Strategy What wins us our next flag?

[M Malice]

I just watched the interview with Damian Hardwick On the Couch (post GF show), thankfully they let Dimma do most of the talking, a highly impressive take on the Tigers and how they turned it around this year. Sounds a lot like what Fagan is trying to implement with us, some of his points.

1) Make the club a fun place to be around, work bloody hard but have a good time.
2) Let the players take ownership and they buy in.
3) Let the players play on instinct and to their strengths.
4) A footy club is all about relationships, mateship and togetherness.
5) He looked at the players they had and what they bought to the table and moulded his game plan around that.

The last 2 premiers have built their team around elite pressure and contested possessions, a few questions for us going forward.

1) Is the time of having 2-3 big talls at each end of the ground and 2 ruckman a thing of the past?
2) Have we got too many talls on our books?

Footy continually evolves, hopefully Fagan and co can position us in front of the curve.

IMO nail the 2017 and 2018 drafts like we did last year (at this early stage it looks like we did) and a couple of the other post go home 5 drafts and we are set for an extended tilt at the flag over the 2020's.

Needs- Contested beasts with good disposal all over the ground, IMO you must be able to win your own ball no matter where on the ground you are. High intensity pressure players, you can not carry passengers in the modern game either offensively or defensively, you must be able to run both ways.

#allforone

 

[briztoon]

It's late and I was about to go to bed.

I see parallels with the evolution the NBA has experienced over the last 20 years and the last couple of years where the game is heading in the AFL.

The rules slowly change, bit by bit changing the nature and style of the game. And the type of players valued more and target in recruiting.

The way I look at where the game is now, is your Ruck needs to be mobile and able to contribute to the midfield. If Ballenden can be developed as a mobile ruck, doesn't have to athletic, just have the endurance to compete between the arcs, his marking and elite field kicking will be a weapon.

There is still a place for two tall forwards, even if one is anchored to the goal square, or both can be mobile. Defence needs to be able to match up with the opposition you are playing. They play three tall forwards, you play three tall defenders to match, they play two you match with two etc.

It's your small defenders and small forwards who really need to be able to run through your midfield. You're not playing with 5 midfielders on the ground any more, but effectively at least 9 midfielders or more between the HFF and HBF.

There could be games where Robertson is basically the 3rd tall defender and spending time running through the midfield. And a player like Aiden Bonar or Cam Rayner is effectively you're 3rd tall forward and spending a fair amount of time running through the midfield.

Games are being won by which ever team can have more players around the contest and then able win the ball and spread, or get more players around the next contest. It's a speed, skill and numbers game.

 

[Comeback Lions]

Exactly what I’ve been saying, jason pm, we have too many talls on our books, though this could still be resolved this draft. So far Freeman is the only tall delisted. Still in play, but not yet contracted are Close, Hammelmann, Eagles. Key position defenders not regularly in seniors, we have Frost, Skinner, Paparone and Eagles. Admittedly Skinner is out for most of the year, and Paparone could play on the wing or midfield, but we tend to be too tall both forward and back in the twos. Hodge could further affect this. I’m pretty sceptical about taking both Ballenden and Payne for the reasons you suggest. We need to draft midfielders & smaller pressure forwards. With the possibility of Cameron and Hodge being added we need to delist or trade a couple of senior list players to accomodate them. At the moment, if those 2 come in and we don’t match for Rocky, we only have 3 list spots to take to the draft. Would think that both C Beams and Close could still be delisted. Anyway, will be interesting to see what happens.

 

[morsie]

Both Richmond and WB won flags without dominant tall forwards.It seems for the forseeable future if you are going to have talls they must be exceptional and the other forwards must pick up the defensive slack .I had thought that Richmonds game plan might fall apart in the finals but it got stronger.Agree backlines must be picked to msach opposition.

 

[Pancho Gonzales]

Both Richmond and WB won flags without dominant tall forwards.It seems for the forseeable future if you are going to have talls they must be exceptional and the other forwards must pick up the defensive slack .I had thought that Richmonds game plan might fall apart in the finals but it got stronger.Agree backlines must be picked to msach opposition.

I guess it's all based around what you view as dominant. Tom Boyd certainly played a hand in the 16 GF and Riewoldt had some key moments on the weekend.

 

[M Malice]

Exactly what I’ve been saying, jason pm, we have too many talls on our books, though this could still be resolved this draft. So far Freeman is the only tall delisted. Still in play, but not yet contracted are Close, Hammelmann, Eagles. Key position defenders not regularly in seniors, we have Frost, Skinner, Paparone and Eagles. Admittedly Skinner is out for most of the year, and Paparone could play on the wing or midfield, but we tend to be too tall both forward and back in the twos. Hodge could further affect this. I’m pretty sceptical about taking both Ballenden and Payne for the reasons you suggest. We need to draft midfielders & smaller pressure forwards. With the possibility of Cameron and Hodge being added we need to delist or trade a couple of senior list players to accomodate them. At the moment, if those 2 come in and we don’t match for Rocky, we only have 3 list spots to take to the draft. Would think that both C Beams and Close could still be delisted. Anyway, will be interesting to see what happens.

I think we will try to trade Close and Paparone, I would also be passing on Payne, I wouldn't let Ballenden go, IMO he could be the best of the lot, really like the glimpses I have seen of him both live in the NEAFL and online.

Hipwood is a different KPF, very agile at ground level and pace to burn, we could afford to play 2-3 KPFs with him as one of them. Unless game style changes considerably over the next 3-5 years (possible) can Hipwood, Schache plus one of Ballenden/Skinner/Hamellmann/Close all play in the same forward line?

I would be keeping Eagles for one more year and see what happens, was great in the NEAFL as a KPD and IMO is an upgrade on Frost, he can also play in the ruck.

 

[Viceregal]

I know that there are starts and journeymen in all teams and that some of our three-peat players were not as individually brilliant as others. Time making things hazy how did our then role-players (eg Copeland, Pike, Notting etc) compare to our current team members?

I suppose I am wondering how the bottom six from that period stack up in our current team -if the old bottom six would be our current middle six then were are 12 players short.

 

[JasperBeardly]

It's an interesting one, particularly the Tigers forward set up, as Dimma has said they really went with it out of necessity rather then by design. Once Griffiths was out with concussion issues from round 2 onward, they tried Todd Elton in the second tall role until round 10. Elton was effectively their last option for that role so when he was dropped they went small and it worked out well for them. But towards the end of the home & away season (I think) Dimma said that ideally they'd have a second tall forward but they weren't just going to chuck another tall in there for the sake of it. So based on that I'm not even sure the Tigers will run with that set up again next year.

 

[Tairy Greene]

Winning a Grand Final.

 

[Eons]

Winning a Grand Final.

Bastard, beat me to it.

 

[Comeback Lions]

I think we will try to trade Close and Paparone, I would also be passing on Payne, I wouldn't let Ballenden go, IMO he could be the best of the lot, really like the glimpses I have seen of him both live in the NEAFL and online.

Hipwood is a different KPF, very agile at ground level and pace to burn, we could afford to play 2-3 KPFs with him as one of them. Unless game style changes considerably over the next 3-5 years (possible) can Hipwood, Schache plus one of Ballenden/Skinner/Hamellmann/Close all play in the same forward line?

I would be keeping Eagles for one more year and see what happens, was great in the NEAFL as a KPD and IMO is an upgrade on Frost, he can also play in the ruck.

Completely agree with you on all of above. Definitely want Eagles to get another year. Would also pass on Payne or rookie only, depending on how many talls we shed. No need for Lobbe either. You've left Walker out of the KPF list and his marking was crucial for us in the second half of the season. Ballenden might eventually replace Walker, but not for a couple of years at least. Hammer is the interesting one... we'd really need to trade someone like Paperone out, to put him on the senior list. I guess he could also be redrafted as a rookie as the other way he might survive.

 

[Fatcat08]

I tend to think that when you're in a building phase and all your KPP options are young and not yet established you're probably going to naturally have a few more options in the side, as you're not really sure which ones will kick on or not. I think as they get older and a few establish themselves as your main guys the number starts to thin out a bit. So i think that yes we're probably overstocked on tall guys purely on numbers right now, but I certainly don't see them all on the list in 2-3 years time as some rise and others fall.

Personally I take Payne and Ballenden if we view where they're bid as worth it. When you've only got 3-4 definite locks in your whole KPP roster looking forward I say you keep picking guys up if they're worth where they go. Smalls are much easier to get either through trade or a largely plug and play option in the draft so in our stage of development I think you continue to load up on talls until you find a really strong core of 6-8 guys.

 

[dlanod]

Bastard, beat me to it.

I passed on it as too obvious.

 

[morsie]

I guess it's all based around what you view as dominant. Tom Boyd certainly played a hand in the 16 GF and Riewoldt had some key moments on the weekend.

Agreed, I was more arguing that if you have two talls they might have to dominate otherwise thir assumed for this purpose defensive shortcomings will punish you.Adelaide had at least two talls forward, neither of whom dominated and who had no physical presence.Riewoldt had some moments but played medium/small except for a couple of huge marks.We are often looking for "the third tall" on here but maybe the game has changed unless they are Lynch/Brown/Bradshaw quality.

 

[POBT]

I don't think you can necessarily draw too many conclusions from the last 2 years' premiers. If we start to see games nearly always won by the team that goes in small, then I think we can say it is a trend. But footy history is strewn with premiership winning sides that didn't structure up in the most traditional way. Two does not indicate a strong trend IMO.

And let's not forget that GWS, Geelong, Adelaide, Sydney and Hawthorn have all made at least preliminary finals in recent years playing 2-3 KPPs at each end plus at least one ruckman.

 

[Comeback Lions]

Personally I take Payne and Ballenden if we view where they're bid as worth it. When you've only got 3-4 definite locks in your whole KPP roster looking forward I say you keep picking guys up if they're worth where they go. Smalls are much easier to get either through trade or a largely plug and play option in the draft so in our stage of development I think you continue to load up on talls until you find a really strong core of 6-8 guys.

Andrews, McStay, Hipwood, Walker, Schache, Skinner, Frost, Paparone, Close, Hammer, Eagles makes 11. Adding Ballenden and Payne makes 13, so the point is, it's hard to see 2 coming in, without 2 going out. I'd be happy with a core of 6 to 8 talls as you suggest, plus rucks, but we're well over that. Unless a number of them are injured at the same time, we can't find spots to play them all, given our game plan. We had 12 talls on the list this year and 3 rucks (15 players, 31% of list). I understand what you're saying about development, but I reckon the development would improve if for example Archie or Oscar were at times the sole ruck in the twos, so they learn how to do that, or Schache and Ballenden were the only tall forwards in the twos, rather than having 4 big men getting in each other's way in the forward line. I trust the club, but I don't think the 15 talls (including rucks) worked that well this year. Midfielders and pressure forwards also take time to develop... just arguing for changing list structure to accommodate the way the game is changing.

 

[LongLion]

I don't think you can necessarily draw too many conclusions from the last 2 years' premiers. If we start to see games nearly always won by the team that goes in small, then I think we can say it is a trend. But footy history is strewn with premiership winning sides that didn't structure up in the most traditional way. Two does not indicate a strong trend IMO.

And let's not forget that GWS, Geelong, Adelaide, Sydney and Hawthorn have all made at least preliminary finals in recent years playing 2-3 KPPs at each end plus at least one ruckman.

The crows just didn't go hard at the ball or the player. Forgot it was a GF & didn't turn up to play. Finals footy is always won by the team hardest at the ball (plus elite skills & game plan )

 

[lionraven]

The Dogs and Tigers revolutionised their gameplay by going small. Now its time for us to be trend setters ourselves.

Fagan is going for the 22 tall line up. Each tall has to have elite kicking. Once we get the ball we just play keepies off with our elite kicking until we shoot and goal. Easy peasy. Unbeatable strategy.

Taller players remain tall throughout the game and no one can double team your talls if everyone is tall. Lever/McGovern/Rance/ etc all neutralised in once move.

Everyone says Fagan is a developmental genius but maybe not much of a strategist. However, no one sees the 4D underwater backgammon he is playing right now.

 

[Fatcat08]

Andrews, McStay, Hipwood, Walker, Schache, Skinner, Frost, Paparone, Close, Hammer, Eagles makes 11. Adding Ballenden and Payne makes 13, so the point is, it's hard to see 2 coming in, without 2 going out. I'd be happy with a core of 6 to 8 talls as you suggest, plus rucks, but we're well over that. Unless a number of them are injured at the same time, we can't find spots to play them all, given our game plan. We had 12 talls on the list this year and 3 rucks (15 players, 31% of list). I understand what you're saying about development, but I reckon the development would improve if for example Archie or Oscar were at times the sole ruck in the twos, so they learn how to do that, or Schache and Ballenden were the only tall forwards in the twos, rather than having 4 big men getting in each other's way in the forward line. I trust the club, but I don't think the 15 talls (including rucks) worked that well this year. Midfielders and pressure forwards also take time to develop... just arguing for changing list structure to accommodate the way the game is changing.

I think it will happen over time and we probably will see a couple go at the end of trade period. Still even at 15 we'd only be 4 more than Richmond ran with this year on their list and thats a team with some really solid established KPP's so while we're on the high side we're not ridiculously so. Adelaide had one more than richmond with 12.

I think we got pretty lucky this year injury wise especially with our talls, i don't necessarily see that happening next year again TBH. I don't disagree that we need to trim the numbers at some point, i just wouldn't let that decide whether I draft Ballenden and Payne this year thats all.

 

[Comeback Lions]

I think it will happen over time and we probably will see a couple go at the end of trade period. Still even at 15 we'd only be 4 more than Richmond ran with this year on their list and thats a team with some really solid established KPP's so while we're on the high side we're not ridiculously so. Adelaide had one more than richmond with 12.

I think we got pretty lucky this year injury wise especially with our talls, i don't necessarily see that happening next year again TBH. I don't disagree that we need to trim the numbers at some point, i just wouldn't let that decide whether I draft Ballenden and Payne this year thats all.

I basically agree with you, would be happy with 13 and even 14 again this year because of Skinner. Perhaps our 15 can be partly explained by the unusual case of Eagles. But to find a list spot for Payne we would have to delist/trade Close or someone else anyway. I'm not convinced Payne's a better option than Close, Hammelmann or Eagles, to say nothing about the report by the Australian that Lobbe was a certainty to come to us. A 29yr old ruckman.... no thanks. Given talls take longer to develop, we really should persevere with one of Hammer or Close. Should Payne be rookied ahead of Eagles? I guess you can make a case, but I think Eagles has earned his spot.

 

[Fatcat08]

I basically agree with you, would be happy with 13 and even 14 again this year because of Skinner. Perhaps our 15 can be partly explained by the unusual case of Eagles. But to find a list spot for Payne we would have to delist/trade Close or someone else anyway. I'm not convinced Payne's a better option than Close, Hammelmann or Eagles, to say nothing about the report by the Australian that Lobbe was a certainty to come to us. A 29yr old ruckman.... no thanks. Given talls take longer to develop, we really should persevere with one of Hammer or Close. Should Payne be rookied ahead of Eagles? I guess you can make a case, but I think Eagles has earned his spot.

He's just about to turn 27 in a month

 

[Billy Puller]

15 wins for the seasons followed by winning finals then winning the grand final. I think that's the formula

 

[carnthemlions]

I don't think you can necessarily draw too many conclusions from the last 2 years' premiers. If we start to see games nearly always won by the team that goes in small, then I think we can say it is a trend. But footy history is strewn with premiership winning sides that didn't structure up in the most traditional way. Two does not indicate a strong trend IMO.

And let's not forget that GWS, Geelong, Adelaide, Sydney and Hawthorn have all made at least preliminary finals in recent years playing 2-3 KPPs at each end plus at least one ruckman.

I think we'll find out soon enough whether the Bulldogs and Richmond are 'the future', or just a bit of a lull after a vastly superior side in Hawthorn finally dropped off.

It's an interesting one, particularly the Tigers forward set up, as Dimma has said they really went with it out of necessity rather then by design. Once Griffiths was out with concussion issues from round 2 onward, they tried Todd Elton in the second tall role until round 10. Elton was effectively their last option for that role so when he was dropped they went small and it worked out well for them. But towards the end of the home & away season (I think) Dimma said that ideally they'd have a second tall forward but they weren't just going to chuck another tall in there for the sake of it. So based on that I'm not even sure the Tigers will run with that set up again next year.

Yeah, what they did was more out of necessity than anything. Ivan Soldo and Todd Elton were never going to cut it as the second tall. I think it's telling that the Bulldogs signed Cloke after winning a premiership, Richmond will definitely try to bolster their tall stocks as well.

 

[Comeback Lions]

He's just about to turn 27 in a month

Matthew Lobbe. D.O.B 12.02.1989. Source Power website. Turns 29 in February. I think you must have must have misread my post. Not sure who you are referring to. Anyway, I accept your apology in advance.

 

[dlanod]

Matthew Lobbe. D.O.B 12.02.1989. Source Power website. Turns 29 in February. I think you must have must have misread my post. Not sure who you are referring to. Anyway, I accept your apology in advance.

*quietly unlikes Fatcat08's post*