Daniel Cross said after the game that "we're probably following the game plan too closely".

It's an interesting observation, but makes sense. As the players become more accustomed to the plan, their individual roles and each other, some of their natural flair and instincts will reappear. It's why I love JKH. He naturally knows what to do and the time to do it.

What a fantastic pick up this guy is. Whatever were the Bulldogs thinking? He is a classy footballer who works so hard. Also sounds and looks like a great person to have around the MFC. It was also so pleasing to see Michie, Vince and Tyson dominating. Take a well earned spell Jonesy! What a hulk is Hogan? just turned 19! Roll on the real season.

Crossy is spot on. I think the players are (rightly so) adjusting to the game plan and having a bit of problem separating what Roos has drilled into them, and instinctual footy-smart decisions that might seem counteractive to Roosy's teachings. Geelong are so effective at applying pressure that I can understand why these mistakes were continually made.

Far, far too many times did players have loose targets in the midfield (usually on the second kick out of defense), only to then a) kick it backwards then b) turnover with a poor kick or get in trouble with messy handballs which led to a turnover, then c) Geelong goal. Must have happened 4 times at least.

I understand the gameplan involves kicking backwards to move around the field and find loose players through the wing, but there were clear and obvious loose targets available in the midfield straight away (constantly saw Jones screaming for the ball), but the option chosen was to kick backwards. Geelong punished us here because our kicking accuracy is still atrocious with some players. Fortunately, I think once players get used to the gameplan, we'll see a lot less of this.

It's really just common sense. When faced with the option of kicking backwards to Geelong's goal which is flooded with players, or kicking to a congested midfield 50m closer to our goal, they should be taking the latter option. The risk of turnover from both is high, but at least we aren't gifting them set shot goals. We're also far more likely to clean up a dropped mark in the midfield than inside our defensive 50.

Crossy is spot on. I think the players are (rightly so) adjusting to the game plan and having a bit of problem separating what Roos has drilled into them, and instinctual footy-smart decisions that might seem counteractive to Roosy's teachings. Geelong are so effective at applying pressure that I can understand why these mistakes were continually made.

Far, far too many times did players have loose targets in the midfield (usually on the second kick out of defense), only to then a) kick it backwards then b) turnover with a poor kick or get in trouble with messy handballs which led to a turnover, then c) Geelong goal. Must have happened 4 times at least.

I understand the gameplan involves kicking backwards to move around the field and find loose players through the wing, but there were clear and obvious loose targets available in the midfield straight away (constantly saw Jones screaming for the ball), but the option chosen was to kick backwards. Geelong punished us here because our kicking accuracy is still atrocious with some players. Fortunately, I think once players get used to the gameplan, we'll see a lot less of this.

It's really just common sense. When faced with the option of kicking backwards to Geelong's goal which is flooded with players, or kicking to a congested midfield 50m closer to our goal, they should be taking the latter option. The risk of turnover from both is high, but at least we aren't gifting them set shot goals. We're also far more likely to clean up a dropped mark in the midfield than inside our defensive 50.

yes one situation stood out for me

watts had the ball on half back then drew two players to him, then handballed long to a free terlich, who should have stepped on the gas and headed towards our goals. Instead he ran back thru the line heading to geelong's goals and handballed to a stationary dee. An attacking opportunity just lost

One video is funny - its basically a blooper vid of a bunch of our turnovers. Strange but jeez there are some doozys.

Cheers,

Here's the blooper vid if anyone wants to see it

http://www.afl.com.au/video/2014-02-28/dees-a-work-in-progress

A couple of shocking kicks in there but some of them were also the receiving player wasn't quite getting in the right spot.

For example the Bail one where he ends up handballing to no one. If Michie pushed wider then Bail could've put it out into space to Michie. Same with the Matt Jones floater to Bartel. If Nicholson sprints all the way to the boundary then it takes Bartel right out of the equation.

I think the wind and hot weather would make an impact on the quality of run which is really what sets up this game plan. Of course the opposition pressure was much increased but against Richmond we really found the gaps with our running to get nice and wide switches of play and then used the middle.

Casey is notoriously windy so it will be interesting to see if they get it together.

Crossy is spot on. I think the players are (rightly so) adjusting to the game plan and having a bit of problem separating what Roos has drilled into them, and instinctual footy-smart decisions that might seem counteractive to Roosy's teachings. Geelong are so effective at applying pressure that I can understand why these mistakes were continually made.

Far, far too many times did players have loose targets in the midfield (usually on the second kick out of defense), only to then a) kick it backwards then b) turnover with a poor kick or get in trouble with messy handballs which led to a turnover, then c) Geelong goal. Must have happened 4 times at least.

I understand the gameplan involves kicking backwards to move around the field and find loose players through the wing, but there were clear and obvious loose targets available in the midfield straight away (constantly saw Jones screaming for the ball), but the option chosen was to kick backwards. Geelong punished us here because our kicking accuracy is still atrocious with some players. Fortunately, I think once players get used to the gameplan, we'll see a lot less of this.

It's really just common sense. When faced with the option of kicking backwards to Geelong's goal which is flooded with players, or kicking to a congested midfield 50m closer to our goal, they should be taking the latter option. The risk of turnover from both is high, but at least we aren't gifting them set shot goals. We're also far more likely to clean up a dropped mark in the midfield than inside our defensive 50.

This is a good post, and I both agree and disagree with it.

In the NAB practice matches, Roos would want them to get as much possessions as possible, preferably under as much pressure as possible, in situations as difficult as possible. It's the only way to learn the game plan well enough so that it won't fall apart under the rigour of games that mean something. The overpossession of the ball was part and parcel of that learning ("over-learning"?).

He would have been much more pleased with yesterday than he was against Richmond. The conditions were as adverse as they possibly could have been, we butchered the ball on many occasions & gave up 8-10 goals through turnovers, and Geelong played pretty well and put a lot of pressure on us. Yet the game plan held together surprisingly well in spite of it all.

I'd expect (hope?) that in the season proper, we'll go about it in the more balanced way that you suggest. But while we're still learning, overdoing it is OK.

Okay, I've just finished watching the replay, and agree with most on here: the effort was great, when we got the transitions right we looked fantastic, and turnovers brought us undone.

But am I losing my mind, or was Shannon Byrnes actually pretty good? He had 19 disposals playing as a forward pocket/forward flank, he was crucial in the build-up to several scoring opportunities, and I saw a lot of him working hard to move into space and offer an option for the kicker downfield. But Demonlanders have decided he was dreadful and his career's over … what am I missing?

You're not loosing your mind quite yet. He actually pulled down some really good contested marks and used it pretty well linking up through HF. One of his better games for us.

You're not loosing your mind quite yet. He actually pulled down some really good contested marks and used it pretty well linking up through HF. One of his better games for us.

I liked his game but think he will struggle to be best 22 come Rd 1 as like most here I think JKH will get the small forward role.

I'm just happy there is pressure on players to perform now!

Finally

I know everyone's sick of the Jack Watts discussion but, given the remarkable difference in his involvement in the first & last quarters by comparison with his virtual disappearance in between, has anyone thought that he might just have been following instructions? First game back, the coach would not have wanted to risk him over-cooking in the tropics and would have been keen to have someone with some run left in them as the game progressed. I can remember many fourth quarters in 2013 where we just hit the wall. That certainly wasn't the case on Friday.

Watts is smart and talented and gives me great cause for optimism in combination with what's beginning to look like a competitive midfield feeding a competitive forward line. Anyway, just a thought.

We did have the ball 94 more times than they did though. It will be a lot easier to improve on our inside 50 delivery knowing that our team is capable of actually having the ball in possession. That's why I would be inclined not to worry too much about inside 50s as I might have been last year - we're winning the ball, we're just not using it well enough yet.

I haven't seen the game, we had 90 odd more possessions but half the inside 50's. Can someone explain why? I think it was similar with the Tigers, we had hundreds more possessions but not many more inside fifties. If we are racking up multiple possessions chipping it around down back too much, then yes it is envitable that we will have turnovers.

I think our game plan may change by round one to be more attacking surely.

I haven't seen the game, we had 90 odd more possessions but half the inside 50's. Can someone explain why? I think it was similar with the Tigers, we had hundreds more possessions but not many more inside fifties. If we are racking up multiple possessions chipping it around down back too much, then yes it is envitable that we will have turnovers.

I think our game plan may change by round one to be more attacking surely.

Ok, it's possession footy. The idea is if you can move it forward quickly, you do it - that is option 1, if you can move it forward short and slowly - that is option 2, and the third (and last) option is you MUST retain the footy either through lateral or backwards handballs or kicks.

The problem I have seen is that there are some players so worried about not carrying out Option 3 that they don't look for the first two options when they get the footy, hence we overpossess the footy.

A players natural instinct is to go forward but it will take them a while to get the balance right.

It will infuriate the members wing against WCE in Rd 2 but so be it.

It's modern footy and a solid grounding for our young team in the importance of skills and running hard to position.

I haven't seen the game, we had 90 odd more possessions but half the inside 50's. Can someone explain why? I think it was similar with the Tigers, we had hundreds more possessions but not many more inside fifties. If we are racking up multiple possessions chipping it around down back too much, then yes it is envitable that we will have turnovers.

I think our game plan may change by round one to be more attacking surely.

Remember Sydney were always comfortable with the ball in the oppositions forward half. Would be interesting to see the stats but I think in their last premiership Hawthorn had the ball in their half for a lot of the game but couldn't capitalise.

Ok, it's possession footy. The idea is if you can move it forward quickly, you do it - that is option 1, if you can move it forward short and slowly - that is option 2, and the third (and last) option is you MUST retain the footy either through lateral or backwards handballs or kicks.

The problem I have seen is that there are some players so worried about not carrying out Option 3 that they don't look for the first two options when they get the footy, hence we overpossess the footy.

A players natural instinct is to go forward but it will take them a while to get the balance right.

It will infuriate the members wing against WCE in Rd 2 but so be it.

It's modern footy and a solid grounding for our young team in the importance of skills and running hard to position.

Exactly......This "new" game plan is a rehash of the old Alan Jeans mantra about the game: " we've got the ball, they've got the ball or the ball is in dispute..."

To put it even more simply...when we have the ball the opposition can't score. And yes it will frustrate the hell out of supporters. Just wait for the calls of "just kick it" to be heard throughout the outer in season proper.

Roos has shown he is not about pretty football....he is about winning games.

The other disadvantage we faced in both the Richmond and Geelong games was a lack of forward targets. That is the Option 1 that rpfc spoke about. Hopefully come Round 1 it will be open to us.

In this game, Hogan showed his willingness to run into space to enable the kick forward, but Geelong were soon onto him, as the solitary "go to man".

You don't notice that when watching on TV, although the commentators often spoke of "no-one to go to". And let's not forget Geelong are a well drilled unit. They fill the space very well.

Option 1 will be a lot easier to carry out when we have some big targets up forward. Both Clark & Dawes really draw the ball & I'd imagine we'll be using the corridor a lot more once they're back.

Someone posted the quote from Cross earlier that sums it up exactly. We have quite a few players who are trying so hard to stick to the new structures that they are completely missing the opportunities they should be taking and would be if they were playing more naturally. As he said, it's going to take some time for them to be comfortable and confident enough in the game style to be able to make that call on when to stick to the rigid structure and when to take the opportunity to attack quickly when something presents. The good news is that the structure they are falling back on is pretty solid, so it won't hurt us too badly if they stick with it. Unless they keep kicking directly to opposition forwards that is.

I have a bias against Byrnes. When he gets the ball, or is about to, I cringe a little. My point ? You may well be right and my objectivity is probably missing when it comes to Byrnes. He could have 10 great possessions, but I tend to remember the horrible one.

I'll take your word on it regarding his game. But I still don't see him anywhere near a best 22.

I think there are two points about Byrnes. First for me, he performs far too many clangers in crucial situations e.g. chipping over the mark from the half forward line to Hogan alone in the square but kicked into the man on the mark at a crucial part of the game when we had a run on. That is unforgivable for an experienced player. Two, I compare him to JKH all the time. JKH is far more exciting, has much greater speed, and covers more territory, takes the game on far more, is a better shot for goal and is 19. Byrnes is 29.

Enough said I think.

Cheers,

Here's the blooper vid if anyone wants to see it

http://www.afl.com.au/video/2014-02-28/dees-a-work-in-progress

Thats a bit harsh by the AFL to single us out for that kind of video....

I think there are two points about Byrnes. First for me, he performs far too many clangers in crucial situations e.g. chipping over the mark from the half forward line to Hogan alone in the square but kicked into the man on the mark at a crucial part of the game when we had a run on. That is unforgivable for an experienced player. Two, I compare him to JKH all the time. JKH is far more exciting, has much greater speed, and covers more territory, takes the game on far more, is a better shot for goal and is 19. Byrnes is 29.

Enough said I think.

I really think that the fact JKH is 19 is going to be a reason Roos manages how much he plays. If Byrnes plays his role - great, he can play. I am sick of throwing kids out there based on anything other than their form.

If JKH or Byrnes' form demands they play - they play.

Thats a bit harsh by the AFL to single us out for that kind of video....

I didn't mind the video, with it's "work in progress" title. The underlying message seems to be "the Dees are on their way". We may have to endure some condescension from the media, but I think we're getting more positive treatment.

It's all about confidence, at the moment players are gaining confidence to hit targets. Going backwards and sideways is stage one, keep the footy learn how to control the tempo of a match, then when you have control of the match play on your terms. It is only our second match against a team that has thumped us over the past 7 years. We have played 2 top 6 teams from last year and currently have a percentage above 100%, have to be happy and we will only get better as our confidence grows and key personal get back.

the media as an entity is just a weak, spineless mess with no substance whatsoever. The moment we start winning a few they will be kissing our arses and praising Roos as a deity with just as much ridiculous fervor they have enjoyed kicking us while we were down for so long... and somebody else will have their turn to be the whipping boy.

Ok, it's possession footy. The idea is if you can move it forward quickly, you do it - that is option 1, if you can move it forward short and slowly - that is option 2, and the third (and last) option is you MUST retain the footy either through lateral or backwards handballs or kicks.

The problem I have seen is that there are some players so worried about not carrying out Option 3 that they don't look for the first two options when they get the footy, hence we overpossess the footy.

A players natural instinct is to go forward but it will take them a while to get the balance right.

It will infuriate the members wing against WCE in Rd 2 but so be it.

It's modern footy and a solid grounding for our young team in the importance of skills and running hard to position.

Yeah I agree with this - I think what we saw on Friday night was a bit of an over-correction at times, with players going for the switch or backwards kick across goal when it clearly wasn't on.

The positives definitely outweigh the negatives though - it was pleasing to see a style of footy being implemented and the players trying to play to that style. Yes, there were mistakes, but there were some really good switch kicks that opened up the fat side of the ground and allowed us to transition the ball quickly and cleanly down the other end.

It was also very pleasing to see that ball renention appears to be a fundamental aspect of the game plan - I have been banging on for the last two years that ball renention is critical both offensively and defensively in that players get confident from touching the ball more and the opposition cannot score when you have the ball.

I think with time and practice we will start to get the balance right.

I really think that the fact JKH is 19 is going to be a reason Roos manages how much he plays. If Byrnes plays his role - great, he can play. I am sick of throwing kids out there based on anything other than their form.

If JKH or Byrnes' form demands they play - they play.

I agree, the last thing I want to see is JKH thrown in too early and getting smashed around and his confidence is shot to bits

The good thing about Byrnes, is it doesn't matter if he has 2 premierships under his belt, he has to play consistently well to hold his place, hence the improved performance last Friday, which he will have to repeat this week, we have alternatives now, Blease, Toumpas, JKH, Evans, Kent.....Roos will pick who is in form and who he thinks will perform the role he has in mind for the game

Edited March 3, 201411 yr by Satyriconhome

Not a bad result.

Some very bad disposal. Bail & M Jones could not hit the water from a boat.

I'm afraid if you can't hit a target you have no value in this game.

You must hit a target when kicking in the back 50. MUST, if you can't then go long and wide. It is not rocket surgery!.

Roos is our greatest recruit.

Not a bad result.

Some very bad disposal. Bail & M Jones could not hit the water from a boat.

I'm afraid if you can't hit a target you have no value in this game.

You must hit a target when kicking in the back 50. MUST, if you can't then go long and wide. It is not rocket surgery!.

Roos is our greatest recruit.

Tha's why Hawks, Geelong and Swans are so ahead of the rest. They hit targets. You run hard and spread and turn the ball over - you are dead meat.