The flaws in Richo's tackling/pressure game

[Bluthy]

Good Thread!

I understand your assessment Bluthy but I dont think its as straightforward as having a possession type game.

As a developing team full of developing bodies we need to hardened these minds and bodies as they slowly approach maturity and we have seen already this season that our younger players are starting to reap the benefits are starting to present with hardened attitudes and physical aptitude for the contest hence our marked improvement over the last two years.

As they say you got to learn to walk before you can run and the physical aspect of the game style we are currently trying to implement will hold them in good stead down the track when we are final contenders.

Looking at teams like Hawthorn who do play a possession type game you need a hard nosed back line that can win the ball and in having players like Gibson who rarely loses a one on one contests the Hawks back line allows their mids freedom to find space on the flanks wings and centre to receive knowing that the majority of the time the Hawthorn backs will win the ball and deliver precisely - interesting that we have accumulated quite a few backs who can kick the ball - White, Rice, Webster, Dmac who are also pretty strong in one on one situations (See Birchall, Dureya) - currently our back line is undersized and we seemingly are continually under pressure to clear the ball but I think we are on the right track with recruiting Carlisle (good one on one and can deliver precisely as well) and in a few more years I can see our back line being rock solid and dependable which will take the pressure off our mids to run down back and help out enabling them to have a more attacking mindset in the middle third of the ground and conserve energy.

The Hawks also have an exceptional forward line with talent in all positions who can get the ball but also pressure the opposition forwards to turn it over - again something that we are building towards slowly - this in turn again allows their mids to again concentrate in the middle of the ground and make good use of their skills to keep the ball when they do have it.

At the moment it is all about development and the style of gameplan I think suits our young team as it shows them what it takes to win the ball and create turnovers if and when required through pressure acts. As our back line develops I think you might see a change to more of a Hawthorn style but at the moment i like the idea of fast tracking our young uns in terms of hardness cause not only will it help them build their tanks and their physical contact endurance it will hold them in good stead comes finals when the intensity is 10 fold.

I know some supporters are screaming out for more mids (and yes it is super important to have depth here and we do need more class in this position) but defense wins championships as they say and if we can manage to put together a great one then that quick possession type game style will be easier to implement knowing that the harder pressure type game plan is already in place

and yes I do agree with JM that we need more talent - and it will come - see Salary Cap

The devil mixes his lies with the truth! You make some interesting points DH. But the direction you start out tends to be the direction you travel mainly in, although yes you can change it up a bit or have some different methods.

The young hawks were encourage to pass the footy with precision and risk even if it initially wasn't coming off. They even invented the method of swinging around as soon as you mark and kick to any target presenting, rather the slower backing off the mark and trying to find an open player. And guess what - they more you do it - year after year - the better you get. They got experts in to work on their kicking style. Everyone scratches their head now and wonders how they can keep hitting targets and move the ball so damn quick. But its simple they put a premium on disposal and kept trying it year after year until they mastered it. If we don't try the possession game we won't get better at.

Your footy philosophy also influences who you draft and trade in and actually play out of squad. Steele would suit Richo's pressure style and wouldn't surprise me if we target him. Seeing Wright cement a spot in our best 22 ahead of the skillful x-factor players in Sinclair and Lonie worries me. Richo will say this year is a success therefore he must be on the right track with selection. Is he self-critical enough to play devils advocate to himself and wonder if he is on the right track?

Hawks system is built on clever zoning that lets them expand and contract in a clinically efficient way, rather than built on pressure at all costs. Its worth considering that maybe the cost of so much 'dumb' pressure, outweighs its benefits in the long term. Work smarter, not harder. Human beings have limits - footballs don't. YOu can kick them around all day and they don't get tired. Let them do most of the work and you have lots left in the tank for those big moments. It doesn't surprise me that hawks always seem to be able to pull of the big plays at the end of games when everyone is tired.

Talent is somewhat a seperate issue to system but your system does tend to dictate the sort of talent you go after. Will be interesting this draft and trade period to see the sort of player we get now that Pelchen a guy who always put a premium on good kicking, is long gone and Richo has a lot of power and authority.

[felix]

Spot on DevilHead.

[samoht]

There's no flaws in a coach demanding a pressure game and intensity from his players - creating turnovers and opportunities through pressure. We have done well this year because of it.
.. and we have a number of players that are built for it and thrive under this game style - like Weller, Newnes, Geary, Minchington and Armo (although he's holding back a bit this year - might be due to injury?).
But I do cringe a bit when small-framed but mentally tough players throw themselves around - like Wright for instance, even Webster. I would prefer it if Wright, Minchington and Webster would gather 20 to 25 possessions each - and provide the much needed run and carry that we lack. I'm sure Richo would too.
But until they can provide this on a consistent basis - they have been asked to take up the slack by throwing themselves into the fray - and doing the team thing.

If Minchington gets dropped again this week, it won't be because he's not performing the pressure acts, it's because he's not getting enough of the pill. So obviously Richo prefers that from him.
If our game relies heavily on applying pressure, it could mean we are not being proactive enough, that we are not in attack mode for enough of the game - maybe we can't do that consistently at this stage - especially against the best teams?

[prwilkinson]

Whilst starting to pick apart St.Kilda's game plan just take a moment to remember where this list was only a season or two ago. Staring into the abyss. "Wouldn't even win a game" was the catch cry. Now we're already talking about developing an adaptive style to defeat and more importantly become a top 4 team. Patience, It'll come. They'll add more strings when they're ready. Richo is doing a great job.

Look at Collingwood's 'game plan' for 2016 as an example... It's a f**king train wreck... Should we zone? Should we hold onto the footy? Should we get a lot of players around the ball? Should we push up and pressure? They don't know whether they're arthur or martha. I'd hate for that to happen to St.Kilda's list.

[samoht]

Look at Collingwood's 'game plan' for 2016 as an example... It's a f**king train wreck... Should we zone? Should we hold onto the footy? Should we get a lot of players around the ball? Should we push up and pressure? They don't know whether they're arthur or martha. I'd hate for that to happen to St.Kilda's list.

Coaches (and game plans) are over-emphasised in all this. What you've described above has happened to us too this year.
It's no coincidence that once Collingwood got some of their players back from injury and once they started getting match fit, that the side improved and so did their game style.
If you're on the front foot - suddenly the opposition needs to worry about you.

[Johnny Member]

The devil mixes his lies with the truth! You make some interesting points DH. But the direction you start out tends to be the direction you travel mainly in, although yes you can change it up a bit or have some different methods.

The young hawks were encourage to pass the footy with precision and risk even if it initially wasn't coming off. They even invented the method of swinging around as soon as you mark and kick to any target presenting, rather the slower backing off the mark and trying to find an open player. And guess what - they more you do it - year after year - the better you get. They got experts in to work on their kicking style. Everyone scratches their head now and wonders how they can keep hitting targets and move the ball so damn quick. But its simple they put a premium on disposal and kept trying it year after year until they mastered it. If we don't try the possession game we won't get better at.

Your footy philosophy also influences who you draft and trade in and actually play out of squad. Steele would suit Richo's pressure style and wouldn't surprise me if we target him. Seeing Wright cement a spot in our best 22 ahead of the skillful x-factor players in Sinclair and Lonie worries me. Richo will say this year is a success therefore he must be on the right track with selection. Is he self-critical enough to play devils advocate to himself and wonder if he is on the right track?

Hawks system is built on clever zoning that lets them expand and contract in a clinically efficient way, rather than built on pressure at all costs. Its worth considering that maybe the cost of so much 'dumb' pressure, outweighs its benefits in the long term. Work smarter, not harder. Human beings have limits - footballs don't. YOu can kick them around all day and they don't get tired. Let them do most of the work and you have lots left in the tank for those big moments. It doesn't surprise me that hawks always seem to be able to pull of the big plays at the end of games when everyone is tired.

Talent is somewhat a seperate issue to system but your system does tend to dictate the sort of talent you go after. Will be interesting this draft and trade period to see the sort of player we get now that Pelchen a guy who always put a premium on good kicking, is long gone and Richo has a lot of power and authority.

But once again, you're entire argument is based on false premise.

You're making the assumption to know that Richardson is basing his game plan on nothing more than hard tackling and pressure.

That's an enormous assumption to make.


I'd be perplexed if 10 coaches get together and every day and the best they can come up with is 'let's tackle hard and put pressure on.'

And as pointed out already, clubs don't have 'game plans'. They have dozens of styles depending on the scenario happening on the field. Tackling and pressure is not a 'game plan'.

We've seen behind the scenes footage of coaching meetings, where the entire list is packed into a room and the coaches and senior players are drilling different plays and strategies into the playing group. This doesn't suggest a mere 'tackle and pressure game plan' to me.

I think you're premise is utter guff.



The other stuff you've suggested I also don't agree with. Playing too many young guys at once with weaknesses relating to their ability in a contest, would be foolish. Playing harder bodies alongside the younger guys is always the best way to develop them. Riewoldt having Hamill alongside him was critical in his early days for example.

I mean seriously, we've seen how quickly our play breaks down when we get beaten in contests, and we can't pressure the opposition. It's the difference between beating Geelong, and losing by 100 points to Adelaide. Playing Lonie, Billings, Montagna, Savage, Templeton etc. in the same team would be disastrous without the likes of Weller, Gilbert, Wright etc. in the team.

FWIW, I don't rate Wright much. But there's absolutely no doubt we need guys who don't roll over in a contest in the team. The other false premise you're bringing to the discussion is that the club is trying to turn Billings and Lonie etc. into battering rams. Where is the evidence to suggest ?


There's many opinions and myths in footy - but thing cannot be argued with: You cannot win games if you don't get the ball. Good opponents don't give you the ball when they're not under pressure.In some cases, they still don't give you the ball when they're under pressure. So you either cross your fingers and hope they kick behinds and you get your hands on it that way, or you need to win contests to get it.



Further, Hawthorn were pathetic for the first few years Clarkson was there. Either he didn't have a 'game plan', or it just takes time to get the players to carry it out. We know there is no such thing as a game plan, but he certainly had strategies which took him a good 3-4 years and some freak talent before his team started to show signs that they were playing to a plan. Word is that had they lost one particular game, he was going to be sacked.


I think looking at the way we play now, and drawing such narrow minded conclusions (in a footy sense) is silly.

[prwilkinson]

Look at Collingwood's 'game plan' for 2016 as an example... It's a f**king train wreck... Should we zone? Should we hold onto the footy? Should we get a lot of players around the ball? Should we push up and pressure? They don't know whether they're arthur or martha. I'd hate for that to happen to St.Kilda's list.

Coaches (and game plans) are over-emphasised in all this. What you've described above has happened to our list too this year.
It's no coincidence that once Collingwood got some of their players back from injury and once they started getting match fit, that the side improved and so did their game style.
If you're on the front foot - suddenly the opposition needs to worry about you.

How would you describe Collingwood's game plan or identity as a team? What do you expect to get from them on any given week?

[samoht]

How would you describe Collingwood's game plan or identity as a team? What do you expect to get from them on any given week?

This is the way I see it ... outside of Collingwood.
The best game plan aka approach is for a coach not to be rigid in his thinking - to be adaptive and to study the opposition each week and devise a plan that will succeed against them.
Every good coach - actually sets of coaches (it's never one coach) - I'm sure uses this adaptive/ad hoc game plan/approach. The objective each week is to negate the opposition's strengths and exploit any weaknesses - anticipate moves that could be made against your side during the game and be ready for counter moves.

And it needn't (and doesn't) stop at the coach - Geary marshalling and coordinating the backline, to get the most out of it; Riewoldt pointing to spots that team mates should run to and defend - it's a dynamic thing - it starts at the team meetings - discussing the upcoming game - and doesn't stop until the siren is blown. Everyone is involved. Players more so than the coach - they are out there living it and implementing it!

re: Collingwood - and every side, obviously ... you'll get the most out of your team - things start to work or work better - if everyone, especially your best players, are fit and firing.

Nothing is as simple as it looks. It's multi-factorial.

re: Identity ...
It's our identity we should be worried about - after all Collingwood were able to secure Treloar!

[prwilkinson]

How would you describe Collingwood's game plan or identity as a team? What do you expect to get from them on any given week?

This is the way I see it ... outside of Collingwood.
The best game plan aka approach is for a coach not to be rigid in his thinking - to be adaptive and to study the opposition each week and devise a plan that will succeed against them.
Every good coach - actually sets of coaches (it's never one coach) - I'm sure uses this adaptive/ad hoc game plan/approach. The objective each week is to negate the opposition's strengths and exploit any weaknesses - anticipate moves that could be made against your side during the game and be ready for counter moves.

And it needn't (and doesn't) stop at the coach - Geary marshalling and coordinating the backline, to get the most out of it; Riewoldt pointing to spots that team mates should run to and defend - it's a dynamic thing - it starts at the team meetings - discussing the upcoming game - and doesn't stop until the siren is blown. Everyone is involved. Players more so than the coach - they are out there living it and implementing it!

re: Collingwood - and every side, obviously ... you'll get the most out of your team - things start to work or work better - if everyone, especially your best players, are fit and firing.

Nothing is as simple as it looks. It's multi-factorial.

re: Identity ...
It's our identity we should be worried about - after all Collingwood were able to secure Treloar!

Enough of Collingwood, was only really using them as an example of how playing groups can look pretty lost if they don't have non-negotiable cornerstones of how they want to play week in, week out.
Back on topic, I feel our playing group are well on the way to play as you said, an adaptive style that they themselves are accountable for and that Richo is doing a great job.

[Bluthy]

But once again, you're entire argument is based on false premise.

You're making the assumption to know that Richardson is basing his game plan on nothing more than hard tackling and pressure.

That's an enormous assumption to make.


I'd be perplexed if 10 coaches get together and every day and the best they can come up with is 'let's tackle hard and put pressure on.'

And as pointed out already, clubs don't have 'game plans'. They have dozens of styles depending on the scenario happening on the field. Tackling and pressure is not a 'game plan'.

We've seen behind the scenes footage of coaching meetings, where the entire list is packed into a room and the coaches and senior players are drilling different plays and strategies into the playing group. This doesn't suggest a mere 'tackle and pressure game plan' to me.

I think you're premise is utter guff.



The other stuff you've suggested I also don't agree with. Playing too many young guys at once with weaknesses relating to their ability in a contest, would be foolish. Playing harder bodies alongside the younger guys is always the best way to develop them. Riewoldt having Hamill alongside him was critical in his early days for example.

I mean seriously, we've seen how quickly our play breaks down when we get beaten in contests, and we can't pressure the opposition. It's the difference between beating Geelong, and losing by 100 points to Adelaide. Playing Lonie, Billings, Montagna, Savage, Templeton etc. in the same team would be disastrous without the likes of Weller, Gilbert, Wright etc. in the team.

FWIW, I don't rate Wright much. But there's absolutely no doubt we need guys who don't roll over in a contest in the team. The other false premise you're bringing to the discussion is that the club is trying to turn Billings and Lonie etc. into battering rams. Where is the evidence to suggest ?


There's many opinions and myths in footy - but thing cannot be argued with: You cannot win games if you don't get the ball. Good opponents don't give you the ball when they're not under pressure.In some cases, they still don't give you the ball when they're under pressure. So you either cross your fingers and hope they kick behinds and you get your hands on it that way, or you need to win contests to get it.



Further, Hawthorn were pathetic for the first few years Clarkson was there. Either he didn't have a 'game plan', or it just takes time to get the players to carry it out. We know there is no such thing as a game plan, but he certainly had strategies which took him a good 3-4 years and some freak talent before his team started to show signs that they were playing to a plan. Word is that had they lost one particular game, he was going to be sacked.


I think looking at the way we play now, and drawing such narrow minded conclusions (in a footy sense) is silly.

You're just creating ludicrous straw men to argue against eg. "I'd be perplexed if 10 coaches get together and every day and the best they can come up with is 'let's tackle hard and put pressure on.'

Yeah thats really what I'm saying. You seem to be denying that nearly all teams seem to have 'brand' or style of play. So Lyon doesn't have a style, Roos doesn't, Clarkson doesn't? I mean its universally recognised that these teams are coached to play in certain way emphasising certain things as they think that gives them an edge in the long run or plays to our strengths. And no for us that isn't just "go out and there and tackle and harrass". Of course there are other tactics and strategies at play in terms of spread and blocking and spitters and extra men back and trying to keep the footy and zoning and forward press and rotations, and on and on. Footy at the highest level is a pretty complex war involving lots of different facets. But you still have elements that you put a real premium on.

One of Richo's strength is communicating with players and getting them to buy into his plan. He's used this strength to get the players to really physically commit to this taxing pressure and harassing model. That is tick for Richo in terms of getting them to do something that Buckley has been trying to get Pies players without a lot of success, not being as good a communicator as Richo.

All experts are saying we play a very high pressure/harassing/tackling game. The players have said it is what we want to be known for. Richo talks about it a lot. McVeigh said one of the hardest pressuring teams in the comp. How do you think that happened - by accident? No Richo has put a premium on it as soon as he came to the club - that is obviously his vision and he's worked towards it.

Other teams certainly want their teams to pressure and tackling but have they put as much premium on it as Richo? Maybe not. I think Bolton is putting more emphasis on clever zoning at Carlton. Melbourne have put a premium on midfield strength in that classic Roos around the ball domination he loves. Dogs always have a lot of numbers around the halfback line to stop the oppo scoring and launch quick counter attacks. You can't do everything in footy - you pick a direction and move towards it and put energy into it that you can't put into other things. The very players you pick reflect your approach eg. Wright.

You want to be reasonably well rounded but the reality is coaches are going to push their teams in certain directions due to their own vision. That is obvious. Why you are trying to deny it is beyond me. The only guff is coming from you thinking you know better than all the media, all the other supporters, all the ex-players and coaches who say we are playing a high pressure/tackling game. You are trying to deny the undeniable. No there is no brand or style or player from different coaches. They all play virtually exactly the same. It's just a sheer fluke that Clarkson has won all the cups, or Malthouse or Matthews or Thompson. Hey its not like footy is an opinion business or anything.

[Johnny Member]

You're just creating ludicrous straw men to argue against eg. "I'd be perplexed if 10 coaches get together and every day and the best they can come up with is 'let's tackle hard and put pressure on.'

Yeah thats really what I'm saying. You seem to be denying that nearly all teams seem to have 'brand' or style of play. So Lyon doesn't have a style, Roos doesn't, Clarkson doesn't? I mean its universally recognised that these teams are coached to play in certain way emphasising certain things as they think that gives them an edge in the long run or plays to our strengths. And no for us that isn't just "go out and there and tackle and harrass". Of course there are other tactics and strategies at play in terms of spread and blocking and spitters and extra men back and trying to keep the footy and zoning and forward press and rotations, and on and on. Footy at the highest level is a pretty complex war involving lots of different facets. But you still have elements that you put a real premium on.

One of Richo's strength is communicating with players and getting them to buy into his plan. He's used this strength to get the players to really physically commit to this taxing pressure and harassing model. That is tick for Richo in terms of getting them to do something that Buckley has been trying to get Pies players without a lot of success, not being as good a communicator as Richo.

All experts are saying we play a very high pressure/harassing/tackling game. The players have said it is what we want to be known for. Richo talks about it a lot. McVeigh said one of the hardest pressuring teams in the comp. How do you think that happened - by accident? No Richo has put a premium on it as soon as he came to the club - that is obviously his vision and he's worked towards it.

Other teams certainly want their teams to pressure and tackling but have they put as much premium on it as Richo? Maybe not. I think Bolton is putting more emphasis on clever zoning at Carlton. Melbourne have put a premium on midfield strength in that classic Roos around the ball domination he loves. Dogs always have a lot of numbers around the halfback line to stop the oppo scoring and launch quick counter attacks. You can't do everything in footy - you pick a direction and move towards it and put energy into it that you can't put into other things. The very players you pick reflect your approach eg. Wright.

You want to be reasonably well rounded but the reality is coaches are going to push their teams in certain directions due to their own vision. That is obvious. Why you are trying to deny it is beyond me. The only guff is coming from you thinking you know better than all the media, all the other supporters, all the ex-players and coaches who say we are playing a high pressure/tackling game. You are trying to deny the undeniable. No there is no brand or style or player from different coaches. They all play virtually exactly the same. It's just a sheer fluke that Clarkson has won all the cups, or Malthouse or Matthews or Thompson. Hey its not like footy is an opinion business or anything.

We play a high pressure, high intensity game. Or at least we try too.

But we don't do it half as well as at least 5 other teams, and we only just match it with another 4 or 5.

What we do in that sense, is not different to anyone else. We're merely trying to match other teams' pressure and intensity. I'm not sure why you see this attempt to meet a benchmark set by the top 4-6 teams every single year in a particular facet of the game, as some sort of 'brand'.

Every single good team ever, has had pressure and intensity as their 'brand'. So much so, that's it's not even a brand - it's merely a formality and a basic requirement to be any good.


Of course on top of that, are the various strategies as to how different scenarios during a game are approached.

West Coast had a 'web' defensive setup, Clarkson had his 'cluster' defensive setup. Lyon has an uber flood around the ball and moves the ball slowly out of defense, etc. etc. But these aren't brands or 'trademarks' or game plans - they're merely a strategy that the players fall into depending on the situation during the game.

Clarkson for example, coached his team in last year's GF to kick deep into the pockets which countered the 'web' defense. The inclusion of Shoenmakers, and Hawthorn's ability to kick goals out of their arses from unravelled the web.

But guess what the real difference was? Guess what won Hawthorn the game? And also what won them the game the year before against Sydney?

Pressure and intensity. Winning contests, and pressuring their opponents to make errors.


If you're trying to work out what Richardson's 'trademark' defensive strategy is, or what his 'trademark' offensive strategy is, as I've said before I think you're not going to see it coming to fruition completely for another year or so. At this stage, our main offensive strategy is to move the ball like a rocket and play on at all costs.

That's obvious. It has a bit of the Port Adelaide 'slingshot' about it. But without the foot speed and skill required to do it really well.

What's also obvious, is that we only do that at certain times. When we can't do it, we switch. We take our time with the switch until we free up a loose man. When we can't do that, we kick short out of defence and try to find our way into the corridor.


But this s*** isn't easy. Every player needs to be on the same page for it to work, and every player needs to be able to execute the skills necessary to carry it effectively. Right now, we're not great at it. Against opponents that can't match our intensity, we look great at it. Against teams who shut it down with their pressure, we're not good enough yet to carry it out properly.


Defensively we're hard to read because we turn the ball over so often and get caught out on the rebound. At this early stage of our development, that's going to happen as a result of not quite getting our forward movements right. But the basic premise seems to be to slow up the opposition's ball movement from defence. We structure really well across the middle and in D50 when we give ourselves enough time, and opponents find it hard to score, and we look good.

This is why Wright and Weller are selected. They're there to pressure defenders either into turnovers, or at the very least to slow them up so we can setup across the middle defensively.

Once again, against weaker teams, we look good because we're able to out-pressure them. Against good teams, they waltz it out of defence and slice through us easily. And when this happens, we're vulnerable down back due to our size and ability. Or lack thereof.


So if you think our 'pressure and tackling' is our attempt at a 'web' or a 'cluster', you're wrong.

[Johnny Member]

PS: Ranked 13th in Tackles Per Game

[Johnny Member]

PPS: Ranked 17th in 1%ers

[Johnny Member]

PPPS: Ranked 16th in Contested Possessions

[stkfc1]

The one thing that stands out to me, and it's really evident in the big losses we've had this year, is accountability to outside opposition midfielders around stoppages. We basically form a pack around the ball to stifle ball movement but if the opposition gets first hands and a couple of quick handballs away , time and time again you'll see two or three of their players streaming away from the pack and our guys chasing dust. Then due to the fact we have so many mumbers around the ball there is no one able to run back and help out our already vulnerable defence. It's definitely something that needs to be addressed next season.

[Bluthy]

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/e ... 89db87e233

MR: Is is too patronising to say St Kilda is a good effort-based team? And when is the day coming when we can say St Kilda is simply a good team?

AR: I know what you mean. Possibly that’s a reflection of a new coach coming in and wanting to make sure our underbelly, our platform, is about really strong pressure. You would not have heard me talk about effort, I talk about pressure. However, I will never get away from pressure being the most important factor in our method. rarely would I question our players’ effort or commitment to want to play the right way


http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/t ... 27c77313a8

Field Marshal: Stunning pressure behind St Kilda’s quick rise up the AFL ladder

SAM EDMUND, Herald Sun
July 25, 2016 8:00pm
Subscriber only

PRESSURE — Queen sang about it, but St Kilda are becoming the kings of it.

The Saints’ rise from 2-6 battler to sneaky 9-8 finals chance is based on defensive desire and old fashioned one-percenters — corralling, chasing and tackling.

They are, what traditionalists would say, an honest side. When St Kilda bring the heat, rival sides can melt, particularly at Etihad Stadium.

“Our game is basically built on pressure and if we bring that we feel like we can compete against anyone,” defender Jarryn Geary said last month.

Champion Data’s pressure factor measures how much pressure each team applies to their opponent’s disposals.

The Saints have been out-pressured in only four of 17 games this season and they’ve lost three of those. The fourth came against Essendon in Round 16 in the only game St Kilda has won when losing the pressure count.

Alan Richardson’s men rank fourth in the AFL in pressure factor differential, behind only Hawthorn, Geelong and North Melbourne.

Pressure Factor Differential

Ranking Club Ratio
1 Hawthorn +11.1
2 Geelong Cats +5.4
3 North Melbourne +5.0
4 St Kilda +4.4
5 Collingwood +4.0
6 Adelaide Crows +3.5
7 Essendon +3.1
8 GWS Giants +2.1
9 Carlton +1.2
10 Sydney Swans -1.2
11 Port Adelaide -2.2
12 Gold Coast Suns -2.4
13 West Coast Eagles -3.9
14 Richmond -4.5
15 Western Bulldogs -5.0
16 Melbourne -5.7
17 Fremantle -6.6
18 Brisbane Lions -7.4

Their midfield pressure factor differential is better again, ranking third behind the Hawks and Cats. For a side ninth on the ladder, it is an eye-catching asset.

Not only is Jack Steven having a sensational ball-winning season, he’s doing his bit without the pill too, ranking “elite” for pressure with Sam Gilbert and Darren Minchington. David Armitage, Leigh Montagna and Tom Hickey are among a glut of Saints classified as “above average”.

Midfield Pressure Factor Differential

Ranking Club Ratio
1 Hawthorn +12.8
2 Geelong Cats +6.8
3 St Kilda +5.5
4 Collingwood +5.4
5 North Melbourne +5.0
6 Adelaide Crows +4.1
7 Carlton +3.5
8 Essendon +2.8
9 GWS Giants +1.4
10 Western Bulldogs +0.4
11 Port Adelaide -1.6
12 Sydney Swans -4.3
13 Brisbane Lions -4.4
14 Gold Coast Suns -5.6
15 West Coast Eagles -6.4
16 Melbourne -7.8
17 Fremantle -7.9
18 Richmond -8.6
Preview
In the wake of Saturday night’s triumph over the Western Bulldogs, the post-mortem discussion was dominated by pressure.

Dylan Roberton said: “We just knew we had to bring our pressure — what we’ve been doing the last two months — and try and keep them to a low score which we were able to do. It’s a massive, massive win.”

Jack Newnes: “If we play our way, Saints footy, heaps of pressure, clean with our hands and get the ball long and deep it’s managed to work.”

Kick to Handball Ratio

Ranking Club Ratio
1 West Coast 1.36
2 Adelaide 1.33
3 Hawthorn 1.33
4 GWS 1.32
5 Richmond 1.30
6 North Melbourne 1.29
7 Carlton 1.24
8 Geelong 1.24
9 Port Adelaide 1.23
10 Gold Coast 1.23
11 Brisbane Lions 1.20
12 Fremantle 1.17
13 Collingwood 1.16
14 Essendon 1.15
15 St Kilda 1.14
16 Sydney 1.14
17 Western Bulldogs 1.05
18 Melbourne 1.03
And Richardson: “Our pressure was solid for four quarters and I think where we want to be for all of the game.”

But what makes St Kilda’s do-or-die clash against North Melbourne on Saturday night so intriguing is that the Roos play a brand of footy that makes it hard for the Saints to get their teeth into.

The Dogs like to flick the ball around congestion by hand and have the second-lowest kick to handball ratio (1.05 kicks to every handball) in the competition. North, however, is a kicking side with the sixth highest ratio — 1.29 kicks to every handball.

St Kilda’s Pressure Kings

Player Pressure Rating
Jack Steven Elite
Darren Minchington Elite
Sam Gilbert Elite
David Armitage Above Average
Maverick Weller Above Average
Jack Sinclair Above Average
Tom Hickey Above Average
Josh Bruce Above Average
Leigh Montagna Above Average

The more you handball against the frenzied Saints, the more vulnerable you are to their pressure.

Check mate Johnny?

[Johnny Member]

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/e ... 89db87e233

MR: Is is too patronising to say St Kilda is a good effort-based team? And when is the day coming when we can say St Kilda is simply a good team?

AR: I know what you mean. Possibly that’s a reflection of a new coach coming in and wanting to make sure our underbelly, our platform, is about really strong pressure. You would not have heard me talk about effort, I talk about pressure. However, I will never get away from pressure being the most important factor in our method. rarely would I question our players’ effort or commitment to want to play the right way


http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/t ... 27c77313a8

Field Marshal: Stunning pressure behind St Kilda’s quick rise up the AFL ladder

SAM EDMUND, Herald Sun
July 25, 2016 8:00pm
Subscriber only

PRESSURE — Queen sang about it, but St Kilda are becoming the kings of it.

The Saints’ rise from 2-6 battler to sneaky 9-8 finals chance is based on defensive desire and old fashioned one-percenters — corralling, chasing and tackling.

They are, what traditionalists would say, an honest side. When St Kilda bring the heat, rival sides can melt, particularly at Etihad Stadium.

“Our game is basically built on pressure and if we bring that we feel like we can compete against anyone,” defender Jarryn Geary said last month.

Champion Data’s pressure factor measures how much pressure each team applies to their opponent’s disposals.

The Saints have been out-pressured in only four of 17 games this season and they’ve lost three of those. The fourth came against Essendon in Round 16 in the only game St Kilda has won when losing the pressure count.

Alan Richardson’s men rank fourth in the AFL in pressure factor differential, behind only Hawthorn, Geelong and North Melbourne.

Pressure Factor Differential

Ranking Club Ratio
1 Hawthorn +11.1
2 Geelong Cats +5.4
3 North Melbourne +5.0
4 St Kilda +4.4
5 Collingwood +4.0
6 Adelaide Crows +3.5
7 Essendon +3.1
8 GWS Giants +2.1
9 Carlton +1.2
10 Sydney Swans -1.2
11 Port Adelaide -2.2
12 Gold Coast Suns -2.4
13 West Coast Eagles -3.9
14 Richmond -4.5
15 Western Bulldogs -5.0
16 Melbourne -5.7
17 Fremantle -6.6
18 Brisbane Lions -7.4

Their midfield pressure factor differential is better again, ranking third behind the Hawks and Cats. For a side ninth on the ladder, it is an eye-catching asset.

Not only is Jack Steven having a sensational ball-winning season, he’s doing his bit without the pill too, ranking “elite” for pressure with Sam Gilbert and Darren Minchington. David Armitage, Leigh Montagna and Tom Hickey are among a glut of Saints classified as “above average”.

Midfield Pressure Factor Differential

Ranking Club Ratio
1 Hawthorn +12.8
2 Geelong Cats +6.8
3 St Kilda +5.5
4 Collingwood +5.4
5 North Melbourne +5.0
6 Adelaide Crows +4.1
7 Carlton +3.5
8 Essendon +2.8
9 GWS Giants +1.4
10 Western Bulldogs +0.4
11 Port Adelaide -1.6
12 Sydney Swans -4.3
13 Brisbane Lions -4.4
14 Gold Coast Suns -5.6
15 West Coast Eagles -6.4
16 Melbourne -7.8
17 Fremantle -7.9
18 Richmond -8.6
Preview
In the wake of Saturday night’s triumph over the Western Bulldogs, the post-mortem discussion was dominated by pressure.

Dylan Roberton said: “We just knew we had to bring our pressure — what we’ve been doing the last two months — and try and keep them to a low score which we were able to do. It’s a massive, massive win.”

Jack Newnes: “If we play our way, Saints footy, heaps of pressure, clean with our hands and get the ball long and deep it’s managed to work.”

Kick to Handball Ratio

Ranking Club Ratio
1 West Coast 1.36
2 Adelaide 1.33
3 Hawthorn 1.33
4 GWS 1.32
5 Richmond 1.30
6 North Melbourne 1.29
7 Carlton 1.24
8 Geelong 1.24
9 Port Adelaide 1.23
10 Gold Coast 1.23
11 Brisbane Lions 1.20
12 Fremantle 1.17
13 Collingwood 1.16
14 Essendon 1.15
15 St Kilda 1.14
16 Sydney 1.14
17 Western Bulldogs 1.05
18 Melbourne 1.03
And Richardson: “Our pressure was solid for four quarters and I think where we want to be for all of the game.”

But what makes St Kilda’s do-or-die clash against North Melbourne on Saturday night so intriguing is that the Roos play a brand of footy that makes it hard for the Saints to get their teeth into.

The Dogs like to flick the ball around congestion by hand and have the second-lowest kick to handball ratio (1.05 kicks to every handball) in the competition. North, however, is a kicking side with the sixth highest ratio — 1.29 kicks to every handball.

St Kilda’s Pressure Kings

Player Pressure Rating
Jack Steven Elite
Darren Minchington Elite
Sam Gilbert Elite
David Armitage Above Average
Maverick Weller Above Average
Jack Sinclair Above Average
Tom Hickey Above Average
Josh Bruce Above Average
Leigh Montagna Above Average

The more you handball against the frenzied Saints, the more vulnerable you are to their pressure.

Check mate Johnny?

Check mate??!

That's exactly what I'm saying.


From my post above:

We play a high pressure, high intensity game. Or at least we try too.

But we don't do it half as well as at least 5 other teams, and we only just match it with another 4 or 5.

What we do in that sense, is not different to anyone else. We're merely trying to match other teams' pressure and intensity. I'm not sure why you see this attempt to meet a benchmark set by the top 4-6 teams every single year in a particular facet of the game, as some sort of 'brand'.

Every single good team ever, has had pressure and intensity as their 'brand'. So much so, that's it's not even a brand - it's merely a formality and a basic requirement to be any good.


Every single good team ever, has built their game on pressure. Intensity.

Without it, their strategies don't work. We're trying to emulate what the good teams have always done.

When we do, our strategies work and look effective. When we don't, they don't.

The same for all teams.




What you've posted, supports my point precisely.


We have a strategy to slow down the opposition going forward, and move the pill at rapid speed when we get it.

Without pressure, it won't work.


That's my whole point. 'Pressure and intensity' is not the strategy. It is not the 'possession game' or 'Clarkson's cluster' - it's the way in which we facilitate our strategies. Exactly the same as every club tries to do.


Seriously, how do Hawthorn 'play a possession game'? Because they get the ball!

As per your chart above, they're +12.5 FFS in pressure! 7 ahead of anyone else!

There's your answer.

The other, probably more important stat that isn't listed in your figures, is the ability to actually win a contest. Although our defensive pressure has been really good, our ability to win contests is way below the really good teams. When we get better at that, we'll get the ball far more. Funny that.



Pressure and intensity is not a new thing. It's not a Richardson brainwave - it's what all clubs do in order to carry out their defensive and offensive strategies. It's the cornerstone of every single good team's success.

[samoht]

Freo down near the bottom.. second last, I'm glad we have Richo.
We were on a downhill trajectory in 2010 and 2011 - the opposition half back lines were rebounding to their heart's content and under little pressure. Those days are well and truly behind us!

[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.

[samoht]

So Freo doesn't have around-the-ground pressure factored into their method (or rate it that highly) judging by their lack of pressure (ranked 2nd from bottom on the pressure factor differential) - it's not that important to them ... they allow half back lines to tear them apart with their run and carry and think they can just flood back and defend that? Floody hell (what a great game plan - a genius must have devised it!).
Way to go, Freo.

[saintsRrising]

Checkmate indeed. The article posted by Bluthy just reinforces that we need pressure...and not to get less of it.

Just look at what teams rank highly and you will see the folly of not having a gameplan that has pressure as one of its planks. However it is but one plank.

[Bluthy]

The one thing that stands out to me, and it's really evident in the big losses we've had this year, is accountability to outside opposition midfielders around stoppages. We basically form a pack around the ball to stifle ball movement but if the opposition gets first hands and a couple of quick handballs away , time and time again you'll see two or three of their players streaming away from the pack and our guys chasing dust. Then due to the fact we have so many mumbers around the ball there is no one able to run back and help out our already vulnerable defence. It's definitely something that needs to be addressed next season.

I agree with this. And its part of the yin-yang thing. You throw numbers at the ball and the ball carrier you have to give up some of your structure. Lyon is criticised for not keeping a structure in a place and creating a rolling maul - yes you make it hard for the oppo to get it out cleanly and score but you also find it hard to score yourself as you haven't kept guys in place in the forward line and set up to spread.

Against teams that can work it out through our press this year (or where we haven't brought sufficient pressure) we then don't seem to have a good defensive structure in place and get smashed. Coupled with not not being able to keep the footy its lead to some heavy smashings this year.

[st.byron]

Does anyone know how "pressure" is measured?

That there is a pressure factor differential must mean there are stats being taken as the basis for the end measurement. Anyone know what they are and how they're collated?

By the way, I really like this thread. Haven't contributed to the discussion but it's a good read. Thanks.

[Bluthy]

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.

[Bluthy]

Does anyone know how "pressure" is measured?

That there is a pressure factor differential must mean there are stats being taken as the basis for the end measurement. Anyone know what they are and how they're collated?

By the way, I really like this thread. Haven't contributed to the discussion but it's a good read. Thanks.

Talks about it coming in here in 2011 http://www.couriermail.com.au/sport/afl ... 6025761152

A player will score a point for a physical pressure act when he lays an effective tackle or lays a hand on the opposition ball carrier as he tries to get the ball away.

With implied pressure being tracked for the first time, the ability to corral an opponent will be rewarded.

Players chasing an opponent from behind, forcing them to hurriedly dispose of the ball, also will be rewarded with a "pressure act".

So that is why we may be down on tackles, but our pressure acts still high. The zippiness of Steven lets him get a hand on the oppo with the ball a lot (or at least get close to them). Of course if they can still get rid of the ball effectively like Swans did last week then your pressure becomes less relevant and you may actually be out of position as you've risked trying to bottle it up and have less outside structure.