Analysis "The game plan"

[HoneyBadger35]

If you can watch five Richmond games and five West Coast games and not think that there's mammoth differences in game plans, then I don't think this sport is for you.

 

[Damon_3388]

Leigh Matthews says that the role of the head coach is over rated, it's mostly about the skill/ability of your players. If your players are shite no coach is going to turn them into a premiership outfit. 80% players/20% coach, assistant coaches, development and other off field staff.

Certainly when a team is losing, the head coach seems to cop an inordinate amount of heat compared to the players.

 

[iameviljez]

Leigh Matthews says that the role of the head coach is over rated, it's mostly about the skill/ability of your players. If your players are shite no coach is going to turn them into a premiership outfit. 80% players/20% coach, assistant coaches, development and other off field staff.

He was a great coach, but Lethal coached at the very end of the tactic-lite era. The closest thing to tactical creativity at the time was Pagan's Paddock, Wallace/Eade's flooding tactics, and the scandalous idea of not having six forwards, six mids and six defenders.

Then Roos started it by creating a rolling maul around the footy, to suit his workmanlike Swans.
Geelong countered that with kamikaze handball.
Then Clarko, in response to that, used clusters of players to close down Geelong's handballing space... and since then, really, the game has never been the same.

2004 and 2014 were only ten years apart, but the game - tactically - is almost unrecognisable between the two.

 

[NoobPie]

He was a great coach, but Lethal coached at the very end of the tactic-lite era. The closest thing to tactical creativity at the time was Pagan's Paddock, Wallace/Eade's flooding tactics, and the scandalous idea of not having six forwards, six mids and six defenders.

Then Roos started it by creating a rolling maul around the footy, to suit his workmanlike Swans.
Geelong countered that with kamikaze handball.
Then Clarko, in response to that, used clusters of players to close down Geelong's handballing space... and since then, really, the game has never been the same.

2004 and 2014 were only ten years apart, but the game - tactically - is almost unrecognisable between the two.

That's a good intuitive summary but I reckon you should read "Time and Space" by James Coventry

Leigh Matthews introduced the kick in zone at Collingwood to counter the huddle that Walls introduced

Chris Connolly was the first to start using mass rotations in the early naughties to maximise effort. This was critical to enabling a lot of the innovations that followed.

Neil Craig at Adelaide employed the first full ground, 18 player zones. Clarko shifted this to the midfield with his "cluster" and then Lyon and then Malthouse combined zones with forward presses with effect. In terms of "Clarko's cluster" apparently he and his (now at the AFL) assistant David Rath set out to reduce what they observed as a high percentage of transitions that end up as forward 50 entries.

 

[iameviljez]

That's a good intuitive summary but I reckon you should read "Time and Space" by James Coventry

(...)

In terms of "Clarko's cluster" apparently he and his (now at the AFL) assistant David Rath set out to reduce what they observed as a high percentage of transitions that end up as forward 50 entries.

That sounds like a fantastic read. I find tactical creativity in footy as something pretty fascinating; it's as though we had an anti-elitist attitude to tactics up until the 90s, and then suddenly in this burst from around 2005, these huge evolutions in how the game is played. Given the huge amount of freedom in footy - massive ground, zero limits on movement - it's perhaps only second to gridiron in possibility for tactical inventiveness (because gridiron allows for so many re-sets and team chats).

Compare to a game like soccer, where there is obsession around tactical setup (particularly formation) and roles. It's probably a little easier when you have 10 chess pieces rather than 18.

 

[hoylie]

The only ‘tactics’ I see if a team might go tall or small in offense. This never happens in the middle or down back as far as I can tell. Also the use of taggers to some extent.
The game being a 360 peripheral game with tackling makes it impossible to deploy any discernible formational tactics.
Most games are played the same. Rolling maul-quick release- chain of handballs to free up room- aim for target or bomb to a forming pack. Repeat


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[NoobPie]

That sounds like a fantastic read. I find tactical creativity in footy as something pretty fascinating; it's as though we had an anti-elitist attitude to tactics up until the 90s, and then suddenly in this burst from around 2005, these huge evolutions in how the game is played. Given the huge amount of freedom in footy - massive ground, zero limits on movement - it's perhaps only second to gridiron in possibility for tactical inventiveness (because gridiron allows for so many re-sets and team chats).

Compare to a game like soccer, where there is obsession around tactical setup (particularly formation) and roles. It's probably a little easier when you have 10 chess pieces rather than 18.

My take is, given the degree of complexity associated with organising 18 players, that there was a greater degree of professionalism required (primarily the time available to devise a implement more complex systems) to make the jump, for instance, from the man-on-man default to more complex zoning and hybrid systems.

In addition to numbers, the other factor that increases the tactical / strategic potential of the game is that it is a full contact contested game but without a hard offside rule like the rugby codes and american football. As such it has the dimensions of open play that soccer and field hockey have but it also has the contested game (including stoppages with neutral reset) around which has very different implications for set up and transitions

It is no surprise that coaching departments in the AFL are second only to the NFL in size and organisation

 

[CD Xbow]

Seemingly game plan can mean many things. As one poster said earlier the highest level 'game plan' could 'kick more goals' than the opposition. Teams develop a style, (for want of a better word) and good coaches will develop a style that best suits their cattle, many references here to game plan here really refer to the basic style of play a team adopts. Game plan to me is the modifications of that style for a particular opponent, that includes changes in players, structures and patterns of play. Teams can't change their basic styles quickly, there have been a number examples of teams trying to implement another teams 'style' (or game plan) and falling on their arse. The ability of teams adapt their style (ie the game plan) to better an opponent is where success lies, and it may be why smart footballers are important because they are better able to adapt (their style) to the game plan. As Ross Lyon said 'does that make sense'.

 

[iameviljez]

The only ‘tactics’ I see if a team might go tall or small in offense. This never happens in the middle or down back as far as I can tell. Also the use of taggers to some extent.

Next time you're at the footy, look at how teams set up their players behind the ball when they don't have the footy, and similarly in terms of how they set up their side at ball-ups. You don't get it on TV, it really needs to be an at-the-ground thing.

Also take note of how often sides kick short or long when they aren't under pressure, and how often they chose to kick to a contest. Check out Collingwood's recent win over Richmond as an example of a very deliberate choice to employ a specific style of ball movement.

 

[loki04]

It's pretty dissimilar from the Hawks gameplan.

WC don't employ the same defensive zones, have a larger focus on contested ball, structure their forwardline differently, play to their strengths in contested marking rather than overlap handball, pressure players into kicking or handballing to the wrongs spots to force interception rather than aggressively zero in on the ball carrier.

Both sides generate scores in different ways. The only similar things are that they are/were good kicking teams, that can be patient in attack. But the Hawks were much more direct tending to use a combination of overlap handball and short kicking to catch teams off guard before their defence could settle. In 2019, sides are much quicker at setting up behind the play. WC uses long kicking to shift zones before using a combination of hard running and strong contested marking to exploit the gaps. It's a gameplan that doesn't work with strongly dissimilar personnel.

EDIT: think about it like this, Hawthorn was maybe the best ground level team I have ever seen, with nippy forwards that would clean up after a Buddy, Gunston or Roughead brought the ball to ground or push up to the contest and pick off opposition ball transitioning from the inside to outside.

WC have improved their ground level ability, but where they kill you is via interception or forcing turnover by pushing teams/players into situations they don't want to be in. It's a gameplan designed around their list. Strong overhead marks, brilliant readers of the play and some absolute gut busting runners.

Disagree. There are a lot of similarities. And WC do zone how do you think we get held up on the HBF and such stagnant ball movement?

WC smalls also kill us Cripps 4 goals, Ryan, Rioli, they have tall fwds who are great hit ups. Hawks also had great intercept players and their mids/smallfwds would push hard forwards on rebound. Not too mention using elite kicking and marking as a way to retain possession aka the hawks plan to bust the 2011 pies team.
Massive amount of similarities but obviously also some variances in it.

 

[HurleyHepsHird]

Disagree. There are a lot of similarities. And WC do zone how do you think we get held up on the HBF and such stagnant ball movement?

WC smalls also kill us Cripps 4 goals, Ryan, Rioli, they have tall fwds who are great hit ups. Hawks also had great intercept players and their mids/smallfwds would push hard forwards on rebound. Not too mention using elite kicking and marking as a way to retain possession aka the hawks plan to bust the 2011 pies team.
Massive amount of similarities but obviously also some variances in it.

Of course WC have a defensive zone, but the setup is very different to Hawthorns.

You are looking at tangential similarities and trying to match them up. The gameplans are very different and so are the player strengths. Rioli, Ryan and Cripps haven't been playing together with the same regularity as Hawthorns small group and WC forwardline setups have not been designed around them.

The numbers simply do not support the idea, that they run the same style of ground level gameplan, likewise the midfield stats around clearances and contested ball paint a different picture. Likewise tackles.

 

[Bomberboyokay]

Don't mistake the AFL charging for meaningful statistics and the media's disinterest in strategy and tactics for there being none of either. We have a sport where many fans have no idea what's going on because the information isn't made available and what is is analysed at the most superficial level.

 

[NoobPie]

Don't mistake the AFL charging for meaningful statistics and the media's disinterest in strategy and tactics for there being none of either. We have a sport where many fans have no idea what's going on because the information isn't made available and what is is analysed at the most superficial level.

This is bang on.

We are starved of decent analysis by
1) the AFL/champion data's myopic decision to withhold most of the data from public access and
2) a remarkably superficial quality of analysis, particularly in the commentary teams.....channel 7 is largely horrendous though Bartell is an improvement...Daisy Pearce was easily the most insightful last year as a boundary rider

That said, it is much harder game to analyse than most and even in the more simple games like soccer perhaps a majority of fans do not really engage with the tactical side of the game

 

[Ambrose Burnside]

He was a great coach, but Lethal coached at the very end of the tactic-lite era. The closest thing to tactical creativity at the time was Pagan's Paddock, Wallace/Eade's flooding tactics, and the scandalous idea of not having six forwards, six mids and six defenders.

Then Roos started it by creating a rolling maul around the footy, to suit his workmanlike Swans.
Geelong countered that with kamikaze handball.
Then Clarko, in response to that, used clusters of players to close down Geelong's handballing space... and since then, really, the game has never been the same.

2004 and 2014 were only ten years apart, but the game - tactically - is almost unrecognisable between the two.

It was also Woosha that introduced the "kamikaze handball" gameplan as you put it. Here's an old article from 2006 about it:

Eagles' hand in changing pace of footy

Sydney coach Paul Roos is another Worsfold admirer. Given the criticism Worsfold's game plan was subjected to last season and the manner in which he was roasted after West Coast's qualifying final loss to the Swans, Roos sees in the Eagles mentor a coach of similarly strong convictions.

On Saturday however, his task will be to stop the West Coast forming a human chain down the length of the MCG. The flipside of the Eagles' destructive run and carry is that teams which limit their handball go a long way towards beating them. It has become a weapon and a crutch.

Since round 17, when the Eagles first unleashed their ground war to brilliant effect against Adelaide, they have won seven matches. In those, they have averaged a staggering 196 handballs. In the two games they have lost since round 17, they have averaged 139 handballs. Their lowest total was against the Swans.

The Australian spoke to two coaches who have faced the West Coast handball offensive over the past two months. Kangaroos coach Dean Laidley believes Worsfold and his assistants devised the tactic for Adelaide, the best team at the time, but that its remarkable success has since prompted the Eagles to employ it against all comers.

The Eagles' midfield then imploded when Judd and Cousins left, and Bomber Thompson picked it up with his own star-studded midfield.

 

[NoobPie]

It was also Woosha that introduced the "kamikaze handball" gameplan as you put it. Here's an old article from 2006 about it:

Eagles' hand in changing pace of footy



The Eagles' midfield then imploded when Judd and Cousins left, and Bomber Thompson picked it up with his own star-studded midfield.

Yeah that's right. West Coast used it to overcome Adelaide's zone defence but Geelong improved it going in to 2007

 

[Duskfire]

So Geelong going from a handball heavy kamikaze style manner to a slower moving kick heavy way isn’t changing the game plan?

 

[Gavin Excell]

Fascinating question

Part of me thinks there’s a lot of BS in game strategy least of all due to the fact the bounce of ball can never be predicted and that David King gets a job.

But then it’s a multi million dollar industry with many hangers on employed - surely they are adding value via game plan otherwise well, wow great gig

 

[Gavin Excell]

Long Bombs to Snake

The greatest ever game plan

 

[Blue1980]

Fascinating question

Part of me thinks there’s a lot of BS in game strategy least of all due to the fact the bounce of ball can never be predicted and that David King gets a job.

But then it’s a multi million dollar industry with many hangers on employed - surely they are adding value via game plan otherwise well, wow great gig

Conclusion to me is that AFL isn’t as sophisticated and complex tactic wise as some thing.

It’s not a game of Neanderthal idiots just bombing it long either.

What annoys me most is when people think a coach changes the game plan from when the team scored 6 goals in a quarter to 1-2 the next, when it’s often just the opposition playing better and your own team playing worse.

 

[Duskfire]

Conclusion to me is that AFL isn’t as sophisticated and complex tactic wise as some thing.

It’s not a game of Neanderthal idiots just bombing it long either.

What annoys me most is when people think a coach changes the game plan from when the team scored 6 goals in a quarter to 1-2 the next, when it’s often just the opposition playing better and your own team playing worse.

I get your point but coaches do shift players around. There is a reasonable amount of tactics that go into it. You are right though that the overall gameplan doesn’t change much.

 

[The wily weagle]

There are definitely game plans and tactics. In fact, sometimes they are so well drilled into players it makes them rather dim. Consider this fairly commonly seen scenario:

Team is behind. They need the ball back. Time is against them (let's say, there is a minute left). Opposition team has a kick in from fullback. Team trailing sets up their zone (because it's so well drilled into them). Results in loose players. Team in front kicks the ball around for 30 seconds until everyone realises they need to ditch the tactics and simply man the f#$k up. Team behind loses, because they were hell bent on zoning, rather then going man on man.

This type of tactical madness happens most weeks

 

[le dominateur]

If someone knows what Bolton/Carlton’s gameplan is please PM


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Upgrayedd]

How could you be so into AFL you register to an internet forum about it and at the same time be so ignorant about the sport in general

Like. This is an utterly tripe topic. The gameplan is everywhere. From who blocks at the bounce. Where the Rickman will tri to tap it. From that players will lead to certain areas knowing the ball will be most likely won on the left/right and where the spread is happening. To the zone teams apply to the defense to get the ball to end up in certain position where Rickman will be there to kill contests and set up. Again another stoppage where certain players will block. Move to a space to defend the area the opposition team wants to break in

Like. Honestly. Do people believe that no work goes into it or it's over rated? Go back to drinking your own bathwater thx.

 

[PenAndPaper]

If someone knows what Bolton/Carlton’s gameplan is please PM


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

Cripps gets contested ball, gives it to Walsh who then passes it to another player. That other player then turns the ball over, rinse and repeat.

 

[iameviljez]

How could you be so into AFL you register to an internet forum about it and at the same time be so ignorant about the sport in general

Look, you've just referred to the "Rickman" twice, let's not get too harsh...