2014 Game plan

Football Discussion Dustin Fletcher Hangar
41

That's not the gameplan.
Moving to space to receive is there to remove congestion so the middle opens up, not so we actually pass backwards
The problem is the some players are not working hard enoug to find space up the ground and through the middle, so the only options players are seeing is sideways and backwards.
On top of that there has been habit building about this, so players aren't trusting the corridor even when it is free, or just aren't looking there anymore.
We destroyed Carlton playing as we did because we ran harder Nd opened up space to get forward and score. We just aren't doing that anymore.
It is form, confidence and execution, not the gameplan.

You're not going to believe this but I agree 100%.
Confidence is a powerful thing - very similar line up pushed the Hawks
42

The cats weren't failing to shepherd, handballing out of no trouble to a player in massive trouble etc.
Also. Other sides know that Hibberd, Heppell, Hocking, Myers are too one-sided. They run them onto their right sides all the time and the best they can manage is a short handball.

You reckon they were shepherding a lot? Not that I can remember. Collingwood (2009-11 era) did that a lot. Hawks did too. Both sides that would prefer to run and kick ( Pies more ball carrier focussed, Hawks lots of short kicks)
Cats would flick it round (by hand) more than *anyone* and free people up that way. Go look back at games or stats, that was their preferred ball movement pattern at least up until 2010 (when Bomber wanted to change it, but the players were happy with what they were doing, leading to the final flogging).
43

Pretty much agree.  Actually the switch we do is the "safest" you could see. The switch kicks go backwards very often;  lets call it the "slow backwards switch"  An attacking switch is a fast diagonally forward switch,  and over the players in the corridor.     Since your team is in possession,  the opposition have already "manned up" and flooded back as appropriate .  The opposition forwards  have run into the corridor,  to clog it.

But the fast diagonal forward switch is far more risky.   since in a long kick,  there is a higher chance of a turnover.  So teams dont do it very often.

 

The slow switch has become the Essendon trademark.   Its so xxxx slow its next to useless.   When they start doing that , I take the opportunity to go out and turn on the kettle.

 

Certainly Essendon has learned to live with turnovers in the forward 50.   They bomb it long all the time or switch.   If they try handball, eventually the chain of handballs result in a turnover,  you cannot get it right all the time.

 

My take on it is .  If you want to goal from a counter attack ,  make it fast, and make sure you have a player with a 1/1, within goal kicking distance when you try it, and expect that 50% of the time it will be turned over anyway ..

 

Remember,  Buddies statistics were not that good.  Nor were Tippets.   Buddy had kicked 5 goals out of 50 inside 50s Ablett senior once kicked 14 goals in a losing side against Essendon.   Essendon had 2 less inside 50s and lost by 8 goals in the Sydney match.

 

Opposition teams can read the Essendon game plan on social media.  Its not in the news any more in 2014.  Sorry.   I agree fast and direct is the answer for the 2nd half of the season.  Risk it and kick it forwards over the middle of the field every so often !

 

 

Haha very funny analogy. I think jumping jack made a good point on the tigers game plan, it appears they have gone the same route as us with this whole copying hawthorn thing. The difference with both our sides being, our midfielders have average disposal compared to the hawks abundance of low, flat kicking left footers.

44

 

Pretty much agree.  Actually the switch we do is the "safest" you could see. The switch kicks go backwards very often;  lets call it the "slow backwards switch"  An attacking switch is a fast diagonally forward switch,  and over the players in the corridor.     Since your team is in possession,  the opposition have already "manned up" and flooded back as appropriate .  The opposition forwards  have run into the corridor,  to clog it.

But the fast diagonal forward switch is far more risky.   since in a long kick,  there is a higher chance of a turnover.  So teams dont do it very often.

 

The slow switch has become the Essendon trademark.   Its so xxxx slow its next to useless.   When they start doing that , I take the opportunity to go out and turn on the kettle.

 

Certainly Essendon has learned to live with turnovers in the forward 50.   They bomb it long all the time or switch.   If they try handball, eventually the chain of handballs result in a turnover,  you cannot get it right all the time.

 

My take on it is .  If you want to goal from a counter attack ,  make it fast, and make sure you have a player with a 1/1, within goal kicking distance when you try it, and expect that 50% of the time it will be turned over anyway ..

 

Remember,  Buddies statistics were not that good.  Nor were Tippets.   Buddy had kicked 5 goals out of 50 inside 50s Ablett senior once kicked 14 goals in a losing side against Essendon.   Essendon had 2 less inside 50s and lost by 8 goals in the Sydney match.

 

Opposition teams can read the Essendon game plan on social media.  Its not in the news any more in 2014.  Sorry.   I agree fast and direct is the answer for the 2nd half of the season.  Risk it and kick it forwards over the middle of the field every so often !

 

 

Haha very funny analogy. I think jumping jack made a good point on the tigers game plan, it appears they have gone the same route as us with this whole copying hawthorn thing. The difference with both our sides being, our midfielders have average disposal compared to the hawks abundance of low, flat kicking left footers.

 

Exactly right. No coincidence that both Essendon and Richmond are underachieving this year. Our game plans are similar and are not suited to our personal. However given that we have had the bye im sure they would have made some alterations to have the team move the ball quicker

45

 

The cats weren't failing to shepherd, handballing out of no trouble to a player in massive trouble etc.

 

Also. Other sides know that Hibberd, Heppell, Hocking, Myers are too one-sided. They run them onto their right sides all the time and the best they can manage is a short handball.

and you reckon bomber has added this to the geameplan for us?

 

I think one of the major noticeable differences in last years' and this years' gameplan is we handball far more now. And the player who handballs off is often under no pressure. The player he handballs to is often under pressure.

 

You don't agree?

46

 

Was the cats gameplan quite mysterious was it?

i could never figure out the quick precise ball use by highly skilled well drilled players.

 

had me ******.

 

I think there may have been *slightly* more to it than that.

47

 

The cats weren't failing to shepherd, handballing out of no trouble to a player in massive trouble etc.
Also. Other sides know that Hibberd, Heppell, Hocking, Myers are too one-sided. They run them onto their right sides all the time and the best they can manage is a short handball.

You reckon they were shepherding a lot? Not that I can remember. Collingwood (2009-11 era) did that a lot. Hawks did too. Both sides that would prefer to run and kick ( Pies more ball carrier focussed, Hawks lots of short kicks)
Cats would flick it round (by hand) more than *anyone* and free people up that way. Go look back at games or stats, that was their preferred ball movement pattern at least up until 2010 (when Bomber wanted to change it, but the players were happy with what they were doing, leading to the final flogging).

 

I think they were shepherding yeah. I mean I think that's a basic part of footy. I remember Malcolm Blight saying they had a "blocking" game.

 

I see our players just failing to do it when they so obviously should, whether shepherding is a big part of our official gameplan or not.

48

Our game plan brings the game to disrepute

49



Was the cats gameplan quite mysterious was it?

i could never figure out the quick precise ball use by highly skilled well drilled players.
had me ******.
I think there may have been *slightly* more to it than that.
Not really, IMHO.
Good hardmen, *great* depth in ball winners (anyone remember a side where a guy like Joel Corey doesn't make the starting midfield 4?), very very very good ball users all over the shop, and indomitable confidence. Constant overlap run, and *always* having that option where they looked first. That's more experience, discipline and execution rather than an overly complex plan.
Gameplan very much based on outworking and outrunning sides - the few sides (Hawks up to 08, Pies and Saints til 2010) who could match them worked very hard on denying that extra guy outnumbering.
Simple to say - not very simple to stop and even harder to implement (as every club since has found out)
Comparing it to the Hawks who have a number of little tricks to free up the guy to come through with a 2-3 step run-up and the lead up targets everywhere. Key to their ball use. Pies the sneaky illegal shepherds off the mark to let the halfback get an extra 5m down the wing and of course the forward press. Lyon "tackle everything that moves and sit on everything that doesn't".
There's obviously more nuances than that but in my recollections at least they were based more on providing more uncontested options than anything else.
Remember in 06 and the first 5 weeks of 07 they were ordinary in just about every facet. Then there was a light bulb moment and they suddenly turned into this beast machine.
IMHO that suggests it was more about how the players were executing, rather than any change in what they were meant to be doing. But it looked very very different from the outside.
And Bomber sees (or at least thinks he sees) some parallel. Even if it is a different gameplan (remember Bomba wanted their all-conquering gameplan changed drastically prior to 2010 finals, against the players' wishes), and a different group.
To me his demeanour is that of someone who is patiently waiting for the others to catch up to where he is.
He's got an idea of what will work. He knows the group isn't doing it consistently but has done it in patches. He's not going to change his plan, or revise his expectations, he's just going to keep doing the same thing until they get it.
That's my read, anyway.
As for shepherding. I'm not sure whether it's a key part of our gameplan or not, but I don't think it was a big part of the Cats' gameplan - just that they'd do it when they really should have, and we're often not.
I just see it like holding marks and hitting targets really.
50

Wouldn’t most game plans revolve around 1 get ball to teammate or 2 if teammate is covered kick the ■■■■ through it your way ?

51



Pretty much agree. Actually the switch we do is the "safest" you could see. The switch kicks go backwards very often; lets call it the "slow backwards switch" An attacking switch is a fast diagonally forward switch, and over the players in the corridor. Since your team is in possession, the opposition have already "manned up" and flooded back as appropriate . The opposition forwards have run into the corridor, to clog it.
But the fast diagonal forward switch is far more risky. since in a long kick, there is a higher chance of a turnover. So teams dont do it very often.
The slow switch has become the Essendon trademark. Its so xxxx slow its next to useless. When they start doing that , I take the opportunity to go out and turn on the kettle.
Certainly Essendon has learned to live with turnovers in the forward 50. They bomb it long all the time or switch. If they try handball, eventually the chain of handballs result in a turnover, you cannot get it right all the time.
My take on it is . If you want to goal from a counter attack , make it fast, and make sure you have a player with a 1/1, within goal kicking distance when you try it, and expect that 50% of the time it will be turned over anyway ..
Remember, Buddies statistics were not that good. Nor were Tippets. Buddy had kicked 5 goals out of 50 inside 50s Ablett senior once kicked 14 goals in a losing side against Essendon. Essendon had 2 less inside 50s and lost by 8 goals in the Sydney match.
Opposition teams can read the Essendon game plan on social media. Its not in the news any more in 2014. Sorry. I agree fast and direct is the answer for the 2nd half of the season. Risk it and kick it forwards over the middle of the field every so often !


Haha very funny analogy. I think jumping jack made a good point on the tigers game plan, it appears they have gone the same route as us with this whole copying hawthorn thing. The difference with both our sides being, our midfielders have average disposal compared to the hawks abundance of low, flat kicking left footers.
Exactly right. No coincidence that both Essendon and Richmond are underachieving this year. Our game plans are similar and are not suited to our personal. However given that we have had the bye im sure they would have made some alterations to have the team move the ball quicker

You'd ■■■■■■ hope so
52

Only skilful sides can execute a quick style of play, and I honestly believe our guys HAVE the skills. We've seen it far too often for it not to be flukey. Their disposal efficiency and cleanliness at times has been AFL-leading, so it can be done. Watch the first quarter of this years Anzac Day game - some of the chain of disposals are breathtakingly clean and quick. It can be done.

 

As we're talking about the slow switch, I reckon the player who looks for this as the 2nd or 3rd option (and not first option) is Fletch. And that's probably because he's got confidence, experience and cut his teeth in the 90s where risk-taking was the norm. It's also why he's still so crucial to the side. I remember that Rnd 11 or 12 game last year vs Carlton, when we were 30 pts down or whatever, and Fletch actually took the game on from the back half, numerous switches from back pockets into the corridor, as opposed to the boring across goal to unmarked player or hugging the boundary. 

53



The cats weren't failing to shepherd, handballing out of no trouble to a player in massive trouble etc.
Also. Other sides know that Hibberd, Heppell, Hocking, Myers are too one-sided. They run them onto their right sides all the time and the best they can manage is a short handball.

and you reckon bomber has added this to the geameplan for us?
I think one of the major noticeable differences in last years' and this years' gameplan is we handball far more now. And the player who handballs off is often under no pressure. The player he handballs to is often under pressure.
You don't agree?
I don't think it's the game plan.
Logic says it isn't the gameplan.
Every televised quarter time coaches message says otherwise.
Goal kickers get the yips some times. I doubt anyone has told them to tighten up and push the ball.
Our team is out form and playing safe and taking bad options.
I doubt handball to a guy under more pressure is the "gameplan".
I doubt play it safe with a backwards crossfield kick is thd 'game plan".
54

 

 

The cats weren't failing to shepherd, handballing out of no trouble to a player in massive trouble etc.

 

Also. Other sides know that Hibberd, Heppell, Hocking, Myers are too one-sided. They run them onto their right sides all the time and the best they can manage is a short handball.

and you reckon bomber has added this to the geameplan for us?

 

I think one of the major noticeable differences in last years' and this years' gameplan is we handball far more now. And the player who handballs off is often under no pressure. The player he handballs to is often under pressure.

 

You don't agree?

 

Ever seen Bayern Munich play ?  They have the most amazing fast passing game thats like billiard balls precisely bouncing at angles off cushions.  I well remember one passage of play in the first quarter of the Anzac day game that looked like that ,  the short handballs went forward, back,  sideways , and Collingwood had no idea what was happening. Someone broke into space , a goal resulted and it was just MAGIC to watch .   However,  I havent seen that happen that well again.  Its sort of like they peaked at that point and its been downhill ever since.

55

Sorry guys, but I don’t see the logic of discussing our game-plan where clearly ASADA is affecting the players mentally.

We won’t get to see our best until this un-precedented saga is over but I have a feeling we saw a sneak peak of it in the 1st qtr on ANZAC day.

56

 

Can someone please explain this to me.
 
I always sit on the 3rd lever at Etihad as it gives a view of the game styles going head to head & sometimes a problem becomes so obvious it just leaves you perplexed.
 
We continue to press up all our forwards which leaves our forward line completely empty when defending. And I mean completely empty. What is supposed to happen when we gain possesion? I mean in an absolute utopian outcome how is the forward line supposed to function from that point on? Is a small forward or a midfielder supposed to burst through into the space when we gain possession with the ball being kicked out in front? Because it is not happening & it's creating a problem for our midfielders who are forced to look every way but forward in an attempt to maintain possession & not kick long to a one on one.
 
Why do we need an 18 man press. Surely using a 17 man press & making sure we always have at least 1 forward inside the 50, much like Geelong with Hawkins is what we should be doing....

 

You are absolutely spot on.  If one forward stays in the forward 50,  the opposition player will be kept out of the game downfield as well,  because he wont leave him.  This is the paddock principle and it prevents 3 on 1,  gives space to lead into  and means they dont have to switch around but drive the ball long on a fast counter attack....... 

57

 

 

Can someone please explain this to me.
 
I always sit on the 3rd lever at Etihad as it gives a view of the game styles going head to head & sometimes a problem becomes so obvious it just leaves you perplexed.
 
We continue to press up all our forwards which leaves our forward line completely empty when defending. And I mean completely empty. What is supposed to happen when we gain possesion? I mean in an absolute utopian outcome how is the forward line supposed to function from that point on? Is a small forward or a midfielder supposed to burst through into the space when we gain possession with the ball being kicked out in front? Because it is not happening & it's creating a problem for our midfielders who are forced to look every way but forward in an attempt to maintain possession & not kick long to a one on one.
 
Why do we need an 18 man press. Surely using a 17 man press & making sure we always have at least 1 forward inside the 50, much like Geelong with Hawkins is what we should be doing....

 

You are absolutely spot on.  If one forward stays in the forward 50,  the opposition player will be kept out of the game downfield as well,  because he wont leave him.  This is the paddock principle and it prevents 3 on 1,  gives space to lead into  and means they dont have to switch around but drive the ball long on a fast counter attack....... 

 

When you add in the mandate is to play on and wheel around and kick/handball it does not make that much sense. Players play on and end up going sideways, backwards or get in trouble as there is no "first option" upfront. One forward should be staying forward and if not then players should hold the ball on the mark to allow the forwards to reposition themselves. 

58

we're struggling to fill that hole davey left at chf
 

59

ASADAitis.

60

I went down to training today and what they are doing in games is clearly not what they are being told to do.  In the match ups even our defenders were able push the midfielders wide or intercept.  When they reversed roles our defenders were able to break the pack and run the lines.  At one stage Hooker got 20 metres in the clear and strolled into the open goal.  From what I could see it was a bout clean ball handling.  Some of our midfielders were making errors even when there was no pressure and also players without the ball ran to the easy boundary line option (Bomber brought that to their attention at one stage saying you were just in a sh*t position).  Our midfielders seem to be running wide!

 

We need to run the ball usually because we have the "extra" at the contest meaning the opposition always have a lose in the back.  

 

What happens is we get Goddard, Heppel and Watson in the midfield and the clean ball handling tends to makes us look good.  Put Myers, Zaharakis and Hocking.  The skill level falls and the turnovers happen.  They need to improve their skill.

 

The other thing to watch is when the forwards lead.  If they lead too early by the time the midfield run the ball the midfielders and the forwards are almost next to each other.  What would have been a kick becomes a handball (to a guy running in the wrong direction) unless one of the midfielders has kept running through.   

 

Maybe we need "Bob the Builder" as coach.  "Can we fix it?"  "Yes we can!"

it's not as simple as x y Z player need to improve their skill, cos really Heppell gets away with alot on this site and in general, but some of his skill and decision making is deplorable.

the problem as i see it is, we have decent skilled players, who are prone to a couple of really dodgy skill or decision making errors a game. I don't mean kicking to a pack situation when there was a free man 20 meters in the clear.

I mean missing a free man who's got 20 meters of space, by 30 meters and kicking it to an opposition player who takes it down the other end for a scoring oppotunity.

Those stupid skill/decision making errors cost us, even 1 or 2 per player end up costing us big time.

 

But you bring up a good point, which seems to be a re occuring theme that the players aren't playing to the coaches instructions, ala bringing it through the middle.

 

So the question becomes, why aren't the offending culprits dropped ?

No good having a system to which you want players to play, then keeping them in the side when they fail to do it, even at training, how can you make someone do what you want, if their's no visible consequences to not doing it ?