Toast Alistair Clarkson - thoughts on the rule changes

[essaynode]

This has been posted on the MMM website.

It's an interview with Eddie Macguire when they ran into each other in Los Angeles. Despite my distaste for Eddie and his Pies, it is worth listening to. Clarkson discusses various cultural influences on games (when talking about soccer, water polo, etc.) and how he keeps a track of the northern hemisphere tactics. I think it really shows how studious our coach is in looking for inspiration beyond our shores. He also shares some of his thoughts on how the rule changes may affect games this year. Happy listening!

<iframe src="https://omny.fm/shows/hot-breakfast/ed-with-al-clarkson-full-interview/embed" width="100%" height="180px" frameborder="0"></iframe>

 

[threesixpio]

All hail Clarko

 

[KermitJagger]

This has been posted on the MMM website.

It's an interview with Eddie Macguire when they ran into each other in Los Angeles. Despite my distaste for Eddie and his Pies, it is worth listening to. Clarkson discusses various cultural influences on games (when talking about soccer, water polo, etc.) and how he keeps a track of the northern hemisphere tactics. I think it really shows how studious our coach is in looking for inspiration beyond our shores. He also shares some of his thoughts on how the rule changes may affect games this year. Happy listening!

<iframe src="https://omny.fm/shows/hot-breakfast/ed-with-al-clarkson-full-interview/embed" width="100%" height="180px" frameborder="0"></iframe>

He's always done this, most noticeably he studied the San Antonio Spurs and the New England Patriots very closely.

 

[Gene Simmons]

He's always done this, most noticeably he studied the San Antonio Spurs and the New England Patriots very closely.

Since New England Patriots are now playing off in their 3rd Super Bowl in a row, you would think that they have been studying the Hawks

 

[SuperSic]

I was interested to hear that Clarko thinks the 6-6-6 rule will have a significant impact on scores from centre bounces.

Personally I think it will have almost zero impact because coaches will simply instruct their midfielders to create a stoppage from a centre bounce at all costs. Once the first stoppage has been created, teams can then set up their structures as they please again, virtually making the rule redundant.

Maybe Clarko didn’t want to give anything away, or maybe he has decided not to run with that gameplan. Either way, I think by mid-season this is what we will be seeing, because some clubs will do it and the rest will be forced to follow.

Does this seem like a logical way of coaches bending the rules back to suit them? I’m interested to see what others think.

 

[StalkingHawk]

I was interested to hear that Clarko thinks the 6-6-6 rule will have a significant impact on scores from centre bounces.

Personally I think it will have almost zero impact because coaches will simply instruct their midfielders to create a stoppage from a centre bounce at all costs. Once the first stoppage has been created, teams can then set up their structures as they please again, virtually making the rule redundant.

Maybe Clarko didn’t want to give anything away, or maybe he has decided not to run with that gameplan. Either way, I think by mid-season this is what we will be seeing, because some clubs will do it and the rest will be forced to follow.

Does this seem like a logical way of coaches bending the rules back to suit them? I’m interested to see what others think.

Yup, tho even if option A is to force a stoppage, they will have options B and C to try and achieve Centre clearance goals I’m sure.

Nic nat could be huge for this

 

[crazywildhorse]

I was interested to hear that Clarko thinks the 6-6-6 rule will have a significant impact on scores from centre bounces.

Personally I think it will have almost zero impact because coaches will simply instruct their midfielders to create a stoppage from a centre bounce at all costs. Once the first stoppage has been created, teams can then set up their structures as they please again, virtually making the rule redundant.

Maybe Clarko didn’t want to give anything away, or maybe he has decided not to run with that gameplan. Either way, I think by mid-season this is what we will be seeing, because some clubs will do it and the rest will be forced to follow.

Does this seem like a logical way of coaches bending the rules back to suit them? I’m interested to see what others think.

Good coaches will find ways to make the rules work for them. It’s part of their job to explore ways to win, and bending or taking advantage of rules that enhance a game plan is just how it goes.
The BS thing is how the AFL keeps meddling with them in order to make things ‘fairer’. Every time they add or subtract rules, someone will find a way to manipulate it to their advantage—and disadvantage of the rest of the competition.
Im not opposed to all rule changes, but this 6-6-6 rule is as counter intuitive as it gets. The centre bounce was already open and exciting, and getting it out without causing a stoppage was no doubt an advantage. Hardly needed medling with.

 

[Davo23]

Good coaches will find ways to make the rules work for them. It’s part of their job to explore ways to win, and bending or taking advantage of rules that enhance a game plan is just how it goes.
The BS thing is how the AFL keeps meddling with them in order to make things ‘fairer’. Every time they add or subtract rules, someone will find a way to manipulate it to their advantage—and disadvantage of the rest of the competition.
Im not opposed to all rule changes, but this 6-6-6 rule is as counter intuitive as it gets. The centre bounce was already open and exciting, and getting it out without causing a stoppage was no doubt an advantage. Hardly needed medling with.

When you put a dimwit like Stephen Hocking in charge, you’re going to have rule changes which are unnecessary and do nothing for the game.
He probably thought “let’s change a rule which is not a problem anyway”.

I’m also still waiting for Hocking to explain Johnny Platten’s mysterious concussion in the 1989 GrandFinal.

 

[moginie]

I’m also still waiting for Hocking to explain Johnny Platten’s mysterious concussion in the 1989 GrandFinal.

There were many tough, courageous acts from both sides in that Grand Final. There were quite a few that were borderline or worse.

Then there is Hocking's. A dog act, no matter how you look at it.

 

[Carl Spackler]

I was interested to hear that Clarko thinks the 6-6-6 rule will have a significant impact on scores from centre bounces.

Personally I think it will have almost zero impact because coaches will simply instruct their midfielders to create a stoppage from a centre bounce at all costs. Once the first stoppage has been created, teams can then set up their structures as they please again, virtually making the rule redundant.

Maybe Clarko didn’t want to give anything away, or maybe he has decided not to run with that gameplan. Either way, I think by mid-season this is what we will be seeing, because some clubs will do it and the rest will be forced to follow.

Does this seem like a logical way of coaches bending the rules back to suit them? I’m interested to see what others think.

I wonder about playing for the centre square stoppage. Only one side has to play that way to achieve the stoppage which means the other side is free to play for a wide open game. If it stops then that's just the routine open field stoppage, but if it breaks out (and the other side is playing for a stoppage) then you're going to repeatedly catch the other side flat-footed.

Thinking about it, I would trim down my players (particularly my centre square men) and get them focused of fast clearances. One strategy if successful (go for the stoppage) will result in both teams in a neutral, equal position while the other strategy if successful (play to clear) will always put the stoppage oriented team at a disadvantage. No, I think I would not play defensive ball but would double down on going hard for offense. I wonder what Clarkson will do.

 

[tommyk72]

I wonder about playing for the centre square stoppage. Only one side has to play that way to achieve the stoppage which means the other side is free to play for a wide open game. If it stops then that's just the routine open field stoppage, but if it breaks out (and the other side is playing for a stoppage) then you're going to repeatedly catch the other side flat-footed.

Thinking about it, I would trim down my players (particularly my centre square men) and get them focused of fast clearances. One strategy if successful (go for the stoppage) will result in both teams in a neutral, equal position while the other strategy if successful (play to clear) will always put the stoppage oriented team at a disadvantage. No, I think I would not play defensive ball but would double down on going hard for offense. I wonder what Clarkson will do.

Silly question, but isn't it only about a 10 metre difference to where players start (potentially?). Having them all line up on the edge of the 50 rather than the edge of the centre square. It it's only 10 metres it's really only a difference of a second or 2?

Sorry if i'm misunderstanding the rule... Just don't see how it's going to make a HUGE difference.

 

[Brant]

Silly question, but isn't it only about a 10 metre difference to where players start (potentially?). Having them all line up on the edge of the 50 rather than the edge of the centre square. It it's only 10 metres it's really only a difference of a second or 2?

Sorry if i'm misunderstanding the rule... Just don't see how it's going to make a HUGE difference.

You can't play 5x forwards & 7x defenders etc., from the bounce.

Of course, once the ball is bounced & there's another (immediate) stoppage, you can do what you want.

That's the point others are making: the secondary ball-up in the middle makes the rule somewhat redundant, especially when it isn't fixing an existing problem...

 

[SuperSic]

I wonder about playing for the centre square stoppage. Only one side has to play that way to achieve the stoppage which means the other side is free to play for a wide open game. If it stops then that's just the routine open field stoppage, but if it breaks out (and the other side is playing for a stoppage) then you're going to repeatedly catch the other side flat-footed.

Thinking about it, I would trim down my players (particularly my centre square men) and get them focused of fast clearances. One strategy if successful (go for the stoppage) will result in both teams in a neutral, equal position while the other strategy if successful (play to clear) will always put the stoppage oriented team at a disadvantage. No, I think I would not play defensive ball but would double down on going hard for offense. I wonder what Clarkson will do.

Very interesting what you said about trimming down players, from everything I’m hearing out of the club this pre-season the midfielders are all being trimmed down by the club... Maybe you’re onto something

I can also see clubs potentially positioning their extra backman on the wing and their wingman on the half forward line. Then when the ball is bounced, both players can sprint back to their ‘real’ positions so essentially you can still play with an extra man behind the ball. Obviously you would need quick players to execute this properly, but I can imagine the likes of Impey and Smith being capable.

 

[crazywildhorse]

I wonder about playing for the centre square stoppage. Only one side has to play that way to achieve the stoppage which means the other side is free to play for a wide open game. If it stops then that's just the routine open field stoppage, but if it breaks out (and the other side is playing for a stoppage) then you're going to repeatedly catch the other side flat-footed.

Thinking about it, I would trim down my players (particularly my centre square men) and get them focused of fast clearances. One strategy if successful (go for the stoppage) will result in both teams in a neutral, equal position while the other strategy if successful (play to clear) will always put the stoppage oriented team at a disadvantage. No, I think I would not play defensive ball but would double down on going hard for offense. I wonder what Clarkson will do.

I can almost guarantee Clarkson will be training the side away from creating an after the bounce stoppage. Similarly, I can suggest Freo are training to negate the bounce and cause a stoppage.

 

[Milkshaker]

Smith, Scully and Henderson. Some great running power and skill there. Clarko will kick the dog every night he goes home, not having Mitchell in there to dish it out at the stoppages this year.

 

[KermitJagger]

Has anyone kicked a goal from a kick in yet? With these rule changes I'd be finding a betting market who would be willing to place odds on it and put $50 on one J Sicily doing it.

 

[kazzooka]

I can almost guarantee Clarkson will be training the side away from creating an after the bounce stoppage. Similarly, I can suggest Freo are training to negate the bounce and cause a stoppage.

Absolutely, we will want to get it forward asap while it's even numbers in the forward 50.

Ross Lyon despite having great mids and now strong key forwards in Hogan and lobb and smalls like Walters. He will be determined to limit their opportunities.

 

[Bumps"N"Grins]

When you put a dimwit like Stephen Hocking in charge, you’re going to have rule changes which are unnecessary and do nothing for the game.
He probably thought “let’s change a rule which is not a problem anyway”.

I’m also still waiting for Hocking to explain Johnny Platten’s mysterious concussion in the 1989 GrandFinal.

I'd like SHocking to explain how ordinary a player he actually was. 1989 Grand Final he got out marked at least six times by Dermie one on one inside forward fifty, whilst derm had a couple of broken ribs.
Now really!

 

[crazywildhorse]

I'd like SHocking to explain how ordinary a player he actually was. 1989 Grand Final he got out marked at least six times by Dermie one on one inside forward fifty, whilst derm had a couple of broken ribs.
Now really!

It would also be interesting to hear why he looks so different to Gary. Surely not from the same father

 

[Rushed_Behind]

Teams will come up with all sorts ways to counter this.

You could choose your wingmen to line up defensive side of the square and your centre square to start on the outside of their opppnent so if you lose clearance it should hopefully be rushed kick forward to an outnumber in your favour or you win clearance and are in space.

Worst case you lose clearance to a wide kick giving to time to contain.

I got a feeling it will promote flooding.

 

[Brant]

This 20m (or is it 25m) Goal Square bullshit on kick-ins from points is possibly going to hurt us.

Locking the ball into our forwardline has been a strength for some time, as has preventing opposition sides from rebounding from our F50m to their F50m (something like 14% of rebounds made it from our F50m to their F50m in the latter part of 2018).

If oppo players can now kick out from 25m instead of 10m, it may limit our effectiveness at preventing their rebound, given that the ground is a lot wider 75m from goal than it is at 50m & there'll be a lot more space for us to have to cover.

I'm hoping that it works in reverse & actually favours us. At present, we win possession (from an oppo kick-in) about 50m - 60m out & we're usually forced to bomb back into our F50m, which is by now crowded. Hopefully, idiot oppo teams will get ahead of themselves & fill the space further out 50m - 75m etc., allowing us to pass back into a relatively de-congested F50m, at least compared to the way it currently plays.

I guess we'll find out in a few months...

 

[Carl Spackler]

This 20m (or is it 25m) Goal Square bullshit on kick-ins from points is possibly going to hurt us.

Locking the ball into our forwardline has been a strength for some time, as has preventing opposition sides from rebounding from our F50m to their F50m (something like 14% of rebounds made it from our F50m to their F50m in the latter part of 2018).

If oppo players can now kick out from 25m instead of 10m, it may limit our effectiveness at preventing their rebound, given that the ground is a lot wider 75m from goal than it is at 50m & there'll be a lot more space for us to have to cover.

I'm hoping that it works in reverse & actually favours us. At present, we win possession (from an oppo kick-in) about 50m - 60m out & we're usually forced to bomb back into our F50m, which is by now crowded. Hopefully, idiot oppo teams will get ahead of themselves & fill the space further out 50m - 75m etc., allowing us to pass back into a relatively de-congested F50m, at least compared to the way it currently plays.

I guess we'll find out in a few months...

I suspect you’re correct about the containment line being pushed further back and, therefore, the forward line more open on rebound. Further, I think the response will likely be increased zoning in defense with increasing fitness requirements. The big advantage with be with teams that can maintain very high skill levels by foot (let’s hope this stays with us) as that’s the most effective zone busting skill.

I also wonder about the impact in the run and gun from defense. With everyone pushed up tight a counter attack by running is more effective. You only need to burst about 10m past the 50 arc and you’ve beaten a zone. Push that zone 20 meters further back and you’re pretty much to the midfield before you can impact with a running line burst, which is when you should be looking to deliver to a forward, not do a zone busting run.

It’s tough to say where it will go, really, but if I were betting then I would guess more accurate kicking and lots of runing to maintain zones are on the cards.

 

[Brant]

I suspect you’re correct about the containment line being pushed further back and, therefore, the forward line more open on rebound. Further, I think the response will likely be increased zoning in defense with increasing fitness requirements. The big advantage with be with teams that can maintain very high skill levels by foot (let’s hope this stays with us) as that’s the most effective zone busting skill.

I also wonder about the impact in the run and gun from defense. With everyone pushed up tight a counter attack by running is more effective. You only need to burst about 10m past the 50 arc and you’ve beaten a zone. Push that zone 20 meters further back and you’re pretty much to the midfield before you can impact with a running line burst, which is when you should be looking to deliver to a forward, not do a zone busting run.

It’s tough to say where it will go, really, but if I were betting then I would guess more accurate kicking and lots of runing to maintain zones are on the cards.

Well put.

It's a pretty dynamic & fluid game. I can't see one change in isolation, having a desired effect, without negatively affecting another area of the game.

Ironically, paying holding/dropping the ball penalties (for illegal disposal) would clear up a whole lot of congestion...

 

[Carl Spackler]

Ironically, paying holding/dropping the ball penalties (for illegal disposal) would clear up a whole lot of congestion...

I, too, think this would really open up the game. I wonder how it would be implemented. Umpires are already so inconsistent in their calls that it frustrates most anyone to tears. They start called the slightest touch a tackle and watch everyone (including me) melt. It would get to the point that if you just breathed on a guy then the refs would call it. Soon there would be no contact at all as players make sure they avoid the whistle happy refs.

So as much as I agree with Clarkson and despise the constant tinkering of the AFL, I think calling tackles would be executed so poorly that it would most certainly result in a horrible f' up on the game. I actually (and I can't believe I'm saying this) prefer the AFL tinkering by positional changes which require no judgement to implement. They have much less potential to improve play than calling tackles correctly, but are far more likely to actually be called correctly. I'd like to see how they work first before giving umpires even more opportunity to impose themselves on the game.

 

[TylerDurden]

2 rucks is interesting. Premise there is that dominant rucks will just pluck the ball from ball ups and hack it forward.