The Ox & Dean Bailey.

[daisycutter 29,604]

I am frustrated that I struggle to get a job as a journalist, and Robbo does what he does.

not to mention Mike Sheahan and his drivel

[Akum 2,660]

Rudeboy has said that Jurrah has been instructed to play higher up around the flanks, so it is not him having to follow the defender up the ground, it is the coach telling him to move up to the midfield, and the defender staying with him, helping the oppositions press congest the ball in the midfield.

This is my understanding too.

Jurrah (maybe with another forward) wouldn't need to be as deep as the goal square if the ball was in our defence. They should try to stay as close to the 50 as possible, but in position to receive a clearing kick (NB NOT a high bomb!) out of defence.

It would only need to happen once or twice early in a game for the opposition coach to play one or two of his defenders further back. And once they start to "man up", the press starts to break down and it gets easier to get through it. And you'd back, say, Jurrah and Petterd against their direct opponents at least 50% of the time, especially with 2 or 3 of our best runners (Blease & Bennell?) streaming towards them to help out.

As it is, having all our forwards in the defensive half of the ground only strengthens the effect of the opposition's press. Especially when someone manages to get clear but finds no team-mate in front of them and turns it over.

[stuie 7,374]

Has Warnock been tried at FF????

Funnily enough was suggesting this to a mate the other night...

Would be a bold experiment, and only really see it happening if either of two things occur:

1) The FD are leaning towards dropping him at the end of the season

2) We are traveling pretty badly and start experimenting

I don't think it's a terrible idea to at least try it, even for just a half, he's an underrated overhead mark, has great core strength, and has that bit of mongrel about him, only thing that would make it a low odds gamble would be his kicking for goal.

OR

Put Warnock at FB and try Chip at FF.... He has a bit of Neitz about him, so who knows?!

[rpfc 28,265]

I understand that you want to support the coach and the team, but you have to draw the line at some point. You can not seriously believe that if Melbourne parked Jurrah in the goal square, his direct opponent would leave him and move up to the midfield.

You don't understand what I am saying.

All teams - Melbourne, Ainslie, Mordialloc 3rds, Southport, anyone - who are being pressed across half back will have any player in the forward 50 left alone because the other teams defenders know that that player is irrelevant because he is 80m away from the play.

Our forwards have to push up, what they don't do well enough, is work back into the 50 hard enough when we win the footy.

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

You don't understand what I am saying.

All teams - Melbourne, Ainslie, Mordialloc 3rds, Southport, anyone - who are being pressed across half back will have any player in the forward 50 left alone because the other teams defenders know that that player is irrelevant because he is 80m away from the play.

Our forwards have to push up, what they don't do well enough, is work back into the 50 hard enough when we win the footy.

The problem is that when the forwards push up, 99% of the time they have no influence on the contest anyway. They just run up to the middle, wait for the ball to get to half back then run back again. Therefore, instead having to worry about having forwards leading away from the ball carrier, they can stay forward and lead at the ball carrier which is much more effective.

Again, no team would leave Jurrah on his own in the forward fifty (funnily enough Rivers did it with Cloke last week and didn't that work well), because even if Jurrah's opponent did push up the ground and leave him, that means there is now a 17 on 18 situation. It's only one extra player in half a football ground, hardly a massive advantage, yet Melbourne would have a huge advantage with a loose player in their own forward line!

With all the forwards pushing up the ground, we have seen on countless times players look up, see no option then proceed to chip sideways and backwards which most of the time leads to a turnover and scoring shot for the opposition.

Against Carlton, Melbourne started with Watts as a loose player in defence. What was the result? Melbourne were getting plenty the ball across the half back line but getting it forward of centre was almost impossible because there were no options forward of the ball. If the structure is there in the first place there is no need to spread back to the forward line if they are already there.

There needs to be a reason to move the ball inside the forward fifty, even without a "Gorilla" there is no excuse to not to have players forward of the ball at all times, especially players as explosive as Watts and Jurrah.

[Guest Artie Bucco]

You don't understand what I am saying.

All teams - Melbourne, Ainslie, Mordialloc 3rds, Southport, anyone - who are being pressed across half back will have any player in the forward 50 left alone because the other teams defenders know that that player is irrelevant because he is 80m away from the play.

Our forwards have to push up, what they don't do well enough, is work back into the 50 hard enough when we win the footy.

I haven't actually noticed this yet, but interestingly enough (according to cards13 in another thread) Matthew Bate made reference to the fact Collingwood are quite good at making it very difficult to do just that.

[Guest Artie Bucco]

You don't understand what I am saying.

All teams - Melbourne, Ainslie, Mordialloc 3rds, Southport, anyone - who are being pressed across half back will have any player in the forward 50 left alone because the other teams defenders know that that player is irrelevant because he is 80m away from the play.

Our forwards have to push up, what they don't do well enough, is work back into the 50 hard enough when we win the footy.

I haven't actually noticed this yet, but interestingly enough (according to cards13 in another thread) Matthew Bate made reference to the fact Collingwood are quite good at making it very difficult to do just that.

[pitchfork 181]

Did anyone else see Nicholson in the 4th quarter against Essendon run unbelievably quickly to cover one of their runners who was way out in front and running towards an open goal?! I really hope Bailey showed this as an example to the team - probably didn't given that Nicho was dropped, though!

I agree that our forwards often come too far up. I don't think they should camp in the goal square but they are caught consistently in no-man's land, so that they're within 20-30 metres of the ball carrier if and when we force a turnover. How many players could beat Jurrah if he had 20-30 metres in front of him to lead into? We have a lot of players in the team who can accurately kick 40-60 metres with good penetration of 1-2 steps. We MUST give them a target when we force a turnover.

Tackling and pressure forces turnovers. Speed, kicking, shepherds that hurt, and good marking on the run and under some pressure will ultimately beat the press. Does anyone think that leaving Jurrah or Watts or whoever camped ON the 50m line at our kick-ins would be such a huge disadvantage if his man did choose to join the press? Tapscott, Sylvia, Moloney, and many others would know 100% that they could kick blindly off one step if they took possession in the middle of the press...which is a variation on what Collingwood did with Cloke, who did not move in the first quarter. He was dead set stuck at the top left hand corner of the goal square. They knew that they could either drop it on his head if they were on the left side, or over his head, or out into the space in front of him...but the point is, they knew where he was without looking. No hesitation - goal. Apply the same principle differently and suddenly applying the press becomes much more risky, because in the 50/50 contest 70 metres out from your goal, you know that if there's a turnover, the other team will kick a goal.

Melbourne's forwards could move up to join the press except for one player who would hang on our 50m line and one other 20m or so in front of him. The one ~70m out would start in the middle and shuffle over to the same side as the kick out goes to provide a shorter get-out option, the player further up is free to lead if anyone has 2 steps free to kick.

[trudders 0]

So sick of all this "put the man deep in forward" rubbish. I for one will go against the flow and back deans plan.

Playing forwards in deep results in

• less chances of breaking down opposition zones. (the defenders will leave the forwards alone)
  
• defenders with full energy. ready to run up the ground with more intensity, burning us off to a larger degree.
  
• a weaker defensive side to our game.
  
• a more congested forward line for if the ball does gown there.
  
• an easy to tackle tactic for opposition coaches to handle. A loose defender in the hole, will suffice.
  

I'll probably cop the flak for this. But just ask yourself, how the hell are we going to get through the zone (that we already struggle to get through these days) when we have players taken out of the contest. Having a deep forward against the zone, will be pointless. We would have to kick it 70-80 meters or so just to get it to the 50 meter line, this alongside with the fact that there will be pressure due to the zone, and you gotta question how easy it is for a defender to get back to the forwards. Sure there will be a one off, where we get the ball down in the space of 10 seconds or something. But how many times does that happen in a game, leaving the forward alone will allow the defender to play a loose role, a more likely role to get goals. We saw it in the adelaide game, where we pushed hard up the ground only to have cheap goals scored against us, because they had loose men in their forward. Who won the game? We did... and by how much? alot... because having that spare defender in play was far more damaging then having a deep forward. BEcause the deep forward only got an opportunity 3-4 times in the game.

Another point to mention is the fact that when the ball is spoiled to a forward running towards goal the momentum is still carrying the ball closer to the goals, giving the forward the advantage of the contest.

Bailey has a revolutionary game plan, we just need to have the skills and consistency to back it up. To me there is no greater joy then seeing wattsy running towards an open goal with the ball (done it a few times this year hasnt he?). Because for me it is one of those magical few moments when bailey's plan has worked and it is a moment where we start to get confidence and burn off the opposition.

We just need patience. sure you will say bailey's been here for 3-4 years... To me this is his first year of coaching, you cant expect him to make a stellar coaching career on the kids he's selected ala potential/ not ready made but all together classy. He took them with a long term plan in mind, to get us a real genuine chance for a premiership down the track, rather then having a solid team who cant win [censored] ala St Kilda, Carlton, adelaide, bulldogs....

[Sir Why You Little 36,987]

So sick of all this "put the man deep in forward" rubbish. I for one will go against the flow and back deans plan.

Playing forwards in deep results in

• less chances of breaking down opposition zones. (the defenders will leave the forwards alone)
  
• defenders with full energy. ready to run up the ground with more intensity, burning us off to a larger degree.
  
• a weaker defensive side to our game.
  
• a more congested forward line for if the ball does gown there.
  
• an easy to tackle tactic for opposition coaches to handle. A loose defender in the hole, will suffice.
  

I'll probably cop the flak for this. But just ask yourself, how the hell are we going to get through the zone (that we already struggle to get through these days) when we have players taken out of the contest. Having a deep forward against the zone, will be pointless. We would have to kick it 70-80 meters or so just to get it to the 50 meter line, this alongside with the fact that there will be pressure due to the zone, and you gotta question how easy it is for a defender to get back to the forwards. Sure there will be a one off, where we get the ball down in the space of 10 seconds or something. But how many times does that happen in a game, leaving the forward alone will allow the defender to play a loose role, a more likely role to get goals. We saw it in the adelaide game, where we pushed hard up the ground only to have cheap goals scored against us, because they had loose men in their forward. Who won the game? We did... and by how much? alot... because having that spare defender in play was far more damaging then having a deep forward. BEcause the deep forward only got an opportunity 3-4 times in the game.

Another point to mention is the fact that when the ball is spoiled to a forward running towards goal the momentum is still carrying the ball closer to the goals, giving the forward the advantage of the contest.

Bailey has a revolutionary game plan, we just need to have the skills and consistency to back it up. To me there is no greater joy then seeing wattsy running towards an open goal with the ball (done it a few times this year hasnt he?). Because for me it is one of those magical few moments when bailey's plan has worked and it is a moment where we start to get confidence and burn off the opposition.

We just need patience. sure you will say bailey's been here for 3-4 years... To me this is his first year of coaching, you cant expect him to make a stellar coaching career on the kids he's selected ala potential/ not ready made but all together classy. He took them with a long term plan in mind, to get us a real genuine chance for a premiership down the track, rather then having a solid team who cant win [censored] ala St Kilda, Carlton, adelaide, bulldogs....

You make some good and interesting points, and after watching the AFL.com video of Dean in the Box against Carlton a couple of weeks ago, i think you are right about the desired Gameplan.

My only problem with it is our forwards seem to push too deep into the middle of the ground, and thus have no chance to counter attack.

Will this be addressed with experience and better endurance fitness.

With young bodies it is robbing Peter to pay Paul, which is what frustrates the supporters.

Losing Jamar hasn't helped.

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

So sick of all this "put the man deep in forward" rubbish. I for one will go against the flow and back deans plan.

Playing forwards in deep results in

• less chances of breaking down opposition zones. (the defenders will leave the forwards alone)
  
• defenders with full energy. ready to run up the ground with more intensity, burning us off to a larger degree.
  
• a weaker defensive side to our game.
  
• a more congested forward line for if the ball does gown there.
  
• an easy to tackle tactic for opposition coaches to handle. A loose defender in the hole, will suffice.
  

1) Defenders would not leave Liam Jurrah, Jack Watts, Brad Green or anyone else on their own, completely unguarded in their own forward line. Even if they do run off the forwards, the advantage isn't that great as it would be a 16 or 17 on 18 in half a football ground.

2) No idea what you are on about.

3) There is a difference between being negative and being defensive. Pushing all players up the ground and therefore taking away any chance of moving forward (remember if you don't have any one to kick it to, you can't attack forward) is negative (what happened when Jack Watts was played as a loose man in defence against Carlton?). A defensive side of the game comes from tackling, playing close to opponents (not letting players get away) and always applying pressure no matter where the ball is on the ground.

4) The ball isn't going into the forward line because there isn't anyone there to kick it to, so congestion is the least of Melbourne's concerns. On top of this there is an unhealthy obsession with looking for dinky little passes to players on the lead when the forward line is crowded. Watching Collingwood it was amazing how often they would just put the ball deep into the forward line (with long penetrating kicks), bring the ball to ground and rely on their crumbing players to pounce. This has a tactic that has been and always will be extremely effective, no matter which tactical fad is in vogue.

5) Loose defenders? Again see Jack Watts against Carlton. You rob Peter to pay Paul, I was critical of this tactic many years ago when it was in fashion, but because back then wasn't part of "modern football". Well, very few teams use this tactic these days so I was obviously three years ahead of everyone else.

[timD 994]

CB, get with it. Collingwood, geelong and st kilda paly with loose defenders. If you are going to boast about insight, check your facts.

[Guest Thomo]

So sick of all this "put the man deep in forward" rubbish. I for one will go against the flow and back deans plan.

Playing forwards in deep results in

• less chances of breaking down opposition zones. (the defenders will leave the forwards alone)
  
• defenders with full energy. ready to run up the ground with more intensity, burning us off to a larger degree.
  
• a weaker defensive side to our game.
  
• a more congested forward line for if the ball does gown there.
  
• an easy to tackle tactic for opposition coaches to handle. A loose defender in the hole, will suffice.
  

I'll probably cop the flak for this. But just ask yourself, how the hell are we going to get through the zone (that we already struggle to get through these days) when we have players taken out of the contest. Having a deep forward against the zone, will be pointless. We would have to kick it 70-80 meters or so just to get it to the 50 meter line, this alongside with the fact that there will be pressure due to the zone, and you gotta question how easy it is for a defender to get back to the forwards. Sure there will be a one off, where we get the ball down in the space of 10 seconds or something. But how many times does that happen in a game, leaving the forward alone will allow the defender to play a loose role, a more likely role to get goals. We saw it in the adelaide game, where we pushed hard up the ground only to have cheap goals scored against us, because they had loose men in their forward. Who won the game? We did... and by how much? alot... because having that spare defender in play was far more damaging then having a deep forward. BEcause the deep forward only got an opportunity 3-4 times in the game.

Another point to mention is the fact that when the ball is spoiled to a forward running towards goal the momentum is still carrying the ball closer to the goals, giving the forward the advantage of the contest.

Bailey has a revolutionary game plan, we just need to have the skills and consistency to back it up. To me there is no greater joy then seeing wattsy running towards an open goal with the ball (done it a few times this year hasnt he?). Because for me it is one of those magical few moments when bailey's plan has worked and it is a moment where we start to get confidence and burn off the opposition.

We just need patience. sure you will say bailey's been here for 3-4 years... To me this is his first year of coaching, you cant expect him to make a stellar coaching career on the kids he's selected ala potential/ not ready made but all together classy. He took them with a long term plan in mind, to get us a real genuine chance for a premiership down the track, rather then having a solid team who cant win [censored] ala St Kilda, Carlton, adelaide, bulldogs....

Collingwood put a man deep forward, did Melbourne leave him there? No, they put a man on him, and an extra man in front of him. By Melbourne not keeping players deep the opposition are able to increase the players in their press and turn Melbourne possession into 50/50 contests due to the congestion in the back half. It also means that Melbourne struggle to implement a press because they are a man short, and the forwards are nowhere near the kickout.

Playing a loose man in defence and pushing the other forwards into the back half are only helping the opposition press. If we want to run through it we should make room by stretching out the other team, not helping them to plug the holes.

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

CB, get with it. Collingwood, geelong and st kilda paly with loose defenders. If you are going to boast about insight, check your facts.

You're right, that was exaggerated, but from all the football I have seen this year live and on TV it isn't used as much as a few years ago.

[trudders 0]

1) Defenders would not leave Liam Jurrah, Jack Watts, Brad Green or anyone else on their own, completely unguarded in their own forward line. Even if they do run off the forwards, the advantage isn't that great as it would be a 16 or 17 on 18 in half a football ground.

2) No idea what you are on about.

3) There is a difference between being negative and being defensive. Pushing all players up the ground and therefore taking away any chance of moving forward (remember if you don't have any one to kick it to, you can't attack forward) is negative (what happened when Jack Watts was played as a loose man in defence against Carlton?). A defensive side of the game comes from tackling, playing close to opponents (not letting players get away) and always applying pressure no matter where the ball is on the ground.

4) The ball isn't going into the forward line because there isn't anyone there to kick it to, so congestion is the least of Melbourne's concerns. On top of this there is an unhealthy obsession with looking for dinky little passes to players on the lead when the forward line is crowded. Watching Collingwood it was amazing how often they would just put the ball deep into the forward line (with long penetrating kicks), bring the ball to ground and rely on their crumbing players to pounce. This has a tactic that has been and always will be extremely effective, no matter which tactical fad is in vogue.

5) Loose defenders? Again see Jack Watts against Carlton. You rob Peter to pay Paul, I was critical of this tactic many years ago when it was in fashion, but because back then wasn't part of "modern football". Well, very few teams use this tactic these days so I was obviously three years ahead of everyone else.

1) Defenders will run off. Because if the ball is on their half of the ground, they will try and look for a scoring opportunity. 16 or 17 on 18? Thats one man loose in their forward line, all he has to do is just isolate himself from everybody else and once they have the ball, bingo he's free. And when we do have the ball, the defender will easily be able to either a) get there himself. or B) make somebody else cover his ground ie accountable footy.

2) Fair enough, i only wrote that to make the list look big.... you could argue that the forwards will go in with more intensity as well. So erase that point

3) I quote "not letting players get away", be pretty hard to do that if a defender is in their attacking 50 and we have a forward miles away from him and the action. Basically its just the first point repeated. A loose man in their 50 when they have the ball in their half is going to be more damaging then having a forward in our attacking 50 (when the ball is in their half).

4) skills, and our effective use of the spread will make sure their are options in future. We have kicked far more goals when there are only 1 or 2 forwards running into our 50 free of congestion, then chipping it through the opposition's defensive wall. Dee's after all are one of the most effective users of the ball once their ball gets into their 50.

5) Just as much as stagnant forwards are a part of "ancient football". If we play "ancient football" tactics on other "ancient football" tactics it will work out. It probably wont be this tactic after all as any defender will be running in front of the forward or running into their attacking 50 depending on who has the footy. Basically refer to my point in reference to the adelaide game, forwards in deep will only get cheap goals 3-4 times out of a whole game, and if this is our only route to scoring goals, then he's most likely to have the teams total tally of goals. It will work sometimes, but only 2/10 times will it work

You could argue that you have to be a defender with a smart footballers brain to do some of the damage outlined above. But thats the whole point of it. A man deep in forward is a gameplan with a easy to shutdown approach to it. However forwards working hard up the ground and pushing back is a gameplan that suits our era. Did anybody see geelong last night, magnificent footy they played with forwards taking marks en route to goals. It is a gameplan that will be hard to shut down.

We just need our forwards to back up hard enough, with time and more precision we will see this happen.

The one tweak i want to see in baileys game plan is perhaps a bit more structure on the wing for when we do get the ball, say a midfielder that is not part of the contest to push out wide to receive the get out of jail kick that will see us over the zone.