There appears to be two distinct categories that Melbourne players fall under:

1) Good skills, but poor attack on the ball

2) Poor skills, but good attack on the ball

Nathan Jones was in the second group, but I would argue he is now one of a few players who attacks the ball and can use it well.

My question, is it easier to improve a players' skills and decision making, or his attack on the ball and contest?

My question, is it easier to improve a players' skills and decision making, or his attack on the ball and contest?

I would say mostly it's easier to improve skill and decision making, we always hear that all fans want is for the team to have a good hard crack at it but there are some that simply don't have that desire no matter how skillful they are.

It's an interesting point, i'm a bit split but I think on our list as a hole skills are a bigger problem. I really hope we spend a lot less time in the Gym during preseason and spend more time doing skills work

Edited September 3, 201212 yr by Neeld Aniher

There appears to be two distinct categories that Melbourne players fall under:

1) Good skills, but poor attack on the ball

2) Poor skills, but good attack on the ball

Nathan Jones was in the second group, but I would argue he is now one of a few players who attacks the ball and can use it well.

My question, is it easier to improve a players' skills and decision making, or his attack on the ball and contest?

I would think that if a kid has No hunger for the hard ball, then we don't want him.... i think that is a simple plan going forward.

Soft players lose clubs Finals.

Interesting point, Clint.

I think the lack of "attack on the ball" is a lack of confidence in our players.

With all the off field dramas,new coach, injuries and lack of form, any semblance of self- belief was quickly dispelled from our players.

Instead of approaching each contest with an aggressive intent, our players tried to negate the opposition, leading to hesitancy and indecision. This makes players look "soft".

I think Australian football requires aggressive offence for success. If teams concentrate on negating the opposition, it leaves them vulnerable to opposition enterprise....they can try anything, knowing that if it doesn't come off, a stoppage will result, rather than a costly turnover.

So to me the important question is.....how do we instil this confidence? Though it often doesn't appear our players have the basic skills, I'm sure they do. I think it's the attack on the ball we can, and will improve, especially if we take a more attacking approach in our general tactics.

Interesting thread.

I think there may be a variation to the two types of MFC players: players who are unfit and have no tank.

This player can have skills and/or attack on the ball, but make a mess of it due to exhaustion.

Gys, Blease (early), and Martin have shown to be lacking in fitness and struggle as a result.

Obviously fittness can be worked on, but may take 2-3 preseasons to get up to standard.

Interesting point, Clint.

I think the lack of "attack on the ball" is a lack of confidence in our players.

With all the off field dramas,new coach, injuries and lack of form, any semblance of self- belief was quickly dispelled from our players.

Instead of approaching each contest with an aggressive intent, our players tried to negate the opposition, leading to hesitancy and indecision. This makes players look "soft".

I think Australian football requires aggressive offence for success. If teams concentrate on negating the opposition, it leaves them vulnerable to opposition enterprise....they can try anything, knowing that if it doesn't come off, a stoppage will result, rather than a costly turnover.

So to me the important question is.....how do we instil this confidence? Though it often doesn't appear our players have the basic skills, I'm sure they do. I think it's the attack on the ball we can, and will improve, especially if we take a more attacking approach in our general tactics.

We have to be able to do Both, Jack.

We have to learn & be willing to shut down an opposition when its called for, & we have to be able to ram home our advantage whenever we can.

One way traffic doesn't work in a 2 team game.

I'm bumping my own thread as I think it is relevant, especially with the discussion regarding Nicholson and McKenzie.

My view is that you should try and get blokes that are good at both (duh, obviously) but training hardness at AFL level is painful to watch.

The good kicks out there that need toughness can find it at Casey and we put up with the clangers.

Attack on the footy is more essential to playing footy than great disposal.

Without the former, you don't have the latter.

There appears to be two distinct categories that Melbourne players fall under:

1) Good skills, but poor attack on the ball

2) Poor skills, but good attack on the ball

Nathan Jones was in the second group, but I would argue he is now one of a few players who attacks the ball and can use it well.

My question, is it easier to improve a players' skills and decision making, or his attack on the ball and contest?

Skill and decision making. I'd suggest that attack on the ball is driven by your capacity to urge your physiological traits to excel and, hopefully, come out on top in a one-on-one battle. I mean, a strong, little guy, for example, needs a real passion just to:

a) simply get his hands on the ball, and,

b. have eyes for goals.

It's no coincidence that guys like Jake King, even someone like Rodan, has a particular demeanour on the field, generally a personality that allows them to exceed well in a sport where height as well as strength are two of the physiological perquisites -- yet these guys are able to play at the highest level. Prestia I guess also falls into this category, in that someone of his stature would NEED a strong urgency to attack the ball rather than, say, get caught up in processes. Whereas a guy like Watts, he gets away with that apparent lack of self-urgency because of his pure talent. I also like to call that "potential". Nothing more. Imagine a guy like Watts with Jones' endeavour. Oh yeah, every single AFL team has a player like that. Except for Melbourne. Who hasn't since 1964.

Much better to invest in guys like Nathan Jones. But guys that might shy away from a contest, or appear to not attempt the contested ball, they'll be nothing but "sweepers" of the Joel Bowden variety. It's plastered all over history.

Edited May 19, 201312 yr by Cudi_420

Melbourne just seem to have games where the effort isn't there and they lose (last week) and other weeks the effort is there but the skills and decision making is so poor (today) and they lose.

it's been that for a decade.

Half half footballers. We can't seem to develop a player who is complete.

If Travis Johnstone had Simon Godfrey's heart and work ethic or Godfrey had Johnstone's skills, we would have a superstar.

If Paul Johnson had Jamar's big man skills etc.

I would think that if a kid has No hunger for the hard ball, then we don't want him.... i think that is a simple plan going forward.

Soft players lose clubs Finals.

You are understating : soft players don't get clubs near finals, let alone losing them (unless maybe the AFL, in AD's infinite wisdom, go ahead with their inane thought bubble of having ten teams in finals - then a few softies may get through).

Nathan Jones put them both together last season, a little less so this year but it is still there.

Interesting game today with two category 2 players coming out (Terlich and Matt Jones) with Tapscott, Blease and JKH in the side who I would class as category 1.

For me, this balance was much better as in previous weeks the team looked too workmanlike without enough attacking flair.

Roosy has said he will cop skill errors as long as the effort is consistent