Strategy The Phil Walsh gameplan

[dylan123]

From the small sample size we've got to go off -

It looked as if we were not really focused on holding possession/switching the play. Last year we saw a bit where we'd go to Jaensch who could push it from one wing to the other wing to get a switch. There didn't really seem to be any 'cheap' touches in that match for us (not really for North either for that matter).

Kick ins appeared to be the same old strat of kick it as far down one side of the ground as possible, this could potentially be a big bonus of having Pods as a defender because he becomes a strong target to kick to due to his contested marking power/ability to bring it to ground. Didn't work for us though, North's talls had the better of us in those situations.

Still felt like we were exposed quite a bit on turn overs, but I guess who isn't? As long as we turn it over less which we did compared to the 'usual' we should be fine there.

Team defense really seemed to be key, I can't exactly remember many 1v1 contests between our defenders and their forwards.

 

[Vader]

We don't want an injury early in the game to decide a match though - that was the idea behind the sub.

Would it be 4 on the bench + 80 interchange cap? That could work.

That's the sort of thing they're talking about, with the interchange cap possibly going even lower in subsequent years - albeit in smaller increments of 10-20 interchanges per year.

The sub rule has done an excellent job when it comes to minimising the disadvantage suffered by teams losing players to injury early in games. From that perspective, it is to be applauded. However, there are other ways of achieving this result without the undesirable side-effects of the sub rule (having one player who frequently plays only 1/4-1/3 of the game). Significantly reducing the number of substitutions teams can make would go a long way towards achieving the same result.

I do find it moderately amusing to read all the bleating and whinging about the sub-rule, given the game's history...
1899 - Teams were reduced from 20 to 18 players (no reserves or interchange).
1946 - 2 reserve players were added, but players who were replaced were unable to return to the field.
1978 - Interchange system introduced.
1994 - Interchange increased to 3 players.
1998 - Interchange increased to 4 players.
2011 - Interchange reduced to 3 players, plus a substitute
2014 - Interchanges capped at 120 per game
???? - Interchange increased to 4 players, Interchange cap reduced to ???

I think the game has become less of a spectacle since the interchange bench was increased from 3 to 4, though much of this is due to coaches using the bench tactically, rather than as a pool of replacement players (the sole reason for the existence of the interchange). Reducing the number of interchanges permitted will (hopefully) see a return to the free-flowing style of footy seen in the "golden days" of the 1990s, when footballers were professional and highly skilled, but the game wasn't clogged up the way it has become with large numbers of interchanges.

 

[Slippery Pete]

We have a thread about Phil Walsh's gameplan after a hit and giggle in Pt Lincoln?

PLEASE PEOPLE!

Any gameplan Phil has been working on over the summer, I guarantee you would not have made the trip to the sunny Eyre Peninsula. And if it did I'd be ******* worried.

 

[Pugsley]

Agree on killing the sub rule. Hate it.

Gil, Vlad is gone. Do away with the stupid rule.

 

[Vader]

Gil, Vlad is gone. Do away with the stupid rule.

It's not a stupid rule. It was introduced for a specific reason and it has been extremely successful at addressing that problem.

There is no point in "doing away" with the rule, unless they have another (better) mechanism that addresses the same problem. Lowering the interchange cap is an obvious candidate for doing this, but they probably want to do some analysis to see what impact this will have before they go ahead and change the rules. Remember that the interchange cap was only introduced in 2014, so they're probably a bit reluctant to change the rule again just 12 months down the track.

For the record, I'm very much in favour of killing the substitute rule... provided that the interchange cap is reduced considerably, thereby producing the same effect that the substitution rule does (without the side effects).

 

[dylan123]

Any gameplan Phil has been working on over the summer, I guarantee you would not have made the trip to the sunny Eyre Peninsula. And if it did I'd be ******* worried.

So he went to the effort of coming up with a decoy plan that will be nothing like what he's actually trying to implement? Impressive.

 

[Pugsley]

It's not a stupid rule. It was introduced for a specific reason and it has been extremely successful at addressing that problem.

There is no point in "doing away" with the rule, unless they have another (better) mechanism that addresses the same problem. Lowering the interchange cap is an obvious candidate for doing this, but they probably want to do some analysis to see what impact this will have before they go ahead and change the rules. Remember that the interchange cap was only introduced in 2014, so they're probably a bit reluctant to change the rule again just 12 months down the track.

For the record, I'm very much in favour of killing the substitute rule... provided that the interchange cap is reduced considerably, thereby producing the same effect that the substitution rule does (without the side effects).

Do you think that was what Phil was getting at by reducing the interchange cap ?

 

[Vader]

Do you think that was what Phil was getting at by reducing the interchange cap ?

I think he probably has several motivations for suggesting that. Killing the substitution rule is probably one of them, but not the only motivating factor.

 

[Vader]

So he went to the effort of coming up with a decoy plan that will be nothing like what he's actually trying to implement? Impressive.

I think he would have used a modified version of his gameplan, noting that many of his key players weren't even playing. He wouldn't have wanted to show his hand in a meaningless game like this.

 

[dylan123]

I think he would have used a modified version of his gameplan, noting that many of his key players weren't even playing. He wouldn't have wanted to show his hand in a meaningless game like this.

Of course not, but it's silly to suggest that you can't pick up signs of how he'd be wanting this side to play in the H&A season from a practice match.

 

[FAITH]

same as ports

 

[Elder van Berlo]

We get 3 cracks at doing whatever Phil wants us to do under game conditions before we are playing for points. While I've got no doubt we experimented with personnel, roles and setups, to suggest that we were trying to play a completely different brand of footy to what we will be trying to execute in round 1 is absurd.

 

[TheLeftFist8]

I'd say general emphasis/style of game plan would have been on show but specific set-ups will have remained hidden e.g. stoppage set-ups, kick-ins, specific forward formations.

 

[weekend at bernies]

The game plan will evolve over the season anyway.

 

[baldandbroke]

I think what I was looking for was some signs that it hasn't been all talk from the coaches and the players.

From what I saw, there was enough for me to continue to believe we are on the right track ...

 

[The Sloane Ranger]

It's not a stupid rule. It was introduced for a specific reason and it has been extremely successful at addressing that problem.

There is no point in "doing away" with the rule, unless they have another (better) mechanism that addresses the same problem. Lowering the interchange cap is an obvious candidate for doing this, but they probably want to do some analysis to see what impact this will have before they go ahead and change the rules. Remember that the interchange cap was only introduced in 2014, so they're probably a bit reluctant to change the rule again just 12 months down the track.

For the record, I'm very much in favour of killing the substitute rule... provided that the interchange cap is reduced considerably, thereby producing the same effect that the substitution rule does (without the side effects).

mate

i think we will see that from next season a reduced cap and back to 4 on the interchange, no sub

i think this decision has already been made at AFL house, its just a question on whether the cap sits at 80 or 100

 

[Vader]

mate

i think we will see that from next season a reduced cap and back to 4 on the interchange, no sub

i think this decision has already been made at AFL house, its just a question on whether the cap sits at 80 or 100

My guess is that we'll have a 4-man bench, with an interchange cap of 80 next year.

 

[pjcrows]

Round 1 NAB Challenge is impossible to gauge FORM or immediate future but you can certainly gain a general picture.

The general picture was less handballing, tackling pressure, forcing turnovers. Pretty good I would've thought.

FWIW our last 2 NAB openers have been a 15 goal loss to Geelong and a 15 goal win over Port. Both resulted in s**t seasons. First game is no predictor.

 

[Mr_Moogle]

I noticed more intensity in our running. I couldn't really tell if we we're actually faster or just running to the right places. Maybe a little of both. Players definitely seemed like they wanted to impress the new coach.

 

[The Sloane Ranger]

to me the one noticable difference was one man in to tackle with team mates covering opposition players on the spread, its been a pet hate of mine seeing 3-4 players charging in to tackle "sheep dogging" and as a result creating free opposition players which leaves us exposed if the ball carrier is able to release the ball

for mine there was early evidence that Walshy is trying to correct this defensive flaw

 

[DD#23]

My guess is that we'll have a 4-man bench, with an interchange cap of 80 next year.

with Sando's use of the bench the prospect of this scared me, but I think it would make for better footy.

 

[Jeffcrowe]

So he went to the effort of coming up with a decoy plan that will be nothing like what he's actually trying to implement? Impressive.

I reckon he is partly right , there was no game plan forward of centre , it was stripped back to working on the team defence and pressuring ball carrier , doubt they even used kick in structures they will use in round 1...next game will have more layers of the game plan other than the defence

 

[dylan123]

I reckon he is partly right , there was no game plan forward of centre , it was stripped back to working on the team defence and pressuring ball carrier , doubt they even used kick in structures they will use in round 1...next game will have more layers of the game plan other than the defence

Of course we weren't going to run with the full thing, but it's not as if you couldn't pick up signals of what we saw on the weekend for what we can come to expect for the home and away season.

 

[Cap]

I wish the AFL would treat the problem and not the symptoms for once.

Aussie rules was essentially designed around positions, broadly defenders, midfielders and forwards.

There was no foresight that players would get bigger stronger and faster and get past the limitations of a large ground.

Stop all 18 players being able to run to all parts of the ground, drop the rotations and get tid of the stupid bloody sub rule.

 

[dylan123]

Strongly against stopping players from being allowed into certain areas of the ground.