Putting a defensive group together - Situational or???

[mjp]

So.

Having read all the teams that have been submitted - best 22/23 etc - I wanted to ask a question.

1/. Do you think we should go in with a 'SET' back seven that 'size-and-shapes' it's way around whatever the oppo might chuck up from week to week, OR;

2/. Do you think we should have a match-up based approach where the defensive group that runs out is dependent on the firepower the oppo have?

You could then add an extension to that question which would be:

- If there is a d7 injury, do we:
1/. By default slide the Defensive winger (let's assume there is one!!) into the back group and use the sub to cover, OR;

2/. Yeah, nah. We will move players around as and when required to cover an injury and the defensive group is as fluid as any other!

Obviously there could be a lot of 'it depends' answers and there is always an outlier to any given hypothesis...what I am keen to hear about though is what YOUR thoughts are on putting together a team to take the field...

[bornadog]

I do like the idea of a set of 7 players that play together and play to a system and get use to each other in the way they defend.

If there is a an injury, then as we did last year, Williams could play wing and drop back into defence. Of course a KPD being injured we then need to bring in e someone that plays VFL, but trains with the defending group.

[Jasper]

So.

Having read all the teams that have been submitted - best 22/23 etc - I wanted to ask a question.

1/. Do you think we should go in with a 'SET' back seven that 'size-and-shapes' it's way around whatever the oppo might chuck up from week to week, OR;

2/. Do you think we should have a match-up based approach where the defensive group that runs out is dependent on the firepower the oppo have?

You could then add an extension to that question which would be:

- If there is a d7 injury, do we:
1/. By default slide the Defensive winger (let's assume there is one!!) into the back group and use the sub to cover, OR;

2/. Yeah, nah. We will move players around as and when required to cover an injury and the defensive group is as fluid as any other!

Obviously there could be a lot of 'it depends' answers and there is always an outlier to any given hypothesis...what I am keen to hear about though is what YOUR thoughts are on putting together a team to take the field...

I want a combination of both options but mainly a set back 7 because in the group I have in my mind we have enough versatility.
O'Donnell and Coffield for example can play on a wider range of opponents than say Keath and maybe Darcy can.
Our back line tends to do a lot of switches anyway in that one of our defenders could play on 3 or 4 different players during the course of a game. I want that versatility even if it means that on occasions one opposition forward might catch us and kick 4 goals.
I wonder what Daniel Pratt might focus on and the next few weeks of match sims might tell that story?
I like that we have Williams, Daniel and even Poulter who can be moved back if we cop and cover an injury as well and hopefully we won't need to use them much like that. Stopping opposition small forwards might be where we need to improve.

Laith, Baker and Gallagher might be used as smaller defenders as well.

[mjp]

If there is a an injury, then as we did last year, Williams could play wing and drop back into defence. Of course a KPD being injured we then need to bring in e someone that plays VFL, but trains with the defending group.

Yeah - I get that we would make changes at selection BAD but during a game you can't bring in someone from outside the team.

If we have a KPD go down there are 2x choices:

1/. We maintain our defensive group + structure across the rest of the ground by sliding the defensive winger back (as you mentioned with Williams). If someone has to fight out of their weight division, well, we back them to do that and the others to support him.

Or.

2/. We change our structure elsewhere to maintain the tall/med/small balance. For example, Jones goes down means Darcy is dragged from his ruck-fwd role into the defensive group.

[hujsh]

Yeah - I get that we would make changes at selection BAD but during a game you can't bring in someone from outside the team.

If we have a KPD go down there are 2x choices:

1/. We maintain our defensive group + structure across the rest of the ground by sliding the defensive winger back (as you mentioned with Williams). If someone has to fight out of their weight division, well, we back them to do that and the others to support him.

Or.

2/. We change our structure elsewhere to maintain the tall/med/small balance. For example, Jones goes down means Darcy is dragged from his ruck-fwd role into the defensive group.

I guess it depends on the team in question. I'd go 2 normally but if there isn't a particular key forward set to cause us problems (maybe against Melbourne for example) you probably go with 1 to cause less disruption

[mjp]

I guess it depends on the team in question. I'd go 2 normally but if there isn't a particular key forward set to cause us problems (maybe against Melbourne for example) you probably go with 1 to cause less disruption

So...that means you would change your selection each week depending on the oppo?

I'm happy either way, just curious what everyone thinks.

[bornadog]

Yeah - I get that we would make changes at selection BAD but during a game you can't bring in someone from outside the team.

If we have a KPD go down there are 2x choices:

1/. We maintain our defensive group + structure across the rest of the ground by sliding the defensive winger back (as you mentioned with Williams). If someone has to fight out of their weight division, well, we back them to do that and the others to support him.

Or.

2/. We change our structure elsewhere to maintain the tall/med/small balance. For example, Jones goes down means Darcy is dragged from his ruck-fwd role into the defensive group.

Yes agree with point 1. I guess I was talking about injury at selection, didn't think about during the game.

The GWS game in Ballarat, both Keath and then Bruce went down and the backline was in disarray. Should we have weakened the forward line and sent Naughton down there? I think Lobb bobbed down for a short while to try and be an intercept but that didn't work.

[hujsh]

So...that means you would change your selection each week depending on the oppo?

I'm happy either way, just curious what everyone thinks.

Oh I was thinking more in-game. Outside of matchday I'd probably have the set 7 as much as possible (form/fitness permitting) and assuming we have 2 key defenders as part of that I can't imagine adding a third often. I'd think we have our structures and what not in place and up-heaving them because we're worried about a third tall forward would be overkill.

[jeemak]

I'd strive for continuity and then adjust in game as required.

If we had a specialist who I could trust to come in and do a job as required on a small then maybe I'd consider changing things around, and perhaps we do with a Duryea (but to me he's an outside proposition to be effective - it was two years ago that he iced the final in Brisbane).

We need to ask more defensively from Richards, who is a great interceptor but also has amazing pace and has no excuse not to be able to play a role on a small forward. If he could do that it would double the value of his offensive impact as well. Two jobs done is better than one. A guy like JJ should be mature enough to sacrifice his game and play the role as well.

Continuity in defence killed us last year and when you only have one tall player of Liam Jones's quality it becomes way more important. If we can get the mix right, maintain some form and avoid injury then I'd avoid tinkering as much as possible. If stuff goes tits up during a game then Williams can play back, and Daniel can add experience and composure.

[mjp]

I'd strive for continuity and then adjust in game as required.


So - if we had Jones and JOD as talls, and Jones was injured in game:

- You would allow Williams to slide back into the defensive 7 from his outside mid role and utilise West (Sub) forward/mid.

That's sorta what you're saying (I've just stuck some names in for context).

[jeemak]

So - if we had Jones and JOD as talls, and Jones was injured in game:

- You would allow Williams to slide back into the defensive 7 from his outside mid role and utilise West (Sub) forward/mid.

That's sorta what you're saying (I've just stuck some names in for context).

To begin with I'd have one of Keath or Gardner in there as well, or Darcy. Depending on who's fit and/ or in form.

I don't really like the idea of just having Jones and one other, others do and that's fine but for your scenario I think it limits us and takes away from other areas. Plus, if we do lose Jones we're not bringing in an un-played Keath or Gardner (or Darcy) to take the lead the next week. Limiting the impact to our continuity.

From memory my predicted team accounts for this, I'll check it out.

Edit - this is the team I nominated on 1 December, obviously needs updating but I had Darcy at CHB (instead of Keath or Gardner - but I actually expect one of these guys to be selected more than not over Darcy) and Coffield as medium cover:

Richards, Jones, JOD
Dale, Darcy, JJ
Williams, Jacko, Smith
Scott, JUH, Treloar
Lobb, Naughton, Weightman

English, Bont, Libba

Sanders, Coffield, Daniel, Harmes

Sub: West

So say this was the team and we lose Jones, then we have JOD and Darcy playing tall and Coffield playing medium with relief from Williams.

Scott rolls up to a wing as required, West subs in and takes Scott's rolling up/ running away forward/ mid role.

[GVGjr]

So - if we had Jones and JOD as talls, and Jones was injured in game:

- You would allow Williams to slide back into the defensive 7 from his outside mid role and utilise West (Sub) forward/mid.

That's sorta what you're saying (I've just stuck some names in for context).

We still have a few options, Darcy could be on the bench (well he is in my starting 23) Coffield might have to play tall, Lobb or Naughton swing back to steady the ship. Rather than move Williams back perhaps it Daniel or VDM. I suspect Bevo has a fair bit of faith in Williams so he's probably the first option but we do have a few others.

[FrediKanoute]

Great thread!

My 2 cents is that I don't think out back 6/7 is good enough to be set just yet. L Jones is a lock when fit for the full back position, but the other tall defender positions could go to 2 of 5 guys (Darcy, JOD, Gardner, Keath and Coffield). Whist Ed and Dale should be first choice running half back's some opponents will require us to change tactic here and defensively they may not be the right option.

I think we have to go best match up as a priority and then follow with trying to settle a back6 or 7 down as much as possible. I think in reality the primary back 6 are probably able to cover most situations, and we are not likely to chop and change too much, but there neds to be some consideration here as we don't want a mismatch that will blow us out of the water - I am thinking a Toby Green situation. So we should avoid rigidity of thinking and look to best matchup.

Also what needs to be considered is the connection between the backs and midfield and backs and the forward line. No point having the best 6 or 7 defenders if the connection with these other parts fo the ground doesn't work. So if Gardner is in the best back 6/7 but can't kick for sh*t so every time he gets the ball our exit is under pressure then maybe despite being a great defender we are better playing a lesser defender who is a better kick since this will allos the mids and forward to excel.

[Grantysghost]

Hmm good question MJP.

Personally I like the idea of teams within the team. However that would look bigger as a defensive group than just the 6 + who make the game day squad.
I've even thought there should be captains of the lines that make up the overall leadership group with the actual captain as the chair.

Liam Jones as captain of the backline for eg and part of the leadership group but I digress.

I think it's dynamic. You clearly have your core group which for me would look like Jones, JOD, Richards, JJ, Dale then you'd augment with opposition requirements.
So you want to have your core game plan that doesn't change or be swayed by the opposition, but have that swinging option to tweak and tune during the week.
You might have a Caleb down there for a small match up for eg, or run an extra tall like Keath if needed.

[Go_Dogs]

I’d try to get a defensive 7 and build continuity to the extent we can.

In game if we need to make a change I’d like us to try and keep the existing structure to slide a like for like back where possible (noting this may rob us in other areas of the ground, but I’d preference maintaining our defensive integrity and get buy in from the playing group with that as a premise (and not just for defensive roles either, the same can and should apply to all areas of the ground).

Hopefully we can build some good contingency into our side that doesn’t rob us too much (eg Darcy can swing forward or back to cover an injury to a key position player) Williams, Daniel, Poulter, VDM and even Treloar can swing back, and similarly quite a few smalls / mediums who could swing forward. That would be the idea that I’d build in as much as possible and have a few players for each role we can turn too who’ve got some time under their belt in those areas and know enough about the structures / set ups / etc to be able to provide coverage.

[mjp]

We still have a few options, Darcy could be on the bench (well he is in my starting 23) Coffield might have to play tall, Lobb or Naughton swing back to steady the ship. Rather than move Williams back perhaps it Daniel or VDM. I suspect Bevo has a fair bit of faith in Williams so he's probably the first option but we do have a few others.

100% there are options...

But I guess that's the decision I'm asking about. Are you:
1/. Compromising the STRUCTURE of the backline by;
- Maintaining a personnel grouping (the selected back 7 + your defensive winger).
- Protecting the structure of the forward and midfield lines.

2/. Compromising the structure of the forward or midfield lines (eg. Moving Caleb or VDM back in your example) to support the defensive group.

:-)

[mjp]

So you want to have your core game plan that doesn't change or be swayed by the opposition, but have that swinging option to tweak and tune during the week.
You might have a Caleb down there for a small match up for eg, or run an extra tall like Keath if needed.

So - this is an approach based on the oppo forward half, swinging the selection 'axe' based on who we are playing...extra tall, Keath plays, extra small, Caleb slides back and Keath plays for Footscray...

[Mofra]

Synergy > structure
Structure > trying to second guess the opposition.

At a guess we'll roll with two talls (Jones & JOD my preference) one pure tallish interceptor (Coff) a couple of mid/general defenders (Dale & Richards) and one small (Duryea or JJ) and a bench spot that will rotate based on form.

Then we pray like hell that the bench spot is taken up by a guy who can run.

[GVGjr]

100% there are options...

But I guess that's the decision I'm asking about. Are you:
1/. Compromising the STRUCTURE of the backline by;
- Maintaining a personnel grouping (the selected back 7 + your defensive winger).
- Protecting the structure of the forward and midfield lines.

2/. Compromising the structure of the forward or midfield lines (eg. Moving Caleb or VDM back in your example) to support the defensive group.

:-)

Option 2 appeals the most. If Vandermeer is playing he would be my preferred option.

[mjp]

Synergy > structure
Structure > trying to second guess the opposition.

At a guess we'll roll with two talls (Jones & JOD my preference) one pure tallish interceptor (Coff) a couple of mid/general defenders (Dale & Richards) and one small (Duryea or JJ) and a bench spot that will rotate based on form.

Then we pray like hell that the bench spot is taken up by a guy who can run.

You need to name 7 backs - 6 start and 1 bench + a designated defensive winger/half-forward who rolls behind the ball during rotations, as a spare during stop plays etc. Of the 7, 2 of them (talls) will basically play 95%+ game-time. This is why the issues we had in Ballarat last year were so real. Not only did we lose two rotations - we lost two players who basically never come off...so the ratio of players to interchange breaks was compromised in a pretty major way.

[Uninformed]

So...that means you would change your selection each week depending on the oppo?

I'm happy either way, just curious what everyone thinks.

I would like to have a group that play together and develop a system consistently as a baseline.

But some teams have players that bother me and for which we often lack a solution. We don't seem to have an answer for Fritz at the Dees, and maybe Charlie Cameron at Brissie.

Do you think we need a specific match up for such as them or a work up with the system in consistent selections.

[jeemak]

You need to name 7 backs - 6 start and 1 bench + a designated defensive winger/half-forward who rolls behind the ball during rotations, as a spare during stop plays etc. Of the 7, 2 of them (talls) will basically play 95%+ game-time. This is why the issues we had in Ballarat last year were so real. Not only did we lose two rotations - we lost two players who basically never come off...so the ratio of players to interchange breaks was compromised in a pretty major way.

Which is what I tried to do.

[GVGjr]

You need to name 7 backs - 6 start and 1 bench + a designated defensive winger/half-forward who rolls behind the ball during rotations, as a spare during stop plays etc. Of the 7, 2 of them (talls) will basically play 95%+ game-time. This is why the issues we had in Ballarat last year were so real. Not only did we lose two rotations - we lost two players who basically never come off...so the ratio of players to interchange breaks was compromised in a pretty major way.

7 Backs
JJ - Jones - Coffield
Dale - JOD - Richards
Darcy off the bench

Vandermeer off the bench but primarily as a forward
Williams if we needed more support.

[jeemak]

To begin with I'd have one of Keath or Gardner in there as well, or Darcy. Depending on who's fit and/ or in form.

I don't really like the idea of just having Jones and one other, others do and that's fine but for your scenario I think it limits us and takes away from other areas. Plus, if we do lose Jones we're not bringing in an un-played Keath or Gardner (or Darcy) to take the lead the next week. Limiting the impact to our continuity.

From memory my predicted team accounts for this, I'll check it out.

Edit - this is the team I nominated on 1 December, obviously needs updating but I had Darcy at CHB (instead of Keath or Gardner - but I actually expect one of these guys to be selected more than not over Darcy) and Coffield as medium cover:

Richards, Jones, JOD
Dale, Darcy, JJ
Williams, Jacko, Smith
Scott, JUH, Treloar
Lobb, Naughton, Weightman

English, Bont, Libba

Sanders, Coffield, Daniel, Harmes

Sub: West

So say this was the team and we lose Jones, then we have JOD and Darcy playing tall and Coffield playing medium with relief from Williams.

Scott rolls up to a wing as required, West subs in and takes Scott's rolling up/ running away forward/ mid role.

I don't hate quoting myself.

[mjp]

Which is what I tried to do.

The problem is - with 3x talls in your group and Jones basically never coming off and the other 2x talls rarely coming off, well...you are going to be a rotation down. So what's going to end up happening is your designated rotator (which is Coffield) is going to come on for one of JJ, Dale or Richards (who will be cooked and need a blow at least once per q. So for large parts of the game you will end up with a defensive 6 (on field) of Darcy, Jones, JOD, Coffield and 2 out of Dale/Richards/JJ. It also means those running backs are going to be on the bench A LOT. Which is not great since they are some of our best players.

Basically, I don't think that's going to work in real terms.

This is one of the challenges we have right now with JOD (and one of the challenges that saw him played on a wing last year) - we need to play him and he's probably best 22 BUT if he can't play KPD then...

I genuinely think the best structure is going to be just two x talls in that back 7. With Coffield or Willams I guess the designated 'backup' key back if we lose one of the starters...or (I guess) if Darcy is in the team (and I don't see how right now) he is moved back.

Look at our list. The recruitment team can talk all they like about the number of 200cm and KPP players NOT being a problem, but we need to PLAY some of them. Buzz needs to play, Darcy needs to play...but WHERE?

If English rucks unchanged, and Naughton/Jamarra are the KPP's with Jones/(Gardner/Keath/JOD) the KPD's...and Lobb providing forward ruck support...there are no other spots.

So - back to my original question - how do we structure this group?

[Go_Dogs]

B: Coffield, Jones, Richards
HB: Dale, JOD, JJ

Jones and JOD play majority of the game.

Darcy starts on the bench and can key minutes when English / Lobb / Naughton / Marra / Jones / JOD / Coffield need a break. I guess at any given time we’ll have one of that group on the bench or thereabouts.

Buku / Buss / Gardner / Keath (in no order) are the KPD replacements for the spot in the 23. I wouldn’t see Darcy’s role changing if we cop an injury. He’s going to be our best utility tall playing everywhere and I think he’s going to make that a very important role pretty quickly.

Daniel / Poulter / Williams / Treloar can be the other smalls / mediums who can rotate back to chop out while someone has a rest and or cover an injury in game.

We’ve then got a few others in the VFL Cleary, Gallagher etc who could come in and play a role if needed and or shuffle other roles to move one of say Daniel or Williams back if we cop a LTI.

I keep coming back to continuity being king with our defensive group and we’ve got enough players and depth to cover multiple roles / scenarios both in game and across the year from a selection stand point. Some options preferred to others, but I can’t really think of a time in recent memory we’ve been deeper in this part of the ground.

[josie]

B: Coffield, Jones, Richards
HB: Dale, JOD, JJ

Jones and JOD play majority of the game.

Darcy starts on the bench and can key minutes when English / Lobb / Naughton / Marra / Jones / JOD / Coffield need a break. I guess at any given time we’ll have one of that group on the bench or thereabouts.

Buku / Buss / Gardner / Keath (in no order) are the KPD replacements for the spot in the 23. I wouldn’t see Darcy’s role changing if we cop an injury. He’s going to be our best utility tall playing everywhere and I think he’s going to make that a very important role pretty quickly.

Daniel / Poulter / Williams / Treloar can be the other smalls / mediums who can rotate back to chop out while someone has a rest and or cover an injury in game.

We’ve then got a few others in the VFL Cleary, Gallagher etc who could come in and play a role if needed and or shuffle other roles to move one of say Daniel or Williams back if we cop a LTI.

I keep coming back to continuity being king with our defensive group and we’ve got enough players and depth to cover multiple roles / scenarios both in game and across the year from a selection stand point. Some options preferred to others, but I can’t really think of a time in recent memory we’ve been deeper in this part of the ground.

I agree with you. Duryea for option if JJ is injured?

[Go_Dogs]

I agree with you. Duryea for option if JJ is injured?

Absolutely. I knew I was forgetting a few players and think he can still play a meaningful role for us this season. Maybe not in the best 23 but certainly in the mix.

[Before I Die]

Thinking about my response to this question also made me think about the club's KPD drafting. O'Donnell sort of fell into our lap, and Croft's development was, I believe, a bit of a surprise. Darcy was no surprise. Busslinger and Coffield (who apparently is 194cm) were targeted. The latter, this year. The former, the year before.
Jones is 32, Keath is 31, and Gardner is more insurance than best 23. So what was the plan? I suspect it means Busslinger is not ready for any more than cameo appearances at this stage but will hopefully replace Jones in 2025.

We may even end up trading out a tall, hopefully for a high draft pick.

At the moment, I think Darcy is competing with Lobb (who is 30). Only one of them plays.
In the backline I'd have Jones, O'Donnell and Coffield. That's three players over 194cm, plenty of height cover if one goes down. I don't think you plan for two going down as it compromises to much structure elsewhere. If it happens, you just improvise the best you can.

Williams is the first choice to slide back. Then Scott, Daniel, Vandermeer, Harmes, etc, whoever is playing and seems best option at the time. All of who should be trained in terms of our defensive structure.

So my 7 backs are Jones, Richards, Dale, O'Donnell, JJ, Coffield, and Duryea (until we find a better shutdown player) with Williams as the defensive winger. Subject to fitness and form, I'd play this line up against all opposition. Busslinger needs to knock the door down to get into the team, though I'm sure injuries will create opportunities.

[mjp]

At the moment, I think Darcy is competing with Lobb (who is 30). Only one of them plays.


I think only one of them CAN play unless Darcy takes one of the 2 KPD roles.

Betcha they both play though.

[josie]

Absolutely. I knew I was forgetting a few players and think he can still play a meaningful role for us this season. Maybe not in the best 23 but certainly in the mix.

Yep. I?m hoping Cleary or another young player step up for Duryea, and JJ if he is injured. Father Time catching up with both Doc and JJ although latter showed last season he is still a v. good player in backline if he remains uninjured.

[GVGjr]

Yep. I?m hoping Cleary or another young player step up for Duryea, and JJ if he is injured. Father Time catching up with both Doc and JJ although latter showed last season he is still a v. good player in backline if he remains uninjured.

I'm not seeing any real issue with JJ in terms of him slowing down. He's still best 23 in my opinion.

[Uninformed]

I think only one of them CAN play unless Darcy takes one of the 2 KPD roles.

Betcha they both play though.


Do you like GVGjr's idea of playing Darcy off the bench? He can play in all three areas to rest a tall and could even rest a medium interceptor down back.

By the way is it confirmed that Coffield is 194. I was sure it was 191cm.

[GVGjr]

Do you like GVGjr's idea of playing Darcy off the bench? He can play in all three areas to rest a tall and could even rest a medium interceptor down back.

By the way is it confirmed that Coffield is 194. I was sure it was 191cm.

My guess is for that clip we saw it was with him being measured wearing his boots. 191cm perhaps 192cm but I doubt he is 194cm tall.

The challenge with Darcy off the bench and rotating through a few spots is enough where we can we get his TOG up to an acceptable level.

[josie]

Agree. He is injured a fair bit. Doc has lost a yard but JJ still quick.

[doggiesin08]

I want just the 2 talls (Jones and JOD), or if 3 then the extra has to be Buss/Darcy who are good kicks and not Keath/Gardy.

I?d be keen to go with Buku as the designated sub given his versatility to play small or tall, either directly in the backline or up forward to maintain structure if we needed to swing Naughton down back to cover a KPD injury mid game.

[bornadog]

Do you like GVGjr's idea of playing Darcy off the bench? He can play in all three areas to rest a tall and could even rest a medium interceptor down back.

By the way is it confirmed that Coffield is 194. I was sure it was 191cm.

Not according to Club website - 191cm

[mjp]

Do you like GVGjr's idea of playing Darcy off the bench? He can play in all three areas to rest a tall and could even rest a medium interceptor down back.


Yeah - but it doesn't matter where he can play. Each player on the bench will be part of a rotation and what one is Darcy going to be part of.

- It can't be forward 'cos we have Naughton, Lobb and JUH already there.
- It can't be ruck unless Tim is straight swapping to the bench.
- It can't be back because there are already 2x talls down there...

Players will constantly roll on and off during the game...the rotation 'groups' need to be pretty clear or it just wont work and that's when things will go awry...no point having a player in multiple rotation groups - because that means that when he's helping out the forwards, the backs are short and vice versa.

If anyone thinks the coaches are making the call on rotations once the game starts...they AREN'T. The rotation groups will be set and the players will roll within those groups. There will generally be a 'last 5-minutes must be on the field' list, but even that is hard to manipulate if the ball is stuck fatside...

[Uninformed]

Yeah - but it doesn't matter where he can play. Each player on the bench will be part of a rotation and what one is Darcy going to be part of.

- It can't be forward 'cos we have Naughton, Lobb and JUH already there.
- It can't be ruck unless Tim is straight swapping to the bench.
- It can't be back because there are already 2x talls down there...

Players will constantly roll on and off during the game...the rotation 'groups' need to be pretty clear or it just wont work and that's when things will go awry...no point having a player in multiple rotation groups - because that means that when he's helping out the forwards, the backs are short and vice versa.

If anyone thinks the coaches are making the call on rotations once the game starts...they AREN'T. The rotation groups will be set and the players will roll within those groups. There will generally be a 'last 5-minutes must be on the field' list, but even that is hard to manipulate if the ball is stuck fatside...

Thanks. Can see the reasoning in that.

Darcy seems too good not to be playing though. To pick one zone, I would go with the backs. Could you go with Jones and Darcy and still use JOD as one of your running backs given his athleticism and delivery? Maybe keep Coffield back and move Dale to a wing?

Massive job picking a balanced team with the right chemistry. Balance and chemistry are intangibles that only seem to reveal themselves when the team play considerably better than the sum of its parts - viz. 2016.

What appears on obvious selection or move can turn out not to be. I remember a long conversation I had with Leon Cameron when he was an assistant at our one of our family days. I was bothered about not having a marking target forward. To me the solution seemed obvious. Put Darcy (the Luke version) forward and bring the great Peter Street up from the twos to do the ruck work. I mean why did we recruit him anyway?

Leon, always the gentleman, very kindly and patiently explained that: 1. You would lose the extra work Darcy did in the mid-field to win and help the other mids. win clearances. Then 2. With our forward line the opposition would know we would always target Darcy coming in and the flankers would drop off and put him in a 3 v 1. So lose lose scenario.

Clear as day when it is explained. But obscure otherwise to such as me.

[doggiesin08]

Thanks. Can see the reasoning in that.

Darcy seems too good not to be playing though. To pick one zone, I would go with the backs. Could you go with Jones and Darcy and still use JOD as one of your running backs given his athleticism and delivery? Maybe keep Coffield back and move Dale to a wing?

Massive job picking a balanced team with the right chemistry. Balance and chemistry are intangibles that only seem to reveal themselves when the team play considerably better than the sum of its parts - viz. 2016.

What appears on obvious selection or move can turn out not to be. I remember a long conversation I had with Leon Cameron when he was an assistant at our one of our family days. I was bothered about not having a marking target forward. To me the solution seemed obvious. Put Darcy (the Luke version) forward and bring the great Peter Street up from the twos to do the ruck work. I mean why did we recruit him anyway?

Leon, always the gentleman, very kindly and patiently explained that: 1. You would lose the extra work Darcy did in the mid-field to win and help the other mids. win clearances. Then 2. With our forward line the opposition would know we would always target Darcy coming in and the flankers would drop off and put him in a 3 v 1. So lose lose scenario.

Clear as day when it is explained. But obscure otherwise to such as me. Strange views from Cameron. Seemingly saying if you don?t have multiple marking targets you shouldn?t even bother having 1? Also you are allowed to have a marking target and not kick to them 100% of the time, especially with 2 spare forwards.

[Uninformed]

Strange views from Cameron. Seemingly saying if you don?t have multiple marking targets you shouldn?t even bother having 1? Also you are allowed to have a marking target and not kick to them 100% of the time, especially with 2 spare forwards.

Leon's view was that it would definitely help the forward line to have Darcy down there. However, what you would lose in the engine room without him there would be greater than what you would gain with him forward. He said if he had two of him one would definitely be forward, but not at the expense of losing him in the middle.

You wouldn't have such a valuable player forward as a decoy, so it would be easier for the flankers to anticipate and drop off.

[doggiesin08]

Leon's view was that it would definitely help the forward line to have Darcy down there. However, what you would lose in the engine room without him there would be greater than what you would gain with him forward. He said if he had two of him one would definitely be forward, but not at the expense of losing him in the middle.

You wouldn't have such a valuable player forward as a decoy, so it would be easier for the flankers to anticipate and drop off. Ok, sorry I read the original explanation as being a loss for the forward line too. It does beg the question of why we traded pick 20 for Street, appreciating the market was different back then in the era of part time recruiters.

[SquirrelGrip]

This is a great discussion.

For me, you have a consistent, stable Back 7 with their set rotations (the big guys obviously with less rotations). If opposition is getting on top of one of them, then you restructure within that Back 7. They practice their options, they know how each other plays and how to support each other.

It's only where you have an injury within the game that you then slide someone else in. It could be a flexible sub who slots straight into the 7 or alternatively it's a defensive winger who moves back and the sub/forward/mid takes the wing rotations. If it's a tall/key defender who is injured, then it depends on the opposition. For example, Coffield and O'Donnell can step up on some key forwards. English and Bont can play a kick behind and provide more aerial coverage.

The best scenario is having Darcy in the 22 so he can rotate back/forward/ruck in case of injury. But I get mjp's questions on how those rotations work. We want Naughton and Marra on the field as much as possible, plus we'd love to see Tim spend a little more time forward as Lobb showed in the Geelong game he can provide a point of difference.

So my answer to your question of how to put a defensive group together is actually a question of whether we can play English/Lobb/Darcy/Naughton/Jamarra at the same time and if so, how?

[Uninformed]

Ok, sorry I read the original explanation as being a loss for the forward line too. It does beg the question of why we traded pick 20 for Street, appreciating the market was different back then in the era of part time recruiters.

Yeah, it seemed a great move at the time, but in the end we hardly played him. Perhaps even back then being a dominant tap ruckman was just not enough.

[jeemak]

The problem is - with 3x talls in your group and Jones basically never coming off and the other 2x talls rarely coming off, well...you are going to be a rotation down. So what's going to end up happening is your designated rotator (which is Coffield) is going to come on for one of JJ, Dale or Richards (who will be cooked and need a blow at least once per q. So for large parts of the game you will end up with a defensive 6 (on field) of Darcy, Jones, JOD, Coffield and 2 out of Dale/Richards/JJ. It also means those running backs are going to be on the bench A LOT. Which is not great since they are some of our best players.

Basically, I don't think that's going to work in real terms.

This is one of the challenges we have right now with JOD (and one of the challenges that saw him played on a wing last year) - we need to play him and he's probably best 22 BUT if he can't play KPD then...

I genuinely think the best structure is going to be just two x talls in that back 7. With Coffield or Willams I guess the designated 'backup' key back if we lose one of the starters...or (I guess) if Darcy is in the team (and I don't see how right now) he is moved back.

Look at our list. The recruitment team can talk all they like about the number of 200cm and KPP players NOT being a problem, but we need to PLAY some of them. Buzz needs to play, Darcy needs to play...but WHERE?

If English rucks unchanged, and Naughton/Jamarra are the KPP's with Jones/(Gardner/Keath/JOD) the KPD's...and Lobb providing forward ruck support...there are no other spots.

So - back to my original question - how do we structure this group?

I think we're well exposed with only two key defenders, when JOD is still developing and Darcy hasn't proved his body can withstand the rigours of the game.

While having two competent KPFs and a medium sized might be optimal for rotations (which I'll get to in a second) and structure in a perfect world, we only really have one battle hardened and competent KPF in Jones if we agree that both Darcy and JOD need to play for their betterment and the team's. You could argue if Keath is fit and in his best form he fits the bill as the second competent KPF, but most think we need to consider him a back up.

We have to be flexible and innovative with the way we manage our rotations. What does that look like? I don't really know but I have some queries on whether having three players who could theoretically spend 85-95% of time on the ground (assuming Darcy and JOD can) really hurts us.

Could we break the rotations into two sections of the ground rather than three? Defenders and wings, and forward and mids? Richards, Dale, Williams, JJ, Coffield, Daniel and VDM (replacing Smith in my 22) are all capable of spending time behind the ball, and equally in my view on the wing. Would that leave a simple enough equation for the forwards and mids, with two players from the bench falling into that group?

I guess I'm struggling to see how having three defenders playing large minutes doesn't provide us with more flexibility, not less......maybe that means we need a core of eight defenders and not seven. As I said, I don't know, but I don't want to be left in a situation where one of JOD and Darcy are being cooked due to inexperience/ strength/ fitness or whatever and we have no options to shift things around.

[mjp]

OK - I'm gonna try to explain this bit:

"I guess I'm struggling to see how having three defenders playing large minutes doesn't provide us with more flexibility, not less...".

There are 4x players on the bench who are each part of a rotation group. The 'BIGGER' that group is, the less time each player spends on the pine/more time on the ground. For example, if you have a group that consists of 2x starting wingers and 1x rotating winger, then each would (in theory), spend 66% of time on ground. If you expanded that group to have one of the inside mids as well, well now those players are at 75% (because there are 4 in the rotation group). If you further expanded that group to have a high forward, well, now they are at 80% etc..Now, if you turn that the other way, creating SMALLER rotation groups LIMITS a players time on ground - which is what we are doing by selecting too many talls (or too many smalls, or too many mids, or too many forwards etc)...

Now - when you play with too many players who are limited to ONE spot, you are:
1/. Limiting THEIR time on ground.
2/. Restricting the ability of other players to rotate because there is a (in this case) tall defender on the bench who can't rotate into their spot.

Does what I'm saying make sense? Basically there is nothing more frustrating on game day than trying to constantly shift magnets around to 'balance' the side...it doesn't help you win and it doesn't help the players (who feel you don't support them if they are pigeon holed into one position or other OR get stuck spending excessive time either on the bench OR can't get a rotation when they need one).

[Uninformed]

OK - I'm gonna try to explain this bit:

"I guess I'm struggling to see how having three defenders playing large minutes doesn't provide us with more flexibility, not less...".

There are 4x players on the bench who are each part of a rotation group. The 'BIGGER' that group is, the less time each player spends on the pine/more time on the ground. For example, if you have a group that consists of 2x starting wingers and 1x rotating winger, then each would (in theory), spend 66% of time on ground. If you expanded that group to have one of the inside mids as well, well now those players are at 75% (because there are 4 in the rotation group). If you further expanded that group to have a high forward, well, now they are at 80% etc..Now, if you turn that the other way, creating SMALLER rotation groups LIMITS a players time on ground - which is what we are doing by selecting too many talls (or too many smalls, or too many mids, or too many forwards etc)...

Now - when you play with too many players who are limited to ONE spot, you are:
1/. Limiting THEIR time on ground.
2/. Restricting the ability of other players to rotate because there is a (in this case) tall defender on the bench who can't rotate into their spot.

Does what I'm saying make sense? Basically there is nothing more frustrating on game day than trying to constantly shift magnets around to 'balance' the side...it doesn't help you win and it doesn't help the players (who feel you don't support them if they are pigeon holed into one position or other OR get stuck spending excessive time either on the bench OR can't get a rotation when they need one).

That makes a lot of sense. But to throw in a wobbly, what price is put on player ability versus rotation efficiency and team balance? When a player of exceptional ability is a tall when you want a small, or vice versa.

For example we play McComb instead of a tall with more ability and potential impact. You could then offset that where we played Darcy as a fourth tall forward because of ability.

It is very complex to cover all the variables. Unless one factor, say rotations, is a way bigger influence on outcomes.

[jeemak]

I guess where I'm struggling is that if you have 75 rotations as a limit and maybe each KPF needs two rotations a game, then you're going from four to six with three KPFs instead of two. That's bad if you just look at KPFs, but you should be opening up two rotations a game by having an additional KPF over a player that normally requires four (now I'm not sure if those numbers are right, but they're demonstrative).

Total rotations - 75 (3.41 per player)
2 KPFs, rotations left over - 71 (3.55 per non-KPF player)
3 KPFs, rotations left over - 69 (3.63 per non-KPF player)

Not sure I get how the above is fundamentally more difficult to manage if you slightly adjust the pools of rotations to a greater number but expect players to be a bit more flexible in where they play from time to time. But, I haven't worked for two months (though starting again tomorrow I might get my brain back in working order by the end of the week) and you do this stuff for a job.

[mjp]

Unless one factor, say rotations, is a way bigger influence on outcomes.

So - if you want my un-researched take on this, rotations actually has a great deal more influence on games than anyone will acknowledge.

Players 'ROLL' within rotation groups on match day. There will be times that your weakest 6-7 players are ALL on the field at once...AND at the same time some of your first choice players are either on the bench OR being played outside of their primary role. This is why it's so hard to use simple 'when player x is on the ground his team are better/worse' stats in AFL footy...most players play multiple roles in a game and whilst the 'under lock and key' (aka paywall) champion stats TRY to track positions, they are based on CBD positions + gps...which is hard to get accurate due to game-styles etc.

Coaches have very little control over rotations once the game is rolling and it is certainly an area of opportunity in both analysis and win-loss changes right now.