Coaching and Plan B

[O'Reilly Boy]

I think that any team with Buddy in the forward line will default to him more times than not. I think that the only option that Clarkson had was to remove Buddy from the forward line and bring him up the ground - in that way the mids dont look for him every time. It worked well for the Hawks in Buddy's last season, so would it be a good move for us?

I agree. At his best up the ground on the wings, pulling a KPD out of the circle. Rohan as key forward with Sinclair when resting, Reid at CHF. Papley and Hayward sniffing around, Jack and Hewitt floating forward, with McCartin sweating on a place.

[liz]

I think that any team with Buddy in the forward line will default to him more times than not. I think that the only option that Clarkson had was to remove Buddy from the forward line and bring him up the ground - in that way the mids dont look for him every time. It worked well for the Hawks in Buddy's last season, so would it be a good move for us?

Clarkson had a pretty good idea that Buddy was leaving so maybe he was just trying to make the team transition into being less reliant on him. Longmire knows he's stuck with Buddy for (at least) the next five seasons.

More seriously, he's by far our greatest asset in the forward line. Sure, the way the team sometimes looks for him when there are players in better positions can be frustrating, but it's something they seem to do in phases, rather than consistently. There have been plenty of games where other players have kicked the majority of the goals but Buddy has still been one of the most effective players on the ground. I don't see the point in trying to under utilise the team's best asset just for the sake of it. I think the team just needs to avoid that sometimes habit of focussing on him too much. As we get better, more consistent options in our forward line, we should expect this to improve. Reid is certainly a mature player but was absent for all of 2016. Tippett has been on and off for most of his time in Sydney (and is now permanently off). Sinclair showed some real signs of improvement last year, albeit there was a big gap between his best and worst, and I wonder whether he'll ever be effective against the teams with really good defences. And it remains to be seen whether the coaches will go with a tall set-up including Sinclair and Reid in addition to Buddy.

[Auntie.Gerald]

It just happened
Can u believe what u saw today

We played uncontested short kicks

Nice plan B in attack when needed

[bloodspirit]

Article about our tweaked game plan: Slicker ball movement the key in 2018: Hannebery - sydneyswans.com.au. Doesn't give much away.

It makes sense for us to play faster - with the concomitant risk of losing possession - because we pride ourselves on contested footy (still) and, if we do lose control of the pill momentarily, we have to back ourselves to get it back. Also we have so many weapons up forward these days (Buddy, Rohan, Hayward, Reid, Papley) that that justifies playing greater risk for greater reward, as well as trusting ourselves defensively.

[bloodspirit]

In the past couple of weeks there have been various comments made about our coaches and coaching, not all of them positive. I'd like to collect a few thoughts I've had:

* complaints are often made that we just 'bomb it in long'. This used to be something that frustrated me. These days, not so much. And for a variety of reasons. First, do we really do this much more than other teams? I don't know. Second, particularly over the past year there has been a lot of emphasis on moving the ball quickly. When we kick inside 50, 'on top of someone's head', we are not expecting them to mark it. We just want to bring the ball to ground and then follow up with lots of pressure and, hopefully, repeat entries leading to a score. Therefore, just because we aren't kicking to a leading forward's advantage when we go inside 50 doesn't mean it is a dud outcome or bad coaching. Maintaining control of the footy is difficult and it is better if we are fighting for it in our forward 50 rather than in our back half. These thoughts were reinforced when, today, I found this article about Richmond's style: The numbers behind the simplicity of Richmond?s revolution . Richmond apparently have the least disposals of any team AND they have one of the lowest kick to handball ratios. Despite this they are #1 for inside 50s and also #1 on the ladder, as well as being the reigning premiers. This simple, direct, 'bomb it long' approach seems to be working for them. So I no longer dismiss the value of just bombing the ball long.

* Our loss against Adelaide was disappointing. In particular it was the midfield that let us down. I can't tell if that was due to the players or coaches or what. However, rather than leaping to conclude Horse is past his use-by date, it rather made me think that it's possibly taking all our new assistant coaches a bit of time to jell and we are missing Stuey Dew. (Despite this, I am glad that Dew has progressed to a senior coaching position and we have introduced new blood. I felt this was more what we needed than replacing Longmire.) Not sure if others have thoughts about this? My other thought is just that one that gets trotted out quite often: it's hard to play at maximum intensity every week. Probably we were a tiny bit complacent against an undermanned Crows team that came to play.

* Watching the Cats game on the weekend, I was listening to Channel 7 commentary. Their take on the game appeared to be as follows: after the first quarter the Cats structured up differently and, because they were getting beaten up around the ball, they took someone from their front half and played them on the ball. We failed to respond for two quarters, and we stopped scoring. The commentators kept saying that we should react by manning the Cats up across the ground. Finally, when the tide of the game changed, the commentators claimed this is exactly what we did. From there we blitzed the Cats scoring something like 7 of the last 8 goals. I couldn't tell if the commentators were right in this analysis and, sadly, none of them asked either of the coaches about it despite Channel 7 having reporters at the press conferences. Assuming the commentators were right, this was a rare bit of insightful commentary! Why don't they do this more often? More to the point, if it was that simple, why didn't we react sooner? Something else I read suggested that the Cats had just spent their petrol tickets and were out on their feet in the last quarter and it had nothing to do with structures. What gives?

* To the extent our playing style is changing (we remain, at core, a contested footy team) it seems to me this is at least as much due to our changing list and all the new quick and skilful talent we have brought into the club as to changes in coaching style.

What do others have to say about the coaches? Are they going ok? Or do we have a bunch of lemons in the box?

[bloodspirit]

* Incidentally, I do think we were too Buddy-centric against the Crows (why did we continue to kick to him when he was double and triple teamed?@!) but in general I'm not so sure.

[Mountain Man]

As I posted on another thread, I noticed how excited the 3 assistants were at the end of the Geelong game, and how they mobbed the players on the ground. It pointed (IMHO) to their collective belief that their coaching input had had a major effect to the turn-around for the 4th quarter.

I may be quite wrong, and Longmire was equally ecstatic as the players came back to the rooms.

[baskin]

* Watching the Cats game on the weekend, I was listening to Channel 7 commentary. Their take on the game appeared to be as follows: after the first quarter the Cats structured up differently and, because they were getting beaten up around the ball, they took someone from their front half and played them on the ball. We failed to respond for two quarters, and we stopped scoring. The commentators kept saying that we should react by manning the Cats up across the ground. Finally, when the tide of the game changed, the commentators claimed this is exactly what we did. From there we blitzed the Cats scoring something like 7 of the last 8 goals. I couldn't tell if the commentators were right in this analysis and, sadly, none of them asked either of the coaches about it despite Channel 7 having reporters at the press conferences. Assuming the commentators were right, this was a rare bit of insightful commentary! Why don't they do this more often? More to the point, if it was that simple, why didn't we react sooner? Something else I read suggested that the Cats had just spent their petrol tickets and were out on their feet in the last quarter and it had nothing to do with structures. What gives?



What do others have to say about the coaches? Are they going ok? Or do we have a bunch of lemons in the box?

In his press conference after the game Longmire was asked about this and in his usual way suggested that you can try things from the coaches box but for a number of reasons it doesn't always happen on the ground. He doesn't blame the players. He also mentioned that some of the kicks weren't coming off as sweetly in the 3rd quarter and that turned around in the last. Might I also suggest that we had a number of inexperienced players on the ground which can make it tricky to get messages translated as quickly. I also don't think that the major change in the last quarter was what the commentators asked for, it was more that our captain & Hewitt took hold of the clearances.

[liz]

I also don't think that the major change in the last quarter was what the commentators asked for, it was more that our captain & Hewitt took hold of the clearances.

Precisely. And if you listen to the commentary in the final quarter, you can hear them commenting on it (though not necessarily drawing the necessary conclusions). They start the quarter by commenting that the Swans have evened up numbers in their forward line to counter the "extra" defender that the Cats had back in the middle quarters. But it's not very long into the quarter when you hear them observe that the Cats have sent another defender back, implying that they again have an extra back there. Yet the pattern continues of the Swans winning clearances and scoring goals.

[penga]

As I posted on another thread, I noticed how excited the 3 assistants were at the end of the Geelong game, and how they mobbed the players on the ground. It pointed (IMHO) to their collective belief that their coaching input had had a major effect to the turn-around for the 4th quarter.

I may be quite wrong, and Longmire was equally ecstatic as the players came back to the rooms.

I read the same into the situation and was going to comment, also. There seemed to be vested interest in their reaction.

We also had a breeze at our backs in the last quarter, maybe footy is that simple sometimes?

[liz]

I read the same into the situation and was going to comment, also. There seemed to be vested interest in their reaction.

We also had a breeze at our backs in the last quarter, maybe footy is that simple sometimes?

Does a breeze at your back help win 10 clearances in a row?

[Billericay]

Wouldn't it be amazing if someone somewhere published a tactical analysis of every game of AFL: as in the moves and counter-moves made by coaches and players throughout each game, those that worked, those that failed etc. Longmire always stonewalls in post-game interviews and gives the same bland comments about effort and intensity. I'd love to know what really happened.

Or is this already happening and I don't know about it?

[penga]

Does a breeze at your back help win 10 clearances in a row?

True. Kennedy was a beast. A breeze definitely helps getting out the back of a zone, though.

[bloodspirit]

Interesting article about trends in coaching and the value of taking shots from long range: Go long or go home: How NBA tactics are changing how, or where, AFL teams kick for goal - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation). Suggests it is valuable to have a few players who can shoot from long range - this forces the defence to press higher creating more opportunities closer to goal as well.

Apart from Buddy, which are our players best at shooting from long range? Gazza can roost the ball a long way. Rampe showed his ability in AFLX but is seldom in position to deploy it. Dawson has this ability too but has only played one game so far. Other players can make the distance but right now none are jumping out at me as being particularly good at it. Who am I missing?

[bloodspirit]

Another interesting stat illuminating trends with rucks: The club with more hit-outs wins 57.3 per cent of the time in 2018 (43.7 per cent in 2017) - sourced here: The stats files: The three keys to winning games in 2018 - AFL.com.au. The article also highlights the value of contested possessions, something we aim to excel in. Possibly the most interesting part of the story is that the Tigers are not excelling in any of the stats they are highlighting as important, despite sitting pretty as reigning premiers and second on the ladder which suggests they are playing a different game style to the rest of the comp, and clearly doing so very successfully.