We average 63 less uncontested possessions than our opposition this year.

Watching us live it's amazing how much space we are leaving for opposition players to move the ball freely, and the way Lions players were lining up around the 50 for a mark today was horrible to watch.

The zone is not working and must go, or it may just be the thing that eventually costs Neeld his job.

Up to you coach, do you want to keep the zone or your job?

We average 63 less uncontested possessions than our opposition this year.

Watching us live it's amazing how much space we are leaving for opposition players to move the ball freely, and the way Lions players were lining up around the 50 for a mark today was horrible to watch.

The zone is not working and must go, or it may just be the thing that eventually costs Neeld his job.

Up to you coach, do you want to keep the zone or your job?

in modern football all teams will implement a zone, and this is definitely not the reason we are losing.

the unconstested marks stat, is one which is of huge interest to me aswell, and i feel its more about our midfield spread and the preparedness of our midfield to run both ways.

we as a team spread too early, we do not actually have possesion of the ball when we spread, and have not worked it to the outside mids, but rather have won the hard ball and everyone has spread off for the disposal, this leads to the turnover and then the opposition spread, which leads to countless uncontested marks in the midfield.

in regards to the zone, i agree sometimes it is the problem, but its not that they arent in good position, it is the willingness to move out of the zone and the dangerous player! the boys seem to keen on blocking space rather than manning the dangerous player, the uncontested marks inside our fwd 50 and from kickouts are the only real uncontested marks off the zone, in my opinion this is

in modern football all teams will implement a zone, and this is definitely not the reason we are losing.

the unconstested marks stat, is one which is of huge interest to me aswell, and i feel its more about our midfield spread and the preparedness of our midfield to run both ways.

we as a team spread too early, we do not actually have possesion of the ball when we spread, and have not worked it to the outside mids, but rather have won the hard ball and everyone has spread off for the disposal, this leads to the turnover and then the opposition spread, which leads to countless uncontested marks in the midfield.

in regards to the zone, i agree sometimes it is the problem, but its not that they arent in good position, it is the willingness to move out of the zone and the dangerous player! the boys seem to keen on blocking space rather than manning the dangerous player, the uncontested marks inside our fwd 50 and from kickouts are the only real uncontested marks off the zone, in my opinion this is

The zone is flat out not working for us, at all. We had over 100 less possessions than an average team without there 2-3 best midfielders today.

In the middle of the ground, it looked like a game of chess where only one team can move. Some players seem to think that by standing in a certain spott in the middle of the ground and moving their arms around, they are a valuable team player.

The only real indication of a move when things aren't going well, was Watts into the forward line today. And voila, 2 goals and not another dreadful third quarter. You'd think someone who is responsible for what goes on would do more to stop what he sees.

The zone is flat out not working for us, at all. We had over 100 less possessions than an average team without there 2-3 best midfielders today.

but that is not to do with the zone, that is to do with the spread from midfield.

why they had the 100 more possesions is because they fiddled with the handball on the spread, and had the numbers around the ball, as i mentioned in my first post, it isnt from the zone why the midfield gets beat, it is due to the spread of our midfielders and there unwillingness to chase their opposition players, meaning that the opposition mids and high forwards are able to move the ball with ease.

zones are set up usually from kickouts, free kicks down the field, or a stoppage that is forward of centre, and as i said, its not why we are getting smashed through the midfield

I'll tell you, next week it's going to get ugly. 100 point loss, nothing surer. Our midfield is not just low on genuine ball winners, it's coached horribly. I don't believe in the zone, but if it were to ever work, it would certainly need work rate from the midfield. I dread to even comprehend next week.

but that is not to do with the zone, that is to do with the spread from midfield.

why they had the 100 more possesions is because they fiddled with the handball on the spread, and had the numbers around the ball, as i mentioned in my first post, it isnt from the zone why the midfield gets beat, it is due to the spread of our midfielders and there unwillingness to chase their opposition players, meaning that the opposition mids and high forwards are able to move the ball with ease.

zones are set up usually from kickouts, free kicks down the field, or a stoppage that is forward of centre, and as i said, its not why we are getting smashed through the midfield

You can't chase if you're nowhere near where the ball is going.

It IS why we are getting smashed. We are allowing our opposition uncontested link up play as we are nowhere near them to make a contest.

You can't chase if you're nowhere near where the ball is going.

It IS why we are getting smashed. We are allowing our opposition uncontested link up play as we are nowhere near them to make a contest.

exactly, which is exactly what i am talking about when i say we are spreading the wrong way and do not have a midfield willing to run both ways in most instances.

we are both arguing the same point, we just have different ideas of why it is happening

exactly, which is exactly what i am talking about when i say we are spreading the wrong way and do not have a midfield willing to run both ways in most instances.

we are both arguing the same point, we just have different ideas of why it is happening

True. I agree we lack spread in a massive way. What I hate is seeing players standing "guarding space" while the opposition gets a clear path to inside 50.

True. I agree we lack spread in a massive way. What I hate is seeing players standing "guarding space" while the opposition gets a clear path to inside 50.

yeh, there is nothing worse than seeing an opposition player running between two melbourne players, and while that definitely looks like an issue with the zone, in my opinion i think it is an indication that the zone has good positioning, which should be expected from an afl level, but the players inside the zone are not willing to run and follow the people in their area, thinking that the person is someone elses responsibility.

obviosuly when they are in the zone, players still need to be awake to the dangerous options and we often get carved up by a 15 metre kick into the top end of our zone because these plarers up the high end of the zone are in most instances the mids and i think they feel that they are trying to force a deep kick to the numbers, but are either not aware or refuse to man the dangerous players

Trust Stuie to start a thread on something that we're not even doing:

"The more footy you see at the moment, you see that zoning is out, we're not going down the path of zoning."

(Neeld in today's press conference)

We average 63 less uncontested possessions than our opposition this year.

Watching us live it's amazing how much space we are leaving for opposition players to move the ball freely, and the way Lions players were lining up around the 50 for a mark today was horrible to watch.

The zone is not working and must go, or it may just be the thing that eventually costs Neeld his job.

Up to you coach, do you want to keep the zone or your job?

I noticed that very clearly yesterday. I don't think the zones the problem i think players aren't running back hard enough in support. Once again it comes down to a poor midfield

Trust Stuie to start a thread on something that we're not even doing:

"The more footy you see at the moment, you see that zoning is out, we're not going down the path of zoning."

(Neeld in today's press conference)

If we weren't zoning yesterday I'm Mother Teresa

Trust Stuie to start a thread on something that we're not even doing:

"The more footy you see at the moment, you see that zoning is out, we're not going down the path of zoning."

(Neeld in today's press conference)

If that's the case it's even worse because the players are so loose on their opponents it looks like a zone.

in modern football all teams will implement a zone, and this is definitely not the reason we are losing.

the unconstested marks stat, is one which is of huge interest to me aswell, and i feel its more about our midfield spread and the preparedness of our midfield to run both ways.

we as a team spread too early, we do not actually have possesion of the ball when we spread, and have not worked it to the outside mids, but rather have won the hard ball and everyone has spread off for the disposal, this leads to the turnover and then the opposition spread, which leads to countless uncontested marks in the midfield.

in regards to the zone, i agree sometimes it is the problem, but its not that they arent in good position, it is the willingness to move out of the zone and the dangerous player! the boys seem to keen on blocking space rather than manning the dangerous player, the uncontested marks inside our fwd 50 and from kickouts are the only real uncontested marks off the zone, in my opinion this is

You need to be a very defensive minded individual to implement a zone and understand the structures that keep it in place.

Also, 8 new players or to, it shouldn't take 18 months for players to grasp. It shouldn't. It is truly astounding how every.single.game. under Neeld how much space the opposition gets.

Out of interest, does anyone know how many uncontested possessions we averaged last year? I'm interested to know the difference.

"The more footy you see at the moment, you see that zoning is out, we're not going down the path of zoning."

(Neeld in today's press conference)

Maybe what he meant was a comment on the outcome ......we are not zoning because we don't get it right

Edited April 28, 201312 yr by Retrospective

You can't chase if you're nowhere near where the ball is going.

It IS why we are getting smashed. We are allowing our opposition uncontested link up play as we are nowhere near them to make a contest.

I think you are both partially correct - our players inability/failure to properly implement the zone is a contributing factor as is our players inability/failure to spread or spread at the correct times. I think another contributing factor is our poor skills resulting turnovers across midfield/half forward which allows the opposition to quickly transition the ball to their forward line with little pressure. It is pretty hard to implement a defence-zone if you're caught out trying to create an offensive play in your forward half and the ball is turned over due to a skill error.

The zone only works when all 18 players execute it. I'm more concerned about our plain stupidity and turn overs. No zone will work if you turn the footy over like we do. Mark Neeld said it in his press conference the game is going back to more one on one footy, this is bad news for us as we don't have a midfield that can compete with any other midfield in the competition one on one and when a team gets free run through the midfield our back 6 have no chance.

Work rate and footy smarts are a big part of what is going wrong. I can't remember who had the ball in a tight situation but hand balled on to Pederson who had a Lions player right on top of him. At first glance poor decision to give off to Pederson but in reality it was Pederson's fault, the player with the ball was drawing an opponent, Pederson should have moved off him to create space. Lazy or stupid???

This is just one example...

Having 3, 4, 5 changes each week certainly doesn't help with continuity when you're trying to implement zone-like structures.

How can anyone work out what's going on when watching games on Channel 7? You don't see enough of the ground to know how we set up.

But when at the MCG this year it appeared to me we played a man-on-man style in the first half of the WCE game and appeared to be zoning in the third quarter. But it might just have been we couldn't keep up with West Coast players so it looked like man-on-man was replaced by players guarding space, or perhaps just pretending to.

And just by the way. I take no notice of what Mark Neeld (or any coach) says in a press conference. It's all being said for the players' consumption. So I hope they're the ones taking notice.

I'm more concerned about our plain stupidity and turn overs. No zone will work if you turn the footy over like we do.

This. We just keep giving the ball back to the opposition in places impossible to defend.

You can't chase if you're nowhere near where the ball is going.

It IS why we are getting smashed. We are allowing our opposition uncontested link up play as we are nowhere near them to make a contest.

Spot on Stuie. Watch and listen to any top clubs, when they lose a close game or just get over the line, or get pumped like the Pies last week on a rare occasion, they will often mention, among a few other things, that "we gave our opponents too much latitude or/room/space". By not placing intense pressure on the ball carrier for 4 quarters these clubs (and top line players) no too well what the consequences will be.

We fail to place enough pressure on the ball carrier for long enough in almost every quarter. Combine this aspect with our slowness in general, terrible skill set and a lack of footy smarts in the top paddock and u have a recipe for perpetual pumpings. In addition the Neeld way of hugging the boundary (bombing it long to a fairly predictable spot) for most defensive sets and then trying to win the ball and run it around the long way is sucking the oxygen and any run we might have out of most players in the first half. Might be a part of the reason we get pumped big time in most 2nd halves.

The biggest worry for me is that we have a pretty stubborn coach who might be unwilling to alter the recipe. He appears to have put the cake in the oven which is baking its way to oblivion. Hopefully he notices the burning smell before it's too late.

Edited April 29, 201312 yr by Rusty Nails

How can anyone work out what's going on when watching games on Channel 7? You don't see enough of the ground to know how we set up.

But when at the MCG this year it appeared to me we played a man-on-man style in the first half of the WCE game and appeared to be zoning in the third quarter. But it might just have been we couldn't keep up with West Coast players so it looked like man-on-man was replaced by players guarding space, or perhaps just pretending to.

And just by the way. I take no notice of what Mark Neeld (or any coach) says in a press conference. It's all being said for the players' consumption. So I hope they're the ones taking notice.

I swa numerous times when Brissy had the ball that we had two or three players on their own jogging through the middle. There were clear Lions players free but no one bothered picking them up.

Its obviously not the same as being at the game but t is blindingly clear on TV that we do not work hard enough when we don't have the ball. Lazy, dumb, lazy and dumber