Zone breaking rules / tactics in other sports

[andrewb]

Zone breaking in other sports and discussions on why they would/wouldn't work in AFL...

1. Soccer - focus on transfer of play, "width" and aerial delivery into hot spots

Soccer is one of the more tactically advanced games when it comes to playing against zones. The key differences between soccer and AFL are: 18 active players c.f. 10; far fewer stoppages (no "marks" and fewer free kicks in scoring positions); square pitch; off-side rule. Soccer has tended to let the game grow organically rather than try to change the rules to change the nature of the game.

Effective ways to break up a clogged midfield zone (e.g. 4-5-1, 5-4-1) include transferring of play from wing to wing to try and break the shape of the formation, quick movement down the wings, long balls into hot spots from wide positions, diagonal passing and constant movement off the ball.

a. Transfer of Play: AFL coaches are already using transfer of play quite effectively. The ball moves quickly from half back to half back in order to spread the zone. When the formation loses shape it provides opportunities to go forward. Relies on accurate delivery and quick movement of the ball through the air.

Unfortunately the oval shape of the ground and the additional numbers prevent this from being as effective in AFL. 18 players gives you a far greater spread of ground coverage with your zone and as you go further forward you just get more and more clogged. Still a reasonable option however.

b. Movement up the wings: Neil Craig's teams are a brilliant exponent of this. The wing is the least dangerous part of the field to try and execute precision footy. A turnover rarely results in an opposition goal (c.f. moving through the middle of the ground) because it's easier to lock the ball up after an error or force stoppages through boundary throw-ins. What you need to ensure is that you execute skills correctly and also that you have advantage in numbers on the defensive side of any marking contest.

The oval shape of the ground and the additional numbers once again prevent this from being as effective in AFL. Coming towards the wing this is a very effective policy as you are using the widest part of the ground but as you proceed towards half forward you reduce your options. If you are on the wing and kick into the midfield or opposite pocket then you are exposing yourself for rebound and kicking for goals from the near-side pocket reduces your efficiency. Still a reasonable option however.

c. Long balls into hot-spots: Doesn't really work in the AFL because you can't get "behind" the zone due to the oval nature of the pitch. Teams do tend to deliver long, high balls to the goal square but this relies on having marking forwards capable of winning two or three on one contests and good rovers. Risky strategy and you need to have a "defensive midfield" in place to cater for the rebound.

d. Diagonal passing and constant movement on and off the ball: Diagonal passing "through" the zone is very effective if the skills are there. Watch Arsenal of 2006 for an example. This relies on constant movement off the ball and precise delivery (very similar to how basketball deals with zones). The challenge for AFL teams is that additional numbers in the zone mean that the space between defensive players is smaller and the ball is more difficult to control. The benefit of AFL rules is that you can gain uncontested control of the ball if you take a mark (although this does give the defense time to readjust).

AFL coaches might do well by having "set plays" which plot a course through the zone using the players with the best marking ability and foot skills and having other players moving as decoys but this would require careful orchestration. Guus Hiddink tends to prepare teams in this fashion - he is almost a choreographer rather than a coach and instructs players on where to move, how to receive the ball correctly and where to pass it to next.

What you definitely DON'T see in soccer is individual players trying to take the defensive formation on. It doesn't matter how quick you are or how good your ball control is, your probability of getting caught increases exponentially with every defender that you encounter. AFL is a little different because you don't have to dribble and you can run flat out which is why guys like Andy Lovett and Courtney Dempsey can be effective.

Prototype players for zone breaking using soccer style tactics can:
- Move the ball quickly and deliver with precision over distance
- Get into space (quick off the mark)
- Mark well (overhead and on the chest)
- Run all day

Best exponent of these attributes at the bombers is probably Gus Monfries at the moment - which I suppose is why he's being used as a hit-up player off half forward. Stanton and McVeigh are also good and Myers has the potential.

Thoughts? What other tactics / patterns have you seen in soccer and how could / would they be used in AFL? What have you seen in other sports?

[j-mac31]

In basketball the way to beat a zone is to hit 3s.
Not so helpful in football, where a long goal gives you the same points as a short goal.

[andrewb]

Basketball is an interesting one. You've got tactics for zone breaking (spreading the court, pass and cut, screen and roll, passing out of the double) but they've also implemented some rules. Most of the basketball tactics are fairly similar to soccer in that you move quickly both on and off the ball and don't hold possession for long. But given the shape and size of the court and the number of players on it it's very different to footy.

Some of the rules are a little more interesting:

The Zone Defense Rule or Defensive 3 Seconds (NBA only) stipulates that "After the offensive team has advanced the ball to its front court, a defensive player may not station himself in the key area longer than three seconds if it is apparent he is making no effort to play an opponent. The three second count starts when the offensive team is in clear control in the front court."

There was a change to this rule - Illegal Defensive Alignments - which you might remember being confused by if you watched NBA in the 80s. It was all about permitted actions for defending and was harder to explain than the offside rule(!) This was soon rescinded and they returned to defensive 3 seconds because it was so hard to officiate.

I actually think the defensive 3 seconds rule modified for footy could really work. Implement a similar rule in the 50 metre arc which would require defenders to be on a man at all times (double teaming still allowed). This would allow coaches to clear the space in front of full forwards (no more ruckmen dropping back in the hole) and would bring back the marking contests that we love to see. Zones would be far less effective if you weren't allowed to use them in the F50 and although they might remain for kick outs they'd be useless once the ball got forward of the wing.

From an officiating perspective you're not looking at anything particularly challenging and you've got two field umpires, a goal umpire and two boundary umpires in position to enforce from all angles.

The main challenge would be to implement this in such a fashion that you don't give coaches the ability to completely clear out the forward line and force a one on one between the full back and full forward. It is important that teams can still defend, just that they're defending players, not space.

[hillchaser]

Agree with Andrew. Played basketball for a long time and heaps of basketball tactics have become part of football. Especially the blocking and zoning off.

The way to break that down in basketball is as you say ball movement, movement off the ball and setting picks. Even the language used by commentators an coaches includes a lot of basketball terms that never used to be heard in football.

[tom9779]

interesting post. shouldn't it be in the AFL discussion though, not bombers discussion?

i haven't had a good look at what hawthorn does in the flesh(tho i will be going to the swans hawks game up here out of interest)

have no idea how your suggested 3 second rule would work. to me it just doesn't make sense, you can't penalise a defender for not marking up a player...heck the player not being marked should be penalising the defender with an uncontested possie no need for a free, it would just piss supporters and players off even more with more goals being gifted by the umps. in short i'd hate it. or maybe i am just not visualising your suggestion

i don't mind seeing what the effect of limiting the number of players in a 50 metre arc would do.

[dom_105]

I don't think it requires such a drastic change of thinking on how teams go about their football.

If you have players who can kick it both 15 or 50 meters and hit their targets lace out, quick players who are confident enough to run with the ball and draw their opponents, take full advantage of a switch in play, move the ball quicker than the opposition can organize themselves to counter it, and a strong marking forward line with small guys staying down and picking up the crumbs, you have the tools to beat any zone.

[BenDoolan]

Check out any Roos game and see what they do.

[Doctor Fish]

It's pretty simple according to Fatprick Smith and that other great mind KB, on SEN this morning... Lose two players from the bench and instead you make them emergencies in case of injury to players. This would limit the bench rotations and make the players themselves run out of puff well before the end of the game if they're made to do the zoning rubbish all game...

Ah Fatprick... Is there nothing he can't do...

[andrewb]

i haven't had a good look at what hawthorn does in the flesh(tho i will be going to the swans hawks game up here out of interest)

have no idea how your suggested 3 second rule would work. to me it just doesn't make sense, you can't penalise a defender for not marking up a player...heck the player not being marked should be penalising the defender with an uncontested possie no need for a free, it would just piss supporters and players off even more with more goals being gifted by the umps. in short i'd hate it. or maybe i am just not visualising your suggestion

i don't mind seeing what the effect of limiting the number of players in a 50 metre arc would do.

Basically the zone defense is all about guarding space rather than guarding players. In my opinion the reason it makes AFL so unattractive (as opposed to soccer) is because of the oval shape of the ground and the fact that as you move towards goal the formation becomes more concentrated.

An AFL version of the defensive three seconds rule would basically take away the ability for a defender to guard space inside the forward 50. For instance, you wouldn't be able to drop a ruckman in front of a full forward purely to stop their run at the ball.

Not saying it's the solution but it probably warrants some further thinking. The problem with limiting the number of players in the 50m arc is that it would be a bugger to enforce.

Mind you, the main problem with zones is probably that players aren't used to attacking them. I've no doubt that the game will naturally work itself out and the good players will still find a way... it does make the game seem less fluid though.