Strategy 2016 Tacs Trailer

Remove this Banner Ad

This risky press is giving me the heeby jeebies.. Are our players just dumb, or selfish or what?

It's not risky at all. The only reason players are caught out of position is because Geelong is able to transition the ball faster - but they'd be able to do that anyway regardless whether we pressed, went zone or man on man. The umpires are right when they say it makes transition through the corridor easier - but only when you hit up spot up targets within 5 seconds of marking the ball.
 
It's not risky at all. The only reason players are caught out of position is because Geelong is able to transition the ball faster - but they'd be able to do that anyway regardless whether we pressed, went zone or man on man. The umpires are right when they say it makes transition through the corridor easier - but only when you hit up spot up targets within 5 seconds of marking the ball.
But surely it is risky if by having only one or two of our players are a few meters out of position it totally fails. A gameplan that relies on every player holding their correct position and being focused and engaged at all times sounds risky. But then I am perhaps not looking at it correctly.
 
But surely it is risky if by having only one or two of our players are a few meters out of position it totally fails. A gameplan that relies on every player holding their correct position and being focused and engaged at all times sounds risky. But then I am perhaps not looking at it correctly.

Jonas knew where he was supposed to go. He just wasn't running hard enough to get there at the start. If you go watch the replay of that moment, you'll see what I mean. It's not hard, it's just laziness. How hard is it to say 'Hey, when the ball is going down that wing, you have to push across to that side so you can maximize coverage?'
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Speaking of things that annoy you - this annoyed me at the time. Take a look at his right leg in each frame:

bb43035bfc1411458d53b0038f9eb2c7.png


Fully extended.

c7b570afd656e1fab41198675560fd15.png


STILL fully extended, but notice how he's lifted his left leg up with his body arched toward Gray so he can get lower and basically present his shoulder as the only thing that Gray can tackle...

69021825f686787b1eabc42fa3b0e893.png


Oh ****, it's a free kick for ducking into the contest! Look at his ******* knees, FFS!

This was also the diving **** that Gray hit behind play around two minutes later, which ended up in a 50m penalty. And while he deserved it - pick your ******* time to get even, Robbie.

I don't particularly mind those being called. The problem I have is that high tackles on Port players were missed.
 
Evaluation of the Geelong game:

"We just weren't hard enough for long enough." - Alastair Clarkson

We played exactly like a side that was missing their number one ruck (Ryder), their number one full back (I don't care what any of you say, Carlile being out is a loss when we are playing a side like Geelong with Hawkins), their fastest player (White), their number two forward (Schulz) and their number one defensive forward (Monfries). Then when you add the loss of your other best winger because of his refusal to defend (Polec) - that's six out of your best 22 not playing. Which means that players 23-29 out of a 43 man (thanks AFL) squad are getting called up. But since Bonner, Johnson, Hewett and Houston aren't exactly going to be playing this year unless things REALLY go bad, you can put the down to 23-29 out of a 40 man squad. The only players that have a genuine shot that haven't had a game this year are the following:

Butcher
Krakouer
Snelling
Clurey
Mitchell
Austin
Palmer

Our problems in the clearances can be attributed to having players who equate toughness to hardness. Tough isn't everyone going for the same ball. Tough is being on the outside of a contest and making sure that you close down any outlets for the opposition, or conversely, being ready for the handball receive so it doesn't turn into a contest slog. Geelong did that - they turned the game into a contested slog in the midfield, and we just fell over. Again. And we'll keep falling over unless we bring some sort of method to our attacking play - not blazing away as soon as we get the ball in space, but if it requires that we go back to setup, we go back. **** the crowd and their inevitable boos. What would you rather see - a genuine switch across to the other side of the ground to get away from the congestion (as long as it's done fast), or Jake Neade/Brett Ebert turning the ball over to an opposition player that rebounds it out of attacking 50 just as quick?

We've got a lot of dumb football players who are thinking 2 seconds too slow and it's costing us. Some people say they aren't playing instinctive football. Bullshit they aren't, that's EXACTLY the problem. They are playing the instinctive football that they learned from their youth - the idea that if you're in trouble, you bomb the ball forward to the tall target and hope for the best. We need them to start retraining that instinct into ball retention when under pressure - because the ONLY reason why they are under pressure is because there is so much congestion around the ball...and if there's congestion around the ball, it means that there are players free elsewhere on the ground.

I am fully confident that at some point, the opposition will slow down and not pressure us as much as they are right now, because that kind of intensity is unsustainable. At some point, we will go on a massive run. It just remains to be seen when that run will be, and if we have any chance of actually doing anything this year when it happens.
 
I am fully confident that at some point, the opposition will slow down and not pressure us as much as they are right now, because that kind of intensity is unsustainable. At some point, we will go on a massive run. It just remains to be seen when that run will be, and if we have any chance of actually doing anything this year when it happens.

As dark as it seems now, I can't help but feel there is a reason behind the supposedly shocking form of Port, Collingwood, Richmond, and Freo, all of whom were pre-season top 8 favourites, some even top 4.

Different clubs have different problems, but all (probably bar Richmond) have been known of late for inventing and mastering solid game plans. As easy as it is to feel pessimistic, I still feel quite confident that the change to winter football along with our game plan being tightened up and all players knowing it reflexively will result in us stringing up enough wins for finals.
 
If the players are behaving in a lazy manner it's because they feel a sense of inevitability when other teams get on top, because they know the gameplan is garbage.

These aren't lazy players. Just a couple of short years ago these players were famous for their last quarter comeback victories and fighting until the end. In 2014, the players believed in what they were doing. They very clearly don't believe in the high press or their ability to consistently execute it.

The issue with bombing forward is, primarily, that we don't have players upfield who can mark the ball on anything approaching a regular basis. Our lack of marking targets means that teams can press harder on our ball carriers because if they can force us to slam it on the boot, they'll get it back the vast, vast majority of the time.

Teams have beaten our press by taking marks and playing on quickly to get over the top. Teams are pressing us as well, but we don't take those marks, so we don't break, then we get burned on the rebound. It's partially a skill issue, but bringing Butcher and Howard in would see us move the ball a lot more effectively because they'd take marks, the opposition would have to drop back a bit to cover for that and the game would open up for us.
 
How NOT to Press

Alright...I'm going to give you an example of exactly WHY a press breaks down. It's all to do with player positioning.

94bdc4ebb7366481926cecdda8d01ea4.png


Here's what we looked like at a kick-in during the first quarter. Notice the diamond formation at the back, with Jonas on the right hand side. Also notice that he doesn't really have an opponent - his job is to create intercepts and not defend per se.

7e151c37a8cdab4c03e3b6376336e1fa.png


The ball has moved to the pocket because of the effectiveness of the press. Jonas is highlighted with the red circle - again, he doesn't really have an opponent that will be in the play, but the position he is in is ineffective. Look at the other two players in front of him - there's already a player guarding space. He's out of position and should be further to the right so if a kick goes down the line he can help nullify the overload of Geelong players (Hawkins with Hombsch and a Cats player by himself).

cf14c1259eae0ff70158834ef9af67a3.png


This is the only contest that Jonas can physically have an effect on, except for the one that he is close to at the moment. He is completely out of the play, and because of that, the press breaks down.


25365773f02edd9eda0f56a3d6d3158e.png


When we move Jonas just 10m over - if he ran just that little bit harder as soon as he saw the kick-in went into a pocket, suddenly he's got a number of threats that he can help nullify. But alas...this is what happens:

b7bb8372c35b63432fc2fd4d1a95dc24.png


Caught in no-mans land, Jonas can't get anywhere near the contest to effect the spoil, and Hawkins takes an easy mark. What this does is break down the press completely, for everyone is now caught out of position:

f9c2576ffe680358ccfc233262e4e024.png


The absolute worst thing that can happen when the press breaks down is for the opposition to take a contested mark that isn't delayed in some way, because it doesn't give the defense time to reset. And this is exactly what happens. Hawkins plays on straight into the center:

52fc4fec2e6ec14243a27b194747333a.png


We completely have lost our shape here. Eight players are now out of the contest - I have zero idea what Lobbe and another player are doing on that AFL logo. But where is the guy who stuffed up the entire process from the start?

afd1881ca834048f1d0f226faa8cbf52.png


There he is...just trundling along, as far away from the play as possible while he teammates try to fix his ****-up.

Just ONE mistake when it comes to positioning and the entire thing collapses like a house of cards.

This is great example of how easily a press can break down. My main concern with our press early on was that it was too high, which I think we have largely rectified and there have been far less Joe the Goose goals recently.

However, looking at this breakdown, which seems to be a recurring issue in our games (i.e. players misreading the play and ending up out of position in no man's land), you have to question if we have enough player's with the mental fortitude and/or ability to read the play to implement this style of game. I think we have too many players prone to lapses in concentration to implement this style and doubt that bringing in kids will fix it.

The press can be an effective strategy but you need players capable of executing it because as you note if one person fails in their role the whole thing can fall apart quickly and dramatically. I personally don't think we have the players for it and if anything it emphasises the weaknesses in our list, which is why I think we need to reassess it.
 
e876ea1eaf2598ce556f35e500555a07.png


Oh, look who it is - our two worst defenders in Jonas and O'Shea in a two on one that ends up being a mark and goal to Geelong. Matthew Richardson said it best - if you're going to go for a mark third man up, you better make sure you DO mark it, because the best option is to spoil. It's this sort of selfish, stat happy play that breaks down any defense. Who gives a **** if you don't get a high DT score, Tommy, you selfish prick?

The spoil is the safe option but to be honest Jonas should have just gone harder and marked this one...from memory he had a clear run at it and could and should have jumped in front of the Cats player but kind of just plodded in...I reckon 2014 Jonas would have marked it!
 
If the players are behaving in a lazy manner it's because they feel a sense of inevitability when other teams get on top, because they know the gameplan is garbage.

These aren't lazy players. Just a couple of short years ago these players were famous for their last quarter comeback victories and fighting until the end. In 2014, the players believed in what they were doing. They very clearly don't believe in the high press or their ability to consistently execute it.

The issue with bombing forward is, primarily, that we don't have players upfield who can mark the ball on anything approaching a regular basis. Our lack of marking targets means that teams can press harder on our ball carriers because if they can force us to slam it on the boot, they'll get it back the vast, vast majority of the time.

Teams have beaten our press by taking marks and playing on quickly to get over the top. Teams are pressing us as well, but we don't take those marks, so we don't break, then we get burned on the rebound. It's partially a skill issue, but bringing Butcher and Howard in would see us move the ball a lot more effectively because they'd take marks, the opposition would have to drop back a bit to cover for that and the game would open up for us.

So on one hand the game plan is garbage, but on the other hand everyone else is doing the same thing? Sounds time as though it's the players who don't believe in it who are garbage and need to be ****ed off if that's the case.

Of course your solution to everything is bringing in more talls up forward, because that's all you know. Do you know what more tall forwards does? It makes it easier for the ball to be moved centrally because they aren't as mobile as a a small to medium player. It helps with marking, but what happens when they don't mark the ball? It gets turned over twice as quickly.

Your suggestion is akin to learning to use your left hand because your right is broken - sure, it might work...but you've still got a broken hand. And our broken hand is our rushed delivery to our forwards, which comes back to ball retention - you cannot, repeat, CANNOT always play at 100 mph. At some point, it's going to turn into an arm wrestle because no team is that much better than anyone else. We try to keep pushing it, and we will consistently turn the ball over instead of simply holding our position, absorbing the pressure, then going again.

That's our problem. Not being able to absorb the pressure.
 
So on one hand the game plan is garbage, but on the other hand everyone else is doing the same thing? Sounds time as though it's the players who don't believe in it who are garbage and need to be stuffed off if that's the case.

Of course your solution to everything is bringing in more talls up forward, because that's all you know. Do you know what more tall forwards does? It makes it easier for the ball to be moved centrally because they aren't as mobile as a a small to medium player. It helps with marking, but what happens when they don't mark the ball? It gets turned over twice as quickly.

Your suggestion is akin to learning to use your left hand because your right is broken - sure, it might work...but you've still got a broken hand. And our broken hand is our rushed delivery to our forwards, which comes back to ball retention - you cannot, repeat, CANNOT always play at 100 mph. At some point, it's going to turn into an arm wrestle because no team is that much better than anyone else. We try to keep pushing it, and we will consistently turn the ball over instead of simply holding our position, absorbing the pressure, then going again.

That's our problem. Not being able to absorb the pressure.

We're not able to absorb pressure because we lack options up forward. Not everyone can be a Jasper Pittard and wheel and deal his way through several players pressuring him before kicking to our advantage.

At the moment, we are theoretically incredibly mobile up forward. Dixon is our focal point, but everyone else who spends any time forward at all is mobile. Westhoff is the only other tall and he's (again, theoretically) one of the better runners at the club.

It certainly didn't hurt us last year bringing Butcher in in terms of structure or ball retention. Even when Butcher didn't complete a mark, he brought his fellow forwards into the game. At the moment, we are so easily bested in marking contests that teams can set up as the ball is coming into our forward line for the break. They know they might concede, but more than likely they'll win possession and run it out.

My suggestion is to go back to some bread and butter footy axioms.

At the moment we rank stone cold motherless last in marks, and we are something like 8 marks a game behind the team that sits 17th in that category.

Meanwhile, despite being absolute garbage at the moment, we're 7th in inside 50s, but again, a clear dead last in marks inside 50.

Our only marking target is Dixon. Westhoff has completely shat the bed and Lobbe has not and will never be a marking target. Teams are able to set up off of Dixon, double team him and launch attacks. It happens over and over again. By picking another marking target or two (and i'm advocating Butcher AND Howard come in), we start to hold some of those marks and teams have to change the way we defend us.

And your point about ball retention misses the point. We can't retain the ball if we don't have marking targets. We have nobody to kick to once teams set up. We have no get-out mark like we did with Westhoff, Ryder and Schulz in the past. It's Dixon then nothing.

A massive and consistent problem of ours since 2014 is that the coaches pick something they like and stick with it. What we did in the latter rounds of 2015 was change things up a bit. Sometimes we would slingshot, sometimes we'd move the ball more meticulously. We picked a team that made us more able to adapt to moving the ball in a few different ways and it worked a treat. Now we've gone back to an extreme form of one game plan that is fine if it works, like it did against St Kilda and Essendon, but an absolute disaster if a team is able to counter it, because we don't employ a plan B. We bravely never ever give up on plan A.
 
Started putting this together in an attempt to get my head around structures at stoppages and where we are breaking down. It's kind of hard to really figure out the intricate details of what's going on in real time. I've focused on centre square stoppages as these stoppages are the easiest to find using the AFL replay system. And with less players around the ball its easier to track what is going on and what our intent is. Looking at the stats, centre square stoppages are also where we get proper smashed. We seem to be closer to breaking even in general stoppages around the ground (in quantity of clearances, not necessarily the quality of those clearances.

I've started with the showdown vs the crows, quarter 1, for various reasons. Funnily enough it ends up being a pretty good cross section of the typical issues we've seen all year so far. Will do more if people find this helpful and/or interesting. I've included some notes/commentary to go with each stoppage snapshot. The red circle is an approximate location of where the tap started, then the yellow line extends in the direction of the tap. The light blue lines show power player movements and dark blue shows opposition player movements. If anyone wants to look up a replay and watch these play out, go to http://www.afl.com.au/video/smart-replay and find the game. This version of the replays is free and available to the public without signing up or paying for anything.

Q1 Start - Poor bounce by the umpire and no real effective tap, contested ball, crows clear with handball support
4KVdgxb.png


Q1 After Goal 1 - Lobbe wins tap, crows first touch, crows should have cleared with handball support but handball missed target
YwTuzYT.png


Q1 After Goal 2 - Jacobs wins tap, contested ball, power should have cleared with kick off the ground but play stopped by free kick call
s4r5Rvu.png


Q1 After Goal 3 - Lobbe wins tap, crows first touch, crows clear with handball support
gqFXtj7.png


Q1 After Goal 4 - 50/50 tap, crows first touch, crows clear with handball support
Jhb0Bqk.png


Q1 After Goal 5 - Jacobs wins tap, contested ball, ball up
>>> Jacobs wins tap, power first touch, power should have cleared with handball support but first over the shoulder handball missed target, second handball attempt called throw
gK2kXm0.png


Q1 After Goal 6 - Lobbe wins tap, contested ball, ball up
>>> Lobbe wins tap, power first touch, power clear with rushed kick forward out of the pack even though free handball support was available close by
JGvzrQX.png


Some things that jump out at me initially in this quarter
- I get the feeling we setup based on the assumption Lobbe is going to win every tap
- Crows players are better at getting in front and lead us to the ball, or run to better positions knowing Jacobs will probably win more of the taps
- When we get first touch, either there is no clear system for us to spread out from the stoppage with handball, or there's no trust in that support being there, or we just panic
- Are we overusing the block rather than having that extra body in the contest?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Started putting this together in an attempt to get my head around structures at stoppages and where we are breaking down. It's kind of hard to really figure out the intricate details of what's going on in real time. I've focused on centre square stoppages as these stoppages are the easiest to find using the AFL replay system. And with less players around the ball its easier to track what is going on and what our intent is. Looking at the stats, centre square stoppages are also where we get proper smashed. We seem to be closer to breaking even in general stoppages around the ground (in quantity of clearances, not necessarily the quality of those clearances.

I've started with the showdown vs the crows, quarter 1, for various reasons. Funnily enough it ends up being a pretty good cross section of the typical issues we've seen all year so far. Will do more if people find this helpful and/or interesting. I've included some notes/commentary to go with each stoppage snapshot. The red circle is an approximate location of where the tap started, then the yellow line extends in the direction of the tap. The light blue lines show power player movements and dark blue shows opposition player movements. If anyone wants to look up a replay and watch these play out, go to http://www.afl.com.au/video/smart-replay and find the game. This version of the replays is free and available to the public without signing up or paying for anything.

Q1 Start - Poor bounce by the umpire and no real effective tap, contested ball, crows clear with handball support
4KVdgxb.png


Q1 After Goal 1 - Lobbe wins tap, crows first touch, crows should have cleared with handball support but handball missed target
YwTuzYT.png


Q1 After Goal 2 - Jacobs wins tap, contested ball, power should have cleared with kick off the ground but play stopped by free kick call
s4r5Rvu.png


Q1 After Goal 3 - Lobbe wins tap, crows first touch, crows clear with handball support
gqFXtj7.png


Q1 After Goal 4 - 50/50 tap, crows first touch, crows clear with handball support
Jhb0Bqk.png


Q1 After Goal 5 - Jacobs wins tap, contested ball, ball up
>>> Jacobs wins tap, power first touch, power should have cleared with handball support but first over the shoulder handball missed target, second handball attempt called throw
gK2kXm0.png


Q1 After Goal 6 - Lobbe wins tap, contested ball, ball up
>>> Lobbe wins tap, power first touch, power clear with rushed kick forward out of the pack even though free handball support was available close by
JGvzrQX.png


Some things that jump out at me initially in this quarter
- I get the feeling we setup based on the assumption Lobbe is going to win every tap
- Crows players are better at getting in front and lead us to the ball, or run to better positions knowing Jacobs will probably win more of the taps
- When we get first touch, either there is no clear system for us to spread out from the stoppage with handball, or there's no trust in that support being there, or we just panic
- Are we overusing the block rather than having that extra body in the contest?

Polec standing on the wing with his hands on his hips four times in a row probably isn't going to help with spread from the stoppage!
 
This risky press is giving me the heeby jeebies.. Are our players just dumb, or selfish or what?
According to stats posted on the AFL site we are above average at locking the ball inside our forward half this season and we are also best in the league at generating scores from intercepts in the midfield.

So the press is working ok when we get the ball into our forward line. Problem is we don't get the ball into our forward line.

and yes our players are dumb, selfish and lazy which makes it all the more impressive that the press is working so well.

I get the feeling we setup based on the assumption Lobbe is going to win every tap
Yes we do. Take a look here for more examples against GWS. Need a new midfield coach/tactician.

Polec standing on the wing with his hands on his hips four times in a row probably isn't going to help with spread from the stoppage!
Arch was just as bad. The coaches made the right call dropping those two.
 
The Hard, the Strong and the Tough - the benefits of a flexible gameplan

When you look at those three qualities - hard, strong and tough - you'd be forgiven for thinking they mean pretty much the same thing. But they don't. Hardness is the ability of something to resist permanent change. Strength is the ability of something to bend - its elasticity - before returning to its original state...in other words, it's ability to resist temporary change. While toughness is the ability to absorb energy, or pressure, until breaking point is reached.

A solid gameplan in any sport combines all three of these attributes.

It should be hard, in as much as the players should know that no matter what happens the entire team will continue to play exactly the same way. It doesn't change from week to week and requires a consistency of behaviour.

It should be strong in as much that while the gameplan doesn't change, it is flexible enough within the confines of that plan to bend to certain situations. If the opponent is probing a perceived weakness, a strong gameplan adapts to that and reacts accordingly, until that weakness becomes a strength and the original structure is retained.

And lastly, it should be tough, which means that it has the ability to withstand massive amounts of pressure when things go wrong.

Earlier in this thread I made the point that the counter-press is simply the attacking version of the counter-attack. So the question should be asked - why can't you do both in the same gameplan? The answer is - that's exactly what we are trying to do. We don't return to playing counter-attack at certain stages of the game - it is really all dependant on where we manage to force a turnover. If it's in attack, we are counter-pressing. If it's in defense, we are counter-attacking. The reason why it's impossible to do both in a game like soccer is the fluid nature of the game - there is no time to reset through the use of a neutral possession like a ball-up or boundary throw in. But since Australian rules football has this quirk of the game, where it is delayed long enough for the defense to reset into a counter-attack position, it is logical for any side to try to combine both aspects.

That is why you'll see counter-attacking sides still pressing a kick in regardless of their main strategy. The difference between what they are doing and what we are doing is that our press extends to halfway, whereas most teams only press the kick-in and have a more traditional structure behind the press.

Where a gameplan like this breaks down is in that transitory portion of the ground where counter-press becomes counter-attack. If the midfield doesn't hold the ball up enough - if the ball isn't killed out of bounds so the players can reset - the lack of structure can be exploited as players scramble and are caught out of position. This is why most of the goals kicked against us are so easy in comparison and why we appear to be lacking structure at certain periods.

I'm of the opinion that our gameplan is hard and strong...but at the moment it's not tough. And that comes from the players and their inability to not drop their heads when other teams get a run on. This leads to an abandoning of key aspects of the plan which leads to even more problems.

We just need confidence. Once we get that confidence and self-belief back, everything else will fall into place. Targets will be hit instead of missed, tackles will stick instead of slip.

Hardness, strength, toughness = premiership winning football.
 
The Hard, the Strong and the Tough - the benefits of a flexible gameplan

When you look at those three qualities - hard, strong and tough - you'd be forgiven for thinking they mean pretty much the same thing. But they don't. Hardness is the ability of something to resist permanent change. Strength is the ability of something to bend - its elasticity - before returning to its original state...in other words, it's ability to resist temporary change. While toughness is the ability to absorb energy, or pressure, until breaking point is reached.

A solid gameplan in any sport combines all three of these attributes.

It should be hard, in as much as the players should know that no matter what happens the entire team will continue to play exactly the same way. It doesn't change from week to week and requires a consistency of behaviour.

It should be strong in as much that while the gameplan doesn't change, it is flexible enough within the confines of that plan to bend to certain situations. If the opponent is probing a perceived weakness, a strong gameplan adapts to that and reacts accordingly, until that weakness becomes a strength and the original structure is retained.

And lastly, it should be tough, which means that it has the ability to withstand massive amounts of pressure when things go wrong.

Earlier in this thread I made the point that the counter-press is simply the attacking version of the counter-attack. So the question should be asked - why can't you do both in the same gameplan? The answer is - that's exactly what we are trying to do. We don't return to playing counter-attack at certain stages of the game - it is really all dependant on where we manage to force a turnover. If it's in attack, we are counter-pressing. If it's in defense, we are counter-attacking. The reason why it's impossible to do both in a game like soccer is the fluid nature of the game - there is no time to reset through the use of a neutral possession like a ball-up or boundary throw in. But since Australian rules football has this quirk of the game, where it is delayed long enough for the defense to reset into a counter-attack position, it is logical for any side to try to combine both aspects.

That is why you'll see counter-attacking sides still pressing a kick in regardless of their main strategy. The difference between what they are doing and what we are doing is that our press extends to halfway, whereas most teams only press the kick-in and have a more traditional structure behind the press.

Where a gameplan like this breaks down is in that transitory portion of the ground where counter-press becomes counter-attack. If the midfield doesn't hold the ball up enough - if the ball isn't killed out of bounds so the players can reset - the lack of structure can be exploited as players scramble and are caught out of position. This is why most of the goals kicked against us are so easy in comparison and why we appear to be lacking structure at certain periods.

I'm of the opinion that our gameplan is hard and strong...but at the moment it's not tough. And that comes from the players and their inability to not drop their heads when other teams get a run on. This leads to an abandoning of key aspects of the plan which leads to even more problems.

We just need confidence. Once we get that confidence and self-belief back, everything else will fall into place. Targets will be hit instead of missed, tackles will stick instead of slip.

Hardness, strength, toughness = premiership winning football.

Hardness, strength, toughness = premiership winning football.
Agreed.
 
The Hard, the Strong and the Tough - the benefits of a flexible gameplan

When you look at those three qualities - hard, strong and tough - you'd be forgiven for thinking they mean pretty much the same thing. But they don't. Hardness is the ability of something to resist permanent change. Strength is the ability of something to bend - its elasticity - before returning to its original state...in other words, it's ability to resist temporary change. While toughness is the ability to absorb energy, or pressure, until breaking point is reached.

A solid gameplan in any sport combines all three of these attributes.

It should be hard, in as much as the players should know that no matter what happens the entire team will continue to play exactly the same way. It doesn't change from week to week and requires a consistency of behaviour.

It should be strong in as much that while the gameplan doesn't change, it is flexible enough within the confines of that plan to bend to certain situations. If the opponent is probing a perceived weakness, a strong gameplan adapts to that and reacts accordingly, until that weakness becomes a strength and the original structure is retained.

And lastly, it should be tough, which means that it has the ability to withstand massive amounts of pressure when things go wrong.

Earlier in this thread I made the point that the counter-press is simply the attacking version of the counter-attack. So the question should be asked - why can't you do both in the same gameplan? The answer is - that's exactly what we are trying to do. We don't return to playing counter-attack at certain stages of the game - it is really all dependant on where we manage to force a turnover. If it's in attack, we are counter-pressing. If it's in defense, we are counter-attacking. The reason why it's impossible to do both in a game like soccer is the fluid nature of the game - there is no time to reset through the use of a neutral possession like a ball-up or boundary throw in. But since Australian rules football has this quirk of the game, where it is delayed long enough for the defense to reset into a counter-attack position, it is logical for any side to try to combine both aspects.

That is why you'll see counter-attacking sides still pressing a kick in regardless of their main strategy. The difference between what they are doing and what we are doing is that our press extends to halfway, whereas most teams only press the kick-in and have a more traditional structure behind the press.

Where a gameplan like this breaks down is in that transitory portion of the ground where counter-press becomes counter-attack. If the midfield doesn't hold the ball up enough - if the ball isn't killed out of bounds so the players can reset - the lack of structure can be exploited as players scramble and are caught out of position. This is why most of the goals kicked against us are so easy in comparison and why we appear to be lacking structure at certain periods.

I'm of the opinion that our gameplan is hard and strong...but at the moment it's not tough. And that comes from the players and their inability to not drop their heads when other teams get a run on. This leads to an abandoning of key aspects of the plan which leads to even more problems.

We just need confidence. Once we get that confidence and self-belief back, everything else will fall into place. Targets will be hit instead of missed, tackles will stick instead of slip.

Hardness, strength, toughness = premiership winning football.
Yes We Ken
 
One thing that has occurred to me is this: what would this game plan look like with the inclusion of Patrick Ryder and Angus Monfries? Because remember, it was developed with these two in mind.

Imagine a ruck that could double as a key forward or a key defender depending on whether we had the ball or didn't have the ball. Imagine a ruck that could actually take a contested grab and make kick-ins a choice rather than heading to the same area all the time. Imagine a ruck that could win a decent amount of taps and feed a midfield that was expecting to be serviced by a premium ruck. Imagine a midfield that was conditioned to endurance run and handle less rotations because they expected Lobbe to be our secondary ruck that would dominate the secondary rucks of opposition teams.

Imagine a defensive forward that could take out the oppositions most damaging creative outlet while scoring goals himself. Imagine a defensive forward that was an offensive threat and was great in a one-on-one contested situation, making it impossible for defenders to leave him unattended while they go and double team Charlie Dixon. Imagine giving creative players like Wingard and Gray the freedom in the forward line to be more attacking, knowing that we had a forward that could create enormous defensive pressure.

Now, imagine how the team would have to adjust if you take those two things away, and a Lobbe that expected to be rucking against secondary/pinch-hitting rucks is now forced to ruck against primary rucks that are better than him. And how long that would take to learn on the back of six months of preparing to play the other way.

The good thing is - by the end of this year, we will have learned how to cope without them, so when they come back in to the side, it will be so much easier. This is where we learn to be resilient.
 
One thing that has occurred to me is this: what would this game plan look like with the inclusion of Patrick Ryder and Angus Monfries? Because remember, it was developed with these two in mind.

Imagine a ruck that could double as a key forward or a key defender depending on whether we had the ball or didn't have the ball. Imagine a ruck that could actually take a contested grab and make kick-ins a choice rather than heading to the same area all the time. Imagine a ruck that could win a decent amount of taps and feed a midfield that was expecting to be serviced by a premium ruck. Imagine a midfield that was conditioned to endurance run and handle less rotations because they expected Lobbe to be our secondary ruck that would dominate the secondary rucks of opposition teams.

Imagine a defensive forward that could take out the oppositions most damaging creative outlet while scoring goals himself. Imagine a defensive forward that was an offensive threat and was great in a one-on-one contested situation, making it impossible for defenders to leave him unattended while they go and double team Charlie Dixon. Imagine giving creative players like Wingard and Gray the freedom in the forward line to be more attacking, knowing that we had a forward that could create enormous defensive pressure.

Now, imagine how the team would have to adjust if you take those two things away, and a Lobbe that expected to be rucking against secondary/pinch-hitting rucks is now forced to ruck against primary rucks that are better than him. And how long that would take to learn on the back of six months of preparing to play the other way.

The good thing is - by the end of this year, we will have learned how to cope without them, so when they come back in to the side, it will be so much easier. This is where we learn to be resilient.
I agree Janus, the sad indictment of our supporter base though is there are too many posses going around determined to put things into their own hands.
 
more heatmaps pls Janus

You really want to see what was wrong?

image.png

This was our first quarter. Pressing high, pushing forward, actually playing how we are supposed to. Our best period of the game.

image.png
This is the last quarter when we were blown out but hey, we played that shit slingshot that everyone so loves.

Meanwhile, look at what happened with Geelong:
image.png

1st quarter.
image.png
Last quarter.

Don't worry about the other two quarters, they look exactly the same as the last for both sides.

We couldn't get the ball past Geelong's midfield zone because we weren't prepared to push up enough and were too scared that it would create goals over the back. Which meant that their midfield could do what they wanted at stoppages in the centre of the ground and create more pressure.

Brave football isn't just what you do with the ball in hand...it's about not backing away from an opponent when the heat comes. We completely capitulated after quarter time as soon as Geelong shelved their counter-attack style and responded to our forward pressure with pressure of their own. It became a staring contest and we ****ing blinked.
 
Crows fan lurking here, not sure if appropriate but just wanted to commend Janus on his posts, really interesting to see such thought out dissections of common modern strategies. The analysis of the forward press against Geelong was especially good - it shows how teams can be really heavily affected by plays that aren't at all obvious to the average person watching at home.
 
"Stick around pal, I've still got a lot to teach you." - Wall Street

Desperation drives innovation. Benjamin Disraeli once said that "Desperation is sometimes as powerful an inspirer as genius." And it's true - the great leaps of mankind have been borne from the fruits of striving for something better - to be desperate enough to suffer the ignominy of potential disaster for the joy of potential victory.

It's to that end I'm going to explain exactly what Ken Hinkley's thought process is when it comes to the game against Richmond on Saturday night. By the end of it...you might think he's a genius, or that he's desperate...but either way, it's definitely innovative. But to start with, first we have to ask a simple question: What is defense?

The dictionary defines defense as resistance against attack; protection. In football, this is defined by a quantifiable measure - points against. The lower the points against, or points conceded, the better the defensive structure is. In the traditional way of playing football, this was achieved by dominating the area inside defensive 50, and a regular structure would have seen a set up similar to this:

2b14c2a9994467101a5b45a0a8bc502f.png


A clear demarcation between positions, with no homogenization. The full forward stayed in the goal square and kicked the majority of the goals, the center-half forward had most of the play directed through him, the forward pockets crumbed whatever goals the full forward didn't manage to create himself, and the half forwards occasionally bobbed up for a goal or two. This setup was purely based around individual skill - the best teams were the ones that had solid key defenders and key forwards. Dunstall, Lockett, Carey, Ablett vs Scarlett, Silvagni, Jackovich et al.

The issue with this sort of defensive setup is that it is orbit based: each defender rotates around his opponent to deny him the ball, and moves with him no matter where he travels - like the moon orbits the earth. Sure, at times defenders would peel off and help a teammate, but there was no real system to do so and it was extremely reactive to what the offense did. However, because ball delivery into the forward line was slow, it was easy enough for defenders to deny goal scoring opportunities to forwards if they were cohesive as a unit.

However, as the game picked up in speed through more athletically gifted players playing the game and the added bonus of the new professional era, it became clear that defense wasn't coping with a game that was already heavily stacked in favor of offense. And so from Rodney Eade to Ross Lyon, coaches have been looking for ways to slow down attacking moves in order to allow their defensive line time to setup and create the necessary overloads to turn the ball over in defense.

This year, with the new rule changes, this has become virtually impossible using traditional methods. Sure, there are teams that have been kept to low scores, but this is a reflection of their lack of offensive fire power rather than any great defensive tactic, as noted by the large numbers of inside 50 entries that teams are conceding coupled with the massive scorelines. Crowds are lauding the new renaissance of attacking football, built around playing on at all costs which doesn't give defenders time to reset or midfielders time to push back into defensive coverage. Sides that play free-flowing football are being seen as locks for finals, whereas those that are either bereft of confidence or just plain suck languish at the bottom of the ladder.

So again, I ask: What is defense?

Resistance against attack.

Where do most attacks come from in modern football? Is it from traditional, spot up structure? No, it's from turnovers created all over the ground.

Enter the Holding Midfielder. The next evolution of Australian Rules football. This position can also be specialized into two roles - the defensive midfielder and the regista, or deep-lying play maker. But before we talk about that, let's look at what each of these roles actually entails.

A holding midfielder occupies and "holds" a space. A holding midfielder needs to have good awareness to read the opposition's play, should be able to tackle and pass with accuracy. This is your Nathan Krakouer, Jared Polec, Jimmy Toumpas type.

A defensive midfielder is a holding midfielder who specializes in the defensive duties. He needs to have a strong work-rate (coupled with awareness) to close down players, force errors, and break up the play before it reaches the defense. This is your Matthew Broadbent, Jarman Impey, Cameron O'Shea type.

Another type of holding midfielder is the regista, or the deep-lying playmaker. The deep-lying playmaker should have the best passing range on the team. The regista would also be responsible for dictating the tempo of the team's play by being responsible for the first pass of the attack, whether by slowing up the play for a build-up, a pass out to the wings, or a through-ball in the center of the pitch. Who else could this be but Jasper Pittard?

The theory is this - our preferred method of defending consists of 3 dedicated defenders. Ordinarily, this would be Alipate Carlile, Jackson Trengove and Jack Hombsch, but this week it will be Jack Hombsch, Tom Jonas and either Matthew Broadbent or Nathan Krakouer. These three players are the best defenders in the team, and their defensive capabilities and organizational skills make up for any lack of fluidity in their reading of the play.

In front of those players, we set up five holding midfielders - two holding mids on the wings, two defensive midfielders between the wing and center, and a regista in the middle - from left to right Jared Polec, Cameron O'Shea, Jasper Pittard, Matthew Broadbent, Jimmy Toumpas.

1d3d95d80a59b8823ef8f50f230ee9f8.png



What this allows is the ability for a side to create turnovers in midfield and break up the play with aggressive attack into zonal coverage because the forward press now becomes a full-court press - instead of defense being just being orbital (dedicated to one player), it is now spatial as well, with many overloads being able to be created through rapid closing down of attacks from one wing or another.

Last week, we were let down by Tom Jonas not being fast enough to push over to cover an outlet kick to Tom Hawkins. This week, we are putting faster players into that role. Faster players with better endurance.

The first quarter against Geelong wasn't an outlier. You saw a glimpse of the future. Yes, there is no structure, because the structure comes from creativity and quick thinking. Rapid ball movement is the key - from defense to attack in the blink of an eye. Defend when you attack, and attack when you defend, remember?

That's what we're going for.

Of course, later on during the year when teams begin to slow down and play more traditional roles, we might drop a HM for another defender to cope with the long kicking aerial threat that will inevitably come (but hasn't happened yet)...but the strategy remains constant.

Will it work? If we do it right, you bet your ass it will work.




 
"Stick around pal, I've still got a lot to teach you." - Wall Street

Desperation drives innovation. Benjamin Disraeli once said that "Desperation is sometimes as powerful an inspirer as genius." And it's true - the great leaps of mankind have been borne from the fruits of striving for something better - to be desperate enough to suffer the ignominy of potential disaster for the joy of potential victory.

It's to that end I'm going to explain exactly what Ken Hinkley's thought process is when it comes to the game against Richmond on Saturday night. By the end of it...you might think he's a genius, or that he's desperate...but either way, it's definitely innovative. But to start with, first we have to ask a simple question: What is defense?

The dictionary defines defense as resistance against attack; protection. In football, this is defined by a quantifiable measure - points against. The lower the points against, or points conceded, the better the defensive structure is. In the traditional way of playing football, this was achieved by dominating the area inside defensive 50, and a regular structure would have seen a set up similar to this:

2b14c2a9994467101a5b45a0a8bc502f.png


A clear demarcation between positions, with no homogenization. The full forward stayed in the goal square and kicked the majority of the goals, the center-half forward had most of the play directed through him, the forward pockets crumbed whatever goals the full forward didn't manage to create himself, and the half forwards occasionally bobbed up for a goal or two. This setup was purely based around individual skill - the best teams were the ones that had solid key defenders and key forwards. Dunstall, Lockett, Carey, Ablett vs Scarlett, Silvagni, Jackovich et al.

The issue with this sort of defensive setup is that it is orbit based: each defender rotates around his opponent to deny him the ball, and moves with him no matter where he travels - like the moon orbits the earth. Sure, at times defenders would peel off and help a teammate, but there was no real system to do so and it was extremely reactive to what the offense did. However, because ball delivery into the forward line was slow, it was easy enough for defenders to deny goal scoring opportunities to forwards if they were cohesive as a unit.

However, as the game picked up in speed through more athletically gifted players playing the game and the added bonus of the new professional era, it became clear that defense wasn't coping with a game that was already heavily stacked in favor of offense. And so from Rodney Eade to Ross Lyon, coaches have been looking for ways to slow down attacking moves in order to allow their defensive line time to setup and create the necessary overloads to turn the ball over in defense.

This year, with the new rule changes, this has become virtually impossible using traditional methods. Sure, there are teams that have been kept to low scores, but this is a reflection of their lack of offensive fire power rather than any great defensive tactic, as noted by the large numbers of inside 50 entries that teams are conceding coupled with the massive scorelines. Crowds are lauding the new renaissance of attacking football, built around playing on at all costs which doesn't give defenders time to reset or midfielders time to push back into defensive coverage. Sides that play free-flowing football are being seen as locks for finals, whereas those that are either bereft of confidence or just plain suck languish at the bottom of the ladder.

So again, I ask: What is defense?

Resistance against attack.

Where do most attacks come from in modern football? Is it from traditional, spot up structure? No, it's from turnovers created all over the ground.

Enter the Holding Midfielder. The next evolution of Australian Rules football. This position can also be specialized into two roles - the defensive midfielder and the regista, or deep-lying play maker. But before we talk about that, let's look at what each of these roles actually entails.

A holding midfielder occupies and "holds" a space. A holding midfielder needs to have good awareness to read the opposition's play, should be able to tackle and pass with accuracy. This is your Nathan Krakouer, Jared Polec, Jimmy Toumpas type.

A defensive midfielder is a holding midfielder who specializes in the defensive duties. He needs to have a strong work-rate (coupled with awareness) to close down players, force errors, and break up the play before it reaches the defense. This is your Matthew Broadbent, Jarman Impey, Cameron O'Shea type.

Another type of holding midfielder is the regista, or the deep-lying playmaker. The deep-lying playmaker should have the best passing range on the team. The regista would also be responsible for dictating the tempo of the team's play by being responsible for the first pass of the attack, whether by slowing up the play for a build-up, a pass out to the wings, or a through-ball in the center of the pitch. Who else could this be but Jasper Pittard?

The theory is this - our preferred method of defending consists of 3 dedicated defenders. Ordinarily, this would be Alipate Carlile, Jackson Trengove and Jack Hombsch, but this week it will be Jack Hombsch, Tom Jonas and either Matthew Broadbent or Nathan Krakouer. These three players are the best defenders in the team, and their defensive capabilities and organizational skills make up for any lack of fluidity in their reading of the play.

In front of those players, we set up five holding midfielders - two holding mids on the wings, two defensive midfielders between the wing and center, and a regista in the middle - from left to right Jared Polec, Cameron O'Shea, Jasper Pittard, Matthew Broadbent, Jimmy Toumpas.

1d3d95d80a59b8823ef8f50f230ee9f8.png



What this allows is the ability for a side to create turnovers in midfield and break up the play with aggressive attack into zonal coverage because the forward press now becomes a full-court press - instead of defense being just being orbital (dedicated to one player), it is now spatial as well, with many overloads being able to be created through rapid closing down of attacks from one wing or another.

Last week, we were let down by Tom Jonas not being fast enough to push over to cover an outlet kick to Tom Hawkins. This week, we are putting faster players into that role. Faster players with better endurance.

The first quarter against Geelong wasn't an outlier. You saw a glimpse of the future. Yes, there is no structure, because the structure comes from creativity and quick thinking. Rapid ball movement is the key - from defense to attack in the blink of an eye. Defend when you attack, and attack when you defend, remember?

That's what we're going for.

Of course, later on during the year when teams begin to slow down and play more traditional roles, we might drop a HM for another defender to cope with the long kicking aerial threat that will inevitably come (but hasn't happened yet)...but the strategy remains constant.

Will it work? If we do it right, you bet your ass it will work.
WIll we keep Ken long enough to see the fruits of his plan though? :(
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Strategy 2016 Tacs Trailer

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top