Norwood, West, defence and what wins a Premiership.

This is the first of a few thoughts I've had about the 2012 season. The big question has been about game style and defensive football. Given my obvious bias, Ive tried to keep to facts as much as possible, although obviously mixed with opinion at times. I'd welcome posters' thoughts and contributions.


This was a season where one team’s dominance was clear. The question is whether that was because they had the best list, or was it for other reasons.

Fortunately, the answer is also clear. Over the past two years, Norwood had honed a game plan that was totally effective. It wasn’t pretty and it had been a work-in-progress, with developmental failures along the way. Other coaches had worked out ways to counter their style in the finals of 2011. Roy Laird had used Paul Thomas to advantage and Michael Godden had worked out how to reverse a defeat. The results saw Norwood kick only 7 goals in their last two finals games of that year.

That required Nathan Bassett to work on his game plan further, which he did, but he had one other advantage. His players had now had a further year to practice and it was becoming second nature. He knew that defence and pressure would win a premiership and he selected the types of players to carry that out.

So what could other coaches do?

That is now the single most important question facing 8 SANFL coaches right now. The regular calls for ‘attacking football’ miss the point. We’d all, including me, like to see attacking football, but while it might win games, it certainly won’t win enough to make a Grand Final, let alone win a premiership.

When the season’s statistics are looked at, you will find there’s not that much difference between the top and the bottom. For example, West are ‘ultra-defensive’ and North play ‘attacking football’. The season’s stats show that North kicked 11 points a game more than West. The stats show that West were the least accurate team and if they had been as accurate as North, the difference would be markedly less. Stats don’t show other factors that effect them, such as what West might have kicked with Alleway and Johnston up forward. That, of course, is conjecture, but the point remains that there’s not much difference in scoring between an ‘attacking’ team and a ‘defensive’ one. Indeed, I’d contend that the whole point of Norwood’s very defensive style is to make that defence the very springboard of attack. They’ve made it work and credit to them.

Having said that, almost all stats show little difference between the top and bottom teams in anyt category. However, there are two statistics that absolutely stand out and they explain a lot.

First, the number of times a team has conceded over 100 points. The 7 teams who didn’t contest the Grand Final conceded over 100 points almost 50 times between them. The Grand Finalists? Norwood never, West once, with a weakened team after they’d sewn up third spot. So, 7 teams conceded nearly 50 times, two teams almost never.

The second is even more remarkable. The average ‘hit-out per game’ differential ranges from a best of about +2 or +3, to a worst of -2 or -3.

Except for Norwood, with a differential of a whopping -20 something. That’s remarkable and not only does it make no difference, but I’m sure they don’t care.

Next post, Norwood and West - a similar path?

I also think the reason why Norwood were so dominant was their recruiting.

1.Cachia was a quality inside Mid

2. Batsanis was a quality outside Mid

3. Warren was a quality key forward

4. Newton as Above and whilst he was injured and played a couple of ressy matches he also played some very good matches

5. Murphy added depth to their midfield and was unlucky to miss out on the GF

6. Gallagher - We all know how good this guy is

They recruited the best of any club which meant they had great depth and were able to cover serious injuries to key players

And add to that lachlan, the remarkable transformation in form of Dean Terlich, the improvement in the lesser like players such as Ben Jeffries, Ed Smart, Andrew Kirwan and the maintained form and strength of leadership from the likes of Brett Zorzi and James Gallagher, when he came back.

West improved remarkably this year, obviously, but I think their percieved 'negative' style of play overshadowed their vast improvement. There was plenty of talk in the media about the improved depth at West Adelaide. I think it is fair to say their wasn't as much coverage on some of the reasonings behind their great rise from 7th to GF participant.

Depth, as mentioned, was improved, but for mine it was the sensational form of Chris Schmidt, the great year from Adam Hartlett and Ryan Ferguson, the remarkable form from Daniel Caire, the strength of mind and consistency of performance from Shane Birss, the under-rated performances, when needed, from Aaron Fielke, Shannon Green, the late season find in Peter Nelson, allowing Willits to play forward as well and the good overall effort from Andy Collins to lead the side to this improved record.

I, for one, am happy to admit I was probably wrong in not acknowledging the improvements mentioned above throughout the course of the year and must confess to the fact I though Westies 'snuck up' on me with their vast improvement from recent seasons.

Well done to West on a great year, compared to the last few, and I'll be sure to keep a slightly closer, more attentive eye on them in 2013.

redandblack wrote:The second is even more remarkable. The average ‘hit-out per game’ differential ranges from a best of about +2 or +3, to a worst of -2 or -3.

Except for Norwood, with a differential of a whopping -20 something. That’s remarkable and not only does it make no difference, but I’m sure they don’t care.

I've been one who has purported for many years that a dominant ruckman is a luxury, not a necessity in football. This opinion has moulded over many years of watching my AFL team win plenty of flags without one, and watching Norwood teams with excellent ruckman fail in finals.

So long as you have a tall who can throw their weight into a ruck contest and contribute to play around the ground, that's all you need. Many people disagree, but I have seen too many matches where a dominant ruckman plays in the losing team. I don't know the stats, but I would think Norwood would be way down on centre clearances as well. Once again, it doesn't seem to matter.

There was a match this season where people tell me Meikeljohn had 70 hit outs and Port smashed us in the clearances, but Norwood won the game 28 scoring shots to 11. In another game, the Sturt ruckman dominated the hit outs, and Norwood won by 20 goals. Having a dominant ruckman is like having a second toilet with a bidet, very impressive, but not necessary.

To me, Norwood's game style reminds me of a tactic in martial arts. The person who attacks first is at a disadvantage. Norwood create the turnover, then spread and run to create scoring opportunities. Some people have said to me Terlich plays loose in defense, which is rubbish. He picks up his man like everyone else, but when the ball is in his area he attacks, leaves his opponent, runs past for handballs, etc, and his pace makes it very difficult to pick him up.

Norwood appear to have developed a style which forces the opposition to give them the ball, which is pretty smart thinking if you ask me.

Episode 2, and I'm going to explore whether West Adelaide or any other team 'don't have anyone up forward to kick to'. I don't know the answer, so it will be fun to see what eventuates as we check out the stats.First of all, a thank you to 'Scott', whose stats I'm using.

The major criticism of teams playing defensively is that when they attack, there's no-one to kick to. I think it’s fair, in that case, to say that would show up in the inside 50 entries, together with the efficiency inside 50. That is, a team flooding shouldn’t get the ball inside 50 as often, or if they do, they shouldn’t score as often. I don’t know any other way that would measure this.

So, inside 50’s per game. Central led the way quite comfortably, with an average of nearly 50 per game. Glenelg were next with 46, Sturt 45, Norwood and the Eagles 44, Port, South, West on 43 and North on 42. Interesting stats, with North, an ‘attacking; team on the bottom and West, a ‘defensive’ team, on a par with so-called attacking teams, Port and South. The team with the best defence, Norwood, were in the middle.

So, what about efficiency inside 50? This is more interesting and gives some weight to West being defensive, as they are equal bottom on scoring efficiency with 24%. That is, 24 scores in every 100 entries, I presume. South lead with 30%, Norwood and Port have 29%, as does North. Central are on 27%, Eagles on 25%. So that might bear out that West are ‘defensive’, except the teams equal with them on 24% are Sturt and Glenelg, both ‘attacking teams who are 2nd and 3rd on inside 50 entries.

So what causes these inefficiencies? Is it ‘flooding’. Well, it may be to a very, very small extent on these figures, but why are some teams more efficient? South finished well down the ladder, have mid-range Inside 50’s, but are the most efficient scoring team when they get there. I’d say having Wundke and Ainger would be a vastly bigger reason than anything else. North, similarly, with Alleway and Johnston.

Finally, the way the ball is delivered would have to be a major factor, so my next analysis will be on who puts the ball inside 50 most for each team

r&b = Gwen Meredith


seriously though all very interesting


btw my statements on 'defensive football' was never a criticism (although i don't like it, but you do what you have too to win matches) it was an observation

Adelaide Hawk wrote:Having a dominant ruckman is like having a second toilet with a bidet, very impressive, but not necessary.

Just caught up with this post. Nice one ‘Hawky’!
Very tasteful.
I won’t plumb the depths for any ‘tap’ the ball jokes, let’s go straight to ……
“Since Bassett took over, Norwood has taken off like a shower of sh!t !”

You’ve opened the floodgates/sewers now ‘AH’, Norwood haters will be
coming up with a million jokes about ‘polishing a t*rd’.

Luv,
Sabre.

Sabre, the last thing we need are toilet puns

Just because you're either flushed with success (or pissed), that's no excuse.

Norwood might have gone top, but they had to more than spend a penny to do it.

On a sort of related issue, I'm going to be interested to see how West tries to beat Norwood next year. We have too many poor kicks in our side to pick our way through Norwood's structures with precise ball movement. And the only other way I can think of to counter their set up is to go man-on-man, but then you have to be bigger/stronger/smarter/faster than your direct opponent. We kicked 25 goals in 5 games against them so we need a new approach.

Just a word to the wise. I believe Norwood were so focussed on Central District in 2011 that we forgot about the Eagles. Norwood were definitely the team to beat in 2012, but we may not be in 2013. Only time will tell.

redandblack wrote:Sabre, the last thing we need are toilet puns
Just because you're either flushed with success (or pissed), that's no excuse.
Norwood might have gone top, but they had to more than spend a penny to do it.

See 'AH', I told you so.

Love it 'Red'.

So the two meanest defensive teams played in the Grand Final. The perceived wisdom is that only one of them was really defensive, with no attacking interest at all and was a blight on the game by not playing ‘attacking football’. An analysis of the other finals doesn’t bear that out at all, as I’ve posted many times. We saw the ‘attacking football’ teams North and the Eagles battle it out in a shoot-out, with North prevailing over an inaccurate Eagles outfit. West kicked 13 goals against a more fancied Central and then North kicked a cricket score against a Central side who appeared to give up as early as the second quarter.

On the back of that, North were again hot favourites against West, but couldn’t kick double figures against a Bloods team that again kicked 13.

So West kicked 13 goals against each of Central and North, but couldn’t kick a goal against Norwood. So how did all the other sides fare in kicking goals against Norwood during the year? Well, well, not much better, actually. Only one side averaged more than 10 goals a game against them. South Adelaide, just, but that was due entirely to accurate kicking. Everyone else averaged between 6 and 10 goals a game only. Apart from a one point win by North, Norwood were only defeated comfortably by West and it took an after the siren kick from a free to beat them on another occasion. All of this is, of course, the comments of a Westies’ supporter defending his team, but there’s a bigger story for all fans.

The story is Norwood and their style of play. Their successful style of play.

The League doesn’t like it. Fans don’t like it. Fans hate West’s style.

Norwood and West played in the Grand Final.

So what will happen? Do you think all the other coaches will decide to play a more attacking style? Do you think Nathan Bassett will play a more open game? Will Andy Collins throw out his game plan and go for all out attack?

Sure.

Unfortunately, but necessarily, I can see the other clubs trying to emulate the style which has proven successful, rather than only developing an attacking style to beat it.

That style, though, requires high fitness, strong-bodied midfielders and kicking skills, in particular.

Can anyone do that better than Norwood next year, or can a team become an attacking force that makes the defensive style redundant?

Hypothetical:

Lewis Johnston plays in the Preliminary, North defeats West and then goes on to create enough scoreboard pressure to push Norwood to the limit.

Could have happened, we'll never know.

Hypothetical, but highly unlikely.

They didn't put much scoreboard pressure on West, Alleway hardly touched it and I doubt Johnston would have made the required difference.

West played Ferguson up forward in that game and could have played him on Johnston if necessary.

FWIW, I don't think any team would have kicked more than 6 or 7 goals against Norwood in the GF.

Adelaide Hawk wrote:Hypothetical:

Lewis Johnston plays in the Preliminary, North defeats West and then goes on to create enough scoreboard pressure to push Norwood to the limit.

Could have happened, we'll never know.

A very valid hypothetical!

North had beaten West twice during the year in their only meetings by 7 points and 20 points with slightly weaker teams (no Allan on one occasion), and were the first team to beat Norwood for the year with a team that was nowhere near as strong as that which formed later. The Roosters always believed they had the game plan to counter both West and Norwood's defensive zone. Johnston was a big loss - the key forward and leading goalkicker for the year.

Unfortunately their form was very erratic leading up to the end of the year, but they were performing when it counted

But then again - just hypothetical!

North's game plan was to attack from defence as has been mentioned in an earlier post - the defenders beat their opponent and move the ball quickly to the forwards for a one on one contest.

Not sure whether we'll find out in 2013 either - the Roosters will have to recruit well to cover their personnel losses.

Fair point, MP, but when North beat West earlier in the year by 7 points, West had virtually no bench for most of the game and still nearly got up.

I think Norwood were a fair way ahead of the rest last season.

Interesting that you say North's plan was to attack from defence - that's Norwood's plan too.

Guys, please let's get over this.
I, as an impartial observer don't care what wins the flag.

Sure free flowing footy looks interesting, exciting and hooks the fans in.
Have a look at the 1983 higlight reel! Did the word "defense" even exist back then?

But honestly, I would rather leave it to the devices of 8 coahes and their plethora of assistants to work out how to beat this system.

I would absolutely abhore it if the league decided we can't have this defensive mindset control the competition's thinking by rule tinkering.

One of the fascinations that are inherent in the competiition psyche are how clubs invent new means to combat successful game styles.

One thing is paramount in my mantra.
And that is that it is not for the sanfl to implement means to counter supposed "ugly" styles of footy.

And yet we keep observing the opposite largely because the afl decree otherwise.

Here is a pure and fundamental observation.
The game (afl, sanfl et al) should be left in the hands of the players, coaches and clubs (as that is their brief) and not in the hands of the rulemakers to purvey the style of footy they see fit.

Fundamentally it is about those that play it, not those that have or want to play it.

I struggle with those that don't see that this is a given!

Simply, the adage that springs to mind, is just, PLAY ON!

Totally agree Chambo - "Where there's a will..there's a way!"

Totally agree also, Chambo. I think that's my point. It will be fascinating to see what develops.