Analysis "The game plan"

[Charlie Bucket]

This is a great summary and yet you've only largely covered the diversity in offensive strategies. The innovation in defence since Neil Craig's back half zone has been explosive

Simpson’s web style defensive zone took WC all the way to the GF in 2015.
They were tactically out coached on the day by Clarko who instructed his players to transition wide along the boundary with short passes to avoid going long in to WC’s zone.

Malthouse is another old school coach in the Matthews mold.
He changed the way the game was played in 2010 with the forward press. Teams had nightmare times trying to rebound from their def 50’s against the pies. He also had his players transition wide so as to not turn it over through the middle of the ground. This made it easier for them to defend if the oppo took possession from a pies turn over.
He was eventually out done by a new era of tactics and couldn’t adapt while at Carlton.

 

[PhatBoy]

I think there’s some merit in the original post, there’s only a certain amount of different ways to achieve the same result and many of them are just minor tweaks of the same basic idea. And a lot of them don’t exactly require a huge amount of planning and preparation - the most iconic game plan of the last 30 years was based around the hardly-requiring-of-rocket-scientists idea that North had a monster genius forward and another very very good one and it was best to just leave them in the forward 50 together and get it in ASAP.

I think coaching and game plans are more about contingency and making sure that players are aware of what to do when it’s not unfolding as hoped.

Ie. every single coach and player would be play-on first if you can, move the ball quickly and precisely and look for the best target. It’s f***ing basic.

But where the instructions come into play is when those things aren’t an option.

 

[NoobPie]

I think there’s some merit in the original post, there’s only a certain amount of different ways to achieve the same result and many of them are just minor tweaks of the same basic idea. And a lot of them don’t exactly require a huge amount of planning and preparation - the most iconic game plan of the last 30 years was based around the hardly-requiring-of-rocket-scientists idea that North had a monster genius forward and another very very good one and it was best to just leave them in the forward 50 together and get it in ASAP.

I think coaching and game plans are more about contingency and making sure that players are aware of what to do when it’s not unfolding as hoped.

Ie. every single coach and player would be play-on first if you can, move the ball quickly and precisely and look for the best target. It’s f***ing basic.

But where the instructions come into play is when those things aren’t an option.

I think the fact you are referencing a 90s game plan speaks volumes

 

[NaturalDisaster]

The biggest myth in footy imo is “plan A” “Plan B”

It seems every time a team loses their coach apparently had “no plan B” when really their team just wasn’t good enough.

“No Plan B” in supporters minds often means “didn’t make the changes I think he should have”. Or “he made changes but it didn’t win us the game so it doesn’t count”

 

[wce4premiership]

Yes game plans exist and it's implemented by leaders.

Some players get drawn into the action in the heat of the moment though. For example you may have a team rule that only two fight for it on the ground while any extra numbers either man an outside receiver or spread to space in anticipation if a more attacking player/it looks like the ground ball is going to be won.

You have set blockers and receivers at stoppages and desired tap directions, obviously though when this goes to s**t everything is done on the fly. Some teams will switch, others wait for a ruckman to post up down the boundary for the fist over the line and then try win the stoppage, playing a game of territory. Some will soccer and tap off the ground at all costs (often too much) while others get hands on, work a triangle out and maintain possession.

Of course everything is liable to change given the pressure you're under and your position on the field but there's always an idea behind it and leaders barking instructions at stoppages, people taking head counts.

It's a beautiful mix of desired outcomes mixed with on the fly adjustments and instinct.

 

[Occidental]

What are these signs they hold up now, with all these funny squiggles and codes on them?
Are they instructions to do something?Surely they’re not tactics of some sort?

 

[bzparkes]

Anyone who claims that there are no game plans in modern AFL footy should be made to watch the Collingwood Richmond game of last week. It was crystal clear that the Pies had a plan about how they wanted to move the ball forward against the Tigers.

What you meant to say was Buckley made the players watch WCE defeat Richmond circa 2018 because that's exactly how we flogged them last season.

 

[M Malice]

Collingwood 02/03 is surely a decent counter to that argument - they weren’t very talented teams compared to others in the finals, but they were well coached. Hell, you could make the same argument about the Lethal coached Pies side in 1990.

Didn't the Pies go into the 2003 GF as the favorites after beating us in the qualifying final?

 

[NoobPie]

What are these signs they hold up now, with all these funny squiggles and codes on them?
Are they instructions to do something?Surely they’re not tactics of some sort?

It's clearly all just a ruse. A bluff.

Give the impression of having strategy and tactical basis to what you are doing to intimidate the other team.

With football departments now having more non playing staff than playing roster, there is a big opportunity for someone to actually organise a regime that establishes systems and strategies and develops their players tactically. I think in all the divisional meetings the players have now they just watch family guy or play fortnight. It would be smarter to use that time more proactively

 

[Art Corvelay]

Didn't the Pies go into the 2003 GF as the favorites after beating us in the qualifying final?

How does that change what I said?

 

[M Malice]

How does that change what I said?

No worries, I'll leave you to it.

 

[Art Corvelay]

No worries, I'll leave you to it.

It was a serious question.

 

[M Malice]

It was a serious question.

Fair enough, I don't feel like getting into an argument in which I defend a Collingwood side against a Collingwood supporter. IMO that side was a better one than some give it credit for, top 4 both years and made both GFs, better than 14 other sides managed over those 2 seasons.

 

[Art Corvelay]

Fair enough, I don't feel like getting into an argument in which I defend a Collingwood side against a Collingwood supporter. IMO that side was a better one than some give it credit for, top 4 both years and made both GFs, better than 14 other sides managed over those 2 seasons.

Those teams are a little underrated, agreed, but they aren’t as talented as some of the other sides in those years. Well coached though, which is the only reason I mentioned them.

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

Do teams have gameplans they try and implement during games? Absolutely.

Are these gameplans highly structured, fully interrogated and full of contingincies? Absolutely not.

AFL tactical and strategic play is still in its infancy. We are far from a "professional" sport, and whilst rules continue to change every year, this lack of development will likely continue for at least another generation.

Unlike most other sports, repeatable structures are almost impossible to setup. Most other sports are either so limited in scoring (Soccer), so routine (Basketball), or so controlled (Gridiron) that specific positional strategies can be established. In AFL, we are limited to much more basic tactics.

AFL is to unpredictable, too random. With possession retention below 65%, turnovers are usually more damaging making the risk of being out of position so great, that teams are not running complete offensive patterns, but instead preparing for the turnover. Until retention gets up over say 75%, teams are attempting to establish defensive positioning/zones during the offensive play - teammates are setting up to stop/slow the turnover instead of trying to create the play - forcing the stoppage to be in a specific location.

Hawthorn have always been one of the more complex tactical teams during Clarkson's reign. A huge strength of the team has been his (and assistants) ability to develop tactics "from left field" - many of which led to a significant onfield advantage for a period of time.

From the "double helix" leading patterns - utilising concepts from gridiron's hook turn to generate space - to umpire exploitative tactics such as tackling one arm only forcing the spillage (now called play on, not HTB), manning the mark on the 45 (forcing opponent to go down the line or kick high over the mark), shepherding the man on the mark on play on, rucking defensively (trying to not lose the tap and control where the opponent can hit it, rather than win it directly), all these are isolated 'tactics' implemented for a small advantage.

Others, such as deliberately kicking to the pocket (giving opponent easier spoil to boundary) allows control of field positioning, knowing rushed kicks from defence are much harder than rushed kicks at goal. Neutral ball contests in the forward line are heavily favoured to the attacking side (50/50 ball, however attacking team win results in pressured shot on goal, defensive team win results in pressured disposal - often to an outnumber position as defensive team roll-back extra numbers).

The problem is in part due to the very small pool of athletes able to be drafted - in most comparable "pro" sports the difference between the draftee and the almost draftee is minimal, there is a much more even pool of talent to be drawn from. In AFL, the talent pool is so small, that many players are drafted on physical abilities alone, creating a tactical weak link for potential for strategic gameplans to be implemented.

 

[Lsta062]

What you meant to say was Buckley made the players watch WCE defeat Richmond circa 2018 because that's exactly how we flogged them last season.

And one could say that West Coast got it from Adelaide. The whole uncontested stuff was done by Adelaide at AO in 2017 and Round 2 2018 against Richmond before West Coast did it in 2018 and Collingwood did it in 2019.

What is ironic about it is that this chipping style and controlling the ball was the way we used to dismantle teams in the 2013-2015 years and now it is the style that dismantles us. In 2015 we beat Hawthorn after marking the ball 110 times to their 64. In the same year, we beat Minor Premiers Fremantle in Perth by marking the ball 94 to their 51 times. I remember it being a thing with us.

Swings and roundabouts ey.

 

[sr36]

And one could say that West Coast got it from Adelaide. The whole uncontested stuff was done by Adelaide at AO in 2017 and Round 2 2018 against Richmond before West Coast did it in 2018 and Collingwood did it in 2019.

What is ironic about it is that this chipping style and controlling the ball was the way we used to dismantle teams in the 2013-2015 years and now it is the style that dismantles us. In 2015 we beat Hawthorn after marking the ball 110 times to their 64. In the same year, we beat Minor Premiers Fremantle in Perth by marking the ball 94 to their 51 times. I remember it being a thing with us.

Swings and roundabouts ey.

Richmond dismantled teams in 2013-2015?

 

[Lsta062]

Richmond dismantled teams in 2013-2015?

Well, I meant the gameplan of controlling the play against some of the top teams like Fremantle and Hawthorn in 2015 rather than thrashing them.

 

[NoobPie]

Do teams have gameplans they try and implement during games? Absolutely.

Are these gameplans highly structured, fully interrogated and full of contingincies? Absolutely not.

AFL tactical and strategic play is still in its infancy. We are far from a "professional" sport, and whilst rules continue to change every year, this lack of development will likely continue for at least another generation.

Unlike most other sports, repeatable structures are almost impossible to setup. Most other sports are either so limited in scoring (Soccer), so routine (Basketball), or so controlled (Gridiron) that specific positional strategies can be established. In AFL, we are limited to much more basic tactics.

AFL is to unpredictable, too random. With possession retention below 65%, turnovers are usually more damaging making the risk of being out of position so great, that teams are not running complete offensive patterns, but instead preparing for the turnover. Until retention gets up over say 75%, teams are attempting to establish defensive positioning/zones during the offensive play - teammates are setting up to stop/slow the turnover instead of trying to create the play - forcing the stoppage to be in a specific location.

Hawthorn have always been one of the more complex tactical teams during Clarkson's reign. A huge strength of the team has been his (and assistants) ability to develop tactics "from left field" - many of which led to a significant onfield advantage for a period of time.

From the "double helix" leading patterns - utilising concepts from gridiron's hook turn to generate space - to umpire exploitative tactics such as tackling one arm only forcing the spillage (now called play on, not HTB), manning the mark on the 45 (forcing opponent to go down the line or kick high over the mark), shepherding the man on the mark on play on, rucking defensively (trying to not lose the tap and control where the opponent can hit it, rather than win it directly), all these are isolated 'tactics' implemented for a small advantage.

Others, such as deliberately kicking to the pocket (giving opponent easier spoil to boundary) allows control of field positioning, knowing rushed kicks from defence are much harder than rushed kicks at goal. Neutral ball contests in the forward line are heavily favoured to the attacking side (50/50 ball, however attacking team win results in pressured shot on goal, defensive team win results in pressured disposal - often to an outnumber position as defensive team roll-back extra numbers).

The problem is in part due to the very small pool of athletes able to be drafted - in most comparable "pro" sports the difference between the draftee and the almost draftee is minimal, there is a much more even pool of talent to be drawn from. In AFL, the talent pool is so small, that many players are drafted on physical abilities alone, creating a tactical weak link for potential for strategic gameplans to be implemented.

So simpler games where "repeatable structures are easier to set up" are more professional. Ok.

 

[Blue1980]

Lol what ? If a player doesn’t understand the game plan he plays VFL. And if he doesn’t understand what’s going on at that level then he’s back playing metro footy.
Besides watching and posting on here you’ve never been involved in football at any level have you, 1981 ?

There are plans, my point was more people often think sides change game plans when it’s simply a momentum shift in a game.

Often a lot of players are good athletes who can run but need to be given limited insurrections to play their best.

We don’t have a great enough talent pool to have 600 odd athletes who also have high football IQ’s.

 

[Blue1980]

It depends on how we're defining game plan. Often changes are simply the result of a few intercepts, a few contests won, a couple of lucky bounces. But teams do set up differently behind and ahead of the ball and they do have different strategies for attacking a teams defensive set up and set ups are adjusted mid game sometimes for a positive momentum changing effect.

Anyone who claims that there are no game plans in modern AFL footy should be made to watch the Collingwood Richmond game of last week. It was crystal clear that the Pies had a plan about how they wanted to move the ball forward against the Tigers.

I did say often a myth as pies v tigers is a very good example.

But people often attribute everything to the almighty game plan. Quite often it’s key personal playing badly, injured or unavailable which leads it to look like a side loves slow static ball movement and refusal to take the first option.

Confidence is then lost and players get scared to take the game on, that isn’t game plan but often people think it is.

 

[Blue1980]

I couldn't disagree with this post more.

If you read through this analysis from a game played last weekend, you would see frequent references from the interviewed player about making adjustments to the game plan - an analysis which is mirrored in numerous articles following a game.

Furthermore, if "players having a role" isn't knowing what they are contributing to the team at any one time and "how it fits the bigger picture" isn't the ground-wide institution of all 18 players' roles, I don't know what you think a game plan is - and if you can't define what it IS, how can you confidently say that there isn't one?

Because, my definition of a game plan is exactly that - all players knowing what to do, where to do it and the coaches collectively having an understanding of how those players doing those things affect the overall tactical picture, from FB to FF.

Fair points, seems people have misinterpreted what I meant. I said often things are attributed to game plans when they shouldn’t be.

People will think a coach is a genius and implemented a new game plan from season to season when it is often just the same plans which were derailed by injury and form the year before.

I don’t think Melbourne are doing anything significantly difference game plan wise to 2018, their just playing worse.

I don’t think Essendon are doing much different either.

Crows aren’t, but they should be.

Geelong have made a fair few positional and game plan changes to 2018 however. Clear as day that they have made a clear decision to be less reliant on their main stars, and identified lack of pressure in their forward 50 as a major issue, which has seen more personnel changes.

 

[estibador]

You could add things like Malthouse's unprecedented use of the interchange during Collingwood's peak. It was unheard of at the time and people were scratching their heads, but his tactics were vindicated and within about half a season, everyone was doing it, to the point that interchanges had to be capped.

I see Malthouse get the credit a lot but people forget it was actually Chris Connolly who pioneered the modern interchange rotation system.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2015/jul/15/understanding-afl-tactics-russell-jackson

Equally fascinating is the marginalisation of another former Dockers coach, Chris Connolly, a true groundbreaker in the area of interchange rotations...

On account of the rotation system Connolly and the plan’s co-author – fitness coach Adam Larcom – were pilloried in the press, by fans and initially even their own colleagues and players, but within two years they’d taken the club from a wooden spoon to its first finals appearance. Those methods were also soon adapted with premiership-winning success by Paul Roos’ Sydney side of 2005 and Malthouse’s 2010 Collingwood team.

That whole article is pretty relevant to this thread actually.

 

[NoobPie]

I see Malthouse get the credit a lot but people forget it was actually Chris Connolly who pioneered the modern interchange rotation system.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2015/jul/15/understanding-afl-tactics-russell-jackson



That whole article is pretty relevant to this thread actually.

James Coventry's book "time and space" is a must read for many of the ignorant posters in this thread

 

[kranky al]

James Coventry's book "time and space" is a must read for many of the ignorant posters in this thread

Best footy read ever.