...when forwards would line up in the forward line and those guys that run around in the middle would try and get the ball as quickly as they could to them?

What summed the night up best for me was when Cameron Bruce was 60 metres out on the half forward flank, and instead of putting the ball at the top of the square he chipped it backwards 20 metres, the ball was turned over and Geelong scored a goal.

What is Bailey telling these players?

...when forwards would line up in the forward line and those guys that run around in the middle would try and get the ball as quickly as they could to them?

What summed the night up best for me was when Cameron Bruce was 60 metres out on the half forward flank, and instead of putting the ball at the top of the square he chipped it backwards 20 metres, the ball was turned over and Geelong scored a goal.

What is Bailey telling these players?

Which tall forwards were waiting there to take the grab?

Last week was bad enough with Fletcher towering over Sylvia but with Wonna, Maric, Sylvia, Bate and part timers like PJ down there against one of the best defences the game has ever seen, we didn't have a hope in the wet.

Our forward 50 was empty for around 30% of the game time last night. Obviously many demonlanders weren't at the game and so their comments are based only on what is shown on TV, but from both the top deck and front row (1st and 2nd halves respectively) the lack of a single forward killed us.

People here are bemoaning Buckley's game because he often dashed then would turn it over. What you couldn't see on TV was that on most of those occasions there was literally no-one in front of him to kick to.

For the people here supporting our possession style of play (Nasher from the comfort of his couch in Tassie), to try and chip it around sideways and backwards with an unskilled side in the wet is a disgrace. We have more hope of scoring from a contested ball at the top of the square than we ever will by trying to pinpoint into a forward-50 containing 15 Geelong players and about 10 Dees.

That pass from Bruce mentioned by CB sums it up perfectly, and it happened right in front of me. His intended target was surrounded by opponents, so the question has to be asked: Which is preferable; a kick backwards to a contest on the wing or a long kick forward to a contest 20 out from our goals?

I'm off to watch some C-Grade Ammos. If there is not a significant improvement between now and the end of the season in our players and game plan then my $200 which has gone to MFC for the last 7 years will instead likely be going to the Monash Blues next year.

Our forward 50 was empty for around 30% of the game time last night. Obviously many demonlanders weren't at the game and so their comments are based only on what is shown on TV, but from both the top deck and front row (1st and 2nd halves respectively) the lack of a single forward killed us.

For the people here supporting our possession style of play (Nasher from the comfort of his couch in Tassie), to try and chip it around sideways and backwards with an unskilled side in the wet is a disgrace. We have more hope of scoring from a contested ball at the top of the square than we ever will by trying to pinpoint into a forward-50 containing 15 Geelong players and about 10 Dees.

You said we didn't have a single forward target, but that we should bomb it to the top of the square.... Umm?

I don't by any means support the style of chipping it around, especially in the wet, but when you've got absolutely no targets, what's the alternative? The kick by Bruce to a team mate flanked by the opposition was a poor option and he should rightfully be grilled for it, but I don't see how it's any worse an option than bombing it to nobody in the goalsquare.

I'd love to watch the replay again and count how many times a Geelong backman took an uncontested mark in the square btw. It was more than a few.

Which tall forwards were waiting there to take the grab?

Exactly. We went into the game with the most undermanned side we have had this year without one marking forward. We were smashed in the centre from the first bounce and were thumped from there. Its incredible how the basics are missed by some.

If there is not a significant improvement between now and the end of the season in our players and game plan then my $200 which has gone to MFC for the last 7 years will instead likely be going to the Monash Blues next year.

That'll show'em. Great initiative. We have supporters willing to dig deep and reduce Club debt by $2 million including McLean $10,000 and you want kick the side when its down. C grade amateurs will do you good.

You said we didn't have a single forward target, but that we should bomb it to the top of the square.... Umm?

You see its that simple Nozz.

Which tall forwards were waiting there to take the grab?

Very true, I understand what CB is saying and it's bloody frustrating to watch a team surrender the ball so easily but we just don't have the cattle. But then again CB may be right, it's better to send the ball closer to goal for a 50/50 (or in our case a 25/75) chance rather than meekly turning it over.

Watts, lock it in Eddie.

Exactly. We went into the game with the most undermanned side we have had this year without one marking forward. We were smashed in the centre from the first bounce and were thumped from there. Its incredible how the basics are missed by some.

Indeed.

Some people may be obsessed with their own thoughts of how a game of football should be played, but we just don't have the cattle to bomb it long. Wheatley does, and turns it over 80% of the time.

The way the Cats played last night, with quick handballs was the most effective way of winning in the wet, and has helped them win one (two soon) flags without having a brilliant forward line.

Besides, who the hell bombs long to the square against Geelong's backline?? They held us to TWO forward 50 marks the whole match. No idea!

Im seriously starting to have 2nd thoughts on Bailey, some of his match ups last night were atrocious. Putting numbers back against the cats IMO opinion is the worst thing you can do. There that skilled that they can easily find the loose man and hit targets up forward i.e. Andrew Mackie. Why wouldn't you just tell the boys, ok were going to make this a scrap, every single person man on man?

Which matchups do you think were atrocious, N3000?

Which tall forwards were waiting there to take the grab?

It was a pleasure watching Valenti play like Jdog.

What summed it up for me was about ten minutes in, it was 10 inside 50s to 8, yet we were 4 goals down.

We were getting it in there, but all and sundry could see that we had no scoring options to go towards.

From here i believe two things happened. Our midfield dropped their heads, knowing that even getting the footy up forward would be fruitless, and Two, the Geelong boys in the middle tooks more risks, knowing that even if they turned the ball over, Harley or Scarlett etc. would get the ball back downfield anyway and they could reload.

Tough to kick a score without a forwardline, especially against one of the best midfields in the comp.

Which tall forwards were waiting there to take the grab?

The problem was that for most of the game there was no one there. Not a single player. How the eff is a team even meant to try and kick goals without a forward line? And I'm not just tallking about "forwards" as such, anyone. I wouldn't have cared if Carroll was one out in the goal square, at least give them something.

That was my problem, not that there weren't any "forwards", there was bloody well anyone.

By the time a player did get down there, Melbourne's indirect and slow ball movement (by the way didn't anyone tell them that when playing in the wet, you DON'T want to over possess the ball, becuase it might be a little slippery?) meant that Geelong were able to get numbers back and rebound quickly.

You were watching it on TV I assume Nasher?

You said we didn't have a single forward target, but that we should bomb it to the top of the square.... Umm?

No, it's a two fold statement as is my OP. If you actually read what is said.

"...when forwards would line up in the forward line (There is someone to kick it to) and those guys that run around in the middle would try and get the ball as quickly as they could to them? (The word "bomb was never mentioned. Quickly can be through running and long passing which isn't always "bombing")

We used the same tactic with no tall forwards last week and scored quite freely.

You need to create that space to run into if you don't have anyone who can take a grab which is why we had a lot of people up the ground. If we put a token person up forward then you take away that space and Geelong zone back very easily to the long ball.

It's a tough ask when your 'marking' target up forward is Paul Johnson. Just shows how important Miller has been to our structure.

Just one more thing, when a player does actually line up in the forward line, why does he stand 40 metres from goal with no one behind him?

The problem for all of the Mick Malthouse's on this forum who can't find their sheep is that when that player then leads for the ball, if he receives it he will be around 60-70 metres from goal. Now, the problem is that because he was the closest player to goal initially, he has to wait for other players to run down so that they can receive the ball within scoring distance.

The problem can be completely eliminated if the forwards start deep and lead to a space that they are within scoring distance from.

We used the same tactic with no tall forwards last week and scored quite freely.

It's not a tactic that will win you a Premiership. You need forwards in the forward line to kick goals. Bailey got a coaching lesson last night and it's a shame becuase his player development has been very good. I just fear that we picked up another tactical dud.

How many premierships is a team without its top 3 key forwards going to win?

You don't lose by 19 goals due to poor tactics. You could lose by 5 goals, but not 19.

You said we didn't have a single forward target, but that we should bomb it to the top of the square.... Umm?

I don't by any means support the style of chipping it around, especially in the wet, but when you've got absolutely no targets, what's the alternative? The kick by Bruce to a team mate flanked by the opposition was a poor option and he should rightfully be grilled for it, but I don't see how it's any worse an option than bombing it to nobody in the goalsquare.

I'd love to watch the replay again and count how many times a Geelong backman took an uncontested mark in the square btw. It was more than a few.

I agree Nasher, but it's not the players' fault that there isn't a tall forward to kick to. It's the coaching panel's fault. We need someone in the forward line to take a mark. Anyone. And both Newton and Holland aren't playing. There wasn't anyone to kick to becuase the coaches didn't select one.

And for mine, Bruce should have kicked it long, because I believe, if you're going to turn it over, you might as well turn it over as far away from the opposition's goals as possible.

How many premierships is a team without its top 3 key forwards going to win?

You don't lose by 19 goals due to poor tactics. You could lose by 5 goals, but not 19.

I don't think Melbourne were ever going to win, no matter how well they played. My point is that they were never going to play well at all if they didn't have ANY options up forward.

Put Aussie one out in the goal square and kick it along the ground to him. Anything.

With a slippery ball?

Besides, the ball wasn't reaching the goalsquare and we needed to find a way through half forward.