Legs feed the wolf

[Jonts]

Also putting teams away would be nice, like we currently have a shit house conversion rate against the bad sides too. Like to keep hawthorn to 3 points and only score 47 yourself in a half. Then end the game not even double their score but 3 times as many i50's

 

[GremioPower]

I have a question. Please correct me if it is nonsense.

Should we play a 7-8-3 (7 back, 3 forwards) formation in midfield stoppages on Sunday?

It is a heavy counter-attacking formation, I suppose, but it could balance our lack of ruckman - at least at the beginning, before Essendon adjusts against it.

Just leave Dixon, Watts, and Marshall upfront. They are dangerous enough. Our 7 defenders would protect us against losing the contest, while the 8 midfielders would increase or odds of winning it. Obviously, in such a formation, Westhoff would be our ruckman in the midfield.

If we won the contest, some handballs and /or a couple of bounces, and a mark would take us away from their pressure and ready to strike. If Essendon adjusts, leaving 4 backs against our 3 (4-8-6), any kick into our F50 would still be in our advantage. If they leave 5 (5-7-6), we would still have advantage in the number of midfielders. If they move a forward back (5-8-5), we wouldn't need the extra defender (6-9-3).

Am I being too naïve?

 

[Macca19]

Leaving 3 talls only up forward is dangerous if the ball hits the deck. Essendon drop a runner back and we’d struggle to keep it in.

Its a fine theory, but i think in execution its going a step too far

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Leaving 3 talls only up forward is dangerous if the ball hits the deck. Essendon drop a runner back and we’d struggle to keep it in.

Its a fine theory, but i think in execution its going a step too far

If Dixon has the same success rate at marking as last week that is a dozen + easy rebounds from our 50m.

 

[GremioPower]

Leaving 3 talls only up forward is dangerous if the ball hits the deck. Essendon drop a runner back and we’d struggle to keep it in.

Its a fine theory, but i think in execution its going a step too far

When would they drop a runner? Before the stoopage, or after we kick the ball into F50?

I was imagining we moving forward with the ball, not necessarily punting it immediately into F50. If we are going for a mark, it is better that we get it uncontested, right?

 

[Macca19]

When would they drop a runner? Before the stoopage, or after we kick the ball into F50?

I was imagining we moving forward with the ball, not necessarily punting it immediately into F50. If we are going for a mark, it is better that we get it uncontested, right?

Because Essendon will immediately put 8 players in the midfield to match ours, meaning the odds of winning the ball are no greater than at any other stage. If we do win it, the midfield is clogged meaning running it forward is hard to do. This means we will be kicking it to the three talls up forward and relying on them contested marking the ball to keep us in possession. If we have a +1 in defence which we usually do, then Essendon will match that with a small runner in our forward line. If we don't have any small forwards up there, how do we lock the ball in?

 

[Janus]

I have a question. Please correct me if it is nonsense.

Should we play a 7-8-3 (7 back, 3 forwards) formation in midfield stoppages on Sunday?

It is a heavy counter-attacking formation, I suppose, but it could balance our lack of ruckman - at least at the beginning, before Essendon adjusts against it.

Just leave Dixon, Watts, and Marshall upfront. They are dangerous enough. Our 7 defenders would protect us against losing the contest, while the 8 midfielders would increase or odds of winning it. Obviously, in such a formation, Westhoff would be our ruckman in the midfield.

If we won the contest, some handballs and /or a couple of bounces, and a mark would take us away from their pressure and ready to strike. If Essendon adjusts, leaving 4 backs against our 3 (4-8-6), any kick into our F50 would still be in our advantage. If they leave 5 (5-7-6), we would still have advantage in the number of midfielders. If they move a forward back (5-8-5), we wouldn't need the extra defender (6-9-3).

Am I being too naïve?

At the members convention, it was stated that this is how we play anyway. We have 3 forwards inside forward 50 (Dixon, Watts, Marshall) and 3 'high forwards' that sit in midfield and act as midfield support (Boak, Wingard, Sam Gray) but then push up into forward 50 when we have the ball.

Lade even put up an image of the field and you saw three players in the forward 50 in a triangle (deep forward, two forwards playing off his shoulder) and then there were three forwards that were placed on the edge of the centre square.

As I've already stated many times - there is nothing we can come up with that Ken hasn't thought about already.

 

[sog35]

As I've already stated many times - there is nothing we can come up with that Ken hasn't thought about already.

I don't know this for a fact, but it would be more than just Ken coming up with these ideas. In fact, thinking back on the member convention I think it is more likely Ken has a overall vision for how he wants the team to play and then the minutia of numbers across lines, positioning on field etc is nutted out among the assistants with Nicks having a key role in sorting out any disputes before they hit Ken. This allows him (Ken) to spend more time working directly with the players.

 

[GremioPower]

At the members convention, it was stated that this is how we play anyway. We have 3 forwards inside forward 50 (Dixon, Watts, Marshall) and 3 'high forwards' that sit in midfield and act as midfield support (Boak, Wingard, Sam Gray) but then push up into forward 50 when we have the ball.

Lade even put up an image of the field and you saw three players in the forward 50 in a triangle (deep forward, two forwards playing off his shoulder) and then there were three forwards that were placed on the edge of the centre square.

As I've already stated many times - there is nothing we can come up with that Ken hasn't thought about already.

For some who's following the game for less than one year, I am actually flattered!

 

[GremioPower]

I don't know this for a fact, but it would be more than just Ken coming up with these ideas. In fact, thinking back on the member convention I think it is more likely Ken has a overall vision for how he wants the team to play and then the minutia of numbers across lines, positioning on field etc is nutted out among the assistants with Nicks having a key role in sorting out any disputes before they hit Ken. This allows him (Ken) to spend more time working directly with the players.

Ken is the leader of a team. Take "Ken" as the whole group of coaches.

 

[Janus]

I don't know this for a fact, but it would be more than just Ken coming up with these ideas. In fact, thinking back on the member convention I think it is more likely Ken has a overall vision for how he wants the team to play and then the minutia of numbers across lines, positioning on field etc is nutted out among the assistants with Nicks having a key role in sorting out any disputes before they hit Ken. This allows him (Ken) to spend more time working directly with the players.

For sure. I actually think most of it is Nicks when it comes to the forward line setup. Ken would be more about the backline pushing up into midfield because that’s exactly how he played.

 

[Doctor Feel]

This thread title man.

 

[rogerjames]

I'm arguing that up until now, we can't beat good teams.

And it's certainly not because we haven't mastered our defensive gameplan that generates us repeat I50s. We had the 2nd best defence in the league last year (best for most of the year until the 2nd Showdown blowout) and our I50 differential vs our opponents was comfortably best, averaging +10.3 more I50s than our opponents. (Adelaide were 2nd with +7. Richmond were 3rd with +5)

And yet, we didn't beat a single good team while they were in form in 2017 or 2016. We didn't take a single scalp. We watched the same groundhog day problems against every half decent team. We'd smash them in I50s and fail to put it on the board. They'd get a few cheap goals by finding a way through our press and we'd lose because we couldn't put our dominance on the scoreboard. Again and again.

We need to find a way to convert our I50 dominance. That is the burning issue of the off season. If we become an efficient team inside 50, we win the flag in a canter.

Providing we keep the I50 dominance

 

[sog35]

For some who's following the game for less than one year, I am actually flattered!

You're actually at an advantage with tactical development in AFL given your understanding of Football. AFL is borrowing heavily from things like formation, shape and transition.

 

[Us against the rest]

Half of our problem is average skills across 4 quarters. Port has always been it's own worst enemy in that department. We tidy up in this area we win most games.

 

[OneGreatClub]

 

[Doctor Feel]