Rumour is....

[WilliamPowell]

So much analysis, think I'll just rock up at bullfrogs next sat and take each day as it comes and enjoy it!

 

[the claw]

Id be happy to make finals again my fellow tigernatics, I have not forgotten the past decades of utter bollocks heaped upon bollocks. Any coach who can navigate the politics of the RFC and still get us into finals is a winner. If Hardwick makes it 3 years of finals in a row and we get whomped again, so what. Its our systemic culture that has sucked for years. 3 years of turn around is great.

How short your memories are of 9th 9th and 9th again!

actually 9th 9th and 9th again is no worse than 8th its middling. as late as the last minute of the home and away season we were a chance to finish what 11th,
finishing 8th is no great achievment its very average in fact. the truth is we went backwards last yr yet we made finals.

the aim  has to be improvement in all areas and ignore the win loss column.this was more relevant 2 yrs ago but now yr 6 they almost have to make finals to appease the masses and i think finding and devoling younger players has taken a backseat or it did.
 middling is middling the search for players and development has to be a priority still.we are nowhere near a premiership and if we dont acknowledge this we run the risk of doing what we always do and that is reach middling 9th  or last yr 8th  and then go backwards.

what i mean by finishing 8th is  no great achievment is  i thought we played better footy in 2012 and finished 12th than we did when we finished 5th. i know that sounds strange but i stand by it.
the win loss column only tells a small part of the story.

fact is there are several areas we just have to be better and it will take time  and to sugar coat it is folly.
 
yes we could well make finals geez if everything goes as  well as it could and everything aligns we could even finish 5th 6th. but imo we have stagnated, far too many have reached their ceiling and we get far too many things wrong still, ffs a 12 14th finish  would be no surprise but it doesnt have to be a bad thing.

firstly  finding 5 or 6 good players to come into the 22 and then developing them is what is needed to become something more than middling. we all know this if we are honest.

[Penelope]

still no enlightenment on this plan B.
perhaps wed get a better response talking about yetis ?

[Francois Jackson]

i will give it a go. Plan B on and off the field is something he lacks. 

Plan B judd dominating in the final what did hardwick do? Nothing.   GC karmichael hunt did we go man on man? I cant recall as i have removed the game from my memory.

Plan B. Players are not listening to you (3/10 start) so why not make an example and let newman play in the reserves for an extended period. Did he do that? Most clubs would have offloaded his sorry arse so thats how other clubs have a plan b

 Most of the top clubs have a plan b do which we are not. 
clubs that move players moving from defence to forward. Clubs that move players moving centre from the forward line to give them an edge.

bottom line he is not all that bright as an afl coach. Will keep us around the same mark again  this year, but im about winning flags not finishing near 9th

 

[Penelope]

 

thats not answering the questions i posed

[(•))(©™]

I don't see it as plan B, I see Hardwick's problem that he is unable to respond to anything other teams do.

He doesn't alter plan A, so when a club plays a man behind the footy or changes forward or midfield structure we just sit and get smashed for 3 quarters before he does anything.

I'm picking up what you're putting down. 

Just spoke with blind freddy and he agrees too.

[🏅Dooks]

I don't see it as plan B, I see Hardwick's problem that he is unable to respond to anything other teams do.

He doesn't alter plan A, so when a club plays a man behind the footy or changes forward or midfield structure we just sit and get smashed for 3 quarters before he does anything.

I'm picking up what you're putting down. 

Just spoke with blind freddy and he agrees too.

Give him a pat on the arse from ol' Dooks.  He's a top bloke, is Freddie

[one-eyed]

Snip! 

Now back to discussing the topic without the personal snipes.

[Chuck17]

I think a lot of clubs try different things but they just don't come off.

The easy thing to do would be then to highlight a few that have come off in the past, aka Judd in the mid in the elimination (which btw is such a masterstroke, who would think off putting their most decorated and experienced mid in the mid when they were getting reamed in there?)

To say we don't try different thing is just stuff, we push our mids forward etc etc etc etc etc

[🏅Dooks]

So back to the matter at hand, the mythical plan B. It is often mentioned as critique that hardwick lacks, but which clubs have a plan B and how does it differ from their plan A?

and/or

If you dont want the club to play players in different positions so they can be more versatile, what do you expect the coach to do game day when their starting plan doesnt work?

Al are you saying an alternate game plan is limited to swapping players into different positions?

What are your thoughts on say:-

1) Spatial line up (half ground presses, defensive presses, forward presses etc) and counter attacking vs man on man, and combinations depending on whether the ball is in or not in possession.
2) Spatial delivery of the ball - corridor vs stuff vs boundary movement in attack, combinations of these, and the defensive switch across the ground.
3) Disposal method - handball to kick ratio, run and carry to breakdown defensive presses. Long kick short kick. High possession low possession etc
4) Dictating/avoiding stoppages if you are winning/losing out at stoppages

It's clear most teams have various plans, some are more noticeable than others. North are a good example in their attacking style. Sometimes they'll take the game on with run and carry. Others they are more precise and slow the ball down, with short kicks to cut through the oppositions defence. This changes from quarter to quarter.

Sydney is another obvious one. Depending on the state of the opposition strenghts they'll either bomb it long into the forward line or kick it shorter/handball through the midfield. This also changes within the game, depending on various factors.

Changes to the game style of teams like Hawthorn, Geelong, Port and Freo are also evident. Other teams do it too but it's less obvious because when it doesn't work, from a viewing perspective, the method gets lost to the outcome and some players don't stick to instructions.

My knock on Richmond is that when we have a run of goals kicked against us, usually NOTHING changes. Very little in anything. Not even rotating a stronger/better defender onto an opposition fed who is having a good day. And if it does (slightly), it's after the damage is done.

We are also reasonably predictable with the way we move the ball.

I think there are issues in the limited versatility of our game plan, as well as on field leadership and communication. And our players are a lot more one dimensional position wise than most other average to good teams.

[Chuck17]

Why does it seem only the good teams have a good Plan B?

[Penelope]

Nah Dooks, im not saying or suggesting that all. All im really trying to do Dooks, is estblish if anyone laying the critisms actually has any semblence of a clue of AFL teams gameplans.

and it seems you actually do, which is refreshing.

Spatial line ups?

This is the constantly evolving part of the modern game. Someone perfects an effective zone defensive method and other teams initially struggle with it. Eventually though they find ways to counteract it and it will evolve into something else (this is why it poos me that the league constantly tamper with rules in an effort to see the game played to the way they want it).

Is any one method preferable over another, that is subjective and also probably dependent on personell. They all require a high degree of fitness work rate and discipline.

A defensive press is basically a flood. it makes it very difficult for the opposition to score against you , but requires players who can basically outrun their opponents to be able to clear the ball from your backline and score yourself.

The forward press i like more. it is more attacking and if it works it keeps the ball at the correct end of the ground for long periods of time. This is very taxing on the opposing team, but on the flip side, if it breaks down it creates an overlap that allows the opposition to go coast to coast quickly, if they are good enough.

Actually that is the downside of any zone defensive plan. We saw it early days with hardwick as the players were learning it. When it breaks down against the better teams they hurt you, and it looks bad. The thing i found intersting in those first couple of years is that in the games against the lower teams when he felt we had a chance to win, he would play man on man. But against the better teams he was willing to take the beltings as part of the learning process by playing more of a zone defense.

The full ground press or rolling zone is probably the most difficult to do properly, but also the most difficult to counter if done properly. I think though that is simply too taxing to be contsantly deployed.

I know that one of the coaches of a top NTFL side who played AFL, wont use zone defense at all. he prefers to use man on man because it makes each player accountable. He says its too easy, using a zone defence, for a player to not to position and then use his rotation as an excuse eg " no i had swapped to the pocket when that happened player x should have been there at that stage".

as for Spatial delivery of the ball, Risk verses reward basically sums it up, and again i don't believe there is any one correct answer.

A lot of people crtisise the way we kick into the pockets, but i know that it has been shown that kicking central to the forward line from the stuff is much more likely to result directly in an opposing goal, as well as for yourself. It is inclusive though, that which method is better.  There is also a rectangle zone about the width of the center square across half forward that if the ball turns over there is a high chance of the opposition scoring.

kick the stuffing thing - in a nutshell, but handball is very good for releasing the ball into space, which is the essence of successful football. Also if you using a running game it can be effextive as a group of players surge up the ground moving the ball sideways to avoid defenders coming at you. almost rugby like. long kicks are preferable, but pointless if the opposition is set up specifically for it.

trying to avoid stoppages can be fraught with danger. it requires either a high intensity running game or a precise kicking game, both difficult to impliment. if you are getting smashed in clearances you are already in trouble. it also risks turnovers  as you attempt to keep the ball alive rather than allowing the stoppage

if you have a good clearence side, creating stoppages by kicking to a group of your own players or hugging the boundry can be an effective, although ugly, way of countering defensive zones to gain ground.

Big fan of the switch. it has been implimented in games such as soccer, hockey netball water polo as a means to create space and counter defensive zones for ages. The larger grounds of aussie rules make it more effective, but is much more reliant on having a better work rate than your opponent. it is frustrating to watch the ball being switched only to see the opposition swarm accross the ground to bottle it up again and you are back to square one.

I read an article by an AFL coach once that talked about trying to stop an opposing teams run on. basically he said it very hard to do and there is little you can do from the coaching box. it may have been bomber, but i cant be sure

[Francois Jackson]

think WAT has summed it up perfectly. You keep at your little issues though if it works for you.

[🏅Dooks]

Why does it seem only the good teams have a good Plan B?

We aren't a good team. Strategy wise we are a predictable middle of the road team who got lucky last year in making the finals of the back of an easy draw and a run of wins against mainly average to poor teams.

Take one or 2 of our better players out (deledio/rance /maric) and the whole wallpapering over cracks in the list and game style opens up. 3 and 10. See the first half of last year.

[Chuck17]

Why does it seem only the good teams have a good Plan B?

We aren't a good team. Strategy wise we are a predictable middle of the road team who got lucky last year in making the finals of the back of an easy draw and a run of wins against mainly average to poor teams.

Take one or 2 of our better players out (deledio/rance /maric) and the whole wallpapering over cracks in the list and game style opens up. 3 and 10. See the first half of last year.

Ok so only good teams can have a plan B

The question is then what comes first, the good team or the good plan B?