Defensive game is gone??

[spert]

Looks like teams who run hard and attack are going to be successful this season - I think Ross's defensive game has had it, and as a result, we are now trying to develop an attacking game while other teams have had a head start on us. What you all reckon?

[Con Gorozidis]

yep

[PJ]

Balance is sensible - the defensive game is still extremely important, especially come finals time. We just have had shyzen clearance work most of this year so attacking becomes a problem when you don't have the ball. I'd really like to see less sideways movement though.

[Teflon]

Zones and press still vital and will continue to be but there is no doubt we are trying to move the ball fwd with some urgency but its new to us and we struggle with the skills required to pull it off.

I just hope our no1 priority draft wise moving fwd is for natural footballers with exemplary skills by hand/foot.

[wasoncestkil58]

As much as I love Steven Baker if he continues to kick backwards every time he gets the pill his days are numbered as a first 18 footballer.
All Saints defenders need to take the game on and attack more.

[SainterK]

Like Jason did?

[BAM! (shhhh)]

Every year we hear the mythology that defensive gameplans are about to become obsolete. Guess where the #1 and #2 defenses sit on the ladder (undefeated). Their offenses are also build off transition (read defense) and stoppage work.

The only team in the top 4 to have given up more than 500 pts (Essendon) has played an extra game. The only 2 teams to have given up under 500 outside the top 8 are the underperformers - St Kilda (who have played a game less, we'd have to keep carlton to 55 to stay under 500 when our games played lines up with everyone else) and the Bulldogs.

While that Saints incipid attack (least productive in the AFL) is a cause for major concern, if our "defensive gameplan" is to blame, then probably the first thing to fix is our attrocious defensive game. Taken pro-rata, our D is ranked ~10th in the league.

The Saints have a number of areas to look at before philosophical question of defense v attack style gameplans.

[St_Cave]

Hi guys I don’t post too often but I am a heavy reader of this forum and find it an invaluable resource for someone like me that lives interstate.

I think that a lot of our problems seem to stem from how slowly we move the ball forward. We still try to possess the ball at all costs rather than move it forward at all costs. I think this is leading to opposition teams pressing us harder than they do other teams because no one fears us going coast to coast with the ball. Where as you can't afford to press an attacking side like that because when they beat the zone it is an almost certain goal.

We almost need to cop the inevitable holding the balls etc. and just adopt a playon at all costs sort of gameplan to get us rolling in attack. This does require a running attitude from the back half though as you always need numbers pushing through for handballs from behind the ball. By doing this you pull the oppositions press closer to the ball carrier and makes it in turn easier to clear that zone. That is my 2 cents anyhow. I think we can win tonight and I hope the boys come out and play some good football.

[SainterK]

Hi guys I don’t post too often but I am a heavy reader of this forum and find it an invaluable resource for someone like me that lives interstate.

I think that a lot of our problems seem to stem from how slowly we move the ball forward. We still try to possess the ball at all costs rather than move it forward at all costs. I think this is leading to opposition teams pressing us harder than they do other teams because no one fears us going coast to coast with the ball. Where as you can't afford to press an attacking side like that because when they beat the zone it is an almost certain goal.

We almost need to cop the inevitable holding the balls etc. and just adopt a playon at all costs sort of gameplan to get us rolling in attack. This does require a running attitude from the back half though as you always need numbers pushing through for handballs from behind the ball. By doing this you pull the oppositions press closer to the ball carrier and makes it in turn easier to clear that zone. That is my 2 cents anyhow. I think we can win tonight and I hope the boys come out and play some good football.

Hi Saint Cave

How do you think we looked in the third quarter against the Crows?

When we played on, we looked dangerous.

[St_Cave]

Hi guys I don’t post too often but I am a heavy reader of this forum and find it an invaluable resource for someone like me that lives interstate.

I think that a lot of our problems seem to stem from how slowly we move the ball forward. We still try to possess the ball at all costs rather than move it forward at all costs. I think this is leading to opposition teams pressing us harder than they do other teams because no one fears us going coast to coast with the ball. Where as you can't afford to press an attacking side like that because when they beat the zone it is an almost certain goal.

We almost need to cop the inevitable holding the balls etc. and just adopt a playon at all costs sort of gameplan to get us rolling in attack. This does require a running attitude from the back half though as you always need numbers pushing through for handballs from behind the ball. By doing this you pull the oppositions press closer to the ball carrier and makes it in turn easier to clear that zone. That is my 2 cents anyhow. I think we can win tonight and I hope the boys come out and play some good football.

Hi Saint Cave

How do you think we looked in the third quarter against the Crows?

When we played on, we looked dangerous.

We did look more dangerous in the third qaurter than we did for the rest of the game. To maintain the attacking pressure the backman are required to run hard both ways which involves a lot of unrewarded running by a lot of players, which involves the right attitude towards the gameplan I guess. I don't think it would be something that would simply click overnight but I believe that if we can get opposition teams to fear us moving the ball coast to coast it will result in them not pressing us quite as hard in our back half as they currently seem to do.

[dragit]

It doesn't have to be one or the other…
Defend, clog, flood, zone, do whatever it takes to stop the opposition from kicking goals, that is fine.
Defence isn't about butchering the ball backwards and sideways from the backline, that gives your opponent every chance to set-up and stop our attack.
As soon as we have the ball, we are essentially the 'attacking' team, whereby the opposition will be doing everything it can to stop us kicking goals too. The less time a zone has to set-up, the more holes there will be.
I suppose the main gripe is not having any or enough players forward when we are defending, this makes it very hard to score if there is a turn-over.
You get the feeling that sides know that if they can get 3-4 goals ahead of us, our own game plan makes it very hard to catch-up, Essendon have being doing it to us for years, even when were at our very best.
Faster ball movement is what everyone wants, but it's pretty hard when so many aren't confident kicks?
But maybe they have to take the risk and we have to put up with the ensuing turn-overs?

[Winmar7Fan]

Still don't understand why from the centre of the ground it takes 15 kicks with 15 turn over opportunities when it only needs 1 kick to almost land in the goal square?

[St_Cave]

It doesn't have to be one or the other…
Defend, clog, flood, zone, do whatever it takes to stop the opposition from kicking goals, that is fine.
Defence isn't about butchering the ball backwards and sideways from the backline, that gives your opponent every chance to set-up and stop our attack.
As soon as we have the ball, we are essentially the 'attacking' team, whereby the opposition will be doing everything it can to stop us kicking goals too. The less time a zone has to set-up, the more holes there will be.
I suppose the main gripe is not having any or enough players forward when we are defending, this makes it very hard to score if there is a turn-over.
You get the feeling that sides know that if they can get 3-4 goals ahead of us, our own game plan makes it very hard to catch-up, Essendon have being doing it to us for years, even when were at our very best.
Faster ball movement is what everyone wants, but it's pretty hard when so many aren't confident kicks?
But maybe they have to take the risk and we have to put up with the ensuing turn-overs?

Yes agreed, we still need to defend as hard as we can. I guess it's more about making them accountable for pressing us so hard when we have the ball rather than playing into there game plan and allowing them to keep us in the thinnest and therefore easiest part of the ground to press.

We do have a lot of guys that butcher the ball and that is a limitation though last season West Coast hardly had a player with above average disposal and even they have managed to put together some competitive football games. It shows it can be done but I think it takes practice and commitment to running hard both defensively and offensively. Which is a problem in itself as we seem to have a few guys back there who aren't runners. Some of them have been great players for the club over there time but it seems the younger legs are better prepared to carry out the current day brand of football.

This is a completely left field suggestion and I will admit that I haven't seen enough of him to make a judgement of whether he is capable but given we seem to have quite a few up an coming forward types I would love to see a guy like Stanley given the chance to have a go behind the ball as a defender in Sandy to see if he is capable of defending in key position and then generating some run from the back half. It is very pie in the sky but it is obvious that we need to generate some run and receive from behind the ball and also opens up a spot for a guy like Stanley which may otherwise not be there.

Living interstate I don’t get to see too many Sandy games. Do we have any other kids coming through who can fill this sort of role? It seems like Lynch has been getting a few good write ups.

[spert]

Still don't understand why from the centre of the ground it takes 15 kicks with 15 turn over opportunities when it only needs 1 kick to almost land in the goal square?

Collingwood woke up to that

[Junction Oval]

Stanley is certainly a long, long way from being a ruckman, so a try-out of your idea at Sandy would not do a great deal of damage at the moment.

We need strong contesters, great (I'll take good) kicking skills and some pace please. Do we have any of these