Roast Bevo pull your ******* head in

[grassman75]

I'm not so hard on Sprangher the forward line has been changing a bit in the first 12 games. He needs another tall down there to move some attention away from Naughton

I'm more critical of Marc Webb the midfield coach and Rohan Smith in defence.
Ball going into our forward line against better sides is poor including the target options
When the opposition get the ball they seem to move it through middle without much pressure and get to much danger balls into their forwards.
Our defence outside Keath seem to get lost under high balls to often

That could be cos they are just not that good.

 

[doggies ftw]

To guard against switches it means we're going to be spread somewhat wide across the field. This then limits the depth of the zone you can implement before we run into the aforementioned problem of having too many holes. To help that, we're choosing to back up off the mark to strengthen the zone in that 20-45m range. We want the kicker to try go long, which generally are easier balls to kill and force a stoppage (which plays into our midfield strength). This is also suited to having English in the side (which I think is a key component of the strategy) as one of his best strengths is sitting a kick down the line and marking or halving aerial contests. We are happy to give up handballs as really all that does is force the opposing team into our strong zone area and force a rushed long kick which is what we want anyway. In that way, the space the man on the mark gives up is largely irrelevant as it leads to the outcome we want.

I believe that is the theory behind it. Is it working? I think at times it has. Other times it looks really bad. One thing that this depends on though is actually the guys working hard behind the man on the mark to make position in the zone. I reckon if we looked back on a lot of the goals kicked against us in free play, many were when the defence had not been set correctly and we were sliced up by foot in that 25-40m zone. Other times when we've set up, you'll actually see that it has forced teams down the line a lot. We very rarely get cut through the middle once we're set up. The guy manning the mark actually is one of the least important players in achieving the outcome of the zone. People will focus on that because it looks different and it's new so when we get scored on it's kind of easy to blame. I have to admit it did take a fair few weeks before I actually saw the point of it, because it did look so different. It was only when I noticed that firstly, we very rarely get switched on and two that Tim was almost an unstoppable force down the line before his injury that I kind of saw it. However, the key element is still the defensive running of players behind the man on the mark rather than the man on the mark himself.
But anyway, that's my take on it.

As a side note, I've seen pretty much every other team do the outside 5m thing at times so there must be some value in it (perceived or otherwise). It's not just some cRaZy bEvO thing that is unique to us that people on here would make believe.

The reason we’re slow to set up behind the man on the mark (which has always been a strong part of our game) is because we’re giving the player with possession an extra few seconds by not forcing them back behind the mark. You mark the ball in the middle of the ground, our nearest player runs 10m directly out of the way, you can instantly play on and find a target before we’ve got time to set up.

Why do you think players throw the ball up slowly when a free kicks paid etc, every second is valuable. By manning the mark you’re at least forcing that player to jog back before he takes his kick, it might be 3 seconds but it’s still extremely valuable.

You’re right when we’re already set up behind the play then sure it can be advantageous, usually this is in the back half of the ground when they’ve taken an uncontested mark and we don’t even bother running to the mark, this is fine. We’re already in position 5-10m ahead of the ball to man the short options and force them long. No issue with this. What we’re finding is we can literally have a one on one contest, they mark it and our player is then taking themselves back from the mark and putting themselves in no man’s land, giving them time and space to do as they wish.

Also we’re allowing deeper entries inside 50, where 5m to 10m can be very valuable space. We also have an extremely aggressive high starting position for our backline, where we always take front position. So then giving the kicker 5-10m extra distance and zero pressure is giving them a huge advantage.

I think you’ll find no other club does this in the front half of the ground, every now and then every club does it in the back line or when they’re already outside 5, I’m yet to see a single other club be already standing on the mark then retreat like we do. I’m also yet to see any other club do it as religiously as we do - if you’ve got examples I’d love to see them but i don’t believe anyone does it anywhere near as much as us - so it’s pretty safe to say it is a Bevo thing.

 

[Timewillcome]

Some good replies above, my question would be if the opposition know you are doing it every time is this the problem? It seems to me a player standing the mark could on a lot of occasions hold up play while forcing the opposition back behind the mark to a distance to effect a kick, buying time while the defence sets up, or block handballs / kicks that would be within reach had they stood the mark. We release pressure and give away ground every time. At least mix it up and keep the opposition guessing, and don't do it in the D50.

I'm not suggesting the head coach shouldn't try something to exploit a rule, but I think to get to Rd12 without a tweak to a strategy that seems to have some glaring issues is stubborn, reminds me of his attitude to rucks which seems to have stayed unchanged. I won't start on that.

Looking forward to a fresh set of eyes once his contract expires as we seem to have massively underperformed and missed opportunities in what is a relatively soft comp at the moment.

 

[Boyd oh Boyd]

My take on the outside 5m thing is that it's about compressing or positioning our zone into the area where we think it's most beneficial.

If you can relate it to basketball where there are essentially 3 scoring zones on the court... at the rim, mid-range and 3pt range. Generally teams can only really stop scoring in 2 of the 3 zones on the court. It's similar in footy with regards to your defensive zone but the determining factor is the size of the zone (assuming the same number of players in the zone). If you spread your zone too far, then there will be holes within it which allows teams to pierce it through ball movement and creating 1v2's in localised areas to create overlap. If you compress your zone too much then, while you're defending a specific area very well, it can be too easy for teams to go around or over it.

So, accepting that it's impossible to stop all locations on the field with a zone you configure it in the best way you think (going back to basketball for example, you might want to force teams to score in the mid-range by taking away the rim and 3 pointers).

Unfortunately I haven't been able to go to as many games in person as I'd like this season so haven't been able to watch this live which is important when looking at this kind of thing. But, my impression from the few games I've been to and watching on TV is that we are happy to give up kicks down the line and handballs but we really do not want to give up mid-range kicks (20-45m) or switches across the field.

To guard against switches it means we're going to be spread somewhat wide across the field. This then limits the depth of the zone you can implement before we run into the aforementioned problem of having too many holes. To help that, we're choosing to back up off the mark to strengthen the zone in that 20-45m range. We want the kicker to try go long, which generally are easier balls to kill and force a stoppage (which plays into our midfield strength). This is also suited to having English in the side (which I think is a key component of the strategy) as one of his best strengths is sitting a kick down the line and marking or halving aerial contests. We are happy to give up handballs as really all that does is force the opposing team into our strong zone area and force a rushed long kick which is what we want anyway. In that way, the space the man on the mark gives up is largely irrelevant as it leads to the outcome we want.

I believe that is the theory behind it. Is it working? I think at times it has. Other times it looks really bad. One thing that this depends on though is actually the guys working hard behind the man on the mark to make position in the zone. I reckon if we looked back on a lot of the goals kicked against us in free play, many were when the defence had not been set correctly and we were sliced up by foot in that 25-40m zone. Other times when we've set up, you'll actually see that it has forced teams down the line a lot. We very rarely get cut through the middle once we're set up. The guy manning the mark actually is one of the least important players in achieving the outcome of the zone. People will focus on that because it looks different and it's new so when we get scored on it's kind of easy to blame. I have to admit it did take a fair few weeks before I actually saw the point of it, because it did look so different. It was only when I noticed that firstly, we very rarely get switched on and two that Tim was almost an unstoppable force down the line before his injury that I kind of saw it. However, the key element is still the defensive running of players behind the man on the mark rather than the man on the mark himself.

Another question to ask is, is this the correct defensive zone strategy to implement in the first place? Maybe we shouldn't be focusing on stopping switches as much? Or maybe we don't have the adequate height to want to force teams down the line? Maybe we should create a wider zone with bigger holes to invite invite miskicks then pressure from all around (similar to a Tigers gameplan in seasons' past)?

But anyway, that's my take on it.

As a side note, I've seen pretty much every other team do the outside 5m thing at times so there must be some value in it (perceived or otherwise). It's not just some cRaZy bEvO thing that is unique to us that people on here would make believe.

We're the most aggressive in backing off the mark but most sides will do it. Just watched a random few minutes of every other game and it was 18-9 manning the mark vs going back 5. Darling even did it for a kick 60 meters out from goal which we're not even stupid enough to do.

I don't think it really matters one way or the other, there's never really been a play where I thought we could've stopped if we had someone on the mark. Clearly we focused on that during preseason so my only question is was that really the best use of our time?

 

[doggies ftw]

Watch the mini-replay of the first qtr goals - https://afl.app.link/IRTcGfSdDqb

First goal, Blicavs takes the contested mark, everyone splits and runs directly away he kicks it long to a one on one. Could have held him up by manning the mark

2nd goal, footage just cuts in but Duncan’s obviously just taken the mark, we run away he instantly runs 5m forward and kicks = extra distance on the entry

4th goal, Gardners more focussed on trying to get back 5m, Hawkins wheels and goes instantly we’re caught out in defence. Not much in this One but still (on this one can anyone tell me why we don’t have pressure on the runaround kick from Cameron yet Geelong had 4 blokes literally nearly smothering ours when we tried this? Common sense geez)

That’s just from a 5min look at their first quarter goals, if you wanted to dissect a whole game I’m sure you’d manage to find 50 more of these. It’s a game of inches and if we’re giving up just 5% of an advantage this is why we’re constantly getting cut open - we select our whole team around maximising “in your face” pressure - then we retreat and give you space on the mark it’s bewildering

 

[Doggy]

We're the most aggressive in backing off the mark but most sides will do it. Just watched a random few minutes of every other game and it was 18-9 manning the mark vs going back 5. Darling even did it for a kick 60 meters out from goal which we're not even stupid enough to do.

I don't think it really matters one way or the other, there's never really been a play where I thought we could've stopped if we had someone on the mark. Clearly we focused on that during preseason so my only question is was that really the best use of our time?

No considering we also gave away two 50m penalties against Ninthmond trying to do it that turned the game when we were well on top, both ending in goals

 

[BEaston]

We're the most aggressive in backing off the mark but most sides will do it. Just watched a random few minutes of every other game and it was 18-9 manning the mark vs going back 5. Darling even did it for a kick 60 meters out from goal which we're not even stupid enough to do.

I don't think it really matters one way or the other, there's never really been a play where I thought we could've stopped if we had someone on the mark. Clearly we focused on that during preseason so my only question is was that really the best use of our time?

Yep agree. It's a common place tactic. We are the most aggressive though.

Hard to know whether it matters either way. How do we quantify the value in that guy plugging that hole for the short kick v reducing the angle of the kicker/forcing him to backtrack?

I think at times it has worked well but needs the whole team to work hard behind.

Probably the thing that I dislike most about it is the 50m penalty risk. A lot more risky with the outside 5m tactic vs standing. 50s are so costly these days I'm not sure that any zoning benefits are worth those.

 

[doggies ftw]

Another point against is it doesn’t allow us the ability to wrap the player who marks up and waste a further few seconds. I hate that this is allowed as it’s a huge time waster but it goes unpenalised 99.9% of the time and EVERY club does this - we don’t because we’re too busy scampering 10m behind the play

 

[footscray1973]

We're the most aggressive in backing off the mark but most sides will do it. Just watched a random few minutes of every other game and it was 18-9 manning the mark vs going back 5. Darling even did it for a kick 60 meters out from goal which we're not even stupid enough to do.

I don't think it really matters one way or the other, there's never really been a play where I thought we could've stopped if we had someone on the mark. Clearly we focused on that during preseason so my only question is was that really the best use of our time?

We have retreated on the mark in games all season inside 60 metres. 55 metres out in previous games, we retreat and bring the kicker within scoring distance. When I've watched other teams, they rarely/never retreat if it brings the kicker within scoring distance.

Also, many players generate extra distance with kicks with more momentum, so a player 55m out where the man on the mark retreats 5m or more is suddenly presented with an opportunity to take a few extra steps and gain more momentum before kicking, and achieve greater distance.

On the flip side, on Friday night, Bailey Williams took a mark in the 2nd quarter 55m out from goal. Rather than retreating, Guthrie clearly took two steps over where he knew Williams had marked it, and stood, and the umpire failed to pull him back (not Williams' or Bevo's fault, but a very different tactic to us). So we concede territory, Cats try and claim it. End result, instead of almost being within scoring distance, Williams had to go back and kick over the mark.

 

[doggies ftw]

We have retreated on the mark in games all season inside 60 metres. 55 metres out in previous games, we retreat and bring the kicker within scoring distance. When I've watched other teams, they rarely/never retreat if it brings the kicker within scoring distance.

Also, many players generate extra distance with kicks with more momentum, so a player 55m out where the man on the mark retreats 5m or more is suddenly presented with an opportunity to take a few extra steps and gain more momentum before kicking, and achieve greater distance.

On the flip side, on Friday night, Bailey Williams took a mark in the 2nd quarter 55m out from goal. Rather than retreating, Guthrie clearly took two steps over where he knew Williams had marked it, and stood, and the umpire failed to pull him back (not Williams' or Bevo's fault, but a very different tactic to us). So we concede territory, Cats try and claim it. End result, instead of almost being within scoring distance, Williams had to go back and kick over the mark.

Yeah another very good point, you can easily steal a metre or two by manning the mark but retreating you’re easily giving up more than 5m - it’s not like the umpire has a tape measure out there, they always keep calling us back - I’d say we’re closer to 10m back than 5 usually, and then throw in the added benefit of giving away 50s, why allow the umpire anymore input than they already have we can’t rely on them to officiate correctly as is

 

[Al dente]

From the round 1 team which i felt was too similar to the granny side and stale, to McComb, to the lack of structure, to the pressor melt downs, Bevo hasnt had a good year.

the best secenario for the year is that we get players back, avoid injuries, get on a roll, finish bottom of the 8 and win a final or two.

Ironically, and in my view, is this is the worst scenario as it will paper over our issues and prevent them from being dealt with, will lower our draft pick/hand, and put us in the top 6 draw for 2023.

i want to see development in the talented youth (not the role playing and limited ability middle age) and a lower mid table finish

 

[goodcop badcop]

The only real benefit of standing 5m off is stopping a handball. But if the kicker has heaps of space the handball isn't even needed

This tactic is probably a good tactic against us since we handball a lot. We probably practice this at training all the the time against each other and may be a reason why Bevo likes this tactic.

 

[ScottyDogg]

My heart was broken, sorrow, sorrow.

Hawthorn's one soldier out, another in approach doesn't work where the battleground changes so rapidly, replacing Tom Boyd and Jordan Roughead with Naughton and Keath can't work unless Bont of Dunkley can come in over the top. Pre 1958, teams ran, not 2 but 4 ruckmen. Then along came Norm Smith who had as a protege a failed half forward flanker, son of a Rat of Tobruk, in Ron Barassi. He created the ruck-rover role. By the time Barassi became coach at North, he'd reduced the need for Ruckman to 1, in his case, our Gary Dempsey. I have no idea whether we should play 2 or 1 with bit players. Maybe we should go back to 4 ruckmen or 2 changing in the back pocket with Followers, like Ted Whitten or Ruck-Rovers, like Ron Barassi changing up forward. There's not just 1 model that wins Premierships, Richmond did it with 1 tall forward, the odd resting ruckman and a super Bont. Melbourne jettisoned Hannon and relied on North discard Brown. Others on this board talk about 3 talls, when 2 didn't work. Bev knows a bit more about footy than me and spends a iot more time than me thinking about it.

Totally agree D Mitchell that you need to evolve and find an edge in what is a very level comp.

What seems blaringly obvious to me though is that we already have four amazing edges that we can exploit against the comp and we refuse to do so.

1) Arguably the most deep and experienced list of midfielders

2) Arguably the most damaging and versatile around the ground ruckman

3) Arguably the best mark in the game

4) Arguably the best kicking half back flankers

HOWEVER none of these things can be exploited without a competent ruck to supply those mids and to free English to go mental forward and behind the ball

Secondly, a forward line devoid of actual forwards (especially tall ones that can kick goals) makes our inside50 dominance from our mids a weakness as we are always having to defend the turnover or have gassed mids kicking at goal. These players go in runs of missing set shots that kills momentum or just blatantly results in losses like those against the Blues and Richmond.

Thirdly, Naughton is not nearly as dangerous as he would be with one or two other true forwards leading away from him. He is also gonna cop injuries fighting a double and triple team every week.

Fourth, our half backs have no one to deliver to inside 50

We must develop a game style based on our strengths. Beveridge tried the current game style three years ago and it didn’t work.

He tried a new one at the start of last year and it was devastating. I have no idea why he won’t go back to it.

 

[King Harold]

Yeah another very good point, you can easily steal a metre or two by manning the mark but retreating you’re easily giving up more than 5m - it’s not like the umpire has a tape measure out there, they always keep calling us back - I’d say we’re closer to 10m back than 5 usually, and then throw in the added benefit of giving away 50s, why allow the umpire anymore input than they already have we can’t rely on them to officiate correctly as is

The reality is it just has not been shown to stop whatever it is it’s supposed to do.
As you point out the 1st quarter was a prime example.
manning the mark at least makes the kicker having to get back off the mark , and wasting a second or two.

The only sense I see in it is deep defence , even then it is problematical .

 

[ringa5]

Always been a Bevo fan.
But Friday night how ever many kicks those small midfielders made forwards got.It didn't account for the positives a tall or 2 would have made.Could have even stretched them.
Doesn't matter how bad Cordy ,JUH,Schache or Sweet played on the night .Those talls would have made a difference.

 

[BEaston]

Yeah another very good point, you can easily steal a metre or two by manning the mark but retreating you’re easily giving up more than 5m - it’s not like the umpire has a tape measure out there, they always keep calling us back - I’d say we’re closer to 10m back than 5 usually, and then throw in the added benefit of giving away 50s, why allow the umpire anymore input than they already have we can’t rely on them to officiate correctly as is

They're not calling us back, they're confirming the player is outside 5m so they know they don't have to stand still.

 

[doggies ftw]

They're not calling us back, they're confirming the player is outside 5m so they know they don't have to stand still.

Tomato/tomato

Theyre telling us when we’re outside 5, as they don’t have a tape measure it’s quite clearly usually much further than 5m.

Where when you man the mark you can usually gain a m or 2, it starts to make up quite a big difference. It was an obvious direction from Geelong to steal every meter they could, they’d push the mark every time, they’d hold us up wherever possible, they had 3 blokes ready to smother our runaround set shots on the boundary - didn’t give us an inch.

Whereas we’re more focused on making sure we’re standing in the appropriate place looking at the umpire as we retreat and let them stroll on forward and do as they wish. I know which strategy caused more pressure and it definitely wasn’t ours

 

[Mr. Walker]

Does anyone know if the club monitors this forum. Or other forums that have a significant number of Dogs fans?
Not in the sense of running to Bev with every or some individual posts but in seeing if there are topics or themes of interest to a large number of fans. This two ruck thing is a case in point. I know Bev won’t give away tactics or comment on players’ abilities, just a general line that we have considered the issue and feel this is the most productive course. I would like to think they care enough to at least engage that much.
Would make Bev’s weekly repots to members more interesting

 

[maddog37]

Does anyone know if the club monitors this forum. Or other forums that have a significant number of Dogs fans?
Not in the sense of running to Bev with every or some individual posts but in seeing if there are topics or themes of interest to a large number of fans. This two ruck thing is a case in point. I know Bev won’t give away tactics or comment on players’ abilities, just a general line that we have considered the issue and feel this is the most productive course. I would like to think they care enough to at least engage that much.
Would make Bev’s weekly repots to members more interesting

This place is an echo chamber.

 

[theburst]

i want to see development in the talented youth (not the role playing and limited ability middle age) and a lower mid table finish

na, would never swap making Finals, but admittedly big task from here

David King wants Naughton moved down back, maybe Bevo will go through every possibility in this time off

 

[footscray1973]

This place is an echo chamber.

An echo chamber.... of differing opinions?

 

[maddog37]

An echo chamber.... of differing opinions?

As in all opinions expressed rattle around in here with no external analysis except for the odd tip rat journo.

 

[footscray1973]

As in all opinions expressed rattle around in here with no external analysis except for the odd tip rat journo.

Isn't that the case in any forum though, whether online or not? There's still a variety of opinions on a lot of subjects:
1 ruck v 2
Sweet or no Sweet
JUH/Schache
Pro v anti Bevo (plus the fence-sitters)
Covid
Federal election
Opposition clubs/supporters
etc, etc

It's like a discussion at the pub or at a bbq - I might discuss petrol prices/wages with several mates, none of us is an economist, and we don't invite Saul Eslake to sit down and provide feedback on our various opinions.

 

[maddog37]

Isn't that the case in any forum though, whether online or not? There's still a variety of opinions on a lot of subjects:
1 ruck v 2
Sweet or no Sweet
JUH/Schache
Pro v anti Bevo (plus the fence-sitters)
Covid
Federal election
Opposition clubs/supporters
etc, etc

It's like a discussion at the pub or at a bbq - I might discuss petrol prices/wages with several mates, none of us is an economist, and we don't invite Saul Eslake to sit down and provide feedback on our various opinions.

My response was to Mr Walkers post.

 

[maddog37]