The last two AFL premiers have plenty of things in common, but one which threatens to reshape the league. Small ball is here, and it will shake up every team in the competition.
In the hours and days after Richmond’s stirring premiership win, plenty of pundits were keen to link their September run to the remarkable rise of the Western Bulldogs last year. They are not remotely similar.
The Tigers finished in the top four, and played at home in their first week. The Dogs finished seventh, and travelled to West Coast in their first week. The Tigers won their first game and had a week off. The Dogs won and travelled back to Melbourne to face the Hawks.
The Tigers played at home in week three, against a non-Victorian team. The Dogs travelled to Western Sydney in week three. The Tigers kicked away from the Adelaide Crows in the second quarter of the grand final. The Dogs needed three-and-a-half quarters to get over the Swans.
The Dogs made the finals in 2015, and were at or near the top of the ladder for much of 2016 until injuries struck. The Tigers did not make the finals in 2016, were at or near the top of the ladder for almost all of 2017, and had a charmed run with injury. These two premierships are not remotely similar.
Please stop comparing these two premierships.
Their paths to the flag may have been strikingly – perhaps deceptively, given the webs being spun – different. But Richmond and the Western Bulldogs share a couple of key traits on the field.
First, they were system teams. And they played a similar system. Both the Dogs and Tigers were built on defined zone defences and oodles of forward half pressure, designed to create and score freely from turnovers. The pace of play was important, and allowed the clubs to manufacture chaos around the ball.
Both teams eviscerated their opponents in their forward halves, particularly during their respective finals campaigns. The numbers that would support this view are held under lock and key, but from the snippets I have seen both the Dogs and Tigers legitimately mowed down teams in forward half stoppages, and created a tidal wave of turnovers that led to scores. Their presses were watertight, helmed by a fleet of aerialists and structured as if built by a nuclear technician.
To work it needed pace. The Tigers were quicker than the Dogs, but both sides sought out and selected the fleet of foot on their list to play in the front half. And ground balls. A clean handle was a must.
(AAP Image/Julian Smith)
You know what else? Once confident in their systems, coaches Luke Beveridge and Damien Hardwick went all in on small ball, playing few key position players in their forward half and instead populating the forward 50 with mid-sized and small forwards who could bring the pressure and run the opposition off their feet.
The Bulldogs lost many of their tall forward options throughout the 2016 season, and turned to a cast of flankers and former midfielders to fill the forward half role. Jake Stringer played as a small forward in spite of his size, and Tom Boyd spent time rotating through the ruck.
The Tigers went even further, surrounding key forward Jack Riewoldt with four or five small forwards for the entire second half of the year. He was one out, the only man taller than 190 centimetres who spent time in the forward 50. And Riewoldt rarely left the forward half; 160 of his 305 touches came inside the stripe.
One could say both cases were born of necessity. Richmond had nary a quality tall forward on their list, and once it became clear there wasn’t a workable option – Ben Griffiths was injured, Ivan Soldo, Todd Elton and Maibor Chol too green – small ball became Plan A. The Dogs were similarly light on, and by the last game of the season were left playing Zaine Cordy as a lone tall hand up forward. It might have been the mother of invention, as the old adage goes.
Even if that’s true, small ball is now 2-0 in the last two finals series. And there are signs early in this trade period that clubs have paid attention.
Why go small?
Football has become increasingly dominated by two facets of the game: possession and territory. I have numbers – self-curated – that show the team which won the time in possession battle won 152 of 198 games during the home-and-away season.
It is only natural. Scoring from a possession won in the forward half is much easier than scoring from a possession won in the back half. The ball has to travel a lesser distance, and the risk of turning over possession is reduced.
That was the intent of the forward press, first installed by Michael Malthouse in his Collingwood years and refined by Ross Lyon at St Kilda and Fremantle. It took an additional turn in recent years, as so-called forward pressure became a thing, first at Hawthorn and then – evidently – at the Western Bulldogs, Richmond, and other clubs throughout the league.
Traditionally, small forwards have been relied upon to provide forward pressure. This makes sense; they’re lower to the ground, more agile and above all quicker than their larger counterparts. That’s not to say tall forwards can’t provide forward pressure – West Coast’s 199-centimetre Josh Kennedy is one of the most ferocious, and effective, forward tacklers in the game – but on average a smaller player is better able to apply forward pressure.
In general terms, a smaller player will find it more difficult to take a mark inside 50 than a taller player. Teams remain locked into the idea of playing tall players in defence, which would seem to give a tall back six an advantage against a smaller front six. Layer on top the increased trend of teams playing a spare defender and a small forward line would appear to be setting itself up for a pantsing in the intercept marking game.
But that is contingent on two things. First, it relies on the attacking team kicking blindly inside 50 – playing caveman football, like the 1980s and ’90s. If the attacking team is content to bomb away, then of course a defence with a series of marking talls will go well. That can be countered by smart ball use, and quality skills further up the ground. And even though small players may have a height disadvantage, anyone can take an uncontested mark. Small players still have gravity that pushes and pulls a defence.
Second, there is only one ball. It’s a cliché, but the ball can only be in one place at any one time, and like players it has its own gravitational pull. Should the ball be kicked inside 50, the laws of football physics dictate a pack be formed, and a mark be contested.
A mark to the attacking team is great, but for a small ball team a contest and spillage to the ground is almost as great. A ground ball situation, between taller defenders and smaller forwards, unfolds, and the attacking team either wins the day there or then or creates a stoppage.
With smaller players around the stoppage, the small ball forward line can hunt at ground level, or apply pressure and create another opportunity if the stoppage goes the way of the opposition.
In the meantime, the defenders of the attacking team will have set up a pressed up wall a kick from the play, to mark a ball kicked out in a scramble by the opposition. Then, chaos ensues.
That’s just in the forward half. We’ve already spoken at length about the impact of the abolition of the third man up rule, which appears to have at the very least given coaches cause to completely toss out conventional wisdom in the big man spot.
The AFL ruck contest is dead, long live the AFL ruck contest
By the end of the season, I’d struggle to name a team that went to market with two ruckmen in the one line up. It’s a crude statistic, but all 18 clubs had a ruckman in the top 20 for total hitouts this season – Sydney (Sam Naismith in 16th and Callum Sinclair in 18th) and Fremantle (Aaron Sandilands in 17th and Sean Darcy in 19th) were the only teams to have more than one ruckman in the top 20.
Any club that goes into a game with more than one full-time ruckman next season will be inviting a swift small ball death.
(Photo by Quinn Rooney/Getty Images)
What does small ball mean for the league?
Don’t believe me? Just look at the colour and movement surrounding this year’s trade period, and list management season more broadly.
Melbourne wants to offload Jack Watts, a perfectly fine second or third tall option, for no apparent reason. The Dees also delisted perfectly adequate second ruckman Jake Spencer. Melbourne are chasing Jake Lever harder than a greyhound chasing a rabbit – or is Lever the greyhound? – but he’s to play at the other end of the ground, where the small ball antidote is intercepting defenders. Besides, it’ll mean Tom McDonald can fulfil his destiny as a Coleman medallist.
After a 27-week Victorian media campaign to bring Josh Schache home, no one is interested. The list of clubs ruling out a deal for the want-away key forward is longer than those interested; six months ago the talk was a multi-year, multi-million dollar deal. And remember, after screaming until they went blue in the face about their plans for the young forward, Brisbane initiated this, not Schache.
Daniel Menzel might be without a home come the end of trade period, despite playing kicking 40.16 in 19 games for a team in absolute need of goal kickers. By contrast, his streaky teammate Steven Motlop looks to have a surplus of options. One is big, the other is small.
Collingwood chopped a bunch of its tall dead wood in a list cull yesterday, and look as likely to make a move for a ‘missing piece’ key position player this trade period as the Lions and Blues are likely to play each other in next year’s grand final.
Port Adelaide want to shed Matthew Lobbe, after abandoning the notion of playing he, Paddy Ryder and Charlie Dixon in the same team as soon as Ryder was available to play full time in the ruck. They let Jackson Trengove walk, and look set to bring in another best 22 midfielder in Tom Rockliff. The Power are already relatively small, and look almost certain to play Dixon as a lone tall forward next year.
Greater Western Sydney has reservations about the retention of ruckman Shane Mumford for 2018. While that appears mostly driven by concerns about a degenerative knee injury, that the Giants looked mighty tall for most of this season must also be figuring in the decision.
(AAP Image/Tracey Nearmy)
Across the Western Motorway, there has been talk about Sydney’s need for Kurt Tippett. The Swans have already reportedly stretched his contract over a few seasons to ease his burden on their salary cap, and should the right offer come along they would surely cut ties.
The problem is these clubs are all sellers. If it’s revolution, not evolution, then who is buying?
Small ball is already infecting the league and influencing the decisions of many teams with the need to make changes to their playing lists. It will absolutely permeate through the draft, where any savvy club will look to build their midfield and small-medium forward group before taking that hulking 200-centimetre key position prospect.
Teams that played three tall forward this season will surely reevaluate. The Eagles will not play all of Kennedy, Jack Darling, Nic Naitanui and Scott Lycett in the same team as they did this season, but with Drew Petrie and Nathan Vardy assuming the ruck and ruck-forward roles.
Ditto the Giants, who cannot play Jonathon Patton, Jeremy Cameron, Rory Lobb and Mumford in the same team. They looked far better when one of them missed this season as it is, before we consider this shift. That creates all sorts of headaches for the Giants, who are short on small forward options.
Adelaide may be the exception which disproves the theory. The Crows don’t play three tall forwards, they play four, albeit Tom Lynch and Taylor Walker are extraordinarily skilled for their size.
The Crows may be able to get away with it because their big men are multi-faceted. Lynch is a wingman in a key forward’s body, Walker is one of the best field kicks in the game, and Josh Jenkins can do a lot of the small things that go unnoticed. Mitch McGovern looks the most one dimensional of the set, but it matters little given who surrounds him. And then there is small ball gravity itself, Eddie Betts.
Geelong must be aggressive in their list management and get smaller quite rapidly. It is not the Geelong way; the Cats have attempted to bulk up and play bully ball in the past two seasons, to near-lethal effect (as we discussed a few weeks ago, making two straight preliminary finals is no mean feat). But it has to become the Geelong way.
Now, the Cats have some small forward talent on their list. It just spends more time in the rehab room than on the field. Geelong will get smaller naturally over this offseason with the retirement of Tom Lonergan and Andrew Mackie, but that won’t do. Adding Devon Smith or Jake Stringer would help beef up their list of small ball options at the pointy end; Gary Ablett is a handy addition in that respect also.
This is nothing a revolutionary change that will sweep across the league and shake up the way the game is played.
Gaming out the small ball revolution
Think about where we may find ourselves in two or three years. Every club has adjusted its list, and now has just a handful of players that stand 195 centimetres or more. Ruckmen are few and far between, with only the most dominant of big men able to maintain their place on an AFL list.
Some clubs go down a path of having two rotating forward-ruckmen in their starting line up, to take advantage of favourable forward line match ups and to catch out the tiring hulks who carry the load for the full game in the fourth quarter.
Few clubs play more than one key forward in their best 22, instead surrounding a lights-out contested marking machine with a group of medium and small forwards who swarm their way around the forward half of the ground.
Tom Lynch commands the richest deal in the game’s history, but Peter Wright – a quality tall – finds himself kicking 100 goals in the NEAFL because he can’t fit the structure of the Gold Coast line up.
(AAP Image/Tracey Nearmy)
Fast break football is the new dominant strategy. Clubs have now invested more in long kicking defenders, who are able to break defensive presses and get the ball into space to allow the small ball system to work its magic. These players become the new hot commodity, as teams begin to adjust to the idea that going a little smaller down back might lead to fewer intercept marks but more fast break opportunities.
No club dares take a key forward prospect inside the top 20 of the draft. There is a premium placed on three attributes: speed, skills and size. Clubs now deal in key forwards as they used to deal in ruckmen, shuffling them around the league for late picks and picking them up from the scrap heap of delisted free agency. Key defenders are a valued commodity, but they too are rarely taken with the top picks in the draft.
The league grows increasingly concerned with the chaotic scramble created inside 50, and begins to warm us all up to the idea of a radical change to the structure of the game. What that is I don’t know, but I know zones are impractical and moving to 16 a side does little to address the problems associated with congestion.
Regardless, small ball will surely bring a transformative impact on the league, and the way we think football ought to be played. The Western Bulldogs and Tigers showed the way, and in the ‘me too’ way of the AFL, the other 16 clubs will now surely follow.
Indeed, the early days of this year’s trade period suggest the small ball revolution has already begun.
harold lucas
Guest
Richmond had an extraordinary good run with injuries. Their top 9 players essentially got through every game. They were not tested at all in that regard. If their taller players like Nankervis Rance Riewoldt went down or Cotchin/ Martin for a 3-6 week period then it might test the small man hype. interesting the bulldogs failed year with poor rucks, key tall forwards and key tall backs. And quite frankly there are not too many small men actually playing AFL. Most players push well over 6 foot. The midfield depth and ferocity and skill is the point of real difference and engine room for a win. Forwards big or small get a chance to contest when their mid fields are getting the ball inside 50. Adelaide midfield went missing in the GF as did Geelong, Sydney and Essendon in their last finals which meant the forwards had to move up the ground too much losing position to impact the scoreboard or even get near it. Franklin, Sinclair, Reid Hawkins, Stanley, Daniher, Stewart all were made to look underwhelming in their losing finals where their midfields struggled to impact getting the ball moving inside 50 in their losing final.
Slane
Guest
I'm in the same boat. I love tight, congested, low scoring, in-and-under footy.
dontknowmuchaboutfootball
Guest
You've said that you 100% agree with all the comments, but not everyone feels that congestion is a problem. I like "ugly" football. I find it far more entertaining than shoot outs. My comment above was not a moan about congestion but about rules being ignored in the process of umpiring. I appreciate that the game is so fast today that it's hard for umpires to catch everything, but it's something else altogether if a rule is neglected more or less entirely — especially if it's ignored in order to produced a desired style of play. It strikes me that if there's ever a case for changing the rules, it should be to make the game easier to umpire, not because some old "fuddy duddy" "grandma or grandpa" is unhappy that coaches have ruined "their" game by being smart.
Kyle Rodda
Guest
Hi Ryan, Terrific article. It makes me wonder... I would love to see the change in average heights across positions over the last 20-30 years. Perhaps this fetish for taller players -- that seemed to emerge in the mid-part of last decade -- has proven misguided: that players who sit between that 180-190 mark are actually best equipped to play our game. There are always exceptions to the rule (and I am speculating), but my mind wanders to some of the great forwards of yesteryear -- Jason Dunstall, Dermott Brereton, Gary Ablett Snr, Tony Modra and even Tony Lockett ("only" 191cm tall) etc. -- all who stood around that 185-190 mark, and were considered key position players in their time. We saw a lot of success in the form of Dustin Martin and Patrick Dangerfield playing prolific roles up forward this year, both of whom, despite being midfielders by today's standards, checking in at a height of 187cm and 189cm, respectively. Maybe clubs became too obsessed with improving the relative height of their lists, and neglected to acknowledge that (possibly) the players most suited to our game are ones who have the combination of qualities found in athletes in that 180cm-190cm height bracket. It all maybe apart of a natural evolution -- a reaction of sorts -- but I think the data would be interesting.
Craig Delaney
Guest
'Paying these dropping the ball free kicks that aren’t actually there wouldn’t fix it either, as every player still deserves 3 seconds to get rid of the ball, and the game moves so fast now, and is to congested to make good umpiring decisions, if they can see the play at all' To get rid of the ball legitimately. It needs the kind of umpiring to police all the rules you say later is impossible. It is. especially if the practice decreases congestion .
Slane
Guest
The Hawks and Crows are kicking goals because of what their players without the ball are doing. Rotating from full-forward to half back to the wing to the bench to back on the ground and now running into an open goal square. It allowed Hawthorn to eviscerate less-organized teams and it is allowing Adelaide to score at an incredible rate of speed but it isn't the football I grew up watching.
Birdman
Guest
blame Paul Roos who is the architect of this style of congested modern footy and mentored Ross Lyon in it
Birdman
Guest
barely football? please explain?
truetigerfan
Guest
Interesting concept, Ben. Look forward to your article. Kills any other ideas put forward!
Ben
Guest
Ryan this is a fantastic written piece and I think really touches on the current state and interesting future of the game of Australian Rules Football. Your article touches on the exact same piece I have finished writing called "The Unwritten Rule" of Australian Football. I agree with all your points, and have read all the comments so far. Reading the comments I agree 100% with all of them. To fix congestion, and bring back the game hijaked by the coaches, significant change would have to happen. 16-a side would not change a thing, as taking 4 players (2 from each team) away from a stoppage, would only push those players outside the stoppage closer to replace those players missing. Paying these dropping the ball free kicks that aren't actually there wouldn't fix it either, as every player still deserves 3 seconds to get rid of the ball, and the game moves so fast now, and is to congested to make good umpiring decisions, if they can see the play at all. "Zones" are also a terrible idea, as Australian Football was and is a continuous and free flowing game, and restricting players to a part of the ground would just be, in lack of a better word, "Un-Australian". I have an idea, that I do believe would really clear the congestion, and bring the game back to one of skill, speed and strength, not one of tackling, ball spillages and scrums. I call it "The Unwritten Rule". For over 100 years of Australian Football, players were named in a lineup composed of 5 rows of 3 players, from the backline to the forward line. Teams would start the game in this formation, having their tallest and most dangerous forward player at full forward. He would be accompanied forward by 5 other players, the other tall player at centre half forward would often deliver to him. Coaches played this way as it's better in the centre to have someone at forward to bomb it to once you clear it, then no one at all. And 6 defenders would that man up those opponents so none of them were free. It was never enforced to have 6 men forward of the ball, It really was the unwritten rule, almost like a gentlemens agreememt. Well not quite, more like common sense. When players are forward of the ball and in space, we see players and teams dominate based off skill, not tactics. We see many highlights, bustling strength contests and run and jump marks, long and straight goals and non fatigued legs. They were invisible starting positions, there was no rule on them, but they still did it, and look what it produced. I love our great game, but I'm torn between our game entering the modern era, and now having so many tactics, but it now looking taccy and unskillful, and also between remembering what made our game great, it may have been cave-mannish, but it really really worked. There is a solution, Mark Robinson calls them starting positions, and he's half way there. Every ones is always quick to dismiss these "zones", and every old granny and grandpa gets there nickers in a knot whenever changing of rules is mentioned. But what these old fuddy duddies need to understand is that when coaches bend and change our game for the worse, then Rules must be made to change it back. When the game was played so well with a certain style, then a law must be enforced to ensure that the coaches can stop hijacking our game, and give it back to the fans. The rule that I propose, is that at every stoppage of play (boundary throw in, no prior ball underneath the pack, or a centre bounce after a goal) that there is 3 forwards in the 50 metre arc before the ball can be thrown up. Now before everyone out their spits there dummy at this, here me out. People seem to forget that the reason there is a ball up around the ground in the first stage at all was to originally ease congestion, because when the ball is locked in from players on top of the ball, a throw up or bounce was called. For years this worked to clear the area, as midfielders would spread out away from that area and let the ruckman do their work. But now days their is 30 players on top of the ball, and when the umpire throws it up, there is still 30 players around that ball. Why wouldn't we now use the rule of a ball up to our advantage as it once was? By putting 3 players forward, you would then be in essence taking away 3 players from the other end of the grounds stoppage. Just not only 3 players though, there would be an additional 1 or 2, or even 3 more players, who would stand in midfield or in the centre square, just incase the ball was kicked away from the backline and the forwards were still in the forward 50, to far away to mark it. But these 5 or 6 forwards would not be aloud to stand alone, they would need to be matched up by the opposition team wouldn't they? So the opposition would have those 3 forwards, plus the other players in between the stoppage and forward line, manned up. That would be in total 10-12 players at the other end of the ground, out of the total of 36 on the ground. The other 24, or 12 a side, would be up the other teams forward line at the stoppage. And as soon as the ball is bounced or thrown up, those players way up in the forward 50 can move wherever they want. If they want to push up the ground and create a stoppage, fine, but they should be weary that they need to get back up the ground for the ball up, but I doubt they will be doing that, they would probably only move to the centre I imagine. When a team would then lock the ball inside their 50, atleast there would now be room to get the ball out of their, and players with space to take it down the field, and someone actually forward or centre to kick it to!! And as this adjustment only requires 3 forwards in the arc, so the other 3 forwards can roam anywhere the coach likes, and the coach can still have his tactics, sorta. Want a loose man in defence? Just send one down mate. But not all 6 of em! Sounds just like the old days doesn't it? Congestion gone and forwards back in. 2 birds with one stone. The Unwritten Rule finally needs to be written.
While we're at it
Guest
I agree, this is an ugly brand of football which holds little attraction for the crowd. The kamikaze, pinball style requires little skill but lots of endurance. Whilst this high pressure game won a flag, it does little to “ draw a crowd”. It levels the playing field (hence so many close games), regularly games were won or lost based on a good or bad bounce, but skills rarely came into it. I like the thought of 16 a side, with vastly reduced interchange numbers, let’s see more open play and skill being used, rather than the rolling mauls we have today.
Danny
Guest
I felt it was a big mistake for the Crows to pick run up and down on the spot Andy Otten in the GF against a small pacy Tigers team. Mitch McGovern is actually very fast and way more than Otten. Way too top heavy to have a third slow tall with Jenkins and Walker. In high pressure games the delivery to the forwards is more likely to be chaos balls rather than lace out, so the ball hits the ground and the bigger slower players are exposed and also lacking in the tackling department.
Slane
Guest
I see the Hawks forward structure in their premiership years as far closer to Adelaide than the Bulldogs/Tigers. The Hawks and Adelaide both have a set of constantly roatating/flexible players that change position in a pattern designed to create a free player. It's highly effective but it's barely football.
ContactScape
Guest
"Is it sustainable for a full season?" The answer to that is NO: It's all about when you time your run. According to the Fox Footy defensive pressure guage coming into round 14, Melbourne were 1st and Richmond were 7th. Look at what happened to Melbourne after that. They had a few injuries, had some extensive travel for a stint of games and had more injuries and could never gather back that collective defensive pressure. On the other hand, Richmond really ramped up in the second half of the season. http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/more-news/melbourne-is-the-best-pressure-team-in-the-competition/news-story/34bacc32a29d7d5a214164d9e61cb5e3
The watcher
Guest
Ryan, great article. Thought though you should have given more acknowledgement of Clarko’s contribution when after the 2012 GF loss he changed the game plan to no longer rely on Franklyn. The subsequent success Gunstan ( tallish but extremely mobile and an ability to lock it in, supported by Roughie having a break from the Rick, and the rest stalls tackling like Cyril, Popo and mids. With supreme kicking skills and high pressure high possession game they were near unbeatable
dave
Guest
Had Fremantle kicked straight in 2013 it would have been another flag to small ball. I started to think about how quickly Freo has gone down since then and realised the biggest loss was Luke Mcpharlin. This position I believe is the most important ingredient to success and an antidote to small ball. Small ball is not new.Every team is trying to keep the ball in their forward half through pressure and zones and it has been happening a long time.The teams that have the most success are those that have a defender making cool headed desicions.Think about guys like Scarlett,Hodge,Fletcher going back to the Eagles early flags they had Macintosh and Jacovich and this year the Tigers had Rance.
Mining Man
Guest
It's easy enough to modify the rules to contrive a return to more tall marking forwards maintaining position inside the arc: a goal scored from a mark is 6 points; and a goal scored from the run of play, a stoppage, or playing on from a mark is 4 points. There would also be the unintended benefit of getting players to kick a drop punt when on a 45 degree angle, rather than playing on and kicking around the corner.
republican
Guest
..........concur with this 100%.......
republican
Guest
.......what is the 16 aside propositions intent? If it is to open the game up to a more free flowing contest, it won't achieve this in my opinion. The strategy to win at all costs, is to play a defensive, short kicking, flooding, handball go to ground game. Can this be achieved by merely taking two players off the paddock?
dontknowmuchaboutfootball
Guest
"the stand-out rule that is routinely ignored is ‘in the back’" It's got to the point that I'm routinely re-checking the Laws of the game to see whether "in the back" has been deemed permitted contact outside of marking contests and bringing a player to ground in a tackle.