Analysis To zone or not to zone?

[Skeparovic]

Okay so the two dominant teams (Hawks and Eagles) that have the highest percentage in 2015 and are great to watch seem to play a zone gameplan that is highly effective in causing repeat turnovers that kill oposition teams in the transition and rebound.

General consensus amongst the keyboard warriors on BF (myself included) is that Longmire's current gameplan STINKS.

Ultra defenciveness as Swans currently play (e.g multiple loose men behind the ball) DOES NOT WORK as Swans have NOBODY to kick the bloody ball to forward of the centre square other than usually one forward that is out manned 2-3 on one. This means the ball repeatedly gets rebounded by opposition who have multiple loose players (as Swans are all out of position trying to run forward from defence) to hit up for easy scoring options. We are WASTING Franklin and Tippett FFS!

Forget the ultra defensive gameplan of Freo who won't get anywhere come finals (despite currently being in top spot) as they won't kick a winning score in a grand final. Similarly the super defensively minded Swans are also just making up the numbers this year and may only just make the top 8. Despite having arguably the best forward in the game in Buddy Swans players can't hit a target anywhere on the ground unless the target is NOT wearing red & white.

Adam Simpson has done a wonderful job turning the 9th based Eagles into a premiership contender despite having a 2nd string backline to choose from due to injury as well as a midfield labelled crap over the past few years (Nik Nat and Priddis the exception) by most commentators.

The GAMEPLAN is the key difference with Simpson doing his apprenticeship under Clarkson and the Hawthorn juggernaut with a GAMEPLAN that CLEARLY works. Swans gameplan doesn't despite having most key players available week in week out.

I would like to see a change of gameplan to the Zone Style (call it the Swans Strangle) where we use the same model as Clarkson and Simpson as the current gameplan makes fans want to strangle themselves (figuratively not literally) out of frustration week in week out.

What are other's thoughts on this topic?

 

[Faysals Swans]

I'd like to see people in our fowardline when we go forward

 

[Membling]

I think we can merge our current game plan with a zone.

If we set up for a sling with three forward stationed in the f50 and allow say, 3 miss to go forward on tradition slingshot and leave the rest to zone off in case of rebound then we should be a lot better with our multiple f50's. Our current game plan is dead however.

 

[MarkP]

I'd like to see people in our fowardline when we go forward

******* radical plan that.

 

[Faysals Swans]

******* radical plan that.

Horse can't seem to grasp it so I guess your right, pretty radical

 

[basilcampbell]

I like the idea of having a couple of forward targets. Some defensive pressure would be good...oh and kick goals when given the rare chance


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[The King!]

Play to win not to stop the other team winning

 

[Jack2Jack]

Need foot-skills to play Hawks/Eagles game plans, we need to take the game on more, go quickly (and long given our foot-skills) to one on ones. Reduce the congestion (it just makes our foot-skills and ball movement forward worse and leaves us no-one to kick to) and play a forward line. The only time we've looked remotely good in the last 2 weeks were those brief 5 minute patches where we attacked relentlessly. Scoring brings energy, momentum and the crowd into (keeps opposition crowd out of) the game.

 

[Skeparovic]

So now that Brendan Bolton is being appointed as head coach of the Blues will we see their wooden spoon winning team make a dramatic rise up the ladder accompanying another variation of the zone defence that is working so well for other products of the Alastair Clarkson led Hawthorn coaching faculty (e.g. Luke Beveridge @ Western Bulldogs, Adam Simpson @ Eagles)?

 

[Syd]

Horse can't seem to grasp it so I guess your right, pretty radical

Because playing in Pagans Paddock saw all the forwards starting off HBF

Seriously as a former forward he has no clue how to structure a forward setup

 

[bungee]

Mods. Surely this thread should be merged with the 'Longmire and the coaching panel' thread. We don't need another 'Horse has no clue, sack the coach' thread'

 

[kickthething]

Just give me an accountable team and I don't care what style they play.

 

[kneecapper]

We do play a zone defence but we play it much tighter on the defensive side of the center square, with a view to streaming forward on the rebound. We also are very careful about protecting the corridor and the switch - this is why we eat run and carry corridor-based teams like Port alive. Where we are loose, and delibrately so, is on the boundary lines. We concede kicks along the boundary because traditionally those are the least damaging entry points into the forward 50. The problem is that teams with patience and great disposal efficiency (Hawks/Tiger/WCE) are more than happy to chip it along the boundary, get close enough for a inside 50 and their forward lines are so damaging they are bound to hurt us often enough to matter.

The reason that teams like the Tigers and Port trouble Hawthorn is that they just man up 1-on-1 all over the ground. They don't allow the Hawks uncontested possessions along the boundary. And they also maintain even numbers across the ground, so they can hurt them the other way.

With our current gameplan we are relying on teams like the Hawks to get their marks 40-50 out or in the pocket and then just hoping and praying that they kick poorly from there. Problem is, they don't.

 

[Weasely]

We do play a zone defence but we play it much tighter on the defensive side of the center square, with a view to streaming forward on the rebound. We also are very careful about protecting the corridor and the switch - this is why we eat run and carry corridor-based teams like Port alive. Where we are loose, and delibrately so, is on the boundary lines. We concede kicks along the boundary because traditionally those are the least damaging entry points into the forward 50. The problem is that teams with patience and great disposal efficiency (Hawks/Tiger/WCE) are more than happy to chip it along the boundary, get close enough for a inside 50 and their forward lines are so damaging they are bound to hurt us often enough to matter.

The reason that teams like the Tigers and Port trouble Hawthorn is that they just man up 1-on-1 all over the ground. They don't allow the Hawks uncontested possessions along the boundary. And they also maintain even numbers across the ground, so they can hurt them the other way.

With our current gameplan we are relying on teams like the Hawks to get their marks 40-50 out or in the pocket and then just hoping and praying that they kick poorly from there. Problem is, they don't.

Very nice analysis mate

 

[bungee]

We do play a zone defence but we play it much tighter on the defensive side of the center square, with a view to streaming forward on the rebound. We also are very careful about protecting the corridor and the switch - this is why we eat run and carry corridor-based teams like Port alive. Where we are loose, and delibrately so, is on the boundary lines. We concede kicks along the boundary because traditionally those are the least damaging entry points into the forward 50. The problem is that teams with patience and great disposal efficiency (Hawks/Tiger/WCE) are more than happy to chip it along the boundary, get close enough for a inside 50 and their forward lines are so damaging they are bound to hurt us often enough to matter.

The reason that teams like the Tigers and Port trouble Hawthorn is that they just man up 1-on-1 all over the ground. They don't allow the Hawks uncontested possessions along the boundary. And they also maintain even numbers across the ground, so they can hurt them the other way.

With our current gameplan we are relying on teams like the Hawks to get their marks 40-50 out or in the pocket and then just hoping and praying that they kick poorly from there. Problem is, they don't.

...just hoping and praying that they kick poorly from there. Problem is, they don't

They did in Round 8.

Interesting analysis KC. You might also note that sufficient pressure is one key to undoing teams that rely on great disposal efficiency.

Do we eat 'run and carry corridor-based' teams alive ? Not always. Geelong is one such team.

So nice to read reasoned argument rather than some 'I know footy' posters who just post one-liners without any basis.

 

[bungee]

So now that Brendan Bolton is being appointed as head coach of the Blues will we see their wooden spoon winning team make a dramatic rise up the ladder accompanying another variation of the zone defence that is working so well for other products of the Alastair Clarkson led Hawthorn coaching faculty (e.g. Luke Beveridge @ Western Bulldogs, Adam Simpson @ Eagles)?

Pretty hard to go down any further unless more teams come in to the comp. They have to rise.

 

[Skeparovic]

Pretty hard to go down any further unless more teams come in to the comp. They have to rise.

Yeah they do have to rise eventually. I'm wondering whether with a few tweaks they can have the same level of improvement West Coast have had this year? Commentators said how poor the Eagles midfield were last year and when their key defenders were all out injured they were written off as having any chance of making the top 8. They weren't a team considered to have exceptional foot skills either and are doing pretty well considering their injuries to be 2nd on the ladder. Think the Blues will improve despite reportedly having the worst list ever seen.

 

[bungee]

Yeah they do have to rise eventually. I'm wondering whether with a few tweaks they can have the same level of improvement West Coast have had this year? Commentators said how poor the Eagles midfield were last year and when their key defenders were all out injured they were written off as having any chance of making the top 8. They weren't a team considered to have exceptional foot skills either and are doing pretty well considering their injuries to be 2nd on the ladder. Think the Blues will improve despite reportedly having the worst list ever seen.

We bounced from 12th 2009 to 5th 2010 under the same coach as did Eagles 2010 (4 wins) to 2011 (18 wins) under the same coach. Teams go up and down depending on their list. Swans less so as we don't have the luxury of bottoming out for a few years. The necessary ingredients are i) good players and ii) good coach. The AFL restrictions on trading really hurt us as we rely on trading seasoned/recycled players more than draft picks.

I'm not sure the Blues will improve significantly until they improve their list. Perhaps they've ticked the first box (good coach - tbc) but they need a clean out and rebuild.

Eagles have done well to avoid their injury weaknesses by playing to their strengths. That's good coaching. They play an almost purely attacking game which relies on first use of the ball to great forwards. Mind you, take out Nic Nat and/or Kennedy and the whole thing starts looks shaky.

 

[The King!]

Almost beat the hawks without nic nat

 

[bungee]

Almost beat the hawks without nic nat

Or in other words, lost to the Hawks without Nic Nat. Home ground too. He would have made the difference imo