I caught the end of a conversation on SEN this afternoon with Dermott Brereton. Dermott was discussing Melbourne's game plans on the day. He felt that Hawthorn has 3-4 players such as Birchall, Ellis and Guarra who prefer to run free instead of manning up on an opponent.

So what did the Dees do? He said we allowed Hawthorn to set up free players in their defensive zone. This was exactly what the Hawks wanted. The Birchalls and Ellises were allowed a free shot at their forward targets and they cut us to shreds. He said we went one-on-one in the last 40 minutes and did much better, but the bottom line according to Brereton was that Bailey's tactics for yesterdays match were a shocker.

Should we go back to a simple game plan such as one-on-one? Are there other options?

I noticed the improvement when we did go one-on-one. maybe thats what we've got to do to stay afloat for a while.

I caught the end of a conversation on SEN this afternoon with Dermott Brereton. Dermott was discussing Melbourne's game plans on the day. He felt that Hawthorn has 3-4 players such as Birchall, Ellis and Guarra who prefer to run free instead of manning up on an opponent.

So what did the Dees do? He said we allowed Hawthorn to set up free players in their defensive zone. This was exactly what the Hawks wanted. The Birchalls and Ellises were allowed a free shot at their forward targets and they cut us to shreds. He said we went one-on-one in the last 40 minutes and did much better, but the bottom line according to Brereton was that Bailey's tactics for yesterdays match were a shocker.

Should we go back to a simple game plan such as one-on-one? Are there other options?

What game plan....what a poor excuse for an AFL coach.....time for Bailey to bail rather than accept an extension for doing nothing except leading us down the ladder.

Other point from Brereton was that playing kids one on one will expose them to the basis of AFL footy through standing an existing player.....might be typical Dermie bulldust but could it be any worse than yesterday's display which, by the time it'

s been repeated for another season, leaves some scars on otherwise promising young talent

I noticed the improvement when we did go one-on-one. maybe thats what we've got to do to stay afloat for a while.

Man-on-man football. Who would have thought that with a young list with little experience that keeping things as simple as possible and allowing them to not have to worry about zones and flooding would work?

February 2010:

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.

I heard Dermott today and agree.

Man on Man next week Please Bail,may look ugly but i want to see our kids learn from experienced players.

Getting belted on the scoreboard will kill these kids quickly.

Man-on-man football. Who would have thought that with a young list with little experience that keeping things as simple as possible and allowing them to not have to worry about zones and flooding would work?

February 2010:

Love how you quoted yourself

And i have always thought that, i never want to see flooding or zones, because i don't want to watch melbourne play like sydney

but the bottom line according to Brereton was that Bailey's tactics for yesterdays match were a shocker.

I really rate Brereton as a tactician. So I'm not surprised at this bit.

Seriously, can anyone think of an instance in which Bailey's gameday tactics were good? I can't.

Man-on-man football. Who would have thought that with a young list with little experience that keeping things as simple as possible and allowing them to not have to worry about zones and flooding would work?

February 2010:

Dermott indicated that Hawthorn were expecting Melbourne to flood the backline. They planned for it; we did it; and they took advantage. That's good coaching.

I'm also worried about our level of 'steely resolve' in the backline. The Hawks scored with their first two entries into the 50 metre zone. The first was because of a turnover from Jones in midfield (he tries so hard but he has not improved his kicking skills to AFL standard). The second was when Warnock was beaten in a one-on-one contest by Roughhead.

Surely in the very first game of the season you must fight to the death to prevent the oppposition from scoring when they first enter the forward 50. If you can stop the oppositions initial attacks it gives terrific boost to your midfielders and forwards. The MFC has said we are building a side from the backline. Yesterday we played the 6-7 guys who will form the nucleus of our backline for the next 5 years. They work as a team within a team, but they did not work hard enough to put pressure on anyone who entered their territory. As mentioned by others, they also didn't 'fly the flag' when grimes went down behind play. Inexcusable. Maybe we need to draw our own 'line in the sand' just as Hawthorn did a few years ago.

Dermott indicated that Hawthorn were expecting Melbourne to flood the backline. They planned for it; we did it; and they took advantage. That's good coaching.

I'm also worried about our level of 'steely resolve' in the backline. The Hawks scored with their first two entries into the 50 metre zone. The first was because of a turnover from Jones in midfield (he tries so hard but he has not improved his kicking skills to AFL standard). The second was when Warnock was beaten in a one-on-one contest by Roughhead.

Surely in the very first game of the season you must fight to the death to prevent the oppposition from scoring when they first enter the forward 50. If you can stop the oppositions initial attacks it gives terrific boost to your midfielders and forwards. The MFC has said we are building a side from the backline. Yesterday we played the 6-7 guys who will form the nucleus of our backline for the next 5 years. They work as a team within a team, but they did not work hard enough to put pressure on anyone who entered their territory. As mentioned by others, they also didn't 'fly the flag' when grimes went down behind play. Inexcusable. Maybe we need to draw our own 'line in the sand' just as Hawthorn did a few years ago.

The backline had no chance to regroup on those occasions you mentioned after we turned over the ball. Hawthorn players spread fast & moved the ball quickly inside their 50 leaving our defenders half way up the ground where the ball had been turned over. I think the issue was not about the backline, I think it was more to do with accountability and costly turnovers catching players out of position.

I really rate Brereton as a tactician. So I'm not surprised at this bit.

Seriously, can anyone think of an instance in which Bailey's gameday tactics were good? I can't.

I just can't believe people can latch on to a comment made by a former HAWKS champion and make a big song and dance about it like its the worthy of attention as Brereton maybe a great tactician but he is also not an entirely objective commentator is he.

I don't think anyone knows what Bailey gameday tactics are, apart from him and his coaching team.

I am not going to second guess him or try to attempt to analyse it as I am in no way qualified to do so and I am guessing that there are quite a few people on these boards who are also in the same boat.

Fact is it's the first game of the year, Bailey has his extension and people should get behind the team and stop whining.

The backline had no chance to regroup on those occasions you mentioned after we turned over the ball. Hawthorn players spread fast & moved the ball quickly inside their 50 leaving our defenders half way up the ground where the ball had been turned over. I think the issue was not about the backline, I think it was more to do with accountability and costly turnovers catching players out of position.

I wonder if we could have prevented that by playing one-on-one. The first 15 minutes of the first match of the season are a bit like a final. 6 months of expectations. We did a fair job at the clearances and our tackle count was good. Perhaps just 'playing it tight' for the first 1/4 might have been a better option.

I don't think anyone knows what Bailey gameday tactics are, apart from him and his coaching team.

Informing his players may have helped !!!

I caught the end of a conversation on SEN this afternoon with Dermott Brereton. Dermott was discussing Melbourne's game plans on the day. He felt that Hawthorn has 3-4 players such as Birchall, Ellis and Guarra who prefer to run free instead of manning up on an opponent.

So what did the Dees do? He said we allowed Hawthorn to set up free players in their defensive zone. This was exactly what the Hawks wanted. The Birchalls and Ellises were allowed a free shot at their forward targets and they cut us to shreds. He said we went one-on-one in the last 40 minutes and did much better, but the bottom line according to Brereton was that Bailey's tactics for yesterdays match were a shocker.

Should we go back to a simple game plan such as one-on-one? Are there other options?

Absolute genius.

How many times have we seen this happen since Bailey became coach? We play stupid unaccountable football in the first half of a game and are getting thrashed and subsequently, we change our approach and all of a sudden we look a million times better. Proves there is no game plan.

I just can't believe people can latch on to a comment made by a former HAWKS champion and make a big song and dance about it like its the worthy of attention as Brereton maybe a great tactician but he is also not an entirely objective commentator is he.

I don't think anyone knows what Bailey gameday tactics are, apart from him and his coaching team.

I am not going to second guess him or try to attempt to analyse it as I am in no way qualified to do so and I am guessing that there are quite a few people on these boards who are also in the same boat.

Fact is it's the first game of the year, Bailey has his extension and people should get behind the team and stop whining.

The bolded bit is very true.

This is how I felt last year. And the year before that. But this year, I and most others expect improvement, and what we showed yesterday was not improvement.

The fact remains that I cannot think of one match where I have been impressed with Bailey's tactics.

Hi to all on Demonland

This is my first post so please forgive me if I stuff up,as I live in a household full of collingwood supporters I felt the need to talk with some demons fans.I heard one of the guys on the channel 9 footy show this morning say that there were rumblings from the melbourne players that Baileys game plan is to complicated to follow,not sure if there is a game plan but if there is I don't think it is working.I sit here watching collingwood vs Bulldogs at the moment and am very concerned as to what we may have to endure next week.I worry about the kids we have recruited if things continue as they did yesterday

I live in a household full of collingwood supporters

You poor, poor thing.

I don't know how you do it.

This is all well and good to listen to Dermie talk about how some of the Hawthorn players like to go about it but Collingwood could be a completely different scenario. I think any pre-determined gameplan you take with a grain of salt. Traditionally Collingwood give MOM a go more than zones so unlike Hawthorn we may not be as effective as they prefer this type of game. Horses for courses.

The point is that there is no 1 single game type we should be employing, we need to learn all facets of modern footy. Unfortunately unless you can exert an effective zone in modern footy (which takes time) then there is no point worrying about AFL footy. MOM is just as important but it is hard to perfect everything at once which is why I give Bailey a bit of leeway when he focuses on one area over the other as part of the learning process. I do agree though that Bailey needs to be sharper as he goes along and needs to weigh up the pros and cons of sticking to a style in a game but he is allowed to develop as well as the club.

This is all well and good to listen to Dermie talk about how some of the Hawthorn players like to go about it but Collingwood could be a completely different scenario. I think any pre-determined gameplan you take with a grain of salt. Traditionally Collingwood give MOM a go more than zones so unlike Hawthorn we may not be as effective as they prefer this type of game. Horses for courses.

The point is that there is no 1 single game type we should be employing, we need to learn all facets of modern footy. Unfortunately unless you can exert an effective zone in modern footy (which takes time) then there is no point worrying about AFL footy. MOM is just as important but it is hard to perfect everything at once which is why I give Bailey a bit of leeway when he focuses on one area over the other as part of the learning process. I do agree though that Bailey needs to be sharper as he goes along and needs to weigh up the pros and cons of sticking to a style in a game but he is allowed to develop as well as the club.

Teach the kids Man on Man first, then worry about more complex tactics please.

Teach the kids Man on Man first, then worry about more complex tactics please.

No problem with that, but to put that comment in context of who we played on the weekend (ie some purely reactionary views in this thread) was the part I was addressing.

No problem with that, but to put that comment in context of who we played on the weekend (ie some purely reactionary views in this thread) was the part I was addressing.

we were an older and more experienced side than Hawthorn-that's the part that really worried myself.

we were an older and more experienced side than Hawthorn-that's the part that really worried myself.

Not true. We were slightly older (and even then, that's only because they were missing a lot of their older players and we have Green, Junior and Bruce) but they had more experience than us. We were playing 3 first gamers FFS.

Not true. We were slightly older (and even then, that's only because they were missing a lot of their older players and we have Green, Junior and Bruce) but they had more experience than us. We were playing 3 first gamers FFS.

It is true, Don't hide. Yes they were missing a lot of their older players, but who we played was who we played.

Hawthorn also played kids as well.

we were an older and more experienced side than Hawthorn-that's the part that really worried myself.

No. We had Bruce and McDonald. That doesn't mean we were older and more experienced. If we had a hundred-year-old playing for us, we would have lost by more, despite having an even more "experienced" side. That statistic is as much a lie as "Quarters Won" when the only quarters you win are the last.

we were an older and more experienced side than Hawthorn-that's the part that really worried myself.

You must get overwhelmed easily if you took the stats of older and experienced to heart.

Hodge, Mitchell and Roughead are younger, less experienced, much better players then James Mcdonald, Bruce, Green. Quality in in the experienced players who influence games. In MFC, our quality had 0, 0, 12 games between them.

So

Quality Hawks ave age: 24 ave games: 90

Quality Demons ave age: 18.5 ave games: 4