Lets talk gameplan and tactics

[stefoid]

[cross post from big footy]

So individuals may or may not have shit games, this thread is for team and tactics.

OK, what did we see out there on Sunday?

Heres what I saw:

kickouts - almost every time we kicked long to the boundary to a high flying pack. Obviously this is the plan to beat the defensive zone at kickouts - cause a contested situation near the relative safety of the boundary and use our strengths - rugged inside midfielders and good stoppage work - to win the ground ball or resulting throw in.

(yes it didnt work because the bombers caned us at the stoppages, but thats not the point of this thread. we just want to identify what the plan is)

general play - I may have noticed a bit more kicking long along the boundary to contests as opposed to last year, for the same reasons as the kickins I suppose. A more 'collingwood' way of bringing the ball up the ground so you dont get those easy goals scored on you from turnovers in the middle. I cant work out if that was more due to panic kicking under pressure or a plan, however.

What did others notice - any new plans being implemented?

[The Bulldogs Bite]

The game plan (or lack of) absolutely sucked.

We still haven't countered the defensive pres that sides throw upon us. The top sides do it, and it seems Thompson/Hird have improved Essendon dramatically with it. It's shit, ugly footy - but it wins games and stifles the opposition. It can quickly eradicate confidence, which is what happened yesterday.

Basically - we have no plan B, and our defensive pressure from the midfielders and forwards is virtually non-existant. Simply put - you can't win jack without it.

The number of times our players were caught running FORWARD of the contest/ball was disgusting. We were ALWAYS out of position. We were unaccountable - it seems as though we tried tp employ some sort of 'zone', but it was beyond terrible. All Essendon did was run the ball in numbers, draw our players to the ball, and pop it over the top into free space/free players' hands.

In packs when we did happen to win the ball, we'd fire a handpass out to nobody without looking. That's dumb footy.

All in all, Eade (and the players) have a LOT to answer for in the coming weeks. They'd better answer back in a big way, or the heat will be turned up in more ways than one. And rightfully - yesterday was insipid, pathetic, revolting football that puts the tricolour jumper to shame. The fact that we can be out-coached by a man coaching his first game isn't a great sign.

[The Coon Dog]

The fact that we can be out-coached by a man coaching his first game isn't a great sign.
Bomber Thompson says hello!

[BulldogBelle]

Need a coaching salary cap

[stefoid]

Do others think that we were sucked to the ball too much at stoppages?

It looked to me like essendon always had a few outriders who were positioned to receive the ball under less pressure if their inside guys won it, but who could turn inside and pressure our guys when we won it inside.

Consequently while we had first hands on the ball more times than essendon (pro-stats) they won more clearances and more importantly the quality of their clearances was far greater than ours.

[LostDoggy]

The most worrying thing for me was the lack of any kind of plan B when Essendon got a run on. We got monstered in the 2nd quarter, but we were still in the game at half time - so we had the opportunity to re-group, think up some new tactics and then apply them, but we were found wanting in all areas.

[Greystache]

My concern is over the past 3 seasons I can see slight tweaks in our game plan to work on our structures at stoppages and also to work our way through defensive zones, but other than a token effort to chase more in the forward line, I can't see any development to the defensive side of our game. All the teams that that have gone past us in the last 3 years have done so by developing a new defensive set up, I was really hoping to see a big improvement in that area this season but again it doesn't seem to have been a priority.

[bornadog]

My concern is over the past 3 seasons I can see slight tweaks in our game plan to work on our structures at stoppages and also to work our way through defensive zones, but other than a token effort to chase more in the forward line, I can't see any development to the defensive side of our game. All the teams that that have gone past us in the last 3 years have done so by developing a new defensive set up, I was really hoping to see a big improvement in that area this season but again it doesn't seem to have been a priority.

Doesn't help when half your regular backline are missing and we are playing the following:

Markovic - one game
Stack - 12
Wood - 14

and the forward line:

Jones - 6
Grant - 22
DJ - 5

I know they should still chase and tackle etc.


The biggest issue was the midfield, they couldn't get their hands on the ball. Tackle count was about even, but we had no outside runners they were all in and under.

Greystache, you know I love my stats, here ares ome interesting ones:

http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa198/mmsalih/untitled-6.jpg


As I said we just couldn't get our hands on the pill and when we did, we wasted our disposals.

[the banker]

Just posted thias under Game...seemed the wrong thread...sorry for the repeat
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I would call our game plan "The Swarm". Numbers at the ball overlapping handball (some very short) get a player in the clear to deliver to a lead. Player runs by for handball, switch if necessary,kick to another lead. This requires very elite foot and hand skills and good decision making. We used to slaughter teams with this and will still do to lesser teams. However when we come up against a very disciplined defensive unit with lots of structure we have difficulty breaking their line and we end up kicking to an outnumbered contest, with no great crumbers. Our back half when at strength is strong and can attack as well as anyone. (Murph, williams, Wood, Lake, Shaggy (last year Harbrow)maybe Sherman. The midfield needs to be winning the contested footy to get first possession to make the swarm work. Ball carriers also required. Griff, Cooney, Sherman. We have problems if the midfield is not quick, so if Cooney, Griffen, Sherman, Wood are injured or not on song we will struggle because Boyd, Cross, Ward, Higgins, Libba, Picken etc are not speedsters, but they are, by and large, first rate hard ball getters. I think structurally we need to stick with Jones. He needs to at least make sure the ball comes to ground, if we had a Stephen Milne it would suit our purpose. The Midfield need to a create a "press" to hold the ball in the F50 when it comes to ground. Not an easy thing to say, but I wonder if Hudson is the right type of ruckman in 2011.

[Greystache]

Doesn't help when half your regular backline are missing and we are playing the following:

Markovic - one game
Stack - 12
Wood - 14

and the forward line:

Jones - 6
Grant - 22
DJ - 5

I know they should still chase and tackle etc.


The biggest issue was the midfield, they couldn't get their hands on the ball. Tackle count was about even, but we had no outside runners they were all in and under.

I thought the defence was ok, the way the ball was coming in and our lack of defensive structure in the midfield meant even our best back six would have been beaten. I'm not convinced other than Lake coming back it will get much stronger anyway.

DJ and Grant chased hard, Jones was a bit dissapointing given it's normally an area of strength, but when the team is bombing the ball to a one on three contest chasing isn't going to make much difference, you HAVE to be applying pressure from the front. We simply refuse to do it.

[mjp]

Need a coaching salary cap

I have been saying this for some time - but it should be related to footy department spending, not just coaching.

Had nothing to do with Sunday though.

[Greystache]

Greystache, you know I love my stats, here ares ome interesting ones:

http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa198/mmsalih/untitled-6.jpg


As I said we just couldn't get our hands on the pill and when we did, we wasted our disposals.

On the second section.

To me it those stats indicate we got our hands on the ball first at least as often as they did, but we continued to turn it over whereas they maintained effective possession. That comes from pressure on the ball carrier, from watching Essendon's first 4 games the change in their game plan to a more defensive structure was obvious, we should have been planning to make this a tight defensive struggle, but we didn't, we tried to run and gun like usual and got burnt.

I thought the prelim final between Geelong and Colingwood had exposed to the public that the run and carry, and play on at all costs style was stale and teams had moved on, we clearly don't have that way of thinking which is why I was seeing alarm bells about this game. What's even more worrying for me is not only do I think the play on at all costs is stale and at minimum need to be backed up by a strong defensive set up, but I don't even think we've got the playing group to suit that style anymore.

[bornadog]

On the second section.

To me it those stats indicate we got our hands on the ball first at least as often as they did, but we continued to turn it over whereas they maintained effective possession. That comes from pressure on the ball carrier, from watching Essendon's first 4 games the change in their game plan to a more defensive structure was obvious, we should have been planning to make this a tight defensive struggle, but we didn't, we tried to run and gun like usual and got burnt.

I thought the prelim final between Geelong and Colingwood had exposed to the public that the run and carry, and play on at all costs style was stale and teams had moved on, we clearly don't have that way of thinking which is why I was seeing alarm bells about this game. What's even more worrying for me is not only do I think the play on at all costs is stale and at minimum need to be backed up by a strong defensive set up, but I don't even think we've got the playing group to suit that style anymore.

I think your right there.

[The Bulldogs Bite]

On the second section.

To me it those stats indicate we got our hands on the ball first at least as often as they did, but we continued to turn it over whereas they maintained effective possession. That comes from pressure on the ball carrier, from watching Essendon's first 4 games the change in their game plan to a more defensive structure was obvious, we should have been planning to make this a tight defensive struggle, but we didn't, we tried to run and gun like usual and got burnt.

I thought the prelim final between Geelong and Colingwood had exposed to the public that the run and carry, and play on at all costs style was stale and teams had moved on, we clearly don't have that way of thinking which is why I was seeing alarm bells about this game. What's even more worrying for me is not only do I think the play on at all costs is stale and at minimum need to be backed up by a strong defensive set up, but I don't even think we've got the playing group to suit that style anymore.

Great post, couldn't agree more.

I've been saying we need a new game plan after the preliminary final loss to St. Kilda in 2009.

[mjp]

The most worrying thing for me was the lack of any kind of plan B when Essendon got a run on. We got monstered in the 2nd quarter, but we were still in the game at half time - so we had the opportunity to re-group, think up some new tactics and then apply them, but we were found wanting in all areas.

Think up some new tactics at halftime? Give me a break.

There is no plan b for any side. The style is the style, and generally speaking the structure is the structure. You can tweak individuals roles within each, but you can't just dream something up in the rooms and implement it.

[GVGjr]

Need a coaching salary cap

The resourcing issue gets raised a bit and I know Simon Garlick mentioned he was going to focus on increasing our spending on the football department but it's not an genuine excuse as far as I am concerned.

[Hotdog60]

My view comes from Foxtel but at the kick ins players kick wide to the flanks and I understand the reason but in my limited view quite often I see a player straight down the middle 30 - 40 meters away totally in the clear.
Because teams are now expecting the wide kick I think every so often we need to look straight up the middle. Old school stuff the quickest way from point A to point B is in a straight line.

As for a plan B, go man on man and try and beat your opponent. Lock the footy down and try and get plan A working again. Makes for ugly footy is it a zone if you man up.

[bornadog]

Great post, couldn't agree more.

I've been saying we need a new game plan after the preliminary final loss to St. Kilda in 2009.

We did change our game plan last year to be more defensive, and ended up with the least goals kicked against us but unlike the SAints we still kicked goals and were again in the top couple of goal scorers. However, with the injury toll towards the end of year, we were unable to sustain this in the finals.

[The Bulldogs Bite]

We did change our game plan last year to be more defensive, and ended up with the least goals kicked against us but unlike the SAints we still kicked goals and were again in the top couple of goal scorers. However, with the injury toll towards the end of year, we were unable to sustain this in the finals.

Injuries were an excuse.

Even with a full list, we couldn't get over St. Kilda, Collingwood or Geelong. The game plan doesn't stand up against quality sides who know where to position themselves, and how to balance defense and attack.

[LostDoggy]

So whats the reason for not being able to beat quality sides? Not good enough?

[Sockeye Salmon]

My view comes from Foxtel but at the kick ins players kick wide to the flanks and I understand the reason but in my limited view quite often I see a player straight down the middle 30 - 40 meters away totally in the clear.
Because teams are now expecting the wide kick I think every so often we need to look straight up the middle. Old school stuff the quickest way from point A to point B is in a straight line.

As for a plan B, go man on man and try and beat your opponent. Lock the footy down and try and get plan A working again. Makes for ugly footy is it a zone if you man up.

That's crap. Essendon set their zone very well and no player had anything like "30-40" metres.

[BulldogBelle]

I think Hotdog was saying 30 - 40 m from the kicker not the opponent

[Sockeye Salmon]

I think Hotdog was saying 30 - 40 m from the kicker not the opponent

Oh.

Bad place to turn it over though.

[Rance Fan]

In the past we use to be seen as a fast team. It wasnt cos we were fast running but more cos we were great at passing the ball upfield accurately, with little errors. Everytime we got the ball we made em pay.

This skill seems to have gone!

[alwaysadog]

Think up some new tactics at halftime? Give me a break.

There is no plan b for any side. The style is the style, and generally speaking the structure is the structure. You can tweak individuals roles within each, but you can't just dream something up in the rooms and implement it.

With great respect mjp you must have more to say about the matter than this.

No body is suggesting making it up as you go along, but are you suggesting that no contingency planning goes on?

[alwaysadog]

Please.

We couldn't beat the top three sides once in the season. The finals was a completely different ball game, because by then we had nobody left who was fit. I know about Cooney, Griffen, Morris, Wood, Addison, Lake and so fourth.

However - they weren't injured from round one, when we were belted by Collingwood. They weren't injured when St. Kilda beat us (again), and despite the flu, put up an insipid performance to lose by over a hundred points against Geelong.

In previous seasons (2009) we were better and should have beaten Geelong twice, but still found toppling the top two too difficult.

Our record against these sides speaks for itself. To lay the blame fully on injuries is taking the easy way out, Mantis. Only in the finals can you use that one - but we certainly weren't in contention with the better sides prior to it anyway.

I'm with you; there has been a rewriting of our history, which avoids asking the real questions about last season's problems, and which relies on an overly simplistic analysis based solely on injuries in spite of what Gia, Bob and Rocket admitted at various times.

When I recall attempts to raise the matters early in the season we were told to wait and see... and we waited and we saw exactly what we were indicating as problems and then rather than face up to it we got the witch hunts and played the blame game.

If you pretend the problems don't exist because you don't like the question you don't get the right answers and you don't address our inconsistency which is the biggest hurdle between us and real Sept success.

[bornadog]

I'm with you; there has been a rewriting of our history, which avoids asking the real questions about last season's problems, and which relies on an overly simplistic analysis based solely on injuries in spite of what Gia, Bob and Rocket admitted at various times.

When I recall attempts to raise the matters early in the season we were told to wait and see... and we waited and we saw exactly what we were indicating as problems and then rather than face up to it we got the witch hunts and played the blame game.

If you pretend the problems don't exist because you don't like the question you don't get the right answers and you don't address our inconsistency which is the biggest hurdle between us and real Sept success.

What are you talking about here?

[alwaysadog]

What are you talking about here?

I could enter into a blow by blow history but in brief the context is provided by the Bulldog Bite's posts. In a nutshell, the problems last season weren't solely as a result of injuries.

Our inconsistency and our inability to do more than struggle against ordinary sides and our total incapacity to match the good sides, against whom we had been much more competitive the season before, needed analysis and explanation, but those who suggested that we should do so were cried down.

Then we got the one idea answer when everything went wrong followed by the unseemly attacks on our players, which went on for weeks.

And it's still going on. Rather than try to analyse what was going on last Sunday we've got various states of denial, because some don't want to admit all the causes of our failure, others just attack the player or players they have developed a set against.

[Hotdog60]

Oh.

Bad place to turn it over though.

Yes, sorry it was from the kicker and as I said only TV to go on.
Also a bad spot to turn it over but if the skills are up and if you can get away with it you can quickly get pass the zone. But you need the skill and guts to pull it off, with sides following the pies around the boundary crap teams seem to get the numbers to the flanks.

All I'm saying the player kicking in shouldn't discard one up the middle if its on.

[mjp]

With great respect mjp you must have more to say about the matter than this.

No body is suggesting making it up as you go along, but are you suggesting that no contingency planning goes on?

Absolutely contingency planning happens - but it is generally positional and not stylistic. You train to have the best habits possible, which means relentless (endless) repetition of your style...not styles plural - because you just can't manage it. Players need to be consistent in their actions and behaviors on the field if a side is to work together effectively.

In games like the one on the weekend we could have tried some positional tweeks to get things going and I suggested three that I would have tried in the gameday thread...they were related to three problems I could see. But that has nothing to do with playing style or game style or anything like that - they were changes to personnel inside the existing structures and aimed at re-enabling our ball movement.

Contingency planning will be positional (injury / player getting beat) and at times systematic (we aren't winning clearances for example) but they are not going to be related to 'how' we play. Suggestions like 'go man-on-man' at stoppages is (I guess) an idea of a contingency strategy of sorts...it is a structural change though and really wont change the style of footy we are trying to execute. If that is a backup structure for clearances then I guess we would have used it on the weekend...as we seemingly didn't, I guess it isn't!

All of this gets away from the key point though - solving the problem. What was the problem on the weekend? Getting consistently beaten around the contested (and by extension, for the lose) ball. How do you fix this with game-style? I am pretty certain the coaches dont instruct the players just to let the opposition have the ball...yet on many occasions that seemed to be the case.

[bornadog]

It'll take some time to pull together, so don't hold your breath, but I'll address the matter.

Well I will tell you my version.

* Games are won and lost in the midfield, and we really lack one more outside running mid to help Griffen and Cooney. Maybe Sherman will develop into that role?

* The midfield is playing unaccountable football and allowing their direct opponents too many possessions. Guys like Boyd and Cross need to reinvent themselves and leave the in and under stuff to Libba and Ward, these guys are the future.

* Forward pressure, something the club has been working on is still lacking.

[alwaysadog]

Well I will tell you my version.

* Games are won and lost in the midfield, and we really lack one more outside running mid to help Griffen and Cooney. Maybe Sherman will develop into that role?

* The midfield is playing unaccountable football and allowing their direct opponents too many possessions. Guys like Boyd and Cross need to reinvent themselves and leave the in and under stuff to Libba and Ward, these guys are the future.

* Forward pressure, something the club has been working on is still lacking.

Sorry my last reply was based on the idea that you wanted me to spell out the history more whereas you are being much more incisive.

I understand what you are saying and know the evidence you point to, what I don't know is what they are instructed to do and what they think they are trying to achieve, other than the simple "to get the ball".

My problem is that if the coaching staff thought they were unaccountable then making Matthew Boyd captain makes no sense. So there must be method in what seems like madness, it's just not clear to me what it is.

I think it might stem from the desire for quick ball movement which hasn't yet been worked through in practice and looks hopeless when it doesn't come off. You might recall that I wrote up a recent TopDogs meeting at which the senior recruits commented on that being the major difference in emphasis, what I didn't remember till now was that they talked about the much greater emphasis on the defensive part of the game where they had come from. It could be that we are trying something which if it works will give us an edge but isn't yet working properly.

So I agree about the perception but the analysis and the conclusion aren't so easy... although nobody disagrees that we were smashed in the clinches.

It's possible on the other hand as you suggest that the problem has been identified and the right personnel imported to fix it but it hasn't yet jelled.

I'll have to put myself through the agony of watching the game a couple of times to develop more detailed hypotheses and then to see if they seem an explanation for the problem(s)

[Dry Rot]

I could enter into a blow by blow history but in brief the context is provided by the Bulldog Bite's posts. In a nutshell, the problems last season weren't solely as a result of injuries.

Our inconsistency and our inability to do more than struggle against ordinary sides and our total incapacity to match the good sides, against whom we had been much more competitive the season before, needed analysis and explanation, but those who suggested that we should do so were cried down.

Then we got the one idea answer when everything went wrong followed by the unseemly attacks on our players, which went on for weeks.

And it's still going on. Rather than try to analyse what was going on last Sunday we've got various states of denial, because some don't want to admit all the causes of our failure, others just attack the player or players they have developed a set against.

Agreed. Sunday's game was a showreel of why we've failed over the last few years.

Some on BigFooty just dismiss all this as being rusty or Rd 1 blues, but 14 other sides got up for the round. Others look to our injuries, but even the mighty Brian lake wouldn't have been able to stem the tide on Sunday.

[alwaysadog]

Absolutely contingency planning happens - but it is generally positional and not stylistic. You train to have the best habits possible, which means relentless (endless) repetition of your style...not styles plural - because you just can't manage it. Players need to be consistent in their actions and behaviors on the field if a side is to work together effectively.

In games like the one on the weekend we could have tried some positional tweeks to get things going and I suggested three that I would have tried in the gameday thread...they were related to three problems I could see. But that has nothing to do with playing style or game style or anything like that - they were changes to personnel inside the existing structures and aimed at re-enabling our ball movement.

Contingency planning will be positional (injury / player getting beat) and at times systematic (we aren't winning clearances for example) but they are not going to be related to 'how' we play. Suggestions like 'go man-on-man' at stoppages is (I guess) an idea of a contingency strategy of sorts...it is a structural change though and really wont change the style of footy we are trying to execute. If that is a backup structure for clearances then I guess we would have used it on the weekend...as we seemingly didn't, I guess it isn't!

All of this gets away from the key point though - solving the problem. What was the problem on the weekend? Getting consistently beaten around the contested (and by extension, for the lose) ball. How do you fix this with game-style? I am pretty certain the coaches dont instruct the players just to let the opposition have the ball...yet on many occasions that seemed to be the case.

Thanks for that and I agree with what you are saying in most things, I think my plan B stuff is what you call structural changes ala the Wallace Lock Down for when we were getting smashed.

I agree with the problem you identify but solving it wasn't going to happen during Sunday's game, but the apparent inability to stop the opposition, or get our hands to the ball, or to even slow their clearances seemed the most debilitating aspect and it is a surprise that no apparent action to this end was taken.

[alwaysadog]

Agreed. Sunday's game was a showreel of why we've failed over the last few years.

Some on BigFooty just dismiss all this as being rusty or Rd 1 blues, but 14 other sides got up for the round. Others look to our injuries, but even the mighty Brian lake wouldn't have been able to stem the tide on Sunday.

Dougie Hawkins once missed a round one thrashing through injury and remarked sometime later with a wry smile that it was a good round to miss.

I wonder if Brian feels much the same.

[LostDoggy]

but even the mighty Brian lake wouldn't have been able to stem the tide on Sunday.

You sure about this one? There's a reason why the guy is the no.1 mark from opposition kicks in the comp -- we've always given up a LOT of inside 50s to the opposition, but with Lakey there it always seems a bit less threatening; he reads the game so well he can make up 30, 40 metres while the ball is in flight to get to a contest, and by keeping the opposition score down and close (when we're getting peppered) we're always a chance to turn the momentum around (although probably not enough to overturn a 50-point loss in this particular case).

Everyone already calls him a star, but I still think he's MASSIVELY underrated -- would have been the difference between us winning and losing many, many times over the past two years, more than he's ever been given credit for.

Also, because he holds his marks so well, we actually tend to win possession back from opposition inside-50s, which allow us to rebound -- Lakey also runs and kicks the ball out of defense as much as anyone else in the team, so would have been a massive hole in getting the ball out of our defensive half, especially now with Harbrow gone, and Gilbee and Hargrave injured. That's four of our main rebounding players from the past two years missing -- no wonder I'm reading about 'turnovers' from kicking out of the defensive 50. It would be like St. Kilda losing Gilbert, Fisher, Goddard and Ray all at the same time.

[Dry Rot]

You sure about this one? There's a reason why the guy is the no.1 mark from opposition kicks in the comp -- we've always given up a LOT of inside 50s to the opposition, but with Lakey there it always seems a bit less threatening; he reads the game so well he can make up 30, 40 metres while the ball is in flight to get to a contest, and by keeping the opposition score down and close (when we're getting peppered) we're always a chance to turn the momentum around (although probably not enough to overturn a 50-point loss in this particular case).

Everyone already calls him a star, but I still think he's MASSIVELY underrated -- would have been the difference between us winning and losing many, many times over the past two years, more than he's ever been given credit for.


He's not underrated by me. Remember when the Lions spanked us last year?

Even Lake couldn't compensate for the general incompetence further up the field then.

Sorry, all our senior players bar Murphy were crap on Sunday. AA fullback Lake can't compensate for that.

[LostDoggy]

One thing I noticed heaps on Sunday was the way all the Bulldogs players were on the offensive side of stoppages and if we didn't get it out first, we were 3-4 players down defensively. Happened quite a few times, dunno if they were used to always getting the ball handballed to them, or all just lazy and not wanting it run/defend.


And stop with kicking it to the boundary. Hopefully this isn't a new game plan we are going to stick with

[MrMahatma]

Sunday felt very much like, same $hit, different day. A pre-season of talk, the hard yards, some new recruits, but it just felt like we had no way to turn the game around once we lost it.

We looked like a team that was past it. I don't for a second think we are. I think our list is better than last year, but whether it's tactics, or application of tactics, we just weren't able to make it happen - and I think that's been the problem over the past few years.

[Mantis]

We were never belted by Collingwood in rd 1 last year, up until the mid point of the last qtr we looked a very good chance to win, the major turning point was when Will ran across the mark to give Collingwood an easy goal, then junk time Davis kicked another and it was over. We went into this game with no Morris and another 2 or 3 of our defenders crook. We weren't as bad as it was made out to be.

Against St.Kilda in rd 6 we totally outplayed them, but for some strange tactics (far too cautious with the ball) we should have won comfortably. Had Gia iced the game when he should have we would have won by 5 goals.

The rest, well Collingwood slogged us for 3 qtrs in rd 11, but when we changed tactics late in the 3rd qtr we got back into the game, Geelong belted up an under-manned and virus riddled team in rd 20 and then it all fell apart in the finals when we were banged up, but we did lead St.Kilda at 1/2 time in the PF by a goal (which if not for some shoddy finishing & an inexcusable mistake from Boyd should have been 3 or 4 goals up, and perhaps a big enough lead to hold onto.)

So where to from here.... Without actually getting in the nuts & bolts of the problems it seems that you have identified that we have some major issues so perhaps you can lead off.

[Topdog]

Mantis I actually agree with most of the above. My problem is that we have these issues every year and at some point you have to wonder if it is actually luck of just piss poor mental toughness.

[Mantis]

Mantis I actually agree with most of the above. My problem is that we have these issues every year and at some point you have to wonder if it is actually luck or just piss poor mental toughness.

Probably a bit of both.

It's going to be a really interesting few months as we watch how we respond to a new style of footy and we will get a really good feel for where we are headed by the decisions the MC make.

[LostDoggy]

Just watched some of the second and third quarters -- the thing that stands out a lot (and I think others have mentioned it) is the 'swarm' style midfield press, but lacking a key ingredient: 'sweepers' 20-30 metres on the defensive side of the swarm, leaning towards the corridor. An Essendon player would just sit in the middle of the oval and present as an 'out' option all the time when the ball was in dispute, if a bomber player could kick it out of the swarm into the middle the player was usually by himself and could create a numbers overload by running forward. A 'sweeper' type position would negate this danger created by swarming (swarms leave space behind them that can be exploited if the swarm doesn't win the ball).

Linked to the 'sweeper' issue, the back 6/7 was also playing far too deep: the half back line should probably have been pressing up towards the middle, thus playing the sweeper role (kind of like an 'umbrella' spread out behind the swarm) and the full backs zoning 20-30m behind them. Sure this leaves a big space in our defensive 50, but a team has to get through a whole bunch of players before they can kick into that space (and we can have a deep lying but mobile full back -- hello Tom Williams -- to clean up behind our zone, and contested possession in the middle will mean less clean forward 50 entries anyway -- the space the Essendon mids had to line up their passes into their forward 50 made them all look like millionaires). This is kind of how Collingwood set up last year to ensure that if anyone got through their forward press they still wouldn't find easy possession in the middle of the park -- I think St.Kilda call it 'playing in three-quarters of the field' or something like that. We, on the other hand, looked like what we call in soccer a 'broken team' ie. forwards racing forward, defenders sitting back deep. This leaves a LOT of space in the middle once a team breaks through your 'swarm'.

A large part of it was probably just not having mobile defenders like Lake, Harbrow, Hargrave and Gilbee, who move up and down the field comfortably, have good disposal skills, and would have been occupying the space behind our swarm that Essendon exploited so fruitfully. Markovic is a lot less mobile than the above, and when you throw in defensive debutants like Wood and Stack, and a 'pure' defender like Morris, the overall tactical cohesiveness is going to be lacking (I know Morris organises the defence, but more from a inside 50 positional standpoint -- Lake tends to be the one pressing the half-back line up).

With Wood out next week I would be tempted to drop a mobile, marking midfielder back into the half-back line, with instructions to play high, hold position and attack any loose disposal coming over the swarm (and drag the back 6 up with him, especially the half-back line). Griff has played this role in the past to great effect, but I think some have suggested Crossy as well, although his distribution/disposal may be a worry. Hill can also take a contested mark, so may be an option. We are missing Gilbee and Hargrave much more than we know.

ps. Oh wait, wasn't Murph playing half-back? He needs to be the one holding the line then, and playing a bit more positionally rather than worrying too much about a direct opponent. (a bit like how mjp mentioned that Collingwood keep Maxwell free regardless of who they're playing)

[LostDoggy]

Anyway -- I think we just have to decide if we want to be a zoning team or not. We can't have the forward half of the team zoning and swarming like crazy, and then having the back half of the team staying largely man on man. It's zone and press (or swarm or whatever) and the WHOLE team is structured to supporting it, or don't bother.

[LostDoggy]

Another quick point. Our game plan should be to not stop running. Too many players standing waiting for the ball to come out to them. Run for it. Don't stop running. Run till you puke.

Saw Murphy up close walking off at half time, he didn't even have 1 drop of sweat.

[Mofra]

A large part of it was probably just not having mobile defenders like Lake, Harbrow, Hargrave and Gilbee, who move up and down the field comfortably, have good disposal skills, and would have been occupying the space behind our swarm that Essendon exploited so fruitfully. Markovic is a lot less mobile than the above, and when you throw in defensive debutants like Wood and Stack, and a 'pure' defender like Morris, the overall tactical cohesiveness is going to be lacking (I know Morris organises the defence, but more from a inside 50 positional standpoint -- Lake tends to be the one pressing the half-back line up).
You've touched on an issue I think was critical to our defence (that did ok given the 71 inside 50s we conceded).

Eade years ago said that he sttled on a core group of Lake, Morris, Gilbee & Shaggy and played them together regardless of form or experince - it cost us goals against in 05/06 but once a defensive unit plays together enough they begin to anticipate each opther's movements and are able to run off and cover for each other - Lake was the master as the only genuine tall down back for years.

Stack and Wood would not have that instictive nous at this stage. Williams does seem to have the positional ability (he basically marshalled the troops at the intra-club so it must be second nature to him), Murphy developed quickly last year whilst Markovic simply went man on man most of the game against Hurley.

In many respects the more expecrienced Essendon forwardline was able to distort and cut ribbons through our zone, both with forcing defenders to the wrong spots, and having extra time to spot up inside 50s due to the midfield dominance. Is it a major concern? Only if our midfield continually get smashed and we continue to sustain injuries. A fit Lake & Shaggy would fix our back 6 easily - even if we kept Markovic down there as a lockdown defender and played Morris on smalls, as Lucas' kicking is better than a Morris lock-down type.

[LostDoggy]

Only if our midfield continually get smashed .

Great observations.

However, we can't think of an 18 out there as a 'forward group', a 'midfield group', and a 'defensive group' anymore, especially as the game is becoming a lot more fluid. A key to midfield dominance is the quality (and intelligence!) of our half-back line, who have a key defensive midfield role as well as a rebounding role. They have to see themselves as part of the midfield group as much as the defensive group and be a key part of clearances, especially the way they set up in order to create or cut off space and make the field bigger or smaller (depending on what we're trying to achieve). In rugby parlance, the grunt work and ball winning done by the forwards is similar to what our in and under types are trying to do, and our half-back line should be similar to backs in rugby who sit off the melee and are available and positioned both to defend if the ball breaks the wrong way, but also to break horizontally and in numbers to the 'fat side' and attack incisively after the ball being fed back to them by hand by our 'tweener' mids like Ward and Libba.

The Saints, Geelong and Collingwood in the past few years have put some of their most athletic and intelligent players (Gilbert, Fisher, Goddard, Enright, Corey, Harley, Maxwell, O'Brien etc.) in this area of the ground, and they are often a real key to the games they play, both in defensive positioning as well as rebound. I don't think the half-back line we played on Sunday is of anywhere near the same quality -- I know there were some crucial injuries (as I've already mentioned), but Murph, Griff and Cross would have given us some positional intelligence, experience and rebound. Relying on two (for all intents and purposes) rookies Wood and Stack to do such an important job was just asking for trouble.

[LongWait]

If the "swarm" is our gameplan but those who don't join the swarm simply remain in position deep in defence, or deep in attack, it has the same effect as when Auskick kids just get sucked to the ball/stoppage. We look like we just get sucked to the ball and roll the dice hoping that we not only win posession, but that we have the leg-speed to break away from congestion if we do win the pill.

I don't see a "swarm" complemented by an offensive and defensive set play after the swarm resolves: I see us throw numbers at the ball hoping like hell we win posession, and if we don't we are stuffed.

[Mofra]

The Saints and Collingwood both put some of their most athletic and intelligent players (Gilbert, Fisher, Goddard, Maxwell, O'Brien etc.) in this area of the ground, and they are often a real key to the games they play, both in defensive positioning as well as rebound. I don't think our current half-back line is of anywhere near the same quality.
Good point - so who do we put there? Addison would win contested ball but based on what we saw in Round 1 I'd have him at stoppages, addressing potentially our biggest weakness.
Josh Hill was one of our best - HB line getting him to run forward? He has a huge leap, Vo2 max test scores off the chart and generally uses the ball well.
I still rate Wood when fit, he does need a bit more time & confidence to run off as if he just becomes a lockdown defender I think we will all be disappointed - he could be much more.
Murphy helps us immeasurably down back.

[LostDoggy]

Good point - so who do we put there? Addison would win contested ball but based on what we saw in Round 1 I'd have him at stoppages, addressing potentially our biggest weakness.
Josh Hill was one of our best - HB line getting him to run forward? He has a huge leap, Vo2 max test scores off the chart and generally uses the ball well.
I still rate Wood when fit, he does need a bit more time & confidence to run off as if he just becomes a lockdown defender I think we will all be disappointed - he could be much more.
Murphy helps us immeasurably down back.

Oh, I just did an edit -- I'll cut and paste:

I know there were some crucial injuries (as I've already mentioned), but Murph, Griff and Cross, or maybe Sherman would have given us some positional intelligence, experience and rebound. Relying on two (for all intents and purposes) rookies Wood and Stack to do such an important job was just asking for trouble.

Robbing Peter to pay Paul? Maybe. I'm just addressing some of the holes in the defensive aspects of our set up.

[Mantis]

The Saints, Geelong and Collingwood in the past few years have put some of their most athletic and intelligent players (Gilbert, Fisher, Goddard, Enright, Corey, Harley, Maxwell, O'Brien etc.) in this area of the ground, and they are often a real key to the games they play, both in defensive positioning as well as rebound. I don't think the half-back line we played on Sunday is of anywhere near the same quality -- I know there were some crucial injuries (as I've already mentioned), but Murph, Griff and Cross would have given us some positional intelligence, experience and rebound. Relying on two (for all intents and purposes) rookies Wood and Stack to do such an important job was just asking for trouble.

We played Higgins in defence for parts of the last qtr on Sunday. I wouldn't be against him spending more time down their into the future.

As good as Cross is in the air he doesn't distribute the ball well enough to play this role effectively.... Think '08 QF when he had 39 touches and was largely ineffective in a 50+ pt hammering.

[Mofra]

As good as Cross is in the air he doesn't distribute the ball well enough to play this role effectively.... Think '08 QF when he had 39 touches and was largely ineffective in a 50+ pt hammering.
True - his forte is his gut-running ability. Once players hit their late 20s, we are better off playing them at thier strengths IMO - a position that often relies on a speed burst and rebounding footskills doesn't suit Cross at all.

[LostDoggy]

We played Higgins in defence for parts of the last qtr on Sunday. I wouldn't be against him spending more time down their into the future.

As good as Cross is in the air he doesn't distribute the ball well enough to play this role effectively.... Think '08 QF when he had 39 touches and was largely ineffective in a 50+ pt hammering.

Haven't gotten to the last quarter yet, but I can see how that would work. I did mention that I don't think Crossy's distribution is up to it.

Didn't Sherman play this role for Brissy? Sherman, Murph, Griff and Higgins. That's a decent half-back line for a team in 2011. Of course, if Gilbs and Hargs come back and play well the argument is moot anyway.

[Mofra]

I know there were some crucial injuries (as I've already mentioned), but Murph, Griff and Cross, or maybe Sherman would have given us some positional intelligence, experience and rebound. Relying on two (for all intents and purposes) rookies Wood and Stack to do such an important job was just asking for trouble.
I'd be hesitant to take Griff out of the centre - he is our true goal-kicking mid and without him, we are a hard tag on Cooney away from annihilation in the midfield.

[bornadog]

I'd be hesitant to take Griff out of the centre - he is our true goal-kicking mid and without him, we are a hard tag on Cooney away from annihilation in the midfield.

Agree with this. Unfortuanetly on Sunday, Griff took another hit on his shoulder which effected his performance and Cooney looked spent after racking up 16 posessions in the first half. With his preseason lacking, he will only get better over the next few weeks.

[LostDoggy]

I'd be hesitant to take Griff out of the centre - he is our true goal-kicking mid and without him, we are a hard tag on Cooney away from annihilation in the midfield.

Correct. This is why I'm loathe to think of this in strict positional terms. We've got a group that should be able to rotate through the positions depending on opposition and game situation. Higgins, Murph, Griff, Sherman, and maybe even Coons should all be able to rotate through the midfield and half-back line, depending on where run is most important on the day. I saw that Rocket dropped Libba back into the hole in the first quarter -- why? The kid isn't a great mark, isn't particularly fast, and is joining two other rookies in Wood and Stack, and would not be able to use his ONE key attribute at this point, which is his handball out of congestion.

I just don't think Rocket values the half-back area too much these days as an attacking avenue (thus all the kicking to the boundary instead of creating anything), which is weird, considering that he essentially created the idea of the half-back quarterback by putting Gilbs there back in 2006.

ps. I know he's a gun mid, but in that game Griff didn't do anything of note in the middle other than turn it over a lot. He's not a particularly effective goalkicker these days anyway, doing most of his damage in between winning it and driving it forward. We're just not extracting maximum value out of Griff -- he'll beat anyone one on one, and with some space and time, is as damaging a kick as anyone in the comp, but he's just been rushed for two years now, and is always having to beat 2 or 3 close markers every time he gets the ball, making his disposal look very ordinary. I think Goddard is his closest analogue in the current game, and he rarely plays in the middle (although he probably does now?)

[bornadog]

Correct. I just don't think Rocket values the half-back area too much these days as an attacking avenue (thus all the kicking to the boundary instead of creating anything), which is weird, considering that he essentially created the idea of the half-back quarterback by putting Gilbs there back in 2006.

Can't agree with this. I think our tactics have changed

With the way forward pressure is applied in today's footy, its very difficult to run the ball out from a kick in. One way to try and get around it is to kick long down the boundary line and force the ball out, then use the stoppage to get back possession and move the ball quickly into the forward line. This was a tactic we tried last year against Collingwood in the finals, but unfortunately we lost the stoppages and the ball was quickly back in our forward 50. Same thing happened against Essendon as we had no outside mids to take control after the hard ball was won.

[LostDoggy]

Can't agree with this. I think our tactics have changed

With the way forward pressure is applied in today's footy, its very difficult to run the ball out from a kick in. One way to try and get around it is to kick long down the boundary line and force the ball out, then use the stoppage to get back possession and move the ball quickly into the forward line. This was a tactic we tried last year against Collingwood in the finals, but unfortunately we lost the stoppages and the ball was quickly back in our forward 50. Same thing happened against Essendon as we had no outside mids to take control after the hard ball was won.

Kicking for field position hoping to win back possession from a 50/50 throw in -- it's rugby union!

I'm not against this tactic at all, it's intelligent percentage play**; but if we are going to become a stoppage team (not a bad idea, actually), we have to beef up the ruck area, TOG be damned; can't rely on stoppages then play one aging ruckman backed up by Tom Williams.

The points about having the half-backs becoming essentially attacking players (again, like rugby) also become salient if that's our ongoing strategy -- it wasn't outside mids we were missing (we commit all our mids to the stoppage to have numbers to try to win the ball) it was a supporting and speedy/evasive half-back line playing outside the contest.

** however, to continue the rugby analogy, we also need to know when to keep the ball in hand though and try to break through the zone using the corridor. Knowing when to kick for touch and when the other team is susceptible to an attempt to break through their defensive line is what the All Blacks, for example, do well -- but this needs a tactically intelligent 'general' to decide and direct play accordingly. Who is our Dan Carter? Lake? Gilbee?

[stefoid]

So despite Libbas good inside work, he is just another (very) inside midfielder for us at the moment. Perhaps Wallis is better suited because he plays more of an outside game, without actually being an outside midfielder, more of a 'good driver in heavy traffic'? geez, we need a few of those...

[lemmon]

So despite Libbas good inside work, he is just another (very) inside midfielder for us at the moment. Perhaps Wallis is better suited because he plays more of an outside game, without actually being an outside midfielder, more of a 'good driver in heavy traffic'? geez, we need a few of those...

Just on Wallis, Im not really expecting much from him untill he is 21 or 22 and fully expect Libba to have more of an impact early on in there careers. I like the comparison between Wallis and Robert Harvey but I think to play that type of game you have to be an elite runner, he wont build up that base of endurance untill he has multiple pre-seasons under his belt. Wallis is an interesting one in that he has no outstanding defining factor, his skills and hands are good without being outstanding, he is not exceptionally quick, he ticks off all the skills without really being dominant in one, yet you could say the same thing about Dane Swan. His real strength will be his smarts, he gets to the right areas and he gets the pill moving but we wont get to fully see it untill he can run with the best of them. Contrastingly Libba has hands that are already up there with the best in the competition, it may not be what we require in a midfield balance sense but he will already be able to have a significant impact on games because his hands are so brilliant. We've uncovered a real Sam Mitchell, Jobe Watson type there.

[LostDoggy]

There was a tactical game plan used by Grant Thomas at St Kilda . All the players used triangle's to move the ball, the player with the ball formed the point of the triangle and two players moved in to support by forming the other two points, if say the player was on the boundary side of the centre square they could form the triangle by being on the boundary side, the middle of the ground, forward or behind. In each formation the player had options to move the ball, if the players were behind, the ball carrier could stop and handpass to one side of the triangle as the support player was running past, the former point of the triangle could block an opposition player chasing then run to support the new point of the triangle. If the players were on the boundary side , the ball carrier could kick a short pass then run forward with the other player to reform the triangle or if the the ball was kicked long to a leading player reform as a defensive triangle in case the ball was turned over. And the combinations go on and on.

I really liked watching it when it worked because it was simple but effective but the discipline and quick decisions needed to keep the system going made it a little fragile at times , fatigue and injury also meant they had weak links as the ball moved up the ground. I,m sure that Grant wanted a tactical system that had total ball support , at any time a player with the ball knew he had two players in support. The big problem for him was too often the players formed the triangle by being behind the point of the triangle which is why we saw the ball being passed backwards so often.

The Bulldog's have a faster midfield and fitter players, it would be interesting seeing how we could adapt the same tactic , I like the system of ball support and movement and I believe it's still relevant

.

[mjp]

There was a tactical game plan used by Grant at St Kilda

Grant? Grant Thomas?

Happy with the triangles analogy, but that is a David Wheadon concept and was - along with Bomber's 3-layer decision making - the key to the recent Geelong system.

Couple of Wheadon books have talked about this and Thomas might have used it, but the triangles concept is David Wheadon 101.

[LostDoggy]

Grant? Grant Thomas?

Happy with the triangles analogy, but that is a David Wheadon concept and was - along with Bomber's 3-layer decision making - the key to the recent Geelong system.

Couple of Wheadon books have talked about this and Thomas might have used it, but the triangles concept is David Wheadon 101.

I left his last name out for some reason :confused:, I never really new if it was Grant Thomas's idea or not or a fusion of idea's but if it's David Wheadon's concept I,ll tip my hat in his direction, thanks for that ;)

.

[stefoid]

Didnt get to see the game -- are we still kicking it out long to the boundary?

Did we have more players on the outside of the stoppages this time?