I reckon it can be hard to breakdown a team’s exact game plan without study footage comprehensively and that includes goal to goal vision for the whole match.
This is obviously what clubs do during the week but I reckon some on here are making some assumptions without being able to look into it properly
Braille.
We’re one step ahead of the curve here!
I think the catch with that line of thought, is that if you have the bloke who created or developed that defensive plan on hand and available explaining it, and he has the ability to go through videos etc and offer up insight into what the players enacting that plan are thinking and showing the results when it works, it’s a pretty big deficit in mental capacity for the players being coached, to not understand it. Unable to execute it, no qualms with that statement, but unable to understand it is unlikely. Like they say, refine it in the field. I’d like to think that Rutten could take the plan and the talent on hand and find a variant that works and offers something fresh.
Re point 2 & 3 and a Plan B
When the opposition clogs the corridor I think we do have a Plan B, but this is maybe the most confidence dependant.
I think it relies on players making hard dummy leads ( but being prepared to honour them if the opposition drops off)
The aim of this plan is to create space on one wing, halfway between the square & boundary for two blokes to run into.
The second player should be maybe 20 or 30 metres forward of the first for a quick handball or chip kick. At times this is our small forward running right across from the other side of the ground - Walla Fanta Smith
To get it to the first player we try and use a long diagonal ball from the opposite side of the 50 metre defensive area, either from a mark, switch handball, or Conor suddenly switching the direction of his run.
When it’s on we basically have to lead out of that area into the corridor & draft the zoning defenders towards the play. If we don’t lead hard & creatively to make that space the cross field ball goes to essentially a two on one their way. (The first two rounds)
Hard to explain- maybe I could revisit Nino’s infamous KickOut diagram - but we did it a few times on Friday. You know it’s worked when we quickly get someone in possession just forward of centre on the wing with defenders caught in no mans land, and we run forwards with space and options.
Thanks for dumbing it down. Much appreciated. Have a look at the points we kicked in the last quarter against the Ds and note that all 18 players are in a zone 20 metres out from our defensive goal up to the centre circle.
I agree entirely that the structure of the defensive press changes within games, between games, but that is what I referred to as tinkering.
You have identified 1% of the game plan and I’m not sure why you chose to omit the other 99%. Ah that’s right you were dumbing it down for me.
In relation to Richmond’s game style and why it might work for them but not necessarily as well for us, or another team, a friend of mine ran into a guy he knew well and hadn’t seen for some time who was/is involved in Richmond recruiting (yes ,I know, friend of a friends’ brother in law’s neighbour etc).
He invited him to guess what had been Richmond’s main criteria in recruitment in recent years (excluding “high picks”, on which they had a “best player” approach). My friend guessed a whole range of attributes, like kicking, good character, athleticism, speed, but the answer was best at repeat sprints.
Exactly the essendon defenders are quicker than the essendon mids and some forwards, that’s why when a saad and mckenna got the ball and came streaming out of defence he had nobody to kick to because our mids and forwards don’t sprint fast enough to get into our forward line with space on their defenders. Remember worsfold early last year complaining McKenna was moving the ball too fast or something? That was what he meant, our mids and forwards hadn’t sprinted into attack quick enough to recieve the kick, so he wanted mckenna to hold the ball up, kick sideways till they got there.
Seriously, so you are saying that in today’s game where the premise is to get as many players within a kick of the ball as possible and the reasons most clubs don’t tag because they can’t take one player out of their team defence, that going from 18 player team defence to a 16 player team defence isn’t a significant change?
I take your point but the outcome of not being able to execute and not understanding it is, in this case, the same. Which ever it was, it has resulted in a divide within the coaching group and the pre-season and JLT being wasted.
I am choosing to believe what I have been told due to where it came from and the manner in which we played in the first couple of rounds supports it.
As I say, fortunately the playing group is tight.
Call me optimistic but I’d like to think a bloke who has had recent success, won’t just hang his hat on that success and give up on innovating at all costs. If he is that complacent, then the club are morons for hiring him. I just don’t think he would’ve got the job selling monorails.
It definitely has the same result in the short term. But if they do have something that’s a bit radical and a big shift that needs time and development to work as effectively as it could in theory, I’m all for it. Rehashing the same ■■■■ over and over will not win flags. If it takes till rd 8 for it till really take shape and we don’t get buried completely in the mean time, I’m into it. In a year where the 6-6-6 set up is shaking things up a little bit, I hope our defensive plan shows up putting us miles in front.
*I’m am intentionally being optimistic about this whole situation.
No I am saying look at the replay from Friday and you’ll see clear examples of a defensive press with 18 (not 16) players. At times you saw a 16 player press - no argument from me - there are variations within the game. This is one small part of the game plan. I am refuting that the Rutten defensive plan has been abandoned or that the ‘game plan’ which is so much more than what we have discussed here, has been overhauled after Rd 2.
But I have no interest in arging this point further. I thought HAPs response to my post was very well explained.
Absolutely agree. I feel that tightening our defence not just in the back half but ground wide was imperative. I was disappointed that either the players weren’t capable of learning the new set up, the coaches weren’t able to ‘coach’ it and that the coaching group is divided. However I was most disappointed to hear that it had been devised, agreed to and then abandoned.
The players actually tried.
Not sure whether there was subterfuge in this, but when Rutten started at the club, it was clearly stated that he was working with KP players to improve defensive technique by the club. Our very own training reports stated that Rutten was working on 1/1 contests between KP players, frequently stopping the drills and explaining what changes he wanted.
Of course thats the bit we were able to see. Who knows what influence Rutten has had ( behind closed doors) in development of / changes to our game plan.
However, whatever input Rutten had that maybe wasn’t working, whether we continued with the Rutten gameplan tweaks or not; after we won the game, Rutten was deliriously happy and admitted that now he can get some sleep.
Its almost as though a major part of the responsibility for the month of misfiring was being borne by Rutten.
no - I won’t kiss the b…
Yeah at times forwards can get sucked up the ground following their defender. It can depend on the situation and time in the game. The defender may take a more attacking position because they are behind and need to score with a few mins left, our forward might follow them up higher or not realize he has been sucked up that high.
I really think there are only a few different game plans across all clubs (bar a few differences here and there). Richmonds style is the most extreme because it uses 18 players always, they have the repeat sprint players to effectively do this. An easier way to put it is the overall premise of all players within one kick of the ball always, or the majority of players within one kick of the ball always with a few 2 kicks from the ball to stretch the field. I believe essendon moved from point one, to point two as their structural approach in both years 18 and 19. All teams compress the field and have the basic premise of defensive tackling and pressure around the ball but few teams play the Richmond style, the majority play more of the style we have defaulted back to now because it’s easier, takes less coordination and planning which some teams struggle with.
