Thank you Todd Viney for actually implementing a new plan for our kickouts! The huddle worked well yesterday.

Thank you Todd Viney for actually implementing a new plan for our kickouts! The huddle worked well yesterday.

Would it have happened with DB still there?

IMO no.

So his replacemnet was a good move.

For almost 4 years we had a method that clearly did not work.

This one may not in the long term either but at least we are trying something different

This thread should be renamed "VINEY's VACUUM."

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/melbourne-caretake-coach-todd-viney-gets-taste-for-winning/story-e6frf9jf-1226124024814

But careful, because Brian Royal gets a lot of credit in this article, and a lot of posters probably won't like hearing that...

It did work better yesterday, and probably also against Richmond. Would be interesting to see how effective it is against decent opposition. Todd credited Brian Royal with the new set-up in a post-match interview.

Gold Coast played into the hands of the huddle, because they generally failed to send out some outriders. It made it too easy. If this is a viable tactic long-term I'll be surprised.

Obviously it won't work everytime but if you have 3-4 of these set plays then you have more options that our standard default kick long and left.

Finally an innovative move from the coaching panel!

It worked very well yesterday, Freo have successfully employed the same tactic at times this year too, kicking long up the centre to Sandilands and a bunch of spreaders. But as has been pointed out the ability of the younger gold coast players to structure up at this stage of their careers may have somewhat flattered us.

I'm sure coaches would've learned much more the week before, where Richmond very effectively used a second backman close to the man on the mark to impede Frawleys kickouts, as he almost without fail will chip it to himself and run out to the right. The second man close in effectively coralled Frawley into kicking it to the opposition more often than not due to the pressure he was placed under...

Gold Coast played into the hands of the huddle, because they generally failed to send out some outriders. It made it too easy. If this is a viable tactic long-term I'll be surprised.

Agree.

I liked what I saw though. Even when Garland was kicking out from full back and we had a huddle at CHF, where Garland played on and ran around the mark and kicked straight down the ground to an option. Almost two groups of players - one at CHF and the rest at around the defensive 50 m line leaving a massive gap (the square) to kick into. It worked. But like you, it may only be used now and again and good effective teams up-to-speed with opposition plans will be awake to it. It was risky from the play-on - if Garland (in this instance) gets caught by the man on the mark, we're stuffed.

But I like the intentions.

The major problem with our kickouts, yesterday and when Bailey was there (who actually had a tactic when he was coach despite many posters thinking he didn't) is that we take too long to actually kick the ball out and we dont get in the rigth positions.

It amazes me how many times the kicker waited until the players had led out and were near the boundary before he kicked.

Also, we know where the ball is going, yet we dont have the numbers there and/or they are not front and center.

It is great we had a new tactic, but it was nothing more unsual except for the secondary huddle in the middle.

What made it look good was that we executed it properly a few times, which has been the rarity.

Brian Royals idea from what Viney said. But it was great to see something different and some kid of tactics. Under Bailey it was hard to pick up what kind of tactic there was. We seemed to put tall players on the flanks and bomb it long. Will be interesting to see how it will go against a team that zones.

Carlton tore us a new one playing this "double huddle" a month or so ago. A few other teams have been doing this from kick-ins. No idea who's idea it is, but it can work well.

My guess is the Gold Coast would be the perfect team to try this against. The entire game seemed a bit like a training drill, which I have no problem with. Tried a few things out, still got a win.

2012 can't come soon enough!

A plan is better than no plan...its something that the players can obviously execute as planned repeately so once the coaching staff add a few more set plays for kickins, our success rate to take it end to end will all increase.

Liked it because it worked. If we use it all the time, it will be worked out and beaten. As a new option to include in a range of flexible tactics? Fantastic.

If we have the marking power and the spread speed at CHB and in the middle, there is no reason why this cannot be effective for us. The Kicker will determine its success by the choice of delivery point and speed of delivery. Bad technique and waiting 1 minute for set-up will guarantee this will allow the opposition to kill it. As our team should be 'pressing up' behind any opposition attack, it should be about 10 seconds for the players to get on station for the kick in.

Good work for trying something new.

If it was Royal's idea, I find it interesting that he was not able to come up with it under Bailey, but as soon as Bailey leaves we have a plan. He must have been instructed to coach to Bailey’s pathetic plan, and his own ideas ignored. The assistant coaches must have been pulling their hair out trying to work under such an incompetent coach.

I remember arguing with a few of e45's aliases about sacking the coach months ago. His aliases were saying that there is nothing to gain by sacking him back in May. I think that the weekend has shown again how poor at coaching he was, and how badly he has developed the players individually and as a team. If Melbourne fail to contest a grand final with this current rebuild, which after seeing how well Gold Coast are developing seems likely, Bailey should be blamed, along with the board who gave him his last contract.

The major problem with our kickouts, yesterday and when Bailey was there (who actually had a tactic when he was coach despite many posters thinking he didn't) is that we take too long to actually kick the ball out and we dont get in the rigth positions.

LOL. Next you'll be telling us he actually had a game plan too

Can a tactics expert please enlighten me.

I don't think that the side kicking in can decide to form "the huddle" on its own initiative. I think that the huddle results from the opposition deciding to "man up" rather than occupying zones.

That is why "manning up" is not usually employed by good teams defending kick-ins. It results in a "huddle" which gives rise to the opportunity for "outriders"' and breakaways into attack.

So I think it was just Gold Coast's inexperience that allowed us to employ the huddle.

I hope I'm wrong, because for once we did well with kick-ins.(we didn't defend the Suns' kickins all that well, though!

Edited August 29, 201114 yr by JUMPING JACK CLENNETT

In addition to the huddle I thought we played a more defensive "baseline tennis" approach where we were comfortable switching and controlling the ball across the HB line until the forward thrust opened up for us. Didn't always work but they were disciplined in their application of this tactic and it worked a treat several times...

I'll be impressed with tactics that work against good teams. As it was, we barely beat Gold Coast.

Oh and any tactic to relies on ball spillage and winning the contested ball off the deck is not going to work for us until we learn to win the damn contested ball! FFS we are hopeless at it even though we have one of the better ruck-duos in the league. It's like watching gold fish trying to swim their way out of a glass bowl.

Did anyone notice they implemented a huddle in the centre square at the same moment? Very interesting. It looked fantastic when it worked. Howe crashed the pack and Jetta crumbed front and centre, who then handballed onto a player forward of the contest.

Daiycutter, Bailey did have a game plan, unfortunately it was no good and had no defensive action to it. As bad as it looked, you cant be ignorant enought to say that he sent the players out there to do whatever they wanted (even if it looked like it at times).

In regards to his kick out strategy, especially this year, we pretty much kicked it long to the boundary line to a pack every time, which I recall many psters getting annoyed about. So I do think he had a kick out plan, but it was not all that successful.

Can a tactics expert please enlighten me.

I don't think that the side kicking in can decide to form "the huddle" on its own initiative. I think that the huddle results from the opposition deciding to "man up" rather than occupying zones.

That is why "manning up" is not usually employed by good teams defending kick-ins. It results in a "huddle" which gives rise to the opportunity for "outriders"' and breakaways into attack.

So I think it was just Gold Coast's inexperience that allowed us to employ the huddle.

I hope I'm wrong, because for once we did well with kick-ins.(we didn't defend the Suns' kickins all that well, though!

The huddle is employed by the kicking out team. It forces the opposition to play man on man as otherwise there will be uneven numbers at the fall of the ball should the kicking out team go straight up the guts.

Daiycutter, Bailey did have a game plan, unfortunately it was no good and had no defensive action to it. As bad as it looked, you cant be ignorant enought to say that he sent the players out there to do whatever they wanted (even if it looked like it at times).

In regards to his kick out strategy, especially this year, we pretty much kicked it long to the boundary line to a pack every time, which I recall many psters getting annoyed about. So I do think he had a kick out plan, but it was not all that successful.

Guess i must be ignorant then

Carlton tore us a new one playing this "double huddle" a month or so ago. A few other teams have been doing this from kick-ins. No idea who's idea it is, but it can work well.

My guess is the Gold Coast would be the perfect team to try this against. The entire game seemed a bit like a training drill, which I have no problem with. Tried a few things out, still got a win.

Agree other teams have tried this and the Hawks come to mind earlier in the season too - not necessarily against our team either. I think you're right re: the Blues too.

At least we're trying things and it's refreshing for the players in a way.

The huddle is employed by the kicking out team. It forces the opposition to play man on man as otherwise there will be uneven numbers at the fall of the ball should the kicking out team go straight up the guts.

This seems a very logical conclusion,"Wonna". It's what I thought until some amateur "expert" told me that the huddle is a response to the opposition "manning up". I believed this, because I can't understand why we don't use the huddle much more often. It's rare that we use it, but when we do, it works well.(I remember a game v. Adelaide at Prince's Park..the game where Neita got 5 goals in a quarter...where we used it very effectively. There have been 3 or 4 other occasions, too.)

I'm finding it hard to believe that the huddle can be started at will.It's such a simple concept, yet so rarely used. Why?

A variation of the huddle in the centre corridor would be to gather deep on one boundary line. Slightly safer if the opposition win the ball against superior numbers, but more limited,and more risky in the options to set up out-riders. Perhaps the out-riders could lead long and short rather than left and right.

This thread should be renamed "VINEY's VACUUM."

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/melbourne-caretake-coach-todd-viney-gets-taste-for-winning/story-e6frf9jf-1226124024814

But careful, because Brian Royal gets a lot of credit in this article, and a lot of posters probably won't like hearing that...

More than comfortable to put my hand up and say I'm amazed that Viney acknowledged Royal's part in this "set play". I scratch my head wondering why he has only introduced this concept now, and not for the entire season. Was it because Bailey wouldn't allow it? Does it mean he didn't have the greatest confidence in his assistant? Or does it mean that Royal kept his mouth shut knowing that the chances of Bailey getting sacked during the season were high so he held back this plan?

I still question Royal's ability as a backline coach, due to the fact that Wellman had them playing a great style of footy last year, and Bailey was still coach back then (meaning that he perhaps does/did listen to his assistants when he has confidence in them).

If we can get one of the big 3 (Malthouse, Roos or Lyon), I'll be very surprised if Royal is there next year, unless they give him one season under a new, "respected" coach to prove differently.