A Failed Football Theory

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

Geelong players didn't push back because we screwed around with the ball, they were already back! I'd have thought from being at the game you would've picked that up.

So you're saying that all the while Melbourne had no one in their forward line, Geelong had their defenders in there?

[45HG 1,539]

From memory, aside from the very odd occasion, I reckon the Cats usually had at least Harley no further forward than the back 50 arc.

I certainly didn't see him run with Sylvia into his own forwardline

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

From memory, aside from the very odd occasion, I reckon the Cats usually had at least Harley no further forward than the back 50 arc.

I certainly didn't see him run with Sylvia into his own forwardline

If Melbourne didn't have any players forward, Geelong didn't have any players back.

[tez 6]

If Melbourne didn't have any players forward, Geelong didn't have any players back.

Geelong always had 3 players behind the ball or more to it behind our most forward player

[Rogue 585]

So you're saying that all the while Melbourne had no one in their forward line, Geelong had their defenders in there?

That was often the case - our forwards got sucked up the ground, while Geelond defenders stayed close to goal.

Despite the extra numbers around the ball, Geelong often went forward anyway.

However, when we did win the ball, we'd often have to stuff around with it as we were outnumbered in our forward line.

In example -

On one occassion, Buckley had the ball around the middle, ran towards CHF, and had no one to give it to as he was the Demon closest to our goals. I think he ended up losing it while attempting to bounce, got abused by a Demons fan next to me, and Geelong cleared the ball. I'm sure that, just like many other times where we handballed the ball sideways etc, reflected poorly on the individuals, but it's tough when the only guys to kick it to are wearing blue and white.

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

...

Either way, there should have always been Melbourne players in the forward line and the chipping and stuffing around with the ball didn't help.

[Rogue 585]

Either way, there should have always been Melbourne players in the forward line

Maybe there should have always been Melbourne players in the forward line.

However, there wasn't always a Melbourne player in the forward line (let alone players, plural).

[Rampaging Demons 1]

geelong worked harder than our players both ways....

yes the cats may have cheated by lurking out the back but seriously, man on man or being a team player, this cant happen!!

a lesson learnt i hope!!

[45HG 1,539]

RD that is spot on!

It's the one thing that got to me above all else on Friday night. As soon as our boys got the ball, from the first minute to the 81st, they were pressured, harrassed, bullied and then usually defeated.

As soon as a Cats player got the ball, they had space to think and move freely.

Now this is obviously partly to do with the fact that they are a more drilled team who know their roles, but it also showed we weren't running hard enough

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

Maybe there should have always been Melbourne players in the forward line.

However, there wesn't always a Melbourne player in the forward line (let alone players, plural).

I think we're just going around in circles...

[Rogue 585]

What worries me is that we have absolutely no structure and a completely unaccountable and uncontested gameplan that I fear will never work.

If you listen to Bailey's post-match conference, he mentions the overuse of handball, suggesting it was due to the pressure Geelong put us under.

I don't think that an unaccountable and uncontested gameplan is what we're aiming for.

However, plans tend to go out the window when you get smashed.

I think we're just going around in circles...

Hehe, maybe.

I agree that we should have had some players forward.

However, this observation is wrong:

If Melbourne didn't have any players forward, Geelong didn't have any players back.

[Eastie Boyz 0]

Either way, there should have always been Melbourne players in the forward line and the chipping and stuffing around with the ball didn't help.

Pagan's paddock yo

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

However, this observation is wrong:

You're probably right, either way what they did didn't work.

[Guest Mos Def]

If you listen to Bailey's post-match conference, he mentions the overuse of handball, suggesting it was due to the pressure Geelong put us under.

I don't think that an unaccountable and uncontested gameplan is what we're aiming for.

However, plans tend to go out the window when you get smashed.

His structure creates the over handball though.. this is what I don't understand.. and someone mentioned it before, how can you blame players for turning the ball over when they look up and they are kicking to Valenti 1 on 3 or Wonamaerri 1 on 3 or Davey 1 on 3. Even kicking to Miller 1 on 3, what's the point?

I reckon our guys would have much more confidence moving the ball forward with less handball if they had some targets to kick to.. it's no coincidence that Bate is struggling under this style and structure.

Geelong did have three guys behind the ball at times.. only because we had 5 behind the ball the other way. We created that.

Again its not the final score that's important.. its the structure that's key right now.. and we don't have one at all.

[Trisul 664]

I might get some .. err .. kind words on this one but I'm not that fussed about a game plan at this stage.

To turn it on it's head, I'd be worried if such a young group was locked into a specific methodology, positional spread or thought framework.

For DB and the players sakes (and the clubs sake over the coming draft drought) the time needs to be taken to experience, challenge, assess at the most fundamental levels in the tasks given and volunteered. This can't readily be done in a rigid structure, so IMO it hasn't been.

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

His structure creates the over handball though.. this is what I don't understand.. and someone mentioned it before, how can you blame players for turning the ball over when they look up and they are kicking to Valenti 1 on 3 or Wonamaerri 1 on 3 or Davey 1 on 3. Even kicking to Miller 1 on 3, what's the point?

I reckon our guys would have much more confidence moving the ball forward with less handball if they had some targets to kick to.. it's no coincidence that Bate is struggling under this style and structure.

Geelong did have three guys behind the ball at times.. only because we had 5 behind the ball the other way. We created that.

Again its not the final score that's important.. its the structure that's key right now.. and we don't have one at all.

100% correct.