Putting a defensive group together - Situational or???

[mjp]

OK - I'm gonna try to explain this bit:

"I guess I'm struggling to see how having three defenders playing large minutes doesn't provide us with more flexibility, not less...".

There are 4x players on the bench who are each part of a rotation group. The 'BIGGER' that group is, the less time each player spends on the pine/more time on the ground. For example, if you have a group that consists of 2x starting wingers and 1x rotating winger, then each would (in theory), spend 66% of time on ground. If you expanded that group to have one of the inside mids as well, well now those players are at 75% (because there are 4 in the rotation group). If you further expanded that group to have a high forward, well, now they are at 80% etc..Now, if you turn that the other way, creating SMALLER rotation groups LIMITS a players time on ground - which is what we are doing by selecting too many talls (or too many smalls, or too many mids, or too many forwards etc)...

Now - when you play with too many players who are limited to ONE spot, you are:
1/. Limiting THEIR time on ground.
2/. Restricting the ability of other players to rotate because there is a (in this case) tall defender on the bench who can't rotate into their spot.

Does what I'm saying make sense? Basically there is nothing more frustrating on game day than trying to constantly shift magnets around to 'balance' the side...it doesn't help you win and it doesn't help the players (who feel you don't support them if they are pigeon holed into one position or other OR get stuck spending excessive time either on the bench OR can't get a rotation when they need one).

[Uninformed]

OK - I'm gonna try to explain this bit:

"I guess I'm struggling to see how having three defenders playing large minutes doesn't provide us with more flexibility, not less...".

There are 4x players on the bench who are each part of a rotation group. The 'BIGGER' that group is, the less time each player spends on the pine/more time on the ground. For example, if you have a group that consists of 2x starting wingers and 1x rotating winger, then each would (in theory), spend 66% of time on ground. If you expanded that group to have one of the inside mids as well, well now those players are at 75% (because there are 4 in the rotation group). If you further expanded that group to have a high forward, well, now they are at 80% etc..Now, if you turn that the other way, creating SMALLER rotation groups LIMITS a players time on ground - which is what we are doing by selecting too many talls (or too many smalls, or too many mids, or too many forwards etc)...

Now - when you play with too many players who are limited to ONE spot, you are:
1/. Limiting THEIR time on ground.
2/. Restricting the ability of other players to rotate because there is a (in this case) tall defender on the bench who can't rotate into their spot.

Does what I'm saying make sense? Basically there is nothing more frustrating on game day than trying to constantly shift magnets around to 'balance' the side...it doesn't help you win and it doesn't help the players (who feel you don't support them if they are pigeon holed into one position or other OR get stuck spending excessive time either on the bench OR can't get a rotation when they need one).

That makes a lot of sense. But to throw in a wobbly, what price is put on player ability versus rotation efficiency and team balance? When a player of exceptional ability is a tall when you want a small, or vice versa.

For example we play McComb instead of a tall with more ability and potential impact. You could then offset that where we played Darcy as a fourth tall forward because of ability.

It is very complex to cover all the variables. Unless one factor, say rotations, is a way bigger influence on outcomes.

[jeemak]

I guess where I'm struggling is that if you have 75 rotations as a limit and maybe each KPF needs two rotations a game, then you're going from four to six with three KPFs instead of two. That's bad if you just look at KPFs, but you should be opening up two rotations a game by having an additional KPF over a player that normally requires four (now I'm not sure if those numbers are right, but they're demonstrative).

Total rotations - 75 (3.41 per player)
2 KPFs, rotations left over - 71 (3.55 per non-KPF player)
3 KPFs, rotations left over - 69 (3.63 per non-KPF player)

Not sure I get how the above is fundamentally more difficult to manage if you slightly adjust the pools of rotations to a greater number but expect players to be a bit more flexible in where they play from time to time. But, I haven't worked for two months (though starting again tomorrow I might get my brain back in working order by the end of the week) and you do this stuff for a job.

[mjp]

Unless one factor, say rotations, is a way bigger influence on outcomes.

So - if you want my un-researched take on this, rotations actually has a great deal more influence on games than anyone will acknowledge.

Players 'ROLL' within rotation groups on match day. There will be times that your weakest 6-7 players are ALL on the field at once...AND at the same time some of your first choice players are either on the bench OR being played outside of their primary role. This is why it's so hard to use simple 'when player x is on the ground his team are better/worse' stats in AFL footy...most players play multiple roles in a game and whilst the 'under lock and key' (aka paywall) champion stats TRY to track positions, they are based on CBD positions + gps...which is hard to get accurate due to game-styles etc.

Coaches have very little control over rotations once the game is rolling and it is certainly an area of opportunity in both analysis and win-loss changes right now.