Analysis Gameplan

[jmac70]

Hocking. He came on board to make Buckley look good.

He came on board to help the club succeed.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Novel approach.

Kick accurately.

As simplistic as that sounds it has merit, I'd argue that our quantity of F50 are not the issue - it's the quality. Sharpen the skills and we get more shots on goal and better conversion.

Once again disposal efficiency is king, and that would come from coaching/development. At least the club thinks so given the focus on skills this off season

 

[Saintly Viewed]

As simplistic as that sounds it has merit, I'd argue that our quantity of F50 are not the issue - it's the quality. Sharpen the skills and we get more shots on goal and better conversion.

Once again disposal efficiency is king, and that would come from coaching/development. At least the club thinks so given the focus on skills this off season

All accuracy, agree. (Not just in front of Goal.)

That's why Wells is ESSENTIAL!

 

[Carringbush2010]

All accuracy, agree. (Not just in front of Goal.)

That's why Wells is ESSENTIAL!

Of course he is, what's more essential is the management to keep him on the park!

 

[Buckleys_Chance]

Isn't what the OP is suggesting effectively what Richmond did with Martin when they rotated him from the midfield? While Cox doesn't have the mobility of Martin, I'd back Cox one out 9/10 times if the ball comes in high.

On [device_name] using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Gambit78]

The days of having players in traditional positions are behind us, sadly, and having key forwards sit in the f50 would hamper our ability to win the ball at the contest.

What I think we need to do to best utilise our strengths is have our talls up the ground taking contested marks around the wings and flanks. One area I feel the good teams have over us is when we exit our defense with a quick kick to a contest. We need players to take those marks or half the contest in those situations. If we don't the opposition just return the ball forward and we get hemmed in.

By winning those contests more often, it allows our quicker players and our vaunted midfield to stream into the space behind, increasing our likelihood of isolating the opposition defenders and having easier shots on goals. I feel the best way of utilising our talls is in that second wave from defense. It hasn't been our strength for some time, with question marks about Grundy and Cox's marking frailties, Reid's fitness and Moore being isolated. To go against JMac here, I think we're better served having our talls up the field and creating space behind and in the corridor.

 

[whiskeytown]

Another Question:

Back 6... what structure suits our game plan best?

I'd say two KPD, two mid sized, two smalls combo would be ideal most weeks... so long as one of the KPD is quick and agile i.e. Moore.

If Moore is up front or injured and it's only 1 KPD (e.g Dunn) then I'd play Goldsack as the 2nd KPD over the heavier and slower Mihocek, Reid and McLarty. Having two top heavy KPD doesn't work as well.... unless playing against a tall forward line like the crows

Two rebounding smalls are a necessity as it gives us the run out of defence we've been lacking IMO. We were at our defensive best with Heater and H were breaking lines and running it out of defence.

Part of our problem in recent times has been moving the ball slow out of defence, giving opposition time to run back and zone. We then chip the ball around to mixed success looking for an opening.

So for mine the best back 6 is:

Schaz/Langdon Dunn Howe

Maynard/Murray Moore Crisp

Thoughts?

 

[sr36]

As simplistic as that sounds it has merit, I'd argue that our quantity of F50 are not the issue - it's the quality. Sharpen the skills and we get more shots on goal and better conversion.

I'd argue that our poor conversion of inside 50 opportunities comes down to game plan/running patterns as much as kicking. Last year, we had a heap of forward 50 entries to a ridiculously outnumbered and/or overcrowded forward line. The outnumbered, I put down to our forwards pushing up too high. The overcrowded was very obviously the result of glacially slow, crabby ball movement.

 

[cleomenes]

If we had a player who could kick 80+ metres accurately, then we could stand a tall player in the square, and have a forward pocket at his feet. Since the drop kick is no more, there is no such player, so it is wishfull thinking. Until the AFL accepts that some combination of interchange reform, reduction of the bench and a severe interpretation of holding the ball is required to give players more space, we will continue to suffer through seasons of tackle fests, where the traditional positions vanish. They are well on the way out now,
The set of strategies that Collingwood is following are as good as you can get for the current situation. Kicking accuracy, as we all know is the bugbear that stymies the implementation. Nevertheless, we have to persevere. Last years game against Hawthorn (the first one) showed how the set of tactics can break down, and how they can work. The skill level is everything, thus the emphasis in this year's training.

 

[76woodenspooners]

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).

tesselate_

 

[Jasper84]

tesselate_

Arrange the side in a mosaic like overlapping pattern? Better than hugging the boundary, I guess.

 

[76woodenspooners]

15 v 18 wouldn’t work. You’d get murdered. Mordern footy is basically 18 players following the footy around.

That moment you realise TG watches the half time Auskick kids thinking it’s the main event.

#everythingnowmakessense

 

[76woodenspooners]

Arrange the side in a mosaic like overlapping pattern? Better than hugging the boundary, I guess.

He / she has provided some of the best gameplan analysis I’ve seen here.

 

[Carringbush2010]

I'd argue that our poor conversion of inside 50 opportunities comes down to game plan/running patterns as much as kicking. Last year, we had a heap of forward 50 entries to a ridiculously outnumbered and/or overcrowded forward line. The outnumbered, I put down to our forwards pushing up too high. The overcrowded was very obviously the result of glacially slow, crabby ball movement.

Yeah I agree with that, certainly the game plan suggests we want to outnumber at the contest and then have run on the outside - this is a simple explanation I posted earlier.

As I also said earlier "the crab" style Bucks noted in a presser in a loss against Ess, that the reason for the back and sideways was to draw out opposition defence (I gather in hope to go over the top of their defence), this gives me the impression we lack confidence in our disposal and /or can't gut run for the whole game to outnumber and guard space / opposition. The latter looks to be a result of running both ways more than required largely because of our uber shitty disposal and giving it up to the opposition.

The other style like against geel, ade, gws etc we swarm and spread but the disposal was good and didn't have run both ways as much hence the good performances.

2 completely different looks, however which ever way you look at it the swarm and spread is the preferred option but it takes good disposal to make it consistently difficult to counter ala hawks in their prem years or us rd 3 against syd 1st quarter - and may explain the big focus on disposal in the off season.

 

[Carringbush2010]

The days of having players in traditional positions are behind us, sadly, and having key forwards sit in the f50 would hamper our ability to win the ball at the contest.

I'd argue our list is less "traditional" than most in the current landscape, I don't see how having 1 or 2 KPF in a forward 6 mix should hamper our possession ability

By winning those contests more often, it allows our quicker players and our vaunted midfield to stream into the space behind, increasing our likelihood of isolating the opposition defenders and having easier shots on goals. I feel the best way of utilising our talls is in that second wave from defense. It hasn't been our strength for some time, with question marks about Grundy and Cox's marking frailties, Reid's fitness and Moore being isolated. To go against JMac here, I think we're better served having our talls up the field and creating space behind and in the corridor.

Our ball winning ability is not an issue, it's disposal - ground wide. My theory is that the club will continue with the idea of swarm (outnumber at the contest) and spread (have outside run to recieve); the difference being better disposal - so we don't give it up when the intent is to find the outside runner (like a Wells for eg)

You could see this last year in games like gee, ade, gws we won ball (swarm) and used it well (spread) which was polar opposite to our crabbing style games going sideways and backwards like ess & car. In these games; because of poor disposal; we'd turnover and have run both ways more often than we should have and when we had it my theory is we had no confidence in our disposal hence the "crabbing" - keep possession

What I think we need to do to best utilise our strengths is have our talls up the ground taking contested marks around the wings and flanks. One area I feel the good teams have over us is when we exit our defense with a quick kick to a contest. We need players to take those marks or half the contest in those situations. If we don't the opposition just return the ball forward and we get hemmed in.

I don't see our possession rate currently is an issue, what is an issue is the disposal once we win it hence the strong focus on skills this off season. I'm confused as to what you mean by using talls up the ground, do you mean from the defensive half of the ground, using talls? We'll that'd work if we took every single mark coming out of F50 otherwise the oppositions more mobile mids would cut us up and have world record I50's. Also I'd argue that we've brought in the rebound / line breaking defenders (Murray comes to mind) to compliment our intercept markers in Howe and Shaz to avoid kicking to contests or at worst kick to contests where we outnumber

 

[cleomenes]

Yeah I agree with that, certainly the game plan suggests we want to outnumber at the contest and then have run on the outside - this is a simple explanation I posted earlier.

As I also said earlier "the crab" style Bucks noted in a presser in a loss against Ess, that the reason for the back and sideways was to draw out opposition defence (I gather in hope to go over the top of their defence), this gives me the impression we lack confidence in our disposal and /or can't gut run for the whole game to outnumber and guard space / opposition. The latter looks to be a result of running both ways more than required largely because of our uber shitty disposal and giving it up to the opposition.

The other style like against geel, ade, gws etc we swarm and spread but the disposal was good and didn't have run both ways as much hence the good performances.

2 completely different looks, however which ever way you look at it the swarm and spread is the preferred option but it takes good disposal to make it consistently difficult to counter ala hawks in their prem years or us rd 3 against syd 1st quarter - and may explain the big focus on disposal in the off season.

The "crab" style is not a first option. The first is to break out of the backline with hittable targets upfield. If the opposition has this covered, as they do most times, then the flood of players on one side of the ground, all within 80 m of the ball has to be countered.
The next preference is to look inboard to someone running and free in the central part of the ground. Opponents train for this too, leaving no free targets, and /or makiing the kick to this part of the ground high risk. We love it when it comes off, but complain bitterly about the turnovers when it doesn't, as these usually lead to opposition goals.
If this is not on, the choices are a bomb down the line to the congestion or a switch across the ground. The switch usually involves some backward movement in the interests of safety in the pass, and to give some space upfield for the next targets to lead into. This is either crabbing or effective switching, depending on whether it leads to a breakout or not.
I think our tactics, while not markedly different to anyone elses, are right.

 

[jmac70]

The "crab" style is not a first option. The first is to break out of the backline with hittable targets upfield. If the opposition has this covered, as they do most times, then the flood of players on one side of the ground, all within 80 m of the ball has to be countered.
The next preference is to look inboard to someone running and free in the central part of the ground. Opponents train for this too, leaving no free targets, and /or makiing the kick to this part of the ground high risk. We love it when it comes off, but complain bitterly about the turnovers when it doesn't, as these usually lead to opposition goals.
If this is not on, the choices are a bomb down the line to the congestion or a switch across the ground. The switch usually involves some backward movement in the interests of safety in the pass, and to give some space upfield for the next targets to lead into. This is either crabbing or effective switching, depending on whether it leads to a breakout or not.
I think our tactics, while not markedly different to anyone elses, are right.

Agree with everything you've sais here. Personally I would like to see some faster ball movement, even if that means kicking to a contest.

 

[JB1975]

Just on the question of accuracy, it is certainly a problem for us: we were 5th in the competition for behinds last year, but behind about 10 other teams for goals.

The thing is, we were around 10th in the league for total scoring opportunities, which means that our problems are about more than straight kicking. One problem is that we don't generate enough multiple scoring opportunities when the ball does go inside 50. Another problem is that I don't think we win enough centre clearances, which would be a handy avenue to more goals.

It became cruelly evident last year that Mayne is not the answer to our forward pressure woes. Maybe Sidebottom spending more time in the forward 50 will help, but I'm not optimistic on that front. As for centre clearances, I admit that I'm pinning my hopes on De Goey. Even if his total midfield minutes don't substantially increase, I think it's crucial that he spends more time at the centre bounces. A fit Wells would also be a great assistance, and maybe some bullocking from Maynard to go along with it.

 

[Old Spice]

New game plan. A player gets the ball and every team mate surrounds that player and form a running circle. The player bounces the ball inside the circle of power which moves down the ground until he gets 15 metres out then bam!

 

[jonbe54]

New game plan. A player gets the ball and every team mate surrounds that player and form a running circle. The player bounces the ball inside the circle of power which moves down the ground until he gets 15 metres out then bam!

We could always adopt the Alan Jeans gameplan . . recruit a team of thugs and smash your way to a flag.

 

[Old Spice]

We could always adopt the Alan Jeans gameplan . . recruit a team of thugs and smash your way to a flag.

Is that the Peter Dutton game plan? Very cop like thinking.

 

[Old Spice]

Just on the question of accuracy, it is certainly a problem for us: we were 5th in the competition for behinds last year, but behind about 10 other teams for goals.

The thing is, we were around 10th in the league for total scoring opportunities, which means that our problems are about more than straight kicking. One problem is that we don't generate enough multiple scoring opportunities when the ball does go inside 50. Another problem is that I don't think we win enough centre clearances, which would be a handy avenue to more goals.

It became cruelly evident last year that Mayne is not the answer to our forward pressure woes. Maybe Sidebottom spending more time in the forward 50 will help, but I'm not optimistic on that front. As for centre clearances, I admit that I'm pinning my hopes on De Goey. Even if his total midfield minutes don't substantially increase, I think it's crucial that he spends more time at the centre bounces. A fit Wells would also be a great assistance, and maybe some bullocking from Maynard to go along with it.

Our midfield bats deep and is pretty tough. We squander our opportunities at centre bounces with Grundy in there I feel. No-one knows if he's going to win it, and if he does it's not clean and to advantage. Cox delivering more clean taps down the throats of our mids would be an absolute boon. Let Grundy follow around the ground but Cox the centre bounce specialist.

Our midfield rotations could be something like Adams, De Goey, Pendlebury then Treloar, Maynard and Wells. Phillips and Elliot on the wing.

 

[Cousin of Daicos]

I have to wonder in hindsight/cold light of day if the gameplan was the problem, or the inability of the players to execute. Was it a bit of both?

I mean, our players clearly failed to execute basic football skills on repeated occasions which can't be argued, it was there exposed for all to see, which can't help a gameplan that could be built on an elite skill requirement.

At the same time, seeing forwards push sooooo high up the ground literally on a weekly basis indicates that it's a gameplan direction. Not something the players do off their own bat. Ditto for backs that push up the ground. When you see us continually focus our recruiting on midfielders under Buckley, it would lend further credence to a gameplan that seemingly wants 18 players in the midfield.

The more I think back to 2017, the more I find it staggering how close we actually came to making finals despite so many glaring issues at almost every footballing aspect of the club.

Kinda makes you think that if we can just correct even 50% of our problems, the 2018 flag should theoretically be a shoe-in.

 

[JB1975]

Our midfield bats deep and is pretty tough. We squander our opportunities at centre bounces with Grundy in there I feel. No-one knows if he's going to win it, and if he does it's not clean and to advantage. Cox delivering more clean taps down the throats of our mids would be an absolute boon. Let Grundy follow around the ground but Cox the centre bounce specialist.

Our midfield rotations could be something like Adams, De Goey, Pendlebury then Treloar, Maynard and Wells. Phillips and Elliot on the wing.

Yeah, I think you're right in a previous point that Grundy does a lot better at the throw-ins and more generally around the ground, but the thing is I'd love to have Cox in the forward line if we win the ball out of the centre. Grundy has improved his tap work markedly over the past two seasons, not least because he holds his position better without giving away as many frees, and I think he'll need to take a step up in the middle as well.

I forgot to mention Treloar in my hopes for an improvement in centre clearances. I hope he'll be fitter and therefore more effective with his take-aways. Alongside JDG and maybe even a fit Wells, good things could start to happen.

 

[sr36]

The "crab" style is not a first option. The first is to break out of the backline with hittable targets upfield. If the opposition has this covered, as they do most times, then the flood of players on one side of the ground, all within 80 m of the ball has to be countered.
The next preference is to look inboard to someone running and free in the central part of the ground. Opponents train for this too, leaving no free targets, and /or makiing the kick to this part of the ground high risk. We love it when it comes off, but complain bitterly about the turnovers when it doesn't, as these usually lead to opposition goals.
If this is not on, the choices are a bomb down the line to the congestion or a switch across the ground. The switch usually involves some backward movement in the interests of safety in the pass, and to give some space upfield for the next targets to lead into. This is either crabbing or effective switching, depending on whether it leads to a breakout or not.
I think our tactics, while not markedly different to anyone elses, are right.

We are more inclined to switch than opposition teams and we do it less effectively too. Most teams take a quick kick down the line to a contest when it's available, and do it early before the opposition have their numbers fully back. We don't take this option. If there isn't a free man to pass to, we switch. After a couple of sideways and backwards passes and often a switch back to behind where we began, the opposition have their numbers fully back and then we end up having to do a kick down the line to a much more crowded contest, where we are invariably outnumbered.

The other factor is that in a bid to win more midfield contests, our forwards push up very high and get involved in midfield contests, which means that there is less likelihood of there being the option of a quick kick down the line to a contest - we often have noone who gets ahead of the ball to make this an option.

This second factor is why our high stats for forward 50 entries, contested possessions and clearances should be taken with a grain of salt. If you have more blokes playing around the ball, which we do, you should have more clearances and contested possessions. But it costs you in terms of conversion rates, you've either robbed your forward or backline in order to get more blokes around the ball, and in our case we have a tendency of robbing both parts of the ground. Both our forwards and defenders push up higher than opposition teams, resulting in an inflation in the stats that we do well in, but lower percentages in terms of both stopping goals from opposition forward entries and kicking goals from our own forward entries. Extra men at the contest appears to be a Bucks philosophy. It's a major reason why our midfielders have excelled during Bucks's reign and our forwards and defenders have struggled. I'm not saying that his philosophy is wrong, I'm just saying that it inflates certain stats and deflates other stats and our kicking or the individuals in our forward half aren't necessarily to blame for us turning a low percentage of forward 50 entries into scoring opportunities.