And in soccer the defenders almost always outnumber the attacking players and all runs forward are marked.
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 6 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Danger Game Style 2011: Over the Back
- Thread starter RPNT
- Start date
- Tagged users None
And in soccer the defenders almost always outnumber the attacking players and all runs forward are marked.
If Al Clarkson is wanting to set up a soccer style defensive zone, well it is based around a Centre Back who contests the high ball coming in long and then a Sweeper who is always dropping in behind the rest of the backs.
When the team attacks the CB and Sweeper put up to the half way and flatten out trying to keep the pressure on the opposition. Soon as the ball is turned over, these 2 retreat to cover the rest of the defence.
U/12 soccer teams can work it out. Why can't Clarkson!!!!!!!!!
Footy teams have employed similar styles for years now.
If you look at Geelong, that CB is Taylor and the Sweeper is Scarlett.
Fletcher is Essendon's sweeper, Lake is the Dogs'.
The Hawks is...........?????.
Al???????????
When the team attacks the CB and Sweeper put up to the half way and flatten out trying to keep the pressure on the opposition. Soon as the ball is turned over, these 2 retreat to cover the rest of the defence.
U/12 soccer teams can work it out. Why can't Clarkson!!!!!!!!!
Footy teams have employed similar styles for years now.
If you look at Geelong, that CB is Taylor and the Sweeper is Scarlett.
Fletcher is Essendon's sweeper, Lake is the Dogs'.
The Hawks is...........?????.
Al???????????
Some good points here
It always worries me when I see 4 or 5 Hawks contesting one ball. It just leads to more handballs - and the more you handball the more chance of a fumble - and more congestion. So many times on Saturday there were 5 white jumpers in a 5m circle and the ball carrier has nobody to kick to so it's a 2m handball to the next player. It's been like that the past 2 years.
Good sides will send the minimum players in to get the ball, the rest peel off to receive - running ahead of the ball, not standing still backwards or sideways. Yes, you need good ball-getters to achieve this but we have those. The run has been a bit more evident in the Hawks preseason games but they are still handballing for handballs sake. How the hell can Roughie and Franklin lead when they have no idea who will dispose of the ball and when?
It always worries me when I see 4 or 5 Hawks contesting one ball. It just leads to more handballs - and the more you handball the more chance of a fumble - and more congestion. So many times on Saturday there were 5 white jumpers in a 5m circle and the ball carrier has nobody to kick to so it's a 2m handball to the next player. It's been like that the past 2 years.
Good sides will send the minimum players in to get the ball, the rest peel off to receive - running ahead of the ball, not standing still backwards or sideways. Yes, you need good ball-getters to achieve this but we have those. The run has been a bit more evident in the Hawks preseason games but they are still handballing for handballs sake. How the hell can Roughie and Franklin lead when they have no idea who will dispose of the ball and when?
The true value of the Guerra - Gilham - Murphy FB line.
All 3 read the play very well, and controlled the zone. Hodge takes it to another level entirely. Ellis is another who's shown an ability to influence the zone.
Guerra, Hodge, Murphy and Ellis were missing, and Gilham played on an assortment of players upfield, with Gibson and Stratton the two deeper defenders.
With Stratton emeging as the "key" defender, and Gibson the #2, Gilham's responsibility has changed from being the lynch-pin of the zone defence, to a part. Neither Stratton nor Gibson control other players as well as Gibson.
The two players that spent most of the time on point where Bruce and Suckling.
Suckling doesn't control the zone as well as Guerra or (obviously) Hodge. Mitchell can, but doesn't provide the defensive cover. From what I saw Bruce doesn't yet comprehend what that role entails. His focus was on his own game (perhaps due to how poor it was), rather than contributing to (and leading) the overall defensive formation
It's very much a specialised position, and entails a lot more than just yelling for blokes to cover the opposition runners. Being able to contort the zone's structure according to where the ball is, who's in possession, and where the opposition runners are moving requires a great deal of football intelligence.
I doubt Gilham will overtake either Gibson or Stratton now, so it might be reliant on Guerra and Hodge gaining fitness, and/or Murphy and Gilham playing as 3rd/4th defenders.
Or, it could be as simple as those blokes (Hodge, Murphy, Guerra, Gilham, Ellis) have spent 50+ games playing the zone, whilst Stratton, Gibson, Suckling, Bruce have spent <10.
All 3 read the play very well, and controlled the zone. Hodge takes it to another level entirely. Ellis is another who's shown an ability to influence the zone.
Guerra, Hodge, Murphy and Ellis were missing, and Gilham played on an assortment of players upfield, with Gibson and Stratton the two deeper defenders.
With Stratton emeging as the "key" defender, and Gibson the #2, Gilham's responsibility has changed from being the lynch-pin of the zone defence, to a part. Neither Stratton nor Gibson control other players as well as Gibson.
The two players that spent most of the time on point where Bruce and Suckling.
Suckling doesn't control the zone as well as Guerra or (obviously) Hodge. Mitchell can, but doesn't provide the defensive cover. From what I saw Bruce doesn't yet comprehend what that role entails. His focus was on his own game (perhaps due to how poor it was), rather than contributing to (and leading) the overall defensive formation
It's very much a specialised position, and entails a lot more than just yelling for blokes to cover the opposition runners. Being able to contort the zone's structure according to where the ball is, who's in possession, and where the opposition runners are moving requires a great deal of football intelligence.
I doubt Gilham will overtake either Gibson or Stratton now, so it might be reliant on Guerra and Hodge gaining fitness, and/or Murphy and Gilham playing as 3rd/4th defenders.
Or, it could be as simple as those blokes (Hodge, Murphy, Guerra, Gilham, Ellis) have spent 50+ games playing the zone, whilst Stratton, Gibson, Suckling, Bruce have spent <10.
This is the thing we don't seem to have the hard runners like we did in '08 , guys like Crawford, Young, Bateman, Osbourne, Ladson, Birchall have fallen away for what ever reason ( retirement, form, injury, confidence, played out of position). I love them dearly for what they achieved in '08 , BUT they have lost there zip in the last 2 yrs. We lost Hooper and Peterson who gave us some zip last year.
We need to get the next group of players come through quickly, Savage, Shiels, Isaac Smith, Puopolo, we need fresh legs to accommodate the players mentioned or we are going to miss the boat.
Winged Fang
Debutant
It's early days, so I'm not panicking just yet.
I understand that in today's footy, every team has to have a 'structure' and a 'game plan'. It seems to be the main factor in how a team performs over a season, and indeed what has won the last few premierships.
However, I still reckon we have the most talented list, with the most instinctive players in the comp. Rioli, Buddy, Burgoyne, Roughead, Stratton, Young, etc. When you look at these guys play, you know what they are best at, what their ideal role is and you hope that they just play their natural game because more often than not, they'll come out on top. I just feel that the Hawks have a game plan that is so stringent, that it doesn't allow these guys to play the way they grew up playing thereby curtailing their natural abilities, forcing them into decisions they are not used to.
This was no more evident than last year, when after our horror 1-6 start, we then finished off the year 12-3 - the best in the comp for the last 15 rounds. We need to look at why we were able to do this, and match (and beat) the best in the comp. I believe it was because we threw caution to the wind a lot more than we do when trying to stick to a very strict game plan.
By all means, have a game plan, but allow flexibility!
PS. and agree with most that our defence when opposition is rebounding needs to improve - basic stuff.
I understand that in today's footy, every team has to have a 'structure' and a 'game plan'. It seems to be the main factor in how a team performs over a season, and indeed what has won the last few premierships.
However, I still reckon we have the most talented list, with the most instinctive players in the comp. Rioli, Buddy, Burgoyne, Roughead, Stratton, Young, etc. When you look at these guys play, you know what they are best at, what their ideal role is and you hope that they just play their natural game because more often than not, they'll come out on top. I just feel that the Hawks have a game plan that is so stringent, that it doesn't allow these guys to play the way they grew up playing thereby curtailing their natural abilities, forcing them into decisions they are not used to.
This was no more evident than last year, when after our horror 1-6 start, we then finished off the year 12-3 - the best in the comp for the last 15 rounds. We need to look at why we were able to do this, and match (and beat) the best in the comp. I believe it was because we threw caution to the wind a lot more than we do when trying to stick to a very strict game plan.
By all means, have a game plan, but allow flexibility!
PS. and agree with most that our defence when opposition is rebounding needs to improve - basic stuff.
With the bench now down to three players, it's not just hard runners, it's hard runners that can run hard for four quarters. Smith in particular is a player that probably hasn't been in the system long enough to be able to do that.
Paul Roos said on The Couch that he's never seen so many sides look so knackered late in the game(s). Managing rotations and finding ways to rest players is more important than ever.
I understand the training focus has been tweaked to try to produce more stamina and less aerobic burst capacity. Really don't know if that has more affect on younger players and less on older players whose body is used to a particular training regime over the years. Perhaps we should do high-altitude training like Wobblers.
It will take time for coaches and sides to sort out how best to deal with the new rules and their cunning new plans. No point screaming for wholesale changes after one game.
- Dec 31, 2008
- 1,137
- 1,274
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Golden State Warriors,Chicago Bulls
Really good question - if we are prepared to sacrifice his input elsewhere, the answer is simple: LUKE HODGE.
His move to defence, ability to direct traffic and plug the holes by seeing what others don't is a major reason as to why we won it all in 2008.
Sadly I don't have a second option for you, Ellis / Bruce / Birchall may all offer something in this area, even Guerra but do they read the play and kill off any ground or air ball the way Hodge does?
Gilham reads the play well, but does he have the pace and he is needed to cover a man, ditto with Gibbo...
AudiR8dreamer
Rookie
What worries me the most is I still think we try to make our game plan too complicated. Football isn't rocket science, so don't try to make it like it is. Here's what I'd like to see to exploit our forward talent and limit exposure in defense:
Forward line:
Only Franklin & Roughead in our F50 at all times (or whoever rotates with them), and they lead in different directions to create one-on-one contests. This creates great open space for them to work in. When the ball is in our D50, they stay in the F50 for any fast rebound - we did this in 2008 with great success. If the opposition adds a 3rd defender to double team either of them, place our spare player to roam at the top of the F50 arc.
Defense:
At least 3 defenders stay on the defensive side of the center square at all times and man-on-man, even when we have a full court press into our forward half. And under no circumstances does an opposition forward stay unmanned in our D50 - never. If there is to be congestion anywhere on the field, it's in our defense, not our forward line.
Midfield:
Not much change needed here. We have great talent. Having an open forward line as suggested will improve the midfielders' passing, as there'll be less precision needed to avoid loads of defenders.
There - simple.
Forward line:
Only Franklin & Roughead in our F50 at all times (or whoever rotates with them), and they lead in different directions to create one-on-one contests. This creates great open space for them to work in. When the ball is in our D50, they stay in the F50 for any fast rebound - we did this in 2008 with great success. If the opposition adds a 3rd defender to double team either of them, place our spare player to roam at the top of the F50 arc.
Defense:
At least 3 defenders stay on the defensive side of the center square at all times and man-on-man, even when we have a full court press into our forward half. And under no circumstances does an opposition forward stay unmanned in our D50 - never. If there is to be congestion anywhere on the field, it's in our defense, not our forward line.
Midfield:
Not much change needed here. We have great talent. Having an open forward line as suggested will improve the midfielders' passing, as there'll be less precision needed to avoid loads of defenders.
There - simple.
Just because we only have two blokes there, doesn't mean the opposition will only have two. Indeed with Franklin and Roughead down there, there will always be at LEAST 3 defenders - more likely 5-6. The challenge then is to make our unmarked players dangerous. Whilst we go to Franklin 70% of the time, that's where the defenders will position themselves.
.....
The easiest kick out of congestion is to a stationary target. The hardest is to spot up a team-mate.
Goalposts don't move.
......
That's the theoretical underpinning behind clogging up our forwardline, and leaving the defense vacant.
When the defensive zone (cluster) holds it shape, and is controlled properly by those at the back (2-3 of Guerra, Gilham, Hodge, Murphy normally) it works very well. When those controlling the zone aren't as competent/experienced (Suckling, Gibson, Stratton) the cluster is less effective.
.....
The easiest kick out of congestion is to a stationary target. The hardest is to spot up a team-mate.
Goalposts don't move.
......
That's the theoretical underpinning behind clogging up our forwardline, and leaving the defense vacant.
When the defensive zone (cluster) holds it shape, and is controlled properly by those at the back (2-3 of Guerra, Gilham, Hodge, Murphy normally) it works very well. When those controlling the zone aren't as competent/experienced (Suckling, Gibson, Stratton) the cluster is less effective.
SPOT ON!! Playing Melbourne late last year, if it wasn't for the rain, they would have ran over the top in the final qtr...this week is a real danger game...Melb are very quick and fit...
Nesbit - considering the depth we now have in midfield, especially in terms of inside players (Mitch, Sewell, Burgoyne, Lewis, Shiels) do you think we can now afford to send Hodge back to control the back half? Especially with him needing to be eased back following his injury?
Reading your posts in this thread it appears in order for our game plan to work, we need a general in the back half. Personally I can't think of anyone better - we saw on Saturday night that with Mitch, Sewell and Burgoyne in the middle we have the clearance fire power we need.
I thinl that was always the intention of burgoynes recruitment - a clearance player with the speed/disposal to play alongside mitch and sewell, allowing hodge to be used fulltime in a defensive role.
Bruces biggest asset is his endurance, playing as a tight hbf doesn't make any use of that asset. Would much prefer he was used as a tagger or 'run all day' wingman like lewis (and previously bateman) do.
Bruces biggest asset is his endurance, playing as a tight hbf doesn't make any use of that asset. Would much prefer he was used as a tagger or 'run all day' wingman like lewis (and previously bateman) do.
- Banned
- #39
Lets just send a memo to all teams asking if they could kindly allow Buddy, Roughy and Cyril to be allowed to have just one opponent each in our F50.
Maybe then some of the tactics suggested on here might work.
Seriously the football IQ in here is at an all time low.
Maybe then some of the tactics suggested on here might work.
Seriously the football IQ in here is at an all time low.
Instead we let the opposition run into an open forward line with only Gilham, Gibson and Stratton on the defensive side of half way. Sure the opposition is not going to give that to the Hawks but why the %^$# are we giving it to them?
See post #35 QuietB.
Im not going to try and come up with a game plan, because im not an AFL coach and have never played AFL football.
But we all saw the big holes show up in our game plan last weekend.
You know why?
Because our kicking % was at 47%! I dont care if we have the best game plan going around if our kicking precentage is that low, we lose every single time. (Wet weather football excluded)
Get our kicking percentage up, to around 60-70% this weekend.
We will win.
But we all saw the big holes show up in our game plan last weekend.
You know why?
Because our kicking % was at 47%! I dont care if we have the best game plan going around if our kicking precentage is that low, we lose every single time. (Wet weather football excluded)
Get our kicking percentage up, to around 60-70% this weekend.
We will win.
I dont particularly disagree with what you are saying in post 35. But, I think we all agree that if Buddy and Rough were left in the forward 50 with only 2 defenders then they would completely dominate - probably kick 100 goals a year each.
So, why do we give the opposition that much space?
The space is fine if there aere no oposition players in it, but when there are opposition players filling this space we need to mark them. If that means pulling players out of the zone then so be it. As you noted, this is probably where need a general like Hodge organising things.
I am sure opposition coaches are exploiting this part of Hawthorn's game. I agree that it happens to all sides but opposition clubs seem to score an aweful lot of easy goals against the Hawks, Geelong in particular and Port Adelaide always give us trouble with the same thing.
One issue with our zone is that so many of our mids and defenders are poor overhead + are not quick/can't adjust quickly enough.
While it may have worked when we had a tactical advantage in 2008 when the zone was new, teams now train to break through zones.
Its not that the zone doesn't work just other teams execute it as a strategy as well as us but our players aren't suited to it.
What we are trying to do this year is re-invent the wheel, to regain a tactical advantage. But obviously when you are tryng to be innovative you are taking risks - and when things don't work you look silly.
But essentially what AC is trying to do is give us a gameplan that wins us a premiership. No top 8, not top 4 not grand finalists, but a premiership. We could copy everyone else gameplan but its unlikely to get us the flag. Our list is okay - but a long way off being so superior to everyone else that tactics don't really matter.
While it may have worked when we had a tactical advantage in 2008 when the zone was new, teams now train to break through zones.
Its not that the zone doesn't work just other teams execute it as a strategy as well as us but our players aren't suited to it.
What we are trying to do this year is re-invent the wheel, to regain a tactical advantage. But obviously when you are tryng to be innovative you are taking risks - and when things don't work you look silly.
But essentially what AC is trying to do is give us a gameplan that wins us a premiership. No top 8, not top 4 not grand finalists, but a premiership. We could copy everyone else gameplan but its unlikely to get us the flag. Our list is okay - but a long way off being so superior to everyone else that tactics don't really matter.
PeeRod
Senior List
I cringed every time the Crows went on a counter attack in the fourth quarter. Every time the switch across the ground into an open forward line killed us.
Im not too concerned though. There isnt any point over analysing the first game.
Im not too concerned though. There isnt any point over analysing the first game.
crazywildhorse
Brownlow Medallist
Agreed. The hawks of 08 were all about kicking accuracy. That's why they recruited all the left footers. Clarkson obviously thinks that is the greatest strength and structures around this.
Having said that I wonder if like 2010 there might come a radical change in the middle of the season. With the chess game of coaching you have to have some stuff hidden up your sleeve. That is part of what happened to Footscray last year people knew where to hit em in the end. I also wonder if Clarko gets the team to flex and relax on purpose. Even in the pre season we saw one ordinary half (first half against Melb and WCE) and one good half.
AudiR8dreamer
Rookie
I claim that boils down to being tired in the second half. We weren't Robinson Crusoe there. Bumblebees had better fitness, also our zone a bit short. I'll say again, we should have used more seasoned players like Guerra and Ellis, no matter what others have to hysterically say. We could/should have put games into less experienced players against lesser teams in the next three rounds.
Spilt milk. Time to tweak the game plan till we meet Geelong but no team will be easy this year, except for GC.
- Mar 23, 2007
- 34,932
- 23,542
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Man U, Canucks and 49ers
Clarkson was definitely out coached tactically.
It would also appear that he got our rotations wrong again, with our best mids all running out of puff at 3/4 time.
Finally, he potentially got the sub decision wrong again too. Whitecross seems to be the kind of bloke that is a good sub if you lose a player in the first quarter, but not a good sub if you want a guy to make an impact in the final quarter.
From what I saw in round 1, it seems may be better off with a more explosive sub player that can have a real influence and get you across the line in the tight ones.
It would also appear that he got our rotations wrong again, with our best mids all running out of puff at 3/4 time.
Finally, he potentially got the sub decision wrong again too. Whitecross seems to be the kind of bloke that is a good sub if you lose a player in the first quarter, but not a good sub if you want a guy to make an impact in the final quarter.
From what I saw in round 1, it seems may be better off with a more explosive sub player that can have a real influence and get you across the line in the tight ones.
Totally agree with whoever started this thread.
Those goals out the back lost us the game. We could have been 6 goals up at half time. Got to learn from that because the great teams will be even better at breaking that press.
Those goals out the back lost us the game. We could have been 6 goals up at half time. Got to learn from that because the great teams will be even better at breaking that press.
Similar threads
