Separate names with a comma.
Western Conference Finals · Eastern Conference Finals
Discussion in 'Fremantle' started by lw11, Mar 10, 2017.
Zac can be clumsy at times.
(Log in to remove this ad.)
A lot of the time our goals come from our attackers letting the defender get front position and then kicking the ball over the attackers head so that he can run onto it. This would work well enough as long as we have enough speed in our forward line. McCarthy and Walters will probably have the best chance in this system, as well as Bennell once he comes back. This system does require for there to be fewer defenders in the forward line so that they can't have someone behind the attacker as well. You can see Freo trying to limit the number of defenders in the forward line when they keep kicking the ball across half back, trying to draw defenders out, or when they quickly transition (Hill to Hill to Sonny and Kersten's goal both came from quick movement in transition).
So far I have to say it's working better then the old system of kick it to Pav.
To early to say because it is preseason games. Come the real thing clubs will play differently anyway. Extra man back. Run with players. Can't see the likes of Sean Darcy being a regular. In our first JLT game we had way to many talls forward, but game 1 I think we will have 2 talls and resting ruck.
Pretty spot on .
This tactic generates a lot of angst from the fans. Particularly as in JLT there were 2 turnover goals from this. But to me its a plan straight out of soccer, in which you understood that, you cannot switch the ball across the back line any faster than the defense can re-position to respond. The aim is .... retained possession. This is the real lesson that the Hawks have been teaching the competition. Those little chippy kick of theirs are to retain possession positioning is secondary to maintaining possesion. This means never kick to a situation where the chance of loosing possession approaches 50%. (For us this should result in a secondary rule, don't chip back to Dawson)
The problem is that some players, I'm looking at you here Ibbo, never look up the field for this unless there are 0 other options. He literally marked on the wing and immediately turned and kicked back across for 20m when about 25 meters ahead and in the center there is an un marked docker. He did that twice right in front of me in the space of the third quarter. I don't doubt Ibbo's intercept marking ability but I have to question his decision making when you are chipping back to Dawson instead of kicking inside to Neale.
Cannot agree strongly enough - we kick backwards as a default action, rather than as a creative option. If I was Ross I would kick the arse of any player who kicked back or sideways when there is an open option forward of the play.
Not doubt possession is key,as the old saying goes 'if we've got the pill they ain't gonna score' but additionally it is a strategy designed to stretch the oppositions defensive structures from side to side and provide the opportunity for your own offensive running patterns to create mismatches,empty space for players to run into,two on ones etc etc.
The ball will always move faster over 40/50 than anyone can run and if our half forwards know the structure/numbers which trigger the forward release it gives them an edge on the defender....ie 'we've got the numbers down the wing now if I lead to the pocket... etc etc.This is the only thing I can think of in Ibbo's defense,that we had a numbers mismatch eventuating on the other side of the ground and there wasn't one ahead.....Or he just went back by default
Clarkson is claimed to be a bit of a student of soccer so likely it has come from there to some extent,soccer certainly employs the tactic and have also added to equivalent of half backs overlapping down the wing to the pocket etc as a defense/offense transition sling shot mechanism which we're seeing more of.
They may also be under instruction to practise simply retaining possession for periods in the preseason 'just cos they can'.
Have now re-watched the second half and I'm actually feeling a bit more confident heading in to the regular season but not expecting fireworks:
I think we took our foot off the pedal a bit in the third -> brought in Darcy and Logue, tried some different players in the middle (even Tucker had a run there) and noticed we rested Sandi, Fyfe and other key players for periods.
As much as I felt we should have buried them in the first half, I thought we held up ok in the second half without trying too hard. Still far too many mistakes, that we'll get punished more against good teams, but definitely some signs that our new team is starting to gel.
Fyfe really is an amazing player - he just dominated but didn't look like he got out of 2nd gear the whole game.
Having Fyfe and Logue both capable of kicking goals off one step outside 50 is pretty exciting for the future.
I still have no idea why we try the switch across half back because not once in the whole game did it not end up in a turnover (and we tried it quite a few times not just a couple).
I don't understand why people have a major problem with SHill lining up in the middle? He is one of three key players (hopefully four if Tucker steps up as expected) that can kick effectively inside 50. He's also better than expected getting in and under and winning first possession. If Mundy isn't in the middle I think we benefit a lot from SHill's class in there. I thought we looked ordinary in the 2nd half when he wasn't on ball and playing at half back instead. He looks so dangerous on the attack alongside his brother.
Similarly with Blakely at half forward. Sure he's an awful kick for goal but I thought he did quite well in the position. Certainly better than I had expected and the goal kicking is the only thing I would criticise him over. If he could improve that part of his game he'll be so much more flexible for us.
Hamling and Ibbo seem to be starting to form a good partnership. Ibbo stuffed up early but thought he was very solid for the rest of the game. Also not worried about Johnson, he fluffed two kicks but he'll be fine.
I thought Tucker didn't have a great game when I first watched it live but after replaying it I noticed how many good things he did that I missed originally. Love that we have a youngster on our list that can win his own ball, puts in multiple efforts and generally has good disposal. Sure he made some mistakes but his good work more than made up for it.
I think both Weller and Langdon are going to love playing alongside both Hill brothers. So much speed at our disposal there and they seem to work well together. And even though Langdon's disposals can be questionable at times I really liked his work rate on the weekend - like his run down that saved a likely goal.
Not sure I learnt that much from the second half, as the first half was more our Rd1 line-up I think but a win is a win.
I strongly disagree, are you saying spurr , Dawson , ibbo , is not creative player . . Right now I am not sure I rather Geelong totally kill it so that the defense do a total rebuild or hoping s hill,b.hill ,Walters and fyfe pull freo through for minimum win .
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to remember our training watchers report (on more than one occasion) that the players are instructed to kick sideways during match sims?
RTB has even balled players out for not following the team protocol?
Do I remember this wrong or has the directive changed?
Hmmm, I don't remember that sorry. I have seen him yell at players for stuffing around in the D50. I'm sure there is an instruction to switch under certain circumstances...
I understand the theory of the switch but execution is completely different. And in a straight line I agree with your comment on the speed of a ball. But...
When the "switch is on" the plan is to kick back and across, then across again and then up the line. I do not remember an occasion where this was less than 3 kicks its typically 4 or 5. Now if the player receiving does not play on immediately after a mark, they retreat back 5 to 10 meters and then kick 30-40 meters. So a gain of 25-35 meters. With a switch you need to travel about 150-180 meters and so 4 kicks gets you there. But its a bit of kicking down two sides of a triangle or three sides of a square. The ground is only 120 wide and in a zone defence you only move across to the next position. Typically from the centre to the wing, so a distance to run of about 40 to 50 meters. I would imagine that you need about 10 seconds (most AFL players sprint well under 20 seconds for the 100) to cover this.
If you play on from a mark you would probably kick after holding possession for 2 or so seconds (I actually think it's about 3-4 but I'm being generous). The kick itself is about a second (longer kick will be 2 or 3 for floaters). So if all goes according to plan and there are no dropped marks and all players can play on immediately you will need 12 seconds. The defence wins by a second or so unless they are slow to react. If anything goes wrong or a player cannot play on the defence will structure up for your switch. These are mechanics that soccer has understood for a while. The switch occasionally catches out defences but it really is about maintaining possession and setting up offensive structures and players. This struggle of structure is what makes soccer so low scoring and why people are paranoid about possession.
Watch any of the in depth soccer commentary and it is all about what the offence is doing to break well drilled defences. And it can usually further broken down to counterpunching when there is no structure in place or getting the ball to somebody who is creative and skilled enough to break the lines through aggressive movement with the ball.
Strangely enough the forms are similar in basketball too where once again the switch is used commonly. The difference though is the hand passing of basketball is much much quicker than passes by foot. Especially as with Footy you need to transition from one to the other with speed. Accounting for the uneven object may add a bit of time here or there when the marking position of the ball in the hand needs to be change for a good ball drop for the kick. But even in Basketball the switch more often than not results in a switch back as the perimeter offence waits for the inside movement to generate gaps and openings.
The switch itself IMHO is never about unsettling the offence. They may miss a trick so you pounce but do play anticipating this as better teams never let it happen. This is why our scoring ability is poor. With a switch it is the forwards that make your opportunities not those involved in the switch.
The switch is about keeping possession and getting to the fat side of the ground where there should be an unmarked player with room to move and then create a spare over the top. The moans and groans by uninformed supporters who want the side go forward at any cost when Freo go back to create the spare man is laughable.
I moan and groan when, after switching it across the back once or twice, the players up the field stop running and it all ends in a turnover kicking it long up the line That is purely a work rate thing.
I can tolerate them trying to make the right decision and making a skill error but when it comes to work rate, that really grinds my gears. Hopefully Zac Dawson has got his one 'take on the man on the mark' out of the system for the season though. It should be team instruction he's not to be used in the switch.
As I said before, I understand the theory but I would say that across the AFL a switch resulting in finding unimpeded progress through to the attacking 50 is what about 1 in 5 or 6 attempts.
I actually like the switch and I don't boo people who use it. But I think it is about altering the offences structure going forward whilst maintaining possession.
So the alternative is to kick long to a contest and hope it doesn't come straight back over your head.
The best switch is one executed well enough to draw space back in closer to the corridor. Jhonno does it well at times, when on receiving end of the switch pass he feigns to go down the line but instead kicks into the space toward the corridor drawn open by the leading player heading to boundary.
This (I think) is the ultimate aim of the switch, spreading players to draw space. If we do this cohesively and in an attacking fashion ( ie somewhere in the vicinity of the corridor and not down the line) then fair to say it opens up fwd play as we have 2 'fat sides' instead of one.
It's the cohesion, understanding, guts ( or licence) to do it that sees it work or revert back to the down the line efforts we saw a fair bit of last year.
Hopefully we see the sweet science of space creation like hawthorn of late in FFC play this year.
I don't mind the switch either but not once did we not turn the ball over when we switched against Carlton. Against Carlton!!! - tipped by many for the spoon. If we can't do it with that minimal pressure are we seriously going to be able to do it against better teams?
There are far more options to players than "bomb it long" OR "switch" when moving the ball. I don't recall the Dogs using the switch that often last year and they certainly didn't always just bomb it long.
I personally don't think the switch suits our team structure atm and would rather we looked at alternatives to move the ball in a way that gives our forwards an advantage. I'm not suggesting never do it but our best transitions in the JLT were when we did overlapping runs with handballs over the top or short kicks. We have the runners on our list to run the ball now.
Switch is for players with good awareness and kicking. Freo just have minimum of them. If you are not good at it don't even bother when season come.
You have to have options and mix it up. You can't bomb it down the line every time, the same as you can't just automatically switch every time. If you do either too regularly the oppo will just sit on it. The best teams do both depending on the situation, or look for the 45 degree kick, or into the corridor. You need the elite kicks like Johno or Weller to do this though (I miss Duffman ).
We do have a genuine advantage with the bomb down the line with Fyfe & Sandi capable of taking a contested grab, so this should be the bail out option.
Being predictable is fine if you have a lethal alternative up your sleeve. Remember that move with the player (Hill) coming off the bench.
I really expected a lot more running through the defense/midfield to be part of our 2017 program.
With BHill, Weller and Langdon we have a big upgrade in pace. I certainly hope we are planning to use that.