Game Plan: A, B, Z? Where to in 2010

[arrowman]

I know that this subject has been done to death many times in different threads, but I wonder if we could occupy some of the off season with a discussion of game plan (and inevitably coaching) from which we all might learn from each other’s thoughts and insights? I know I would (learn, that is).

I hope we can do this based on reasoned, dispassionate argument and not just use it as a platform for more Craig bashing

Plan A and when it doesn’t work

I won’t take a lot of time trying to describe our Plan A, I think it’s fairly plain. See first quarter against Collingwood (or perhaps a better example would be from some other game where the opposition were not such rubbish in that quarter).

Plan A falls over when the opposition shows some combination of superior man on man pressure and/or a superior run and carry, skill-based game of their own. But it only falls over when we go back into our shells, and/or drop the skill level under pressure, and/or get too defensive.

Again using the Semi Final as an example:
- 2nd quarter - held our own, responded well
- 3rd quarter - too defensive, went into shells
- 4th quarter - competitive, won the quarter, responded as we should have in the third.

So my questions about Plan A are:

1. Leaving aside any consideration of “Plan B” (ie a radical change in our approach), what is missing from Plan A - either in the content of the plan, or the execution by the players, to make it a more viable plan of first resort (ie one that will win us more games against better opposition, if we apply it through all or most of the game)?

2. More specifically, what is it about the (proven successful, this year) game plans of St Kilda and Geelong that we need to emulate - or emulate better?

”Plan B”

I’m with John Reid and Stephen Rowe on this one - that is, in the recent back and forth with Cornes on 5AA, they asked the question “so, what is this magical Plan B that everyone talks about?” I think the “Plan B” concept is over-rated - people like Cornes trot out “where is Plan B?” but they never actually suggest what that plan might be - except perhaps for talking about “man on man”.

Now, it seems to me that just about every club uses some form of zone and/or run and carry as the basis for their “Plan A”. (Adelaide and Essendon leaning more to run and carry, Hawthorn 2008 being masters of the zone - etc)

And “Plan B” for just about every club is based on some form of “man on man” in an attempt to stop the opposition when their “Plan A” is working better than ours.

So there’s no great mystery to “Plan B” IMHO - in fact it’s not a “Plan B” at all - it’s just a tactic (not a gameplan) to employ when “Plan A” isn’t working.

Craigy apparently said on 5AA recently:

Said he got strong feedback from the playing group about needing to have a plan B for situations like that third quarter, a more attacking plan. Obviously they weren't happy with simply pushing numbers back to try to stop the opposition's momentum, they want to score themselves.

Now, some people will undoubtedly use that “quote” as a stick to beat up on Craigy - as in “what, he needs the players to tell him that his defensive, stubborn mindset isn’t working?”

For me, I think it’s underselling Craigy by a long way to think that he hasn’t worked that out by himself, and all he’s doing here is publicly giving the players some credit for thinking along the same lines as he would be (and at the same time falling on his sword just a little bit by giving people ammunition against him, because he didn’t have to say that the way he did).

Anyway - I am excited by those words because they tell me that the players and the coach have publicly identified and acknowledged the fundamental issue with that game, and with our game plan in general. Knowing that Craigy is a man who is capable of learning, changing and teaching the players, I hope for good things to come from this.

Questions:

What is Plan B, or what should it be? Is it just a variation or strengthening of Plan A, or is there more to it?

Crickets chirping? I hope not.

 

[WALL-e]

Plan B is just, 'how to get plan A rolling again?'

How, when we're down on movement and momentum, do we get back into it.

My view:

#1 clearance team on ball- Best center bounce ruck (Griffin, Tippett, Moran, Sellar, McKernan, Maric) and best clearance dogs in there (Thomo, Danger, Symes, Sloane etc).

The once you have the ball you need drive and run.

Speed demons on the wing - MacKay, (cook in the future), Martin, etc, Pace

MOVEMENT by the forwards, no bomb it long to Tipp he's ****ing Superman. He can only do so much.

Tex will help A LOT, really he WILL. His leading is exceptional, he finds space and makes it easy for the mids not to bomb it.

Bottom line is, what ****ing plan B, just get A rolling again, it's just momentum.

 

[Riggy1]

plan a - attack attack attack
plan b - flood and attack
plan c - chip chip chip chip chip

problem in my veiw is our plan A doesnt work well under man on man pressure (St Kilda, SYdney and COllignwood) plan b can work against Sydney well, but the spare man behind the ball by St Kilda nad COllingwood carve us up. And we will almost never score with plan c in affect.

 

[Cap]

For me I reckon Dangerfield is going to be our plan B… well o.k not Dangfield but that type of player (Sloane?). When our plan A falls over it is 99% of time because we can’t get our hands on the ball. Our plan B needs to be getting the pill first and holding up the opposition by kicking goals yourself and not allowing them to kick this will stop or slow the momentum .

This seems like pretty obvious stuff but that is because it is pretty basic stuff its just getting the man power to execute correctly. Most teams that have been successful over the years don’t have a Plan C, Its Generally Plan A done so well no-one can compete and when they can they hold it up better than the opposition can attack.

 

[KUNG FU]

I think the breaking point for Plan A has been largely misdiagnosed in the media and in this thread. It collapses when we make repeated skill errors and turnovers. With so many players running forward, the opposition runs quickly through the pack and it takes too long for us to reset our defensive structure. I think the best option at this stage is therefore not to come up with plan B & C. NC needs to remodel Plan A and better equip our players to live up to its operation, otherwise we will be overloading our players creating more confusion and we'll be torn apart more often. Skills, well you have them or you don't, let's leave that one up to Jonas. One way NC could help adapt the players is teaching them to go man on man when there is a turn over rather than desperately trying to recreate the zone in an instant.

 

[arrowman]

Too many good comments so far to single any out. Let me just remind you that people at the club lurk on this site, so make sure you put a (c) next to your ideas

If Port can change their jumper to one designed by a 7 year old, I see no reason why our club can't develop a new plan based on a brainstorm on an internet site.

 

[beartoo]

Too many good comments so far to single any out. Let me just remind you that people at the club lurk on this site, so make sure you put a (c) next to your ideas

If Port can change their jumper to one designed by a 7 year old, I see no reason why our club can't develop a new plan based on a brainstorm on an internet site.

They can have anything I write on here free of charge--well okay, lunch would be nice.
I wonder if our present game plan might be good against poor sides and not so good against the strong. The fitter and more skilled teams that tackle quickly seem to beat us. I also agree with the earlier comment about turn-overs and our inability to defend once that happens. Check out the Collingwood game. Even when we were destroying them in the 1st q we had a lot of clangers.

 

[kulak]

Well now, Plan B should be something which will succeed in conditions where Plan A is failing.

I reckon the success of Plan A is as much about organisation as it is effort. When the opposition has a run-on, we tend to lose our organisation, and it becomes easier for them to get through our defence.

So I think our Plan B should be something which relies less heavily on organisation than our Plan A.

Stereotypically this would be to go man-on-man, which is not necessarily a bad idea.

Other changes would be:
- less switching of the ball looking for an opening, just get it forward.
- allow for that by having every forward leading towards the ball. Not all to the one spot, but must be ahead of their opponent. This is because the delivery may not be as good (or measured) as usual.
- back 6 stay in place, rather than pushing up the field to set a zone or chase their forwards.

Separately, I also think we need a Plan C, which might look a lot like our Plan B, for the last 5-10 minutes of a close game.

 

[big78sam]

I've had limited opportunities to watch games live this year (birth of a child amongst other things) so I'm open to others to shoot me down if they disagree. One thing I have noticed is that when we are freely running the ball out of defence and are on top the players are happy to run hard. However when we are under pressure the run seems to dry up. There is no player running hard on a 100 metre lead to provide an option Riewoldt style. Everyone seems to stand still and as a result we can't get the ball out of our half and we are put under an enourmous amount of pressure. I think it's as much about effort as gameplan.

I agree with previous posts as well that a clearance or 2 when we are under pressure would be good.

 

[Stiffy_18]

For me I reckon Dangerfield is going to be our plan B… well o.k not Dangfield but that type of player (Sloane?). When our plan A falls over it is 99% of time because we can’t get our hands on the ball. Our plan B needs to be getting the pill first and holding up the opposition by kicking goals yourself and not allowing them to kick this will stop or slow the momentum .

This seems like pretty obvious stuff but that is because it is pretty basic stuff its just getting the man power to execute correctly. Most teams that have been successful over the years don’t have a Plan C, Its Generally Plan A done so well no-one can compete and when they can they hold it up better than the opposition can attack.

This is an outstanding comment!

Great teams do not have plan B or C, they just execute the plan A well no matter what the opposition throws at them.

You are also correct in saying that when we drop off its due to our intensity and numbers around the ball.

I think its just a matter of getting better at plan A, ensuring that we have maybe more numbers at the contest than we normally would to at least bottle it up a bit and regain the momentum. However, this does NOT mean have all of our players flooding back. You still need someone to play "Craig's paddock".

Maybe it could be something as simple as putting 15 players back (to slow down the opposition's momentum) and have one target inside 50. The other 2 players would be on each wing. Once you get it, kick it long to the wing as a "get out option" and try and create for the target inside 50.

I think we definitely need to get better at pinching a goal or 2 when we are under avalanche of goals (like that 3rd quarter against Collingwood). Sometimes all you need is one goal to break the opposition's momentum and regain the control of the game.

 

[Permanence]

Plan B is just, 'how to get plan A rolling again?'

Smartest thing ive read in this thread.

Plan B doesnt exist!! "Plan B" is just a media hype up. All that basically craigy can do is try and change things up again to get Plan A working effectively. If we are going to single out the Collingwood game our plan A seemed to be flying for 45 minutes, so how can we say we struggle against man on man teams?

Things broke down coz we didnt get first use of the ball, we didnt win enough contested possessions, and we made too many turnovers under pressure. All Craigy can do is try to turn that momentum and thats exactly what he tried to do by throwing Tippet into the ruck, who we all know is really our best ruckman.

Im happy in the offseason for Craigy to focus harder on mastering our "plan A" if you will rather then worry about any of this plan b crap the media seems obsessed with. If we can continue to win that hard ball and execute the correct decisions under severe pressure then we will be unstoppable.

We have shown when its going our way we are irresistible and look every part a premiership outfit, just need to be able to stop that momentum shift quicker when other teams get a run on!

 

[amer]

Wall-e got it in one. It's the great theme of 2010 isn't it? Questions, questions, will this work, will such and such fall into place. We can see the makings of a premiership side but we just want that confirmation that all the pieces laying around will form the complete picture.

2010 is when we find out if Neil Craig and his army of assistants are capable of winning this club a flag. Can they chuck sentiment out the window and drop the old timers if/when they're struggling? Will they go into their shells with regards to team selection as the finals approach? Can they get this group responding in a more attacking manner when challenged? And perhaps the most burning question: can they stand up on match day under finals pressure when they have ample talent at their disposal? It's not going to be a working class 22 taking the field next year so there will be few to no excuses.

I really like Craigy but even the most staunch fan of his coaching would have to acknowledge that 2010 is just about make or break for him.

 

[DJ75]

I have a bit of a different slant on all of this. I come from a basketball coaching background and so have watched the evolution of the zone system with interest.

We basically use a zone all of the time. This is stupid. Any half decent basketball coach knows that zones are useful for periods of time, but eventually the opposition will work their way around it. Good coaching requires being on the front foot tactics wise. We can't wait until a decent team gets over our zone and then wonder what to do next.

At the moment St. Kilda are essentially using an extended zone/press. It's almost like a basketball trap whereby you get the opposition in a corner of the court/ground and press up on them, forcing a long pass or kick which can easily be picked off. The difference between what we do and what St. Kilda do is that the Saints don't allow the opposition team to get the ball out the back of a stoppage. They 'trap' that part. This is the frontal pressure we keep hearing about. We allow that movement and then try and stop the options once they have a look at where to go (a zone).

What I would like to see is a proactive approach to tactics. We clearly know how to run our zone. Let's start practising (especially against the weaker teams) some other parts.

How about we start our next game against Melbourne in full man on man mode. The switch to a zone and then a trap. Then back to a zone etc...
Keep the opposition guessing and it makes it much harder to adapt and find their way through.

Then against Collingwood, rather than allowing the exact same script to run as in the last 4 games against them, we throw them off by starting with man to man. Then a trap, then man to man.

With good practice a simple signal can be used to switch between set ups during a quarter.

Hence it's not, lets run plan A until it fails, then try plan B, then try plan C....looking for a winner. This type of coaching is reactive.

I know when I coached basketball I used to start with a trap to rattle them quickly. They would immediately call a time out and run the simplest of press breakers. Of course in that time out I switched to our second trap which places a man in the exact spot their coach had just told them to pass to! From there it was man to man, or one of a couple of different zones. It always worked a treat!!

I would really like to see our coaches get proactive and dictate to the other teams the tactics of the game.

 

[Jackson Dredd]

DJ75

Brilliant post.

I went away to word to construct my response to this thread as i new it would be lengthy. I come back and you have written everything i wanted to say.

Our structures need to be fluid. People have talked about 'getting plan a' working again. I agree, but it isnt necessarily done by continuing with a "plan a" structure or tinkering with personell positioning until we get on top again. That can work and im not saying dont try but through some means you need to arrest the momentum of the opposition.

We have tried to do this with 'tempo' footy and chipping around but eventually a long ball is forced. Football in its raw form is winning the ball one on one and beating you direct opponent. Its how we are taught to play as kids. Back your mate to win it. Turn the game into a dog fight and prove your superiority at the hard stuff....killing the ball and forcing stoppages if you cant see a quick get away.

Once you feel like you have arrested the momentum, fluid change to a different method of progression and movment. Zone, trap etc..

Great Vid on youtube from Herm Edwards about the importance of winning it one on one. I know its NFL but the principle of his speech remains valid. Double teams, zones....win it one on one and play fundamentally sound.

[youtube]G2DIdhL-K5Y[/youtube]

 

[Stiffy_18]

I have a bit of a different slant on all of this. I come from a basketball coaching background and so have watched the evolution of the zone system with interest.

We basically use a zone all of the time. This is stupid. Any half decent basketball coach knows that zones are useful for periods of time, but eventually the opposition will work their way around it. Good coaching requires being on the front foot tactics wise. We can't wait until a decent team gets over our zone and then wonder what to do next.

At the moment St. Kilda are essentially using an extended zone/press. It's almost like a basketball trap whereby you get the opposition in a corner of the court/ground and press up on them, forcing a long pass or kick which can easily be picked off. The difference between what we do and what St. Kilda do is that the Saints don't allow the opposition team to get the ball out the back of a stoppage. They 'trap' that part. This is the frontal pressure we keep hearing about. We allow that movement and then try and stop the options once they have a look at where to go (a zone).

What I would like to see is a proactive approach to tactics. We clearly know how to run our zone. Let's start practising (especially against the weaker teams) some other parts.

How about we start our next game against Melbourne in full man on man mode. The switch to a zone and then a trap. Then back to a zone etc...
Keep the opposition guessing and it makes it much harder to adapt and find their way through.

Then against Collingwood, rather than allowing the exact same script to run as in the last 4 games against them, we throw them off by starting with man to man. Then a trap, then man to man.

With good practice a simple signal can be used to switch between set ups during a quarter.

Hence it's not, lets run plan A until it fails, then try plan B, then try plan C....looking for a winner. This type of coaching is reactive.

I know when I coached basketball I used to start with a trap to rattle them quickly. They would immediately call a time out and run the simplest of press breakers. Of course in that time out I switched to our second trap which places a man in the exact spot their coach had just told them to pass to! From there it was man to man, or one of a couple of different zones. It always worked a treat!!

I would really like to see our coaches get proactive and dictate to the other teams the tactics of the game.

While I agree with the post, I do disagree that we always play zone. We play zone when the opposition kick in. We play a bit of it in general field play but not all the time. We set up a zone when the opposition has it deep inside their defensive 50 and more specifically when they are kicking in.

 

[DJ75]

While I agree with the post, I do disagree that we always play zone. We play zone when the opposition kick in. We play a bit of it in general field play but not all the time. We set up a zone when the opposition has it deep inside their defensive 50 and more specifically when they are kicking in.

So essentially we play a zone anytime their is a stoppage in our forward 50? Correct?
Same issues arise as we are presenting the same defensive action in the same situation all the time. I still say we need to be more proactive in changing the tactics of the game and throwing the opposition into confusion.

 

[KUNG FU]

The problem isn't with the zone, which is our defensive structure. The problem is when we are on the offensive and there is a turn over. We run numbers hard through the middle of the ground and we find it difficult to cope without the zone.

 

[DJ75]

The problem isn't with the zone, which is our defensive structure. The problem is when we are on the offensive and there is a turn over. We run numbers hard through the middle of the ground and we find it difficult to cope without the zone.

See I disagree. Craig continues to claim exactly this, that if we just hit our targets we would be fine. BUT no team operates at 100% efficiency, especially under the pressure of finals. Its just a fact.
Hence if your plan requires something which doesn't happen, the plan is flawed.
I really feel we need to make some changes to how we approach a game. Get it right and we could be a real chance of a flag.

 

[KUNG FU]

See I disagree. Craig continues to claim exactly this, that if we just hit our targets we would be fine. BUT no team operates at 100% efficiency, especially under the pressure of finals. Its just a fact.
Hence if your plan requires something which doesn't happen, the plan is flawed.
I really feel we need to make some changes to how we approach a game. Get it right and we could be a real chance of a flag.

Think you missed the part of my post where I admitted that there was a problem, that being our defensive structure when we can't immediately implement our traditional zone, like we do when there is a kick out of play has slowed up in the opposition's defensive 50.

 

[Alex99]

I agree with everything DJ75 has said in this thread.

Fantastic POV.

 

[Alex99]

But I would also like to add; playing a zone defence teaches players to be lazy and creates bad habits.

And with the Crows starting to become a very young side I would like to see them use a man on man game game plan as it teaches them stronger defensive principles. I don’t know what the ruling is in junior grades for football but in basketball, any grade below Under 16s – teams are not allowed to play a zone defence as it restricts player development.

Playing a zone defence where you guard an area is much easier than trying to guard your direct opponent. In the long run, if we play Man on Man, we will become a better side.

 

[smoovy]

Zones can only be applied when there is time. This is generally when there is a stoppage deep in our forward line or a kick in.

And all of the above can only be created if the forward have the ability to hold the ball in there. If the ball continually rebounds out of there you might as well not bother with a zone.

In basketball, zones become easy to score against when there is a 'busted play'. That is a contest is created and therfore players are drawn to the ball and the zone structure is broken down. I think the same applies to football. If a contest is created then a zone won't help you win the ball, that is where the man on man skills come in to play.

 

[Alex99]

In basketball, zones become easy to score against when there is a 'busted play'. That is a contest is created and therfore players are drawn to the ball and the zone structure is broken down. I think the same applies to football. If a contest is created then a zone won't help you win the ball, that is where the man on man skills come in to play.

I agree with what you are saying about busted players – like after a defensive rebound and then beating the other team down the court or a steal.

However, in basketball as a rule of thumb, the way to beat a zone is to attack an open area with quick ball movement. In football its opposite as you have to attack the man (run at him) defending the area to draw a double team to free someone up and then attack the open space.

 

[Chris Crouch]

Playing a zone defence where you guard an area is much easier than trying to guard your direct opponent.

I don't think that this is true on the much larger space of a football field. Specifically, the guys at the front of the zone - on the mark or those who have to go to the swing player - have to run a lot to quickly get on the mark for a swing play. I think that's the key to the kick back and switch play - you can get those few "defenders" (who are usually forwards) tired out, and get players free.

I agree it probably is easier for the 2nd and 3rd layers of the zone, which don't have to move as much or as quickly.

Chris

 

[kulak]

...

What I would like to see is a proactive approach to tactics. We clearly know how to run our zone. Let's start practising (especially against the weaker teams) some other parts.

How about we start our next game against Melbourne in full man on man mode. The switch to a zone and then a trap. Then back to a zone etc...
Keep the opposition guessing and it makes it much harder to adapt and find their way through.

...

Hence it's not, lets run plan A until it fails, then try plan B, then try plan C....looking for a winner. This type of coaching is reactive.

...

Thanks for that.

I'd just comment that the ability to do this in AFL is somewhat reduced due to it being harder to coordinate 18 people than 5, although it still may be a good approach.

And a question - of the various plans you had available as a basketball coach, was there a particular tactic or style of tactic you found more effective at stopping an opposition run?