Why is it necessary to think defence first?

[nickname]

Spelly, to answer your question, my view is that it's because defensive skills ( spoiling, screening, tackling, chasing) are easier to execute under pressure (e.g in a Grand Final) than attacking skills are (clean marking, accurate kicking). So if you go into a Grand Final with a highly attacking game style and the skills are down because of the pressure, it can leave a team with little to fall back on, like Port against Geelong a couple of years ago, and you run the risk of being smashed.
And zoning has completely changed the game. You can't just go long and direct indiscriminately anymore because you won't be going to a one-on-one contest, and there isn't the space available for forwards to move into.

[Hondo]

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 agree AM. In think the current Geelong side is similar in that it has a very strong defence combined with great attacking players. In an interview, Tom Harley admitted that Geelong use zones extensively and even claimed Hawthorn borrowed their 2008 zoning tactics from them. Geelong play a lot of numbers behind the ball and then back their superb midfield in to move it forward quickly.

I think the most successful teams have both strings to their bows so that they can react to any game situation with confidence. If you blindly go with all out attack (a la Jars last year at North) the teams that understand how to play defensively will get you in games that count -Centrals today, Port Magpies in the past, West Coast of the 90s, etc, etc,

I like nickname's point about the pressure of big games playing havoc with teams or players that rely solely on attacking skills..

[doggies4eva]

Finals are about pressure. The team that handles it best wins. So you don't want to risk the other side getting a run-on and having scoreboard pressure in addition.

I have not advocated flooding and zoning does not neccessarily mean playing more players back in defence. I think that the AFL fad of kicking backwards is a temporary thing and requires excellent skills to carry it out. Have lost count of the times when this style led to giving up an easy goal - ie North Melbourne's first goal against the Crows came from a player trying to switch play. A simple 50 metre kick to a contest would have been my preferred option that the risk that was taken!

[Macca19]

I think teams have been going defensive a lot longer than the last 10 years, its just different tactics now.

Now you get zones. 15 years ago you had big ruckmen thumping the ball into Row F 20 times in a row, wasting 10 minutes of gametime.

As others have said, its generally easier to play a defensive gameplan under pressure than it is to play an attacking plan.

Not sure about Geelong revolutionising attacking footy Wedgie. Id say their gameplan is just a slight progression on what West Coasts was in 05-06 (high disposal, high run, super attacking), just with more depth of quality across the park (and the ability to keep their squad together) enabling to win more games than those Eagles successful years.

[spell_check]

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

I actually thought it was defence, but then I got the thought of the opposite of what you said - that defence is American. Give me colour, harbour and favour anyday, and now defence.

[SnappyTom]

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

I actually thought it was defence, but then I got the thought of the opposite of what you said - that defence is American. Give me colour, harbour and favour anyday, and now defence.

Showing your true colors, eh!

St...

[spell_check]

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

I actually thought it was defence, but then I got the thought of the opposite of what you said - that defence is American. Give me colour, harbour and favour anyday, and now defence.

Showing your true colors, eh!

St...

Now, I've got to edit all the posts that have defense in them.

[prowling panther]

Give you something to do

[spell_check]

Sorry to bump an old thread (again!) however, the type of match I saw yesterday was what I had in mind when I started this thread. It was tough, hard tackling, desperate footy with plenty of smothering and ball ups due to the pressure put on each side. Yet there were 34 goals kicked. That's my idea of a game of football, not just a premeditated throwing 3 numbers loose in the backlines or zoning all over the ground.