Analysis Using Space- Football Theory

[matwt73]

The latest in my dry, verbose and complicated attempts to make sense of what we are doing.

Australian Football is a game about space, a lot of space. Fundamentally the game involves moving the ball through that space, in the most efficient way possible in order to generate scoring opportunities. My thesis for today, and what I would like us to consider is the theory behind using that space.

One of the defining features of our game as a football code is that it is a true 360 degree game with no offside rule. A player in possession of the ball can ‘legally’ dispose of it in any direction. Practically though, the boundary line will at times limit the arc of disposal.

The position at which a player has the most options as to disposal is in the centre. Not all of them will be good options but that is where they are fully 360 degrees. A player hard against the boundary line, will because of the curve of the ground have something less than 180 degrees.

If we reduce the options a little for common sense, and assume that players will be primarily aiming to ‘develop the ball towards their scoring zone', we might say that the player in the centre square has 180 degrees of positive space to use. Importantly though two opposition players standing side by side in the centre have exactly the same space to use, neither has an advantage.

But here is where it gets interesting, A player in the back pocket, hard against the boundary line has, due to the curve of the ground, greater than 90 degrees of positive space. Ie, space that doesn’t require a backward kick. The ground opens up to the outside, giving him extra outside space to deliver to. As he get closer to the wing this extra space is reduced, and once a player crosses half way on the boundary it starts to close off. A forward on the wing has something less than 90 degrees of positive space to work the ball to.

So what does this tell us? Ultimately, it tells us what we already know.

In defence the boundary line is your friend. Staying close to the boundary, increases a defenders positive space, whilst at the same time decreasing that of the forward. There is nothing wrong with going to the boundary in defence, indeed, unless you have player advantages and open players in the middle it makes no sense not to.

When attacking however, and particularly when bringing the ball from the back, which is where most attack starts in the modern game, there comes a point at which you must bring the ball inside to open up scoring space, and the later you do that, the more predictable it becomes as your angle and options diminish.

I think I have observed a tendency of Brisbane to bring it out along the boundary and start looking inside, after crossing half way, so that the delivery into 50 is delivered from a more central position. Watching the games with this in mind, I become less concerned about the team going to the boundary in defence, and also more understanding of the handball and sideways kicking from the HFF. The skills are letting us down but the theory behind it seems sound

 

[Sherrinator]

God damn you are so verbose.

Imagine trying to convey that to Stitchy Robinson.

 

[SizeMatters]

Playing the boundary line makes it easier for the opposition. It limits our options and movement around the ball and increases our predictability. Whereas if we go through the corridor we can use the full 360 degree. That's how I see it anyway but you can make a case for playing the boundary out of defence as it gives us the 'safe' option of putting the ball out of bounds only if your team is good at stoppages (which we aren't).

 

[matwt73]

Playing the boundary line makes it easier for the opposition. It limits our options and movement around the ball and increases our predictability. Whereas if we go through the corridor we can use the full 360 degree. That's how I see it anyway but you can make a case for playing the boundary out of defence as it gives us the 'safe' option of putting the ball out of bounds only if your team is good at stoppages (which we aren't).

I agree with the corridor giving the most options. But it also gives the most risk. As soon as there is a turnover in the corridor, the other team has all those same options. There is probably a cost benefit analysis to be done. If you could be confident of retaining possession 65- 70% of the time through the corridor, I anticpate it would be the way to go, so going through the corridor when you have an extra man or your players have gained an advantage in time (i'll come back to that concept on another occassion) would normally make sense. At the moment our skills are so poor that I would have very little confidence that we could use the ball through the corridor and retain possession.

I should say I don't think the use of space in the way we are doing it is particularly crucial to our game plan. I think the game plan we are working towards will be able to employ a more direct use of space, if and when our skills and understanding allow it.

 

[SizeMatters]

It seems to me that the teams that have improved, and have seemingly gone past us, all use corridor football. WBD, Saints and Melbourne all seem to be able to get numbers around the ball and play fast exciting football that makes it extremely hard for the opposition to counter. The teams I have named all have questionable skills and are no better than ours but because they can get huge numbers around the ball it doesn't matter as much. Their hard running into space forces the opposition to be reactive rather than proactive. I hate the slow deliberate movements up the boundary line not only is it predictable but it allows the time for opposition to play to their structures further restricting our ball movements. It seems to me we are still using a 2013 game plan and have totally missed the natural progression of the game.

I agree that it is a risky move but we have to play to our strengths and that is our midfield and run and carry. Leppa has to back our midfield players to win any contested ball that will occur in the corridor from a poor kick or handball. Leppa has stated that the team isn't playing to the game plan he wants them to but in pressers he gives the impression that we are to play corridor football. It just seems to me that playing the boundary our players have no idea what to do, they stand still and don't run or lead. Compared with the corridor footy we played our movements look a lot more natural and you can see that has how we have been coached.

 

[AFLQLD]

Loving this thread. Some thoughtful consideration about the tactical and strategic nature of the game. It is a simple game physically but a complex tactical puzzle at the highest level.

 

[acuguy]

The best teams use the corridor and the boundary, they work hardest to create space with unrewarded running, pull the trigger quickly and take the best option available.

 

[Brettles]

That's how I see it anyway but you can make a case for playing the boundary out of defence as it gives us the 'safe' option of putting the ball out of bounds only if your team is good at stoppages (which we aren't).

I'd even go a step further and say were are not consistently putting the ball out of bounds when we kick to contests along the boundary line (unless Martin Rotates out there), on more then one occasion vs West Coast we failed to secure the mark/fist out and the ball dropped down to West Coast players to bring back into the dangerous areas. Allot of the time these options where also chosen after significant pauses which allowed the opposition to setup to counter.

Also we need to stop kicking those 'floaters' when switching play.

hmm maybe I should trundle across to the vent thread

 

[matwt73]

The best teams use the corridor and the boundary, they work hardest to create space with unrewarded running, pull the trigger quickly and take the best option available.

Agree. Ultimately i I will posit that use of space is only one (and possibly the least important) factor of a gameplan though. It is the first we notice from the outside and probably the first thing to try teach the players. more important than what spaceewe use is how we move the ball into position to score (what I call development), and how we generate for each other the opportunity to make decisions and act (what I call time)

 

[AFLQLD]

I think we have seen a few phases of tactical history in the last few decades as data and video analysis has allowed coaches to drill down into the critical aspects of team strategy.

Stoppage battles between two evenly skilled teams are unlikely to be the deciding factor these days. Players are well drilled and when the mids are big and experienced like Fremantle, they are happy to go from stoppage to stoppage until they win clean ball decisively. In the ebb and flow of a game, evenly matched midfields will likely do just that - break approximately even on stoppages.

Increasingly the game is won and lost in the two seconds in transition after turnovers. That is the one critical phase that can make or break a team. Hard won field position can be lost in those few seconds if a team doesn't respond defensively and completely.

On the other side, against a well drilled defence, hesitation means that space gets filled up so that the next kick is to a contest or next handball is under pressure. About two seconds on each turnover is all a team gets against a good defence. After that zones will be set and space filled so that every disposal is to a contest or player under pressure.

The best junior coaches I have seen really understand this and train their teams in the two second transition just as much as attack and defence. The worst junior coaches practice attack, defence and stoppages only.

Some players seem to have a natural understanding of what to do in those two seconds. It is why I like Lewis Taylor in the team. He gets it, even if his skill or ambition let him down occasionally. A lot of other players have to be painstakingly taught it. But two seconds is about all you have before you are just playing to the next stoppage, or worse, the next turnover.

It doesn't mean playing on at all costs, not quite, but turnovers afford a team the rare luxury to break apart the normally resilient defensive structures of the modern game. If the opportunity is there, like Leppa is doing, we must grab it even if it means mistakes. Get ten turnovers a quarter and use that two seconds on each turnover to break the defensive structure and convert five of them, as some teams are doing, and you have a winning score.

Against West Coast on a couple of occasions we did it, missed the goal on most of them but at least we were seizing opportunities rather than wait to see if they, by some miracle, appear of their own accord.

 

[General Soreness]

Great thread - really deserves the attention that being on the main board would provide it.

I wonder if the boundary-hugging approach also has the potential to yield more free-cicks for the defender, thus allowing more opportunity for that switch into the middle where attacking is more of an option. Has anyone got at hand how the Lions' free kicks are workign out this season?

 

[Sherrinator]

Great thread - really deserves the attention that being on the main board would provide it.

I wonder if the boundary-hugging approach also has the potential to yield more free-cicks for the defender, thus allowing more opportunity for that switch into the middle where attacking is more of an option. Has anyone got at hand how the Lions' free kicks are workign out this season?

Free kicks?

 

[General Soreness]

Free kicks?

Yes. Cool typo, eh?

 

[Sherrinator]

Yes. Cool typo, eh?

More confused about the notion of receiving them. We haven't been first to the ball enough to give a good gauge on whether our 'offensive pattern' yields free kicks more than our 'up the guts' of late last year.

 

[General Soreness]

More confused about the notion of receiving them. We haven't been first to the ball enough to give a good gauge on whether our 'offensive pattern' yields free kicks more than our 'up the guts' of late last year.

Fair enough.

 

[Elixuh]

Going wide all the time and contest to contest, especially with the team the way it is just plays into the oppositions hands and they strangle us. As soon as we get guys running to space and making leads then I reckon the handball chains will start to work out. Another poster mentioned that we seem to be overdoing it by 1 extra handball or 1 extra cute kick because theres nothing up forward.

I think because theres nothing up ahead atm going the corridor is just as dangerous because when we inevitably have to hold it up we turn it over and get shrekt going the other way.

So no easy solution...

 

[matwt73]

AFLQLD refers above to the two seconds that a player has to act. I think this is really important, and feeds in to my concept of 'time'.

We often talk about finding a player or a team mate in 'space' but I have already used that concept to discuss the field, so instead, and building on what AFLQLD has said, I think it is worth referring to this concept as 'time'. The time that a player with the ball has to assess the situation, make a decision and act on it.

2 seconds is probably a good guide, but there will be occassions eg at a stoppage, where a player has much less than two seconds, and times (when alone on the wing) when a player has much much more. Ultimately the question is whether a player has 'enough time'.

If all of our targets are static, and marked and there is no movement 30 seconds won't be enough, because there is no positive decision that can be made. If we have team-mates moving into good position (and we know where they are moving to) a half second can be enough to see, assess and pull the trigger, and this is necessary at both stoppages and when moving the ball in a free flowing way.

So, time is ultimately a function of the players without the ball, working into the 'space' in which the player with the ball will be looking to develop it (more on that later), and the player with the ball looking for and finding those players in that space.

Shepparding, blocking, support running, handballing to get an overlap are all aimed at providing more 'time' to see and assess, sometimes it is necessary to concede 'space' (kick backwards) or 'development' (switch) in order to gain an advantage in time.

Where this breaks down of course is when players panic, when through pressure or percieved pressure (and lack of talk) a player actually passes to a player with less time.
Also, how we find players is critical. It is no good spotting a player with loads of 'time' if our kick is so poor that by the time the ball gets to them the time has dissapeared.

(NB- I know this thread is not for everyone, but I do appreciate all of you who are reading it and offer your input. It doesn't take away from what has been a horrible first four games but i am hoping it gives us somethingto think about beyond just who should get dropped for the next game).

 

[AFLQLD]

These are really good points. A bad kick to a man who is exposed, without support around him means a turnover provides plenty of time for the opposition to move the ball before we can apply pressure again.

A bad hand pass to a nearby player might also result in a turnover but at least there is support close by that might limit the damage, or even win back possession.

Kicking is fundamental to the game but using space and creating time is probably more fundamental. Kicking is the individual skill that you need. Understanding space and time is the thing your whole team needs from you. It seems to be a critical element that is only sometimes coached well.

 

[acuguy]

The one thing that I know, regardless of the standard, if you work run back hard into the backline you will have the numbers to transition the ball from backline to the midfield.