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

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Good thread, interesting discussion - Very complicated business though. I'll add my ramble to the mix.

We do have a Plan B. When momentum is against us we place 1-2 extras behind the ball and try to maintain possession, take some sting out of the opposition and ride out the storm. This has worked well a few times but usually only when we are clearly better than the opposition anyway, are well ahead and then react after the opposition have their only decent period of the game (maybe 2 goals in a row).

When a good team is actually having a real crack at us and the game is slipping away then this Plan B is absolutely useless. Admittedly it does seem to stem the tide a little but we do not score for long periods afterwards. We get ourselves in a rut, goals dry up and we can't seem to get ourselves out of it. We can't turn scoring momentum on and off like a tap, we simply aren't good enough to do so. And I'm not sure any team has that sort of control over the momentum of a game anyway.

I think we can break the topic down to "what do we do when things are going wrong." First we need to identify why things are failing.

Is it because of our skill errors? Are we choosing poor options? Are players not executing their role and their positioning correctly?

Or is it because the opposition have clamped down on our ball winners, have got winning match ups against our forwards, are starting to win more clearances than us etc.

If it is the former then do we back our players to turn thing around? Or do we need different personnel around the ball or up forward? NC seems loathe to do this. We rotate a lot through the midfield and the forward line but much of this seems preordained. Rarely do we make reactive changes to our structure. Whether we should or not is another question.

If it is the latter then this is where faith is truly tested. Is the game plan strong enough to turn this around? And are the players of high enough quality/character that they will hit back?

Our new game style is exhilirating but fairly fragile IMO. It only takes a brief period of poor football for the fast, attacking ball movement to fall down and disppear for the rest of the game. And with Symes, Doughty, Stevens, Shirley, Reilly, Sellar, Maric plus four 30 year olds... we have too many good ordinary types. Not enough genuine A Graders who are at the peak of their powers to turn games simply on football ability.

But enough rambling. Prevention is better than cure anyway. All will be solved if we are more efficient with our F50 entries and are able to win our share of centre clearances while the opposition are having a run on. If we can do those two things then Plan B will never need to leave the hangar.

 

[jackster83]

I think our gameplan is improved massively over the painful, ineffective crap we were producing in 2008 and at the start of this year. We seem to actually be able to build momentum now and this has been highlighted by some of the thrashings we have inflicted this season. I still think though there are 2 areas that need improvement:

(1) When the opposition plays a loose man in defence, he absolutely kills us. Nick Maxwell always plays his best footy against us, as does Chaplin. We seem to end up kicking it to wherever the loose man is all the time (he's usually double-teaming Tippett). I'm not sure exactly how we get around this tactic, especially when we also play a loose man in defence but we do need to do something about the amount of inside 50 entries that result in an easy mark to the opposition.

(2) Whilst we are brilliant at blockading the opposition kick-ins and putting pressure on in those sort of situations, the times when we turn it over at half forward (e.g. that Tippett clanger against the Pies in round 19) and the opposition play on, we seem to have no hope in hell of getting the ball or even slowing the opposition's run. It nearly always results in them chipping the ball quickly, and 4 uncontested marks later, they run into the goal square unmarked into an open goal. It is these fast breaks from turnovers where our lack of pace and our insistence on zoning hurts us. As a player those goals are really deflating for your momentum as well.

On closer inspection, it seems that we simply struggle against the way that Collingwood and St Kilda play.

 

[Crow-mo]

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.

tactic vs gameplan?

in this context sounds a lot like a distinction without a difference.

how are you thinking about this, in what way are you seeing that as meaningful? when something needs to be pulled out, I don't think anyone cares whether its a tactic, a gameplan or a minute waltz?

 

[DJ75]

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?

Hmmm, some very interesting discussion on this thread. One of the most enjoyable ones I've read for a long time (and much better than the 'he's a spud', 'no he's not you're a spud' threads that seem to pop up every 5 minutes!)

In terms of the link between basketball and football, I have no doubt the links are there more today than ever. The same could of course be said for hockey and football tactics.

In Basketball, when the opposition gets a run on the tactics you use are really dictated by your opponent and the why/how they get the run on going. For instance, if they are getting to the hoop easily beacuse your trap is failing obviously you move away from the trap and perhaps go to a zone for a period. If they are hitting out side shots a zone or a 1-3-1 style zone or man to man can work.

But it really does require an ability to recognise what the opposition are doing and to be able to adjust accordingly. The key is to have all of these different defences in your kit bag ready to go. This is where I'd like to see us really improve. Yes we have pretty much got the basic zone working. Yes it smashes the weaker teams and can hold them goalless to half time. But against the better teams we need some other tactics. AND you need to practice these in games against the weaker teams.

I have coached and played in plenty of games where we could have played a full court trap for the entire game and smashed them by 100 points. But what good does that do? On these occassions I take the opportunity to practice different defences and offences.

The key is to have these options available and to employ them when YOU want. Be proactive. If it looks like they are getting the hang of what you are doing now, change it up. Throw them something different.

In terms of man to man, I have no doubt that most teams will start to employ this against us in the future. We need to be able to deal with it. To do this, we should instigate it first! Do it against the weaker teams so we get some practice at it.

I just really don't want to see the same old tactics of basic zone until the opposition get on top and then drop a few players behind the ball. Tactically this is very weak.
In Basketball terms it is the equivalent of playing a zone, being beaten and then deciding to keep a man back under the basket to try and stop them scoring off the break. As we have seen, it of course makes it near impossible to score yourself!

 

[arrowman]

tactic vs gameplan?

in this context sounds a lot like a distinction without a difference.

how are you thinking about this, in what way are you seeing that as meaningful? when something needs to be pulled out, I don't think anyone cares whether its a tactic, a gameplan or a minute waltz?

What I mean is - people (in the media, on talkback radio etc) talk about "Plan B" as though it's some sort of alternative game plan (or strategy) as opposed to a tactic that is applied to deal with particular situations within a game. I know that's not what it is, but I think that sometimes when people talk about "the Crows don't have a Plan B" that is what they are thinking - that Craigy doesn't have any alternative tactics at all.

Which is clearly not true, we do have Plan B (and more) - whether those tactics work, or where they need improvement, is another matter - and to the credit of the football brains on this board, that is being recognised in this discussion.

I doubt that some people in the media, for the coach-lynchers who call them up on talkback, would understand half of what is being said on this thread.

(PS good discussion - again, thanks to all. I said at the outset I'd learn something and I have. I wish I had time to write more right now.)

 

[Permanence]

someone needs to forward this thread onto craigy!

great analysation here. DJ75 great points brought up. Agree fully rather then smash teams by 100+ we should be trying out new gameplans in the intensity of a proper minor round match rather then at training.

 

[Crow-mo]

Which is clearly not true, we do have Plan B (and more) - whether those tactics work, or where they need improvement, is another matter - and to the credit of the football brains on this board, that is being recognised in this discussion.

I'm not sure its clear at all, going defensive to the nth degree isn't a plan B its plan panic.

 

[lacrow]

Great thread, especially the comments by DJ.

As for the relationship between basketball and football, the links are definitely valid. As an American, I've played organized basketball for a lot of my life and the first time I stepped onto the field to play Aussie Rules I was played in defense. I can definitely tell you the times the ball came down towards us was very similar to having to cope with a fast break situation in basketball.

On another note, I think one of the important things Herm Edwards said in his speech was "don't be afraid to be great." We need to get confidence into our team. All the champions have the attitude (whether they actually win or not) that THEY will be victorious, that there is nothing the opposition can do about it.

I hung out with Wayne Carey one time when he was over here and over the course of a ton of beer, we talked a lot of football. He told me he always had the attitude that his opponent could struggle all he wanted, but that it wasn't going to make much difference because he was going to lose. Or another example, go watch Pumping Iron and listen to Arnold talk about his mentality when going into a competition.

We need to get this into our guys as much as we need to implement the things that DJ was talking about. I was never so disgusted in watching a football game as in watching that 3rd quarter and the looks on guys faces who just looked confused and afraid.

 

[sbenno]

someone needs to forward this thread onto craigy!

great analysation here. DJ75 great points brought up. Agree fully rather then smash teams by 100+ we should be trying out new gameplans in the intensity of a proper minor round match rather then at training.

I don't think it's quite that simple. Given the role percentage plays in the AFL, it's always worth beating teams by as much as possible.

Take the Richmond game for example: There were clearly 2 game plans going on; the free running, attacking game plan where we killed them, and the chipping, slow one where we leaked goals and nearly let them back in. Everyone on this board was livid about it, saying we should have just kept attacking, and we could have slaughtered them.

EDIT: I'm not saying that we should always be a one plan pony, but there's not really a whole lot of room for experimentation when 4 points are on the line.

 

[sydney_crow]

Excellent thread and gold star to DJ175 for top analysation work!!


Don't have time to do the topic justice but my two cents worth is that our Plan A is liable to break down against top teams for two reasons:

• it is highly labour intensive and virtually impossible to maintain at the required level for a full game...you don't see NFL teams running a no-huddle offense for a whole game or similarly the trapping style defence in basketball for the same reason. Great weapon but hard to do it for whole game.
• the style of ball movement (fast movement, high possession, lots of run from behind) is also predicated on total confidence in the system as it has a degree of risk. When a game tightens up or the opposition pressures us then even a small drop off on our side (dropped ball, less runners, poor disposal) sees the system fail (or at least become dramatically less effective).

It is certainly great to watch when it is on (semi-final 1st quarter is as good as it gets) but I'm not convinced Plan A alone is enough to sustain a genuine, season long premiership tilt.