2017 Game Plan

[El_Scorcho]

"It worked so well with Butcher that we traded for Dixon".

Butcher's round 20-23 games in 2015 had zero impact on our decision to trade in Dixon. Revisionist history at its finest.

We traded for Dixon because he fell in our laps, but I think most of us were hopeful that the more direct style we started to use when we had adequate marking targets up forward would continue now that we had a genuine gorilla marking tall.

It didn't.

Also doesn't give credit for the fact that Ryder was first ruck in those games instead of Lobbe. Which might have had a little bit more to do with the methodical, decisive ball movement through winning clean clearances then the playing of another tall in the forward line. And why when we didn't have Ryder rucking in 2016 it turned back to shit again.

Lobbe was back splitting the ruck duties 50/50 with Ryder in rounds 22 and 23.

While I completely agree that playing Ryder as a sole ruck improves our ball movement overall, he's mainly useful at stoppages (and also as the only player in our team capable of regularly taking a contested mark under a high ball). I'm talking about taking the ball from defence to attack and entering the forward 50. In 2016, we could stream out of a stoppage and have a completely uncontested kick from 70 and still not manage to find a target.

With a proper marking target up forward, we started to kick direct to the square instead of trying to hit Schulz up leading to the boundary for every forward entry. That should have continued with Dixon but the way we set up wasn't good enough and we didn't provide him with enough support, apart from when Howard was in the side.

We need to start to control the corridor in our forward 50. The only time we've looked like doing that on a regular basis over the past few years is when we've picked players capable of doing so.

 

[DaTBird187]

Also doesn't give credit for the fact that Ryder was first ruck in those games instead of Lobbe. Which might have had a little bit more to do with the methodical, decisive ball movement through winning clean clearances then the playing of another tall in the forward line. And why when we didn't have Ryder rucking in 2016 it turned back to shit again.

I watched the first quarter of the 2015 Hawthorn game last night and the starkness of what Ryder brings to the team was extreme. You add the players missing that night (Wines and Robbie Gray) to the players we have blooded and added to the side since then, then if you can't see what we are capable of this year then you either don't know football, or you have cataracts.

 

[El_Scorcho]

I watched the first quarter of the 2015 Hawthorn game last night and the starkness of what Ryder brings to the team was extreme. You add the players missing that night (Wines and Robbie Gray) to the players we have blooded and added to the side since then, then if you can't see what we are capable of this year then you either don't know football, or you have cataracts.

Definitely. IF we can get our strategy right and Dixon and Ryder stay fit

 

[TeeKray]

Janus' rock-paper-scissors thing actually makes a lot of sense.

My simple analysis would be that each requires a different skill set - i.e, rock requires intent, paper requires skill, scissors requires fitness/speed/athleticism.

Do we have the skill across the board to execute paper to a level required to beat teams like Sydney? Highly questionable.

 

[Janus]

We traded for Dixon because he fell in our laps, but I think most of us were hopeful that the more direct style we started to use when we had adequate marking targets up forward would continue now that we had a genuine gorilla marking tall.

It didn't.

If most were hopeful we'd go back to an antiquated style of play that would work for all of five games before sides would simply drop another two players back in the hole and exploit our lack of speed and forward defense by running the ball out with ease if those talls didn't mark the ball - the kind of structure that North Melbourne used - then most are crazy.

Lobbe was back splitting the ruck duties 50/50 with Ryder in rounds 22 and 23.

While I completely agree that playing Ryder as a sole ruck improves our ball movement overall, he's mainly useful at stoppages (and also as the only player in our team capable of regularly taking a contested mark under a high ball). I'm talking about taking the ball from defence to attack and entering the forward 50. In 2016, we could stream out of a stoppage and have a completely uncontested kick from 70 and still not manage to find a target.

With a proper marking target up forward, we started to kick direct to the square instead of trying to hit Schulz up leading to the boundary for every forward entry. That should have continued with Dixon but the way we set up wasn't good enough and we didn't provide him with enough support, apart from when Howard was in the side.

We need to start to control the corridor in our forward 50. The only time we've looked like doing that on a regular basis over the past few years is when we've picked players capable of doing so.

Controlling the corridor doesn't mean picking a target to hit in contest. That's break glass in case of emergency strategy. It means drawing players away from the corridor by hitting those players in the pockets repeatedly and them taking advantage of mismatches to kick easy goals, and THEN exploiting the one on one match up that creates for Dixon.

You don't go 999 on every single play because it becomes just as predictable as the way we are playing now. Dixon, Westhoff and on occasion, Ryder is more than enough talls to make it work. And we did hit up the square on more occasions than not when Ryder was up forward - it was just that it didn't work as effectively because our ball movement out of stoppages was too slow thanks to Lobbe not being as good as Ryder in the ruck.

Modern AFL offense is generated from the pockets, because that's where defenders are instructed to push forwards. They leave that space open on purpose. You can either turn that perceived weakness into a strength by picking players who are agile and wily enough to score regardless (like a Betts) or you can push back and waste energy picking players to fight and scrap against a team defense that collapses around your forwards and maybe take a contested grab. You know how many contested marks a game the best in the league took last season? Tom Lynch with 2.8.

So what you're wanting us to do is hang our hat on Dixon or another tall forward taking 3 contested grabs a game and kicking 3 goals a piece, and hopefully our small forwards can crumb off the stuff he brings to ground.

I'll stick with our gameplan, thanks all the same

 

[El_Scorcho]

Kicking to the pockets in the hope that it will eventually open up the corridor is arse backwards in very Choco circa 2008 way.

You control the corridor, space opens up everywhere. You don't control the flanks and wait for the corridor to open up. Trying to do that has seen us as the worst side entering the forward 50 in the league.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

 

[OneGreatClub]

Kicking to the pockets in the hope that it will eventually open up the corridor is arse backwards in very Choco circa 2008 way.

You control the corridor, space opens up everywhere. You don't control the flanks and wait for the corridor to open up. Trying to do that has seen us as the worst side entering the forward 50 in the league.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

Is it Atley who likes to own the corridor?

 

[El_Scorcho]

Controlling the corridor doesn't mean picking a target to hit in contest. That's break glass in case of emergency strategy. It means drawing players away from the corridor by hitting those players in the pockets repeatedly and them taking advantage of mismatches to kick easy goals, and THEN exploiting the one on one match up that creates for Dixon.

You don't go 999 on every single play because it becomes just as predictable as the way we are playing now. Dixon, Westhoff and on occasion, Ryder is more than enough talls to make it work. And we did hit up the square on more occasions than not when Ryder was up forward - it was just that it didn't work as effectively because our ball movement out of stoppages was too slow thanks to Lobbe not being as good as Ryder in the ruck.

Modern AFL offense is generated from the pockets, because that's where defenders are instructed to push forwards. They leave that space open on purpose. You can either turn that perceived weakness into a strength by picking players who are agile and wily enough to score regardless (like a Betts) or you can push back and waste energy picking players to fight and scrap against a team defense that collapses around your forwards and maybe take a contested grab. You know how many contested marks a game the best in the league took last season? Tom Lynch with 2.8.

So what you're wanting us to do is hang our hat on Dixon or another tall forward taking 3 contested grabs a game and kicking 3 goals a piece, and hopefully our small forwards can crumb off the stuff he brings to ground.

I'll stick with our gameplan, thanks all the same

No, this is ridiculous. We've spent the last 3 years generating scoring shots from the pocket, and that has occasionally worked for us because Schulz and Wingard are like the Splash Brothers when it comes to hitting low percentage shots on a regular basis.

To push the basketball metaphor further, if we suddenly find lots of players who are deadly accurate from angles, great! We can be the next GSW. We should absolutely employ your strategy and lead towards the boundary, because we'll score from there, teams will panic and follow us out, and that will create space inside.

Except that doesn't work, because we don't have a large compliment of players who can kick goals from tight angles on a regular basis. We have very few of those sorts of players, so we need to go back to basics and control the paint. We've spent the last few years leading to the pockets and it's a very easy strategy to counter, because teams don't actually ever spread out to us as your strategy suggests, they just clog the middle and let us ping away from 35+ degree angles.

In basketball, a dominant big will score him or herself, but they'll also bring their entire team into play as they are able to take possession close to the rim and draw defenders into a double or triple team. If they don't score, space opens up for the smalls to take advantage. Basketball is a much closer style of offence to Australian football than American football.

At the moment, our strategy is either lead to the pocket or blaze away to the hot spot where 2 loose defenders are waiting to swallow our forward entries. We rarely if ever seem to spot up targets unless we're on the break. It's a horrible strategy that sees us with a shitload of forwardline talent going to waste.

We don't need Dixon to mark every ball that is directed at him, what we do need is for him to take enough that defenders worry and are drawn to him. Ideally we'll pick Eddy or Howard to join him and provide a target secondary target so he has more space. Westhoff can play on the flank and float forward where required, and Ryder can rest up forward. Stopping their loose talls from dominating us in the air will cause the entire defense to shrink in order to try to protect the hot spot, and that's when we start to find the likes of Young, Wingard and Ebert leading into the space created.

If you're waiting for defenders to spread out into the space in the flank to stop us from taking marks on the boundary line, you'll be waiting a long, long time.

 

[woffy]

.....Basketball is a much closer style of offence to Australian football than American football.

At the moment, our strategy is either lead to the pocket or blaze away to the hot spot where 2 loose defenders are waiting to swallow our forward entries. We rarely if ever seem to spot up targets unless we're on the break. It's a horrible strategy that sees us with a shitload of forwardline talent going to waste.

We don't need Dixon to mark every ball that is directed at him, what we do need is for him to take enough that defenders worry and are drawn to him. Ideally we'll pick Eddy or Howard to join him and provide a target secondary target so he has more space. Westhoff can play on the flank and float forward where required, and Ryder can rest up forward. Stopping their loose talls from dominating us in the air will cause the entire defense to shrink in order to try to protect the hot spot, and that's when we start to find the likes of Young, Wingard and Ebert leading into the space created.

If you're waiting for defenders to spread out into the space in the flank to stop us from taking marks on the boundary line, you'll be waiting a long, long time.

Very good post; spot on with how we enter our forward line, for the last couple of years anyway.
Also correct that basketball has more similarities to Aussie Rules. Gridiron always set their formation/players up exactly where they want them and run plays for all offense, and the defence never play zone.

 

[Launchpad McQuack]

Janus and El Scorcho having conflicting opinions. All is right with the world again.

 

[El_Scorcho]

I agree with his rock paper scissors analysis. I just don't think "Keep using the same gameplan and everything will work out because Ryder is back" is going to see us rise 9 places on the ladder. We have some significant issues in the way that we set up.

 

[Janus]

No, this is ridiculous. We've spent the last 3 years generating scoring shots from the pocket, and that has occasionally worked for us because Schulz and Wingard are like the Splash Brothers when it comes to hitting low percentage shots on a regular basis.

To push the basketball metaphor further, if we suddenly find lots of players who are deadly accurate from angles, great! We can be the next GSW. We should absolutely employ your strategy and lead towards the boundary, because we'll score from there, teams will panic and follow us out, and that will create space inside.

Except that doesn't work, because we don't have a large compliment of players who can kick goals from tight angles on a regular basis. We have very few of those sorts of players, so we need to go back to basics and control the paint. We've spent the last few years leading to the pockets and it's a very easy strategy to counter, because teams don't actually ever spread out to us as your strategy suggests, they just clog the middle and let us ping away from 35+ degree angles.

In basketball, a dominant big will score him or herself, but they'll also bring their entire team into play as they are able to take possession close to the rim and draw defenders into a double or triple team. If they don't score, space opens up for the smalls to take advantage. Basketball is a much closer style of offence to Australian football than American football.

At the moment, our strategy is either lead to the pocket or blaze away to the hot spot where 2 loose defenders are waiting to swallow our forward entries. We rarely if ever seem to spot up targets unless we're on the break. It's a horrible strategy that sees us with a shitload of forwardline talent going to waste.

We don't need Dixon to mark every ball that is directed at him, what we do need is for him to take enough that defenders worry and are drawn to him. Ideally we'll pick Eddy or Howard to join him and provide a target secondary target so he has more space. Westhoff can play on the flank and float forward where required, and Ryder can rest up forward. Stopping their loose talls from dominating us in the air will cause the entire defense to shrink in order to try to protect the hot spot, and that's when we start to find the likes of Young, Wingard and Ebert leading into the space created.

If you're waiting for defenders to spread out into the space in the flank to stop us from taking marks on the boundary line, you'll be waiting a long, long time.

Chowing down on some freshly cooked tempura vegetables...just drank the last cold Asahi so Rekorderlig pear cider will have to do...

Let's see. One style of offense is constantly in motion with the ability to harass and curtail the receiver of a pass without the opportunity for the ball carrier to assess his options, which means that the game is in a constant state of flux...the other the play of the game resets after every catch is made, and the designated kicker/thrower gets to pick an option out of a multiple array of possibilities in front of him. So long as he makes a correct decision, he can run the clock down as much as he wants with no penalty.

Basketball offense is about whipping the ball around to find the free man or an isolated mismatch before the shot clock expires. On a fast break in football, yeah, I can see the similarities, but that's the same with any counter-attack in any sport. Whether you're talking about the target man in soccer, the center in basketball or the gorilla forward in football, all of them are designed tactically to take advantage of one on one, basic defenses and exploit their strength and speed to score.

However, just like Bill Russell, Wilt Chamberlain and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar gave way to Michael Jordan, Kobe Bryant and LeBron James, and Alan Shearer, Robbie Fowler and Eric Cantona gave way to Cristiano Ronaldo, Lionel Messi and Diego Costa, the game moves ever onward, and while the big target will always be a requirement for a modern gameplan to be successful, they may be the first option, but they will never be the main option.

That's why you play Charlie Dixon forward, and if you get a quick clearance and everything goes right, you hit him one on one on the lead before the defense gets a chance to react. That is ALWAYS your first option. However, trying to force the ball inside when the defense is collapsing down on your center is just stupid. You might score, or you could just as easily turn the ball over. Better to whip the ball out to your shooting guard for the wide open three every time. He's not wide open because there's a defender up his butt? Well, that's because you telegraphed the pass and your other players didn't set the right screens to create space.

Hierarchy of scoring options from a stoppage goes like this (with each > representing 1/10th of a second decision making time):

Deep forward > leading forward centre corridor > leading forward pocket >> contested mark forward pocket (due to the fact that a stoppage will most likely be the end result if it doesn't work) >> contested mark deep forward (hot spot) >>> contested mark leading forward (this is the most dangerous because if the ball is turned over it is already halfway out of defense and there is no real opportunity to lock the ball in).

That's how quickly decisions should be made. So yeah, corridor should be our first option. I'm just saying that it's always going to be covered, so why bother playing a forward to exploit something that opposition defenders are trained to cover for anyway? They are going to collapse on the hot spot regardless because when you kick it's easy to judge where the ball is going and react to it. Eddy is about as far as I'd go down the 'tall forward' path, and only because he can roam the ground as well and plays more of a modern forward style. But I'd be giving Powell-Pepper a shot in the forward line first. As for Marshall...no way. Too raw, too easily pushed off the ball.

 

[El_Scorcho]

There is no way in a million years a contested mark option in the pocket should be preferable to a contested mark option at the hot spot all other things being equal.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

 

[El_Scorcho]

Unless we've cloned Lade and Burgoyne in their primes

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

 

[Peck]

There is no way in a million years a contested mark option in the pocket should be preferable to a contested mark option at the hot spot all other things being equal.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

Exactly right.

There are situations where that changes obviously. Say we have a height or number advantage in the pocket, or wingard is on fire and in that pocket. OTOH say dixon is marking everything or we have equal numbers at the hot spot. It also pays to mix it up even if taking the slightly worse option.

I'm not sure exactly where we went wrong with our forward entries in 2016, sometimes our players made horror decisions for seemingly no reason, other times they simply didn't have good options and played on anyway.

Maybe our players were too fatigued to provide options, maybe their skills weren't up to it, maybe we'd have one lazy player whose man would run off him and create mismatches, maybe our players are just super dumb and don't kick it where they are supposed to.

I think our biggest problems came from getting pantsed at stoppages though. If you win the ball from a stoppage your players have a chance to get the jump on their opponents, and you only need one to get clear to move the ball forward, in general play its much, much harder without a turnover.

I would really bloody like to see us get the ball out of defense from a kick in, and I'd really like to see us create space up forward without turnovers or clearances making it easy, but if we dominate stoppages enough then hopefully it won't matter so long as we still defend well.

 

[PAFC66]

I'm looking forward to our 2017 gameplan

 

[Janus]

There is no way in a million years a contested mark option in the pocket should be preferable to a contested mark option at the hot spot all other things being equal.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

You just don't think defensively. Of course it's not preferable. I'm going by which options give you the highest probability of success vs the risk involved of turning the ball over and having the ball whip down the other end on a counter. Defenders will always, ALWAYS cover the corridor first no matter what as it's the easiest path to goal. You're talking about a pack mark situation at the hotspot vs a one on one contest in the pocket. I'm going for the one on one every single time because at least I can control the side to which I kick the ball to and give my teammate a better than 50/50 chance of actually winning the contest.

Going to the hot spot is like chaos football. It's last resort, no other option time. If all things were equal and it was one on one at the hot spot vs one on one in the pocket, of course you're going to the hot spot. But guess what? That's what the first 'deep forward' option is.

 

[Pedro59]

Our F50 entries were disgusting
and yes maybe it wasn't all just dumb coaching of positioning to get the short pass/ long pass unpredictability ratios right and indeed was missing personel ( though the bulldogs swapped and slotted em in all right)
Maybe it was personel availabllty that caused us to not be able to clear fast to effect the above and nit dumb coaching

BUT Gee I would love it if we could take a mark on the wings occasionally so we didm't lose momentum with it flying back over our heads to their goal most times
after a kick out
Just getting this better would have got us into the finals IMO

 

[MrChow]

The thing that bugged me last year the most was the lack of team space creation across the whole field. Running to space, off ball blocks, smart movement at stoppages, etc. Getting this right means players kick to leads and/or advantage, skills improve (as kicks are easier/ more time) running becomes a more effective weapon. Not doing this results in kicking to the same spot at kickins, also forward 50 entries, poor skills and just looking sloppy as we were too rushed...


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[StrappingTape]

However, just like Bill Russell, Wilt Chamberlain and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar gave way to Michael Jordan, Kobe Bryant and LeBron James, and Alan Shearer, Robbie Fowler and Eric Cantona gave way to Cristiano Ronaldo, Lionel Messi and Diego Costa, the game moves ever onward, and while the big target will always be a requirement for a modern gameplan to be successful, they may be the first option, but they will never be the main option.

Um..

 

[StrappingTape]

Continuing the basketball analogy, last year we treated Dixon like we were the 2006 Miami Heat recruiting Shaq and then subsequently surrounding him with a bunch of 6ft 2 guys and wondering why the other teams can spend each game double teaming him with 2 bigs, then to help him out we make him play PG for 2mins a quarter to see if helps his scoring.

 

[QPower]

The game plan, or lack thereof, was so damn appalling in 2016 that any semblance of system, coherent structure and common purpose would be manna from heaven.

 

[OneGreatClub]

The game plan, or lack thereof, was so damn appalling in 2016 that any semblance of system, coherent structure and common purpose would be manna from heaven.

'twould

 

[shewho]

Our 2016 gameplan, I suspect, tried to exploit our running power in the wrong way.

The emphasis was on defensive running. We tried to copy WCE web defence. Run hard back, cause the turnover through weight of numbers and then run forward in waves (slingshot). Problem was, it sacrificed forward structure. How many times did the player with the ball have nothing to go to in front of him? And the tactic of kicking the ball into the empty forward line, conceding possession so that we could set up a defensive structure to win it back, was dumb and an epic fail.

Getting killed in centre clearances, conceding possession and the emphasis on defensive running meant all our petrol was spent running defensively leaving little in the tank for offensive running. History has shown it is easier to run with the ball than without it.

Our 2016 gameplan, designed to capitalise on our superior running capacity actually neutralised our advantage here. We simply have to (a) win more contested ball and clearances - especially centre clearances, (b) keep a forward structure as much as possible and (c) sacrifice a bit of defensive running/ structure in favour of more offensive running.

 

[Janus]

Continuing the basketball analogy, last year we treated Dixon like we were the 2006 Miami Heat recruiting Shaq and then subsequently surrounding him with a bunch of 6ft 2 guys and wondering why the other teams can spend each game double teaming him with 2 bigs, then to help him out we make him play PG for 2mins a quarter to see if helps his scoring.

More like we were the 1996-97 LA Lakers recruiting Shaq while at the same time drafting a young pure scorer like Bryant (Wingard), but instead of passing the ball to Kobe when Shaq was double teamed we kept stupidly dumping the ball into the paint. Guess when LA actually won anything? When Bryant and O'Neal started working together as a unit.

Ooh, ooh...what about the time when the Miami Heat had Chris Bosch, LeBron James and Dwyane Wade in Game 6 of the NBA Finals against the Spurs...and it was Ray Allen who hit the three to tie the game and send it to 7 and ultimately help the Heat win the Championship because Bosch didn't try to jack up the ball in the paint and draw a foul for a three point play to tie after recovering LeBron's missed 3 but saw the Allen was open on the perimeter? Or the time when Michael Jordan told Steve Kerr to be ready if Stockton rolled off of him to double team Jordan at the end of game 6 and Kerr hit the winning shot and the championship?

You play to the option that is open. No offense in history, I don't care if you're playing basketball, hockey or lacrosse, just continually plays through one person and expects to be successful, especially if they are double teamed. Not even Michael Jordan could win a championship without having other scoring threats like Pippen on the team. Who cares if Dixon doesn't kick goals so long as the rest of the team is? His job is to help the side win, not boost his individual stats.

Our 2016 gameplan, I suspect, tried to exploit our running power in the wrong way.

The emphasis was on defensive running. We tried to copy WCE web defence. Run hard back, cause the turnover through weight of numbers and then run forward in waves (slingshot). Problem was, it sacrificed forward structure. How many times did the player with the ball have nothing to go to in front of him? And the tactic of kicking the ball into the empty forward line, conceding possession so that we could set up a defensive structure to win it back, was dumb and an epic fail.

Getting killed in centre clearances, conceding possession and the emphasis on defensive running meant all our petrol was spent running defensively leaving little in the tank for offensive running. History has shown it is easier to run with the ball than without it.

Our 2016 gameplan, designed to capitalise on our superior running capacity actually neutralised our advantage here. We simply have to (a) win more contested ball and clearances - especially centre clearances, (b) keep a forward structure as much as possible and (c) sacrifice a bit of defensive running/ structure in favour of more offensive running.

So you think we actually meant to turn the ball over to the opposition so we could create another turnover in defense?

How about that we simply kicked the ball into an empty forward line because all our forwards had to push into the midfield to help us win a clearance since we didn't have a decent ruck who could facilitate a clean take away through congestion?

Structure is fluid based on opportunity. The more opportunities there are to score, the more permanent it becomes. But if there aren't as many opportunities and the ball is spending most of the time down the other end of the ground, of what real benefit is there to keep the forwards in the forward line? Better to drop them back, win the ball and try to push forward on the counter.