Bombing it long

[mikeod 21]

In the first quarter, Melbourne were picking out targets in the forward line after moving the ball quickly into the forward line.

About halfway through the second quarter, when the rot began, Melbourne stopped looking for targets in the forward line, and any forward-thrust through the midfield was followed up by a bomb into the forward line.

Why would you even consider doing this with the forward line Melbourne have at the moment.

Sadly, it seems James McDonald is one of the main culprits here, with Brent Moloney also there.

Why do they do it?!

[H_T 3,043]

In the first quarter, Melbourne were picking out targets in the forward line after moving the ball quickly into the forward line.

About halfway through the second quarter, when the rot began, Melbourne stopped looking for targets in the forward line, and any forward-thrust through the midfield was followed up by a bomb into the forward line.

Why would you even consider doing this with the forward line Melbourne have at the moment.

Sadly, it seems James McDonald is one of the main culprits here, with Brent Moloney also there.

Why do they do it?!

Much similar to my thoughts after the game against the Kangaroos. Then it was the likes of Morton, Bruce & Co. Why? It can't be fatigue because Bailey reckons they're fit. Saying they're 'just young players' is a cop out from now on, the culprits are more often the more experienced ones, they should no better. Good sides like the Geelong's, Hawthorns, Western Bulldogs and even Carlton's midfield now run and carry until a pin point pass is on. We don't have the midfield, there is a lack of talk and support surrounding the ball carrier. So they bomb it long. - IF IN DOUBT THEY GIVE IT A CLOUT! To an opposition defence ready to rebound.

What on earth was McLean thinking from 45-50m, running into an open goal. He kicked it straight to a collingwood player at the top of the goal square. He seemed to hedge his bets and have $2 each way. There were 2 options. EIther a pin point pass to one of 3 Melbourne players on a lead. Or a shot at goal from 50m. He elected neither. It was a brain fade of massive proportions, much like Davey's kick in, where he didn't tap the ball with his boot before playing on, resulting in a bounce.

Less than a minute or so remaining before 3/4 time. Again, like last week, Miller lining up for goal 45m on a 45 degree angle. When our team needed a goal from one of more experienced leaders going into 3/4 time....missed. It was times like this instance where Neita used to stand up and kick the important goal. Arrghh!

[45HG 1,539]

Best call in footy - kick it long!

[Yze_Magic 3]

I am all for kicking it long.

In 2 years time when we have Watts, Butcher and Jurrah up there.

[Freak 100]

jurrah is the odd one out of those 3. jurrah was not considered to be in the top 80 odd players for his age so the chances are that he will be a dud. just being realistic

[funky41 0]

High tower. Great wrap up for today.

I rekon you hit the nail on the head with a lot of points. Most importantly being the fact that when it matters, we miss. Simple set shots. Like Miller. He's a professional footballer and paid more than our Prime Minister. He has NO EXCUSE for missing set shots within 50m.

But Im happy we're a young side. With a GREAT backline building. Stef is good. Col G is good. Warnock just keeps doing the right things. Jimbob Frawley is getting better. JR should be our next captain in my opinion.

Our problem is our forward line.

Jack Watts. Please be as good as we hope you will be. Please.

Please.

[BAMF 4,315]

jurrah is the odd one out of those 3. jurrah was not considered to be in the top 80 odd players for his age so the chances are that he will be a dud. just being realistic

So because he wasn't drafted high then he is going to be a dud? Martin wasnt either. does that mean he is most likely to be a dud too? What about Aussie? Oh yeah Jake spencer was drafted after pick 80 so he is most likely to be a dud too, right? Might as well get Meeson in there! he was drafted in the top 10! that means he must be good.

I love it how you think your gods gift to drafting, yet you state crap like this.

Jurrah didn't nominate for the National Draft, so we have no idea where he actually would have gone.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

jurrah is the odd one out of those 3. jurrah was not considered to be in the top 80 odd players for his age so the chances are that he will be a dud. just being realistic

Another case of you dont know and are substituting opinion in absence of evidence.

We should let time run its course with Jurrah. He's a project player who may give us something. We'd be foolish not to explore the options under the situation.

[Jarka 767]

jurrah is the odd one out of those 3. jurrah was not considered to be in the top 80 odd players for his age so the chances are that he will be a dud. just being realistic

As already mentioned Jurrah didn't nominate for the November draft, but don't let facts get in the way of your opinion.

[mo64 5,853]

In the first quarter, Melbourne were picking out targets in the forward line after moving the ball quickly into the forward line.

About halfway through the second quarter, when the rot began, Melbourne stopped looking for targets in the forward line, and any forward-thrust through the midfield was followed up by a bomb into the forward line.

Why would you even consider doing this with the forward line Melbourne have at the moment.

Sadly, it seems James McDonald is one of the main culprits here, with Brent Moloney also there.

Why do they do it?!

Probably out of frustration. In the first quarter, we were able to pinpoint passes due to the lack of pressure from the Pies. When the pressure is applied, we resort to over possessing the football, with an inevitable turnover. And when we overpossess the football, we struggle to score. It's been a common theme under Bailey.

The senior players probably feel the need to stop the rot by applying scoreboard pressure. You can't score without getting the ball inside 50. How many inside 50s have we had in the first 2 games? Unfortunately another common theme under Bailey.

How about playing with a structure and system that gives us more options in the forward 50? How about allowing the mids to push forward and provide an option? How many goals have our mids kicked in the last 2 seasons?

Our sole goal scoring plan is to hit a leading target. What are plans B, C and D?

[classy dees 42]

lets not kid ourselves, in the first quarter we were fine in a no pressure open game. with young and enthusiastic bodies we looked good and got the jump on collingwood.

as soon as they got their feet they started pressuring us and that is where the "quick no look, long bomb" kick into the 50 came in.

our decision making in the more contested style of footy is highly questionable and is not helped by the fact that we dont have a real forward and our best crumber is getting easy kicks off the HBF.

[pitmaster 3,519]

lets not kid ourselves, in the first quarter we were fine in a no pressure open game. with young and enthusiastic bodies we looked good and got the jump on collingwood.

as soon as they got their feet they started pressuring us and that is where the "quick no look, long bomb" kick into the 50 came in.

our decision making in the more contested style of footy is highly questionable and is not helped by the fact that we dont have a real forward and our best crumber is getting easy kicks off the HBF.

It was not just the on-ball pressure. Our game started to break down midway through the second quarter when the woods dropped defenders back into the zones we had been attacking through in the first quarter.

We needed another route to goal and did not have it.

[The Emblem 1]

It was not just the on-ball pressure. Our game started to break down midway through the second quarter when the woods dropped defenders back into the zones we had been attacking through in the first quarter.

We needed another route to goal and did not have it.

Fine obeservation pitmaster.

Also note the tackle count at quarter time:

Collingwood 14

Melbourne 4

We were leading the race to the ball.

[The Emblem 1]

It was not just the on-ball pressure. Our game started to break down midway through the second quarter when the woods dropped defenders back into the zones we had been attacking through in the first quarter.

We needed another route to goal and did not have it.

Fine observation pitmaster.

Also note the tackle count at quarter time:

Collingwood 14

Melbourne 4

We were leading the race to the ball.

[rpfc 28,285]

lets not kid ourselves, in the first quarter we were fine in a no pressure open game. with young and enthusiastic bodies we looked good and got the jump on collingwood.

They didn't start well, but because we were getting it out of the middle. Our midfielders worked hard to get to position (something that Green and Bruce have been doing, unheralded by many, for years), and the ball movement was quick and smart with creative handballs through the guts.

as soon as they got their feet they started pressuring us and that is where the "quick no look, long bomb" kick into the 50 came in.

When McLean, Jones, Cheney, Bennell, and half the defenders tensed up, we lost our run which meant that Davey, Frawley, Bruce, and to a lesser extent Moloney were alone and outnumbered as the tried to run through the middle and it all broke down then. We only had 39 Inside 50s, one less than last week, which means we didn't bomb away into our fwd 50 but from half back after our midfield and defense tensed up. The players need to run more and trust their ability to run-and-carry like they did in the first term.

our decision making in the more contested style of footy is highly questionable and is not helped by the fact that we dont have a real forward and our best crumber is getting easy kicks off the HBF.

11 players under 22 will make poor decisions, we had as many clearances as the Kangas and broke even with C'Wood in the first half. You are implying that as soon as C'Wood started to tackle we lost our confidence, and that is true. We lost our confidence to keep doing what we were doing in the first quarter. But don't diminish the best quarter of footy I have seen from the Dees in years.

And those kicks are not cheap if you do something with them. Ask any Hawthorn supporter about Hodge and his cheap kicks.

[dee-luded 2,959]

lets not kid ourselves, in the first quarter we were fine in a no pressure open game. with young and enthusiastic bodies we looked good and got the jump on collingwood.

as soon as they got their feet they started pressuring us and that is where the "quick no look, long bomb" kick into the 50 came in.

our decision making in the more contested style of footy is highly questionable and is not helped by the fact that we dont have a real forward and our best crumber is getting easy kicks off the HBF.

Yes, thats how I see it.

We will learn to adapt to the pace & pressure, players will get themselves more space & team mates will lend a hand in support.

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

Probably out of frustration. In the first quarter, we were able to pinpoint passes due to the lack of pressure from the Pies. When the pressure is applied, we resort to over possessing the football, with an inevitable turnover. And when we overpossess the football, we struggle to score. It's been a common theme under Bailey.

The senior players probably feel the need to stop the rot by applying scoreboard pressure. You can't score without getting the ball inside 50. How many inside 50s have we had in the first 2 games? Unfortunately another common theme under Bailey.

How about playing with a structure and system that gives us more options in the forward 50? How about allowing the mids to push forward and provide an option? How many goals have our mids kicked in the last 2 seasons?

Our sole goal scoring plan is to hit a leading target. What are plans B, C and D?

Spot on.

I wasn't at the game yesterday so I can't really comment on the structure of that game, but there were several times that the commentators mentioned that Melbourne players had no options ahead, as in there was literally no teammates in front of them.

What I don't understand is why every single forward has to push up the ground? Why not leave one or two, right on the goal line. Moreover, rest a Green a Bruce or a Davey up there instead of coming off every two minutes. No defender is going to leave their opposing forward on their own in their forward line. If they do, then up the other end of the ground the ratio is 17:18 which is hardly much of an advantage for the opposition.

[tez 6]

I am all for kicking it long.

In 2 years time when we have Watts, Butcher and Jurrah up there.

Do you understand the post i think its about today and not in 2 years what a waste bombing to nothing or no one

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

Do you understand the post i think its about today and not in 2 years what a waste bombing to nothing or no one

This is the bit that needs to be fixed.

I first brought it up over two years ago, nothing has changed.

[tez 6]

This is the bit that needs to be fixed.

I first brought it up over two years ago, nothing has changed.

Clint i totally agree with you but i feel the players either panic or are told when all options up forward are covered go long not my type of plan especially when our forward line is only with 2 players there sometimes one things will get better when i cant see it in the near future

[1858 285]

When a side starts to capitulate then players not only lack confidence in themselves but also in the team system and their team mates. What we saw yesterday with some long bombing was players who knew that any system we had in the first quarter had since vanished and took stringent measures. We went from a team and rolling zone to a bunch of individual players. Unfortunately if there is a perception by the majority of players that there is nothing they can do to restore system in the team then there is a sense of hopelessness and counterproductive gameplay. A few players did try to get the team thing happening but were severly outnumbered IMO.

Now, I am not an advocate for long bombing when nobody is home up forward or at least the talented forwards aren't there - I don't think that anyone would be. In no way what so ever should the long bomb be part of any teams main game plan. The fact still remains though that the long bomb is sometimes a necessary ploy when there are no other options. The thing about the long bomb that we all have to remember is that it isn't just a low percentage forward movement but a way of players under the pump disposing before being tackled. When we see a long bomb more often than not we cringe because it is low percentage but the reality is (in our current situation when the gameplan deteriorates) if players don't bomb it then they will be caught and the opposition gain possession and run forward from the centre for a goal. Lets not talk about it as if it was a premeditated team tactic.

[1858 285]

How about playing with a structure and system that gives us more options in the forward 50? How about allowing the mids to push forward and provide an option? How many goals have our mids kicked in the last 2 seasons?

Our sole goal scoring plan is to hit a leading target. What are plans B, C and D?

Yeah, I noticed this throughout the game as well. The daunting thing for me is that on the very few occasions where we had a running player approaching goal they just didn't finish. McLean's kick on the run went 20 meters to an opponent. Jone's kick had air but no penetration and Davey went for offloads to other players (to get them into the game) instead of shooting at goal. This is such a fundamental aspect of the game that has been missing in the opening 2 games - very worrying.

[mo64 5,853]

......

Totally agree. But it begs the question, what is plan B?

For a majority of the past 24 games, the opposition have been able to smash our gameplan, which has led to blowouts. Why, because as I've said all along, we don't have the cattle to sustain it over the course of an entire game.

It all revolves around our midfield. We have a blue collar midfield in McLean, McDonald, Jones and Moloney attempting to play a gamestyle that is beyond their capabilities. They'll never be able to break the lines, let alone baulk opposition players in traffic. So it's little wonder that the players readily lose confidence.

[45HG 1,539]

Totally agree. But it begs the question, what is plan B?

For a majority of the past 24 games, the opposition have been able to smash our gameplan, which has led to blowouts. Why, because as I've said all along, we don't have the cattle to sustain it over the course of an entire game.

It all revolves around our midfield. We have a blue collar midfield in McLean, McDonald, Jones and Moloney attempting to play a gamestyle that is beyond their capabilities. They'll never be able to break the lines, let alone baulk opposition players in traffic. So it's little wonder that the players readily lose confidence.

That's right, we don't have the cattle

[mo64 5,853]

That's right, we don't have the cattle

Sydney don't have the cattle to play a run and carry gameplan, so Roos hasn't adopted it. It's simple, why implement a plan that your players are incapable of carrying out?