Interesting proposition, Astro.
Whether it be a game of Irish footy, a battle of >100,000 men, a chess match, or a game of AFL footy, strategy and tactics have always been based on creating an advantage over an opponent.
Strategy is usually connected with creating a long term advantage, and tactics with a short term advantage.
Napoleon, a master of strategy, always relied making his army fully mobile to gain an advantage over his military opponents. Firstly, because his armies generally lacked in artillery, and secondly, mobility aided the logistics of his army that he struggled to keep well supplied. His later adversaries, the most notable of which was Wellington, worked on trying to limit the mobility of Napoleon's army, and get it into big static battles. This was very similar to the strategy of the poorly supplied Confederate armies led by Robert E. Lee. Lee had been fully educated in, and was a master of, Napoleonic Grand Strategy & Tactics. Unfortunately, he was also educated into making the same mistakes as Napoleon. The tactics of Meade, then Grant, to counter Lee's advantage, was to engage in big static battles that Lee could never win.
In the case of the Irish side, Sheedy was able to understand their key characteristics. (This was something his predecessor, Garry Lyon had failed to do.) Sheedy was then able to put on the field a team that not only countered the Irish strengths, but also took the best advantage of its weaknesses.
AFL coaches and managers are continually looking for both strategy and tactics to dominate footy. Hafey used a level of fitness and running that was unparalleled amongst his peers, plus some genuine tall forwards. Barassi got his teams to play a handball game, again relying on high levels of fitness. John Kennedy brought in very high levels of body building and strengthening to give his players an advantage.
Tactics tend to be more short term. Some examples can be Barassi switching Dench to CHF in the last quarter of the 1977 drawn GF. John Kennedy sending Bob Keddie to FF in the last quarter of the 1971 GF. In 1969, Hafey swapped Barrot and Eric Moore. Another was Sheedy putting Duckworth, then Weston, into attack during the 2nd half of the 1984 GF. All of these to create a short term advantage against an existing opponent.
Already, during Wallace's tenure at Tigerland, his strategy has been to make the Tigers a stronger, more mobile & direct side. And to develop this from younger more skilled players. The long term advantage will be an outcome where we are stronger, faster and too skilled for our opponents. This is sound strategy. An example of his tactics was the move of Brown during the Collingwood game.
Sheedy gained an advantage in the first game and won. His tactics should not be a surprise the 2nd time around, unless he changes his tactics again. Whether that advantage, that he has created in 1st game, is enough to carry him through in the second game, time will tell.
As you can tell, strategy and tactics are one of my favourite passtimes.
