Strategy Does the tail wag the dog?

[Spazz Cat]

1.In our 5th season now of bombing long to Hawkins, it would naive to believe CS is so incompetent or in denial not to of tried a new tactic by now.
Does Hawkins demand from the players always go to him?
Why cant Scott fix this in any way?
It couldn't be that hard.
2. Steven Motlop's non chase last was one of the worst efforts I've seen from a player since all players went full time professional. Scotts reaction to this was he didn't have to do anything a peer pulled him up on it.
Is he scared of criticisicing players or something ?
Is that piss weak or what? Isn't that what the coach is paid to do?
3. Playing tall backlines against teams with only 2 tall forwards.
It obvious it's a major disadvantage.
Does Kolo only sign if he was best 22 every week. Why does he keep doing this?
I know it sounds like a conspiracy theory but if the conspiracy is not true our coach is completely clueless.

 

[RegHickeyStand]

The long bomb has been increased 3 fold (seems to be) since Dangerfield. Picture Dangerfield with the ball at the centre bounce contest. What's he doing? Sprinting away and letting go with a metres-gained long bomb. That gets sent back over his head 10 seconds later. Now, every player is doing it. Do you remember when our other outside mids were playing shite earlier this year and Dangerfield was racking up 40+ possies? Prior to this crap, the ball would get passed around a bit until an outside mid who had time on his hands could dish off an effective I50. Not any more.

It would be ok if our backline could get back fast enough. But they can't. So we have the problem of cheap goals getting scored against us. Our backline is so used to being in our forward line, that they have lost the instinct to guard the goalsquare. You noticed that? Richmond got 3 or 4 goals just because of that. But you see the Richmond backline always with someone on the goal line.

 

[Spazz Cat]

The long bomb has been increased 3 fold (seems to be) since Dangerfield. Picture Dangerfield with the ball at the centre bounce contest. What's he doing? Sprinting away and letting go with a metres-gained long bomb. That gets sent back over his head 10 seconds later. Now, every player is doing it. Do you remember when our other outside mids were playing shite earlier this year and Dangerfield was racking up 40+ possies? Prior to this crap, the ball would get passed around a bit until an outside mid who had time on his hands could dish off an effective I50. Not any more.

It would be ok if our backline could get back fast enough. But they can't. So we have the problem of cheap goals getting scored against us. Our backline is so used to being in our forward line, that they have lost the instinct to guard the goalsquare. You noticed that? Richmond got 3 or 4 goals just because of that. But you see the Richmond backline always with someone on the goal line.

Yeah we press up way to high with a backline that isn't quick enough to get back.
You get what you get with Danger. It's just how he plays, the good definetly out weighs the bad nearly every week, except days like today when he's put under a huge amount of pressure.

 

[RegHickeyStand]

Yeah we press up way to high with a backline that isn't quick enough to get back.
You get what you get with Danger. It's just how he plays, the good definetly out weighs the bad nearly every week, except days like today when he's put under a huge amount of pressure.

Danger could be so much better for us. His last quarter showed what he could do. More thinking, setting things up instead of blazing away.

He can be so much better than a see ball, get ball, kick ball type of player.

 

[Lana]

Yeah we press up way to high with a backline that isn't quick enough to get back.
You get what you get with Danger. It's just how he plays, the good definetly out weighs the bad nearly every week, except days like today when he's put under a huge amount of pressure.

The point of the press is so that you don't have to

 

[manboob]

That said when you've got a player who is as good as Hawkins can be one-on-one long bombs should play into your favour.

 

[manboob]

Danger could be so much better for us. His last quarter showed what he could do. More thinking, setting things up instead of blazing away.

He can be so much better than a see ball, get ball, kick ball type of player.

We need to de-Crow him. I think he was on a pretty long-leash there. He'll tightening up the longer he's with us. Players only get better in our system.

 

[Spazz Cat]

The point of the press is so that you don't have to

So what happens when it gets out the back, just concede it's a goal every single time. Gotta have someone who get back reasonably quickly, or any well drilled team will beat us

 

[Spazz Cat]

That said when you've got a player who is as good as Hawkins can be one-on-one long bombs should play into your favour.

How's that gone though? Do you think we might have gone better or worse with a bit more of a multi dimensional forward line in the past 5 seasons?

 

[manboob]

How's that gone though? Do you think we might have gone better or worse with a bit more of a multi dimensional forward line in the past 5 seasons?

As I said "should".

 

[RegHickeyStand]

We need to de-Crow him. I think he was on a pretty long-leash there. He'll tightening up the longer he's with us. Players only get better in our system.

I reckon.

 

[ATSAM]

So what happens when it gets out the back, just concede it's a goal every single time. Gotta have someone who get back reasonably quickly, or any well drilled team will beat us

Three goals today to Richmond from our unguarded backline. Many times turned over because we had no-one in our forward line. It will lose us games against better teams. I don't understand why the game plan can't include leaving one player at either end. Then again lost opportunities to us in our forward line because it is crowded.
So game plan, game structure, coaching skills are poor.

 

[Lana]

So what happens when it gets out the back, just concede it's a goal every single time. Gotta have someone who get back reasonably quickly, or any well drilled team will beat us

When you chose one way over another there are certain benefits and risks involved which need to be weighed against each other. One of them is with a high press is that teams score more easy goals over the top but overall they have less opportunities to score. I'd give a couple of over the top goals a game to cut their I50 count by 10 to 15 per game.

There are other benefits, we keep the ball in our half more so we get those repeat forward fifty entries. Our players are less fatigued since they are spending less time running from one end of the ground to the other which is why our 4th quarter record is so strong.

Other trade offs is that your I50s are less effective since your forward line is congested.

We saw a lot of the above against Richmond.

 

[Spazz Cat]

When you chose one way over another there are certain benefits and risks involved which need to be weighed against each other. One of them is with a high press is that teams score more easy goals over the top but overall they have less opportunities to score. I'd give a couple of over the top goals a game to cut their I50 count by 10 to 15 per game.

There are other benefits, we keep the ball in our half more so we get those repeat forward fifty entries. Our players are less fatigued since they are spending less time running from one end of the ground to the other which is why our 4th quarter record is so strong.

Other trade offs is that your I50s are less effective since your forward line is congested.

We saw a lot of the above against Richmond.

That's a good post and you're right about all of that but it's just too full on.
I just think after about say for example 5 repeat entries without a goal the odds of the other team getting one out the back increases significantly and the chance of us getting a goal decreases to nearly zero.
After a certain number I think we need to clear out a bit and put a few back because we probably aren't going to get a goal anyway and it will at least give us a chance to stop a certain goal out the back, and if it comes back our way we might not be so cluttered.

 

[Lana]

That's a good post and you're right about all of that but it's just too full on.
I just think after about say for example 5 repeat entries without a goal the odds of the other team getting one out the back increases significantly and the chance of us getting a goal decreases to nearly zero.
After a certain number I think we need to clear out a bit and put a few back because we probably aren't going to get a goal anyway and it will at least give us a chance to stop a certain goal out the back, and if it comes back our way we might not be so cluttered.

I get what your saying but the reason why teams don't half and half is that it's hard to coordinate the switch from press to get numbers back, the press only works if everyone is in the right place and the flood only works if you get enough numbers back. You end up just getting to the worst of both worlds.

Tactically there a few things you can do when you have the ball to open up space in your F50, I remember about three or four years ago North put on a clinic against us. If they couldn't get the a decent option I50 they move the ball back to their half back and draw our player out after the ball then they quickly moved the ball through the hole they created. A team tried that against us soon after but our players held their position in our defensive 3rd better and it didn't work as well once the novelty wore off.

But the thing is it isn't a fait accompli that your 5th repeat entry won't result in a goal just because your first 4 failed or that the other team will get an easy goal over the top. Their attempt to get the ball over the top (which are very risky to attempt) might be thing that breaks down their defensive structure that allows you to score.

 

[Spazz Cat]

I get what your saying but the reason why teams don't half and half is that it's hard to coordinate the switch from press to get numbers back, the press only works if everyone is in the right place and the flood only works if you get enough numbers back. You end up just getting to the worst of both worlds.

Tactically there a few things you can do when you have the ball to open up space in your F50, I remember about three or four years ago North put on a clinic against us. If they couldn't get the a decent option I50 they move the ball back to their half back and draw our player out after the ball then they quickly moved the ball through the hole they created. A team tried that against us soon after but our players held their position in our defensive 3rd better and it didn't work as well once the novelty wore off.

But the thing is it isn't a fait accompli that your 5th repeat entry won't result in a goal just because your first 4 failed or that the other team will get an easy goal over the top. Their attempt to get the ball over the top (which are very risky to attempt) might be thing that breaks down their defensive structure that allows you to score.

Fairy nuts. I wonder what we do then. Get Hawkins to come up a bit, get him to have some shots from 50-55 out, try to dish of to Mackie or Henderson and get them to have a ping from outside 50. I dunno.

 

[Lana]

Fairy nuts. I wonder what we do then. Get Hawkins to come up a bit, get him to have some shots from 50-55 out, try to dish of to Mackie or Henderson and get them to have a ping from outside 50. I dunno.

Can't hurt to try those. It's just a question of probability, sometimes it will be the right option.

The counter intuitive thing is that better opposition will turnover the ball higher up the ground which leaves more open space for our counter attack.

For the most part what we've been doing has worked, we take a lot of marks I50 (ranked 1st in the competition), today was a massive outlier.

 

[Cosmic Energy]

The long bomb has been increased 3 fold (seems to be) since Dangerfield. Picture Dangerfield with the ball at the centre bounce contest. What's he doing? Sprinting away and letting go with a metres-gained long bomb. That gets sent back over his head 10 seconds later. Now, every player is doing it. Do you remember when our other outside mids were playing shite earlier this year and Dangerfield was racking up 40+ possies? Prior to this crap, the ball would get passed around a bit until an outside mid who had time on his hands could dish off an effective I50. Not any more.

It would be ok if our backline could get back fast enough. But they can't. So we have the problem of cheap goals getting scored against us. Our backline is so used to being in our forward line, that they have lost the instinct to guard the goalsquare. You noticed that? Richmond got 3 or 4 goals just because of that. But you see the Richmond backline always with someone on the goal line.

I may be in the minority but I don't have a problem with the Dangerfield approach where he kicks it long to Hawkins, Menzel or the resting ruckman. Hawkins & Menzel rarely actually lose a marking battle. For Rance competing well, I don't recall him taking any contested marks yesterday, though he brought it to ground a lot.

Yesterday we were lacking quality smalls up forward to win the ball on the ground. Linc did a lot of good work further a field. Add Menzel in that game and I'm sure he'd have enjoyed those inside 50s.

 

[RegHickeyStand]

I may be in the minority but I don't have a problem with the Dangerfield approach where he kicks it long to Hawkins, Menzel or the resting ruckman. Hawkins & Menzel rarely actually lose a marking battle. For Rance competing well, I don't recall him taking any contested marks yesterday, though he brought it to ground a lot.

Yesterday we were lacking quality smalls up forward to win the ball on the ground. Linc did a lot of good work further a field. Add Menzel in that game and I'm sure he'd have enjoyed those inside 50s.

In the last quarter, nearly every time Dangerfield got the ball inside he dished it off to an outside player. Instead of trying to take off and bomb it in long. On 2 occasions I can remember Dangerfield was the outside player, and his foot passes from both occasions were centimetre perfect. Remember the one to Hawkins? It was so different to his previous play, it's like the coach put a cracker up his arse over it. Maybe not, but that is what it looked like. And he was a real asset for us in the last quarter.

Some posters think I have a set in for Dangerfield. But I don't. I love him when he plays the Geelong way. When he plays the Geelong way, he brings players into the game, makes good decisions, and makes us dangerous. When he was playing the Brownlow-look-at-me way, he was ruining the midfield setup. And he'd star, and we'd play shit, and supporters would say "Why can't the rest of 'em play like Danger?" But we would need 17 more footballs on the ground for that to happen and everyone playing for themselves. I prefer last quarter Dangerfield, myself. Like having another Selwood, but a better mark.