Analysis Gameplans and Footballers

[Ralll]

I suspect that our approach to controlling the ball means that we are relatively easy to shut down. And given we have little in the way of run and carry we rely on a few very talented players to make the game plan work. As discussed above we have injuries etc. But, this year the sum has been less the parts. That is poor and maybe is just injuries and bad luck. Or maybe it is deeper, and our game plan has been worked out and other teams can set up to tear us apart. To some extent I see us in 2016 as a clunky, stop start, team. Possibly that is because out set up allows teams time to set up defensively. Once we are worked out, then our style works against us. Just an opinion.

I dont think our gameplan can be shutdown because its been worked out, instead we have too many slow players and players unwilling to run and work for each other. We have alot of slower inside mids (Dusty, Cotch, Conca, Vlas, Miles, Grigg) in our team and we play a gameplan suited to fast outside skilled kickers, no wonder they get confused and lose confidence easily. When we work hard enough it can work, but with our better wins over the last few years how much of that could be contributed to our opp simply having a bad game or taking us too lightly.

Hawthorn controls the ball by foot better than anyone, and its because of their workrate and personnel imo. Alot their team was picked lower than 50 in the draft, is there some kind of moneyball going on there? A certain kind of player perhaps...not sure.

 

[Rubber Hips]

I still say the hawks make the space for players to run into better than other teams, and is their biggest 'skill'. This way they don't have to be as precise by foot.

Their pressure around the ball and willingness to support their teammates is off the scale
They just have a burning desire to win and faith in the game plan to execute it to the nth degree
Clarko is an awesome coach...

 

[Dr Tigris]

I dont think our gameplan can be shutdown because its been worked out, instead we have too many slow players and players unwilling to run and work for each other. We have alot of slower inside mids (Dusty, Cotch, Conca, Vlas, Miles, Grigg) in our team and we play a gameplan suited to fast outside skilled kickers, no wonder they get confused and lose confidence easily. When we work hard enough it can work, but with our better wins over the last few years how much of that could be contributed to our opp simply having a bad game or taking us too lightly.

Hawthorn controls the ball by foot better than anyone, and its because of their workrate and personnel imo. Alot their team was picked lower than 50 in the draft, is there some kind of moneyball going on there? A certain kind of player perhaps...not sure.

Fair enough.

You could reread what I've said as that our squad is not well matched to what we are trying to do (gameplan).
We have to control contested ball, and get the ball out quickly to a designated kicker. That requires 1) good inside mids and lots of physicality to protect our ball getters, of which we have limited numbers. And 2) a disciplined team effort of protect teammates and to work hard to get he ball out, which we are only so so at (at best).
Then we have to move the ball out to free players that run and carry it into the forward line and accurately hit up our forwards. We have strongly relied on Houli and previously Lids for the kicking from behind the ball, and picked up Yarran. So we just haven't got the players. So another way of reading what I am saying about our game plan is that our squad needs more decent inside mids, and more run and carry. Bit of a problem there. Our game pan requires a different squad to what we have

I'm not talking about our forward line game plan, cause I don't know what it is - except to force a ball in.

 

[tigerz18]

I've said it before (i think) but the game plan works when the players are on song. We just dont have the cattle to execute it.

We have some good players coming through, and the players that took us to 3 finals campaigns have gotten long in the tooth. They just were never replaced at the rate that they should have been. Now we have to blood multiple kids at the same time and you wont win anything with kids.
We get Lids fit, Yarran back, Lennon fit, CEllis fit, McIntosh fit that is an amazing amount of run an carry there.
Markov, Rioli, Castagna, Menadue, Short, McBean, Butler - get these guys to 50 games in 2 years time.

Thats 12 players in the next 2 years to be fit and up to speed of the game.

over the next 2-3 years i'd expect these guys to be gone from the team
2016 - Maric, Vickery, McKenzie, Chaplin, Batchelor
2017 - Broad, morris, Houli, Elton, A. moore,
2018 - Lambert, Hunt, Hampson, Astbury, Deledio, Conca, Grigg

That's 18 over the next 3 years (give or take as it may not be that much) it could be as little as 12 of that list. But these are the ones who's RFC career is limited to the next 3 years. These are who we need to look at replacing. so this year, we need to recruit key position players/ruckmen, as i see anywhere from 6-7 of our tall stocks being gone in 3 years time.

this year we need to draft or trade in a big big bodied defender, ruck and forward. how well we draft in that stock will see whether by 2018-2019 we can be legitimate contenders. Our young smalls are very good and will develop well, but we need big bodies.

 

[Ralll]

Fair enough.

You could reread what I've said as that our squad is not well matched to what we are trying to do (gameplan).
We have to control contested ball, and get the ball out quickly to a designated kicker. That requires 1) good inside mids and lots of physicality to protect our ball getters, of which we have limited numbers. And 2) a disciplined team effort of protect teammates and to work hard to get he ball out, which we are only so so at (at best).
Then we have to move the ball out to free players that run and carry it into the forward line and accurately hit up our forwards. We have strongly relied on Houli and previously Lids for the kicking from behind the ball, and picked up Yarran. So we just haven't got the players. So another way of reading what I am saying about our game plan is that our squad needs more decent inside mids, and more run and carry. Bit of a problem there. Our game pan requires a different squad to what we have

I'm not talking about our forward line game plan, cause I don't know what it is - except to force a ball in.

Overall Im not convinced either way (including my theories), im just trying to understand. We have the usual 3 main ways to move the ball that utilize different strengths/weaknesses of our team.

Firstly we try to run and carry if we have players running free, problem is no-one's often free and turning it over with everyone running forward of the ball carrier is a probable score on the rebound. Too many slow mids? Poor skills? Not practiced alot? We're missing Houli who is often the architect of this play as you said.

Second and main option is to control the ball by foot, the problem is we are often too stationary up the ground causing harder kicks and turnovers, although its easier to defend against these mistakes as we're in better position to transition into defense. Too lazy? Poor skills? Too many slow players?

Third long down the line option and use as/cause a stoppage if not marked. This is very easy to defend against as its a 50/50 ball anyway.
This brings Miles and our slower mids into the game more often through stoppages.


With defensive plodders like Miles, Martin and Grigg running through our midfield, as well as players with questionable skill, we cant win a shootout so we're forced to use option 2 and 3 alot for their defensive attributes, this was the major change after '13, to dictate a slower pace of the game in our favor.

Footscray run and carry alot with youth and speed, Hawthorn use option 2 mostly with alot of hard running to make it work, everyone does it differently depending on their personal. I think theres a valid reason for our style but its boring to watch, takes patient mature heads to pull it off and overall simply hasnt taken us anywhere the faster style of '13 didnt.

 

[Dr Tigris]

Overall Im not convinced either way (including my theories), im just trying to understand. We have the usual 3 main ways to move the ball that utilize different strengths/weaknesses of our team.

Firstly we try to run and carry if we have players running free, problem is no-one's often free and turning it over with everyone running forward of the ball carrier is a probable score on the rebound. Too many slow mids? Poor skills? Not practiced alot? We're missing Houli who is often the architect of this play as you said.

Second and main option is to control the ball by foot, the problem is we are often too stationary up the ground causing harder kicks and turnovers, although its easier to defend against these mistakes as we're in better position to transition into defense. Too lazy? Poor skills? Too many slow players?

Third long down the line option and use as/cause a stoppage if not marked. This is very easy to defend against as its a 50/50 ball anyway.
This brings Miles and our slower mids into the game more often through stoppages.


With defensive plodders like Miles, Martin and Grigg running through our midfield, as well as players with questionable skill, we cant win a shootout so we're forced to use option 2 and 3 alot for their defensive attributes, this was the major change after '13, to dictate a slower pace of the game in our favor.

Footscray run and carry alot with youth and speed, Hawthorn use option 2 mostly with alot of hard running to make it work, everyone does it differently depending on their personal. I think theres a valid reason for our style but its boring to watch, takes patient mature heads to pull it off and overall simply hasnt taken us anywhere the faster style of '13 didnt.

Nice analysis I think. The tigers seem very wary about letting a wide array of player run and gun. Which might be a good idea as if you run, gun and miss then you are wide open coming back. So we rely on the more mobile and skilled players. Which we have few of - or we only trust a few.
We don't seem to move the ball smoothly as per your option 2 - don't understand why.
Your option 3 is what we often end up at. Problem is this just leads to 50:50 balls and can be shut down fairly easily as a way of scoring heavily.

Why we play the way we do I don't really know. I sort of understand the logic behind the preferred game plan. But when it isn't working we move to a stodgy, easy to stop style. I'm happy with what you;ve said as far as I think it's accurate. But what I would like to understand is why? Lack of skills, lack of trust, poor footy smarts, low work rate, ???????

 

[Helen Wheels]

Why we play the way we do I don't really know. I sort of understand the logic behind the preferred game plan. But when it isn't working we move to a stodgy, easy to stop style. I'm happy with what you;ve said as far as I think it's accurate. But what I would like to understand is why? Lack of skills, lack of trust, poor footy smarts, low work rate, ???????

No game plan expert but IMHO we're trying to apply a "defence first" strategy, which is fine if we're going by the theory that defence wins grand finals.
(So does aggressive, all-out attack, forward at every chance etc, both strategies having been used highly successfully by Hawthorn in finals.)
We need to defend while being able to run both ways which would give us a few alternative targets up forward.
This would mean we need ball in hand line-breakers. Tough, big-bodied mids who would inspire confidence in others to say "Righto, he's got the ball, let's go forward and wait for the pass."
My two-bob's worth.

 

[Dr Tigris]

No game plan expert but IMHO we're trying to apply a "defence first" strategy, which is fine if we're going by the theory that defence wins grand finals.
(So does aggressive, all-out attack, forward at every chance etc, both strategies having been used highly successfully by Hawthorn in finals.)
We need to defend while being able to run both ways which would give us a few alternative targets up forward.
This would mean we need ball in hand line-breakers. Tough, big-bodied mids who would inspire confidence in others to say "Righto, he's got the ball, let's go forward and wait for the pass."
My two-bob's worth.

Helen, if you go onto the main AFL board and look at the Squiggle thread it (at points) goes into depth about what style wins premierships. More attack/scoring focused teams are more likely to win premierships. But, surprisingly , teams that are both good defensively and offensively are most likely to win. Very few defense focused teams (Roos Swans) win the whole thing.
Toward the end of last year we were playing with more attacking flair and looking much more like a contender. It has fallen apart since. But given our talented individual forwards and you would expect us to be much more dangerous forward than we are. My theory is that I don't actually understand what we are trying to do forward.

 

[Helen Wheels]

Helen, if you go onto the main AFL board and look at the Squiggle thread it (at points) goes into depth about what style wins premierships. More attack/scoring focused teams are more likely to win premierships. But, surprisingly , teams that are both good defensively and offensively are most likely to win. Very few defense focused teams (Roos Swans) win the whole thing.
Toward the end of last year we were playing with more attacking flair and looking much more like a contender. It has fallen apart since. But given our talented individual forwards and you would expect us to be much more dangerous forward than we are. My theory is that I don't actually understand what we are trying to do forward.

Agree. If we have players who can run hard both ways, we're going to be good.
IMO, we have the players to kick the goals if they feel confident to run off their opponents and stream forward while a good, strong mid or mids can be trusted to break the oppo line. But I know bugger all. Just my view from the peanut gallery.
Would love to hear other viewpoints.

 

[Dr Tigris]

Agree. If we have players who can run hard both ways, we're going to be good.
IMO, we have the players to kick the goals if they feel confident to run off their opponents and stream forward while a good, strong mid or mids can be trusted to break the oppo line. But I know bugger all. Just my view from the peanut gallery.
Would love to hear other viewpoints.

I agree - that's all.

 

[Helen Wheels]

I agree - that's all.

Probably to over-simplify it, we need to be quicker than the oppo in turning defence into attack.
The game is the same as it ever was: create the loose man.

 

[Ralll]

Why we play the way we do I don't really know. I sort of understand the logic behind the preferred game plan. But when it isn't working we move to a stodgy, easy to stop style. I'm happy with what you;ve said as far as I think it's accurate. But what I would like to understand is why? Lack of skills, lack of trust, poor footy smarts, low work rate, ???????

All of the above to a certain degree, maybe even throw in a lack of on field leadership, inadequate coaching, maybe the gameplan is too confusing for the players (collectively) switching between high and low gear depending on whether we have momentum, and then there's confidence...lol, good luck understanding exactly why!

 

[Ralll]

Agree. If we have players who can run hard both ways, we're going to be good.

Spot on
What was it Ross Lyon said? "football is 95% effort, 5% gameplan" or something like that.
We havnt got 90+% effort on many occasions this season. Syd/Footscray...?

 

[Helen Wheels]

and then there's confidence

Essential. And even if we don't have it, let's pretend we do. Doing stuff, even if you're scared. It's called bravery.
Brave men are not without fear. What makes them brave is that they go ahead in spite of their fear.

 

[juss]

Football is so dynamic that the best laid plans often have to be changed due to the opposition. Coaches change the emphasis weekly. Gameplans are so overrated. It's about having a good core and basic idea/structure. Then coaching players to play to that, but still make the right decisions when plan A doesn't work. Then it's about motivating them to do all the 1%ers that actually win football games more than a gameplan ever will.

The way we play now is too slow, and without risk. We look our best when we are taking the game on and moving it quickly. I wish we played with dare every week. I would cop a few turnovers and big losses if it meant we played free, attacking, fast moving football.

 

[Ralll]

The way we play now is too slow, and without risk. We look our best when we are taking the game on and moving it quickly. I wish we played with dare every week. I would cop a few turnovers and big losses if it meant we played free, attacking, fast moving football.

I hear alot of ex/coaches say you cant play fast, attacking football throughout the whole season as its too taxing.
The way I see it our slower controlled gameplan is supposed to remedy this and allow us to win games without burning us out, the problem imo is we play it too often and cant go up a gear when we need to. Id like us to switch to the style vs Footscray (fast attacking) more often. a)at the start of the season to get us up and running. b)Whenever our confidence goes down. c)against certain teams (Melb/Foots/WCE/Adel). In fact half way through a game if its needed, if thats even possible idk. I feel something like this is what's needed to help quicken our play up when needed while still keeping the balanced approach to the long season.

Hawthorn do this beautifully, a bruise free kicking game throughout the year and then ramp up the intensity come September or vs better teams. Geelong used to do it too in their mini dynasty. We should probably focus on the faster style until we're a top 4 team, maybe dropping down a notch vs the Ess/Bris types.

Against Sydney this year we took the game on alot more while playing the slower style, we got the balance right, this is ultimatley what we're supposed to do every week but the players just cant get it right often enough, or are they about to click and Dimma will become the messiah?...doubt it.

 

[Final Siren]

Helen, if you go onto the main AFL board and look at the Squiggle thread it (at points) goes into depth about what style wins premierships. More attack/scoring focused teams are more likely to win premierships. But, surprisingly , teams that are both good defensively and offensively are most likely to win. Very few defense focused teams (Roos Swans) win the whole thing.
Toward the end of last year we were playing with more attacking flair and looking much more like a contender. It has fallen apart since. But given our talented individual forwards and you would expect us to be much more dangerous forward than we are. My theory is that I don't actually understand what we are trying to do forward.

Actually almost all of our improvement since 2013 has been defensive! We became one of the most defensive sides in the comp, but were never able to kick big scores. Which you need to do to win a flag. So we haven't gotten any closer to a premiership than we were three years ago.

​

And yeah, for whatever reason, defensive specialists don't win many flags. They win a lot of home & away games but disproportionately few premierships.

 

[Dr Tigris]

Actually almost all of our improvement since 2013 has been defensive! We became one of the most defensive sides in the comp, but were never able to kick big scores. Which you need to do to win a flag. So we haven't gotten any closer to a premiership than we were three years ago.

​

And yeah, for whatever reason, defensive specialists don't win many flags. They win a lot of home & away games but disproportionately few premierships.

Love your work!!

That chart really does point to why we are where we are at.
I can't quite figure out why our attack doesn't work. We have plenty of firepower. It just misfires most of the time. To advance we really have to score more heavily, and improve our defense only a bit. SO why do we have such a heavy defensive focus, and don't take the game on?

 

[RobsJourney]

Actually almost all of our improvement since 2013 has been defensive! We became one of the most defensive sides in the comp, but were never able to kick big scores. Which you need to do to win a flag. So we haven't gotten any closer to a premiership than we were three years ago.

​

And yeah, for whatever reason, defensive specialists don't win many flags. They win a lot of home & away games but disproportionately few premierships.

Is that Dimma's signature?

 

[Final Siren]

Love your work!!

That chart really does point to why we are where we are at.
I can't quite figure out why our attack doesn't work. We have plenty of firepower. It just misfires most of the time. To advance we really have to score more heavily, and improve our defense only a bit. SO why do we have such a heavy defensive focus, and don't take the game on?

Honestly I just think it's Dimma's thing. He very very often talks about the defensive aspects of our game as being the things we should improve after a match, all little things like standing the mark and putting it to the boundary line and avoiding turnovers. Far more rarely does he talk about the little things that go into attack, like finding space and creating 1-on-1s and freeing runners.

Not saying he doesn't care about attack, just that defence is what I always hear him talk about.

Personally I also think it's kind of a trap for coaches, because defence is easier to control. Creative, freewheeling sides that kick big scores tend to have empowered players who are allowed to run where they like based on the moment. You can't do that when the coach wants to exert a lot of control, or cares more about avoiding turnovers than capitalizing on them.

Of course, another explanation is that our players aren't good enough to be allowed off the leash.

 

[brett_warne]

I don't buy in to people bagging the game plan. When we force a turn over on the half back line we have shown we are capable of moving the ball quickly and efficiently to a leading forward, resulting in an easy shot on goal.

Problem is the players must be drilled to retain possession at all costs. This means we often move the ball slowly with chip kicks forward or around the back in preference to pulling the trigger on a risky kick that can open the game up. Basically the players aren't confident in their skills enough to to risk the kick that could result in an easy Turnover goal. Shorty has come in and is backing himself in, which has been a breath of fresh air. My guess is that Houli and Yarren were earmarked to be the quarterbacks taking these kicks on... Also, In an ideal world chip kicks or a switch would eventually get a player free and we'd score heavily - like in the Freo game last season at subi.

Over use of handball is not a coaching directive - it often gets talked about by players as what they were doing wrong - it's a decision making issue compounded by players who would rather pass the buck to a team mate, than take a risk.

Tl:dr

Players lack confidence which impacts their decision making, often taking the safe route rather than taking the game on

I don't buy you theory. The reason we turn it over so much is that we don't run forward. As soon as we get the ball we look sideways and backwards. The thing that has hurt us the most is zoning from opposition teams and the deliberate out of bounds. Dimma game plan of holding until someone is free fails because teams get back into their forward line and stop us getting the free ball. We we do the zone is already set up for the next kick. We use to then kick to a contest on the boundary line. We can not do that any more. If you watch the hawks, and the crows it is one handball and then kick 90% of the time. I was invited to 2 cats games. Sydney and Adelaide. The cats vs sydney played like us. They didn't run and the swans kept making them go backwards. Difference is they learned and against the crows it was one handball and kick to a player running hard. We don't do that because we are scared that if it gets turned over, the finger will be pointed. I know we are do not have the team to win a flag, but we should be better than we are. If you have played enough footy you know when you are bad that you get the ball look up and see no one. In a good side you look up and have multiple options. Skills are much easier when you have options.

Sent from my SM-N9005 using Tapatalk

 

[Lacustrus]

At the end of the day, things could be much worse. We could have Bomber Thompson as coach!

 

[Tomnat Tigers]

As far as I'm concerned game plans involve structures and fitting the players you have into those structures to maximise the players potential and the teams potential, which generally those two go hand in hand. Which this applies to every team sport out there.

In the NBA the Golden State Warriors have found a system that has been nearly unbeatable over the past two seasons, which this system has been so successful as Draymond Green is capable of making plays as a four allowing Curry their point guard to play off the ball more. Whilst defensively he can stop most Centers despite them having a size advantage which allows them to play at a faster pace when on offense and thus out running and gunning their opponents. Whilst in the soccer Pep Guardiola made barcelona unbeatable when he made Messi into a false 9.

Now Aussie rules is a bit different as there are more variables such as 22 players compared to 5 in the basketball and 11 in the soccer but the same concept of maximising the output of your star players apply. You look at our Richmond side and how many players can you genuinely say are getting the most out of their potential. Based on what I've seen this year I would say only Rance, Lloyd and Hampson have with Dustin joining them since around the Sydney game when his role was changed to better suit his strengths. I look at Jack and think he's a better all round player now then what he was 5 years ago but I also think he has half the impact for the team then what he did back then. Which this is a good example of maximising the players potential but handicapping the team as you're taking the teams biggest goal threat and playing away from goals. Ironically if you look at Adelaide their biggest goal threat is Tex Walker who like Jack is playing further away from goals but they can afford to do so as Josh Jenkins is capable of replacing Tex's goals whilst allowing Tex to be a better all round player thus maximising both Tex's and Jenkins potential as well as the teams.

Other examples in the richmond team include:

• Grigg on ball. (player getting most out of himself but not helping the team).
• Vlastuin in the backline.
• Houli. (too much of the play goes through him when leaving the backline).

 

[Dr Tigris]

Honestly I just think it's Dimma's thing. He very very often talks about the defensive aspects of our game as being the things we should improve after a match, all little things like standing the mark and putting it to the boundary line and avoiding turnovers. Far more rarely does he talk about the little things that go into attack, like finding space and creating 1-on-1s and freeing runners.

Not saying he doesn't care about attack, just that defence is what I always hear him talk about.

Personally I also think it's kind of a trap for coaches, because defence is easier to control. Creative, freewheeling sides that kick big scores tend to have empowered players who are allowed to run where they like based on the moment. You can't do that when the coach wants to exert a lot of control, or cares more about avoiding turnovers than capitalizing on them.

Of course, another explanation is that our players aren't good enough to be allowed off the leash.

I actually love this reply as it reinforces my opinion. And anything that reinforces my preconceptions must be a good thing!!
But I do agree. We seem to be a team that is focused on safety and the %'s. I just read a story of Bomber Thompson's book just out. He was all defense at Geelong. Then lost finals and realized he had to dare to win. So let his team loose. I suspect we have a similar issue to Geelong back then. We are so defensive that our attacking players don't. I'd even suggest that guys like Ty would find our current game plan etc very difficult to play under. These guys play best when they take the game on. And they seem to be told not to do that. Or else they have had it drilled into them so much that they aren't doing it. Ty's lost the plot now. But we know what talent he has, cause he's shown it plenty of times. We have quite a lot of talented attacking players, and few really let it rip. Anyway, just agree with your comment

 

[Ralll]

I'm not talking about our forward line game plan, cause I don't know what it is - except to force a ball in.

I did some stats back in '13/'14 regarding our I50 focus over 4-5 games each season.
I couldnt find the figures but it was something like in '13 we used to go primarily to the hotspot 20m out and take a pack mark/rove goal/cause a stoppage. Next was running it in, or hitting a free target, we hardly went to the boundary at all. The more the opp could slow us down the more we went to the hotspot.
In '14 this changed significantly to the majority of entries looking to hit a target, if no target available then a 50/50 near the boundary and push it over for a throw in. We didnt often go to the hotspot or run it in after '13.

Why this was changed I have no idea but I liked the simplicity of 2013's plan.
I figure our current plan has something to do with defense and locking the ball in...Blah!