Analysis Jeet Ken Do

[Janus]

Jeet Kune Do favors formlessness so that it can assume all forms and since Jeet Kune Do has no style, it can fit in with all styles. As a result, Jeet Kune Do utilizes all ways and is bound by none and, likewise, uses any techniques which serve its end. - Bruce Lee

There's been a lot of discussion of late as to things like structure, third talls and so forth. How that is what the difference is between us winning the three games we lost recently and losing them. People get a bee in their bonnet about something and they just can't let it go. Yes, structure is important - but what is more important in today's game is run and spread. I want to give you an insight as to exactly why that is, especially out of defense, and why Hinkley always advocates having an extra man in the defensive side of the field to generate attacks. For people who know how this works, you can skip down to the last section.



This is your typical kick out situation (I know that there should be more than 6 players in a +1, but this is illustrative of tactics, not an exact replica and there's not enough space to make the point clear if I have another two players on the field). Most defenses these days will zone on a kick out because it enables them to clog up the midfield more and repel attacks earlier. You'll notice that in a perfect set up, the area zoned is equidistant . Wherever the ball is kicked, it will be a contest, unless it's to the pockets.



In this scenario, let's say Westhoff has marked on the left half back flank. As soon as the ball is kicked, the defenders (who are now attackers) push forward and spread hard, with the closest player to Westhoff running past for the handball receive and the player who kicked out running just behind him as both to cover his zone in case of a turnover and to act as support if that option is taken.



So now, Westhoff has options. Instead of just kicking down the line or into the corridor, he can also give off the handball to the running player. The play has also forced the defenders to start to be drawn toward the ball, because overloading one side of the field and not sending help will result in a quick scoring opportunity. Also note that the player in the right back pocket has become the FB in case of a turnover (this would either be Hombsch or Carlile).



In this play, the player running past Westhoff is used as a decoy, and he is able to draw a defender away from Trengove at CHB. Notice how weak the right half back flank is in terms of defense now? Also note how the players are still in a cohesive, defensive line - except for the +1, none of them are over-committed to an attacking play. (This is why the Primus double-switch was such a stupid tactic - what's the point of pulling people one way, going the other...then going back to the side where everyone is again?!)



Finally, the opposition players are pulled way over to the left flank, leaving the right exposed. I've put that a defender pushes up on the wing to illustrate the point, but in reality it would be a midfielder like White or Polec, with the defender being Carlile or Hombsch who pushes back inside the 50 to protect that exposed wing in the case of a turnover.

Of course, this won't be EXACTLY how it looks - but the fundamental principles of the +1 and the ability it affords to switch to an open, weak side are shown.

But I already KNOW how a switch/plus one works, idiot! Why waste time explaining it?

Why waste time? To illustrate one fundamental point - the game isn't about structure these days. It's not even thought of in terms of forwards, midfielders and defenders anymore. Everyone is a forward, everyone is a defender. As Bruce Lee said, the most powerful structure is to have no structure at all, because it can become ANYTHING. Remember what Hinkley said to guys like Impey, Carlile and Pittard - all defenders - before the Hawthorn game? To a man, he told them "What I really love is when you join in." That means he wants them to not stick to rigid structures - this is my patch of grass/man and I don't move from it - but to be brave and take the game on, because it's when you do the unexpected that the unexpected happens.

Structure is all well and good and necessary for when things aren't going right - like losing your two key defenders in the same game. But we went 11-2 with that same lack of structure against pretty high quality opposition in parts. Some people seem to want to forget that. Western Royboy said that Hinkley is a disciple of Blight, and Blight was a lateral thinker. Perhaps it's time we started to not question the coach, but question our antiquated, dogmatic thinking of how football should be played.

Wait until after the bye and we start getting our full complement of troops back. If it seems as though we've been 'worked out' then and don't make top four, you can wax lyrical about third talls and structure then. Hell, I'll join you.

But I have a belief in this group of players and in the philosophy of Jeet Ken Do. I think we can do what Fremantle did last year to Hawthorn, Geelong, Fremantle or even Sydney. It's time for the new world order.

 

[Ant Bear]

I really like the fact that you go to so much effort in your posts. You make a fantastic contribution to this board.

 

[blaargh]

Amen.

Bring on Total AFL.

 

[El_Scorcho]

While I agree with this in general, I'm suggesting that you can still go in well too short while using this sort of strategy.

With Trengove and Carlile out, we actually lost a lot of the flexibility that allows this gameplan. Picking adequate talls allows you flexibility that we very obviously haven't had since half time of the Showdown.

I 1000% agree that this is the way forward for our team and football in general. My problem is that you can only play this style effectively if you pick a 22 that affords you the sort of flexibility to play it.

I disagreed with not picking Butcher for 10 weeks but I could see that despite flying very close to the sun, we could make it work. Once we lost two talls and didn't replace them it was very obvious that we weren't going to be able to execute our gameplan.

 

[Chad WinGOAT]

Great post and I love the illustrations to help demonstrate your point. Very effective.
I completely agree with you about the third tall up front situation. It's not as big a deal as we are making it. However, I do believe that currently, we are using Westhoff too much in defence (due to injuries) and we're unable to use him as that perfect Queen piece controlling the board and roaming around the pitch. Also, Bobby and Jacko are crucial in defence (through intercepts and nullifying opposition KPF's) to help launch our offensive switches as illustrated in your diagram. I'm currently in the camp that we need more talls down back. Not so crucial up forward. Although I would seriously enjoy Westy back in his roaming CHF role rather than plugging the gaps in our defence.

 

[TheFVK]

Brilliant.

I'm champing at the bit for another key forward like everyone but the game has changed since the days of plonking a full forward in the goal square all day with a couple crumbers at his feet.

As the first half of the season showed when our players can execute our game plan it is an inexorable and thoroughly brutal work of art.

Please keep making threads Janus.

 

[Janus]

While I agree with this in general, I'm suggesting that you can still go in well too short while using this sort of strategy.

With Trengove and Carlile out, we actually lost a lot of the flexibility that allows this gameplan. Picking adequate talls allows you flexibility that we very obviously haven't had since half time of the Showdown.

I 1000% agree that this is the way forward for our team and football in general. My problem is that you can only play this style effectively if you pick a 22 that affords you the sort of flexibility to play it.

I disagreed with not picking Butcher for 10 weeks but I could see that despite flying very close to the sun, we could make it work. Once we lost two talls and didn't replace them it was very obvious that we weren't going to be able to execute our gameplan.

Absolutely. When both key backs went down, Hinkley had one of two options - he could either change the game style by playing another tall in the forward line and go for a more rigid, structured offence by design, with Westhoff being the one who could float around and do whatever he wanted...or he could go the other way, play another running defender and shift things around to try and generate more run from defense.

Both options weren't ideal, and I can see why people point to the lack of structure as being the problem after watching the games. But I believe it's a symptom and not a cause, the real problem being that until the Melbourne game the only player who was willing to do the stretching run out of defense to make the play was Pittard - and only when he had the ball. It goes against everything you believe as a defender when you know your back line is undersized to still run into space without even knowing if you'll be rewarded. That comes from trust.

You'll see a different side against Collingwood with Bobby back. I guarantee it.

 

[Kingfish73]

Super analysis. But if you cannot hit targets no plan works. Our skills and decision making needs to get back to the level we set earlier in year

 

[stanmack]

Beat me to it Kingfish73. Good thread and in the end regardless of tactics, game plans or structures, disposal is the key. That is the one key element that is killing us week after week. Whether it be in front of goal or in general play, bad kicking is bad football.

 

[Janus]

That's the real trick with any tactics - execution. Which comes from skill level and belief in the system.

Over the weekend, I'll try to analyze the forward line and why having no forwards in the 50m arc can actually be a good thing under this style.

 

[Ford Fairlane]

Great stuff Janus. I'm amazed at the amount of criticism Ken has attracted as he has adapted our game plan to suit our circumstances instead of rigidly sticking to a game plan that would require him to pick out of form or unprepared players. And then people complain about no Plan B. Well there it is right in front of you.

I'm sure if the injury run we have had this year had happened next year Ken would have had the option of seamlessly fitting Mason Shaw or Mitch Harvey into the team if not John Butcher (or even Scott Lycett or Jeremy Cameron ). But it has happened this year and hit us in our most vulnerable spots. A veritable injury kick in the knackers.

Despite this Ken has demonstrated the footballing nous western royboy promised us and fashioned wins out of difficult circumstances. He's MacGyvered our game plan, created wins in challenging circumstances and even where we've slipped it's been a bee's dick of difference between win and loss.

And don't think he hasn't prepared for these conditions in the pre-season. Otherwise we would be floundering around getting battered by hungry opposition.

Sometimes our own supporters seem the most oblivious to the challenging circumstances that have enveloped the coaching panel.

 

[Port01]

Doesn't sound so good if you have Sam Gray marking on the half back flank.

 

[Andre]

While I agree with this in general, I'm suggesting that you can still go in well too short while using this sort of strategy.

With Trengove and Carlile out, we actually lost a lot of the flexibility that allows this gameplan. Picking adequate talls allows you flexibility that we very obviously haven't had since half time of the Showdown.

Well said, even before losing Trengove and Carlile the game plan would have worked even better with more players (read talls) able to take the marks and move it along. And providing the ability to execute a plan B more traditional structure if injuries curtailed plan A during a match (ie. the Showdown).

I expect when Carlile and Trengove are back (of which when both are back, from what everyone with some sort of inside info says, should also line up with when our heavy training load has passed and the players should stop looking so slow and shanking kicks from having tired legs). If a third tall KPF came in, it'd still be able to be executed even better and have the built in plan B fall back option if plan A isn't working (injuries or opposition tactics).

Although Jeet Ken Do is so 1970's. I prefer that the game plan is powerful like a gorilla, yet soft and yielding like a nerf ball.

 

[yepits2020]

Thanks.... and you are probably far more knowledgeable about the +1 slingshot than I.

A couple of things bothered me.

The argument is not so much about the third tall, but bringing in a second tall with Westhoff going to the back and rucking.

What was our options when Melbourne dried up our options with one on one play?

How often were we killed against Melbourne and in particular Essendon with heir talls marking the ball and we could not bring it to ground?

We seemed too short.

I am not criticizing Ken at all. I trust the coaching panel (ain't got much choice) and have faith. I am an average punter watching the game and making observations from my perspective.

If you follow the logic about the importance of run and spread to the nth degree, 22 180 cm player should win us the game, but it doesn't.

And the mere fact that we look forward to Trengove and Carlile coming back as the fix proves the point.

BTW, we ill give the premiership race a great shake this year.

 

[mic59]

The initial gameplan still would have been workable without the two talls but for other factors as well. Ebert's last few games have been shockers, Polec has completely disappeared, Monfries has had injuries and has continually slipped over, Wingard has played some below-par games, even Schulz has missed a few goals he would generally have scored. Boak is playing above himself. Wines and Pittard are doing well but they should be the cream on the top, not the players we are relying on. Hombsch has had to go to a position where he cannot play his best clearing football. Broadbent has been shown out as a more defensive player than he is used to play.
After saying all that, structure is still an important part and Carlile's return will not just improve us the way a good full-back improves a team but will allow other players to play to their best. And hopefully the confidence he will bring will remove some of the panic kicking we saw last week. I don't know whether the players read the cowvertiser but there was a piece in it before the Melbourne game recommending the players do what the crowd often says and just kick the ball. Crowds are the last people to listen to when you are trying to win a game.

 

[Trewth]

I could kiss you Janus

 

[*PAF]

The slingshot got us to the moon but will it get us a premiership?
Chances are we will Butcher our chances if we go too short.

 

[Janus]

Every tactic is a compromise, unless you have another Justin Westhoff up your sleeve who is tall and can run all day. It's why you need to be able to adapt and why Hinkley WANTS to play Butcher, but he can't at the moment because he needs to have the skill set to do a number of things if he's going to be an asset to the team. It's why Butcher has gone into ruck and defense in some games. We already have three players who play tall in that they don't really go on marauding runs down the flanks unless we're massively on top. You play another and suddenly the run you are trying to generate from a plus one evaporates into slow, stagnant ball movement because players get put under pressure far too easily from the three or four small forwards that most teams have. That's what this style is meant to counteract - that Ross Lyon frontal pressure. The idea is to create space and uncontested possessions in defense with run and spread to isolate a particular wing then launch a blitzkrieg offensive down it.

The only reason it's not working at the moment is because players aren't running to create that space and draw players with them, primarily because they don't have the faith that the back six will be ok without them.

 

[Steve Dore]

I could kiss your anus

 

[Trewth]

 

[Steve Dore]

The initial gameplan still would have been workable without the two talls but for other factors as well. Ebert's last few games have been shockers, Polec has completely disappeared ........

...... The only reason it's not working at the moment is because players aren't running to create that space and draw players with them, primarily because they don't have the faith that the back six will be ok without them.

A bit of A and a bit of B.

Our runners have been having stinkers. When we were winning Ebert and Polec were two of the hardest runners in our side. Our skills have also gone to &^%$ and we regularly can't hit targets which results in turnovers. Our two best rebound runners in recent games have been Pittard and O'Shea.

Is it that our backline don't trust their teammates enough to run off or is the chance of a turnover now so high that they fear being exposed on the rebound?

 

[*PAF]

I'm with wharfie but will also add a C.
Just like it happened with Williams and Sydney or what Choco did to the Crows there comes a time when our plan A gets worked out and we need to rejig things so that we can still utilise it as much as possible by having some other "break glass in case of emergency" plan during a game.
IMO that time arrived in the Alice Springs game and we are still working through that.

Obviously many of us see having a third tall being that outlet whereas Ken is trying to find something else.

 

[StrappingTape]

With only 6 players on your team we will definitely need another tall forward for structure.

 

[DonDraper]

Our spread is only effective if we're working hard enough to win the ball in the first place.

I agree to an extent and appreciate the post, fantastic and insightful read, but I'm leaning more towards a structure based argument

 

[Andre]

Our spread is only effective if we're working hard enough to win the ball in the first place.

I agree to an extent and appreciate the post, fantastic and insightful read, but I'm leaning more towards a structure based argument

Playing an extra tall forward doesn't adversely effect this slingshot though. With two other KPF's in the side Westhoff is not tied down to a position as much and is free to be the extra tall midfielder, providing the linking mark wherever needed.

Also the slingshot with two tall forwards has the advantage of tying one more opposition tall down, reducing chances of them winning contested marks as we move it down the field. This is especially important if we want to get back to being able to win contests through the corridor. And with two tall forwards once the run and spread has gotten it to 60 - 80 metres out I'm much more confident of a goal with two forwards for them to aim towards to finish off the good work.

The slingshot and a more conventional forward structure aren't mutually exclusive. I'd say that it's the reverse, the two complement each other very well. And we'll see the best results when the side is set up this way.