The Game Plan

[H_T 3,049]

As posted on ology..

Welcome to the old Game Plan thread.

I'd like people who say we don't have one to prove they can spot one when one does exist.

Floors yours Clint.

[beelzebub 23,390]

atm...any plan must be out of the KISS manual.. Until we can do basics consistently to a high standard we cant put any carts ahead of ourselves and expect finesse.

[H_T 3,049]

atm...any plan must be out of the KISS manual.. Until we can do basics consistently to a high standard we cant put any carts ahead of ourselves and expect finesse.

Correct.

Furthermore, it's not as if strategies haven't been mapped out as yet. Each area (i) midfield (ii) forwards (iii) backs would have there own strategies or little game plans which contribute to the greater one. The backs: They'd have plans A,B,C,D, etc from kickouts after a behind. The midfield/ruck would have their own stoppage strategies worked out and those around stoppages would no doubt be communicating to one another of the intended play and to forwards on occassions. (ie. deliverying to the "fat side" (space) inside 50. Or kicking long to the goalsquare quickly for a one-on-one hoping that Jurrah will be there.

The FD would also have files on their oppositions and the plays they favour themselves around the ground so our players can try to nullify and combat that. They're game plans themselves.

In summary:

As we know, when there is a breakdown in transition ie. turnover it all goes pear shaped. Or if the first two deliveries reach their intended targets, it might be the 3rd step where it breaks down and the side looks vulnerable. These are the frustrations and these are the aspects which lead to some to believe there is "no gameplan"...but there is. It's just dysfunctional, which is the crux of the way this thread was intended to communicate and hence educate.

But look on the brighter side...it will come eventually with hard work and maturity.

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

Floors yours Clint.

I'm not denying that Melbourne doesn't have the best skills. My issue is that the structure of flooding the defensive half of the ground and playing a loose man in defence makes it even harder to execute skills properly (hit targets) and that it does not assist in the scoring of goals. Even if the overall skill level of Melbourne's players was much better there still would be a considerable number of turnovers as a result of having fewer targets to hit and being under greater pressure.

I wouldn't know exactly what other teams game plans are, first of all because I don't watch them as closely but also because I very rarely attend non-MFC games so issues of structure, where forwards line up and so on are much harder to gauge from watching on TV.

[Sir Why You Little 37,308]

The game is about scoring...not about having it the most...bit like dying with the most money...whats the point.

Yes you do need it first...but its about scoring..after all..the highest score wins...its about as hard as that .

Yes exactly,the game plan is about getting the ball, or getting the ball off the opponent-and then with as much efficiency as possible kicking the ball through the big sticks.

When teams possess the ball in the midfield, it is only because the opposition defense is on top at that moment.

Possession of the ball will win you dream team points, but if you do not outscore the opponent you will never win.

IMHO the Gameplan should always be about efficiency. How effectively can our listed players be used to win many games of footy, thus in theory you draft in what you need and out what has become superfluous.

That's my Game Plan...

[Hobbits's 17]

Possession of the ball will win you dream team points,

That's my Game Plan...

Since when did the game plan take on importance and involve dream team points ?

[Sir Why You Little 37,308]

Since when did the game plan take on importance and involve dream team points ?

Exactly my point..Why do teams do it so much-there is no point in it a lot of the time.

Only people with dream team entries prosper. i understand the quick sharp hand balls to get out of a tight spot, but after that i wonder often why possession tactics go on for so long. You just know the team is going to cough it up...and pay.

[Hobbits's 17]

Exactly my point..Why do teams do it so much-there is no point in it a lot of the time.

Only people with dream team entries prosper. i understand the quick sharp hand balls to get out of a tight spot, but after that i wonder often why possession tactics go on for so long. You just know the team is going to cough it up...and pay.

ugh. oh, you mean why do teams over possess at times ? ok.

I was wondering why on earth dream team points were being discussed at all, particularly in relation to this thread. would not have thought dream team points would concern the 16 FD's in the afl, unless those members had entries. strange point you make though.

[Guest fatty]

Correct.

Furthermore, it's not as if strategies haven't been mapped out as yet. Each area (i) midfield (ii) forwards (iii) backs would have there own strategies or little game plans which contribute to the greater one. The backs: They'd have plans A,B,C,D, etc from kickouts after a behind. The midfield/ruck would have their own stoppage strategies worked out and those around stoppages would no doubt be communicating to one another of the intended play and to forwards on occassions. (ie. deliverying to the "fat side" (space) inside 50. Or kicking long to the goalsquare quickly for a one-on-one hoping that Jurrah will be there.

The FD would also have files on their oppositions and the plays they favour themselves around the ground so our players can try to nullify and combat that. They're game plans themselves.

In summary:

As we know, when there is a breakdown in transition ie. turnover it all goes pear shaped. Or if the first two deliveries reach their intended targets, it might be the 3rd step where it breaks down and the side looks vulnerable. These are the frustrations and these are the aspects which lead to some to believe there is "no gameplan"...but there is. It's just dysfunctional, which is the crux of the way this thread was intended to communicate and hence educate.

But look on the brighter side...it will come eventually with hard work and maturity.

Is there anything you don't know?

[H_T 3,049]

Is there anything you don't know?

Yes. How to quibble.

[Keyser Söze 0]

Exactly my point..Why do teams do it so much-there is no point in it a lot of the time.

Only people with dream team entries prosper. i understand the quick sharp hand balls to get out of a tight spot, but after that i wonder often why possession tactics go on for so long. You just know the team is going to cough it up...and pay.

I think you'd find the idea is to move the ball around, without coughing it up, to draw defenders and create space further afield.

No point being direct if you are moving it directly into a sea of defenders.

[H_T 3,049]

EDIT: Apparently not according to someone at the game.

You don't do it by flooding.

Personally, I would prefer to see Melbourne go man-on-man and back players in to beat their opponents instead of relying on flooding and playing a loose man in defence.

Informative piece just for you.

[... 11]

Those four points you make are all very well, but they leave the most crucial point, what do you then do when you get the ball?

You turn towards goal with the opposition bearing down on you. You panic and fire off an up and under kick to Petterd who is alone in the forward fifty with the exception of two 6'5" defenders who come screaming back towards you with the ball, and then kick it over your head and into their forward 50 that you, just 10 seconds ago, cleared the ball from.

[agent_orange 0]

I think you'd find the idea is to move the ball around, without coughing it up, to draw defenders and create space further afield.

No point being direct if you are moving it directly into a sea of defenders.

I have to argue against this.

If you look at all the quaters we won last year, it was when we were moving the ball direct down the middle.

If we handball the ball around in circles waiting for a break, we get crushed because somewhere, someone is going to make a mistake.

[Keyser Söze 0]

I have to argue against this.

If you look at all the quaters we won last year, it was when we were moving the ball direct down the middle.

If we handball the ball around in circles waiting for a break, we get crushed because somewhere, someone is going to make a mistake.

Depends on the setup of the defence you are attacking against.

A direct approach is good when attacking in transition.

After a turnover and defenders are caught out of position this is great.

If the defence has had time to set up and it's a zone or flood which you are combatting, you need to find a way around/through it.

This can lead to a possession game where the ball needs to be moved around to draw defenders before breaking a line and moving forward.

It all depends on the situations that develop throughout the course of a game.

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

Informative piece just for you.

I've seen Melbourne flood the defensive half of the ground since round 1, 2007. Reports from people at the game suggest this happened on Sunday.

[Sir Why You Little 37,308]

I've seen Melbourne flood the defensive half of the ground since round 1, 2007. Reports from people at the game suggest this happened on Sunday.

There was definate Flooding last week in Perth, whether Bailey planned it or not, it's what happened.

It could be seen even through Foxtels B Grade Telecast.

Having no players in the forward line to kick to when somebody looks up for a pass will infuriate me till the day i shuffle off this mortal coil!!

[DemonDan... 77]

Informative piece just for you.

Dont even need to look that 'informative piece', was just coming on here to comment on that particularly.

If Bails isnt straight up lying and you'd think he wouldnt be considering the players can read the article-

then we now have a better understanding of the mental state of the players at the MFC.

The players absolutely, 1000% flooded our backline at about the 10 min mark of the 1st quarter on Sunday, scores zero points each.. and continued to did it at times throughout the whole match.

What would you call it -if you drew a line from the highest point of the defensive 50m mark, to the boundary line each side of the ground, parallel to the back end of the centre square- and all our and their players (except LJ and his opponent, who were just outside our def 50, at CHB/CHF proper) were below that imaginary line??

(Their may have been a couple just outside that line, but only by a metre or 2, way out near the boundary..)

If we win possession we would have to kick sideways, or boot it upfield to no-one.. and chase it up.

If players are playing like this on instinct, then thats not good at all.. could take seasons to change!

I'll eagerly await the next few weeks.

Bailey should have said: 'I didnt instruct them to flood'. Instead of: 'we didnt flood'

because we did.. again, many times from the start of the match and people will tire quickly of the word games.

EDIT: yep, WYL - great minds!

[H_T 3,049]

If Bails isnt straight up lying and you'd think he wouldnt be considering the players can read the article-

then we now have a better understanding of the mental state of the players at the MFC.

EDIT: yep, WYL - great minds!

Brilliant minds no doubt. (For the record you couldn't see "jack" on the foxtel coverage with regard to flooding; and Freo were 8-0 up at 10 minutes fwiw).

So Bails is lying now, is he ?

AGM speech

Questionning the mental state of the players is just ridiculous.

From the reports I've read as well as on this forum, there is a very healthy vibe among players and coaching staff.

[jabberwocky 2,301]

The purpose of pushing numbers into defence isn't unusual and can be about getting the numbers to the football. Dynasties have been built on this tactic which I think was pioneered by the great Hawthorn sides of the eighties and has evolved further.

Since then we have seen all the great sides push numbers to the ball with the aim of running goalward in packs. North, Brisbane, Geelong and Hawthorn again all used this tactic and won premierships with it.

I have no doubt that this is the style of footy Bailey is aiming at and forms the basis of the "gameplan".

Getting behind the footy is a great way of pushing team momentum forward ie toward your goal. When it is executed well with good skills and strong bodies is hard to stop. When it is not executed correctly...or confidently and/or is hampered by good defensive zoning you end up constantly going sideways and backwards and it looks like unsuccessful defensive flooding.

Check where the players set up when the ball isn't deep in defence.

Bailey is running with a gameplan that has won flags. He will ask the players to perform to a standard to make the gameplan successful. He will not compromise the gameplan to the players current or past standards.

[Hobbits's 17]

in Bailey's interview recently he mentioned the side are instructed to move the ball swiftly and take risks. He also mentioned about providing plenty of space for Liam Jurrah one out. Perhaps a Bailey style paddock for liam is such a plan whereby the other players push up the ground to leave one (jurrah) or two in forward 50? perhaps others could comment based on what they saw today at Visy...

[titan_uranus 25,176]

in Bailey's interview recently he mentioned the side are instructed to move the ball swiftly and take risks. He also mentioned about providing plenty of space for Liam Jurrah one out. Perhaps a Bailey style paddock for liam is such a plan whereby the other players push up the ground to leave one (jurrah) or two in forward 50? perhaps others could comment based on what they saw today at Visy...

Yes, but teams don't play man on man much any more, so opposition defenders aren't following our forwards all the way down the ground. They hang back a bit. So invariably Jurrah or whoever is closest to goal is outnumbered.

Mind you, Jurrah's going to be good enough to take on 3 or 4 defenders one day...

[Hobbits's 17]

Yes, but teams don't play man on man much any more, so opposition defenders aren't following our forwards all the way down the ground. They hang back a bit.

yes, well maybe. last week must have been an exception then because the opposition followed according to reports here.

[titan_uranus 25,176]

yes, well maybe. last week must have been an exception then because the opposition followed according to reports here.

Well whatever happened, I'm pretty sure that last week our forwards pushed up the ground, and then when we took possession our forwards ended up outnumbered.

[45HG 1,559]

Similar story for much of today in my view.

We did move the ball much quicker though and took a lot more risks - sometimes we came unstuck but often it looked very attractive.