Badly outcoached

[heartbeatstrue 57]

Writing this is therapeutic, apologies if it's a topic that's been done to death already. But I'm glad I waited until this morning, the pain last night was just too raw.

We got shown up badly in the game against West Coast, who have adopted a similar game to Collingwood. If I remember, the inside 50's in that game were badly unbalanced also. Basically we were shown up as a team who couldn't handle the forward press.

So what did we learn from the West Coast debacle? The evidence of lessons learnt was on display before us all yesterday.

We discovered we still don't have a plan to try and counter the (admittedly very effective) Collingwood formations. The only other conclusion is that the coaching staff did have a plan but it was simply beyond every player. I'm pretty sure it was he former. So, why no better planning - we knew what Collingwood would dish up?

On Footy Classified last night, Buckley gave a glimpse into Collingwood's preparation. They watched both our games last year (one point loss & draw), and then the win over Essendon, and obviously did their homework on us very well. Pretty clearly, they fine-tuned a winning plan to specifically nullify our strengths.

Buckley also made the passing comment, if you stand still in footy, you're actually going backwards.

What could we have tried? It might have been interesting to plonk big Max Gawn in the goalsquare with instructions to stay close to goal. Maybe even Sylvia to stay in the space between goal and centre square. Let the Collingwood defenders loose if they wanted, the result could hardly have been any worse. Then you could bomb long and hopefully quick as the press was setting up. Dunno, but it's pretty obvious that the future belongs to teams who learn to beat the forward press and in doing so, create their own winning formations.

Essentially the game was played on Collingwood's terms, and they have the well-oiled plan and structures, and personnel, that in such circumstances they will always beat teams in our position.

Passionately, I want to see MFC experimenting and developing the next big tactical innovation. Bailey won't do his own prospects any harm by innovating and chancing his arm.

What happened is not unexpected for a young team, it's happened to many ultimately great teams before us (think Geelong in 2006 even, when they were baying for Thompson's scalp). I just want to believe that it's technical issues to do with more innovative and better-prepared coaching, and not a deep-seated cultural problem.

[satyricon 267]

What the coaches said was:

Don't over handball

Don't turnover in the middle of the park

Don't leave either Cloke or Dawes in a 1 on 1

Don't allow easy clearances

Don't kick backwards

Don't leave spaces in the forward 50 to lead into

Don't stop talking

Don;t stop trying

The players let the coaching staff down....again....you are only as good as the consistent cattle you have, unfortunately if a team gets on a roll against us at the moment, we fall to bits........you don't coach that, not falling to bits comes with games and experience...yes I am getting a bit motion sick with the rollercoaster as well...but at least Morton is starting to hit form again, and Watts and Howe showed something...maybe next week everybody will...who knows?

To build a team from scratch, which is what Bailey has had to do takes a minimum of five years, we are three to four years in.......you need an average of about 80-90 games played minimum....we have nowhere near that yet

Edited June 14, 2011 by satyricon

[heartbeatstrue 57]

I've just refreshed my memory. In 2006, Geelong finished 10th. Thompson's head was on the block. Sam Newman was beating his drum "just kick it long, footy's a simple game" and that they over-did the handball.

2007 of course was pretty sweet vindication for a club that performed way below expectations in 2006.

On 20th May 2006, Collingwood beat Geelong by 102 points at the MCG, 22:14 to 6:8. Melb beat them by 6 points and drew with them second last game at Skilled.

The thing that was going on of course, was Geelong and Thompson were crafting a style of play that would put them ahead of the rest & establish a Geelong dynasty. Seasons like Geelong had, and we're having, are only useful if as well as getting games into the youngsters, innovative winning structures and tactics are being developed.

[Bonkers 994]

Writing this is therapeutic, apologies if it's a topic that's been done to death already. But I'm glad I waited until this morning, the pain last night was just too raw.

We got shown up badly in the game against West Coast, who have adopted a similar game to Collingwood. If I remember, the inside 50's in that game were badly unbalanced also. Basically we were shown up as a team who couldn't handle the forward press.

So what did we learn from the West Coast debacle? The evidence of lessons learnt was on display before us all yesterday.

We discovered we still don't have a plan to try and counter the (admittedly very effective) Collingwood formations. The only other conclusion is that the coaching staff did have a plan but it was simply beyond every player. I'm pretty sure it was he former. So, why no better planning - we knew what Collingwood would dish up?

On Footy Classified last night, Buckley gave a glimpse into Collingwood's preparation. They watched both our games last year (one point loss & draw), and then the win over Essendon, and obviously did their homework on us very well. Pretty clearly, they fine-tuned a winning plan to specifically nullify our strengths.

Buckley also made the passing comment, if you stand still in footy, you're actually going backwards.

What could we have tried? It might have been interesting to plonk big Max Gawn in the goalsquare with instructions to stay close to goal. Maybe even Sylvia to stay in the space between goal and centre square. Let the Collingwood defenders loose if they wanted, the result could hardly have been any worse. Then you could bomb long and hopefully quick as the press was setting up. Dunno, but it's pretty obvious that the future belongs to teams who learn to beat the forward press and in doing so, create their own winning formations.

Essentially the game was played on Collingwood's terms, and they have the well-oiled plan and structures, and personnel, that in such circumstances they will always beat teams in our position.

Passionately, I want to see MFC experimenting and developing the next big tactical innovation. Bailey won't do his own prospects any harm by innovating and chancing his arm.

What happened is not unexpected for a young team, it's happened to many ultimately great teams before us (think Geelong in 2006 even, when they were baying for Thompson's scalp). I just want to believe that it's technical issues to do with more innovative and better-prepared coaching, and not a deep-seated cultural problem.

While the press is in vogue at the moment & should be a tactic learned & understood by our players & FD I actually think coaches will dismantle the press quite soon. While the forward press is effective in implementing pressure on the ball carrier & making it hard to move the ball out of the backline it is also a game style that exposes your backline to the counter attack or quick & precise ball movement or long kicking over the top of the zone with numbers running towards a specified area to collect or contest for the long ball. A lot of the current formations, zones or strategies are learned from other sports such as Soccer, Basketball, NFL etc. Lessons need to be learned from soccer in particular where teams that position there defense high up the field are vulnerable to players running in behind their defense & also teams that play possession football to eventually tire the opposition & take control of a game. I think the team that will be able to defeat Collingwood will be a team that is capable of retaining possession by foot. Collingwoods main asset is there prolonged intensity & ability to play the contest for long periods. There strategy & strength is also there weakness as their strategy is physically taxing on all their players as the press involves all team members working at a high intensity for long periods for it to work.

Yesterday showed that our team is not mature enough to carry out the game style effectively. Maintaining possession yesterday was a struggle due to poor work rate/intensity or inferior work rate & at times poor skills. There may be issues with certain players mentally applying themselves, however I think the main contributing factor to the mauling we received yesterday was our work rate compared to theirs & their matured bodies. Something that is able to be rectified at least with hours in the gym & hard training. If the problem is cultural or mental application then you would have to place serious doubts over Bailey's ability to motivate or understand his players.

Edited June 14, 2011 by Bonkers

[heartbeatstrue 57]

Lessons need to be learned from soccer in particular where teams that position there defense high up the field are vulnerable to players running in behind their defense & also teams that play possession football to eventually tire the opposition & take control of a game.

Remember the first game we played them last year, when we lost by a point - that was pretty much how we countered them, kicking to Melb forwards running in behind their defence. Obviously they've done two things, a) got better at it, and B) realised and been prepared for that aspect (not that I saw it in much evidence yesterday, like I remember it from a year ago).

If the problem is cultural or mental application then you would have to place serious doubts over Bailey's ability to motivate or understand his players.

I hope it's not all above their heads! And culture is very hard to shift.

[Guest Artie Bucco]

Isn't it possible that the reigning premier is purely and simply a lot better than a team that finished outside the finals last year..?

No, surely not.

We need to search for scapegoats!

[RalphiusMaximus 6,053]

What I found very funny watching the game was how Collingwood responded to our kick-ins. They set up their talls in the only two locations we ever kick to, long down the middle and to our right flank. They set up several crumbing players 10-20m forward of that location. When the kick came in, they didn't try to mark it, they simply climbed over the pack and punched forwards. The crumbers moved laterally and picked up the easy uncontested possession. They very clearly did their homework, noted that 90% of our kickouts are to these two points and came up with a very simple plan to beat them. I think the fact that it was so easy is a damning indictment of our coaches.

[drdrake 3,163]

Sitting in the stands yesterday, the last quarter turned to the how bad are we conversation. Then it was suggested that if two or three forwards stayed inside our forward 50m arc instead of pushing up on the wing specially if we had the footy on HBF, the defenders would be at least mindful of these men and maybe not press so high and if we get through the press it would be a certain goal as we have a couple of loose players up forward. Yesterday we had several occasions we beat the press to look up into our forward half and have no one there, it forces you to stop short kick hand ball turn over and a goal to Collingwood. You imagine if we had Jack Watts and Liam Jurrah as these two players, the defenders will respect them and push back to them creating space with in the zone. The next part is the crumbing forwards, we had none yesterday, they need to work up to the wing and work even harder to get front and square.

Dean Bailey, please simplify you game plan this week, ensure we have options to kick to, and teach the players to get front and square, this is very basic football.

One other thing our players ran around like junior footballers yesterday, the ball got kicked to the wing we all ran to the wing, we had 18 melbourne players around the footy and only 12 Collingwood players, when they won the footy they had loose men that created more lose men that created easy goals. 4 players don't need to go to the ball carrier.

Edited June 14, 2011 by drdrake

[Roost It 1,434]

Isn't it possible that the reigning premier is purely and simply a lot better than a team that finished outside the finals last year..?

No, surely not.

We need to search for scapegoats!

We got beaten by 88 points and were completely without any structure or formation to counter it. Just look at our kick ins if you want to see hopw badly we were coached. The coach is gone, get over it and move on.

Edited June 14, 2011 by Roost It

[satyricon 267]

Just a point about trying things, Gawn rucked for most of the second half amongst the carnage, so Bailey who does not changes things according to some, did.....

[Roost It 1,434]

Just a point about trying things, Gawn rucked for most of the second half amongst the carnage, so Bailey who does not changes things according to some, did.....

Don't tell me you work at the club too!

[Guest Artie Bucco]

You're making an assumption that is not correct.

Bailey is still the coach, so I'd appreciate if you could keep to the facts.

Have Collingwood thrashed any other teams this year and made them look bereft of structure?

Maybe teams that weren't still missing their AA ruckman, along with a handful of other key first 22 players?

That didnt have multiple players with less than 5 games to their name?

Stick to the facts.

[Guest Artie Bucco]

Don't tell me you work at the club too!

Don't tell me you work for GWS!

Honestly, it's just as puerile and irrelevant a comment.

[rpfc 28,431]

I don't think that Bailey could have done much, such was the poor effort of his players.

But it won't matter who is to blame if it doesn't get better against Freo down here and the hapless Dogs.

If I had to make the decision right now, it wouldn't be good for Bailey or our leadership group.

Luckily for all at the club they have 11 games left to salvage their pride and positions.

[Sir Why You Little 37,038]

You're making an assumption that is not correct.

Bailey is still the coach, so I'd appreciate if you could keep to the facts.

Have Collingwood thrashed any other teams this year and made them look bereft of structure?

Maybe teams that weren't still missing their AA ruckman, along with a handful of other key first 22 players?

That didnt have multiple players with less than 5 games to their name?

Stick to the facts.

What is your agenda on here Artie....WE would all like to know.

[loges 6,767]

Just an observation but the top 2 sides have much bigger bodied players than ourselves & when we come to play them we just get pushed aside. We have to cope with that & the difference in ability as well. Having said that Frawley on Cloke should have been the go from the start

[satyricon 267]

Don't tell me you work at the club too!

Soory to disturb your drinking,

no I don't, just trying ot put across an opinion, you know what they are, they are something people have that are sometimes different, but some people do allow others to have them.....

[H_T 3,047]

We got beaten by 88 points and were completely without any structure or formation to counter it. Just look at our kick ins if you want to see hopw badly we were coached. The coach is gone, get over it and move on.

A side that gets obliterated in the middle, makes significant execution errors and stupid decisions really breaks down structure.

There were errors at kick ins, because there were so many kick ins. And there were that many kick ins because 'they' had many i50's due to what ??

The answer is more contested possessions, more clearances at stoppages and centre bounces. They made us pay for poor execution, skill errors and dumb decisions, especially through the midfield when in possession.

Stoppages: Collingwood kicked 9.5.59

Turnovers: Collingwood kicked 10.9.69

You say outcoached. I say far outplayed in every facet. Wellingham, Ball, Davis and Pendlebury killed us and pulled our pants down.

Now are you going to reply that I'm representing the club too ?

[Guest Artie Bucco]

What is your agenda on here Artie....WE would all like to know.

Hahahaha right... would WE?

Well, WE think maybe you should tell US what you think OUR agenda is?

I know you're alluding to something, and I'd love to see you put it down in words.

It'd be hilarious.

[Sir Why You Little 37,038]

Hahahaha right... would WE?

Well, WE think maybe you should tell US what you think OUR agenda is?

I know you're alluding to something, and I'd love to see you put it down in words.

It'd be hilarious.

Answer the question...i am tired of your flowery words Artie...What is your Agenda on this website?

It's not hard.

[Choko 493]

A side that gets obliterated in the middle, makes significant execution errors and stupid decisions really breaks down structure.

There were errors at kick ins, because there were so many kick ins. And there were that many kick ins because 'they' had many i50's due to what ??

The answer is more contested possessions, more clearances at stoppages and centre bounces. They made us pay for poor execution, skill errors and dumb decisions, especially through the midfield when in possession.

Stoppages: Collingwood kicked 9.5.59

Turnovers: Collingwood kicked 10.9.69

You say outcoached. I say far outplayed in every facet. Wellingham, Ball, Davis and Pendlebury killed us and pulled our pants down.

Now are you going to reply that I'm representing the club too ?

Honestly, anyone who is blaming one aspect is plainly playing to an agenda.

Guess what?

We were outcoached, outplayed, outbodied, out-tackled, out-kicked, out-marked. Collingwood is a vastly superior side. Of course they have a better coaching panel. Anyone who doesn't rate Malthouse as a better coach than Bailey is kidding themselves. They also have a much better and more advanced list and are miles ahead on the "premiership clock".

They talked about Collingwood's injuries. We were missing more blokes than they were. Our whole half back line was out.

So yes, we were out-coached.

We were also out-played.

The only out we weren't was outstanding.

[H_T 3,047]

Honestly, anyone who is blaming one aspect is plainly playing to an agenda.

Agreed.

So yes, we were out-coached.

If a more experienced, advanced, developed and well drilled side comes under "out-coached" - well then yes, I agree.

I did say every facet.

[Guest Artie Bucco]

Answer the question...i am tired of your flowery words Artie...What is your Agenda on this website?

It's not hard.

Ok, I'll tell you my agenda.

But first you must tell me yours.

[Guest Artie Bucco]

Honestly, anyone who is blaming one aspect is plainly playing to an agenda.

...

The only out we weren't was outstanding.

Great post.

I agree with everything.

And HT's post immediately below it.

[Sir Why You Little 37,038]

Ok, I'll tell you my agenda.

But first you must tell me yours.

I don't have one...i am just a paid up MFC/MCC member

But you have an agenda Artie so tell us all what it is...I am not the only one who has asked.