3 years ago collingwood certainly had a game plan even if it wasn't full press

In fact I would say that if you send out players without a decent game plan then their development would be hindered

Young players are quite capable of developing and understanding a game plan

It need'nt be the final premiership game plan but players need the structure/discpline of a game plan

I think we have one, DC, But it looks like a basic traditional one ATMO.

Learn the basics right first, then the tech aspects after that. Just like learning a golf swing the right way, from the basics, Up.

I think we have one, DC, But it looks like a basic traditional one ATMO.

Learn the basics right first, then the tech aspects after that. Just like learning a golf swing the right way, from the basics, Up.

Well if we do have one it is far from adequate (or obvious)

Any game plan must include variations (a plan B,C etc if you like) to counter differing game conditions. This seems to be something we lack.

Even a basic game plan must cover such things as kick-outs at both the defensive and offensive ends (and other basic aspects)

I'm afraid I can't defend our current game plan despite the state of our player development, as it lacks essential variety.

Just my 2 cents worth

P.S. I repeat, development and game plan are not mutually exclusive as many want to argue. Simply pumping games into players will only achieve so much

I think we have a gameplan, you can't play without one. I believe Todd was simply saying that they don't burden this young team with complex structures and overly defined roles.

In terms of Plan B - I rally against the term with regard to gameplan. Geelong didn't change their gameplan, Collingwood didn't change their gameplan, they knew what their structure so well and they were so talented that they stuck to what they knew and beat all comers. Tactics may alter but gameplans don't.

I will also add that our attempts at a forward press are not great at this time, which seems to be the popular vehicle for success in 2011, as we are not a chance for the flag this year I am happy for the FD to explore other options and plans but DC is right that you should be able to develop players and have them play a gameplan.

Personally, I think key players are out of form or injured and we are playing the same gameplan as the last few years - rely on defensive turnovers and switches of play through the middle with run from behind the footy.

Is it a successful gameplan? Unanswerable.

Will we stick to it when we are challenging? Probably not. Game changes so quickly. But good skills and quick movement of the pill is always handy though...

Will Collingwood's press be the requirement of challengers when we are in our window? Unanswerable.

Gameplans, both offensive and defensive, come and go - class is permanent...

I think we have a gameplan, you can't play without one. I believe Todd was simply saying that they don't burden this young team with complex structures and overly defined roles.

In terms of Plan B - I rally against the term with regard to gameplan. Geelong didn't change their gameplan, Collingwood didn't change their gameplan, they knew what their structure so well and they were so talented that they stuck to what they knew and beat all comers. Tactics may alter but gameplans don't.

I will also add that our attempts at a forward press are not great at this time, which seems to be the popular vehicle for success in 2011, as we are not a chance for the flag this year I am happy for the FD to explore other options and plans but DC is right that you should be able to develop players and have them play a gameplan.

Personally, I think key players are out of form or injured and we are playing the same gameplan as the last few years - rely on defensive turnovers and switches of play through the middle with run from behind the footy.

Is it a successful gameplan? Unanswerable.

Will we stick to it when we are challenging? Probably not. Game changes so quickly. But good skills and quick movement of the pill is always handy though...

Will Collingwood's press be the requirement of challengers when we are in our window? Unanswerable.

Gameplans, both offensive and defensive, come and go - class is permanent...

Maybe it's not "gameplan" as such - that is, the one style of play that you stick to no matter what. Maybe it's nothing more than a set of plans or even set plays that have been worked out beforehand for certain situations, for getting yourself out of trouble. It just means that in these situations, everybody knows what's supposed to happen, knows where the next guy in the chain is going to be. Just "planning" rather than "gameplan". It can be as simple as knowing where to expect a lead and when to time it, before even looking up.

I get the feeling that we are often making it up as we go. It wouldn't do us any harm to work out, say, three different set plays for getting out of a forward press. Are our players unique in that they're too stupid for plans, or that they'll confuse them? Richmond have had a number of set plays - haven't always come off, but when they have, they've got them out of some sticky situations.

That "we're working on developing players, it's too early for gameplans" line is just sounding more & more like a lame excuse. If they said "no, we haven't worked on any kick-out strategies, we're working on developing our players so we just leave it up to the guy with the ball", they would be ridiculed.

Edited April 15, 201114 yr by Akum

I think we have a gameplan, you can't play without one. I believe Todd was simply saying that they don't burden this young team with complex structures and overly defined roles.

In terms of Plan B - I rally against the term with regard to gameplan. Geelong didn't change their gameplan, Collingwood didn't change their gameplan, they knew what their structure so well and they were so talented that they stuck to what they knew and beat all comers. Tactics may alter but gameplans don't.

I will also add that our attempts at a forward press are not great at this time, which seems to be the popular vehicle for success in 2011, as we are not a chance for the flag this year I am happy for the FD to explore other options and plans but DC is right that you should be able to develop players and have them play a gameplan.

Personally, I think key players are out of form or injured and we are playing the same gameplan as the last few years - rely on defensive turnovers and switches of play through the middle with run from behind the footy.

Is it a successful gameplan? Unanswerable.

Will we stick to it when we are challenging? Probably not. Game changes so quickly. But good skills and quick movement of the pill is always handy though...

Will Collingwood's press be the requirement of challengers when we are in our window? Unanswerable.

Gameplans, both offensive and defensive, come and go - class is permanent...

You're too soft and wishy washy rpfc

There's not enough accountability and intensity in our game plan. It can't be fitness but inexperience and young bodies is certainly a factor. Too many leave it up to others too often without enough consequences. This is rebuild season 4, time to toughen up.

Watching Collingwood tonight, nobody stops moving, the player in possesion always seems to have support and multiple options to go for. This is not rocket science just hard work. we may not have the hardness, skills and experience of them yet but we need to work harder, support each other better and present, present and present. I can accept the subsequent skill mistakes but not the lack of effort

There I feel better for my rant

You're too soft and wishy washy rpfc

There's not enough accountability and intensity in our game plan. It can't be fitness but inexperience and young bodies is certainly a factor. Too many leave it up to others too often without enough consequences. This is rebuild season 4, time to toughen up.

Watching Collingwood tonight, nobody stops moving, the player in possesion always seems to have support and multiple options to go for. This is not rocket science just hard work. we may not have the hardness, skills and experience of them yet but we need to work harder, support each other better and present, present and present. I can accept the subsequent skill mistakes but not the lack of effort

There I feel better for my rant

I don't think you're argument is against the gameplan as much as our 'contest to contest' performance. A gameplan can give you structure, but at some point it has got to come down to desire to compete at a stoppage, in a pack, in a marking contest, in a footrace, with a tackle, with pressure, etc.

The vast majority of the players haven't shown that so far in 2011, good luck with any gameplan when that is the case.

There's not enough accountability and intensity in our game plan. It can't be fitness but inexperience and young bodies is certainly a factor. Too many leave it up to others too often without enough consequences. This is rebuild season 4, time to toughen up.

Watching Collingwood tonight, nobody stops moving, the player in possesion always seems to have support and multiple options to go for. This is not rocket science just hard work. we may not have the hardness, skills and experience of them yet but we need to work harder, support each other better and present, present and present. I can accept the subsequent skill mistakes but not the lack of effort

There I feel better for my rant

In fairness it took 3 years to overturn most of the list. The same hard work that was shown last season in patches needs to continue. There was always going to be speed humps this season.

I don't think you're argument is against the gameplan as much as our 'contest to contest' performance. A gameplan can give you structure, but at some point it has got to come down to desire to compete at a stoppage, in a pack, in a marking contest, in a footrace, with a tackle, with pressure, etc.

The vast majority of the players haven't shown that so far in 2011, good luck with any gameplan when that is the case.

I never said game plan was the only problem

though backing up team mates, running in groups, swarming and presenting are part of a game plan surely

Its just stupid to say that developing players and developing a game-plan are mutually incompatible

Sheeesh

Too right. Hird has developed a game plan in four months. We have more talent than the scum. WTF are we waiting for???

One thing that is forgotten in all this rhetoric, is the so called experts are paid large substantial amounts of money for their opinion, what they do is actually read some of the forums like this one, pick a topic and run with it, fill the article, commentary, sound bite, full of comparisons, statistics, slow motion replays etc etc and it sounds like the truth.....collect pay cheque and go home........as I said if you asked a player 10 or 20 years ago what the gameplan was, he would have answered "get it forward and kick a goal", the basic premise has not changed, it is the way that it is analysed ad infinitum that has

I really don't think Roos is in that category. He was a very successful senior coach less than a year ago and a premiership coach five years ago. He is hardly out of date.

You could argue though McLure and Dunstall are in that category, but you have to draw your own conclusions. Personally, I think mclure's comments on Watts and the coaching panel are pretty close to the mark.

I never said game plan was the only problem

though backing up team mates, running in groups, swarming and presenting are part of a game plan surely

Every player recruited knows the skills and basic game plan in a footy match.

I am sure a more complexed game plan isn't going to tax them too much. For me, there is a lack of structure and secondly, just not working hard enough off the ball. A coach should be onto that in a big way

Well if we do have one it is far from adequate (or obvious)

Any game plan must include variations (a plan B,C etc if you like) to counter differing game conditions. This seems to be something we lack.

Even a basic game plan must cover such things as kick-outs at both the defensive and offensive ends (and other basic aspects)

I'm afraid I can't defend our current game plan despite the state of our player development, as it lacks essential variety.

Just my 2 cents worth

P.S. I repeat, development and game plan are not mutually exclusive as many want to argue. Simply pumping games into players will only achieve so much

I agree, but I don't think we'll ahve a solid technical "plan", until we've established a very settled side with others struggling to enter that team.

I think we may be 12 months from that.

This year we're still going to fast track some kids as we're witnessing now with Tappy and Gys' in, with more to come through the year. Fastracking to that Solid foundation of the team. Then when setled we can instill those technical gameplans.

Thats how I reckon it'll play out.

*Edit: As far as the kickins etc, ( think thats more about the personell and lacking confidence. I think we'll see improvement through the year as the players mature and become MORE switched ON.

Edited April 16, 201114 yr by dee-luded

I read this last night and tended to agree albeit against the grain. But on reconsidering I think it's just plain wrong and insulting. Jones, Moloney, Green, Petterd, Grimes, Frawley, Bail, Trengove, Sylvia, Rivers and Tappscott are anything but softies. They are hard nosed hard at it footballers. I'd suggest they are as "hard" as anyone in the AFL. We do have "softies" but no more than other clubs. Softies are the players who play outside in the main. They show their "hardness" by running and running, mostly unrewarded.

True not every player is a hard-nut but our best 22 contains Watts, Bennell, Morton, Jurrah and Davey - however the first 4 are developing players.

Could it be that our coaching staff back us to beat a Collingwoodesque set up? We did break down their zones twice last year.

I read this last night and tended to agree albeit against the grain. But on reconsidering I think it's just plain wrong and insulting. Jones, Moloney, Green, Petterd, Grimes, Frawley, Bail, Trengove, Sylvia, Rivers and Tappscott are anything but softies. They are hard nosed hard at it footballers. I'd suggest they are as "hard" as anyone in the AFL. We do have "softies" but no more than other clubs. Softies are the players who play outside in the main. They show their "hardness" by running and running, mostly unrewarded.

What our list lacks is "elite" or "star" players. If Petterd was elite he'd sit comfortably with Selwood or Hodge.

Calling this young team "softies" is just plain insulting.

I think one of the debates that is getting closer to conclusion is the need for diverse forward lines rather than relying on the "champ forward".

Our softies: Bennell, Watts, Dunn, Davey, Jurrah, Morton - that's a quarter of the side (won't mention seconds players). It's too many and (imo) more than most other clubs and certainly the quality ones. And I wouldn't list that group as being "hard" in their running. Morton has elite endurance, which is more God-given than a startling manifestation of his being.

As far as being "insulting" ? I'd be delighted if I didn't need to make the observation. Hopefully in time I'll spend my life writing about the courage of Gysberts, Scully, Tapscott, and Trengove, because they are young players that have a crack and already make me proud. In 3-4 games of footy I know what we get with Tapscott and Gysberts and I love them both.

As far as "diverse" forwardlines, I agree and have written too many words on the subject to expand again. Diversity is what your mates theory lacked.

Our softies: Bennell, Watts, Dunn, Davey, Jurrah, Morton - that's a quarter of the side (won't mention seconds players). It's too many and (imo) more than most other clubs and certainly the quality ones. And I wouldn't list that group as being "hard" in their running. Morton has elite endurance, which is more God-given than a startling manifestation of his being.

As far as being "insulting" ? I'd be delighted if I didn't need to make the observation. Hopefully in time I'll spend my life writing about the courage of Gysberts, Scully, Tapscott, and Trengove, because they are young players that have a crack and already make me proud. In 3-4 games of footy I know what we get with Tapscott and Gysberts and I love them both.

As far as "diverse" forwardlines, I agree and have written too many words on the subject to expand again. Diversity is what your mates theory lacked.

I have also been frustrated by the lack of a hard edge in recent Melbourne teams - we seem to be happy to have the one or two 'hard players' (Schwarz, Pickett, Neitz, Powell at various times). But what makes me very confident about the future is three of the four players you mentioned: Scully, Trengove, and Gysberts.

They are the future of our midfield, and I have no doubt whatsoever that they will soon form the core of that midfield.

Which will mean that the most important area of the field our most talented players aren't those that are more comfortable skirting around packs and looking to avoid contact.

i don't think dunn is soft, much the opposite but will be interestin to see morton and watts in a few years when they are men

for some blokes its 100% full pace all the time no matter there size where some blokes need size to go 100% all the time

will be interestin to see tho

i don't think dunn is soft, much the opposite but will be interestin to see morton and watts in a few years when they are men

for some blokes its 100% full pace all the time no matter there size where some blokes need size to go 100% all the time

will be interestin to see though

Dunn's the worst of the lot because he acts tough. You watch him over the next few games. Watch when the ball goes over his head. Watch what his eyes and body do, then compare it to Petterd or even better, Hodge.

i don't think dunn is soft, much the opposite but will be interestin to see morton and watts in a few years when they are men

for some blokes its 100% full pace all the time no matter there size where some blokes need size to go 100% all the time

will be interestin to see tho

As stated by RI, Dunn is arguably the worst. He has a chronic case of hearing footsteps and has developed an abilty to look like he's "going" when he has no intention. He's terribly soft.

As stated by RI, Dunn is arguably the worst. He has a chronic case of hearing footsteps and has developed an abilty to look like he's "going" when he has no intention. He's terribly soft.

I've never really noticed this and thought Dunn was a good hard honest forward. But I will keep an eye on this over the next few weeks (well the week after we come back from Subi - it can be a bit hard to get a feel for the game watching over the TV.)

Dunn's the worst of the lot because he acts tough. You watch him over the next few games. Watch when the ball goes over his head. Watch what his eyes and body do, then compare it to Petterd or even better, Hodge.

Further, Dunn is always the first to be in the face of a defender when scored against. Gives me the sh!ts. Dunn and Hodge don't even belong in the same sentence.

Hawks 2008: Crawford, Young, Bateman, Williams, Ladson.

I accept that we won't agree on all players, but I can't pass this one up. You're saying that Crawford was "soft" ?

And yes, as far as teams go there will always be those that have a less physical playing style. There are degrees in everything.

To the extent he played an outside game, yes. Is it a criticism, no.

Playing "outside" isn't the issue.

As stated by RI, Dunn is arguably the worst. He has a chronic case of hearing footsteps and has developed an abilty to look like he's "going" when he has no intention. He's terribly soft.

Dunn is definitely the one that annoys me the most, although he has gotten better in this area.

He used to duck, now he just shuts his eyes.

I suppose the fact that physically he is very strong helps him in the contest, but he definitely has a tendency to hear footsteps.

On the other hand I don't think Bennell is soft, I just think he is such an outside player that he has no idea how to play the packs. He does well quite often in contested marking situations, so he isn't completely adverse to body contact.

And while I don't necessarily disagree about the game plan not being suitable for finals, it's encouraging to know that we are up there for contested marks this season. That helps when precision kicking goes out the window under the pressure of finals. We have some very good overhead markers in our side, especially our 'smaller' players like Trengove, Sylvia, Bennell, Grimes and Tapscott.

Edited April 17, 201114 yr by Jaded

What's interested me in the papers today is the talk about moving the ball along the boundary. I noticed it a bit yesterday, it seems that we're more willing to move the ball along the boundaries than last year where we looked to the corridor more often than not. It seems to be a bit of a trend across the league this year, maybe teams are following Collingwood's league.