I know it is a bit ridiculous to pin point one area tactically when there are so many problems. But now that I have settled down (a bit) this morning, I have one big area I think needs to be addressed on field straight away, and a few questions I am interested in in relation to it. So sorry for the long post, but here goes.

Last year our biggest on field problem was they we were continuously hammered in uncontested possessions, which is basically a sign that other teams spread harder than us from the contest and just worked far harder than us in general. Even in our more competitive efforts last year we were still smashed in this stat. Neeld was even asked about it repeatedly by the media, which he kept replying to by saying it was our ball use which was the reason for this as we couldn't string chains of possession together, which may have been part of the problem, but it is clearly more an issue of work rate and conservative mindsets not wanting to run and take the game on.

Now I have a couple of queries about this to pose to Mark Neeld.

1) What on earth was done to address this in terms of personnel in the off season? We attacked trade period very hard, but we were continuously being linked with tall after tall, despite our obvious lack of midfield quality. Dawes, Gillies, and Pedersen came in, and we even expressed an interest in Scott bloody Gumbleton. We drafted a couple of young mids which is all well and good, but they can't be expected to do much in their first couple of years (despite Viney being our best player yesterday). We bought in Shannon Byrnes and David Rodan, who although can play midfield, they are both predominantly small forwards (which is acceptable as this is another big deficiency). But who did we attack to bolster our midfield. Every name we were linked with in trade week was a 6 foot 4 plus. Does Neeld realise this is not basketball, we actually need to get the ball to these blokes first.

2) Where the fark was this apparent new fitness level? All pre season we have taken for a ride. The playing group are so much fitter are they, well it certainly didn't look like it. They looked just as out of shape as they did last year, the only difference was they gave even less of a [censored] yesterday then they have previously. I have never seen a side, and a pretty ordinary side at that, get so many extra numbers to every single contest and have so many players free all afternoon. Woeful.

3) Tactically, what on god's earth are you doing about it? We seem to be trying to implement some sort of zonal defensive structures through the middle of the ground. Well it ain't working. And I am not interested in hearing about premiership models and being competitive in the future. I want to go to the footy and see a [censored] decent game of football, not some experimental [censored] tactics that the group have clearly not even understood, let alone mastered. For me, players can easily hide in zonal defences. They aren't accountable for anyone, and everything can be someone else's problem. Hamish Hartlett, who I think is Port's best player, must still be laughing this morning how easy he was able to canter around the G collecting touches with ease.

My one short term request is that we play man on man against Essendon. Let's make every single player accountable. If your man is collecting easy touches, you get a spray. If your man waltzes forward and takes an uncontested mark 30 out right in front, you get a spray. No loose man [censored]. Jack Watts is one of the most mentally weak footballers I have ever seen, so we set him up to play as a loose man, and when it doesn't work, he is just let there. It is no good for this boy's development to be collecting cheapies across half back. Go earn a kick Jack.

Edited March 31, 201312 yr by Forest Demon

Why was no one within 5 metres of Boak all day?

What was Mckenzie doing by himself on the wing if he is the tagger?

Why play Tapscott and Nicholson ahead of Jetta and Terlich?

Why were no positional changes made when we were being thrshed?

Why was no one manning up in the backline?

Why did we have no forward line, yet when the Port Adelaide players got the ball in our forward line they were still able to find spare men everywhere and attack without us touching the footy?? Where were all our spare men that were supposed to be in the forward line??

Why was no one within 5 metres of Boak all day?

What was Mckenzie doing by himself on the wing if he is the tagger?

Why play Tapscott and Nicholson ahead of Jetta and Terlich?

Why were no positional changes made when we were being thrshed?

Why was no one manning up in the backline?

I can answer question 1,2 and 5 in one. We seem to be manning empty space by attempting to use a zone. However, when a Port player enters that space we still don't pick them up until the kick is already on its way and if their delivery is quick and quality then we had no chance.

Back to man on man I think. Or at least implement the defensive zone properly by being accountable for actual players instead of being so focused on looking at the empty space and where your team mates are. It reeked of training drill vs reality. Desperately need match practice

In the spirit of the above posts, the honeymoon is over.

Neeld brought a basic package to the club, defensive Collingwood/Malthouse game plan, (we will be the hardest club to play against) broad coaching panel, elite fitness team (Misson and Craig). I was encouraged after the Bailey era.

He took a stand on player types and attitude. Hard bodies was the motto, even if it left some questions on skill, potential and speed ( a group of go between VFL - AFL players). He took a stand on culture by hastening the departure of older experience particularly leadership. This was symbolised by the choice of Grimes and Trengove as Captains.

This is the base level he works from. It certainly offered a new era, but it left questions. Now into his second year and one game and big questions remain and if not careful will very quickly blow out into judgement time. Games against Ess, WC, had better be competative. If not judgement day will arrive on Sunday April 21st against GWS and Sunday 28 against Bris Lions.

Of course players must lift, but the real issue is whether Neeld can stand up from his base line package and show he has that extra that surving coaches have, carisma, tactical nous etc. Without these he will have so lost the respect of the club from players to supporters that there will be no coming back.

The month of April is judgement month for Mark Neeld.

ps. Re the Collingwood/Malthouse game plan, from general discussion it is very possibly that by the end of April Melbourne and Carlton will both be sitting on the bottom of the ladder with a record of zip and 5

Edited March 31, 201312 yr by Harrisonrules

I can answer question 1,2 and 5 in one. We seem to be manning empty space by attempting to use a zone. However, when a Port player enters that space we still don't pick them up until the kick is already on its way and if their delivery is quick and quality then we had no chance.

Back to man on man I think. Or at least implement the defensive zone properly by being accountable for actual players instead of being so focused on looking at the empty space and where your team mates are. It reeked of training drill vs reality. Desperately need match practice

Yep, has to be man on man. I just don't see any other option. We don't have another 3 years to sit back and learn if yesterday is any indicator of the performances we can expect in the meantime.

I can answer question 1,2 and 5 in one. We seem to be manning empty space by attempting to use a zone. However, when a Port player enters that space we still don't pick them up until the kick is already on its way and if their delivery is quick and quality then we had no chance.

Back to man on man I think. Or at least implement the defensive zone properly by being accountable for actual players instead of being so focused on looking at the empty space and where your team mates are. It reeked of training drill vs reality. Desperately need match practice

You are 100% correct, and therein have found the main reason we were beaten so badly yesterday.

Again it boils down to the coaching

So.....do we try and learn this zoning game plan at the risk of getting belted every week, or do we change to man on man?

Edited April 1, 201312 yr by DeeZee

Just watched a brief part of the reply in the first Qtr.

Port kicks a goal with a holding the ball against Jones to Cornes about 65m from goal. Sylvia and Hartlett are standing next to Jones (still on the ground) as Cornes gets up. Sylvia runs with his back towards the defense to presumably fill a hole. Cornes simply handballs to Harlett walking past who waltzes to 55m and bombs the goal. Stupid.

Next centre bounce Tapscott and Hartlett are on the wing and run into the contest, separating from each other. Ball up with Jones on the ground (again). Tapscott for some reason runs forward and leaves Hartlett free. Harlett gets the ball but Cornes get a free for something I'm not sure. Tappy by this stage has got back to the contest but instead of picking up his man he runs the other way to cover someone else who is no where near the contest. Hartlett gets the handball from Cornes again and waltzes to about 70m uncontested and roosts it long where Gillies spoils it over the line.

I could probably dissect dozens more examples, but that shows just how poorly a player of Hartletts ability was covered. Our blokes are simply unaccountable and stupid footballers

Why was no one within 5 metres of Boak all day?

What was Mckenzie doing by himself on the wing if he is the tagger?

Why play Tapscott and Nicholson ahead of Jetta and Terlich?

Why were no positional changes made when we were being thrshed?

Why was no one manning up in the backline?

I think the question of "Why did we not work hard enough?" would cover it

And if we conclude that we are as fit as Port then the answer becomes less tangible and relates to the mindset of the players.

I'd like to think that our next coach is someone who's had a successful career as a player. Somebody here may correct me, I suppose - too busy to look it up - but I believe our pasty three coaches only played about 200 games between them. None of them understood or experienced the effort required to sustain a long career (with apologies to Daniher, I suppose - I know he suffered a lot of injuries)

My football knowledge is nowhere near that of some of the other posters here, but my god it was painful to watch that old recycled, Malthouse "cling-to-the-boundary' then-bomb-it-to-the-outnumbered-forward' crap yesterday.

One of the things you have to grant Sheedy - he's turned into an egocentric pain in the butt, but he had the nous to develop a fine career with a minimum of natural talent - presumably he brought that nous to his coaching career.

If it was my team I would bring in Kent, Terlich, Evans, Jetta etc. I think Neeldy has a problem. Having all these players in the team doesn't fit to his structure. He needs some talls to bring ball to ground then crumbers. So he will have 2 talls in the team who are not in form only to adhere to structure compared to two inform smaller players. One example would b Kent showed more in pre season then Pederson but Pederson got a game. Then u look at Port Adelaide. Didn't really matter how many smaller players they had on the ground as they lead into space to receive the mark and keep possession. You would think we would have gone man on man after half time since we had more talent on the park to change game around.

On paper before the game, i thought we would ave won the key position one on ones.

Try to imagine my dissapointment when i saw we were zoning, and it wasnt working.