Dimmas dissection

[Madtiger2006]

It's dysfunctional. I've been watching it closely this year and it needs a serious revamp. Players rarely lead at the ball carrier, players stand still in dangerous areas inside the forward 50. It is shockingly stagnant and relies on bits of magic from Riewoldt/Griffiths or a crumb. I understand it's harder these days to find a target inside 50 when you have the ball 70-80m out as generally the whole opposition is inside your F50. It's more the passages of play when we have a guy whose taken 2 bounces, and then looks up and has to bomb long to someone whose trying to get out the back. As a result we never convert these chances when we should be getting a shot on goal 8 or 9 times out of 10. Roughead, Bruest, Gunston are ALWAYS leading up in this situation, as they have so much space. Riewoldt or whoever else are looking for the perfect kick over the back and it shits me to no end.

Here's one example that's happened countless times this year and last year too. Wait for when Grigg gives it off to Houli.

http://www.afl.com.au/video/smart-r...01&eventType=free&seek=7078&videoQuality=high

Yes he missed the kick, but these are the chances that we need to convert regularly, but at the moment it's rare. You can almost guarantee that in the same situation one of Gunston or Roughead would be tearing towards Houli.

Our own players flood the 50 and their opponents follow them. That leaves 44 players in our forward 50 and almost no chance to score and gives the opposition a chance to rebound and sprint forward. Boring to watch. 14 of our players should be banned from entering our forward 50 unless its empty and we are running into goal. Keep it open. Give our 6 forwards space and allow 1 or 2 others to enter if needed. If the opposition players want to enter the 50 then we have 14 players to share it and set up a running goal from 40-50m out

 

[copthat]

Our own players flood the 50 and their opponents follow them. That leaves 44 players in our forward 50 and almost no chance to score and gives the opposition a chance to rebound and sprint forward. Boring to watch. 14 of our players should be banned from entering our forward 50 unless its empty and we are running into goal. Keep it open. Give our 6 forwards space and allow 1 or 2 others to enter if needed. If the opposition players want to enter the 50 then we have 14 players to share it and set up a running goal from 40-50m out

Yes. Our forward line is purposely clogged to give us the opportunity for repeat entries. Nothing efficient about it though.

 

[pebblestone]

1. I liked the question about why are we kicking the ball wide to the pockets in our forward line where chances of conversion are much lower. Dimma acknowledged that and then, to my interpretation, proceeded to 'answer' the question with some stats about how bad we were from directly in front and some stat about 1 out of 10 from 30m-50m. It annoyed me because these 2 things are unrelated in my mind. The lack of conversion from in front is a skill/execution error, however the going wide is a game plan strategy/'error'. I see one on the players (the execution) and one on the coaching staff (where the shots are taken from).

I've heard previously that the going wide enables us to force a stoppage if a mark is not taken or whatever. This was not discussed at all on this video but that logic annoys me too (I'm so testy at the moment) as i see it as too defensive a strategy and would rather see risks taken in getting the ball more squarely to the goals.

It was driving me insane against Melbourne the other night. We were fiddling around in the pockets but every time there was a stoppage in their f50, it was directly in front - or close to, and lo and behold, they kept kicking goals from f50 stoppages. We kicked an avalanche of behinds and folded into oblivion.

 

[ReaperX]

I've always enjoyed Tuesdays with Te....

umm, Dimma's dissection.

 

[turtle27]

the last sentance i wrote was about dh Damian hardwick...

Someone wanna explain the dh?

 

[Groupie_]

Our own players flood the 50 and their opponents follow them. That leaves 44 players in our forward 50 and almost no chance to score and gives the opposition a chance to rebound and sprint forward. Boring to watch. 14 of our players should be banned from entering our forward 50 unless its empty and we are running into goal. Keep it open. Give our 6 forwards space and allow 1 or 2 others to enter if needed. If the opposition players want to enter the 50 then we have 14 players to share it and set up a running goal from 40-50m out

We should isolate Dustbin in the forward 50 and tell nobody to go there

 

[Madtiger2006]

Yes. Our forward line is purposely clogged to give us the opportunity for repeat entries. Nothing efficient about it though.

How can that happen if there's hardly anyone outside the 50 to mark the rebound kick?

 

[copthat]

How can that happen if there's hardly anyone outside the 50 to mark the rebound kick?

We clog from about 70m out. Hence when the ball gets past this wall of players we normally see it fly down the other end for a goal. Just the way I see it anyway.

 

[Nallad]

Morris played back last week, and the week before.

Morris played last week?

 

[theflea]

Generally 50% is the mark, above is good below is bad. (+/- gamestyles)

In 2015 we're averaging 55.5 I50's for 26 scoring shots at 47%
In 2014 we averaged 50.3 I50's for 23.5 scoring shots at 47%
In 2013 we averaged 52.3 I50's for 27 scoring shots at 51.6%
In 2012 we averaged 56.5 I50's for 28 scoring shots at 50%

This season
Carl- 45 I50's for 30 Scoring shots- 66% functional
WB- 54 I50's for 21 scoring shots- 39% dysfunctional
Bris- 57 I50's for 31 scoring shots- 54% functional
Melb- 57 I50's for 23 scoring shots- 40% dysfunctional

We can be very functional at times, not so much others, if we have the game on our terms we look great and hit leads, if not we struggle to create clean entries, theres no point looking at individual plays as I could bring up plenty that a forward leads and gets hit lace out.

Overall I think our forward line strategy of heading towards the boundry and clogging the forwardline is based around the skill level of our players and our inability to lock the ball in when we miss a precision pass, often being scored against on the rebound.

This is why we need a quality small forward and some more classy mids, (Lennon/Cellis?) so we can change our forwardline structure to something more positive.

Also we pretty good for marks inside fwd 50 but because of our conversion rate from sets shots it kills us.

 

[wegetpumped]

Oh yes we can! Eight coaches a year, 15 players sacked or traded and 38 different game plans!

Well you bound to find the right mix then hey don't forget well have a five year plan to get it right.

 

[Lsta062]

Our own players flood the 50 and their opponents follow them. That leaves 44 players in our forward 50 and almost no chance to score and gives the opposition a chance to rebound and sprint forward. Boring to watch. 14 of our players should be banned from entering our forward 50 unless its empty and we are running into goal. Keep it open. Give our 6 forwards space and allow 1 or 2 others to enter if needed. If the opposition players want to enter the 50 then we have 14 players to share it and set up a running goal from 40-50m out

We mark pretty well in our forward 50 I believe, so you brought up a good point. In Port vs Hawthorn, that was the case. I noticed that Hawthorn's forward 50s was completely clogged, so they would work hard for little return. When it went to Port's forward 50, they had only 2-4 players there, making it so easy for them to score for little effort in there.

In order to do that though, we need a classy small forward. They could pick the ball off the deck and bolt towards goal easily when our forward 50 is empty

 

[wegetpumped]

Well you bound to find the right mix then hey don't forget well have a five year plan to get it right.

I at least have a plan not like dimma. Bf defensive coaches well be the so called hatter's , Forward coach's well be the so called lover's, Midfield well be poster's that are 50/50, and the rest well be coached by poster's from the banter thread's surely this should work

 

[RunningBounce]

FWIW, from what I have come to understand, we head long into pockets when a short aint available, purely to be able to defend the spill with the aid of the boundary line, which then relies on our goals from stoppages stat.

I think I agree with the other posts lamenting the lack of a short option. Better teams don't have to resort to the long bomb.

I don't think it's a third tall that solves the problem, but a hit-up mid-sized forward, who was told to start and stay deep, so there's always someone home to lead at the ball carrier, especially when we are rebounding fast out of the backline.

 

[no orange peeler]

right i havent read the whole thread but i did watch Dimmas dissection.
In reference to our goal kicking. He had stats to back up that we missed sitters.
The reason we kicked to the pockets and this is common amongst most teams as melbourne flood the centre corridor of the footy. Players from ALL teams are instructed to kick to the pockets when the centre coridoor is flooded for 2 reasons 1. if the ball isn't marked the next best scenario is a stoppage ie. out of bounds. 2. Prevents the trampoline rebound that he stated. Trampoline rebound hurts has they have the ball in the centre corridoor and have the option of being 2 kicks from goal. i actually thought his explanations made a lot of sense.

 

[TerraTiger]

right i havent read the whole thread but i did watch Dimmas dissection.
In reference to our goal kicking. He had stats to back up that we missed sitters.
The reason we kicked to the pockets and this is common amongst most teams as melbourne flood the centre corridor of the footy. Players from ALL teams are instructed to kick to the pockets when the centre coridoor is flooded for 2 reasons 1. if the ball isn't marked the next best scenario is a stoppage ie. out of bounds. 2. Prevents the trampoline rebound that he stated. Trampoline rebound hurts has they have the ball in the centre corridoor and have the option of being 2 kicks from goal. i actually thought his explanations made a lot of sense.

Yeah, I accept that theory when the centre corridor is flooded, however I've seen many time in games us going to wide options when the corridor is not flooded. It gets mechanical after a while and really frustrating. My thought on my observation, to help with my frustration, was to think perhaps if the forwards did make more moves to the seemly vacant space 20-40m out that area soon would be flooded, but hey, I'd rather die trying this than have guys continually on the boundary trying low percentage shots.

 

[Achilles Heel]

Well you bound to find the right mix then hey don't forget well have a five year plan to get it right.

We mark pretty well in our forward 50 I believe, so you brought up a good point. In Port vs Hawthorn, that was the case. I noticed that Hawthorn's forward 50s was completely clogged, so they would work hard for little return. When it went to Port's forward 50, they had only 2-4 players there, making it so easy for them to score for little effort in there.

In order to do that though, we need a classy small forward. They could pick the ball off the deck and bolt towards goal easily when our forward 50 is empty

Give the man a prize Donna is trying to copy the hawthorn game plan minus the cattle

 

[theflea]

Yeah, I accept that theory when the centre corridor is flooded, however I've seen many time in games us going to wide options when the corridor is not flooded. It gets mechanical after a while and really frustrating. My thought on my observation, to help with my frustration, was to think perhaps if the forwards did make more moves to the seemly vacant space 20-40m out that area soon would be flooded, but hey, I'd rather die trying this than have guys continually on the boundary trying low percentage shots.

I agree, and I reckon it might be our fwds don't 'start' in the rights spots ie start from the point posts into the middle corridor, instead of the reverse.