Putting a defensive group together - Situational or???

[mjp]

So.

Having read all the teams that have been submitted - best 22/23 etc - I wanted to ask a question.

1/. Do you think we should go in with a 'SET' back seven that 'size-and-shapes' it's way around whatever the oppo might chuck up from week to week, OR;

2/. Do you think we should have a match-up based approach where the defensive group that runs out is dependent on the firepower the oppo have?

You could then add an extension to that question which would be:

- If there is a d7 injury, do we:
1/. By default slide the Defensive winger (let's assume there is one!!) into the back group and use the sub to cover, OR;

2/. Yeah, nah. We will move players around as and when required to cover an injury and the defensive group is as fluid as any other!

Obviously there could be a lot of 'it depends' answers and there is always an outlier to any given hypothesis...what I am keen to hear about though is what YOUR thoughts are on putting together a team to take the field...

[bornadog]

I do like the idea of a set of 7 players that play together and play to a system and get use to each other in the way they defend.

If there is a an injury, then as we did last year, Williams could play wing and drop back into defence. Of course a KPD being injured we then need to bring in e someone that plays VFL, but trains with the defending group.

[Jasper]

So.

Having read all the teams that have been submitted - best 22/23 etc - I wanted to ask a question.

1/. Do you think we should go in with a 'SET' back seven that 'size-and-shapes' it's way around whatever the oppo might chuck up from week to week, OR;

2/. Do you think we should have a match-up based approach where the defensive group that runs out is dependent on the firepower the oppo have?

You could then add an extension to that question which would be:

- If there is a d7 injury, do we:
1/. By default slide the Defensive winger (let's assume there is one!!) into the back group and use the sub to cover, OR;

2/. Yeah, nah. We will move players around as and when required to cover an injury and the defensive group is as fluid as any other!

Obviously there could be a lot of 'it depends' answers and there is always an outlier to any given hypothesis...what I am keen to hear about though is what YOUR thoughts are on putting together a team to take the field...

I want a combination of both options but mainly a set back 7 because in the group I have in my mind we have enough versatility.
O'Donnell and Coffield for example can play on a wider range of opponents than say Keath and maybe Darcy can.
Our back line tends to do a lot of switches anyway in that one of our defenders could play on 3 or 4 different players during the course of a game. I want that versatility even if it means that on occasions one opposition forward might catch us and kick 4 goals.
I wonder what Daniel Pratt might focus on and the next few weeks of match sims might tell that story?
I like that we have Williams, Daniel and even Poulter who can be moved back if we cop and cover an injury as well and hopefully we won't need to use them much like that. Stopping opposition small forwards might be where we need to improve.

Laith, Baker and Gallagher might be used as smaller defenders as well.

[mjp]

If there is a an injury, then as we did last year, Williams could play wing and drop back into defence. Of course a KPD being injured we then need to bring in e someone that plays VFL, but trains with the defending group.

Yeah - I get that we would make changes at selection BAD but during a game you can't bring in someone from outside the team.

If we have a KPD go down there are 2x choices:

1/. We maintain our defensive group + structure across the rest of the ground by sliding the defensive winger back (as you mentioned with Williams). If someone has to fight out of their weight division, well, we back them to do that and the others to support him.

Or.

2/. We change our structure elsewhere to maintain the tall/med/small balance. For example, Jones goes down means Darcy is dragged from his ruck-fwd role into the defensive group.

[hujsh]

Yeah - I get that we would make changes at selection BAD but during a game you can't bring in someone from outside the team.

If we have a KPD go down there are 2x choices:

1/. We maintain our defensive group + structure across the rest of the ground by sliding the defensive winger back (as you mentioned with Williams). If someone has to fight out of their weight division, well, we back them to do that and the others to support him.

Or.

2/. We change our structure elsewhere to maintain the tall/med/small balance. For example, Jones goes down means Darcy is dragged from his ruck-fwd role into the defensive group.

I guess it depends on the team in question. I'd go 2 normally but if there isn't a particular key forward set to cause us problems (maybe against Melbourne for example) you probably go with 1 to cause less disruption

[mjp]

I guess it depends on the team in question. I'd go 2 normally but if there isn't a particular key forward set to cause us problems (maybe against Melbourne for example) you probably go with 1 to cause less disruption

So...that means you would change your selection each week depending on the oppo?

I'm happy either way, just curious what everyone thinks.

[bornadog]

Yeah - I get that we would make changes at selection BAD but during a game you can't bring in someone from outside the team.

If we have a KPD go down there are 2x choices:

1/. We maintain our defensive group + structure across the rest of the ground by sliding the defensive winger back (as you mentioned with Williams). If someone has to fight out of their weight division, well, we back them to do that and the others to support him.

Or.

2/. We change our structure elsewhere to maintain the tall/med/small balance. For example, Jones goes down means Darcy is dragged from his ruck-fwd role into the defensive group.

Yes agree with point 1. I guess I was talking about injury at selection, didn't think about during the game.

The GWS game in Ballarat, both Keath and then Bruce went down and the backline was in disarray. Should we have weakened the forward line and sent Naughton down there? I think Lobb bobbed down for a short while to try and be an intercept but that didn't work.

[hujsh]

So...that means you would change your selection each week depending on the oppo?

I'm happy either way, just curious what everyone thinks.

Oh I was thinking more in-game. Outside of matchday I'd probably have the set 7 as much as possible (form/fitness permitting) and assuming we have 2 key defenders as part of that I can't imagine adding a third often. I'd think we have our structures and what not in place and up-heaving them because we're worried about a third tall forward would be overkill.

[jeemak]

I'd strive for continuity and then adjust in game as required.

If we had a specialist who I could trust to come in and do a job as required on a small then maybe I'd consider changing things around, and perhaps we do with a Duryea (but to me he's an outside proposition to be effective - it was two years ago that he iced the final in Brisbane).

We need to ask more defensively from Richards, who is a great interceptor but also has amazing pace and has no excuse not to be able to play a role on a small forward. If he could do that it would double the value of his offensive impact as well. Two jobs done is better than one. A guy like JJ should be mature enough to sacrifice his game and play the role as well.

Continuity in defence killed us last year and when you only have one tall player of Liam Jones's quality it becomes way more important. If we can get the mix right, maintain some form and avoid injury then I'd avoid tinkering as much as possible. If stuff goes tits up during a game then Williams can play back, and Daniel can add experience and composure.

[mjp]

I'd strive for continuity and then adjust in game as required.

So - if we had Jones and JOD as talls, and Jones was injured in game:

- You would allow Williams to slide back into the defensive 7 from his outside mid role and utilise West (Sub) forward/mid.

That's sorta what you're saying (I've just stuck some names in for context).

[jeemak]

So - if we had Jones and JOD as talls, and Jones was injured in game:

- You would allow Williams to slide back into the defensive 7 from his outside mid role and utilise West (Sub) forward/mid.

That's sorta what you're saying (I've just stuck some names in for context).

To begin with I'd have one of Keath or Gardner in there as well, or Darcy. Depending on who's fit and/ or in form.

I don't really like the idea of just having Jones and one other, others do and that's fine but for your scenario I think it limits us and takes away from other areas. Plus, if we do lose Jones we're not bringing in an un-played Keath or Gardner (or Darcy) to take the lead the next week. Limiting the impact to our continuity.

From memory my predicted team accounts for this, I'll check it out.

Edit - this is the team I nominated on 1 December, obviously needs updating but I had Darcy at CHB (instead of Keath or Gardner - but I actually expect one of these guys to be selected more than not over Darcy) and Coffield as medium cover:

Richards, Jones, JOD
Dale, Darcy, JJ
Williams, Jacko, Smith
Scott, JUH, Treloar
Lobb, Naughton, Weightman

English, Bont, Libba

Sanders, Coffield, Daniel, Harmes

Sub: West

So say this was the team and we lose Jones, then we have JOD and Darcy playing tall and Coffield playing medium with relief from Williams.

Scott rolls up to a wing as required, West subs in and takes Scott's rolling up/ running away forward/ mid role.

[GVGjr]

So - if we had Jones and JOD as talls, and Jones was injured in game:

- You would allow Williams to slide back into the defensive 7 from his outside mid role and utilise West (Sub) forward/mid.

That's sorta what you're saying (I've just stuck some names in for context).

We still have a few options, Darcy could be on the bench (well he is in my starting 23) Coffield might have to play tall, Lobb or Naughton swing back to steady the ship. Rather than move Williams back perhaps it Daniel or VDM. I suspect Bevo has a fair bit of faith in Williams so he's probably the first option but we do have a few others.

[FrediKanoute]

Great thread!

My 2 cents is that I don't think out back 6/7 is good enough to be set just yet. L Jones is a lock when fit for the full back position, but the other tall defender positions could go to 2 of 5 guys (Darcy, JOD, Gardner, Keath and Coffield). Whist Ed and Dale should be first choice running half back's some opponents will require us to change tactic here and defensively they may not be the right option.

I think we have to go best match up as a priority and then follow with trying to settle a back6 or 7 down as much as possible. I think in reality the primary back 6 are probably able to cover most situations, and we are not likely to chop and change too much, but there neds to be some consideration here as we don't want a mismatch that will blow us out of the water - I am thinking a Toby Green situation. So we should avoid rigidity of thinking and look to best matchup.

Also what needs to be considered is the connection between the backs and midfield and backs and the forward line. No point having the best 6 or 7 defenders if the connection with these other parts fo the ground doesn't work. So if Gardner is in the best back 6/7 but can't kick for sh*t so every time he gets the ball our exit is under pressure then maybe despite being a great defender we are better playing a lesser defender who is a better kick since this will allos the mids and forward to excel.

[Grantysghost]

Hmm good question MJP.

Personally I like the idea of teams within the team. However that would look bigger as a defensive group than just the 6 + who make the game day squad.
I've even thought there should be captains of the lines that make up the overall leadership group with the actual captain as the chair.

Liam Jones as captain of the backline for eg and part of the leadership group but I digress.

I think it's dynamic. You clearly have your core group which for me would look like Jones, JOD, Richards, JJ, Dale then you'd augment with opposition requirements.
So you want to have your core game plan that doesn't change or be swayed by the opposition, but have that swinging option to tweak and tune during the week.
You might have a Caleb down there for a small match up for eg, or run an extra tall like Keath if needed.

[Go_Dogs]

I’d try to get a defensive 7 and build continuity to the extent we can.

In game if we need to make a change I’d like us to try and keep the existing structure to slide a like for like back where possible (noting this may rob us in other areas of the ground, but I’d preference maintaining our defensive integrity and get buy in from the playing group with that as a premise (and not just for defensive roles either, the same can and should apply to all areas of the ground).

Hopefully we can build some good contingency into our side that doesn’t rob us too much (eg Darcy can swing forward or back to cover an injury to a key position player) Williams, Daniel, Poulter, VDM and even Treloar can swing back, and similarly quite a few smalls / mediums who could swing forward. That would be the idea that I’d build in as much as possible and have a few players for each role we can turn too who’ve got some time under their belt in those areas and know enough about the structures / set ups / etc to be able to provide coverage.