I just thought this stat was interesting. Geelong averages 30.6 clearances a game, the worst in the competition.

I don't know what to take from it but it doesn't seem to be hurting their W/L ratio.

I assume you're using this as a kind of placebo point for our lack of clearances?

The difference is Geelong are 2nd for inside 50s, 2nd for uncontested possession, and 3rd for effective disposals, somewhat different to us...

How many opportunities per game do they get to clearance? Consider Geelong goes forward 50 very often and also keeps the ball alive with silky skills. It's like watching hot potato when they have the ball but they keep possession.

It's OK to not win clearances if you still manage to beat your opponent in possessions. You have to balance it out.

Melbourne can't get clearances but also can't:

1. get the ball

2. get it inside 50

3. tackle

4. hit targets

5. run

6. actually score

Geelong can do ALL of those things better than the competition.

This is worth reading on this topic...

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/geelongs-revolutionary-game-plan-that-has-changed-the-face-of-football-forever/story-fni5ezm8-1226645548410

Good stuff Stuie. It all makes sense. Pressure on the ball handler is number one. The only problem Geelong have is Sydney. They are so damn good at working their way through the pressure.

How many opportunities per game do they get to clearance? Consider Geelong goes forward 50 very often and also keeps the ball alive with silky skills. It's like watching hot potato when they have the ball but they keep possession.

It's OK to not win clearances if you still manage to beat your opponent in possessions. You have to balance it out.

Melbourne can't get clearances but also can't:

1. get the ball

2. get it inside 50

3. tackle

4. hit targets

5. run

6. actually score

Geelong can do ALL of those things better than the competition.

This all makes sense as well. However, I would argue that you get the pressure up and a lot of these other things fall in place as a consequence.

I'll probably get grilled for this but I would argue that we don't have a huge problem with our kicking skills. Instead, I think we don't get enough easy ball.

We sit in the middle of the pack for disposal eff. despite this fact.

If we could pressure up better and remedy the problem we have transitioning from offence to defence (and vice versa), my feeling is, you'd see a vast improvement in other areas.

One statistic in isolation means nothing.

Good stuff Stuie. It all makes sense. Pressure on the ball handler is number one. The only problem Geelong have is Sydney. They are so damn good at working their way through the pressure.

This all makes sense as well. However, I would argue that you get the pressure up and a lot of these other things fall in place as a consequence.

I'll probably get grilled for this but I would argue that we don't have a huge problem with our kicking skills. Instead, I think we don't get enough easy ball.

We sit in the middle of the pack for disposal eff. despite this fact.

If we could pressure up better and remedy the problem we have transitioning from offence to defence (and vice versa), my feeling is, you'd see a vast improvement in other areas.

Our kicking in isolation is fine. The problem is we don't run hard enough and therefore don't kick to advantage and other simple things. If you the better sides they take the short option if you give it up and then kick long to position to either open men or smart contests. We just have so little on that there's no way to win.

Geelong are not the worst they just dont point a priority on it. I am sure if they burrowed 5 guys into a contest like some teams do they would be pretty good at getting it out.

Our kicking in isolation is fine.

I beg to differ. Our disposal is deplorable, both by hand and foot.

IIRC, Geelong are the top team at scoring from intercepts and rebound 50's. Clearances are a nice bonus but not essential.

Love how an interesting observation about a potential evolution of the game is straight away brought into a Melbourne perspective.

Sometimes I wish this board would open up a little and not be so afraid to talk about the rest of the competition or the game itself.

I think this a really interesting observation and I think it does relate to the MFC. We talk about clearances, the contested ball, the importace of defence, but other teams who are really successful do not worry about some of these at all. What we need to to is look at the relationship between the stats and the score, ie can you lose the contested ball and still win? (Answer is yes) Can you lose the clearances and still win?(Definitely) Can you win if you kick the ball to the opposition in uncontested situations? (this seems to be called run and spread) Unlikely. Can you win if the opposition takes more marks inside 50? (Unlikely) Maybe we are all looking at the wrong things, or looking at things that might have got us in the 8 in 2009 but will not even get us close now.

...

Good post - extend it to stats such as handball receives and inside 50s (which I'd like to see a similar stat inside 30s which might reveal an extra layer).

I think it is part of our problem, a lack of vision. We chased Bailey to get a Port Adelaide game plan just as they were fading, we went for Watts to get a Reiwoldt style forward and now everyone wants the Cloke type, we chased Neeld to get a Collingwood game style just as Hawthorn were becoming the ideal team. It is no surprise we are talking about stats that were relevant five years ago. We have no vision. We look to the past and outside our club rather than to the present and inside. Neeld basically said we are rubbish and need to wait 5 years, the implication being he will clear out Melbourne people and get players from elsewhere. Compare this to Port who got Hinkley to instill belief in the existing list. They might not win another game this year, but he has brought heart to that club because it seems like he has his own plan for them. We just threw away everyone.

I assume you're using this as a kind of placebo point for our lack of clearances? The difference is Geelong are 2nd for inside 50s, 2nd for uncontested possession, and 3rd for effective disposals, somewhat different to us...

Yep, cos Geelong are brilliant at making the game about unbroken chains of possession. Applying pressure to facilitate the turnover, then using movement and skill to bring the ball forward to score. We've seen briefly from the MFC this year some pressure on the opposition when they have possession, maybe a few quarters, but our ability to move the ball with skill through uncontested possessions from there is the worst in the AFL. When we don't even apply that pressure, it gets to the point where we look like witches hats. Mark Neeld talks about the possession differential we throw up every week as not being that relevant, but it ABSOLUTELY is. The easiest way to win is by having more of the ball, and using it well (disposal efficiency). If you out point the opposition on these 2 stats in combination, you will win.

I just thought this stat was interesting. Geelong averages 30.6 clearances a game, the worst in the competition.

I don't know what to take from it but it doesn't seem to be hurting their W/L ratio.

IMO one of the keys is big strong bodies, being able to stand up in a tackle, to either dish off to a teammate, drawing the defenders,,, or to hold the ball up as a professional free, slowing play.

defensively, reading the play & pressuring & tackling the playmaker, I think is also key...

...the lions sat off us around the stoppages, & harassed us into coughing up the pill. we won many first touches, but coughed it up, & they got the clearence & away to deliver without much pressure on the turnover.

halfback flanks are always Key on the rebound footy...

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/mitchell-on-front-foot-going-back-20130503-2iyig.html

..... offer Mitchell a Huge 3 Yr contract before its too late... he'll be our No1 Mid first-up, before going back after awhile.

I think it is part of our problem, a lack of vision. We chased Bailey to get a Port Adelaide game plan just as they were fading, we went for Watts to get a Reiwoldt style forward and now everyone wants the Cloke type, we chased Neeld to get a Collingwood game style just as Hawthorn were becoming the ideal team. It is no surprise we are talking about stats that were relevant five years ago. We have no vision. We look to the past and outside our club rather than to the present and inside. Neeld basically said we are rubbish and need to wait 5 years, the implication being he will clear out Melbourne people and get players from elsewhere. Compare this to Port who got Hinkley to instill belief in the existing list. They might not win another game this year, but he has brought heart to that club because it seems like he has his own plan for them. We just threw away everyone.

Thats basically my view on our recent years, we bring in a coach that use's another teams game plan and we rebuild to suit that.

Bailey wanted players to have silky skills and be able to run and carry which was successful for Geelong. We didn't have the cattle for this when Bailey started so our aim in the drafts were to pick players with the above attributes.

4 years later we say its not working, show Bailey the door. Enter Neeld who says we need he'll instill a team that will make a contest not just front run. Once again we didn't have the cattle for this game plan, so out the door are most of those players drafted under Bailey because they couldn't play his game plan.

Look where we are now, another coach, another set of players and they cant play either of the above game plans. A coach needs to come in and work with what their got, identify your strengths and weaknesses in your players and develop a game that suits, of course you'll need to still bring in players but its not all run and carry players or all big bodies.

Geeeez

Its actually their gameplan.

I heard someone talk about it on sen.

They let the oppostion get first possesion, all the while manning up on anyone within hanball or kicking distance and backthem selves to force the turnover and hurthe opposition on the counter attack.

The only times we have been competitive this year is when we have tackled and applied pressure. most players will make mistakes if you keep the pressure on them when they have the ball. we just cannot do it long enough, so the opposition has 100+ more uncontested possessions because we dont man up, dont chase dont tackle. As for kicking skills, we have difficulty getting the ball out of the backline and if we do get it past the centre we trouble delivering cleanly inside 50's which invariably results in us turning the ball over to the opposition time and time again.

Some of you need to calm down.

Some games have in excess of 800 touches so it stands to reason that the difference between 30 and 40 clearances is not that much.

More than half are uncontested possessions. That's where the best midfielders will hurt you.

I think Neeld was right when he arrived at least in one very important aspect of modern footy: we need to get fitter, stronger, quicker then we may well look more skilful, being under less pressure, both physical and mental.

Consider if you do get the ball and have just half the time a Cat has to decide what to do and to dispose of it (due to being less fit, and slower to the possession, and probably more fatigued physically and mentally), AND know that you are far less strong than the guy who is pressuring you, then your disposal is of course going to be rushed, panicked if you like, and thus less efficient.

Further, a fitter quicker stronger (and more disciplined) TEAM will be able to spread and make more options for the guys with the ball.

WHEN and IF Missen and Craig can get the guys fitter and thus stronger bodied, and quicker to the ball, confident that they are as strong as the potential tackler (even maybe still in modern footy, a bumper), THEN you will almost certainly see better decision making AND better disposal.

I think Neeld was right when he arrived at least in one very important aspect of modern footy: we need to get fitter, stronger, quicker then we may well look more skilful, being under less pressure, both physical and mental.

This part is 100% correct and essential to any improvement. In a way this is part of what is most important, making the people you have better and making them believe they will be better. This is the job of anyone whose obligation is to get people to change, getting your existing people to imagine and act out a better future. 31 games in that is where Neeld has really failed and that is what we all mean when we say he has lost the players.

Is it a case of the way the game is played is evolving again and we will again be left (even further) behind? Probably.

Geelong have recognized that defending forward thrusts has become pretty easy, both for them, and their opposition. Now that everyone on the ground is fit enough to treat the field like a basketball court, whoever is in attack presses forward. When this trend first occurred, the magpies and west coast dominated, by keeping the ball in their forward half and peppering the goals with enough scoring shots that they were sure to win.

After a year or two of the forward press, teams learned that they needed to defend space in ther backline, rather than manning up individual players. This ensured that no player ever found enough space with the ball in hand to get a clean shot away. The ball might stay pressed into the forward line, but it scored a lot less often. Then, when the turnover inevitably occurred, the defending team suddenly scored on the counterattack because their forward line has space.

Geelong are, I believe, deliberately conceding clearances to put the opposition into their "attack" structure. You will have heard coaches talk about teaching players what to do in three phases of the game. Attack, defense, and in-dispute. Players have different instructions for each phase. So Geelong deliberately concede the clearance to set the opposition into their attack structure. This sees them pressing forward, and setting a perimeter arc 15-20 metres back from the 50. Geelong then back the likes of Mackie, lonergan, Taylor and bartel to intercept mark the ball and immediately pump it long into the corridor. Tomahawk is 10 metres to the defensive side of the centre circle, and he is the default target. Motlop, Christensen, Stokes and Varcoe then use their speed to burn their opponents on the counter-attack, run onto the long ball from Hawkins who will kick towards goal with barely a look to see who's there, and score in a relatively open forward 50.

The reason Collingwood are so good against Geelong is because of the way their backline sets up. They generally leave at least one player (often Marty Clarke) 20m to the defensive side of the entire game which gives them time to get to the clearing Hawkins kick. Also Shaw, Harry O and co are as good at tracking the loose ball as Geelong's speedy forwards, which allows them to curtail the Geelong counter-attack and launch what amounts to a counter-counter-attack of their own, when Geelong's defensive zone is compromised by the players switching to their 'attack' structure.

I love watching those two teams play each other.

Geelong players rarely contest against against their team mates - either on the ground or in the air. We do.