Major game style problem as I see it

[dog town]

Something I have been concerned about for a while with our style of play is the way our forwards run away from space leaving the midfield open for us to run into. I recall track watchers referring to our guys using the term "take the space" and I think in general is they want the ball carrier to run with the ball into space and draw players which I suppose is designed to cover our lack of tall forwards. I have watched closely this season and when we have the ball at say half back our forwards will not lead up the ground at the ball carrier to create the link and they will instead hold off and keep that space free for our runners to run and draw their way forward or they will even lead away from the guy with the ball to the point where they are almost 2 kicks away from the guy with the ball.

We first started doing this in early 2006 when we took Rob Murphy away from CHF and started playing him deeper and I think then when we lost him to injury it became more ingrained into our style of play. We have all stressed the need for us to have a lead up centre half forward but unless we change this philosophy then it would be pointless to bring someone in to play this role. My mates and I watched all year space open up for our guys to lead up the ground and they just would not take it and I can only believe based on that and what has been said by track watchers that it is a pre concieved idea and not poor decision making by the players.

The problem I have with it is that teams have learnt to either stand off us and make us kick over them or they are zoning up the midfield ala crows and the hawks and making it impossible for us to run and draw our way through. When they stand off us we dont get the run and carry needed to give our forwards a chance because the opposition wont run at us and give us an overlap and when they flood the midfield we turn the ball over when we have massive numbers running forward in waves and then get caught on the rebound.

Unless we fundamentally change this style of play then I dont think Murphy or anyone else is going to get a kick playing as a CHF. With the two major trade rumours being Robertson who can play out at half forward or deep and McGregor who can also do both I am hoping that Eade may be looking at changing this plan and I think we will find Murphy and these types all of a sudden become more invlvoved again.

Not sure if anyone else agrees with all of this. Just something I have kept an eye for most of the year. I think it may well be half of the problem.

[Go_Dogs]

Interesting points you make DT.

[Dry Rot]

Interesting thread, DT. I don't get to watch enough games live to make an educated comment but it did make me think of watching two Swans games this year - the first v Dogs, the second v Saints.

The Swans won both in their usual style, but watching the latter the Saints forwards had a real crack at leading, giving Bolton and friends a hard night.

In contrast, in the game at Manuka our forwards seemed very static and by the time any slow and usually poor ball came in the Swans had flooded back and there was no space anyway.

[dog town]

Interesting thread, DT. I don't get to watch enough games live to make an educated comment but it did make me think of watching two Swans games this year - the first v Dogs, the second v Saints.

The Swans won both in their usual style, but watching the latter the Saints forwards had a real crack at leading, giving Bolton and friends a hard night.

In contrast, in the game at Manuka our forwards seemed very static and by the time any slow and usually poor ball came in the Swans had flooded back and there was no space anyway.

Yeah its not something I have just jumped into. I had watched it for a while and then I read a few people talk about taking the space and that along with a few things I have heard Eade say to me indicates that it is a deliberate ploy. Responsible for alot of our turnovers IMO both when we try and run the ball out and also when guys like Mcmahon are forced to try and keep possesion with risky short passes.

The one game where we tried something different was against the saints late in the year when we played that ugly chipping game holding onto possesion. We did this because the saints under Thomas and in round 3 under Lyon had completely worked us out. We changed things that night and concentreated on hitting up targets and we pinched a draw. Certainly dont want us playing that style either but its obvious teams feel they have us figured out. We are one of the few teams who dont really change our style very much which isn't neccesarily a bad thing but when your style of play isn't working it becomes a bad thing.

[Sedat]

The first Geelong game last season (which we won by 1 point) reminds me of what you are talking about DT. Geelong peeled off the ball carrier and played man-on-man that day, which played into our hands, as we were allowed to run and carry through the corridor on several occasions and go coast-to-coast without any Geelong players touching the ball. Teams have definitely done their homework on us between seasons, and Adelaide are the best exponents of the midfield press tactic which you are alluding to, which we could not find a way to counter. Basically the opposition midfield guards the space en masse between 50m arcs which prevented us from running through the lines. Compounding the problem was that our forwards did not run and present an option up the ground. The end result was poor decision making and turnovers in the centre corridor which killed us the other way time and again.

The only time we tried something different to combat this was in the drawn game against St Kilda. Holding onto the ball and chipping it around patiently until an opening presented itself was ugly, but quite effective, in dealing with a notoriously difficult opponent who specialises in the midfiueld press tactic. Surprised that we didn't try this again for the rest of the season.

[dog town]

Compounding the problem was that our forwards did not run and present an option up the ground. The end result was poor decision making and turnovers in the centre corridor which killed us the other way time and again.

.

You have seen many of the same things I have. I think they are told to keep that space open for us to run into. Brad Johnson under Wallace was a brilliant lead up half forward at times and Murphy has shown the ability to do the same thing but when they played up the ground this year they were lost because of the way we are setting up. I just dont think its our best bet going forward. We can still use our pace and skill advantage playing a diffeent style.

[LostDoggy]

Great thread guys.

Having not made it to many games this year, Im really enjoying reading this information.

I think that youre onto something as the lack of a lead up forward past CHF seems to be right on the money if we are playing the style mentioned.

I have noticed that Adelaide have shut us down repeatedly.

Obviously with the club mentioning that we are not after Judd but a KPP, it means we are trying to fix the structure.

I reckon that this is the most important issue. We need to structure up in a more conventional way, and try & build from there.

I am looking forward to the trade, draft and the start of next year to see what they can come up with.

[Dry Rot]

A good question to ask is which clubs are best at beating the shutdown tactics which nail us, and how do they play/style/gameplan?

[LostDoggy]

I think there are two issues here and they highlight the different approach required against a team like Adelaide which closes off entry to their defensive fifty alongside a team playing a more attacking/conventional game.

This underlines the need to change tactics depending on what the opposition offers up. Teams like the Kangaroos became adept at changing their game plan to suit the game or even the time into the quarter.

Fexibility is the name of the game but our one size fits all approach to personnel in the forward line leaves us vulnerable.

[dog town]

Great thread guys.

Having not made it to many games this year, Im really enjoying reading this information.

I think that youre onto something as the lack of a lead up forward past CHF seems to be right on the money if we are playing the style mentioned.

I have noticed that Adelaide have shut us down repeatedly.

Obviously with the club mentioning that we are not after Judd but a KPP, it means we are trying to fix the structure.

I reckon that this is the most important issue. We need to structure up in a more conventional way, and try & build from there.

I am looking forward to the trade, draft and the start of next year to see what they can come up with.

I think its not just that we dont have enough of these players it is that we are being conditioned to play in a way that completely eliminates these players. Perhaps they have done it out of neccesity for the list we have and once we change a few things we will play a little more conventional.Its certainly made us easier to shut down and put alot of strain on not only our midfielders but also our defenders who get swamped because our midfielders are all forced to run forward so hard.

[dog town]

A good question to ask is which clubs are best at beating the shutdown tactics which nail us, and how do they play/style/gameplan?

Everyone is aware of the problems we have had against the saints , swans and crows of late but my concern spiked when we were struggling to break out against sides that perenially just used to engage in shoot outs with us like the eagles (we were depleted that night admittedly) and those sort of sides. You can generally sort the good sides into a few categories.



Adelaide are the specialists at the midfield press which is getting numbers into the midfield with higher half forwards and and clogging up space. Makes it hard for the opposition to score but also hard for them to score. They get alot of goals from guys running towards goal into space that has been left.

Hawthorn have adopted a similar game plan to the crows with a few differences. They play 4 permanent forwards inside 50 and everyone else pushes into the midfield. They have a more potent forward line than the crows and are not quite as rigid with the way they get numbers into the midfield but geneally they are seen as a side that zones off in the midfield. Nathan Buckley says these two sides are the closest in style.

Stkilda tend to chop and change a bit. Under Thomas they would play that midfield press almost exclusively against us and I have heard Thomas talk about it on radio. I think Lyon is still experimenting with them.

West Coast usually just go one on one all over the ground and back themselves in to beat an opponent. When we played them we were depleted but they didn't really change the game plan against us all they did was not run at us and forced us to make the play rather than continually running at us and allowing us an overlap. They have the ball carriers like us but they will more often look for an outlet pass either through a lead up player or a midfielder/ruckmen running into space. They have some of the best ball carriers in the comp and play on the biggest ground yet they are 13th for running bounces. That is a fairly big statistic for us to look at IMO.

Roos mucked around with alot of shut down tactics last year under Laidley but he has gone more basic this year and just backs his boys in. Very ugly to watch but they are all on the same page.

The pies and the swans play a similar style. Will both go either one on one all over the ground or the swans in particular will get numbers behind the ball when they are under the pump and go into that chipping game style until they get control again.

Geelong are just brilliant everywhere at the moment and would back themselves one on one against anyone. They have the best defence in the comp at helping each other out and are happy to let both sides play with a loose man in defence because they are so good at chopping off opposition leads. The midfield runs forward harder than any side I have ever seen and thats probably because they have so much faith in their own team winning contests and clearances. Nothing terribly complicated about how they play. They win contests then take it out the back to 1 or 2 that they always have quarter backing at the defensive side of the contest and get it to guys running into space. Basically they are what we were tring to be but they have the bottle and personnel to carry it out.

Its not panic stations because we were 9 and 6 before injury hit and then the rest was a right off but I certainly think we need to rethink this and I reckon Eade mentioned a few times that they might need to rethink the whole way we play.

[dog town]

I think there are two issues here and they highlight the different approach required against a team like Adelaide which closes off entry to their defensive fifty alongside a team playing a more attacking/conventional game.

This underlines the need to change tactics depending on what the opposition offers up. Teams like the Kangaroos became adept at changing their game plan to suit the game or even the time into the quarter.

Fexibility is the name of the game but our one size fits all approach to personnel in the forward line leaves us vulnerable.

I pretty much agree. We are one of the least adaptable sides in the comp with this sort of thing and rarely put numbers behind the ball and that sort of thing. I also think its dangerous changing your game plan all the time as players are creatures of habit and will revert to what they train for more often than not. Best bet is getting an effective one and having minor variations of it.

[Raw Toast]

Great thread.

Do you think that part of the drop in McMahon's effectiveness might have been due to our move away from lead-up half-forwards? IMO McMahon's been at his best for us when streaming out of defence and then hitting targets on the lead. I reckon he turns the ball over by foot much more when kicking to either stationary targets or to players moving away from him (I'm not completely sure about this, it's a recent thought - FWIW I think Ackermanis is a bit of the opposite in that he kicks better to players running away or to the side rather than straight on the lead).

McMahon's form went off the boil towards the end of last year as well, which may have coincided with the loss of Murphy. I also wonder whether Murphy started playing in a more conservative manner this year after his hamstrings were injured. Certainly in the game against Richmond his searching leads up to and past the wing were really important but he didn't much of this later in the season.

[dog town]

Great thread.

Do you think that part of the drop in McMahon's effectiveness might have been due to our move away from lead-up half-forwards?
.

Absolutely. I know we all like seeing him take risks but some of the kicks I have seen him try and pull off are ridiculous. I think his form dropped off for reasons other than that but certainly his turnovers have gone past the acceptable level they were at before.

McMahon's form went off the boil towards the end of last year as well, which may have coincided with the loss of Murphy. I also wonder whether Murphy started playing in a more conservative manner this year after his hamstrings were injured. Certainly in the game against Richmond his searching leads up to and past the wing were really important but he didn't much of this later in the season.

Realistically the last time Murphy was used out at genuine CHF was late 2005. In early 2006 he went deeper and was mainly from the square. This year he was all over the joint trying to find form. I dont think its just Murphy that has struggled to re find that lead up role. Under Wallace their was a time when Brad Johnson was the best leading CHF in the game for a year or so and now he looks lost when he is past the forward 50. I have also seen Aker lead up across half forward very well but they were seeing the space and staying out for some reason and it was getting worse as the season went on. We wouldn't lead up and then 2 or 3 guys around the ball would start running with the ball trying to bounce and share the ball through half back and eventually they would be overwhelmed or have a handball intercepted. The result was a really fast turnover with lots of space behind them.

Basically I think we slowly shifted towards this game plan that cut out the need for a genuine CHF and now teams have chopped it to pieces a little bit and I think we might need to start using these guys again. I dont think they have lost the ability to do it I think we are trying to play without one. One of the main reasons I think we missed Cross so badly is that when he was up and running he would gut bust across the ground into the space I am talking about and atleast provide a link for the runners to feed off.

[The Bulldogs Bite]

Well thought out DT.

I think we played our best footy when our forwards were made lead up to the ball ala Murphy getting kicks around the 50-80m mark. It made sense because we ran the ball in waves and would have a surplus of options to kick it to. Murphy, Gia, Johnno & Robbins were constantly leading up the ground rather than what they do now - wait for the ball to reach the 65m mark or so, and then lead.

I think it's evident we need a new game plan, because if we continue with the one we have, we'll have plenty more 2007s. I suppose the next question is; what new game plan, and who can you base it around?