EVERY DAY by The Oracle

The late Buddy Holly used to sing about it getting closer every day - going faster than a roller coaster.

That's how it feels being a Demon fan as this young team crashes from the highs to the depths in the space of six days. From an 88 point smashing at the hands of Collingwood on Monday to an 89 point demolition of Fremantle the following Sunday. Who knows what to expect next?

Melbourne opened this game at a frenetic pace with Tom Scully dynamic in the middle and getting seven touches in the first six or seven minutes while Brad Green returned to form up forward without a heavy tag. He was in the goals early and had four by half time. Had he not missed a couple of simple set shots it might have been a record breaking day for the skipper.

The Demons kicked the first five goals of the match and were only troubled when the Dockers mounted a challenge in the second term after Jack Watts kicked the early goal. Michael Johnson booted three goals during this period – a time when the Freo midfield got on top and dominated the clearances for a while allowing the lead to be clawed back to 25 points at the half.

The second half of the game was reminiscent of the encounter against Adelaide with the home side dominating a team as insipid as the white away colours they were wearing. Watts was in sublime form all over the ground opening proceedings again and the team took the ascendency all over the ground taking back full control. The lead was seven goals at the three quarter time siren with the Dockers having scored only a single goal for the term. They looked spent.

Things only got better for Melbourne in the final stanza. Fremantle has become notorious recently for its poor final quarters and this was no exception. With two players off injured and a couple of others noticeably tiring, an eight goal to one final term ensued, spurred on again by the almost obligatory first goal of the quarter from Watts who finished with 24 disposals, six marks and three goals.

The victory erased last week's disappointing 88-point defeat at the hands of the rampant Magpies by a single point. With very few close results since the opening round draw against the Swans, at least Demon fans are unlikely to suffer heart attacks through following their team this year but the ups and the downs are hardly bewildering. When the midfield is doing well and the forward structure is working, Melbourne looks so much better. Yesterday, apart from Green with his five goals, the Demons had Stef Martin spending more time up forward and kicking three goals, Max Gawn was up there competing and final scored his maiden goal in AFL and Jeremy Howe got two as well. It's a forward structure that gives many options when it works and against the Dockers, it worked!

The statistics clearly show the disparity between Melbourne's best and its worst. After its brilliant victory over the Dockers - its second against a sitting top eight team in three weeks - the club has an average winning margin of 63 points which tops the competition. The problem is that the average losing margin of 49 points is the second worst of the AFL, a figure that is only bettered (if that's an apt word to use in these circumstances) by the new Gold Coast team.

You would put that down to the youth and inexperience of the group with the current 22 missing some of its leaders and more mature players through injury which places it around the level of the Suns in terms of football immaturity. So you expect the harshness of inconsistency knowing that things are going to get better and that a string of good performances are not that far away.

Every day it's getting closer.

Melbourne 6.5.41 10.7.67 14.12.96 22.17.149

Fremantle 1.4.10 6.6.42 7.10.52 8.12.60

Goals

Melbourne Green 5 Watts 3 Martin 3 Howe Jurrah 2 Frawley Gawn Jones Nicholson Petterd Sylvia Trengove

Fremantle Johnson 3 Mayne 2 McPharlin Pavlich Pearce

Best

Melbourne McKenzie Watts Scully Green Martin Howe Moloney

Fremantle Barlow Fyfe Ibbotson Mzungu Duffield Griffin

Injuries

Melbourne Garland (ankle)

Fremantle Grover (groin) Crowley (back)

Changes

Melbourne Nicholson in for Gysberts (soreness)

Fremantle Van Berlo in for Bradley (knee)

Reports

Melbourne Petterd for striking Crowley in first quarter

Fremantle Nil

Umpires Kennedy Leppard Wenn

Crowd 19,092 at the MCG.

EVERY DAY by The Oracle

...

When the midfield is doing well and the forward structure is working, Melbourne looks so much better. Yesterday, apart from Green with his five goals, the Demons had Stef Martin spending more time up forward and kicking three goals, Max Gawn was up there competing and final scored his maiden goal in AFL and Jeremy Howe got two as well. It's a forward structure that gives many options when it works and against the Dockers, it worked!

Watching the replay yesterday, and hearing the commentators somewhat paying out on how we push all our forwards up the field, especially early on in the game, and how they were stating it is impossible to attack when we have no players in our forward line, and all our forwards are leading at the ball carrier. This is something that has really annoyed posters on here, but i cant help but think that it is a game plan that is going to work wonders and will, when implemented effectively set us apart from the pack and help us push throug the zones, but it also leaves us with an array of attacking options aswell. This is due to the hardest kick to defend is the one into the space in front of an attacker, so the hard leads back into our 50 gives us a pagans paddock sort of game style, but also when our forwards do a 180 and lead at the balll carrier we often have 2-3 m on the defender and make marking easier. This happened numerous times where we just had forwards in space and is highlighted by 20 marks inside our 50, if we can take 20 marks inside our 50 every week, then we are generally going to be having 20+ scoring shots, which if we kick effectively is the start to generating a winning score. The other thing that I think we do really well, and i cant find the stats anywhere else for earlier weeks, but today in the HUN we have a stat of 38.0% of goals once i50, and we had 39 scoring shots and 57 i50s, leaving us with 68.42% scoring when i50 which compared

Melb: Goal once i50 = 38.0% Scores once i50= 68.42%

Blues: 35% 59.5%

WC: 26.0% 43.86%

Geel: 27.0% 46.29%

Tigers: 30% 58.333%

couldnt be bothered tracking down yesterdays to see the stats, but we are well ahead on the other teams. and i am guessing with an avereage winning margin of 60 points, that this stat would prove when our forward set up works it works.

probably could have been put in a bailey thread, or a game plan thread, but i am interested to hear peoples thoughts on what is seen as a common problem by many posters, but could infact be the game plan that takes us to the next level.

This has been my biggest frustration of the Bailey era. However I noticed yesterday there was a change in style. Our forwards played much deeper, notably Green and Gawn. I would love them to play Jurrah deep aswell, but they seem to like him up the ground for whatever reason.

The best forward structure we use is where we have targets deep, with overlapping run towards goal. Our problem is losing those forward targets, which destroys our forward movement.

When we have players like Green, Gawn, Martin, Sylvia, Jurrah and Watts rotating through as a deep forward and giving our mids something to aim at, we then look a lot better when the remaining forwards can turn their defenders inside out and run towards goal. But that doesn't work when we leave defenders zoning off across half back without our players near them.

When the pressure's on, our forwards get sucked up the ground to provide numbers at stoppages. That destroys our ability to get the ball inside 50 meaningfully. The key is to maintain our structures when we're in trouble.

I like the "run into space" game plan, but I would like to see a situation when we're deep in our own defence, instead of having every forward inside our D50, we would have one up around the centre square and a marking target inside the offensive 50, just so we have some semblance of a get-out kick on the fast break. Other than that, our forwards will need to have very good endurance in order to work this game plan for 26 weeks of the year.

For people who think we are the only team who does this, well I am thinking you either dont watch many games or you dont eatch games carefully.

Every team pushes their forwards up, that is the press.

There were many times on the weekend when I saw other teams run forward with nobody to kick the ball too. Geelong did it many times!

The thing that makes our forwards stay in the forward line is very simple. If you win the centre clearnaces the ball goes forward to your men already there, and once it is in there, the players need to keep it in there.

If we dont win the clearance, then everyone pushes up and we have no forwards.

That being said, I would love for 1 or 2 players to stay in the forward line, but that does mean we are outnumbered in the clearances and contests around the ground.

That is the big issue for current day coaches, how to beat the press?

I know the Dockers have injury issues but they did not look like a final eight side to me yesterday.

Watching the replay yesterday, and hearing the commentators somewhat paying out on how we push all our forwards up the field, especially early on in the game, and how they were stating it is impossible to attack when we have no players in our forward line, and all our forwards are leading at the ball carrier. This is something that has really annoyed posters on here, but i cant help but think that it is a game plan that is going to work wonders and will, when implemented effectively set us apart from the pack and help us push throug the zones, but it also leaves us with an array of attacking options aswell. This is due to the hardest kick to defend is the one into the space in front of an attacker, so the hard leads back into our 50 gives us a pagans paddock sort of game style, but also when our forwards do a 180 and lead at the balll carrier we often have 2-3 m on the defender and make marking easier. This happened numerous times where we just had forwards in space and is highlighted by 20 marks inside our 50, if we can take 20 marks inside our 50 every week, then we are generally going to be having 20+ scoring shots, which if we kick effectively is the start to generating a winning score. The other thing that I think we do really well, and i cant find the stats anywhere else for earlier weeks, but today in the HUN we have a stat of 38.0% of goals once i50, and we had 39 scoring shots and 57 i50s, leaving us with 68.42% scoring when i50 which compared

Melb: Goal once i50 = 38.0% Scores once i50= 68.42%

Blues: 35% 59.5%

WC: 26.0% 43.86%

Geel: 27.0% 46.29%

Tigers: 30% 58.333%

couldnt be bothered tracking down yesterdays to see the stats, but we are well ahead on the other teams. and i am guessing with an avereage winning margin of 60 points, that this stat would prove when our forward set up works it works.

probably could have been put in a bailey thread, or a game plan thread, but i am interested to hear peoples thoughts on what is seen as a common problem by many posters, but could infact be the game plan that takes us to the next level.

You've come upon my hidden stat! IIRC, we have the best conversion ratio of I50s to scores in the AFL this year. Means we're getting it to set shots and our crumbers are doing their thing.

I am coming to the idea that this gameplan is starting to gel a little bit more. When we execute, it's a massacre.

EVERY DAY by The Oracle

...

The statistics clearly show the disparity between Melbourne's best and its worst. After its brilliant victory over the Dockers - its second against a sitting top eight team in three weeks - the club has an average winning margin of 63 points which tops the competition. The problem is that the average losing margin of 49 points is the second worst of the AFL, a figure that is only bettered (if that's an apt word to use in these circumstances) by the new Gold Coast team.

...

The thing about our game plan (or "the way we play", if you prefer) is that we're not (yet) able to sustain it under pressure. It relies on winning contested ball, and then on precise ball movement. We do it as well as any side against "moderate" pressure, and we have got it to the stage where we can really hurt ordinary sides. But under sustained "intense" pressure, especially if we're losing in clearances and contested ball, it's much more difficult to hold it together, and our game completely falls apart, and we look horrible.

A lot of tweaking is needed to get to the next stage, where it holds together under pressure. For example, one very important "tweak" was Stef at CHF which gave us a very effective "get-out-of-jail" target; this was done deliberately by DB. An equally important "tweak" has come about by accident - the importance of the sheer foot-speed of Nicholson & Evans.

A tweak that really needs to happen is that when we're getting outmuscled in the clearances, we need to have one or two "left-field" options that we can throw in there to give us extra hardness & physical presence. In the past few weeks, Brad Gotch has given us a bit of help here, with both Petterd & Joel Mac having had very effective games for Casey as mids (even Tom McNamara has been played as a bullocking type of mid).

The sides that put us under "intense pressure" are those who can put more mature bodies around the ball and put physical pressure on us in both the attacking & defensive 50, and this is what we need to counter. If we're playing one of these teams - and it's no co-incidence that they're the top teams - we need to pick the side appropriately; for example, no Bennell or Morton, and nobody who doesn't chase.

We had great opportunities for experimentation in 2009 & 2010, and some of the wild experiments during "tank-time" actually worked to a degree (e.g. Frawley & Warnock to the forward line) & could be tried again if we're getting pumped by a top side. From now on, the best opportunities to experiment is when we aren't going so well. Which is why it bothers me that DB seems to go into his shell when one of the top teams is getting on top of us. Like the example he gave when he actually thought about putting Watts on Goddard (which could have been a great move) but didn't follow it through. This is missing a golden opportunity to find out something that may be an important "tweak" to our game plan for the future.

I know the Dockers have injury issues but they did not look like a final eight side to me yesterday.

Having a look at the inside 50 stats of sides inside the eight and just outside.

I know this stat isn't necessarily reflective of results, but it is one important indicator.

Currently the two sides in the eight with the lowest average inside 50 count are Sydney (52.2) and Fremantle (50), whilst outside the eight are in order North Melbourne (55.8), Richmond (52.7) and Melbourne (49.2).

* Essendon have a much higher 58.9 - 3rd highest overall, and Saints and Bulldogs are at 46 and 47 respectively.

Clearly Fremantle don't currently look or feel like a final eight side, however they have been decimated by injury (Sandilands and Mundy in particular).

Because the fixture is so uneven, and injuries and returns of injured can be significant factors in performance it's hard to draw concise conclusions. But at the moment I'd say that all three bottom sides in the eight, Sydney, Fremantle & Essendon are vulnerable with Sydney less likely to fall outside. But Freo and Essendon are very vulnerable looking at the draw.

At this stage it will be two of North, Richmond and Melbourne to make it IMO. Clearly for me though, if we're to make it we will need to win our next two games IMO (Richmond & Bulldogs). If we don't I can't see us there in Spring and besides, this year was really all about development and progress, rather than wins and losses. However, if they do get taste, good on 'em.

The last place of the eight may well come down to the North v Rich game in Round 24. Could Richmond finish 9th again....

The last place of the eight may well come down to the North v Rich game in Round 24. Could Richmond finish 9th again....

Oh please oh please. I have the photoshopped pictures ready to go.

For people who think we are the only team who does this, well I am thinking you either dont watch many games or you dont eatch games carefully.

Every team pushes their forwards up, that is the press.

There were many times on the weekend when I saw other teams run forward with nobody to kick the ball too. Geelong did it many times!

The thing that makes our forwards stay in the forward line is very simple. If you win the centre clearnaces the ball goes forward to your men already there, and once it is in there, the players need to keep it in there.

If we dont win the clearance, then everyone pushes up and we have no forwards.

That being said, I would love for 1 or 2 players to stay in the forward line, but that does mean we are outnumbered in the clearances and contests around the ground.

That is the big issue for current day coaches, how to beat the press?

IMO you have the'press' wrong. It's really about pushing your backs up to the midfield and forward line.

My understanding of the PRESS is when the ball is deep in a the attacking teams (A) forward line the opposing defending team (B) FLOODS their back line to defend. The attacking team (A) brings their backs up to the centre to prevent the defending team (B) from getting the ball out of defense. Because it (team B) )is defensively FLOODING, if by chance it does break through it has no forwards (they have all bveen flooding on the backline. The attacking team (A) maintains this defensive PRESS on their forward line waiting for a simple turn over within scoring distance. In summary, the PRESS and the FLOOD are like two bulls locking horns on the pressing teams forward line.

I like the "run into space" game plan, but I would like to see a situation when we're deep in our own defence, instead of having every forward inside our D50, we would have one up around the centre square and a marking target inside the offensive 50, just so we have some semblance of a get-out kick on the fast break. Other than that, our forwards will need to have very good endurance in order to work this game plan for 26 weeks of the year.

I think we are a about to see the essence of the Bailey gameplan. What we have been lacking is a key position forward. We now have one (Jamar). With this last piece of the puzzle, and our fast running other key forwards (Watts, Jurrah), I think we will see the rapid rebound off half back with the key forwards rapidly running into space into the half forward line coming off the forward press. Jamar will remain one out at CHF.

Why will this work for us and not others? Jurrah and Watts are like no other key position forwards in the game, especially Watts with his size and elite running ability. We now have a mid field capable of feeding this structure with the return of Scully, and the mobile ruck combination of Martin and Gawn.

I suggest the injury to Jamar will be seen in future as a blessing in disguise as it has prompted us to allow more responsibility to be put on Martin's shoulders to which he has responded magnificently, and to give Gawn a go probably 12 months earlier than we planned

If I am right and this turns out to be our long term plan, then let's get set to seeing it unfold on Saturday. Can't wait. Watch for Gawn going onball, Martin taking Vickery in defence and when he is onball, and jamar taking centre bounces and going forward. I can't think of any club that currently will have an answer to this in a dry day, so long as we hit our targets, and implement a relentless tackling regime.

Can't wait to see it going.....