defensive setup....

[hellfire]

It looks so much better than it has since 2011 (so far).

But I'll be curious to see how it goes against a side with bigger bodies and better 1-on-1 ability across the board. A cohesive as the backline as been, they've rarely lost 1-on-1s either.... which won't happen against the good sides. Fingers crossed it holds up... I'm optimistic.

 

[golazo]

Hey OP, I was kinda actually the person who started the "the press was Bucks' idea" theory a few years back. In the end it's a theory of mine that I still believe to this day.

Sorry mate, but in a press conference in 2010/2011, Malthouse definitely said something along the lines of "Nathan Buckley definitely deserves credit for the new ideas he's brought to the club", immediately after being asked about the development of the game plan.

 

[Cousin of Daicos]

Sorry mate, but in a press conference in 2010/2011, Malthouse definitely said something along the lines of "Nathan Buckley definitely deserves credit for the new ideas he's brought to the club", immediately after being asked about the development of the game plan.

Oh really? Cool. Wish I had seen that. Honestly had no idea. Wish we had a link. So it basically most likely WAS Buckley's idea.

 

[jackcass]

It will be interesting to see the reaction on here when it fails, which it will at times. Will Frost be lampooned on here because he leaves his man wide open in the goal square a number of times in a game and they score easy goals. Under this structure it doesn't matter whose opponent kicks the goal because it is the structure that have failed, not the individual who has had the goal kicked on him. Not sure some on here will be able to handle that. Frost we still be lampooned.

Yeah, will be interesting on the back of a loss.

Essentially we were using the same game plan last season, just didn't execute as well or have the fitness to sustain for 4 quarters or a full season.

 

[golazo]

Oh really? Cool. Wish I had seen that. Honestly had no idea. Wish we had a link. So it basically most likely WAS Buckley's idea.

I'd love to find it, but I don't remember what game it was after, and he didn't directly say it, but he did make it clear that Buckley deserved some credit. It was a post-match press conference after a win. Then he started talking about himself and about how he forces himself to adapt to new ideas that assistants bring forward, etc, etc

 

[MeisterBot]

I'm not noticing too much of a difference between our defensive setup this year and last year. We just happen to be executing it a lot better. Brown and Goldsack are playing with confidence this year, Toovey and Williams are solid as usual while Langdon and Frost are a year older. They showed great form before dropping off. They might drop off again but they're better for the run.

As is our midfield. The one-player-focus Macaffer has been replaced by a hard running Crisp and Adams has another pre-season under his belt. Losing Beams has also been a blessing in disguise.

We lose a lot of potency, but by adding two way runners in the team at his expense, the balance is much better. Rather than one tagger (Caff) and a one way traffic king (Beams), we have two mids who can run hard both ways at every stoppage (Adams and Crisp).

Things like this have a cascade effect on the team, the bigger bodies at the contest means Pendlebury can drift forward, and the two way running means that we can clear our defensive 50 with much more fluency. The solid defensive setup also means the likes of Oxley and Ramsay are less likely to get exposed, allowing Oxley in particular to use his intercept skills and get loose.

But what's impressed me this year most has been our leading patterns. We are doing that a hell of a lot better than in previous years. We have a mobile tall target always leading up for an option since Gault, White and Cloke can all run, and our half forwards in Varcoe and Dwyer work very hard to impact play up the field, as does Elliott with Blair being the slowest and stay at home option. This also makes sense because he spends time in the centre square and is the best to handball to a teammate in a contested situation.

I don't know how well we'll stand up to the likes of Freo, Port, Hawthorn and Sydney but we're playing good, hard footy at the moment. So more of that please.

 

[RGpies]

Ben Hart is the mastermind behind the backline. Last year he did an incredible job developing guys into capable 1v1 players and this year he has evidently taught team defence and instilled a confidence in players leaving their men to help which we nearly never saw last season. So Hart as a backline coach firstly is doing a terrific job.

In terms of gameplan and what Nathan is looking for us to do. The focus is on creating opposition turnovers with the understanding that teams score most on the turnover. We still have to see how this gameplan stacks up against the good teams, with the good teams to come after the bye. But conceptually I like it a lot, it works with our playing list with some terrific pressure players, and it works with our backline, particularly if Reid is playing down back, Scharenberg is coming into the team at some point and Langdon is also amongst that group as some really high level intercept marks who can just gobble up those pressured kicks. I also like that we have re-captured our identity, which we haven't until this season had under Nathan. So for the first time under Nathan's coaching, I like the direction he is looking to take us. With progress this season, unlike seasons past obvious. But to consolidate that obviously it's down to the second half of the season.

What do you think is the reason it's taken Buckley 3 seasons to get the team playing the game plan? Is it the buy in, the players he now has, the injuries.. Also with our game plan based around turnovers do you see a role for Blair to stay in the team, especially with an improved output. Do you also like Goldsack back?

 

[Knightmare]

What do you think is the reason it's taken Buckley 3 seasons to get the team playing the game plan? Is it the buy in, the players he now has, the injuries.. Also with our game plan based around turnovers do you see a role for Blair to stay in the team, especially with an improved output. Do you also like Goldsack back?

All great questions and on the outside I can't say beyond doubt. But I have my theories anyway.

Additionally before any of us start calling Nathan an even good AFL coach, because we were in a similar position this time last year before collapsing in a heap after the bye, we will need to see what we can do over the second half of the season to be able to determine whether we have actually improved or not, as that is when we will start playing better opposition.

Also in terms of looking at the list and what I expected each year. 2012 based on list quality, I thought we should have been a grand finalist if not premier, given we were the dominant team in the competition in 2011. 2013 I expected a top 4 finish as we still had more than enough talent on our list to contend. 2014 I expected a top 8 finish and there was still well and truly enough talent on our list to finish in the top 8 I'm sure almost everyone would have agreed. And this trend every year of falling well short each year of my projections has been gravely concerning.

We still today have a top 8 quality list, but given our constant downward trend I had Collingwood finishing somewhere around 12th, so a top 8 finish would be performing roughly as we should this year (and top 4 would be certainly exceeding expectations and a big tick if we were to somehow unexpected achieve that).

But onto your question and to give my best feel for the dynamic we have experienced internally as best I can figure from the outside.

In the first season under Nathan certainly and possibly also the second season my sense was that the group, or at least the senior players (let's call it those born before '87 - then add Dale Thomas to that mix) were all committed to Malthouse still and were bummed out that he was no longer head coach given how far he had taken the list. The buy-in certainly in that first year felt only to come from that younger group, and let's say Maxwell and Ball not to throw them under the bus as they always did the team thing regardless.

After that first season, and you could probably include that second season. But after that first season, I feel it was less a lack of buy-in but more conflict amongst the group. Some players in the locker-room not getting along, some not getting along with Nathan - Lumumba and Shaw some obvious examples.

And it's only really this year for the first time with the list cleared of those players who seemed conflicted whether it be with Nathan or other players, have all left. And as a result we're broadly seeing everything come together on and off the field with this group. And we're getting that buyin to the gameplan, player chemistry etc with this group. And from here we've now got an opportunity as a list to start improving and making progress.

We still have to wait and see what happens over the course of the season. With not a lot clear as to how we'll go over the second half of the season. But the script is yet to be written, and it could go any number of ways for us, which will just make for interesting viewing.

--
On Blair and Goldsack.

Blair works with our gameplan due to the nature of his game as a very high level pressure player. I don't personally regard him as best 22. But the credit I will give him is he is up forward a very good pressure player. He also seems as a crumber to be a little better which he needs to be to play games in our senior side.
But the other side of things and why I don't personally advocate the selection of Blair is he like pretty much all sub 180s performs much better against poor teams and struggles against better teams (so that's not going to work come finals time, if we happen to make it). He doesn't have midfield level numbers as a good but not great contested ball winner and then outside the contest he struggles to find enough of the footy, so he has to remain forward to remain relevant. His scoreboard impact still isn't high enough with 7 scoring shots from 5 games, which he has been accurate still not enough. And as a small he also isn't a marking threat. Then his footskills in terms of hitting targets is also below average.
So while his trick is tackling and pressuring, he is just too limited for my liking when we have better rounded and more complete talents on our list. But as your 20th/21st player I'm not disputing he can play a very specific role, and he would be suitable on a contending team with a super strong best 18-20 where all that is needed is a role player of his type. That's more where I see him fitting if thought about in a best 22 context.

Goldsack's best position is tricky. And he can play both ends fine. For a period there I thought he was best as a forward. His tackling and pressuring ability may be the best in the competition, he is just so elite in that category. But as a forward he is a not a threat as a mark and provides very little in scoreboard impact. And as such with that incomplete and limited game I'd say he should be used in the back half, where his limitations don't matter so much, but his strengths can still be of use. And down back his tackling is also a good asset, then he has the height and length, excellent closing speed at his height and some versatility. So while he won't find a lot of it. He is someone where as an 18-22 type player, he can perform his role.
I'm not sure I'd have Goldsack in my best 22 either, with again some more talented and better rounded talents on our list, who can impact games in more ways, but I'd have Goldsack as very close to best 22 certainly, and probably with injuries playing more often than not anyway.

 

[The Magnificent Seven]

Oh really? Cool. Wish I had seen that. Honestly had no idea. Wish we had a link. So it basically most likely WAS Buckley's idea.

I like the idea that it was your idea that it was Bucks' idea.

 

[Markfs]

This is a strangely positive thread.

 

[Mkcaptain]

After the Dogs Nab Challenge game I wasn't convinced about them leaving their man. But I am a big enough bloke to admit I could not have been more wrong

Even against the Blues there were numerous times when the had a free man out the back. But our manic pressure and outnumbering them at the contest usually stopped the ball getting to them.