David King on the Melbourne blueprint

[Akum 2,660]

I rate King. He told us Neeld was no good very early with his "mature bodied game plan for a bunch of kids". He was spot on whilst swimming strongly against the tide.

There are a few home truths in his article. He tells us our last 8 weeks (which is a fair slab of the season) was in fact no better than our last year under Neeld/Craig. I for one didn't realize that. He tells us we are the highest stoppage team with the worst stoppage numbers. Surely that's concerning. He tells us we are the worst tackling team in the competition. Rather ironic given Roos' ethos and scathing criticism of Richmond's failure to tackle in previous years.

Most of the world including DL have unquestioning faith in Roos. King is now questioning that and is one of the first to do so. I don't expect him to be Nostradamus about next year, in fact I'd think less of him if he tried to be. I happen to be in the King camp and have for some time questioned Roos' game plan and methodology. I'm not saying it's wrong, just not accepting as most do here, that "is Roos is good".

The reality is that the last third of last season, a time when we should have been adapting to the Roos game plan better, was as bad as we've ever been. That's a worry.

I thought it was a good short form article by King, let's face it, he's not writing a thesis he's writing a article to the footy reading public about MFC.

Pretty good I would have thought.

I thought it was good. King was trying hard to be constructive not critical, and to ask questions while avoiding making assumptions and taking the analysis too far.

Cos "taking the analysis too far" is basically our job!

It may be that if you don't have the ball a lot of the time, a largely defensive game plan will exhaust players over the course of a game and/or a season. It's much more tiring to chase than it is to make the play.

I know for sure that Roos was trying to get them to be more attacking when we had the ball at the end of the season, but players were hesitant to take the risk to hit up the first option. As we heard, they worked hard on ball movement at training, but it was hard for them to do it in games. This was the basis for the remarks about "scars" from previous seasons, when if they took an attacking risk they got flayed, even if it came off.

I think it's right that we need to see some improvement in this in 2015 - a better balance between attacking & defensive. If Roos can't get the players to deliver this in 2015 ... then who can? I think he can, but it won't be good if we're here in a year's time and there's been no significant improvement.

[P-man 13,353]

This sort of gossipy presumptuous second guessing is lazy rubbish. Roos 'lost the players'? I wonder if 'the players' would agree with you, or think you're a clown? Damien Hardwick presumably had 'lost the players' at Richmond for the first half of this year, but re-found them for the second. Ignorant nonsense.

Harsh, but ulitmately fair. Saying Roos "lost the players" is baseless, unless every team that performs poorly does so because the coach has "lost the players".

Everyone keeps searching for an answer to explain the drop off. Players and coaches have attributed it to fitness, and there's no reason not to believe them at this point.

[old dee 23,256]

Harsh, but ulitmately fair. Saying Roos "lost the players" is baseless, unless every team that performs poorly does so because the coach has "lost the players".

Everyone keeps searching for an answer to explain the drop off. Players and coaches have attributed it to fitness, and there's no reason not to believe them at this point.

Umm they were not good enough?

Edited November 17, 2014 by old dee

[daisycutter 28,727]

david who?

[old dee 23,256]

By they way we all forget he was the first to say TS was off to Sydney

Got that right way out in front too.

[Demon trucker 1,800]

There will be improvement there has to be we will win twice as many games remember we led in 10 games in the last qut winning 4 last year we only twice for two wins

[Its Time for Another 4,058]

Harsh, but ulitmately fair. Saying Roos "lost the players" is baseless, unless every team that performs poorly does so because the coach has "lost the players".

Everyone keeps searching for an answer to explain the drop off. Players and coaches have attributed it to fitness, and there's no reason not to believe them at this point.

And yet someone, from memory Bernie Vince, when he arrived at the Club commented on how hard they trained and how fit they were and that there were more players who were running sub 10 minute 3Km time trials than at any other Club. We have had continuity with conditioning with Misson since the end of 2011. How is it that the fitness is so far off the mark. I don't buy it. I reckon it's more to do with psychological fatigue than physical fitness.

But some key players dropped off badly which effected the whole team. Dawes was terrible by the end but that was off the back of missing nearly the whole pre season. Apparently that adds up towards the end of the season. I don't know what happened to Pedersen who dropped off so badly he was dropped. He didn't miss the pre season. So we were back to no effective forward line by the end of the season. Dom T had a limited pre season and was carrying an injury. There were a few more carrying injuries or suffering for interrupted pre seasons. We are in much better shape this pre season than last, for what it's worth.

[beelzebub 22,724]

I think we've trained for the wrong kind of fitness, if that makes sense.

Running 3 km is all well and good ...Running stop start 50m, 100m , walk, run, jog, run, walk , run etc . is very different kind of cardio aerobic fitness. You actually need far more or the latter than the former to play footy

Think of it like a gearbox...you get up to speed, get into a rhythm and you can actually ease up a tad and still keep your pace. Nothing in football is played that way.

What we lacked was game day fitness, we kept running out of puff by 3/4 time. Weve improved on that but possibly at the expense of skills.

Get fit and you can execute skills much better. I think we'll get there.

[Slartibartfast 16,128]

Who is David King and why should I care about what he has to say?

If you're asking this why on earth are you reading this forum?

[Slartibartfast 16,128]

Agree, it was headline grabbing...made the big call and it fell his way.

I don't agree on this. I'm not sure if it's recorded here and I can't be bothered searching but I put the idea forward before King that we had the wrong coach because he was trying to get a young skillful list to play stoppage "strength" football. It was Collingwood mark 2 are we needed the fast skillful football game plan to succeed. King then came out and said pretty much the same thing.

If I could see it then for someone of King's experience and knowledge it must have been pretty obvious.

Fact is it didn't "fall he way". He saw it before many and put his nuts on the line and he was right. It always amuses me that posters on DL of unknown status seem to dismiss people like King who have been involved in footy very successfully for a long period.

rjay if King's article is so poor why don't you just put together a similar article that doesn't fall into the same headline grabbing laziness that King is being accused of. I really enjoy your contributions but reckon you're miles off the mark here.

I'm looking forward to your insights.

[rjay 24,193]

I don't agree on this. I'm not sure if it's recorded here and I can't be bothered searching but I put the idea forward before King that we had the wrong coach because he was trying to get a young skillful list to play stoppage "strength" football. It was Collingwood mark 2 are we needed the fast skillful football game plan to succeed. King then came out and said pretty much the same thing.

If I could see it then for someone of King's experience and knowledge it must have been pretty obvious.

Fact is it didn't "fall he way". He saw it before many and put his nuts on the line and he was right. It always amuses me that posters on DL of unknown status seem to dismiss people like King who have been involved in footy very successfully for a long period.

rjay if King's article is so poor why don't you just put together a similar article that doesn't fall into the same headline grabbing laziness that King is being accused of. I really enjoy your contributions but reckon you're miles off the mark here.

I'm looking forward to your insights.

'Bob', I didn't call it poor or lazy that was others. All I've said about it is it was an article based on hindsight (stats are by their nature hindsight) which is ok but it didn't give us the blueprint or an analysis of whether it would be successful. I think 'Kingy' was being safe here, at least he didn't come out with some Barrett type rubbish.

I also don't doubt you were negative on Neeld from early on, I seem to remember this and I would have been one of many saying he needed more time. Turned out you were right on the money. I still think 'Kingy' was more about the headline, he does have a track record of this. I guess in his shoes you have to get the headline to stay relevant. At least he is more considered and informed than someone like Brad Hardy who just talks absolute cr....

For what it's worth I think Roos success will be measured by the list more than anything else. People talk change in culture, game plan and other things but first and foremost the list needed to be sorted out and so far I think we are on the right track. To me Roos blueprint is to fill in holes, fix previous poor selections and build a strong list. Culture and game plan will come with the right people.

We had a lack of leadership and quality in the late 20's experienced players and brought in Vince and Cross.

We needed a midfield and started to address this, I think the Tyson move was a masterstroke picking up Salem as well.

So far this year the trading looks good, again adding experience and run with 'H' a bit of class and pace with Garlett and again replacing the likes of Blease and Strauss with other early 20's kids Newton and Frost.

I'm not upset we didn't get another Tyson type deal this year as I think we will bring in some really good kids and next year look to top up with a FA or out of contract player when we are more ready to attract them. It's a work in progress.

[FC Melbourne 108]

I don't know what happened to Pedersen who dropped off so badly he was dropped. He didn't miss the pre season.

Having his nose splattered all over his face by Merritt may explain some of he drop off.

[Slartibartfast 16,128]

'Bob', I didn't call it poor or lazy that was others.

Fair enough. I can't fault Roos other than the game plan which I don't like and I fear is out of date. Carlton and Richmond were terrible early last year playing defensive rot and improved significantly when they started to play more attacking footy.

PA were the surprise packet again and played attacking footy. I reckon if you don't play fast aggressive footy now days other teams just strangle you. Our last part of the season was terrible but I didn't realize it was as bad as King pointed out.

I think the message I took from King was that he thought it was very ordinary as well. He referenced Roos concentrating on defense and added that attack must be added. I agree. We'll see how good Roos is this year because we'll see if attack is added and we'll see if we can match it with other clubs. Brisbane had a better season than us last year despite a rash of injuries to key players and 5 good young players leaving before the season started. They played fast attacking footy.

I'm just hoping that's all.

[rjay 24,193]

Fair enough. I can't fault Roos other than the game plan which I don't like and I fear is out of date. Carlton and Richmond were terrible early last year playing defensive rot and improved significantly when they started to play more attacking footy.

PA were the surprise packet again and played attacking footy. I reckon if you don't play fast aggressive footy now days other teams just strangle you. Our last part of the season was terrible but I didn't realize it was as bad as King pointed out.

I think the message I took from King was that he thought it was very ordinary as well. He referenced Roos concentrating on defense and added that attack must be added. I agree. We'll see how good Roos is this year because we'll see if attack is added and we'll see if we can match it with other clubs. Brisbane had a better season than us last year despite a rash of injuries to key players and 5 good young players leaving before the season started. They played fast attacking footy.

I'm just hoping that's all.

I'm not sold on the game plan either 'Bob'. I'm hoping with a bit more scoring power up forward (Garlett, Hogan, Howe) and run off the back line ('H' and Frost) we might focus a bit more on attack.

As for the last part of the season, well I think I did know it was that bad when I was really not looking forward to the games anymore.

[Grapeviney 9,063]

Simon Goodwin, he will be the glue between the players and Roos and he is the one I will be watching with most interest next season.

Unless you work in the FD or get to sit in the coach's box, I don't think you're going to see too much...

[beelzebub 22,724]

Fair enough. I can't fault Roos other than the game plan which I don't like and I fear is out of date.

Do you not think that maybe hes working with what hes got ( and improving it, the list ) and teaching them in building block form.

We're coming from a fair way back. Rome wasnt built in a day . It takes a plan and adherence to it to get somewhere..

I dont think 2014 was anything other than a very basic education in footy for most and a weeding out process.

2015 will be quite different.....mainly because it can be.

[Whispering_Jack 28,118]

I don't agree on this. I'm not sure if it's recorded here and I can't be bothered searching but I put the idea forward before King that we had the wrong coach because he was trying to get a young skillful list to play stoppage "strength" football. It was Collingwood mark 2 are we needed the fast skillful football game plan to succeed. King then came out and said pretty much the same thing.

If I could see it then for someone of King's experience and knowledge it must have been pretty obvious.

Fact is it didn't "fall he way". He saw it before many and put his nuts on the line and he was right. It always amuses me that posters on DL of unknown status seem to dismiss people like King who have been involved in footy very successfully for a long period.

There's a difference between trying to get a young skillful list to play stoppage "strength" football and what Neeld was trying to do - he made it very clear from day one that the list he inherited was well behind the team he left Collingwood in every facet, especially experience, the levels of strength and physical fitness and ability to run (and do it both ways) necessary to cope with the style of game that football was evolving towards. It's been mentioned here many times that Dave Misson developed a fitness plan specifically to raise fitness levels in steps over three years to cater for this without causing young players to break down.

Neeld ultimately failed to achieve success because he couldn't get the players to buy into his programme. The group was fractured, we suffered through some significant injury and personal issues among the playing group, some weren't particularly committed to the cause and others simply weren't capable of reaching even the most modest standards. We can see that Paul Roos' has also stressed the need for defensive skills, the ability to run etc. and this is borne out by the players who were delisted recently and by the types he is recruiting to the club. Fast skillful football game plans only worked against certain opposition and were no longer in vogue. They were not going to win us a flag then and won't do so any time soon.

If King was saying that Neeld was trying to get his team to play strength "stoppage" football from the get go, then he didnt even understand what Neeld was trying to do. What he did recognise early on was that Neeld's plan wasn't going to work with the personnel he had at his disposal at the time but I suspect that the problems with the list were already systemic, the result of poor recruiting, poor player development and a lack of on field leadership over a long period of time. There were far too many players who were limited physically and mentally and whose pre seasons in 2012 and 2013 were embarrassing, especially in terms of their endurance running but in other aspects as well.

Neeld was on a hiding to nothing from day one at the club and it was his inability to bring the team together and communicate a coherent message that ultimately brought him undone but the players under him weren't really up to it. The fact that Roosy has already turned over 50% of the list is testament to that.

As far as the current David King article is concerned, it's not bad when measured up with his usual standard work. We know the club faces a challenge to move up the ladder and we also know that the combination that runs out in round one next year will be significantly different to what it was 18 months ago. Where we go from here is anyone's guess.

[Binmans PA 26,732]

Umm they were not good enough?

I think it's a combination of both. But we had a far easier first half in terms of draw. We played some half decent teams in the second half of the year and were predictably blown away. (We're a rubbish football side)

[Whispering_Jack 28,118]

(We're a rubbish football side)

Yep - summarises in a nutshell where we've been and what I was trying to say about the Bailey/Neeld/Craig period and if you like, Roosy's first year but there are glimmer's of hope and I remain ever the optimist that we're going to break through soon.

[Binmans PA 26,732]

Yep - summarises in a nutshell where we've been and what I was trying to say about the Bailey/Neeld/Craig period and if you like, Roosy's first year but there are glimmer's of hope and I remain ever the optimist that we're going to break through soon.

I think we'll improve marginally next year, mate. I'm expecting (perhaps hoping) we get 7 or 8 wins.

[jabberwocky 2,301]

Whilst Neeld's plan was doomed from the outset it wasn't his plan that was the issue.

David King was right that we didn't have the list to play the type of footy that Neeld wanted played. The type of footy that Neeld wanted played was the type that was winning flags.

The fact that we didn't have the list to play it was a remnant of the previous regime who put a lot of emphasis on recruiting athletes with kicking skills (that couldn't operate under pressure) to play a superseded game plan... and just poor recruiting in general.

With the opposing game plans it is little wonder that the players were confused and many failed to develop. With respect to Bailey, he erred, and the pain that the club has borne over several years began with his mis-reading of the game itself. Not to mention the massive and sudden loss of experience that occurred during that time.

It was a perfect storm that Neeld presided over, and his lack of foresight and average man management and communication skills saw things get worse.

And don't give me the Bailey V Neeld win loss crap. The plan that Bailey was coaching was NEVER going to win in September. I expect a footy dept that aims for flags.

Roos has a lot of mess to undo. We all expect serious inroads to be made this season.

Edited November 17, 2014 by jabberwocky

[Whispering_Jack 28,118]

I think we'll improve marginally next year, mate. I'm expecting (perhaps hoping) we get 7 or 8 wins.

I think we can improve more than marginally but we need the stars to align for once.

Two years ago Port Adelaide shocked the football world with its resurgence and much of that was due to its football department being very good at executing well laid coaching and fitness plans that brought the best out of the list. Most of it was hard work but they were also blessed by having an almost full list at their disposal. Can anyone remember when we could say that about Melbourne in round one of any season?

So if the stars align it could be 10 wins and possibly more.

[Deecisive 1,674]

Neeld was crippled by the playing group he inherited regardless of game plan and injuries. Roos has also been significantly handicapped by the same group, though he did manage to get a few really good players in last years draft. This year will be another significant cleanout and infusion of more talented players than the ones they are replacing. Roos game seemed to me to be around cutting down the loosing margin, being within striking distance near the end of the games so that we could potentially overhaul and win a few, which i think he did reasonably well, were were in quite a few games before we fell away. This year we have again some good pickups and with a fit forward line have a chance to play more attacking football. I think we should win quite a few more games this year possibly 8 or 9 wins.

[Demon 16 198]

David King is a good pundit, but I would have liked a little more opinion on what he thinks is required, and how we will go next year.

There no way 2015 will define Roos' impact at the club either, 2016/17 will be when we start to see what we've got.

Edited November 17, 2014 by Demon 16

[wattsjurrahdunne 88]

I've been somewhat surprised at the optimism of some suggesting 8 to 10 wins next year. Todd Viney's comments in the Herald Sun this morning stating 2015 would be more hard yards with things starting to look better from 2016 suggested to me that there is another bottom 2/3 year ahead.

Boy, I hope they get these 4 draft picks right.