The main concern I have is with the game plan. Too often a new coach comes in and tries to establish a game plan that was previously successful to win a Premiership at their old club but does not match to the strengths of the list they have inherited. Bailey did this with the Port style but recruited a list to play it. Now Neeld is wanting us to play a Collingwood style. The truth is that niether these styles will win Melbourne a premiership. A new game style must be developed that plays to the strength of the players on the field rather than their weaknesses.

The problem with Baileys plan is that it was absent of defensive pressure and was easily defeated by a well executed press which the better, bigger sides could easily apply. It required excellent foot skills and players were recruited who were supposed to deliver this. Unfortunately the pressure of a good press put these young, skilled players under too much pressure and the game plan failed. However our players do have these skills. It was more that Baileys game plan was superseded by the press and Bailey failed to adapt. Weaker clubs that did not have a good press were absolutely smashed by Baileys game plan yet strong clubs could easily counter the style with a press and as such the roller-coaster developed.

Neeld has already lost my support because he is trying to implement a plan that does not suit that younger bodies and natural talents of our list. Simply it is far too defensive and lacks any sort of flare, spread or run and carry. Believe it or not our players do have the skills and flare and our players must be given freedom to play to their strengths. They have been playing on at all costs for 4 years, taking the game on and players who would be good at this were recruited. Playing on is their strength. Now confidence is at an all time low. Players are too scared to take the game on, have a too defensive mind set to run and spread and always kick conservatively down the line to a contest which is their weakness. They don’t use the corridor, run or carry. Playing a game plan that exposes our weakness will always result in thrashings.

A game plan must be developed that suits our list, a game plan that incorporated a good defensive press and the run and carry that most of our players have been recruited by Bailey for. Players will learn when to go defensive and kick down the line and will learn when the opportunity exists to take on the game. At the moment we are far too predictable and thus easily countered.

Every club knows Collingwoods Premiership game plan inside and out and just copying it will inevitably fail as other clubs know how to beat it. They know where the ball will be kicked especially when played by players less experienced, younger and less proficient at it. Currently our movement to the forward line is so slow our forwards have little chance. Kicking down the line to a contest 90% of the time is crap football. Bombing into the forward line to a contest 90% of the time is crap football. However our defensive press has been good. Our game plan should more resemble West Coasts, defensive press yet aggressive run and carry once past half back. Our current game plan is dumb football which is past its used by date and does not match the strengths of the list. It will not beat any club outside GWS and GC (maybe). I note that Neeld was happy with the execution of our game plan against WC for 2 and a half quarters yet we were still thrashed during this time. I have seen enough, our game plan urgently needs adjusting/overhauling. Keep the press dump the rest.

Edited April 10, 201213 yr by Grand New Flag

I have to say, I am not one bit stressed about the game plan. You can have the world's best game plan, but without the cattle, there is nothing a coach can do week in week out.

You have to remember that every team takes years to build their game plan. You cannot define it based on 2 outings, you need to look at it over 2 years or more.

Geelong, Collingwood, Hawthorn, WCE are great examples of teams that built up their game plans.

I also don't have the slightest concern that Neeld will build and evolve a game plan that is capable of premierships. To me, it is plainly obvious that he (and maybe a few others, including Neil Craig) are the only professionals I would trust.

The main concern I have is with the game plan. Too often a new coach comes in and tries to establish a game plan that was previously successful to win a Premiership at their old club but does not match to the strengths of the list they have inherited. Bailey did this with the Port style but recruited a list to play it. Now Neeld is wanting us to play a Collingwood style. The truth is that niether these styles will win Melbourne a premiership. A new game style must be developed that plays to the strength of the players on the field rather than their weaknesses.

The problem with Baileys plan is that it was absent of defensive pressure and was easily defeated by a well executed press which the better, bigger sides could easily apply. It required excellent foot skills and players were recruited who were supposed to deliver this. Unfortunately the pressure of a good press put these young, skilled players under too much pressure and the game plan failed. However our players do have these skills. It was more that Baileys game plan was superseded by the press and Bailey failed to adapt. Weaker clubs that did not have a good press were absolutely smashed by Baileys game plan yet strong clubs could easily counter the style with a press and as such the roller-coaster developed.

Neeld has already lost my support because he is trying to implement a plan that does not suit that younger bodies and natural talents of our list. Simply it is far too defensive and lacks any sort of flare, run and carry. Believe it or not our players do have the skills and flare and our players must be given freedom to play to their strengths. They have been playing on at all costs for 4 years, taking the game on and players who would be good at this were recruited. Playing on is their strength. Now confidence is at an all time low. Players are too scared to take the game on and always kick conservatively down the line to a contest which is their weakness. They don’t use the corridor, run or carry. Playing a game plan that exposes our weakness will always result in thrashings.

A game plan must be developed that suits our list, a game plan that incorporated a good defensive press and the run and carry that most of our players have been recruited by Bailey for. Players will learn when to go defensive and kick down the line and will learn when the opportunity exists to take on the game. At the moment we are far too predictable and thus easily countered.

Every club knows Collingwoods Premiership game plan inside and out and just copying it will inevitably fail as other clubs know how to beat it. They know where the ball will be kicked especially when played by players less experienced, younger and less proficient at it. Currently our movement to the forward line is so slow our forwards have little chance. Kicking down the line to a contest 90% of the time is crap football. Bombing into the forward line to a contest 90% of the time is crap football. However our defensive press has been good. Our game plan should more resemble West Coasts, defensive press yet aggressive run and carry once past half back. Our current game plan is dumb football which is past its used by date and does not match the strengths of the list. It will not beat any club outside GWS and GC (maybe). I note that Neeld was happy with the execution of our game plan against WC for 2 and a half quarters yet we were still thrashed during this time. I have seen enough, our game plan urgently needs adjusting/overhauling. Keep the press dump the rest.

While I agree with a lot of your post. For the past few years we have had no defensive pressure at all and we now need to learn how to apply it. I think we have gone to much that way (defence only) I believe that one we have "got it" we can then implement an attacking style to complement it, but unfortunatly this takes tim.

You make some fair points, though I think we still need to give the players time to actually execute the game plan properly before we judge it as needing an overhaul.

I am sure Neeld isn't stupid enough (nor the MFC in hiring him) to just expect to copy the Collingwood game plan and expect success.

It is likely that Neeld is focussed on the players' getting part of the plan right before moving on to the other elements.

If the gameplan is in fact to replicate the Collingwood gameplan exactely without any sort of modification, then Neeld is an idiot.

The gameplan has never been the problem, even when Bailey was in charge.

Excellent post GNF

I have to say, I am not one bit stressed about the game plan. You can have the world's best game plan, but without the cattle, there is nothing a coach can do week in week out.

You have to remember that every team takes years to build their game plan. You cannot define it based on 2 outings, you need to look at it over 2 years or more.

Geelong, Collingwood, Hawthorn, WCE are great examples of teams that built up their game plans.

I also don't have the slightest concern that Neeld will build and evolve a game plan that is capable of premierships. To me, it is plainly obvious that he (and maybe a few others, including Neil Craig) are the only professionals I would trust.

I agree. And you could add St Kilda to your list. When Lyon took over the Saints initially when backwards before going so far forward they were one crooked bounce away from winning a flag.

We appear to have gone backwards (I say "appear" because it's a bit early to judge for a variety of reasons) but from a worse starting point than did St Kilda under Lyon.

St Kilda's list was so strong that they should have performed better than they did in Lyon's early years. Moreover, St Kilda changed their gameplan significantly over Lyon's tenure, eventually copying 'Clarko's Cluster' to develop the modern press.

Our lack of teamwork and ability to retain possession are deeply concerning. We should look at the way Hird was able to turn Essendon around last year. He has injected confidence into the playing group and instilled a defensive mindset.

I have to say, I am not one bit stressed about the game plan. You can have the world's best game plan, but without the cattle, there is nothing a coach can do week in week out.

You have to remember that every team takes years to build their game plan. You cannot define it based on 2 outings, you need to look at it over 2 years or more.

Geelong, Collingwood, Hawthorn, WCE are great examples of teams that built up their game plans.

I also don't have the slightest concern that Neeld will build and evolve a game plan that is capable of premierships. To me, it is plainly obvious that he (and maybe a few others, including Neil Craig) are the only professionals I would trust.

Too right.

How can you be absolutely confident of what you're doing when you're still in a learning process??

We are not this bad due to the playing list or the game plan.

St Kilda's list was so strong that they should have performed better than they did in Lyon's early years. Moreover, St Kilda changed their gameplan significantly over Lyon's tenure, eventually copying 'Clarko's Cluster' to develop the modern press.

Our lack of teamwork and ability to retain possession are deeply concerning. We should look at the way Hird was able to turn Essendon around last year. He has injected confidence into the playing group and instilled a defensive mindset.

Completely agree Fat Tony, we must work on retaining possession, and creating opportunities rather than always kicking to a contest.

We have a blue collar midfield which is in the weakest 4 in the league. Kicking down the line to a contest has a high likelyhood of ending in a bounce or throw in. If we are not winning 65%+ of the clearances this is a terrible percentage play. This has been a massive issue both games. We must paly to our streagths. I think the forwardline has the tallent to be a streagth if we can get the ball in their quickly and accuratly. I have barely seen a forward 50 lead this season. Most of the forward entries have come from stoppages on the half forward line that have resulted in a kick and hope, long bomb inside 50. Our opponents defensive field has already been set. This makes is very hard for our forward line. We need to learn to move the ball quickly from the half back line, taking the game on with spread, run and carry. I accept that we need time, but our performances are so far off the pace, the plan failing so badly, that the obvious definencies to the game plan need to be urgently attended to.

Completely agree Fat Tony, we must work on retaining possession, and creating opportunities rather than always kicking to a contest.

We have a blue collar midfield which is in the weakest 4 in the league. Kicking down the line to a contest has a high likelyhood of ending in a bounce or throw in. If we are not winning 65%+ of the clearances this is a terrible percentage play. This has been a massive issue both games. We must paly to our streagths. I think the forwardline has the tallent to be a streagth if we can get the ball in their quickly and accuratly. I have barely seen a forward 50 lead this season. Most of the forward entries have come from stoppages on the half forward line that have resulted in a kick and hope, long bomb inside 50. Our opponents defensive field has already been set. This makes is very hard for our forward line. We need to learn to move the ball quickly from the half back line, taking the game on with spread, run and carry. I accept that we need time, but our performances are so far off the pace, the plan failing so badly, that the obvious definencies to the game plan need to be urgently attended to.

While you're technically correct, I wonder whether you are being too complimentary. I'd say ours is the second weakest behind GWS. I think Gold Coast is way ahead of us, not just because of Ablett, though he's a big reason for them being ahead of us. Anyone prepared to nominate a team, other than GWS, which has a midfield worse than ours?

By the way, I could live with a poor midfield if it was because the focus had been on developing key position forwards and defenders as I think getting good midfielders is easier to achieve. But I'm afraid that we haven't done that, or at least not successfully (yet). Essendon, on the other hand, has done exactly that and mainly while under the control of the maligned Matthew Knights.

Great post OP. Your points on confidence specifically are spot on.

The key is definitely in being able to adopt multiple styles as required by the situation, and I've no doubt the entire coaching staff is aware of this. They have been working on teaching the players what is currently lacking, and that is the more defensive aspects of the game, and seems to me the boys have just over-corrected a bit too much with the long down the line stuff.

They were better at knowing when to switch quickly or push through the middle against the coast, and I'm expecting more improvement this week and in subsequent weeks.

I think there's no doubt West Coast exemplified exactly how most coaches ideally want their teams to play the game this year on Saturday night, so the boys will learn a lot from that.

We had/have a very leaky defence. Our losing margin last year was around 60pts and our winning margin was around 48pts strangely enough.

Our i50s were the third lowest in the league primarily because of the poor midfield that cannot run both ways, control the footy or deliver it cleanly to a forward. The defence were doing OK given the amount of ball going in there but they were poor on the rebound - it has been said we defended from too deep on the field, not sure about that.

We had to tighten our defence first. You have to stop the goals. We need a solid system and structure that will withstand an onslaught. Its clear we don't yet have it. I believe we are two quality defenders short. A Luke Hodge type quarterback that can set up forward thrusts and a ball carrying linebreaker.

We are continually let down by Bartram and Macdonald. Blease hasn't come on and Strauss is yet to impress. Frawley seems to have gone backwards this year and Rivers is terrible one on one. Bennell hasn't made it despite being given many chances and Grimes has suspect disposal. Garland should be OK.

The next part is the midfield. It's diabolical. We have no-one that can dominate a game like the elite players. And we appear unable to develop a payer of that calibre. They are slow and don't run both ways. Consequently the ball pings out of our fwd line incredibly fast and straight into our defence.

I am less worried about the fwd line. We have some talent and unpredictability there. The midfield is the real problem. We have a surfeit of triers but little quality. Jones is improving and I love his heart but Moloney isn't the answer. Davey can't do it. Bate and Dunn are really not up to standard and Sylvia continues to be my most disappointing player after 8 years of holding out high hopes.

You can have a game plan but if the players cannot play to it then there is a problem. That was the case under Bailey. I have hopes Neeld will get it right.

The final comment is on culture. Watching the Geelong game yesterday I was yet again amazed at how that club will not give in. We sadly have a team that turns its toes up at every major game we play - a Friday night game against a quality opposition, a game to honour Jim Stynes - the list is too numerous to mention. Our culture sucks and has for a long time. That is harder to fix but has to be done little by little and weeding out players like Davey and Morton will simply refuse to chase and go in hard. I would happily swap both for two James Magners.

Let's hope we don't drive out his competitive spirit and let's hope we can find some more of it amongst our playing group. Barry P and Craig C had a drafting plan over the past 10 yrs but it didn't seem to include hard bodied mongrel footballers who want the ball at all cost. Give me 22 of them and at least I won't come away from a game feeling dudded yet again by a lack of spirit and fight.

. That is harder to fix but has to be done little by little and weeding out players like Davey and Morton will simply refuse to chase and go in hard.

I actually thought that Davey ran and tackled well in round 1. Could not get his hands on the pill though and this got him dumped. It is extremly difficult for any small forward when the ball is only bombed with a kick and hope into a crowded forward line. Personally I would like to see him back this week for Bennell. Bennell was far worse. At least Davey ran, chased and tackled.

Game plan focusses on forcing a stoppage when unable to get clear.

Problem being we can't win stoppages. Must fix this.

Thank god we've got no flare

Thank god we've got no flare

Are they like baggy shorts from the 70s?? Or a distress signal when at sea?

Thank god we've got no flare

...and no flair either

Are they like baggy shorts from the 70s?? Or a distress signal when at sea?

I think they have all been used up at the soccer

Just a quick 700 + words on this.

From: The Coach (title), The Official AFL Level 1 Coaching Manual

You can read it here: http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/9765/default.aspx

‘Game-plan’ refers to a recognisable/predictable standard of play adopted by the coach that suits his/her football philosophy.

A game-plan is simply a plan for a match consisting of a few major parts. A good generic game-plan is based on a direct flowing game, focused on player movement and control of the ball in both offence and defence.

Generally, a coach will start with a game-plan that best suits the players at the coach’s disposal and maximises the team’s strengths.

Game-plans can include one or more of the following examples:

1. Long kicking to key forwards

A team with high marking, mobile forwards will maximise scoring opportunities by moving the ball quickly out of the centre, kicking long into the forward line.

Let’s not slash our wrists yet. Quick ball movement forward from a turnover by contested ball winners put’s defenders under pressure. The fact that 5 goals can come from a 200cm guy left alone in the forward line without midfielders getting forward to crumb isn’t common to every football team. David Misson of all people can get them fit enough to get forward of the contest line at turnovers.

(They all look so spent they can barely find the motivation to climb the barriers at the West Gate to kill themselves let alone use their ability to play transition footy. Who could blame them, not much is going right at this club at the moment, and if the media aren’t driving them to complete and utter inconsolable despair, we as fans are lining up to get the knife in.)

2. Running, possession game

The coach of a small to medium-sized team will adopt a running game, with short passing and handball to maintain possession.

After round 1, I was the first to get the boot into Neeld, but I’d had too many froffies and it was him, or a stubbie through my TV. I wan’t to watch a running, possession game, but as mentioned earlier in this thread, Baileys plan for under 12’s gets knocked over if it’s the only trick the pony’s got. I take it back questioning Neeld so early, and I think he may know a little more than we do about why we’re getting flogged. He bangs on about structures! I have a feeling that if Neeld came from a club that paid coaches the world over to teach them what they understood about team field structure, from international soccer with leagues each worth in excess of US$1.185 billion, to water polo teams that win Olympic medals, he may have learnt something about structures. If after round 2, he keeps saying he’s happy that they’re keeping to structures every quarter or so, and not disappointed that the midfield isn’t getting 20 touches each, I’m thinking it doesn’t mean the game plan is not to ever run and carry or ever have a high possession count.

Maybe what were seeing isn't the game plan, it's 24 players f$%#ing it up.

3. Defensive game

A team with a strongly disciplined backline working together can move the ball forward into attack.

Despite the hysteria that we’re doomed, I am convinced Garland, Frawley, Rivers and Grimes can calve up an opposition forward line when they are having their day. (And I think I may be the only fan of football besides his Mum who thinks Sam Blease is going to be Heritier O’Brien on steroids, but hey, she could be as right as I am.) I don’t think discipline will be a problem for these guys, and don’t think we’ll be watching them fail because of a game plan.

When Collingwood fans asked Buckley why he changed the game plan against Hawthorn last week, the way i interpreted it, which may be completely unlike how it happened, he had to explain via the media that he hadn’t. The profile was essentially unchanged from previous years. The reason Hawthorn had 37 scoring shots was probably due to a lack of defensive discipline on the part of the players. As a fan of the game who regularly drops footy words he knows little about, the Collingwood fans where a classic example of how we can make claim to understand why our players loose football matches. I don’t have a clue really, but from the definition of a game plan above, I think ‘game-plan’ might have [censored] all to do with it.