I worry about you DC sometimes. I hope your not a teacher.

haven't you heard, choir boys are out at Melbourne, & He-men are coming back.

you may have to put up with backhair & bumfluff daisy, instead of clean shaven or nair-ed clean.

we are all teachers in own way d-l, as lordweaver will attest to. even you

............

Neale Daniher was a very good coach and would be alongside Northey in a list (we all wish was longer) of the best coaches since Smith.

However, decisions made many years ago effect the club well past the point they are initially made.

Well it is only Northey, who turned a sow's ear into a silk purse, and ND, who have since TGNS got us to GFs, so there isn't a lot of competition really. ND could never get any consistency year to year, for whatever reason.

(Unfortunately both those GF opponents were at the time just about the best performed teams ever, so we were never a real chance of a flag. The one we really missed out on was 1990, I believe, when we were muscled out in the semis by WCE).

Balme did get us finals too, but as I recall they are the only three.

I worry about you DC sometimes. I hope your not a teacher.

haven't you heard, choir boys are out at Melbourne, & He-men are coming back.

you may have to put up with backhair & bumfluff daisy, instead of clean shaven or nair-ed clean.

Please DL what would LordWeaver be thinking now? Choirboys, really!

This article is about tempering support/members expectations... Its nothing we havent heard before...

On the Plan B thing.

I have often lamented (at least in RL, maybe not on DL) the fact that we don't have a Plan B. But when saying this, I do not expect a change in game lan, or game style.

• I expect that the key back who is getting slaughtered could be swapped for an alternative player, OR another defender could be instructed to make an effort to drop in front of them.
  
• I expect that when an opposition midfielder has run around unmarked for 2 quarters getting 25 touches to half time, we could try moving a tagger onto him, or even try to get another midfielder to man him at stoppages, instead of letting him roam free.
  
• I expect that when an opposition back flanker is getting leather poisoning running the ball out of defence while his opponent, and our forward hasn't touched the ball but is chasing him around we might shift that forward to full forward to try and drag him away from the play.
  
• I expect that when we are constantly bombing into an unmanned forward line and turning it over that we make a conscious decision to hold it up for 5 seconds on the wing to allow players to get back.

None of these are significant changes in game plans. But is frustrating when we see the same things happen over and over and over within the same game, without any positional or tactical moves to try and neutralise areas the opposition are winning.

This article is about tempering support/members expectations... Its nothing we havent heard before...

Thats refreshing, I recall we were always hearing of how everthing was on track and going to plan. You must have not been reading the club propaganda and spin from the previous regime.

On the Plan B thing.

I have often lamented (at least in RL, maybe not on DL) the fact that we don't have a Plan B. But when saying this, I do not expect a change in game lan, or game style.

• I expect that the key back who is getting slaughtered could be swapped for an alternative player, OR another defender could be instructed to make an effort to drop in front of them.

• I expect that when an opposition midfielder has run around unmarked for 2 quarters getting 25 touches to half time, we could try moving a tagger onto him, or even try to get another midfielder to man him at stoppages, instead of letting him roam free.

• I expect that when an opposition back flanker is getting leather poisoning running the ball out of defence while his opponent, and our forward hasn't touched the ball but is chasing him around we might shift that forward to full forward to try and drag him away from the play.

• I expect that when we are constantly bombing into an unmanned forward line and turning it over that we make a conscious decision to hold it up for 5 seconds on the wing to allow players to get back.

None of these are significant changes in game plans. But is frustrating when we see the same things happen over and over and over within the same game, without any positional or tactical moves to try and neutralise areas the opposition are winning.

Yep, and as you say positional or tactical moves.

A game plan is not about keeping the same players in the same positions, it is about the way the team plays football. If someone is letting the team down then they get moved and in turn dropped if they don't get it right.

If the plan is working well it may not matter that an opposition mid is racking up the touches in the overall scheme.

A solid game plan is what is required, forget 'Plan B', no good side has a 'Plan B'.

On the Plan B thing.

...

None of these are significant changes in game plans. But is frustrating when we see the same things happen over and over and over within the same game, without any positional or tactical moves to try and neutralise areas the opposition are winning.

This is the right idea. It's not a matter of having "Game Plan A" and "Game Plan B" and so forth.

It's a matter of having a "Plan B" (or contingency plan if you like) for when an opposing team has sussed and totally neutralised your game plan in the first few minutes of the game. What do you do then? Because if you just keep playing to your one-and-only Game Plan, you're going to get slaughtered. Which is exactly what happened last year.

For example, it became blindingly obvious under Neeld that we were instructed to kick it long down the line to a contest, and in most games we played, the other team not only countered it from very early in the game, but fed off it, moving the ball quickly through the vacant corridor, knowing they could take risks because we could never hurt them on the attack with such a stupidly rigid game plan.

If the instructions were "you just keep doing what you're told", and anybody who dared to take the initiative and did the unexpected was harshly dealt with - well, you get a season like 2013! Doesn't happen by accident.

It's not "OK boys, we switch to Game Plan Q!" It's "If the other team is able to exploit our game plan, here's how we tweak it so we stay in the game." Cos if we can't tweak it when we need to, we're gonna get slaughtered.

What would I have liked him to say? Okay, I'm not Roos, so how about this….

'……the players are really working hard to improve their skills. They're working as a team, committed to each other and to the cause of finding success for themselves and the supporters, members, indeed, the bigger family that is the MFC….'

Obsessed? Rubbish. Time to let go.

If you want spin, sit on a turntable.

On the Plan B thing.

True and you can add that when the full back is kicking out after a behind you should expect him to be kicking to the same spot every time and if it's being constantly intercepted then try something different.

I think a few others have got it right.

Plan B for Paul Roos would simply mean reacting to a few things the opposition may be doing well, without losing structure, or methodology.

If you want spin, sit on a turntable.

Yep. And you can keep feeding off the same old [censored] about how bad things reeaalllyyy were.

I think a few others have got it right.

Plan B for Paul Roos would simply mean reacting to a few things the opposition may be doing well, without losing your structure, or methodology.

The important thing is the way in which a coach reacts to those things and how quickly he does it. I have confidence in Roos because of his knowledge and the depth of his experience. My problem with Mark Neeld was that he was so inflexible about his structure and methodology that he reacted to opposition strengths far too slowly and ineffectively (if at all), leading to long runs of goals that blew the team off the park.

Contrast that with Mick Malthouse over at Carlton who actually did engage a Plan B from time to time in order to stave off big defeats but at the expense of the structure he was trying to set up. It actually worked on occasion (they came back from a long way in the opening round last year to almost beat Richmond) but I'm not sure that this is going to help him develop a consistent approach in the long run.

The important thing is the way in which a coach reacts to those things and how quickly he does it. I have confidence in Roos because of his knowledge and the depth of his experience. My problem with Mark Neeld was that he was so inflexible about his structure and methodology that he reacted to opposition strengths far too slowly and ineffectively (if at all), leading to long runs of goals that blew the team off the park.

Contrast that with Mick Malthouse over at Carlton who actually did engage a Plan B from time to time in order to stave off big defeats but at the expense of the structure he was trying to set up. It actually worked on occasion (they came back from a long way in the opening round last year to almost beat Richmond) but I'm not sure that this is going to help him develop a consistent approach in the long run.

What actually blew the team off the park were costly turnovers, getting murdered around the stoppages and poor midfield support in defence.

You can have the most intricate game plan every invented, but if the players aren't doing their bit.....

I always thought that ND was more like a mate to some of the players than coach and under him we were the ultimate in inconsistency, we had some pretty good players but in my view we never looked capable of winning a flag under him.

The fact is we haven't looked like winning a flag for 50 years.

When you say FACT, I assume you don't mean when we were 22 points up at 3/4 time in the 1987 grand final?

Because I'd say with my vastly inferior footy knowledge to yours, that we looked pretty much like winning a GF had Eishold and a few others not panicked....

Just sayin.....

What actually blew the team off the park were costly turnovers, getting murdered around the stoppages and poor midfield support in defence.

You can have the most intricate game plan every invented, but if the players aren't doing their bit.....

True but your suggestion then is that the coach twiddles his thumbs and does nothing?

You can have the most intricate game plan every invented, but if the players aren't doing their bit.....

Then you have to stop and question why.

When you say FACT, I assume you don't mean when we were 22 points up at 3/4 time in the 1987 grand final?

Because I'd say with my vastly inferior footy knowledge to yours, that we looked pretty much like winning a GF had Eishold and a few others not panicked....

Just sayin.....

Ahhhh.....that was the preliminary final....

Just sayin.....

Ahhhh.....that was the preliminary final....

Just sayin.....

Beat me to the punch Rhino. I wouldn't have liked our chances in the Granny either (Carlton fresh off a weeks rest and primed to avenge for '86).

Our best chance for a flag was, as Garry Lyon said in his book, 1990. Had we not become complacent against West Coast, I would have liked our chances against either Essendon (who we had beaten twice that year) or Collingwood (who we had a good record in finals against and with whom we had a score to settle when their players told Mike Sheehan in an off the record session that we were soft).

True but your suggestion then is that the coach twiddles his thumbs and does nothing?

Depending on the process.

Harm minimisation, ie scoreboard, or education, style, proficiency.

Then you have to stop and question why.

Of course.

It was a poor combination. Most of the players were unfit and had no idea how to execute any game plan, and Neeld had no leadership skills.

At the end of the day, everyone knows this....why keep bringing it up?

Beat me to the punch Rhino. I wouldn't have liked our chances in the Granny either (Carlton fresh off a weeks rest and primed to avenge for '86).

Our best chance for a flag was, as Garry Lyon said in his book, 1990. Had we not become complacent against West Coast, I would have liked our chances against either Essendon (who we had beaten twice that year) or Collingwood (who we had a good record in finals against and with whom we had a score to settle when their players told Mike Sheehan in an off the record session that we were soft).

Agree Colin. We have never been certainties but 1990 when there was no dominant side in the comp was our best chance to give it a shot but we were awful against WCE.

Beat me to the punch Rhino. I wouldn't have liked our chances in the Granny either (Carlton fresh off a weeks rest and primed to avenge for '86).

Our best chance for a flag was, as Garry Lyon said in his book, 1990. Had we not become complacent against West Coast, I would have liked our chances against either Essendon (who we had beaten twice that year) or Collingwood (who we had a good record in finals against and with whom we had a score to settle when their players told Mike Sheehan in an off the record session that we were soft).

West Coast had a score to settle with us after what happened when we played them in Perth late in that season. We beat them in a very spitefull game and there was a little too much "rubbing it in" at the end of the game by our players to the oposition and their fans. They remmenbered this and extracted sweet revenge. Since then we have been their bittch

I didn't see much evidence for the proposition that the players were unfit and the fact that Roosy kept Misso on board suggests this is wrong.

Also not sure about Neeld's "leadership". More a case of inability to stamp his authority on the group.

Agree Colin. We have never been certainties but 1990 when there was no dominant side in the comp was our best chance to give it a shot but we were awful against WCE.

and what or whom do we attribute that day to ?