There are a number of reasons why we played a lot better yesterday, but one of the main ones I thought was our patience and resistance to constantly play on/handpass to a running opponent.

Against Gold Coast, we repeatedly tried to run and carry against a side that was easily quicker than us. Often this led to us handpassing to a nearby player who then ran into trouble, or ran too far and get smothered. As such, rather than the ball being marked 50 metres away (or at least being in a 50-50 fifty metres up the ground), we were losing 5 metres through a backwards handpass and turning the ball over closer to Gold Coast's goal.

Against Richmond, players resisted the behind-the-back handpass and instead looked for the switch or a marking option up the field. It didn't pay off everytime but it meant that we were more often playing to our strengths (contested marking) than our weaknesses (lack of speed, poor ball use).

This tactic makes sense when Jamar has the ball and Davey - a far superior user of the ball - is behind him and in the clear. But there aren't enough good ball users in Melbourne's team at the moment for us to keep pursuing this strategy. It might be a small win, but hats off to the coaching staff (or perhaps the players) for recognising this. The more this team plays to its strengths and not its weaknesses, the more competitive this team will be.

I noticed that this was an in-game change in strategy. In the first quarter there were still a lot of rushed handballs and temptation to kick long without regard to who we were kicking to. I noticed a massive change from the second quarter where it looked like the players had been told to kick more and maintain posession. There were more switches of play or short passes, rather than the temptation to just play on at all costs. This change also meant that we were in a better position to slow them down when there were turnovers, because players were out of position less. It was one of the real positives from the game to me. That, and the fact that we were able to slow them through the middle of the ground a lot more than we have in previous weeks, giving our defenders a better chance, and I believe the defensive unit did a fantastic job given the amount of forward 50 entries for the tigers.

Nice to see a post on some of the positives from the weekend. It's certainly refreshing.

I must say, my first thought when I saw the heading of thread was..."we have strengths???"

Edited May 20, 201312 yr by pm24

Perhaps "Not playing to our weaknesses" would be a more apt title.

Our strength is our efficiency going forward, unfortunately we have the worst midfield in the comp by a mile so we can't do anything with it, when you are smashed in clearances and inside 50's every game as well as being minus 100 possessions it sort of makes strength's a little irrelevant until you fill the massive holes.

I noticed that this was an in-game change in strategy. In the first quarter there were still a lot of rushed handballs and temptation to kick long without regard to who we were kicking to. I noticed a massive change from the second quarter where it looked like the players had been told to kick more and maintain posession. There were more switches of play or short passes, rather than the temptation to just play on at all costs. This change also meant that we were in a better position to slow them down when there were turnovers, because players were out of position less. It was one of the real positives from the game to me. That, and the fact that we were able to slow them through the middle of the ground a lot more than we have in previous weeks, giving our defenders a better chance, and I believe the defensive unit did a fantastic job given the amount of forward 50 entries for the tigers.

Nice to see a post on some of the positives from the weekend. It's certainly refreshing.

I must say, my first thought when I saw the heading of thread was..."we have strengths???"

I am surprised that this point has not been argued against by the many (myself included I must add) who have criticised Neeld - and his two predecessors by the way - for not having a plan B. Was this his plan B? (Couldn't get to the game so cannot comment).