What's our gameplan?

[Cairnsman]

Demons are a similar way in under a new coach, and I can see what they are trying to do.

That's my point I guess.

Call it what you want, I just can't see what were trying to do.

Oh, and matchups, how did Shenton vs The Hoff get past magnets on a whiteboard?

Just making arguments for arguments sake IMO. It's not quite a call to "sack the coach" but it is in the same predictable category of throw away statements when supporters get frustrated.

[8856brother]

The game plan is to get it and kick thru the big sticks. Make sure you do it more than the opposition

Didn't help us in the 2010 GF.

[SainterK]

Well you're completely wrong cairnsman.

I'm fully committed to the rebuild, and understand where we're at.

I was just hoping to have some enlighten me a little as to what's going on so I can understand it better.

I'm just not understanding the tactics or many of the matchups.

Doesn't mean they are rubbish, it just means I don't understand them.

[8856brother]

Kick it long to Snake Baker. I mean Roo.

Game plan looked obvious in the Bombers game. Switch and attack from defence. Run and spread. Control the football. Team defence. Pretty basic. We did it well that game but have not come close to replicating it since. Our list and confidence is shot at the moment. Getting some sort of belief back into group is more imortant atm. A Mick Malthouse type bbq might be in order. Beer fixes most things.

[BigMart]

I don't think we are incapable of understanding the intricacies of a footy Game Style adopted by a few different teams. It's footy, not rocket a science.

I think there are commonalities

But Hawthorn has a distinct game plan

Kangas, Geel, Bulldogs pull the trigger throughthemiddle more than most

Then there's the Sides that fold back heavily and guard space.

Defensive mechanisms are the most obvious difference
And very much basketball/soccer driven
Zone, Man, Press
And teams need to be flexible depending on situation
Stoppage, slow play, fast play, different fwd structures etc

The real technical stuff is more related to coverage in and around the stoppage, blocking and transition spread

[Cairnsman]

Well you're completely wrong cairnsman.

I'm fully committed to the rebuild, and understand where we're at.

I was just hoping to have some enlighten me a little as to what's going on so I can understand it better.

I'm just not understanding the tactics or many of the matchups.

Doesn't mean they are rubbish, it just means I don't understand them.

As BM suggests I don't think it is rocket science and unless AR is trying to implement rocket science then it is a case of the critical mass not understanding the message or not being able to execute it. Personally I think most astute supporters understand it is the latter. From my understanding of the common message AR has delivered in the media his game plan hinges on contested ball. Now if you look at the contested ball stat and the quarters we have won then you will see he looks like he is on the right track. The only problem we have with that part of our game plan is that you need talented experienced hard bodies and that is not going to come for another few years.

[FQF]

At the end of the day, we were widely tipped to be the wooden spooners at the start of the season. Then we get hit with numerous mid-long term injuries to core players. It's a recipe for disaster and makes the coach's life a nightmare because: 1) he doesn't have the raw quality of players to carry out the plan, and the players the plan was designed for at pre season. 2) the team keeps changing substantially which ruins all continuity and familiarity between players.

I mean, when Richo looked at our list in the pre season and saw players like Webster, Wright, Roberton, Gilbert, Newnes Fisher he could envisage a team that had it's best attacking chances coming off half back. You let Delaney, Bruce, Gwilt, Geary play the close checking defence roles and leave the run to the others mentioned. So you switch the ball at half back to open up the fat side and then you run and carry the ball QUICKLY with those running half backs to get it inside 50 at speed before the opposition can settle it's back line or flood.

But, Wright, Gilbert and Fisher have been injured all year. Roberton has been injured and/or terribly out of form. Webster has been ok, but is carrying far too much of the load and is expected to play shut-down roles. All of a sudden, the game plan doesn't have the foot soldiers to carry it out, and instead we do the switch but the ball moves so TENTATIVELY through the middle of the ground that we give our forwards no hope of creating space and working to their advantage.

It was always going to be tough, with inconsistent performances from a young team. But don't underestimate the extent of our injuries - it has certainly derailed us.

[BigMart]

How many defenders were we going to play

You have 4 close checking
And 6 running off HB?

[FQF]

How many defenders were we going to play

You have 4 close checking
And 6 running off HB?

I didn't say that all would play at once. I said that analysing our list, that would be one of our strengths. Team would be picked based on balance and opposition.

Ideally you can have three running defenders, with another 2-3 of that style playing the traditional wing position, and rotating off bench.

[Bluthy]

At the end of the day, we were widely tipped to be the wooden spooners at the start of the season. Then we get hit with numerous mid-long term injuries to core players. It's a recipe for disaster and makes the coach's life a nightmare because: 1) he doesn't have the raw quality of players to carry out the plan, and the players the plan was designed for at pre season. 2) the team keeps changing substantially which ruins all continuity and familiarity between players.

I mean, when Richo looked at our list in the pre season and saw players like Webster, Wright, Roberton, Gilbert, Newnes Fisher he could envisage a team that had it's best attacking chances coming off half back. You let Delaney, Bruce, Gwilt, Geary play the close checking defence roles and leave the run to the others mentioned. So you switch the ball at half back to open up the fat side and then you run and carry the ball QUICKLY with those running half backs to get it inside 50 at speed before the opposition can settle it's back line or flood.

But, Wright, Gilbert and Fisher have been injured all year. Roberton has been injured and/or terribly out of form. Webster has been ok, but is carrying far too much of the load and is expected to play shut-down roles. All of a sudden, the game plan doesn't have the foot soldiers to carry it out, and instead we do the switch but the ball moves so TENTATIVELY through the middle of the ground that we give our forwards no hope of creating space and working to their advantage.

It was always going to be tough, with inconsistent performances from a young team. But don't underestimate the extent of our injuries - it has certainly derailed us.

You nailed our biggest deficiency at the moment FQF. The oppo set up a permitter outside the 50 and we get locked in our half. We don't have the kickers to go over the top. We don't the accurate disposal and quick hands to go through. And once we run out of legs we can't run it out. We can just scrub it out to the 50 where it comes back with interest. We've been spoiled with Gram, Gilbert, Fisher, Gwilt, Goddard all having long penetrating kicks, good marking and quick run to transition us from defense to attack. It was a big part of our success. Only Webster has good kicking back there at the moment. I wouldn't mind seeing Montagna playing as that sweeper on half back to set up play bit like Dal Santo last year. It may shake off his tag and with his long kicking let us get out of our back half.

[bigcarl]

The game plan is kick-it-to-Roo isn't it?

Nothing has changed in 10 years, except for the fact that we no longer have a good supporting cast 1) to get the ball in there regularly and cleanly and, 2) to defend our own goals.

I think the rest of the competition is awake up to this plan and knows how to counter it.

[FQF]

At the end of the day, we were widely tipped to be the wooden spooners at the start of the season. Then we get hit with numerous mid-long term injuries to core players. It's a recipe for disaster and makes the coach's life a nightmare because: 1) he doesn't have the raw quality of players to carry out the plan, and the players the plan was designed for at pre season. 2) the team keeps changing substantially which ruins all continuity and familiarity between players.

I mean, when Richo looked at our list in the pre season and saw players like Webster, Wright, Roberton, Gilbert, Newnes Fisher he could envisage a team that had it's best attacking chances coming off half back. You let Delaney, Bruce, Gwilt, Geary play the close checking defence roles and leave the run to the others mentioned. So you switch the ball at half back to open up the fat side and then you run and carry the ball QUICKLY with those running half backs to get it inside 50 at speed before the opposition can settle it's back line or flood.

But, Wright, Gilbert and Fisher have been injured all year. Roberton has been injured and/or terribly out of form. Webster has been ok, but is carrying far too much of the load and is expected to play shut-down roles. All of a sudden, the game plan doesn't have the foot soldiers to carry it out, and instead we do the switch but the ball moves so TENTATIVELY through the middle of the ground that we give our forwards no hope of creating space and working to their advantage.

It was always going to be tough, with inconsistent performances from a young team. But don't underestimate the extent of our injuries - it has certainly derailed us.

You nailed our biggest deficiency at the moment FQF. The oppo set up a permitter outside the 50 and we get locked in our half. We don't have the kickers to go over the top. We don't the accurate disposal and quick hands to go through. And once we run out of legs we can't run it out. We can just scrub it out to the 50 where it comes back with interest. We've been spoiled with Gram, Gilbert, Fisher, Gwilt, Goddard all having long penetrating kicks, good marking and quick run to transition us from defense to attack. It was a big part of our success. Only Webster has good kicking back there at the moment. I wouldn't mind seeing Montagna playing as that sweeper on half back to set up play bit like Dal Santo last year. It may shake off his tag and with his long kicking let us get out of our back half.

Savage was probably earmarked for the role as well, but he's been the major disappointment of the year.

[Old Mate]

Does anyone notice our players get sucked into the contest and are flat footed when we win the ball? It seems more lack of experience and the team not gelling than anything else. Give the 'young core' 50-100 games together and the 'game plan' will come together. Ross, Armo and Dunstan going into the contest, Steven, Billings, Acres and Newnes staying out of the contest and running into space at speed receiving the footy. A lot of contributing deficiencies as well. Skills, run and spread, composure, talent etc.

[St Chris]

Not so much a game plan, but we have a game style, and I can see how we will transform over the coming years.....we got a fair look at it against Port last weekend. Teams are so good at opposition analysis these days, predictable ball movement patterns and structural setups are easily countered, and as such are a thing of the past.

High pressure, cause turnovers, quick ball movement from said turnover when opposition defensive structures aren't setup. It was called counter-attacking before there were 5000 analysts in every form of media.

We utilise the fast ball-movement with goal kicking mids/flanks and forwards who can lead into space.

I know we talk about constested footy stats, but they're overated. Contested footy is the measure at this stage as we build this "RL-like" rabid pressure around the footy. Turnovers and scores from turnovers will become a much better guage of where we're at in the next few seasons. There's no coincedence Port are the best at these stats, and 2 games clear at the top.

[Cairnsman]

All of the arguments presented thus far boil down to lack of talent and experience. Us losing games has very little to do with a game plan. It's a bit like polish, you almost have to have a finished product before you apply it, we need a critical mass of talent and experience before any game plan will work. And Sainter K you do get the game plan if you can argue mistakes were made at the "magnet on white board" stage.

[Solar]

I would be worried that richo was spending too much time of a specific game plan as these change yearly. Where we are at is developing a game theme, a set of outcomes the players need to work towards. Contested ball, tackles, hitting targets etc. Beating your man one on one etc.

I think the reason we get sucked to the contest in the want to win the contested ball. Bit of a cheat if that is a focus and perhaps the outside mids need to be coached in spread and holding position?

Once we identify our future mids the blocking and hitting the ball at pace are two areas that need focus on.

[White Winmar]

Can anyone tell me what a game plan is apart from get ball?

OK, my game plan would be
1) Get Ball
2) Keep ball
3) Kick more goals than opponent
4) Win game

Yay. I get $500K a year as best coach.

You're hired! That's the kind of fresh and radical thinking we need. Make it 600K.

[busso mick]

Can anyone tell me what a game plan is apart from get ball?

OK, my game plan would be
1) Get Ball
2) Keep ball
3) Kick more goals than opponent
4) Win game

Yay. I get $500K a year as best coach.

You're hired! That's the kind of fresh and radical thinking we need. Make it 600K.

We got Ball but couldn't keep Ball as he went to Collingwood

[dragit]

The gameplan is fundamentally built on team defence, the style of footy that first sydney in 2005 then ross lyon with us in 2009 then collingwood and so on down the list all implemented succesfully. It's no surprise that we've chosen a gameplan built on defense because apparently Richo allowed the players themselves to have a big say in what the gameplan would be when he came in, and they favoured the style of play they'd been successful with in the past, which just so happened to be Richo's inclination too so that all worked out well. If we weren't going to build our game around defense, then the only option would be to the the geelong or the hawthorn or the essendon route and build the game around spectacular offence rather than defense, and clearly our gameplan is not that.

The key differences, as I see them, between the gameplan we're working towards with Richo and the one we had with ross are that
a.) Ross used "role players" extensivley. ie "tagger" or "defensive forward," players who had one specific role in the team, whereas Richo will pick players who are versatile over players that can only do one thing
b.) There is a far greater emphasis placed on the overall skill level of the players with richo - in other words he won't, unlike ross, pick players who cant kick. I expect to see a far greater spread of goalkickers, rather than having 70% of our goals kicked by 2 players (Riewoldt/milne, or Pavlich/ballantyne)

It's a more balanced looking gameplan than we had under ross, and certainly more balanced than the one under watters. When its all functioning with the players at full-capacity I expect us to be a team that is not only very hard to score against but also which is able to match it with the best offensive teams in the comp: the complete package.

I can't imagine the players having a big say on the type of game plan we adopt, surely that is a big factor on how a coach is chosen - their game plan?

Also your role player example, we still have CJ & Saunders playing largely a negative/tackling forward role, just like Eddy & McQualter were… plus we've been playing with at least 2 tagging type players most weeks.

And the skills reference, CJ, Ray & Geary have played every game available… all poor kicks by any measure, favoured over say Dennis-Lane & Milera who are both silky skilled, but obviously lack strength in contests.

[Sainternist]

Kick it up the guts!

[dragit]

Does anyone notice our players get sucked into the contest and are flat footed when we win the ball? It seems more lack of experience and the team not gelling than anything else. Give the 'young core' 50-100 games together and the 'game plan' will come together. Ross, Armo and Dunstan going into the contest, Steven, Billings, Acres and Newnes staying out of the contest and running into space at speed receiving the footy. A lot of contributing deficiencies as well. Skills, run and spread, composure, talent etc.

I've noticed this too…
I remember in one of the videos recently posted on the saints site around pre-game team meetings, I think was McPhee (?) saying something like… "If you think you can influence the contest in "this" situation, then you are allowed to deviate from your role, otherwise stick to the program" Which must be hard for players with under 50 games experience to make split second decisions on - Do I stay outside like my role dictates or should I go in and contest here?
These things can only come with experience… but for us the fans, we just want every player to be Lenny Hayes… half their touches contested, 8 clearances per game etc… when really a lot of these guys who people label soft are doing what they are supposed to. If everyone is inside trying to win the footy, then there is no-one in a good position to give the ball to.
I remember during the Essendon game, how well set-up we looked, having players in the right positions at stoppages and in setting up for defence. It is very hard to implement a plan when severely undermanned and constantly under siege by seasoned sides.

[stinger]

allan jeans game plan was based on the three different phases of the game


1...we have the ball
2... the opposition has the ball
3...the ball is in dispute.


so get the ball more times than the opposition.....then they don't have it and it is not in dispute...


simple really.....

[spert]

Yabby Jeans had the right idea! At the moment we are failing in basic football, let alone "game plans"

[saintsRrising]

Does anyone notice our players get sucked into the contest and are flat footed when we win the ball? It seems more lack of experience and the team not gelling than anything else. Give the 'young core' 50-100 games together and the 'game plan' will come together. Ross, Armo and Dunstan going into the contest, Steven, Billings, Acres and Newnes staying out of the contest and running into space at speed receiving the footy. A lot of contributing deficiencies as well. Skills, run and spread, composure, talent etc.

Exactly. It is not that we do not ave game planS (as it is not just one),,,but the execution.

ie
* We switch play, but do it too slowly, and do not open up opens to kick too quickly enough. Slow execution means that the game gets shut down.

* As mentioned above too many case the ball in the heat of moment...so that no-one is left "outside" to handball to

etc

It will come with more experience and bigger bodies, and a more settled team. Lately with the injuries and loss of form, we have been having a new team each week and that is not helpful. Our players are having to think all the time, and that slows you down. As they get used to one another and the AFL pace play will become more instinctive and our fortunes will rise.

Get used to it, as it will be this way for another season or two yet. We will be a yo yo team sometimes looking good when it all clicks, and other times looking horrid when we fall by the wayside. Slowly we will get better.

[Wayne42]

Game plan:

Hug the boundaries and kick it out on the full if the opposition create too much pressure.

Never take a risk and look for a target through the corridor and when we get to CHF hold onto the ball for as long as you can, so the opposition can flood as many players back on top of our forwards.

Always - Look and handball backwards regardless if you are free and there is forward options.

Go backwards and swith sides particularly when Roo has a one on one contest with his opponent.

Never notice any other leading forwards than Roo, alternatively bomb it long to a 3 on 1 situation, which as a coach I am happy to allow!

I'm quite sure that's not the game plan BUT, it's what it looks like most weeks.