SOME football phrases would be hilarious if their flow-on effect wasn’t potentially real. 

One such humbug notion is that some teams have a ‘Plan B’, while others don’t.

During his career at the Crows, Adelaide coach Neil Craig has often dealt with this lazily framed criticism.

I use the term ‘lazily framed’ because the charge levelled is lacking proper consideration. Plan B? It’s meaningless.

The first place to start in dismissing the notion is to explain the hazy concept of a game plan.

Let’s start with a definition or equation former Melbourne coach and now West Coast football manager Neale Daniher provided three years ago when asked to explain the concept of a game plan.

A game plan = team selection (who plays and where they play) + team and set-play structures + ability to win contested ball + ball use + defensive pressure.

By that equation, there are many elements - both hidden and exposed - that make up the game plan.

Parts of the game plan shift throughout the season as the game changes, personnel develop or are available, and particular opponents gain the ascendancy.

Look at the equation. Selection is critical. Options might be limited before the game due to injury. Otherwise, many either/or decisions are made that can’t be changed once the team sheet is submitted on game-day.

From those selections, positional change is an option, with coaches having many considerations to make depending on the state of the contest.

Sometimes it may be to leave a player in a position to find out more about him despite the duel’s impact on the game, as Richmond coach Damien Hardwick did when he left first-year player Reece Conca on St Kilda’s Stephen Milne in round two.

At other times, a coach might appear to be a genius. Remember Sydney Swans coach John Longmire bringing Gary Rohan on in the last quarter against the Eagles and pushing Andrejs Everitt forward?

Team play and set structures evolve during the season but, on any day, every player should know what is expected for a particular game and after each quarter. Watching players not fulfil those requirements is the first thing that disheartens coaches.

St Kilda’s Ross Lyon expressed his disappointment with his team after the Saints' round three loss to Essendon, when the playing style and set structures that had brought the club much success weren’t being followed.

“We’ve had things in place and basics done very well for a long period of time. But we’re not adhering to any basics. So that broke the spirit of the team,” Lyon said.

The next part of Daniher’s equation is where it gets interesting, from the point of view of dismantling the ‘no Plan B’ catchphrase.

Plan A, B, C through to Z mean nothing if the team is not winning contested ball. It’s like trying to start a business with no capital. Good luck.

That was the change that happened in round four’s Showdown after quarter-time. Craig expressed it succinctly: “You can’t afford to be belted in the contested ball area because everything else is generated from it.”

As Craig explained, you can lose that contested-ball category and still be competitive. But when you’re smashed in that area, your ball movement will stagnate, power and run goes from your game and defensive pressure diminishes. The other team, with ball in hand, can dictate terms. Remember, having the ball is the best form of defence.

Positional changes will take place but with that basic fundamental missing, the game plan starts breaking down. 

By all means, question the coaches. Wonder about selection and starting positions and who is in the ruck and the combination up forward.

Think about the structures and whether they work. Don’t settle for teams not winning the contested ball.

But don’t fall for the lazy cry of the talkback set. Say no to ‘no plan B’.

The views in this article are those of the author and not necessarily those of the AFL and its clubs.