Lets talk gameplan and tactics

[stefoid]

[cross post from big footy]

So individuals may or may not have shit games, this thread is for team and tactics.

OK, what did we see out there on Sunday?

Heres what I saw:

kickouts - almost every time we kicked long to the boundary to a high flying pack. Obviously this is the plan to beat the defensive zone at kickouts - cause a contested situation near the relative safety of the boundary and use our strengths - rugged inside midfielders and good stoppage work - to win the ground ball or resulting throw in.

(yes it didnt work because the bombers caned us at the stoppages, but thats not the point of this thread. we just want to identify what the plan is)

general play - I may have noticed a bit more kicking long along the boundary to contests as opposed to last year, for the same reasons as the kickins I suppose. A more 'collingwood' way of bringing the ball up the ground so you dont get those easy goals scored on you from turnovers in the middle. I cant work out if that was more due to panic kicking under pressure or a plan, however.

What did others notice - any new plans being implemented?

[The Bulldogs Bite]

The game plan (or lack of) absolutely sucked.

We still haven't countered the defensive pres that sides throw upon us. The top sides do it, and it seems Thompson/Hird have improved Essendon dramatically with it. It's shit, ugly footy - but it wins games and stifles the opposition. It can quickly eradicate confidence, which is what happened yesterday.

Basically - we have no plan B, and our defensive pressure from the midfielders and forwards is virtually non-existant. Simply put - you can't win jack without it.

The number of times our players were caught running FORWARD of the contest/ball was disgusting. We were ALWAYS out of position. We were unaccountable - it seems as though we tried tp employ some sort of 'zone', but it was beyond terrible. All Essendon did was run the ball in numbers, draw our players to the ball, and pop it over the top into free space/free players' hands.

In packs when we did happen to win the ball, we'd fire a handpass out to nobody without looking. That's dumb footy.

All in all, Eade (and the players) have a LOT to answer for in the coming weeks. They'd better answer back in a big way, or the heat will be turned up in more ways than one. And rightfully - yesterday was insipid, pathetic, revolting football that puts the tricolour jumper to shame. The fact that we can be out-coached by a man coaching his first game isn't a great sign.

[The Coon Dog]

The fact that we can be out-coached by a man coaching his first game isn't a great sign.

Bomber Thompson says hello!

[BulldogBelle]

Need a coaching salary cap

[stefoid]

Do others think that we were sucked to the ball too much at stoppages?

It looked to me like essendon always had a few outriders who were positioned to receive the ball under less pressure if their inside guys won it, but who could turn inside and pressure our guys when we won it inside.

Consequently while we had first hands on the ball more times than essendon (pro-stats) they won more clearances and more importantly the quality of their clearances was far greater than ours.

[LostDoggy]

The most worrying thing for me was the lack of any kind of plan B when Essendon got a run on. We got monstered in the 2nd quarter, but we were still in the game at half time - so we had the opportunity to re-group, think up some new tactics and then apply them, but we were found wanting in all areas.

[Greystache]

My concern is over the past 3 seasons I can see slight tweaks in our game plan to work on our structures at stoppages and also to work our way through defensive zones, but other than a token effort to chase more in the forward line, I can't see any development to the defensive side of our game. All the teams that that have gone past us in the last 3 years have done so by developing a new defensive set up, I was really hoping to see a big improvement in that area this season but again it doesn't seem to have been a priority.

[bornadog]

My concern is over the past 3 seasons I can see slight tweaks in our game plan to work on our structures at stoppages and also to work our way through defensive zones, but other than a token effort to chase more in the forward line, I can't see any development to the defensive side of our game. All the teams that that have gone past us in the last 3 years have done so by developing a new defensive set up, I was really hoping to see a big improvement in that area this season but again it doesn't seem to have been a priority.

Doesn't help when half your regular backline are missing and we are playing the following:

Markovic - one game
Stack - 12
Wood - 14

and the forward line:

Jones - 6
Grant - 22
DJ - 5

I know they should still chase and tackle etc.


The biggest issue was the midfield, they couldn't get their hands on the ball. Tackle count was about even, but we had no outside runners they were all in and under.

Greystache, you know I love my stats, here ares ome interesting ones:




As I said we just couldn't get our hands on the pill and when we did, we wasted our disposals.

[the banker]

Just posted thias under Game...seemed the wrong thread...sorry for the repeat
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I would call our game plan "The Swarm". Numbers at the ball overlapping handball (some very short) get a player in the clear to deliver to a lead. Player runs by for handball, switch if necessary,kick to another lead. This requires very elite foot and hand skills and good decision making. We used to slaughter teams with this and will still do to lesser teams. However when we come up against a very disciplined defensive unit with lots of structure we have difficulty breaking their line and we end up kicking to an outnumbered contest, with no great crumbers. Our back half when at strength is strong and can attack as well as anyone. (Murph, williams, Wood, Lake, Shaggy (last year Harbrow)maybe Sherman. The midfield needs to be winning the contested footy to get first possession to make the swarm work. Ball carriers also required. Griff, Cooney, Sherman. We have problems if the midfield is not quick, so if Cooney, Griffen, Sherman, Wood are injured or not on song we will struggle because Boyd, Cross, Ward, Higgins, Libba, Picken etc are not speedsters, but they are, by and large, first rate hard ball getters. I think structurally we need to stick with Jones. He needs to at least make sure the ball comes to ground, if we had a Stephen Milne it would suit our purpose. The Midfield need to a create a "press" to hold the ball in the F50 when it comes to ground. Not an easy thing to say, but I wonder if Hudson is the right type of ruckman in 2011.

[Greystache]

Doesn't help when half your regular backline are missing and we are playing the following:

Markovic - one game
Stack - 12
Wood - 14

and the forward line:

Jones - 6
Grant - 22
DJ - 5

I know they should still chase and tackle etc.


The biggest issue was the midfield, they couldn't get their hands on the ball. Tackle count was about even, but we had no outside runners they were all in and under.

I thought the defence was ok, the way the ball was coming in and our lack of defensive structure in the midfield meant even our best back six would have been beaten. I'm not convinced other than Lake coming back it will get much stronger anyway.

DJ and Grant chased hard, Jones was a bit dissapointing given it's normally an area of strength, but when the team is bombing the ball to a one on three contest chasing isn't going to make much difference, you HAVE to be applying pressure from the front. We simply refuse to do it.

[mjp]

Need a coaching salary cap

I have been saying this for some time - but it should be related to footy department spending, not just coaching.

Had nothing to do with Sunday though.

[Greystache]

Greystache, you know I love my stats, here ares ome interesting ones:




As I said we just couldn't get our hands on the pill and when we did, we wasted our disposals.

On the second section.

To me it those stats indicate we got our hands on the ball first at least as often as they did, but we continued to turn it over whereas they maintained effective possession. That comes from pressure on the ball carrier, from watching Essendon's first 4 games the change in their game plan to a more defensive structure was obvious, we should have been planning to make this a tight defensive struggle, but we didn't, we tried to run and gun like usual and got burnt.

I thought the prelim final between Geelong and Colingwood had exposed to the public that the run and carry, and play on at all costs style was stale and teams had moved on, we clearly don't have that way of thinking which is why I was seeing alarm bells about this game. What's even more worrying for me is not only do I think the play on at all costs is stale and at minimum need to be backed up by a strong defensive set up, but I don't even think we've got the playing group to suit that style anymore.

[bornadog]

On the second section.

To me it those stats indicate we got our hands on the ball first at least as often as they did, but we continued to turn it over whereas they maintained effective possession. That comes from pressure on the ball carrier, from watching Essendon's first 4 games the change in their game plan to a more defensive structure was obvious, we should have been planning to make this a tight defensive struggle, but we didn't, we tried to run and gun like usual and got burnt.

I thought the prelim final between Geelong and Colingwood had exposed to the public that the run and carry, and play on at all costs style was stale and teams had moved on, we clearly don't have that way of thinking which is why I was seeing alarm bells about this game. What's even more worrying for me is not only do I think the play on at all costs is stale and at minimum need to be backed up by a strong defensive set up, but I don't even think we've got the playing group to suit that style anymore.

I think your right there.

[The Bulldogs Bite]

On the second section.

To me it those stats indicate we got our hands on the ball first at least as often as they did, but we continued to turn it over whereas they maintained effective possession. That comes from pressure on the ball carrier, from watching Essendon's first 4 games the change in their game plan to a more defensive structure was obvious, we should have been planning to make this a tight defensive struggle, but we didn't, we tried to run and gun like usual and got burnt.

I thought the prelim final between Geelong and Colingwood had exposed to the public that the run and carry, and play on at all costs style was stale and teams had moved on, we clearly don't have that way of thinking which is why I was seeing alarm bells about this game. What's even more worrying for me is not only do I think the play on at all costs is stale and at minimum need to be backed up by a strong defensive set up, but I don't even think we've got the playing group to suit that style anymore.

Great post, couldn't agree more.

I've been saying we need a new game plan after the preliminary final loss to St. Kilda in 2009.

[mjp]

The most worrying thing for me was the lack of any kind of plan B when Essendon got a run on. We got monstered in the 2nd quarter, but we were still in the game at half time - so we had the opportunity to re-group, think up some new tactics and then apply them, but we were found wanting in all areas.

Think up some new tactics at halftime? Give me a break.

There is no plan b for any side. The style is the style, and generally speaking the structure is the structure. You can tweak individuals roles within each, but you can't just dream something up in the rooms and implement it.