Review Round 13, 2023 - Hawthorn vs. Brisbane Lions

[twhowler]

It actually has. But not to an acceptable level for someone who's been in the game 5 or 6 years and plays as a small attacking ? player who needs a strong defensive side to be considered really valuable.

You'd have to agree his career has regressed and if he's not doing show pony things is offering very little otherwise.

I'm frustrated watching him because he has the capacity to be so much better but someone needs to take him in hand and get him doing the hard things that he doesn't do and then the easier things will come easier.

If we think he's a small forward then first off we need to retrain him in defensive pressure. And play him there instead of giving him wing/m/f minutes where he pretty much offers little.

He has improved every year until this year. It’s also the year he is doing much more in terms if wing / cba.

He’s a hff. Gun at it. Nothing wrong with that. Settle him there, get him focussed on more pressure when he doesn’t have it, he can win a norm smith.

The goal he kicked against dogs in semi final was sublime and he is so good under pressure. He’ll be back.

 

[p4p1]

I’m on board to swap Fort for Oscar. Based on our deficiencies I think we need to get another runner in for Gunston and instead of kicking down the line or to a contest trying to pick a lead out or at least kick it to our players advantage.

 

[p4p1]

Well deserved.

Not sure if it is tbh.

 

[KissKiss]

Boy oh boy wowee. So much to say and I have no idea where to start. This is gonna be a long one I think and I hardly expect anyone to read it. It's more so I have a record of my thoughts. The good thing is you guys are all so learned I don't have to go over and rehash all the stuff already covered here.

Staggered to learn we won clearances, by a mile. We lost in the centre 14-11 but I don't recall Hawthorn really doing anything with that ascendancy, and I certainly don't recall any of them being out the front with any real venom.

It's the 36-13 around the ground which struck me. Really? That much? It made me go looking for the definition of a clearance:

"Credited to the player who has the first effective disposal in a chain that clears the stoppage area, or an ineffective kick or clanger kick that clears the stoppage area."

So there's a couple of things here. What is "the stoppage area"? Are we talking a 5 metre radius? 10 metres? 25? Does this "radius" depend on things like where it is on the field or how many players congregate there?

Then there's the other parts of the definition. We can only assume (I will not be rewatching that absolute dog's breakfast of a game) that a truckload of those 36 clearances must have been "ineffective kicks" or "clanger kicks".

Anyway, even ignoring the disposal counts we've been pantsed 62-46 inside 50. So between the arcs we made an absolute meal of moving the footy, which we all saw: the slow, kicking up the lines to a contest, which then got turned over either on the ground or in the air. And this became more apparent as the game went on, which comes back to what I've been saying for ages... we are simply not fit enough. It's so graphic and so galling that a Queensland team struggles to run games out against southern counterparts. Sam Mitchell even said in his press conference (paraphrasing) that he thought they would run over the top of us.

The other aspect to dominating clearances, and how irrelevant that was, is that it emphasised something we discussed a couple of months ago, about how footy is now a turnover game. And on Saturday, we were awful at this. 77 turnovers by us, but we could only force 58 by Hawthorn. Basically we just couldn't get the ball off them once they got it, particularly after half time.

On this, there were real echoes of what happened to us in 2022 - not being able to win the ball back once it got out in the open. In the first half, it really looked like we had no discernible game plan at all. Whether Hawthorn went in with a clearly defined plan to completely prevent us playing our game, or whether we just lacked intensity and effort - I'd say it was a combination of both of those things.

Then after half time, we basically reverted to our 2022 strategy, consisting (but not limited to) of this marvellous trio of factors:

• Multiple players getting sucked in to going for the same ball, or the same bloke with the ball. This was not helped by the amount of tackles we missed, essentially requiring this to happen. Missed tackles is now a publicised stat in NRL circles, but I believe its importance is criminally underrated in AFL... if you miss a tackle you are essentially a man down. And if you're a man down it forces one of two things. Either you see a guy like Charlie Cameron running 100 metres (seriously, live at the ground you could see him doing this, and it was so heartening to see at least one bloke gave a stuff), just to cover an opponent ahead of the play who had got loose and was about to become the link in the chain. OR, more regularly, we got...
• A concertina effect from one end of the field to the other, where our blokes all have to come forward off their man to stop the bloke with the ball from being too damaging with it. The end result is (a) you get caught in no man's land, and then (b) you end up with situations like McKenna v Koschitzke in the goal square. That ain't ending well.
• Not directly related to the above was our insistence on holding Charlie as the deepest forward, which we did more and more the longer the game went. It didn't work on Saturday, it rarely works, and it's never worked in big games, for any team, ever. We shouldn't be doing it, ever. And if we are doing it then it must be because...

We aren't getting enough out of Jack Gunston. We certainly aren't getting enough out of him in an attacking sense, and we're getting even less in a defensive sense. Watching Hawthorn pick us apart whilst they were in possession in our forward 50 was actually glorious to watch in a perverse way, as someone who enjoys watching the sport from a strategic point of view. They would simply chip it around until basically whoever was playing on Gunston got into space, then it was a handball and just like that they'd transitioned from slow play to fast play.

We did well to shut down Saad in Round 8, but basically every Hawthorn defender was happy to play this role. So it meant we only needed one weak link in the chain, even when the ball was in our forward 50, for our whole system to break down.

What we should have done was what I suggested a couple of weeks ago: give them the boundary. Don't bother to try and catch them and inhibit their ball movement out on the wings... charge down the outside of the corridor instead (near the logos) and pick up the next man. Make them stop and have to consider their next move, when they see all their team mates manned up, rather than allow them a simple handball over the top to the next loose man in the chain. This would also allow a forward time to track back defensively and pressure them from behind.

It was a bit of a surprise to see us go back to playing that way, after doing so well to NOT play that way basically every other game this season. And speaking of surprises, the best one came at the press conference! He was asked about their handball game and Fages said, and I quote: "Yeah, they haven't done that every time though, this is something sort of newer... there's been other games where they got us with kicking".

I mean are you for real? We really didn't see this coming? I'm linking back to the same post as above because even Joe Blow saw it on the radar. They did EXACTLY what it said on the tin, and we simply weren't ready for it. I've been pretty complimentary of our coaching group this year, with good reason I feel, but this basically says we didn't do any homework. None whatsoever. Which is just disgraceful really. Literally an amateur performance from our coaching group, and maybe this attitude filtered down to the playing group.

So we're at a bit of an inflexion point in our season now, a bit like where we were last year. We addressed our issues over summer, implemented the new game plan, and it looked a million dollars early in the season. But now we're getting figured out, as I suspected we would. Essendon made it hard for us to score, Gold Coast found their way through at stages by kick-marking, Adelaide got through by running the ball, and then Hawthorn combined the lot on Saturday.

So the ball is back in the court of our coaching group... mid-2021 and mid-2022 this happened, and we weren't really able to get things right at all for the rest of the year. To be honest, this is why I'm always an advocate for trying to put in place as simple a game plan as possible. There is great power in an opponent knowing exactly what you are going to do, yet going out and doing it anyway.

I have one more thing, and I'm surprised nobody else has picked up on this. Lachie Neale took FOURTEEN MARKS on Saturday, the most of any player. and I reckon he would have marked at least half of our kick-ins, if not more. Any other coach I'm saying it was a coincidence, but I'm not giving Sam Mitchell that out. Give Lachie Neale the ball, uncontested in our back half. He's not the greatest kick for a start, but if he's got the ball he can't handball receive, and more importantly he can't get the ball in chaos at the next contest. Our captain and Brownlow Medallist was essentially neutered. Brilliant coaching - I really don't think this was an accident and was by design.

What we should have done in response was completely eschew kicking short to the pockets inside defensive 50, instead taking our full measure from kick-ins (remember those guys are allowed to run a fair way now, unencumbered) and then kicking looooong to Oscar. With a decent run and kick that contest would probably be forward of half back. Neale and others could go to work there. Yes, it's predictable, but that comes back to what I wrote above, and hey, it works for Melbourne. And if you do it 5 times in a row, the opposition come to expect it, which will likely open up opportunities for uncontested play elsewhere on the field.

Gunston out. Fort in. No, Fort won't help our forward line defence much but he will pose more of an aerial threat, meaning we don't have to play Charlie one out as our deepest forward. And if we are worried about our forward line being too slow with Fort, bugger it, play Fullarton, who might not have the same aerial presence but at least is mobile. Or Lohmann, I don't care. Someone. Anyone.



I may have had a go at this. Paid for my flights. Only silver lining for the day... means I only wasted my time not my money.

Great analysis.

I was saying a few weeks ago when we were winning, but had some clear flaws that we needed to make changes. If you are sitting still then you are going backwards. Teams have seen those flaws and are picking them apart while we've sat still like stunned mullets.

 

[buttermuffs]

I have nothing to back this comment up just my thoughts.

I think we tend to win more stoppage clearances because we appear to have more players around those stoppages. So, usually the numbers win out.
This may very well be a wing as our wings seem to be more defensive than a combination of offense & defense. Result less disposals for wings.
Then when we clear that ball from the stoppage the opposition will have at least 1 more player in the area we rush kick the ball to. Numbers win out again.
Result more turnovers.
Lately even if our players kick from the stoppage is not under much pressure, we have still been turning the ball over more than we should have.

From watching our home games I believe it. The opposition tactic for us seems to always involve an automatic spare in defence. Clogs up our forward line and I think we brought the extra man we had in defence into the stoppage to get superiority. Leaves a much more open forward line for them and clogs up our forward line.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Section 5]

From watching our home games I believe it. The opposition tactic for us seems to always involve an automatic spare in defence. Clogs up our forward line and I think we brought the extra man we had in defence into the stoppage to get superiority. Leaves a much more open forward line for them and clogs up our forward line.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

If what i am thinking is correct what can we do.
The only thought i have is a short kick that gets marked.
Forward/sideways/back. Does not really matter.
That way we have that extra time to get more numbers forward of the ball. Even things up a bit.

 

[KissKiss]

From watching our home games I believe it. The opposition tactic for us seems to always involve an automatic spare in defence. Clogs up our forward line and I think we brought the extra man we had in defence into the stoppage to get superiority. Leaves a much more open forward line for them and clogs up our forward line.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

Very true and we often despite winning the clearance just look for the blind kick forward way too often and play into that spare defender

 

[buttermuffs]

If what i am thinking is correct what can we do.
The only thought i have is a short kick that gets marked.
Forward/sideways/back. Does not really matter.
That way we have that extra time to get more numbers forward of the ball. Even things up a bit.

It’s a great question that I have no reasonable answer to.

My main thought was matching up the spare to make it 7 vs 7 in our forward line. However, we don’t magically possess another forward from our defence and it would 100% mess up the structure. It also still makes our forward line more congested and leaves their forwards a lot more space to run.

We could put a forward of our own down back so each end is a 5 vs 7 and just make everyone suffer. I’m not a fan of this one.

Honestly, the best idea is one that’s been brought up already which is actually having a handball game to make territory. If we run a spare at stoppages we should be looking to win on the spread and use the numbers to create a more effective kick to the forwards. Would technically benefit Gunston if he remains and Hipwood as well. A low and fast kick to a leading man always nullifies the main influence of a spare down back. Any kick to a lead should end up in a mark or should be close enough that the kicker should be able to come and contest the ball to prevent an easy rebound from turnover.

Main issue is that we are kicking like absolute doodoo, but that’s still more of a reason to just try running hard and hand balling.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Gertkov]

Boy oh boy wowee. So much to say and I have no idea where to start. This is gonna be a long one I think and I hardly expect anyone to read it. It's more so I have a record of my thoughts. The good thing is you guys are all so learned I don't have to go over and rehash all the stuff already covered here.

Staggered to learn we won clearances, by a mile. We lost in the centre 14-11 but I don't recall Hawthorn really doing anything with that ascendancy, and I certainly don't recall any of them being out the front with any real venom.

It's the 36-13 around the ground which struck me. Really? That much? It made me go looking for the definition of a clearance:

"Credited to the player who has the first effective disposal in a chain that clears the stoppage area, or an ineffective kick or clanger kick that clears the stoppage area."

So there's a couple of things here. What is "the stoppage area"? Are we talking a 5 metre radius? 10 metres? 25? Does this "radius" depend on things like where it is on the field or how many players congregate there?

Then there's the other parts of the definition. We can only assume (I will not be rewatching that absolute dog's breakfast of a game) that a truckload of those 36 clearances must have been "ineffective kicks" or "clanger kicks".

Anyway, even ignoring the disposal counts we've been pantsed 62-46 inside 50. So between the arcs we made an absolute meal of moving the footy, which we all saw: the slow, kicking up the lines to a contest, which then got turned over either on the ground or in the air. And this became more apparent as the game went on, which comes back to what I've been saying for ages... we are simply not fit enough. It's so graphic and so galling that a Queensland team struggles to run games out against southern counterparts. Sam Mitchell even said in his press conference (paraphrasing) that he thought they would run over the top of us.

The other aspect to dominating clearances, and how irrelevant that was, is that it emphasised something we discussed a couple of months ago, about how footy is now a turnover game. And on Saturday, we were awful at this. 77 turnovers by us, but we could only force 58 by Hawthorn. Basically we just couldn't get the ball off them once they got it, particularly after half time.

On this, there were real echoes of what happened to us in 2022 - not being able to win the ball back once it got out in the open. In the first half, it really looked like we had no discernible game plan at all. Whether Hawthorn went in with a clearly defined plan to completely prevent us playing our game, or whether we just lacked intensity and effort - I'd say it was a combination of both of those things.

Then after half time, we basically reverted to our 2022 strategy, consisting (but not limited to) of this marvellous trio of factors:

• Multiple players getting sucked in to going for the same ball, or the same bloke with the ball. This was not helped by the amount of tackles we missed, essentially requiring this to happen. Missed tackles is now a publicised stat in NRL circles, but I believe its importance is criminally underrated in AFL... if you miss a tackle you are essentially a man down. And if you're a man down it forces one of two things. Either you see a guy like Charlie Cameron running 100 metres (seriously, live at the ground you could see him doing this, and it was so heartening to see at least one bloke gave a stuff), just to cover an opponent ahead of the play who had got loose and was about to become the link in the chain. OR, more regularly, we got...
• A concertina effect from one end of the field to the other, where our blokes all have to come forward off their man to stop the bloke with the ball from being too damaging with it. The end result is (a) you get caught in no man's land, and then (b) you end up with situations like McKenna v Koschitzke in the goal square. That ain't ending well.
• Not directly related to the above was our insistence on holding Charlie as the deepest forward, which we did more and more the longer the game went. It didn't work on Saturday, it rarely works, and it's never worked in big games, for any team, ever. We shouldn't be doing it, ever. And if we are doing it then it must be because...

We aren't getting enough out of Jack Gunston. We certainly aren't getting enough out of him in an attacking sense, and we're getting even less in a defensive sense. Watching Hawthorn pick us apart whilst they were in possession in our forward 50 was actually glorious to watch in a perverse way, as someone who enjoys watching the sport from a strategic point of view. They would simply chip it around until basically whoever was playing on Gunston got into space, then it was a handball and just like that they'd transitioned from slow play to fast play.

We did well to shut down Saad in Round 8, but basically every Hawthorn defender was happy to play this role. So it meant we only needed one weak link in the chain, even when the ball was in our forward 50, for our whole system to break down.

What we should have done was what I suggested a couple of weeks ago: give them the boundary. Don't bother to try and catch them and inhibit their ball movement out on the wings... charge down the outside of the corridor instead (near the logos) and pick up the next man. Make them stop and have to consider their next move, when they see all their team mates manned up, rather than allow them a simple handball over the top to the next loose man in the chain. This would also allow a forward time to track back defensively and pressure them from behind.

It was a bit of a surprise to see us go back to playing that way, after doing so well to NOT play that way basically every other game this season. And speaking of surprises, the best one came at the press conference! He was asked about their handball game and Fages said, and I quote: "Yeah, they haven't done that every time though, this is something sort of newer... there's been other games where they got us with kicking".

I mean are you for real? We really didn't see this coming? I'm linking back to the same post as above because even Joe Blow saw it on the radar. They did EXACTLY what it said on the tin, and we simply weren't ready for it. I've been pretty complimentary of our coaching group this year, with good reason I feel, but this basically says we didn't do any homework. None whatsoever. Which is just disgraceful really. Literally an amateur performance from our coaching group, and maybe this attitude filtered down to the playing group.

So we're at a bit of an inflexion point in our season now, a bit like where we were last year. We addressed our issues over summer, implemented the new game plan, and it looked a million dollars early in the season. But now we're getting figured out, as I suspected we would. Essendon made it hard for us to score, Gold Coast found their way through at stages by kick-marking, Adelaide got through by running the ball, and then Hawthorn combined the lot on Saturday.

So the ball is back in the court of our coaching group... mid-2021 and mid-2022 this happened, and we weren't really able to get things right at all for the rest of the year. To be honest, this is why I'm always an advocate for trying to put in place as simple a game plan as possible. There is great power in an opponent knowing exactly what you are going to do, yet going out and doing it anyway.

I have one more thing, and I'm surprised nobody else has picked up on this. Lachie Neale took FOURTEEN MARKS on Saturday, the most of any player. and I reckon he would have marked at least half of our kick-ins, if not more. Any other coach I'm saying it was a coincidence, but I'm not giving Sam Mitchell that out. Give Lachie Neale the ball, uncontested in our back half. He's not the greatest kick for a start, but if he's got the ball he can't handball receive, and more importantly he can't get the ball in chaos at the next contest. Our captain and Brownlow Medallist was essentially neutered. Brilliant coaching - I really don't think this was an accident and was by design.

What we should have done in response was completely eschew kicking short to the pockets inside defensive 50, instead taking our full measure from kick-ins (remember those guys are allowed to run a fair way now, unencumbered) and then kicking looooong to Oscar. With a decent run and kick that contest would probably be forward of half back. Neale and others could go to work there. Yes, it's predictable, but that comes back to what I wrote above, and hey, it works for Melbourne. And if you do it 5 times in a row, the opposition come to expect it, which will likely open up opportunities for uncontested play elsewhere on the field.

Gunston out. Fort in. No, Fort won't help our forward line defence much but he will pose more of an aerial threat, meaning we don't have to play Charlie one out as our deepest forward. And if we are worried about our forward line being too slow with Fort, bugger it, play Fullarton, who might not have the same aerial presence but at least is mobile. Or Lohmann, I don't care. Someone. Anyone.



I may have had a go at this. Paid for my flights. Only silver lining for the day... means I only wasted my time not my money.

Is this you?

 

[Mr Ripper]

My theory on spare defenders is just keep manning them up, and dragging them out wide. Make the game effectively 17 on 17 or 16 on 16. Of course, you'd need to play through the corridor to make it work.

 

[Grasshopper17]

View attachment 1712464

Is this you?

Haha. No mate I have great trouble working out where anyone is playing these days. After the centre bounce it all becomes a bit of a mess. Hmmmm actually come to think of it maybe I should invest in one of these boards!

buttermuffs, Section 5, KissKiss and Mr Ripper I love these discussions.. Thanks for jumping on board with me.

Something out of left field I just thought of... We are concerned about 6 v 7 in our forward line. But maybe we don't necessarily simply want to man up on their spare, as it unnecessarily crowds our forward line, AND creates a more open one on one environment for our opposition forward line (ie 5 on 5).

So what if we try this... We drag our two half forward flanks way out to the flanks. Like, 30-40 out away from the corridor. Say the stoppage is somewhere in the centre square, they're gonna be probably outside 50 and outside the corridor.

Immediately this does a couple of things. First, it challenges the defence: do we go with them, or do we hold our position in defensive 50, guarding space in a zone-like formation.

Let's say they follow our men out there. Great. Now we have 2 one on ones on either half forward flank, and inside 50 we have a 4 on 5. Now, at the ball up, if we get a clean takeaway our 4 guys have far more space than they would have if it was 6 on 7. On the other hand, if we win the contest but it's messy (this is the key to this whole strategy working right here)... WE HACK KICK THE BALL WIDE 45⁰, instead of hack kicking it directly forward. So the principle is just like those ugly hack kicks forward, but everyone knows to kick towards the flanks rather than directly forward.

So on either side we have those two one on ones. Guys like Rayner and perhaps McCarthy or Bailey. If it's a ground kick that ain't being marked, I'm backing any of those 3. If it's in the air, certainly backing Rayner, and potentially McCarthy. We'd wish Bailey a bit of luck haha.

From there, they win the contest, we still have that 4 on 5 inside 50 so ideally there is still space for them to deliver accurately forward. Or we kick to the boundary and force another stoppage.

Maybe we lose the contest tho. Ideally we don't get outmarked, but even if we do, look where the ball is now... It's on our half forward flank. Very hard for any team to move the ball from there, especially if our guys who were at the stoppage can shift across to that side of the field in defensive positions.

The other potential situation is maybe the 2 half back defenders don't go with our men. So we have two 1 on nones on our half forward flanks, but a 4 on 7 in our forward 50. Same strategy from contest, if we win it, use the half forwards on the flanks. Maybe they get space to run and have a shot. Maybe we're forced to kick to the pockets and get a stoppage. Either way, it's a win for us.

If the opposition is more organised (Lever and May perhaps) they may stand and point and demand that two other guys come down and mark our two half forward flankers out wide. That's going to create a 6 on 9 forward of the ball, meaning we're either outnumbering them at the contest, or we have a 6 on 3 in our favour behind the ball. Sure, it's open, but surely we back ourselves in where we double their representation.

I haven't thought this through any more than this so it probably has holes as well as merits etc... Like what if the stoppage is on the wing/flank etc. I think it can be adaptable but haven't fully thought it through yet.

 

[Happy_Neale]

I get that is was a contentious tribunal hearing, but Hawks fans are absolutely MELTING about the Sicily suspension. Not sure I’ve seen such an all in like that before.

 

[On the quiet]

Kingy and easy targets name a more iconic duo

Apart from Kingy and being wrong

loves a headline Kingy, hopefully Richy can turn it around (but sadly IMO is running out of time).

 

[Nathan Barley]

I get that is was a contentious tribunal hearing, but Hawks fans are absolutely MELTING about the Sicily suspension. Not sure I’ve seen such an all in like that before.

So ridiculous

He had the holding the ball free and then slung him to the ground

He needed to release the tackle befoee going into the slinging action

Had he done this it wouldn't have impacted the play but Clug wouldn't have been concussed and he wouldn't have been suspended

 

[Gertkov]

Haha. No mate I have great trouble working out where anyone is playing these days. After the centre bounce it all becomes a bit of a mess. Hmmmm actually come to think of it maybe I should invest in one of these boards!

buttermuffs, Section 5, KissKiss and Mr Ripper I love these discussions.. Thanks for jumping on board with me.

Something out of left field I just thought of... We are concerned about 6 v 7 in our forward line. But maybe we don't necessarily simply want to man up on their spare, as it unnecessarily crowds our forward line, AND creates a more open one on one environment for our opposition forward line (ie 5 on 5).

So what if we try this... We drag our two half forward flanks way out to the flanks. Like, 30-40 out away from the corridor. Say the stoppage is somewhere in the centre square, they're gonna be probably outside 50 and outside the corridor.

Immediately this does a couple of things. First, it challenges the defence: do we go with them, or do we hold our position in defensive 50, guarding space in a zone-like formation.

Let's say they follow our men out there. Great. Now we have 2 one on ones on either half forward flank, and inside 50 we have a 4 on 5. Now, at the ball up, if we get a clean takeaway our 4 guys have far more space than they would have if it was 6 on 7. On the other hand, if we win the contest but it's messy (this is the key to this whole strategy working right here)... WE HACK KICK THE BALL WIDE 45⁰, instead of hack kicking it directly forward. So the principle is just like those ugly hack kicks forward, but everyone knows to kick towards the flanks rather than directly forward.

So on either side we have those two one on ones. Guys like Rayner and perhaps McCarthy or Bailey. If it's a ground kick that ain't being marked, I'm backing any of those 3. If it's in the air, certainly backing Rayner, and potentially McCarthy. We'd wish Bailey a bit of luck haha.

From there, they win the contest, we still have that 4 on 5 inside 50 so ideally there is still space for them to deliver accurately forward. Or we kick to the boundary and force another stoppage.

Maybe we lose the contest tho. Ideally we don't get outmarked, but even if we do, look where the ball is now... It's on our half forward flank. Very hard for any team to move the ball from there, especially if our guys who were at the stoppage can shift across to that side of the field in defensive positions.

The other potential situation is maybe the 2 half back defenders don't go with our men. So we have two 1 on nones on our half forward flanks, but a 4 on 7 in our forward 50. Same strategy from contest, if we win it, use the half forwards on the flanks. Maybe they get space to run and have a shot. Maybe we're forced to kick to the pockets and get a stoppage. Either way, it's a win for us.

If the opposition is more organised (Lever and May perhaps) they may stand and point and demand that two other guys come down and mark our two half forward flankers out wide. That's going to create a 6 on 9 forward of the ball, meaning we're either outnumbering them at the contest, or we have a 6 on 3 in our favour behind the ball. Sure, it's open, but surely we back ourselves in where we double their representation.

I haven't thought this through any more than this so it probably has holes as well as merits etc... Like what if the stoppage is on the wing/flank etc. I think it can be adaptable but haven't fully thought it through yet.

Love the read though mate, great work.

 

[buttermuffs]

Haha. No mate I have great trouble working out where anyone is playing these days. After the centre bounce it all becomes a bit of a mess. Hmmmm actually come to think of it maybe I should invest in one of these boards!

buttermuffs, Section 5, KissKiss and Mr Ripper I love these discussions.. Thanks for jumping on board with me.

Something out of left field I just thought of... We are concerned about 6 v 7 in our forward line. But maybe we don't necessarily simply want to man up on their spare, as it unnecessarily crowds our forward line, AND creates a more open one on one environment for our opposition forward line (ie 5 on 5).

So what if we try this... We drag our two half forward flanks way out to the flanks. Like, 30-40 out away from the corridor. Say the stoppage is somewhere in the centre square, they're gonna be probably outside 50 and outside the corridor.

Immediately this does a couple of things. First, it challenges the defence: do we go with them, or do we hold our position in defensive 50, guarding space in a zone-like formation.

Let's say they follow our men out there. Great. Now we have 2 one on ones on either half forward flank, and inside 50 we have a 4 on 5. Now, at the ball up, if we get a clean takeaway our 4 guys have far more space than they would have if it was 6 on 7. On the other hand, if we win the contest but it's messy (this is the key to this whole strategy working right here)... WE HACK KICK THE BALL WIDE 45⁰, instead of hack kicking it directly forward. So the principle is just like those ugly hack kicks forward, but everyone knows to kick towards the flanks rather than directly forward.

So on either side we have those two one on ones. Guys like Rayner and perhaps McCarthy or Bailey. If it's a ground kick that ain't being marked, I'm backing any of those 3. If it's in the air, certainly backing Rayner, and potentially McCarthy. We'd wish Bailey a bit of luck haha.

From there, they win the contest, we still have that 4 on 5 inside 50 so ideally there is still space for them to deliver accurately forward. Or we kick to the boundary and force another stoppage.

Maybe we lose the contest tho. Ideally we don't get outmarked, but even if we do, look where the ball is now... It's on our half forward flank. Very hard for any team to move the ball from there, especially if our guys who were at the stoppage can shift across to that side of the field in defensive positions.

The other potential situation is maybe the 2 half back defenders don't go with our men. So we have two 1 on nones on our half forward flanks, but a 4 on 7 in our forward 50. Same strategy from contest, if we win it, use the half forwards on the flanks. Maybe they get space to run and have a shot. Maybe we're forced to kick to the pockets and get a stoppage. Either way, it's a win for us.

If the opposition is more organised (Lever and May perhaps) they may stand and point and demand that two other guys come down and mark our two half forward flankers out wide. That's going to create a 6 on 9 forward of the ball, meaning we're either outnumbering them at the contest, or we have a 6 on 3 in our favour behind the ball. Sure, it's open, but surely we back ourselves in where we double their representation.

I haven't thought this through any more than this so it probably has holes as well as merits etc... Like what if the stoppage is on the wing/flank etc. I think it can be adaptable but haven't fully thought it through yet.

Not a bad idea. I really like the idea of a low hack kick to nullify the intercept and putting it 45 degrees helps us possibly create another stoppage on one of our forward flanks. I think the issue is it seems like we just created the exact territory system we already use but slightly tweaked for stoppages in the centre square.

Bringing the forward flanks up to a medium kick on the 45 is a decent idea. I’m not entirely sure whether going that wide will provide enough value since 30 metres from the contest can provide a decent leeway for a defender to zone off. That way they can provide a contest to our flankers or drop back into leading space inside fifty.

I think we could 100% bring our flankers up a bit closer to the contest. It would be too close of a place to be zoned by the defenders and they would provide links in a handball chain if we were to get the clearance. Either they man up and lose the ability to zone off, creating something like a 4 on 5 which is a lot more open for us, or they zone off and the flankers with the on lakers can run and carry from the stoppage until met with the backline numbers.

Idk football is hard.

 

[Happy_Neale]

So ridiculous

He had the holding the ball free and then slung him to the ground

He needed to release the tackle befoee going into the slinging action

Had he done this it wouldn't have impacted the play but Clug wouldn't have been concussed and he wouldn't have been suspended

I swear I feel insane reading that MRO thread as every time I watch the clip I see an obvious double motion/sling action from Sicily. It’s like the Hawks posters are watching a different incident.

 

[Section 5]

Haha. No mate I have great trouble working out where anyone is playing these days. After the centre bounce it all becomes a bit of a mess. Hmmmm actually come to think of it maybe I should invest in one of these boards!

buttermuffs, Section 5, KissKiss and Mr Ripper I love these discussions.. Thanks for jumping on board with me.

Something out of left field I just thought of... We are concerned about 6 v 7 in our forward line. But maybe we don't necessarily simply want to man up on their spare, as it unnecessarily crowds our forward line, AND creates a more open one on one environment for our opposition forward line (ie 5 on 5).

So what if we try this... We drag our two half forward flanks way out to the flanks. Like, 30-40 out away from the corridor. Say the stoppage is somewhere in the centre square, they're gonna be probably outside 50 and outside the corridor.

Immediately this does a couple of things. First, it challenges the defence: do we go with them, or do we hold our position in defensive 50, guarding space in a zone-like formation.

Let's say they follow our men out there. Great. Now we have 2 one on ones on either half forward flank, and inside 50 we have a 4 on 5. Now, at the ball up, if we get a clean takeaway our 4 guys have far more space than they would have if it was 6 on 7. On the other hand, if we win the contest but it's messy (this is the key to this whole strategy working right here)... WE HACK KICK THE BALL WIDE 45⁰, instead of hack kicking it directly forward. So the principle is just like those ugly hack kicks forward, but everyone knows to kick towards the flanks rather than directly forward.

So on either side we have those two one on ones. Guys like Rayner and perhaps McCarthy or Bailey. If it's a ground kick that ain't being marked, I'm backing any of those 3. If it's in the air, certainly backing Rayner, and potentially McCarthy. We'd wish Bailey a bit of luck haha.

From there, they win the contest, we still have that 4 on 5 inside 50 so ideally there is still space for them to deliver accurately forward. Or we kick to the boundary and force another stoppage.

Maybe we lose the contest tho. Ideally we don't get outmarked, but even if we do, look where the ball is now... It's on our half forward flank. Very hard for any team to move the ball from there, especially if our guys who were at the stoppage can shift across to that side of the field in defensive positions.

The other potential situation is maybe the 2 half back defenders don't go with our men. So we have two 1 on nones on our half forward flanks, but a 4 on 7 in our forward 50. Same strategy from contest, if we win it, use the half forwards on the flanks. Maybe they get space to run and have a shot. Maybe we're forced to kick to the pockets and get a stoppage. Either way, it's a win for us.

If the opposition is more organised (Lever and May perhaps) they may stand and point and demand that two other guys come down and mark our two half forward flankers out wide. That's going to create a 6 on 9 forward of the ball, meaning we're either outnumbering them at the contest, or we have a 6 on 3 in our favour behind the ball. Sure, it's open, but surely we back ourselves in where we double their representation.

I haven't thought this through any more than this so it probably has holes as well as merits etc... Like what if the stoppage is on the wing/flank etc. I think it can be adaptable but haven't fully thought it through yet.

I think i would have to attend a game with the sole intention of observing which Lions positional player is the extra around stoppages.
It could be a variety but i think it is a wing as our wings play a defensive type role.
Irrespective of who is the extra or extras, the result is we are outnumbered when the ball is cleared from the stoppage.
But i want to enjoy the games i attend so would not focus on that one thing to give me a better assessment. Watching on TV won't help either.

Depending on where the stoppage is, the opposition spare player or players usually set up in the Brown line area marked on the image below.
So, i don't necessarily think it is always 6 v 7 in our forward line. It most defiantly is at times though.

I don't have any stat to back this up but i think most turnovers that kill us (and other teams) are between the dotted purple lines.
That being the wing arears.
Wingers do have to follow their opponent if they go forward into our defense area. In that case that would not be considered an extra around the stoppage.
The extra could also be a Centre, Ruck rover with their opponent happy to be the spare sitting back behind play.
Fagan obviously prefers to win stoppages and gain territory with hopefully limiting turnovers when cleared from said stoppages.
It is just one part of his game plan. Does work a lot of the time but not always. Turnovers for the Hawks game: Lions 77 to Hawks 58

 

[Tom14]

So ridiculous

He had the holding the ball free and then slung him to the ground

He needed to release the tackle befoee going into the slinging action

Had he done this it wouldn't have impacted the play but Clug wouldn't have been concussed and he wouldn't have been suspended

The broadcast vision made the tackle look a lot more benign than the other angles do.

 

[Grasshopper17]

I think i would have to attend a game with the sole intention of observing which Lions positional player is the extra around stoppages.
It could be a variety but i think it is a wing as our wings play a defensive type role.
Irrespective of who is the extra or extras, the result is we are outnumbered when the ball is cleared from the stoppage.
But i want to enjoy the games i attend so would not focus on that one thing to give me a better assessment. Watching on TV won't help either.

Depending on where the stoppage is, the opposition spare player or players usually set up in the Brown line area marked on the image below.
So, i don't necessarily think it is always 6 v 7 in our forward line. It most defiantly is at times though.

I don't have any stat to back this up but i think most turnovers that kill us (and other teams) are between the dotted purple lines.
That being the wing arears.
Wingers do have to follow their opponent if they go forward into our defense area. In that case that would not be considered an extra around the stoppage.
The extra could also be a Centre, Ruck rover with their opponent happy to be the spare sitting back behind play.
Fagan obviously prefers to win stoppages and gain territory with hopefully limiting turnovers when cleared from said stoppages.
It is just one part of his game plan. Does work a lot of the time but not always. Turnovers for the Hawks game: Lions 77 to Hawks 58

View attachment 1712689

I think most of the time if the opposition is playing a spare man in defence we simply reciprocate (Rich or similar). Very rarely I think do we see a spare man in our forward line and combat this with our spare around the contest. I suspect we don't really train for it given we are a low handball team so little point having an extra at stoppage.

I too try to watch for things like this at games but end up ball watching. And that's despite sitting up high behind the goals for the express purpose of seeing things like this!

 

[Sanchez365]

If you watch our stoppages we normally will have an extra player goal side of the stoppage, maybe a short 3-4m handball from the ball up. From what I have seen we normally try to get this player to be Rich or Coleman, it was why Rich got so many clearances last week against Adelaide.

We have played with that structure for a long time, if it's not our spare half back then it's normally a wing. I remember seeing Prior do it a few times on Sat and he looked pretty lost. It was also very common to see Mitch Robbo there last year.

 

[buttermuffs]

If you watch our stoppages we normally will have an extra player goal side of the stoppage, maybe a short 3-4m handball from the ball up. From what I have seen we normally try to get this player to be Rich or Coleman, it was why Rich got so many clearances last week against Adelaide.

We have played with that structure for a long time, if it's not our spare half back then it's normally a wing. I remember seeing Prior do it a few times on Sat and he looked pretty lost. It was also very common to see Mitch Robbo there last year.

Other teams normally run the skinny side wing on the defensive side of the stoppage when it’s around the boundary as well. I’m assuming we basically use our spare to go there which is usually a halfback. Problem I find is that when it gets shovelled out there, there’s not much ever considered in terms of creativity from that role since they are often very stationary. Leads to hack kicks to an outnumber.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Grasshopper17]

If you watch our stoppages we normally will have an extra player goal side of the stoppage, maybe a short 3-4m handball from the ball up. From what I have seen we normally try to get this player to be Rich or Coleman, it was why Rich got so many clearances last week against Adelaide.

We have played with that structure for a long time, if it's not our spare half back then it's normally a wing. I remember seeing Prior do it a few times on Sat and he looked pretty lost. It was also very common to see Mitch Robbo there last year.

Interesting... I've never noticed this so much. My only defence RE the Adelaide game was my ever-increasing inebriation. I'll try and spot this better in future games.

Other teams normally run the skinny side wing on the defensive side of the stoppage when it’s around the boundary as well. I’m assuming we basically use our spare to go there which is usually a halfback. Problem I find is that when it gets shovelled out there, there’s not much ever considered in terms of creativity from that role since they are often very stationary. Leads to hack kicks to an outnumber.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

Yeah I don't mind the positioning, but yes if we get it to that spot the thinking would be that we have a fraction more time to make a better decision than a hack kick forward.

Personally I'd like to see our eyes immediately go to the corridor. Can we get the fat side winger there? A Coleman or a McKenna (the opposite half back flanker) on the run? Where are they when the stoppage starts? How does this affect our defence if we turn it over?

Done properly the role at the back of the contest reminds me a bit of a half back in league or a fly half in union. Are we running, passing or kicking? In AFL it's whether we hack kick over the top, take the tackler on, handball, or try to switch channel laterally.

I'd almost like to get someone like a Cooper Cronk to a few training sessions to go through his thought processes in the very limited time he would have had to make these sorts of decisions. It's probably more a preseason thing tho.

 

[Section 5]

If you watch our stoppages we normally will have an extra player goal side of the stoppage, maybe a short 3-4m handball from the ball up. From what I have seen we normally try to get this player to be Rich or Coleman, it was why Rich got so many clearances last week against Adelaide.

We have played with that structure for a long time, if it's not our spare half back then it's normally a wing. I remember seeing Prior do it a few times on Sat and he looked pretty lost. It was also very common to see Mitch Robbo there last year.

I am not sure it would be Rich or Coleman as extras in the defensive side of the square.
Their forward opponent has to be in the area. So, the numbers of our defenders and their forwards under normal circumstances will be even.
We very well may be trying to use Rich/Coleman as that out from the stoppage as you have observed.
That's different to having an extra player/players around stoppages.

I can't see how any Lions defenders are the extra player/players in the defensive side of the square.
In my opinion it has to be a player from another position Wing, Center, Ruck rover or a forward.

 

[Section 5]

I think most of the time if the opposition is playing a spare man in defence we simply reciprocate (Rich or similar). Very rarely I think do we see a spare man in our forward line and combat this with our spare around the contest. I suspect we don't really train for it given we are a low handball team so little point having an extra at stoppage.

I too try to watch for things like this at games but end up ball watching. And that's despite sitting up high behind the goals for the express purpose of seeing things like this!

I agree we don't have a spare if the stoppage is forward of the center square.
But the opposition may decide to have an extra.