Geez I hope they podcast this.

Just heard him around 12:20 as I went to grab lunch.

Fast becoming someone I don't like to miss hearing.

He's pretty good, the Moon.

What did he say?

Geez I hope they podcast this.

Just heard him around 12:20 as I went to grab lunch.

Fast becoming someone I don't like to miss hearing.

In case they don't (podcast) to summarise he said our style of footy last year would not have got us much further than where we were, i.e. winning 8, 9-10 games a year. That he believed it was neccesary to strip us back to a more defensive/contested way of playing. He said to expect more pain over the next year. His explanation of the work ethic required to play this way is that it is not at all appealing to footballers and therefore takes time.

For me they are points well made. It comes from a player just out of the game and not trying to build a media profile through stupid assertions or opinions.

http://www.sen.com.au/audioplayer/Audio/Cameron-Mooney/4738

Geez I hope they podcast this.

Just heard him around 12:20 as I went to grab lunch.

Fast becoming someone I don't like to miss hearing.

Cam Mooney is a beauty & we would do worse than acquire his input about the place.

Basically a Port supporter called in ans said how he doesn't like hearing MFC compared to Richmond a few years ago (fwiw nor do I) but because he thinks we've gone backwards this year and are a lot worse.

Mooney stated as fact that last year MFC were a very attacking side and that would be fine to get 6-8 wins each year for probably the next 20 years, but we'd never go anywhere or have a gameplan capable of winning finals.

He said Neeld has had to go back to go forward, has a defensive gameplan that WILL stand up in finals, and it will take some pain and at least a couple of years, but we'll get there.

(sorry about the delay on that bit of the OP, had to take care of something at work)

Mooney is on the money for mine.

Any discussion involving Geelong is actually a relative one. Geelong is a very attacking side, however, their defence also attacks in a way that would be more attacking than the attack of many other sides! Apologies for the mouthful!

Today, there is no point in returning to a Sydney or St Kilda style of defensive game - football has moved on. Geelong are also very skilful and know each other very well (which is also why they are finding it a little tougher this year with more new players than usual for them).

Its good to hear some support for Neeld, and why he's doing what he's doing. Pretty similar to the general feeling on here too.

lets hope he's right!

Yeah, I like your posts Jose, but you gotta give us more than that.

EDIT. Thanks.

Edited May 29, 201213 yr by AdamFarr

Surprisingly smart guy. Leaves the rest of the SEN chimps for dead.

What diesel said.

I think most reasonable people already realise this, but it's nice to hear it reinforced, especially by someone who seems to have such a good grasp on the modern game.

Moons used the term "re-wire" once or twice in reference to how our players play the game.

It also had me asking a few questions myself, that I hadn't yet fully considered..

Some of the players on our list now seem incapable of playing defensively.

Especially more senior players.

Is this because that's the type of player they always were?

And they stuck around on the list because they were able to play that gameplan?

Or did they become like that after Bailey's coaching? Or both?

Did Bailey always intend to use that gameplan, and play and coach players accordingly?

Or did he find himself with a list where their strengths lay in this "front-running" brand of footy?

Did he actually waver himself and compromise his gameplan?

I imagine it was mostly Bailey and his gameplan, but not absolutely.

Really good questions regarding Bailey Jose. I guess only the man himself and may 1 or 2 of his key assistants would know th truth.

One would think he didn't focus too much on implementing long term gameplans in his first 2 years as the club had decided to position themselves for draft picks, not unlike several other clubs had done previously.

That being the case I wonder if he took what he might have observed 'the path of least resistance' in terms of game style in order to get some runs on the board and secure his position for additional years? It is obvious that the list we have accumulated is far more suited to a non-accountable, attacking non-defensive, non-physical style of play and trying to implement something different earlier may have turned out the way it has now and cost him his job even earlier than it did?

Yeah, I like your posts Jose, but you gotta give us more than that.

EDIT. Thanks.

Yeah, sorry.

Had a bloody concrete truck turn up on site that wasn't meant to be here til the end of the week.

Dramas.

Any discussion involving Geelong is actually a relative one. Geelong is a very attacking side, however, their defence also attacks in a way that would be more attacking than the attack of many other sides! Apologies for the mouthful!

Today, there is no point in returning to a Sydney or St Kilda style of defensive game - football has moved on. Geelong are also very skilful and know each other very well (which is also why they are finding it a little tougher this year with more new players than usual for them).

You have to learn to crawl, before standing before walking before running.

In the defence vernacular, we have to learn it thoroughly,,, before we venture into an offensive structure.

If things go awry we fall back into defensive pattern.

But first we have to learn which players have the hardness to apply a defensiveness game structure, & secondly we have to then learn which players are prepared to run hard enough defensively & then back again offensively.

We have many who don't like the hard stuff of tackling & chasing,,, & just want to be the star.

That being the case I wonder if he took what he might have observed 'the path of least resistance' in terms of game style in order to get some runs on the board and secure his position for additional years? It is obvious that the list we have accumulated is far more suited to a non-accountable, attacking non-defensive, non-physical style of play and trying to implement something different earlier may have turned out the way it has now and cost him his job even earlier than it did?

thats my take on things. I dont think Bailey's endgame would have been to play bruise free unacountable football by any means. He just coached to the strengths of the list to instill confidence whilst the youngsters were finding their feet

If that's how he wanted to do it, I think Bailey misunderstood how hard it would be to make players adhere to defensive structures after years of playing "easy" one-way football.

There are quite a few who don't look like they'll ever make that adjustment.

Yeah, sorry.

Had a bloody concrete truck turn up on site that wasn't meant to be here til the end of the week.

Dramas.

It's always intriguing when you find out what a person on Demonland does for a job, the man/woman behind the Avatar so to speak.

It's always intriguing when you find out what a person on Demonland does for a job, the man/woman behind the Avatar so to speak.

There was (is) a thread over on the Dee's forum on Bigfooty that tackled exactly that. When it was first put up, I thought, nah, no-one's going to want to emerge from behind the anonymity of their keyboards, but it really took off. And yes, intriguing what people do.

Surprised at the Mooney love but it only takes a new voice and people are smitten. But he is only up against back slappers and mates of the media.

Terribly covered our game is by the majority of media. Cam Mooney wouldn't have given the time of day to any commentator giving opinion outside of the club while he was playing.

Pretty sure his opinion was that they are mostly a waste of time. Now he is one as the bills have to be paid.

I don't need his reinforcement to see what is going on at MFC. He is just offering an opinion like the rest if us.

What he has said here Mark Neeld and others have already said, where is the difference? Just a new voice making it seem clearer?

Yeah, sorry.

Had a bloody concrete truck turn up on site that wasn't meant to be here til the end of the week.

Dramas.

Whats an Aggi truck doing rocking up at Real Madrid's HQ??

I'm glad he's not bashing Neeld, but that only means he's not a peanut like the commentators who are.

However we can't misunderstand a rewiring to defensive game plan as an excuse to play as poorly as we have.

The other thing we have to 'rewire' is the desire to play consistent hard at it, hard running footy for the whole game. Very few on our list have seemed to understand this. Be it attacking or defensive play not enough on our list have the mental or physical characteristics to compete for 120 minutes.

I respect Green for his actions on the weekend but I use his injury as an example of what has been wrong. It may simply have been an unfortunate incident but the way I see it is that years of poor preparation, poor training and not enough experience has led to him getting a bruised lung for putting his body in harms way. I get the feeling that if you swapped Green and Selwood that Selwood wouldn't have been off to hospital after that contact. Now Green has at least set a benchmark it means someone like Bennell has to work harder in the gym, train harder and hit the footy even harder than Green did. We need the same leadership from Clark, Frawley and Jamar when it comes to playing like talls and from guys like Moloney when it comes to midfield work rate. If Moloney can't bring it then Trengove and McKenzie have to set the bar.

You have to learn to crawl, before standing before walking before running.

In the defence vernacular, we have to learn it thoroughly,,, before we venture into an offensive structure.

If things go awry we fall back into defensive pattern.

But first we have to learn which players have the hardness to apply a defensiveness game structure, & secondly we have to then learn which players are prepared to run hard enough defensively & then back again offensively.

We have many who don't like the hard stuff of tackling & chasing,,, & just want to be the star.

Could not disagree more - this is a very negative approach which goes against every natural instinct of a young footballer. Far better to begin with the positives (which is why we recruit young talented players) and then fine-tune techniques, which means the players enjoy the game and learn at the same time (eg Adelaide this year).

It also had me asking a few questions myself, that I hadn't yet fully considered..

Some of the players on our list now seem incapable of playing defensively.

Especially more senior players.

Is this because that's the type of player they always were?

And they stuck around on the list because they were able to play that gameplan?

Or did they become like that after Bailey's coaching? Or both?

Did Bailey always intend to use that gameplan, and play and coach players accordingly?

Or did he find himself with a list where their strengths lay in this "front-running" brand of footy?

Did he actually waver himself and compromise his gameplan?

I imagine it was mostly Bailey and his gameplan, but not absolutely.

I think in the majority of cases it was Bailey's plan. He removed the defensive instincts from a lot of our players in getting them to run and carry. I think he implemented that style in attempting to model us on Geelong.

Having said that, I think there are certain players on our list who might not really excel at defensive play. I don't think Morton, for example, is very intuitively defensive. I think his best football is as an offensive runner, in space, pushing up the ground, and no matter who his coach is, defensive running and blocking and all that are not things he is good at.

I'm glad he's not bashing Neeld, but that only means he's not a peanut like the commentators who are.

However we can't misunderstand a rewiring to defensive game plan as an excuse to play as poorly as we have.

The other thing we have to 'rewire' is the desire to play consistent hard at it, hard running footy for the whole game. Very few on our list have seemed to understand this. Be it attacking or defensive play not enough on our list have the mental or physical characteristics to compete for 120 minutes.

I respect Green for his actions on the weekend but I use his injury as an example of what has been wrong. It may simply have been an unfortunate incident but the way I see it is that years of poor preparation, poor training and not enough experience has led to him getting a bruised lung for putting his body in harms way. I get the feeling that if you swapped Green and Selwood that Selwood wouldn't have been off to hospital after that contact. Now Green has at least set a benchmark it means someone like Bennell has to work harder in the gym, train harder and hit the footy even harder than Green did. We need the same leadership from Clark, Frawley and Jamar when it comes to playing like talls and from guys like Moloney when it comes to midfield work rate. If Moloney can't bring it then Trengove and McKenzie have to set the bar.

Nice post mate. Agree on all counts.