Did anyone hear this comment yesterday. Seemed to be a direct reference to Neeld coaching plan. Hodge's observation was that Dees consistently bypass the spare man opting to go for the long kick to contest. Players that spread or create a little space and become spare are worn out because the general plan is to kick long and wide (very general). Obviously the ramification then of a mis kick is not so bad because the opposition has the ball in a position not quite so perilous . No more slick corridor and create the loose man style footy that was prominent for example when Neil Balme was coach.

My worry is these game plans can be great if there is a brilliant list of players to carry out the plan. All teams are different and the good teams change strategy each week and don't merely play the same plan every week.

HIT THE BOUNDARY stuff is what Dad coaches adopted as a technique to modify the drubbing coming-ie from 20 goals to 10 goals. doesn't necessarily bring out the best attributes of a young elite player fresh out of TAC.

This did look the case in the Lions/Eagles losses. Everything was a battle, scrap and supporters left wondering where the next goal might come from. I can't recall even in Melbourne's bleak past playing quite this badly.

My hope is Neeld can change this around quickly.

Any comments.

Did anyone hear this comment yesterday. Seemed to be a direct reference to Neeld coaching plan. Hodge's observation was that Dees consistently bypass the spare man opting to go for the long kick to contest. Players that spread or create a little space and become spare are worn out because the general plan is to kick long and wide (very general). Obviously the ramification then of a mis kick is not so bad because the opposition has the ball in a position not quite so perilous . No more slick corridor and create the loose man style footy that was prominent for example when Neil Balme was coach.

My worry is these game plans can be great if there is a brilliant list of players to carry out the plan. All teams are different and the good teams change strategy each week and don't merely play the same plan every week.

HIT THE BOUNDARY stuff is what Dad coaches adopted as a technique to modify the drubbing coming-ie from 20 goals to 10 goals. doesn't necessarily bring out the best attributes of a young elite player fresh out of TAC.

This did look the case in the Lions/Eagles losses. Everything was a battle, scrap and supporters left wondering where the next goal might come from. I can't recall even in Melbourne's bleak past playing quite this badly.

My hope is Neeld can change this around quickly.

Any comments.

I really don't know what to say.....as far as I can ascertain, the boundary stuff worked for the Pies, as they had leaders and magnificent kicks of the footy to take it upon themselves to bring the ball back into the corridor.

Think Didak, Pendlebury, Swan, Thomas, et al. They were confident to centre the ball into a Cloke or Dawes. Unfortunately, none of our players have the confidence to do this and they're not running hard enough to take on that responsibility.

Cheers MD. I worry we are not encouraging "good spread" with the long kick to the boundary policy and missing opportunities for link up create a spare man footy ahla the Luke Hodge comment.

I really justy dont think the Collingwood Boundry hugging thing will work.

Cheers MD. I worry we are not encouraging "good spread" with the long kick to the boundary policy and missing opportunities for link up create a spare man footy ahla the Luke Hodge comment.

The biggest worry is the lack of possession, we just don't seem to be able to get our hands on the ball and are consistently well below the opposition in numbers of possessions. It doesn't matter how good your skills are if you haven't got the ball you can't control the game.

The biggest worry is the lack of possession, we just don't seem to be able to get our hands on the ball and are consistently well below the opposition in numbers of possessions. It doesn't matter how good your skills are if you haven't got the ball you can't control the game.

Lack of possession is indicative of the "go long around the boundary" game plan. In the meters gained by doing this, Melbourne typically has one possession; going the other way, our opponents would probably have 2-4 over the same meters gained. It is possible that possession count discrepancies are not as big an issue as we think. F50 entries on the other-hand ...

It is obvious that Neeld does not trust the players disposal to play a brand that relies on maintaining possession, and despite having such a gruelling pre season, he doesn't believe we are fit enough to spread quickly to space. Not to say that these things aren't in his thinking/future plans - I believe he doesn't think we are capable of these just things yet (combination of current capabilities, fitness base and players at his disposal).

First step of what could be an evolving game plan is to achieve mastery of a very simple one that relies on one-on-one contested football.

1) Advance the ball 50 meters as tight to the boundary as possible where we have a 19th player to assist (the boundary) meaning we only have to focus on covering space on one side of the contest [we are doing this ok at the moment]

2) Create a stoppage by clearing ball to the boundary OR contest the ball to advantage if possible. [ we have been iffy at best]

3) Win the stoppage OR make the clearance. [50/50 here ... but capitalising on a won stoppage has been an issue]

4) Repeat 1-3.

Playing the corridor, as attractive as it was when it came off in the Balme/Daniher/Bailey eras, is highly risky. Some sides have the ability to mitigate the risk because of their ability to be able to quickly snap back into a defensive zone and kill the turnover /rebound. Generally speaking, we were unable to deal with the rebound effectively in the past; we are even less capable of dealing with it now (3rd quarter Saturday as an example).