Discussion 2021: Strategy, Team & Player Discussions

[Studz]

With the new MOTM rule; is it fair to say that it will be more difficult for teams not in possesion to cause turnovers(less ability to apply pressure)....and in turn we may see teams dominanting possesion for long periods (chipping it around)......would seem to be a lot easier to maintain possesion and close out a tight match in that fashion.....that would not make for a grandstand finish....oh its okay, we'll just make a new rule in 2022 to fix that if it happens

 

[Darkie]

You reckon because kicking efficiency to the fwds will improve under the new rule(s), a team mate can't cover the mark allowing them to get back in position to intercept the next kick or two.....any others ?

I was interested in the is as well. Keen for your thoughts @GrainFedBeef.

 

[wogitalia]

I honestly expect we see teams man the mark 5m back and dare the teams to play on into that space rather than be up on the mark and absolutely handcuffed from any lateral movement. Basically you just start things 5m deeper and man it how you normally would and should actually be able to circle closer on the corridor side as a result, teams will allow the opponent the boundary as they always do, perhaps even more pronounced now.

Also think we see a lot of the standing over players on the mark to slow it up which given players aren't allowed to move from the mark will have to be allowed more by the umpires, can't tell them they're not allowed to move an inch and then expect them to move.

Going to be an incredibly important rule though as depending what teams do it's going to have a drastic impact on SC scoring.

Take for example, stand 5m back, guard corridor religiously. This should favour intercept marks and ruckmen as you'd expect a lot more long kicks to the boundary.

Stand up on the mark but flood extra numbers to cover for players being worthless in the zone while manning the mark and it's the seagulls likely to get a lot of cheap marks as teams maintain possession and work to try and create openings and expose that player that can't do anything until they get an angle on him.

If it leads to much faster ball movement then leading marks become a lot more likely and run and carry players should shine.

This is going to be one of those seasons where the r3 correction trades could be exceptionally important, maybe to the point that it's worth using an extra two in r2 or r4 or even both. Think this could be like the kick-in rule on steroids which basically added 10+ points to everyone taking them and fundamentally shifted the back position to create a new tier for them instead of them generally being equal with forwards, the hard part is right now having no feel on how it work and not expecting that teams will go with their A plan in the preseason.

To me it still makes the most sense to man up 5m from the mark, which would still allow the player to play on a bit quicker as they wouldn't need to get back off it often but would mostly undercut the change, allow corridor guarding and if the player does play on ahead of the mark you can come up and close the space while also taking the 50m penalty out of the equation for the most part. This to me would have the least impact on SC scoring if coaches go down the path but given it's the logical and common sense approach I'm not sure if any coaches will actually think of it.

 

[BomberArmy]

All it's going to do is allow/force teams to play a stronger accountable team defence and we will see more defenders in the corridor now.. teams will 'give' the boundary side away more often than not.. might make the wingers more important from a SC perspective..

 

[GrainFedBeef]

I was interested in the is as well. Keen for your thoughts @GrainFedBeef.

I honestly expect we see teams man the mark 5m back and dare the teams to play on into that space rather than be up on the mark and absolutely handcuffed from any lateral movement. Basically you just start things 5m deeper and man it how you normally would and should actually be able to circle closer on the corridor side as a result, teams will allow the opponent the boundary as they always do, perhaps even more pronounced now.

Also think we see a lot of the standing over players on the mark to slow it up which given players aren't allowed to move from the mark will have to be allowed more by the umpires, can't tell them they're not allowed to move an inch and then expect them to move.

Going to be an incredibly important rule though as depending what teams do it's going to have a drastic impact on SC scoring.

Take for example, stand 5m back, guard corridor religiously. This should favour intercept marks and ruckmen as you'd expect a lot more long kicks to the boundary.

Stand up on the mark but flood extra numbers to cover for players being worthless in the zone while manning the mark and it's the seagulls likely to get a lot of cheap marks as teams maintain possession and work to try and create openings and expose that player that can't do anything until they get an angle on him.

If it leads to much faster ball movement then leading marks become a lot more likely and run and carry players should shine.

To me it still makes the most sense to man up 5m from the mark, which would still allow the player to play on a bit quicker as they wouldn't need to get back off it often but would mostly undercut the change, allow corridor guarding and if the player does play on ahead of the mark you can come up and close the space while also taking the 50m penalty out of the equation for the most part. This to me would have the least impact on SC scoring if coaches go down the path but given it's the logical and common sense approach I'm not sure if any coaches will actually think of it.

Just watching the video of essendon, I dont think it helps the player in possession of the ball. Harder interpretation of moving of the line will ensure he cannot shuffle and play on as easy.

It does help the run and carry player as Wogtalia said, as he runs through on either side and receives the hand ball. The man on the mark cannot shuffle along to close the space.

Will 5m back help, not sure on that. Possession player will just step forward then handball in 5m, player receives and pushes further away will clear the line.

As ball comes in faster it is hard for tall defenders. Why else did interceptors do well last year? Less tired players led to more intensive defending by mids leading to slower movement, lowering scoring.

Covid risks still exists this year, why did AFL increase quarter length all the way back to 20mins rather than 18mins. All about scoring.

Just some thoughts.

 

[Juzzo]

This new "Stand" rule reminds me of a tactic we used at the annual Adelaide basketball carnival in our seconds team. We had a serious side and a muck around side. I used to be in the serious side until I got too old and slow, then joined the fun second team. The object of the second team was to drink as much as you could for the whole weekend and also play a few games. The tactic was called "Statue Defence", someone called out "Statue Defence, we would freeze until the opposition scored. Needless to say we won few games.

 

[Ironhawk]

This new "Stand" rule reminds me of a tactic we used at the annual Adelaide basketball carnival in our seconds team. We had a serious side and a muck around side. I used to be in the serious side until I got too old and slow, then joined the fun second team. The object of the second team was to drink as much as you could for the whole weekend and also play a few games. The tactic was called "Statue Defence", someone called out "Statue Defence, we would freeze until the opposition scored. Needless to say we won few games.

Fairly sure I have seen that tactic used in multiple AFL games too, where the whole team just stands around and lets the opposition score. It doesn't work very well, unless you want better draft picks.

 

[Juzzo]

Fairly sure I have seen that tactic used in multiple AFL games too, where the whole team just stands around and lets the opposition score. It doesn't work very well, unless you want better draft picks.

Haha, yep, the old witch hats on FF.

 

[Wheedus]

I honestly expect we see teams man the mark 5m back and dare the teams to play on into that space rather than be up on the mark and absolutely handcuffed from any lateral movement. Basically you just start things 5m deeper and man it how you normally would and should actually be able to circle closer on the corridor side as a result, teams will allow the opponent the boundary as they always do, perhaps even more pronounced now.

Also think we see a lot of the standing over players on the mark to slow it up which given players aren't allowed to move from the mark will have to be allowed more by the umpires, can't tell them they're not allowed to move an inch and then expect them to move.

Going to be an incredibly important rule though as depending what teams do it's going to have a drastic impact on SC scoring.

Take for example, stand 5m back, guard corridor religiously. This should favour intercept marks and ruckmen as you'd expect a lot more long kicks to the boundary.

Stand up on the mark but flood extra numbers to cover for players being worthless in the zone while manning the mark and it's the seagulls likely to get a lot of cheap marks as teams maintain possession and work to try and create openings and expose that player that can't do anything until they get an angle on him.

If it leads to much faster ball movement then leading marks become a lot more likely and run and carry players should shine.

This is going to be one of those seasons where the r3 correction trades could be exceptionally important, maybe to the point that it's worth using an extra two in r2 or r4 or even both. Think this could be like the kick-in rule on steroids which basically added 10+ points to everyone taking them and fundamentally shifted the back position to create a new tier for them instead of them generally being equal with forwards, the hard part is right now having no feel on how it work and not expecting that teams will go with their A plan in the preseason.

To me it still makes the most sense to man up 5m from the mark, which would still allow the player to play on a bit quicker as they wouldn't need to get back off it often but would mostly undercut the change, allow corridor guarding and if the player does play on ahead of the mark you can come up and close the space while also taking the 50m penalty out of the equation for the most part. This to me would have the least impact on SC scoring if coaches go down the path but given it's the logical and common sense approach I'm not sure if any coaches will actually think of it.

Whether the man on the mark stays put (and doesn't move) or sags back 5m metres to enable him to move laterally, in both cases the player with the ball has far greater freedom in terms of kicking, particularly with daisy cutting bullet passes (ie less field kicks need to go over the head of the man on the mark). This will benefit the better kickers but will also probably result a lift in kicking efficiency across the board.

Also, as much as I hate it, based on the comments from Steve Hocking(?) in an earlier article, players will be given more latitude to run off their line before play on is called, which can only benefit forwards shooting for goal, particularly from long range.

 

[Vicwood]

I honestly expect we see teams man the mark 5m back and dare the teams to play on into that space rather than be up on the mark and absolutely handcuffed from any lateral movement. Basically you just start things 5m deeper and man it how you normally would and should actually be able to circle closer on the corridor side as a result, teams will allow the opponent the boundary as they always do, perhaps even more pronounced now.

Also think we see a lot of the standing over players on the mark to slow it up which given players aren't allowed to move from the mark will have to be allowed more by the umpires, can't tell them they're not allowed to move an inch and then expect them to move.

Going to be an incredibly important rule though as depending what teams do it's going to have a drastic impact on SC scoring.

Take for example, stand 5m back, guard corridor religiously. This should favour intercept marks and ruckmen as you'd expect a lot more long kicks to the boundary.

Stand up on the mark but flood extra numbers to cover for players being worthless in the zone while manning the mark and it's the seagulls likely to get a lot of cheap marks as teams maintain possession and work to try and create openings and expose that player that can't do anything until they get an angle on him.

If it leads to much faster ball movement then leading marks become a lot more likely and run and carry players should shine.

This is going to be one of those seasons where the r3 correction trades could be exceptionally important, maybe to the point that it's worth using an extra two in r2 or r4 or even both. Think this could be like the kick-in rule on steroids which basically added 10+ points to everyone taking them and fundamentally shifted the back position to create a new tier for them instead of them generally being equal with forwards, the hard part is right now having no feel on how it work and not expecting that teams will go with their A plan in the preseason.

To me it still makes the most sense to man up 5m from the mark, which would still allow the player to play on a bit quicker as they wouldn't need to get back off it often but would mostly undercut the change, allow corridor guarding and if the player does play on ahead of the mark you can come up and close the space while also taking the 50m penalty out of the equation for the most part. This to me would have the least impact on SC scoring if coaches go down the path but given it's the logical and common sense approach I'm not sure if any coaches will actually think of it.

Great post. To me the MOTM rule is another useless rule change that will achieve nothing. But I guess when the AFL are paying hocking 400k a year he has to come up with something.

 

[nath_99]

I’m fully expecting there will be some players who will forget about it and give away inadvertently 50mtrs. The commentators and media landscape will get their dander up, “is this killing the game?”, “this is Auskick” etc.. then the sports news reports will continually highlight it, intercutting Vox pops of the players saying “it’s a hard rule to get used to”. Outrage will be sparked in the fanbase, then AFL/Hocking will have to revert back and scrap the rule by Round 5/6.... a man can dream can’t he? 😂

 

[Punkgod70]

I honestly expect we see teams man the mark 5m back and dare the teams to play on into that space rather than be up on the mark and absolutely handcuffed from any lateral movement.

Carlton just tried to do this in their practice match against Essendon, and copped a 50m penalty for their trouble.

 

[Shannon]

Carlton just tried to do this in their practice match against Essendon, and copped a 50m penalty for their trouble.

Yeah I saw that, going to be very interesting to see the tactics used this season.

 

[Wheedus]

Carlton just tried to do this in their practice match against Essendon, and copped a 50m penalty for their trouble.

The issue was the player was already on the mark and then tried to back peddle. Can't do that under the new rule (apparently once the umpire calls "stand"). I suspect we'll see that paid a little bit early on as players get used to the rule. Then players will just avoid taking the mark at all. In effect, that achieves what the AFL is after - more play on

 

[Gruffles]

All the rule changes favours higher scoring so good for forwards vs last year where they were less.

Also helps the fast running types. Expect for my team Liam Ryan and Tim Kelly benefit, maybe a Gaff. Helps seagulls like Luke McDonald and Lloyd maybe too. Bad for interceptors.

How were TK's time trails this preseason compared to last?

 

[Merv Neagle]

What would be Alec Waterman supercoach position and price. Essendon will list him?

 

[Ben's Beasts]

What would be Alec Waterman supercoach position and price. Essendon will list him?

$102,400 FWD most likely.

 

[Shannon]

What would be Alec Waterman supercoach position and price. Essendon will list him?

My guess, 102K fwd & Essendon should absolutely list him.

 

[Herbie66]

What would be Alec Waterman supercoach position and price. Essendon will list him?

Suspect they would base it on his average the last time he played then maybe get a discount.

Similar to Mumford.

EDIT thought he had played previously for the Eagles

 

[KLo30]

Suspect they would base it on his average the last time he played then maybe get a discount.

Similar to Mumford.

EDIT thought he had played previously for the Eagles

Listed but never played a game.