We defend from too far back

[titan_uranus 25,020]

It's patently obvious to me, and plenty of my MFC supporting friends, that our gameplan, if you want to call it that, is flawed, in that we defend from too far back.

Bailey has chosen to use a style of play that involves numbers behind the ball and moving it forward via run and carry. To be honest, I feel that he has the players at a stage where they are actually able to implement this quite well. We're good at it. The problem is that it doesn't work against sides who use the forward press effectively.

This is why we beat teams below us on the ladder but lose to those above us. The teams above us are the good teams in the competition, and they, almost completely invariably, use a strong forward press. The ones below us try to use the press, but aren't as good at it.

Thus when we play Port, Brisbane, Gold Coast, Adelaide, Fremantle, Essendon and Richmond, we beat them, as we're good enough to do what Bailey wants and they're not good enough to use a strong press. But when we play Collingwood, Carlton, Hawthorn, West Coast, St Kilda and the Dogs (the Dogs might be below us but they use a press), we lose (and lose badly) because we're unable to get through the press.

Statistically, when we lose we don't go inside 50 enough. That happens because the ball spends too long in the defensive half with a team pressing it in there, whilst we play into their hands by pushing numbers behind the ball.

To me, it seems that Bailey is unable to get our style to work through a decent forward press. For me, that's enough to seal his fate.

[Sir Why You Little 37,038]

I agree, if this is Bailey's lynch pin...it won't work in september.

[Guest 36DD]

not entirely correct, players are just too lazy and stupid to execute. Have a look at other teams zones, the guard the most dangerous spot and spread fairly evenly. Melbourne players often have three or four players guarding a 30 metre area, as they are too lazy to run, or revert back to bad habits and just watch and follow the ball. Complete morons. Saw one instance where two melbourne players were guarding the same spot in the defensive 50. One should have guarded the spot, the other should have ran back to provide pressure on a leading player. So we had two players standing 5 metres apart staring at each other guarding the one spot. Absolute fools.

[Guest Thomo]

not entirely correct, players are just too lazy and stupid to execute. Have a look at other teams zones, the guard the most dangerous spot and spread fairly evenly. Melbourne players often have three or four players guarding a 30 metre area, as they are too lazy to run, or revert back to bad habits and just watch and follow the ball. Complete morons. Saw one instance where two melbourne players were guarding the same spot in the defensive 50. One should have guarded the spot, the other should have ran back to provide pressure on a leading player. So we had two players standing 5 metres apart staring at each other guarding the one spot. Absolute fools.

Part of the coaches job is to motivate and teach the players. So if "players are just too lazy and stupid to execute" Bailey should take a large part of the blame.

[DeeSpencer 25,711]

In most of our good wins we've execute some kind of press/forward pressure.

We didn't have the cattle on the park to execute a forward press today. Maybe that's the selection panels fault but I think it just represents injuries and a weak list.

Edited July 24, 2011 by the master

[Guest 36DD]

Part of the coaches job is to motivate and teach the players. So if "players are just too lazy and stupid to execute" Bailey should take a large part of the blame.

Well maybe you're right, I think possibly that he is just too nice a bloke. From reports the players do like him, unfortunately they do not play for him. Could be Peter Rhode Mk2, great bloke but just too soft on his players. Me personally for example, would rip [censored] out of Nicholson for failing to lay an effective shepherd which allowed Max Bailey to provide pressure on Martin, Martin scrubbed the kick, turnover, goal. Little instances like that happen a few times a game and it kills you.

[Captain Jack Jordan 32]

I think the effort today was a pass

Forgetting presses and going back to simple match ups .

Garland on Rioli .Why?

Frawley on Buddy (why so long)

McKenzie on Mitchell (should have been on Rioli)

Watts should have played on Buddy and

Frawley to Gibson (something different and Strong enough to beat him)

Out coached and asleep at the bounce again .

Edited July 24, 2011 by Captain Jack Jordan

[Pipefitter 2,159]

I think we can all be a bit naive about the game plan. We do employ a press but we don't do it well...yet. Dean once said and I agree the press is about everything single person doing their job in defending space, but when we aren't all doing it, we fall down. Hence our inconsistency. West coast have apparently been working on their press for a few seasons and it's now just coming together because their senior players are all back playing good footy and they are getting enough games into the youngsters to the point they can carry that consistency of effort week after week.

Dean sounds like a broken record saying it's all about getting games into the kids, but he's right. I understand everyones pain and impatience because I'm sick of following a rubbish footy team, but until scully, trengove, watts, grimes etc get up to the 100 game mark we aren't gonna be much chop.

[Maldonboy38 6,403]

Our effort today was OK. We were physically stronger over the ball than we have been in a long time, especially against a strong bodied team like the Hawks.

Both our defensive and attacking spread was lazy. I was shouting this at the screen when Tim Wason said the same thing. And defending from so far back highlights this situation. By the time we have run and spread up the entire ground a few times, even the fittest teams/players would struggle. Our kicking inside forward 50 today consisted mostly of bombs, because by half way through the 3rd quarter our players are exhausted. This is not a fitness issue - it is a game plan issue. We have to defend the middle of the ground better. Placing many players behind the ball when play is on the wing is only a situation to execute when we need to close the game down. Watts should not be gap filler in EVERY game.

I closely examined the Hawks at the stoppages. They defend the area of the ground where the ball is, not where it could be. If a ball up is on the wing, their defensive structure defends that space. Their midfielders, half forward etc.. set up a zone 40 metres either side of the ball. Yes, they also keep 2 or 3 players way back in defence totally unmanned so they can do that switch they do so well, but they don't add too many to that area while play is on the wing.

Our defensive structure of starting too far back is as week as Knight's poor defensive structuree at Essendon in 2010. I am a Dean bBiley fan but this is not a winning formula and will be obliterated by finals football.

.

.

[Redleg 40,925]

Well maybe you're right, I think possibly that he is just too nice a bloke. From reports the players do like him, unfortunately they do not play for him. Could be Peter Rhode Mk2, great bloke but just too soft on his players. Me personally for example, would rip [censored] out of Nicholson for failing to lay an effective shepherd which allowed Max Bailey to provide pressure on Martin, Martin scrubbed the kick, turnover, goal. Little instances like that happen a few times a game and it kills you.

Actually that is incorrect. Martin had the ball with the quicker Nicholson calling for it and should have given it and then applied the shepherd for him on Bailey. Nicholson after calling for the ball and being ignored, tried to shepherd the bigger Bailey, but had to run around Martin to do it. If the bigger slower player has an opponent on his left side and a quicker team mate on his right, he gives it off and then protects him, which would have put Nicholson well ahead of Bailey with Martin between them. What Martin did was dumb, like so many other passages of our play today.

[Madness 44]

Actually that is incorrect. Martin had the ball with the quicker Nicholson calling for it and should have given it and then applied the shepherd for him on Bailey. Nicholson after calling for the ball and being ignored, tried to shepherd the bigger Bailey, but had to run around Martin to do it. If the bigger slower player has an opponent on his left side and a quicker team mate on his right, he gives it off and then protects him, which would have put Nicholson well ahead of Bailey with Martin between them. What Martin did was dumb, like so many other passages of our play today.

Correct, for someone who did so well at school, I really questioned his footy smarts on numerous occasions today...

[Guest 36DD]

Actually that is incorrect. Martin had the ball with the quicker Nicholson calling for it and should have given it and then applied the shepherd for him on Bailey. Nicholson after calling for the ball and being ignored, tried to shepherd the bigger Bailey, but had to run around Martin to do it. If the bigger slower player has an opponent on his left side and a quicker team mate on his right, he gives it off and then protects him, which would have put Nicholson well ahead of Bailey with Martin between them. What Martin did was dumb, like so many other passages of our play today.

Totally agree, Martin should have given the ball to Nicholson, Nicholson is much quicker and has a better kick however, when stupidly ignored by Martin, Nicholson should be able to execute a simple block and take Bailey out of the contest.

[Guest Thomo]

I think we can all be a bit naive about the game plan. We do employ a press but we don't do it well...yet. Dean once said and I agree the press is about everything single person doing their job in defending space, but when we aren't all doing it, we fall down. Hence our inconsistency. West coast have apparently been working on their press for a few seasons and it's now just coming together because their senior players are all back playing good footy and they are getting enough games into the youngsters to the point they can carry that consistency of effort week after week.

Dean sounds like a broken record saying it's all about getting games into the kids, but he's right. I understand everyones pain and impatience because I'm sick of following a rubbish footy team, but until scully, trengove, watts, grimes etc get up to the 100 game mark we aren't gonna be much chop.

That's crap. Essendon had no press under Knights and had a very good one during the NAB cup six months later. Saying that it takes years is clearly not true.

The fact is Melbourne defend to far back. Every other person in football can see this, but nothing changes. It's either that Bailey cannot get the players to play the way he wants them to or he has a flawed game plan. I think that he came up with a game plan a few years ago and is trying to stick with it, however since then a better plan has come in and he has been left behind. Either he is too stubborn to change this, or not smart enough to see what is obvious to everyone else. Either way he is not the right man for the job.

I have not seen one thing that shows me that Bailey is the right man for the job. Poor game plan, poor motivation of players, poor player skills in general and poor tactically.

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,755]

That's crap. Essendon had no press under Knights and had a very good one during the NAB cup six months later. Saying that it takes years is clearly not true.

The fact is Melbourne defend to far back. Every other person in football can see this, but nothing changes. It's either that Bailey cannot get the players to play the way he wants them to or he has a flawed game plan. I think that he came up with a game plan a few years ago and is trying to stick with it, however since then a better plan has come in and he has been left behind. Either he is too stubborn to change this, or not smart enough to see what is obvious to everyone else. Either way he is not the right man for the job.

I have not seen one thing that shows me that Bailey is the right man for the job. Poor game plan, poor motivation of players, poor player skills in general and poor tactically.

You might be right about the game plan, motivation and tactics. But the team is far more accomplished with the skills of the game now than when Bailey took over. Just compare the playing list now with then.