Strategy Does Geelong play 'dumb' football?

[Jimmy Yamazaki]

Was going to start a thread on this, but yes, If anyone pays attention to my posts, I've mentioned many times we play a brand of footy that won't win a GF.

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.

Lose the clearances in the center and turn it over in the back-line, trying to catch the opposition "running forward".

Risky, because it it pays off it should lead to a score (if disposal is clean) if not then we get placed under enormous pressure in our back-line. If disposal is poor or we over-posse it (which tends to happen a lot against the top teams) then it is a guaranteed i50 for our the opposition.

I actually believe both Pies and Hawks play similar, however Pies are like us because they have shit disposal skills at times.

Hawks it works because they have elite kicking skills so once they turn it over, it's easier for them to spread into space and mark the ball and move it quickly. (because of course a ball moves quicker off a kick then watching Geelong players hand balling it around to each other) which opens up their fwd-line.

To me, this game plan requires to have a back 6 that is always "on" If not then it's going to be hard to win. The rest of the team sits in position waiting for the turn over.

Pies fell away later in the year because the back 6 was too inexperienced to execute this plan effectively. (then of course they got injuries)

the other issue is it's very hard to lock it into our fwd 50 and you also tend to play "bruise free" footy.

 

[Lana]

Was going to start a thread on this, but yes, If anyone pays attention to my posts, I've mentioned many times we play a brand of footy that won't win a GF.



Lose the clearances in the center and turn it over in the back-line, trying to catch the opposition "running forward".

Risky, because it it pays off it should lead to a score (if disposal is clean) if not then we get placed under enormous pressure in our back-line. If disposal is poor or we over-posses it (which tends to happen a lot against the top teams) then it is a guaranteed i50 for our the opposition.

I actually believe both Pies and Hawks play similar, however Pies are like us because they have shit disposal skills at times.

Hawks it works because they have elite kicking skills so once they turn it over, it's easier for them to spread into space and mark the ball and move it quickly. (because of course a ball moves quicker off a kick then watching Geelong players hand balling it around to each other)

To me, this game plan requires to have a back 6 that is always "on" If not then it's going to be hard to win. The rest of the team sits in position waiting for the turn over.

Pies fell away later in the year because the back 6 was too inexperienced to execute this plan effectively. (then of course they got injuries)

the other issue is it's very hard to lock it into our fwd 50 and you also tend to play "bruise free" footy.

This is a great summary of our game plan and our issues towards the end of the year. The problem is that with our bellow average ruck division there isn't much else we can do, we can't use a forward press since every stoppage puts us at a disadvantage. This is compounded by us having only one reliable Key forward, which it limits the effectiveness of a long kicking game, that we futilely tried in the finals series.

We looked good Early in the year when Both Simpson and McInotsh were playing well which allowed us to actually use the forward press and have players like McCarthy, Burbury and Murdoch provide heaps of forward pressure. We couldn't even keep up that strategy due to the large loss of personnel.

After the loss against Sydney until we played against Hawthorn for the second time, our team played a very different game style than what I have seen us play in the last few years. Admittedly we had a run of games against lower ranked teams. Initially I was really frustrated with how we were playing and It took me a while to work what we were actually trying to do. When we won the ball if we couldn't take a quick rebound through the centre our players slowed the play down until we most of our players had moved forward, we would switch the ball repeatedly until, an option opened up. We left 3 players behind the ball, which had two effects, if a player was under pressure there was always a player a kick's length behind them that they could pass to and then cause a quick switch, the second benefit was that it helped prevent the opponent from getting setting a up a quick counter attack since our defenders had a fifty metre head start when running back to defensive fifty.

I was a little disappointed when we stopped playing that way after the Hawthorn game, even though it has it many flaws, I felt we were trying to play a game plan that we simply didn't have the people to execute it with. We had lost too many of our "play makers" through injury that would allow us to effectively counter attack. The best thing we could have done was slowed the game down and held on the ball for as long as possible instead of trying to match the speed of our opponents.

 

[BotsMaster]

I thought injuries cost us this year.

'bout it really.

 

[meto]

One dimensional forward line, by the time they saw the seriousness of the need for change it was to late. Kertsen was never the answer and it took them to long to make the call for Walker. Even then the rucks failed, so Walker rucked.

 

[Goggin Our Best]

I wonder how Geelong would go with a top class - high leaping tap ruckman

The last time that happened was the 1st half of the Hawthorn - Hawkins after the siren game - Geelong led 9 goals to 2 at qtr time - set up by Orren Stephensons superb ruck work - the best exhibition of centre bounce ruckwork ive seen in the last 10 years by a Geelong ruckman - couldnt believe it was happening at the time - it was that good - and he made it look easy

Geelong have had some shockers in the ruck at the centre bounce - Trent West - he was the worst - even Ottens as good as he was around the ground and up forward - he was nothing special at the centre bounce hitouts

 

[Vdubs]

Nothing DUMB about it, limited by personnel.

My only query this year was in our final v Hawks; just before 1/2 time, Walker slotted a really impressive long range goal, scores level.
After the break, Walker is moved away from the fwd line, Harry goes fwd, we are smashed in defence. What bemused me was we were NOT in trouble and those moves were made "pro"actively.

 

[Vdubs]

I wonder how Geelong would go with a top class - high leaping tap ruckman

The last time that happened was the 1st half of the Hawthorn - Hawkins after the siren game - Geelong led 9 goals to 2 at qtr time - set up by Orren Stephensons superb ruck work - the best exhibition of centre bounce ruckwork ive seen in the last 10 years by a Geelong ruckman - couldnt believe it was happening at the time - it was that good - and he made it look easy

Geelong have had some shockers in the ruck at the centre bounce - Trent West - he was the worst - even Ottens as good as he was around the ground and up forward - he was nothing special at the centre bounce hitouts

We did ok v Hawks early this year with the dynamic duo who were fit.
And, dare I say it, you must have missed many of Blake's contributions 07, 08, 09, when that is exactly what he did, set up our mids with excellent tap work, At least give him that , it is what he was there for.
Spoke to Pods a few weeks ago, and he commented on that very issue, that Blake was an excellent tap ruckman who was underrated.

 

[cynical]

the best team normally wins the flag so we should be developing that

having a game plan that gets us high on the ladder but fails in finals isn't much good

 

[you pick one]

Nothing DUMB about it, limited by personnel.

My only query this year was in our final v Hawks; just before 1/2 time, Walker slotted a really impressive long range goal, scores level.
After the break, Walker is moved away from the fwd line, Harry goes fwd, we are smashed in defence. What bemused me was we were NOT in trouble and those moves were made "pro"actively.

Single most dumbest thing we did for the year.Josh had the boys up and the Hawks were scratching for an answer.

We did ok v Hawks early this year with the dynamic duo who were fit.
And, dare I say it, you must have missed many of Blake's contributions 07, 08, 09, when that is exactly what he did, set up our mids with excellent tap work, At least give him that , it is what he was there for.
Spoke to Pods a few weeks ago, and he commented on that very issue, that Blake was an excellent tap ruckman who was underrated.

One of our better tap ruckmen ever,have a look at the quality of the 07 08 09 sides sublime,people say he didn't contribute enough around the ground, why would he have to,he'd only get in the road.Realy good last quarter in the 09 GF was as instrumental as any in getting us over the line,he'd have close to 200 games up now and in his prime if it had been up to me.

 

[Catatonic Shock]

Nothing DUMB about it, limited by personnel.

My only query this year was in our final v Hawks; just before 1/2 time, Walker slotted a really impressive long range goal, scores level.
After the break, Walker is moved away from the fwd line, Harry goes fwd, we are smashed in defence. What bemused me was we were NOT in trouble and those moves were made "pro"actively.

Yes and no.
It was made because Hmac was barely getting enough oxygen to hold his head up let alone run out the game, so walker by default had to go into the ruck, which then put us 1 short in a forward line that was looking ok, so they put Harry forward.
It didn't work but really there was no alternative.
Plus our defence was under siege due to the clearances and ease of which the Hawks carved through our midfield, Harry wouldn't have done much under that kind of pressure.

 

[you pick one]

Yes and no.
It was made because Hmac was barely getting enough oxygen to hold his head up let alone run out the game, so walker by default had to go into the ruck, which then put us 1 short in a forward line that was looking ok, so they put Harry forward.
It didn't work but really there was no alternative.
Plus our defence was under siege due to the clearances and ease of which the Hawks carved through our midfield, Harry wouldn't have done much under that kind of pressure.

So we made a move at half time that not only had us being smashed in the ruck still but also now at CHB and CHF where we going ok prior to the long break. I think that's the point.

 

[Partridge]

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?

Hang on there Daz, that is a call made with a HUGE amount of hindsight. We did have a #1 ruck, and for the first 5 games of the season we had two of them - McIntosh and Simpson. McIntosh played 19 games this year. He was recruited as a number 1 ruck, and played that position. So no way do I buy that effectively we didn't have a ruckman, because it was only very late in the season that his problems became apparent.

What would I have done? For starters, the following: strategically rest the veterans in the team. Persevere with younger players for more than one week at a time. Pick players when they're actually fit. Instead of telling yourself that McIntosh, Simpson and Blicavs are a devastating three-headed hydra the rest of the competition fears, recognise you can only ever have two ruckmen in the team.

Oh yes, and one other thing. Pick small defenders who can actually defend.

 

[BlakeyNoFlakey]

I think there's basically two styles of gameplan these days and all teams have variations of them.

There's the Pagans Paddock/Sling shot gameplan that tries to isolate a key forward in the forward line by having the others work up the ground and then use speed on transition and the corridor as much as you can to get the ball to that isolated key forward to kick goals. It's high risk, high reward strategy that can hurt you if you turn the ball over. This style of play also relies on transition off HB, using opposition tactics of tight zoning their forward line to open the space for the runners to go. As an attacking weapon it relies on the run and spread of the outside mids to create an overlap play via a chain of handballs usually. Teams who use this style use zones or flooding to defend the back 50.

Then there's the Rolling Zone gameplan where you move the ball forward with short kicks and passes while maintaining a rolling zone, and your forwards create space by leading to receive the ball. But the emphasis is on defensive pressure and limiting the damage done if the ball turns over. The common alternative to this one was Malthouse in his Collingwood days using the boundary as a safety mechanism with longer kicks, but I think the game has gone past this. The Hawks/Freo certainly use the corridor if they can. The zone is set up as an attacking weapon (forward pressure) or a defensive one. The rolling zone also allows players to outnumber opposition more easily if the ball is there to be won.

For the slingshot style to work you need to have outside speed, for the zone style you need to have great ball skills to make pinpoint passes. If you lack any of these then teams don't succeed. I think Hawthorn and Sydney are currently the best at these two styles.

Both gameplans also are built on two-way running, especially for the midfield and HB & HF players. Again, if players aren't fit enough to do this for most of the match then teams won't succeed.

That's the way I see it, and I may be wrong, but who cares.

 

[Whit3y]

Instead of telling yourself that McIntosh, Simpson and Blicavs are a devastating three-headed hydra the rest of the competition fears, recognise you can only ever have two ruckmen in the team.

what would this three headed hydra's running patterns be like?

will simpson cancel out blicavs eliteness?

or will blicavs become the dominate head and a trip to the stawell gift awaits?

 

[Teriyakicat]

I think there's basically two styles of gameplan these days and all teams have variations of them.

There's the Pagans Paddock/Sling shot gameplan that tries to isolate a key forward in the forward line by having the others work up the ground and then use speed on transition and the corridor as much as you can to get the ball to that isolated key forward to kick goals. It's high risk, high reward strategy that can hurt you if you turn the ball over. This style of play also relies on transition off HB, using opposition tactics of tight zoning their forward line to open the space for the runners to go.

There's the Zone style where you move the ball forward with short kicks and passes, and your forwards create space by leading to receive the ball. But the emphasis is on defensive pressure and limiting the damage done if the ball turns over. The common alternative to this one was Malthouse in his Collingwood days using the boundary as a safety mechanism with longer kicks, but I think the game has gone past this. The Hawks/Freo certainly use the corridor if they can.

For the slingshot style to work you need to have outside speed, for the zone style you need to have great ball skills to make pinpoint passes. If you lack any of these then teams don't succeed. I think Hawthorn and Sydney are currently the best at these two styles.

Both gameplans also are built on two-way running, especially for the midfield and HB & HF players. Again, if players aren't fit enough to do this for most of the match then teams won't succeed.

That's the way I see it, and I may be wrong, but who cares.

I think you're on the money BNF and it was the inability of our boys to do the hard yakka back and forth that let teams run over us- either by outnumbering us in attack or by running harder through holes in our defence.

Partly due to the mix of youth and veterans and partly due to injuries- the inability to cover for those with players of equal quality plus the lack of preseason or interrupted/shortened preseason resulting from injuries earlier in the year.

Hopefully we won't have another year like this one- I thought 2013 was bad enough....

 

[Claude Balls]

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.

Yeah agree with you on that. I was one was advocating it get a serious trial this year in view of our forwardline woes, but I am of the opinion now we lose out pretty comprehensively overall when it's done.

 

[Partridge]

Yeah agree with you on that. I was one was advocating it get a serious trial this year in view of our forwardline woes, but I am of the opinion now we lose out pretty comprehensively overall when it's done.

Absolutely. Nothing wrong at all with trying it, and it's good they tried it a few times. But we've since seen it simply doesn't work, and he's far more valuable at centre half back.

 

[Claude Balls]

Absolutely. Nothing wrong at all with trying it, and it's good they tried it a few times. But we've since seen it simply doesn't work, and he's far more valuable at centre half back.

Yeah.

As for the forwardline, next year I want to see Walker get first crack at CHF. I advocated the MC backing him in early this year - as I felt that ultimately the only way the situation could be improved significantly by finals was that they develop a strategy early and give it time to develop - but of course they changed it up continuously and didn't allow any sort of structure or pattern to emerge.

 

[Partridge]

Yeah.

As for the forwardline, next year I want to see Walker get first crack at CHF. I advocated the MC backing him in early this year - as I felt that ultimately the only way the situation could be improved significantly by finals was that they develop a strategy early and give it time to develop - but of course they changed it up continuously and didn't allow any sort of structure or pattern to emerge.

Once Vardy was injured, they should have kept either Brown or Walker there every week (when they were available of course). Unsurprisingly they didn't do this, and the exact situation we spoke about in March - where our 2nd most experienced forward is Vardy on 21 games - has come to pass.

 

[Claude Balls]

Once Vardy was injured, they should have kept either Brown or Walker there every week (when they were available of course). Unsurprisingly they didn't do this, and the exact situation we spoke about in March - where our 2nd most experienced forward is Vardy on 21 games - has come to pass.

It was painful to watch. When Walker played well in the finals it was, while obviously positive in one sense, even more painful.

 

[Teriyakicat]

Once Vardy was injured, they should have kept either Brown or Walker there every week (when they were available of course). Unsurprisingly they didn't do this, and the exact situation we spoke about in March - where our 2nd most experienced forward is Vardy on 21 games - has come to pass.

I think we were hamstrung by the ruck situation, Partridge. Needing to get games into both HMac and Simpson, with neither able to run out a full game and the fear that either- or both- would break down, meant that the team couldn't carry another big player.

 

[Partridge]

It was painful to watch. When Walker played well in the finals it was, while obviously positive in one sense, even more painful.

How painful will it be when he's playing VFL in Round 1 while Vardy plays there instead?

 

[Partridge]

I think we were hamstrung by the ruck situation, Partridge. Needing to get games into both HMac and Simpson, with neither able to run out a full game and the fear that either- or both- would break down, meant that the team couldn't carry another big player.

That might be the reason, but to be blunt I don't think it's particularly impressive for a so-called professional sporting organisation. If neither McIntosh nor Simpson could get through a full game, I'd be asking a) exactly what they spent their time doing during pre-season, and b) why the hell were they playing then?

Either way, it's a different position. Nothing stopped the match committee - NOTHING - from playing Walker or Brown more this season. Except for the group delusion about McIntosh suddenly becoming a key forward (shared and fully endorsed on here), and that the heir apparent in Vardy mustn't lose his golden ticket for next year.

 

[Claude Balls]

How painful will it be when he's playing VFL in Round 1 while Vardy plays there instead?

It will be more than a niggle.

 

[Catatonic Shock]

So we made a move at half time that not only had us being smashed in the ruck still but also now at CHB and CHF where we going ok prior to the long break. I think that's the point.

So we should discourage any moves in case they don't work?
Half this board sooks because from what they see the MC don't make ENOUGH moves (even though most are structural and not noticed), yet when they do they are smashed for it.
HMac was dead on his feet half way through the second quarter and if left without help (other than Blcavs) would have basically ensured we won zero clearances for the second half.
Of course if Walker did well in the ruck and Harry went forward and impacted the scoreboard the MC would have been heralded as geniuses.

People want to throw stones yet none seem to have a genuine solution to the obvious problems faced with the MC at half time that game.