Coaching Philosophy: Stop Them or Outscore Them?

[mjp]

Not gonna lie, these posts are mostly for me...

There’s a well-known story about Mick Malthouse’s first match committee meeting at West Coast in 1990. As the selectors started discussing the Eagles' team, Malthouse interrupted:

"Before we do any of that, we’re going to take the time to pick the opposition side... only THEN will we look at our side."

Classic Malthouse—his philosophy was all about taking away what the opposition wanted to do. He built teams that were structured, disciplined, and designed to nullify the opposition’s strengths before worrying about their own game plan.

Then there were coaches like Malcolm Blight at Geelong in the same era. Blight was the opposite—his approach was more like: “I don’t care what they try, they are not going to stop us. Let’s pick a team to WIN.” His Geelong teams played attacking, free-flowing footy, betting that if they could put enough scoreboard pressure on, the opposition wouldn’t be able to keep up.

Times have changed (a lot) since dinosaurs like Malthouse and Blight walked the earth - coaching teams through individual philosophies and (almost) via cult of personality....but when push comes to shove are you:
- Defensive-first: Focus on restricting the opposition, shutting down their best players, and making it an arm-wrestle. If we keep them to 7 goals, we only need 8 to win.
- Attack-first: Pick the team to score, back your system in, and overwhelm the opposition with offensive firepower. If we can kick 14 goals, who cares if they get 9?

Yes, yes...I know there has to be a balance blah blah...but get OFF THE FENCE! Deep down, what’s your instinct? Are you more of a Malthouse or a Blight? Outscore 'em...or STRANGLE THEM??

[Mofra]

It's more difficult now to answer this question than it ever has been, given we expect our defenders to launch score attacks and our attackers to defend on transition.

I'd step back and consider where we think our advantage lies. Playing 3 gun talls against an undersized defence? Emphasise our attack.
Is the opposition in the lower part of the ladder for scores-for? Emphasise defence.

I really just want us to do what the opposition doesn't want us to do. In recent history teams have been defence-first type set-ups though with a very well-drilled, disciplined and settled back 7 (bench rotation) and occasionally a make-shift forwardline.

[NAUGHTY100]

Not gonna lie, these posts are mostly for me...

There’s a well-known story about Mick Malthouse’s first match committee meeting at West Coast in 1990. As the selectors started discussing the Eagles' team, Malthouse interrupted:

"Before we do any of that, we’re going to take the time to pick the opposition side... only THEN will we look at our side."

Classic Malthouse—his philosophy was all about taking away what the opposition wanted to do. He built teams that were structured, disciplined, and designed to nullify the opposition’s strengths before worrying about their own game plan.

Then there were coaches like Malcolm Blight at Geelong in the same era. Blight was the opposite—his approach was more like: “I don’t care what they try, they are not going to stop us. Let’s pick a team to WIN.” His Geelong teams played attacking, free-flowing footy, betting that if they could put enough scoreboard pressure on, the opposition wouldn’t be able to keep up.

Times have changed (a lot) since dinosaurs like Malthouse and Blight walked the earth - coaching teams through individual philosophies and (almost) via cult of personality....but when push comes to shove are you:
- Defensive-first: Focus on restricting the opposition, shutting down their best players, and making it an arm-wrestle. If we keep them to 7 goals, we only need 8 to win.
- Attack-first: Pick the team to score, back your system in, and overwhelm the opposition with offensive firepower. If we can kick 14 goals, who cares if they get 9?

Yes, yes...I know there has to be a balance blah blah...but get OFF THE FENCE! Deep down, what’s your instinct? Are you more of a Malthouse or a Blight? Outscore 'em...or STRANGLE THEM??

I think its Attack 1st , .My opinion is also based on our own side with the likes of Marra , Naughton , Darcy and co , i think the old adage of , if we kick 15 then we don't care if they kick 10 or 12 we are always going to beat them . I am not an expert ,like a few here are , but i regard a side that is more Balanced in offence and defence is the way to go , but that wasn't your question , so im going for Outscore them , but as everyone will point out Defence wins flags , but didn't the Swans play such a defensive game plan that the AFL wanted them to stop that system , but yeah over all i prefer watching an attacking game then a defensive game plan.

[Rusty12]

If we are talking AFL coaching, STRANGLE THEM.
It takes years to paint a masterpiece and just seconds to smash it.

[Rusty12]

Come on Guys, he said get off the fence, pick one!

[GVGjr]

While I don't mind us scoring heavily in games, my real preference is to see a defensive effort that strangles the life out of the opposition.
It can also start in the midfield but defenders who can switch between ultra defensive shutdown roles and quickly adjust into attack is brilliant to watch.

[Bornadog]

This was the first Grand final I went to because my mate was a Tigers supporter and asked me to go - we were teenagers.

Carlton	8.4	18.6	25.9	28.9	177
Richmond	5.4	10.9	15.15	22.18	150

* An incredible match, and all out attack from both teams - great to watch.

* Then I look at the Hawks in 1984 - some massive scores kicked, but also they restricted the opposition to low scores - they were relentless, but no match for Bombers in the GF

* 1985, Malthouse at the Dogs - we kicked some massive scores that year and even won by 120 points against the Dees, but agree, in subsequent years, Malthouse preferred defence first. Maybe he adjusted based on the players.

I like the all out attack philosophy, but not all out like Blight. There has to be good defence that defends and attacks as Mofra said.

[Uninformed]

Attack! Make them worry about us. F...em

[azabob]

Strangle em. Defence and defensive actions wins finals and flags.

When was the last close GF where a forward tore the game apart and got their side over the line?

Not great viewing but if you’re winning who cares?

[jeemak]

Ideal world with a relatively balanced side - figure out what you want to do when you get it, figure out how you're going to stop them when they have it, and then depending on who you're playing and their weapons adjust what you're doing when the ball's in dispute.

I guess I'd be more inclined to err on the defensive side of that strategy as a default, providing I could reliably intercept and launch from defence. It's easier to stop and be stopped than it is to score in today's football. If you can't effectively intercept and launch, then you're better off pressing high and taking the space away early (much like we used to do when we didn't have Jones and Lobb).

[BontlowSzn]

Defend first. Nothing grinds my gears more than seeing us get 12 repeat inside 50s in a row, pushing right up, only for a quick rebound resulting in an easy goal out the back. We give up way to many.

Plus we have Darcy. Allow the team defence to set up behind the ball, let them get spare players back who cares, Darcy will still mark the footy anyway

[Bulldog Joe]

I'm leaning towards defend first. Strangle the opposition and you are always in the game.

I have a belief that if you eliminate consecutive goals against you will just about always win.

However, I do want plenty of attack to balance that out.

[mjp]

This was the first Grand final I went to because my mate was a Tigers supporter and asked me to go - we were teenagers.

Carlton	8.4	18.6	25.9	28.9	177
Richmond	5.4	10.9	15.15	22.18	150

* An incredible match, and all out attack from both teams - great to watch.

* Then I look at the Hawks in 1984 - some massive scores kicked, but also they restricted the opposition to low scores - they were relentless, but no match for Bombers in the GF

* 1985, Malthouse at the Dogs - we kicked some massive scores that year and even won by 120 points against the Dees, but agree, in subsequent years, Malthouse preferred defence first. Maybe he adjusted based on the players.

I like the all out attack philosophy, but not all out like Blight. There has to be good defence that defends and attacks as Mofra said.

If you look at the game days scores during the 60's, 70's and 80's the sheer VOLUME of scores is staggering based on today's standards. It meant (for me anyway) there was just a bit more 'joy' in footy. Losing is one thing. Losing and kicking 6-goals? That's absolutely excruciating...if you kick 16 at least you leave the ground with HOPE!

[NAUGHTY100]

If you look at the game days scores during the 60's, 70's and 80's the sheer VOLUME of scores is staggering based on today's standards. It meant (for me anyway) there was just a bit more 'joy' in footy. Losing is one thing. Losing and kicking 6-goals? That's absolutely excruciating...if you kick 16 at least you leave the ground with HOPE!

From 1989 through to 2014 , in those 25 years the attacking sides won 15 of the 25 flags up for grab . Times have obviously changed now where the best defences win you flags .

[mighty_west]

Defense first, the issue with going full on attack is that if things fall flat it can get ugly very quickly on the rebound especially in the big cut throat high pressured finals, teams will go after those types and find ways to nullify your strengths, get to a stage where the team has that hard arse tackling pressure to grind down the opposition to then use your natural offensive types to go full throttle, it sounds good and you're not always going to have your own way but make it as difficult as possible for teams to beat you.