Coach Tyson Goldsack - Defensive Coach

Remove this Banner Ad

Log in to remove this ad.

I thought I wrote it in this thread, but it must have been in one of the assistant coaches thread, but whilst a lot of the wrist slashing, pants pissing, negative nacys on here bagged Goldsack getting the job as defensive assistant coach, I said if he brings a Mick Malthouse defensive mindset and set up to our defence, then it will be a good appointment.

I thought he could do a better job than Bassett did.

Now it helps that we finally have 3 x 194+cm defenders, but despite my concern that we press up too bloody high and let thru some bloody easy goals, we are playing better as a defensive unit, which given 2 KPDs have only played 5 games together, that shows we are functioning better than last year and not playing blokes out of their weight division.

Havent conceed 100 pts yet, and are second least points conceed only behind Freo.

Melbourne game got close but they kicked a couple of arsey goals, as well as kicking straight as ther xScore was 65.5 but they kicked 96 pts.

The tests are coming over the next few weeks, but Im confident we will handle the challenges better than under Basset's Defence regime.
 
Now it helps that we finally have 3 x 194+cm defenders, but despite my concern that we press up too bloody high and let thru some bloody easy goals

This is the part of our gameplan that annoys me the most.

Player A is chasing an opponent out of our forward 50, and is not too far off him. Player B who is further up the field makes the bonehead decision to leave his man and run towards the carrier, who then gets an easy handball or chip kick over him. Player C makes the same decision, and they frog jump over and over until there's someone free running into the goal square.

Player B (and C and D) should not ever be leaving their man UNLESS they can impact the contest. Otherwise, i'd rather they force the ball carrier to kick to a contest, or run it in and kick it themselves. I'd rather they have to take that kick after running 100m carrying the ball with someone on their tail, than give them easy handballs over the top and a easy kick in the goalsquare.

I have no idea why we keep trading up our defenders, I am absolutely over it. Every single game, teams just frog jump our players and absolutely walk it in.
 
This is the part of our gameplan that annoys me the most.

Player A is chasing an opponent out of our forward 50, and is not too far off him. Player B who is further up the field makes the bonehead decision to leave his man and run towards the carrier, who then gets an easy handball or chip kick over him. Player C makes the same decision, and they frog jump over and over until there's someone free running into the goal square.

Player B (and C and D) should not ever be leaving their man UNLESS they can impact the contest. Otherwise, i'd rather they force the ball carrier to kick to a contest, or run it in and kick it themselves. I'd rather they have to take that kick after running 100m carrying the ball with someone on their tail, than give them easy handballs over the top and a easy kick in the goalsquare.

I have no idea why we keep trading up our defenders, I am absolutely over it. Every single game, teams just frog jump our players and absolutely walk it in.
Hard to find an example as the highlights don't always show the entire play from the backline.

Closest one I could find, which isn't exactly what i'm referring to.

Boak leaves the guy he was near to come and try tackle here, rather than letting Rozee chase and pressure. Result, easy handball over the top to an unmarked player that Boak was initially on.

1718591997791.png


Same play, the ball gets handballed over the top here. Whilst it's a 2 on 2, both our players go to the ball carrier, leaving an easy handball over the top. One should go the ball carrier here, whilst the other goes the open man at the top. In my opinion, Farrell didn't impact the contest at all and has moved from ahead of the ball. Only press forward and leave an open man if you're going to impact the play or you have cover.

1718592504368.png

1718592199703.png

Absolutely no coordination here, as now they're out (33 with ball in hand)

And here we see Bergman leave his man open in the 50 to try and go to the ball carrier. This means Aliir is now covering two and ends up getting beaten at the top of the goalsquare and an easy walk in goal. I'd rather they let Ohallaran take the shot from the top of the 50 here, or even try run it through where Burgoyne may be in the area to impact whilst following his man. O hallaran could have gone over the top to Bergman's opponent, who would have walked it in, or handballed over the top to Aliirs opponent. GWS probably went about this the hard way but still scored - but what this shows is how easy we make it for them.

Again, don't leave your man unless you're impacting the play.


1718592290879.png
 

Attachments

  • 1718592163859.png
    1718592163859.png
    734.8 KB · Views: 21
This is the part of our gameplan that annoys me the most.

Player A is chasing an opponent out of our forward 50, and is not too far off him. Player B who is further up the field makes the bonehead decision to leave his man and run towards the carrier, who then gets an easy handball or chip kick over him. Player C makes the same decision, and they frog jump over and over until there's someone free running into the goal square.

Player B (and C and D) should not ever be leaving their man UNLESS they can impact the contest. Otherwise, i'd rather they force the ball carrier to kick to a contest, or run it in and kick it themselves. I'd rather they have to take that kick after running 100m carrying the ball with someone on their tail, than give them easy handballs over the top and a easy kick in the goalsquare.

I have no idea why we keep trading up our defenders, I am absolutely over it. Every single game, teams just frog jump our players and absolutely walk it in.
This has been my pet peeve for literal decades. Choco, Primus, Hinkley all did it.
 
This has been my pet peeve for literal decades. Choco, Primus, Hinkley all did it.
Spot on. I get the logic of forcing an extra "skill" execution rather than just run and bounce, but it doesn't work when the "skill" is a very simple frog jump handball/chip to a player with nobody else near him.

The time to do it is just outside 50 IF we have a compressed space ahead with coverage. Not when we have a wide open 50 with so much space to cover like in the example.

I also understand Boak doing it at the start of this sequence, as it's in our attacking 50 and we're trying to keep it locked in, but we do it in the attacking 50, and then we keep doing it all the way into our defensive goalsquare.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)


Spot on. Rather than forcing Rankine to take a shot from distance, or run closer to goal where our defender can then try and play piggy in the middle more successfully - we made it SO easy for him. Jones became an absolute non entity in that clip, didn't pressure Rankine and didn't impact McHenry. It's low % situation for us to begin with - and i'm not suggesting we could have prevented a goal, but we made it a damn certainty.

It probably happened in the Crows game more than any other game in recent memory too.


In the first clip, whoever that drongo is that came charging out to Ward needs his head checked. Think it's Farrel but can't tell for sure. If he went to Kelly there it means that Ward either has to run it himself and go the longer kick, or hold it up allowing Drew to go to him. I'd also much rather Ward kicking the ball in than Kelly.

Instead we opened it up, Houston came out to try and cover Kelly - which left Toby open... I don't understand why we keep doing it.
 
Last edited:
Still early days, but Seeing a bit of a change in this today.

Farrell seems to be a serial offender on this, the once it happened today was him again
 
Bassett was bad, but Goldsack would be out of his depth coaching at under 11 level.

Only need to hear him speak to realise how underwhelming his footy knowledge is, let alone his motivation skills. One of the oddest appointments and internal promotions we’ve had. The fact we have him, Lobbe, Kelly and Hartlett all at once is the definition of complete, complicit self-sabotage.
 
You can’t even blame the line coaches. It doesn’t matter who has been in the job, Hinkley has always implemented the same horrible game plan that they are asked to follow. It is not the defensive coach who decides to play the ridiculous high press with zone off defenders.
 
Bassett was bad, but Goldsack would be out of his depth coaching at under 11 level.

Only need to hear him speak to realise how underwhelming his footy knowledge is, let alone his motivation skills. One of the oddest appointments and internal promotions we’ve had. The fact we have him, Lobbe, Kelly and Hartlett all at once is the definition of complete, complicit self-sabotage.

Bassett wasn't bad, he just spoke up against the status quo (ie Ken)
Goldsack is where he is because he does what he's told. Same with Hartlett.
Cornes just likes to flex with his bro-boy harem so he'll toe the line.
Carr has been given a promise but he was about to walk out before that was put on the table.

We've got a bunch of low-rate, Hinkley sycophants, clogging up the football program and there eeds to be a massive broom put through it all.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Coach Tyson Goldsack - Defensive Coach

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top