Strategy Collingwood 2 GamePlans

[TradeDraft]

We seem to have a Good GamePlan and a s**t GamePlan.

The Good one is what we saw vs Cats and Giants. More Free Flowing and Tacking the Game On. More 1v1 in Defense. Ball Movement lot faster

The s**t One(The 1 we See More) is where we Go Backwards and Sideways most of the Time. Ball Movement is Terrible and goes no where. We play that Stupid Zone Defense. That what we saw vs Blues and Bomber.

Bucks needs to stick to the Good GamePlan and not his s**t one

 

[Quicky]

We seem to have a Good GamePlan and a s**t GamePlan.

The Good one is what we saw vs Cats and Giants. More Free Flowing and Tacking the Game On. More 1v1 in Defense. Ball Movement lot faster

The s**t One(The 1 we See More) is where we Go Backwards and Sideways most of the Time. Ball Movement is Terrible and goes no where. We play that Stupid Zone Defense. That what we saw vs Blues and Bomber.

Bucks needs to stick to the Good GamePlan and not his s**t one

This is true TD. The second one seems to coincide with the decision to play an extra man in defence and occassionally the middle; allowing the opposition a spare in defence. It never ever works out for us.

I think we should stick with strategy one. It gives us a fighting chance and it is more positive to watch.

I have thought we need a second strategy that allows us to defend though. I don't think it is possible to maintain the tempo to play an all out rolling zone all game with the interchange limits in place. Some teams have adjusted by selecting more running players to the exclusion of key position players or rucks. I think we should do it by clamping down and resting for a period to control the game. But that would likely require a possession based period which I think we might struggle with given our footskills.

 

[TradeDraft]

This is true TD. The second one seems to coincide with the decision to play an extra man in defence and occassionally the middle; allowing the opposition a spare in defence. It never ever works out for us.

I think we should stick with strategy one. It gives us a fighting chance and it is more positive to watch.

I have thought we need a second strategy that allows us to defend though. I don't think it is possible to maintain the tempo to play an all out rolling zone all game with the interchange limits in place. Some teams have adjusted by selecting more running players to the exclusion of key position players or rucks. I think we should do it by clamping down and resting for a period to control the game. But that would likely require a possession based period which I think we might struggle with given our footskills.

Agree. To play a Possession Base Style we need good kick and that is something we lack

 

[Markfs]

it does make you wonder why bucks would implement the s**t gameplan some weeks.... maybe he just likes it more

 

[Mkcaptain]

it does make you wonder why bucks would implement the s**t gameplan some weeks.... maybe he just likes it more

He might have read the "is it okay to lose" thread

 

[Markfs]

He might have read the "is it okay to lose" thread

yes, that is true. i think we've established that bucks doesnt have much passion for winning at the moment.

i think it was james hird that wrote recently that buckley was coaching the under 8s on the morning of the game or the morning after....bewildering that he would place so much importance on his family. You would never see malthouse put his family before the team.

 

[Kappa]

Bucks is saving the Good gameplan for when we make finals

 

[76woodenspooners]

The s**t One(The 1 we See More) is where we Go Backwards and Sideways most of the Time. Ball Movement is Terrible and goes no where.

I haven't seen a team in the AFL in 2017 who doesn't do this. Teams do this with good reason:

It spreads the opposition across the field and creates space for team-mates to run into and get the ball into attack. We did it against GWS. GWS did it against us. I watched a bit of the Suns v Port game today and both teams were doing it against each other. It has become part of the modern game.

What is important to make it work is ...
(1) The speed at which the ball is kicked backwards and sideways (It has to be done quickly to be effective)
(2) Players upfield need to run to create options (or decoys)

The reason Collingwood stuff it up is
(1) They're often too slow
(2) Players upfield aren't running and creating options
(3) Defenders are often being too predictable by either transferring play to the far side, or transferring play to the far side and then back again. What other teams seem to be doing a bit more is transferring play through the corridor.

The Good one is what we saw vs Cats and Giants. More Free Flowing and Tacking the Game On. More 1v1 in Defense. Ball Movement lot faster

That only works if players run in numbers. We were doing that at the start of the game yesterday, and we managed to pull it off. But by the last quarter when players were taking the game on they simply found that there was nothing up ahead of them, so they were kicking to a 2 on 1 contest that GWS invariably won possession, and GWS would then send it straight back into attack.

We play that Stupid Zone Defense. That what we saw vs Blues and Bomber.

From a kickin? All teams seem to play some form of zone defence.

Bucks needs to stick to the Good GamePlan and not his s**t one

They're the same gameplan. A player can only take the game on when they have support around them. Remember in the GWS game around the start of the last quarter when Wells was streaming forward and got pinged holding the ball? He looked up and had nothing ahead of him. What was he to do?

Those times when we're very stop-start, the reason we seem to do that is to give players a chance to get upfield and create an option. (By the way, it's very difficult to see this when watching the game on TV when the camera is only ever on the ball carrier - it's much easier to appreciate when at the game and can see what's happening across the whole field)

 

[Adeo66]

Bucks is saving the Good gameplan for when we make finals

Lol, will never see it


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[TradeDraft]

They're the same gameplan. A player can only take the game on when they have support around them. Remember in the GWS game around the start of the last quarter when Wells was streaming forward and got pinged holding the ball? He looked up and had nothing ahead of him. What was he to do?

That Really Shits Me. Happens quite Often. We get a TurnOver BUT we can't take Advantage because our Forwards are so Far Up that the Player with the Ball has to Stop and Wait for Forwards(and Everyone Else) to get back and Chance is Gone.

1 Forward at least always should stay back in the Forward Line

 

[TradeDraft]

Saturday Games pretty much Proved what I was saying

 

[Tarkyn_24]

No it didn't.

We found more space as Hawthorn tired and it meant we could get chains going more readily. We have two game styles but they are not separate plans, it's a matter of execution.

 

[cleomenes]

As a couple have said, it's all in the running of the guys without the ball, and that is controlled by confidence when you are talking about this level of play. The total commitment running that gets a player clear enough to be a good target is closely tied to the leading players belief that the pass to him will be accurate. Any drop in this belief and the run is just that bit off. The great achievment against Hawthorn was building that run out of the desperate hole they were in.

Switching play is a tactic everyone uses, and the decision on whether to continue right across field, cut back or go up the middle is governed by the quality of the leads that eventuate. The only other options are the short kick up the line or inboard, which again are tied to quality running, and the long kick down the line if there is nothing else and there is someone who can mark to aim at. Given Grundy's limitations in this area, and the lack of a Cloke type to aim at, this is a last resort for us.

Barring some tactical breakthrough idea, this is football today. All of the coaches are using the same methods. Personell and their confidence levels are the differences between teams. (As they always have been). At any given time other than centre bounces, all players are within one kick of the ball. In that terrible congestion, incredible skills and support from team mates are needed to get the ball clear. Switching sides when the ball is in your possession is about the only planned method of exploiting the congestion, if you exclude Hail Mary bombs. It is our execution rather than the tactics that so often fall short. If Buckley is to fail, and it looks likely now, it will be because he is unable to get the players to do what they know they have to consistently enough to win enough games. What he is asking of them is not the problem.

 

[Football God]

If we take the game on handballing through the corridor at lightning quick speed we can beat anyone on any day. How exciting are we when we take risks?! When we slow the game down chipping in the back half we allow our opposition to flood back and we fail to find a target up forward.

 

[jackcass]

We seem to have a Good GamePlan and a s**t GamePlan.

The Good one is what we saw vs Cats and Giants. More Free Flowing and Tacking the Game On. More 1v1 in Defense. Ball Movement lot faster

The s**t One(The 1 we See More) is where we Go Backwards and Sideways most of the Time. Ball Movement is Terrible and goes no where. We play that Stupid Zone Defense. That what we saw vs Blues and Bomber.

Bucks needs to stick to the Good GamePlan and not his s**t one

Not sure why you'd assume they're different game plans rather than either good application v poor application of the same one.

 

[domin8tors]

I think there is a major element of players playing with freedom, games that we aren't expected to win we come out and take the game on.

 

[TradeDraft]

I think there is a major element of players playing with freedom, games that we aren't expected to win we come out and take the game on.

So when no Pressure they play like they should.

When we expect we Try to Hard or to Little?

 

[domin8tors]

So when no Pressure they play like they should.

When we expect we Try to Hard or to Little?

I think we go into our shells a bit and don't play on instinct and therefore make errors. when you play with no pressure / confidence then you take the game on more which in my view suits our game style.

 

[76woodenspooners]

As a couple have said, it's all in the running of the guys without the ball, and that is controlled by confidence when you are talking about this level of play. The total commitment running that gets a player clear enough to be a good target is closely tied to the leading players belief that the pass to him will be accurate. Any drop in this belief and the run is just that bit off. The great achievment against Hawthorn was building that run out of the desperate hole they were in.

Switching play is a tactic everyone uses, and the decision on whether to continue right across field, cut back or go up the middle is governed by the quality of the leads that eventuate. The only other options are the short kick up the line or inboard, which again are tied to quality running, and the long kick down the line if there is nothing else and there is someone who can mark to aim at. Given Grundy's limitations in this area, and the lack of a Cloke type to aim at, this is a last resort for us.

Barring some tactical breakthrough idea, this is football today. All of the coaches are using the same methods. Personell and their confidence levels are the differences between teams. (As they always have been). At any given time other than centre bounces, all players are within one kick of the ball. In that terrible congestion, incredible skills and support from team mates are needed to get the ball clear. Switching sides when the ball is in your possession is about the only planned method of exploiting the congestion, if you exclude Hail Mary bombs. It is our execution rather than the tactics that so often fall short. If Buckley is to fail, and it looks likely now, it will be because he is unable to get the players to do what they know they have to consistently enough to win enough games. What he is asking of them is not the problem.

Agree with everything you're saying, but there's another factor: what the opposition are doing. Both Hawthorn and Collingwood were switching play, but Hawthorn were doing a much better job of defending against it - pushing defenders back to man up and put pressure on the kicks in defense. If Hawthorn were bringing men back, then it should have created holes elsewhere - it did, and they're probably holes we exploited later in the game.

 

[PhiloBeddoe]

There's an assumption that the game is going to be played on our own terms. As said many times, Hawthorn had set up pretty well and that tested the decision makers with and without the ball.
It shouldn't be hard to work out why the ball is switched, kicked backwards etc. Instead of booing the kicker, get stuck into the players up the ground who are all looking at each other and asking "who's going?"
On one occasion, Moore was making a lead for Crisp. Crisp would have had to float the ball perfectly to CHF. There were two Hawthorn players in the vicinity and a spoil would have given them the corridor. The commentators were critical and went on and on about it.
Poor leads, poor decisions, holding on off on a kick are not gameplan issues. Those who think gameplan 's**t' was implemented in the first quarter should ask themselves a question.."Why the * was Buckley going off his nut at quarter time?"

 

[cleomenes]

It was interesting to watch the Swans game last night and compare it with ours last week. They too were strangled in the first quarter, and the effect was pretty much the same as it was on our players. They too fought back, but didn't see it through, I thought because they expected it to just happen, something we are more known for than the Swans. I don't know what the lesson is here, it's just an observation.

 

[Carringbush2010]

There's an assumption that the game is going to be played on our own terms. As said many times, Hawthorn had set up pretty well and that tested the decision makers with and without the ball.
It shouldn't be hard to work out why the ball is switched, kicked backwards etc. Instead of booing the kicker, get stuck into the players up the ground who are all looking at each other and asking "who's going?"
On one occasion, Moore was making a lead for Crisp. Crisp would have had to float the ball perfectly to CHF. There were two Hawthorn players in the vicinity and a spoil would have given them the corridor. The commentators were critical and went on and on about it.
Poor leads, poor decisions, holding on off on a kick are not gameplan issues. Those who think gameplan 's**t' was implemented in the first quarter should ask themselves a question.."Why the **** was Buckley going off his nut at quarter time?"

From the posts on this for the most part the problem is execution - agreed. If you look at Hawthorn last night it was reminiscent of their dominant era, they've never been super speedy with the ball but there disposal efficiency always made up for that and you could only combat that with 1 on 1 footy. The doggies of last year with the heavy traffic handball and spread again the most efficient team on the inside which allows them efficient spread.

Whatever your "game plan" disposal efficiency is always king, hence our inconsistency sometimes we get it right when we play with "freedom" or "abandonment" and that's the issue for Nathan and the coaching panel - get the skills and consistency in a northerly direction

 

[Darkyprotector]

No it didn't.

We found more space as Hawthorn tired and it meant we could get chains going more readily. We have two game styles but they are not separate plans, it's a matter of execution.

Very true
You take what the opposition give you ,we got space they tired
Last night smaller ground saved their arse

 

[Darkyprotector]

Smaller

It was interesting to watch the Swans game last night and compare it with ours last week. They too were strangled in the first quarter, and the effect was pretty much the same as it was on our players. They too fought back, but didn't see it through, I thought because they expected it to just happen, something we are more known for than the Swans. I don't know what the lesson is here, it's just an observation.

Smaller ground
More congestion

 

[Darkyprotector]

I think we go into our shells a bit and don't play on instinct and therefore make errors. when you play with no pressure / confidence then you take the game on more which in my view suits our game style.

Attack is he best form of defence