Bombing it long

[45HG 1,559]

If he views it as a Premiership winning strategy, then I am happy for him to implement it and draft accordingly, as he has by picking fast and skillful players.

Roos has picked his own strategy for his team, and adapted his team accordingly. He also has much better "cattle" to work with than we do at present.

[deanox 9,989]

our forwards were lining up at half forward. we didnt play with full forwards after the first quarter. why? im not sure. was it the players

? was it a coaches decision?

at times in the last, i even saw us with the ball on center wing and we had 1 player inside the 50, and he was on the 50m line.

the mids played alright today, imo, but often once they crossed the center of the field, there was no one ahead of them.

i agree with the others who have said that we need someone deep. miller or bate or pj need to start on the goal line and only lead up once the ball is coming into the forward 50.

[Little Goffy 14,645]

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

Jurrah was taken with the first pick it was possible for him to be taken with, as he had nominated in time for the National draft and was only available in the pre-season/rookie drafts, where he was taken with pick 1.

He was also a somewhat 'left field' selection from a very low-profile playign career - as is well documented, there will be a need for him to develop physically and adjust to the tactics and rythms of AFL football.

BUT

Nobody anywhere has cast any doubt on his ability to play the game.

I guess we'll know a little more later this afternoon and each week after that, but to say 'chances are he will be a dud' is just a bit rude to the guy, don't you think?

[Jaded No More 68,974]

If you build a game plan around average players, you will always get average results.

Please refer to seasons 2001-2007.

Never ever compromise your plan to succeed around unsuccessful players.

Bailey has a vision of how he wants us to play, that vision may be tweaked over the years, but the fundamentals of quick precise ball movements will not. Those who can't adapt shall find the nearest exist and get on the next plan to the Gold Coast.

[rpfc 28,781]

If you build a game plan around average players, you will always get average results.

Please refer to seasons 2001-2007.

Never ever compromise your plan to succeed around unsuccessful players.

Bailey has a vision of how he wants us to play, that vision may be tweaked over the years, but the fundamentals of quick precise ball movements will not. Those who can't adapt shall find the nearest exist and get on the next plan to the Gold Coast.

That's right.

And there has been some who have adapted; Moloney, Bruce, and Green are handballing more and are hitting more targets than they were last year.

Adapt to the game plan or go.

Otherwise why have Bailey if he has to compromise how he wants the team to play?

[1858 285]

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

I think it is fair to say that we don't have a plan B other than the damage control that players go into when under siege. More to the point our plan A hasn't completely revealed itself either. When the opposition up the ante in the middle our plan A goes out the window. The point here though is as opposed to asking what is our plan B we need to address how we can better perform plan A under pressure because until we do then hardly of us will know what plan A actually is in it's most effective form.

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.

I'm not convinced it is our gameplan that is being smashed. It is the inability of our players to compete and lack of talent and options which is taking us out of the game. Just because we need more talented players in our side to effectively execute the game plan doesn't mean that the gameplan itself is too complex. It is about competing against your opponents as much as a gameplan and when we have the ball we are bad but when we don't we are even worse - that is not so much gameplan that is lack of competitiveness and ability.

The problem is that when you lack foot speed then you limit your options and impulses - instinctive footy goes out the window and we hold on to the ball too much. Our forward options are too slow at leading, our wingers are too slow at moving out of a zone, our mids are too slow to make a centre break and the majority of our players are too slow to get a kick off to an unmarked player. We also have a group of defenders who still don't have the confidence (or instructions) to run outside of defensive 50 to give an extra player behind the ball to free mids up further down the ground or to take the offload from a small mid and run and carry. Even if you look at a team like Sydney, despite being less fluent as other teams they still value running backs to help the mids and is specifically Roos' reason for recruiting Mattner last season. Another attribute Sydney have over us is that when players like Goodes and Kirk play in the middle they are key marking targets. Sydney also have players who can kick long to break a flood like they did last night - we are quite limited.

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.

I agree, it does evolve around the midfield. Practically every team in the competition has players that can baulk and break lines except for us though. Even if they can't they at least have the speed and mobility for lateral or forward running link play as required where our mids simply don't. In my mind our mids lack speed off the mark and nouse and I actually think that holding on to the ball and over use in ring a ring a rosie becomes a comfort zone. Admittedly our positioning at times is bad and that is a structure issue but our mids lack penetrating kicks, they lack vision and they lack speed. Add to that our inexperienced wingers and running defenders and it falls down.

[mo64 5,881]

After watching the Roos/Bulldogs game, I don't know why teams wouldn't kick to the top of the goal square if there are no obvious leading options. Under the new rule whereby defenders can't deliberately knock the ball through for a point, if you force a contest at the top of the square, the defending side has very few options.

During the Roos/Bulldogs game, a Bulldogs defender tried to escort a touched ball over the goal line rather than pick it up or knock it through. Ed Lower came running through and got a boot on it just before it crossed the line.

The kick to the top of the square now becomes a high percentage play.

[deanox 9,989]

After watching the Roos/Bulldogs game, I don't know why teams wouldn't kick to the top of the goal square if there are no obvious leading options. Under the new rule whereby defenders can't deliberately knock the ball through for a point, if you force a contest at the top of the square, the defending side has very few options.

During the Roos/Bulldogs game, a Bulldogs defender tried to escort a touched ball over the goal line rather than pick it up or knock it through. Ed Lower came running through and got a boot on it just before it crossed the line.

The kick to the top of the square now becomes a high percentage play.

correct, especailly re escorting the loose ball, however there is nothing that says you can't punch a ball through for a rushed behind. there is also nothing stopping anyone from rushing behinds when they are under physical pressure from an opponent. but i dont want to be in a position where the umpires are forced to make a decision

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

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?

Wrong. The Swans were one of the key architects of utilising the flood which in turn required you to put players behind the ball. Roos also was prone to close the game down to ensure continual ball ups until they They had to run and carry to move the ball from defence to attack once they cracked the contested possession their way.

Roos also inherited the nucleus of a team that was capable of winning a flag with Hall, O'Loughlin and Goodes

....because as I've said all along, we don't have the cattle to sustain it over the course of an entire game.

Brilliant. So what game plan would you implement that would be successful for one paced limited skilled midfielders who stagnant and cant baulk?

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.

Correct. The midfield is not blue collar...just 3rd world.

If players dont have the skills.....Let you in on a secret....you get players who do have the skills. Both Jones and Moloney have showed they can playcapable AFL footy. Junior is near finished as a footballer. McLean needs to perform

The kick to the top of the square now becomes a high percentage play.

Where you have players there to contest the mark on a 50/50 or better basis it always has been. Little has changed.Its common sense footballer that sides have been employing for years.

[Jumping Jack Clennett 1,809]

[quote name='Clint Bizkit' date='Apr 5 2009,

"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. "

I like this idea. But I'm dead sure no-one will ever try it. It's too far removed from "conventional wisdom". Football departments are reluctant to try anything TOO different, I think because they're too worried it might come badly unstuck.

We're in a great position to try new tactics. Losing a game because of an unsuccessful experiment wouldn't be the same disaster for us as it would be for a team battling to acquire a top 4 position.

We need to try something radical in point kick-ins, too. Now's the time to experiment.

[mo64 5,881]

....

Once again Rhino, you don't let the truth get in the way of your posts.

Point 1. Roos did not inherit the nucleas of a premiership side. He orchestrated their success through brilliant coaching. So get it through your head, coaches do make a difference.

Point 2. Sydney do not play run and carry in the style that West Coast and Port Adelaide played, and what Bailey is trying to implement. Sydney play contested football by getting numbers to a contest in all areas of the ground. They will kick to a contest and back themselves to win the contest. Flooding and running the ball from the backline does not equate to run and carry.

Point 3. Sydney's midfield is as pedestrian as ours, so why are they competitive?

[jabberwocky 2,301]

Once again Rhino, you don't let the truth get in the way of your posts.

Point 1. Roos did not inherit the nucleas of a premiership side. He orchestrated their success through brilliant coaching. So get it through your head, coaches do make a difference.

Point 2. Sydney do not play run and carry in the style that West Coast and Port Adelaide played, and what Bailey is trying to implement. Sydney play contested football by getting numbers to a contest in all areas of the ground. They will kick to a contest and back themselves to win the contest. Flooding and running the ball from the backline does not equate to run and carry.

Point 3. Sydney's midfield is as pedestrian as ours, so why are they competitive?

MO seriously.

Sydney

Adam Goodes, Brett Kirk, Barry Hall, Darren Jolly, Michael O Loughlin, Leo barry. Reasons for thier modern success and for what will be a wane as they grow older and retire.

They may be competive, but they will not win another flag until they turnover thier list and start again. Take these guys from a couple of years ago and stick them into th dees side and I am sure we would be more than competive today.

We would get smashed, annihalated and reamed if we played the game that you advocate.

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

I like this idea. But I'm dead sure no-one will ever try it. It's too far removed from "conventional wisdom". Football departments are reluctant to try anything TOO different, I think because they're too worried it might come badly unstuck.

What do you mean "TOO different"? Teams were doing it for the past 149 years!

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Once again Rhino, you don't let the truth get in the way of your posts.

What just like you do?

Point 1. Roos did not inherit the nucleas of a premiership side. He orchestrated their success through brilliant coaching. So get it through your head, coaches do make a difference.

Coaches indeed do make a difference. But in your argument the players dont count. You belt on about us not having cattle without recognising the cattle Sydney had. But of course its all just "brilliant coaching".

Point 2. Sydney do not play run and carry in the style that West Coast and Port Adelaide played, and what Bailey is trying to implement. Sydney play contested football by getting numbers to a contest in all areas of the ground. They will kick to a contest and back themselves to win the contest. Flooding and running the ball from the backline does not equate to run and carry.

Sydney dont have to play it like WCE and PA to do it. That was not your point. At their peak, Sydney strangled the game and sort to coral the play where they would flood numbers to the contest. They have wonderful inside on ballers like Kirk, Bolton to effect this play. They will perpetuate the contested situation until they can break it open and use line breakers like Goodes, Kenneally and at times Barry. The Swans would only kick to a contest when they either had the better one out or would be more likely to win possession. It was not a tenet of their plan to kick to a contest as a rule.

Point 3. Sydney's midfield is as pedestrian as ours, so why are they competitive?

Sydney have Kirk, Bolton, Goodes, McVeigh and they had a competent ruck in Jolly. And they are as pedestrian as MFC???

You really dont have a clue do you Mo.

Now whats that game plan we should be playing Mo?? Are you good for it?

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

our forwards were lining up at half forward. we didnt play with full forwards after the first quarter. why? im not sure. was it the players

? was it a coaches decision?

I'd love to know why too.

In two games, Melbourne has scored 131 points, total. That's scary.

[mo64 5,881]

Sydney have Kirk, Bolton, Goodes, McVeigh and they had a competent ruck in Jolly. And they are as pedestrian as MFC???

You really dont have a clue do you Mo.

Bolton is not quick and was up for trade last year, Kirk is neither quick nor an elite midfieldfer, and prior to last season, McVeigh was a fringe player. And Goodes doesn't always play in the midfield. So are you suggesting that talent wise, Sydney have an A grade midfield?

The difference between Bailey and Roos is that from day 1, Roos was able to get the best out of his players. IMO, Bailey hasn't.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Bolton is not quick and was up for trade last year, Kirk is neither quick nor an elite midfieldfer, and prior to last season, McVeigh was a fringe player. And Goodes doesn't always play in the midfield. So are you suggesting that talent wise, Sydney have an A grade midfield?

Nice try Mo. I am suggesting that your argument that that "Sydney's midfield is as pedestrian as ours" is plain wrong and a fallacy. And its irrelevant whether they are quick or not. Bolton and Kirk have been top class midfielders for a number of years and were a crtical backbone in Sydney winning a premiership and just being pipped in another. And your comments about Goodes are just silly. Goodes is an elite mobile player who if not ruck roving through the midfield, is an top class line breaking player. And the McVeigh comment is relevant in regard your original argument.

Keep running and hiding Mo. You get shown up continually.

The difference between Bailey and Roos is that from day 1, Roos was able to get the best out of his players. IMO, Bailey hasn't.

Both coaches inherited vastly different quality lists and arrived at Clubs with vastly different infrastructure, financial support and stability.

Your inability to show any sound judgement in understanding either the state of MFC's list and where it stands relative to other teams is at best self serving and in truth rather weird.

Now for the long awaited game plan of yours Mo?

[deanox 9,989]

I'd love to know why too.

In two games, Melbourne has scored 131 points, total. That's scary.

we're on the same page here. and id like to see a replay to see if in the first quarter if the forwards stayed deeper (i think they did). in the second half they all played up the ground, all the time. even after a goal everyone would line up 30 meters out.

i wonder if its a damage control mechanism? they try and push players up around the ball to block it up and slow down the opposition? it doesn't work, and i think the best way for us to stem the flow is to kick some goals, and when the forwards aren't deep we turn the ball over in the midfield.

[Kit Walker 225]

Nice try Mo. I am suggesting that your argument that that "Sydney's midfield is as pedestrian as ours" is plain wrong and a fallacy. And its irrelevant whether they are quick or not. Bolton and Kirk have been top class midfielders for a number of years and were a crtical backbone in Sydney winning a premiership and just being pipped in another. And your comments about Goodes are just silly. Goodes is an elite mobile player who if not ruck roving through the midfield, is an top class line breaking player. And the McVeigh comment is relevant in regard your original argument.

Both coaches inherited vastly different quality lists and arrived at Clubs with vastly different infrastructure, financial support and stability.

It depends on what is meant by a pedestrian midfield. Sydney's has been so successful because they are so good at locking down the play then winning the clearances. No one would ever accuse them, as a group, of being overly quick though.

I think you overestimate the strength of Sydney's list and underestimate Roos' coaching ability in making them into a team that came within a whisker of winning two flags. They were clearly inferior to West Coast, in terms of sheer ability at least, but made up for that largely by the tactics employed (in my view at least).

Must say I did have a chuckle at the comment that Kirk is not an elite midfielder though. Would be an absolute walk up starting 18 player in any side in the competition, and quite possibly the best captain in the league as well.

[mo64 5,881]

Your inability to show any sound judgement in understanding either the state of MFC's list and where it stands relative to other teams is at best self serving and in truth rather weird.

I'll ask you one question, and I want a simple yes or no answer:

Have our results over the past 24 games reflected the ability of our list?

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

It depends on what is meant by a pedestrian midfield. Sydney's has been so successful because they are so good at locking down the play then winning the clearances. No one would ever accuse them, as a group, of being overly quick though.

Ask Mo because he put Sydney's midfield on a par with our midfield. Whatever, certain individuals lacked in pace they made up for it elsewhere in spades.

I think you overestimate the strength of Sydney's list and underestimate Roos' coaching ability in making them into a team that came within a whisker of winning two flags. They were clearly inferior to West Coast, in terms of sheer ability at least, but made up for that largely by the tactics employed (in my view at least).

If a side won one flag and then came a whisker of winning another against a "clearly" superior WCE, might you be underestimating Sydney? I think so Nearly all games played between them over a 3 year period were decided by a kick or less. Hardly superior. More likely a great matchup. Now a coach can pull a winning move in one game but over the course of the period Sydney were equal of WCE. Its a matter of whether you like how they did it. Roos is a smart coach. But he had a very good team at his disposal.

Must say I did have a chuckle at the comment that Kirk is not an elite midfielder though. Would be an absolute walk up starting 18 player in any side in the competition, and quite possibly the best captain in the league as well.

Dont worry there are lots of chuckles with Mo.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

I'll ask you one question, and I want a simple yes or no answer:

Have our results over the past 24 games reflected the ability of our list?

Will you answer any of mine or other posters Mo?

BTW, the results of the past 24 months have reflected the state of our list.

Now what's the game plan sugar?

[mo64 5,881]

Will you answer any of mine or other posters Mo?

BTW, the results of the past 24 months have reflected the state of our list.

Now what's the game plan sugar?

I've been stating how I want our side to play for the past 15 months, but you just get caught up in your own drivel to comprehend what people write. Case in point, I wrote 24 games, not 24 months.

Statistically, over the past 24 games we've been the worst performed side since Fitzroy in their final season. I don't believe that our list is that bad, so it's pointless to continue the argument.

And your response to Kit Walker re: Roos is laughable. You can't comprehend that coaches can make an enormous impact on a club.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

I've been stating how I want our side to play for the past 15 months, but you just get caught up in your own drivel to comprehend what people write. Case in point, I wrote 24 games, not 24 months.

No you haven't. You go missing when I or timD or other poster put the questions to you. Same answer for 24 days. Sorry for the slip up

Statistically, over the past 24 games we've been the worst performed side since Fitzroy in their final season. I don't believe that our list is that bad, so it's pointless to continue the argument.

It is pointless because you get pantsed every time you make ridiculous statements like our midfield is the same as Sydney's or that this list is the same list that competed in the 2006 finals. Both horrendously wrong. Its no wonder you carry on like a cut cat about the results. You dont understand whats happening and you are the last person to realise it.

And your response to Kit Walker re: Roos is laughable. You can't comprehend that coaches can make an enormous impact on a club.

To win a premiership Mo you need a very good coach and a very good side to complement it. A number of other factors have to go well for you also. In Sydney's case, a magnificent low injury count and dubious tribunal decisions all help. And win you win or lose a flag by less than a kick, they all count. However, you cant win a flag without a good coach and a good team. You're trying to argue that its just the coach. It isn't. Another case of naivety or its another case of trying to twist the argument to salvage some illusion of superiority to massage the chip.

By the way Kit also thinks your comment on Kirk was a bit of chuckle too.

[MikeyJ 60]

I've tried my very best to stay out of this thread, but I can't hold back any longer!

A few points:

- 1858 and others have it right: it all comes down to our midfield. The positioning of the forwards is dictated by the performance of the midfield. If the forwards can rely on the midfielders winning the ball and using it effectively, they are able to maintain their ideal structures and present a range of options. Clearly, this is not happening on a regular basis at Melbourne.

When the midfield begins to regularly lose possession, the forwards move up the ground to increase pressure on the opposition midfielders. This generally allows Melbourne to win a greater share of possession in the middle of the ground, but the pay-off is that there are less players to present ahead of the ball.

If, as some are suggesting, our forwards maintained their ideal structure when our midfielders were getting flogged at the clearances, the games would be a complete blowout because there would be less pressure on the opposition.

Like it or not, there are times that our current midfield needs assistance and the forwards need to provide it.

Thus, the problem of having limited attacking options ahead of the ball is a direct result of having a losing midfield. It's nothing to do with incompetent forward structures.

When Dean Bailey and co. develop a winning midfield - and I believe they are on the right track - I guarantee you will see a marked difference in the forward structure. Take a look at the first quarter of the Collingwood game for a clear-cut example.

- Secondly, about the Swans. When Paul Roos took the helm for his first full season in 2003, the following players were among those at the club: Adam Goodes, Barry Hall, Michael O'Loughlin, Paul Williams, Brett Kirk, Leo Barry, Ryan O'Keefe and Jude Bolton.

At their peak, every one of those players would walk into any AFL team's starting 18. There were several others, including Craig Bolton, Ben Mathews, Tadhg Kennelly, Jared Crouch, Adam Schneider, Lewis Roberts-Thomson and Nick Davis who all played important roles in the Swans' successive Grand Final campaigns in 2005-06.

There is no doubt that Roos's coaching has been exceptional, but don't make the mistake of underplaying the quality of the list that he inherited. Its top-end talent was far greater than that of most other teams, and remains so, even as they undergo a transition.

Don't confuse the Swans' blue-collar game plan with a lack of talent. They have more genuine stars on their list that our club has seen in 40 years.