Is the game plan that we are trying to learn the 4 seasons old Collingwood game plan, the one that is now out dated and not even working for Collingwood now?

And by the time our players can play to this game plan it will be another 2 to 3 seasons old.

In this day and age the coachs need to be visionaries and come up with a totally new style and one that suits the cattle they have at the moment.

That's what I'm thinking.. Bailey came in and wanted to play a Geelong style which was then outdated, now we've got Neeld playing a Collingwood style which is now outdated.

Edited May 12, 201213 yr by boydie

That's what I'm thinking.. Bailey came in and wanted to play a Geelong style which was then outdated, now we've got Neeld playing a Collingwood style which is now outdated.

Really? The way we're playing now is actually following a game plan? I would have thought that the reason we're being shafted is precisely because we're NOT following a game plan, either through inexperience, inability or even a lack of confidence. If the players really were playing Collingwood-style, it would be a big improvement on what we're currently seeing.

I don't think the esteemed members of the panel that selected our current coach would be that impressed with an out of date, recycled, knock off game plan. I give them more credit than that.

I just think they are at around the "wax on, wax off" stage.

Patience my sons (and daughters).

I don't think the esteemed members of the panel that selected our current coach would be that impressed with an out of date, recycled, knock off game plan. I give them more credit than that.

I just think they are at around the "wax on, wax off" stage.

Patience my sons (and daughters).

I WANT to believe in Neeld and be patient. But what they're serving up is just SO bad. I mean consistently at the worst level Ive ever seen in 41 years as dee follower. Its not a game plan its a carefully thought out SUICIDE STRATEGY on game day. All that compliance he wanted is turning them into morons. I dont think its the players as at least last year they looked ok most of the time. So if this is Neelds idea, even of stage 1, of a game plan then its awful, needs changing and worst of all is counter productive to the players self belief. Neeld has lost the players if you ask me.......how could ANYONE believe in this rubbish plan. He parades the players in post match like fools and makes them look like that in the matches. We've got Neeld for a long time, so I just hope he's smart enough to find a way to change tacks and get the players back. We'll see........

We lost the contested possies by 52!

That isn't a game plan issue...

I don't know if Neeld, Craig, and Misson are the problem or whether our players are - but considering where Collingwood, Adelaide, and St Kilda have been while we have been irrelevant, I am inclined to have faith in the coach and the FD.

We lost the contested possies by 52!

That isn't a game plan issue...

I don't know if Neeld, Craig, and Misson are the problem or whether our players are - but considering where Collingwood, Adelaide, and St Kilda have been while we have been irrelevant, I am inclined to have faith in the coach and the FD.

With respect rpfc, it is a game plan issue - MFC needs to be innovative with their existing list, not use outdated game plans - your faith in the coach and FD is sadly misplaced.

Is the game plan that we are trying to learn the 4 seasons old Collingwood game plan, the one that is now out dated and not even working for Collingwood now?

And by the time our players can play to this game plan it will be another 2 to 3 seasons old.

In this day and age the coachs need to be visionaries and come up with a totally new style and one that suits the cattle they have at the moment.

its probably too soon to say this, but I agree COMPLETELY. Blindly trying to force a game plan on a list designed to run and attack seems a little odd to me.

With respect rpfc, it is a game plan issue - MFC needs to be innovative with their existing list, not use outdated game plans - your faith in the coach and FD is sadly misplaced.

With respect, it is a winning-the-ball issue.

Listen to the Podcast on SEN of Mark Neeld from this morning. This question is asked of him.

Partially.

The problem is, every single side without fail plays the defensive side of the Collingwood gameplan - the 'press'. A lot of sides play an offensive variant of the Pies' plan too - in particular kicking out of defence to the flanks to force a stoppage.

The difference is the other offensive play, which is where we have stagnated and struggled. This is the 'run and spread', which we do not have at all.

Partially.

The problem is, every single side without fail plays the defensive side of the Collingwood gameplan - the 'press'. A lot of sides play an offensive variant of the Pies' plan too - in particular kicking out of defence to the flanks to force a stoppage.

The difference is the other offensive play, which is where we have stagnated and struggled. This is the 'run and spread', which we do not have at all.

Yeah if we get posession on the midfield it seems all our other midfielders dont spread, rather they stay on their opponent. Very annoying.

With respect rpfc, it is a game plan issue - MFC needs to be innovative with their existing list, not use outdated game plans - your faith in the coach and FD is sadly misplaced.

I said I have more faith in Neeld and the FD than I do in the players.

They lost the contested footy count by what must be a record margin, it doesn't matter what 'style' of game you are playing - if you can't win the footy - you're rooted.

I don't believe in changing philosophies so that a team can win 5 games instead of 3.

If we had some star players and they didn't suit our game style - then you can argue for a change.

But we don't have those, we have poor senior players who didn't give a sh!t on Friday night and that is not the fault of any game plan.

I said I have more faith in Neeld and the FD than I do in the players.

They lost the contested footy count by what must be a record margin, it doesn't matter what 'style' of game you are playing - if you can't win the footy - you're rooted.

I don't believe in changing philosophies so that a team can win 5 games instead of 3.

If we had some star players and they didn't suit our game style - then you can argue for a change.

But we don't have those, we have poor senior players who didn't give a sh!t on Friday night and that is not the fault of any game plan.

You appear to have contradicted yourself rpfc - unless we win the contested possessions, the game plan (whatever it is) cannot be implemented.

It is not a question of changing philosophies - coaching is about getting the best out of what you have and then gradually adapting it.

However, I do believe Neeld's plan is out of date anyway.

I think its extremely simplistic to say our plan is Collingwood's and therefore outdated.

He is teaching one side of a Collingwood gameplan.

Tweaks are still to come. He is starting by building a foundation.

You appear to have contradicted yourself rpfc - unless we win the contested possessions, the game plan (whatever it is) cannot be implemented.

It is not a question of changing philosophies - coaching is about getting the best out of what you have and then gradually adapting it.

However, I do believe Neeld's plan is out of date anyway.

Is that how it appeared?

I don't believe it did.

No team that gets beaten like a VFL team would get beaten (probably worse) in the contested footy is going to get near it - no matter what game style is implemented.

And 'out of date'?

The players haven't performed nearly well enough for me to see what it is.

The only thing I know is that it is centred around defensive intent and the need to win hard footy.

And that is never 'out of date.'

I realise we are crossing time zones in our posts here footynut, but you don't seem to understand that Collingwood won one flag with their game plan, Hawthorn won one flag with their game plan, and both were lucky. The real achievers were Geelong with a more commonsense natural football oriented plan. MFC, or any other club, needs to improve on the Geelong game to achieve consistent success (Essendon may be an example). Unless Neeld adapts his approach, MFC will again fail. Football is, underneath, a simple game! I know your feelings on Adelaide, but they are showing the way.

With respect rpfc, it is a game plan issue - MFC needs to be innovative with their existing list, not use outdated game plans - your faith in the coach and FD is sadly misplaced.

With respect..Hardnut, it isn't a game plan issue, it's a personnel issue, the existing list, particularly the midfield, where much of the contested possession is won is being beaten by superior opposition. Hawthorn is just that. Sewell and Lewis are just that.

Your (and others) understanding of the lack of midfield talent our club has is somewhat misplaced.

We lack speed, skill and nous which don't enable to play at an effective standard. Often second to the ball and beaten. Cannot sustain a high level for long enough as are the better sides, that are more experienced, polished and harder at it.

Is that how it appeared?

I don't believe it did.

No team that gets beaten like a VFL team would get beaten (probably worse) in the contested footy is going to get near it - no matter what game style is implemented.

And 'out of date'?

The players haven't performed nearly well enough for me to see what it is.

The only thing I know is that it is centred around defensive intent and the need to win hard footy.

And that is never 'out of date.'

You have confused me rpfc - some of your words seem out of place - if you are saying 'winning hard footy' is essential, I agree. If you are also saying the 'game plan' has to be centred around defence, I don't agree - attack is the best form of defence (but of course that also involves winning hard ball).

I have just posted on the concept of more attack oriented game plans, such as Geelong and Adelaide.

Watching the game the other night I couldn't believe the number of tackles we laid where the opponent still managed to get the ball away by foot or Jane. We are incapable of tackling properly and opposition players just walk through us, contested possession starts with stripping your opponent of the ball and if you can't do that you're history.

The game plan has got nothing to do with the failure of the players to stick a tackle it is a problem with the players.

It's not a gameplan issue. The gameplan works. What doesn't work is our players. They aren't gelling as a unit, they're not developing trust in one another, they're not learning as quickly as we'd like, some aren't putting the required effort in, and most are lacking in decent skills.

With time, the idea is that we can fix most of these issues, and that they'll have been playing Neeld's gameplan for a while, and it will be second nature by then. So then it will all come together. Whether that happens of course remains to be seen. But right now, the issue is not that Neeld has picked a dodgy gameplan, it's that he isn't getting the most out of a lot of his players.

With respect..Hardnut, it isn't a game plan issue, it's a personnel issue, the existing list, particularly the midfield, where much of the contested possession is won is being beaten by superior opposition. Hawthorn is just that. Sewell and Lewis are just that.

Your (and others) understanding of the lack of midfield talent our club has is somewhat misplaced.

We lack speed, skill and nous which don't enable to play at an effective standard. Often second to the ball and beaten. Cannot sustain a high level for long enough as are the better sides, that are more experienced, polished and harder at it.

Your full post did not show up H_T, however I am well aware of our lack of midfield performance - so why don't we do something about it? Are you saying MFC does not have anyone on the list who can be tried in the midfield, particularly at stoppages or centre bounces? Are all the candidates injured, lacking in skill or nous? Sounds like a weak excuse to me (no offence intended). Surely the players can be taught to give the ball to another player who is out in the open rather than a metre away? Surely a huge emphasis on skills practice at training is desirable?

Even inexperienced new players have a high level of natural ability - is MFC killing that? It appears to be defeatist at best and excuses at worst! I'm well aware of the weaknesses on our list, but I'm also more convinced than ever that MFC is currently on the wrong path.

It's not a gameplan issue. The gameplan works. What doesn't work is our players. They aren't gelling as a unit, they're not developing trust in one another, they're not learning as quickly as we'd like, some aren't putting the required effort in, and most are lacking in decent skills.

With time, the idea is that we can fix most of these issues, and that they'll have been playing Neeld's gameplan for a while, and it will be second nature by then. So then it will all come together. Whether that happens of course remains to be seen. But right now, the issue is not that Neeld has picked a dodgy gameplan, it's that he isn't getting the most out of a lot of his players.

I can not agree with this - the game plan is flawed and only worked with Collingwood - yes, the players can do better, but the plan has to make more sense.

I think its extremely simplistic to say our plan is Collingwood's and therefore outdated.

He is teaching one side of a Collingwood gameplan.

Tweaks are still to come. He is starting by building a foundation.

Agreed. By the time we're a developed side and are playing finals footy, it'll be the Melbourne game plan. I don't think we know what the game plan looks like yet. Neeld is trying to instil a philosophy that works for any game plan - one about hard bodies applying pressure and winning hard ball. Those elements are common to every side that has won a flag in the whole time I've been watching football.

I WANT to believe in Neeld and be patient. But what they're serving up is just SO bad. I mean consistently at the worst level Ive ever seen in 41 years as dee follower. Its not a game plan its a carefully thought out SUICIDE STRATEGY on game day. All that compliance he wanted is turning them into morons. I dont think its the players as at least last year they looked ok most of the time. So if this is Neelds idea, even of stage 1, of a game plan then its awful, needs changing and worst of all is counter productive to the players self belief. Neeld has lost the players if you ask me.......how could ANYONE believe in this rubbish plan. He parades the players in post match like fools and makes them look like that in the matches. We've got Neeld for a long time, so I just hope he's smart enough to find a way to change tacks and get the players back. We'll see........

The players we have ARE fools remember?

Remember 186 and the roller-coaster of Baileys all out attack plan?

The Bailey style meant we would get hammered if we didn't get first use of the ball.

Tackling ,chasing , shepherding and close marking were optional then.

Now the basics are mandatory and the players have lost the ability to create play because the first thought is about manning up .

The differences will come as come a we start winning 8+ one on one contests around the ground.

Clark and Frawley , Jones and Howe are about the only contests of the 18 on the ground that we are winning .