Strategy Does Geelong play 'dumb' football?

[Pollywaffle]

Before you guys sharpen the knives let me explain the 'hook'
Other teams. Particularly Hawks, Swans, Freo, maybe Port and North seem to have several plans/ game styles that they implement to suit various scenarios. In retrospect, other than throwing Taylor forward, or putting Blitz into different positions, we seem rather stilted in our gamestyle, allowing other teams to get the better of us more regularly than would have happened in the past.
A function of having less reactive/versatile/switched on players on the park or a symptom of tired and outdated coaching styles?

 

[Partridge]

Before you guys sharpen the knives let me explain the 'hook'
Other teams. Particularly Hawks, Swans, Freo, maybe Port and North seem to have several plans/ game styles that they implement to suit various scenarios. In retrospect, other than throwing Taylor forward, or putting Blitz into different positions, we seem rather stilted in our gamestyle, allowing other teams to get the better of us more regularly than would have happened in the past.
A function of having less reactive/versatile/switched on players on the park or a symptom of tired and outdated coaching styles?

Probably both. Also add players who aren't physically able to implement the plans as well as possible, either due to wear and tear (the veterans), or not quite being seasoned enough (the youngsters).

We do seem to lack tactical flexibility though. Throwing Taylor forward (mostly in desperation) is the only move Scott has. Even then, it's a move that is seemingly applauded because it demonstrates perceived versatility, as opposed to actually helping us win the game.

 

[JUBJUB]

 

[Bobby_]

Probably both. Also add players who aren't physically able to implement the plans as well as possible, either due to wear and tear (the veterans), or not quite being seasoned enough (the youngsters).

We do seem to lack tactical flexibility though. Throwing Taylor forward (mostly in desperation) is the only move Scott has. Even then, it's a move that is seemingly applauded because it demonstrates perceived versatility, as opposed to actually helping us win the game.

spot on there.
I know it evolves so quickly and you can get caught out trying to relate older seasons but I think many of our best players that went on to become premiership players were aged about 24/25. Only a couple whom you consider 'freaks' (Ablett, Johnson, Selwood) were able to mix it with men from a very early age.
Like you say above, implementing the game plan when your tired and fatigued is what separates the good times from the rest, unless you also have a really shit coaching staff.

When you watched North Melbourne's older & seasoned midfield break down our younger midfield, it was evidently clear how much more work they need to do in order to match it with those teams both physically and mentally. GHS, Murdoch, Caddy, Guthrie will learn a lot from this years finals appearances and you hope they are driven enough to hit the training early to come out bigger and stronger next year.

 

[Glassjaw]

Even then, it's a move that is seemingly applauded because it demonstrates perceived versatility, as opposed to actually helping us win the game.

It's never done anything other than weaken our backline, and never will. Dreadful move. I don't count a couple bags against cellar dwellers in floggings.

 

[CharacterFirst]

Only when we lose.

 

[you pick one]

I said somewhere in another thread we had the wrong game plan for the age demographics of the current side,the players are just not up to it under the blow torch of good sides.

 

[Baudolino]

We do seem to lack tactical flexibility though.

Tactical and structural inflexibility definitely hurt us big-time this year, in a number of key areas. There were many examples of this, but to cite just one, I think it's fair to say that the stubborn refusal to change our backline structure caused us unneeded problems and basically resulted in us failing to capitalise on one of our biggest strengths. Before the Gold Coast game in Round 14, I wrote this:

I want Rivers to come in this week due to the height of the Gold Coast forwards, but broadly speaking, over the rest of the season I would like to see some willingness on the MC's part to compromise on their rigid adherence to the ultra-tall backline structure. Rivers' presence gives us the luxury of more options than our rivals and a fairly unique point of difference to the rest of the competition - we have three outstanding tall defenders at our disposal, all with different strengths and weaknesses - but the MC's inflexibility means we're not exploiting that advantage by adjusting our tactics and structures to suit different opposition. There are some weeks when going in with all three of Taylor, Lonergan and Rivers is not only unnecessary, but totally self-defeating.

Now, as I said, this is only the one example, but I think it's indicative of the broader problem you're alluding to.

 

[Baudolino]

I said somewhere in another thread we had the wrong game plan for the age demographics of the current side,the players are just not up to it under the blow torch of good sides.

Interesting. Can you elaborate on what you mean by this?

 

[catempire]

Flags are generally won by the team that either implements the dominant prevailing strategy of the time with greatest effect (this year will be an example) or is able to get ahead of the curve and catch others off guard with a strategy that is hard to play against until it is worked out (Pagan's paddock, Thompson's high possession 2007-09 style, Clarko's cluster, etc).

Not too many flags spring to mind where a team has drastically changed its strategy mid game or season. Someone will probably put one forward...

Both of the above scenarios require a very well-drilled team, pretty much always reasonably experienced (not too old or young), that has played together for a decent amount of time and is well coached.

I don't think Geelong plays dumb footy. They are just, at this stage at least, falling short in too many of the above elements. Particularly, as you pick one points out, in the age demographic department.

 

[dazbroncos]

Probably both. Also add players who aren't physically able to implement the plans as well as possible, either due to wear and tear (the veterans), or not quite being seasoned enough (the youngsters).

We do seem to lack tactical flexibility though. Throwing Taylor forward (mostly in desperation) is the only move Scott has. Even then, it's a move that is seemingly applauded because it demonstrates perceived versatility, as opposed to actually helping us win the game.

So given we had effectively no #1 ruck, aging players and inexperienced youngsters, what game plan would you or anyone else have administered to solve the issues?

Bringing in more youth? Would add pace but not necessarily ability under pressure. Im curious as to what changes in game plan could have been effected with what we had to work with.

We had no ability to win hit outs. We had to play off the contest.

Our mids then had to react. Same with the rebound footy. Had to bank on winning off HB. Rather we win at the contest originally suer but if you don't have all the pieces…

Im not taking the piss or trying to be difficult but given the constraints we had, other than playing younger guys… what could have been done?

Go Catters

 

[Roadie]

I wouldn't call it dumb football. Naive football perhaps.

 

[you pick one]

Interesting. Can you elaborate on what you mean by this?

We press as hard as any team in the comp,but we are trying to do it with at one end of the scale clapped out body's or at the other end players who have yet to get the miles into their legs and we are getting caught out by good running teams going both ways.
Have a look at how easy teams run the ball out of our forward line and on the other hand how many times we now win the ball deep back with absolutely no one to go to ahead of the ball carrier.
May be this year if we can settle the CHF position and get one no1 ruckman on the paddock we will be able to change things up a bit,we don't need Hawkins to be pushing up to the centre of the ground and beyond to be the marking target for kick ins from full back.
In short we need to get away from trying to play 2008 football with 2001 skills.

 

[Teriyakicat]

It's never done anything other than weaken our backline, and never will. Dreadful move. I don't count a couple bags against cellar dwellers in floggings.

Agree- clutters up our forward line, leaves a big hole in the backline that good opposition use to drive a semi through. Why take away the best defensive/rebounding player we have?

 

[Teriyakicat]

Tactical and structural inflexibility definitely hurt us big-time this year, in a number of key areas. Before the Gold Coast game in Round 14, I wrote this:

I agree with what you wrote in your pre-GC game post. I do agree with you on the fact that the three tall backmen sometimes seemed one too many, though I actually did think that we were on the way to working out something to deal with the small forwards that cut us up in 2013- as our problems with them this year didn't seem to be as bad. Also we managed to quell the influence of dominant ruckmen somewhat- we really only lost the clearance count badly against Freo and Port, games in which we were belted in the ruck. Several games (North, Bris, for example) in which we lost the hitouts badly, we managed to either win the clearances or not be too far off the count.
We didn't seem to have a pile of goals kicked against us at stoppages in the opposition 50- something we struggled with last year.

So I did see several improvements when comparing 2014 to 2013- but we were really hurt as much by injury to important players as anything structural this year.

Still wondering why we didn't play Walker earlier....

 

[Beth]

If dumb was the plan then mission accomplished!

 

[The rabbi]

So given we had effectively no #1 ruck, aging players and inexperienced youngsters, what game plan would you or anyone else have administered to solve the issues?

Bringing in more youth? Would add pace but not necessarily ability under pressure. Im curious as to what changes in game plan could have been effected with what we had to work with.

We had no ability to win hit outs. We had to play off the contest.

Our mids then had to react. Same with the rebound footy. Had to bank on winning off HB. Rather we win at the contest originally sure but if you don't have all the pieces…

Im not taking the piss or trying to be difficult but given the constraints we had, other than playing younger guys… what could have been done?

Go Catters

I would like to see an answer to Dazza's question above.

 

[Whit3y]

if bombing it too hawkins 3 on 1 is dumb then yes

at least it seems we have gotten rid of the habit of kicking it to stokes 1 on 1

 

[DV2000]

Only when we lose.

...or when we blow massive leads and nearly lose to crap opposition.

 

[CatAttack84]

I've been calling it arrogant football. In the sense that "no matter what happens, our game plan will work, we'll find a way to win".

I'd hope that would end after the Sydney thumping. Nope, was so wrong, didn't end, hence why our season is over.

 

[Spemonie]

I was going to make a tread about our game plan and where I think where we went wrong, but ill post it here. I think where we went wrong is that we have become to conservative and therefore our ball movement is slow. We need to go back to risk football. The style that won us 3 premierships and almost another last year. When the game is on the line that is when we take more risks. We take a chance to win because if you loose by 1 goal or 2 it doesn't matter. Look at when we were smashing the Hawks. We take some risks at the start and once we have the lead we get to conservative. Same with North. When we had nothing to loose we went all out risk football down the middle and almost stole the game. I think when we take more risks we make better decisions too, because it ads more pressure not to stuff up.

Like in stoppages I noticed when we are conservative we stay too defensive and not run onto the ball in case we get caught past it, and I think that's why our stats aren't great ruck wise. I think our rucks just don't offer enough around the ground.

Also when we take risks that's when we get the ball to Hawkins while he is one on one. Like I said we get too conservative and slow that little bit down that he gets double teamed

 

[you pick one]

I would like to see an answer to Dazza's question above.

I'll try and answer that from my perspective,given the fade outs were there even from very early on in the season and when we still had ruckmen I'd have thought it's one of a few things fitness, structure/game plan or may be a mixture of the lot.Righ from day one, no hind sight here I was calling for us to play a CHF a must IMO and it's no secret my choice was Walker (a competitor in the air}two marking targets inside 50 allows you a chance to change the tempo of the game you can slow things down you can sling shot therefore conserving energy instead of the manic throw caution to the wind gung ho run out of stream method we employed to get in behind the defenders to score, looks great but saps the energy -energy we couldn't sustain for 4 quarters and if you turn it over you get scored against heavily
Now would it have worked/made a diference who knows but we pay people who are much more talented than me to come up with answers and all we got was we know there is a problem it will be right by finals time,I don't remember them trying anything.Just once I'd have liked to have said Jesus that worked,I wonder whose idea that was.

 

[Heckler]

Maybe not dumb: Definitely uninspired.
Being hamstrung by injuries should have made the coach dig into his bag of tricks
Try something new, Shake things up. Do something.
Instead we got the same old. same old.
Sometimes a coach can have too much faith is his players.
Making him reluctant to make moves.
There was a reluctance to move a player from a settled defence
to fill a glaring hole up forward,
We could have tried Mackie, Rivers and Taylor forward
The potential benefits were:-
Found a fix for our forward issues.
Provided a new challenge for jaded, underperforming players
A chance to bring in youngsters to our back line to get experience.
Our approach and solution to problems seems simplistic
Instead of making things happen, we relied on hope.
We hoped our fading stars would not dim
We hoped unfit players would perform well (smelts, bundy, stevieJ Motts Hmac Simpson)
We hoped a youngster would solve the problem at CHF and small forward.
We hoped Tomahawk would save the day alone
Our forward pressure was no existent, teams waltzed out of our forward half.
We chose to play reactive not proactive football
While Sydney Hawthorn Port played aggressive attacking footy
We played conservative and went defensive
Our best forwards Stevie and Stokes played midfield.
We stifled our dash, creativity and flair.
Did we play our best? NO!
Could we have played a lot better? YES!
Did we do dumb things? YES!

We are smart we will learn from our mistakes address the issues.

 

[UnitedWarrior93]

Yes, I always say to myself while watching us, "God we play dumb footy".

I look at hawthorn as the best example, not a team full of stars, but a team that knows their role and execute it week after week. From 2007-2011 we played awesome footy, but since then I've been left to wonder "what's our game plan exactly?".

In the end the mix of younger guys and older guys with not many in between is most likely the reason for this.

 

[you pick one]

Yes, I always say to myself while watching us, "God we play dumb footy".

I look at hawthorn as the best example, not a team full of stars, but a team that knows their role and execute it week after week. From 2007-2011 we played awesome footy, but since then I've been left to wonder "what's our game plan exactly?".

In the end the mix of younger guys and older guys with not many in between is most likely the reason for this.

Keep it to yourself but it go straight through the centre of the ground, kick it to Tommy,the other sides will never work it out.