Rumour is....

[🏅Dooks]

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

If you haven't seen it already Al, I reckon you'd be fascinated (particularly) in pages 9 and 10 of this year's AFL prospectus.  It discusses the statistical liklihood of scoring against the opposition depending on who is in possession and location of the ball on the field. Contour maps etc

[🏅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.

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?

Good question. I dunno. Id be guessing at theyd probably evolve together.  There's a correlation between the two and my guess is youd need a smart and talented enough coaching group and players to research and execute.

[Penelope]

i really dont think its a matter of havin a plan B.
Its just that their basic plan has many variations.
when Hardwick took over there was a lot of banging on about the new simplified game plan, but i think many missed a subtle but important comment by Reiwoltd at the time . he said going from wallace to hardwick was like going from primary school to high school.

For the first time in their career the players were given play books with all the set plays and their variations to learn.

I also dont think predicibility is an issue. In modern sports everyone pretty much knows what every one else is going to do. The better sides just implement it better than their opponents. Very few game are actually won or lost by the use of some surpising tactic out of the blue. As hardwick pointed out when he took over, everyone knew how the geelong team of the time played, they just it so well they were hard to beat.

[Penelope]

any chance of shooting me a copy of those pages dooks?

[Penelope]

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

It is a very reasonable question that i asked
One in a long list that you clearly have no answer for.

[WilliamPowell]

Snip 

keep the insults etc off the forum and stick to the topic

There's a great chat going on about Plan B's and it doens't deserve to get lost because people are too busy taking pot shots

[Smokey]

Nah, it's a quiet and wet Monday at work WP, let the insults flow I say - keeps it interesting and gives me something to read!!   

[Chuck17]

Wait to we start up with the discussion on Plan C

 

[🏅Dooks]

any chance of shooting me a copy of those pages dooks?

PM me your email and I'll send a couple snaps

[Chuck17]

any chance of shooting me a copy of those pages dooks?

PM me your email and I'll send a couple snaps

Clean ones only thanks Dooks

[The Big Richo]

I'll give you an example of why Hardwick is a poor coach.

I'm going by memory so the details are a bit fuzzy but the Port Adelaide game at Etihad last year sums it up.

Game started and we were playing well, forward line operating beautifully, opened up a nice lead.

Port realised their forward structure and defence were getting smashed and chucked Westoff behind the ball mid way through the second term and started to play better.

Third term they continued and came back and looked like running over the top of us before finally after a quarter and a half of nothing Hardwick sent Chaplin forward and made them accountable and we hung on.

A good coach would have reacted to Port much quicker and not allowed them to dictate terms.

[Chuck17]

LMAO that's funny

He got smashed when we were losing and now can't even take credit for a win

[Mr Magic]

Funny how no one mentions the successful 'plan Bs' when we win.
Coaching a heck of a lot more complicated than one or two 'plans'

[JP Tiger]

A good coach would have reacted to Port much quicker and not allowed them to dictate terms.

A poor coach would've panicked when Westhoff went back & exposed his own defence too early & lost the game in the 2nd & 3rd quarters!  Holding the Chaplin move back until later was the better option, we held our defensive structure for as long as possible & timed our move very nicely.  Having their gun key forward playing loose at the wrong end for 3 quarters was actually a win for us, so let it happen!  Can you see how Hinkley blinked & Hardwick didn't?  Also, Hinkley failed to counter our dominant mid field, despite having other mid options (Robbie Grey going cold in a pocket while getting smashed in the middle?), was that good coaching from Hinkley?       

[The Big Richo]

Please.

Sending Chaplin forward was a last chance saloon move when it appeared the game was gone.

At the game it was obvious the Port move got them back in the game and while they were eating away at what was a sizeable lead the RFC box was stagnant.

Richmond forwards were waving frantically at the bench trying to get them to do something to square the contest again but nothing came.

We aren't talking about coming up with a new tactic here or launching some remarkable feat of planning that changes the game.

Having the opposition dropping a loose man into defence and then squaring the numbers is just a basic coaching principle, yet we sat frozen for 2 quarters and went from a dominant position to having to come from behind in the final moments to win.

Anyone who suggests that Hardwick is a good or even ok match-day coach is just being jingoistic, because there is no rational evidence that supports the notion.