I’d be happy for the following to be forever removed from Essendon’s game style:
In Worsfold we trust.
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 ?.
Yeah watching on TV limits things, you have to infer a fair bit from the commentators and the occasional zoom out shot. That said, I went to both Nth v Rich and Haw V Adel. It’s a lot easier to spend some time ‘analysing’ when you don’t gaf about the result. I’ve also been to quite a few Freo games over the years as the wife is a fan. Regarding the congestion, yeah that seems to be a given. No doubt a gross simplification, but the modern coaching question seems to be “where do we place our loose men?”.
Someone mentioned the bulldogs and I agree that seem to have a more helter skelter approach going on. Much happier moving the ball with run and carry than by foot compared to most. Interesting that this seemed to really flow into their selections as well, playing undersized ruckmen and extra runners to maximize this philosophy. You have to have the cattle, but you must also structure your list and team selection to match. I think we’ve failed on both accounts in recent years.
“Alan parsons project”
“Laser”
“Game plan”
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
So 2 guys in the forward . . .
With a half dozen opposition players between them and the ball
Won’t work 99% of the time
To win now you either need to have the skills/spread to break through opposition zoning (Hawks, Weagles) or be a dominant clearance side (Sydney, Freo) and force stoppages/boundary throw ins
For mine the biggest thing is having 18 guys on the field buying into the game plan. If you’re meant to be playing an intricate 18 man zone but someone is too lazy to cover their space properly, or let’s an opposition player run past without picking it up it will fall down. Big reason Fark Carlton have been terrible - too many downhill skiers (we’ve had/got a few as well)
I'd be happy for the following to be forever removed from Essendon's game style: 1. Ambrose in the ruck 2. Having one forward outnumbered by usually 2, 3 or even 4 defenders. Might work if you've got Carey or Ablett snr as the sole forward, but will never work with mere mortals. Usually the opposition rebounds so quickly that Essendon's numerical advantage of say 13 to 11 in the midfield is simply by-passed. Also, it's near impossible to win by scoring 7 or 8 goals a game.And to add to that,In Worsfold we trust.
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.
The Mesut Ozil/Dean Rioli gameplan. “Don’t ever fkg give the ball away.”
Kicking to a player on the same team would be a good start. Unfortunately in recent times this seems to have been a foreign concept to some.
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.
Brilliant.
Whoever it was who posted in January about hiring 12 D-grade thugs to go the knuckle every week had the right idea.
So in summary then, not much of a game plan, not much of a thread, yet. Plenty of room for development of both.
I don’t think we will see Woosha game vision at all this year. It will most likely we be a few fundamental elements drummed in to the kids each week to build from for next year.
I think the evolution of game plan has gone as follows, some more astute footy watching might be able to correct me where I’m wrong.
It all started from the 1 on 1 best team in history in 2000. How do you beat a team where you will loose on 16-18 positions on the ground because each player was that farking good.
Out of that Wallace came up with the defensive flood, trying win one on one became tough when your in a crowded forward line. Add to that you are under constant pressure delivering to tight spaces to the forward line. The flood appeared to be put in the back burner for a bit.
After that came the ultimate crash and bash team in the lions, they won the contested footy and hacked it forward to monster contested marking machines in lynch and brown. It didn’t hurt that they had some classy outside run, and a tough attacking backline to go with it. They were big, tough and beat teams up around the contest.
Then came the duel between the medium rotations and gut running Eagles vs lockdown zone swans. Neither one really proved to be overly dominant over the other and as far as I can tell we have seen variations of the two ever since. It appears these two styles were built to stop the lions and were continually developed by other teams to counteract the cats.
The cats came next and they who used allot of big bodied contested footy specialist with some serious class. This was coupled with the precise high level ball movement, especially on the rebound.
Next up came the real game plan specialist in Clarkson. A guy that can set a team up to win a flag in 08 with a new game plan. He developed the Wallace/Roos zone to be mobile moving as a unit across the field to close the gaps and make the zone more effective over a larger portion of the ground than Wallace and Roos. This also made the cats double down on the run and gun ball movement to trying counteract it.
Next came Malthouse, and I think there were two big changes, firstly i think this is where the super high rotations start, allowing a faster paced more manic game style. Secondly he modified the zone to be a presiding rather than rolling. With each part of the zone collapsing on the ball carrier it created enormous pressure causing huge turnovers to very late points discrepancies. Works well when the opposition teams skills are questionable or are slow. Additionally they move the press to their own forward line rather than the oppositions. The cats used their tried and true methods to beat them with some champion out to prove they were more than G.Ablett.
All the while the Swans are in the background continuing to apply variations of a flooding zone with faster more attacking rebound with some fresh young fast players. The 2012 flag proves a flossing zone will always be effective.
After that is Clarkson again, I think this is the start of the sports science guy moving to a much higher endurance training methodology kinda like cycling did through the 80/90s. I think he also dismantled the Malthouse game plan and press by opening them up with foots skills, he added some serious pace to run it out of a flooding backline and continues to apply various versions of the pressing zone for defence as well.
For me the question of where to next is more what players you have and game plan features you can take advantage of to create a winning formula.
You can’t run it out without fast players, you can cut through the zone without good foot skills and you can be a contested ball team without good inside players. So how we play is as much about what we have than what we want to do.
For me, with our 12 coming back we should be looking to take advantage of our contested footy capability, fast players and then a pressing zone. Also we should only press up the flankers and keep the FF and FP as a target, they move up to far these days not allowing us to take full advantage of turnovers and rebound.
So in summary then, not much of a game plan, not much of a thread, yet. Plenty of room for development of both.
Right Jack, everyone talks about the “game plan” but few seem able to describe what one is, or can be bothered . Maybe most just go to the footy to see us win, or see individual players do fantastic things. Maybe few have ever been inclined to do a PhD in game plans.
Thats fine but the few who have bothered to do more than a couple of paragraphs have been really worth reading.
I am going to be very honest with Nocturnal and say that I dont understand a lot of what he has described , but the content is a great starting point to study the way the game is played.
Unfortunately, in order to analyse the game plan while watching our team this year, I would need to put away the binoculars, reluctantly leave the grog squad and go right to the top of the Olympic stand or the back of a Docklands stand and get a macro view of how players set up on the field, and just not watch Joey Danaher going for marks, or see how good Parish is with his hands.
Its is just impossible to get an appreciation of the aspects the game plan as described by Nocturnal from near ground level.
Its something I will try and maybe get a different perspective on watching footy this year.
I don’t reckon many teams use the Hawthorn way, which is odd cos on sheer coaching ability (outside of all his cunt ish behaviour) clarkson is essentially this generations Sheedy. he has a general blueprint and keeps modifying it to hopefully improve it, and so far he has.
I mean how many teams could lose their gun forward, and then go on to continue to not only kick decent scores, but manage to win the next 2 grandfinals ?
Can you imagine us circa 2002 and beyond being even remotely competative if we lost a lloyd or lucas ?
not many other teams continually move around their forwards as much as hawthorn, I mean on one bit of play roughy might by at ff, 10 seconds later in another play he’s up on a wing and gunston is FF, then poppy is and gunstons down the backline helping out.
I hate it cos it’s hawthorn and clarkson is a ■■■■ of the highest order, but in a purely coaching sense, he is miles ahead of any other coach out there at present, and no one is really copying them, because what they are continues to evolve from year to year
Thank ■■■■ their stars are at the age that a drop off is hopefully near, and hopefully quick, but you wouldn’t want to be writing them off for this years flag just yet either.
A number of posters have expressed the view that you have to adapt the game plan to suit the attributes of the players you have on your list . I dont disagree.
Coaches, in successive years (even Worsfold) have said there will be only incremental change to the game plan. Maybe because the list was relatively static over the previous 4 years.
However this year we have 20 new players on the list, so the game plan will presumably need to change lot to adapt .
Nocturnal has just delivered the first great post of this thread. Now it is starting to grow some legs.So in summary then, not much of a game plan, not much of a thread, yet. Plenty of room for development of both.Right Jack, everyone talks about the “game plan” but few seem able to describe what one is, or can be bothered . Maybe most just go to the footy to see us win, or see individual players do fantastic things. Maybe few have ever been inclined to do a PhD in game plans.
Thats fine but the few who have bothered to do more than a couple of paragraphs have been really worth reading.
Nocturnal has just delivered the first great post of this thread. Now it is starting to grow some legs.So in summary then, not much of a game plan, not much of a thread, yet. Plenty of room for development of both.Right Jack, everyone talks about the “game plan” but few seem able to describe what one is, or can be bothered . Maybe most just go to the footy to see us win, or see individual players do fantastic things. Maybe few have ever been inclined to do a PhD in game plans.
Thats fine but the few who have bothered to do more than a couple of paragraphs have been really worth reading.
Well now I’m offended.
What was wrong with my in depth review??
Interesting news on the club website about Robert Shaw.
"…In 2016, Shaw will provide a comprehensive wrap of each Essendon match for BomberTV. He’ll analyse the game plan and assess the progress of the Club’s next batch of young stars. He’ll also preview the upcoming games and look at the tactical moves the current coaching panel may use.
I have heard Shaw on SEN when I used to listen to it. He does seem to have a vast knowledge of footy and can articulate it. Looking forward to his analysis and hoping to see a significant improvement over “Craigs Comments”
Wouldn’t be hard to better Craig’s drivel. Theaurus driven, buzzword laden pop psychology at its worst.
Great analysis, nocturnal. Agree 100%.
Our game plan will hopefully be dictated by our playing resources and abilities.
Nocturnal has just delivered the first great post of this thread. Now it is starting to grow some legs.So in summary then, not much of a game plan, not much of a thread, yet. Plenty of room for development of both.Right Jack, everyone talks about the “game plan” but few seem able to describe what one is, or can be bothered . Maybe most just go to the footy to see us win, or see individual players do fantastic things. Maybe few have ever been inclined to do a PhD in game plans.
Thats fine but the few who have bothered to do more than a couple of paragraphs have been really worth reading.
Well now I’m offended.
What was wrong with my in depth review??
More depth required, name names!
Nocturnal has just delivered the first great post of this thread. Now it is starting to grow some legs.So in summary then, not much of a game plan, not much of a thread, yet. Plenty of room for development of both.Right Jack, everyone talks about the “game plan” but few seem able to describe what one is, or can be bothered . Maybe most just go to the footy to see us win, or see individual players do fantastic things. Maybe few have ever been inclined to do a PhD in game plans.
Thats fine but the few who have bothered to do more than a couple of paragraphs have been really worth reading.
Well now I’m offended.
What was wrong with my in depth review??
In depth is a relative term.