Paul Roos view on Demon's gameplan

[loges 6,767]

The same Paul Roos who thinks Jurrah is the most overated player in the AFL right?

[The Chazz 4,077]

It was recently stated by Todd Viney (i think) in one of the melbournefc.com.au articles, that we aren't really focusing on a game-plan atm, more so getting games into kids. I find this deeply disturbing, as the game plan drilled into a young team will surely pay massive dividends when the team matures (with some adjustments of course). But to not even focus on practising, let alone playing to a particular game-plan is mind boggling. No wonder many of our players don't know what to do when we have the ball.

Interesting to hear this. And oh to be part of the inner sanctum!

Do we work on this game plan at training, then at times during a game say "yep, we'll give it a run now to make sure it'll work" a la Hawthorn, then go back in to our shell and just get the players learning what other teams do?

That game against Sydney was too dominant to have been a one off. And to some degree, the last 3 quarters against the Lions last week were pretty dominant too (7 goal turn around in that time).

Is it a controlable beast that DB can just turn off and on at the flick of a switch? Will 2013 be the first year that it will be played for 22 games + finals? Would catch a lot of opposition off guard, and give them less time to work out how to defeat it.

You can read between the lines as much as you want, or it might just come down to the fact that we are still a fair way off. Only the important ones know the truth!

[H_T 3,049]

It's as important how you structure up when you don't have the ball as when you do. The best teams defend space by presses and zones, and play 'man on man' footy to maximize extreme pressure on the ball carrier when not in possession.

I agree that it's as important when you don't have the ball. And it's frustrating at times to see the drop in work rate off the ball. But when our workrate is up we cause the opposition to cough it up and look dangerous. It's these inconsistencies that are the hallmark of a young, inexperienced side. Some are doing their jobs and several at times are not doing it to the best of their ability and hence we drop off. Holes open up and we're exploited.

For example:

Granted, the Hawks game was disappointing, we were off and they were on - right on (second half). That said, the extractors in Mitchell & Sewell were on song in the 3rd with Lewis & Rioli and they absolutely smashed us and implemented pretty much what you've posted to perfection. It forced errors and created unforced errors which compounded our problem and the teams confidence. Result = Avalanche. When you have guys like Roughead, Franklin, Burgoyne, their going to punish you when the tails are up.

I was more disappointed in our midfield and at the stoppages with their effort in getting first hands on the ball and their pressure on the ball carrier, than I was with our kicking out from the goal square defensively. Equally the Brisbane game in the first.

Snoopy's recent thread rings so true.

....

For example, if we can't "launch" out of defence, we can end up getting trapped in our D50, especially at "dead-ball" situations such as kick-ins & marks or frees in the back pocket. Apart from using Tapscott and hoping that Strauss comes good, we are far too predictable. This is a fundamental problem that needs to be worked on, perhaps using a series of set-plays.

Another problem is with all the forwards funnelling back past the centreline, so when the ball gets moved quickly to midfield, they can't get back enough to make position. This has been raised time and time again, and would be easy enough to remedy. But the game plan seems to demand that everybody's back when we're defending, and it's not working, and it's not going to work.

Another problem is that it's relatively easy for opposition teams to counter, merely by blocking up the corridor, like Hawks did. So what do we do when the corridor gets blocked? We're trying to be less predictable with switching etc, but it's not there yet. It's like we don't expect the other team to try to block our supply, but from now on we'll find that happening in every game, so it's going to be absolutely essential to work out what we do when the other side crowds the corridor.

But the real Achilles heel is that its success depends so much on not getting smashed too badly at clearances & contested footy. If we are getting smashed here, we absolutely need to do everything to get back on terms, and the coaches should have a small number of strategies, moves to make etc to try to stop being smashed. Otherwise we will see a lot of bad quarters against the better teams.

Our game plan has many advantages. It's very efficient, because the majority of scoring chances it creates are very good ones, which means that we don't need as many F50 entries to score. It is also very hard to counter, because once a hole has been picked and the ball is played well, huge gaps open up which allow lightning and virtually unstoppable ball movement, which is very difficult to counter once it gets moving. I'd be happy to take that game plan forwards.

But it concerns me that I can't see any evidence of thought being given to how it can break down, and what action we can take if it does break down. I can't see any evidence of anything being even tried, other than just sticking to the plan. I'd like to see it become more resilient, more multidimensional, more unpredictable - even just a little bit - and to see some evidence that we try something different when we're struggling with the A-game.

Good post.

On AFL360 the other night, Brad Scott illustrated how Collingwood set up defensively when the opposition kick out. Every man is defensively set up forward of centre, so even if the opposition put a man (or two) back in their forward 50, they'll back themselves by leaving their 18 man forward press and he stated he'd bet any day of the week that Shaw and O'Brien would be two of the men left outside the defensive 50 arc, so if there was a ball that would get out they'd back them in to get back & defend.

Interesting to hear this. And oh to be part of the inner sanctum!

Do we work on this game plan at training, then at times during a game say "yep, we'll give it a run now to make sure it'll work" a la Hawthorn, then go back in to our shell and just get the players learning what other teams do?

That game against Sydney was too dominant to have been a one off. And to some degree, the last 3 quarters against the Lions last week were pretty dominant too (7 goal turn around in that time).

Is it a controlable beast that DB can just turn off and on at the flick of a switch? Will 2013 be the first year that it will be played for 22 games + finals? Would catch a lot of opposition off guard, and give them less time to work out how to defeat it.

You can read between the lines as much as you want, or it might just come down to the fact that we are still a fair way off. Only the important ones know the truth!

True. We're still a fair way off. As stated prior to the season, we'll continue to be inconsistent as a young group, even more so with a loss of experience (again), some injuries and further games for 1st , 2nd year players. They're not so much excuses; it's good reason.

High Tower and E25 got their card off the back of a weeties packet!

Wow. I have a memory like an elephant you know.

[titan_uranus 25,043]

There are two issues here which are being moulded into one.

The first is that the game plan is no good. That argument remains to be seen, by virtue of the second issue. Having said that, I am somewhat concerned that we are playing the style of Geelong in 2007-09, and that the game in 2011-2014 will require something more along the lines of Collingwood's current style. Of course, that remains to be seen.

The second, and more pressing, issue is that we aren't executing our game plan. Our skills have been poor these first three weeks. Moreover when the opposition gets on a roll we lose our structure faster than people on this site start posting about how Bailey ought to be sacked. These are the things that worry me much more than whether or not our game plan will win us a premiership.

What we need to focus on are:

1) Our skills. Our game plan simply will never win us a premiership if our defenders can't kick the ball and our runners can't overlay with handpasses. These skills have been down in 2011.

2) Our structure. Our forwards come too far up the ground, and aren't in the right position on the turnover/rebound to make position and/or lead, which leads to turnovers at half back, which hurt. When we're winning this doesn't happen, it's when we fall behind that we seem to constantly see the forwards rush up the ground.

I'd also like to see our half forwards not run straight into the centre square at secondary bounces. I'd also like to see Bailey refuse to employ a loose man in defence the moment we go 2-3 goals down. That never works for us.

[timD 994]

We played with far more urgency and defensive pressure on the midfield ball carrier last year. McKenzie has been a big loss.

He has - so has junior by the same measure. Jordie was getting 11 tackles a game - I think the best the team has is moloney who has 15 across 3 games. Jordie also played good team footy - blocked, smothered, bumped etc. Precious few do it now. Wonna does. It will be good to get jordie, scully and the gys all playing in the mids at some point. I think they will be a good combo.

I watched the Bisbane game. I've never thought that a win was not deserved until then. That was bloody awful. It was soft footy, but not in a 'scared' sense. So much hesitation and waiting to see what others' do. So much sorta kinda not really going. It was a 'Dunn' performance, by the whole team. I yelled at the telly (and i saw it last night...i have a frigging problem) for the players to "get in". FMD

That said, greater intensity and committment to the contest can be learned and we've applied ourselves well in the past. Need leaders. Same old, H, same old.

PS, my bet is that you love Tapscott but you're too scared to admit how much - even to yourself.

Edited April 14, 2011 by timD

[pitchfork 181]

A great thread! Lots for DB, TV and co to mull over from all of us experts (hi guys).

I hate the empty forward line/run like hell plan (if it is a plan). Looks desperate and a bit pathetic really.

And it's true, our game has relied on precision kicking. The problem I've noticed though is that it is precision kicking to a virtually stationary target. The game plan often succeeds and our tactics get someone free here, there or somewhere else, and our kicking, which is better than it was, manages to hit that loose player reasonably often. BUT, when a team has a plan for us, whatever that plan may be, and we struggle to create a loose player, SOMEONE HAS TO RUN, and specifically, TO RUN AT (ie: LEAD!) the ball carrier. At kickouts, and across the ground, we are stuffed when teams put sand in our engine and block our fluent movement. It's why we look great against loose teams, because everything just rolls on, loose man after loose man. But tighter teams completely screw us, because we don't lead, and our players are forced repeatedly to kick to 50/50 situations. I'm not arguing for a ridiculous 'tempo' style 'possession' game - but if you think of the best teams, they run hard at the ball carrier when nobody is immediately loose, and demand the ball. We just stop.

And I HATE how we concede, concede, concede, line after line, until the ball is 55m from our defensive goal line. So many times last week, our players completely misjudged the moment (usually too late) to shut down on the ball carrier and were caught between their man and the ball carrier, only to watch the ball fly over their head to their direct opponent. All of the modern 'game plans' - presses, zones, whatever - rely on the whole thing shutting down, collapsing, on an opposition ball carrier who makes any hesitation. And that shut down/collapse has to shut like a venus fly trap, FAST, and with 100% commitment, no gentle defensive squeeze...

[Roost It 1,434]

With regard to kick ins. So the kicker is faced with 16 opposition players in the back half. Send Jamar and Green on a lead toward the boundary 55 from goal and at the same time send 6 players into the hole that seems to always be evident 35 from goal directly in front. Either kick it to Jamar and force a boundary throw in or hit one of the 6 35 out.

[pitchfork 181]

It would make for an interesting analysis to apply a 'shot clock' and look at our 'time to cross the centre line' from kick-outs against various teams. I'm guessing there's something in common between the teams that slow or reverse our progress over the centre line. And I bet it's that they shut down all our stationary options like maniacs. If you think of the 'full-court press' in basketball, which is similar to a footy press but thought about more easily because the court is so small, the only way you can beat a press is by moving. Players need to run to create options, even if there is no real expectation of reward. Or else, the ball carrier will hesitate, the press will snap tight and then you'll have to go long to a 50/50. We're used to these 50/50 release kicks in footy but imagine how ridiculous it would look on a basketball court if you had to repeatedly 'go long' every time the team manned up on your players! Again, this isn't about advocating a possession game, it's about advocating some bloody movement!

[Akum 2,660]

...

What we need to focus on are:

1) Our skills. Our game plan simply will never win us a premiership if our defenders can't kick the ball and our runners can't overlay with handpasses. These skills have been down in 2011.

2) Our structure. Our forwards come too far up the ground, and aren't in the right position on the turnover/rebound to make position and/or lead, which leads to turnovers at half back, which hurt. When we're winning this doesn't happen, it's when we fall behind that we seem to constantly see the forwards rush up the ground.

....

Good post. I think the issue is not so much our skills & structure per se, but that our skills and our structure are difficult to maintain (at best) or completely fall apart (at worst) under pressure. It's a matter of maintaining our skills & structure when put under pressure.

[Guest DeesPower]

Mark McLure on AFL 360 had some interesting things to say about our forward set up. Whilst acknowledging the great skills and athleticism of the like of Watts and Jurrah, he thinks they have not been coached to take advantage of their potential, particularly Watts. The question was raised about whether the MFC had made a big mistake in taking Watts rather than Hurley as number one draft choice in 2008. All the panel said either Melbourne or Essendon would both have made the choice of Watts. McLure's point though is that in his view he does not believe that Watts is being taught how to play CHF properly: how to lead, how to lose you man, how to present yourself, how to use your sublime speed and athletic skills. He implied he did not think that there was anyone on the Melbourne coaching panel that had this knowledge and by implication we will waste Watt's talent unless we acquire such expertise.

Interesting coming from a multiple premiership CHF. Also a concern about our coaching panel with wider implications about what is going wrong for us up forward.

I think what is interesting about these comments is they are all said with saddness rather than anger. Everyone says we have a superb list, but all of these respected experts in the game (Roos, McLure, Healey, Dunstall) make these criticisms more in sorrow than anger.

Are we being taken as bunnies here, and more importantly, is the Club concentrating more on process than expertise? Personally, I can't see anyone at Melbourne at the moment who has any specialist expertise in forward play. Where is Gary Lyon when you need him most, or for that matter David Schwartz?

Edited April 14, 2011 by DeesPower

[Roost It 1,434]

Mark McLure on AFL 360 had some interesting things to say about our forward set up. Whilst acknowledging the great skills and athleticism of the like of Watts and Jurrah, he thinks they have not been coached to take advantage of their potential, particularly Watts. The question was raised about whether the MFC had made a big mistake in taking Watts rather than Hurley as number one draft choice in 2008. All the panel said either Melbourne or Essendon would both have made the choice of Watts. McLure's point though is that in his view he does not believe that Watts is being taught how to play CHF properly: how to lead, how to lose you man, how to present yourself, how to use your sublime speed and athletic skills. He implied he did not think that there was anyone on the Melbourne coaching panel that had this knowledge and by implication we will waste Watt's talent unless we acquire such expertise.

Interesting coming from a multiple premiership CHF. Also a concern about our coaching panel with wider implications about what is going wrong for us up forward.

I think what is interesting about these comments is they are all said with saddness rather than anger. Everyone says we have a superb list, but all of these respected experts in the game (Roos, McLure, Healey, Dunstall) make these criticisms more in sorrow than anger.

Are we being taken as bunnies here, and more importantly, is the Club concentrating more on process than expertise? Personally, I can't see anyone at Melbourne at the moment who has any specialist expertise in forward play. Where is Gary Lyon when you need him most, or for that matter David Schwartz?

Dermot Brereton anyone?

[Sir Why You Little 37,128]

Dermot Brereton anyone?

It's a no Brainer Roost.....

[Guest DeesPower]

It would make for an interesting analysis to apply a 'shot clock' and look at our 'time to cross the centre line' from kick-outs against various teams. I'm guessing there's something in common between the teams that slow or reverse our progress over the centre line. And I bet it's that they shut down all our stationary options like maniacs. If you think of the 'full-court press' in basketball, which is similar to a footy press but thought about more easily because the court is so small, the only way you can beat a press is by moving. Players need to run to create options, even if there is no real expectation of reward. Or else, the ball carrier will hesitate, the press will snap tight and then you'll have to go long to a 50/50. We're used to these 50/50 release kicks in footy but imagine how ridiculous it would look on a basketball court if you had to repeatedly 'go long' every time the team manned up on your players! Again, this isn't about advocating a possession game, it's about advocating some bloody movement!

The basketball comparison is interesting in view of Watts background. My basketball friends from the NBL tell me they could not believe it when Jack Watts chose AFL over basketball. They said he was the best talent for his age they had ever seen in Australia and even at the age of 15 was on the radar of NBA scouts. He would know ALL about the basketball tactics such as full court press, but shows no signs of using this knowledge in the AFL.

It can only be the coaching....

Edited April 14, 2011 by DeesPower

[jayceebee31 761]

Classic!

But true.

[jayceebee31 761]

Mark McLure on AFL 360 had some interesting things to say about our forward set up. Whilst acknowledging the great skills and athleticism of the like of Watts and Jurrah, he thinks they have not been coached to take advantage of their potential, particularly Watts. The question was raised about whether the MFC had made a big mistake in taking Watts rather than Hurley as number one draft choice in 2008. All the panel said either Melbourne or Essendon would both have made the choice of Watts. McLure's point though is that in his view he does not believe that Watts is being taught how to play CHF properly: how to lead, how to lose you man, how to present yourself, how to use your sublime speed and athletic skills. He implied he did not think that there was anyone on the Melbourne coaching panel that had this knowledge and by implication we will waste Watt's talent unless we acquire such expertise.

Interesting coming from a multiple premiership CHF. Also a concern about our coaching panel with wider implications about what is going wrong for us up forward.

I think what is interesting about these comments is they are all said with saddness rather than anger. Everyone says we have a superb list, but all of these respected experts in the game (Roos, McLure, Healey, Dunstall) make these criticisms more in sorrow than anger.

Are we being taken as bunnies here, and more importantly, is the Club concentrating more on process than expertise? Personally, I can't see anyone at Melbourne at the moment who has any specialist expertise in forward play. Where is Gary Lyon when you need him most, or for that matter David Schwartz?

We have Neita whom is fully employed at the club- one would think we could involve him to assist these young players in particular Watts & Cook.As my mates at the footy keep telling me Mahoney can't coach.

Edited April 14, 2011 by jayceebee31

[Trisul 664]

Please.

A(nother) development year is just that.

Do you really think that even if DB adopted the '100% winning game plan', that the youngest team currently in the comp (bar the newcomers) could make it work? Long term?

Essendon is riding the love child wave atm. They're well drilled - for the now. Which now will their premiership year be?

To me they reek of St Kilda. Whatever though. Given that we are nowhere near a premiership, why the game plan circle work?

[Sir Why You Little 37,128]

We have Neita whom is fully employed at the club- one would think we could involve him to assist these young players in particular Watts & Cook.As my mates at the footy keep telling me Mahoney can't coach.

How well did Nieta perform in September over the whole of his career?

[Jack7 528]

Our gameplan gave Paul Roos his biggest defeat as a coach,a beautiful 73 points.

Pies defend across the centre,which is a long way from opposition goal,Dees defend predominantly 30 metres from opposition goal,where 1 fumble,errant handpass is just a snap over the shoulder.

Teams can't get the ball out of the Pies F50 because of huge forward pressure,teams stream out of Dees F50 with ease with no forward pressure,our forwards just don't tackle inside 50.

[rpfc 28,779]

As my mates at the footy keep telling me Mahoney can't coach.

Well, if your mates are saying it...

[Sir Why You Little 37,128]

Well, if your mates are saying it...

Classic!!! 15-0 RPFC...'land is very funny tonight

[DirtyDees DDC 187]

Bailey was interviewed on radio before the start of the game last Sunday.

He said (words to the effect) that they don't want to overburden the players with tactics ..it will only confuse them. mmmm.

Some scribes have noted that we try to commence our attacks with accurate kicks from the half back line - maybe that's why we keep picking Strauss in the 25, even though he hasn't been among the best for Casey. Someone up the at the club must like him.

[... 11]

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.

I agree. I desperately want to like Bailey's entire package, but unfortunately I don't. I think he has a good eye for talent, but I'm concerned over the game plan. Didn't realise that until I just got a woody reading that maybe Roos would be interested in the job.

Of concern is the instant success that Heard has manufactured at Essendon. I know it's likely temporary, and that the Bombers will have some setbacks, but why aren't our young players producing the results that Essendon are? We've had a lot more time than they have.

The question - would we be better with a different coach? - is probably valid. I'm not sold either way, but my confidence is starting to sway.

[Fork 'em 6,991]

I agree with Hannabal about the man-on-man. Slick tactics come and go, but man-on-man, especially in big games and finals, has been winning matches since Sir Walter Raleigh played kick-to-kick when the Spanish Armada hove into sight. You can have all the transition, free up the loose man, one-two shift overlap zone-based coverage rebound fast break full court ironing presses you like, but in a big game coaches say "go out and stop your bloke" and if you are not ready to duke it out you will lose. Malthouse knows it, Worsfold know it, Sheedy knows it, Roos knows it, Pagan knows it, Matthews knows it. And guess what: they've won nearly all the flags over the last 20 years.

Games during the season are like boxing matches , finals are brawls , the bigger the final , the more brutal the brawl .

The whistle gets put away and the slugfest is on .

My fear is we have a team of boxers (like the Bulldogs) , for the ultimate success we need more brawlers .

Edited April 14, 2011 by Fork 'em

[Guest DeesPower]

Bailey was interviewed on radio before the start of the game last Sunday.

He said (words to the effect) that they don't want to overburden the players with tactics ..it will only confuse them. mmmm.

Some scribes have noted that we try to commence our attacks with accurate kicks from the half back line - maybe that's why we keep picking Strauss in the 25, even though he hasn't been among the best for Casey. Someone up the at the club must like him.

I don't know where this rumour that Strauss can kick comes from. I've seen him at casey a number of times, and he very rarely either hits a target, nor does he man up. And when he does, he nearly always gets beaten one on one.

A grossly over-rated footballer in my view.

[rpfc 28,779]

The basketball comparison is interesting in view of Watts background. My basketball friends from the NBL tell me they could not believe it when Jack Watts chose AFL over basketball. They said he was the best talent for his age they had ever seen in Australia and even at the age of 15 was on the radar of NBA scouts. He would know ALL about the basketball tactics such as full court press, but shows no signs of using this knowledge in the AFL.

It can only be the coaching....

Yes, because Watts' lack of knowledge on how to do a 'press' is the reason it doesn't work...

A lot of pressure on the young man...