Even Matthew Lloyd Is confused by our game plan

[Pipefitter 2,159]

From the Age:

IT WAS a pitiful fortnight for Melbourne. One view had it saving its worst performances for the year for the two games played before the biggest audiences. The other view was that the two matches simply exposed more people to how poor Melbourne has been all year.

The consensus largely has been that struggling, developing Melbourne has been honest and competitive but went backwards sharply in the past two games. Which is probably fair.

"I think most people in the football world felt they were having honourable losses but the last two weeks they have gone backwards in the way they have played," Essendon captain Matthew Lloyd told ABC radio on Saturday after playing the Demons on Friday night.

But Lloyd also seemed to hint that the Demons were playing without a clearly discernible game plan.

"I felt whatever their game style is … the one move I did notice is they often throw Cameron Bruce, Aaron Davey behind the ball," Lloyd said.

"I think they have to play in the midfield where they can hurt the scoreboard and be more damaging (along with) Brad Green (and) those type of players and the young players.

"At Essendon everyone knows what the game plan is (but at) Melbourne?"

His fellow commentator, former St Kilda player Austinn Jones, was more direct. "The consistency in the game plan is what makes a side successful long term," he said. "It is the players getting used to it and almost becoming second nature.

"That is what Melbourne need to do — they need to get their game plan in place, stick to it 100 per cent, be confident in it, they need to sell it every single week to their players and eventually Melbourne supporters will know exactly what Melbourne are trying to do.

"But it has got to be consistent, they have got to absolutely stick to it 100 per cent. You wouldn't change your style week to week and that to me appears what Melbourne is doing at this stage," said Jones, who is coaching at lower levels but harbours a desire to join AFL coaching ranks.

The question is whether Melbourne was actually playing to this game plan in recent weeks, or if, because of the shocking skill level displayed, it is fair to even presume the Demons know what their game plan is.

Coach Dean Bailey and the Demons should be condemned for the insipid third quarter on Friday night when players were dispatched behind the ball to no avail. If this was an instruction, then it was a poor one. If it wasn't, then why were they there and who was leading on the field?

[H_T 3,047]

Coach Dean Bailey and the Demons should be condemned for the insipid third quarter on Friday night when players were dispatched behind the ball to no avail. If this was an instruction, then it was a poor one. If it wasn't, then why were they there and who was leading on the field?

Management.

[titan_uranus 25,018]

Coach Dean Bailey and the Demons should be condemned for the insipid third quarter on Friday night when players were dispatched behind the ball to no avail. If this was an instruction, then it was a poor one. If it wasn't, then why were they there and who was leading on the field?

Exactly. It doesn't work, and I don't want to see it happen again.

[rusty_kingswood 0]

Management.

Are you saying that the board is responsible for our game plan, or lack there of?

[e25 5]

Even Matthew Lloyd Is confused by our game plan.

Even?

Oh, of course, I forgot, the best gameplan is one that an opposing captain can easily recognise.

??!?

[H_T 3,047]

Are you saying that the board is responsible for our game plan, or lack there of?

The board? Of course not.

[e25 5]

Coach Dean Bailey and the Demons should be condemned for the insipid third quarter on Friday night when players were dispatched behind the ball to no avail. If this was an instruction, then it was a poor one. If it wasn't, then why were they there and who was leading on the field?

This actually highlighted something for me.

It is fine & well to anoint a player as the perfect choice as next captain (a la Brad Green over the last week) for the courage he displays on the field and excellent form and compliance to the team rules - but all of that is moot if he does not provide guidance and direction to the troops, especially in tough situations.

I'm not saying he isn't, but it looked on Friday as if no one was - a player who is ready to be captain should already be leading without having to hold the title.

Without Junior there no one stepped up. I'm not talking by leading with actions and by example. I want someone barking orders and getting teammates in the right spots, holding them accountable.

To me, this is one of the most important things MFC lacks. A true leader who will take the team by the scruff of the neck. Its like we have a lot of leaders who are happy to lead a bit as long as they don't venture out of their comfort zone and step on any toes. Maybe a case of too many cooks jockeying for position and no clear top dog (after Junior, that is)

[45HG 1,539]

Enforcer, you've reminded me of the last few minutes of the Bulldogs match in '07.

We hit the front late in the match and yet no player directed the troops. Dogs kick a goal, Brad Johnson goes mental and calls all Dogs players to the backline.

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

A very good and accurate article.

"insipid third quarter on Friday night when players were dispatched behind the ball to no avail"

This is the key point.

It's no coincidence that in the second and fourth quarters when Melbourne had (at least some) options up the ground and in the forward line that they were able to kick goals.

The loose man (in some cases, men) in defence rubbish rarely works, especially for Melbourne.

[e25 5]

I'm purely speculating, but I imagine that we were told to get numbers behind the ball if the bombers started to get on top and our more senior players panicked prematurely, effectively waving the white flag.

ok, thinly veiled, but he just drives me nuts...

[rpfc 28,417]

A very good and accurate article.

"insipid third quarter on Friday night when players were dispatched behind the ball to no avail"

This is the key point.

It's no coincidence that in the second and fourth quarters when Melbourne had (at least some) options up the ground and in the forward line that they were able to kick goals.

The loose man (in some cases, men) in defence rubbish rarely works, especially for Melbourne.

Yes, AND players willing to run and risk to get the ball forward. They seize up so easily in the third and Bailey has to get his senior players to do something about it or look past them and put the responsibility into the hands of players that will try to win the game rather than avoid losing.

We can make our own judgements about which players don't shrink when the opposition is pressing.

[dees 1858 0]

Not suprised Matthew Lloyd is confused, it wouldn't take much - he is dumb as dogs poo!

He is the most boring AFL player going around. As soon as he opens his mouth bla bla bla bla!!!

[kryton 0]

Not suprised Matthew Lloyd is confused, it wouldn't take much - he is dumb as dogs poo!

He is the most boring AFL player going around. As soon as he opens his mouth bla bla bla bla!!!

Yup - reckon he'd be confused with a shopping list that had only 'milk' on it......

[Weedster 174]

Yup - reckon he'd be confused with a shopping list that had only 'milk' on it......

No matter what you may think about Matthew Lloyd, he is spot-on here - our game plan is pathetic - can't set up from the kick-in - no-one showing leadership in the middle (Sylivia excepted) - crap disposal more often than not into a forward line which becomes more stationery as the game goes on. Regardless of talent, structure and game plan is the responsibility of the coach. :angry:

[praha 11,240]

Well we've been consistently playing the same bad gameplan, so I guess that, going by what Austin Jones said, we should see some consistently good gameplan executions soon?

Anyway, I can sum up Essendon's gameplan pretty well:

Have Fletcher play as the extra man back. He is 7 foot tall and can get 20 back clearances a game.

Kick the ball into a one-on-one contest of Lloyd and an opposition player. Chances he'll get a free-kick and goal.

Simple.

[Einstein 1]

Coach Dean Bailey and the Demons should be condemned for the insipid third quarter on Friday night when players were dispatched behind the ball to no avail. If this was an instruction, then it was a poor one. If it wasn't, then why were they there and who was leading on the field?

This is what angered me most about the 3rd quarter. We conceded and threw everybody behind the ball and even still, Essendon were able to pick it apart with ease. It was pathetic.

[Sir Why You Little 37,035]

Lloyd's Gameplan is to Fall Forward in the Goal Square & listen for the Umpires Whistle

The sound of his voice makes me shake with rage!!!

Shut it Lloydy....

[Left Field 313]

Matthew Lloyd is a dullard.

To the point though, its clear that we were starting to evolve a game plan until 2 weeks ago, only to take some steps backwards on the bigger stages.

Before then, I liked how hard the players were running to receive when we had it, I liked the change of angle in the back half etc. Of course, even then we broke down going past the wing because our tall forward options were (and remain) non-existent. So we can't lose sight of the run and carry that we had as we blood new (long range) tall forwards. In fact, its tougher on them if we do.

In the last 2 weeks we seem to have reverted and played careful/selfish footy.

Its not uncommon for young lists to produce wildly varying results. Let's hope we can get back into the run and carry game in the back half and give our leading forwards half a chance.

[tarzan16 40]

can't stand lloyd, silliest looking bloke in football, but i hate to say i agree with him. where is the game plan? how are young players meant to develop and learn a professional sport without a game plan. its time DB got one and asap, or risk losing the playing group, and probably his job, and at this moment i wouldn't be too upset if he did. so frustrating.

go dees

[Little Goffy 14,542]

I think where we have a problem is the lack of courage to leave a forward, and a couple of half forwards ACTUALLY FORWARD, even when the ball is hovering in defence.

Too many people running back undermines manning up, people get confused. Having those three or four guys upfield ready to receive the clearance, even if it is rushed out of there, at the very least causes a delay before the next time it comes back in.

If you've got 18 players in defence, obviously every time it comes out it just goes back in.

I like the basic gameplan - running along with a chain of handballs with the goal of keeping it moving forward at the same time as trying to work a player free with enough space to delvier a really good kick into the forward line.

In many respects all it needs is better developed skills and fitness.

But it just doesn't work if there's nobody there, and it doesn't work if you force the whole team, all the time, to be running back and forward.

Those forwards are 'resting' even while they do an important job - being a menace!

[Left Field 313]

Yep - that just about nails it.

Confidence is the key, not the teaching.

[Deeoldfart 8,030]

:

Yup - reckon he'd be confused with a shopping list that had only 'milk' on it......

[jabberwocky 2,301]

I think some people are getting confusing not having a gameplan with not having the ability to execute one

[rpfc 28,417]

I think some people are getting confusing not having a gameplan with not having the ability to execute one

Agree.

[Sir Why You Little 37,035]

I think some people are getting confusing not having a gameplan with not having the ability to execute one

Yes i feel that is much closer to reality. Bailey would have had a game plan before he walked in the door

He needs players & good facilities, & needs to regularly read "The Red Fox" Norms ideas are still relevant..(what a cracker book it is)