Analysis Do we have a kick in problem?

[Masked Magician]

Our kick-in game has two flaws, but our biggest failing IMO is the way we allow opposition teams to exit with ease.

Our inability to defend opposition kick-ins has been a glaring weakness for too long. We routinely allow an uncontested mark at half-back, and from there, the opposition waltzes up the ground with barely any resistance, at worst forcing a contest on the wing. It’s been a persistent issue, with teams easily finding a release option and playing on without us laying a glove on them, giving opponents an easy out time and time again.

Meanwhile, when we take the kick-ins, we seem to lack the same fluidity—often settling for a predictable long bomb down the line, playing straight into the opposition’s hands. There’s little creativity or movement to generate a clean exit, and more often than not, we’re left scrambling after a 50/50 contest. As a side note, Darcy Moore should not be entrusted with the kick-ins; his strengths lie elsewhere. The job should belong to Dan Houston or Jeremy Howe.

So the question asked is, do we have a kick in problem?

 

[Dtennent94]

I don’t know if it’s just our bias, but I see the same thing.

They seem to want Houston, Josh and Nick up the ground ready to be involved in chains when the ball inevitably hits the deck rather than out of position taking the kick outs for the odd chance that they can nail something that Moore/Howe couldn’t.

It’s obviously a field-position thing and they want to keep Moore and Howe deep in case they need to defend 5 seconds later.

 

[Ugene41]

I don’t know if it’s just our bias, but I see the same thing.

They seem to want Houston, Josh and Nick up the ground ready to be involved in chains when the ball inevitably hits the deck rather than out of position taking the kick outs for the odd chance that they can nail something that Moore/Howe couldn’t.

It’s obviously a field-position thing and they want to keep Moore and Howe deep in case they need to defend 5 seconds later.

If we need to defend 5 seconds later it's because of a direct turnover. In that scenario Moore/Howe aren't going to be able to do much.

We should be having Houston/Daicos take the kick ins to reduce the chances of that direct turnover.

 

[manicpie]

I'm not having a go but I don't see an issue with our kick ins. Every side has their system. I think we kick to the boundary in order to get the opposition structures to move away from their set up at kick ins. This allows us to to create space further up the ground. We play a risky but very attacking brand

 

[Masked Magician]

I'm not having a go but I don't see an issue with our kick ins. Every side has their system. I think we kick to the boundary in order to get the opposition structures to move away from their set up at kick ins. This allows us to to create space further up the ground. We play a risky but very attacking brand

What about defending kick ins

 

[manicpie]

What about defending kick ins

As long as sides aren't going Coast to Coast after every kick in, it's not an issue.

 

[FAIRANDBALANCED]

Yes we do. I think we are allowing the first kick around the defensive 50 to free up some space in our fwd line, but then the next kick needs to be well defended. So far this year that first kick just opens our entire team defence completely and teams rip through us too easily.

 

[jimmy35]

Yes. Feel the same thing every week.

 

[domus]

Our kick-in game has two flaws, but our biggest failing IMO is the way we allow opposition teams to exit with ease.

Our inability to defend opposition kick-ins has been a glaring weakness for too long. We routinely allow an uncontested mark at half-back, and from there, the opposition waltzes up the ground with barely any resistance, at worst forcing a contest on the wing. It’s been a persistent issue, with teams easily finding a release option and playing on without us laying a glove on them, giving opponents an easy out time and time again.

Meanwhile, when we take the kick-ins, we seem to lack the same fluidity—often settling for a predictable long bomb down the line, playing straight into the opposition’s hands. There’s little creativity or movement to generate a clean exit, and more often than not, we’re left scrambling after a 50/50 contest. As a side note, Darcy Moore should not be entrusted with the kick-ins; his strengths lie elsewhere. The job should belong to Dan Houston or Jeremy Howe.

So the question asked is, do we have a kick in problem?

Spot on. Their exits were far too easy all night. They were on the wing in seconds from almost every kick in.

 

[Pie thon]

You are spot on. My group at the game were all complaining about this too, and how repetitive it is each week.
We all agreed that it's a fair tactic to allow an easy first kick to open up our 50 for our next entry in. But we defended the 2nd kick out to the wing poorly. And the dogs were able to move it into their 50 quite a few times without us being able to get numbers back to outnumber the dogs and made us very vulnerable to shots on goal.
I suppose it is something that can easily be addressed and make us better.
A part of me feels like it's bait by Fly to mislead opposition planning tactics going into big games or finals to kill them on turnovers in those spots as we tend to lift better than other clubs in big games.

 

[sideswipe]

Best kick in the team is Houston, hardly a wild thought to use him? Back to the Leon Davis days wo was the best in the business.

It's nearly always a case of who is nearby.

 

[manicmagpie]

It was certainly a glaring problem against the Dogs, who basically got the ball past half way on every kick in with no difficulty, while we struggled to move past 60 metres.

On a related topic: what's the deal with Collingwood exclusively using the Northern wing for kick outs? It's odd that we always use it, no matter which end we're kicking to. Can't help us that the opposition would know this as well.

 

[thommo_legend]

Yeah I noticed the same thing, we were willing to give them a wide kick to the 40m mark and on a number of occasions it was Gallagher from the dogs taking the mark with no one around him.

 

[Kirby]

Did the Dogs even score from one of their kick ins?

I can't remember one fluent play that they made from a kick in that we didn't interupt. If I'm wrong please let me know.

We definitely let them have the easy first kick to the pocket uncontested, but this then limited them to a bomb to the wing. We never let them switch. We seemed to be happy with that.

On several occasions Fly has said that statistically kick ins a a very poor source of scores.

 

[Kirby]

My guess if that by setting our zone back when they kick in is that it crowds the wing/midfield and opens up our forward line if they turn it over.

 

[Vankri]

My guess if that by setting our zone back when they kick in is that it crowds the wing/midfield and opens up our forward line if they turn it over.

That’s my read too. Every team has to decide how high they press and at which point they switch from zone defence to man on man.

We purposely let them advance last Friday but as a result had a crowded D50 which helped. I assume it was because we were worried about tall match ups and needed to push numbers back.

I didn’t think it allowed them to score much, wasn’t really how they got their goals but someone with access to advanced stats would be able to check scoring avenues (defensive chain and kick ins from them).

 

[sr36]

Did the Dogs even score from one of their kick ins?

I can't remember one fluent play that they made from a kick in that we didn't interupt. If I'm wrong please let me know.

We definitely let them have the easy first kick to the pocket uncontested, but this then limited them to a bomb to the wing. We never let them switch. We seemed to be happy with that.

On several occasions Fly has said that statistically kick ins a a very poor source of scores.

Yeah I'm not seeing the negative outcomes. In fact the only negative outcome I saw from kick ins was from what people seem to want - Houston taking a rare kick in and turning it over with an attacking option that turned it over in a really dangerous spot and led to a goal. The goal scoring percentages our way aren't there for taking the attacking targets out of defence.

And in terms of defending kick ins - we're probably in a slightly better position to both defend inside 50 if the zone is set deeper and due to the extra space inside 50 attack the goals if the big contest from their kick in is on the wing rather than at high half back.

I just think it's a non-issue.

 

[nahnah]

Totally agree, we seem to give up a 40 metre kick up a boundary every time. This is ok if it’s short to pocket to keep them cornered in but we are giving up a longish kick every time and they then seem to be able to run as well

 

[Masked Magician]

It was certainly a glaring problem against the Dogs, who basically got the ball past half way on every kick in with no difficulty, while we struggled to move past 60 metres.

On a related topic: what's the deal with Collingwood exclusively using the Northern wing for kick outs? It's odd that we always use it, no matter which end we're kicking to. Can't help us that the opposition would know this as well.

To get rotations/interchanges done