Coach Justin Longmuir

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
I’ll probably regret asking, but what’s with the JL2 thing?
Mike Ehrmantraut GIF by Better Call Saul
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Nothing sinister. JL was/is Justin Langer. JL2 is our guy.
Like the points you have made about our game plan and lack of coaching nous, how about getting Mark Williams next year as the main assistant to help with tatics/stratergy etc
Also with the current mids, since Dave left who is an above average kick over say 40/50 mtrs maybe JOM but after 4 games hasn`t won the ball enough to show it Time to switch Youngy into the middle for the bounce downs
 
Thanks for the enlightening posts on the 2022 game plan becoming worked out, and JL2s inability to devise a counterstrategy.

I ask those with more footy tactical nous than me…

How exactly did Mitchell and Longmire pick our game plan apart last year? I was at Optus for both games and couldn’t observe the tactical patterns. All I noticed was Sydney picking us apart with short kicking (lots of 15m type kicks).

Thanks in advance if anyone can shed some light on it.
 
Fair call, I agree with that too. Yours was just the last post I remembered so quoted yours. As I said it wasn't just aimed at you.

I agree and don't think last year was a fluke.

But I also agree with G Mus when he said Collingwood showed our level by the end of the year.

Both can exist in the same universe. We were a good team, then we got worked out and became an average one.
If we "got worked out", how did we win any games after that point? The devil is in the detail and bland labels like "getting worked out" aren't really that accurate in painting a picture.
 
If we "got worked out", how did we win any games after that point? The devil is in the detail and bland labels like "getting worked out" aren't really that accurate in painting a picture.

We have a more talented list than most other teams so that helps. There's also a big difference between knowing what to do and being able to execute it. Plus you need to factor in some teams won't deviate from their own styles either because they're trying to build a list/strategy or believe their style would win out and it doesn't.
 
I’m sorry, that’s just rubbish, we lost like 7 games for the whole year including that final and knocked off a few very good teams away. We were a good team last year by almost any metric
15 wins 1 draw and 6 losses in 22 regular season games. Get that win loss record, that's top 4 most years. We got 5th. Win a final last season. Not bad.

I will still say this... I am glad we got 5th and won a final rather than 4th and go out on straight sets last season.

19 blokes got their 1st finals win in their careers. 7 of those blokes were 21 and under too.
 
Thanks for the enlightening posts on the 2022 game plan becoming worked out, and JL2s inability to devise a counterstrategy.

I ask those with more footy tactical nous than me…

How exactly did Mitchell and Longmire pick our game plan apart last year? I was at Optus for both games and couldn’t observe the tactical patterns. All I noticed was Sydney picking us apart with short kicking (lots of 15m type kicks).

Thanks in advance if anyone can shed some light on it.

I can't take credit for it as very little of this is from my tactical nous but from someone I know who's paid to work it out and has talked to me about it over summer. I've mentioned it before a bit but the main ones opposition coaches used last year were either running (Hawks, Collingwood, Melbourne) or possessing (Sydney, Melbourne) their way through our up ground defensive setup which leaves holes further back. They also allow us to maintain numerical advantages a kick behind the ball contest and instead have their numbers advantage at or near the ball contest. At stoppages around midfield or nudging toward our forward area you'll also see defenders of our forwards sag off our guys and away from the goals allowing our setup down there at non CBA stoppages to clog the space ourselves. Our guys set up in dangerous leading lanes for some reason thus doing the KP defenders work for them. Then if they win the stoppage contest our forwards are now behind their defenders as they push forward giving numerical advantage and overlap.

Our ball movement via short possession was slowed by cutting off the paths and players we were most commonly using in scoring chains and instead making us use second/third options in terms of both the angles and also the players we could find open. Get the ball in the hands of those less likely to choose or be able to execute the tough kicks. We then clog our own space with the time it takes us to move it forward. Since this one was pointed out to me I think I've seen teams push hard to cover a Clark, Cox, Mundy (last year obviously), Young, or Aish etc but give more space to a Ryan, Pearce, Brodie, Hughes, Banfield type. Ball in those hands slows us much more than when the other guys have it. Maybe that's confirmation bias in my eyes after being told about it but maybe it is what is happening. This one is not always able to be achieved in the cut and thrust of the contest so sometimes we get the sugar hit of our style looking unstoppable as it did a few times early in the Derby and also at times against Adelaide.

It seems to me those passages of play where it works so well are why we remain committed to an otherwise potentially failing plan because those implementing it and wanting it to work will see it as proof the plan works and its the players not executing well enough when we can't move it. That could explain just about every JL2 presser this year.

More proof is JL2 advocating the effectiveness of his system and blaming the players again by saying our numbers in metres gained via handball are amongst the best in the league and match the top teams. This ignores the fact the metres gained by handball stat includes the dump kick forward to a contest we lose possession or in to empty space up forward. The kick after a chain of handballs is included in the metres gained stat. Whereas those actually doing it well (like Adelaide last night) maintain possession further up but the handball metres gained possession restarts after a kick. Classic example of this was in our game with the Crows last week. We would clear the contest with a few good handballs but then find pressure and kick long to space or to a contest we'd lose or miss the target. The last kick would be measured in the stat even though we'd lose possession. On the flip side the Crows would handball out of the contest and more often a Dawson type would be the last player and kick to a Crow. Same handball metres gained but they kept it. To some extent JL2 blaming the players has some merit because the skills execution was different for sure. You could also say the Crows were set up better up the ground to give their guys a better chance of hitting a target because they had multiple options where we'd have Tabs/Walters only which is easier to defend.

What we remained good at last year is defending against turnovers because of our ability and setup defensively but the fact teams began to run or possess through our setup limited the biggest advantage we had early last year which was creating turnovers and then scores from turnover. About 1/3 of the way through the year we were streets ahead in both those. By years end back in the pack. This year we haven't returned to the heights we had at one point last year and remain OK.



In something more positive, our start to the year is looking slightly better each week that Adelaide & St Kilda keep performing as they are. No excuses for the North debacle where we were horribly outcoached using last years book on us but the Saints and Adelaide performances look better now than they did at the time. In line with that our "tougher" upcoming section with Geelong, Bulldogs, Richmond etc may not be as hard as first thought to claw some ground back in.
 
Thanks for the enlightening posts on the 2022 game plan becoming worked out, and JL2s inability to devise a counterstrategy.

I ask those with more footy tactical nous than me…

How exactly did Mitchell and Longmire pick our game plan apart last year? I was at Optus for both games and couldn’t observe the tactical patterns. All I noticed was Sydney picking us apart with short kicking (lots of 15m type kicks).

Thanks in advance if anyone can shed some light on it.
Sydney denied us possession. Hawthorn brought pressure and forced turnover. Carlton's midfield outbodied and outpressured our midfield.

Collingwood did all three.

The problem is what we cooked up works really well, when it works, but it is extremely contingent on being executed with very low room for error. Super fast, super crisp hands in tight - relying almost on muscle memory. What's happening at the moment is that our execution is sloppier than it was and oppo teams know what we're going to do (keep handpassing round till you get the free man at the end of the chain; hold on to the pill until the lowest-error-percentage option presents) and know when to bob up and disrupt the chain. Pressure the ball carrier and force the error or pick off the guy at the end of the chain vesause you know that's where it's going.

We are experiencing an extreme version of that old canard about strengths being weaknesses. What worked so well for us is now our only way and people have it figured out.

The thing I noticed last night watching Adelaide is that initial flush when your plan starts clicking is the best time. Dudes trust each other. They run in waves, ahead of the contest, just knowing their dude will move the pill their way. When someone lays a smother, the whole team runs over to pick him up and just ****ing love him.

That's how we were last year.

We're so far from that. But I also suspect there is a conditioning element. I know you look slow when you're losing, but we look - dare I say it - comparatively unfit. Our preseason was way more match sim than you normally see. They may have been trying to stage the preparation so we don't flare then flame out. Who knows? But once you begin losing you do start hesitating and he who hesitates is lost.

I reckon the season so far was encapsulated with that high ball coming in against the Saints that Pearce tried to smother and, timing it wrong, it just bounced the wrong way. You just start second-guessing yourself.

I can see why Longmuir, J is sticking fat to his plan. You can't just will confidence to come back. You have to trust in a system. Because when it clicks, the confidence flows - like it's doing for Adelaide ATM. The ball starts bouncing your way. You get on the right side of the 50-50 calls.

But some flexibility is required. Some trust going back the other way - that these young fellas can work out their own solutions in the moment. Not just do exactly what we practised over and over again until we could get it right in our sleep.

He needs to get in the metaphorical jacuzzi. Light up a metaphorical doobie. Remember 2006 when the rule book got chucked out and surprising things started happening. Smile a little smile and then know he has exactly the right words for the blokes in the morning.
 
For me it's just habit as one of my closest mates is a mad cricket and Freo fan and we've adopted his use of JL and JL2 to differentiate.
How often do you get them confused? No one's getting confused on a Justin Longmuir specific topic though are they? Seems suspiciously like a way to just have a quasi dismissive dig.

If you were genuinely worried about confusion, why not "JLo" or even "Longmuir"? I mean, preferencing a #1 ticket holder at the wc...
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Thanks Wobbly Punt and Bigger for the great replies.

In short, perhaps we rely on a highly systemised and controlled game plan, which has had its shortcomings exposed. The situation is made worse by potentially a stubborn and conservative head coach, and a lack of experienced assistants to challenge his thinking and to help recalibrate the game plan.

Meanwhile the other leading teams play in a style aimed at collectively harnessing the creativity and attacking instincts of individuals, making us look badly out of touch with the prevailing trends.
 
Thanks Wobbly Punt and Bigger for the great replies.

In short, perhaps we rely on a highly systemised and controlled game plan, which has had its shortcomings exposed. The situation is made worse by potentially a stubborn and conservative head coach, and a lack of experienced assistants to challenge his thinking and to help recalibrate the game plan.

Meanwhile the other leading teams play in a style aimed at collectively harnessing the creativity and attacking instincts of individuals, making us look badly out of touch with the prevailing trends.
The first thing the commentators said last night after the game was that it was "their system". You could see that last night even when the Crows were 50 points up with a minute to play and Rankine still ran 20 metres in a sprint to force the Blues player to kick under pressure and out on the full. A lot of teams have a similar system but it is the execution and buy in from the players that determines success. If you win a couple then all of a sudden everyone is up and about and the system is lauded by everyone but if you lose 2 or 3 like where we are now the players start to second guess themselves and the system and it all goes pear shaped.

Also just to mention the Crows got fixtured with 4 of their first 5 at home, that would have been nice.
 
We have a more talented list than most other teams so that helps. There's also a big difference between knowing what to do and being able to execute it. Plus you need to factor in some teams won't deviate from their own styles either because they're trying to build a list/strategy or believe their style would win out and it doesn't.
Sounds a more accurate picture (although average age is a rolled gold factor in w/l too).

But then with all that how do we separate out what it was?

Say we take Richmond away as an example. Were they equally as talented + equal execution, more talented but less capable, or good execution poor talent comparison? Coach didn't get it right? Off night?
 
Thanks Wobbly Punt and Bigger for the great replies.

In short, perhaps we rely on a highly systemised and controlled game plan, which has had its shortcomings exposed. The situation is made worse by potentially a stubborn and conservative head coach, and a lack of experienced assistants to challenge his thinking and to help recalibrate the game plan.

Meanwhile the other leading teams play in a style aimed at collectively harnessing the creativity and attacking instincts of individuals, making us look badly out of touch with the prevailing trends.
Wouldn't the coachs' qualities also have a pivotal role in getting to such a strong position that even with the supposed shortcomings of the plan, finished in an overachieving 5th and won a final?
 
The Crows are a great example of how unpredictable AFL can be sometimes. Nicks had serious questions hanging over his head at 0-2, especially because those were losses to two pretty average sides.

Now all of a sudden they've "arrived" 3 weeks later having nailed their rebuild. Even last season most people thought they'd botched it by wasting high picks on McAsey and Henry.

Not saying Freo are remotely comparable but things can change pretty quickly. Probably also speaks to how reactive footy media (and we fans) can be.
 
Thanks Wobbly Punt and Bigger for the great replies.

In short, perhaps we rely on a highly systemised and controlled game plan, which has had its shortcomings exposed. The situation is made worse by potentially a stubborn and conservative head coach, and a lack of experienced assistants to challenge his thinking and to help recalibrate the game plan.

Meanwhile the other leading teams play in a style aimed at collectively harnessing the creativity and attacking instincts of individuals, making us look badly out of touch with the prevailing trends.
this was the succinct way of putting it! In short, we have to get with the times. Because, we have the personnel to do it and we have the personnel to win more than not if we progress in the right manner
 
How often do you get them confused? No one's getting confused on a Justin Longmuir specific topic though are they? Seems suspiciously like a way to just have a quasi dismissive dig.

If you were genuinely worried about confusion, why not "JLo" or even "Longmuir"? I mean, preferencing a #1 ticket holder at the wc...
If you see it that way that's your issue and not mine really mate. As I said, its habit for me and I swap emails with my mate much more than post on here so its ingrained for us now. J-Lo is terrible (and also taken) and Longmuir just takes longer to type. I'm being lazy, not disparaging in it's use.

When Langer was going through it all and getting poor results and our guy was flying it was a way of keeping the negativity off his name. Tables have turned now I guess but the intent hasn't.
 
I can't take credit for it as very little of this is from my tactical nous but from someone I know who's paid to work it out and has talked to me about it over summer. I've mentioned it before a bit but the main ones opposition coaches used last year were either running (Hawks, Collingwood, Melbourne) or possessing (Sydney, Melbourne) their way through our up ground defensive setup which leaves holes further back. They also allow us to maintain numerical advantages a kick behind the ball contest and instead have their numbers advantage at or near the ball contest. At stoppages around midfield or nudging toward our forward area you'll also see defenders of our forwards sag off our guys and away from the goals allowing our setup down there at non CBA stoppages to clog the space ourselves. Our guys set up in dangerous leading lanes for some reason thus doing the KP defenders work for them. Then if they win the stoppage contest our forwards are now behind their defenders as they push forward giving numerical advantage and overlap.

Our ball movement via short possession was slowed by cutting off the paths and players we were most commonly using in scoring chains and instead making us use second/third options in terms of both the angles and also the players we could find open. Get the ball in the hands of those less likely to choose or be able to execute the tough kicks. We then clog our own space with the time it takes us to move it forward. Since this one was pointed out to me I think I've seen teams push hard to cover a Clark, Cox, Mundy (last year obviously), Young, or Aish etc but give more space to a Ryan, Pearce, Brodie, Hughes, Banfield type. Ball in those hands slows us much more than when the other guys have it. Maybe that's confirmation bias in my eyes after being told about it but maybe it is what is happening. This one is not always able to be achieved in the cut and thrust of the contest so sometimes we get the sugar hit of our style looking unstoppable as it did a few times early in the Derby and also at times against Adelaide.

It seems to me those passages of play where it works so well are why we remain committed to an otherwise potentially failing plan because those implementing it and wanting it to work will see it as proof the plan works and its the players not executing well enough when we can't move it. That could explain just about every JL2 presser this year.

More proof is JL2 advocating the effectiveness of his system and blaming the players again by saying our numbers in metres gained via handball are amongst the best in the league and match the top teams. This ignores the fact the metres gained by handball stat includes the dump kick forward to a contest we lose possession or in to empty space up forward. The kick after a chain of handballs is included in the metres gained stat. Whereas those actually doing it well (like Adelaide last night) maintain possession further up but the handball metres gained possession restarts after a kick. Classic example of this was in our game with the Crows last week. We would clear the contest with a few good handballs but then find pressure and kick long to space or to a contest we'd lose or miss the target. The last kick would be measured in the stat even though we'd lose possession. On the flip side the Crows would handball out of the contest and more often a Dawson type would be the last player and kick to a Crow. Same handball metres gained but they kept it. To some extent JL2 blaming the players has some merit because the skills execution was different for sure. You could also say the Crows were set up better up the ground to give their guys a better chance of hitting a target because they had multiple options where we'd have Tabs/Walters only which is easier to defend.

What we remained good at last year is defending against turnovers because of our ability and setup defensively but the fact teams began to run or possess through our setup limited the biggest advantage we had early last year which was creating turnovers and then scores from turnover. About 1/3 of the way through the year we were streets ahead in both those. By years end back in the pack. This year we haven't returned to the heights we had at one point last year and remain OK.



In something more positive, our start to the year is looking slightly better each week that Adelaide & St Kilda keep performing as they are. No excuses for the North debacle where we were horribly outcoached using last years book on us but the Saints and Adelaide performances look better now than they did at the time. In line with that our "tougher" upcoming section with Geelong, Bulldogs, Richmond etc may not be as hard as first thought to claw some ground back in.
Wow WP that is a great summation of our game plan problems, keep up the good work
Should we helping JLO with an experienced stratergy coach ie someone like Mark Williams or Rodney Eade
 
Sounds a more accurate picture (although average age is a rolled gold factor in w/l too).

But then with all that how do we separate out what it was?

Say we take Richmond away as an example. Were they equally as talented + equal execution, more talented but less capable, or good execution poor talent comparison? Coach didn't get it right? Off night?

Good example to muse on. In my view they were an older, more experienced but slightly lessor list due to age and appetite of their key players. I think their experience covered our slightly greater talent list wise. But they did well at what was outlined above in terms of running through our setups with the so called chaos ball and also denied us turnovers with good ball use as Bigger said too.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top