We absolutely mucked that up with six minutes to go to half time. Why do teams persist in doing it?

Less skillful teams really struggle with this method of keepings off. But once you can master it - you can dictate the game, control the tempo and make play through counter attack. I have seen this tactic work really well at at the elite level in Soccer. But this is not Soccer

At that time there was no need. It was at the 20min mark of the 2nd quarter richmond kicked two before we kicked another 2 before the siren. It cost momentum which is very risky.

the tactic has merit. we just dont have the players to do it. the ball needs to be in the hands of a whelan, wheatley, jnr, garland rather than a warnock and meesen etc (his kick in the 2nd quarter was the dumbest thing ive ever seen)

we did try it too early in the second quarter though.

Can Melbourne players please stop waving their arms in the air to signal a slowing down of play.

At the 21 minute mark of the second quarter, Melbourne were leading 24 to 49 with almost all of the momentum up until that point. Melbourne had the ball forward of the wing and it was just one long kick away from being put the hot spot 20 -30 metres out from goal, a tactic that had already been successful numerous times in the game.

But then, the player with the ball (I can't remember who exactly) started to flap his wings and signal to Richmond that they weren't interested in kicking goals anymore. After a succession of short backwards and sideways kicks the ball was still in Melbourne's hands (the Underpants Gnomes were loving every second of it), but now it was in their defensive 50. Moreover, Richmond then finally realised that all they had to do was apply a minute amount of pressure for a turnover to occur and from that the Tigers kicked two goals in quick succession (Melbourne had afterall kindly taken the ball into Richmond's forward line for them) after Melbourne were in a prime position to attack and extend their lead even further.

If the players are going to slow the play down (which shouldn't happen often), don't do it when they have momentum, are in a position to score, when there is still ten minutes of play to go and for crying out loud come up with something a little less obvious than flapping your arms in the air.

P.S. It was good to see Melbourne play with forwars in the forward line, there is still a need for improvement in that area and Wallace stupidly allowed Melbourne to play two extra men in defence in the last quarter, but it was much better than previous weeks.

I am just taking a calculated guess but that tactic occurred just after Bruce said something tgo one of our young boys who had possession of the footy on the wing. Bruce was taken from the ground shortly after.

My guess is that Bruce directed the team to slow it down and keep possession and Bailey agrees with everyone else in the world that it was far too early in the quarter to do, and he let Bruce know about it.

im not sure why we did it, but it appeared to be a response to richmonds flooding. we had the ball on the wing and every player on the ground was forward of the ball. thats when we slowed it down.

i think te tactic is about trying to drag the opposition players back from the flood. if their forwards push up to defend and our backs stay back, we can pass it back and forth all day theoretically. the problem is when they pushed forward to pressure, or half forwards and mids didn't lead hard enough, or make good enough space so that the ball could be delivered forward instead of continuously backwards.

i would like to see the flood beaten by simply pumping it as long down the boundary as possible, and if we cant get a clean possie punching it out. a throw in in our forward 50 is never a bad option, and it gives us time to get our defensive structure right again in case the opposition gets the turnover.

  dandeeman said:

I am just taking a calculated guess but that tactic occurred just after Bruce said something tgo one of our young boys who had possession of the footy on the wing. Bruce was taken from the ground shortly after.

My guess is that Bruce directed the team to slow it down and keep possession and Bailey agrees with everyone else in the world that it was far too early in the quarter to do, and he let Bruce know about it.

I did read something about Bruce being dragged, if that's the case then I am very pleased to hear that it was for that reason. I will have to see the replay.

On the broadcast the boundary rider (Olarenshaw?) said he could hear Cameron Bruce tell Meesen to hold it up and make sure we kept possession, essentially leading to his kick backwards.

That's when the rot started, but luckily enough of our players were smart enough to break out of that & claw the momentum back.

If Bruce is going to lead as a senior player by doing that, then we need to get rid of him. He'll only hurt the development of these kids.

  Enforcer25 said:

On the broadcast the boundary rider (Olarenshaw?) said he could hear Cameron Bruce tell Meesen to hold it up and make sure we kept possession, essentially leading to his kick backwards.

That's when the rot started, but luckily enough of our players were smart enough to break out of that & claw the momentum back.

If Bruce is going to lead as a senior player by doing that, then we need to get rid of him. He'll only hurt the development of these kids.

The call by Bruce was the correct one, the execution by Meesen was incorrect.

If you watch that passage of play, Meesen's next kick should have been a short-medium length forward kick to Bruce (how's that for irony) who had led to a position in the clear about 30 metres away towards the centre of the ground while 15 metres in the clear. It would have been the correct option and better than a 50 metre kick to a contest on the boundary.

Retaining possession does not necessarily equal kicking backwards. To have continued up the line would have been stupid. Had the proper decision been made, it would have opened up space on the opposite side of the ground.

  Kit Walker said:

The call by Bruce was the correct one, the execution by Meesen was incorrect.

If you watch that passage of play, Meesen's next kick should have been a short-medium length forward kick to Bruce (how's that for irony) who had led to a position in the clear about 30 metres away towards the centre of the ground while 15 metres in the clear. It would have been the correct option and better than a 50 metre kick to a contest on the boundary.

Retaining possession does not necessarily equal kicking backwards. To have continued up the line would have been stupid. Had the proper decision been made, it would have opened up space on the opposite side of the ground.

Watching it on tv it did appear like that, but at the game it was apparent to me there were other options & that he'd made the wrong call.

In my mind Bruce's call was effectively for our team to retreat into our shell until the half-time siren.

It was far too early for such a call. Maybe it was just a poor choice of words on his behalf, but either way it resulted in us handing the momentum to Richmond.

  Kit Walker said:

The call by Bruce was the correct one, the execution by Meesen was incorrect.

We were up by 30 odd points and there was 10 minutes left OF THE SECOND QUARTER.

What a completely stupid thing to do, when you know your team is hardly skilled enough to manage a whole 10 minutes without turning the ball over.

Glad it was not a Bailey directive, and if Bruce indeed got dragged for it, even better.

Completely unnecessary thing to do when we've got a healthy break on the opposition, the quarter is going our way, and there is still a half to go.

I can understand why we tried it in the last, given the Tigers had the momentum, and we were running out of legs (having lost Green early). It's a shame though that our skills are not up to it, and hence we completely screwed it up. But we'll get better at not panicking, and at keeping off.

  Kit Walker said:

The call by Bruce was the correct one, the execution by Meesen was incorrect.

Not at the 20 minute mark, surely.

  Jaded said:

We were up by 30 odd points and there was 10 minutes left OF THE SECOND QUARTER.

What a completely stupid thing to do, when you know your team is hardly skilled enough to manage a whole 10 minutes without turning the ball over.

Glad it was not a Bailey directive, and if Bruce indeed got dragged for it, even better.

Completely unnecessary thing to do when we've got a healthy break on the opposition, the quarter is going our way, and there is still a half to go.

I can understand why we tried it in the last, given the Tigers had the momentum, and we were running out of legs (having lost Green early). It's a shame though that our skills are not up to it, and hence we completely screwed it up. But we'll get better at not panicking, and at keeping off.

Agree totally. If Bruce did call it, it's fair to say that SEIKO, ROLEX won't be approaching him for marketing purposes after football. He might want to hire a personal assistant to make sure he's on time for future appointments too.

we were on a big roll.. confidence and belief at a high. At this juncture we ought have gone for the jugular. Had we plied on a handful more the Toiges would have fallen into an asolute heap. who in the word starts defending a win before half time ??

That Richmond were amssing to make a tilt back was obvious, but WE had the ascendency and it was handed over.. terrible decision making.

  Jaded said:

We were up by 30 odd points and there was 10 minutes left OF THE SECOND QUARTER.

What a completely stupid thing to do, when you know your team is hardly skilled enough to manage a whole 10 minutes without turning the ball over.

Thanks for not reading what I had written.

If Bruce had said "kick it backwards and we'll slow play down and not give it to them" you may be right. That is clearly not what he said though as he's then made a lead to space forward of the ball.

The options were to kick backward and keep possession, kick relatively short centrally and keep possession, or to kick long to a contest about 80 metres out on the boundary. Meesen chose option 1. Option 3 would be marginally better than option 1 but significantly worse than option 2.

Retaining possession does not equal kicking backwards (feeling of deja vu here).

nothing wrong sometimes in roosting it along the lime to a contest..pushing it out at worst..thats a lot closer to the goals and puts the defence under a lot of presure. When youre playing with the upper hand you can turn a lot of these plays into opportunities. It further plays with the oppositions confidence and wears them down.

There was NO need for any sort of TEMPO at this point..just more pressure..more pressure

  belzebub59 said:

nothing wrong sometimes in roosting it along the lime to a contest..pushing it out at worst..thats a lot closer to the goals and puts the defence under a lot of presure. When youre playing with the upper hand you can turn a lot of these plays into opportunities. It further plays with the oppositions confidence and wears them down.

There was NO need for any sort of TEMPO at this point..just more pressure..more pressure

My comments aren't about "tempo" footy (almost as stupid a term as "frontal pressure" btw but that's not your fault ) as it was clearly the wrong tactic at the wrong time with the wrong players. It was quite clear from Dean Bailey's bewildered look in the coaches box that they were his thoughts as well.

I was criticising the bashing of Bruce who apparently committed the cardinal sin of telling an inexperienced team-mate to keep possession rather than panicking and kicking it to a flood.

As I've said (repeatedly), there were better options that would have (as near as possible) guaranteed possession be maintained while opening opportunities to switch the point of the attack into forward 50.

Moloney (in previous years) has been rightly criticised for merely roosting the ball 50-60 metres to no discernible advantage. He is a better player this year for lowering his eyes and not doing that. Meesen (who generally had a pretty decent game) apparently saw only two options and probably chose the wrong one. A better/more experienced player would have seen Bruce's lateral lead.

The problem with good ol Bruce IS his decision making at times ( many times..lol ) I suppose all of any game is about tthe better options being taken rather than anything leading to a frivolous turnover.

  Kit Walker said:

The call by Bruce was the correct one, the execution by Meesen was incorrect.

Was a shocking call by Bruce.

I felt sorry for Meesen, who probably felt pressure to obey the instructions of our illustrious stand-in captain.

Bruce was immediately benched by Dean Bailey after the incident.

Was great to see.

  Kit Walker said:

The call by Bruce was the correct one, the execution by Meesen was incorrect.

If you watch that passage of play, Meesen's next kick should have been a short-medium length forward kick to Bruce (how's that for irony) who had led to a position in the clear about 30 metres away towards the centre of the ground while 15 metres in the clear. It would have been the correct option and better than a 50 metre kick to a contest on the boundary.

Retaining possession does not necessarily equal kicking backwards. To have continued up the line would have been stupid. Had the proper decision been made, it would have opened up space on the opposite side of the ground.

Exactly correct :angry:

I'd be very upset if this tactic was from the coaches box, because it's so incredibly clear that we don't have the skill required to chip the ball arounf for 5 minutes. But I'd suspect it was the 'senior' players who tried to do that (e.g. Bruce, Jones, Bartram, PJ who were all players I saw flapping their arms around at some point in the game). I hate the tactic, and as CB said above, most of the time we were in a prime position to attack, kick long, and maybe score.

  Kit Walker said:

I was criticising the bashing of Bruce who apparently committed the cardinal sin of telling an inexperienced team-mate to keep possession rather than panicking and kicking it to a flood.

Kicking the ball long to the forward line (which had an even ratio of Richmond and Melbourne players) was, is and almost always will be the better option.

I managed to watch the replay from just after this incident and the commentators rightly heavily criticised Melbourne for this and Bruce was benched accordingly. Good to see.

yep the call by Bruce was SOoooo correct he was whisked off the field moments later !!!

  belzebub59 said:

yep the call by Bruce was SOoooo correct he was whisked off the field moments later !!!

By that logic, whenever you see a player going to the bench after kicking a goal, they are being punished for doing just that.

Brilliant.

  Kit Walker said:

By that logic, whenever you see a player going to the bench after kicking a goal, they are being punished for doing just that.

Brilliant.

now we know he didnt just kick a goal.. and we know he stuffed up big time.. but persit with your strain of logic if you wish...it just doesnt stack up to what HAPPENED !! does it ??