Our Plan B

[Coptic Soldier]

Well, I think everyones biggest criticisms of Longmire (including myself) was that he had a pretty good Paul Roos type plan A, but a non existent plan B. Our last quarter aside, I think we all got a really good look at finally seeing a strong Plan B (which soon might be our plan A). Congrats Longmire, what an awesome achievement.

Side note: Great to see Armstrong and Pike playing so well, didn't expect them to so its great to have more amo!

 

[grimlock]

Care to expand on what this Plan B is all about?

 

[bedford]

Care to expand on what this Plan B is all about?

Plan B whatever it is wouldn't work without Jetta

 

[vonn]

Plan B I think is kick it to Jetta and watch him run.

 

[RUNVS]

Plan B I think is kick it to Jetta and watch him run.

Imagine if someone said that on this board last year (also i hate the new smilies on this forum).

 

[something]

Plan B I think is kick it to Jetta and watch him run.

And if Jetta can't be spotted the Swans go back to the all encompassing Plan A..bomb the ball into the 50.

 

[vonn]

Imagine if someone said that on this board last year (also i hate the new smilies on this forum).

This would have been me (probably joined by you guys):

 

[Indie_]

I think Gary Rohan summed it up best when he was being interviewed.

Ling: Gary, the boys are playing really well so far. What's your take?
Rohan: Yeah, just kick it to Jets and we're sweet.

 

[final fight]

All supporters say a certain coach or team doesn't have a plan B and that’s because no AFL team has a plan B. AFL is a game which doesn't allow itself to change game plans unlike football which can have a team play a 442 formation and change to a 352 for example. AFL teams have a style and they persist with it. I got no criticism of Longmire. AFL is a still a primitive game no matter what others try and tell me about different game plans. This isn't a criticism of AFL. Last night Sydney just kept on playing the style that they play and it worked out.

 

[MF]

Yeah, I'm not sure we had a different game plan last night but we did seem to have a lot more pace and better spread from the contest. Possibly due to some of the forced inclusions we've made in recent weeks. In the first quarter we really hurt the bombers on the overlap.

 

[Gongswan]

Yeah, I'm not sure we had a different game plan last night but we did seem to have a lot more pace and better spread from the contest. Possibly due to some of the forced inclusions we've made in recent weeks. In the first quarter we really hurt the bombers on the overlap.

It's not a different game plan, but it's tweaked for the longer ground, less numbers inside the scrum, more outside cover was the basic point. But then the run and spread and better ball use going forward, not just bombing away to no one, many more contests last night inside f50 and many more marks taken

 

[Dangas]

Something Brett Ratten doesn't have apparently.

 

[J_Moore]

Yeah, it was good to see the team running as hard as they need to on the bigger grounds. Very pleased to see it, though the 4th quarter fade out might suggest we don't necessarily have the fitness base needed to play that style. That'll come, though. Still only halfway through the season, and there's plenty of time to build on the good signs we saw last night.

All supporters say a certain coach or team doesn't have a plan B and that’s because no AFL team has a plan B. AFL is a game which doesn't allow itself to change game plans unlike football which can have a team play a 442 formation and change to a 352 for example. AFL teams have a style and they persist with it. I got no criticism of Longmire. AFL is a still a primitive game no matter what others try and tell me about different game plans. This isn't a criticism of AFL. Last night Sydney just kept on playing the style that they play and it worked out.

I agree that people tend to oversell the tactical complexity required to win a footy game, but they absolutely do the same thing for soccer. Reading some soccer commentary, you'd think managers were fighting the Battle of the Bulge, or solving Fermat's Last Theorem.

 

[MARK In TIME]

Plan A is having the midfield dominate the contest and everything else flows.

Plan B was definitely on show last night. Our midfield was being dominated in the contest and clearances. However, because we had unbelieveable swarming pressure and every player in the team was prepared to bust a gut getting into space, providing an option and working back to help our defenders we were still able to be in a winning position.

Plan B is a contingency plan when Plan A doesn't work. Last night proved it works, but our players aren't physically capable of sustaining that level of intensity for four quarters. Naturally when our pressure dropped off our midfield's weaknesses became pronounced and the Bombers were able to dominate us.

 

[GoTheSwannies]

To be honest, I don't think we saw a plan b in that game. I just think we pressured really well and caused the turnover, and when we got the ball in our hands we were clean with our handballs, we managed to hit targets by foot anf made good decisions with the ball. And most importantly, we got it into the forward line with a bit of ourpose, and our forwards stood up and turned our chances into scoreboard pressure. If our forwards mess it up, essendon rebound and put pressure back on us.

It was as simple as that imo. It wasn't that we changed our gameplan, its just that we executed our plan a so well that that's how we should look when we're on top. In the 4th when essendon were on top, we were the ones.being pressured, fumbling the ball putting ourselves under even more pressure. It was at that poiny where we reverted to plan b where we locked the ball in and looked for the boundary.

The only thing that we really did differently was try to take advantage of thw wider spaces and spread more, but that ganeplan all comes grinding to a halt when you're not clean with your ball use. You end up putting yourself and your teammate under nore pressure, which means you've got less time to assess your options and are generally kicking under pressure.

 

[bedford]

All supporters say a certain coach or team doesn't have a plan B and that’s because no AFL team has a plan B. AFL is a game which doesn't allow itself to change game plans unlike football which can have a team play a 442 formation and change to a 352 for example. AFL teams have a style and they persist with it. I got no criticism of Longmire. AFL is a still a primitive game no matter what others try and tell me about different game plans. This isn't a criticism of AFL. Last night Sydney just kept on playing the style that they play and it worked out.

Dont call soccer football on here

 

[CAS79]

All supporters say a certain coach or team doesn't have a plan B and that’s because no AFL team has a plan B. AFL is a game which doesn't allow itself to change game plans unlike football which can have a team play a 442 formation and change to a 352 for example. AFL teams have a style and they persist with it. I got no criticism of Longmire. AFL is a still a primitive game no matter what others try and tell me about different game plans. This isn't a criticism of AFL. Last night Sydney just kept on playing the style that they play and it worked out.

Sorry to disagree but AFL lends itself to many different game styles, tempo's and formations and it is most certainly changeable in the match.

 

[SM]

That wasn't a plan b. That was plan a with Bombers being incredibly inaccurate. They beat us in most stats except for accuracy in front of goal. If they had kicked straight we most likely wouldn't have won. We have had similar starts before - even just last week, the game against Freo, and Brisbane last year - and thrown away the big leads - though last week we held it - so it shows we aren't mentally switched on for the whole game.

 

[MARK In TIME]

That wasn't a plan b. That was plan a with Bombers being incredibly inaccurate. They beat us in most stats except for accuracy in front of goal. If they had kicked straight we most likely wouldn't have won. We have had similar starts before - even just last week, the game against Freo, and Brisbane last year - and thrown away the big leads - though last week we held it - so it shows we aren't mentally switched on for the whole game.

Maybe if you watched the game without eyes on the stats you who have realised how dominant we were in GENERAL PLAY. Further to this maybe you should also take into consideration how angled and far away most of their set shots were. We took them wide so it wasn't like the missed a million sitters. Add in some rushed behinds and touched-on-the-line saves. They also kicked 9.2 in the last and that balanced the ledger.

The fact they lost by 4 points flattered them. Glad to see you ate up the media myth that the Bombers lost. We played well for 3 quarters and Essendon played well for 1. Clearly they should have won.

On the topic at hand, I think people are getting too caught up in the notion that team have separate gameplans. Clearly that is not the case. What I meant (and I imagine others) understood was that we do have contingency plans to adjust for when things don't go exactly to plan. On Saturday the played a way that minimised our contested deficiencies. I'm sure that was a coincidence, but obviously we weren't meant to be dominated in the midfield.

The point is, If we hadn't had such an uptempo approach to the game and instead played as we had against Adelaide for example, who also dominated us at the contest during parts of the game, we would probably have been facing a similar loss. This is further supported by the fact that our last few battles with Essendon have centered around who dominated the midfield.

We played a little differently from what we usually do. You have got to admit that.

 

[SM]

I ate up nothing. They had a ridiculous amount of I50s, and any half decent team would have won. In fact, Bombers had most I50s of a team EVER to lose.

Swans won the game, yes, but this was not a Plan B, it was just a well executed Plan A.

 

[SM]

A similar loss to Adelaide? You mean the one where we would have won if the game had gone for another 10 seconds?

 

[MARK In TIME]

Think of it this way stat. If the Swans and the Bombers played out the 4th quarter as they did the previous 3 would you really be trying to convince me that they should have won? They were dominating the stats in the first 3 quarters but didn't look close to beating us. Do you really think any team would have been better than the Dons against us when we were playing with that much intensity and pressure?

If it was such a well executed plan A then why were we losing the contested ball and clearances genius? Plan A (the way Horse wants us to play) isn't losing out in the midfield.

You've misunderstood my comment on the Adelaide game. I said there were 'parts of the game' that our midfield got dominated. I basically meant that had we not been off during those particular quarters we would have won. We lost because we failed in the area that is the most important to our usual gameplan. Hence it is was very odd that the won the game on the weekend (quite comprehensively for most of the game) despite our midfield failings. Coptic Soldier labelled it plan B because we won through a means that didn't start and finish with winning the contested ball (classic Sydney strategy for all these years).

Why is that so hard for people to comprehend?

 

[Riders of Rohan]

They only had 5 more inside 50's than we had against Adelaide 78-73.

Contested possession is such a two-faced stat, and I don't know why there is such a fixation on it from the media. Of course Essendon were going to win the contested possession in the first 3 quarters, they couldn't get anyone in space to win an uncontested possession. Which is a credit to how hard we ran and our pressure. Yet commentators were surprised they won the count. There's a reason we lose the contested possession stat against most teams, and it isn't because we're the lesser contested possession team.

 

[FLYINV]

They only had 5 more inside 50's than we had against Adelaide 78-73.

Contested possession is such a two-faced stat, and I don't know why there is such a fixation on it from the media. Of course Essendon were going to win the contested possession in the first 3 quarters, they couldn't get anyone in space to win an uncontested possession. Which is a credit to how hard we ran and our pressure. Yet commentators were surprised they won the count. There's a reason we lose the contested possession stat against most teams, and it isn't because we're the lesser contested possession team.

Agreed, I think our "Plan B" on Saturday was just us being beaten in the clearances but still having the workrate and manic pressure to win the ball back and then burn them on the counter attack.

The welcome surprise in the last two weeks has been our composure and skill in attack and for the most part our scoring accuracy. We still blew a few sitters on Sat night though which could have had the game dusted before 3qtr time.

 

[SM]

Why the hell do people think that a plan would deliberately include losing a facet of the contest? That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.