: )

Is is just the mists of time... that team seemed so much more powerful than our current young team. Oh for a Bennet / Strawb / Grinter / Yates / Lyon - never mind the Sainted One! We can only hope... and wait and support through thick and thin, I guess.

They're coming. Some have arrived already. They make look a little different, but they'll be just as hard and just as good. The names include Tapscott, Jurrah and Trengove. Who knows who else might join that group?

But they are coming. Literally keep your eye on the red and the blue

Anyone catch the North-Richmond game?

Based on that game, I'd say we're better than both sides. The difference though, and where we will continue to struggle, is still the big bodies, especially against the Roos. The old brigade of North are a tough group indeed - Petrie, Rawlings, Wells, Boomer. Those guys are players who are 100% grit, and will push hard at every contest. The Tigers are less so, but some players (Riewoldt in particular, but also noticed how well Jake King played - can't name many more of the Richmond players who are of the big type) play in a similar fashion. Whether it's through reliance on Junior, Bruce and Jordie last season and now being exposed or simply...being less willing at the ball (for want of a better turn of phrase) we are not as hard and determined as either of those two sides. However, we can most certainly out-skill the both of them.

The issue is that skill will only get you so far in contested possession and such.

I think you are very close to the mark "Striker"

When it comes down to "hard at the ball at all costs" we come up short e.g. Hawthorn scare us to death every year.

Same with the WC, so next thursday will show something.

Win that one in WA and I will start to believe we are better than the Tiges and Roos.

But in the end only beating them will count.

Win and we are good lose and it is just another "melbourne" year.

I think you are very close to the mark "Striker"

When it comes down to "hard at the ball at all costs" we come up short e.g. Hawthorn scare us to death every year.

Same with the WC, so next thursday will show something.

Win that one in WA and I will start to believe we are better than the Tiges and Roos.

But in the end only beating them will count.

Win and we are good lose and it is just another "melbourne" year.

Or "another Melbourne" 6 weeks...

I don't think we are at the stage where we can expect a win in Perth against an up and about WCE.

Maybe next year...

I wonder... when Bailey came to Melbourne he introduced a style of game similar to Geelong's: players behind the ball, move the footy down the ground quickly en masse, hurt the opposition on the rebound. To achieve this aim Melbourne drafted skilled, but lighter bodied, running players: Morton, Bennell, Jetta, Scully, Blease, etc.

In the last 14 months we have seen the maturing of the press, which uses man-on-man pressure with players quickly getting in the face of their opponents in their own backline so that they can force turnovers within range of goal. Collingwood have done this beautifully, but they also have a side capable of carrying out the press, with a tidy mix of skilled goal sneaks and, more importantly, strong pressure players.

In light of the shift in the dominant game plan from rebound to press, is it possible we got our recruiting wrong. If the FD had their time again would they have targeted heavy bodied players? (Hurley, Darling, Martin.) Or, do they believe that there is still a lot of physical development in the players? If it's the latter we are still very much a work in progress and expectations should be lowered as we wait for the above mentioned Melbourne players to fill out. If it's the former, we are stuffed.

Having said that, can I now say this: Nathan Jones is an excellent example of what hard work and practice can do for a player with perceived weaknesses. His kicking was initially pants, but over the last three seasons it has improved markedly. If the improvement in Jones can be extrapolated to the improvement in the rest of the side, both in skill, strength and how to approach a physical contest( let's face it: a lot of our players are, ahem, timid), we are heading in the right direction.

When scully comes back into the midfield I would like to see slyvia play in the forward line.

I wonder... when Bailey came to Melbourne he introduced a style of game similar to Geelong's: players behind the ball, move the footy down the ground quickly en masse, hurt the opposition on the rebound. To achieve this aim Melbourne drafted skilled, but lighter bodied, running players: Morton, Bennell, Jetta, Scully, Blease, etc.

In the last 14 months we have seen the maturing of the press, which uses man-on-man pressure with players quickly getting in the face of their opponents in their own backline so that they can force turnovers within range of goal. Collingwood have done this beautifully, but they also have a side capable of carrying out the press, with a tidy mix of skilled goal sneaks and, more importantly, strong pressure players.

In light of the shift in the dominant game plan from rebound to press, is it possible we got our recruiting wrong. If the FD had their time again would they have targeted heavy bodied players? (Hurley, Darling, Martin.) Or, do they believe that there is still a lot of physical development in the players? If it's the latter we are still very much a work in progress and expectations should be lowered as we wait for the above mentioned Melbourne players to fill out. If it's the former, we are stuffed.

Having said that, can I now say this: Nathan Jones is an excellent example of what hard work and practice can do for a player with perceived weaknesses. His kicking was initially pants, but over the last three seasons it has improved markedly. If the improvement in Jones can be extrapolated to the improvement in the rest of the side, both in skill, strength and how to approach a physical contest( let's face it: a lot of our players are, ahem, timid), we are heading in the right direction.

I don't think the rise of Collingwood marked the death of rebound football at all. Remember, Geelong still made a preliminary final playing rebound footy. They did get smashed by Collingwood there, yes - but a lot must be said about the commitment of that Geelong side. You can write all day about Bomber Thompson and the side not responding to a coach whose heart wasn't in it, but the reality is that the players didn't seem to be in it. Indeed, only one Geelong player gave his all that day, and that was probably because he knew every final he played in the blue and white hoops would be his last for them if they lost.

Rebound footy is far more awesome to watch than the zone-press Collingwood and Hawthorn play. It is also far more dangerous with the right players than the zone-press. Yes, Collingwood can rip a side to shreds. But Collingwood also have one of the deepest lists we have seen in an AFL club in years, where probably 30 players can make that 22. Geelong had maybe 25 come Grand Final day 2009? Indeed, the need for depth in your list when going for a zone-press is epitomised by Hawthorn, who won the flag with it in 2008 - but haven't backed up since due to injuries and loss of form among many of their players. I would suggest that rebound footy seems to be easier on the players and much more capable, but harder to acquire the assets to actually utilise.

The Geelong midfield read Bartel-Ablett-Ling-Selwood-Chapman.

Melbourne's midfield will probably read Scully-Trengove-Jones-Gysberts-Blease/Strauss/Viney.

There was a comment in another thread on here that the side that wins the flag's game plan is all the rage until they get beaten, then it's the new strategy. The rebound football plan is by no means dead because of the zone press, indeed, with the right players I believe it can rip the zone press apart as the weaker zoners find themselves exposed due to speed and skill. Unfortunately, Melbourne are by no means at that stage, and the victory of Collingwood has forced some adjustments to our game plan and will need some things to change (see kick-ins).

Cue Old55...

Should we care about the Collingwood press or look toward what will shape AFL footy in a few years time?

Maybe we should shape it?

How do you do that?

You get the talent and the structure they play will push others to emulate it.

Plenty of room to poke holes in that theory...

But essentially...

Cue Old55...

Should we care about the Collingwood press or look toward what will shape AFL footy in a few years time?

Maybe we should shape it?

How do you do that?

You get the talent and the structure they play will push others to emulate it.

Plenty of room to poke holes in that theory...

But essentially...

starting points

1. get the cattle

2. get the cattle

3. get the cattle

..

..

When you have got the cattle you can have virtually any game-plan you want (within reason)

starting points

1. get the cattle

2. get the cattle

3. get the cattle

..

..

When you have got the cattle you can have virtually any game-plan you want (within reason)

Yeah, that's the less subtle version of my 'theory'...

When scully comes back into the midfield I would like to see slyvia play in the forward line.

When McKenzie comes back into the midfield I would like to see Bail in Tapscott's position and Tapscott up forward. Bennell and Dunn to rotate sub for a couple of weeks.

I don't think the rise of Collingwood marked the death of rebound football at all. Remember, Geelong still made a preliminary final playing rebound footy. They did get smashed by Collingwood there, yes - but a lot must be said about the commitment of that Geelong side. You can write all day about Bomber Thompson and the side not responding to a coach whose heart wasn't in it, but the reality is that the players didn't seem to be in it. Indeed, only one Geelong player gave his all that day, and that was probably because he knew every final he played in the blue and white hoops would be his last for them if they lost.

Rebound footy is far more awesome to watch than the zone-press Collingwood and Hawthorn play. It is also far more dangerous with the right players than the zone-press. Yes, Collingwood can rip a side to shreds. But Collingwood also have one of the deepest lists we have seen in an AFL club in years, where probably 30 players can make that 22. Geelong had maybe 25 come Grand Final day 2009? Indeed, the need for depth in your list when going for a zone-press is epitomised by Hawthorn, who won the flag with it in 2008 - but haven't backed up since due to injuries and loss of form among many of their players. I would suggest that rebound footy seems to be easier on the players and much more capable, but harder to acquire the assets to actually utilise.

The Geelong midfield read Bartel-Ablett-Ling-Selwood-Chapman.

Melbourne's midfield will probably read Scully-Trengove-Jones-Gysberts-Blease/Strauss/Viney.

There was a comment in another thread on here that the side that wins the flag's game plan is all the rage until they get beaten, then it's the new strategy. The rebound football plan is by no means dead because of the zone press, indeed, with the right players I believe it can rip the zone press apart as the weaker zoners find themselves exposed due to speed and skill. Unfortunately, Melbourne are by no means at that stage, and the victory of Collingwood has forced some adjustments to our game plan and will need some things to change (see kick-ins).

I hear what you are saying, especially about our development and potential on-ball brigade, but I also think defensive footy beats attacking footy when it matters, in big games. Rebound footy might be awesome to watch, but bare-knuckle footy will prevail. When a coach allocates match-ups for a big game he says "stop your bloke getting a kick" and no matter how skilled your bloke, if the stopper is similarly fit and bigger/stronger he will win.

plg - if you were here a bit longer or took notice before you posted here you would realise that WYL doesn't make fun of people's names like that.

It isn't his game - I could tell you some strange ideas he has about the AFL (Mel Gibson in Conspiracy Theory strange...

...I propbably could have left it at Mel Gibson...), but that is beside the point.

Anyway, just let it go.

Do tell rpfc, i am fascinated as to my theory as Mel Gibson & AFL i have never thought of as close bed fellows!!

I hear what you are saying, especially about our development and potential on-ball brigade, but I also think defensive footy beats attacking footy when it matters, in big games. Rebound footy might be awesome to watch, but bare-knuckle footy will prevail. When a coach allocates match-ups for a big game he says "stop your bloke getting a kick" and no matter how skilled your bloke, if the stopper is similarly fit and bigger/stronger he will win.

Yeah but ultimately you can't have a team of 22 stoppers. When you've got that depth of talent that Geelong had, and Melbourne will have, it's really up to you to dedicate your game style. Collingwood have, in my opinion, a huge number of second-tier players. Their A-Grade are really Swan, Pendlebury, Ball and Didak, with Daisy Thomas and Heath Shaw knocking on the door. But the entire rest of the side are certainly B-grade players, but I couldn't name you a player I would rate below that who is actually getting a game for the Pies. In the end they still have to play football, and even if you can take their best player out of the game if that next echelon is supreme class you can still play how you like.

Yeah but ultimately you can't have a team of 22 stoppers. When you've got that depth of talent that Geelong had, and Melbourne will have, it's really up to you to dedicate your game style. Collingwood have, in my opinion, a huge number of second-tier players. Their A-Grade are really Swan, Pendlebury, Ball and Didak, with Daisy Thomas and Heath Shaw knocking on the door. But the entire rest of the side are certainly B-grade players, but I couldn't name you a player I would rate below that who is actually getting a game for the Pies. In the end they still have to play football, and even if you can take their best player out of the game if that next echelon is supreme class you can still play how you like.

I think you under rate the Filth list, but i can see your point as well....B-Grade players do not keep the pressure and intensity of pressure on for the length that the Filth list does.

Play those players on another list and you may be right, but while they are at the Filth, they are above B-. Mick Malthouse is a great coach and i would say also a great chess player.

One thing I think is a major difference between this year is Mackenzie, and to a lesser extent Scully, in the middle. Last year, these two players were often the player who straightened us up through the guts. They both played down the centre of the field, either passing it in board or presenting in the coridoor. This year we have played the coridoor far less than in our good patches last year.

I wonder here if the difference is the change in cattle on field or a change in game plan i.e. has bailey told us to play wider this season? (out of interest, last years premiers play wide, not through the centre, have we tried to play more like them?)

One thing I think is a major difference between this year is Mackenzie, and to a lesser extent Scully, in the middle. Last year, these two players were often the player who straightened us up through the guts. They both played down the centre of the field, either passing it in board or presenting in the coridoor. This year we have played the coridoor far less than in our good patches last year.

I wonder here if the difference is the change in cattle on field or a change in game plan i.e. has bailey told us to play wider this season? (out of interest, last years premiers play wide, not through the centre, have we tried to play more like them?)

McKenzie and Scully not being in the side weekly has made a massive difference, i have no doubt. Rohan Bail is improving weekly though.

McKenzie and Scully not being in the side weekly has made a massive difference, i have no doubt. Rohan Bail is improving weekly though.

Bail is becoming really quite good. Scull we will have to live without - might be a taste of next year =(

Excellent post. Totally agree. We have the medium sized talent however a strong bodied, stay at home forward would also help along with a strong bodied/marking key back to help out Frawley, Rivers and Garland. My wish list would also be a running back ala Whelan, Nathan Brown or Peter Walsh type that can break the lines and take the game on. I think we are somewhat stagnant in the back half at present.

chippa not a running back?

sorry but i think we already have that role covered

Edited April 25, 201114 yr by trudders

We have to do the devlopment time but there's no time for f'ing around.  GC are going to have pick 4 this year and pick 1 & 3 in 2012.  They are going to have an awesome list and from 2018 will start dominating the competition for 4-5 years.  We need to win a flag before then.  Free Agency is not going to help us in the long term.  It's win a flag before 2018 or never see one in my lifetime.

This debate has been going on for a long time now and it's all predicated on a theory that only makes sense if you look at it in general terms. In the real world there are numerous factors that influence outcomes in sporting contests and competitions - the vagaries of the draw, weather, injuries, a good or a bad umpiring decision, the strength of your football department, money and just plain luck. 

Imagine how different the 1990's might have been had Wayne Carey endured three knee reconstructions while, at the same time, the Ox (and a few others) had remained fit and healthy?

There are too many unknowns to enable us to predict the future with great accuracy. It's true that we have to do the development time but we can also make things happen with the resources we have available ... and a bit of luck.

Or "another Melbourne" 6 weeks...

I don't think we are at the stage where we can expect a win in Perth against an up and about WCE.

Maybe next year...

rpfc that is exactly what "another melbourne year" is.

maybe next year.

rpfc that is exactly what "another melbourne year" is.

maybe next year.

Rest assured, OD.

At some stage in our rebuild we will go west and expect a win, but I am not going to put that level of expectation on the club at this stage.

And that doesn't mean we are not capable...

And it doesn't mean I have 'blind faith' or I am giving a 'free pass.'

It just means that we opted for a slow burn rebuild and we are in the phase where we have the capability to do many great things but, conversely, to be incredibly inconsistent between weeks and during games.

Despite a so-so start to the year, we are 2-1-1.

Our next 3 games are: Wet Toast (in Subi), Adelaide (at MCG) and North (at Etihad). 3 very winnable games. And with 10 day breaks before WestCoast and Adelaide games, we should be very fresh.

The draw has been very nice to us this season and these next 3 weeks could really set up our season very nicely. We could even be top 4 if we win all those games.

Sure that would probably flatter us a lot, but I think 8th-10th is realistic expectation this season. Great opportunity for our young team to play a final.

Despite a so-so start to the year, we are 2-1-1.

Our next 3 games are: Wet Toast (in Subi), Adelaide (at MCG) and North (at Etihad). 3 very winnable games. And with 10 day breaks before WestCoast and Adelaide games, we should be very fresh.

The draw has been very nice to us this season and these next 3 weeks could really set up our season very nicely. We could even be top 4 if we win all those games.

Sure that would probably flatter us a lot, but I think 8th-10th is realistic expectation this season. Great opportunity for our young team to play a final.

Agree. Would love for us to make finals this year, even if it is a 'one-and-done' situation. There's no way to get finals experience except by, well, playing finals. To get one into the squad (a large portion of which have been nowhere near a final) would be awesome this year.

To put it bluntly, our team performance needs to improve, and improve a lot, over what we've seen so far. If it doesn't improve, if the past 4 weeks is the best we're gonna do this year, we'll struggle to get anywhere near last year's standard. And I'd find it hard to believe that anybody would be satisfied with that. I fully expect us to improve, but I'm starting to brace myself for the possibility that we might not.

needs to improve, and improve a lot, over what we've seen so far!

Exactly - team is just not showing the passion and fire of Demons we want and expect - there are no excuses - and yes they won't walk over hot coals for Bailey - time for him to move on!

In light of the shift in the dominant game plan from rebound to press, is it possible we got our recruiting wrong. If the FD had their time again would they have targeted heavy bodied players? (Hurley, Darling, Martin.) Or, do they believe that there is still a lot of physical development in the players? If it's the latter we are still very much a work in progress and expectations should be lowered as we wait for the above mentioned Melbourne players to fill out. If it's the former, we are stuffed.

That bloke McLean at Carlton - he's playing for the Blue Ants isn't he - maybe we could trade for him?

Edited April 26, 201114 yr by old55