Changes vs. North

[Moonshadow 16,225]

Garlett apparently rolled his ankle badly this morning at training. May miss this week. Big out if so.

[ArtificialWisdom 3,869]

11 minutes ago, Django said:

Jetta on Petrie and McDonald on Thomas? I hope you accidentally have that the wrong way around.

No that is correct, They play a "team" defence now. If you look how they line up at a center bounce its very clear the stand in a 3x2 rectangle irrespective of where their "match ups" are standing (I did notice this go away after half time last week but didnt seem to help) .  What this means is quite often we get bad miss matchs. The pay off theoretically is we can get an extra man to each contest and win with numbers. Unfortunatly when there is no pressure up the ground then this just doesnt work and Essendon exposed that on the weekend. 

I just dont get it... if i was petrie on sunday at the start of every centre bounce i would just go stand next to jetta. Melbourne will keep their formation and claim it is for the good of the team but it makes no sense to me

[Tough Kent 2,049]

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-04-06/jeff-garlett-in-doubt-for-clash-with-north-melbourne-after-rolling-ankle?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=RSS+feed%3A+AFL+Latest+News

[dee-luded 2,958]

39 minutes ago, McQueen said:

I can't remember seeing an AFL grade ground turning to mud for a long time now and I don't think Bellerive oval will do it either.

I'm not sure,  I've not seen Bellrieve in heavy wet conditions?   maybe some of our Tassie viewers   could let us know.???

[dee-luded 2,958]

23 minutes ago, Moonshadow said:

Garlett apparently rolled his ankle badly this morning at training. May miss this week. Big out if so.

could this bring JKH into contention?

[dee-luded 2,958]

actually on thinking about this Re Garlett possibly being out,   I would be inclined to play Dunn, or Garland @ F/F. for the wet conditions.  Garland,  a Tassie boy,  may know how to play the wet & cold conditions.

[dpositive 1,547]

I have always said (Bailey and Neeld the most obvoius but equally Danher Balme) that the results always are the responsibility of the coach. Player performance condition is what they should know aligned with their structures and tactics

The age of players needs to be considered  Younger inexperienced players have always been inconsistent or eventually tire. They also need to experience the tempo of the game.

Brayshaw was excellent last year but did tire as the season progressed. He perhaps needed some conditioning under matchday pressure.and should be better next week.

Hogan is undoubtably stellar cannott afford to get too far ahead of himself. Watts was always being ignored on leads and did not always have support around to match his quick presence of mind .True he is not a crash and bash type and his body may have been the tired one from the effort of last week. 

The coach should know this sort of stuff for each player and select around that.

We are closer to the point of having a squad that we can rest players who are not cherry ripe.

We are in a competition that demands that every player gives his very best effort for a complete game. They should be exhausted after each match and then if not fully recovered rested for the alternative replacement

[Scipio 5,868]

32 minutes ago, ArtificialWisdom said:

No that is correct, They play a "team" defence now. If you look how they line up at a center bounce its very clear the stand in a 3x2 rectangle irrespective of where their "match ups" are standing (I did notice this go away after half time last week but didnt seem to help) .  What this means is quite often we get bad miss matchs. The pay off theoretically is we can get an extra man to each contest and win with numbers. Unfortunatly when there is no pressure up the ground then this just doesnt work and Essendon exposed that on the weekend. 

I just dont get it... if i was petrie on sunday at the start of every centre bounce i would just go stand next to jetta. Melbourne will keep their formation and claim it is for the good of the team but it makes no sense to me

Seems ridiculous, and definitely hasn't been working for us if that is indeed the set up.

For this week, Dunn must come in to help blanket the talls, along with ANB. Kent may be saved by Garlett's injury, unless ANB is seen as a replacement and Kent is dropped for Dunn.

Brayshaw to remain - he'll be much better off after the run on Saturday.

[Gipsy Danger 1,067]

11 minutes ago, dee-luded said:

actually on thinking about this Re Garlett possibly being out,   I would be inclined to play Dunn, or Garland @ F/F. for the wet conditions.  Garland,  a Tassie boy,  may know how to play the wet & cold conditions.

Only problem there is that Garland probably hasn't played in tassie for near 10 years.

[dee-luded 2,958]

28 minutes ago, Hellfish said:

Only problem there is that Garland probably hasn't played in tassie for near 10 years.

He should be intuitive with those conditions.   Like riding a bike,  it comes back quick.

 

The things you learn unwittingly as a kid serve us all our lives.   Like walking,   without thinking how to.

[ArtificialWisdom 3,869]

54 minutes ago, Django said:

Seems ridiculous, and definitely hasn't been working for us if that is indeed the set up.

For this week, Dunn must come in to help blanket the talls, along with ANB. Kent may be saved by Garlett's injury, unless ANB is seen as a replacement and Kent is dropped for Dunn.

Brayshaw to remain - he'll be much better off after the run on Saturday.

Im going this week im not sure the stand is high enough but next time i sit high enough to see it clearly ill take a photo and show it. If we were a high scoring high pressure side it would probably work... but we just arnt.. 

yeah they are my ins/outs too i dont see the point in making mass changes maybe Harmes out as well but idk who to bring in for him.. that and he has a habit of being in the right place at the right time which not many players have.. He has kicked a goal a game and if he can up his pressue a bit im not sure there is much else we can ask of him

[ArtificialWisdom 3,869]

54 minutes ago, Django said:

Seems ridiculous, and definitely hasn't been working for us if that is indeed the set up.

For this week, Dunn must come in to help blanket the talls, along with ANB. Kent may be saved by Garlett's injury, unless ANB is seen as a replacement and Kent is dropped for Dunn.

Brayshaw to remain - he'll be much better off after the run on Saturday.

Im going this week im not sure the stand is high enough but next time i sit high enough to see it clearly ill take a photo and show it. If we were a high scoring high pressure side it would probably work... but we just arnt.. 

yeah they are my ins/outs too i dont see the point in making mass changes maybe Harmes out as well but idk who to bring in for him.. that and he has a habit of being in the right place at the right time which not many players have.. He has kicked a goal a game and if he can up his pressue a bit im not sure there is much else we can ask of him

[DeeSpencer 23,176]

1 hour ago, ArtificialWisdom said:

No that is correct, They play a "team" defence now. If you look how they line up at a center bounce its very clear the stand in a 3x2 rectangle irrespective of where their "match ups" are standing (I did notice this go away after half time last week but didnt seem to help) .  What this means is quite often we get bad miss matchs. The pay off theoretically is we can get an extra man to each contest and win with numbers. Unfortunatly when there is no pressure up the ground then this just doesnt work and Essendon exposed that on the weekend. 

I just dont get it... if i was petrie on sunday at the start of every centre bounce i would just go stand next to jetta. Melbourne will keep their formation and claim it is for the good of the team but it makes no sense to me

You do know the centre bounce zone changes as soon as the centre bounce passage of play is finished?

And I haven't seen us concede a goal directly from a centre bounce yet. We might have, but it's not like we are being out marked straight away.

2 half back flankers come up to the centre square on either side and can then choose to attack or defend depending on who wins the clearance. That tactic has been working well.

2 tall defenders stand on either side 30m out to contest the high rushed kick. The 2 remaining defenders than match up opponents standing in places that make sure the tall defenders can give them aerial coverage whilst every forward is accounted for. 

In general play our defenders each take a man but will zone from that man to spots where by they can attack and defend equally. Ie. they stand corridor side and in front of their opponents if the ball is up the field. It's a sensible tactic and only puts you at a slight disadvantage defensively in order to provide a theoretical strong advantage in attack. 

The part of our zone defending that got opened up with ease by Essendon was leaving the spare man free on the switch to ensure greater pressure on the kick down the line and take away the corridor kick. It's a tactic Hawthorn, West Coast and the Dogs all had great success with last year, but it requires a high work rate from the entire team to then run over and cover the switch kick. It also requires really good coordination from the backline as to when the fat side wingman should push up to cover the switch and then the flanker cover the next man and so on as the rest of the defending side 'rolls over' to cover off each others man one by one.

It's why Lumumba could potentially be a vital player to this set up due to his speed and work rate, as well as a versatile height. Unfortunately he's very unsure what to do with the ball and I think that feeds in to his doubts without the footy. 

Same goes for Bernie Vince who not only provides more skill but is a good mark. Hopefully he has the on field smarts as well because we need someone to lead the defensive group and give them more confidence in the zone.

It certainly doesn't work without pressure up the field which is why I expect most of the changes this week (getting back on topic) to focus on players with a high work rate capable of pressuring their opponents. So I think Frost, ANB and Stretch are all in line for a recall. Grimes might be as well. 

 

 

 

 

[JV7 2,339]

 

2 hours ago, ArtificialWisdom said:

No that is correct, They play a "team" defence now. If you look how they line up at a center bounce its very clear the stand in a 3x2 rectangle irrespective of where their "match ups" are standing (I did notice this go away after half time last week but didnt seem to help) .  What this means is quite often we get bad miss matchs. The pay off theoretically is we can get an extra man to each contest and win with numbers. Unfortunatly when there is no pressure up the ground then this just doesnt work and Essendon exposed that on the weekend. 

I just dont get it... if i was petrie on sunday at the start of every centre bounce i would just go stand next to jetta. Melbourne will keep their formation and claim it is for the good of the team but it makes no sense to me

There is not a chance in the world that Jetta will line up on Petrie at any point in the game unless whoever is on Petrie has been caught out during play. To say Jetta will line up on Petrie at a centre bounce is farcical.. Yes sides play a zone defense but that doesn't mean you have a 180cm Jetta lined up on a 197cm Petrie.

1 hour ago, dee-luded said:

actually on thinking about this Re Garlett possibly being out,   I would be inclined to play Dunn, or Garland @ F/F. for the wet conditions.  Garland,  a Tassie boy,  may know how to play the wet & cold conditions.

I dont think Garland would have any extra advantage in the conditions because he grew up in Tasmania.. Wet and cold conditions are wet and cold conditions regardless whether there in Tasmania, Victoria, Adelaide... 

Edited April 6, 2016 by JV7

[ArtificialWisdom 3,869]

21 minutes ago, JV7 said:

 

There is not a chance in the world that Jetta will line up on Petrie at any point in the game unless whoever is on Petrie has been caught out during play. To say Jetta will line up on Petrie at a centre bounce is farcical.. Yes sides play a zone defense but that doesn't mean you have a 180cm Jetta lined up on a 197cm Petrie.

I'm not saying Jetta would line up on Petrie im saying because of the zone petrie can walk into Jetta's "area" and instantly become his responsibility. I dont mean to single out jetta he is just short and an easy example but too many times in the first 2 weeks players like Daniher and Lobb have taken marks over the top of jetta, and garland simply because this zone isnt holding up and its to hard for the short player to compete. also happened a few times in the NAB challenge.. If they add Dunn/Oscar back in that will low the chances of such large miss matches but they are still inevitable.

When it all coes down to it, although i criticise this plan alot it would work much better if we didnt turn the ball over so easily.

 

32 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

You do know the centre bounce zone changes as soon as the centre bounce passage of play is finished?

And I haven't seen us concede a goal directly from a centre bounce yet. We might have, but it's not like we are being out marked straight away.

2 half back flankers come up to the centre square on either side and can then choose to attack or defend depending on who wins the clearance. That tactic has been working well.

2 tall defenders stand on either side 30m out to contest the high rushed kick. The 2 remaining defenders than match up opponents standing in places that make sure the tall defenders can give them aerial coverage whilst every forward is accounted for. 

In general play our defenders each take a man but will zone from that man to spots where by they can attack and defend equally. Ie. they stand corridor side and in front of their opponents if the ball is up the field. It's a sensible tactic and only puts you at a slight disadvantage defensively in order to provide a theoretical strong advantage in attack. 

The part of our zone defending that got opened up with ease by Essendon was leaving the spare man free on the switch to ensure greater pressure on the kick down the line and take away the corridor kick. It's a tactic Hawthorn, West Coast and the Dogs all had great success with last year, but it requires a high work rate from the entire team to then run over and cover the switch kick. It also requires really good coordination from the backline as to when the fat side wingman should push up to cover the switch and then the flanker cover the next man and so on as the rest of the defending side 'rolls over' to cover off each others man one by one.

It's why Lumumba could potentially be a vital player to this set up due to his speed and work rate, as well as a versatile height. Unfortunately he's very unsure what to do with the ball and I think that feeds in to his doubts without the footy. 

Same goes for Bernie Vince who not only provides more skill but is a good mark. Hopefully he has the on field smarts as well because we need someone to lead the defensive group and give them more confidence in the zone.

It certainly doesn't work without pressure up the field which is why I expect most of the changes this week (getting back on topic) to focus on players with a high work rate capable of pressuring their opponents. So I think Frost, ANB and Stretch are all in line for a recall. Grimes might be as well. 

 

Yeah i see your point but i still feel that it is very vulnerable to miss matches becase of the area they need to protect. I hope im wrong and they can sort it out. Short term pain for long term gain... but god i think after all the pain we have had over the years. Seeing players kick easy goals or take contested marks against little blokes due to this defence breaking down is rough. I'll wear us not being tallented enough but this made us look so out coached 

Edited April 6, 2016 by ArtificialWisdom

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,443]

I don't understand the concept of a zone defence when playing a clear mix of tall and small defenders. If every defender was a similar size it might make sense.

[JV7 2,339]

13 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I don't understand the concept of a zone defence when playing a clear mix of tall and small defenders. If every defender was a similar size it might make sense.

The modern game is all about turning the footy over in your forward half.. So if your defenders are pushing up the ground and putting pressure on the kicker and forcing a turn over in your half of the ground, it shouldn't matter what's out the back. What happened with us against GWS and even worse against Essenson, we couldn't force these turn overs and if sides get easy transition it leaves you open out the back (whe you see a N.Jones one on one with Daniher inside 50) which is what's happened to us in the first 2 weeks. I think the GWS game in the last quarter we got our hands on the footy for one and two GWS ran out of run to exploit it

Edited April 6, 2016 by JV7

[Lucifers Hero 37,088]

Looks like Jeffy will play vs Nth http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/2016-04-06/no-dramas-with-garlett-says-misson

Quite convincing: “It’s Wednesday and we play on Sunday and we just want to take every precaution,” he told Melbourne TV...“Despite reports on AFL.com.au, he will absolutely, definitely play on Sunday and will most probably train on Friday with the group".

[dee-luded 2,958]

46 minutes ago, JV7 said:

 

There is not a chance in the world that Jetta will line up on Petrie at any point in the game unless whoever is on Petrie has been caught out during play. To say Jetta will line up on Petrie at a centre bounce is farcical.. Yes sides play a zone defense but that doesn't mean you have a 180cm Jetta lined up on a 197cm Petrie.

I dont think Garland would have any extra advantage in the conditions because he grew up in Tasmania.. Wet and cold conditions are wet and cold conditions regardless whether there in Tasmania, Victoria, Adelaide... 

i think it depends if its boggy or clean & firm surface like the modern AFL grounds.?  if its freezing & slippery it could play into the hands of a forward with defensive strengths & one who would like to take chest marks alla hudson way back in those conditions.

It comes down to the ground conditions to me.

 

Garlo has courage & he's the first I thought of before Dunn,  as a forward for sloppy conditions.    This option also helps get Dunny back into the defence.

[dee-luded 2,958]

13 minutes ago, JV7 said:

The modern game is all about turning the footy over in your forward half.. So if your defenders are pushing up the ground and putting pressure on the kicker and forcing a turn over in your half of the ground, it shouldn't matter what's out the back. What happened with us against GWS and even worse against Essenson, we couldn't force these turn overs and if sides get easy transition it leaves you open out the back (whe you see a N.Jones one on one with Daniher inside 50) which is what's happened to us in the first 2 weeks. I think the GWS game in the last quarter we got our hands on the footy for one and two GWS ran out of run to exploit it

wow, then if this is how its going to be played we need to reduce the rotations further.  to get back some man on man matchups.

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,443]

30 minutes ago, JV7 said:

The modern game is all about turning the footy over in your forward half.. So if your defenders are pushing up the ground and putting pressure on the kicker and forcing a turn over in your half of the ground, it shouldn't matter what's out the back. What happened with us against GWS and even worse against Essenson, we couldn't force these turn overs and if sides get easy transition it leaves you open out the back (whe you see a N.Jones one on one with Daniher inside 50) which is what's happened to us in the first 2 weeks. I think the GWS game in the last quarter we got our hands on the footy for one and two GWS ran out of run to exploit it

Of course, there is the minor problem that you have to get the ball into your forward half before this will work.

But I still don't get the zone defence argument. If you believe small defenders are picked to play on small forwards and tall defenders are picked to play on tall forwards, then it would seem to me that you can't also argue for a zone defence. 

[waynewussell 4,092]

Going to be cloudy and a little wet in Hobart on Sunday. Very timely that our session today was in wet conditions. Hopefully it pizzes down and negates some of their big-man advantage (remember last Anzac Eve). Any mudlarks will be welcome.

[ArtificialWisdom 3,869]

51 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Of course, there is the minor problem that you have to get the ball into your forward half before this will work.

But I still don't get the zone defence argument. If you believe small defenders are picked to play on small forwards and tall defenders are picked to play on tall forwards, then it would seem to me that you can't also argue for a zone defence. 

This is why modern teams are shooting up the ladder like port a few years ago and more recently west coast and the bulldogs, because once it starts working it can become very effective. Unfortunatly before then it is very ugly. 

[Maybe next year 167]

From the top deck of the MCG last week it was clear to me that Brayshaw hurt his knee again towards the end of the first quarter.  As he started to shake it off he hurt it again at the punt road flank in the 2nd quarter and after that he could not muster a jog. Even when he walked there was an obvious limp.  I have not attended training but if he is like that I don't believe he should play at any level. If he is fine, then he needs to go back to the VFL to ensure his knee can stand up to AFL tackling and pressure.  Other than that I'd be loathed to make too many changes.

In: Dunn, ANB

Out: Brayshaw, Harmes

Last chances: Hogan, Oliver (needs to know one game does not mean automatic selection), Bugg

Stay Tuned: Stretch, Petracca, Weiderman

[waynewussell 4,092]

On the mudlark theme, the players missing from last weeks team that played last Anzac Eve were Michie, Newton, JKH, Jamar, Howe, Dunn, Dawes and Cross. Newton would be a handy addition in heavy going but he is not ready. Dunn seems a certainty for Sunday. H and Garland weren't sighted at training today, but H wouldn't get the flick after one game back and will hold his spot unless injured. I could see Dunn coming in for Garland and I know Oscar is also available. I don't think Harmes will be dropped given the necessity for 'head over the ball' players in poor weather.