Is the Malthouse (Neeld) Gameplan Untenable?

[BhimaWylie 18]

Recently I posted that a loose defensive press was the key reason for the high margin of Melbourne's losses this season (Winter is Coming if you're interested)

I just read this in The Age, in an article 'Carey's Carlton Warning' (see link below).

I have replaced only the names Mick Malthouse, Carlton and Brett Ratten with Mark Neeld, Melbourne and Dean Bailey - otherwise it is word for word (with some editing for continuity - see article for reference)

"AFL great Wayne Carey has suggested Mark Neeld may have to alter his defensive game plan if Melbourne is to rebound from a winless start to the season.

There are concerns aplenty less than a month into the season.

What will particularly worry Neeld is that the Dees have conceded more than 100 points in each of their games.

They look good when playing attacking football, as they did before half-time against West Coast at various stages on Saturday.

Advertisement

The Dees continue to give their opponents too much space, prompting Carey to declare: ''Melbourne don't have the defensive attitude.''

Carey said, unlike in his years at Collingwood, Neeld did not have the list necessary to enforce his famed defensive mantra.

''You have got to look at your cattle. I think Mark Neeld is starting to realise, 'Hang on, this side can't play the defensive footy that I like','' Carey said on Triple M.

''They don't have the personnel Collingwood had when he got to Collingwood.

"He has gone to Collingwood, they had some mature bodies.

''This [Melbourne] is a young, fast, take-on style game of footy. I think he is realising that they just can't play the style of game that he wants.''

The Demons had more of an attacking mantra under Neeld's predecessor, Dean Bailey."

Ultimately, it reaffirmed my view that a team unequipped to play a defensive zone will feel significant short term pain, regardless of who is coaching. Neeld may be as good a coach as Malthouse tactically, but if he is to persist, he must have backing from the board they will not sack him in the face of the further big losses Melbourne will undoubtably receive. It will be interesting to see how Neeld and Malthouse respond if the losses keep coming, and how the board responds. It makes me feel that Neeld needs more time and with a third pre-season under Misson, we may see the improvement we are craving.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/careys-carlton-warning-20130414-2htve.html#ixzz2QUxdfmxl

[jazza 1,323]

yep, its up from here. be positive

[Roost It 1,434]

Neeld must not be sacked

It's the midfield!

[DeeZee 7,296]

Not sure, but what Bailey was trying to develop was something similar to Geelongs, which has stood the test of time.

[Chook 14,997]

Really well put together. I have been thinking this about Carlton for weeks now, and I hadn't considered that it applied equally to us too. So should Mark Neeld change his gameplan or try to change his players instead?

[Guest]

Neeldy's implementation of his game plan should have been a progressive thing. The players played an almost opposite style under Bailey and that wasn't going to go away over night. Progressive tinkering should have been the order of the day.

[Hardnut 327]

The 'Collingwood' game plan got lucky once! The 'Geelong' game plan is a proven success - end of story!

[Cheap Seats 3,310]

Not sure, but what Bailey was trying to develop was something similar to Geelongs, which has stood the test of time.

Are we just not going to take in to account the average age and experience of the lists that play these game plans?

I would just like to see the MFC win some contested footy, centre clearances and be able to run the ball....

None of that has happened all year - talking about games plans is a joke if the players can't even win the footy in the first place

[Cheap Seats 3,310]

The 'Collingwood' game plan got lucky once! The 'Geelong' game plan is a proven success - end of story!

Bit harsh on the pies - I'll take their recent game winning and travel record anyday...

As pointed above in my last post - personell is the key - The MFC lacks a lot of quality and experience on the park

learship, experience and quality - you name it the MFC dosen't have it at the moment

Edited April 15, 2013 by Unleash Hell

[Hardnut 327]

Bit harsh on the pies - I'll take their recent game winning and travel record anyday...

As pointed above in my last post - personell is the key - The MFC lacks a lot of quality and experience on the park

learship, experience and quality - you name it the MFC dosen't have it at the moment

All MFC supporters should be harsh on the Pies!

Seriously, though, I do agree in general with the rest of your post.

Just a question - who got rid of the players you talk about?

[Return to Glory 8,213]

I kinda hope there's more than one game plan for starters.

[45HG 1,539]

All MFC supporters should be harsh on the Pies!

Seriously, though, I do agree in general with the rest of your post.

Just a question - who got rid of the players you talk about?

Bailey/Connolly

[Jerry Lundergard 420]

Neeld must not be sacked

It's the midfield!

I put it to you though, that Neeld has put a greater emphasis on getting big forwards to the club, rather than mids who can get first use of the ball, and hence, get the ball to those big guys.

Therefore, I lay the blame squarely at Neeld for this problem.

No gameplan works if you can't get a hold of the ball.

Almost everytime the ball was in dispute in a 50/50 contest in the 2nd half, West Coast won it through superior onballers.

[The heart beats true 17,783]

You can't turn Sylvia into Swan, Jones into Selwood and Trengove into Pendles. None of those teams had consistent 100 point floggings

to learn a gameplan. Look at what Ross Lyon has done at Freo. They didn't go backwards to go forwards. Lyon specifically said that you need to be competitive from the first game with a new group so you get buy in. Sanderson said the same thing.

We should be coached for competitive results so the players and supporters can believe again. That's what Sydeny have done for 15 years and its what we need to be concerned about. This nonsense about Premiership windows is only valid if you can develop and hold onto quality players. Lets start with being competitive in everything we do, and honestly that can't start with a coach with one win against an over 18s side from 25 games

I think he had the right idea with the hardest team to play against, but the results speak for themselves and with each passing game they scream louder and louder.

[Pennant St Dee 12,659]

The 'Collingwood' game plan got lucky once! The 'Geelong' game plan is a proven success - end of story!

You make your own luck Hardnut, Pies were a very good side in 2010/11 and were very unlucky not to go back to back. IMO we don't have nor have we ever had the cattle or the leadership to play the Geelong style.

Pies game plan with a bit of tweaking will also work. There is no set in concrete formula

[Cheap Seats 3,310]

All MFC supporters should be harsh on the Pies!

Seriously, though, I do agree in general with the rest of your post.

Just a question - who got rid of the players you talk about?

The assumption that we got rid of leaders that would lead this club is pretty funny

It did make me feel dirty admitting I respect the pies haha

[Deecisive 1,709]

I put it to you though, that Neeld has put a greater emphasis on getting big forwards to the club, rather than mids who can get first use of the ball, and hence, get the ball to those big guys.

Therefore, I lay the blame squarely at Neeld for this problem.

No gameplan works if you can't get a hold of the ball.

Almost everytime the ball was in dispute in a 50/50 contest in the 2nd half, West Coast won it through superior onballers.

But we won some of those 50/50's because we had players there to try to compete. Where we lost out was the shear number of uncontested possessions the westcoast and everyone else that beat us had in the centre of the ground, in the forward line, wing, backline everywhere. The only place we matched for pace was getting to the interchange bench.

[Cheap Seats 3,310]

I put it to you though, that Neeld has put a greater emphasis on getting big forwards to the club, rather than mids who can get first use of the ball, and hence, get the ball to those big guys.

Therefore, I lay the blame squarely at Neeld for this problem.

No gameplan works if you can't get a hold of the ball.

Almost everytime the ball was in dispute in a 50/50 contest in the 2nd half, West Coast won it through superior onballers.

There is a lot of blame getting around on this site....... and fair enough we've been poor

But very little towards the players........ I say this as I heard a interesting conversation on SEN on my way home from work. In summary Derm said he'd heard from Storm players (didn't name any names) that they were horrified at the lack of professionalism of MFC players..

That wasn't the only thing that was said and you can look it up if you like..... but that is pretty damning.

I guess my point is you can have the BEST game plan in the world - but if you haven't got the cattle what is the point??

[Ramayana 1]

Agreed BhimaWylie,

It is likely that Neeld has been surprised by the difficulty with which the Dees players have had towards understanding and executing the game plan. On most occasions last year and in our first three games this year (albeit the game against West Coast was hugely encouraging) the players have looked desperately confused about what exactly they are supposed to do, being a step behind and turning the ball over because of it and having their confidence smashed in the process.

As Colin pointed out it would have been better to introduce this game plan progressively, let the players have time to pull a 180 degree turn and then press forward (no pun intended) without suffering repeated confidence crushing defeats, a la the Doggies (albeit this season will attest to whether my point here is close to correct or not). The problem for Neeld is that it is unlikely he has any sort of answer for the situation he is facing, having been at Collingwood during a very successful era when 'The Press' was in full vogue and was probably naive in his understanding of how hard it can be to reformat a player's style of gameplay, having had no exposure (or as little as can be imagined) to it under Malthouse.

So Neeld has no choice but to keep on the chosen path and keep re-iterating the game plan and caring for the players in the process, while we all sit on the sidelines screaming into the cold wind. If this is what is to occur, we are all in for a long, long winter (two seasons at rock bottom compared to one!).

Unless of course, Neeld is a mercurial coach who has the courage to accept a change and go back to the basics, whilst building brick by brick a Dees' house that won't blow over. I hear the wind, and I'm looking at you Mark.

Go dees.

[Axis of Bob 11,161]

I put it to you though, that Neeld has put a greater emphasis on getting big forwards to the club, rather than mids who can get first use of the ball, and hence, get the ball to those big guys.

Therefore, I lay the blame squarely at Neeld for this problem.

Our drafting in the Neeld era:

Midfielders/runners - Taggert, Tynan, Couch, Magner, Toumpas, Viney, Barry, Byrnes, Rodan, Kent, Jones, Terlich, Stark, Clisby

Everyone else - Sellar, Clark, Dawes, Hogan.

I would put it to you that there has been a strong focus on strengthening our midfield.

Why must everyone make assertions without providing evidence?

[45HG 1,539]

Our drafting in the Neeld era:

Midfielders/runners - Taggert, Tynan, Couch, Magner, Toumpas, Viney, Barry, Byrnes, Rodan, Kent, Jones, Terlich, Stark, Clisby

Everyone else - Sellar, Clark, Dawes, Hogan.

I would put it to you that there has been a strong focus on strengthening our midfield.

Why must everyone make assertions without providing evidence?

Pederson/Gillies?

Byrnes has played mostly as a forward hasn't he?

I do agree with you, though. The club clearly see the need to improve the midfield. Save for getting in a Watson/Mitchell there's no quick fix, though.

[Cheap Seats 3,310]

Our problems run deeper the Neeld and the game plan

I do not buy it is all Neelds fault

Sadly there is no easy way out of this mess at the moment

[Fat Tony 5,074]

Our drafting in the Neeld era:

Midfielders/runners - Taggert, Tynan, Couch, Magner, Toumpas, Viney, Barry, Byrnes, Rodan, Kent, Jones, Terlich, Stark, Clisby

Everyone else - Sellar, Clark, Dawes, Hogan.

I would put it to you that there has been a strong focus on strengthening our midfield.

Why must everyone make assertions without providing evidence?

We traded picks #4, #12 and #20+ for KPF in the last two years.

[Cheap Seats 3,310]

We traded picks #4, #12 and #20+ for KPF in the last two years.

Are you suggesting these 18 year olds are going to step in and address the leadership issue at the club?

Their 0 years in the AFL system would give us the boost we need to compete in 2013?

Not sure how your statement address our on field problems now

Edited April 15, 2013 by Unleash Hell

[Strafford 182]

I agree with what Carey is saying in principle, just not in specifics. Carlton have for a number of years been pretty good at forward pressure, they also do have some reasonable defensive mids, such as Carrazzo and Robinson. They were also closer to the gameplan that won the Pies a flag a couple of seasons back, so the concepts shouldn't be unfamiliar to them. The big difference is that instead of kicking to Cloke they are kicking to Casboult, Rowe and a resting ruck. They also don't have a versatile player like Brown who was not only second ruck, but could play forward or back. When they tried to play two specialist rucks at Collingwood the system just didn't work as well.

As others have pointed out the world has also moved on, just as it did after the Hawks won the flag. The exact same gameplan that Malthouse used before will not work now. It just isn't good enough at retaining possession, without a bit of tweaking. It is just too easy to negate as the opposition knows exactly where you are going for all that it provides certainty for your own players.