Analysis Jeet Ken Do

[RussellEbertHandball]

I appreciate your effort Janus, but I reckon you are over thinking things.

Its winter - wet and cold and grounds are heavy and slippery. Therefore all these fancy dry weather tactics don't work- or don't work so well when its wet. Also bigger bodies vs flyweights make a difference.

There is no need to have a continuous 18 man press/zone in our defensive half if we are winning the contested and hard ball and therefore we can maintain a forward line structure that allows us to mark the ball in the forward line rather than hit and hope the slingshot with Matty White and co are doing at the moment.

Those 6 foot 2 90-95kgs not normal midfielders, the experienced sides have, is what is making a difference. We don't have these big bodied bid arsed mongrels - or not as many as the 4 sides who sit above us and even like most below us, and therefore we just throw numbers at the contest to account for the many skinny middle distance runners we have in our mid field. And the problem is accentuated by playing Sam Gray and Mitchell etc over bigger guys.

Our guys, like all players in the AFL, are starting to feel fatigued. When you aren't as big and as strong as the opposition, the running fatigue gets accelerated by the crash and bash to the body fatigue.

We haven't been smashed off the park yet over 4 quarters, but Adelaide belted us in the second half. So Ken's tactics given our list, body size and experience isn't a complete failure but it is being tested to its maximum in the winter months.

Its why come September if the weather is good and the grounds dry out we will cause havoc just like last year. But at the moment it is about the lack of structure and size and game style as to why we aren't winning. Plus the opposition is hunting us and hitting us hard in the packs as well as stopping our run. If we had bodies the size of Hawthorn Geelong or Sydney and the run and spread of the current players, we would be doing what Geelong do - find a way to get over the line even though they aren't playing well.

 

[Equus]

Sorry for the intrusion but that is a wonderful write-up Janus.

 

[Fifty]

Like the analysis, but too simplistic. What happens when the opposition simply calls our bluff and matches our +1 with one of their defenders? Result: Craplin gets two goals. Every team has been trying that since the Crows and it's cost us.

I don't think it's too much to expect an aspiring premiership coach to have a Plan B in the very likely event of injuries, form or improved opposition tactics, mean our preferred plans don't work as well. So far I haven't seen it.

 

[PepeSilvia]

Have heard a bit more about our heavy training phase. A friend of my grandmother was at an event that Brad Ebert was at a couple of days ago. According to Brad, they'd been training extremely hard for several weeks and are just coming out of this hard period now. Also apparently Burgo makes them do a very strong (perhaps tiring) warmup about 2 hours before each game.

 

[ScooterBrother]

Well done on the visual way of explaining some of the finer details. The one flaw is this is all premised by the "defenders" having the ball from a kick in. For it to work Port need to be able to turn the ball over and get good clean possession without the opponent having a shot on goal...

So, the best way to turn the ball over is to have a sound defensive structure, which because of injuries and selection, Port simply does not have. The players that are used to being able to zone off a bit and read the play to launch the ball movement as described in the OP, are being asked to play much tighter.

In addition the +1 being described has had to be Westhoff for much of the time, again, due to the aforementioned injuries and selection which means that even when this does work, and we move the ball, Port's forward line structure isn't conducive to kicking goals as there is only Schulz as the legitimate contested mark. As the opponent also has a +1, the F50 entries are being turned around much easier and the opponent can then employ their tactics to move the ball.

Because of this there are also less "loose" balls for Gray and Wingard to feast on, and eventually the midfielders lose confidence/stamina to move the ball as per the plan and it all starts to fall apart...

So whilst I agree with your summary of how Port play, I absolutely fundamentally disagree that spread is either more important or not made significantly more potent when combined with a key positional structure - at both ends.

Put a key forward and a key defender in the sides that faced Adelaide, Essendon and Richmond and I reckon Port would still be in the top 4...

 

[Janus]

Part two discussing the forward line is coming up, but I want to address a couple of key points that have been raised. Firstly, all we are discussing for now is the defense in isolation, so any talk of key forwards and midfield losing stoppages will be looked at later. Suffice to say that I completely disagree with the premise that a traditional structure is the way forward. Also, while the example I have used is from a kick-in, the idea applies to all repelled attacks - in fact it's easier to switch when the attackers are forced to transition into defenders, because they are generally out of position instead of zoning.

Structure outweighs tactics in the winter months

While this is true in it's most simplistic form - when grounds are heavier run tends to give way to contested ball - I would postulate that it's more that when things get difficult, players revert back to the instinctive rather than the recently taught. So players who from a very young age were taught that when all else fails, kick it long do exactly that...and the lack of another key position player becomes evident, because they are attempting to solidify and give form and structure to something that is meant to be formless. If something is formless, it can become whatever it needs to in order to succeed, and it doesn't matter if a player is out injured or having a bad day or whatever. Which is why Jeet Ken Do - football without structure, or rather, structure from movement - relies so heavily on being able to trust players to do the right thing. That the players will run and spread and provide three options at all times to whoever has the ball, regardless of where it is at. The lack of movement out of defense is the issue here and nothing else, and that stagnation comes from not trusting in the players around them. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the style of football that we are trying to play in winter. Increased training loads and heavier grounds play a part, but what is more a factor is what will be addressed in the next point, which is:

What happens when the opposition goes man on man?

Man on man defense is the first defense a footballer will ever learn. And it's also the most dangerous. Why? Because man on man doesn't rely on tactics or structure or any of the convoluted bullshit that pervades the game today. It has one basic tenet: beat your man, your talent vs his. Which is fair enough when playing at a young age, because all talent is pretty much equal. But when some players develop to a level greater than others, whether that is by physical prowess, skill or a combination of both, then things soon get out of control.

Which is why teams like Adelaide, Essendon and Richmond have had success with this tactic against us is that quite simply, and as REH said, their players are more developed and so can consistently harness their talent at a higher level than our players. When an opposition coach sends a player to our plus one, suddenly the advantage is negated and perhaps even turned into a negative unless the players are prepared to take risks and hit risky passes out from defense in order to generate the run required. However much of a spud Chaplin is, he is in the prime of his career vs guys like Hombsch, Pittard, Jonas, O'Shea and Impey who are all still learning the game and what it takes to be successful.

You can't develop players to play one system and then when injuries occur, tell them that the system they are learning - the one that you believe in - isn't going to work because the team doesn't have the right personnel or because the ground is heavy. Hinkley's mantra is 'We're never one player away' - which doesn't mean that he's happy with the list or players getting injured, but that he has full faith in the players he selects to do their job and the system he's developed to work regardless of who plays in it (within reason, of course).

In short, we don't need to develop a Plan B, because Plan A works so well that opposition coaches are having to resort to man on man tactics in order to succeed. Let me say that another way - coaches are having to throw out their game plan and revert back to a style which is based purely on relying on individual skill level and talent and basically throwing their lot onto the mercy of the football gods. In the winter months this will be successful in the short term, because our players don't have the physical strength and consistency to match them. But fast forward to 3 years from now, when guys like Hombsch, Jonas, Trengove, Pittard, O'Shea and Broadbent are in their prime and Impey has had three seasons under his belt, with Carlile the older head keeping everyone in check, and then tell me that they wouldn't be able to cope with a man on man defense. And people want us to go back to a traditional, rigid structure?

Look at the big picture and not just this season in isolation. Hinkley is thinking long term and isn't going to sacrifice what he is trying to achieve by completely reworking a perfectly good game style just so Port Adelaide can possibly jag a flag this year. No one has stopped Port Adelaide but Port Adelaide itself. No one has worked out how to counter the way we play, they've only worked out how to negate it. Do we need another 196+ KPD on our list? Of course we do - it makes the system far easier to implement if the running defenders have an anchor point that they trust which they can run off of - and I'm sure it will be addressed this year if possible. But any talk of throwing out the way we play and going to a different game style when it's the opposition who has done that to begin with is ludicrous.

Stop trying to grab the crumbling rock face and trust in the climbing rope that has got us this far in the first place. The mountain is hard enough to climb already.

 

[Trewth]

Part two discussing the forward line is coming up, but I want to address a couple of key points that have been raised. Firstly, all we are discussing for now is the defense in isolation, so any talk of key forwards and midfield losing stoppages will be looked at later. Suffice to say that I completely disagree with the premise that a traditional structure is the way forward. Also, while the example I have used is from a kick-in, the idea applies to all repelled attacks - in fact it's easier to switch when the attackers are forced to transition into defenders, because they are generally out of position instead of zoning.

Structure outweighs tactics in the winter months

While this is true in it's most simplistic form - when grounds are heavier run tends to give way to contested ball - I would postulate that it's more that when things get difficult, players revert back to the instinctive rather than the recently taught. So players who from a very young age were taught that when all else fails, kick it long do exactly that...and the lack of another key position player becomes evident, because they are attempting to solidify and give form and structure to something that is meant to be formless. If something is formless, it can become whatever it needs to in order to succeed, and it doesn't matter if a player is out injured or having a bad day or whatever. Which is why Jeet Ken Do - football without structure, or rather, structure from movement - relies so heavily on being able to trust players to do the right thing. That the players will run and spread and provide three options at all times to whoever has the ball, regardless of where it is at. The lack of movement out of defense is the issue here and nothing else, and that stagnation comes from not trusting in the players around them. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the style of football that we are trying to play in winter. Increased training loads and heavier grounds play a part, but what is more a factor is what will be addressed in the next point, which is:

What happens when the opposition goes man on man?

Man on man defense is the first defense a footballer will ever learn. And it's also the most dangerous. Why? Because man on man doesn't rely on tactics or structure or any of the convoluted bullshit that pervades the game today. It has one basic tenet: beat your man, your talent vs his. Which is fair enough when playing at a young age, because all talent is pretty much equal. But when some players develop to a level greater than others, whether that is by physical prowess, skill or a combination of both, then things soon get out of control.

Which is why teams like Adelaide, Essendon and Richmond have had success with this tactic against us is that quite simply, and as REH said, their players are more developed and so can consistently harness their talent at a higher level than our players. When an opposition coach sends a player to our plus one, suddenly the advantage is negated and perhaps even turned into a negative unless the players are prepared to take risks and hit risky passes out from defense in order to generate the run required. However much of a spud Chaplin is, he is in the prime of his career vs guys like Hombsch, Pittard, Jonas, O'Shea and Impey who are all still learning the game and what it takes to be successful.

You can't develop players to play one system and then when injuries occur, tell them that the system they are learning - the one that you believe in - isn't going to work because the team doesn't have the right personnel or because the ground is heavy. Hinkley's mantra is 'We're never one player away' - which doesn't mean that he's happy with the list or players getting injured, but that he has full faith in the players he selects to do their job and the system he's developed to work regardless of who plays in it (within reason, of course).

In short, we don't need to develop a Plan B, because Plan A works so well that opposition coaches are having to resort to man on man tactics in order to succeed. Let me say that another way - coaches are having to throw out their game plan and revert back to a style which is based purely on relying on individual skill level and talent and basically throwing their lot onto the mercy of the football gods. In the winter months this will be successful in the short term, because our players don't have the physical strength and consistency to match them. But fast forward to 3 years from now, when guys like Hombsch, Jonas, Trengove, Pittard, O'Shea and Broadbent are in their prime and Impey has had three seasons under his belt, with Carlile the older head keeping everyone in check, and then tell me that they wouldn't be able to cope with a man on man defense. And people want us to go back to a traditional, rigid structure?

Look at the big picture and not just this season in isolation. Hinkley is thinking long term and isn't going to sacrifice what he is trying to achieve by completely reworking a perfectly good game style just so Port Adelaide can possibly jag a flag this year. No one has stopped Port Adelaide but Port Adelaide itself. No one has worked out how to counter the way we play, they've only worked out how to negate it. Do we need another 196+ KPD on our list? Of course we do - it makes the system far easier to implement if the running defenders have an anchor point that they trust which they can run off of - and I'm sure it will be addressed this year if possible. But any talk of throwing out the way we play and going to a different game style when it's the opposition who has done that to begin with is ludicrous.

Stop trying to grab the crumbling rock face and trust in the climbing rope that has got us this far in the first place. The mountain is hard enough to climb already.

Amazing post in an already amazing thread. Comprehensively explained how Ken has a bigger picture plan that is well worth adhering to despite any apparent evidence to the contrary. Great work Janus.

We have a definite, deliberate plan for long term success that I'm glad our coaching staff are sticking to. They have shown so far that it works and is worth persevering with. I'm glad they are doing this and not resorting to throwing it all out the window in a reactionary manner because of some short sighted idea of success. IKWT etc.

 

[Ford Fairlane]

Janus how do you feel about REH saying you're over-thinking things? That's like being told by Mick Malthouse you're too grumpy at press conferences.

 

[Janus]

Janus how do you feel about REH saying you're over-thinking things? That's like being told by Mick Malthouse you're too grumpy at press conferences.

I'm in tears here!

 

[FishingRick04]

Janus how do you feel about REH saying you're over-thinking things? That's like being told by Mick Malthouse you're too grumpy at press conferences.

LOL I thought the same thing there

 

[rogerjames]

Great posts, very informative. I'm not going to be popular here but the talk of flexibility is great yet I feel Ken has displayed very little over the last 5 weeks.

 

[Janus]

Part Two - Ken and the Art of Forward Structure

With each post in this section, we're going to look at each version of how a forward line can be set up and why certain things happen in today's football, and why Jeet Ken Do is the way of the future. Every structure is going to be using zone defense as its foundation, since I've already discussed what the perils of man on man defense has.

The Conventional Six Man Forward Line



This is your typical six man forward line, with a six man defensive zone (depending on who the CHF is, the CHB might play a little closer to him). Back in the day, when coaches were first starting to do things like zoning, this was what they were trying to achieve. Maximum separation to cover the maximum amount of area, with the strongest part of the zone being the centre corridor and the weakest part being in the pockets and tucked up against the boundary. This is why you'll see a lot of forwards lead out to these areas and have to kick goals at almost impossible angles - if you're playing a standard forward line today, defenses are coached so well that unless you're a fantastic contested mark like a Kurt Tippett or a Tom Hawkins, it's the only place you'll get a kick. It's also the reason why you can't carry a key forward who shanks kicks for goal and is poor at taking a contested mark.

The only time this structure can be used effectively and the defense torn apart is when the ball is moving in that quickly that the players who are zoning don't have the time to react to where the ball is coming from or the midfielders who are streaming down into defense to fill space. But generally speaking, because of the lack of space afforded to the forwards, and the ease of which a player can be in a two on one or even a three on one situation, coaches don't usually use this forward line structure anymore.

The Five Man Forward Line



When playing a +1 in defense, this is the standard forward line structure that is used. The defensive zone remains the same - it's a six man zone, and having one less player to worry about shouldn't be a problem (unless you're playing man on man, which again, has been addressed). But because there are less players, it's possible for the five remaining to position themselves at the strongest areas of the zone and work outward - which is why we will play smaller forwards like Wingard, Gray, Monfries in those roles. This tactic also has the benefit of being able to adapt quicker to where the ball is coming in from - as long as all the forwards are providing leads, there should be no reason why the midfield shouldn't be able to hit up a target. Again though, most of the shots for goal are going to be from either just inside or on the 50 for the half forwards on an angle, or in the pocket for the two small forwards playing out of the goal square. Ideally for this tactic you'd want two Schulz-like players leading out to the 50m arc - reliable set shots for goal with pretty good acceleration who can take a contested mark. Again, speed of ball movement will allow this forward line structure to flourish even more.

The next three tactics deserve dedicated posts on their own, starting with the Four Man Forward Line and culminating in the Zero Man Forward Line aka the Slingshot. And yes, there is a place for another key forward in at least two of them.

 

[Macca19]

Outstanding stuff Janus.

 

[Macca19]

Those 6 foot 2 90-95kgs not normal midfielders, the experienced sides have, is what is making a difference. We don't have these big bodied bid arsed mongrels - or not as many as the 4 sides who sit above us and even like most below us, and therefore we just throw numbers at the contest to account for the many skinny middle distance runners we have in our mid field. And the problem is accentuated by playing Sam Gray and Mitchell etc over bigger guys.

Im not sure our midfield is any shorter/stronger than any of the top 4 except for Freo. We are more than comparable to the other three. You look at our starting midfield:

Boak 183/83
Cornes 183/78
Wines 187/94
Ebert 189/88
Gray 183/84
925/427

Secondary mids:
Hartlett 185/80
Polec 188/81
Wingard 181/82
White 180/82
Young 188/81
922/406

SYDNEY:
Kennedy 188/96
Jack 178/78
Hannebury 181/81
Bird 179/83
Parker 184/85
910/423

Secondary mids:
Jetta 181/75
Cunningham 181/78
Mcveigh 184/82
McGlynn 172/76
Malceski 188/86
906/397

HAWTHORN
Lewis 186/88
Mitchell 179/83
Burgoyne 186/89
Hodge 186/89
Shiels 183/84
920/433

Smith 188/82
Rioli 177/80
Langford 187/83
Hill 181/78
Sewell 181/86
914/409

GEELONG
Selwood 182/87
Johnson 189/95
Stokes 175/77
Guthrie 186/82
Kelly 183/86
915/427

Horlin-Smith 186/83
Bartel 187/89
Duncan 188/87
Caddy 186/88
Motlop 182/79
929/426

 

[Jim Dixon]

See if we had a decent media they'd be writing stuff like this, on tactics, strategy and the like. But we only have the News Ltd Mafia and the Fairfax Press hacks, who actually don't know very much about football.

They know about the players, the clubs and the AFL but they don't know, understand, or I suspect, even like the game of football very much.

So thank you to Janus for posting about this sort of thing.

 

[tribey]

See if we had a decent media they'd be writing stuff like this, on tactics, strategy and the like. But we only have the News Ltd Mafia and the Fairfax Press hacks, who actually don't know very much about football.

They know about the players, the clubs and the AFL but they don't know, understand, or I suspect, even like the game of football very much.

So thank you to Janus for posting about this sort of thing.

Even if they did possess a capable level of knowledge, they're too scared to put their balls on the line by delving into such tactical analysis lest they're laughed out of the room by the coaching fraternity.

So they're reduced to calls on an individual's form and social life, while ex-players and coaches in the media are left to dreadful simplicity such as "throw him in the ruck".

 

[Andre]

Im not sure our midfield is any shorter/stronger than any of the top 4 except for Freo. We are more than comparable to the other three. You look at our starting midfield:

That's half the picture at best. Our midfielders are either younger or had s**t conditioning for years under Falloon. Once players have been brought up to an acceptable weight they'd be trained to get stronger each pre-season whilst staying around the same size (beach muscles being detrimental not a help for sports performance).

It's a part of why we see our guys having trouble holding tackles or breaking tackles against more experienced sides. And unlike the heavy training load's for aerobic fitness we're just coming out of (I'll trust those in 'the know'), to run out games, you can't stick the players in the gym for 12 weeks, 4 hours a day to get them super strong and then taper it (*insert Essendon PED joke here*). We just have to wait for more pre-seasons under their belts.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Im not sure our midfield is any shorter/stronger than any of the top 4 except for Freo. We are more than comparable to the other three. You look at our starting midfield:

Boak 183/83
Cornes 183/78
Wines 187/94
Ebert 189/88
Gray 183/84
925/427

Secondary mids:
Hartlett 185/80
Polec 188/81
Wingard 181/82
White 180/82
Young 188/81
922/406

SYDNEY:
Kennedy 188/96
Jack 178/78
Hannebury 181/81
Bird 179/83
Parker 184/85
910/423

Secondary mids:
Jetta 181/75
Cunningham 181/78
Mcveigh 184/82
McGlynn 172/76
Malceski 188/86
906/397

HAWTHORN
Lewis 186/88
Mitchell 179/83
Burgoyne 186/89
Hodge 186/89
Shiels 183/84
920/433

Smith 188/82
Rioli 177/80
Langford 187/83
Hill 181/78
Sewell 181/86
914/409

GEELONG
Selwood 182/87
Johnson 189/95
Stokes 175/77
Guthrie 186/82
Kelly 183/86
915/427

Horlin-Smith 186/83
Bartel 187/89
Duncan 188/87
Caddy 186/88
Motlop 182/79
929/426

Ollie makes our numbers look better against other sides but he is a kid and in 2013 was the most rotated player in the league according to Ken.

Not in 2014 but Goodes has been a main player in Sydney's mid field for years he is close to 100kgs.

The rule of thumb is height - weight = 100. Have a look at the experienced mids the other teams have and how many are less than 100 and closer to 95.

In 2013 and 2014 we are better than in the past but still relatively small compared to the other top 4 contenders.

 

[Ford Fairlane]

Just listening to Leigh Matthews say how Richmond have improved over the past month and maybe people should remember they had some of their better players out early in the year.

Port currently have Carlile, Trengove and Monfries out, never saw Redden this year, lost key depth players Colquhoun, Renouf and Heath, and have been without the big-bodied mid types Moore and Stewart with persistent injuries. Maybe it's time people drew a deep breath and considered the obvious.

The size of our midfielders hasn't been so much a problem over the past month as has our ability to hit targets or convert critical opportunities. We've had to adapt to some targeted tagging and midfield zoning designed to congest our running game but we have still been strong defensively.

 

[FishingRick04]

Moore will add height next week. Ah Chee will too next year

 

[charcolechaddy]

If we had Bruce then we would never loose.

 

[Janus]

Just as an aside - there were several times when Hawthorn had a zero man forward line. Do we think a two time premiership coach in Clarkson doesn't know what he's doing?

 

[PAFC04]

are these leaked doc's from the port club rooms..... ? scribbles of paper that that you found on the gates at Alberton Oval?

not bad overview....

Seriously, nice work.

It does point out a few weak links in our structure....which we must address this year at the draft and trading period......

I will be happy if we can land Cameron and Lycett, and two 25-28 (Chapman like), Flynn has the ability to for fill one of these requirements) players and we're set for a huge year next year.....

 

[philthy05]

it's all well and fine to say that run and spread has no reliance on tall targets but it completely ignores that players immediately hesitate if they dont have a clear target up forward.

we see it a million times. when players look up and dont see targets , or when forward thrusts are being spurned and returned quickly teams struggle to continue to play on with dare and quickness. they start looking sideways and hold the ball up.

the two best teams in hawthorn and sydney have roughie and gunstan , and buddy and tippett.

with those players they know they can play on quickly to a contest up forward.

 

[Janus]

it's all well and fine to say that run and spread has no reliance on tall targets but it completely ignores that players immediately hesitate if they dont have a clear target up forward.

we see it a million times. when players look up and dont see targets , or when forward thrusts are being spurned and returned quickly teams struggle to continue to play on with dare and quickness. they start looking sideways and hold the ball up.

the two best teams in hawthorn and sydney have roughie and gunstan , and buddy and tippett.

with those players they know they can play on quickly to a contest up forward.

There's the problem with your thinking right there. Why does it have to be a contest? Taking contested marks is overrated in a statistical sense and quite frankly, uncontrollable. Yes, you need players who are able to do so - and Schulz and Westhoff are pretty good at it. But if you run and spread hard enough, you'll create a myriad of options when you play on quickly, because you're not kicking in hope, but kicking with a clear goal in mind.

People seem to forget that for the first half of the year, we WERE the best team in the competition. We lose a couple of games - the reasons of which aren't the lack of key forwards -, and suddenly it's "Well ******* s**t, man! We need to ******* get our structure back, man! We need to play like everyone else in the league, man!"

Another key forward who was versatile enough to contribute elsewhere, like a Roughead, would be invaluable to the system. But we don't have one of those. So we make do with what we have and don't complain about something we can't do anything about. Butcher should be that guy, but he's not. Shaw isn't ready.