And one more thing - you play how you think you should play to win a flag.

Landers last year, and the year before, bemoaned our 'gameplan' or perceived lack thereof, and thought that Bailey should base a plan around the players he had rather than mould the playing group around the plan.

AoB is right about our recruiting, but it isn't just that - it is changing how the players already at the club behave on the field.

Many thought that if we weren't using Moloney's long kick in our plan than he would become superfluous, but instead he has lowered his eyes, worked on his clearance work and handballing and become an A grade midfielder (so far in 2010).

Frawley has tamed his kicking, the backs have increased their boldness and confidence, the forwards have prioritised pressure, and the midfield has finally learnt how to handball.

Go and watch Rd 1, 2008 for a few minutes and compare our handballing then to now.

It's a lesson in sticking to your beliefs and not cowering because of a bad two hours every week when your players don't, or can't, do what you tell them to do.

Honestly, some of you have issues.

Or maybe you're just very good MFC supporters.

We lose by 50 points and Bailey has no gameplan we cry, we win by 50 points and Bailey just tells them to run, and therefore, we still have no gameplan.

We move into the corridor off half back and share (our handballing improved out of sight) until we hit up a 30 metre target outside 50 or continue to share and go over the top of the opposition zone.

I saw it last year, hell, I could dig up something from 2008, I really want to toot my own horn here...

The point is - if you can't see a gameplan then you were one of the majority/plurality that thought we didn't have one and you're too arrogant to admit you were wrong, are wrong, and are being stubbornly ignorant of facts hitting you in the face.

rpfc, these are the same people who were screaming for us to 'just kick it'!!

Just listen to the press conferences in 2008:

- "need to be more competitive" = high intensity tackling and pressure all over the ground.

- "turned the ball over too much" = we couldn't execute our high possession gameplan well enough.

- "need to take more risks" = players weren't running forward hard enough when we got the ball.

Suddenly we are 'more competitive', don't 'turn the ball over' and 'take risks' and people talk about how we've changed the gameplan. It is, fundamentally, the same plan.

Look at the players we have drafted in the national draft since Bailey arrived:

Morton, Grimes, Maric, McNamara, Cheney, Watts, Blease, Strauss, Bennell, Jetta, Bail, Scully, Trengove, Gysberts, Tapscott, Gawn and Fitzpatrick.

Of those players, only the last two picked (Gawn and Fitzpatrick) and Watts have not been skilled running players. Players who run the footy and hit targets. Players who are capable of playing a high intensity, high risk running game that Bailey has been trying to implement.

People used to joke about Alistair Clarkson's handball heavy gameplan in 2005. Then suddenly he was a genius in 2008 when his team were able to execute it properly.

The media will write what the public wants to hear. And people want their lives and issues in easily digestible chunks. Trying to look closely at a gameplan is too big for them to swallow, especially when it's easier to just claim that there is none.

Rhino is on the money. Some of you are clueless.

The game plan that you saw on Saturday night is the gameplan Dean Bailey presented when he was given the gig.

Applaud you all. You guys speak way too much sense. Job's done. Nothing more to see here.

PS. I'm surprised no one has mentioned critically as yet that during the Brisbane game our "forwards pushed up the ground late before half time with no one in our forward 50 presenting a target"......but oh wait, stay tuned.

Or when our side was taking risks offensively, no one was "man on man".

"The Game Plan" thread

agree- remember Russell's sarcastic slant at our club over the last two years.

No but I remember your downtrodden view of our club just 4 weeks ago. (Sorry, just couldn't help myself )

Or when our side was taking risks offensively, no one was "man on man".

You honestly believe that man-on-man refers to following an opponent even when your team is in possession?

You honestly believe that man-on-man refers to following an opponent even when your team is in possession?

When a team has possession of the ball, the defensive team no longer has a zone when the attacking team starts next to a player each. In basketball,the defensive team loses the power of their zone when the attackers stand next to them. It becomes man to man.

When a team has possession of the ball, the defensive team no longer has a zone when the attacking team starts next to a player each. In basketball,the defensive team loses the power of their zone when the attackers stand next to them. It becomes man to man.

What I am saying is that Melbourne have been using man-on-man when they are defending, instead of using a zone. When you have the ball then run off your opponent (excluding key defenders such as Warnock).

There has been a big difference between Melbourne in round 1 and Melbourne in round 2 onwards with regards to playing a more simple man-on-man defensive style.

Applaud you all. You guys speak way too much sense. Job's done. Nothing more to see here.

PS. I'm surprised no one has mentioned critically as yet that during the Brisbane game our "forwards pushed up the ground late before half time with no one in our forward 50 presenting a target"......but oh wait, stay tuned.

Or when our side was taking risks offensively, no one was "man on man".

"The Game Plan" thread

Gee you're pathetic sometimes HT.

I find it difficult to respect what comes out of your mouth/keyboard as half of the time it's just pandering to someone else. In this instance rpfc.

As it is, our forwards are still 'pushing up the ground', something I have never liked. The difference is it's not as far, it's not as many of them, and it's clear now that they are prepared to lead towards the ball carrier if need be. None of that was present last year or in Round 1, hence my posts on the subject.

I'm sure it's hilarious to you though.

There has been a big difference between Melbourne in round 1 and Melbourne in round 2 onwards with regards to playing a more simple man-on-man defensive style.

Its called being accountable for your opponent. And thats execution of the plan. This requirement has been there and evidenced toward the end of last year.

Given we do normally get up to 18 players in the defensive half of the ground there are both players directly spotting their opponents and players (particularly forwards running into the defensive 50) who may play a zone.

As it is, our forwards are still 'pushing up the ground', something I have never liked. The difference is it's not as far, it's not as many of them, and it's clear now that they are prepared to lead towards the ball carrier if need be. None of that was present last year or in Round 1, hence my posts on the subject.

The fact that you dont like forwards pushing up the ground is not a necessarily a flaw in the plan. The only difference is the execution of the tactic. MFC forwards are still emptying the 50 when defending then run hard to the open 50 to take the inside 50 pass from the midfield. MFC are executing better and have players like Sylvia and Green as mid sized marking forwards.

There have been lots of changes since Rd 1. But they are focussed around player commitment and effort particularly around 2nd and 3rd efforts. Our ball use and decision making have been a couple of miles better. The performance of our senior players Beamer, Jones, Jamar, Bruce and Junior has also been instrumental. Our young talents are improving at a greater rate than expected. This is what was not there at Round 1 and in the pre season (at least what I witnessed in the games).

Its called being accountable for your opponent. And thats execution of the plan. This requirement has been there and evidenced toward the end of last year.

No, zones are about filling space as opposed to playing on a direct opponent.

No, zones are about filling space as opposed to playing on a direct opponent.

So are you are saying that defensively that our players were under instruction to be "filling a space" rather than stand or pick up a direct opponent?

The fact that you dont like forwards pushing up the ground is not a necessarily a flaw in the plan. The only difference is the execution of the tactic. MFC forwards are still emptying the 50 when defending then run hard to the open 50 to take the inside 50 pass from the midfield. MFC are executing better and have players like Sylvia and Green as mid sized marking forwards.

There's no doubt we're executing skills better, but I still firmly believe there has been a change in both our forward structure and the movements of our forwards. I see more leads towards the ball-carrier than previously, in part due to our forwards not pushing up all the way to half back, more to half forward. They still leave room behind for the lead back towards the goal, but the aren't too far up.

So are you are saying that defensively that our players were under instruction to be "filling a space" rather than stand or pick up a direct opponent?

That's generally the idea of a zone, from what I have seen it often is used when the opposition is kicking the ball out to try and force a kick into the pocket.

Attending the Essendon/Collingwood match gave me the same feeling as Melbourne matches last year. Essendon supporters were screaming "just kick it" but when they did it was a poor option.

There's no doubt we're executing skills better, but I still firmly believe there has been a change in both our forward structure and the movements of our forwards. I see more leads towards the ball-carrier than previously, in part due to our forwards not pushing up all the way to half back, more to half forward. They still leave room behind for the lead back towards the goal, but the aren't too far up.

It's what DB has been trying to do for a while.

Basically the players are running and running hard. They are spreading and offering options. They have faith that their lead will be honoured (ie: someone will kick it to them). We are definitely hitting targets. We are moving the ball quickly and so are not doing the ring-a-rosy thing with handballs in the backline. Because we are moving quickly players upfield are getting free of their opponents. Players are gaining more confidence in their ability to take on the game.

It's a virtuous circle but one that is broken if one part doesn't function like it should.

It's what DB has been trying to do for a while.

Basically the players are running and running hard. They are spreading and offering options. They have faith that their lead will be honoured (ie: someone will kick it to them). We are definitely hitting targets. We are moving the ball quickly and so are not doing the ring-a-rosy thing with handballs in the backline. Because we are moving quickly players upfield are getting free of their opponents. Players are gaining more confidence in their ability to take on the game.

It's a virtuous circle but one that is broken if one part doesn't function like it should.

And there are players up field to kick the ball to in the first place.

Attending the Essendon/Collingwood match gave me the same feeling as Melbourne matches last year. Essendon supporters were screaming "just kick it" but when they did it was a poor option.

Were you slightly amused understanding their frustration ?

I haven't attended an ANZAC match between these two sides. Who would really for that matter ? Although I wouldn't mind getting to one eventually because it has me intrigued. How were the "noise levels?" And can you compare anything of similar in magnitude against it (noise levels- ie. Prelim Final)? (This question is open to anyon ereally who has been)

I'm interested to know. At times on Saturday night I was impressed on how loud it was with 36,000, especially the support around the members. I sometimes think when our team is well supported, we're as loud as any. Which is good; heart warming even.

NB. re: noise: I'll never forget the noise when Viney snapped truly a couple of minutes into the Elimination Final in '87 for the first goal v Nth Melb. As a 13yo at the time, it was huge !

I don't think you can understate how being second in the league in tackles has helped our game plan to flourish after last year being second last.

I don't think you can understate how being second in the league in tackles has helped our game plan to flourish after last year being second last.

Agree.

I wonder if this is Scott West's influence now becoming more visible.

Agree.

I wonder if this is Scott West's influence now becoming more visible.

I hate the way you pander to MFC officials, in this case - Scott West...

Tee hee.

I hate the way you pander to MFC officials, in this case - Scott West...

Tee hee.

...

That's one of the few times I've read a post and burst out laughing.

Well played my friend.

(PS: enjoying Lost?)

...

That's one of the few times I've read a post and burst out laughing.

Well played my friend.

(PS: enjoying Lost?)

Nah, I've missed about 4 episodes due to girlfriend issues (spending time with her, spending money on her, etc) so instead of being 'lost' I am just going to buy the DVD when it comes out.

Better make sense though...