RussellEbertHandball
Flick pass expert
We didn't try less is more for that long in 2018. Sure against the weaker sides we did and got away with it but we went back to old habits against the better sides when the game was on the line.Less is more is what we tried to do in 2018 by scoring off of rebound 50s and running play passages, and the reason that costed us, in the end, was because we generally got shut down by sides that had a better field balance (Collingwood and West Coast) and we were 50/50 for close games since it all depended on how good our speed was from the packs, along with our efficiency.
We expected the change in 2019 to help create more opportunities to create higher scores, but it failed for the same reason, and that was inefficiency and missed opportunities. The difference is that we didn't win close games since we weren't breaking packs and splitting the field, and instead were getting nailed down due to an underperforming forward line.
My point is that YES, less can be more, but it also becomes a greater risk, and it's pretty evident that if the club had a choice to improve our scoring efficiency, then we wouldn't have had to change our gameplan, but the aim of the new structure was to create more scoring opportunities and have a better-balanced playing field so we weren't lacking in numbers. That doesn't mean the instructions were "Hammer the ball forward" it meant that we needed less running and more leads in the forward line so our entries could come and end quicker.
And keep in mind that 2019 was the ONLY year we scored more behinds than goals, and that would've mattered if we created more opportunities on the forward line, but unlike 2018 it wasn't the forward structure making it difficult, but rather the forward performances, since the absence of Dixon in certain games along with our empty tall stocks, and underperforming smalls excluding a few key players, made the actual matchup really difficult to bypass.
We tried "less is more" and that didn't work, so now it's just "more" and these are solutions to get around the current skill and conversion issues rather than address them directly, and why's that? Well logically if they could they would, and they're not, so why else wouldn't they?
We tried to change our field play position but we probably dont have the skill and our forward line set up is shithouse because we worry more about defensive pressure than actually winning the ball inside forward 50. That's why if in doubt Ken would pick Neade and/or Sam Gray over a tall.
West Coast 2018 Rd 21 game we actually did a bloody good job for about 3.90 quarters and especially given we had to play for over a quarter with no Dixon, Ryder and Houston, due to injuries, but under pressure when we should have held our nerve and used less is more tactics, we fell back into bad habits of just bomb it into the forward line and get territory under all costs, we blew it, and we were mentally shot after losing again to them after the siren, and we were never going to beat Collingwood or Essendon even if finals were still a very real chance.
All teams get injuries to key players. The better skilled and/or better coached teams get over these problems.
The same issues have been there for years. They don't really address the fundamentals. They just finesse around the edges.