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.

This is where I have a problem.

Let's just say that the ball is in Melbourne's defensive 50 and the Melbourne forwards all push up to around the middle of the ground to as you say. "increase pressure". This is all very well in theory, but when the forwards push up they bring their opponents with them, meaning that they have no advantage in numbers to the ball, however this is not the main problem for me.

The main problem is that by the time the ball gets back to the middle, the forwards are pushing back to the forward line to try and create an option. My point is, why push up at all? The forwards don't necessarily create more pressure as they are bringing their opponents with them and more often than not they don't even touch the ball in the middle as they are busy trying to get back (to the forward line) to provide an option. On top of this, a forward is far more effective when he as running towards the ball out from goals than when he is running with the flight of the ball.

- 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.

Those players alone didn't win Sydney a flag. Yes, they are/were all good players but it was Roos that got the best out of him.

Roos quickly identified that the overall strength of the playing group was their ability to play disciplined, contested football with a lot of stoppages, "tempo football" and flooding (now known as a "rolling zone"). It wasn't as if one day Roos woke up and decided that he would just start employing these tactics because they were the best tactics that any team could use, they were the best for the group of players as a whole that he had in the team.

West Coast had midfielders who were quick, ran hard and ran for a long time. Therefore, Worsfold got the team to play a "run and carry" type plan as the forward line was relatively weak. This suited that team and was best for them.

In 2007, Mark Thompson knew that he did have a strong list and therefore he would just let them play. There wasn't a great emphasis on playing a certain way (besides the need to play on and move the ball quickly) and this was good coaching. Sometimes less is more.

The point is, you can only turn over a list so much and there comes a point when you have to look at the team as a whole and decide what is the best approach for them and then to carry that out as best as possible. There is no one best gameplan or tactic, it's about matching the plan to the team. Otherwise, coaches would spend years constantly drafting and delisting players in search of some sort of perfect formula, by which time some new fad ("run and carry", "tempo football" and "rolling zone") has come and gone. By all means, at years end look to draft and trade players who fit this strength*, but don't go chasing players to fit a playing style that is not currently the best for the current group (of which a majority will still be on the list in the following year)

*This doesn't mean drafting "skillful players" as all players who are drafted should have good basic kicking and handballing skills.

My point is, why push up at all? The forwards don't necessarily create more pressure as they are bringing their opponents with them and more often than not they don't even touch the ball in the middle as they are busy trying to get back (to the forward line) to provide an option.

By moving up the ground to support a losing midfield, the forwards will always close down space that the opposition might use to break free. They might not touch the ball, but it's unlikely that a losing midfield will be able to A - shut down the space and B - win the ball, without assistance of players from further up field.

To compound matters, a defender will allow his forward to move up the ground in the knowledge that when the ball comes into the F50, he can play the loose man role to cut the ball off.

It's a classic case of "six of one, half a dozen of the other".

If the forwards don't move up to support a losing midfield, they don't get supply and we don't kick goals.

If the forwards do move up to support a losing midfield, we win the ball but we are short of options in attack.

Either way, the ONLY solution is to improve the midfield's performance to the point where they can regularly win at least an even share of contested possession.

Those players alone didn't win Sydney a flag. Yes, they are/were all good players but it was Roos that got the best out of him.

Roos quickly identified that the overall strength of the playing group was their ability to play disciplined, contested football with a lot of stoppages, "tempo football" and flooding (now known as a "rolling zone"). It wasn't as if one day Roos woke up and decided that he would just start employing these tactics because they were the best tactics that any team could use, they were the best for the group of players as a whole that he had in the team.

I agree that those players alone didn't win Sydney a flag. But the fact is that the nucleus of a premiership side was already on the list when Roos took over from Eade as senior coach. Bailey doesn't have that luxury.

The point is, you can only turn over a list so much and there comes a point when you have to look at the team as a whole and decide what is the best approach for them and then to carry that out as best as possible. There is no one best gameplan or tactic, it's about matching the plan to the team.

I agree that there is no one best gameplan or tactic, but I contend that it's not always about matching the plan to the team. Sometimes, the best way to engineer long-term success is to match the team to the plan.

When Dean Bailey took over, he made a conscious decision to match the team to his plan. No one in their right mind could suggest that Melbourne's list at the end of 2007 was capable of winning a flag, so there was no point in devising a gameplan that would enhance that list's prospects of success.

Conversely, Roos had the nucleus of a squad that WAS capable of winning a flag. Thus, he was able to tailor a game plan to his team.

Those players alone didn't win Sydney a flag. Yes, they are/were all good players but it was Roos that got the best out of him.

.....

*This doesn't mean drafting "skillful players" as all players who are drafted should have good basic kicking and handballing skills.

No one has said stated that so I dont know why you need to argue. Each team needs a good players and a good coach. A team cannot be successful without either. To say it was one more than the other is fantasy. I know Roos would be sage enough to do that.

Both Roos and Worsfold came into their roles with nucleus of a champion team. Roos top charges have been mentioned. Worsfold had Judd, Kerr, Cox, Cousins and Embley.

Thompson won a flag in his eighth year at Geelong and in his early years went through a complete overhaul of his list. During his time he has drafted and been gifted through the father son program a number of star players that has allowed him to build a talented list.

Its an absolute crock, to suggest that Thompson's influence on Geelong has been any less than Roos. In fact if anything its been greater. Thompson is very much a hands on coach and to suggest that he just lets his players play is a misnomer but also a tribute to the discipline that he has instilled in every member of the teamThe top Geelong sides are no less disciplined or talented than any other team.

What champion teams have is a blend of skillful players that are disciplined, committed to the game and well coached.

To suggest that there is a wide array of successful teams is also a fallacy as football goes through trends and evolutions.

And the asterisked comment about assuming that all players who are drafted have good kicking and handballing skills has as much truth as the three bears.

And the asterisked comment about assuming that all players have good kicking and handballing skills has as much truth as the three bears.

I hope you're not talking down "goldilocks"........ <_<

...

As usual RR you have completely missed the point.

Let me S-P-E-L-L it out for you. The key point in all of this is, most (if not all) Premiership winning strategies (in recent years at least) are devised by coaches playing to the strengths of their particular teams.

I'm talking about tactics here and not the quality of the players, which for each Premiership team over recent years has obviously been very good. But each year there are several teams that have players capable of winning a Premiership, the difference is IMO in the coaching and which coach can get the best out of that particular team.

The point is, you can't just take a team of good players and just expect them to get results. The players from Sydney, West Coast and Geelong were/are all very good, but they are good in different ways and have different strengths.

The coaches played to these strengths through the tactics that they employed. I never said that Thompson didn't have an influence, in fact what I was saying was on the contrary. His gameplan was very much about letting the players play and like I said less is more, but that doesn't mean he didn't do anything. Like you said, because they were so well drilled and disciplined (thanks to Thompson) he could afford to do this and this was the most effective tactic.

I agree that there is no one best gameplan or tactic, but I contend that it's not always about matching the plan to the team. Sometimes, the best way to engineer long-term success is to match the team to the plan.

When Dean Bailey took over, he made a conscious decision to match the team to his plan. No one in their right mind could suggest that Melbourne's list at the end of 2007 was capable of winning a flag, so there was no point in devising a gameplan that would enhance that list's prospects of success.

I'm not for any second suggesting that Melbourne's 2007 team would win a flag, but the fact remains that a core number of that list has and will remain for at least the next few years. Players such as Jones, McLean, Moloney, Buckley, Bate, Rivers, Davey, Petterd, Garland, Johnson, Green, Frawley, Jamar, Warnock, Miller, Bruce, Dunn (maybe), Bell (maybe), Bartram (maybe) and Sylvia (maybe). Therefore, a coach can't just decide to make a team play a certain way because he thinks it's the best strategy. It has to be the best strategy for his team and his core group of players.

With regards to Bailey, maybe he does think that his tactics are the best for his team, but I've not seen it yet. EDIT: I really do hope to see it and I am willing to give him more time, because as far as player development goes he is clearly very good, I just worry about match day tactics.

I'm not for any second suggesting that Melbourne's 2007 team would win a flag, but the fact remains that a core number of that list has and will remain for at least the next few years. Players such as Jones, McLean, Moloney, Buckley, Bate, Rivers, Davey, Petterd, Garland, Johnson, Green, Frawley, Jamar, Warnock, Miller, Bruce, Dunn (maybe), Bell (maybe), Bartram (maybe) and Sylvia (maybe). Therefore, a coach can't just decide to make a team play a certain way because he thinks it's the best strategy. It has to be the best strategy for his team and his core group of players.

With regards to Bailey, maybe he does think that his tactics are the best for his team, but I've not seen it yet. EDIT: I really do hope to see it and I am willing to give him more time, because as far as player development goes he is clearly very good, I just worry about match day tactics.

On the contrary, a coach can decide to make a team play a certain way. Bailey's doing it right now. Clarkson did it with Hawthorn four years ago and look where it got him.

The players you've listed as "core" are on our list right now, but not all of them will play in our next premiership. Those that are present when we win our next flag will be the ones who have shown the necessary adaptability, skill and nous. Those who don't make the grade will be moved on - either delisted or traded.

Keep in mind that we've only seen a glimpse of the players that Bailey has drafted. Morton and Aussie are the only ones to have made an impact. Martin has shown a little.

But to my mind, most of the core of our next premiership team has barely played AFL football. A large chunk of that untried "core" represents the silk we need to win a flag - Grimes, Maric, Watts, Blease and Strauss. All are elite talents and they have been drafted with Bailey's gameplan in mind.

While not elite talents, Cheney, Bennell and Jetta have all shown a little and could well make the grade. I also think Tom McNamara will make it, but I'm not sure in what role.

Add Garland, Rivers, Frawley, Warnock, Miller, Davey, Moloney and McLean to that list and you've got the bones of a team that, with four or so years of effective development, could challenge for a premiership.

I doubt that Bruce (too old), Green (ditto), Bartram, Bell, Dunn, Sylvia and PJ will be among that group. I also have my doubts about Nathan Jones and Matthew Bate, but they could be MFC premiership players if they improve.

I think Bailey is on the right track, and we saw a glimpse of how he wants his team to play in the first quarter against Collingwood. Give him time and look at the big picture.

Let me S-P-E-L-L it out for you. The key point in all of this is, most (if not all) Premiership winning strategies (in recent years at least) are devised by coaches playing to the strengths of their particular teams.

Let me S-P-E-L-L it out for you. You are not correct. The key is the each team had the players that were able to execute a match winning plan and most of those players could play to any of the plans given their skill levels. They dont get easily pigeon holed as omse would think. Each of the premiership coaches of recent inherited a great nucleus to play a successful style of football except for Thompson. He had to complete rebuild his list and in his case it took 8 years.

But each year there are several teams that have players capable of winning a Premiership, the difference is IMO in the coaching and which coach can get the best out of that particular team.

Again you are wrong when it comes down to September, the really good teams which there are one or two rise above all others. Its a mixture of number of factors coming together but a good coach with a skillful side is a pre requisite. No injuries help. The last two years there has only be one or two sides in it. The others are filling spots.

The point is, you can't just take a team of good players and just expect them to get results. The players from Sydney, West Coast and Geelong were/are all very good, but they are good in different ways and have different strengths.

Who is actually arguing your first sentence? Its not me or Mikey J. The top sides had more in common than you think.

The coaches played to these strengths through the tactics that they employed. I never said that Thompson didn't have an influence, in fact what I was saying was on the contrary. His gameplan was very much about letting the players play and like I said less is more, but that doesn't mean he didn't do anything. Like you said, because they were so well drilled and disciplined (thanks to Thompson) he could afford to do this and this was the most effective tactic.

You are greatly mistaken a well drilled side for a side just left to play

...

I guess we'll just agree to disagree.

I take what you're saying (and by core I didn't mean build a team around as such, but most will be there for at least a few years), but at the end of the day I think that each year there are a number of teams who have players that are capable of winning a Premiership. It often comes down to the coaches ability to get the best out of those players (and playing to their key strengths) come game day. Nonetheless, it is an interesting topic and one that harps back to the chicken and the egg argument in a way.

I really hope that we so see more improvement this year and that it is just a case of getting more talent in the team for the structure and tactics to work.

Either way, the ONLY solution is to improve the midfield's performance to the point where they can regularly win at least an even share of contested possession.

I 100% agree. The point is, address the problems in the midfield but don't stuff the forward line structure in the process. Adding more players (forwards and their opponents) into the midfield doesn't help IMO.

It is an interesting topic and one that harps back to the chicken and the egg argument in a way.

I really hope that we so see more improvement this year and that it is just a case of getting more talent in the team for the structure and tactics to work.

I'm confident it's just a matter of getting more talent into the team. Bailey has the courage of his convictions and he's learned from some of the best. A lot of that talent is now around the club, the challenge is to develop it.

The point is, address the problems in the midfield but don't stuff the forward line structure in the process. Adding more players (forwards and their opponents) into the midfield doesn't help IMO.

No doubt the coaches are addressing our midfield deficiencies; no doubt they know what their preferred forward structure is. Adding more forwards into the midfield doesn't assist either objective and it's not what they're doing on a long-term basis. But they're forced to do it during matches to attempt to prevent massive defeats - which don't help ANYONE.

It will take years for this problem to be rectified and in that time, you'll continue to see examples like the second half on Saturday. Start getting worried when we don't see more examples of the first quarter.

It will take years for this problem to be rectified and in that time, you'll continue to see examples like the second half on Saturday. Start getting worried when we don't see more examples of the first quarter.

One last thing, as I mentioned in another thread after the North game. What worried me was at the very start of the third quarter (when the scores were almost level) was seeing Melbourne start the half with just three forwards to North's five defenders. That's just a negative thinking and when a team has scored a total of 131 points in two games then they need all of the forward options they can get.

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.

Liam Jurrah is NOT holding his contested marks YET in the practice matches.

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.

Exactly and did you notice how many demons stood flat footed BEHIND the opposing player

Is it any wonder we got belted by so much

Our Midfeild also dropped their work ethic which up until then kept us in the game scoreboard wise

Davey did some good things but he didnt get any help for long enough

Me thinks its not our lack of fitness but maybe the timing of our rotations thats causing problems when its game on

Not picking on PJ but can someone explain to me what his actual role is ?

He looks the odd one out position wise

I guess we'll just agree to disagree.

I take what you're saying (and by core I didn't mean build a team around as such, but most will be there for at least a few years), but at the end of the day I think that each year there are a number of teams who have players that are capable of winning a Premiership. It often comes down to the coaches ability to get the best out of those players (and playing to their key strengths) come game day. Nonetheless, it is an interesting topic and one that harps back to the chicken and the egg argument in a way.

I really hope that we so see more improvement this year and that it is just a case of getting more talent in the team for the structure and tactics to work.

Yes. Yes. Yes. Especially the tactics to work. I didn't see much evidence of this on Saturday. You've got to make changes or change something up, especially 5 minutes into the last quarter on Saturday. Of course, more talent and a little more structure would have gone a long way to seeing further options for the coach at his disposal.

Do you think Bailey is getting the best out of the players at his disposal? Currently, i think he is with some players, but not all. McLean, Bate, Miller have me a little worried. These three need to stand up. Miller needs to put one through the sticks when the side needs him too. He had 14 marks. 1 point to his name. FFS, a set shot just prior to 3/4 time, missed. He's big, he's strong, he's fit, he takes marks, he needs to assert himself on the game.