premise - you can get the ball and 'find a mark'.
- If "Plan B" is a genuinely different game-style (eg. If Geelong '22 version could flick a switch and become Geelong '21) then how would you:
a) Coach it?
b) Effectively communicate it on match-day?
- If "Plan B" is structural (move Naughton behind the ball) I get it...but what is the trigger and what are you asking him to do when he's down there? Go for marks inside D50. Seal the edges from F50 exits? It doesn't matter just do something??

I really struggle with the whole "Plan B" concept as it is hard enough to get a group of plays to coherently play in ONE style...a 5-minute "slow things down" I get. A planned "change this structure" I get. But a whole new game-style? I just don't think that's realistic.

For what it's worth, on the weekend vs the orange I thought the key thing we needed to do in the last quarter was actually KICK a goal...and goals come from two things:
1/. Stoppages - so we needed some repeat stoppages inside F50.
2/. Intercepts - so we needed to LOCK DOWN behind the ball and really seal the edges.

In the last quarter, we kicked 1.2. Weightman and Jamarra kicked points. Dale (who was amazing btw) kicked a goal. That's it.

What would "Plan B" have looked like in terms of game-style that would have changed this?

I'm not trying to be critical of coaches, players or posters here - but if you had a time machine and could go back to 3/4 time, what changes would you make? Please break the changes up into:

1/. Structural and or positional.
2/. Game-style.

On the day we won hitouts, clearances and centre clearances. We won contested ball. The Orange beat us for Uncontested possessions (primarily hand ball receives). We had more marks inside 50 than them (16-12) and significantly more 1%'ers (65-49).

GWS beat us for inside 50m tackles (7-22).

As I think I have pointed out in the past, I'm not a huge believer in individual stats reflecting the game but that's were it all sits.

[bornadog]

I agree, I don't get what a Plan B is either.

Changes - well I would have instructed mids/wings/HFF to not bomb the ball into FWD 50, just for Taylor and Buckly to intercept and take the ball away - instead ask the forwards to lead out more and try and hit them on the chest. I would also have asked Poulter to float around the backline as a loose man and try and intercept some balls. Backline to also not play so high up the ground.

With Greene on fire I would have tried a straight hard tag, shoulder to shoulder - perhaps Williams.

[Funke disco]

Great post. I have zero football nous or insights to provide but I look forward to reading what others have to say about it.

[josie]

I agree, I don't get what a Plan B is either.

Changes - well I would have instructed mids/wings/HFF to not bomb the ball into FWD 50, just for Taylor and Buckly to intercept and take the ball away - instead ask the forwards to lead out more and try and hit them on the chest. I would also have asked Poulter to float around the backline as a loose man and try and intercept some balls. Backline to also not play so high up the ground.

With Greene on fire I would have tried a straight hard tag, shoulder to shoulder - perhaps Williams.

Agree with this and I’d add to that put pressure on Ward to interrupt Bont tag or try Bont elsewhere (I think he might have been put in F50 for a bit of last Qtr). Our inability to keep the ball inside F50 in last Qtr and a bit was really poor, contributed by poor delivery but I also think lack of pressure from whomever we had in there.

[Sedat]

GWS beat us for inside 50m tackles (7-22).
For me this is the most disappointing aspect of our performance - our forwards didn't appear to work anywhere near hard enough to retain the ball in our F50 and put pressure on GWS' defenders. Which meant they got a lot of easy looks in their F50 because of the lack of pressure from our forwards to retain the ball for repeat stoppages in our F50, wasting our territory dominance obtained through clearance.

It seems we were conditional with our F50 efforts (you already highlighted JUH as an offender on Saturday). It's also pretty clear that we aren't great at in-game clock management, as reflected by our inability to prevent opposition run-ons for 2 years now.

[Mofra]

There was a game earlier one year when we really did seen to flick the switch to a 'Plan B'.

We tend to handball until we get to a player who can kick clear through the line of the ball. One game we completely changed it up to play territory, handball forward, and it got us back into the game.

It's it a Plan B? A complete change of emphasis on ball movement? It's probably the closest thing to it.

[Boots]

To answer your question, if I had a time machine, I'd (controversially) have thrown Norton back instead of Lobb. We didn't have many options, and whatever we did was robbing Peter to pay Paul, but Lobb was less useful in defence than Norton would have been and Norton didn't win us the game in attack.

When i think of 'plan 'b'' I must admit I'm thinking of a structural change, like a player movement. I wonder if people also want a hard tag as a plan b.

[Flamethrower]

"Plan B" is one of the 2 excuses for losing.
1. We lost because of the umpires
2. We lost because the coach had no plan B.

The simple fact about football is that the team that works hardest without the ball usually wins. Considering there is only 1 football to share between 36 players, that means players spend the vast majority of the time without the ball.

Watch the players away from the ball - which team is sprinting forward and back, and which team is walking / jogging - that is how you get extra numbers at the contest, and extra numbers equals your team is more likely to win possession.

[Danjul]

I agree, I don't get what a Plan B is either.

Changes - well I would have instructed mids/wings/HFF to not bomb the ball into FWD 50, just for Taylor and Buckly to intercept and take the ball away - instead ask the forwards to lead out more and try and hit them on the chest. I would also have asked Poulter to float around the backline as a loose man and try and intercept some balls. Backline to also not play so high up the ground.

With Greene on fire I would have tried a straight hard tag, shoulder to shoulder - perhaps Williams.
That is an excellent Plan B.

And I appreciate your additional Plan B+ for Greene.

And if it had been applied the result would have been a win.

[1eyedog]

It goes without saying that I have zero idea what I'm talking about but appreciate an opportunity to go on a crazy rant.

The stats are pretty damning, totally out hustled by the Giants re. tackles inside F50 and this is one stat that I woud have liked to mirror them in throughout the second half. Their pressure certainly overwhelmed us. It felt like we tried to over use the ball again forward of centre and gave them way too many half looks.

Greene obviously was a massive problem. My plan B would have been positional changes. I would have put West on him from the start. I mentioned it in the match committe thread prior to the game. Sounds bonkers I know and it probably is but it was clear to me from a mile away that Duryea wasn't the answer.

Duryea's intensity has dropped off markedly this season and I actually no longer trust him. West on the other hand is crying out for a role and we are crying out for an intense small defender. He may never have played there in his life and maybe Greene kicks five on him but I would have moved West onto Greene early in the third with clear instructions to harrass, dig his shoulder into his back, push, shove, verbally challenge, lean on his head on the surface and accidently step on his hands when he's down. I wished we tried something to unsettle Greene but as it was he treated Duryea with utter contempt all match. It was bordeline embarrassing.

I also would have preferred English back and Lobb in the ruck but it wasn't the reason we lost. I wouldn't have thrown Naughton back as it was pretty clear no-one else looked like scoring for us after half time. If Naughton leaves the forward line we simply don't score and Taylor breaks the record for intercepts. I would also have put some time into Coniglio and would have given Weightman some midfield minutes.

Finally I would have moved Bont forward to shake the Ward tag. Bont was effectively out of the game anyway after the first quarter so I would have had Bont to play high forward and work as a third up against Taylor and also provide a high forward option for us when things went to shit in the third.

Probably one or two too many moves but these are the changes I was thinking of during the game and it kind of felt like we had nothing to lose by trying them.

[Go_Dogs]

I think plan B is more an ability to adjust in game as things change.

We start losing the stoppage, so let’s stop spreading forward and spread defensive and try to create a turnover (or at least set up a defensive player).

A player is killing us, let’s tag him.

A player is intercepting everything, let’s play through his direct or get an elbow in his back.

We keep kicking it to their +1 behind the ball, man him up.

I don’t think it’s “game style” it’s more game sense and responsiveness to the things that are happening to us. I get we should back our players and system in to get back on top etc etc but it doesn’t always pan out that way.

[doggies ftw]

I think plan B is more an ability to adjust in game as things change.

We start losing the stoppage, so let?s stop spreading forward and spread defensive and try to create a turnover (or at least set up a defensive player).

A player is killing us, let?s tag him.

A player is intercepting everything, let?s play through his direct or get an elbow in his back.

We keep kicking it to their +1 behind the ball, man him up.

I don?t think it?s ?game style? it?s more game sense and responsiveness to the things that are happening to us. I get we should back our players and system in to get back on top etc etc but it doesn?t always pan out that way.
This.

It doesn?t necessarily mean we flip the switch to a completely different ?plan? I think it?s just an often used phrase to mean changing it up, or doing something different.

What that looks like? Well I think it could mean different things every week depending on the circumstances at the time.

I think one of our biggest issues is we only have one plan, or one method. If it?s not working we never try different things to turn the game around we just expect the problems to go away and fix themselves, sometimes they do - most of the time they don?t. We?re reactive not proactive.

We stick to our one method of scoring which to put very very briefly & simply is win the clearances, use handballs to find space and try to target long deep entries. Push the defence up super high to lock it into our forward half. Now if teams are dominating us in the middle, do we settle our defence back a little bit more to protect them? Do we drop a loose behind the ball? No never, we just keep pushing a forward up to the stoppage and hoping we start to win the clearances again.

Multiple goals out the back of our high defensive press? Maybe adjust them back a bit? Nah push higher!!!

If we have an opposition interceptor dominating in the back half do we try to rotate the talls, and drag them up out of the 50 with shallow, short entries to make space for a different, or smaller player? Or to get them into the game at half forward? Nope we keep on kicking long & hoping for things to change. Maybe we’re dominating clearances but getting dominated by an opposition interceptor, could we try losing our plus one at the stoppage and seeing if we can man them up? Nope

Bont got a hard tag? Send him to full forward? Full back? Put him in the fkn ruck ffs, nope let?s just see if he can turn it around. Whilst on the other hand opposition mid got 25 & 2 at half time, maybe send a lockdown player to him? Nope he can?t keep that up in the 2nd half?

Oppositions pressure causing mass turnovers with our handball game around the clearances, maybe shift the approach to a more direct, kicking based game until we can tire them out and get back to our standard approach - nah just keep on handballing.


We never do these things, and that?s why people complain about no Plan B.

[Bullies]

This.

It doesn?t necessarily mean we flip the switch to a completely different ?plan? I think it?s just an often used phrase to mean changing it up, or doing something different.

What that looks like? Well I think it could mean different things every week depending on the circumstances at the time.

I think one of our biggest issues is we only have one plan, or one method. If it?s not working we never try different things to turn the game around we just expect the problems to go away and fix themselves, sometimes they do - most of the time they don?t. We?re reactive not proactive.

We stick to our one method of scoring which to put very very briefly & simply is win the clearances, use handballs to find space and try to target long deep entries. Push the defence up super high to lock it into our forward half. Now if teams are dominating us in the middle, do we settle our defence back a little bit more to protect them? Do we drop a loose behind the ball? No never, we just keep pushing a forward up to the stoppage and hoping we start to win the clearances again.

Multiple goals out the back of our high defensive press? Maybe adjust them back a bit? Nah push higher!!!

If we have an opposition interceptor dominating in the back half do we try to rotate the talls, and drag them up out of the 50 with shallow, short entries to make space for a different, or smaller player? Or to get them into the game at half forward? Nope we keep on kicking long & hoping for things to change. Maybe we?re dominating clearances but getting dominated by an opposition interceptor, could we try losing our plus one at the stoppage and seeing if we can man them up? Nope

Bont got a hard tag? Send him to full forward? Full back? Put him in the fkn ruck ffs, nope let?s just see if he can turn it around. Whilst on the other hand opposition mid got 25 & 2 at half time, maybe send a lockdown player to him? Nope he can?t keep that up in the 2nd half?

Oppositions pressure causing mass turnovers with our handball game around the clearances, maybe shift the approach to a more direct, kicking based game until we can tire them out and get back to our standard approach - nah just keep on handballing.


We never do these things, and that?s why people complain about no Plan B. You make some excellent points. The opposition know with our manic handball game that if they pressure us we will inevitably turn it over. As our backs push up so high we get caught out too many times on the rebound. How often do you see the opposition getting running goals against us. With us it is the opposite our goals come from mainly kick and mark.

[lemmon]

I used the term 'Plan B' incorrectly in a post after the game, as I think footy is too complex a sport where a genuine 'Plan B' strategic shift is even possible. There's no way to flick a switch and fundamentally alter a game style like there is in soccer for example (eg. 3-0 up at half time so you go with 5 at the back, park the bus and lump it long to your target man striker).

My expectation isn't that we come out from half-time and fundamentally shift from a 'forward-half stoppage, squeeze up, dominate at clearance and move the ball around the boundary' side. I think my expectation is that the coaches shift key figures around the chessboard within that structure to try and both play it more effectively while countering what the opposition is doing as well. In my mind, game style is built in pre-season and drilled through the year - it is what it is until 2024.

But I think there were opportunities against the Giants to more effectively use the resources out on the field:
-I was fine with Lobb being trialled back through the third term if it meant Naughton kept Taylor busy, but he clearly didn't. At three-quarter time I would've sent Naughton back and told him to fly for the ball and try to get some kind of intercept game going from our back half.
-I would've looked to channel footy through Weightman as our primary target. They looked to use Weightman as the forward to run off, with Whitfield and Haynes spending a lot of time on him, so channel footy through Cody and hurt them the other way. Bont could've also come out of the square with Smith moving on-ball to give our forward line and midfield different looks
-Marra was having no impact, so ask him to sacrifice his game and stick a forearm in Taylor's back and try to curb his influence

I think there are a whole host of things we could have done, and would have preferred more proactiveness from our coaching box.

[bornadog]

Another issue these days is there are no runners during the game except when a goal is scored and even then it is limited time on field.

At least in the past, the runner can communicate a whole lot of changes quickly to stop runons or change things up and move players straightaway.

Footy has not been progressed/enhanced by disallowing runners.

[mjp]

Footy has not been progressed/enhanced by disallowing runners.

Disagree.

Coach during the week. Play on match day. About the only rule changes I DO like are the interchange limit and the minimisation of runners...

[bornadog]

Disagree.

Coach during the week. Play on match day. About the only rule changes I DO like are the interchange limit and the minimisation of runners...

I know we both disagree on this one. I also can't see the point of interchange limits

Why don't you like it?

[mjp]

I used the term 'Plan B' incorrectly in a post after the game...

So I think instead of 'Plan B' what everyone means ('cos this is what I have seen from the responses) is just an improved 'what-if' strategy assessment - and one that is pretty well understood by the players (particularly the leaders in each line).

'What if...' we lose a key defender?
'What if...' we lose another key defender?
'What if...' midfielder 'x' is limited by the oppo?
'What if...' we can't generate any run from the backline?
'What if...' oppo forward 'x' kicks 3 or more in a quarter? In a half? In WHATEVER period of time? And in what circumstances???
(eg. Do relayed free kicks count? Do 'Joe the Goose' goals count?? Is is a raw number or is there a 'key'??)

You get the idea...I guess there are two sides to the equation:

1/. What makes their game 'GO'? And if it's going, what steps do we take to stop it??
2/. What makes OUR game 'GO'? And if they stop it, what are our plans to do something about it??

See - when I listen to Bevo post game he pretty clinically identifies where things went right and wrong - no trouble. But I guess I would love to know who is running the 'war room' (I hate that term but you know what I mean) to challenge the coaches and work out what the STEP BY STEP plans are for the day.

eg. English goes down. Lobb rucks. Simple right?
- But what if Lobb has already kicked 4 goals and is our best forward? THEN who rucks? Maybe the answer is still Lobb? Maybe the answer is "Lobb rucks - but we take a look at things on the day and Gardner (for example) is option 2"...

I don't know. I'm 100% sure the MC does this but I don't know who runs it...and it did seem on the weekend that whatever the plans were, we didn't really execute them effectively. Then again - as I have said - at 3/4 time we were still in front and maybe the decision was to simply ride it out, let our best players play and they would get us over the line...

If that was the plan I'm actually fine with it...we lost so it isn't optimal (for that game) but it does send a pretty clear "Hey - we are going to back you guys in to dig us out of this hole/get us going again" message which is a long-term positive...the last thing you want when the pressure comes on is the players looking around for some kind of coaching master-stroke...what you want them to do is say "This is our issue...let's dig in" and then if changes happen around them, they CONTINUE to dig in...

Hoping all of this makes sense.

Plan B is a myth.

[Grantysghost]

I want them to hold up a sign with a picture of the West Gate Bridge so they know to...
Go. Slow.

Traffic joke.

[mjp]

I want them to hold up a sign with a picture of the West Gate Bridge so they know to...
Go. Slow.

Traffic joke.

I prefer the following:

Sydney Harbor Bridge.
Not as Long
Or as Tall
As the West Gate Bridge.
Fact.

[bulldogtragic]

This should be Plan A.

[Yankee Hotel Foxtrot]

This should be Plan A.

I was going to add if this was Plan B, I'm hoping the MC quickly make it plan A!

[JanLorMill]

Plan A Long bombs to Caleb then plan B long bombs from Caleb

[AshMac]

when i think of plan B, i dont think of a whole new gameplan - rather tweaks to it inside 4 quarters. Agree there needs to be an element of predictability and players need to maintain an element of flow. So rather than a Plan B - i always refer to the change im after as a pivot.

For example:

- tag a midfielder who is tearing us apart. Happens all the time! Either English is dominated or we just cant get first hands on the ball and their spread is too good. Regardless - target the playmaker and clamp them down for 10 minutes.
- when defenders are injured and our key forward is being dominated by the opposition key back - put our best defender not playing as a defender in defense rather than an uncoordinated giraffe
- move one of our forwards up the ground when they havent touched it half way through the second quarter. to be fair, this has happened recently with jamarra and naughts - felt like it took too long

Im sure there are plenty of examples people here can give of where we have pivoted in games. Honestly, i dont see many of them, just a stubbornness around our skill and gameplan