SA Footy

Just about every new tactic since the mid 90s has been a defensive one. This is held in the belief/viewpoint that a good defence will win matches. I would like to know why that is? Is there any science behind it? I do believe it is to do with the fact that finals lift a cog in intensity, so it means that all out attack won't work in a final. Why can't there be a mix of both - tough in close footy and once you get the ball out, it's straight for the goal? Rather than pre-meditated two or three extra men in the backlines?

Has anyone on here coached a side (any side) and thought about what the best way to win a match is and why?

spell_check wrote:... what the best way to win a match is and why?

just watch Geelong ...

dedja wrote:

spell_check wrote:... what the best way to win a match is and why?

just watch Geelong ...

Just on Geelong, I also think their performances in 1989 and 1992 as the best attacking VFL/AFL team of all time have a bearing on how teams play since then. Just because they didn't win those Grand Finals, that style doesn't work.

spell_check wrote:

dedja wrote:

spell_check wrote:... what the best way to win a match is and why?

just watch Geelong ...

Just on Geelong, I also think their performances in 1989 and 1992 as the best attacking VFL/AFL team of all time have a bearing on how teams play since then. Just because they didn't win those Grand Finals, that style doesn't work.

I'm not sure about that. I just think it's easier to throw numbers back and run the ball out than come up with any revolutionary attacking formation. Also, Hawthorn beat them in 1989 also playing attacking footy.

I have only coached footy teams in primary school and U/15 level, with mixed success mind, the best way to get the kids to react, was to get them to score more than their opponent, wether that be by attacking to kick a score or defending to stop them scoring, it all sounds pretty simplistic, and it is really , as i said I was mainly involved with Grades 5,6, & 7 but it was a good game plan where young boys who had varied ammounts of skill levels, with the majority giving away football soon into high school and a lot of them never trying at club level.

exactly right ...Blighty had the attitude back then that as long as Geelong kicked more goal than the opposition, they would win more than they lose.

The Geelong of today have incorporated that attacking style of game of Blighty's era, but have added that defensive accountability without going too negative ... I just love to watch them play because they back themselves.

Look how they got over the line today against Freo ... attacked hard in the last 10 mins to blow the game away.

Jars did it with North in their revival when he took the reigns ... again, exciting to watch.

But you are right Spelly, the prevailing thought for a while now has been based on tightening the defensive action because it easier to do I think.

dedja wrote:exactly right ...Blighty had the attitude back then that as long as Geelong kicked more goal than the opposition, they would win more than they lose.

I also think he had the right players to do it with - Ablett, Brownless, Lindner, Stoneham could all kick the ball a mile and were all attacking players by nature.

Yes, true about the players to an extent but look at North under Jars, was it a change of personnel or gameplan that transformed them to an exiting hgh scoring team?

I guess it boils down to the fact that a defensive game plan is perceived as less risky than an attacking one, but Westies have shown great results this year when they've played an attacking game, but inexplicibly have also managed to play ultra defensive at other times with poor results.

Adelaide Hawk wrote:

spell_check wrote:

dedja wrote:

spell_check wrote:... what the best way to win a match is and why?

just watch Geelong ...

Just on Geelong, I also think their performances in 1989 and 1992 as the best attacking VFL/AFL team of all time have a bearing on how teams play since then. Just because they didn't win those Grand Finals, that style doesn't work.

I'm not sure about that. I just think it's easier to throw numbers back and run the ball out than come up with any revolutionary attacking formation. Also, Hawthorn beat them in 1989 also playing attacking footy.

Yeah but hawthorn had a great defence in '89 (Collins, Langford, Ayres, Mew, Kennedy) and a Midfield (Dipper, Buckenara, Tuck, Whitman, Platten, Pritchard etc) that worked both ways offensively and defensively.

Any game style was bound to come unstuck against players of that quality.

I don't know maybe ask Choco!

Built on a great back six:
o it's helped us to play in eleven of the last fourteen Grand Finals (1995-2008);
o brought us seven flags in nine seasons; and,
o serves us with monotonous regularity.

It wasn't inherent defensive tactics that led to yesterdays horror to witness. The old oxy moron of good attacking defense can be some of the best footy to watch, even at SANFL level...

ST...

Yes ST, but at least you said "back six" and not "back ten" ala ten defenders. Those tactics I am talking about.

I recall Tyson Hay kicking a goal at Prospect watching it on TV in 2002 - he ran down from defense and was all on his own and goaled from about 50 - that's being positive.

spell_check wrote:I recall Tyson Hay kicking a goal at Prospect watching it on TV in 2002 - he ran down from defense and was all on his own and goaled from about 50 - that's being positive.

I recall a Fullback on Friday night kicking a goal too !! Very positive !!

am Bays wrote:Yeah but hawthorn had a great defence in '89 (Collins, Langford, Ayres, Mew, Kennedy) and a Midfield (Dipper, Buckenara, Tuck, Whitman, Platten, Pritchard etc) that worked both ways offensively and defensively.

Any game style was bound to come unstuck against players of that quality.

True, but Hawthorn's game style was still based on scoreboard pressure. Jeans didn't believe in this modern trend of a dozen guys kicking 1 or 2 goals each, he demanded key forwards step up and kick bags. Hawthorn regularly booted 20 goals plus in this period.

Defenders such as Mew, Langford, etc, were all attacking players as well. None of this Silvagni style holding on and negating you see from today's defenders. They would compete for the ball, win it, and move it on through players like Kennedy booting long and direct into attack.

You rarely saw the midfield swamping back into defence, they were needed upfield for when the ball came out of defence, not like today where you see the ball being booted out of defence to nobody. Hawthorn (and Geelong) played the game the way it was meant to be played back then.

In the 1989 GF, Geelong came back at Hawthorn in the final term, but Hawthorn still attacked. If they hadn't, they would have lost.

Long and direct is still the best method, irrespective of what contemporary football people want us to believe.

spell_check wrote:Yes ST, but at least you said "back six" and not "back ten" ala ten defenders. Those tactics I am talking about.

I recall Tyson Hay kicking a goal at Prospect watching it on TV in 2002 - he ran down from defense and was all on his own and goaled from about 50 - that's being positive.

Rodney Maynard was doing that back in the 80s. No big thing.

SnappyTom wrote:Built on a great back six:
o it's helped us to play in eleven of the last fourteen Grand Finals (1995-2008);
o brought us seven flags in nine seasons; and,
o serves us with monotonous regularity.

It wasn't inherent defensive tactics that led to yesterdays horror to witness. The old oxy moron of good attacking defense can be some of the best footy to watch, even at SANFL level...

ST...

Spot on ST. The doggies played wonderfull attacking footy through the 70s and 80s. Got us to the finals and then we bombed out. It wasn't until we changed our style (in the mid 90s) and got good at that style that we started to win finals.

The example of Tyson Hay running down from the back line and kicking a goal is about fast rebounding - it is still based on defence - we force a turnover in the backlines and then move the ball forward fast before the opposition can get back. A bit like basketball - fast transition.

Its because its the easiest way to remain competetive or win games and premierships.
We can only hope that someone comes along and revolutionalises the SANFL like Sturt in the 60s, North of the 80s and Geelong of the latter 00s.
I do however think zones and floods will be a major part of the SANFL for a long time and with poorer skills to execute it, it is going to make for some very poor matches and make the AFL a lot more attractive to kids.

doggies4eva wrote:

SnappyTom wrote:Built on a great back six:
o it's helped us to play in eleven of the last fourteen Grand Finals (1995-2008);
o brought us seven flags in nine seasons; and,
o serves us with monotonous regularity.

It wasn't inherent defensive tactics that led to yesterdays horror to witness. The old oxy moron of good attacking defense can be some of the best footy to watch, even at SANFL level...

ST...

Spot on ST. The doggies played wonderfull attacking footy through the 70s and 80s. Got us to the finals and then we bombed out. It wasn't until we changed our style (in the mid 90s) and got good at that style that we started to win finals.

The example of Tyson Hay running down from the back line and kicking a goal is about fast rebounding - it is still based on defence - we force a turnover in the backlines and then move the ball forward fast before the opposition can get back. A bit like basketball - fast transition.

Agree with teh both these posters. A solid back six with a midfield that applies pressure to create turnovers can result in quite attacking games.

In English the word is "defence". Bloody American infiltration at work again...

spell_check wrote:Yes ST, but at least you said "back six" and not "back ten" ala ten defenders. Those tactics I am talking about.

I recall Tyson Hay kicking a goal at Prospect watching it on TV in 2002 - he ran down from defense and was all on his own and goaled from about 50 - that's being positive.

It was far from his only venture that way.
Not that you'll want to see it, but his goal in the opening stanza of the 2004 GF was awesome too - had run down the wing assisting the general play, contested and punched the ball forward to Richie, received the ball back as he kept streaming forward and goaled from 50 (it was our fourth goal of the game, from memory).

Players like Heath Hopwood, Paul Thomas, Tyson Hay and Quinton Graham all pushed forward and ran from defence, when playing at half back. Interestingly, Hopwood and Thomas were our most prolific bouncers of the ball over a three or four year period, along with Bello.

I think it's mental though, as to why a whole team thinks defensively. Hands off style, hold up play. Has a sad overall look to it.

Tell me then - if you were a South or West supporter with a very young side (being cleaned out too), would you rather the all out defensive style to have some honorable losses and around 6 wins for the season - or play the game open and try to develop each to his best, accepting thumpings in years one and two (but maybe still winning a few)? I'd rather the latter...

But you've raised a good topic, it's valid in "the modern game".

ST...