I've scanned 12 pages of this forum and found not thread labelled gameplan to which I could add this because we have been so consumed with scandal and sackings.

One thing: all those who reckon Neeld has no game plan should take a look not at that glorious final quarter yesterday, but the first quarter. Despite what The Age says this am, we outplayed GWS in the first term and with better finishing would have been three or four goals up at the break.

What was noticeable to me was the urgency in our ball movement. Players were looking to give off after a mark to keep the ball heading forward, or they played on themselves. There was overlap run and run and carry.

It is a much more aggressive style than has been attributed to Neeld who obviously either freed the players from total defense or is a more nuanced character than has been credited. There was a bit of Geelong in the intent, which is encouraging since it is an attractive brand of football that people want to see.

The quick fire style is clearly a work in progress: too many handpasses were misjudged or poorly executed for us to truly put them to the sword but the intent was there.

Also yesterday with Mitch, Gawn and Pedo starting forward together we were shown a hint of the structure Neeld wants to go with. Those who have bagged his recruiting of Burns, Rodan, Gillies, Pedo etc might have to pull their heads in a tad. Burns was crucial to keeping us in it in the dreadful second term (where did that run and urgency go?) and I thought we all knew in any case that he was recruited as much for what he takes to training as his game day stuff but yesterday he shone,

And Pedo's contested marks were important. He did not get much of it but made great use of his opportunities.

I know the opposition wasn't much and they outplayed us at times but coming from behind is a better way to win than an all day cruise. Enjoy the fact we tried to play to a style, showed some grit and wrote some history.

It certainly appeared far more flamboyant and far less static than we have seen so far.

Was this because we finally came up against less experienced opponents?

Or was it, hopefully, that the group have finally found out what the plan really is and have found the confidence to use it?

Time will tell.

look again ' Gameplan' started on 10 april by me

Seemed to be less switching to the fat side.

Although there are faults in his game (see 357 other threads on the topic), kick outs after behinds are so much better when Jack Watts takes them.

My main criticism was the very wide leading from full forward by Clark and Howe. Shots on goal from the boundary line are exciting when they go through but generally a low percentage option.

And one other thing I noticed. Players seemed to trust their teammates more, so we had fewer instances of multiple defenders trying to spoil so that we had players on the ground to tidy up.

We played GWS and were outplayed for close to 3 quarters.

That is a hell of a game plan.

I think it is fair to say that the players have been overly defensive and have had no confidence to use their natural playing instinct. In my view this has been taken away by Neeld trying to drum in to them, defensive structure and defensive game plan.

At this point of time the players urgently need to regain confidence. I don't think this is going to be regained in the Neeld defensive game plan. Neeld needs to let them off the hook for a few weeks. Play one on one, every player is accountable yet every player has the freedom to play offensive football, when in possession.

If we play the Neeld defensive game plan next week, we will lose. Simply the game plan has too many holes and oppositions know how to overcome it. This combined with an inability of our players to execute that plan will result in a certain loss, and loss of confidence. If they are let off the hook, we could just jag another win. This is what the club really needs.

We played GWS and were outplayed for close to 3 quarters.

That is a hell of a game plan.

I rarely ignore a terrible quarter because I know it takes 4 quarters or 120 mins of effort to win games of footy. I was appalled at what happened in the third quarter against WCE.

Don't just ignore the good like that. It is not fair to the players, the club, or yourself.

I think it is fair to say that the players have been overly defensive and have had no confidence to use their natural playing instinct. In my view this has been taken away by Neeld trying to drum in to them, defensive structure and defensive game plan.

If they are let off the hook, we could just jag another win. This is what the club really needs.

I don't think they have been 'on the hook' - they just haven't had the confidence to play bold footy.

In the end that comes down to Neeld but don't absolve the players from their timidity by trying to sell the story that it is the product of instruction from the coach.

They have to get on top of their own intuitions and demons. Neeld's future will be determined by his ability to help them do that.

And, yes, it would be progress to play with boldness and cohesion against the Lions.

In the past, MFC players would be pleased with a win (over whomever) and they would become comfortable.

Progress would be a team that is not satisfied with themselves and looking for more.

I rarely ignore a terrible quarter because I know it takes 4 quarters or 120 mins of effort to win games of footy. I was appalled at what happened in the third quarter against WCE.

Don't just ignore the good like that. It is not fair to the players, the club, or yourself.

I don't think they have been 'on the hook' - they just haven't had the confidence to play bold footy.

In the end that comes down to Neeld but absolve the players from their timidity by trying to sell the story that it is the product of instruction from the coach.

They have to get on top of their own intuitions and demons. Neeld's future will be determined by his ability to help them do that.

And, yes, it would be progress to play with boldness and cohesion against the Lions.

In the past, MFC players would be pleased with a win (over whomever) and they would become comfortable.

Progress would be a team that is not satisfied with themselves and looking for more.

Yes.

We played GWS and were outplayed for close to 3 quarters.

That is a hell of a game plan.

Not true: even the Sun labelled our first quarter 'great'. We were lousy for the second and much of the third quarters but don't exaggerate.

We played GWS and were outplayed for close to 3 quarters.

That is a hell of a game plan.

Totally agree....We played a less than full GWS squad minus players and I think we were outplayed also alot of the game..Its just that something went right in the final qtr.

Maybe Endeavour and a we wont die attitude finally turned up for once..

On another note..

Michael Evans game was good.

And whilst we want to tear strips off Neeld - are we to believe that he turned into a coach for the final quarter ? why arent we prepared to lay responsibility for where it must clearly sit - and that is with the players . This is certainly not an "all or nothing" statement and the coaches must take some responsibility for not being able to help with the lack of confidence, endeavor, daring or general go that players have displayed but in the end it comes back to the cattle on the field.

Garland was a clear example - played the first three and half weeks - grabbing opponents, giving 3 metre starts and being completely reactive - this is not coaching - this is player mindset - the last quarter what does he do - he takes the game on - sits on his man - actually plays in front and played with daring and initiative - bingo !

RP and Nutbean have hit the nail on the head.

No gameplan works with flat footed, frightened footballers.

Each employee of the club bears the responsibility of the first 3 rounds. Did we learn something from the first half against WCE and our last qtr against GWS?

game plan from the coaching staff and commitment to execute it have both been very ordinary so far this year.

arguing over which is the bigger issue doesnt help.

I just hope that this weeks win can spark us up for better performances through the remainder of the season.

I can live with losing as we rebuild (again) but weeks of completely uncompetitive dross [censored] me to tears and do not add anything to the development of the club

I think it is fair to say that the players have been overly defensive and have had no confidence to use their natural playing instinct. In my view this has been taken away by Neeld trying to drum in to them, defensive structure and defensive game plan.

At this point of time the players urgently need to regain confidence. I don't think this is going to be regained in the Neeld defensive game plan. Neeld needs to let them off the hook for a few weeks. Play one on one, every player is accountable yet every player has the freedom to play offensive football, when in possession.

If we play the Neeld defensive game plan next week, we will lose. Simply the game plan has too many holes and oppositions know how to overcome it. This combined with an inability of our players to execute that plan will result in a certain loss, and loss of confidence. If they are let off the hook, we could just jag another win. This is what the club really needs.

I guess we will never really know just what Neeld said to them at the 3/4 break: could he have said just that. In a way I hope he did, takes in the result, and allows it again, even in a modified form.

Probably being a bit simplistic, but ....

We played GWS and were outplayed for close to 3 quarters.

That is a hell of a game plan.

Pathetic comment.

Sydney got towelled by Geelong in the second half. Does that make their game plan crap? No, it doesn't.

The OP is right. We definitely tried to move the ball quicker with more running overlap. Our skills were awful, which led to turnovers and fumbles and general poor play, but that's not the game plan's fault, that's the execution. It's a clearly different concept.

Pathetic comment.

Sydney got towelled by Geelong in the second half. Does that make their game plan crap? No, it doesn't.

The OP is right. We definitely tried to move the ball quicker with more running overlap. Our skills were awful, which led to turnovers and fumbles and general poor play, but that's not the game plan's fault, that's the execution. It's a clearly different concept.

For most the game, it was a sloppy display of football, thankfully our last quarter was the best football we have played in a long long time.

But the gap between our best and worst on a performance level is worrying.

How a team can go from very bad to very good.

I'd like to see the AFL talk Paul Roos into coaching us so we can see more good performances on a regular basis.

Big part of the game plan is drawing the player in to free up a runner. Teams can score quickly from that overlap, and I was seeing glimpses of what Neeld was trying with that.

The part the players are yet to grasp is timing their runs to get in the perfect spot for the overlap. Should come with confidence.

For most the game, it was a sloppy display of football, thankfully our last quarter was the best football we have played in a long long time.

But the gap between our best and worst on a performance level is worrying.

How a team can go from very bad to very good.

I'd like to see the AFL talk Paul Roos into coaching us so we can see more good performances on a regular basis.

i would like to talk to the players to see if we can see more good performances on a regular basis..after all they are ones who delivered us almost 15 quarters of shite and one quarter of excellence.

Because apparently Neeld coached them poorly for 15 quarters but coached exceptionally for one.

we look so much better when we attack and take the ball through the corridor.

I'd like to see the AFL talk Paul Roos into coaching us so we can see more good performances on a regular basis.

I wouldn't hold your breath on that.

Interestingly Neeld indicated in one of the papers today that he felt we were going too wide in the first 3 quarters and reminded the players to bring it through the middle a bit more. We still had too many shots from the pockets in the last quarter but it's hard to say if this was due to the mids kicking it there or the forwards leading there.

I said to my brother yesterday during the 3rd quarter that our structures and set-ups were non-existant compared to GWS who had started to run rings around us at that stage. I commented that it felt like we had no real "plan" other than play the percentages wide and bang it on the foot and hope someone gets it upfield. He commented that he felt we were trying to move the ball down the field in a "wave" just through sheer weight of numbers around the ball but more often than not it was not coming off as we had men out of position leading to handballing in circles or to someone in trouble and/or flatfooted. Either way to that point we agreed that most of our goals had come through "luck" or just bashing it forward rather than any real structure.

It's one thing I've been trying to get my head around and is difficult when we get belted out of the middle and on the scoreboard but I'd like to see others comments on what our "game plan", structures and tactics/strategy is. The lazy media just keep spewing out the "Neeld follows Malthouse's around the boundary style" which is far too simplistic and more akin to an under 15 game plan.

i thought the firsst quater,we looked good when we hunted in numbers and used the ball. We stopped doing that in the second and third quater.

It's important that there have been a number of rule changes in the past 2 seasons designed to keep the game flowing more. Reducing interchange rotations, the "contact below the knees", giving less time for restarts at stoppages and kick-ins.

This rewards faster more direct ball movement, precise disposal, running and kicking into space, and so on - uncontested possessions!! - and a number of teams have responded accordingly. It makes it so much harder to use a zone defence and "the press", to play wide and move the ball forwards slowly by kicking to contests. Besides, most teams spent 2011 and 2012 working out how to beat the press, and most do it easily.

2013 is so totally different to 2010 & 2011. If Neeld is flexible enough to realise this and to change the gameplan from now on, things could start looking up. Who knows, he may even have the smarts to be the first to work out a counter to the fast attacking style of 2013 - somebody will work it out sooner or later, and it may as well be us. But he needs to face the fact that his 2010 playbook is outdated and let a new one be written.

I've scanned 12 pages of this forum and found not thread labelled gameplan to which I could add this because we have been so consumed with scandal and sackings.

One thing: all those who reckon Neeld has no game plan should take a look not at that glorious final quarter yesterday, but the first quarter. Despite what The Age says this am, we outplayed GWS in the first term and with better finishing would have been three or four goals up at the break.

What was noticeable to me was the urgency in our ball movement. Players were looking to give off after a mark to keep the ball heading forward, or they played on themselves. There was overlap run and run and carry.

It is a much more aggressive style than has been attributed to Neeld who obviously either freed the players from total defense or is a more nuanced character than has been credited. There was a bit of Geelong in the intent, which is encouraging since it is an attractive brand of football that people want to see.

The quick fire style is clearly a work in progress: too many handpasses were misjudged or poorly executed for us to truly put them to the sword but the intent was there.

Also yesterday with Mitch, Gawn and Pedo starting forward together we were shown a hint of the structure Neeld wants to go with. Those who have bagged his recruiting of Burns, Rodan, Gillies, Pedo etc might have to pull their heads in a tad. Burns was crucial to keeping us in it in the dreadful second term (where did that run and urgency go?) and I thought we all knew in any case that he was recruited as much for what he takes to training as his game day stuff but yesterday he shone,

And Pedo's contested marks were important. He did not get much of it but made great use of his opportunities.

I know the opposition wasn't much and they outplayed us at times but coming from behind is a better way to win than an all day cruise. Enjoy the fact we tried to play to a style, showed some grit and wrote some history.

good post pitmaster.

I'm sure Neeld won't be anywhere near as negative as RLyon.

a cat styled attack at the contest, & the play, is fine by me.

It's important that there have been a number of rule changes in the past 2 seasons designed to keep the game flowing more. Reducing interchange rotations, the "contact below the knees", giving less time for restarts at stoppages and kick-ins.

This rewards faster more direct ball movement, precise disposal, running and kicking into space, and so on - uncontested possessions!! - and a number of teams have responded accordingly. It makes it so much harder to use a zone defence and "the press", to play wide and move the ball forwards slowly by kicking to contests. Besides, most teams spent 2011 and 2012 working out how to beat the press, and most do it easily.

2013 is so totally different to 2010 & 2011. If Neeld is flexible enough to realise this and to change the gameplan from now on, things could start looking up. Who knows, he may even have the smarts to be the first to work out a counter to the fast attacking style of 2013 - somebody will work it out sooner or later, and it may as well be us. But he needs to face the fact that his 2010 playbook is outdated and let a new one be written.

the changes have gone a little way, but still way too many games are choked up. we get some good flowing games, but I think its closer to where the Eagles/Blues game on the weekend, is where the rules have taken us.

I'd like to see a slightly further reduction in the interchange bench to 2, but say with 2 subs, or 3 might be better...

... actually I'd like to see the bench go back to 2 players, but with 3 subs. the smaller interchange bench would reduce the amount of burst players & rotations, & increase players positional play again, & would add an extra element of tactics, having different sized Subs would allow the coach to change his team balance.