MN aparently is trying to emulate the pies Game plan, are our players suited to it? how long till we see it?

All i see on field is players confused garding space and leaving the oposition players free, when we do get the ball we go long down the boundry even when its not the best option ie two on ones. Does MN have a plan B he can turn to when were getting smashed, all we seem to do is flood the back line.

Id like to see us play man on man for four quaters this week. Thoughts?

Casey Scorpions & Melbourne Demons are supposedly playing the same game plan.

Casey had a sizeable win on the weekend. The gameplan works, the players understand it, the seniors just need to execute it.

Casey Scorpions 8.2.50 14.4.88 19.8.122 23.11.149
Frankston 6.3.39 8.5.53 10.8.68 12.9.81

Our gameplan is to stand 5 metres away from your opponent.

If the ball comes into your area run like hell to try and spoil or mark.

If you dont get there in time, stand onthe mark and wave yor arms.

Its two different scenario benson

What game plan??? I wish I knew what the players instruction is.

If there is a game plan it's a sure bet the players have no idea how to implement it

2 clear problems with whatever game plan we are trying to implement.

1. We never get first use of the ball so are always on the defensive

2, We have no initiators - no one leads (with the exception of Clark), no-one takes the game on, demanding they kick the ball to them - seems they are all too scared to make a mistake. Too many shrinking violets, no ball breakers

It sure looks like chaos.

Removing the idea of an overly complex "game plan" from the equation for a minute, I am bewildered as to why the really obvious things don't get adjusted during a game. (EG Man up, Tell Jamar to adjust his trajectory after the umteenth smashing etc etc).

Are the directives coming from the coaches? Is it a communication problem? Are the players rebelling? FFS WTF is going on?

Agree with Tricky.

That's what surprises me most - complete lack of flexibility from the coaching box. Sign of lack of confidence/experience.

Bloke who's served as an assistant to a control freak like Malthouse would have no initiative.

Not hard to imagine why the Collingwood mob gave him a strong endorsement.

It sure looks like chaos.

Removing the idea of an overly complex "game plan" from the equation for a minute, I am bewildered as to why the really obvious things don't get adjusted during a game. (EG Man up, Tell Jamar to adjust his trajectory after the umteenth smashing etc etc).

Are the directives coming from the coaches? Is it a communication problem? Are the players rebelling? FFS WTF is going on?

Exactly my piont MN plan may work with a experianced squad, i think he needs to strip it back to man on man tell them beat your opponent and when were in possession every player must Run give a option atm no one runs into space. Then as the players get better and there confidance comes back slowley implement the plan.

We have one?

To me this is the source of most of our on field problems. It's not that the game plan cannot work rather the way it's was implemented. Neeld has come into a club that had little or no defensive abilities but on the other hand a free flowing attacking style. Rather than observe and evaluate what the playing group were capable of he has wiped the board clean and started afresh with a game plan devised for the Collingwood playing group. in effect he has made a major mistake of going to hard to soon, our players were not in a position to execute such a game plan.This in turn has the players confused and playing with little or no confidence. The net result is that he has either lost the players or is in the process of losing them. He was right in one sense that the players fitness was below AFL standard and given their new fitness levels one wonders how they would be performing today playing their older game style with a slight tweaking of defensive accountability. In other words making small incremental changes rather than wholesale changes. It's my guess that Neeld probably came to club under the assumption that they were an undisciplined rabble that needed a hard task master to pull them into line. This I believe was another mistake. He needed to gain the groups trust first and foremost. Again I suspect going to hard too early. All of this goes someway to explaining the last two weeks of on field performance. What can he do to recitify the situation? I believe he needs to readjust the game plan to a simple digestible one that the players can understand and adopt, something that does not require to much thought but relies more on instinct than analysis. A game plan that will allows them to rediscover their love of the game and with that their own confidence in their ability to play it. With time he might win them back and we might have a team worthy of going to the football to watch.

I like your analysis Outside fifty... and your advice!

It's not that the game plan cannot work rather the way it's was implemented. Neeld has come into a club that had little or no defensive abilities but on the other hand a free flowing attacking style.

We also have few (read "no") game breakers. A bit easier to build a gameplan (any gameplan for that matter) around a midfield of Swan, Pendelbury, Beames,Ball & Sidebottom and a decisive ruckman in Jolly.

We also have few (read "no") game breakers. A bit easier to build a gameplan (any gameplan for that matter) around a midfield of Swan, Pendelbury, Beames,Ball & Sidebottom and a decisive ruckman in Jolly.

Why cant we devellop Grime trenneres blease tappy and the rest of them like they have done.

Its definetly a development thing at Melbourne did you see that young pie kick 6 on the weekend every team brings in kids that imediatly look better then ours they dont rush games into them ala watts toumpas they teach them first so there ready and dont get sapped for confidence in there first game. We should be trying to pretect the young players till there ready.

I liked the post someone put on another thread.

Keep in simple - Every player has to lay 5 tackles and a tackle means - tackle with force and bury the opponent, make him hurt. ATM who gives a stuff if they give a free kick away, I want to see some pain and fear on the opponents face. If everyone achieved their quota, what an awesome display, 100+ bone crunching tackles - now that's what I'd pay to see every day of the week.

Apart from 80% of the players going kick chasing, bombing the ball long down the line and not running and spreading do we even have a game plan? I haven't seen evidence of Neeld's game plan at all to be honest. If we do actually have a game plan can someone please explain it to me? I'm all ears.

I am sure the game plan is not rubbish.

But Neeld has not been able to get his players to remotely get near to playing it well.

He has also failed to get them to play competitive football at their, granted mediocre, best.

If he wants to keep his job he will simplify everything - play one-on-one all over the ground and implore the players to run and carry the footy.

If the players want him to keep his job - they will respond.

ive had my worst week like the rest and my negative thoughts are about gone, its onward and upward from here on in, im looking for any positive, if you beleive you definately feel better. so 2 years ago against the eagles at the dome watts took on the gorillas and did ok. blease , howe not bad games either.

In simple terms the game plan can be divided into three areas; firstly when we have control of the ball, secondly when the ball is in dispute and thirdly when the opposition has the ball. Watching the first two weeks live and also video footage, our problems are:

1. We are not getting first use of the ball enough, partly due to inexperienced midfield and Jamar is often beaten in the contest. One possible solution Gawn to take centre bounces, then drop back to forward line,Jamar to do the leg work whilst Gawn's fitness level develops.

2. Ball in dispute, this comes back to work ethic and relates to 3. Need to ensure when 3 happens that their second or third possesion is a contest, far too often on Saturday night we allowed Essendon to have non contested possesions.

3. Our biggest failure in this area is an aspect that can be coached, we have far too many players who spectate/watch the contest from a distance rather than moving into the correct positons. How often did a Melbourne player react too late and allow an Essendon player to receive the ball under no presure. Need to learn when to go the contest and when to stand on the oppositions toes/ stand where the ball is going next.

To me this is the source of most of our on field problems. It's not that the game plan cannot work rather the way it's was implemented. Neeld has come into a club that had little or no defensive abilities but on the other hand a free flowing attacking style. Rather than observe and evaluate what the playing group were capable of he has wiped the board clean and started afresh with a game plan devised for the Collingwood playing group. in effect he has made a major mistake of going to hard to soon, our players were not in a position to execute such a game plan.This in turn has the players confused and playing with little or no confidence. The net result is that he has either lost the players or is in the process of losing them. He was right in one sense that the players fitness was below AFL standard and given their new fitness levels one wonders how they would be performing today playing their older game style with a slight tweaking of defensive accountability. In other words making small incremental changes rather than wholesale changes. It's my guess that Neeld probably came to club under the assumption that they were an undisciplined rabble that needed a hard task master to pull them into line. This I believe was another

mistake. He needed to gain the groups trust first and foremost. Again I suspect going to hard too early. All of this goes someway to

explaining the last two weeks of on field performance. What can he do to recitify the situation? I believe he needs to readjust the game plan to a simple digestible one that the players can understand and adopt, something that does not require to much thought but relies more on instinct than analysis. A game plan that will allows them to rediscover their love of the game and with that their own confidence in their ability to play it. With time he might win them back and we might have a team worthy of going to the football to

watch.

A very good post. Another problem is the lack of defensive skills of many young players coming into the system. If you have a young team this process is going to be harder. We also seem to have a few players stuck in the process rather than what they are trying to acieve. That is being so consumed by setting up their zone, but not actually stopping the oppo getting the ball, the supposed end product.

In simple terms the game plan can be divided into three areas; firstly when we have control of the ball, secondly when the ball is in dispute and thirdly when the opposition has the ball. Watching the first two weeks live and also video footage, our problems are:

1. We are not getting first use of the ball enough, partly due to inexperienced midfield and Jamar is often beaten in the contest. One possible solution Gawn to take centre bounces, then drop back to forward line,Jamar to do the leg work whilst Gawn's fitness level develops.

2. Ball in dispute, this comes back to work ethic and relates to 3. Need to ensure when 3 happens that their second or third possesion is a contest, far too often on Saturday night we allowed Essendon to have non contested possesions.

3. Our biggest failure in this area is an aspect that can be coached, we have far too many players who spectate/watch the contest from a distance rather than moving into the correct positons. How often did a Melbourne player react too late and allow an Essendon player to receive the ball under no presure. Need to learn when to go the contest and when to stand on the oppositions toes/ stand

where the ball is going next.

Welcome.

I guess it is transitional play as well. We just don't move quickly enough into the different phases of the game. A great deal of that is confidence in yourself and in your teammates to execute. If you look at the better sides they have confidence that their blokes will win a contest or execute a pass, so they can set up much more quickly. Our guys hesitate simply because they just aren't sure at times.

It sure looks like chaos.

Removing the idea of an overly complex "game plan" from the equation for a minute, I am bewildered as to why the really obvious things don't get adjusted during a game. (EG Man up, Tell Jamar to adjust his trajectory after the umteenth smashing etc etc).

Are the directives coming from the coaches? Is it a communication problem? Are the players rebelling? FFS WTF is going on?

In simple terms the game plan can be divided into three areas; firstly when we have control of the ball, secondly when the ball is in dispute and thirdly when the opposition has the ball. Watching the first two weeks live and also video footage, our problems are:

1. We are not getting first use of the ball enough, partly due to inexperienced midfield and Jamar is often beaten in the contest. One possible solution Gawn to take centre bounces, then drop back to forward line,Jamar to do the leg work whilst Gawn's fitness level develops.

2. Ball in dispute, this comes back to work ethic and relates to 3. Need to ensure when 3 happens that their second or third possesion is a contest, far too often on Saturday night we allowed Essendon to have non contested possesions.

3. Our biggest failure in this area is an aspect that can be coached, we have far too many players who spectate/watch the contest from a distance rather than moving into the correct positons. How often did a Melbourne player react too late and allow an Essendon player to receive the ball under no presure. Need to learn when to go the contest and when to stand on the oppositions toes/ stand where the ball is going next.

Good post, you have summarised it quite well IMO.

No matter how down on confidence or mentally draining it may or may not be, basics like tackling, pressuring opponent, being accountable and encouraging are non negotiables.

I know the speech was over 90 mins from game time, but when they walked out you could be excused for thinking they were filing out of church. Perhaps Neeld isn't the ra, ra, ra type of coach and he is a strong willed calm and calculated coach. One thing you must do as a coach is to know your players and how best to get them up.

Guys like Royal, Craig, Rawlings and even Brown who have seen first hand other coaches, should know if Neeld has the players or not.

The game plan should be simple. When you don't have the ball, stand on your opponents toes. When you do have the ball spread like F**k. and give your team a lot of options.

I think that our game plan is just to complex to the point that it looks like we don't have one. I know everyone hates hearing it but Neeld needs to go right back to the basics - have a simple gameplan (for structures/setups) but when it comes to play it should be man on man when we don't have the ball (not trailing 10m behind the man) and when we do have the ball players should move it quickly. I think this is our biggest down fall - we just don't move the ball quickly and therfore the opposition can set up defensive structures and get numbers back. Recently we have heard all this talk about the coaches needing to show that they trust the players, what better way than to just tell them to play using their instinct when they have the ball. (if we have numbers down the line - go down the line, if we have a man lose in the middle go to him, if one thinks they can take the game on - let them). If it wasn't for this complex gameplan we would not have opposition being 30m in the open.

When we have the ball spread/play on/use instinct When we don't have the ball - play man on man

Good post, you have summarised it quite well IMO.

No matter how down on confidence or mentally draining it may or may not be, basics like tackling, pressuring opponent, being accountable and encouraging are non negotiables.

I know the speech was over 90 mins from game time, but when they walked out you could be excused for thinking they were filing out of church. Perhaps Neeld isn't the ra, ra, ra type of coach and he is a strong willed calm and calculated coach. One thing you must do as a coach is to know your players and how best to get them up.

Guys like Royal, Craig, Rawlings and even Brown who have seen first hand other coaches, should know if Neeld has the players or not.

http://demonland.com/forums/index.php?/topic/26035-non-negotiables/

2 years on and we still don't appear close to having them!