YEAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH !!!!!

[Hardnut 327]

Not trying to say anything, what I did say is that players are finally marrying the defensive mindset instilled in them with some run and spread offensively.

No change in the gameplan - proper execution of the gameplan.

Funny how others in these threads can see the change in the gameplan, as well as Matthew Lloyd as mentioned earlier.

[Macca 17,113]

Funny how others in these threads can see the change in the gameplan, as well as Matthew Lloyd as mentioned earlier.

Yep , if you were to judge our game plan in the last 3 games compared to the 1st seven games purely on what we see then there's been a definate change . Full marks and good on Neeld for the change in direction if that's what he's done . There's way less long kicks to a contest (along the boundary) , much more handballing , short passing , more use of the corridor , teamwork , etc etc .

There are people that peer into the future and want to believe , have faith , hope and trust . Then there are the 'Here and now' people . Both sides should respect the others opinion . We're all on board , just in a different way .

Edited June 4, 2012 by Macca

[rpfc 28,906]

Funny how others in these threads can see the change in the gameplan, as well as Matthew Lloyd as mentioned earlier.

It's a change in execution, not a change in the gameplan.

As I have said for weeks, the players were not spreading and running into space and creating uncontested possessions that drives the attack of every AFL team.

You are just looking for justification from others for your self-gratification. And I am not about to give it to you.

You were wrong about Neeld's gameplan - the boys just showed you - they are seemingly on board.

You should get on too.

[Hardnut 327]

It's a change in execution, not a change in the gameplan.

As I have said for weeks, the players were not spreading and running into space and creating uncontested possessions that drives the attack of every AFL team.

You are just looking for justification from others for your self-gratification. And I am not about to give it to you.

You were wrong about Neeld's gameplan - the boys just showed you - they are seemingly on board.

You should get on too.

You don't know what I believe or what 'the boys' believe rpfc.

I work on what I see happening.

[rpfc 28,906]

You don't know what I believe or what 'the boys' believe rpfc.

I work on what I see happening.

It certainly does help when you open your eyes - but the key is comprehension.

No AFL coach will ever instruct a team to not seek the uncontested possession that won us that game on Saturday.

There was no new instruction - I can't see anything in the papers about the players saying they were told anything different - they just had more faith in each other to get the footy out and run to space because they trusted their teammates to get the footy.

That's just confidence and belief - all upstairs.

That would be in their heads, not up the stairs to the coaches' box...

[Hardnut 327]

It certainly does help when you open your eyes - but the key is comprehension.

No AFL coach will ever instruct a team to not seek the uncontested possession that won us that game on Saturday.

There was no new instruction - I can't see anything in the papers about the players saying they were told anything different - they just had more faith in each other to get the footy out and run to space because they trusted their teammates to get the footy.

That's just confidence and belief - all upstairs.

That would be in their heads, not up the stairs to the coaches' box...

So the players won the game with simple, basic football, no complicated game plan!

[Guest Jackie]

A good skipper is always attuned to the direction where the wind blows. Sometimes has to sail an off course direction before getting back on course to destination.

Edited June 4, 2012 by Jackie

[Hulett Packard III 166]

Amazed at the change in the place over the past two weeks.

Inexplicable!

[greenmachine 21]

we play good vs the pies sneaky chance imo

[rpfc 28,906]

It's about execution, if we get belted this week is it because the coach reverted back to the gameplan he had prior to the Essendon game?

No, it's about how the players execute the same plan Neeld has had all season.

It's defensive, it sometimes hugs the boundary, it can be dour, it can be boring.

But it instils a hard, defensive mindset on our team and a desire for contested footy. As Grimes said in the post match interview - they saw Essendon as a running team and they tried to close it up and slow the game down, Neeld's plan, and they executed it very well.

As an aside, how little do people think of Neeld if they think he threw away his gameplan from the first two months?

That would engender belief inside the club...

[Nasher 33,617]

As an aside, how little do people think of Neeld if they think he threw away his gameplan from the first two months?

There's no doubt he didn't just toss the whole thing out holdus boldus, but I could be persuaded to believe that he modified it after assessing the result so far. It's not a weakness to be dynamic and flexible, and having hard and fast "non-negotiables" doesn't preclude fluid thinking.

Edit: I say "could be persuaded to believe" because I don't watch live, so it's hard to form a concrete opinion of my own. I could just as easily be persuaded that it was all due to improved execution as well.

[rpfc 28,906]

There is no doubt that the players are spreading more in the last two weeks.

But that is not a gameplan alteration, it is not a change of tactics or strategy, it is a basic tenet of modern footy.

There is no AFL coach on this green Earth that would not push his players to spread and be daring and get the cheap footy.

The players didn't do it not because they were under instruction - they did it because they were ensconced, trapped in their own shell.

Edited June 5, 2012 by rpfc

[Dr. Gonzo 24,443]

Do people really think for the first two months Neeld was telling the players to only go long to contests around the boundary and don't bother moving around to create options for your teammates? That he was telling players to hesitate and fumble the ball in contests and kick the ball either over players heads or 2 feet in front of them? Do you really think that is the sum gameplan of someone who has studied the game for years and is paid ~$400-500K to coach a professional team? Christ almighty just enjoy the win and have faith that Neeld and the club are moving in the right direction.

[Akum 2,660]

It's about execution, if we get belted this week is it because the coach reverted back to the gameplan he had prior to the Essendon game?

No, it's about how the players execute the same plan Neeld has had all season.

It's defensive, it sometimes hugs the boundary, it can be dour, it can be boring.

But it instils a hard, defensive mindset on our team and a desire for contested footy. As Grimes said in the post match interview - they saw Essendon as a running team and they tried to close it up and slow the game down, Neeld's plan, and they executed it very well.

As an aside, how little do people think of Neeld if they think he threw away his gameplan from the first two months? ...

Seriously, I don't think anybody's suggesting that Neeld "threw away" anything, or that he should.

He started by focussing on improving the side's defensive and contested ball skills. He emphasised that by encouraging them to kick to contests, to force them to gain experience in contested footy, 'cos this was our great weakness. A "crash course", if you like, under match conditions, because you can't get adequate experience at this stuff at training. Part of this "crash course" was that there was no point in making leads or creating space or run, because everyone was under firm instruction to kick to contests, and if you made space, you were ignored by the players and criticised by the coaches. Our uncontested possessions plummeted, but that wasn't a problem. The results weren't as important as getting the defensive & contested ball structures and skills, so lacking under Bailey, into place.

But it began to be more predictable, easily countered by other teams, and we lost because of not being able to hurt teams going the other way. Perhaps he felt that the defensive structures were in place about as well as they could be, even though they're not perfect. And perhaps the Swans debacle was the "enough is enough" moment.

So OK, we can now start putting the two halves together. The most important priority is to maintain the defensive stuff, but when there's an opportunity, particularly when we've got good possession, we can run the other way, lower our eyes, look for targets. Our uncontested possessions were 20-25% higher - say, a full quarter of football higher. Something changed, but not because Neeld "threw away" his game plan, but for the first time we start to see something resembling the complete game plan.

And it looks OK. Still a long way to go, but all the elements are there.

[frankie_d 1,471]

Loved Grimes' comment after the game, where he said they knew Essendon wanted to play a free flowing game (can't remember the exact words) and "we wanted it in tight"... I just couldn't help think of the phrase "bruise-free" and how quickly things can change

[Hardnut 327]

There is no doubt that the players are spreading more in the last two weeks.

But that is not a gameplan alteration, it is not a change of tactics or strategy, it is a basic tenet of modern footy.

There is no AFL coach on this green Earth that would not push his players to spread and be daring and get the cheap footy.

The players didn't do it not because they were under instruction - they did it because they were ensconced, trapped in their own shell.

rpfc, you go on believing what you want – you might even convince yourself one day.

Good coaching continually adapts – most of us can see that happening now.

I’ve yet to see a player trapped in their own shell – the problem is usually for a coach to create a ‘formative shell’ which fits both the individual player and the team plan.

[45HG 1,559]

The wife and I enjoyed Luke Darcy's description of our gameplan on Saturday night whereby it seemed that Neeld's gameplan was to "just be close at quarter time."

Perhaps this is why today he had another go at Neeld for not being over the moon in his postmatch conference - the Dees were within 3 points at 1/4 time and he should've celebrated his new successful gameplan.

I agree with RPFC, for a change.

The players are spreading with greater speed from contests that we have been winning. I don't think this is a change of game plan at all, merely the players playing with a little more confidence.

[Hardnut 327]

Just a postscript thought on 'cheap footy'.

There is contested, bruising footy, and there is hard running to spread and gain the footy - that's not 'cheap footy', it's gut busting hard work.

[rpfc 28,906]

Just a postscript thought on 'cheap footy'.

There is contested, bruising footy, and there is hard running to spread and gain the footy - that's not 'cheap footy', it's gut busting hard work.

Really?

Yeah, we all say that from time to time, but we also all see opposition players by themselves that have slipped out and have essentially been 'frontrunning' and we wonder where any Demon was - they were sucked into the contest immediately preceding that.

'Frontrunning' gets a bad rap, but it only gets a bad rap from me when the player doesn't work back aswell as forward. But the instincts of a Cale Morton to get 'cheap' possies is so valuable.

It takes hard work and smarts to find the footy in space and rack them up the way Dane Swan does...

It's one thing I wish we appreciated more as fans.

[rpfc 28,906]

I’ve yet to see a player trapped in their own shell – the problem is usually for a coach to create a ‘formative shell’ which fits both the individual player and the team plan.

Most of the players have spent much of the year in a shell.

Whether it be by being too worried about their direct opponent to hunt the footy, or by going into a marking contest that they shouldn't because they don't trust their teammate to do himself any justice, or by 'involving' themselves in a stoppage when they would help their team more by staying out the defensive side of the contest and getting 'cheap' ball.

I know footy, hards, and your baffling personal asides are not helping your arguments.

Stick to the footy and everyone is happy.

[Hardnut 327]

There is no doubt that the players are spreading more in the last two weeks.

But that is not a gameplan alteration, it is not a change of tactics or strategy, it is a basic tenet of modern footy.

There is no AFL coach on this green Earth that would not push his players to spread and be daring and get the cheap footy.

The players didn't do it not because they were under instruction - they did it because they were ensconced, trapped in their own shell.

You are contradicting yourself rpfc - I don't believe in 'cheap footy'.

[Hardnut 327]

Most of the players have spent much of the year in a shell.

Whether it be by being too worried about their direct opponent to hunt the footy, or by going into a marking contest that they shouldn't because they don't trust their teammate to do himself any justice, or by 'involving' themselves in a stoppage when they would help their team more by staying out the defensive side of the contest and getting 'cheap' ball.

I know footy, hards, and your baffling personal asides are not helping your arguments.

Stick to the footy and everyone is happy.

I'm glad you know footy, but I wish you would show it more often. A coach needs to know both footy and people management - what do you mean by 'stick to the footy and everyone is happy' - who is everyone in this context, and it's 'hardnut' by the way. You have some baffling asides of your own rpfc - particularly that you don't seem to recognise alternative arguments.

[rpfc 28,906]

You are contradicting yourself rpfc - I don't believe in 'cheap footy'.

Please read Post 219 in this thread.

[Hardnut 327]

Please read Post 219 in this thread.

I did, and I interpret your comments differently to my own.

[rpfc 28,906]

I did, and I interpret your comments differently to my own.

My reference to that post was just over the requirement to get uncontested possessions and to tacitly say that 'cheap' footy is anything but.

Moving back to the argument - the crux of what I am saying is that this win was a testament to the embrace by the players of how the coach wants them to play. That embrace has given some exrtra confidence to push and spread and find some 'cheap' (the reason I usually put this word in quotation marks is because it is anything but cheap) footy that fuel attacks in the modern game. The fact that we have averaged 39 Inside 50s up until the Carlton game and 50 in the last two outings tells me the players have become more comfortable with Neeld's gameplan.