- No players (or never enough) players in the forward line. The game was lost at the very start of the third quarter when Melbourne had three forwards to North’s five defenders. How often would a player have the ball in the middle and look up to see an outnumbered forward or no forwards at all?

- Overuse of the handball. Again, this can be linked back to the poor forward structure where players were often forced to fiddle around with the ball while they waited for an option to present itself up forward. The first option of any player should be to see if there is a player free long up ahead, if not then go short. At one stage McLean had the ball

- Buckley as a defender. His long penetrating kick set up a goal and created opportunities early in the game, why not play him where he can do it more often? Moloney too set up a good goal with his long kicking.

- Leading to the boundary. If a player is leading to the boundary, then that’s the sign to put them on the bench. It achieves nothing as we saw when Paul Johnson kicked the ball on the full trying to hit Miller (the boundary specialist) who was running to the pocket. Even if Miller did mark the ball he would have been kicking from an impossible angle and passing it off would have been far more difficult as North would have had that extra time to flood back, man-up and fill in space.

- Players starting 20 metres out. Why oh why were Melbourne’s forwards starting each centre bounce 20-30 metres out from goal with no one on the goal line? All that happens is that when they lead for the ball, instead of marking it 20-30 metres out they are marking it 50-60 metres out. Straight away they are losing all that space to lead into. Why do it?

- Too many rotations. Twice, Brad Green was dragged straight after kicking a goal. Why? If something is working don’t change it. This leads into the next point.

- If it ain’t broke. When Melbourne was playing well today, too often the structure would then change. They would stop what they were doing that was working (kicking the ball long and direct to four or five players in the forward line that weren’t out-numbered which created opportunities) and go defensive, chipping the ball around and go back to having a loose man in defence. At no time today when Melbourne played a loose man in defence were they on top or played well.

There are a lot of people who will come out and say “the skills were poor” and they were just weren’t “competitive” and that is all true. However, the root of the problem was the structure and the mindset that it gave the players. A poor structure meant that players were continually unnecessarily under pressure through a lack of options in the front half of the ground.

Yes, they had “possession” (remember that in “modern football” possession is king), but that all counts for nothing if they don’t do anything with the ball and they can’t do anything with the ball if there is no one to do it with!

Like I said, the game was lost at the very start of the third quarter when Melbourne started with three forwards to North’s five defenders.

Almost all these criticisms are related to forward line, our forward structure and how we enter the forward 50.

The fact is that at this point in time we simply do not have quality forwards players. We don't have the cattle up front to kick lots of goals.

Pettard isn't a true forward, Bate isn't a fullforward, Miller was never a big goalkicker and Jetta is a first gamer.

Therefore, these criticisms aren't really Bailey's fault. He's not a miracle worker, he cannot turn average forward players into superstars over the summer.

These problems will be addressed when Watts, Sylvia, Maric and Robbo are added to the forward line later in the year and into the future.

Agree that our forward line is the major concern at the moment.

We need to get our most dangerous players, whether they are big or small in the forward line and leave them there. There is no point players like Davey, Green and Sylvia pushing up the ground or playing on the ball if there is nobody to kick it to.

It is bad coaching to not address this issue over the break. Our forward structure has not changed from last year which is very disappointing.

Almost all these criticisms are related to forward line, our forward structure and how we enter the forward 50.

The fact is that at this point in time we simply do not have quality forwards players. We don't have the cattle up front to kick lots of goals.

Pettard isn't a true forward, Bate isn't a fullforward, Miller was never a big goalkicker and Jetta is a first gamer.

Therefore, these criticisms aren't really Bailey's fault. He's not a miracle worker, he cannot turn average forward players into superstars over the summer.

These problems will be addressed when Watts, Sylvia, Maric and Robbo are added to the forward line later in the year and into the future.

Well said Sylvinator. You can only work with what you have and the forwards cupboard is pretty bare.

Plus what do you expect our forwards to do when their direct opponent is pushing up the ground? They have to make them accountable. So when you don't win enough clear ball at the centre bounce and you don't have a forward who commands enough respect to drag one or two defenders out of the game and into the square, that's what you are left with.

Anyone know what our inside 50 stats were? That is an area we really struggled in last year - even Roughy and Buddy can't win a game if the ball isn't coming inside 50. Considering the significant development of our backline and recruitment of high draft pick midfielders we are using a similar development plan to Geelong rather then Hawthorn. Either way I don't mind, as long as our young players improve their skills as a collective group and build a strong team ethos based on courage, gut running and sticking together rather then chasing big money.

When Dean Bailey took over Melbourne we had a backline that was in disarray. In 12 months, he has turned it around completely.

Expect him to do the same with the mids and forwards.

He inherited a crap list from Daniher, and it will take time to build.

I can see the midfield improving this year as our backs did in 2008. And next season our forwards will follow suit.

This team will be primed for 2011 onwards, and we will have legit key position players that will be the envy of the AFL.

If we hit targets we would have won today, that's where we are behind other teams. Our gameplan is fine, structure fine etc, time to HIT TARGETS!

You are all completely missing the point.

The problem was not the quality of forwards but the quantity. Often there were no options. None. Brand Green should have been left in the forward line for the whole game because he at least provided a target.

Plus what do you expect our forwards to do when their direct opponent is pushing up the ground? They have to make them accountable. So when you don't win enough clear ball at the centre bounce and you don't have a forward who commands enough respect to drag one or two defenders out of the game and into the square, that's what you are left with.

Jaded, no backline is going to leave their forward opponents completely om their own in their forward line.

The Melbourne forwards were the ones pushing up the ground. That's great, as they might help win the ball in the middle, but when the Melbourne gets the ball, what next? There's no one to kick it it.

All you modern football/possession football folk have the Underpants Gnome way of thinking.

Phase 1: Get possession of the ball

Phase 2: ?

Phase 3: Kick goals

Unlike Clint Bizkit I was unable to be at the game and could only listen to the radio broadcast occassionally. I can't nelieve that we picked up Daen Bailey as a coach when this guy is obviously so superior in all aspects of strategy and coaching. Come on Clint get off the coaches back and be aware that we are in the phase of rebuilding from the ground up/ The impression I gained from what I heard is that we were soundly beaten in the ruck and I hardly find that surprising when ypung Jake was i for his first senior game and apparently Paul Johnson had a game he will not be displaying in his player highlites. Added to this was a lack of ball disposal skills which led to some turnovers and ultimately goals/

I personally am of the opinion that we didn't go too bacly although falling away in the last quarter. Last season we were falling away in the second.

Let us all remain behind the team and that means baxking the coach whom I have every faith will turn this team around.

Go Dees and let's see what we can do against the wobbles next week..

You're criticising a gameplan that can only really be implemented successfully with an experienced team (as with other gameplans). No matter how Bailey teaches this team, they won't get it right so soon. What do you expect? Patience my friend. I could understand your gripes if this was an experience team with plenty of finals experience, but it's not.

Our forwards were genuinely outnumbered a fair few times but what I also noticed was our ground coverage was no where near as good as the Kangaroos defenders. Even if we were kicking to a 1 on 1 or a 2 on 2 situation, by the time the ball came to dispute, there would be an extra Roos player there as an option. From a marking set up, we rarely had a player roving to the forward target as a crumber where the Roos did and most of that was due to reading the play and working harder and quicker. We seriously need to get (even a makeshift) forward structure happening not just for the ball carrier to hit a target but so each forward knows their own role and how to interact with the other forwards to put pressure on oppostion defences. Bate and Miller didn't seem to have an established relationship of any kind and kind of did what they wanted without any structure or purpose. Ricky P used the flanks well leading out from a pocket though.

Another thing we have to improve on is our timing. Too often players (in possesion) took too long to get into a comfortable kicking position on the run when we needed them to place a low long kick and that hurt us a fair bit as the player on the lead would then be camped under the pass. Having said this, in the first half I though some of our ball carriers kicked the ball too early on the run instead of continuing due to the forward target being covered. In essence I think our ball carriers need to assess situations a little better when on the run as well as forwards creating valid options for them. The Roos didn't seem to have these complications when running the ball forward too often as they had a blend of speed when it mattered, running in numbers and experience.

You're criticising a gameplan that can only really be implemented successfully with an experienced team (as with other gameplans). No matter how Bailey teaches this team, they won't get it right so soon. What do you expect? Patience my friend. I could understand your gripes if this was an experience team with plenty of finals experience, but it's not.

Only experienced players can start a centre bounce on the goal line with space to lead into?

Only experienced players can lead up the ground and not to a pocket?

Only experienced players can start at the centre bounce with five to six forwards making sure that they are not so grossly out-numbered that the ball will just rebound out again?

Only experienced players can not be put on the bench after every time they do something good, such as kick a goal?

Without a solid structure, no game plan can be implemented no matter how good or the team or the plan is. The structure comes directly from the coaches box as they tell the players where they are playing, what position, where on the ground and who they are playing on.

Well said Sylvinator. You can only work with what you have and the forwards cupboard is pretty bare.

The point that Clint is making is not that the forwards are poor (which they are) but that the direct coaching message seems to be that our half-forwards and pockets are required to play outside the forward 50, even when we are in possession. This is something that happened in the last 2 Daniher years and Bailey has continued. Not only beginning from the centre bounces with only 3,4 or 5 in the forward 50 (with an extra wingman and/or half-back), but as the play continues these guys are being sucked up the ground leaving us devoid of targets up forward and outnumbered at full-forward, because 1 or 2 opposition defenders (Scott Thompson today, Fisher from St Kilda in the past) don't follow their opponent into the midfield and just wall up across our half-forward.

What I'd love to see is Buckley streaming through midfield and able to look up into a forward 50 with 5 or 6 forwards leading at him from 60 m away, instead of being surrounded by teammates looking for the handball but no-one to kick to up forward.

Late in the last quarter, we were 4-5 goals down and STILL had Bruce beginning at the bounce as a loose half-back, not because they dropped a man back (they were playing 6 forwards) but because Bailey had instigated the loose man.

Obviously Bailey doesn't have the 'cattle' up forward to be really threatening this season, but the reality id that we do not have a plethora of midfielders capable of hurting opposition teams going forward, so we need to score our goals using a dedicated forward line that plays close to goal.

When Dean Bailey took over Melbourne we had a backline that was in disarray. In 12 months, he has turned it around completely.

Expect him to do the same with the mids and forwards.

He inherited a crap list from Daniher, and it will take time to build.

I can see the midfield improving this year as our backs did in 2008. And next season our forwards will follow suit.

This team will be primed for 2011 onwards, and we will have legit key position players that will be the envy of the AFL.

Your best post.

The funny thing is that no one has actually addressed any of the issues that I have pointed out.

Instead they have just talked about another issue.

alot of players seem to be playing out of position due to us having no forwards. It will be amazing how things will click together when we find our tall forward. (newton?)

If we hit targets we would have won today, that's where we are behind other teams. Our gameplan is fine, structure fine etc, time to HIT TARGETS!

could not agree more!!!!! it was driving me nuts today watching a player lead up to the ball only to have it kicked straight over his head :angry:

You're criticising a gameplan that can only really be implemented successfully with an experienced team (as with other gameplans). No matter how Bailey teaches this team, they won't get it right so soon. What do you expect? Patience my friend. I could understand your gripes if this was an experience team with plenty of finals experience, but it's not.

My sentiments exactly, took Hawthorn 3 years to adapt to Clarksons plan steady as we go we are rebuilding and when Watts Jurrah are ready all be it a long way of we wil be the better for it Bailey is doing fantastic with the cattle he has so far so 4 wins would be realistic on todays game

I think the problem is that we simply cannot allow teams to have a loose man in our defence. We are bereft of talent down there as well know, so allowing a team to have one extra man will kill us constantly. Miller and Bate didn't provide much today, but how often did they receive good kicks going forward? Not often. How many times did they have to contest against 2 or even 3 defenders? Regularly. Bailey can't afford to let it happen. He needs to make sure we go man on man down there - I think our backline is good enough now to hold it's own without the loose man in defence.

But what can we do anyway? Robbo and Aussie are injured, Watts and Jurrah are not ready, Maric is probably still a week away and Sylvia is a pain in the arse (I'm not even mentioning Newton in this list. He doesn't count anymore). Our forward line will take time, no doubt about that.

I agree Clint. On too many occasions strings of handballs with no real forward momentum came undone because the players looked up and saw nothing to kick to. Unlike Geelong, we fail to have purpose when streaming forward with handballs, instead we look like chickens with our heads cut off, constantly handballing to players under the pump. A lot of it has to do with working as a team to move the ball forward, sheperding and blocking at stoppages/scrimmages.

The funny thing is that no one has actually addressed any of the issues that I have pointed out.

Instead they have just talked about another issue.

Well what it shows is that people think you are wrong on your assessment of DB and guess what, they are right do you really think that we will be challenging for a top eight position this year this year? but hell there is a great upside for this club, just not this year so give them a break.

I think the problem is that we simply cannot allow teams to have a loose man in our defence. We are bereft of talent down there as well know, so allowing a team to have one extra man will kill us constantly. Miller and Bate didn't provide much today, but how often did they receive good kicks going forward? Not often. How many times did they have to contest against 2 or even 3 defenders? Regularly. Bailey can't afford to let it happen. He needs to make sure we go man on man down there - I think our backline is good enough now to hold it's own without the loose man in defence.

But what can we do anyway? Robbo and Aussie are injured, Watts and Jurrah are not ready, Maric is probably still a week away and Sylvia is a pain in the arse (I'm not even mentioning Newton in this list. He doesn't count anymore). Our forward line will take time, no doubt about that.

Quote of the week, i will give juice credit as yesterday he for the first time in my eyes looked like he wanted to play footy at top level tried hard all day

I agree Clint. On too many occasions strings of handballs with no real forward momentum came undone because the players looked up and saw nothing to kick to. Unlike Geelong, we fail to have purpose when streaming forward with handballs, instead we look like chickens with our heads cut off, constantly handballing to players under the pump. A lot of it has to do with working as a team to move the ball forward, sheperding and blocking at stoppages/scrimmages.

I also think too many of our players don't run hard enough. Geelong, like you mentioned, are the perfect model - when the turnover occurs and they win the footy they stream forward to give them options. We, on the other hand, simply jog around and look for the handpass in tight situations. We may end up with a few free playes on the wings but there is no-one running back after that. This is when our forwards, who struggle as it is, have to contest againt 2 or 3 defenders. Too many of our players don't run hard enough, and too many of our players are SLOW. We don't work hard to give that option running forward.

The forward 'structure' showed the same problems as last year - plenty of times we'd win the ball and there'd be no options down field (or our forwards would be outnumbered 3:1 etc).

Unfortunately the player with the ball gets the wrath of the "just kick it" fans who fail to notice there's only one foward of the ball and he has three opponents on him.