Theres nothing much revolutionary in the game these days, last century an innovative coach introduced the “paddock”, adaptive coaches adopted the flood and forward press from other sports. For a time they got big advantages until other coaches worked out the best counters to these game plan elements or everyone started to use them. These days its the 3rd man up. ( an option that always existed anyway) Will this proliferate this year, or will the AFL stamp it out?
Now as far as I can see, all the game plans are pretty much the same ***. Lets explore this because from my amateur point of view I reckon by now every team uses the Hawthorn “Game Plan” as best they can , with the personnel they have available
*** Excludes tinkering with "minor " things like setups at stoppages.
So Rossoneri, if all teams have the same game plan at the macro level like you say, then what advantage can a game plan give to one team over the other.
There are clearly some variations to game plans which can make a huge difference under some situations. eg. if your opponent is playing on at all costs and beating the crap out of you like West Coast did last week, surely the idea is to retain possession and slow the game down as much as possible.
But the point I make is, if everyone plays the Hawthorn game plan and they play it better, what does a the game plan deliver that enables you to ever beat them ? Wait for Hodge , Mitchell, Gunston, and half a dozen others to retire ?
So Rossoneri, if all teams have the same game plan at the macro level like you say, then what advantage can a game plan give to one team over the other.
There are clearly some variations to game plans which can make a huge difference under some situations. eg. if your opponent is playing on at all costs and beating the crap out of you like West Coast did last week, surely the idea is to retain possession and slow the game down as much as possible.
But the point I make is, if everyone plays the Hawthorn game plan and they play it better, what does a the game plan deliver that enables you to ever beat them ? Wait for Hodge , Mitchell, Gunston, and half a dozen others to retire ?
Rock paper scissors. Go with the one that best suits your team attributes and least suits the opposition.
I'd be happy if our game plan simply stated that we have to get the footy to another bloke wearing a black jumper with a red sash on it.
Maybe not so funny actually, thats one game plan concept that every player ought to be able to assimilate . Maybe complicated game plans are just confusing the xxxx out of players
Can’t say I agree that all teams play the ‘one’ game plan.
From my very impoverished view of the game (6 beers on one level 1 at Etihad during Bombers games - a couple of quarters of friday/sunday footy) the principal difference between teams is in how they choose to use their loose men. No one plays man on man anymore and traditional positions barely exists, but the philosophy behind where those players are stationed differs considerably.
I watched quite a bit of the finals series and these were a few of my observations.
At North vs Richmond both teams seemed to favor a more traditional approach. Still used the occasional loose man behind the play but this was about as tight and contested as it gets these days. As a result neither side generated huge amounts of overlap and they were both pretty prepared to go long to contests.
Adelaide vs Hawthorn was a totally different beast. Both sides played loose as fark outside the contested ball zone. Watching from the ground (I got free tix), I noticed Hawthorn in particular favoured having around 2 loose men half a kick behind the play spread right across the ground (say one on the mid 50 metre, another further up on the wing). This allowed them to win the ball and switch incredibly easily, while their contested players spread from the contest and opened the entire field up. Adelaide seemed to be trying something similar, but barely got their hands on the pill. As a result they simply looked disorganised and unaccountable. I think switching to a ‘man on man’ approach early might have stemmed the bleeding until they could get into the contest but they weren’t able to make this happen.
Freo vs Hawthorn. Well we all know Ross Lyon was one of the original kings of the press but on the TV it looks a lot less like a press these days and much more of a flood. Totally prepared to play an extra man at the contest and turn the game into a shitfest (fave tactic of Hirdy too in 2015). The success and weakness of the philosophy seem to stem from it’s simplicity. Tackle like mad men, clog your own defensive half so the opposition can’t attack into it, wait for the turnover then run like buggery with the little nippers (Ballantyne, Hill, Walters) responsible for generate scores from these opportunities.
West Coast V Hawthorn. West Coast play the most sophisticated ‘pressing’ style we’ve seen since the glory days of the press about half a decade ago (Clarkos clust, Lyons saints, Malthouses pies). They guard space incredibly well and when they do force the turnover they have men everywhere ready to receive and make play on the counter attack. Looked pretty invincible at Subi, less so at the MCG. Hawthorn backed their kicking skills and picked apart the ‘web’ pretty damn easily and much like Adelaide they were reduced to a rabble. Again, I think going man on man for periods wouldn’t have been the worst way to go.
My 2 cents on modern game plans. Woosha obviously has some recent experience in Adelaide and from his pressers seems convinced that the looser, fast possession based game is where it’s at. Will be interesting to see how it goes.
It’s always been about personnel, Pagan’s Paddock would probably still work today if you have the right calibre of players across your 22 starters. Some tactics even just get recycled over the years depending on what works best against the current leading team.
I disagree about everyone being the same. Sydney & Freo are still very heavily stoppage/defensive based. The Doggies are probably the current best example of run & gun/all out attack. Hawthorn are simply the best all round and they have the best 22 working together across the board.
Everyone uses different things during the game to counter specific situations (extra flooding when you are protecting a lead late in a quarter) slow the tempo when a team is getting a run on. But their default/comfortable position is still very different.
Game plans mean fark all these days without a playing group having a high level of skills and football nous to implement and execute them.
This is where our club has lacked for a decade and a half and teams like Hawthorn, Geelong and Sydney have thrived in recent years.
I watched the Hawks v North NAB Challenge game live last week and although I thought that North played quite well, Hawthorn were in an absolute league of their own when they were challenged and slipped into higher gear to kill the game off.
The Hawks players know exactly where their team mates are at any given time on the ground, sometimes two or three steps ahead.
Their clean kicking skills ( mostly the long and medium distance kicks ) excuted with precision and swift movement by hand is a class above any other club in the comp at the moment.
Game plan: Nominate 6 players to take out the oppositions best 6 players in the 1st Qtr = win.
Wait until suspensions are served … say an average of 4 weeks … then do it again & repeat.
So wins in rounds 1, 6, 11, 16, & 21.
No worries, we may even sneak a couple more through the intimidation factor, once teams learn that as a club, we’ve finally fkn snapped, & are just gonna randomly smash pr1cks.
Game plan: Nominate 6 players to take out the oppositions best 6 players in the 1st Qtr = win.
Wait until suspensions are served … say an average of 4 weeks … then do it again & repeat.
So wins in rounds 1, 6, 11, 16, & 21.
No worries, we may even sneak a couple more through the intimidation factor, once teams learn that as a club, we’ve finally fkn snapped, & are just gonna randomly smash pr1cks.
If you have 12 really shiit, but really tuff players, you can rotate them every 4 weeks and not have to worry about player quality. Actually, make that 22 players.
Brilliant observations BBB . Just a question. How did you observe these structures ? Did you go to the games or watch the television. If you watched it on tele, how did you observe the overall structures when they basically only show 20 metres around the ball carrier. Or is that possible now because all 36 players are within 20 metres of the ball the whole game ?.
I for one would like coaches to keep some forwards in their forward 50 in case a player gets it and dashes… Nowadays all the players are in the opposition forward 50 when its down there and its battle of the quickest… why not just keep a player or 2 back in case so the guy can hoof it long
I for one would like coaches to keep some forwards in their forward 50 in case a player gets it and dashes.. Nowadays all the players are in the opposition forward 50 when its down there and its battle of the quickest.. why not just keep a player or 2 back in case so the guy can hoof it long
Well you can if you are confident you are clearly the better team. On the other hand if you are equal or worse, keeping 2 players in your forward 50 means the opposition have two free players up the field. And if the ball is in the oppositions forward line and you have a couple of players in or around your F50 it means they have 2 guys that can roam around waiting to intercept or cause a turnover even if you manage to clear it from their forward line.
The reason forwards most often follow their opponents up the field is because the “wait for a guy to hoof it to me” plan usually doesn’t work and simply results in the opposition having a numerical advantage in or around their 50 which can have a massive impact on the flow of the game.