When the high press is breached

[Enviable Tradition]

The formula to beat us is so simple.

Get the ball forward fast and long over the back of our high press.

Either by winning the clearance and getting it in quick and long or by handballing through the press far enough that you can long kick it over the back.

What is our plan B?

Do we need to be able to adjust our defensive style to a deeper one mid game?

Or is it just a matter of being more aggressive with our contested ball and pressure to not allow them clean ball through?

Ken obviously thinks option B is the answer every time.

It seems clear now that sometimes we need to be able to play option A.

Is this realistic? Can we change it up mid game? Or is it too difficult to learn 2 different methods of defence and switch mid game successfully?

On SM-G960F using
BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Miss December]

The formula to beat us is so simple.

Get the ball forward fast and long over the back of our high press.

Either by winning the clearance and getting it in quick and long or by handballing through the press far enough that you can ling kick it over the back.

What is our plan B?

Do we need to be able to adjust our defensive style to a deeper one mid game?

Or is it just a matter of being more aggressive with our contested ball and pressure to not allow them clean ball through?

Ken obviously thinks option B is the answer every time.

It seems clear now that sometimes we need to be able to play option A.

Is this realistic? Can we change it up mid game? Or is it too difficult to learn 2 different methods of defence and switch mid game successfully?

On SM-G960F using BigFooty.com mobile app

Clearly Ken needs a bit more time to ponder this question so clearly posed in a few short lines. He's only had 8 years, should be getting back to us soon.

 

[Port85]

We don't need to change the game plan entirely. We adjusted the press at quarter time vs Carlton and we should have won that game by more.

I haven't watched the replay of last night so I can't really comment.

What I saw last night as it unfolded, we got beaten in the air and on the ground in the contest so even when the press worked to neutralize the ball movement Geelong still found a way forward. Any game plan good or bad will struggle if you can't compete.

Presswise we can and have moved the half backs deeper if needed.

 

[Enviable Tradition]

We don't need to change the game plan entirely. We adjusted the press at quarter time vs Carlton and we should have won that game by more.

I haven't watched the replay of last night so I can't really comment.

What I saw last night as it unfolded, we got beaten in the air and on the ground in the contest so even when the press worked to neutralize the ball movement Geelong still found a way forward. Any game plan good or bad will struggle if you can't compete.

Presswise we can and have moved the half backs deeper if needed.

This is Kens answer.

Yet Geelong still kept managing to get over the back of our press and get one on ones.

On SM-G960F using
BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[El_Scorcho]

I think the high press works, you just need to react and adjust if a team is getting through it. They won't just get through it, they'll have to use some sort of tactic.

Geelong had 2 fairly simply methods of getting through us that we didn't address all game. The first was that above the shoulders handball over the top to a player forward of the contest in between the arcs that got them out time and time again. The second was their stacking numbers in defence and trying to make us bomb it long, with transition opening up space.

React to that.

Get a defensive mid to set up deeper towards the Geelong goal at the contest to nullify that over the top handball. At least start with that and see how Geelong respond.

Stop bombing the ball in long and high. I don't care what you try really, anything else would have helped. Shorter passes. Switching to the other side to open up space. Try to generate scoring opportunities from 55m out and kick over their setup. Run and carry with support runners. Don't just keep bombing long and hoping.

Good teams will be well drilled and will have looked at how we play and come up with plans to counter our defence. That's what comes with being the hunted, and it's probably why we fall in a heap as soon as we start to look like a dangerous side. Geelong had 2 fairly simply concepts that they executed pretty well and we just threw in the towel tactically. Disgusting. It's not about commitment and effort, although those were in question as well. If someone keeps using rock to crush your scissors, don't just keep playing scissors with more gusto.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

It wasn't just last night. Richmond kicked a lot of easy goals against it, especially from kick ins when we missed piss easy set shots on goal. They had kicked 11.6 from 22 insides 50's to 3/4 time and most of that score happened when they easily got over our high press.

 

[Port85]

This is Kens answer.

Yet Geelong still kept managing to get over the back of our press and get one on ones.

On SM-G960F using
BigFooty.com mobile app

If you play a high press you concede easy goals over the back. It's not a flaw in the system it IS the system.

Play your zone deep you struggle to move the ball forward like Port in 2018 but it worked for the Swans on the SCG with a good midfield and Buddy.

The high press is probably the best system we have for the senior players on our list who are not good kicks inside 50 plus our relatively poor ball movement by foot so we need to turn the ball over higher up the park so there's less kicks required to score (less opportunity for us to * it up).

There's probably a better system when our younger players take over from the current seniors.

We're just not that good a team to consistently cover our limitations versus quality opposition.

 

[backtozero]

No point worrying about if you're going to get smashed all over the ground.

 

[It Just Is]

Both Geelong and Richmond have hit a target where the boundary and 50m arc intersect. Once they hit that kick they are ahead of 50% of our press with the bulk of the remainder are spread evenly across the field and unable to impact the play if they can move the ball rapidly from that point.

I think Richmond did it so successfully because Short is a fantastic kick. Low, flat and fast. Geelong clearly went to school on the mechanics of our zone and were aided by a lack of effort. It’s a high energy game style.

It’s an easy fix to widen the zone. I can’t remember the last time I saw a team really attack up the corridor against us off a slow play. If we block that uncontested mark 50m from the kicker, they are back to a short chip into the pocket and a bomb to a contest.

Plugging the whole in the press is easier than fixing our kick outs at the other end which too often seem to result in a repeat score. Surely once in a while we could try actually hitting a target?

 

[skanker08]

he first was that above the shoulders handball over the top to a player forward of the contest in between the arcs that got them out time and time again.

What you mean the handball that when Gray's used it in the past it gets called a throw?

 

[El_Scorcho]

What you mean the handball that when Gray's used it in the past it gets called a throw?

That's the one.

Another one used effectively but less frequently last night was holding in the tackle for basically however long you like before spilling the ball to the advantage of a teammate.

 

[Chokito]

They had numbers on the corridor-side of every kick in we had. Why kick it out of defense to the point of the square when it is so easy to read or judge this week? With a boot like McKenzie he should be running out his designated 15m and then absolutely kicking the leather off the ball so as to clear that congestion built on the corner of the square, and then you have runners going from there (center wing ish) into our forward line. Go with that plan when the first plan doesn’t work, and have a third plan in place as well - and rotate through all of them throughout the game.

 

[Papa G]

They had numbers on the corridor-side of every kick in we had. Why kick it out of defense to the point of the square when it is so easy to read or judge this week? With a boot like McKenzie he should be running out his designated 15m and then absolutely kicking the leather off the ball so as to clear that congestion built on the corner of the square, and then you have runners going from there (center wing ish) into our forward line. Go with that plan when the first plan doesn’t work, and have a third plan in place as well - and rotate through all of them throughout the game.

He kicks to that right hand back flank/quarter of the square almost every kick out. Did Ken think nobody was going to cotton on?

 

[Janus]

I think the high press works, you just need to react and adjust if a team is getting through it. They won't just get through it, they'll have to use some sort of tactic.

Geelong had 2 fairly simply methods of getting through us that we didn't address all game. The first was that above the shoulders handball over the top to a player forward of the contest in between the arcs that got them out time and time again. The second was their stacking numbers in defence and trying to make us bomb it long, with transition opening up space.

React to that.

Get a defensive mid to set up deeper towards the Geelong goal at the contest to nullify that over the top handball. At least start with that and see how Geelong respond.

Stop bombing the ball in long and high. I don't care what you try really, anything else would have helped. Shorter passes. Switching to the other side to open up space. Try to generate scoring opportunities from 55m out and kick over their setup. Run and carry with support runners. Don't just keep bombing long and hoping.

Good teams will be well drilled and will have looked at how we play and come up with plans to counter our defence. That's what comes with being the hunted, and it's probably why we fall in a heap as soon as we start to look like a dangerous side. Geelong had 2 fairly simply concepts that they executed pretty well and we just threw in the towel tactically. Disgusting. It's not about commitment and effort, although those were in question as well. If someone keeps using rock to crush your scissors, don't just keep playing scissors with more gusto.

Geelong is playing our 2018 game style - just faster and with more skilful players. The slow build up from the back, the methodical retention of possession up to centre wing to beat the press, and then quick movement from wing to the key forward. This was a game style that was developed to beat teams like Richmond (it will be interesting to see how they go against the Cats...I think they'll lose pretty easily too).

It's a bit simplistic to say 'put a mid on the defensive side of the contest’, because you never know where that player is going to be. I’d say our issue was that one of our lines was caught in no man’s land and probably sitting a bit too deep - our defenders in the press were probably 5m away from where they should have been.

That’s how teams beat us in 2018. They started to push up a little higher and put our back six under pressure. Since that never happened last night, there was no reason for Hawkins to get up the field.

I mean, at no point did Hawkins have more than two players get to him in a contest...yet at the same time, Geelong walked the ball out of defence with ease. So where were our high backs? Byrne-Jones, Houston, Hartlett and Mayes?

That being said - what happened last night won’t happen in a final. Far less space in those games, and everything is under pressure.

 

[all seeing eye]

I think the press shouldnt be so high ie agressive to early in the game. I think it shoud be adjusted depending on the tempo of the game. However last night it wouldnt have mattered as we flogged in all aspects of the game.

 

[sog35]

The Cats only needed to show one version of breaking the trap. It looks a little different to Richmond. Geelong stretch out the field and play with space, which makes it hard for our backs to roll off and outnumber. It also frees up the space for the chip and lead up game that was so effective last night.

Hawkins anchors this and would only need to work up the ground if we got on top around the ball and in the forward line. We never really saw a different look from them because they never needed it.

From my understanding Richmond's forwards push higher up and then run back in waves using handball more than what we saw last night. Pressing is more effective here as the ball is always in motion. Kick / Mark the whole team needs to be working as a defensive unit to break the chain. We were nowhere near that level against the Cats.

 

[chiwigi]

It requires the right amount of energy and attitude.
If we are off it fails.

Surely nobody is surprised that our game plan requires working harder for longer?

 

[davo999]

Yea it’s like we have to dominate around the ball to win because the oppo can score too easily if it gets out .
If we’re having a flat day we’re stuffed against good teams . It’ll be interesting because Hawthorn play that keep its off style as well and it’s trapped us the last few years , hopefully they’re just too average to do it again this year

 

[sog35]

Yea it’s like we have to dominate around the ball to win because the oppo can score too easily if it gets out .
If we’re having a flat day we’re stuffed against good teams . It’ll be interesting because Hawthorn play that keep its off style as well and it’s trapped us the last few years , hopefully they’re just too average to do it again this year

From what I can gather, Hawks have changed things up and play a little less of the chip kick style. It seems like part of their issue is that they don't have a strong identity either way, so just have to get by on the talent they've got (Mitchell, O'Meara, Worpel soaking up a ton of the ball, Gunston, Wingard taking their chances)

We won't need to find the level we were at against Richmond, but something in that ball park I suspect could be enough against the Hawks. Sicily will be the one to watch, expect he'll play a similar role to Blicavs. We need to play through Sicily's man and be smarter with our ball use.

 

[El_Scorcho]

Geelong is playing our 2018 game style - just faster and with more skilful players. The slow build up from the back, the methodical retention of possession up to centre wing to beat the press, and then quick movement from wing to the key forward. This was a game style that was developed to beat teams like Richmond (it will be interesting to see how they go against the Cats...I think they'll lose pretty easily too).

It's a bit simplistic to say 'put a mid on the defensive side of the contest’, because you never know where that player is going to be. I’d say our issue was that one of our lines was caught in no man’s land and probably sitting a bit too deep - our defenders in the press were probably 5m away from where they should have been.

That’s how teams beat us in 2018. They started to push up a little higher and put our back six under pressure. Since that never happened last night, there was no reason for Hawkins to get up the field.

I mean, at no point did Hawkins have more than two players get to him in a contest...yet at the same time, Geelong walked the ball out of defence with ease. So where were our high backs? Byrne-Jones, Houston, Hartlett and Mayes?

That being said - what happened last night won’t happen in a final. Far less space in those games, and everything is under pressure.

Agree in general, but I don't really blame the high backs. Geelong already had enormous space and time before they'd even left our back 50.

They were so convinced they'd used their stacked numbers in defence around Dixon to win the ball and move it out before we could react that their runners were already breaking into space before the ball hit the ground. Our high backs rely on pressured ball coming through to intercept or halve contests, that's where we really thrive, but the ball was already under no pressure by the time it crossed the 50m line.

We struggle defending in transition like that, everyone does. The forwards needed to be more competitive when the ball hit the deck, but more importantly we needed to stop just bombing the ball to Dixon. Dixon always had 5 defenders around him ready to start that score launch. They were so well drilled that it didn't seem to matter whether they marked or not, they got the ball out quickly anyway.

Lower our eyes a bit going inside 50 to spot up short targets and we pull that defence out of position. We didn't need a major tactical change, we just needed to be less predictable.

 

[El_Scorcho]

It requires the right amount of energy and attitude.
If we are off it fails.

Surely nobody is surprised that our game plan requires working harder for longer?

I agree but I think it can require tactical adjustments to be successful as well.

When we're sitting top, good coaches will look forensically at everything we do and come up with plans to counter it. Scott is an astute coach and Geelong confidently executed a plan to beat us.

We have to be prepared to change gears mid match and the players need to trust that the coaches will make intelligent tactical adjustments to counter what the opposition are doing to us. We battled hard for a while against Geelong before we threw in the towel when the lead became insurmountable. If we'd made adjustments at quarter time or even half time, who knows?

 

[chiwigi]

I agree but I think it can require tactical adjustments to be successful as well.

When we're sitting top, good coaches will look forensically at everything we do and come up with plans to counter it. Scott is an astute coach and Geelong confidently executed a plan to beat us.

We have to be prepared to change gears mid match and the players need to trust that the coaches will make intelligent tactical adjustments to counter what the opposition are doing to us. We battled hard for a while against Geelong before we threw in the towel when the lead became insurmountable. If we'd made adjustments at quarter time or even half time, who knows?

He can’t.

 

[Chewy316]

I still struggle to figure out at times why Clurey gets the bruiser of the oppo forward line. McKenzie has done some really good 1v1 work this season against Cameron and Kennedy in particular.

I think Hoff will eventually get a chance in this space sooner rather than later, because it's clear we don't have a lot of options.

I would like at times to see our defenders play their man's back shoulder because we won't see so many Joe the goose goals. I also understand the need to establish front position to block off leads, but theres no point in getting the front spot when the incoming kick can just go beyond you and out the back, which has happened to Clurey in particular a lot this year.

 

[Janus]

I agree but I think it can require tactical adjustments to be successful as well.

When we're sitting top, good coaches will look forensically at everything we do and come up with plans to counter it. Scott is an astute coach and Geelong confidently executed a plan to beat us.

We have to be prepared to change gears mid match and the players need to trust that the coaches will make intelligent tactical adjustments to counter what the opposition are doing to us. We battled hard for a while against Geelong before we threw in the towel when the lead became insurmountable. If we'd made adjustments at quarter time or even half time, who knows?

It's the same plan that Geelong used to dissect St Kilda, who also plays a pressure style of football, for exactly the same result. Even down to the 3 goal lead at half time and the 10 goal final margin.

The difference is, St Kilda wasn't coming off a great win against Richmond the week before - they had barely scraped over the line against the Suns. They were perfect preparation for Geelong - all the Cats needed to do was say 'Okay, what we did against St Kilda was the trial run, now it's time for the real thing.'

You wonder if it would have been a different story had the six scoring shots we created in that second quarter been 3.3 or 4.2 instead of 1.5, and we'd gone into main break only down by 7 points or 1 point instead of the 15 points that was the actual score (it doesn't actually work like that, but we were definitely in the game in that second quarter). Because we were down by 24 points at three quarter time, we had to go for more risk than we otherwise would have to try and gain momentum.

Geelong never had any scoreboard pressure applied to them at any stage of the game, and as such, never felt any implied pressure that would force them into mistakes. That's why when you're playing a top four side, Amon (0.2), Powell-Pepper (0.2) and Farrell (0.1) have to nail those shots they took.

 

[GremioPower]

It wasn't just last night. Richmond kicked a lot of easy goals against it,

It will happen. We know it. It's a calculated risk. The issue is when it happens too much.

We don't seem to have an alternative for when our main strategy is not working. If I am being too harsh, let's say that we seem to lack an effective alternative against opponents that gain control of the midfield.

If we cannot have the ball, we are screwed. It happened against Brisbane (Q2), Footscray (Q1/Q4), Geelong (Q1/Q3/Q4), and St. Kilda (Q4).

We managed to beat the Dogs, who kicked 4.11:35 in those 2 quarters combined. We lost to the other three teams, who weren't as wasteful as Footscray.


---

That being said - what happened last night won’t happen in a final. Far less space in those games, and everything is under pressure.

That was Scott's main point in his press conference. He didn't say it directly, but the message was there. The Cats are aware of the issue.

—

If we'd made adjustments at quarter time

Our Q2 wasn’t bad, bar scoring-shot accuracy. It was our only competitive quarter the entire night.