Over the last 10 years the game patterns have started to look a little like soccer. There has been flooding which is what many call parking the bus. Forward press where players push to pressure the opposition with the ball in their own half. To counter this they have counter attacking or sling shot football here where coaches try & get out the back of the press into space to create easier scoring chances. What we haven't seen happen too much is maintained possession football where a team will try to control the play & possess the ball so the other side doesn't score. To some degree we have tried this last year, but it was more sideways kicking & slow ball movement.

In soccer the best teams will possess the ball to control the game. They will set up their team in a formation where the ball carrier always has two outlets to pass the ball to or triangles if you draw lines to link players from above. Perhaps Hawthorn is already implementing a form of this strategy with their ball movement I'm not sure, I think coaches could learn a lot from it though.

In terms of the game yesterday we probably should have tried to get more men behind the ball when they had momentum to stem the tide & to start to get hands on the ball through possession. Other than that we needed to win more clearances which is pretty simple.

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.

I agree with this. When the pressure is on at finals time it is the strong, tough but skilful and smart that win the games. Mind you, if they are super quick as well that sure gives you an edge (Dylan Shiel, Judd and Ablett fit that criteria).

Over the last 10 years the game patterns have started to look a little like soccer. There has been flooding which is what many call parking the bus. Forward press where players push to pressure the opposition with the ball in their own half. To counter this they have counter attacking or sling shot football here where coaches try & get out the back of the press into space to create easier scoring chances. What we haven't seen happen too much is maintained possession football where a team will try to control the play & possess the ball so the other side doesn't score. To some degree we have tried this last year, but it was more sideways kicking & slow ball movement.

In soccer the best teams will possess the ball to control the game. They will set up their team in a formation where the ball carrier always has two outlets to pass the ball to or triangles if you draw lines to link players from above. Perhaps Hawthorn is already implementing a form of this strategy with their ball movement I'm not sure, I think coaches could learn a lot from it though.

In terms of the game yesterday we probably should have tried to get more men behind the ball when they had momentum to stem the tide & to start to get hands on the ball through possession. Other than that we needed to win more clearances which is pretty simple.

An interesting point, 'Bonkers'. Roos introduced something like this at Sydney and nigh perfected it in their premiership year. It was known then as 'tempo' football. And as you say we did it to some extent last year.

Something went seriously wrong yesterday with our version of 'tempo' footy when we (players and coaches) lost all elements of a defensive game. Yesterday we did not try hard enough to stop them getting the ball. As you say extra players down back and blocking exits from stoppages would have helped slow the game and maybe get it back to our 'tempo' footy.

As for the OP's question on trend? Lots of pressure from AFL and Port success to play fast, flashy, attacking (slingshot) football. At the end of the day it will be a balance but being able to control the game is where it is at.

I'm ok with us playing 'tempo' footy as long as we start to get the attack/defend balance right.

Edited April 11, 201510 yr by Lucifer's Hero

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.

That is so true. Especially when we were under siege in the second half I noticed Dunn, Garland etc. roosting the ball as far as they could to the half-back contests. Last week we were slotting the ball to players that had made space and then looking to use the corridor as soon as possible. They forced us to revert to what we thought were 'safe' options. They did their homework well.

Edited April 11, 201510 yr by btdemon

At every level of this game,if you're not good enough to win the footy,then the team and yourself are in trouble.

And in PR's aftermatch interview he simply said "we dont have enough of those players".

We are 4 years behind all clubs that have a list of players that can win their own pill.

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.

And if you have no strengths? Or your strengths 'don't even lift'?

And if you have no strengths? Or your strengths 'don't even lift'?

No team has no strengths, that's moronic.

If those strengths aren't as good as the strengths of other teams you still play to them.

Do you think that there is a single game plan that will beat all others?

It was our defensive effort that killed us on the weekend, not so much pace. Watch the first quarter - our defensive pressure was spot on, then watch the third quarter. You'd swear we only had 5 players on the ground.

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.

Our first priority is to win stoppages clearances possessions inside, our biggest deficiency. after that is outside class. we recruit to fix our deficiencies at this point. we don't recruit for a particular game in the following season. we recruit to strengthen our future chances.

No team has no strengths, that's moronic.

If those strengths aren't as good as the strengths of other teams you still play to them.

Do you think that there is a single game plan that will beat all others?

My point was that this isn't a 'zero sum game' - most teams have been stronger than us on every line for a few years now. I would say our backline is our strength but it is hard to build a winning gamplan out of there without a willing midfield with talent. Then our forward line is quickly becoming a strength but that is impossible to build a winning gameplan from without a midfield that gets first use or moves the ball quickly out of the middle or from the backline.

There are a multitude of gameplans to win footy games (I can take you through my own teams fairly simple one if anyone wishes) but they all rely on being able to compete in the middle of the ground.

If you lose any strength in the middle, your gameplan is almost moot.

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.

what if a club has a soft off-field culture of cosy-ness. that has been our longest running strength

we have to change the lounge like culture once again, as we've been working on rectifying for a couple of years now. we need to find a blood lust fierceness for the footy & for winning at all costs.

what if a club has a soft off-field culture of cosy-ness. that has been our longest running strength

we have to change the lounge like culture once again, as we've been working on rectifying for a couple of years now. we need to find a blood lust fierceness for the footy & for winning at all costs.

What's this got to do with the price of fish?

Where did I mention culture?

What's this got to do with the price of fish?

Where did I mention culture?

DL has the same answer for every question.

It all comes down to the suits in the Northern Stand.

Yesterday he also mentioned the length of the MCG grass as an excuse for the loss

Made me laugh which was quite a feat considering my mood!

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.

What's this got to do with the price of fish?

Where did I mention culture?

team strengths

we need to adopt, (us the supporters, as well as inside the club) a change to want a roman attitude of absolute ruthlessness to win in a physical styled contact sport.

this insatiable obsession will instil the fires & maintain them burning.

we need to build this Now before & as we rebuild the list with youngsters, so they grow with this attitude built into them. no good teaching kids footy, & then later after they've learnt, to teach them this desire.

we the supporters need to look at it as if we are developing soldiers to fight on the front lines, & that they are fighting to win & for their & our survival.

Melbourne players seem to end up too over-cultured in finer'ies as it were, & they lose the ruggedness we were once proud of. when the game gets tough, we seem to go cool.

IMO we need to grow this hardness back into our culture & be proud of it, rather than besmirch hardness & scorn it.

DL has the same answer for every question.

It all comes down to the suits in the Northern Stand.

Yesterday he also mentioned the length of the MCG grass as an excuse for the loss

Made me laugh which was quite a feat considering my mood!

www.youtube.com/watch?v=cejvyvKaBGI

see that Northern castle, & what they're up to with our recruits.

Edited April 12, 201510 yr by dee-luded

Yes GWS out played and out ran us but they also out bodied us. They were the ones with the constant aggression. That is upsetting because once you allow a team to push you around, they have got you mentally and effort drops off. Aside from Viney we gave nothing back. Where was our hard tackling and pressure when needed. Add that to their mids smashing us and it is game over without a whimper.

I also agree with another poster that if Kent and Garlett had nailed their gimme goals we would have been nearly 8 goals up and that may have changed things.

At every level of this game,if you're not good enough to win the footy,then the team and yourself are in trouble.

And in PR's aftermatch interview he simply said "we dont have enough of those players".

We are 4 years behind all clubs that have a list of players that can win their own pill.

Will we still end the season in the Top 8 Jazza?

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.

Under CS we not only talked about it, we acted on it and see where that got us. You need a crystal ball to predict trends.

You've just got to take the best players and build your own trend, what you are talking about is following a trend.

Will we still end the season in the Top 8 Jazza?

Probably.

team strengths

we need to adopt, (us the supporters, as well as inside the club) a change to want a roman attitude of absolute ruthlessness to win in a physical styled contact sport.

this insatiable obsession will instil the fires & maintain them burning.

we need to build this Now before & as we rebuild the list with youngsters, so they grow with this attitude built into them. no good teaching kids footy, & then later after they've learnt, to teach them this desire.

we the supporters need to look at it as if we are developing soldiers to fight on the front lines, & that they are fighting to win & for their & our survival.

Melbourne players seem to end up too over-cultured in finer'ies as it were, & they lose the ruggedness we were once proud of. when the game gets tough, we seem to go cool.

IMO we need to grow this hardness back into our culture & be proud of it, rather than besmirch hardness & scorn it.

But none of that has anything to do with what this thread is about.

But none of that has anything to do with what this thread is about.

It's no use Clint.

It's always the fault of the Northern Stand.....

I think it's still a fitness issue with us, it appears were spending all our "meal tickets" early, hence the third quarter fade outs.

Dawes and Vince, first game back. Howe and Kent- limited pre-seasons, Brayshaw and Newton- babies. That's 6 players at least with not ideal lead ins to the season; almost a third of the starters a little under-done

We've done well this year when we've controlled the footy. But once we lose the contests we struggle outside with pace.

We've taken steps to start competing in (and hopefully dominating) the midfield battle to control the football. If we can control the football then we can consistently win games of football.

Hawthorn has only looked to get running players now because they already have the key contested midfield components in their midfields. After that it's tinkering with the edges.

Most scores are scored from turnovers.

The stoppages then from kickins.

The good teams are very good at the first two..

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

Bailey was trying to emulate Geelong... except with no defensive structures or two way running.