Is our press dead?

[Ant85]

Interesting piece from Michael Gleeson, The Age:

Some coaches believe the press per se died last year, but that is not entirely true for teams such as West Coast and on the brief evidence so far, Fremantle, still plays a variety of the press when on the long,narrow Subiaco Oval.

But the press as we know it, as Collingwood played it perhaps most brutally in the 2010 preliminary final win over Geelong, is a changing beast. It has been pressed.

In round one, 11 of the 18 teams scored more than 100 points. The average score was two goals higher than last year and the highest average score for the first round in 10 years.

Nathan Buckley observed after Friday night's shootout with Hawthorn that not only had Collingwood - the team to concede the fewest points last year - had 20 goals kicked against it, but the opposition had managed 37 shots at goal despite the defensive measures.

''We conceded 5.2 from the opposition kick-ins and we kicked three ourselves. So the precision of ball use from both sides at times was very good,'' he said.

''I think that where the game is going, we are going to see some high scores at times because defence has been dominant and there are offensive strategies that are being implemented to get around it. We got through Hawthorn's defence and they got through ours.''

Statisticians don't measure ball speed, but anecdotally, players have expressed the view that the game was faster this round than previously. One figure the statisticians do keep is the end-to-end ball movement in an unbroken chain and that was slightly up this year on last.

One analyst said clubs had taken the cue from last year's grand final and had been more prepared to switch ball movement and be bolder by sliding into the corridor more often.

''Ross Lyon is traditionally a down-the-[boundary]-line coach and they went corridor. Bucks is playing corridor more and changing direction more,'' the analyst said.

''Sides understand if everyone goes down the line like Collingwood, then you won't win the game because you won't score enough, so they are biting off more time in the corridor.

''Collingwood has been a side that when centre-forward they would kick at the point post because it reduces your ability to be scored against and means you can create a stoppage, press your numbers up and trap the ball.

''They have not kicked to the fat side [the side with fewer players] because of the danger of rebound. But now they are bringing the ball to the fat side more, but what they are doing now is using their off-side winger [the wing on the fat side of the ground] and one of the flankers to push up on the fat side of the ground but to play no part in the offensive play. They are just there as support defensively on the fat side if they lose control of the ball. It is a variation on the press.

''So you are saying, OK, we are prepared to centre the ball and be more attacking, but we are going to use these defenders to give us coverage if we lose the ball. It's two defenders running forward with no intention of being involved in the offensive play.''

I expected Bucks to make tweaks, but I think what he's trying to achieve is flexibility.

ie the ability to impose a hard press when we need to (as against St.Kilda in the NAB Cup), but also the ability to revert to a more offensive strategy if need be, as against Hawthorn.

If there's one thing we lacked it was versatility and the ability to react to a situation if we're up against the wall.

If this is the direction Bucks is taking us, I'm impressed, but I welcome everything with caution.

 

[Ed D]

The press of 2010 is long gone if that's what the article means. Like it's been mentioned, game plans need to be altered to keep it fresh against opposition. As you mention however with the St Kilda game, Collingwood can still shut teams down through defensive pressure, but I don't think people can expect the team to play the 2010 brand of football for games on end, or be allowed to.

 

[TradeDraft]

Way to early to make that kind of Call

 

[Chief Ten Beers]

Eade said something similar on Fox the other night. Something to the effect that the gameplan always needs to change.

Maybe guarding the player will be back over guarding space.

 

[TradeDraft]

Eade said something similar on Fox the other night. Something to the effect that the gameplan always needs to change.

Maybe guarding the player will be back over guarding space.

Sounding like it be more Man on Man footy this season

 

[Gambit78]

If we go man-on-man footy, we're gonna have a difficult season. And don't get me wrong, I love our team - but our defensive players aren't strong one-on-one. They are strong collectively. I would not want to see us going man-on-man to the point of exposing our defense like that.

It appeared to me that in the first quarter or so, we applied a pretty strong press on the Hawks and if we had kicked straight would have benefited from that. But with the advent of three on the bench and one sub, I just don't think we (or any team) can sustain a press for a whole game. It is too exhausting a game plan. And maybe it was just me, but in round 1, players from both sides seemed dead on their feet really quickly - as in half way through the second quarter - and yes, it is round 1 and it is to be expected, but it still seemed quite a dramatic drop off.

The Press game plan has to evolve simply for the sake of player preservation.

 

[Pera]

^^ Good post.

 

[Cousin of Daicos]

The press was working fine until we started missing shots 20m out directly in front and it deflated the mids and defenders mentally which then affected how they played, and the press basically disappeared.

Had nothing to do with fatigue. 8.1 to 2.1 at quarter time and the game ends. We apply our press even harder and break them and it becomes a drubbing after that and all of a sudden things look completely different.

You'd be surprised what a little bit of straight kicking at the right time can do to the confidence of a side and affect their accuracy as a collective. Once a few started missing, they ALL started missing.

It was the opposite for the Hakws. Once Lewis nailed one from the boundary, they all started popping them from everywhere.

Poeple forget, while the score sheet ended up reading 37 scoring shots to 35 their way, the score sheet doesn't tell you we kicked 5 on the full, and 2 or 3 missed everything without going out on the full. We actually had closer to 45 scoring shots.

Yeah, like that's going to happen again.

 

[buzzbuzz]

Eade said that due to the fast flowing nature of the game, we didn't have time to get the press going. This indicates that we would have, had we had time. I think we're moving towards being a team with multiple gameplans based on opposition and state of the game. Which I love.

 

[Gambit78]

The press was working fine until we started missing shots 20m out directly in front and it deflated the mids and defenders mentally which then affected how they played, and the press basically disappeared.

Had nothing to do with fatigue. 8.1 to 2.1 at quarter time and the game ends. We apply our press even harder and break them and it becomes a drubbing after that and all of a sudden things look completely different.

You'd be surprised what a little bit of straight kicking at the right time can do to the confidence of a side and affect their accuracy as a collective. Once a few started missing, they ALL started missing.

It was the opposite for the Hakws. Once Lewis nailed one from the boundary, they all started popping them from everywhere.

Poeple forget, while the score sheet ended up reading 37 scoring shots to 35 their way, the score sheet doesn't tell you we kicked 5 on the full, and 2 or 3 missed everything without going out on the full. We actually had closer to 45 scoring shots.

Yeah, like that's going to happen again.

You're kidding right? We were four or five goals down in the 3rd quarter and managed to crawl our way back to the lead mid way through the 4th. Mentally deflated teams don't do that. Being fatigued had more to do with us not winning than mental frailty. In fact, mentally, I would say we are one of the strongest, if not the strongest team in the AFL.

But physically, no team can sustain the intensity of a full press for a whole game. In 2010, it didn't matter that we kicked 2.8, because with 4 on the bench, we could rotate more, rest more, therefore press for longer. We just powered on until it didn't matter how many we missed on goal. Can't do that now. Because of fatigue, we are getting opened up easier, earlier. It's just how it is.

 

[Cousin of Daicos]

You're kidding right? We were four or five goals down in the 3rd quarter and managed to crawl our way back to the lead mid way through the 4th. Mentally deflated teams don't do that. Being fatigued had more to do with us not winning than mental frailty. In fact, mentally, I would say we are one of the strongest, if not the strongest team in the AFL.

But physically, no team can sustain the intensity of a full press for a whole game. In 2010, it didn't matter that we kicked 2.8, because with 4 on the bench, we could rotate more, rest more, therefore press for longer. We just powered on until it didn't matter how many we missed on goal. Can't do that now. Because of fatigue, we are getting opened up easier, earlier. It's just how it is.

Your theory sounds sound, but it ignores West Coast last year.

 

[lgarth80]

Your theory sounds sound, but it ignores West Coast last year.

West Coast can implement a press more effectively because they have the team for it.

A press relies on centre clearances - enter Cox/Naitanui and the potentially best team in the middle of a ground from this perspective.

Breaking a press needs really long kicking outside forward 50. Hawthorn had Suckling (apart from one shank), Guerra and Birchall launching massive kick-ins to over our press into the 80 or so metre mark. When you have multiple towers you can cover both sides of the ground and so when the big long kick comes in - as it must to break the press - you use your rucks to either mark and launch back into the now broken defence and get an easy mark, or you get the rucks to bash the ball back into a contested situation around the 50.

If you win that ball, you generally find an easy pass and get a goal. If you lose, then it's fairly likely that with a string of handballs and some running carry, you either concede a goal, or at least a one-on-one contest for the key forward.

WCE were good last year because they don't just have Naitanui and Cox, but they also have Kennedy, Darling and Lynch to ensure teams can't just kick over the press like the Hawks did in Round 1, and the Cats did in the GF.

Where the Eagles have a weakness is:
- not quite enough quality midfielders to win the initial contested balls (but with players improving they could get there, and their mids list is very deep)
- they can get found out as slow with so many talls, if you are prepared to chip through their press with precision kicking
- apart from Hurn (and maybe Waters) they can't easily clear their own defence when they have a press applied to them (this point applies somewhat to us without Leon)

Personally the press is not dead, but you need to work out on a weekly (or even quarterly given matchups change markedly with subs) basis how and when to apply it, and when to just free the shackles of a game structure and go man-on-man.

I also think our defenders (at full strength) in Tarrant, Maxwell, O'Brien, Reid, Johnson and Toovey are brilliant players in man-on-man contests (Maxwell and O'Brien admittedly not the best against tall opponents or countering the skied ball), and rarely are they beaten. When they work together, they are great to watch.

I'm happy to see us take on opponents during games by applying a full press and relying on the defence winning 1on1s.

The issue on Friday night was simply that our defenders couldn't win those contests, but let's face it, add a few more seasoned veterans down there, and it would have most likely been a different story.

 

[Cousin of Daicos]

A press relies on centre clearances - enter Cox/Naitanui and the potentially best team in the middle of a ground from this perspective.

So Jolly, Pendlebury, Swan, Ball and Thomas aren't one of the best midfield setups around? If not THE best?

Yeah, ok.

Seems to me, that maybe Nick Maxwell is more important to us structurally than I gave him credit for. Because the press starts with the backline.

Given how many we were missing, and there were no leaders back there to really get everyone organised (sorry Shaw doesn't count in my eyes), that's why I think it fell apart a bit.

 

[4#Didak#4]

The press is not dead.

But the days of implementing the press & nothing else are definitely dead. Like any strategy it gets worked out, especially if thats all you do.

The press is going to become a phase of play that can be implemented at opportune times with a myriad of variations. It will not be any one teams style. The press is used in basketball for example, but teams do not press all the time, its used at opportune times. With clubs still learning how to press properly and copy catting we need to now move past that and use it against them to keep ahead of the pack.

I think (& hope) we are moving to the next level of AFL strategy. This I believe will be the ability to swap & change the way we play game to game, quarter to quarter & even mid game. Going from one on one to a flood to a press to corridor footy to kicking long etc etc.

As some of the other posters said its about flexibility. To implement this will require a lot of work from the coaching group. To be able to have all players know each plan & switch to that plan, when need be, will be an enourmous challenge. This is where the big dollars to coaching staff will start to be earned.

Coaches on game day will have more power to influence the contest with what strategies they employ & the timing of those. Most coaches say that 98% off the work is done before game day & often they feel like spectators during the game. The only thing they do is move players posi to posi. This will no longer be the case, calling the right game play at the right time will win games.

The side that achieves this flexibility the quickest and executes it best will win this years GF. Thats my big call of 2012.

Eventually I see AFL going the way of some other sports like NFL where different game plays/phases are rehearsed and then executed by the players when called by the coach. Communication will be paramount so I wouldn't be surprised if there was game play codes (like NFL) or hand signals used to get the message across to all players what the play is without the opposition knowing & pre-empting it.

Being a well coached & drilled side will also mean no slide down the ladder to pick up lower draft picks so we can rise again. Its a competitive advantage that will keep well run & drilled clubs at the top with the quality of playing personal not being the main factor. This I think has been happening for a few years now anyway.

Its the way of the future. I just hope we get there first. I have every confidence we will be on the cutting edge with our coaching crew.

 

[lgarth80]

Absolutely we have a brilliant bunch of clearance kings. That's why we can implement a press, for sure. But when our best boys weren't in there (e.g. when Dawes went into the ruck) we were beaten at the clearances, and hence couldn't apply the press because the ball was in our defence, not forward division.

Another issue is that Hawthorn broke us up after we kicked points. Their defenders chipped to themselves, then launched huge kicks to about 85 metres often, then with a few handballs they were through. Bang Goal.

It's what I'd seen against Melbourne at times and Essendon last year. If the press is applied too deep in our forward line, we get hit when it gets breached.

Thing is Hawthorn's kicking skills are good enough to slice up a press that's applied from say 85 metres instead of 70 (as we were doing it)

The way around this is:
- Kick goals not points, which generally involves getting a deeper F50 entry - this may mean an extra handball is required in the middle (or better shepherding) to get that crucial 10-15 metres

- Not lead to the boundary as often - especially Cloke to the death pocket for left handers - he's much better on the hook kick

- Make a deliberate point of applying big pressure on the player who kicks to themselves after a point. Don't give him an easy 10 metres then a 65 metre kick. Think about getting your forward to charge the player the first time he tries that (in a way that gives a downfield freekick but not a week suspension).

- Have constant assessments by the defensive generals (e.g. Shaw/Maxwell) as to how deep to apply the press. My thought is we over pressed slightly this week, and were more exposed when we didn't trap it in. Maxwell you are right, would have seen this earlier and made an adjustment, particularly in that Q2 - it wasn't Rioli/Franklin that caused me the most issues, it was the easy open goals on the run from 35 right in front that got me annoyed. A good structure and that doesn't happen.

 

[4#Didak#4]

We abandoned the press in the GF as we knew Geelong had worked it out and were able to beat it. We replaced this with man on man. I have thought a lot about this (actually a bit haunted by it) and up until a few weeks ago thought it was madness to go into the biggest game of the year with a different style of footy to what we had played & trained with for 2 years.

Now I think about it more it was in a way the right decision. The Cats were going to win if we didn't change something. By changing we gave ourselves a chance. The problem was we identified the need for the change to late. We did not have a lot of time to implement that change as well as we wanted. Had we planned and adjusted for this possible change early to mid year the result may have been different.

 

[lgarth80]

Great contribution Dids... My comments in bold.

I think (& hope) we are moving to the next level of AFL strategy. This I believe will be the ability to swap & change the way we play game to game, quarter to quarter & even mid game. Going from one on one to a flood to a press to corridor footy to kicking long etc etc.

Absolutely. You gotta have a plan B, because subs will be used to create mismatches. Even Gunston did that to an extent last week.

Coaches on game day will have more power to influence the contest with what strategies they employ & the timing of those. Most coaches say that 98% off the work is done before game day & often they feel like spectators during the game. The only thing they do is move players posi to posi. This will no longer be the case, calling the right game play at the right time will win games.

This is where Rodney Eade is crucial in his role. Needs to be able to assess the opposition's tactics on the fly and then devise a response. I think this works to his strengths, and should help our team in gameday matchups, which was Mick's one main weakness.

Eventually I see AFL going the way of some other sports like NFL where different game plays/phases are rehearsed and then executed by the players when called by the coach. Communication will be paramount so I wouldn't be surprised if there was game play codes (like NFL) or hand signals used to get the message across to all players what the play is without the opposition knowing & pre-empting it.

Agree on the first part - rehearsed plays are already done to implement tempo footy when teams are under pressure of a run-on. Not sure on the other because of the speed of the game. Maybe with players coming off, we could do this, but it works in NFL because the QB controls all the plays. With players rotating so often in AFL, and with no timeouts, I think it's not likely to happen in that manner. Even so, some thinking on this area would be good, and Scott Pendlebury would be an amazing QB...

Being a well coached & drilled side will also mean no slide down the ladder to pick up lower draft picks so we can rise again. Its a competitive advantage that will keep well run & drilled clubs at the top with the quality of playing personal not being the main factor. This I think has been happening for a few years now anyway.

Would be great to stay at the top and I agree it can happen, it's another area of competitive advantage, like Westpac being close to the MCG, like our harvesting of NSW/Rookie picks, our development coaches, and our recruitment staff (including our staff just focussed on pinching players under the free agency rules) all fighting against the AFL equalisation through the cap and draft.

Its the way of the future. I just hope we get there first. I have every confidence we will be on the cutting edge with our coaching crew.

I also hope we get there. Buckley being brought in should in theory usher the process in, but will only occur if he builds a very broad team, something Mick was great at doing.

 

[Batty123]

One thing that always amazes in these threads looking at our press and style of play is that no one bothers to take notice of what opposition teams have done or are doing against us, to counter the press. The press is not always in our direct control, opposition teams aren't going to allow us roll it out whenever we want....

In 2009 both Geelong and St.Kilda were way ahead of the pack in terms of contested ball - both teams got enormous numbers to the contest and were able to flick the ball around continually until guys like an Ablett or Montagna were put into space and able to deliver. To counter this Collingwood in 2010 got extra numbers to the contest, circled the opposition mids, applied manic pressure and this resulted in either a hurried kick forward, which was picked off by a Collingwood defender or, in some cases, a holding the ball decision.

Jump forward to 2011 and you saw quite clearly that Chris Scott had adapted to this tactic from Collingwood. Hawthorn under Clarkson also implemented something to combat it but we didn't see the fruits of it till later in the year. It's no coincidence that we got beaten 3/3 by Geelong and fell over the line against Hawthorn in the prelim.

What both Scott and Clarkson did, and are still doing, is to ensure that their players don't crowd the contest - both Geelong and Hawthorn keep players in set zones at stoppages and if under pressure hit those zones knowing a teammate will be there in a 1 on 1. The same applies for their kick outs - no longer is numbers to the contest the plan - that's just playing into Collingwood's press - but rather maintaining width and keeping distance between team mates. Call it the "spread" or the "anti-press"

Against these teams we are unable to crowd the opposition players and create "the press" - so many times in 2010 we saw multiple Collingwood players, making multiple efforts against multiple opposition players who were trying to handball their way out of it (too afraid to kick to a contest) and we reaped the benefit.

That's no longer the case - teams now keep players in "hit up zones" and kick, rather than handball in those situations. You can't "press" a team if there's no one there to press or they're not hatching the football....

Geelong and Hawthorn are probably the only 2 teams who have the sufficient skill level and physical development to pull this off at the moment but you can be sure all other teams are starting to structure up that way. It's for this reason that the press is dead and why Bucks and Eade are in the process of designing new systems and tactics to ensure Collingwood are ahead of the curve. It might hurt like hell for the first half of the year as we concede more goals than we like but if we keep trying to play a style that all 17 teams are plotting against it'll be more than just Geelong and Hawthorn that cause us headaches.

 

[4#Didak#4]

Great contribution Dids... My comments in bold.


Agree on the first part - rehearsed plays are already done to implement tempo footy when teams are under pressure of a run-on. Not sure on the other because of the speed of the game. Maybe with players coming off, we could do this, but it works in NFL because the QB controls all the plays. With players rotating so often in AFL, and with no timeouts, I think it's not likely to happen in that manner. Even so, some thinking on this area would be good, and Scott Pendlebury would be an amazing QB...
.

Thanks Igarth!

On the above point the nature of the game - size of field, speed, number of players etc. makes the calling of plays a lot more difficult than in other sports thats for sure. But I am thinking more of an adaption of that concept. To micro manage plays like in NFL is impossible (except maybe kick ins). However I think getting a team to change for example from a man on man contested type game to a press or other style is very possible. Its just a matter of how quickly the coach can communicate to 22 players that the change is needed then the ability of the players to execute that request.

The quicker communication is the better. This can be done at breaks but by then it may be too late. You can't get the runner to tell each individual - takes too long. You can tell the onfield mid, fwd, back leaders reasonably quickly & then let them communicate to the rest. However they can't give the game away by yelling out "lets press boys" - the opposition can then react quickly. So how to do it? 4-5 key code words or hand signals can communicate a way of play across the ground pretty quick. Clever leaders like Maxwell & Pendles would only make that task easier. I can't see a QB type role though - it needs to be coach driven.

An example of how it could work is if a side is starting to get a run on towards the end of a quarter, the coach may want to implement a full on flood to prevent the scoring. If it takes 5 minutes to communicate this its too late. If it takes 1 minute it saves you goals. If you reverse it & we are getting flooded its a great time to implement a full press - but if the whole team does not react quickly and in unison it won't work or be too late to take advantage.

Not easy but possible as other professional sports demonstrate. Good communication can be a great weapon.

 

[4#Didak#4]

What both Scott and Clarkson did, and are still doing, is to ensure that their players don't crowd the contest - both Geelong and Hawthorn keep players in set zones at stoppages and if under pressure hit those zones knowing a teammate will be there in a 1 on 1. The same applies for their kick outs - no longer is numbers to the contest the plan - that's just playing into Collingwood's press - but rather maintaining width and keeping distance between team mates. Call it the "spread" or the "anti-press"

I love it! You should copy right that before the HUN starts using it. Does that mean we can call Chris Scott the Anti Christ?