... its not the 9 new discs that are a problem WYL, its the old High Quality experienced discs that link it all together, that make it work.

they make the chain strong.

A chain is only as strong as its weakest link!

Cats lost tonight, but as I said that's life, it happens - they will be there when it counts, and that's why their game plan is the way to the future, unless you want a boring Swans/Dockers game in your future!

Just on the other game, Michael Johnson really screwed me by not kicking that behind. Seriously, one more point and my Fremantle tip would have looked like a genius move.

Oh well...

A chain is only as strong as its weakest link!

Cats lost tonight, but as I said that's life, it happens - they will be there when it counts, and that's why their game plan is the way to the future, unless you want a boring Swans/Dockers game in your future!

is that right hardnut..

imo, they don't have any weak links out there the cats,, & if any were to appear, the old links would help them out & straighten the ship.

they have built a club culture, you know that word which some don't think exists... they have a club culture, where handbags don't fly...

... & you may notice that many of ours flew @ the end of last year.

.

Just on the other game, Michael Johnson really screwed me by not kicking that behind. Seriously, one more point and my Fremantle tip would have looked like a genius move.

Oh well...

it was a 50/50 game but I ended up going for the home team.

For what it's worth, the Cats are currently being beaten by a competent team employing the current Melbourne gameplan.

You mean a game plan that's been successfull once (2010) under MM at the Pies with a 3 pronged power running HB line and where they were happy to mount many of their attacks from using Shaw, Neon Leon and O'Brien. Neon has obviously departed and unless Shaw and O'brien are on the money and running full tilt all night then it's unlikely it will be successful. The cats had no one to run with O'brien early tonight as they are 1 quality defender down with Rivers out. They also miss Chapman through the middle and up forward and the loss of Stevie Johnson was a massive blow in class/finish this evening.

In 2010 the Pies also had a class ball user on the outside pushing forward in Didak who delivered the ball i50 with precision to their forwards.

We have neither the amazing 3 pronged running half backline that the Pies had then and nor do they. Nor do we have a class ball user who can create/find space a la Didak/Pendlebury and finish off the good work up the field by delivering it on a platter to forwards or alternatively kicking goals themselves. We also don't have the quick/slick ball use around the stoppages that they had back then nor do we have the general disposal skills, 2nd/3rd efforts or pressure acts that they had back then. Nor their ability to spread or apply an effective forward press.

We may hug the boundary like they liked to do back then (and still do but to a slightly lessor degree), but that's about as close as we've ever gotten to looking anything like the Pies to this point Chook.

We're not worthy of a comparison with the Pies of 2010, nor any team in the AFL at present, as we are presently not AFL worthy.

Edited May 18, 201312 yr by Rusty Nails

Just because we suck at employing it, doesn't mean the game plan itself sucks. I'm not defending anything or anyone; I just thought at the time (Geelong were almost six goals down) that it was worth mentioning.

is that right hardnut..

imo, they don't have any weak links out there the cats,, & if any were to appear, the old links would help them out & straighten the ship.

they have built a club culture, you know that word which some don't think exists... they have a club culture, where handbags don't fly...

... & you may notice that many of ours flew @ the end of last year.

.

If they didn't have any weak links, they would not lose!

You are correct in saying that the old links will straighten out any problems with the new links.

You are also correct that a club culture has been built.

My question is why MFC chose MN with his flawed approach to producing a successful culture and recruiting!

is that right hardnut..

imo, they don't have any weak links out there the cats,, & if any were to appear, the old links would help them out & straighten the ship.

they have built a club culture, you know that word which some don't think exists... they have a club culture, where handbags don't fly...

... & you may notice that many of ours flew @ the end of last year.

.

Sorry, missed your last comment - are you referring to Rivers and Moloney - if you are, wrong!

Just because we suck at employing it, doesn't mean the game plan itself sucks. I'm not defending anything or anyone; I just thought at the time (Geelong were almost six goals down) that it was worth mentioning.

I think the art of coaching is to deploy a gameplan that suits your players at your disposal.

It seems Neeld has come in with gameplan he wanted to run with, and he wasn't happy with the players he had to carry it out, so he got rid of as many of them as he could.

It would be like MM going to Carlton last season and decididng that there is no use have Betts, Garlett and Yarran in his team for his style of play. Instead he has adjusted to be able to utilise their strenghts for the benfit of the team.

Rocket was accused of starting the flood with the Swans, but when he came to the Bulldogs and found he had quick players, with elite foot skills, he once again coached to the teams strengths.

That is coaching. As much as David King has always annoyed me, he called it early last season when he said Neeld was trying to put a square peg in a round hole. Neeld, the club and the supporters don't have 5 years to wait to see if he can completely change the personnel of our team to suit his style, on the off chance that it may lead us to finals.

I think the art of coaching is to deploy a gameplan that suits your players at your disposal.

It seems Neeld has come in with gameplan he wanted to run with, and he wasn't happy with the players he had to carry it out, so he got rid of as many of them as he could.

It would be like MM going to Carlton last season and decididng that there is no use have Betts, Garlett and Yarran in his team for his style of play. Instead he has adjusted to be able to utilise their strenghts for the benfit of the team.

Rocket was accused of starting the flood with the Swans, but when he came to the Bulldogs and found he had quick players, with elite foot skills, he once again coached to the teams strengths.

That is coaching. As much as David King has always annoyed me, he called it early last season when he said Neeld was trying to put a square peg in a round hole. Neeld, the club and the supporters don't have 5 years to wait to see if he can completely change the personnel of our team to suit his style, on the off chance that it may lead us to finals.

I wrote the same thing early last year. All game plans can work if executed perfectly, plus you can only turn a list over so much each year therefore you have to play to a list's strengths and then tweak it.

I have said it before and will repeat it.

Good teams have gutsy and inspirational LEADERS...........we have none on or off field. We will get nowhere until we do, regardless of any game plan be it corridor or boundary focused, man on man or zone. We need leaders.

Geelong were completely off the boil in the first half last night (especially Bartel) and still almost pulled off a victory. I never thought they were out of the game though it did seem as though they were playing into Collingwoods hands. In the second half they began winning centre clearances and just pumping it forward which saw an avalanche of goals in the 3rd. Did they change up their game plan at half time? Not sure but either way, regardless of the loss they still proved to me they are a great team and deservedly favourites for the flag. I couldn't think of a more intriguing match-up for this years GF than Hawthorn/Geelong particularly if Geelong win the return match later in the year. Would really put Hawthorn's claim of winning the ones that matter to the test.

It been well known for a long time that there are three main ways to score goals...

Clearances

Turnovers

Kick ins

Turnovers are the most prolific and damaging

When you look at Melbourne, not only do we not get our hands on the ball but we turn it over at least 50% of the time. Add this to our pathetic intensity and commitment to the contest and no wonder we are useless.

If they didn't have any weak links, they would not lose!

You are correct in saying that the old links will straighten out any problems with the new links.

You are also correct that a club culture has been built.

My question is why MFC chose MN with his flawed approach to producing a successful culture and recruiting!

they were first on the ladder unbeaten, they're now second... your playing semantics.

weak links are the ones who aren't up to it AFL at the moment. all their kids in that setup are up to it.... just not as experienced or as strong yet as their senior players.

Mark Neeld does not have a flawed method of rebuilding the culture into a healthy one... He has only just made his cleanout a few months ago, which off course left us with less experience numbers... its to be expected to go 2 steps backward as we move forward in a more healthy way.

We've been going slowly downhill as a club for 20 years, since Barassi/Jordans & Swoopers footy dept's... the casualness started to creep in, & then 10 Yrs ago, it started to go sour... yo-yoing up and down the ladder,,, & with political arguing going on & a disfunctional footy dept who couldn't recruit or develop a player if their reputations depended on it.

The inevitable finally arrived around 2006-7 when Jnr & Neita were aging & passing their best. we had traded on the skills of some, but with poor onfield values, of chasing, tackling, & 1%ers, & sharing the workload generally.

.

Sorry, missed your last comment - are you referring to Rivers and Moloney - if you are, wrong!

No I wasn't, I wa referring to a few, mortons, bennells & others, who were dropped off the list. Not including Rivers, who would have helped with the zoning off the man. But he was older than the group who'll take the club forward into the next finals campaign. IMO he new this thru discussions, & chose to go to a finals bound team.

others were not suitable to a healthier culture.

.

I think the art of coaching is to deploy a gameplan that suits your players at your disposal.

It seems Neeld has come in with gameplan he wanted to run with, and he wasn't happy with the players he had to carry it out, so he got rid of as many of them as he could.

It would be like MM going to Carlton last season and decididng that there is no use have Betts, Garlett and Yarran in his team for his style of play. Instead he has adjusted to be able to utilise their strenghts for the benfit of the team.

Rocket was accused of starting the flood with the Swans, but when he came to the Bulldogs and found he had quick players, with elite foot skills, he once again coached to the teams strengths.

That is coaching. As much as David King has always annoyed me, he called it early last season when he said Neeld was trying to put a square peg in a round hole. Neeld, the club and the supporters don't have 5 years to wait to see if he can completely change the personnel of our team to suit his style, on the off chance that it may lead us to finals.

I think that the 'ART' of Coaching starts, after you've built a list that can compete in a top 8 environment.

anyone can coach a side that is skilled & strong & competative.. the Art is to out-coach the other coaches in the same boat, whilst at the same time, Not running the list & culture down into a chasm. We've had a few who have done exactly this... they made Hay while the sun shone, & then went like a Wombat. leaving a deep hole behind in the tracks.

well someone has to fix the problem.

.

I have said it before and will repeat it.

Good teams have gutsy and inspirational LEADERS...........we have none on or off field. We will get nowhere until we do, regardless of any game plan be it corridor or boundary focused, man on man or zone. We need leaders.

your spot on Mono.

no gameplan will work well at the moment as we fix the issues dogging this club for the last 20 years, including when we had strong lists... we underachieved.

... this is why we have lost respect from the competition, over the last 2 decades. they snigger at us & don't want to come to us.

It has gone on for 45 Yrs except for the cleanup done by Barassi which flowed thru Swoopers time. He ignited the team, handed on.

.

I think they might have made a mockery of Kingy's fascinating analysis. They started winning the clearances and got back on top. Let's see what happens from here.

exactly..... perhaps it proves King is a [censored] trying to create a niche for himself.

Pretty clearly what it all means is if you arn't winning the ruck contests or the clearances then you can still get the ball forward if you take possession anywhere and keep it.

duh...

Geelong are good at that despite having Jared in defense with a kicking efficiency about 10% below the AFL average.

More relevant is their ability to keep possession under presssure by knowing a handpass will find a recipient

What Scott is doing at Geelong is precisely what Bailey was trying to do at Melbourne - get players back, win the ball via turnover, hit them on the break. The difference is the cattle. The Cats have it, the Dees don't.

Simplistic in the extreme.

FFS.

exactly..... perhaps it proves King is a [censored] trying to create a niche for himself.

Pretty clearly what it all means is if you arn't winning the ruck contests or the clearances then you can still get the ball forward if you take possession anywhere and keep it.

duh...

Geelong are good at that despite having Jared in defense with a kicking efficiency about 10% below the AFL average.

More relevant is their ability to keep possession under presssure by knowing a handpass will find a recipient

Exactly - I will never complain about winning the clearances.

I mean, seriously ...

I think that the 'ART' of Coaching starts, after you've built a list that can compete in a top 8 environment.

anyone can coach a side that is skilled & strong & competative.. the Art is to out-coach the other coaches in the same boat, whilst at the same time, Not running the list & culture down into a chasm. We've had a few who have done exactly this... they made Hay while the sun shone, & then went like a Wombat. leaving a deep hole behind in the tracks.

well someone has to fix the problem.

.

You are wrong to say that anyone can coach 'a side that is skilled and strong and competitive' - it is a challenge to coach any side, anywhere, anytime.

Nevertheless, I suspect we agree more than may be apparent - coaching is both an art and a science. MN's problem is that he can't see the art, and he has a black and white view of the science. Too many opportunities to work with existing players have been missed by MN and MFC is now paying the price.

You are wrong to say that anyone can coach 'a side that is skilled and strong and competitive' - it is a challenge to coach any side, anywhere, anytime.

Nevertheless, I suspect we agree more than may be apparent - coaching is both an art and a science. MN's problem is that he can't see the art, and he has a black and white view of the science. Too many opportunities to work with existing players have been missed by MN and MFC is now paying the price.

I think you may well be right here.