I think that a fair bit of what you are saying is right but I think it's right for the wrong reasons. Without addressing your post point for point, I'd summarise as saying that if we try to make sense of game plans based on what we are told by players, media and coaches game plans do appear to be bullshit and almost entirely ineffective for most teams.
There is a huge disconnect between commentators expectations and what it is that most clubs are trying to do. There is also a lot of cheerleading for certain styles of footy, ours, Adelaide's and GWS's, that ironically enough continually fail under the heat of finals.
The best example I can give on this point is complaints on Crunch Time about the dull time during our demolition of St Kilda the night before. Rather than trying to understand and appreciate the game of chess that was occurring, as we were trying to open up a corridor to transition from defence, these guys can't even pretend to have the attention spans or interest to understand more than basketball's meaningless end-to-end movement.
While it is understandable, commentary's focus on outcomes instead of processes does nothing to assist with the understanding of the game. I've been very repetitive on this point but Richmond's success in finals was not about its small forwards, it was a result of its ability to shut down the transition of its opponents (GWS and Adelaide) through the middle of the ground. This shutdown makes it impossible for GWS and Adelaide to win unless they change their plan for movement of the ball from defence. They didn't change, and there was no indication that they would change, and Richmond's picked more talented sides apart. It's no surprise that its small forwards kicked goals and layed tackles because they are the players who are in the necessary positions.
A lot of people seem to have this view of a game plan as a panacea for crappy teams or criticism of a coach. I find it amusing that Chris Scott is criticised for having no plan B when, Clarkson aside, he has more different plans for his team, focus on the opposition and engineers more wins from the coaching box than anyone else.
'Pressure' is often discussed as though it is a game plan in itself - it's all we ever hear coaches and players talk about. Pressure is the foundation that a successful game plan is built on. The Scott/Geelong example is a good one, here, because quite often they have intricate plans for ball movement and zone defence which seem to create a malaise in the side which is then very susceptible to opponents who are amped to bring intense pressure to the contest.
We can't dismiss pressure because it is clearly very important but every team is trying to bring pressure and quite often they do bring pressure (and still lose). It is no surprise that Richmond's pressure was next level against Geelong because Geelong tend to play slow which feeds into the intensity that Richmond was able to bring to the contest. It helps to make your forwards look quick when the disposal of your opponents from defence is stifled because the midfield options are shut down.
Last edited:
️ @andrew_mcgrath 
