Our Team Structure - Constructive opinion

[cfx_1]

Let me start this post by commending the coaching staff and players. I think they have done a fantastic job this year. Going into the split round 8-3-1 is a great effort and very impressive considering we were highly competitive in most of the games we have dropped.

Having said that I'd like to share my thoughts on our team structure, and here feedback from any and all bf users.

Bottom Line - when it works its fantastic, when it doesn't we fall short.

Basically we set up a forward press having most of our players set up in lines down to just past the centre line, the goal being to shut down the space that players can lead into and thus create turnovers.

When it works we are able to have alot more shots at goals by forcing errors and winning clearances.

The problems that I have seen with this are outlined below:

- When we turn the ball over outside the 50, unless we move the ball on straight away, we are outnumbered in the forward line, making a mark inside 50 incredibly hard.

- We leave ourselves vulnerable in the backline if they get through. Whilst our forward line is congested, the opposition's is completely open and there are 1 on 1's (at best) that they can exploit... Usually they employ back leading to space.

- It negates one of our strengths. Our foot skills are one of our key strengths and hitting up leading targets has gone out the window, with the preferred option hitting a high ball and getting the plethora of crumbers (davis, didak, medhurst, dick, sidebottom etc) to mop up.

- Teams are working it out. Its not rocket science. 2 methods have worked so far in negating the press. Geelong with their slick skills penetrate the lines with short passes. Melbourne yesterday pushed their players to one side of the ground and used the numbers to work the ball forward.

- We are playing too tall at times... We are congesting our own forward line by playing 3 talls, usually 1 resting ruckmen and whilst this has its advantages, sometimes its having a negative effect.

Suggestions:

- We need a Plan B. Whether its to switch to man on man or to have a more formal structure, we need to be able to identify when its not working and apply a new structure. (easier said than done obviously.)

- Move the zone back. This is an idea i've been floating - moving the forward press back so that we allow run out of the 50 relatively easy and bottleneck from centre line to about the 30m mark in the defensive 50. This gives our half back line, which is comparibly the best in the league, a chance to use their run and carry more and more importantly, it gives us an open forward line to hit leading targets.

Obviously it worked yesterday but we couldn't capatalise on our opportunities enough when it counted.

What's everyone's thoughts on this issue?

 

[Unknown Identity]

Guess we aren't coaches but as an observer these would be my suggestions..

Harry O'Brien and Now Ben Reid are capable of rebounding the ball out of our defensive 50, its time to move Heath Shaw up the ground so he has more influence on the game.

Have him on a wing, he can play a defensive wingmans role if need be..
But Heath is not valuable to us sitting deep in a back pocket, opposition clubs have worked out how to stop him.

With Brad Dick in our forward line, Leon Davis can play the other wing OR put him back into the midfield rotations..

These are two or our most influencial players when they are firing..


Get Jack Anthony back in the team as a stay at home and lead up forward ( he kicked 50 goals in his first full season, obviously down on confidence, select him and let him play himself into form) , and leave Trav Cloke up the ground at CHF, i would rather Trav have 20 possessions, 0-1 goals and 10 inside 50's, than 10 possessions, 2 goals 4 behinds. Has the ability to kick it 50+ metres, seems more dangerous taking set shots from 45-55 out than 25-40 out.. and is extremely mobile for a big man, easily loses opponents up the ground, when he is playing deep inside 50, we seem to lose that link up across half forward.

Stick a fork in Josh Fraser, he is done..
Unfortunately for the big man, its time for a stint in the reserves.
It is a real shame to watch him struggle in the ruck against Brad Miller.

Select Tyson Goldsack..
The kid can play, he is fearless and we will lose him if he doesn't get game time, with Maxwell out, perfect oppurtunity to show the selectors what he is capable of. Would also allow Shaw to move into the midfield.

Don't play Darren Jolly in the goal square, if he needs a rest, go to the bench, he is expending energy for little return.

Start using the corridor a little more, not every time.. but we are becoming extremely predictable playing along the boundary, teams are zoning off the space in the corridor between 30 - 60m out so we can't centre the ball and have to kick to the pockets, as the angle we are attacking from only allows us to use about 20% of the 50m arc.

If we can start to bring the ball throught the centre occasionally, it opens up 100% of the 50m arc to hit up a target.

and finally for the upcoming game.

Team line up versus Sydney..

B - Goldsack - Presti - Toovey
HB - O'Brien - Reid - Johnson
C - Thomas - Ball - Shaw
HF - Davis - Cloke - Didak
F - Medhurst - Anthony - Dick
R - Jolly - Swan - Pendlebury

B - Lockyer - Beams - L.Brown - Sidebottom

INS - Goldsack, Johnson, Anthony, Ball, Didak
OUT - Fraser, Macaffer, Wellingham, Barham, Maxwell (inj)

Just my thoughts on this, i could be way off the mark..

 

[cfx_1]

B - Goldsack - Presti - Toovey
HB - O'Brien - Reid - Johnson
C - Thomas - Ball - Shaw
HF - Davis - Cloke - Didak
F - Medhurst - Anthony - Dick
R - Jolly - Swan - Pendlebury

B - Lockyer - Beams - L.Brown - Sidebottom

INS - Goldsack, Johnson, Anthony, Ball, Didak
OUT - Fraser, Macaffer, Wellingham, Barham, Maxwell (inj)

I like this line up - Play brown as CHB when Jolly is in the Ruck, Reid plays Maxwell's loose 3rd man up role. Then swing him ruck and forward if needed.

I still think we need to persevere with Dawes.. He is the future of the club and once he can take some nice overhead marks will be fantastic - plus he scored 5 in the VFL so i think he might get a recall. Anthony i think might be a better player in the backline though this has been up for debate for quite a while. Think Tarrant??

Wellingham has alot more to offer and I'd suggest him over Lockyer but Lockyer was very serviceable this week and saved the game for us and you cant ask for more than that.

 

[Unknown Identity]

I like this line up - Play brown as CHB when Jolly is in the Ruck, Reid plays Maxwell's loose 3rd man up role. Then swing him ruck and forward if needed.

I still think we need to persevere with Dawes.. He is the future of the club and once he can take some nice overhead marks will be fantastic - plus he scored 5 in the VFL so i think he might get a recall. Anthony i think might be a better player in the backline though this has been up for debate for quite a while. Think Tarrant??

Wellingham has alot more to offer and I'd suggest him over Lockyer but Lockyer was very serviceable this week and saved the game for us and you cant ask for more than that.

Trouble is, our back 6 is pretty settled, so they would have to experiment with him as a back in the VFL first, he was originally drafted as a defender so the transition shouldn't be too bad for him, worth a shot if he isn't going to get a game as a forward.

Seems a long time ago since Jack Anthony put through the winning goal against Adelaide in the finals till now.

Dawes has been serviceable when selected, and deserves games.. Don't think he is quite ready yet, think next year will be his year..

Much like Ben Reid, the time in the VFL will definitely pay dividends..

Wellingham looks out of sorts, there's only so many players you can pick on the form of 6-7 weeks ago, and unfortunately it comes to a point where if you have an in form player pushing for selection, its the Wellinghams and Macaffer's of the team that have to make way..

They are young and they will have their time, but Lockyer has been cast aside this year much to our detriment i believe, i think we are a better team when he is playing, he is very valuable as a link up player and his footy skills are quite good..

Seems we are on the same page, as much as i like Mick Malthouse, i am looking forward to the Buckley era, long direct corridor football will be his gameplan i believe. I think the next 5 years will be very exciting for the club..

 

[sunnyTEE]

I have decided our structure and game plan is hardly conductive to any ruckman excelling. Lack of corridor removes the role they play as a link man. I also think that post season analysis needs to focus on our ruck coach, and the lack of development we have shown in this are for a decade.

NOTE: this is in reference to Jolly, Fraser is a spud no matter what circumstance.

 

[PIES 4 LIFE]

Quotev Unknown Identity
Seems we are on the same page, as much as i like Mick Malthouse, i am looking forward to the Buckley era, long direct corridor football will be his gameplan i believe. I think the next 5 years will be very exciting for the club..

I think we are getting a bit delusional. Just because Buckley comes in, doesn't mean we will become good at using the corridor. IMO I actually think it will take at least two years to teach these players exactly how to use the corridor.

We may have looked good at it, the few times we have actually used it, but it will be a big transition for these guys that have basically only used it sparingly for their entire carreers.

Expect some pain, before we realise the gain.

 

[cfx_1]

I think Jolly has been serviceable.. I also think Fraser has never really found his footing on where he can play his best footy.. For a mobile ruckmen he seems to have dropped alot of pace and his tank has died... He's almost past it really, and Cam Wood is not there yet. But you make a valid point, our game plan doesn't suit using a ruckmen as a link man..

Another reason why we shouldn't be playing 2 of them. With our current structure we should look for more runners than talls. I just can't understand sometimes the point of so many talls to "stretch the defence" if we can't take a contested mark inside 50. Plus theres no space to lead into so they all call for the big bomb instead of leaving the FF one out...

 

[Invigoration]

I also think Fraser has never really found his footing on where he can play his best footy

Manangatang 3rds?

 

[mattys123]

Wow, no mention of Chris Dawes?

Really?

It is no coincidence that our forward line looked at it's absolute best against Carlton and Freo when Cloke and Dawes were working together.

DAWES HAS TO PLAY, SIMPLE.

Jack Anthony can replace Medhurst as the 3rd forward target long term, but he is not a key forward, he kicked 50 goals because he played just about every game, yet he never looked like tearing a game apart.

Dawes and Cloke rotating as the main target inside 50 and the main target at CHF is the way to go, and is a remedy to our forward line problems.

Oh yeah, and Alan Didak giving them the ball might help too.

 

[Thommo 42]

Reasonable post unknown identity, but not sure I agree with dropping Wellingham

 

[cfx_1]

Manangatang 3rds?

HAHAHA you might be onto something... lol

 

[DaVe86]

We are not far off our best structure...we just have a few guys out of form.


The main concern for me is how many talls to play in the side.

My preference is:

- 2 tall defenders (Reid, Presti)
- 2 rucks (Jolly, ???)
- 2 forwards (Cloke, ???)

The question marks pose the problems.

Realistically, we want 1 of Wood or Fraser to cement their spots. However they are not. With such good depth, no player should get a free ride in the side, even if there is little competition for that position.

Leigh Brown is fighting with Dawes and Anthonyfor the forward-line role.


What we have seen is that playing too many talls is counter-productive. We rely on forward line pressure, so when we get 3 talls up there, we run out of legs in the 2nd half. The talls put good pressure for a quarter or so, then drop off.

Getting more smalls up there puts more pressure right through the game.


With neither Wood nor Fraser demanding a spot, Leigh Brown should become our backup ruck for the time-being. Dawes should be in the side as well. He had a good game at VFL, and was doing OK in the senior team.



Melbourne have had no problems using Jamar alone in the ruck. He alone beat both Fraser and Jolly on teh weekend. I'd also have no problem using only Jolly, and switching Leigh Brown for Didak against Sydney.

The Swans have Mumford in good form, but are relying on Myke Pyke as their backup, and he doesn't know much about the game yet.

Just use Dawes, Reid and Trav to chop out in the ruck. Having the extra small ensures more midfield rotations, and more forward line pressure. Keep Trav closer to goal when Dawes is rucking. Trav is a fine contested mark, so isolate him up forward, and get Davis and Didak at his feet. Trav is doing fine work up on a wing, but we need him forward as well.

But it is unlikely MM will go in with 1 ruckman. So perhaps Leigh Brown should be used as the backup for now.


From the QB side, I'd like to see the following changes to our best 22.

In: Ball, Didak, Johnson, Dawes
Out: Barham, Macaffer, Fraser, Brown.

 

[Quicky]

Great thread

Firstly I don't think our current form is entirely due to the structure of the team. If you look across our first 22 and depth we simply have a lot of players in poor form or who have fitness issues which really hasn't helped us.

But in saying that I think we have a few structural and tactical issues. I think our new zoning tactic has been a fantastic success for the most part this year. My biggest concern is whether it is too demanding to keep up over the course of a game, and as an extension, the year. It requires the team to work and tackle hard when he are setting up defensively, and to spread and run hard forward when we win the ball and set up offensively. I'm not sure if this is cause and effect relationship with our late game fadeouts but it seems logical and likely to me.

If this is the case we need to do a few things to address the issue. Firstly we need to ensure our disposal skills are spot on because turnovers means that the team has to re-set the zone which takes a lot of energy to do. It's also important our ball movement is quick so we do not allow the opposition to set up defensively. Second, we probably need to improve our fitness levels even more. Thirdly, if we can't improve our fitness levels up to scratch we perhaps need to have another less energy demanding tactic that we can implement during periods of games, perhaps a more man-on-man game plan.

Structurally I think we are fine except that I think in recent weeks we have been playing too tall, which doesn't compliment the zone. Playing a three tall forward line hasn't worked and just makes applying defensive pressure so much harder. We need to bring in Dawes (or Anthony if his form and fitness improves) to partner Cloke. It allows us to play an extra small which helps with pressure and doesn't clutter the forward line up as much. Cloke is our best marking forward and we look much better with him playing deep which Dawes allows as he can play CHF. I'd even go a step further - and taking into consideration Fraser and Woods poor form - ruck Jolly solo. He can either get back up from Dawes or we can play Brown as a utility. I prefer the former.

I'd also like to see us not playing players out of position. Pendles and O'Bree on a HFF and Jolly at FF spring to mind. We also need to find a genuine tagging option.

At our best I think we look like this:

FB: -------O'Brien------Presti------Toovey-----
HB: -------Shaw-------Reid--------Maxwell-----

C: --------Thomas---Wellingham----Swan------
Fol: --------Jolly--------Ball--------Pendles-----

HF: -------Didak-------Dawes------Rusty-----
FF: --------Dick--------Cloke-----Medhurst----

Int: Davis, Beams, Johnson, Macaffer

 

[Quicky]

Haha beat me by 3 minutes DaVe Totally agree with your post RE: too many talls and was one of the points I was getting with my post.

 

[iGNITER]

At our best I think we look like this:

FB: -------O'Brien------Presti------Toovey-----
HB: -------Shaw-------Reid--------Maxwell-----

C: --------Thomas---Wellingham----Swan------
Fol: --------Jolly--------Ball--------Pendles-----

HF: -------Didak-------Dawes------Rusty-----
FF: --------Dick--------Cloke-----Medhurst----

Int: Davis, Beams, Johnson, Macaffer

I like the look of this 22 Quicky.

Although the only change I would make would be taking Macaffer out and bringing in either a second ruckman - Wood, Fraser, Brown etc or Goldsack/Lockyer this depends on who our opponent is.

 

[cfx_1]

But in saying that I think we have a few structural and tactical issues. I think our new zoning tactic has been a fantastic success for the most part this year. My biggest concern is whether it is too demanding to keep up over the course of a game, and as an extension, the year. It requires the team to work and tackle hard when he are setting up defensively, and to spread and run hard forward when we win the ball and set up offensively. I'm not sure if this is cause and effect relationship with our late game fadeouts but it seems logical and likely to me.

Agree with this.. It also seems logical that our first and third quarters on monday produced the most chances on goal as we applied more pressure to the opposition

That last spot is definately up for grabs. Macaffer, Lockyer, O'bree, Barham, Brown, Wood, Fraser, etc should be swapped in and out based on match-ups.

 

[cfx_1]

We are not far off our best structure...we just have a few guys out of form.


The main concern for me is how many talls to play in the side.

My preference is:

- 2 tall defenders (Reid, Presti)
- 2 rucks (Jolly, ???)
- 2 forwards (Cloke, ???)

The question marks pose the problems.

The Dawes V Anthony debate will go on until 1 stands up in a big game. Reid has really impressed me. Seems to stand up under pressure, rarely beaten 1 on 1. Add some strength to throw the likes of Brown and Franklyn off in a contested situation and he makes an exciting prospect.

The flaw in this plan is Maxwell being the loose tall back. (when not injured obviously) and I say as long we play a 7 man defence we should only play 1 ruckman.

Keeps the team balanced. It would be a real treat if say we could do this down the track:

Jolly > Bench
Dawes > Ruck
Reid >CHF
Cloke > FF
Maxwell > CHB

If we can do that without loosing too much ground that would be a big win.

If we persist with playing 2 rucks and a 7 man backline maybe we should train wood and fraser to play defenive roles as the loose back men and push Maxwell onto the flank

 

[swiftdog]

The gameplan isn't the problem, it's the players failure to execute it properly that costs us games (bar Geelong, our gameplan doesn't work against them). I understand the way we move the ball out of defence and down the wings. Just switching it up and going down the corridor isn't going to solve anything. It's harder to move quickly down the corridor and obviously more dangerous when the ball's turned over in there. Hence, I don't have a problem moving down the wings.

The forward line and the lack of decent options we have down there at the moment. There is actually plenty of space in our forward line once we get hold of the ball. We usually set up the zone + have one man in the forward 50(usually a Jolly or Brown type) and two-three players floating around half-forward, Cloke's almost always one of them (as well as a Davis, Dick, Medders etc). Once the ball's turned over the aim is simply to move the ball into this space asap.

Our number 1 option when moving forward is ALWAYS to spot up a leading target, followed by back up options in: a) kick to a pack in the hotspot and crumb or b) kick it around half-forward looking to hit up a leading target. So in essence we need players that are able to use the space in our forward line. Want to know why Dick kicked 4 on the weekend? His ability to work in this space was phenomonal + some superb crumbing, exactly what we want from our forwards. Dick was able to create space and was justly rewarded. Didak does this superbly, and the likes of Beams and Sidey are also able to use the space when in there at times this year. Davis, Medhurst, Anthony and Dawes have literally been a waste of space when playing this year.

As our first option is to hit up a leading target we don't need to bring in a tall just for the sake of it. You don't need to be 190+ cm to lead and mark so the likes of Dawes shouldn't be gifted games because we need a tall. I'm happy to keep Brown in over Dawes until Dawes can take an overhead mark, until then he offers nothing more than Brown in terms of the gameplan. The other three mentioned above have used space well over the last couple of years but simply haven't been up to it this year. Davis has just been going for the crumbs and Medders and Anthony have simply been shite when playing, not leading well enough and not getting any ball at ground level.

Facts are if we give our opponents enough time to move into our forward space they will, our backline's too solid for team's to let us have a 5 vs 3 (for example) contest in our back's favour. As such, we'll have said space in our forward line as we are getting the pill. Some players as mentioned above (probably missed some) have been clogging up our space and it's affecting our performance. We move the ball slowly because there's a lack of movement from our forwards, and we can't kick it to Cloke every time. Doesn't matter if we use the wings or corridor, if there's no movement from the forwards then we'll move the ball slowly.

 

[Old Spice]

Trying to kick goals from defensive thrusts makes it difficult for us, even moreso when we go wide.

But that is a fact of life and to counter that, and the inevitable flood into our forward line, we need some decent long-range kicks loitering around the 50 metre arc to keep their opponents out of the fwd 50.

As the ball is coming up toward the fwd 50 (preferably down the middle), having a tier of forwards leading from 30 metres out can create the space for oothers leading out from the goalsquare. If oppo defenders stay in the 40 metre space, we can hopefully get Didak, Cloke taking grabs and kicking goals. If they follow us, we have space for others like Medhurst to lead into.

 

[cfx_1]

I don't have a problem at all with the way we move the ball from the back line. Its been relatively effective. As you mentioned there is just no space for leading as they all clutter up the forward line, taking up the space for said lead.

This is sometimes a flaw in the structure... So many in the forward line after a turnover and no one doing what your told in under 12's, to move out of that space for the forwards.

And sometimes it works... Sometimes it doesn't

Hence, Plan B

 

[Thommo 42]

Just FYI,


There hasn't been a premiership team without 2 ruckmen since, well I can't remember since - because it hasn't happened for over a decade.

 

[TheGreatGrundy]

Brown is not a natural forward, and 6 possessions plus 0 goals is an indication of this fact. Dawes has much more to offer, give or take an overhead mark or two. More than anything, we need people who can kick goals, and Dawes is becoming such a player.

Anthony cannot beat good full backs. I cannot understand why Mick doesn't try him down back while N Brown is out, though his lack of body strength this year might tell against him as a key defender.

We need to limit the number of players in the side with ordinary disposal skills, and delivery into the forward line should go through our skilled players.

Cloke needs to be played deep near goal, perhaps alternating with Dawes, but predominantly hanging around full forward. I agree that 2 tall forwards are sufficient, unless Anthony hits form.

Hopefully, we will see rapid improvement from Thomas and Sinclair in the VFL, because they would add important mid-field options.

H Shaw is a bit erratic in his disposal and form, and can turn over the ball with disastrous results at times. His inability to break a tag limits his effectiveness against the smarter teams. Quite frankly, I don't know where else to play him, but he cannot be left to flounder game after game. There has to be a plan B.

Barham is not the type of player we should be playing. Nor is O'Bree or L Brown. Wellingham should not get a game when out of form, likewise Davis. Macaffer looks slow and does not get enough possessions in his role. Actually, our depth does not look as healthy now as it did early in the season.

 

[swiftdog]

Dawes has much more to offer, give or take an overhead mark or two.

Such as?

 

[HFF]

Wow, no mention of Chris Dawes?

Really?

It is no coincidence that our forward line looked at it's absolute best against Carlton and Freo when Cloke and Dawes were working together.

DAWES HAS TO PLAY, SIMPLE.

Jack Anthony can replace Medhurst as the 3rd forward target long term, but he is not a key forward, he kicked 50 goals because he played just about every game, yet he never looked like tearing a game apart.

Dawes and Cloke rotating as the main target inside 50 and the main target at CHF is the way to go, and is a remedy to our forward line problems.

Oh yeah, and Alan Didak giving them the ball might help too.

Firstly, to the OP, I agree with everything said. Our ability to hit targets via foot inside 50 has diminished somewhat because of our change in game plan. This is a major strength of ours and we need to get it back and working.

To Matty, is it no coincidence that a 50-goal FF not playing in our team in his preferred position at FF has something to do with our lack of a second tall forward deep inside 50?

Also, what has "he played every game" got to do with Jack kicking 50 goals? Many players play every game and fail to get even close. Just look at Cloke. His best return is 40s. Jack kicked 50 because he is a goal kicking machine and because he was good enough to do so. He is much more than a "3rd tall".

Our forward-line constantly rotating without staying settled has been worrying us all season. Jack needs to come into the team and stay at FF. Have a look at players similar to Jack (with less runs on the board) at other clubs getting games and being persisted with. Walker, Tippett, Henderson (until of late), Gumbleton, Grant etc. Jack is just as good if not better than these names, yet we cannot find a spot at FF for him when we are crying out for one? It's a joke!

We need to play Jack and leave him in the team to play into form. Even at his worst he will contribute on the scoreboard. His game is not too dissimlar to Fev's. Play him and keep him inside 50 (deep) at all times!

 

[HFF]

.

Anthony cannot beat good full backs.

Do you honestly believe the crap you post?

Sure, you love Dawes. You are bias, we get it.

Just please stop trying to get us to believe the garbage you are trying to sell.

50 goals from FF with the best key defender playing on him all season. Such output Dawes has not even gotten close to replicating.

If you even watched the games that Jack has played in ala when all three key forward played vs Freo, it was Jack that had Tarrant playing on him for the majority of the night, whilst Cloke had McPhee and Dawes McPharlin until he was injured.

One would say, Tarrant is Freo's premier defender and one of the best in the comp and the coach decided to play him on Jack- surprise, surprise the most dangerous key forward we have because of his ability to hurt you with limited touches.