The Game Plan

[Roost It 1,434]

The Dogs game saw me in the stands.

It was mentioned in another thread as a GP evident match and I posted agreement.

I also liked the day for the increased appetite for the contest which is something that appears to go lacking from time to time when you have a young group. We really need Bate and Watts to start playing some football. It won't help Jurrah to be left forward on his own. The 3 of them along with Petterd, Morton, Davey and possibly Tapscott are the nucleus of our next forward line. It's going to take time to develop these guys into a cohesive set up.

I'm confident that are back 6 and a our midfield is going to be well strong enough. I would like to see one of Garland or Martin play forward. At the moment I'm leaning toward Garland. He came to the club as a forward and we seem to have the numbers down back at the moment. I really hope Jamar can stay injury free and that one of Spencer, Gawn and Fitzpatrick become valuable bigmen. There's at least 2 - 3 years in development before any of them are ready for serious AFL.

Once this team settles in the gameplan will come out more clearly. At the moment we have to be happy with little snippets and the odd win. I still contend that we can win 8 - 10 games this season.

People need to chill. We have the nucleus of the next great side but so do West Coast, Hawthorn and possibly North. The next 10 years are going to be one hell of a ride.

For the record I don't think Johnson, Bell, Bartram, Newton and Meesen will be on out list next year.

Edited February 24, 2010 by Roost It

[Lost Highway 31]

I don't care what the fabled 'game-plan' is, but I do care about the abysmal lack of incisive football by our mid-field and running players.

The defence is fairly settled and capable and seems able to keep the opposition to reasonable scores if the ball isn't always rebounding from the middle of the ground and even the opposition defenders.

The main weakness in the many games where Melbourne looked like a wet biscuit has been the insipid, inane or inept play by the mid-field brigade - they just seem to lack the ability to fire the ball forward with penetration or to cut holes in the other side's defence by carrying it in waves. More often than not the ball is won and immediately surrendered with poorly chosen targets or very slow decision-making. There isn't a player in that mid-field who didn't get caught with the ball or turn it over many times during last season. One of them is now playing for Carlton, but for the life of me I can't see where any improvement in Jones or Moloney can come from; they seem to lack the instinct, they've reached their limits regardless of their determination or muscular development. They're merely satisfactory rotation players for the resting or injured. Green should be at FF now, and Bruce in defence. Sylvia is the only one who even looks like he could 'break' a game open.

The new blokes Trengove, Scully and Gysberts look to have more of that quality and better skills; they ought to be selected from round 1 and allowed to play their natural games, which cannot be worse and very likely will be far better than any fancy plan addressed to mediocre players. I think a 'game-plan' will largely emerge as these better players gain experience and knowledge of each other's football.

Much of what passes as 'game-plan' in the good sides is just the instinctive ability of players who are reasonably fleet of foot, deliver the ball well to moving targets, run in cohesive packs and move the ball quickly. Most Geelong players do this, and even better players in sides as low down the pecking order as North, knowing that there will be supporting players running with them when they're under pressure to release the ball; but not ours. Not that I can see, at any rate.

Edited February 24, 2010 by Lost Highway

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

1/ To prevent or make it difficult for the opposition to hit a target i50.

2/ To prevent or make it difficult for the opposition to effectively score.

3/ To increase the chance of turning over the ball; therefore obtain possession.

4/ Slowing and changing the tempo of play.

The players are under instruction to quell the oppositions scoring at times during a game. Answer me this: Would you rather be 4 goals down at quarter time, or 6 goals down ?

titan_uranus touched in this, but what I will say is that without any doubt, whenever I see Melbourne go defensive, that is when they concede more goals. Without doubt. Three minutes to go in the quarter and James McDonald holds the ball in the air, you just know the opposition will score no matter how well Melbourne have been playing up to that point.

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?

Let's say that Melbourne cover all the four points and create a turnover on the halfback line. The whole team has pushed into the defensive half of the ground and there are 36 odd players within that area.

What next?

There are very few options up the ground as the whole team has pushed up and it is crowded around the ball. The forwards are trying to get back into forward line, but they are running towards the goals and not away from the goals on a lead so it is harder to hit them as a target.

Now, because the player on the halfback line has no options up ahead, they are forced to chip sideways (or even backwards like Moloney did). But, it's still extremely crowded as most players from both sides are within the area, therefore it is even more difficult to hit a target. In short, as we saw against Fremantle the player with the ball is placed under even more pressure as he hesitates looking for clear options (see Scully) and with the players under more pressure a turnover was and is more likely to occur.

In short, those four points you listed are not just a defensive tactic, they are a negative tactic. It is not positive football that is going to win games and Premierships. This tactic is like playing for a nill-all draw and it shows very little confidence in the players ability to beat their opponents without having to simply flood back.

Of course there will times when you do need to flood back as a last resort, but the issue I have had since round 1, 2007 is that for the most part it seems to be the first option.

[Roost It 1,434]

1/ To prevent or make it difficult for the opposition to hit a target i50.

2/ To prevent or make it difficult for the opposition to effectively score.

3/ To increase the chance of turning over the ball; therefore obtain possession.

4/ Slowing and changing the tempo of play.

Good defence, which I believe Melbourne has, takes care of this espcially with a fit, developed midfield that can push back and cover zones in the back half. This also increases the chance of turning over the ball. There is no reason why all our forwards need to push back. Thus when we either out mark or force the opposition into a turnover we can then have midfielders and back flankers peel off and push forward before kicking to a leading forward. Using zones in this way still enables us to have a functioning forward set up that can then receive the ball and kick those goals.

Of course to execute this you need good skill by foot, pace and you also need to know exactly what your teammates are upto. It's from back flank to forward flank where the zones will be. To get through this you need precise, quick ball movement. This will take several years to develop. We are also hoping that Bailey is developing a set of tactics that are new and supersede the current plans. Time will tell but I reckon he's got the talent to pull off some pretty special football.

[DemonDan... 77]

.....

After a page of discussion still not an even an outline or hint of what baileys up to!

He may not even have a GamePlan yet, (or it would be very flexible if he did) because he will probably develop the GP as the players develop and their strengths and weaknesses become more evident.

Maybe he's just using the term to stop people/the media asking so many questions?

'We'll just stick to the GP'.. he'll say. Knowing fully well that there isnt one yet.. its a work-in-progress.

Wouldnt it be easier to develop a GP around players, rather than try fit players into a GP?? Just a thought..

But one thing is for sure, as i mentioned in another thread, on Sunday night the only "gameplan" I saw (and this started at the 10 min mark of the 1st quarter, scores level!) was our forward half of the ground empty, every/nearly every player in freos defensive 50 - like we were 10 gls down trying to stop the floodgates, until freo just kept pumping it in and kicked a winning score..

and that better not be the plan or the recently mentioned extra year on Baileys contract will just be a token gesture..

[45HG 1,559]

Anybody going to the Future Fund event tonight?

If so, I'll see ya there

May've seen you there!

[Lost Highway 31]

Of course to execute this you need good skill by foot, pace and you also need to know exactly what your teammates are upto. It's from back flank to forward flank where the zones will be. To get through this you need precise, quick ball movement. This will take several years to develop. We are also hoping that Bailey is developing a set of tactics that are new and supersede the current plans. Time will tell but I reckon he's got the talent to pull off some pretty special football.

Agreed.

But what you are asking for cannot be delivered by a midfield composed largely of such players as Jones (one dimensional), Moloney (one dimensional), the ageing McDonald, Bruce (poor kick, and needed in defence) and Green (great kick but slow and should be deep in attack). That kind of midfield might try very hard, but won't cut through. I trust that by 'he's got the talent', you are talking about Scully, Trengove, Gysberts, Morton, Sylvia, Davey and maybe Jetta and Blease (if he ever plays for the club), and not any 'talent' he might have as coach! Yes, they might be light and inexperienced, but they've got a lot more spark than the existing set-up.

The forward line to which they will be delivering the ball will be nothing special until or unless Watts makes a serious impact, with the likes of Jurrah, Gawn, Dunn, Garland (?) and Fitzpatrick as tall or tallish foils.

OK, I've made two posts on this, suggesting that the mid-field needs a complete clear-out. I'd let Trengove, Scully, Gysberts, Morton, Sylvia and Davey rip in the remaining practice matches and the season proper, using one of Jones and Moloney from the bench as muscle in close. Keep the aging senior players out of that area altogether; they are just not capable of having the required impact between HB and HF.

[Harcourt 146]

May've seen you there!

Went to Future Fund gig tonight as well - maybe we met each other Enforcer and 45, another good night with some really nice insight into the club. The club has really embraced this group of supporters so get involved if you want to meet some quality dees supporters.

High Tower - your post is one of the best I've read on this site in a very long time so well done. I agree with 90% of what you say and choose to keep the other 10% to myself.

[H_T 3,049]

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?

Keep possession.

Let's say that Melbourne cover all the four points and create a turnover on the halfback line. The whole team has pushed into the defensive half of the ground and there are 36 odd players within that area.

What next?

There are very few options up the ground as the whole team has pushed up and it is crowded around the ball. The forwards are trying to get back into forward line, but they are running towards the goals and not away from the goals on a lead so it is harder to hit them as a target.

Keep and maintain possession. As soon as there is a turnover or free-kick or an intercepted mark to us, you maintain possession by either kicking it out to space to honour a lead or finding a teammate with a short pass. As soon as possession is achieved the forwards (or at least 2-3 of them) should be on their bikes getting back to the forward line double time. Other half-forwards and midfielders should be moving around or creating space (an outlet) as per game plan! for the next set-up play.

Now, because the player on the halfback line has no options up ahead, they are forced to chip sideways (or even backwards like Moloney did). But, it's still extremely crowded as most players from both sides are within the area, therefore it is even more difficult to hit a target.

If that becomes the scenario that is faced with the man in possession and there is no handball off-load (dish-off) to play on and the ump calls play on, the last case scenario should be to kick long to a one on one and hug the boundary. Best case is a mark to a teammate, or if it is spoiled or the teammate is out of position, that teammate has the option to force the ball out over the boundary. At worst a 50/50 throw in.

In short, those four points you listed are not just a defensive tactic, they are a negative tactic. It is not positive football that is going to win games and Premierships. This tactic is like playing for a nill-all draw and it shows very little confidence in the players ability to beat their opponents without having to simply flood back.

Of course there will times when you do need to flood back as a last resort, but the issue I have had since round 1, 2007 is that for the most part it seems to be the first option.

I agree with you that they might be deemed as a negative tactic and I don't wish to see my team use it time after time. There will be times that these tactics will be needed - as you say - as a last resort. Such as on Sunday. When the scoring is ticking over for the opposition, yet our score isn't.

Our midfield needs to win more ball out of the centre and be more effective around the ground. It is my belief that a midfield such as this will go along way to eradicating such tactics. Which is the main reason our teams FD addressed this last draft.

[H_T 3,049]

Good defence, which I believe Melbourne has, takes care of this espcially with a fit, developed midfield that can push back and cover zones in the back half. This also increases the chance of turning over the ball. There is no reason why all our forwards need to push back. Thus when we either out mark or force the opposition into a turnover we can then have midfielders and back flankers peel off and push forward before kicking to a leading forward. Using zones in this way still enables us to have a functioning forward set up that can then receive the ball and kick those goals.

Of course to execute this you need good skill by foot, pace and you also need to know exactly what your teammates are upto. It's from back flank to forward flank where the zones will be. To get through this you need precise, quick ball movement. This will take several years to develop. We are also hoping that Bailey is developing a set of tactics that are new and supersede the current plans. Time will tell but I reckon he's got the talent to pull off some pretty special football.

Indeed Roost It. I think the plans that will eventually be in place will be revised ones of those current. They will be devised to mirror our teams strengths. For example, last years midfield set-plays will be very different to the midfield's in 2013-14.

[H_T 3,049]

He may not even have a GamePlan yet, (or it would be very flexible if he did) because he will probably develop the GP as the players develop and their strengths and weaknesses become more evident.

Exactly. Pretty much the gist of this thread and my opening post. It will evolve depending upon our teams strengths and structure, and perhaps a little for the exploitation of other teams weaknesses.

[kozi 0]

titan_uranus touched in this, but what I will say is that without any doubt, whenever I see Melbourne go defensive, that is when they concede more goals. Without doubt. Three minutes to go in the quarter and James McDonald holds the ball in the air, you just know the opposition will score no matter how well Melbourne have been playing up to that point.

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?

Let's say that Melbourne cover all the four points and create a turnover on the halfback line. The whole team has pushed into the defensive half of the ground and there are 36 odd players within that area.

What next?

There are very few options up the ground as the whole team has pushed up and it is crowded around the ball. The forwards are trying to get back into forward line, but they are running towards the goals and not away from the goals on a lead so it is harder to hit them as a target.

Now, because the player on the halfback line has no options up ahead, they are forced to chip sideways (or even backwards like Moloney did). But, it's still extremely crowded as most players from both sides are within the area, therefore it is even more difficult to hit a target. In short, as we saw against Fremantle the player with the ball is placed under even more pressure as he hesitates looking for clear options (see Scully) and with the players under more pressure a turnover was and is more likely to occur.

In short, those four points you listed are not just a defensive tactic, they are a negative tactic. It is not positive football that is going to win games and Premierships. This tactic is like playing for a nill-all draw and it shows very little confidence in the players ability to beat their opponents without having to simply flood back.

Of course there will times when you do need to flood back as a last resort, but the issue I have had since round 1, 2007 is that for the most part it seems to be the first option.

well said! best post so far!

[Roost It 1,434]

Indeed Roost It. I think the plans that will eventually be in place will be revised ones of those current. They will be devised to mirror our teams strengths. For example, last years midfield set-plays will be very different to the midfield's in 2013-14.

2 things. I really hope we have different midfield set ups and 2. I think you should go to bed earlier. It'll help keep you fresh for tommorow's postings!

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

Keep possession.

Possession is meaningless unless you do something with it.

Flooding the defensive half of the crowd significantly reduces the ability to use the ball well.

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

I agree with you that they might be deemed as a negative tactic and I don't wish to see my team use it time after time. There will be times that these tactics will be needed - as you say - as a last resort. Such as on Sunday. When the scoring is ticking over for the opposition, yet our score isn't.

EDIT: Apparently not according to someone at the game.

But one thing is for sure, as i mentioned in another thread, on Sunday night the only "gameplan" I saw (and this started at the 10 min mark of the 1st quarter, scores level!)was our forward half of the ground empty, every/nearly every player in freos defensive 50 - like we were 10 gls down trying to stop the floodgates, until freo just kept pumping it in and kicked a winning score..

Edited February 24, 2010 by Clint Bizkit

[jabberwocky 2,301]

Possession is meaningless unless you do something with it.

Flooding the defensive half of the crowd significantly reduces the ability to use the ball well.

Which begs the question how did you come into possession of it in the first place.

Simple stuff.

Your teamate has the ball you provide an option, shepherd, clear space.

Your opponent has the ball you shut down options, invade/close down space.

All football teams do it, some better than others.

A couple of times there were no targets to kick to up the ground. I would be certain that having no targets to kick forward to is not part of the master plan. This was ceratinly not a significant contributing factor to the loss.

I am sure you realise that not all that evolves on the football ground is part of the coaches' plan.

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

Which begs the question how did you come into possession of it in the first place.

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.

[titan_uranus 25,043]

Keep and maintain possession. As soon as there is a turnover or free-kick or an intercepted mark to us, you maintain possession by either kicking it out to space to honour a lead or finding a teammate with a short pass. As soon as possession is achieved the forwards (or at least 2-3 of them) should be on their bikes getting back to the forward line double time. Other half-forwards and midfielders should be moving around or creating space (an outlet) as per game plan! for the next set-up play.

Yes, nice in theory. But we've seen what happens. We kick/handpass backwards, sideways, we eventually miss one and we turn it over.

It's time for us to be more proactive and look to force the opposition into getting defensive.

I would be certain that having no targets to kick forward to is not part of the master plan. This was ceratinly not a significant contributing factor to the loss.

plan.

Of course it was. It was one of the biggest, alongside our horrible skill level.

[Keyser Söze 0]

...

So... you're frustrated that you can't see what Melb's gameplan is after one NAB Cup match?

For argument's sake, what is Collingwood's gameplan?

Or the Bulldog's gameplan?

Or Essendon's?

I contend that a lot of posters lamenting the "lack of a gameplan" wouldn't even recognise one if they did see it.

They only know a gameplan that is working and one that isn't, but I put that down to execution mostly in our case.

[titan_uranus 25,043]

So... you're frustrated that you can't see what Melb's gameplan is after one NAB Cup match?

No, I'm frustrated that we haven't had a gameplan for over a year now. The NAB Cup match was hopefully going to be the first showing of some change in the football played by the MFC.

For argument's sake, what is Collingwood's gameplan?

Or the Bulldog's gameplan?

Or Essendon's?

Well I can do one of them. Essendon's would be to run the ball with pace through the midfield and share it by hand. But they still have talls in the forward line (I'm guessing they'll use Neagle, Gumbleton and Hurley, along with Monfries) to aim for.

[Keyser Söze 0]

No, I'm frustrated that we haven't had a gameplan for over a year now. The NAB Cup match was hopefully going to be the first showing of some change in the football played by the MFC.

I'd say melb had one that worked quite well in all of their wins last year.

A gameplan is rarely evident when a team is losing - once it breaks down for whatever reason, it falls apart into an unrecognisable shambles.

The only way you can make much sense of it is if you can break it down with the base knowledge of what they were trying to do.

Without understanding their intent, of course it is hard to recognise.

Well I can do one of them. Essendon's would be to run the ball with pace through the midfield and share it by hand. But they still have talls in the forward line (I'm guessing they'll use Neagle, Gumbleton and Hurley, along with Monfries) to aim for.

That's a bit simplistic. I think MFC's (and most other team's) gameplan is pretty similar to that these days.

A much more detailed analysis than that is needed, otherwise it is a waste of time imho.

Edited February 25, 2010 by Keyser Söze

[titan_uranus 25,043]

I'd say melb had one that worked quite well in all of their wins last year.

A gameplan is rarely evident when a team is losing - once it breaks down for whatever reason, it falls apart into an unrecognisable shambles.

The only way you can make much sense of it is if you can break it down with the base knowledge of what they were trying to do.

Without understanding their intent, of course it is hard to recognise.

So when we win it works, and when we lose it doesn't work. Sounds like a bit of a chicken-egg debate. I mean, is it the loss that means the gameplan falls apart, or is it the gameplan falling apart than means we lose?

That's a bit simplistic. I think MFC's (and most other team's) gameplan is pretty similar to that these days.

A much more detailed analysis than that is needed, otherwise it is a waste of time imho.

Simplistic it may be, but at least you can look at any Essendon match (win or lose) and you can see what Matthew Knights is trying to make happen.

[sue 9,143]

After a page of discussion still not an even an outline or hint of what baileys up to!

As posted on ology, before concluding that we have no game plan (eg it is skills and confidence we lack),

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

So please list the gameplan of some clubs, especially ones with mediocre skills. If you can then we will have some interesting information.

If you can't, stop saying WE have no gameplan.

[beelzebub 23,383]

Clint...youre making way too much sense..please desist as youre confusing the many!!

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 .

Its risky i know to simplify it to such but many want a convoluted plan. Itsas others allude...you load up a side with skilled and talented players who can react well and in a positive manner. There are far to many permutations of events to often stick to a "plan" as you need a 100 exemptions per to accomodate what really happens.

To play a purely possession game you need pinpoint accuracy and 110% fitness. We fail on both accounts presently...but hey..stay tuned

[H_T 3,049]

I thinks that's the point. We have many critical of "the gameplan" without considering all of the factors which go into implementing one successfully ie these factors are key in rendering the gameplan successful.

The gameplan was evident at various times last year and had many of us pretty impressed.

I didn't miss this dandeeman, but I thought I would highlight it....again...for those who are confused and frustrated.

You're on the ball.