Strategy Is Nicks building a Sydney-style backline?

Remove this Banner Ad

Drugs Are Bad Mackay?

Drugs Are Bad Mackay?

Moderator
Veteran 10k Posts 30k Posts HBF's Milk Crate - 70k Posts TheBrownDog Adelaide Board Tipping Champion
May 24, 2006
77,320
151,927
Car 55
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Redbacks, Sturt, Liverpool, Arizona
Ross Lyon: "We're all products of our environment."

Just looking at our defence this year it got me wondering if Nicks is trying to follow in the footsteps of the Swans who have often fielded an under-sized but mobile backline.

90s they had Andrew Dunkley with a fairly mobile crew around him - Paul Roos, Adam Heuskes, Brad Seymour, Mark Bayes
00s they had Craig Bolton with a fairly mobile crew around him - Leo Barry, Tadgh Kennelly, Sean Dempster
10s a bit taller with Ted Richards (though he was pretty mobile) & Heath Grundy but then a fairly mobile crew around them Nick Smith, Martin Mattner, Rhyce Shaw, Nick Malceski

Sometimes they fielded taller teams than these but they often end up with players like Dane Rampe (189cm) covering the opposition's tallest forward and it doesn't seem to bother them.

It might be a coincidence given that Talia is out injured but I wonder if we are looking to build a backline with the following pieces:
- One lockdown tall (Butts for now)
- One lockdown small (Brown)
- Five hybrids (Doedee, Kelly, Hamill, Smith, McPherson)

The hybrids can play small or tall-ish and are pretty versatile. Occasionally you might be under-sized... but you have an advantage at ground level and with pace. Other times you might be too tall... but you have an advantage in the air and with strength.

No matter what forward line structure the opposition throws at you or how they alter things during a game, you can keep your backline the same. Never have a player left without a match up. Don't have to adjust your line up depending on weather conditions.

Occasionally we might be left exposed eg Doedee got out-marked once by Burgess last week for instance but really how often do these one-on-one mismatches get isolated effectively in a game? We might think that we gain more from the mismatch the other way (eg Doedee running off and intercepting or Hamill/Smith rebounding) than we lose over the course of a game.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Drugs Are Bad Mackay? said:
Ross Lyon: "We're all products of our environment."

Just looking at our defence this year it got me wondering if Nicks is trying to follow in the footsteps of the Swans who have often fielded an under-sized but mobile backline.

90s they had Andrew Dunkley with a fairly mobile crew around him - Paul Roos, Adam Heuskes, Brad Seymour, Mark Bayes
00s they had Craig Bolton with a fairly mobile crew around him - Leo Barry, Tadgh Kennelly, Sean Dempster
10s a bit taller with Ted Richards (though he was pretty mobile) & Heath Grundy but then a fairly mobile crew around them Nick Smith, Martin Mattner, Rhyce Shaw, Nick Malceski

Sometimes they fielded taller teams than these but they often end up with players like Dane Rampe (189cm) covering the opposition's tallest forward and it doesn't seem to bother them.

It might be a coincidence given that Talia is out injured but I wonder if we are looking to build a backline with the following pieces:
- One lockdown tall (Butts for now)
- One lockdown small (Brown)
- Five hybrids (Doedee, Kelly, Hamill, Smith, McPherson)

The hybrids can play small or tall-ish and are pretty versatile. Occasionally you might be under-sized... but you have an advantage at ground level and with pace. Other times you might be too tall... but you have an advantage in the air and with strength.

No matter what forward line structure the opposition throws at you or how they alter things during a game, you can keep your backline the same. Never have a player left without a match up. Don't have to adjust your line up depending on weather conditions.

Occasionally we might be left exposed eg Doedee got out-marked once by Burgess last week for instance but really how often do these one-on-one mismatches get isolated effectively in a game? We might think that we gain more from the mismatch the other way (eg Doedee running off and intercepting or Hamill/Smith rebounding) than we lose over the course of a game.
Click to expand...

Quite possible that's the direction we're going, however, there are two wildcards on our list at the moment. McAsey, and Worrell. Both could certainly have something to say about us going smaller as time goes on, Worrell especially seeing he's resigned for another 2 years.
 
We're choosing experience over structure.

That's why Mackay was picked over Worrell and why Kelly continues to be picked over KPD sized players.
 
Drugs Are Bad Mackay? said:
Ross Lyon: "We're all products of our environment."

Just looking at our defence this year it got me wondering if Nicks is trying to follow in the footsteps of the Swans who have often fielded an under-sized but mobile backline.

90s they had Andrew Dunkley with a fairly mobile crew around him - Paul Roos, Adam Heuskes, Brad Seymour, Mark Bayes
00s they had Craig Bolton with a fairly mobile crew around him - Leo Barry, Tadgh Kennelly, Sean Dempster
10s a bit taller with Ted Richards (though he was pretty mobile) & Heath Grundy but then a fairly mobile crew around them Nick Smith, Martin Mattner, Rhyce Shaw, Nick Malceski

Sometimes they fielded taller teams than these but they often end up with players like Dane Rampe (189cm) covering the opposition's tallest forward and it doesn't seem to bother them.

It might be a coincidence given that Talia is out injured but I wonder if we are looking to build a backline with the following pieces:
- One lockdown tall (Butts for now)
- One lockdown small (Brown)
- Five hybrids (Doedee, Kelly, Hamill, Smith, McPherson)

The hybrids can play small or tall-ish and are pretty versatile. Occasionally you might be under-sized... but you have an advantage at ground level and with pace. Other times you might be too tall... but you have an advantage in the air and with strength.

No matter what forward line structure the opposition throws at you or how they alter things during a game, you can keep your backline the same. Never have a player left without a match up. Don't have to adjust your line up depending on weather conditions.

Occasionally we might be left exposed eg Doedee got out-marked once by Burgess last week for instance but really how often do these one-on-one mismatches get isolated effectively in a game? We might think that we gain more from the mismatch the other way (eg Doedee running off and intercepting or Hamill/Smith rebounding) than we lose over the course of a game.
Click to expand...

We've all played football and we all know how much easier it is to spoil than it is to take the contested mark. Mobility and speed are much more important than a couple of extra inches here and there. You can outrun your opposition but you cannot outheight them in modern footy. The key though, as always, is pressure on the ball carrier. If that fails, the backline is well behind the 8 ball.
 
I remember someone telling Wayne Carey he only “broke even” with Glen Jakovich, and the duck’s response was along the lines of “Maybe, but I had to get the ball and do something with it, all he had to do was punch it.”

Playing in defence is a bit like the admin duties in any organization.

It doesn’t really need any qualifications other than a good attitude, you can teach it to pretty much anyone who’s willing, there’s very few accolades and it’s always the place where s**t ends up.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #12
Well, a month and a bit on I think the answer is "well... he's trying to."

Might need to rephrase the question: Should Nicks be trying to build a Sydney-style backline?"

Or "does Nicks have the pieces to build a Sydney-style backline?"
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Drugs Are Bad Mackay? said:
Well, a month and a bit on I think the answer is "well... he's trying to."

Might need to rephrase the question: Should Nicks be trying to build a Sydney-style backline?"

Or "does Nicks have the pieces to build a Sydney-style backline?"
Click to expand...

Yup. The answer to both is no.

Not when you have Josh Worrell, Murrsy and McAsey sitting in the wings, both who could clearly patch up holes in your defensive lineup (Worrell for his offensive game, the others because they could acquit themselves defensively). Not when you are nullifying your best defensive player in Doedee to a degree. Not when you don't have the midfield power to be continously dominant.

I half expect us to revert back to two key defenders when Talia is fit, however I certainly don't like how we're going about this. I wouldn't be surprised if its driven by a fear of going below some arbitrary "we need x amount of experience" baseline.
 
Drugs Are Bad Mackay? said:
Well, a month and a bit on I think the answer is "well... he's trying to."

Might need to rephrase the question: Should Nicks be trying to build a Sydney-style backline?"

Or "does Nicks have the pieces to build a Sydney-style backline?"
Click to expand...

Yep, I agree. He's definitely trying to. And I think that's generally a good thing. At any time we can abort the mission and bring in an extra tall. But this kind of system requires a lot of practice to master, so there's no harm in trying. Blokes like Worrell should eventually be a perfect match for it too.

The Doggies are also going for that 'Sydney style' backline too - and have made it work really well for them. Still outmatched in isolated situations, but backing the mids/forwards in to create turnovers and pressure the entries so that those isolated situations are so rare and the versatility of those medium defenders can shine.

I don't think we'd be any/much better with the extra KPD in anyway - it's all about how hard and fast the entries come in. Once our mids/forwards hold up their end we'll notice the value of this structure. Just perhaps with Worrell in for a Kelly or McPherson type to add a little more height and range without sacrificing versatility.
 
Skippos said:
Yep, I agree. He's definitely trying to. And I think that's generally a good thing. At any time we can abort the mission and bring in an extra tall. But this kind of system requires a lot of practice to master, so there's no harm in trying. Blokes like Worrell should eventually be a perfect match for it too.

The Doggies are also going for that 'Sydney style' backline too - and have made it work really well for them. Still outmatched in isolated situations, but backing the mids/forwards in to create turnovers and pressure the entries so that those isolated situations are so rare and the versatility of those medium defenders can shine.

I don't think we'd be any/much better with the extra KPD in anyway - it's all about how hard and fast the entries come in. Once our mids/forwards hold up their end we'll notice the value of this structure. Just perhaps with Worrell in for a Kelly or McPherson type to add a little more height and range without sacrificing versatility.
Click to expand...

Agree 100% here. Is the right year for experimenting, but as much as Nicks might want this structure to work with our current midfield its not going to.

Butts is pretty mobile with decent skills from what i've seen so far - the Bock comparison I saw from someone looks fair. Point being if we're putting a premium on ball movement out of defense and willing to structure with a single 1:1 tall stopper, then i think its worth trying him with some more freedom as the #2 tall further out.
 
Skippos said:
Yep, I agree. He's definitely trying to. And I think that's generally a good thing. At any time we can abort the mission and bring in an extra tall. But this kind of system requires a lot of practice to master, so there's no harm in trying. Blokes like Worrell should eventually be a perfect match for it too.

The Doggies are also going for that 'Sydney style' backline too - and have made it work really well for them. Still outmatched in isolated situations, but backing the mids/forwards in to create turnovers and pressure the entries so that those isolated situations are so rare and the versatility of those medium defenders can shine.

I don't think we'd be any/much better with the extra KPD in anyway - it's all about how hard and fast the entries come in. Once our mids/forwards hold up their end we'll notice the value of this structure. Just perhaps with Worrell in for a Kelly or McPherson type to add a little more height and range without sacrificing versatility.
Click to expand...

Lack of pressure from failed forward 50 entries results in the defenders being under the pump. So does losing centre clearances constantly. But ground ball pressure in our 50 is a big problem. And we make that even worse by structuring up a player in total no man's land defensively at inside 50 stoppages.
 
Scorpus said:
Why did we re-sign three 195cm defenders this year, after drafting a further two tall defenders last year, if our goal was to only play one in the AFL team?

It makes no sense
Click to expand...
Match committee weren't invited to the list management meetings?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Southerntakeover
Things that look better with hindsight than the Nicks re-signing
4 5 6 7 8
Replies
188
Views
7K
Pugsley
Pugsley
adelaidecrows
Roast Roo has to go and he can take Nicks with him....Sloane, Murphy and Smith can go as well.
Replies
1
Views
364
craig crowing
C
adelaidecrows
  • Poll
Opinion Matthew Nicks: Adelaide's Coach (Part 2) - Full Support of the Board
170 171 172 173 174
Replies
4K
Views
128K
Twist_of_Lemon
Twist_of_Lemon
Drugs Are Bad Mackay?
Game Day Rnd 23 Adelaide vs Sydney
69 70 71 72 73
Replies
2K
Views
37K
MsTopG
MsTopG
DroppingTheBall
Universal Love Primary nicknames of current Crows AFL list players
2 3
Replies
54
Views
3K
Eagleboy2011
Eagleboy2011
Scorpus
  • Poll
Review Good/Bad vs Sydney
23 24 25 26 27
Replies
674
Views
19K
Slippery Pete
Slippery Pete
dogs105
Preview Changes rd 23 vs Sydney, Saturday 7pm AO.
23 24 25 26 27
Replies
662
Views
21K
jenny61_99
jenny61_99

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top