Our Game Plan Going Into 2024

[doggies ftw]

All the talk last preseason was how fast and attacking our ball movement was then we rock up round 1 and it’s the same old s**t. I guess our team is so bad defensively that they make us look like gods when we play against each other

Strip everything back and start again in regards to the gameplan, ours is so ridiculously dated. Drop all preconceived ideas ie our backline is weak so we need to protect them by keeping the ball out of the corridor etc and give everyone a chance to redeem themselves from scratch.

If we rock up round 1 and play the same outdated bullshit we’ve fumbled around with for the better part of half a decade I’m going to rip my *ing hair out

 

[Dogs54]

Sorry, but you’re being incredibly naive.

Every single thing you’ve listed has been part of local junior footballing teachings for the last 10-15 years and you’ve even stated it’s part of junior basketball development, yet you suggest they aren’t part of an elite AFL footballing program??

Seriously?

I don't think you don't understand my post because nowhere did I suggest this is not part of an elite footballing program. In fact I watch many other clubs and their play reflects the fundamentals I have described. I just don't see it when i watch the Dogs play.

I seriously suggest you read my post again and if you don't understand any concept please ask and I will be happy to explain.

 

[Charlie Bucket]

I don't think you don't understand my post because nowhere did I suggest this is not part of an elite footballing program. In fact I watch many other clubs and their play reflects the fundamentals I have described. I just don't see it when i watch the Dogs play.

I seriously suggest you read my post again and if you don't understand any concept please ask and I will be happy to explain.

I understand perfectly what you’re saying. I just can’t comprehend that anyone would believe what you do.

There’s some ridiculous things posted on Big Footy but suggesting our players don’t understand and our club doesn’t train and plan for all the things you’ve listed might just be top of the pile.

 

[Dogs54]

I understand perfectly what you’re saying. I just can’t comprehend that anyone would believe what you do.

There’s some ridiculous things posted on Big Footy but suggesting our players don’t understand and our club doesn’t train and plan for all the things you’ve listed might just be top of the pile.

Really, I don't think you do understand if you think the Dogs plan and train for these experiences. You are entitled to your opinion which I don't agree with but I won't lower myself to your level with insulting personal comments.

 

[LondonBulldog]

I understand perfectly what you’re saying. I just can’t comprehend that anyone would believe what you do.

There’s some ridiculous things posted on Big Footy but suggesting our players don’t understand and our club doesn’t train and plan for all the things you’ve listed might just be top of the pile

Explain to me English taking the kick in with 1 minute to go then Charlie. His first kick in all year. You love to just dig at other people in this forum. Fact is on many occasions we looked like a load of rabble this year and the English kick in is a classic example. Our systems constantly broke down and were not good enough.

Compare that to the set plays which Collingwood implement in close games. We lost the close ones. So it breaking down somewhere, whether that's the players or the coaches or somewhere in between its an issue and you don't have to belittle others on this board who make valid points.

 

[Charlie Bucket]

Explain to me English taking the kick in with 1 minute to go then Charlie. His first kick in all year. You love to just dig at other people in this forum. Fact is on many occasions we looked like a load of rabble this year and the English kick in is a classic example. Our systems constantly broke down and were not good enough.

Compare that to the set plays which Collingwood implement in close games. We lost the close ones. So it breaking down somewhere, whether that's the players or the coaches or somewhere in between its an issue and you don't have to belittle others on this board who make valid points.

So your explanation for English taking that kick in is because our players have no understanding of what to do when a team kicks a behind? Something that’s thought to U14’s, but a group of elite players within an elite sporting organisation have no idea about?

How about not everything a team knows and is taught is executed to a required level and every now and then it goes pear shaped? And sometimes when a team isn’t going so well and confidence is low, the basics that good teams nail more often than not seem harder to perform? And sometimes teams do stupid s**t like not have a kicker there to take a kick in and having other teammates make no effort to offer a decent target option?? Nah, let’s just go with the team not having any understanding of what to do when there’s a kick in completely ignoring the other 5000 kick ins they’ve set up for in the last 8 years.

I don’t believe the other poster made any valid points. If he’d suggested we need to work on all those things more and make sure we execute at the levels some other teams do, then that’s fair enough.

But to suggest our players aren’t aware of systems and passages of play that’s taught to junior kids is ridiculous, and will happily call it.

 

[Dog 36]

Explain to me English taking the kick in with 1 minute to go then Charlie. His first kick in all year. You love to just dig at other people in this forum. Fact is on many occasions we looked like a load of rabble this year and the English kick in is a classic example. Our systems constantly broke down and were not good enough.

Compare that to the set plays which Collingwood implement in close games. We lost the close ones. So it breaking down somewhere, whether that's the players or the coaches or somewhere in between its an issue and you don't have to belittle others on this board who make valid points.

When we played Sydney we had Dale take a kick in and he was forced to play on and then ran too far. There was no plan then and there was no plan again vs Hawrhorn
Our only plan was hope for the best.
We lack system and players don’t know what to do when, where to be when and how to play their position

Confusion reigns at the Kennel
Messy in coaches head
Messy in the players head
Messy on the field
messy results

 

[LondonBulldog]

So your explanation for English taking that kick in is because our players have no understanding of what to do when a team kicks a behind? Something that’s thought to U14’s, but a group of elite players within an elite sporting organisation have no idea about?

How about not everything a team knows and is taught is executed to a required level and every now and then it goes pear shaped? And sometimes when a team isn’t going so well and confidence is low, the basics that good teams nail more often than not seem harder to perform? And sometimes teams do stupid s**t like not have a kicker there to take a kick in and having other teammates make no effort to offer a decent target option?? Nah, let’s just go with the team not having any understanding of what to do when there’s a kick in completely ignoring the other 5000 kick ins they’ve set up for in the last 8 years.

I don’t believe the other poster made any valid points. If he’d suggested we need to work on all those things more and make sure we execute at the levels some other teams do, then that’s fair enough.

But to suggest our players aren’t aware of systems and passages of play that’s taught to junior kids is ridiculous, and will happily call it.

Quote from the Poster

"how many of our players know these systems and their role in them."

To me based on the various examples this season that is a valid point. I'm sure we have systems is place yet you can make all the excuses you like as above yet doesn't change that fact that the systems constantly broke down, players looked disorganised a lot of times. Maybe that's personal, maybe that's coaches maybe the message is not clear yet that fact is it wasn't good enough and any poster on here can state that without you stating how ridiculous it was. Gee some on you rational above is plan rabble and I will happily call it. We are not talking about the normal 5000 kick ins each year, we are talking about the final kick in of a game. How can that be screwed up. That is a play which should be planned and executed, no excuses.

 

[Dogs54]

So your explanation for English taking that kick in is because our players have no understanding of what to do when a team kicks a behind? Something that’s thought to U14’s, but a group of elite players within an elite sporting organisation have no idea about?

How about not everything a team knows and is taught is executed to a required level and every now and then it goes pear shaped? And sometimes when a team isn’t going so well and confidence is low, the basics that good teams nail more often than not seem harder to perform? And sometimes teams do stupid s**t like not have a kicker there to take a kick in and having other teammates make no effort to offer a decent target option?? Nah, let’s just go with the team not having any understanding of what to do when there’s a kick in completely ignoring the other 5000 kick ins they’ve set up for in the last 8 years.

I don’t believe the other poster made any valid points. If he’d suggested we need to work on all those things more and make sure we execute at the levels some other teams do, then that’s fair enough.

But to suggest our players aren’t aware of systems and passages of play that’s taught to junior kids is ridiculous, and will happily call it.

How do you explain our forward entry strategy, currently is slow and indirect which results in bombing on our forwards head. This is probably the worst option for a forward entry yet the Dogs continually use this option.

How would you explain our midfield strategy for when a team gets a run on at centre bounces and the defence strategy that continually allows for the defence to be too far in front of their opponent and allow easy over the top passes and forwards kicking easy goals.

We are all ears waiting for your response.

 

[Planet Dogs]

Explain to me English taking the kick in with 1 minute to go then Charlie. His first kick in all year. You love to just dig at other people in this forum. Fact is on many occasions we looked like a load of rabble this year and the English kick in is a classic example. Our systems constantly broke down and were not good enough.

Compare that to the set plays which Collingwood implement in close games. We lost the close ones. So it breaking down somewhere, whether that's the players or the coaches or somewhere in between its an issue and you don't have to belittle others on this board who make valid points.

English made an assessment: I'm in the goal square; FA time left; I'm going to go for it.

The result of this decision: we end up with possession on the wing! How is that a bad outcome?

The problem was that when Williams received the handball from Dale he ran straight into the opposition! The problem was Williams's decision-making, not English.

 

[geoffjennings79]

Hafey's late 60s/early 70s Richmind sides kept it simple.
Move the ball quickly and kick it long to Royce.

Is Bevo a student of history?
"OK fellas, new coaching panel supporting me this year. We have a new plan. Move the ball quickly, and kick it long... to Rory."
Naughton and JUH licence to roam f50, mark and wheel onto left looking for the Lobb-ster.
Simple plan for a bunch of Jim Kerrs.

 

[LondonBulldog]

English made an assessment: I'm in the goal square; FA time left; I'm going to go for it.

The result of this decision: we end up with possession on the wing! How is that a bad outcome?

The problem was that when Williams received the handball from Dale he ran straight into the opposition! The problem was Williams's decision-making, not English.

But that's exactly the point...

Collingwood with a minute to go. All players run to the right hand side of the field, knowing the ball was not going to them but playing their part. Moore, the designated kicker, looks for only 1 player, the designated runner over the top, a chain of breakaway then straight to Elliot. This had been planned, well drilled and Macrae said so after the match.

Bulldogs, English grabs the ball, Richards wants it off him, English ignores and goes for a run, at this stage he has no idea who he is passing the ball too, hes head is darting all over the place, has a bounce, then spots up Dale, who hot potatoes it to Williams who with a lack of aware gets caught.

Most sides are well drilled in these situations, some sides are fantastic at it others not so much. We clearly need work.

 

[doggies ftw]

English made an assessment: I'm in the goal square; FA time left; I'm going to go for it.

The result of this decision: we end up with possession on the wing! How is that a bad outcome?

The problem was that when Williams received the handball from Dale he ran straight into the opposition! The problem was Williams's decision-making, not English.

Yeah no it was a dumb decision, and a mistake that was created by everyone being completely dumbfounded at what their role is in that situation. Again either we’ve drafted 40 dumb as dog s**t footballers or were poorly coached.

We have no situational awareness, you just know at training Bevo probably says s**t like “play the first minute of the game the same way you’d play the last minute of the game something something emperor penguins”

Zero ability to adapt sums us up from top to bottom, old perfect world Bevo ey

 

[Dog 36]

English made an assessment: I'm in the goal square; FA time left; I'm going to go for it.

The result of this decision: we end up with possession on the wing! How is that a bad outcome?

The problem was that when Williams received the handball from Dale he ran straight into the opposition! The problem was Williams's decision-making, not English.

Your opening paragraph identifies the problem. English should have never had to make an assessment given the unique circumstances a kick in , time poor and needing to score.

Like you say FA time left have a look how long he took to dispose the ball that speaks volumes as to the confusion.

English did what he did because there was no plan we were not drilled for it. No plan vs Sydney similar situation no plan vs Hawks.

Confusion reigns at the Kennel

 

[Norm De Guerre]

Explain to me English taking the kick in with 1 minute to go then Charlie. His first kick in all year. You love to just dig at other people in this forum. Fact is on many occasions we looked like a load of rabble this year and the English kick in is a classic example. Our systems constantly broke down and were not good enough.

Compare that to the set plays which Collingwood implement in close games. We lost the close ones. So it breaking down somewhere, whether that's the players or the coaches or somewhere in between its an issue and you don't have to belittle others on this board who make valid points.

This argument would carry more weight if English was regularly taking kick ins.

The one time he did was because he was the guy with the ball in his hands. There was 90 seconds or whatever left on the clock and the ball really needed to be at the other end of the ground. The comedy of errors that followed reflected all of this.

The actual issue is that we are so predictable coming out of full back. We have a single play.

Dale kicks it to somebody in the pocket. Gets a handball receive and then kicks it to the corner of the square. Where there is invariably a stoppage. This has to be a deliberate strategy, because it fits snuggly as a finger in the bum with every other strategy that we have where we crab it from stoppage to stoppage.

Why we never go long from full back when we have a couple of the most reliable contested marks in the game is a question for others.

 

[doggies ftw]

Dale kicks it to somebody in the pocket. Gets a handball receive and then kicks it to the corner of the square. Where there is invariably a stoppage. This has to be a deliberate strategy, because it fits snuggly as a finger in the bum with every other strategy that we have were we crab it from stoppage to stoppage.

Why we never go long from full back when we have a couple of the most reliable contested marks in the game is a question for others.

The stats back this up - we were statistically the shortest kick in team in the comp this year, by quite a lot from memory. This would be fine if we were hitting up targets short in the corridor but it’s not the case. It’s nearly entirely short to the pocket.

There’s a reason the opposition leave a man free there and it’s because it’s exactly where they want the ball what’s even funnier is I reckon more often than not this spare is English, one of our best contested marks & ruckmen. Genuinely mindboggling that this is the strategy.

The AFL have literally manufactured the rules to allow teams to exit defence, basically getting a free run to 30m - yet we’re still too scared to take it on? Look at a team like Melbourne who play a similiar dull, conservative contested game and even they religiously launch the ball straight to 70m - it’s the percentage play with the current rules, and we actually have the tall timber to utilise it.

It’s frustrating that we’re so keen to play all our marking talls but still won’t trust them to be somewhat attacking. Just once I’d like to see Naughty lead directly up the corridor, yeah if we turn it over it’ll come back over our heads but who cares you need to take some risks to find good scoring opportunities, and he’s going to mark more than he misses.

Instead we direct our marking talls to the boundary for the down the line kick - if all we want is someone to make a contest on the boundary line stop paying talls a million a year and find a couple of guys like Zaine Cordy to make a contest. If you’ve got some of the best contested marking talls in the game ******* use them in attacking positions & capitalise on it.

 

[TMoney22]

I'm sure we do have a plan for different situations, but in reality the opposition probably expect them. My worry is there is no 2nd, 3rd scenario planning. Eg. At stoppage, Libba helps on Bonts tag but everyone else does f all to be offensive. Forward stoppage, Weightman usually tries to hit the tap at speed and gets blocked but there is no one else trailing or providing another option.

I just can't see any depth to our planning and opposition analysis.

Look at centre bounces when we get smashed by burst mids aka melb GF. Why not tell our wings to sprint into the middle and try to cut that off. Yes that will leave the opposition wing open but it will take a sideways handball to get there. Giving our defenders a few more seconds rather than petracca, danger etc having an open shot or easy kick to a leading forward.

Like that is not f'ing hard to implement.

 

[doggies ftw]

I'm sure we do have a plan for different situations, but in reality the opposition probably expect them. My worry is there is no 2nd, 3rd scenario planning. Eg. At stoppage, Libba helps on Bonts tag but everyone else does f all to be offensive. Forward stoppage, Weightman usually tries to hit the tap at speed and gets blocked but there is no one else trailing or providing another option.

I just can't see any depth to our planning and opposition analysis.

Look at centre bounces when we get smashed by burst mids aka melb GF. Why not tell our wings to sprint into the middle and try to cut that off. Yes that will leave the opposition wing open but it will take a sideways handball to get there. Giving our defenders a few more seconds rather than petracca, danger etc having an open shot or easy kick to a leading forward.

Like that is not f'ing hard to implement.

In reality stopping a run of goals should be relatively easy to be honest, all we’re asking is to shut down the game and not allow back to back to back goals, you don’t even need to score.

The fact we haven’t figured that out in 2 years screams of not just incompetence but probably arrogance, ie nah we’ll just keep playing our own game & it’ll work out.

Our best is great but our opposition analysis and planning for each teams strengths & weaknesses is attrocious, it’s practically non existent- bloody frustrating

 

[Lex22]

Our high press needs a pause button for when the opposition start getting on a roll, not having it is one main reason why teams consistently get a run on against us.

If there’s that much space in an oppositions half, well a rivals smart players are seeing that ahead and finding a way through.

It ain’t hard to move the ball if there’s a paddock ahead of you. GWS game in Ballarat a perfect example, pull off one kind of risky kick from half back and it’s over. It’s all they were doing.

What I used to notice under the gun Clarko Hawks teams is their pause button would be spreading the field and winning the ball back in the air. If a team had momentum, they’d just not give the ball back quickly when they got a turnover.

They’d chip it around for a few minutes and once an opposition starts manning free players, well they’re not in a position to attack again straight away. Job’s done and your high press resumes.

In regards to the midfield, take a look at what Richmond would do with Cotchin and even Lambert at times.

Their aim is just slow the play up once another team got a sniff, that’s also gave away a lot of free kicks.

A jumper tug or whatever on a guy consistently hitting space from a stoppage buys your defence enough time if a free is given.

We need more selfless guys to put their hands up and do these things when required. Drop the egos when required and concede that you have to all out defend and respect an oppositions form for small periods.

 

[True Dog]

I hope we share the ruck load a little more. The last game against the cats was a good example, Lobbe was instrumental and influential in us scoring from centre bounce at the start of the 3rd and 4th quarters and Timmy was a handful and good foil for Marra and Nauts. These things make us less predictable to the opposition. As good as English was this year I feel we get much more bang for our buck if he can spend more time forward.

 

[Butabi Brothers]

While I agree with most people saying we need to add pace and grunt to our team, it’s not the be all or end all.
I think we need to look at a team like geelong 2007-2012 for what to aim for game style wise.
The cats were by no means quick at all. They were well drilled and guys played their role. They also had guys in the right positions.
From a game style, defence wise they were very man on. They didn’t really have guys constantly coming up to the carrier front on to create an overlap. They relied on pressure from the chaser, usually the carriers direct opponent. This meant no loose guys fwd.
When they had the ball, it was all about skilled players and quick ball movement. They would take a mark, wheel and hit a 45. Give hands to a runner, hit a short, mark, wheel, repeat. They usually never blazed long. What this means is that they kept the ground big by actually keeping the forwards forward. By doing this, they always had a player leading at the kicker, not trying to invent a long kick over the top to a guy running away from the carrier.

We always seemed to push everyone into a 75m full ground press to cover our shonky defence.
We need to keep the ground big offensively, recruit skilled players by foot, lead at the ball carrier and constantly move the ball on the 45 quickly.
Defensively, man on man with high pressure, not zoning. Get oppo players into s**t spots, push them wide and be pricks to play against.
Also play guys in their right spots, don’t invent spots for players to keep them in the side.

 

[NthBondiDoggies]

The game styles of Richmond and Geelong show how a good system can work but they also reflect a long term recruiting plan to get certain types of players that will meet that system. High speed-skills under pressure for Richmond one-on-one competitors for Geelong.

In 2016 we were closer to a Richmond style with players who loved the pressure and outstanding handball skills. We have tried to keep this style for a while but lost a big group of the players who were outstanding at this - Wood, Picken, Clay, Morris, Moyd, Dalhaus, Dickson, Bob, Stringer and Hunter - these palyers all have elite levels of agility - “win in the phonebooth” was run by these guys. As we lost all of these in a short period we haven’t been able to either replace them with similar or adjust our style to something else. An example of this is Daniel - who was AA in that system but really struggles with other strategies.

I am sure our club has tried to work out how to use Naughty, JUH and Lobb effectively but I am not sure I can recall one game where the three worked together. Individually some good games but Naughton and Bruce had 100+ years but these three barely meet this.

And it doesn’t appear we trust them - if you don’t trust them they can’t succeed as a KPF.

For example - if we trust Naughty to win 1:1s like Carey you clear the area. Other KFd lead away and own other parts of the ground. If we trust Lobb as a beautiful long kick - don’t ply him close to goal make him roam as a high forward and let him own a sone. JUH is our best lead up player - play him close to goal and hit him on long leads Buddy style - don’t put in on his head 1:1.

While I have tried to use logic to adjust to strengths - this is not a system - and is not connected. With Darcy and Croft this becomes even more disconnected unless we turn this into a strength. Can only be strength if there is a system to it.

Ie each tall player has a small buddy that knows their impact better than anyone - this could be trained - ie JUH nearly always gets his hands to the ball but it probably falls one way eg close to his feet so maybe shepherd the defender of the ball and create space. Naughty hits the ball much harder and would need a player further out in front who would attack the ball going the other way. Lobb drops the ball behind him or goes over his head - so better player on the air to come behind him.

A system would have players also self leasing taking roles like Naughty in the midfield for Bont off rotations. It would have tall forwards playing 1:2 in contests where players create space for others in specific zones. In business the best companies often try something that every else disagrees with but turns out to be right - high risk that coaches under pressure often won’t take but if you commit 100% is often not the risk people believe. This makes us unpredictable.

Our Mids still win most centre battles but rarely flow from that win to hit a tall player - we don’t kick to dangerous areas and still probably have one of the worst stats for defensive intercepts against - this mean opposition are forcing us to push a kick that is too far away - I expect this ti mostly by pushing us to the flanks as all defences want. Previously an extra handball allow us to straighten up but also allowed our players to take a second lead.

Again - mini teams like lines in Ice Hockey could work here - each has a job to bring something different and work within their teams to come up with their own unique plays

Line 1: C: Macrae, RR: Bont; R: Libba - stat line best at clearance contest
Line 2: C: Trelor; RR: Smith: R: Garcia - best at bringing speed -

- Both train mostly with English

Line 3: C: Williams; RR: Naughty; R: West - our defensive burst players to counter burst Mids and would be completely unpredictable

- Train mostly with Lobb and Darcy

Our defence have Dale, Red, JJ and Williams/Daniel - together this should allow us to really attack from defence like Sydney but it doesn’t. They get stuck a HB not knowing where to go.

We need more 45 degree run - we know that is usually where gut running wings come in and this has not been our strength - so not sure how to deal with this. Maybe our talls have to come way further up to wing. This would mean a lot of work on their tank as opposed to building their bulk for 1:1s.

 

[Planet Dogs]

I would like to see Williams in the forward line. We need a bigger-bodied player up forward.

 

[BWFC]

Watching yesterdays game one thing that stood out for me was just how many players Collingwood have that can kick goals from outside 50. I think about who on our team is capable of this and I'm sort of left scratching my head. Bont and Treloar on the rare occasion I guess, but I feel like we move too many players with attacking capability that we move to the back half. Would we fare better in this regard if we had Richards and Dale on the win?
If we were more dangerous from 50 to 60 mtrs out the defense would need to push up and and this could create more opportunities for Naughton and Ugle Hagan. It feels like we're just too one dimensional.

 

[Struggle]

Watching yesterdays game one thing that stood out for me was just how many players Collingwood have that can kick goals from outside 50. I think about who on our team is capable of this and I'm sort of left scratching my head. Bont and Treloar on the rare occasion I guess, but I feel like we move too many players with attacking capability that we move to the back half. Would we fare better in this regard if we had Richards and Dale on the win?
If we were more dangerous from 50 to 60 mtrs out the defense would need to push up and and this could create more opportunities for Naughton and Ugle Hagan. It feels like we're just too one dimensional.

Lobb is just about the only other. JJ if his hamstring doesn't pop

JUH could in his first year but now can't make the distance from 40