I found it quiet obvious what the game plan is but simply couldn't pull it off due to bad skills and lack of numbers.

Hold onto the ball no matter what. go backwards, sideways, forwards as long as we hold onto the ball. Wait for something to open up then GO. In the Richmond game I think that showed best only because the Richmond players were going half arsed. One we get better at that movement we will be able to execute it in the season proper.

We were getting the ball to about 75meters out easy enough and then would look up and think 'gee I haven't got anyone to go to. we didn't really have a player the boys could kick to and think atleast if he doesn't mark it he will bring it to the ground. This week we will bring in Gawn and play him close to goal. dump it long and hope for the odd clunck, if not hope of small forwards can swoop.

Or, if that fails, with the press on, you'll get smacked on the way back and concede a score.

Too easy.

I found it a little strange as smart as Roos is, that he couldnt find an avenue to goal.

Last time I looked.....Roos wasn't playing.....

Last time I looked.....Roos wasn't playing.....

You know what he was talking about......

I found it a little strange as smart as Roos is, that he couldnt find an avenue to goal.

I think this is what he means about instilling confidence. Possession football is based on the low-risk options of kicking backwards and sideways to unmarked teammates. But moving forwards purposefully, rather than backwards or sideways, means taking risks.

To take risks needs confidence and enterprise and courage. It also needs structure and co-ordination to increase the chance of the risk coming off.

It's a work in progress, and it's why Roos keeps talking so much about confidence, and "they're actually better than they think they are" (the direct opposite to many Demonlanders). He's trying to build the courage for them to take the game on and attack more, even in the absence of tall forwards. It's the only way we'll improve.

I found it a little strange as smart as Roos is, that he couldnt find an avenue to goal.

i think he tried,was sitting about 3 rows back from the dugout and the bench was in koas as they were trying {hoping}dunny and mac could stay on and limp through the game,thereby giving us another option with rotations and forward set up.

supporters have vented about mac being on one leg,but i dont think his corkie could have got worse and it was an option to re-arrange the forward 50.

You know what he was talking about......

I know....Was just trying to be funny......Obviously failed...

You know what he was talking about......

Which makes it all the more ridiculous.

The players weren't good enough to execute, and were dead on their feet.

Injuries killed us.

75 interchange rotations says it all.

"Game plan".

What is the game plan?

GO.

You know, having talls doesn't just automatically lead to a score. There are more variables added to the equation.

On Saturday there were no talls, so lots of over-possession and errors.

Say on Sunday two talls are playing up forward:

1. The delivery must be good

2. The delivery must be frequent

3. The team must collapse well and defend even better

4. The forwards must work hard enough to keep the ball forward

The team has a lot to learn and simply scoring more goals isn't the answer. It's about being able to counter how the opposition responds to your style.

I thought Melbourne controlled the game really well on Saturday night, for much of the game. The Saints broke through a few times but as Roos said in the off-season it's about not letting the opposition get a run-on. In 2012, 2013, that would have been a 7-8 goal loss after those Rooboy goals.

Do not write this team off on Sunday. I think they'll be in it. If they can control the game and keep it at their level, they are a chance.

That Essendon game is a prime example?

How did they stop the run? It wasn't about kicking all the goals. It was about controlling the game, keeping it on your terms. That has really always been the Roos style, and I think Neeld ultimately wanted the team playing that way. He was a very defensive-minded coach, he simply didn't have the structure nor trust of the playing group.

Control the game, stem the oppositions scoring, and make the most of your opportunities. For the team on Saturday it really was just a matter of not making the most of the times when they DID have an opportunity to score. They had no one up forward but they had plenty of opportunities.

I don't mind the possession game.they all need to learn to kick properly .

I trust Roos knows what he is doing .

We will improve every week .

I'm pretty confident of that.

I don't mind the possession game.they all need to learn to kick properly .

I trust Roos knows what he is doing .

We will improve every week .

I'm pretty confident of that.

Unlike you to pander to blind devotion, B.

Getting soft?

Good point. The game plan is based on soccer. It's not only about keeping possession, but also about creating an opening and then attacking quickly in a co-ordinated way. The "keeping possession" part is just the foundation.

Bombing to tall forwards should be just one option to attack. But other much more effective options include hitting someone on a lead, or running it through the corridor, or switching and then moving it quickly, or creating a stoppage deep in attack. We have an ideal opportunity over the next few weeks to develop other attacking options that don't rely on tall forwards.

But this relies on co-ordination. We have very few players who can reliably pinpoint someone on a fast lead - Watts can do it; Toumpas is great at it; Strauss can do it but needs to get the ball in the right position; and now we have Vince and possibly Tyson, and in future Salem. So when we move it around, we aim to get the ball in the hands of one of these in a dangerous position. And the most important part is that the forwards need to anticipate and to run to the right spaces even before the ball gets to them. If we have 2 or 3 forwards running to different spaces (not to the same space as they tend to do at the moment), it's even better.

Co-ordination is also important when the play is switched quickly. Dunn is great at this, as is Strauss. But at the moment, it seems that the forwards get caught flat-footed when this happens, so there is nobody upfield making space for the 2nd, 3rd & 4th possession (the last being the kick on goal) so the switch is wasted and it goes sideways again. So when Dunn gets the ball and looks to the "fat side", those downfield know who runs and to where, and who blocks the runner's opponent, and get the timing right.

At the moment, they're having to make everything up on the spot. That's not such a bad thing, because set plays can get unpredictable, and are harder to carry out once the other team susses them out. But the ideal is a combination. Getting back to soccer again, this has been the basic game plan for 30 or 40 years, and everyone knows what the other team is trying to do and strives to stop them, but defences can still get caught out of position and sometimes even the most obvious moves just can't be stopped. Which is why it's a damn good game plan.

An excellent summation of the plan. As you say soccer is the tactical template. And really good points about the need to have our best kickers hitting our forward targets. Those targets (short or tall) need to know how, where and when to lead and as you say they seemed a little confused about this against the Saints, which meant that often the ball carriers just bombed it ineffectively and it got turned over (often by the loose saints back man).

Contrary to some who have said we should have gone forward more often i think that in fact in those circumstances the ball carrier should have resorted to chipping it around until a genuine option become available in the forward half. Roos talked about lowering their eyes as did Howe, meaning not bombing away and instead spotting up leading targets. But as Akum points out often no one was leading properly so they should have just held on to the ball - even if it frustrated the fans - until someone did.

You know what he was talking about......

I know Paul Roos had Cam Pedersen, Jack Fitzpatrick and Jeremy Howe as the permanent forwards with the rest rotating through:

The converstaions went like this

PR "ok Jack I want you to get concussed in the first quarter, sit on bench for a while and then get subbed, that should throw the structures we have practiced all week out"

JF ok

PR "Cam apart from now being the lone guy who is actually tall lin the forward half once Fitzy goes off, I actually want you to have to relieve in the ruck as well, so you won't get much rest"

CP ok

PR "now Tommy you get a couple of corkies but stay on and give it your best shot against a 200+ game veteran who can run all day"\

TMac ok

Sigh and double sigh....don't go or don't watch on Sunday, don't want posters in agony next week as well

Unlike you to pander to blind devotion, B.

Getting soft?

Just confident Roos will bring the team together properly.

Haven't had injuries like this since Balme was coach.

I know Paul Roos had Cam Pedersen, Jack Fitzpatrick and Jeremy Howe as the permanent forwards with the rest rotating through:

The converstaions went like this

PR "ok Jack I want you to get concussed in the first quarter, sit on bench for a while and then get subbed, that should throw the structures we have practiced all week out"

JF ok

PR "Cam apart from now being the lone guy who is actually tall lin the forward half once Fitzy goes off, I actually want you to have to relieve in the ruck as well, so you won't get much rest"

CP ok

PR "now Tommy you get a couple of corkies but stay on and give it your best shot against a 200+ game veteran who can run all day"\

TMac ok

Sigh and double sigh....don't go or don't watch on Sunday, don't want posters in agony next week as well

I'm not sure about what you're talking about.....some attempt at black comedy?

I'll go, I'll watch, I won't go, I won't watch - at the end of the day, the decision will be mine and mine alone.

I don't mind the possession game.they all need to learn to kick properly .

Bingo !

Only relevant stat is turnovers and clangers - it is not a coincidence that most goals are kicked from turnovers.

Bingo !

Only relevant stat is turnovers and clangers - it is not a coincidence that most goals are kicked from turnovers.

And I would suggest the main reason McKenzie and Nicholson were playing for Casey last weekend and probably will be this weekend.

I know Paul Roos had Cam Pedersen, Jack Fitzpatrick and Jeremy Howe as the permanent forwards with the rest rotating through:

The converstaions went like this

PR "ok Jack I want you to get concussed in the first quarter, sit on bench for a while and then get subbed, that should throw the structures we have practiced all week out"

JF ok

PR "Cam apart from now being the lone guy who is actually tall lin the forward half once Fitzy goes off, I actually want you to have to relieve in the ruck as well, so you won't get much rest"

CP ok

PR "now Tommy you get a couple of corkies but stay on and give it your best shot against a 200+ game veteran who can run all day"\

TMac ok

Sigh and double sigh....don't go or don't watch on Sunday, don't want posters in agony next week as well

Then plan a couple of weeks holiday from here Satyr.

No one likes being talked down to btw.

And I would suggest the main reason McKenzie and Nicholson were playing for Casey last weekend and probably will be this weekend.

I see McKenzie and Nicholson differently.

Whilst I acknowledge that McKenzies disposal is a liability at present I think ( read hope) with more spread and outside mids that McKenzie's role can be simplified to being in and under extractor/tagger and a giving the ball out to a player 5-10m away. He has that capability. ( think Mitchell in his earlier days - couldn't kick to save himself but developed good hands and was a brilliant extractor - he is now quite reliable over about 3O metres)

The issue with Nicholson is that he is such a hard runner that he often presents himself as the last link in a chain who then has to spot up someone. You do not want Nicholson being last link in the chain - his disposal will let him down.

Cameron Ling was a bit the same - dodgy by foot - but he was usually a very early link in the chain of handballs - not the end of the chain.

I see McKenzie and Nicholson differently.

Whilst I acknowledge that McKenzies disposal is a liability at present I think ( read hope) with more spread and outside mids that McKenzie's role can be simplified to being in and under extractor/tagger and a giving the ball out to a player 5-10m away. He has that capability. ( think Mitchell in his earlier days - couldn't kick to save himself but developed good hands and was a brilliant extractor - he is now quite reliable over about 3O metres)

The issue with Nicholson is that he is such a hard runner that he often presents himself as the last link in a chain who then has to spot up someone. You do not want Nicholson being last link in the chain - his disposal will let him down.

Cameron Ling was a bit the same - dodgy by foot - but he was usually a very early link in the chain of handballs - not the end of the chain.

To put it simply not being able to kick is still compatible with being a tagger. It's not compatible with being an attacking half back flanker.

If we need a tagger I'm happy with McKenzie to get more chances to show improvement in aspects of his game under Roos.

If Nicholson is to play again I'd use him as a high work rate defensive forward if Bail, Blease, Byrnes, Tapscott or whatever resting midfielders are injured or out of form. Considering his defensive game one on one is prett weak I see absolutely no future for him at half back

To put it simply not being able to kick is still compatible with being a tagger. It's not compatible with being an attacking half back flanker.

yup ( or at the bottom of the packs at stoppages - Greg Williams made a career out of it and he couldnt kick for 3/4's of his career however the champion that he was, his last years at Carlton he managed to make become quite skillful by foot over short distances - like Mitchell)

An attacking half back flanker - used as an outlet - who can't kick - is a terrible liability.

As much as we loved Clint Bartram for his hardness - I used to despair at his hard running to present as an outlet because he skill by foot constantly let him down and cost us.

Roos simply brilliant!

yup ( or at the bottom of the packs at stoppages - Greg Williams made a career out of it and he couldnt kick for 3/4's of his career however the champion that he was, his last years at Carlton he managed to make become quite skillful by foot over short distances - like Mitchell)

An attacking half back flanker - used as an outlet - who can't kick - is a terrible liability.

As much as we loved Clint Bartram for his hardness - I used to despair at his hard running to present as an outlet because he skill by foot constantly let him down and cost us.

Prerequisite must be to be able to drop kick 45 metres. If this is achievable on a consistent basis at training then all else is possible! For example, running into an open goal and dobbing it from 5 metres out. PEDO!!

I see McKenzie and Nicholson differently.

Whilst I acknowledge that McKenzies disposal is a liability at present I think ( read hope) with more spread and outside mids that McKenzie's role can be simplified to being in and under extractor/tagger and a giving the ball out to a player 5-10m away. He has that capability. ( think Mitchell in his earlier days - couldn't kick to save himself but developed good hands and was a brilliant extractor - he is now quite reliable over about 3O metres)

The issue with Nicholson is that he is such a hard runner that he often presents himself as the last link in a chain who then has to spot up someone. You do not want Nicholson being last link in the chain - his disposal will let him down.

Cameron Ling was a bit the same - dodgy by foot - but he was usually a very early link in the chain of handballs - not the end of the chain.

bring back McK ! agreed.

Stick to the game plan despite not having the cattle?

Hmmmm....didn't Malthouse say that he needed to 'find a way' and shift things around?

Weren't posters screaming at Neeld for sticking to a game plan when we 'didn't have the cattle?'

But I suppose it's Roos and everything will be okay.

But I thought mentioning Neeld was a bit like mentioning Voldemort! You know? That if you bring up Mark Neeld you are living in the past and you need to move into the present!