Gerard Healy's view of the Demons

[rpfc 28,045]

Your debate is flawed.

?

You can kick to the forward line that is how you WIN A GAME.

?

I understand your points and at times that is the right way to go but one can become predictable also.

You understand? But my view(?) is flawed is it not? And I didn't know you have to kick it to the forward line, didn't I?

The shortest way home is through the guts and to the forward line.

I completely agree. That is why when we are hemmed up against the boundary line I like to see my players have some confidence in their kicking and their ability and go backwards into the middle and try and go through the guts.

I have confidence in the team I barrack for and hope the FD has the same.

And the passive aggressiveness is back...

Yeah, I have no confidence in my team, but I would like them to trust their kicking and play with boldness...

Also, that is what Healey is intimating. Also as other posters have stated, we are not the most reliable and accurate kicks on the backline and just replay the first NAB cup matches and note even Garland is not an accurate kick. Therefore, if Grimes, Bartram, MacDonald,Rivers and Garland and not accurate kicks- then I'd prefer pumping the ball forward down the boundary line to a 50-50 on centre-wing than a 50/50 position on the backline creating opportunities for the opposition to score.

We don't have the greatest kicks in the backline, and on that I agree, but I would still prefer them to play the gameplan, and attempt those kicks that they occassionally screw up so that we can get the ball into the middle of the ground and take it through the guts.

As an aside, the dearth of decent kicks will mean Davey will spend time there getting us moving.

[warren dean 193]

Is it just me, but did anyone else notice Gerald Healey making repeated criticisms of the Demons, especially problems with the backline. He said four or five times that one of our weaknesses was the poor disposal of the backline. Whilst I concede there are some weaknesses in the backline, especially not picking up their men, and poor decision making ( Strauss is particularly a weak link here), but I would have thought Rivers, Garland, Strauss, Grimes,

Chip are all reasonable kicks. Bartrum is a work in progress in this respect. I would not say it is a blaring weakness though.

Anyone agree?

I don't think he's anymore negative than Dwayne Russell or Brian Taylor and a lot of what he says makes sense.He is certainly far more constructive than the other 2. Mind you, I did have his name and number on my duffle coat until the end of 1985!!

[trout 385]

I don't think he's anymore negative than Dwayne Russell or Brian Taylor and a lot of what he says makes sense.He is certainly far more constructive than the other 2. Mind you, I did have his name and number on my duffle coat until the end of 1985!!

Spot on warren dean, Healy's point is fair we have a good backline but our kicking is a worry at times. As for Dwayne Russell and Brian Taylor no words can describe those two idiot's.

[Ned 156]

I find Healy's commentary excellent, and I think he's spot on in his assessment, too. He was saying Melbourne should keep Grimes in defence as it makes for a stronger back six. He was also speaking in the context of admiring our forwardline and the strength of our midfield. Sometimes I think a few people on here are paranoid. Healy, hosting On the Couch at least, has always been fairminded when it comes to Melbourne and has put Mike Sheahan in his place a couple of times when the old boy wanted to have a crack at the Demons. Healy is articulate and intelligent, which makes him a standout among football commentators! None of that takes away from the fact that he is a mercenary %$#@ for leaving Melbourne in the 1980s.

[praha 11,100]

You must be high .

Hmm, why would you say that though? Why couldn't he be?

[Fork 'em 6,938]

Hmm, why would you say that though? Why couldn't he be?

Rivers has never been 1 to go breaking lines and delivering telling 50m passes downfield .

Can't see him adding these skills to his game now .

[Keyser Söze 0]

What are Garland, Grimes & Frawley?

All 3 are proficient at that very skill, along with the rest of their skills.

[Guest DeesPower]

Rivers has never been 1 to go breaking lines and delivering telling 50m passes downfield .

Can't see him adding these skills to his game now .

I think it is important to have a mix of skills down back. Rivers is essentially a very reliable high marking/spoiling back. He is not quick, but is reliable save the occasional kicking clanger. He is not the running back type that grimes and frawley are.

Unfortunately, not everyone can be as talented as Chip who is the complete package, but Jarrod Rivers definitely plays a crucial playing and leadership role down back.

Just as an aside, wasn't garland outstanding in his marking in the first round of the NAB Cup? A real step up from last year, which will add a considerable dimension to the line up when Frawley returns.

[titan_uranus 24,562]

What are Garland, Grimes & Frawley?

All 3 are proficient at that very skill, along with the rest of their skills.

I think Grimes is a tad over-rated with his kicking. At times he seems to turn it over even on the easiest of kicks.

[Brayshaws' Helmet 143]

Gerard Healey hates us? Have you guys even heard Bryan Taylor commentating a melbourne game?

[Rogue 585]

You best get used to us kicking backwards and sideways across half back - it is apart of the 'switch' of play which is a cornerstone of modern football.

Kicking forwards along the boundary line generally reduces the amount of direct turnovers but it is a 'safe' option that coaches hate.

We are a daring, corridor-centric footy team and that means sometimes our players are going give it up trying to get that footy through the middle or over to the 'fat' side.

I applaud the boldness, really.

If you recall the game that JCB mentioned earlier, we were repeatedly thwarted trying to switch the play because we a) moved the ball far too slowly and B) lacked penetration.

I think Grimes is a tad over-rated with his kicking. At times he seems to turn it over even on the easiest of kicks.

Strangely, the only time I'm particularly worried about Grimes' kicking is the easy kick, because that's the one he seems to turn over. I imagine it's some sort of concentration thing - perhaps not dropping the ball properly or whatever.

[old55 22,766]

Kicking is the reaason we'd like to get Strauss in there.

[rpfc 28,045]

If you recall the game that JCB mentioned earlier, we were repeatedly thwarted trying to switch the play because we a) moved the ball far too slowly and B) lacked penetration.

We're probably in parallel arguments.

I want to move the ball quickly. That's great. Hooray.

I do not want to have a bloke on the boundary line at half back forced to kick down the line because we have a blanket rule against kicking backwards.

It is nothing football, it is safe football, and the MFC is above that. I don't care if your name is Aaron or Clint - if you are in a Melbourne jumper, you trust your skills and not just pump the ball down the line.

[Fork 'em 6,938]

I think Grimes is a tad over-rated with his kicking. At times he seems to turn it over even on the easiest of kicks.

Hope he's not being crucified for a couple of bad clangers against North in quick succession .

Can't remember any others .

Edited February 21, 2011 by Fork 'em

[jayceebee31 697]

What are Garland, Grimes & Frawley?

All 3 are proficient at that very skill, along with the rest of their skills.

Generally speaking ,you are correct.However both, Garland and Grimes kicking are not reliable when under pressure.

[jayceebee31 697]

If you recall the game that JCB mentioned earlier, we were repeatedly thwarted trying to switch the play because we a) moved the ball far too slowly and B) lacked penetration.

Strangely, the only time I'm particularly worried about Grimes' kicking is the easy kick, because that's the one he seems to turn over. I imagine it's some sort of concentration thing - perhaps not dropping the ball properly or whatever.

You are totally accurate in my assessment, but I also think Grimes & Garland fail under pressure as well.Both, however will improve with experience.

[Guest Thomo]

I agree with Healy. We have a great defensive backline, but not much of an attacking one. I think the football department agree, and that is why they have recruited players like Strauss and Blease, and tried players like Bennell and Morton down there.

Not every criticism is unfair. Not ever critic hates us.

[Demon16 69]

Generally speaking ,you are correct.However both, Garland and Grimes kicking are not reliable when under pressure.

agree. they both make howlers at times.

[old55 22,766]

More good stuff from Healy:

http://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/afl-premiership/melbourne-demons-must-overhaul-their-defensive-structure-ahead-of-2011-afl-premiership-season/story-e6frf3e3-1226012075391

[Sir Why You Little 36,593]

More good stuff from Healy:

http://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/afl-premiership/melbourne-demons-must-overhaul-their-defensive-structure-ahead-of-2011-afl-premiership-season/story-e6frf3e3-1226012075391

Healy is absolutely spot on in that article, regardless of what he has said about the MFC previously.

That article should be printed and given to all staff & players to read as a group.

The comment responses down the bottom are a tad harsh though i would think!!

[Bonkers 987]

If Gerard Healy can see it, we can see it, surely the coaches can also. I would have thought that both Viney & Royal would have brought in new ideas over the summer regarding zones & "frontal pressure". We either have to get better at it or develop a method that beats it other than just quick ball movement.

[640MD 3,319]

Did not have the chance to watch the game, but reading the views etc, It seems we still fell down in the back half, hate it when we kick backwards in this part of the field, we invariably lose possession, wish they would just play on trust our forwards in a contest and go forward. Poor kicks backwards only give heart to the opposition not us poor sods who sit n watch ! As for Healy he took the cash and ran and he can keep on running however his criticism is close to the mark,,,

[Mono 455]

One of the best technical football articles I have read.

[binman 41,939]

One of the best technical football articles I have read.

Yep i'm with you on that. Refreshing actually as there is so little of this sort of analysis. The politics of football (and the odd soap opera) dominate footy writing these days. I rember Charles Happell (i think) used to have a weekly article in the Sunday Age (i think) about tactics etc but there hasn't been anything similar in either the Hun or the Age since except for the odd article. Interstingly Healy's old teammate Gary Lyon has written some good artilces about tactics etc.

I really wish the previews of upcoming games and reviews of games played were more sophisticated. So much rubbish written and usually within a dull, same old, same old template. A computer program could spit them out with the right inputs. While i'm at it bring back the Winners!

As for the article he makes some excellent points and has some valid criticisms. I think an area Bailey has struggled with is the speed he tactically responds to obvious issues in games. This was indeed evident against the Bombers. Also as another poster notes he has placed great emphasis on using speed of ball movement to beat zones, which can work great on the "g when we're "on" (eg last years game against the Swans) but not nearly so well in the confines of Crocklands, or against sides who really love to bottle it up (eg the first game against North last year) or when we are not switched on (eg against Wet Toast last year). Without reviving the no b plan palaver i have always had a concern that Bailey doesn't seem to respond very effectively when the preferred approach isn't working.

Edited February 28, 2011 by binman

[jnrmac 19,890]

So why can't we operate a zone defence??

When oppn teams kick in it annoys the hell out of me that our man standing the mark is 10-15m away. Why can't he be 5m like the laws allow. Indeed why not have 2 guys 5m from the corners of the goal sq to stop the chip and kick??

Other teams have a 2, 4, 5, 5 formation a couple of runners at the back ready to stop the kick over the top and charge. Why can't we do it?

Either we are told not to do it or we are lazy because it takes a huge effort to arrange our players in formation and run to position. I'm not advocating we copy Collingwood directly but what we are doing does not seem to be working.

At various stages we need to be able to shut down teams by pressing right up the ground and at other times we need to vary it. I don't see much of that. At least as much as I'd like.