People talk about our slingshot and all out attack style.
The way I see our current style is that it is aiming to be almost completely rounded and strong in various ways.
We have moved towards been a decent repeat stoppage team when the heat is on. The cut through run often comes off the back of grunt stoppage work. Forcing the zone press to come at us and irresitably breaking through the last layer of the zone with in tight grunt and handball.
Our defence with Hooker, Ridley and Redman now available has 2 beasts, 2 of the fastest yet toughest back pockets and 2 lovely kicking medium players.
We are moving towards being a complete and whole team to play against.
The forward line still needs a pack smasher and a good tall for the under pressure release kick.
Its important for Joe not only to play but to play with great physicality and to negate contests if he cannot win them.
If Joe can take his game to a high level then we are going to be hard team for anyone to beat.
Unfortunately I can’t shed much light on it and it is a good question.
What I heard is that the intention was to bring in a game plan that was so stark in difference to what we had trained and played last year.
JLT was a mess and the players were struggling to grasp the concept/s. I also heard that the coaching group were very much at odds over its introduction. A robust meeting took place and it was abandoned. As I have said, I think when Zach and Shiel have talked about freedom they are referring to playing a way that they are used to and not such a structured zone set up.
With regard to Rutten - I am assuming that this is a system that he has tried to introduce, obviously with the approval of Richo and Woosh. Again, I wasn’t told this, it is just my assumption.
I also assume that the initial plan was incredibly different to the way we played last year but I do hope that it wasn’t discarded altogether.
To spend the entire pre-season on a concept and dump it prior to Rd 1 was and is a great concern. If we continue to play as we did on Saturday then the good news is that it hasn’t hurt us too badly.
Another side to this, is that although a ‘care-free & simple’ style of play may get to highlight individual talent, it is at the other end of the spectrum when it comes to team-play. And great teams win flags, not great players. It’s early season. Over the next 10 rounds or so, teams will have each other worked out. A style that is largely unstructured will be torn apart, particularly in finals-style football with hyper-pressure.
Having said that - I am not one of those who is of the opinion we are not playing with structure.
I think it’s simple, whether or not it’s right or not is a different story.
Essentially what it looks like to me is, that most clubs have adopted the richmond way of playing.
which leads to teams essentially just moving the ball mostly between the 50 arcs playing for field position.
the issue becomes that teams are sticking to the defence structures first and foremost so as not to get scored upon on the counter.
which creates this sort of no mans land vibe that you play for field position sort of like rugby union, even pushes up and sets up defesively, and so do the opposition. they generally end up having more numbers around the ball, so they win it, play for field position and to create a stoppage either out of bounds or a ball up, and then rinse and repeat.
The other big key issue is so many players are just poorly skilled and are bad decision makers.
with the defensive gameplan designed to restrict time and space for players to make good decisions, both decision making and skill have severely dropped.
hell even on saturday in the first half the skills were pretty damn good, players were mentally switched on, they were chipping it around when they needed to and hitting targets, then releasing long and it looked pretty good.
the 3rd qtr for whatever reason the skills dropped dramatically and they struggled to get it into or even near the fwd 50 with any rhythm.
To me the afl thought introducing these new changes would make clubs go ok we need to find ways to better attack and score.
in reality like i thought last year, teams will just focus more on maintaining their defensive structure at the expense of worrying about attacking, and hope they can score enough on the counter attack.
it just hasn’t worked because like i essentially said, most teams are just staying set up to counteract the counter attack.
People see a side that’s stronger in some areas than others as being a result, not just a step along the way of the process.
And a coach who’s always (always!!!) talking about learning & improvement as talking complete BS and actually doing something completely different (ie last year’s Neeld plan, this year’s Rutten plan).
Maybe, just maybe, he’s actually just saying what he’s doing?
I think GWS was so fkd that a bunch of guys clammed up. St Kilda game guys were essentially in the right spots but overlap run had just about stopped, guys started grabbing at the ball & their kicks = more mistakes & turnovers.
A few things with selection, roles & matchups too.
I figure (guessing) that would mean they are still working on getting to where they want to be, but they have a different mindset or expectations on how they achieve that.
Regardless, whatever made them play effective footy may it continue and to improve.
Clarko was prolly having a mini sook (under the mask of feigning surprise). I don’t for one minute buy the suggestion that the rule changes are the reason for reduced scoring (even though it is factual that scores are lower after 4 rounds in 2019 than 2018).
Theoretically, it should be easier to score with only 6 forwards vs 6 defenders, rather than 6 forwards vs 7 or 8 defenders. The option of protecting a lead late in games by flooding the backline & blocking off avenues to goal before a centre bounce is no longer available. So, a clean centre clearance late in a game is far more dangerous now & critical for the chasing team in a close game to give their forwards an even chance of winning a contest & scoring. In that regard, I think it is a good thing. In general play, I don’t think the rules are having a significant impact.
I agree that the Richmond blueprint is being broadly copied at this early stage of the season. More emphasis on team defence & improving defensive structures. A small sample of games to go on, though. The Giants & Saints blocked our use of the corridor & our skills were pretty horrible in those two games. And our forward pressure was virtually non-existent. The Dees were very poor defensively & that was really just a shootout game by two sides. The Lions game was the first game where we looked good both defensively & offensively.
Were the first two games aberrations based on rust, lack of intensity, game plan confusion, horrible skills, etc? Ignoring the Dees shootout game (where both sides were defensively poor), was the Lions game more akin to the style of play we are trying to implement? Has it suddenly just clicked? Too early to say. Tin-rattlers this week, but the ANZAC Day game against a well-disciplined side looms as the ultimate litmus test (for the players, coaches, game plan/s, etc).
I’d disagree with what you ‘heard’ about a major change to our game plan being even considered
Why?
Because all preseason Woosha and other coaches kept stressing it was about minor modifications.
And why would they lie? To take other clubs by surprise? If it was a major change Blind Freddy would spot it after two rounds & it’d be analysed to death. The only other reason is that Woosha & the coaches are pathological liars. Some on Blitz cling to that but equally unlikely.
An alternative hypothesis (based on 40 years experience of how organisations tend to work)
Rutter was brought in to assist defensive work in two aspects
Individual tutoring- positioning, body work etc - early but some positive signs there
Team positioning & strategies to make us harder to score against- this is the aspect where he’s not necessarily changing the whole kit & kaboodle-
BUT where I can see issues arising in how to teach this to a different group of players
Maybe Richmond players are used to learning things by watching a video, using very small words, and being sent to the naughty corner if they get it wrong. And always getting out of the Big 4’s way.
Possibly Essendon players learn things differently- some players run harder in defence if they’re also allowed to express their skills (Walla), or we learn by actually putting it into practice with such different personalities as Ambrose Hurley Conor Hepp & McGrath.
Or Rutten is using terminology that meant one agreed & precise thing at Richmond, but is not so clear at a different club. “Close your man down” - how close? Is this static or dynamic closing? -Where he is or where he might be going? Etc etc
Either way it takes both time, and almost certainly modification of Ruttens delivery of these ‘learnings’ to succeed
And these things alone can cause heated arguments among coaches
Remember you’re dealing with people, not robots or a mathematical formula.
So I call bull dust on the whole radically different game plan story.
There are other, more plausible, but less dramatic and shitstirring scenarios
You are right it has nothing to do with the rule changes it’s the same thing it always is when things in the game change, It’s the coaches.
Supporters love to rubbish the AFL for rule changes ect but the biggest blight on the game is the coaches. They have taken our fantastic one on one game of contested footy to a game of defense first possession football where you keep the ball off the opponent and the ball is surrounded by a pack of 30+ players at all times and when you do make a fast break from a non centre square stoppage, you have no forward line.
Coaches are obsessed with defense because that’s how you get to control a game. Fast flowing free style football is more unpredictable and coaches don’t like that because they have less control over the game.