I’ve been saying this for a while and yesterday’s game in Sydney was a great illustration of it.
“Locking the ball in your forward line” is over-rated.
The single feature of the modern game, when played by 2 teams who are pressuring the ball well, is you have to move the ball quickly into an open forward line, to give yourself the best chance of scoring.
Repeated entries into a crowded forward line, against a competent defence, are unproductive. And the corollary of doing it is to leave yourself open to the slingshot rebound into an open forward line. I haven’t seen any stats on the subject, but I would like to know how many goals are scored by rebounding out of the opposition forward line, with speed on the ball and having plenty of space for forwards to work in.
Yesterday, Sydney kicked 6 goals in the last quarter to GWS 2. Yet inside 50s were relatively even (Sydney 16, GWS 12) although this is an imperfect measure of what I’m talking about, since “locking it in” doesn’t necessarily mean repeat entries.
But Heeney’s goal, Lloyd’s goal and Amartey’s goal (can’t remember the others) all came from quick movement into an open forward line when the majority of the 36 players on the ground were in the GWS forward half.
Not only that, GWS had plenty of the ball in the last half of the quarter and failed to scorre mainly because they took the slow approach of moving it safely with either sideways kicks or long kicks down the line, so familiar to Essendon supporters, and a recipe not only for not scoring yourself, but creating the opportunity for the opposition to slingshot back into open space.
There is an argument to say that you should allow opposition possession to move the ball slowly forward, inviting the ball and the bulk of players on the ground, into the opposition forward line, and then attempt to rebound.
It’s pretty much the opposite of pressing up hard to try to either lock the ball in, or win a turnover. Sure, a turnover is good and could get you an easy score, but don’t commit numbers too far up. Leave a sweeper back and deny all slingshots.
Well, that tactic certainly works against us.
I thought it was absolutely crazy how much space Kingsley gifted Sydney in their forward line for that last qtr. Sydney had to score to win & GWS opened up the game that allowed them fast scoring opportunities. Have an extra defender even one working like a goal keeper & you take out at least 3 of those goals that went through a completely open goal square. Horse outcoached him completely late in the game. GWS had zero space forward & Sydney had their guns in Papley & Heeney one out in open space forward of the contest- a recipe for GWS’s disaster.
There’s an opportunity to use both defensive styles. It’s about understanding what to use at the right times.
I do not want to go back to Worsfold’s game plan……. Where we deliberately concede the length of the ground, with applying zero pressure, and the whole team drops back to defend D50. It was like watching basketball.
Then opposition locks it in their F50, and we are left bombing long down the wing as our only option.
FWIW, I don’t think a congested forward-line was our issue.
We had more than enough entries into very good opportunities to win…not all of our games, but close.
Our issue (one of our issues) is that despite that we have tall forwards that don’t know how to lead, small forwards (if we can even claim to have any) that don’t know how to shark the fall of the ball, and delivery from the midfield that couldn’t hit a barn door with handful of rice from five metres
You know what tactics work? Recruiting and developing good players. Lots of them.
I think it was more individual efforts that made the difference in the last quarter. Both sides had their moments but Papley one on two and Heeney goal from the centre square are impossible to coach against.
Why is this in the Dustin Fletcher Hangar?
Knights was ahead of his time, or something?
You know what we should try?
Kicking it long to Peter Wright
Knights actually was innovative, he just forgot the team zone defence behind all the attack which those tigers team perfected. The attacking part of the game he actually had right, by using a team of quick small players to move the ball fast. That part came into fashion in 2017 with the tigers.
Dale Tapping talks about this and that in fact you can have too many inside 50’s and in particular repeat entries to a crowded forward line
?? Is there somewhere else it should go?
I couldn’t find an existing thread to express this idea in, so i started a new one.
Feel free to move it or amalgamate it with another if that’s where it should be.
The thread is fine… it’s just funny suggesting Essendon tactics are working.
Toe pokes.
We don’t score enough goals from toe pokes on the goal line (I can’t remember any this year).
And we aren’t very good at defending toe pokes.
We know vanilla midgets doesn’t work & neither does 5 x 200cm+ players on a wet night at the MCG. I’d also suggest we proved this year that having no small forwards & playing extra tall wingers is not a great tactic.
I think that our tactic of kicking 1.9 in a quarter in a close game was sub-optimal
2.8 is where it’s at
…in the 1920’s with Essendon’s “Mosquito Fleet”.