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.

Unfortunately Rogue the same problems have been occurring since round 1, 2007 when I first pointed this out. Nothing has changed and the same problems keep occurring.

Albert Einstein's definition of insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

The most frustrating thing was that when Melbourne did do something right (such as kick the ball long into a forward line to forwards who were no out-numbered which results in a goal) they would then change that by again dropping an extra player into defence or dragging the player who kicked the goal.

Well what it shows is that people think you are wrong on your assessment of DB and guess what, they are right

No, no one has been able to argue against what I have been saying, or argue successfully for the tactics and structure that Bailey has implemented. Instead they are pulling out irrelevant excuses such as the lack of "experienced players" argument that I proved wrong, because it doesn't take 150 games experience to know how to start on the goal line at a centre bounce.

I have not seen a single person come and out and say "well I'm sure glad Melbourne didn't put any anyone in their forward line, it worked really well".

Unfortunately Rogue the same problems have been occurring since round 1, 2007 when I first pointed this out. Nothing has changed and the same problems keep occurring.

Albert Einstein's definition of insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

The most frustrating thing was that when Melbourne did do something right (such as kick the ball long into a forward line to forwards who were no out-numbered which results in a goal) they would then change that by again dropping an extra player into defence or dragging the player who kicked the goal.

No, no one has been able to argue against what I have been saying, or argue successfully for the tactics and structure that Bailey has implemented. Instead they are pulling out irrelevant excuses such as the lack of "experienced players" argument that I proved wrong, because it doesn't take 150 games experience to know how to start on the goal line at a centre bounce.

I have not seen a single person come and out and say "well I'm sure glad Melbourne didn't put any anyone in their forward line, it worked really well".

Don't waste your time Clint. It's impossible to argue with people who have no comprehension of what team structure and gameplans are about. Unfortunately, this applies to about 90% of the posters on this forum.

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.

That's because our forwards don't run back to position quick enough once we win the contest.

Every single time the Roos kicked out, their defenders were nicely spread out and kept pushing up the ground as they cleared the 50m arc. Our forwards ran with them, as they should. When a turnover did occur, and we won possession, our forwards were trying to call for the ball 70m from goal instead of running back into the forward 50 and letting the midfielders do the linking. This means that either our forwards aren't fit enough or fast enough to get back into position (hello Aaron Davey back into the damn forward line!), or they are just really dumb. Perhaps it is a combination of both.

Bailey does not tell his players to stay away from the forward line. However if you understood the idea of zones and fast possession-oriented football, you would realise that in order to execute this, you need to have players who are fast, smart and can read the play. Or alternatively a forward who is so good, that you can leave him one on one and trust that he'll kick goals for you (i.e.- Fev, Buddy, Brown, Pavlich). Bailey can only work with what he has, which at the moment is not much.

On the odd chance that we did win a clean clearance and got the ball into our forwards quickly, there were often enough of them in there to compete (we were winning the clearances up to half time, which is why we remained competitive*). That they are all fairly average and struggle to win a contest is another matter all together. I think at half time the Roos had 8 contested marks and we had 1. That is not a structural problem, it's a crapness problem.

*Note also that a classy midfield which gets first use of the ball is always going to make your forwards look better. We do not have a classy midfield, which in my opinion is a much bigger issue than our current forward line.

Edit: I also wanted to add that, when you have ordinary forwards who can't take contested marks (and funny that someone just started a thread to tell us that we took just 1 contested mark today), the best way to combat this is to have your forwards move up with the game, and then be clever enough to push back when we win possession. This is meant to create a situation where they end up free in the forward line, or alternatively lose their direct opponent and end up in a one-on-one contest with a mismatched defender, where they have a better chance of taking the mark. Of course this plan fails when our forwards are too unfit/slow/dumb to push back hard enough to create this situation.

Don't waste your time Clint. It's impossible to argue with people who have no comprehension of what team structure and gameplans are about. Unfortunately, this applies to about 90% of the posters on this forum.

Maybe you should IM your message to Clint.

Because that passage makes you seem arrogant and patronising.

Just a thought.

BTW, Laidley is a better coach than Bailey. Right now, that's the truth. What he has done with that list is phenomenal.

Bailey will get better as the team develops, his matchday coaching matters for very little at the moment because it's the difference between a 6 goal loss and a 4 goal loss.

It's impossible to argue with people who have no comprehension of what team structure and gameplans are about. Unfortunately, this applies to about 90% of the posters on this forum.

So Mo what list management changes and what game plan given our list characteristics should we have been implementing over the past year or so?

...Still waiting.....

So Mo what list management changes and what game plan given our list characteristics should we have been implementing over the past year or so?

...Still waiting.....

You are definitely in the 90% who don't comprehend what team structure and gameplans are about, so I'm not going to waste my time explaining it to you.

You are definitely in the 90% who don't comprehend what team structure and gameplans are about, so I'm not going to waste my time explaining it to you.

Just answer the question Mo for the benefit of others.

You clearly believe you have a superior comprehension of what team structures and game plans are about.

Well now is the time to prove it.

Dont be a scaredy cat now.

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.

This killed us numerous times yesterday. The half forward line would start on the edge of the centre square, then run in to contest the centre bounce. The North defenders, though, would often hang back, knowing that if a Melbourne player got the clearance, the resulting kick would end up around the half forward line, where the North defenders could take the ball. It was a poor choice of strategy.

You also mentioned the rotations: there was one instance yesterday where a Melbourne player was called off the ground, leaving his opponent to take an uncontested mark just seconds later. I couldn't believe that a player could come off the ground when he was in such a position.

Certainly the coaches' strategies are playing some role in our performances.

Maybe you should IM your message to Clint.

Because that passage makes you seem arrogant and patronising.

Just a thought.

BTW, Laidley is a better coach than Bailey. Right now, that's the truth. What he has done with that list is phenomenal.

Bailey will get better as the team develops, his matchday coaching matters for very little at the moment because it's the difference between a 6 goal loss and a 4 goal loss.

Laidley inherited a diabolical list after a series of abysmal trades. His gameplan in his 1st season was the same high possession/keepings off crap that Bailey's adopted, and North's results were deplorable. Season 2 with the same average list, and Laidley totally changes his gameplan and structure to a more direct style that also involves kicking long to tall targets with crumbers at the feet.

It's not hard to comprehend, the less skilled your players are, the less you should overpossess the football.

A lot of the rotations which happened yesterday through the midfield and forwardline, were instigated by the players.

I sit right near the bench and saw a number of times players put their hand up and request to come off. Not sure if it's a fitness issue or a management issue.

It's not hard to comprehend, the less skilled your players are, the less you should overpossess the football.

You don't adapt your game plan to suit crap players who can't hit a target.

You find players who can hit a target!

A lot of the rotations which happened yesterday through the midfield and forwardline, were instigated by the players.

I sit right near the bench and saw a number of times players put their hand up and request to come off. Not sure if it's a fitness issue or a management issue.

I just don't understand why a player must come off after kicking a goal as Green did.

You obviously sit down low in the stand Jaded, so do yourself a favour and sit up high next time. I sit up the top in the Northern stand and from there you can get a far better overall picture of what is happening, in particular with the structure being used. It's like trying to gauge structure from watching a game on TV, almost impossible to do because you can't see the full picture.

- 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.

I agree with most of your assessment regarding the structure. I had some concern with the selections leading into the game, with North going in with plenty of height. Personally, I would have tried Newton at Full Forward for Round 1, I wouldn't have played Bate up forward out numbered with the North defence dropping back. At least he would have been a better option up forward when Melbourne went long.

What concerned me was the instructions to the midfielders. Were they told to bomb it long? Surely not, with our forward set up. Too often, the likes of Morton, Bruce, and others bombed it in when we were either out numbered or lacked the nous and/or height to get our hands on the pill. North got the ball back out too easily for mine.

You don't adapt your game plan to suit crap players who can't hit a target.

You find players who can hit a target!

Well that's it isn't it?

Hawthorn, Geelong, Bulldogs drafted for skills and they play a run-and-carry style (similar to Bailey's) that requires a high degree of handballing skill, precise kicking, and excellent vision.

If you have plodders, they are not going to take you to the promised land so why accomodate them by changing your gameplan to suit them.

Moloney struggled with it in games last year, but, if yesterday was any indication, has adapted quickly (20 handballs out of 29 touches). We have some good players that need to do the same, or wait for Maric, Bail, Blease, Strauss, Grimes, or Valenti to take their place.

And BTW, who wants to to watch a game of keepings off along the boundary line that Collingwood played the last couple of years and reverted to when their run-and-carry failed against Adelaide. Awful footy.

What concerned me was the instructions to the midfielders. Were they told to bomb it long? Surely not, with our forward set up. Too often, the likes of Morton, Bruce, and others bombed it in when we were either out numbered or lacked the nous and/or height to get our hands on the pill. North got the ball back out too easily for mine.

The issue isn't about bombing it long, the issue is having enough forwards there in the first place.

Because despite what the Underpants Gnomes think, kicking it long to the top of the square with tall forwards and crumbers at their feet is still an extremely effective tactic and when I get a chance to watch the game again I would like to see how many goals were the result of long kicks into the forward line.

You don't adapt your game plan to suit crap players who can't hit a target.

You find players who can hit a target!

As Hannabal mentioned in a post regarding Richmond, their players can hit targets at training, but failed under match-day pressure. I believe that we are in the same boat. We still have a group of players who could hit targets in 2006 and prior, and have since drafted kids who could do the same at junior level.

We have players who can win contested ball in McLean, Jones, Moloney and McDonald. but we put ourselves under pressure by handballing to targets who are under just as much pressure. Unless you have players of the ilk of Judd, Ablett, Kerr, Hodge etc., who can extricate themselves from a congested contest, you are rarely going to get midfield clearances under little pressure. And unfortunately, a quick kick into the forward line is not an option for our ball winners because we don't play with a forward structure that allows this.

So good luck in drafting elite midfielders capable of making Bailey's gameplan work.

The issue isn't about bombing it long, the issue is having enough forwards there in the first place.

Because despite what the Underpants Gnomes think, kicking it long to the top of the square with tall forwards and crumbers at their feet is still an extremely effective tactic and when I get a chance to watch the game again I would like to see how many goals were the result of long kicks into the forward line.

Do you understand though, that this tactic is only effective when you are winning the ball cleanly and moving it through the centre quickly? If the ball has come out of our forward line, moved back up the ground and is now coming back, you are not going to have 6 forwards standing around looking pretty while all that is going on. No team plays with 6 or even 5 permanent forwards anymore. Everyone has to push up the ground to provide support or alternative to block their man from winning the ball. I don't remember who, but one of Carlton's defenders (Waite?) kicked 2 or 3 goals on Thursday night. If ANY of our forwards ever allowed their man to kick even one goal, they should be dragged and banished.

The trick is to know when to get back into your forward spot once you win possession (and we're talking winning possession in general play, not out of the centre). Obviously, our forwards haven't really worked that out yet, and moreover, some of them (especially Bate), are just not quick enough to suit this style IMO.

No team plays with 6 or even 5 permanent forwards anymore. Everyone has to push up the ground to provide support or alternative to block their man from winning the ball.

Hard to tell on Tele, but the commentators said we were playing a sixteen man rolling zone, which a lot of sides do. That basically leaves two forwards isolated in the forward line.

Hard to tell on Tele, but the commentators said we were playing a sixteen man rolling zone, which a lot of sides do. That basically leaves two forwards isolated in the forward line.

Indeed.

And when those two forwards happen to be Bate and Miller (or worse, PJ), you're always going to struggle, as neither are good enough to be the main attraction. In the short term, Robbo will help this a fair bit, in the long term, it's Watts and Jurrah hopefully.

The issue isn't about bombing it long, the issue is having enough forwards there in the first place.

Because despite what the Underpants Gnomes think, kicking it long to the top of the square with tall forwards and crumbers at their feet is still an extremely effective tactic and when I get a chance to watch the game again I would like to see how many goals were the result of long kicks into the forward line.

Tell me after you see it again, when 'we bombed it' long into the forward line - ie. a pack situation, how effective it turned out. From what I recall, we didn't take many contested marks and if it wasn't marked by the opposition, North cleared out the ball more often than not and rebounded. We looked more effective in good pieces of play and spotting someone on the lead on the run by kicking into space. More appropriate given our forward line.

A good piece of play down the members wing which resulted in a few precision kicks which included Petterd who kicked precisely to someone in the 50m arc. Resulted in a goal. That was a goal from a kick-in from memory. Sides like Geelong and Hawthorn do that week in week out, sometimes each quarter in a game. If we can replicate that more often, we'll be a far better side.

Tell me after you see it again, when 'we bombed it' long into the forward line - ie. a pack situation, how effective it turned out. From what I recall, we didn't take many contested marks and if it wasn't marked by the opposition, North cleared out the ball more often than not and rebounded. We looked more effective in good pieces of play and spotting someone on the lead on the run by kicking into space. More appropriate given our forward line.

A good piece of play down the members wing which resulted in a few precision kicks which included Petterd who kicked precisely to someone in the 50m arc. Resulted in a goal. That was a goal from a kick-in from memory. Sides like Geelong and Hawthorn do that week in week out, sometimes each quarter in a game. If we can replicate that more often, we'll be a far better side.

Exactly what I saw, but on a lot of occaions we did not kick it into the 50 quick enough, we were still a bit slow in doing that, and we had to bomb it in. The much maligned Bate I watched him do two leads and be ignored.........we still looked for the easy option...Morton is the one I feel sorry for with the slowness..he hides in a hole in the ground and then pops up unmarked but we don't see him .....DB has again picked this as the problem area....so it's not as if he thinks it's working perfectly...but Sylvia and Newton will not be the answer......Newton by all reports did absolutely nothing at the weekend at Casey and Sylvia needs to have a least 8 quarters at Casey where he puts in for all of them....I personally think the only change we may this weekend is Bail coming in for a taste to try and bring a bit of run

So good luck in drafting elite midfielders capable of making Bailey's gameplan work.

Its a matter of drafting elite to competent midfielders that have the skill by foot, hand and brain to execute any game plan that will win you a premiership.

You seemed to think that there is some short cut game plan that will bring you success with players that lack all or any of the following: pace, decision making, foot and hand skills. There isn't. If you dont have the players of the requisite skill base and capabilities then no game plan will cover the deficiency.

There isn't. The only thing that really seperates the top sides (Geelong, Hawthorn) and the sides that battle for the remaining spots down the list is the quality of the players they have to implement the current major game style of the rolling zone. Both NM and MFC were doing it on Sunday. The thing that separate the teams was the calibre, experience and skill of the players in each side. And NM executed better than MFC did but there were some good signs for MFC.

As Hannabal mentioned in a post regarding Richmond, their players can hit targets at training, but failed under match-day pressure. I believe that we are in the same boat. We still have a group of players who could hit targets in 2006 and prior, and have since drafted kids who could do the same at junior level.

We have players who can win contested ball in McLean, Jones, Moloney and McDonald. but we put ourselves under pressure by handballing to targets who are under just as much pressure. Unless you have players of the ilk of Judd, Ablett, Kerr, Hodge etc., who can extricate themselves from a congested contest, you are rarely going to get midfield clearances under little pressure. And unfortunately, a quick kick into the forward line is not an option for our ball winners because we don't play with a forward structure that allows this.

So good luck in drafting elite midfielders capable of making Bailey's gameplan work.

I believe Bailey and Prendergast have. And Geelong did, as did Hawthorn, the Bulldogs, Adelaide...

Strauss, Blease, Maric, Grimes, Morton, Bennell, and Cheney look to be excellent kicks from what I have seen.

All play in positions vital to execute the run-and-carry style - HBF, wing, or centre.

Moloney, Jones, and McLean can adapt.

When these quicker boys with skills come in they will take the positions of Bruce, Green, and Macca. So if these three can adapt they can all play in the one midfield to give us first use. They had 18 clearances on Sunday between them, very impressive.

A good piece of play down the members wing which resulted in a few precision kicks which included Petterd who kicked precisely to someone in the 50m arc. Resulted in a goal. That was a goal from a kick-in from memory.

If you are talking about Green's goal, that is a perfect example of what Clint is talking about. Nothing overly 'precision' about the kicking, it was just that the players well forward of the play were leading hard into space, and there were options 50 metres upfield for the ball carrier to kick to. It was quick, direct kicking. As opposed to handball, backwards, chip, sideways, fumble, turnover that seems to happen so regularly due to our flooded midfield and lack of options up the ground.

And the final ball inside 50 from Ricky was aimed at Miller deep in the pocket (doh!) but because we had a 2 on 2 deep in our forward line (just about the only one all day) and Green's opponent flew to spoil, he was left to run into the goal by crumbing at the back of the pack.

Its a matter of drafting elite to competent midfielders that have the skill by foot, hand and brain to execute any game plan that will win you a premiership.

You seemed to think that there is some short cut game plan that will bring you success with players that lack all or any of the following: pace, decision making, foot and hand skills. There isn't. If you dont have the players of the requisite skill base and capabilities then no game plan will cover the deficiency.

There isn't. The only thing that really seperates the top sides (Geelong, Hawthorn) and the sides that battle for the remaining spots down the list is the quality of the players they have to implement the current major game style of the rolling zone. Both NM and MFC were doing it on Sunday. The thing that separate the teams was the calibre, experience and skill of the players in each side. And NM executed better than MFC did but there were some good signs for MFC.

I agree totaly, if anyone at the game and i mean at the game saw some good signs for 3 quarters they would have walked away alot happier than last year we are a long way of in the rebuild and have loads of potential to come in never once has bailey and co promised anything but persisting this year and we should see better results next year short term we have Robbo,Sylvia, Grimes, Martin and even Newton and yes he didnt do much at Casey last week but for the very first time i felt from what i saw he really showed he was trying his guts out especially his defensive side working up the ground and was never close to scoring yet passed of well always looking for others

long term well the obvious are Jurrah Watts Blease and co more so Jurrah later in the year,

much more to look forward to than last year at this very same point in time ???????

Its a matter of drafting elite to competent midfielders that have the skill by foot, hand and brain to execute any game plan that will win you a premiership.

You seemed to think that there is some short cut game plan that will bring you success with players that lack all or any of the following: pace, decision making, foot and hand skills. There isn't. If you dont have the players of the requisite skill base and capabilities then no game plan will cover the deficiency.

This is spot on and is the situation we are faced with.