Been thinking about the whole "play to your strengths" line of gameplan and wondering if we have the midfielders to implement the "around the boundary" style gameplan. It seems we have a reasonably strong spine, does that mean we should go more direct? Do we develop a gameplan to suit our players or get players to implement the gameplan? Our failure at stoppages makes me wonder why the boundary line is considered our friend, but maybe it's safer than relying on the skills through the middle where turnovers can hurt you more...

Thoughts?

Edited March 17, 201312 yr by stuie

Been thinking about the whole "play to your strengths" line of gameplan and wondering if we have the midfielders to implement the "around the boundary" style gameplan. It seems we have a reasonably strong spine, does that mean we should go more direct? Do we develop a gameplan to suit our players or get players to implement the gameplan? Our failure at stoppages makes me wonder why the boundary line is considered our friend, but maybe it's safer than relying on the skills through the middle where turnovers can hurt you more...

Thoughts?

you nailed it right there

I think our game plan should be - take the best option. These are AFL players they should be able to make decisions on what option is best whether that be in the middle or along the boundary (this would depend on the current circumstancess - eg numbers, quality of players and their skills etc).

I would personally like to see us take some risks with the footy, the style of footy at the start of last year was almost so boring that I would rather watch another team play! I think you have to take risks in order to win.

Why are we so worried about turning the ball over in the spine of the ground? We literally have nothing to lose by going down the middle. If we continue to play that boundary hugging style (predominantly) we will continue to lose games. Unless our skill levels increase by an astronomical rate. What are the chances of that?

I saw some strong evidence in the practice games that we're going to be playing a lot more corridor football. Hope the trend continues. Playing the boundary does serve one purpose - it limits the damage. Big deal ! A loss is a loss. Obviously, there are times when moving the ball around the boundary line is the best option but the Collingwood model did this with breakneck speed a lot of the time.(Geelong closed down the Pies boundary line movement in round 8 of 2011)

The corridor is quite a large expanse of the ground in actuality. 20 - 25 metres in from the boundary line from the HBF to the HFF/FP is the corridor these days. So it's not as if the middle of the ground is a slim part of the ground - there is quite a lot of room. Our players need to learn how to 'gut run' into space. The coaching dept. need to knock the laziness out of our blokes.

I'd rather see the team play a far more enterprising brand of footy. If that means we get towelled up in the process on occasions then so be it. The greatest risk is not taking a risk.

"The boundary line is your friend" - not if you're not a highly skilled team. That style makes a poor/average team even worse. We saw the evidence last year. Other clubs last year could read our game plan like a book. We were so predictable. Of course, our players were being taught how to play a far more accountable brand of footy with a large emphasis on defensive skills. The side effect or consequences might have been that our players played a much more inhibited style. Fair enough but this is year 2 now.

We need to take the game on with a lot more 'spread', give and go handball, kicking to 'position' and we need to play on at all costs. And that includes using all areas of the ground.

What have we got to lose?

Edited March 17, 201312 yr by Macca

My biggest gripe is that over that last few seasons our players rarely shepherd.

In fact, I believe one of our biggest deficiencies is the lack of shepherding.

Protecting your teammates who have possession of the ball builds confidence and teamwork for everyone involved.

After that, being in the corridor or along the boundary is a matter of what suits the situation.

Edited March 17, 201312 yr by Robot Devil

Forget it, this game style is passe. Was effective as a short term phenomenem for a while but the best of the comp has worked it out and moved on. A well drilled, skilled and organised team could still be competative with it but we have none of those pre-requisites. I think we are thoroughly doomed this season if Neeld continues in this direction.

Edited March 17, 201312 yr by Muvver Jones

Rightly or wrongly, some fans look back on Bailey's time at the club with some fondness because whilst it might have been an unaccountable style, when we attacked we looked damn good. It was exciting watching the team take the game on, using the corridor at will and transitioning quickly from defence to attack.

In short, even if we were losing, there were things to cheer about.

The contrast between this and the style Neeld introduced was stark to say the least. Stripping everything back to the bare essentials and re-educating players in defensive structures definitely took its toll on the offensive side of things, with damage control appearing to be the main focus.

So when we were losing, which was often, there was very little to cheer about outside of a Howe hanger or a Blease goal on the run from an acute angle.

Hopefully the evidence in this pre-season of the gameplan evolving further will carry itself into the season. I agree with Macca that a far more enterprising style is called for this year. Different situations will call for different tactics, but fans want something to cheer about and get excited over. They need it to avoid feeling utterly demoralised, as was the feeling practically every weekend in 2012. More of the same is not sustainable in any sense.

If we could learn to attack and not butcher the ball any style would win us games. Our skills let us down with any style we play. I would take the corridor more and at the worst case try and create a stoppage in our forward 50. Our problem is our last kick into our forward line bounces ten times before reaching a player.

Will it matter?

We still have a serious shortage of players with the desired skill level.

Until that is remedied I not sure it will matter what game plan we use.

We don't want to be locked into a predictable pattern and need flexibility. However, playing the corridor generally also means shooting at goal from a more favourable angle and distance. Given that our kicking skills are, overall, so shite there is a certain logic to going that way when the opportunity permits.

The quickest way to the goals is straight up the middle of the ground. A skilled team who attacks through the corridor is unbeatable. Unfortunately we do not have the skill to do that.

We don't want to be locked into a predictable pattern and need flexibility. However, playing the corridor generally also means shooting at goal from a more favourable angle and distance. Given that our kicking skills are, overall, so shite there is a certain logic to going that way when the opportunity permits.

I guess it's also the quickest way to concede a goal when turning it over, which we have become famous for over the last few years. So we have to get the ball to our forwards if we are to get enough goals to win, but if we go the corridor and turn over, we're in trouble. As our disposal skills improve over he next two years (please god, they have to), Neeld may well direct us to go the corridor if a good opportunity presents.

There are times to work the line and times to use the corridor.

A well drilled tean with the skills to execute a plan will cut the holes wherever they exist.

Neeld and co will be preaching to the team what is required and when.

The game plan won't be broken doen into a single phrase.

This thread summarises what I have been on about for a long time - basically we should go direct to goal. This does not mean that we always play the narrow centre corridor and become predictable. What it does mean is that we should almost always move forward, sometimes changing direction sideways, so this 'corridor' changes slightly as we change direction, but quick forward movement is always the aim. It is a more risky style of play, but it will bring more success.

I'm the (as yet) sole voter for boundary line. I voted this way because I think that is what we are going to get this year. We hired a Collingwood assistant and we are going to play Neeld's version of Collingwood football. Despite the change of coach at Magpie land (and Mick's early season comments), they are still playing boundary line football, because they believe it works.

A highly under rated aspect of boundary line football is the fitness level required to make it work. It requires immense work rate from not just the midfield; you need at least a dozen players working their socks off to work into space from the middle of the ground to the wing.

Speed is crucial. Collingwood move the ball very quickly, kicking short out the backline and trying to play on and kick long into the forward line. Under Malthouse, they were also brilliant at chasing and tackling once the ball broke free of stoppages. They locked the ball in the forward line brilliantly.

Melbourne tried to do this too, but we simply didn't have enough short options out of the backline due to work rate/fitness. We play on at every opportunity but we simply don't take enough uncontested marks and hence the play breaks down on the half back flank, or wing. Hence the low possession count.

It will be interesting to see if Misson has added much in the way of fitness. Last year, our players didn't get into space nearly enough and the poor skills were (at least partly) a product of lack of fitness.

I think that we are also quite a few players short of having the right cattle and hence more recruiting is required.

Going always around the boundary makes us to predictable. need to be flexible. Nothing better than seeing Dunn barrel a torp to the middle and have our guys run on to it. Need to see more of that this year, but you can only do that sometimes. I liked the way we chipped it around in a couple of the Nab cup games until we found an option often that was off to through the middle as the opposition was expecting us to go around the boundary. Just our disposal let us down, which frankly if you have good disposal you should be able to go anyway you want.

Why are we so worried about turning the ball over in the spine of the ground? We literally have nothing to lose by going down the middle. If we continue to play that boundary hugging style (predominantly) we will continue to lose games. Unless our skill levels increase by an astronomical rate. What are the chances of that?

I saw some strong evidence in the practice games that we're going to be playing a lot more corridor football. Hope the trend continues. Playing the boundary does serve one purpose - it limits the damage. Big deal ! A loss is a loss. Obviously, there are times when moving the ball around the boundary line is the best option but the Collingwood model did this with breakneck speed a lot of the time.(Geelong closed down the Pies boundary line movement in round 8 of 2011)

The corridor is quite a large expanse of the ground in actuality. 20 - 25 metres in from the boundary line from the HBF to the HFF/FP is the corridor these days. So it's not as if the middle of the ground is a slim part of the ground - there is quite a lot of room. Our players need to learn how to 'gut run' into space. The coaching dept. need to knock the laziness out of our blokes.

I'd rather see the team play a far more enterprising brand of footy. If that means we get towelled up in the process on occasions then so be it. The greatest risk is not taking a risk.

"The boundary line is your friend" - not if you're not a highly skilled team. That style makes a poor/average team even worse. We saw the evidence last year. Other clubs last year could read our game plan like a book. We were so predictable. Of course, our players were being taught how to play a far more accountable brand of footy with a large emphasis on defensive skills. The side effect or consequences might have been that our players played a much more inhibited style. Fair enough but this is year 2 now.

We need to take the game on with a lot more 'spread', give and go handball, kicking to 'position' and we need to play on at all costs. And that includes using all areas of the ground.

What have we got to lose?

Great post Macca! I especially agree with the bit I highlighted. I can't remember the last time I saw us use a "give and go" to create space rather than just to get the ball to someone else so they can get tackled instead. We need to be moving when we don't have the ball, I used to preach that big time in my coaching days of footy and basketball and when players remember to do it it makes a much better team.

Great post Macca! I especially agree with the bit I highlighted. I can't remember the last time I saw us use a "give and go" to create space rather than just to get the ball to someone else so they can get tackled instead. We need to be moving when we don't have the ball, I used to preach that big time in my coaching days of footy and basketball and when players remember to do it it makes a much better team.

There's been some real evidence of a more enterprising style in the practice matches (by the way, I refuse to call those games anything but practice games) The switching of play has been pleasing to see and we've generally had a lot more possessions (which indicates we're sharing the ball more)

The loss to the GCS was probably a bit disconcerting for some because they are the GCS and we're supposed to beat them. A few things to remember though ... it was a practice match, we were far from full strength and only sent up a bare minimum of players. Also, they might have set themselves to win the game whereas it didn't seem we were that concerned about the result. The GCS will trouble a few sides this year.

We did reasonably well against Port, North and the Saints so you'd maybe give our pre-season a 6.5 out of 10. If Clark and Trengove had of played we would be a bit more buoyant. We've got quite a few 'winnable' games in the first 8 rounds of the season. It gets tougher after that but we've been given an opportunity to get some wins on the board.

The Coaching staff would have learnt a lot from last year and I'm reasonably confident we'll play a lot more 'corridor' footy. The big issue will continue to be our field kicking to position. Our confidence isn't great either - confidence can take you a long way.

We now have recruited quality tall forawrds, it only makes sense to go direct, get it in nice and fast for them as much as possible

Better placed to go direct more often.

Combined with flankers and runners to take advantage.

Our versatility will be of advantage.

Keen to see how we manage our players.

Will it matter?

We still have a serious shortage of players with the desired skill level.

Until that is remedied I not sure it will matter what game plan we use.

Hey listen Old Dee,

You have to pull yourself out of these doldrums. It's just as easy to look on the bright side as it is to be all gloomy about something over which we have no control. Lift your game sunshine.

My challenge to you is to post a positive thought every day until our season starts. Let's call it some pre-season training to prepare you for the glory that awaits all loyal Demon supporters as this year unfolds and reveals the light we've been waiting for. Our time is coming OD but you've got to believe!

Can you do it?

GO DEES!

I'm still the only one taking the boundary route. With increased fitness, the flexibility of our game will dramatically improve but I would be surprised if we were not a predominately boundary team this year. So, we either embrace Neeld's coaching, (perceived) warts and all, or we call for a new coach.

I'm going for the former this year, as I've been impressed with the way he has transformed the list in a short period of time, even if it is still very much a work in progress. I'm intrigued to see what he can do with the group.

Boundary football does not equate to indirect football. Last year, Collingwood remained a boundary team, but they are very quick with their ball movement and they kicked long and direct into the forward line. On the other hand, Carlton were not a boundary line team in 2012, but they were thoroughly indirect when moving the ball into attack. So in this comparison, the boundary team were far more direct. It all depends on the speed of the ball movement, which relies on work rate through the midfield, where players must lead from the corridor into space on the wing.

I just hope Misson has their fitness levels up significantly from last year.

Now when I played football, when was the last time you heard that.

We defended to the flanks until we were clear then attacked to CHF.

The forward flankers and on ballers were hovering around the CHF in case the ball spilled.

Today I don't really think that concept has changed.

The only thing is the pace and endurance.

Yes you may say they have zones, we had zones as well, but weren't fit enough to implement them

like they do these days.

Coaching has come a long way in the past 45 years. The plans good coaches have to break the strengths of the good teams are amazing.

I think Neeld is thinking man's coach he will adapt his plan to suit the cattle he has to work with.