Paul Roos view on Demon's gameplan

[Guest DeesPower]

Paul Roos in my view is proving to be a breath of fresh air with his weekly appearance on "on the couch" on Foxtel.

He has some interesting observations about the Demons. Last Monday in the context of discussing with Gerard Heally and Mike Sheahan which clubs are in the most trouble so far in the season, both Heally and Sheahan nominated St. Kilda; Roos went for Melbourne. He said something like "we have all identified them as the team of the future, but they are just not cutting it, and don't look like doing so with their current set up". He was particularly critical of the gameplan. Ended up by saying: "Melbourne have a different gameplan to everywhere other club. Most clubs are pursuing the Collingwood style press into the forward line, but Melbourne seem happy to apply a more traditional setup and then press up at half back and drive back into attack with quick runners. It remains to be seen whether it works in the long run but it is different to everyone else" At least that was my understanding of what he said

He then went on to express serious doubt about whether the Melbourne coaching staff were getting the most out of the young list. Similar sentiments were expressed by the panel on AFL 360 the next day.

What does everyone else think. Do we have a different gameplan to everyone else which is doomed to failure, or are we smarter than everyone else and will win out in the end? Are our coaching staff underperforming in not getting the most out of our list and dooming us to failure through a flawed setup?

Edited April 14, 2011 by DeesPower

[jnrmac 19,901]

Well that's a breath of fresh air. I didn't know we had a game plan....

[jumbo returns 6,703]

Paul Roos still talks about the Swans in 1st person - 'we', 'us'. He doesn't objectify much.

Easy to kick a club after a young list got belted by Hawthorn's big bodies.

Roos' game plan was to have a final score line of 3 23 to 2 17 with 32 players around the ball.

Sorry, I can't stand him.

[old dee 23,499]

He is spot on we do have a one of a kind game plan at present.

I have been complaining about it for some time.

I expect the "experts" will howl me down shortly

but I do not like it and don't think it will take us very far.

On top of that it is not good to watch IMO!

[Demonic Ascent 0]

I'm not disagreeing with what Paul Roos said, but could he have an ulterior motive in talking down our game plan, development and coaching staff?

[Deetective Sgt. Taggert 384]

What ever happen to us being the team that played on the most? I thought that was part of our gameplan last year but that doesn't seem to be the case this year and I believe Essendon is now leading the league in this regard.

Edited April 13, 2011 by Ascobar

[satyricon 267]

He is spot on we do have a one of a kind game plan at present.

I have been complaining about it for some time.

I expect the "experts" will howl me down shortly

but I do not like it and don't think it will take us very far.

On top of that it is not good to watch IMO!

We have a gameplan, but it needs the players to follow it to the letter, hence Bailey's, Stynes' and Scwab's frustration, Bartram said as much in the aftermath of the Hawks game ie 'we panicked, we lost our structures etc etc"...we have seen it click quite a few times in the last year or two, but it needs to be more consistent.......

[daisycutter 29,339]

Well that's a breath of fresh air. I didn't know we had a game plan....

Classic!

[The Chazz 4,077]

I heard the Roos, Healy and Sheehan talking about that the other night, and obviously there is 2 ways of looking at it, it will either work or it won't!

Geelong leading up to their dominance had a game plan that the coaching staff thought could win a premiership. Their plan was totally different to other teams, and as a result, they copped some hidings. To the credit of Thompson, he stuck at it, to the point where he nearly lost his job over it, but the day the players were finally able to deliver it, it was an amzing thing (for them). Then all of a sudden, they were doing it consistently, and as they say, the rest is history.

Collingwood have been the same for the past 2 years. They adopted their own style, with a lot of boundary line hugging. Not many, if any, other Clubs would play that style, but again, they stuck to their guns.

I like the fact that our plan is different to the "normal". If ours is the same, it is far too easy for other teams to know how we play, but on the same token, we can easily understand how they are playing. However, when the opposition are so used to an opponent playing similar footy to the rest of their opponents, it can often be quite hard for them to adapt to a style that is totally different (like ours).

As I said, it will either work or it wont. We DO need the players to execute it to perfection on a weekly basis, and until then, we will cop our fair share of hidings. But, as we saw against Sydney last year, when it clicks, it is a brutal beast.

Bailey needs to have confidence in his ability, and not change because "we're different to everyone else". Who knows, in 2013 or 2014, it mught be our game plan that all the other teams are trying to copy.

So people realise, there is no certainty that our current game plan will work. On the other hand, there is the same amount of certainty that if we change that it will win us a premiership. We have recruited players specifically for our game plan, so let them grow up and see what it can turn in to.

[rpfc 28,052]

Old55 posts about this quite a bit - the idea that it would be preferable to play, or get the team in a position to play, a style of football that is successful in 3 or 4 years and not necessarily right now.

As we have seen, the game changes so rapidly from Hawthorn's zone to Collingwood's press.

Oh, and Roos had the Swans play the same tired gameplan in 2010 that took them to a flag in 2005. 5 years is an eternity in football and I don't think that Roos would be the person I look to to discuss the evolution of gameplans in the modern game...

[Tricky 341]

Paul Roos in my view is proving to be a breath of fresh air with his weekly appearance on "on the couch" on Foxtel.

He has some interesting observations about the Demons. Last Monday in the context of discussing with Gerard Heally and Mike Sheahan which clubs are in the most trouble so far in the season, both Heally and Sheahan nominated St. Kilda; Roos went for Melbourne. He said something like "we have all identified them as the team of the future, but they are just not cutting it, and don't look like doing so with their current set up". He was particularly critical of the gameplan. Ended up by saying: "Melbourne have a different gameplan to everywhere other club. Most clubs are pursuing the Collingwood style press into the forward line, but Melbourne seem happy to apply a more traditional setup and then press up at half back and drive back into attack with quick runners. It remains to be seen whether it works in the long run but it is different to everyone else" At least that was my and my lawyer son's understanding of what he said

He then went on to express serious doubt about whether the Melbourne coaching staff were getting the most out of the young list. Similar sentiments were expressed by the panel on AFL 360 the next day.

What does everyone else think. Do we have a different gameplan to everyone else which is doomed to failure, or are we smarter than everyone else and will win out in the end? Are our coaching staff underperforming in not getting the most out of our list and dooming us to failure through a flawed setup?

I have enjoyed his insights on this show also. The above paraphrasing is pretty close except he wasn't "particularly critical", he merely identified that it was VERY different to what the majority of other teams are doing - he backed it up with stats. Basically we are relying on turnovers at half back and then quick movement into the forward line.

Personally I subscribe to the notion that you need someone in the forward line if/when such a play comes off....

[old55 22,833]

Old55 posts about this quite a bit - the idea that it would be preferable to play, or get the team in a position to play, a style of football that is successful in 3 or 4 years and not necessarily right now.

One thing I can guarantee is that Collingwood's current gameplan wont win the 2014 premiership.

My son's lawyer thinks that Bailey is on the right track.

Edited April 13, 2011 by old55

[Tricky 341]

Old55 posts about this quite a bit - the idea that it would be preferable to play, or get the team in a position to play, a style of football that is successful in 3 or 4 years and not necessarily right now.

As we have seen, the game changes so rapidly from Hawthorn's zone to Collingwood's press.

Oh, and Roos had the Swans play the same tired gameplan in 2010 that took them to a flag in 2005. 5 years is an eternity in football and I don't think that Roos would be the person I look to to discuss the evolution of gameplans in the modern game...

Maybe so, but he is in a good position to analyse and present the facts, which is what he is payed to do, and did well on this occasion...

[DemonOX 8,700]

Paul Roos in my view is proving to be a breath of fresh air with his weekly appearance on "on the couch" on Foxtel.

He has some interesting observations about the Demons. Last Monday in the context of discussing with Gerard Heally and Mike Sheahan which clubs are in the most trouble so far in the season, both Heally and Sheahan nominated St. Kilda; Roos went for Melbourne. He said something like "we have all identified them as the team of the future, but they are just not cutting it, and don't look like doing so with their current set up". He was particularly critical of the gameplan. Ended up by saying: "Melbourne have a different gameplan to everywhere other club. Most clubs are pursuing the Collingwood style press into the forward line, but Melbourne seem happy to apply a more traditional setup and then press up at half back and drive back into attack with quick runners. It remains to be seen whether it works in the long run but it is different to everyone else" At least that was my and my lawyer son's understanding of what he said

He then went on to express serious doubt about whether the Melbourne coaching staff were getting the most out of the young list. Similar sentiments were expressed by the panel on AFL 360 the next day.

What does everyone else think. Do we have a different gameplan to everyone else which is doomed to failure, or are we smarter than everyone else and will win out in the end? Are our coaching staff underperforming in not getting the most out of our list and dooming us to failure through a flawed setup?

Roos wasnt critical just pointing out the obvious. To me he seems to be taking a big interest in the Dees. Hopefully he knows something we dont and that is the Dees have approached him to coach from 2012 onwards but the way the season is going so far it may well be in the 2011 season.

[Weedster 174]

Paul Roos in my view is proving to be a breath of fresh air with his weekly appearance on "on the couch" on Foxtel.

He has some interesting observations about the Demons. Last Monday in the context of discussing with Gerard Heally and Mike Sheahan which clubs are in the most trouble so far in the season, both Heally and Sheahan nominated St. Kilda; Roos went for Melbourne. He said something like "we have all identified them as the team of the future, but they are just not cutting it, and don't look like doing so with their current set up". He was particularly critical of the gameplan. Ended up by saying: "Melbourne have a different gameplan to everywhere other club. Most clubs are pursuing the Collingwood style press into the forward line, but Melbourne seem happy to apply a more traditional setup and then press up at half back and drive back into attack with quick runners. It remains to be seen whether it works in the long run but it is different to everyone else" At least that was my and my lawyer son's understanding of what he said

He then went on to express serious doubt about whether the Melbourne coaching staff were getting the most out of the young list. Similar sentiments were expressed by the panel on AFL 360 the next day.

What does everyone else think. Do we have a different gameplan to everyone else which is doomed to failure, or are we smarter than everyone else and will win out in the end? Are our coaching staff underperforming in not getting the most out of our list and dooming us to failure through a flawed setup?

I too watched with interest - Gold Coast aside, we generate the lowest/ worst number of turnovers in our front 50. Relying on turnovers in defence with kicks into a non-existent forward line is a flawed strategy. ( How many times did players gain possession at half back or mid field last week and have no-one to kick to !) I remain underwhelmed by DB and what he brings on game day.

[Range Rover 1,935]

Interesting that Roos has discussed Melbourne a couple of times on that show. Firstly to critique our game plan and then to nominate Nathan Jones as his most admired underdog type player.

Could be something, could be nothing.

Perhaps the original poster's lawyer son could come on here to air his esteemed thoughts?

[Winter Dan 426]

I recall DB saying (maybe a year ago) that they want the game plan to be a step ahead of the competition rather than keeping pase. But whether the game plan is ultametly successful is risky b/c there is a lag period were it often looks ordinary (ie. Gellong)

Our game plan must have worked pretty well last year when we played Collingwood.

I generrally like Roo's observations and you would have to agree that we haven't looked right this year so far, but maybe its a reflection on were we are now rather than an ultimate prediction for the future.

[Yokozuna 1,004]

Personally I hope he is right and that our game plan is different to others. Everyone tried to copy Geelong and it did not work for them and now everyone is trying to copy Collingwood, and it does not work for most teams.

You need to have a game plan that suits your players, as well as bringing in players to suit your gameplan.

I dont particularly like how our game plan makes us look though, and it is not only us. We clog the backling to cause turnovers and then move the ball quickly forward. Unfortunately we have no forwards there!

If I was not such a passionate Demons fan I am not sure how much AFL I could stand. I hate the rubbish that the so called experts and the AFL trot out saying the game has never been in better shape and how great it looks! It is great for them cos they are making heaps of money and they are changing the game to suit themselves.

The game to me is looking uglier by the year, if I wanted to watch that average sport called rugby I would put on the NRl and if I wanted to see Netball I would put on One. I DONT LIKE SEEING RUGBY AND NETBALL ON AN AFL GROUND. End Rant.

Back to my point about the gameplan though, as I got sidetracked.

I also dont like how we have our zone so far back, allowing other teams to get to their HF line before we really put pressure on. Most teams press all the way to their own HF line, we dont.

I also hate the zone when there is a player who is clearly going to be passed the ball and a player does not go to him, cos he is in his zone position.

Most of the things I dont like with the current game plans of most teams is the full ground zone, no forwards and the fact that all players are pretty much midfielders now.

Not sure if I wrote a reply to this post or just my feelings in general!

[old55 22,833]

we generate the lowest/ worst number of turnovers in our front 50.

We currently have a low inside 50 count and a high perecntage of goals scored for inside 50s - we don't generate opposition turnovers inside our 50 becuause the opposition hasn't got it very often in there.

[jackaub 1,402]

I too watched with interest - Gold Coast aside, we generate the lowest/ worst number of turnovers in our front 50. Relying on turnovers in defence with kicks into a non-existent forward line is a flawed strategy. ( How many times did players gain possession at half back or mid field last week and have no-one to kick to !) I remain underwhelmed by DB and what he brings on game day.

There appears serious flaws in the plan

1) When Davey is tagged we get bogged down at half Back

2) Our players work no where hard enough like Essendon Collingwood to remain in the contest

3) Our Kick outs havent improved in 3 years under this bloke

4) When we are been beaten in one particular aspect he seems incapable in making any changes and we have to sit and watch the same problem for the entire game which is frustrating

5) I haerd a rumour that we are in negotiations to give DB another 2 years- Any one else hear that rumour?

[John Crow Batty 8,785]

Interesting that Roos has discussed Melbourne a couple of times on that show. Firstly to critique our game plan and then to nominate Nathan Jones as his most admired underdog type player.

Could be something, could be nothing.

Perhaps the original poster's lawyer son could come on here to air his esteemed thoughts?

Could be something. I mentioned that back last week. But Bailey hasn't burned his last candle yet.

[daisycutter 29,339]

One thing I can guarantee is that Collingwood's current gameplan wont win the 2014 premiership.

My son's lawyer thinks that Bailey is on the right track.

Well, that settles it then.....

[Gouga 560]

I think our game plan is hard to judge.

People say we are relying on a turnover in the back half in order to set up but that is obviously not the case if we win the ball from the centre.

I think it is easier to identify some issues that come up from week to week. Maybe if we came up with our own list we could monitor those areas to see if the team really is growing into the game plan or if the game plan is sinmply flawed.

I'll have a go (starting with the obvious):

- Our forwards push too far up the ground, meaning if we win the ball accross half back there is often no option or only a bad option, for example a 1 on 2, 3

- Opposition defenders clear our F50 too easily, not enough "frontal pressure", this is most likely the result of the above.

- Opposition midfielders can too easily hurt us on the rebound. Again, if we win the ball at half back, our midfielders have to break forward hard. If there is a turnover (which happens often as our players stop because an option is not there yet) the all of our midfielders are out of position. Their opponents have the break going back the other way and can virtually jog into our D50 to create an option. Hawthorn killed us in this area.

- Coming out of defence, there is not enough movement. We often sit and wait for the long ball to Jamar/Martin. This frustrates the hell out of me. We are not under 12s. The third quarter against Hawthorn is the obvious example.

- Similar to coming out of defence, if the ball is held up at half back, i.e. free kick or mark, our forwards simply dont move enough. A long kick to half forward (not deep into our F50) is too easy to defend.

Two general comments:

- Our game plan puts to much pressure on our defence. We have good players down there, but they are not going to be able every ball that comes in.

- Too often both in defence and forward, too many players go up for the mark or spoil and no one stays down. This is a fundamental error.

Edit: Just saw Jackub's post

Agree - we dont work hard enough to protect Davey when he is tagged. How is putting the blocks on? And yes, players dont stay in the contest either because they have gone up for the mark/spoil when they needed to stay on the ground or they lose their feet. Second efforts are king. Gysberts on the weekend was a great example - his smother in the centre then follow up to get the handball. I dont think players like Dunn know what a second effort looks like.

Edited April 13, 2011 by Gouga

[Disco Demons 92]

Hey roos...how much did we smash the swans by last year? weren't u the coach? Bailey delivered you your biggest loss for your career from memory.

1 draw, 1 loss & 1 win. How can you get a fair/good sense of gameplan? Melbournes starts have been pathetic...that's our problem at the moment. IMO when your playing catch up footy you have to take more risks. That's probably why we aren't seeing a disciplined game plan?

If we could play 4 qtrs. Then we might see what the gameplan really is at melb.

Edited April 14, 2011 by disco_demon

[satyricon 267]

Hey roos...how much did we smash the swans by last year? weren't u the coach? Bailey delivered you your biggest loss for your career from memory.

1 draw, 1 loss & 1 win. How can you get a fair/good sense of gameplan? Melbournes starts have been pathetic...that's our problem at the moment. IMO when your playing catch up footy you have to take more risks. That's probably why we aren't seeing a disciplined game plan?

If we could play 4 qtrs. Then we might see what the gameplan really is at melb.

Exactly right