The flaws in Richo's tackling/pressure game

[samoht]

I think we need to make a distinction here, Bluthy -- so we know what we're arguing about -- and what you're contending.
What you're describing isn't a flaw then, but a drawback --- as game plans which factor in or demand pressure acts as part of the method can actually help you win games (and I think you acknowledge this) - against teams of equal ability, let's say -- but the potential drawback is it can bring about injuries, or it can be too demanding on young bodies (except Acres because he's built for it) over the course of the year and their performances could suffer.
That's what your contention is.

[Johnny Member]

This is the part that sums it up:

"I will never get away from pressure being the most important factor in our method".

Pressure is not THE method. It's a factor in the method. The 'method' is the strategy - the most important factor in that method is pressure.

Exactly. What. I've. Been. Saying.


Your premise that "Richo's tackling/pressure game is our main brand" is wrong.

Your statement that "All players have to keep throwing themselves at the ball carrier and do a lot of running to get to contests as any drop off in the chain lets them get out. Tackling is probably the most physically demanding activity in the game. That can be hard to maintain throughout a marathon season, year after year." is incorrect.

Last year, we were 5th in the comp for Tackles per Game and only won 6 games.

This year, our pressure has been far better - but we're now 13th for Tackles per Game.


You've misinterpreted 'Richo's game plan'.

It's pressure, as factor in the method. That does not mean creating a team of unskilled battering rams that just tackle like madmen every week. It does not mean that skillful players won't get a game because they're not "tackling beasts" as you put it.

Your statement that "I just have worries that this tackling/pressure game plan is too simplistic." is unfounded.


As I said, if you think our 'game plan' is just about tackling pressuring and nothing else ("simplistic" as you put it) then you're out of touch with how footy is played and the way in which we're actually playing.

You are twisting yourself up in knots to not acknowledge that 95% of the footy community says our current brand is pressure JM. First you start throwing stats to try and show pressure and tackling are not vital to us as we think and then it becomes - oh yes pressure is vital to our wins this year, but that doesn't mean our brand is pressure. The coach says pressure is the most important factor and again you won't say its our brand. You can say its purely a platform we building on now and won't be our brand in the future - but to deny it is very much our core style of footy at the moment is pig-headedness.

Labelling a teams footy as playing a certain brand is by its nature pretty cartoonish, not being able to sum up all the intricacies of different strategies and structures and chopping and changing of the 22 that effects how you play, but that doesn't mean it does have an essential truth to it. I've never said our game is about tackling pressure and nothing else. Stop creating these straw men arguements.

You don't find it strange that a rebuilding team that finished 5th last last year and is outside the eight, is so high in pressure acts despite having lots of young bodies still? It's obviously been a core focus of Mr Richo. As he says its been the most important factor for him, he's given it a priority.

Now maybe like you and Devilhead seem to be saying this is just the first step Richo wants to lock in as a non-negotiable as its attack at the footy and the man is needed by all top teams. Thats a possibility. But I do have concerns that this is more of a long-term style for him and I will need to see him bring some other factors in before I give him my full support as Mr Super Coach. Clarkson has the huge runs on the board. He is a big student of the EPL and brought in such a clever zoning system that lets his team both pressure hard AND spread and possess the ball in an amazingly efficient way. How he does that, no one seems to know except him - proof in that teams still can't work hawthorn out despite all the their coaches and players filtering out into the rest of the footy world. Clarkson is a genius who has got some way of having his cake (high pressure) and eating it too (brilliantly attacking team) and keeps evolving his style and tactics.

I have concerns with the toll of a taxing, pressure game. Armo is struggling, Steven looks tired recently, Dunstan has done his second shoulder, Lonie and Sincs look flat, Bruce looks a bit ragged, Membrey seems a bit flat, Paddy is getting knocked out regularly, Billings is looking lame. Hickey is possibly injured and has had a grueling year. Acres with the big body seems one who is coping all right with it. Will be interesting to see how Gresh goes next year after being run hard this year. It could all be coincidence but lets see if we can back up this great year next year. If it isn't sustainable and burns players out, then what is the point of one great year? Footy is a marathon and you need to play as efficiently as possible to have enough petrol to go all the way - just see the way Lyon's teams always run out before the big dance.

You're losing the plot Bluthy.

Firstly, this bit is just plain bulls***.

"You are twisting yourself up in knots to not acknowledge that 95% of the footy community says our current brand is pressure JM. First you start throwing stats to try and show pressure and tackling are not vital to us as we think and then it becomes - oh yes pressure is vital to our wins this year, but that doesn't mean our brand is pressure. The coach says pressure is the most important factor and again you won't say its our brand. You can say its purely a platform we building on now and won't be our brand in the future - but to deny it is very much our core style of footy at the moment is pig-headedness."

You're now u-turning that it's a 'brand', instead of 'Richo's high pressure and tackling game plan'. A 'brand' and a 'game plan' are vastly different things - not sure why you suddenly want to argue that?


Here's what I can decipher from your posts:

You think 'Richo's pressure and tackling game plan' is too 'simplistic', and you think he's trying to turn skillful young players into non-skillful 'tackling beasts'.

You think it's also stifling the development of skillful players such as Lonie and Sinclair as their skill set is undervalued in Richo's plan for a non-skilled team that only focus is pressure and tackling.

You also think Richo's game plan of high pressure and tackling is the reason Dunstan has done his shoulders twice, and why Armitage and Bruce are out of form. You think there's a link between Richo's pressure and tackling game plan and McCartin getting a few concussions.

You don't think a high pressure game is sustainable.

You want to see us somehow hold possession of the ball, without actually having a style of play that involves us winning it in the first place.

All of the above has been quoted by yourself.

You seem to suggest that we need less pressure. Less pressure, which will mean less opposition turnovers, less contested footy to us, and less contests won. Yet we're supposed to hold on to the footy somehow? How again, are we supposed to actually get it by applying less pressure??




My response, is that it's nonsense.

I've said from the opening page, and on many other threads that pressure and intensity is the cornerstone of football. Full stop. Without it, you're wasting your time. I've never once said, suggested or intimated that pressure is not a focus, and certainly never suggested it isn't important.

Tackling is clearly not vital. It helps - but it's not vital. We're not a team of 'tackling beasts' as you put it. We're 13th in the comp for tackles, last year we were 5th. We've nearly had twice the amount of wins this year than last, by tackling less. So I haven't put forward any stats to suggest pressure isn't important to us. That's just garbage. Pressure is different. It's, as the 'Pressure Acts' stat is defined: tackling, corralling and chasing an opponent when they have the ball.

So you're flat out wrong on that one.

Statistically, we've applied less tackles than last year - but our 'pressure acts' have increased. And we've won 10 games already compared to 6 last year - so you do the maths.

We're not a 'bash and crash' team full of tackling beasts that are keeping young skillful players out of the team. You're flat out wrong on that one too.

McCartin isn't getting concussed from corralling and chasing opponents. It's absolute frogshit. If guys like Armitage and Steven are a bit pooped from running too much, then fair dinkum they shouldn't be at an AFL club. We're 3rd bottom on the AFL Injury Ladder.

So again, your unfounded theory of this explain bash and crash game plan we apparently have that is cruelling everyone - is wrong.


To state, as you did, that Richo's high pressure and tackling game plan is too simplistic, is utterly bizarre. You're now saying it's not a 'game plan' - but it's a 'brand'. So how detailed should a 'brand' actually be then?? Isn't a 'brand' suposed to be pretty simplistic??

Unless of course you're backpeddling and you were actually suggesting that we have a simplistic 'high pressure and high tackling' game plan?


You're all over the place now. But your OP is plain wrong, and based on a false premise as I've stated.

[Johnny Member]

THE WAY AFL clubs measure pressure have evolved rapidly in the past five years as the correlation between pressure applied and winning becomes stronger.

The analysis goes well beyond just tackles, spoils and smothers, with Champion Data introducing pressure points in 2011.

The points system is a key tool for clubs and awards appropriately weighted points for each of the four 'pressure acts'.

Points are awarded for corralling (1.2), chasing (1.5), closing (2.75) and physical pressure (3.75).

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-08-17/t ... -your-club

[CQ SAINT]

THE WAY AFL clubs measure pressure have evolved rapidly in the past five years as the correlation between pressure applied and winning becomes stronger.

The analysis goes well beyond just tackles, spoils and smothers, with Champion Data introducing pressure points in 2011.

The points system is a key tool for clubs and awards appropriately weighted points for each of the four 'pressure acts'.

Points are awarded for corralling (1.2), chasing (1.5), closing (2.75) and physical pressure (3.75).

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-08-17/t ... -your-club

Its is apparently the modern equivalent of the 'stomp on the toe' a favourite of my U/13 coach, the 'punch in the back of the head' - kept me out of the backline and the 'coat hanger' or Carl Ditterich 'back hander' I layed a few.
My mum hated it.
The motives have stayed the same. Impose your will on the opposition, let them know they will not get the ball easily and keep it up until they back off. Its the me I want to be. Thats our brand 'Saints Footy'

[Bluthy]

This guy really knew pressure points

[Bluthy]

You're losing the plot Bluthy.

Firstly, this bit is just plain bulls***.

"You are twisting yourself up in knots to not acknowledge that 95% of the footy community says our current brand is pressure JM. First you start throwing stats to try and show pressure and tackling are not vital to us as we think and then it becomes - oh yes pressure is vital to our wins this year, but that doesn't mean our brand is pressure. The coach says pressure is the most important factor and again you won't say its our brand. You can say its purely a platform we building on now and won't be our brand in the future - but to deny it is very much our core style of footy at the moment is pig-headedness."

You're now u-turning that it's a 'brand', instead of 'Richo's high pressure and tackling game plan'. A 'brand' and a 'game plan' are vastly different things - not sure why you suddenly want to argue that?


Here's what I can decipher from your posts:

You think 'Richo's pressure and tackling game plan' is too 'simplistic', and you think he's trying to turn skillful young players into non-skillful 'tackling beasts'.

You think it's also stifling the development of skillful players such as Lonie and Sinclair as their skill set is undervalued in Richo's plan for a non-skilled team that only focus is pressure and tackling.

You also think Richo's game plan of high pressure and tackling is the reason Dunstan has done his shoulders twice, and why Armitage and Bruce are out of form. You think there's a link between Richo's pressure and tackling game plan and McCartin getting a few concussions.

You don't think a high pressure game is sustainable.

You want to see us somehow hold possession of the ball, without actually having a style of play that involves us winning it in the first place.

All of the above has been quoted by yourself.

You seem to suggest that we need less pressure. Less pressure, which will mean less opposition turnovers, less contested footy to us, and less contests won. Yet we're supposed to hold on to the footy somehow? How again, are we supposed to actually get it by applying less pressure??




My response, is that it's nonsense.

I've said from the opening page, and on many other threads that pressure and intensity is the cornerstone of football. Full stop. Without it, you're wasting your time. I've never once said, suggested or intimated that pressure is not a focus, and certainly never suggested it isn't important.

Tackling is clearly not vital. It helps - but it's not vital. We're not a team of 'tackling beasts' as you put it. We're 13th in the comp for tackles, last year we were 5th. We've nearly had twice the amount of wins this year than last, by tackling less. So I haven't put forward any stats to suggest pressure isn't important to us. That's just garbage. Pressure is different. It's, as the 'Pressure Acts' stat is defined: tackling, corralling and chasing an opponent when they have the ball.

So you're flat out wrong on that one.

Statistically, we've applied less tackles than last year - but our 'pressure acts' have increased. And we've won 10 games already compared to 6 last year - so you do the maths.

We're not a 'bash and crash' team full of tackling beasts that are keeping young skillful players out of the team. You're flat out wrong on that one too.

McCartin isn't getting concussed from corralling and chasing opponents. It's absolute frogshit. If guys like Armitage and Steven are a bit pooped from running too much, then fair dinkum they shouldn't be at an AFL club. We're 3rd bottom on the AFL Injury Ladder.

So again, your unfounded theory of this explain bash and crash game plan we apparently have that is cruelling everyone - is wrong.


To state, as you did, that Richo's high pressure and tackling game plan is too simplistic, is utterly bizarre. You're now saying it's not a 'game plan' - but it's a 'brand'. So how detailed should a 'brand' actually be then?? Isn't a 'brand' suposed to be pretty simplistic??

Unless of course you're backpeddling and you were actually suggesting that we have a simplistic 'high pressure and high tackling' game plan?


You're all over the place now. But your OP is plain wrong, and based on a false premise as I've stated.

I use game plan/style/brand pretty interchangeably as a broad sweep of describing how we play and I think most people do. We're not the United Nations here with legalistic intricacies. If I was writing a 50 treatise on the how ST Kilda play footy I might differentiate more. But on a throw away social media board you're just being pedantic about the terms used. The AFL link you quoted says "Alan Richardson's game plan relies heavily on pressuring the opposition, and with the Saints having had a successful season considering pre-season expectations, it's no surprise they are ranked third in the AFL for pressure points, averaging 4.7 more points per game than their opposition". The poll on this board has "Pressure" as by far the most chosen word to describe our brand of football. It's our brand baby.

I do have concerns that we aren't putting a premium on skilfull use of the footy. And I do have some worries about those things you mention - injuries, sustainability, fall off in certain players that I consider skillful and have x-factor. I can't see the future and neither can you - I'm just trying to feel out some possible chinks in our armour. Its easy to get carried away now but its the most dangerous part of our rebuild where many teams have fallen over getting ahead of themselves and going into top up mode. We are showing signs of doing that already. I would have preferred a slower rise. Playing this pressure game means you can rise quicker without necessarily needing the talent but does it let you go all the way?

[Bluthy]

I think we need to make a distinction here, Bluthy -- so we know what we're arguing about -- and what you're contending.
What you're describing isn't a flaw then, but a drawback --- as game plans which factor in or demand pressure acts as part of the method can actually help you win games (and I think you acknowledge this) - against teams of equal ability, let's say -- but the potential drawback is it can bring about injuries, or it can be too demanding on young bodies (except Acres because he's built for it) over the course of the year and their performances could suffer.
That's what your contention is.

Yeah thats a good way to put it. Or another way is to say all methods and styles will have flaws - and strengths. Paul Roos won a flag playing that rolling maul style of footy. Lyon could very well have won 2 flags playing a lock in swamp around the ball if he hadn't run over those black cats on the way to the games. My problem with that style is I think the footy world has moved on and is able to move the footy much quicker by hand and foot to beat those uber-presses and rule changes have speed the game up so they can't lock it down as much.

You can over possess the footy without penetration - something Richmond do. Some say possession footy doesn't hold up well in finals where contested ball is king - although I'd point to Hawks to say that aint necessarily true.

I mean a lot of people are talking about how taxing Lyon's game plan is and that its a struggle to maintain and draining on players. There is definitely a Lyonesque side to how we play (although we are much more attacking). We've got great player buy in at the moment - but will it last? Next year will be very interesting.

[Johnny Member]

The AFL link you quoted says "Alan Richardson's game plan relies heavily on pressuring the opposition, and with the Saints having had a successful season considering pre-season expectations, it's no surprise they are ranked third in the AFL for pressure points, averaging 4.7 more points per game than their opposition". The poll on this board has "Pressure" as by far the most chosen word to describe our brand of football. It's our brand baby.

But that's exactly my point, and where you're wrong.

'Pressure and tackling' is not THE game plan. You've even quoted it yourself FFS.

The game plan relies on it. But it's not THE game plan as you say it is.


MASSIVE DIFFERENCE.


We need high pressure to execute our game plan well. All teams do. But the 'game plan' isn't to go out and pressure and tackle. The game plan is the strategy that the coaches have introduced regarding defensive plays and offensive plays. The pressure part merely supports that.

So you're wrong. The entire premise of your argument is incorrect.

[Johnny Member]

I mean a lot of people are talking about how taxing Lyon's game plan is and that its a struggle to maintain and draining on players. There is definitely a Lyonesque side to how we play (although we are much more attacking). We've got great player buy in at the moment - but will it last? Next year will be very interesting.

How are we in any way 'Lyon esque'??


I think we are vastly different to anything Ross Lyon has done. We don't tackle a lot (13th in the comp, Freo 5th), and we don't want a rolling maul. We want to break it open when we get it and spread like crazy and move it forward as quick as possible to a multipronged forward line.

[felix]

Johnny Member comes out on top ...well debated guys.

[samoht]

I think Minchington being dropped once again - a player who scores highly in pressure acts - indicates that Richo is putting more emphasis on what he's not bringing - and that is he's not winning enough of the ball.
Same goes for Eli, Saunders, Lonie, Murdoch (the bull) --- the perpetual "in and outers" ... they need to win more of the ball. Anyone can provide pressure - the effort is appreciated - but that's not what will get you games!
Billings doesn't score as highly as Minchington in pressure acts ... some are even calling him an outside player ---- but he's getting regular games.

So the fringe players would be better served to ease off a bit in the pressure department and start winning more of the ball ... that's the message I'm getting - maybe the message they should be getting too (the fringe players, that is).

[freely]

One big difference between Richo's 'pressure game' and Lyon's is that Richo encourages the players to play their own game. From what I've seen them say when interviewed (thinking of Ross and Gresh in particular), Richo likes to see their inspirational flourishes and sparks of individuality whereas Lyon always wanted/wants role players - and if this piece of meat won't bring enough pressure to bear on the opposition then we've got this other piece of meat in the twos that'll do just as well instead. Now that approach (Lyon's) I think is exhausting and demoralising once you start to lose - and yes, I think it can lead to recklessness and injury like Fyfe playing on with a broken leg. Richo's approach would be much more satisfying and enjoyable to be a part of IMHO and less likely to cause that sort of burn-out.