Do taggers have a role to play in AFL football?
Historically, the survival of taggers has been based upon their ability to restrict their direct opponent’s influence on the game by limiting their possessions.
With the continual evolution of the modern game, the zone defence has become more prevalent. Evidence of this game style was shown in the 2008 grand final between Geelong and Hawthorn. The aim of a zone is to defend an area of the ground as opposed to a direct opponent.
There are several rationales for employing this strategy. Firstly, by using a team defence, spaces are filled that the offensive team aims to lead into. Secondly, zoning is deemed proactive as opposed to one-on-one, where the defender tends to react to offensive moves. Ultimately, the zone defence leads to the conservation of energy for offensive moves.
Another pivotal factor is the high player rotation now used by all clubs. Further, most clubs are using traditional midfielders in a variety of roles, such as in the forward line and half-back line. Additionally, stoppages have reduced from 90 to 60, which goes against the tagger’s often-used tactic of driving opponents into traffic.
In the past, taggers followed assigned opponents and aimed to smother them. However, the contemporary employment of zones now dictates that all players are responsible for effectively defending their area, while also offering assistance to teammates.
When defending specific areas the trade-off is that offensive teams rack up more possessions because of the high use of the short pass. In turn, the “tagged” player has the luxury of more space and the potential growth in confidence that comes with increased ball possession, further negating the effectiveness of the tagger.
And with increased rotation, the tagger has less time to stifle a direct opponent. An example of this is Brett Kirk v Simon Black, who previously battled directly for 100 minutes; today, they would likely only oppose each other for 50 or 60 minutes.
Constantly changing opponents does not allow the tagger to get into a rhythm or wear down opponents, which was the hallmark of an effective tagger.
The reduced number of stoppages has decreased congestion and sped up the game. This increased game tempo has made it almost impossible for a slower tagger to continually stay with a faster, offensively-minded player.
Moreover, many dominant players are now leaning toward the offensive end of the ground, further reducing the effectiveness of tagging. An example is Gary Ablett who is a dominant midfielder who also spends a large majority of the game in the forward line.
There is a role, albeit an abbreviated one, for taggers in the modern game. However the traditional means of determining their effectiveness – reducing a direct opponent’s absolute possessions – is no longer applicable. Rather the tagger must be judged individually in terms of negating forward movement of the opponent and hence their overall impact on the game.
It’s arguable that this can only be truly determined by the coaching staff who are aware of the role the tagger has been assigned.
Finally, in contrast to taggers of the past who were often slow but physically intimidating, relying on out-muscling opponents, the modern-day tagger needs similar attributes to his opponent, such as comparable speed and size because of the pace and openness of today’s football.
EMAIL YOUR QUESTIONS
Do you have something you’ve always wanted to ask a coach? Drop the coaches an email at coachsbox@afl.com.au. Each week, one assistant coach from an AFL club will dip into the mailbag and answer a handful of the best questions.
The views in this article are those of the author and not necessarily those of the clubs or the AFL.
