Uncontested Football

[Forest Demon 4,681]

After watching our preseason, I was hoping all the long kicking to contests was just a matter of nailing the basics of contested footy and when the season proper started we would see a more varied and competitive game.

Some stats today that illustrate what my concerns (and most likely many others) are this:

Contested Possessions (+2)

Melbourne - 152

Brisbane - 150

Uncontested Possessions (-89)

Melbourne - 146

Brisbane - 235

Contested Marks (-1)

Melbourne - 15

Brisbane - 16

Uncontested Marks (-41)

Melbourne - 50

Brisbane - 91

We can't honestly expect to win games of football continually bombing it long to contests where we are consistently out numbered. Brisbane spread from contests and got so many cheap possessions, where we were never able to control the footy and had to rely on someone pulling down a pack mark or producing something against the odds.

I would be dumbfounded if a coach sent us out there to play this way and expected anything other than a thumping. Is it the players not working hard to create easier options, the ball carrier not showing enough poise to pick the right option, or the gameplan strictly saying bang it long to a contest at all cost.

I'll be stuffed if I can see how this is going to work. Neeld seems like a pretty smart bloke so let's hope we don't go to Subi next week and see the same sort of footy or we are in for an absolute pummelling.

And on another note, if I hear another 'supporter' say something along the lines as 'I have had enough' or 'I want my membership back' I'll spew. We are all Melbourne supporters by choice or not, and even though we are currently [censored] on the field, this club has given me some of the best times of my life, and when, or if, we achieve some serious success it will make it all the sweeter.

[mollydee 22]

And on another note, if I hear another 'supporter' say something along the lines as 'I have had enough' or 'I want my membership back' I'll spew. We are all Melbourne supporters by choice or not, and even though we are currently [censored] on the field, this club has given me some of the best times of my life, and when, or if, we achieve some serious success it will make it all the sweeter.

Hear Hear !

[monoccular 17,573]

The "new game plan" appears to be run it along the boundary to around HFF, then kick it long, but take care not to the "hot spot" but to the pocket --- but not until there is a 1 on 2 or preferably a 1 on 3 contest, and only if it is really deep in the pocket.

Am I the only one to notice this interesting "innovation?"

[DeeZee 7,445]

Neeld said we would be hard to play against........Hah, hah hah hah hah hah

[Grapeviney 9,800]

The "new game plan" appears to be run it along the boundary to around HFF, then kick it long, but take care not to the "hot spot" but to the pocket --- but not until there is a 1 on 2 or preferably a 1 on 3 contest, and only if it is really deep in the pocket. Am I the only one to notice this interesting "innovation?"

heaven help them if they bring it into the middle with a pinpoint pass, as bail did to howe in the 2nd quarter.. might actually score a goal>>

[P-man 13,366]

Good post. Those possession stats don't lie and mirror what we saw in the pre-season.

The gameplan has a very Auskick feel about it. If it doesn't change in a hurry we are going to get mauled every single week.

[Demon Dynasty 17,109]

Too one dimensional, too predictable and too slow with long bombs continually going from HBF to HFF and in many cases losing the pill there only to see it come "fast" rebounding back over the press out the back for a relatively easy Lion goal.

No poise or kicking to advantage (or hitting up regular lead up targets) coming inside 50, not enough clearances from the middle. When we did clear around the middle or HF to i50, we mostly just kicked it high in panick and hope. Same as last year, same players doing the same old.

Brisbane dominated clearances, spread, run and carry once the ball was brought to ground, which was most of the time, especially around our HF line.

The only way to win that sort of game style (ie., losing control of the game when the ball hits the ground after an aerial pack contest following long bombs) is to dominate in the contested marking contests within those packs or instead, don't bomb it and instead look to continually hit up leading targets around the ground. The other alternative is to run it off HB, spread and carry, break lines and linkup to score goals on the run and counter their run and carry with an attacking style of game. We either did none of these things or tried (long bombs hoping for contested marks maybe...or alternatively to win the stopages thereafter?) and failed much more than we succeeded.

In addition, after half time, we were either unwilling or unable to work hard enough (when we didn't have the ball) to pressure the ball carrier to cause turnovers anywhere near the standard required at this level. Pressure on the ball carrier after half time.... not AFL standard.

Maybe 3 to 5 players walked off with an "ok" game under their belt after today, maybe 1 and at best 2 of those could say they showed something (Magner being one... 0 AFL games!).

Edited March 31, 2012 by Rusty Nails

[stevethemanjordan 6,952]

Good discussion point this.

It is very strange indeed. Today was one of the most frustrating and unenjoyable games of football I have witnessed in a long time. It was different in the sense that we had no flow or flair to our game and everything was a struggle. Especially our long bombs to the boundary, in the

forward line and from kick outs. Last year under Bailey, we had the all clear to use the middle of the ground and to play more of a high risk, high return style of game.

I understand that Neeld wants to implement this contested football style asap, however his post match interview did confuse me. When asked what he thought of our aimless bombing and blazing away today, he replied, "that's the least of my worries'.

Maybe he has chosen to take a backward step (by ordering the playing group to kick long to contests whether it be from a kick in, along the wing or into the forward 50), because he wants to emphasise and quickly improve our contested ball work? He feels the player's

need to make this a priority before we get to the next step?

I only question this because of the unbelievable amount of opportunities we had to switch the play or look inboard to a player with space.

Is he testing the player's ability to win their own ball? Finding out who has the strength mentally and physically to beat their opponent in every contest?

It's hard to say. But I am very disappointed with today. Still can't get over how many average kicker's we have in our side.

If we dish that rubbish up next week, man it could be ugly.

Here's to hoping Neeld and co know exactly what they are doing.

[monoccular 17,573]

I should have added very very few of the "big bombs" even went to a position of advantage, ie in front of Clark where he could have had half a chance, instead just landing on his head, and the heads of his inevitable 2-4 opponents.