In the 2018 finals campaign, Nathan Buckley came up with a subtle defensive tactic.
It suited Collingwood’s high flying Darcy Moore and Jeremy Howe. It crowded up Collingwood’s zone defence. And it made scoring very difficult indeed.
What was this brilliant tactic? It was Mason Cox.
Now stop laughing and listen. In my last article I put forward the idea that a ball up was a better result than a free kick in today’s game. My argument was that in the time it takes for a free kick to be paid and the ball returned to the recipient of the free, the opposition will easily have time to roll back and reset their defensive structures.
Winning a free kick often results in kicking down the line to a pack. The closer you get to your forward fifty the more congested it gets. Winning a free kick can actually add to the congestion because it means the opposition will go completely defensive. At least with a ball up both sides need to keep some players forward of the ball.
So, what was Buckley’s brilliant tactic with Mason Cox? Normally when you have a player as tall as Mason Cox you would drop them back to the next line of scrimmage. Use their height in the pack. However, whenever the opposition had an opportunity to kick the ball into Collingwood’s defensive 50, Buckley had Mason Cox stand the mark.
(Photo by Quinn Rooney/Getty Images)
When Mason Cox jumps around on the mark with his hands up in the air he is about five metres tall. Kicking over Mason Cox always results in a high kick into the forward line with lots of hang time – just the perfect ball for Jeremy Howe. If the ball hits the ground, then to paraphrase Damien Hardwick, there are about 75,000 players crowded around it.
It is not fair to blame Nathan Buckley for the congestion in the game. Sadly, I must concede that he is just finding subtle ways to exploit the situation. However being a member of the ABC (Anyone But Collingwood), it would give me great please to reverse Nathan Buckley’s tactic and use it to stop congestion. My idea is to not let any player stand the mark.
If being forced to kick the ball over a tall player creates long hang time and big packs, what would happen if there was nobody on the mark. What if the umpire marked the spot and forced everyone to stand back ten metres, including the man on the mark? It would be a bit like the exclusion zone enforced now but including the area in front of the mark.
When a player is kicking in from full back and is able to kick the ball long and low there is rarely a big pack. Consider how much the game opens up when a player with the ball runs around the player on the mark and kicks.
He can choose to kick it short and low to a target in front or to the side of the pack. Or he can kick long and low over the pack. If the rule forces the defence to spread out and gives them less time to converge on the incoming ball then we might see a lot more marks inside 50.
I am only proposing this idea for free kicks outside the forward 50 arc. My logic is simple: if putting a player on the mark limits the options of the player with the ball, and putting a tall player limits their options further, then dragging the player on the mark back ten metres will increase the options of the player with the ball. Hopefully at least it would stop the long kick down the line to the next pack.
The only problem I see is that Nathan Buckley will need to find a new use for Mason Cox. And by the way, before anyone gets too narky, I do like Nathan Buckley as a coach.
The Brazilian
Roar Rookie
$ 5 million a year? Chicken feed really. A drop in the ocean. Would make no discernible difference to the bottom line whatsoever.
Eddie from Elwood
Roar Rookie
I got a feeling 16 a side is a given, rather than solving congestion, I think it will be bought in to save $. The AFL said this week that they didn’t want extra players on the bench during the “compression”, to save on match payments. I have the feeling this will be a cost saving exercise, as they know they can’t pay for the amount of clubs that will have their hands out. Remember, all but four clubs are being assistead by head office to pay the bills. 36 players a round less, at $5000 (The Age) a pop, 23 rounds a home and away season, plus finals is around $5,000,000 a year. That’s a fair bit of coin. Personally, I prefer reduced interchange, yeah they might get injuries at the start, but they’ll soon work out positional play is the lesser of two evils.
DTM
Guest
Gee, one typo in 3 years and you pick me up. You're as tough as my grade 5 English teacher!
DTM
Guest
Not much water in WA but plenty of gas!
RT
Roar Rookie
I get sick of players standing past the mark and the umpire has to tell them 3 times to come back. I get they don't hear the umpire sometimes, but I think they would usually know they are over the mark.
RT
Roar Rookie
It's a winter sport. Probably water meters.
Chris_S
Roar Rookie
I hadn’t really thought about it but by dragging the man on the mark back 10 metres from the point of the infringement it might stop the man on the mark standing over the recipient and stopping him from getting up or from getting to the ball.
Nick
Roar Guru
Exactly.
Nick
Roar Guru
A 50 is severe, but because of it's severity it should also be used liberally until the players clue in. Unlike the rest of society, sport has shown repeatedly that severe punishments act as incredibly effective deterrents, and that players are actually very quick to change. If the umps started doling out 50's like candy, the players will change their habits by the end of the round.
Nick
Roar Guru
Lol. I know.
George Apps
Roar Rookie
Gas or electric meters? You must mean "metres.
RT
Roar Rookie
The irony is, the article is about Mason Cox in 2018. The person you are referring to brings up 2018 Cox endlessly in unrelated articles, but given a free kick here, changes the subject.
RT
Roar Rookie
Good point about Blight. I love listening to what he has to say, but cringe at most of his suggestions.
Pope Paul VII
Roar Rookie
Thanks Sprucey and Stirling. Although, I'm a little bit sadder now.
Stirling Coates
Editor
It's also because players can take the advantage from a free kick, which they can't do from a mark.
Nick
Roar Guru
I think it's tragic that someone feels it necessary to post about something completely off topic and no one else was discussing at all in this article or subsequent threads. Jog on.
Nick
Roar Guru
While on the subject of umps, they keep yelling “High Contact!” when the bloke has clearly marked it first. They’ve already marked it. Unless they are paying 50m for a late hit, why say high contact? Frees trump marks. If the marker dropped the ball it's a free for high contact. The umpire is right to let him know so he changes his approach in future IF the marker drops the ball. And yes, there is definitely a massive amount of cynical play by the players who take an eternity to disentangle themselves. I'd pay 50's all day long for that.
Pope Paul VII
Roar Rookie
Maybe. Certainly the umps should crackdown on players taking an age to disentangle from the bloke who has marked or been awarded a free. You rarely see a 50m for that. Or anything else but the obscure or accidental. Bring back the 15m penalty for these infringements. While on the subject of umps, they keep yelling "High Contact!" when the bloke has clearly marked it first. They've already marked it. Unless they are paying 50m for a late hit, why say high contact?
Naughty's Headband
Roar Rookie
Yes but you get a free kick. Getting a free kick isn't a penalty, even if you have to kick from 5 metres behind where you get the free kick. You can choose to play on as well.
Kane
Roar Rookie
Could play with 10 players each and the defensive coaches would still find a way to make it congested.