Analysis Gameplan

[Temploar]

We've got about 8 guys who can play on the half back line. Is anybody seriously suggesting that we're going to add Pendlebury and Adams to the list? The talk as I understand it is about adding another defensive dimension to the way Adams and Pendlebury play, which again as I understand it, is a contributory influence coming from the assistant coaching of guys like Hocking. I don't think anybody is suggesting that we take Adams and Pendlebury away from the midfield. Also on that the matter of training the players to have a defensive mindset, since the last 6 premierships have been won that way, I wouldn't think that was a bad thing.

Pretty much.
Buckley trains and has been training most of his players in multiple positions and it's nothing new.

That's his philosophy anyway and it has been since day one. He wants his defenders to be able to play midfield and his midfielders to be able to play defence. Then he wants his forwards to come back into the midfield as well when needed.

It's basically the way the modern game is played, with no real set positions, but Buckley takes it a step further and is trying to use a really ultra fluid gameplan because he models his style around the way the Hawks did in their prime. He even admitted it himself in a pre game interview a few years ago.

This ultra fluid version of football looks amazing when we do it right, and Hawthorn had a version of it that they did very right and made them dominant, but will it work for us? I'm still not entirely sold. Hawthorn had a very special team. Elite skills and fantastic chemistry between one another. You may even go as far as to say once in a generation. I mean it's not much of a stretch to say that. They did win 3 in a row.

Chemistry is what makes this type of football work, as I said the Hawks had great chemistry and all their players knew what they and their teammates were doing.

We have been unable to achieve any real sort of chemistry between each other because we have had such a high list turnover every year until last year. I believe this is intentional and Is probably something that came up with the review.
To build chemistry you need Gametime and consistency. It doesn't happen overnight and it certainly doesn't happen when we have made multiple multiple multiple changes to our team almost every week! (Sometimes due to injury, actually probably mostly due to injury)

It's also the reason why we weren't able to beat the Hawks and why Buckley has such a poor record against Hawthorn. They did what we were doing, just so much better. Or we were doing what they were doing, just worse, vice versa.

So naturally this type of training is required for the transition footy he's been wanting us to play. Allows us to all come back and defend if needed and then it's up to the forwards to break away and make that effort to get into the forward line again. A very fluid approach, however sometimes too fluid as we get stuck with too many players around the ball a lot which leaves us open.
Also looks like we have no ****ing clue what we are doing when the forwards get tired / lazy / lack awareness and don't make that extra effort to run back into the goalsquare. It's a combination of that and like I said, the keyword here (Chemistry)

Probably why we have had to bomb it long and hope for the best so many times.

Buckley's general approach is to get each player in the team comfortable enough with playing every position (besides ruck), but so far we have shown as we would say a sort of lack of "awareness" or "football IQ" in most of our games and our players have gotten confused about where to be on the field, this is because like i said, our players never really had time to gel together and we never really put out a consistent team. It's also why we see so many open opposition players and over the top goals. No consistency. No chemistry. No awareness. = You're gonna have a bad time.

This versatile "22 utilities" approach sounds great in theory but sometimes players just cannot be that versatile and it exposes a lot of our players and we end up calling them "dumb footballers" because of it but it's very very hard to keep track of such an approach without amazing chemistry between you and your teammates as you need to know where they're gonna be and what they're gonna do at all times, and also the fact that some footballers are not cut out to be "ultilites", if someone is naturally a forward and excels only as a forward or defender etc then it may not be possible for them to adapt their game.

I know it's a different code, but Jose Mourinho, the manager of Manchester United, has come out and said he would take a natural player in one position over a utility any day, because he would rather sacrifice that so called "versatility" for a guarantee that the role he gives his players is strictly adhered to and done right by a player with natural ability in that position. People can't be great at everything! Nobody is.

Another problem with us has obviously been our kicking efficiency hitting that target from defence into midfield .

I hope I put all of that into the way I wanted to say it. I think I understand what Buckley is trying to do here but it's risky as (from rumours) I personally believe Buckley came to this club with a mentality that most if not all players train and dedicate themselves in the same ways and as much as he did. Which he quickly saw was not the case. (Swanny) and I think, I hope, by now he understands that a bit better.

It's too late to change his philosophy now. So we need this all to click into place and hope that Buckley is right.

This year, should we get a good injury record, will tell us everything. If we can get that consistency going with our team selection then it'll give the players the best chance to put Buckley's plan into action.

 

[Mooresome]

^^^^^^^
What he said + better accuracy with our kicks to forwards will go along way to playing finals.

 

[Temploar]

^^^^^^^
What he said + better accuracy with our kicks to forwards will go along way to playing finals.

I like using the word chemistry but I think a better accuracy / kicking skills will come with the team cohesion / chemistry as well.

I think a lot of us were saying some of the players that we have seen with so called "poor kicking skills" were actually fairly decent kicks as juniors and aren't that bad kicks overall.

I don't know, and this is just my assumption. But there could be a level of pressure or overanalysis going through some players minds when kicking, due to the open style of football we play.

The more thinking that a player has to do, the more their skill level will diminish as a result of it because they're focusing more brain power on other things / the body starts to panic.

Like I said it's just an assumption but if I were a player and I could kick the ball to a direction and know a certain teammate would be there then it would eliminate a lot of the brainpower needed to perform that action and there would be a more natural feel to it.

I know they're professional athletes and they get paid good money to think in these high pressure situations but in the end we are all just human and have the same brains.

Consistency will do us a world of good, I really hope we get to see it this year.

 

[jackcass]

Pretty much.
Buckley trains and has been training most of his players in multiple positions and it's nothing new.

That's his philosophy anyway and it has been since day one. He wants his defenders to be able to play midfield and his midfielders to be able to play defence. Then he wants his forwards to come back into the midfield as well when needed.

It's basically the way the modern game is played, with no real set positions, but Buckley takes it a step further and is trying to use a really ultra fluid gameplan because he models his style around the way the Hawks did in their prime. He even admitted it himself in a pre game interview a few years ago.

This ultra fluid version of football looks amazing when we do it right, and Hawthorn had a version of it that they did very right and made them dominant, but will it work for us? I'm still not entirely sold. Hawthorn had a very special team. Elite skills and fantastic chemistry between one another. You may even go as far as to say once in a generation. I mean it's not much of a stretch to say that. They did win 3 in a row.

Chemistry is what makes this type of football work, as I said the Hawks had great chemistry and all their players knew what they and their teammates were doing.

We have been unable to achieve any real sort of chemistry between each other because we have had such a high list turnover every year until last year. I believe this is intentional and Is probably something that came up with the review.
To build chemistry you need Gametime and consistency. It doesn't happen overnight and it certainly doesn't happen when we have made multiple multiple multiple changes to our team almost every week! (Sometimes due to injury, actually probably mostly due to injury)

It's also the reason why we weren't able to beat the Hawks and why Buckley has such a poor record against Hawthorn. They did what we were doing, just so much better. Or we were doing what they were doing, just worse, vice versa.

So naturally this type of training is required for the transition footy he's been wanting us to play. Allows us to all come back and defend if needed and then it's up to the forwards to break away and make that effort to get into the forward line again. A very fluid approach, however sometimes too fluid as we get stuck with too many players around the ball a lot which leaves us open.
Also looks like we have no ******* clue what we are doing when the forwards get tired / lazy / lack awareness and don't make that extra effort to run back into the goalsquare. It's a combination of that and like I said, the keyword here (Chemistry)

Probably why we have had to bomb it long and hope for the best so many times.

Buckley's general approach is to get each player in the team comfortable enough with playing every position (besides ruck), but so far we have shown as we would say a sort of lack of "awareness" or "football IQ" in most of our games and our players have gotten confused about where to be on the field, this is because like i said, our players never really had time to gel together and we never really put out a consistent team. It's also why we see so many open opposition players and over the top goals. No consistency. No chemistry. No awareness. = You're gonna have a bad time.

This versatile "22 utilities" approach sounds great in theory but sometimes players just cannot be that versatile and it exposes a lot of our players and we end up calling them "dumb footballers" because of it but it's very very hard to keep track of such an approach without amazing chemistry between you and your teammates as you need to know where they're gonna be and what they're gonna do at all times, and also the fact that some footballers are not cut out to be "ultilites", if someone is naturally a forward and excels only as a forward or defender etc then it may not be possible for them to adapt their game.

I know it's a different code, but Jose Mourinho, the manager of Manchester United, has come out and said he would take a natural player in one position over a utility any day, because he would rather sacrifice that so called "versatility" for a guarantee that the role he gives his players is strictly adhered to and done right by a player with natural ability in that position. People can't be great at everything! Nobody is.

Another problem with us has obviously been our kicking efficiency hitting that target from defence into midfield .

I hope I put all of that into the way I wanted to say it. I think I understand what Buckley is trying to do here but it's risky as (from rumours) I personally believe Buckley came to this club with a mentality that most if not all players train and dedicate themselves in the same ways and as much as he did. Which he quickly saw was not the case. (Swanny) and I think, I hope, by now he understands that a bit better.

It's too late to change his philosophy now. So we need this all to click into place and hope that Buckley is right.

This year, should we get a good injury record, will tell us everything. If we can get that consistency going with our team selection then it'll give the players the best chance to put Buckley's plan into action.

Yep. Compounded by our leadership issues.

 

[Buckley is my hero]

I like using the word chemistry but I think a better accuracy / kicking skills will come with the team cohesion / chemistry as well.

I think a lot of us were saying some of the players that we have seen with so called "poor kicking skills" were actually fairly decent kicks as juniors and aren't that bad kicks overall.

I don't know, and this is just my assumption. But there could be a level of pressure or overanalysis going through some players minds when kicking, due to the open style of football we play.

The more thinking that a player has to do, the more their skill level will diminish as a result of it because they're focusing more brain power on other things / the body starts to panic.

Like I said it's just an assumption but if I were a player and I could kick the ball to a direction and know a certain teammate would be there then it would eliminate a lot of the brainpower needed to perform that action and there would be a more natural feel to it.

I know they're professional athletes and they get paid good money to think in these high pressure situations but in the end we are all just human and have the same brains.

Consistency will do us a world of good, I really hope we get to see it this year.

The reason the training drills are so repetitive is that there's so much going on the football field during matches, you don't have time to think, so it comes down to players doing things instinctively and their teammates knowing where to run to as if it's a training drill. The better players usually take the right options but even they screw it up at times in pressure situations. Also, players being human, if the opposition gets a run on heads will drop on our team and then it's up to our leadership on the field to bring the players into line. The coach can't do that in the coaches box. Also the players practice set plays on the training track which they try to execute on game day and the coaching scouts will identify set plays the opposition use and then the senior coach will devise counter moves at training to stop the opposition playing those moves. In a tight situation on game day all the planning and training notes the coaches have put together, will fall apart not because the players have forgotten what to do, but because players have brain fades and pressure gets to the players. The best players execute the best under the most pressure. They include players like Hodge, Mitchell and Rance. They are the players you want in your team.

 

[Horaceg]

As long as Bucks understands we don’t have a team if Nathan Buckley’s running around. They can’t all do what he could.

 

[loki04]

When a forward stays in attacking 50, the opposition don't generally leave him unmanned

Except us well not fwd 50 but we tend to allow fwds to creep 20m behind our last LOD backing in our "fwd flood", 2nd half of the Crows drawn game was a good example of it in action.

 

[Snoop Dog]

I thought it might be a good idea to have a thread where people like me could ask questions of posters with a good knowledge of strategy. I’m looking at you, Scodog10, Snoop Dog, good4footy, legendstatus, Quicky, Apex36 etc (apologies for people I have missed).

I’ll kick things off.

What would happen if we instructed a forward like Reid, Moore or Cox to remain in the forward 50 for the whole game? Could it work or not, and why?

Sorry mate I have been away but firstly thanks for thinking of me in that regard.

I haven't seen the other responses and I didn't want to get coloured by them but I will read them with interest post this.

I think if you wanted to do that a couple of things need to happen;

1 - Whoever you have needs to be considered by opposition coaches as a real threat. From my experience coaches are trying to eliminate a teams advantage. So if I was to use two opposition teams as an example I think you would have two different answers. If we were playing Richmond then I would think Buckley would assume Rance would probably get Reid and if he did he would know that Hardwick would instruct Rance to use his advantage and run off and create and that as a result leaving Reid camped in the forward 50 could really hurt so you would think long and hard about doing that. Now with someone like Adelaide or GWS they would probably use Talia / Hartigan or Davis at GWS to play on him. None of those blokes are really going to hurt you offensively so leaving him there might work.

2 - If you do it I think you have to be convinced as a coach that your team is good at stopping teams going end to end and are proficient at creating turnovers through the middle or across HB and have the ability to sling shot the ball back. Last year Collingwood were sh&thouse at the former. I'm not sure of the stats but I would think we were rated in the top few as a team that was pretty easy to go end to end on. I can remember a few games over the last few years that were just awful. So with the changes he has made for this year he would want to be sure he could back his group in to create those turnovers.

For mine one of the big questions is how do they get more efficient in that forward 50. I am interested in what people think about how they set up across the various lines to get better at delivering and also interested in peoples views around who are the better decision / skill makers to execute on it. Be interested in peoples views.

 

[cleomenes]

Sorry mate I have been away but firstly thanks for thinking of me in that regard.

I haven't seen the other responses and I didn't want to get coloured by them but I will read them with interest post this.

I think if you wanted to do that a couple of things need to happen;

1 - Whoever you have needs to be considered by opposition coaches as a real threat. From my experience coaches are trying to eliminate a teams advantage. So if I was to use two opposition teams as an example I think you would have two different answers. If we were playing Richmond then I would think Buckley would assume Rance would probably get Reid and if he did he would know that Hardwick would instruct Rance to use his advantage and run off and create and that as a result leaving Reid camped in the forward 50 could really hurt so you would think long and hard about doing that. Now with someone like Adelaide or GWS they would probably use Talia / Hartigan or Davis at GWS to play on him. None of those blokes are really going to hurt you offensively so leaving him there might work.

2 - If you do it I think you have to be convinced as a coach that your team is good at stopping teams going end to end and are proficient at creating turnovers through the middle or across HB and have the ability to sling shot the ball back. Last year Collingwood were sh&thouse at the former. I'm not sure of the stats but I would think we were rated in the top few as a team that was pretty easy to go end to end on. I can remember a few games over the last few years that were just awful. So with the changes he has made for this year he would want to be sure he could back his group in to create those turnovers.

For mine one of the big questions is how do they get more efficient in that forward 50. I am interested in what people think about how they set up across the various lines to get better at delivering and also interested in peoples views around who are the better decision / skill makers to execute on it. Be interested in peoples views.

I think that this is fair enough. I also think that a fit Elliott will render a lot of the tactics talk moot. He is such a brilliant player that he changes the whole equation when on the field. On point 1, it is worth remembering how Fasolo cut Rance up 3 games ago.
Breakout goals are a part of modern football. Everyone is working to minimize them for the opposition, and to get the most for their own team. A lot of them come down to luck (bounce of the ball, umpires calls, particularly advantage play on etc.) and the outright skill of individual players. We have been disadvantaged in the skill department through the absence of our most skilled players in too many games over the last few years. The accelerated decline of Didak was a huge blow to the team, as were long term injuries at different times to Reid, Beams, Swan, Thomas, Elliott and more recently Wells. These were matchwinners that were not on the field, and tactics look a lot different if you have them playing, because they do so much more when they get the ball.

 

[Go Woods]

McGuane: Give Moore another chance up front
Chris Cavanagh, Sunday Herald Sun
January 27, 2018 5:47pm
Subscriber only
COLLINGWOOD would be best served playing only one tall forward this year according to one former club champion who has raised concerns over Darcy Moore’s planned move to defence.

Moore, who kicked 25 goals last year, has been training with the defensive group over summer in a switch which is likely to leave Ben Reid and Mason Cox as the key forwards at the other end.

Mick McGuane, a 1990 premiership player with Collingwood, said he would have liked to see the Magpies persist with Moore in the forward line alongside Reid.

BACK IN THE GAME? HOW SYLVIA PLANS TO TURN AROUND WOES

Darcy Moore during a training session at Olympic Park. Picture: Michael Klein
However, with that looking highly unlikely, McGuane said the Richmond model of last year which saw Jack Riewoldt play as a sole tall forward could work best for Collingwood if Reid can stay fit.

“If you want to play the territory game which I think Collingwood do — be strong around clearance, win contested ball, get the footy in — it’s not only important to win it but if you don’t win it you’ve got to lock it in,” McGuane said.

“I just see concerns over the two-man tall forward line of Reid and Cox or Grundy, one of those two. If they don’t mark it, how much heat are they going to put on the opposition on the way out?

“I’d probably prefer Darcy and Ben Reid to be the two mainstays in the forward line with a bit of a swing mentality with Darcy Moore.”

Mick McGuane believes Magpies would be best served by leaving Darcy Moore in the forward line. Picture: Kylie Else
McGuane said he was not sure if Cox had the athleticism or marking ability to play as a permanent key forward and Moore had simply not been ready last year when left as the sole marking target.

“When Reid was down there Darcy Moore might not of been the No. 1 forward whereas early in the year when Reid was back or injured and Cox wasn’t playing or marking it, Darcy was the No. 1 focal point and he wasn’t ready for it,” McGuane said.

That’s not his fault, he’s just a young player who’s learning his craft and he’s going to get stronger, he’s going to get fitter, he’s going to get mentally tougher due to experience.”

 

[Finnishpie]

Pretty much.
Buckley trains and has been training most of his players in multiple positions and it's nothing new.

That's his philosophy anyway and it has been since day one. He wants his defenders to be able to play midfield and his midfielders to be able to play defence. Then he wants his forwards to come back into the midfield as well when needed.

It's basically the way the modern game is played, with no real set positions, but Buckley takes it a step further and is trying to use a really ultra fluid gameplan because he models his style around the way the Hawks did in their prime. He even admitted it himself in a pre game interview a few years ago.

This ultra fluid version of football looks amazing when we do it right, and Hawthorn had a version of it that they did very right and made them dominant, but will it work for us? I'm still not entirely sold. Hawthorn had a very special team. Elite skills and fantastic chemistry between one another. You may even go as far as to say once in a generation. I mean it's not much of a stretch to say that. They did win 3 in a row.

Chemistry is what makes this type of football work, as I said the Hawks had great chemistry and all their players knew what they and their teammates were doing.

We have been unable to achieve any real sort of chemistry between each other because we have had such a high list turnover every year until last year. I believe this is intentional and Is probably something that came up with the review.
To build chemistry you need Gametime and consistency. It doesn't happen overnight and it certainly doesn't happen when we have made multiple multiple multiple changes to our team almost every week! (Sometimes due to injury, actually probably mostly due to injury)

It's also the reason why we weren't able to beat the Hawks and why Buckley has such a poor record against Hawthorn. They did what we were doing, just so much better. Or we were doing what they were doing, just worse, vice versa.

So naturally this type of training is required for the transition footy he's been wanting us to play. Allows us to all come back and defend if needed and then it's up to the forwards to break away and make that effort to get into the forward line again. A very fluid approach, however sometimes too fluid as we get stuck with too many players around the ball a lot which leaves us open.
Also looks like we have no ******* clue what we are doing when the forwards get tired / lazy / lack awareness and don't make that extra effort to run back into the goalsquare. It's a combination of that and like I said, the keyword here (Chemistry)

Probably why we have had to bomb it long and hope for the best so many times.

Buckley's general approach is to get each player in the team comfortable enough with playing every position (besides ruck), but so far we have shown as we would say a sort of lack of "awareness" or "football IQ" in most of our games and our players have gotten confused about where to be on the field, this is because like i said, our players never really had time to gel together and we never really put out a consistent team. It's also why we see so many open opposition players and over the top goals. No consistency. No chemistry. No awareness. = You're gonna have a bad time.

This versatile "22 utilities" approach sounds great in theory but sometimes players just cannot be that versatile and it exposes a lot of our players and we end up calling them "dumb footballers" because of it but it's very very hard to keep track of such an approach without amazing chemistry between you and your teammates as you need to know where they're gonna be and what they're gonna do at all times, and also the fact that some footballers are not cut out to be "ultilites", if someone is naturally a forward and excels only as a forward or defender etc then it may not be possible for them to adapt their game.

I know it's a different code, but Jose Mourinho, the manager of Manchester United, has come out and said he would take a natural player in one position over a utility any day, because he would rather sacrifice that so called "versatility" for a guarantee that the role he gives his players is strictly adhered to and done right by a player with natural ability in that position. People can't be great at everything! Nobody is.

Another problem with us has obviously been our kicking efficiency hitting that target from defence into midfield .

I hope I put all of that into the way I wanted to say it. I think I understand what Buckley is trying to do here but it's risky as (from rumours) I personally believe Buckley came to this club with a mentality that most if not all players train and dedicate themselves in the same ways and as much as he did. Which he quickly saw was not the case. (Swanny) and I think, I hope, by now he understands that a bit better.

It's too late to change his philosophy now. So we need this all to click into place and hope that Buckley is right.

This year, should we get a good injury record, will tell us everything. If we can get that consistency going with our team selection then it'll give the players the best chance to put Buckley's plan into action.

Yeah, it reminds me of "total football" made famous by the Dutch and adapted to total-footbal-lite by Guus Hiddink. The thing is, you need skill to play like that. I don't mind players being able to play in two positions but you need skills to play a fluid game like that, because the moment you make a skill error, you're all over the place.

 

[cleomenes]

Too much is being made of the Richmond model in assessing what we do with our team tactics. As with many grand finals, one team turned up more committed than the other, and the result reflected this. I don't believe that it marks the end for teams with more than one tall forward. Richmond's tactics reflected the personell that they had to work with. Adelaide were a little too sure that they would win because they were a better team, and had no answer when their link player (Lynch) was closed down.
Now that Cox is a mature footballer, I expect that he can combine with Reid or Moore on the forward line in a very threatening way. His ground skills are better than many think, and they are improving. His tackling is strong. He can't turn quickly, but he can run fast. If our small forwards can stay fit, I can see our forward line being a real strength, since all of the guys who operate there now are very good overhead as well as having ground skills. We may not have a Didak, but the overall mix looks good to me.

 

[Saintly Viewed]

The best way to address forward entry relies on simply two things:

Speed and Skill.

Hello Daniel Wells.....

Hence why he becomes crucial. He and Pendlebury make delivery an art form.

But but but

Bring the Ball in quickly and efficiently.

(Accuracy kills.)
(We do it well, we kill them, we don't do it well we get killed.)

 

[Saintly Viewed]

^ I should add,

Quick accurate delivery especially to Cox, and with his jump / leap, means he can be deadly.
Cox needs it quick and one out. Give him that, and he is very problematic to any opposition.

(Don't care who you are, Cox has such incredible height it's so difficult to counter. If we use it too advantage.)

 

[saha]

As has been said above, quite simply we need to move the ball forward more quickly given our lack of a dominant forward presence presenting up the ground. Last year we stuffed around with it moving it from side to side and then turned it over in very poor positions. When we tried to add run and break the lines to give our forwards a chance one-on-one we looked menacing. Cox can remain as the anchor and someone around whom the smaller brigade can swarm and use as a reference point when the long, high ball comes in.

I think it's clear having watched training that with the likes of Crisp and Adams looking like they'll play permanently down back that there will be an intent to be more mobile back there. Dunn is an agile big man, Moore is quite nimble for a player of his size and then it'll be completed with Maynard, Murray and Langdon.

The mids will bat deep enough but need to make sure they don't run forward of the ball before it is 100% won. Then, it's about finding an avenue to goal. However, interrupted pre-season campaigns are never good and my concern is that Fasolo and Elliott are already starting behind the eight ball given their importance to a hit up, high intensity style of game. It means the likes of Hoskin-Elliott, De Goey and even Crocker and Daicos will get their chance to establish themselves as half forwards. The other interesting one is Josh Smith, who appears to have moved forward and looks like he'll play a defensive role.

I'm optimistic but think it needs to be a stepping stone year rather than a legitimate assault on a flag. Let's hope we can play finals, then secure someone like Lynch in the hope that may be the missing piece of the puzzle given the rest of our squad should improve naturally.