Tom Hafey coached Richmond to four premierships between 1967 and 1974. He liked to keep the game simple Tommy – playing to the strengths at his disposal. The game plan was built upon and around player fitness and the AFL Team of the Century centre-half-forward – Royce Hart.
Richmond’s list during the Hafey years boasted other great players – notably; Kevin Bartlett, Kevin Sheedy and Francis Bourke. But Hart was the linchpin and Tommy new it.
Denis Pagan was clever enough to adopt a similar style for North Melbourne. He went on to coach the Kangaroos to the 1996 and 1999 premierships – with Wayne Carey playing a similar role as Hart played under Hafey.
Both Hafey and Pagan were as predictable as they were effective.
More recently, Hawthorn’s triple premiership run from 2013 to 2015 was underpinned by a game plan evolving from an anti-social, contested brand of football into a highly skilled precision based game plan.
Hawthorn at their premiership best displayed the clinical prowess of a surgeon’s scalpel. Pinging the ball around – holding, holding… then releasing the trigger through the corridor and toward goal.
If mimicking is the greatest form of flattery our game would certainly qualify. The manic pressure displayed by the Bulldogs in 2016 was clearly present in Richmond 2017. We Aussies are like sheep at times.
(Photo by Scott Barbour/AFL Media/Getty Images)
Critically, successful game plans must be crafted – mindful of the attributes of the playing list at the coach’s disposal. This should be a given for any coach. A team’s game plan and their playing list must be syncretised.
The coaching challenge experienced by Brent Guerra – trying to instill the Hawthorn style of play into Fremantle over the past two seasons – is perhaps a recent example of the need for a playing list and game plan to be aligned.
If a coach bemoans that the team is not buying into or executing the game plan, then it’s the wrong plan. And frankly the coach is likely to be lacking basic understanding, communications or humility.
So what is the next phase for the contemporary AFL game plan?
The 2014 AFL grand final between Hawthorn and Sydney may provide some insight. As a spectacle the game was not particularly memorable. However, something struck me at half-time of that match. Given Hawthorn’s ‘keepings-off’ and highly skilled game style, it is perhaps unsurprising they finished the 2014 home/away season averaging a modest 59 tackles per game, compared with Sydney’s 74.
However, by halftime of the 2014 grand final, Hawthorn had tackled Sydney on 45 separate occasions. It’s safe to assume the Hawthorn hierarchy had decided during grand final week the best way to defeat Sydney was to tackle them, and Hawthorn’s on-field leadership was sufficient to execute the change.
Facing a seven-goal deficit at half-time the Swans never recovered. Beaten at their own game.
My point is this – Hawthorn appeared to have planned and executed a brand of football during the 2014 grand final different from their standard game plan that had previously served them so well. No mean feat.
By extension, perhaps the next phase of AFL game plans is a more flexible approach, where a well-rehearsed Plan A provides the foundation, but Plan A is then combined with an ability to adjust – according to the variable week-to-week circumstances.
There is evidence of this appearing in today’s game. But only in small degrees from my observation.
I will never understand why players and coaches speak of only focussing on what ‘they’ wish to execute as a team. What small-minded arrogance. Within a team’s control is how they plan for their upcoming opponents. Ignore them at your own peril.
The world’s best chess players can read what moves their opponents are planning in advance, and adapt accordingly. Similarly, the best AFL coaches give their weekly opponents exactly what they do not wish to receive. This can only be achieved by respecting the weekly opponent and adjusting accordingly.
Perhaps Charles Darwin had a valid point when he said – “It is not the strongest of the species that survives, not the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is most adaptable to change.”
Chris
Guest
As far as paradox is concerned there is nothing more paradoxical than having a team laden with talent, yet the coach puts his prejudices above the team's best interests. Now that Jamie Elliott and Alex Fasolo have gone down, what will he and the wise sages do? Do they give Kirby or Daicos or Brown extended runs? Do they give Murphy a chance? Do they give Jayden a go? Do they put Mayne on notice? The whole scene is intrigue-ridden and this will be a real test of Buckley's mettle...
Stephen
Guest
'Love passion yet loathe rage'. Great line. I do enjoy a good paradox.
Chris
Guest
Well, the verdict is out at present. He, like Tommy Hafey,has had nobody as back up till now or has tried to do everything by himself. This appears to be his first year when he can actually delegate duties and hone his skills. I have one great reservation...Is he too dogmatic and static just like Hafey? I think a split second decision can make an enormous difference in the clinches and he seems to overreact with telephone receivers in the coaches box. I love passion but loathe rage. Be determined and commited but don't carry on beyond what is necessary. This is what worries with me about Buckley. He has proven unable to get his teams ready from Round 1 as any good coach should. The key to success is to get your boys firing and clocking up wins while the others are still finding their feet. Well, thus far he has been doing the reverse. If he doesn't have between 5-5 and 7-3 in the first ten rounds he ought to be released of his duties and Nick Maxwell installed in his place without further delay.
Stephen
Guest
Your thoughts on the current Collingwood coach?
Chris
Guest
The fact of the matter is that when the muscle was asked for it wasn't thrust at the opposition in the ones that really counted. He should have just told the boys king hit anyone that´s in your path. But, what did we do...nothing... we simply sat back and let Keogh, Harmes and Johnston whack our men in the last match of the season. How can you allow that as a coach? It would have never happened at Punt Road. I can still remembeer the three most telling incidents in the 77, 79 and 81 Grand Finals:- 1. Not acting quickly enough when North were trying to claw back into the game in the last quarter; 2. Not telling the boys go ballistic after Russell Ohlsen was flattened...Mind you he was best afield up to that point in time; 3. Having Graeme Allen off with a broken jaw and one man short for the whole game with no retribution from anyone. That accounts for three losses without a whimper....The head coach should have said boys lets go for the kill and not simply peeter out like a bunch of feeble teenagers.
Stephen
Guest
DC, I re-read your initial post. Your comments re innovation versus execution have me thinking. Perhaps I'm biased - because it never ceases to amaze me what can flow from a good idea. Innovation is often the genesis of critical growth. And without it and the accompanying risks - nothing ever really changes. I would allot equal weight to innovation and execution. But I suspect you would argue - execution holds the key. It's a philosophical debate - but you have opened my mind - which is always a good thing - thanks.
Stephen
Guest
Interesting Chris. It makes sense when you say Tommy was a Tiger at heart. Graeme Richmond practically sacked anyone who wasn't involved in a premiership at Richmond in the preceding year or two. Hafey was perhaps sacked prematurely. I watched a replay of Phil Carmen and Rene Kink on Open Mike recently - both suggested Carmen's suspension for the 1977 GF - was devastating. CFC must have been a difficult place to turn up to work - after being in five grand finals between 1977 and 1981 - without one flag.
Chris
Guest
Tommy was my favourite coach at Collingwood because he just oozed passion and determination. His only flaw was that he didn't take risks when the big ones were on the line. I think he could have won in 77 and 79 had he made some switches or tactical changes. Bringing on Shane Bond earlier in the last quarter to give extra dash when most were tiring would have got us over the line in the first Grand Final and wholesale changes once Russell Ohlsen got flattened by Keogh was another glaring oversight. Perhaps inviting all out warfare on the pitch should have been the order of the day. Retribution and turning the Grand Final into a blood bath a la 1945 would have won us the game. Last of all, when Johnson flattened Graeme Allan in the First Quarter of 1981 he ought to have done exactly the same. Invited all out war...He did it at Richmond in 1973 but never did it at COLLINGWOOD. Royce Hart was a star player who was protected by Tommy at every turn. The same luxury was not afforded to the Collingwood lads and that's because Tommy was always a Tiger at heart. That's my take!
Stephen
Guest
Yes Aransan. Different era. Ted Whitten is listed at 184cm. I always thought Tim Watson changed the way coaches and recruiters viewed the game. Watson first played in 1977 aged 15. He was roughly the same height and weight as John Nicholls. Yet Nicholls was a renowned tap Ruckman. And Watson was an explosive running player. Watson seem to pave the way - to commence the era of big-bodied midfielders.
Aransan
Guest
Alan Morrow was 183cm as a premiership ruckman in St. Kilda's 1966 GF, replacing Carl Ditterich after he was suspended. Ted Whitten wouldn't have been much over 183cm and could play chb, chf as well as a variety of other roles.
Stephen
Guest
Correct. And John Nicholls was a 189cm Ruckman from the same era.
dontknowmuchaboutfootball
Guest
Indeed. So great were the challenges facing Guerra that over the last two years Freo never managed even once to show any sign that they were trying to emulate a Hawthorn game style!
Don Freo
Guest
A 179cm CHF!! Amazing.
Stephen
Guest
Fair enough. I have no proof to offer you.
Dalgety Carrington
Roar Guru
Sorry Stephen, but "trust me" ain't buying any credibility here.
Stephen
Guest
Perhaps DC. But I'm not trying to make-up the news - just report it.
Dalgety Carrington
Roar Guru
I'm pretty sceptical about that (for starters Lyon's not one to go for radical shifts to gamestyle, particularly when they've just come off a season like they had). Nevertheless, it's a big jump to go from a few pre-season drills, to spending two years trying to adopt a gamestyle boots'n'all. I think you've taken a few threads and got the Bayeux Tapestry.
Dalgety Carrington
Roar Guru
At least if you execute a poor plan brilliantly you've got some chance, but hash the execution of even the best of plans, you're much more likely to be doomed. But it's not really about poor vs good plans (I'd prefer effective/ineffective as a scale of measure though). My point was about innovation vs execution.
Stephen
Guest
DC, my information is different. And Guerra spent most of the 2016 pre-season teaching the Fremantle defenders and mids - a Hawthorn/possession style game. And to your earlier point - the theory was fine. The execution challenging.
Stephen
Guest
DC, I'm guilty of brilliantly executing some very poor plans. I would argue they are both equally critical.