Something that not many people mention is how Melbourne has been behind football trends right through the last 10 years. In my view, this is why we are always falling short of getting out of the hole we are in.

For example, we went with the Morton, Grimes, Blease types just as the game shifted to the Hawthorn/Geelong big-bodied mids and the game went to being all about tough, contested footy. It moved to be more offensive in the last couple of years (think Hawthorn and Gunston, Isaac Smith type runners), right when we went (shudder) back to 'kick it down the line to a contest'.

In the last couple of years, we have mostly looked at bulking up the midfield with tougher types like Viney, Petracca, Tyson, even van den Berg (although I admit we did go with Salem who is more of a silky outsider).

We're going to get left behind again, because the game has shifted to be faster and higher scoring this year and probably into the next couple. If this keeps going, we will again be 2-4 yeats behind trend and have a team that's completely useless for what is being dished up by the competition.

Thoughts?

The game itself is definitely at a cross roads. It appeared the fast running Port style was coming back into vogue, but Roos found a way to nullify it twice last year, and so far this season two very defensive teams have had little problem nullifying their run.

It's hard to be ahead of the game because the trends change every year. First and foremost you need the talent.

Something that not many people mention is how Melbourne has been behind football trends right through the last 10 years. In my view, this is why we are always falling short of getting out of the hole we are in.

For example, we went with the Morton, Grimes, Blease types just as the game shifted to the Hawthorn/Geelong big-bodied mids and the game went to being all about tough, contested footy. It moved to be more offensive in the last couple of years (think Hawthorn and Gunston, Isaac Smith type runners), right when we went (shudder) back to 'kick it down the line to a contest'.

In the last couple of years, we have mostly looked at bulking up the midfield with tougher types like Viney, Petracca, Tyson, even van den Berg (although I admit we did go with Salem who is more of a silky outsider).

We're going to get left behind again, because the game has shifted to be faster and higher scoring this year and probably into the next couple. If this keeps going, we will again be 2-4 yeats behind trend and have a team that's completely useless for what is being dished up by the competition.

Thoughts?

Like Roos said last week you need players who can run for 4 quarters & players who can win their own ball. That aspect of football has never changed. The surprising thing for me is that he didn't take his own advice today & play enough running players. 4 tall forwards & 4 tall backs is too much in my opinion.

Roos' job is to improve the talent and discipline of the list to the point where they look and act like AFL footballers. Goodwin's job will be to take the work Roos has done and mold it into a winning game. In theory once Roos has done his job the team will be at the point where they are able to implement Goodwin's plans with minimal disruption and then if we have the right man we'll start to see some wins in September.

there will always be a place for big bodied midfielders no matter how AFL footy evolves, as there wil alsol be for fast/leaner players. The best teams will just have a better blend of each tupe of player.

Good thread topic undeeterred. Whilst the season is still young, it certainly does appear that the fast, offensive midfielder has become super important. This may well become an increasing recruit/draft priority for Roos and Goodwin. But... we also need to have a ruck that can hit to advantage occasionally and be useful around the ground more than Jamar, Gawn and Spencil are. Mummy was amazing today, and his service at stoppages turned the game imo. He showed how valuable a winning ruckman can be to a team.

Like Roos said last week you need players who can run for 4 quarters & players who can win their own ball. That aspect of football has never changed. The surprising thing for me is that he didn't take his own advice today & play enough running players. 4 tall forwards & 4 tall backs is too much in my opinion.

All the talk during the week, in terms of changes, was that Dawes was a monty to come in at the expense of a small. Some, including myself, weren't that keen on the change as there was the potential for disrupting the set up that we had last week.

While it certainly isn't all to blame I think we made an error at the selection table this week. We went too tall against a side that loves to run and we got found out a little bit. Obviously swapping someone like Frost for JKH isn't going to turn things around by 8 goals but I think we went with too many tall players and it hurt us.

For as long as I remember, tough, strong bodied sides have won Grand Finals.
And we've been infatuated with skinny blokes that get monstered by the these sides.

Edited April 11, 201510 yr by Fork 'em

All the talk during the week, in terms of changes, was that Dawes was a monty to come in at the expense of a small. Some, including myself, weren't that keen on the change as there was the potential for disrupting the set up that we had last week.

While it certainly isn't all to blame I think we made an error at the selection table this week. We went too tall against a side that loves to run and we got found out a little bit. Obviously swapping someone like Frost for JKH isn't going to turn things around by 8 goals but I think we went with too many tall players and it hurt us.

Our style of play was vastly different to last week. Our transition from defence to attack was slow & it didn't help create any momentum. We were exciting to watch last week because we didn't have a one focal point of attack, there were numerous outlets. Today it was a lot of kicking down the line instead of switching the ball or looking to run through the middle. I know this wouldn't have won us the clearances however it was a big part of the game.

I believe if you could somehow draft in six elite players who will always win a one on one contest, then you can play around trying to set trends a la the Hawks. Give me Hodge, Mitchell, Lewis, Roughy, Cyril, Burgoyne, Birchell first and then I will play around with high speed runners like Isaac Smith and B Hill to set a new trend.

L

Our style of play was vastly different to last week. Our transition from defence to attack was slow & it didn't help create any momentum. We were exciting to watch last week because we didn't have a one focal point of attack, there were numerous outlets. Today it was a lot of kicking down the line instead of switching the ball or looking to run through the middle. I know this wouldn't have won us the clearances however it was a big part of the game.

And added to this was the ease with which GWS were able to transition the ball from defence, particularly in the second half. We can't pin the loss on only this, but our forward line pressure last week was terrific and we just missed that extra small player buzzing around down there to create a little havoc.

After quarter time we certainly went back to our old style of play, but we'll get better with that over the coming weeks.

Good thread. Ive noticed this myself. To thonk that aaron davey took forward pressure to a new innovative level at this club. Probably our last innovation.

Good thread. Ive noticed this myself. To thonk that aaron davey took forward pressure to a new innovative level at this club. Probably our last innovation.

Rubbish.... Neeld innovated a whole new level of shite in 2013. No-one will ever do it better.

We need to look at what the Premiership team does, guess what teams are going to do to stop it, and then to whatever stops THAT.

It's called "metagaming," and it works.

We need to look at what the Premiership team does, guess what teams are going to do to stop it, and then to whatever stops THAT.

It's called "metagaming," and it works.

Yes, let's do what the "others" are trying to do...

I'd rather do something different and possibly fail as opposed to follow and always chase.

Yes, let's do what the "others" are trying to do...

I'd rather do something different and possibly fail as opposed to follow and always chase.

I don't think that's what Chook was trying to say - more that we need to look at what is currently working and come up with a way to stop that, which would mean we ARE doing something different.

It's easier said than done of course, but a good way of looking at it.

Yes, let's do what the "others" are trying to do...

I'd rather do something different and possibly fail as opposed to follow and always chase.

I don't think that's what Chook was trying to say - more that we need to look at what is currently working and come up with a way to stop that, which would mean we ARE doing something different.

It's easier said than done of course, but a good way of looking at it.

You're both wrong. The answer is to figure out what everyone else is going to do to stop whatever is currently effective. Then while they're all busy beating last year's game plan, we'll be beating them.

If we know scissor beats paper and the premiers are paper, then we need to be rock, so we can beat all the scissors who are trying to beat the paper.

For as long as I remember, tough, strong bodied sides have won Grand Finals.

And we've been infatuated with skinny blokes that get monstered by the these sides.

build the club for September success, it may take a little while but 100 Aaron Davies will never win us a flag. we can only have one Aaron in a team, & if they won't chase or tackle, then they're no use.

Our style of play was vastly different to last week. Our transition from defence to attack was slow & it didn't help create any momentum. We were exciting to watch last week because we didn't have a one focal point of attack, there were numerous outlets. Today it was a lot of kicking down the line instead of switching the ball or looking to run through the middle. I know this wouldn't have won us the clearances however it was a big part of the game.

I'm sure the coaches are also trying different things as we move into this season. some will come off, some won't.

Arguably last week were replicating the Hawthorn model of goal kicking mids. It worked because GCS are inept.

This week? Not so much.

3rd quarter today we couldn't win a freaking clearance or contested ball and it's because of some trend in the game? Spare me. Yeah we looked slow. But we didn't look slower than the Giants in the first half when we controlled the contest.

Our midfield was trash. The best players we could get in were Tyson, Cross, Vince, Michie, Riley then this year Lumumba and Newton.

No one is giving up speedy, fit, silky mids.

Brayshaw and Petracca were the best available. They might not be speed demons but they can provide outside run and they can win contests forward or back.

I did worry that Neal-Bullen wasn't an ideal list fit at pick 40, but if he was the highest rated then you go with him. Remember of course we had Stretch as well.

Geelong 2007. The fastest side there will ever be. Wojo aside they barely had a quick player if it came to a sprint race, but good luck if you were trying to catch them on a footy field.

For all their run and pace Port are 0-2.

Brayshaw and Petracca were the best available.

The same thinking that made us take Scully and Trengove over Martin.

Not saying you are wrong in the rest of your comments, and I think Brayshaw and Petracca will be really great players. Sometimes, though, it is worth at least talking about how we are going to look against the competition in, say, three or four years when our core youngsters will mature.

We were already three years behind getting a pile of goal kicking midfielders. Now we've got them, but they are young, and the top 4-6 clubs have already been thinking about the next steps and we're still stuck behind the 8 ball.

Just my view.

Something that not many people mention is how Melbourne has been behind football trends right through the last 10 years. In my view, this is why we are always falling short of getting out of the hole we are in.

For example, we went with the Morton, Grimes, Blease types just as the game shifted to the Hawthorn/Geelong big-bodied mids and the game went to being all about tough, contested footy. It moved to be more offensive in the last couple of years (think Hawthorn and Gunston, Isaac Smith type runners), right when we went (shudder) back to 'kick it down the line to a contest'.

In the last couple of years, we have mostly looked at bulking up the midfield with tougher types like Viney, Petracca, Tyson, even van den Berg (although I admit we did go with Salem who is more of a silky outsider).

We're going to get left behind again, because the game has shifted to be faster and higher scoring this year and probably into the next couple. If this keeps going, we will again be 2-4 yeats behind trend and have a team that's completely useless for what is being dished up by the competition.

Thoughts?

Players that can win repeated contests will always be essentials ingredients in AFL footy. I'm excited by our current crop of midfielders more than I ever have been before. It's what we still lack that is killing us though. We're missing at least one, probably two mids with genuine leg speed. But, in the modern game it's about having a balance of these types, otherwise you invariably get shown up.

Everyone is always trying to copy the premiers as that is the new way to play and pushed by the media

Sadly I think Bailey was the only recent coach which was going for a different game plan than popular at the time and rather than copying the premiers of the previous years he had his own plans for a football team. Sadly he n.eded two more years to see that through and if successful everyone would have copied Melbourne or we would have not had enough to make the top echelon

There is no such thing as one best game plan.

Any game plan can win at any time if you have right team to execute it, but the game plan needs to suit the team's strengths.