Even at my local footy club, if the opposition kicks two or three in a row we ask all the playerss to man up and play one on one for a quarter, because then you really find out about the players and there are no excuses . The first two games fir the Dees this year, i have never seen us play so loose.

Again , comes back to the coach?

Edited April 6, 201312 yr by DeeZee

Agreed Master Demon.

Its extroidinary that Neeld and the coaches and the players coukdnt think of anything to do beyond sticking together.

I could think of dozens of things starting with manning up. But tell me do you think they know what that means in the olld fashioned sense of the word. What about the mini conferences the backs had after each goal. Leave your man to have a 30 secomd mental/ physical break while you got talk with your team mates. No niggle, no pressure. That alone tells me Neeld is not right.

What about the beards,

What about sprinting onto the group

What about sprinting in the warm up

What about sprinting to your man

What about sprinting to the ball

What about punching the ball

What about sprinting when you get the ball.

Yes thats why its called a running game not a jogging game

And so I would have liked them to have talked about doing the little things properly.

And finally who agrees that if Tom Hafey had coached yesterday there would have been a better scoreline

It was the most common cry from MFC supporters in the Members last night... "MAN UP!" Mind you, there wasn't much else to get vocal about (don't you just hate gloating Bombers fans, worst sort).

Watching them the past 2 weeks, the most obvious problem with how they're being coached to play is a total lack of any effective defensive structures, which means we're always going to get hammered. There's effectively no defensive pressure, anywhere on the ground.

The Neeld/Craig game plan seems to involve some form of cunning zone defence (even if Neeld doesn't call it like that, what else is going on when for 4 qtrs they just floated into some space away from where the Bombers players were, which obviously meant when Essendon had possession, Bombers players were always first to the ball). It makes it so easy for the opposition to quickly and without much if any resistance move the ball quickly from end to end.

If that's not what the players are being asked to do, then why hasn't it been addressed by the coaches in 2 whole games and a week in between, now?

I could think of dozens of things starting with manning up. But tell me do you think they know what that means in the olld fashioned sense of the word. What about the mini conferences the backs had after each goal. Leave your man to have a 30 secomd mental/ physical break while you got talk with your team mates.

I wondered about those back-line mini-conferences too. What do you think they were saying to each other? I know what I would have liked to have said to them...

A cunning zone defense, where our players stand around like witches hats while the opposition players run off in different directions, so once the balls kicked in usually to an unmanned player our players either continue to zone up or try to find their man who is usually streaming off towards their goals with the ball. they had 200 extra possessions, that is not accountable football. How can you have accountable football when your primary job is to be a witches hat and stand there waving your arms around. The players are being given two contrary instructions that they cannot resolve during the game. Sure it worked in practice because when we played witches hats to ourselves our own sloppy kicked resulted in the turnovers, or we would stop the play and do it again until we got it right, real life is not like that. We are playing sides that kick to position well and do not turn it over, especially when there is no pressure on them.

A cunning zone defense, where our players stand around like witches hats while the opposition players run off in different directions, so once the balls kicked in usually to an unmanned player our players either continue to zone up or try to find their man who is usually streaming off towards their goals with the ball. they had 200 extra possessions, that is not accountable football. How can you have accountable football when your primary job is to be a witches hat and stand there waving your arms around. The players are being given two contrary instructions that they cannot resolve during the game. Sure it worked in practice because when we played witches hats to ourselves our own sloppy kicked resulted in the turnovers, or we would stop the play and do it again until we got it right, real life is not like that. We are playing sides that kick to position well and do not turn it over, especially when there is no pressure on them.

Exactly.

If this isn't how it actually is (and it seems Neeld is in denial about any form of zone defence), we've got 8 qtrs of evidence now that strongly suggests it. So either fix the zoning, or fix whatever it is that makes the players play like it.

Or face another possibly worse hammering next week.

It's more important to guard space than an opponent. Neeld is a spud.

I said to the missus even in country footy we are the first basics and thats MAN UP!! if we dont its straight to the bench and recieve a massive rocket from the coaches!

It is painful to watch the lack of effort and football smarts when it comes to Melbourne picking up opposition.

Part of the issue is that we just don't have leaders to out on the ground to tell teammates to man-up.

I'm might get crucified for saying this but....

I went last night and sat high behind the goals and I actually think our zone isn't the worst, when it worked really well and made good intercept marks at half back or forced them to attack wide.

The really issue was

A) got slaughtered at clearances (esp centre) so the zone became redundant

B) some horrible defensive blunders (gillies letting his man get goal side twice etc)

5 minutes into the 3rd we were mentally shot and it all went to pieces.

I also some nice attacking passages of play offensively that showed we have some plan and its not the worst (trengove shot from pocket)

In every sport there is a form of zone defense, in a true man on man we would get slaughtered (ie centre clearances) because we are just reactive, by creating a zone or releasing a spare man it forces sides to have to make decisions

I have coached another sport at a sub elite level and I reckon it's the players, the culture is obviously stuffed and needs rebuilding, have we hit rock bottom? I hope so. But the passages of play that we executed well shows a few glimmers and a potentially very long road.

We never man up. We never kick the ball down the middle, instead kicking it across goals and to the boundary. We never take our time when we mark, but instead quickly handball off, putting our teammate under pressure. Probably a few reasons why we never win.

What's with taking a mark and handballing it to a stationary player with opposition nearby?!?!

You have the mark - you are "safe." You can assess your options and help a teammate by giving them the footy in a good position.

Automatically handballing to a teammate nearby (and proceeding, usually, to not shepherd) with no options upfield (which was the reason for the handball in the first place, I presume) makes no sense to me 90% of the time.

Even at my local footy club, if the opposition kicks two or three in a row we ask all the playerss to man up and play one on one for a quarter, because then you really find out about the players and there are no excuses . The first two games fir the Dees this year, i have never seen us play so loose.

Again , comes back to the coach?

This is exactly what Paul Roos just said. In fact, he cited his kid's under 16 side which played yesterday as an example.

From my perspective, the worrying thing has been the clearances - we just can't get our hands on the ball. Ever.

Its the fact that we are so poor in the clearances that we must man up even more.

The zone may work against teams like melbourne that cannot kick to position, you then get a cheap possession when they screw up. Against the top AFL teams you cannot give them a meter much less 5 or more meters. We are handicapping our players by them starting at least 5 meters behind the opposition. how are you going to lay tackles if first you have to catch your opponent. The playing a spare man in defense also always kills us as the opposition run off us using that spare man as our players leave their player to intercept only to have the ball handpassed or kicked over their head to the player they left, this is repeated all the way down the field until they goal, or in the odd occasions we intercept or they kick a point, at which time we turn the ball over because the opposition is playing man on man.

Man to Man leaves it with a contest and chance. Who is on what side of the ball, who can use their body or run on to it, etc... leaving the opposition to run into space that we have no witches hats (read MFC player) resulted in goal after goal, while our players were protecting the corridor, etc..

The zone may work against teams like melbourne that cannot kick to position, you then get a cheap possession when they screw up. Against the top AFL teams you cannot give them a meter much less 5 or more meters. We are handicapping our players by them starting at least 5 meters behind the opposition. how are you going to lay tackles if first you have to catch your opponent. The playing a spare man in defense also always kills us as the opposition run off us using that spare man as our players leave their player to intercept only to have the ball handpassed or kicked over their head to the player they left, this is repeated all the way down the field until they goal, or in the odd occasions we intercept or they kick a point, at which time we turn the ball over because the opposition is playing man on man.

Man to Man leaves it with a contest and chance. Who is on what side of the ball, who can use their body or run on to it, etc... leaving the opposition to run into space that we have no witches hats (read MFC player) resulted in goal after goal, while our players were protecting the corridor, etc..

Exactly right. While every other side has since 2010 perfected how to beat the zone defence and goes man-on-man when the other team has the ball, we're still playing zone defence because that's all the coach knows.

I'm not much of a football tactician but I propose the following:

When we have the ball:

Run hard and into space away from the opposition to create opportunity or protect the ball carrier. Eg. Shepherding

When we do not have the ball:

Attempt to obtain the ball - hard ball get or loose ball get or tap to advantage.

When the opposition have the ball:

Every player should be in an opposition player's pocket ready to tackle, spoil or generally harass.

Am I underthinking it?

Even at my local footy club, if the opposition kicks two or three in a row we ask all the playerss to man up and play one on one for a quarter, because then you really find out about the players and there are no excuses . The first two games fir the Dees this year, i have never seen us play so loose.

Again , comes back to the coach?

Its got me stumped.

Neeld said yesterday we don't play a zone. So WTF do we play??? Witches hats??

I'm might get crucified for saying this but....

I went last night and sat high behind the goals and I actually think our zone isn't the worst, when it worked really well and made good intercept marks at half back or forced them to attack wide.

The really issue was

A) got slaughtered at clearances (esp centre) so the zone became redundant

B) some horrible defensive blunders (gillies letting his man get goal side twice etc)

5 minutes into the 3rd we were mentally shot and it all went to pieces.

I also some nice attacking passages of play offensively that showed we have some plan and its not the worst (trengove shot from pocket)

In every sport there is a form of zone defense, in a true man on man we would get slaughtered (ie centre clearances) because we are just reactive, by creating a zone or releasing a spare man it forces sides to have to make decisions

I have coached another sport at a sub elite level and I reckon it's the players, the culture is obviously stuffed and needs rebuilding, have we hit rock bottom? I hope so. But the passages of play that we executed well shows a few glimmers and a potentially very long road.

Well, I completely missed this. If this zonal defence was working an iota, would they not also have a plan b? If it merely takes the winning of clearances against you to clear the zone, it's a very flimsy plan.

I do agree however that the game was lost from the middle. The ease with which Essendon cleared the ball from the centre stoppages was beyond alarming. I know we've got a young midfield, but surely they'd be going man on man and not zonal. You can't do that from the stoppages. That said, I noticed Jones playing an odd little zoning role at times during Essendon forward thrusts.

Neeld said yesterday we don't play a zone. So WTF do we play??? Witches hats??

We do play a zone. You are wrong, Mark.

I wonder how confusing it would be to play under the tight control of a man who calls black white?

Edited April 7, 201312 yr by robbiefrom13

Our players don't want to gut run to pick up the spare man, or are jogging at 50% and then realise the ball is coming to their opponent and then run at full tilt, only to get there 5m from the player when they mark the ball! So frustrating.

Just watched the start of the game (only part I can watch again). And when Terlich turned over a kick into the centre from the backline there was Blease and I think 2 other players in the vicinity who should have sprinted back to defensive 50 to make sure no Bombers forwards or midfielders could run in for an easy uncontested mark. But they didn't and Davey took an uncontested mark at 40m with Watts and McDonald arriving 2 secs late