A few weeks ago there was mention from Roos & co. regarding the Melbourne brand of footy but so far I have failed to see it.

What is it? What's our style? We have a team of competitors yes? but what is the game plan?

At times I've felt like I'm watching a combination of Neeld's structured defense with Bailey's congested offense.

Over the first two years Roos decided to develop a team with an elite level defense, however in both the GWS win and Essendon loss I witnessed a huge amount of missed tackles and a structure that continually failed to counter the switch and developed holes through the corridor. During this the team never reverted to a back up defensive structure or simply play man on man. When we have the ball, particularly within our defensive 50, the team appears so congested they are often hand-balling to a man in danger and fail to spread. And when we do get a run on rarely is there anyone down field to kick to, and if they are rarely do they lead or present themselves as a target.

We were very fortunate to win the GWS game, their inaccuracy cost them because our 2nd and 3rd quarters were as bad as the four in the Essendon match. Even our narrow NAB win against the dogs reserved side was nothing to gloat about.

Over the last two weeks the 4th quarter of Round 1 and one passage of play that resulted in a Hogan goal (from Watts-Jones-Vince-T.Mac) from the Essendon match have shown promise, but I still don't know our style.

After watching one Dogs match I can see they've upgraded their high risk high reward erratic offense by playing a few minutes of kick to kick keepings off to get the opposition defenders running and tired and then at the flick of a switch revert to the quick fast paced attack. Heck I knew Essendon's basic game plan by half time on the weekend.

Surely the players aren't "tired" enough to simply spread and present themselves as a target by round 2.

Let's hope they promptly get the fundamentals back in place so we can interpret the style in which the club is attempting to play.

What are your thoughts on the game plan and structures, and where do you think it's gone wrong within the first two rounds of the season?

Thanks for starting the discussion as a stand-alone post!

5 minutes ago, CBDees said:

Thanks for starting the discussion as a stand-alone post!

Hahaha.. sorry you can clearly tell I needed to get it off my chest.

I'm sure others have points that I have missed or may disagree with me.

There will also be plenty of other rounds for which the game plan will arise.

19 minutes ago, ignition. said:

 

.............We were very fortunate to win the GWS game, their inaccuracy cost them because our 2nd and 3rd quarters were as bad as the four in the Essendon match. Even our narrow NAB win against the dogs reserved side was nothing to gloat about..................

 

This line of thinking always intrigues me.  I agree, the possession so easily won by GWS, which provided those shots on goal, were of a concern.  However, if the shot is actually a goal, the ensuing play becomes an entirely different scenario, as the ball goes back to the centre.  As a result, when that occurs, there obviously is no guarantees that the other shots which missed, would have actually been opportunities for further 6 point scores.  It is beyond a cliche to say bad kicking is bad football.  Bad kicking leads to an entirely different play, which would not have ensued if a goal had been kicked.

To me this has been the most worrying thing. I don't feel as bad as I did after Neelds first game (when I realised how utterly crap our game plan was ), but I did have that familiar pit in my stomach after Saturday. Our style was made to look second rate by, at best, an average team. Looking at how the blues played in both rounds I can at least see what there doing and that they will be more than competitive this year. I hope Im wrong,  I really do, but I can foresee a 2- 4 win season if Saturday truly represented the style we are practicing. Something that would be an utter disaster for us. 

5 minutes ago, iv'a worn smith said:

This line of thinking always intrigues me.  I agree, the possession so easily won by GWS, which provided those shots on goal, were of a concern.  However, if the shot is actually a goal, the ensuing play becomes an entirely different scenario, as the ball goes back to the centre.  As a result, when that occurs, there obviously is no guarantees that the other shots which missed, would have actually been opportunities for further 6 point scores.  It is beyond a cliche to say bad kicking is bad football.  Bad kicking leads to an entirely different play, which would not have ensued if a goal had been kicked.

Nope, nothing to do with sliding doors.  It is all to do with different realities, as a result of different plays.

1 minute ago, iv'a worn smith said:

Nope, nothing to do with sliding doors.  It is all to do with different realities, as a result of different plays.

That's what sliding doors is...

There's been numerous times when the Dees have scored during a footy mire when I wish they hadn't.

But back to the OP. I had noticed somewhat during the preseason and in brief patches last year that the Dees had instituted a set-up around the clearances reminiscent of the Pies from a few years back - deeper release handballs around and out the back of the pack to almost set positions in an effort to create space. Several times on the weekend both we and the Bombers were set-up entirely on our respective defensive goal-sides from a ball up. Not sure what was going on. It looked almost like union at times. 

The topic warrants a separate post.

There were alarm bells with our defensive structure after the NAB challenge, but the masses on here dismissed it by saying "we won FFS". Too often we'd get caught out the back because our backmen were out of position. What made it worse was that when they did man up, they got beaten in a one on one. Our prime backmen aren't good enough or smart enough to be playing a zone defence. What's the point of having the likes of T. Mac and Garland playing loose? With ball in hand, they're more damaging to us than the opposition.

Even if we got over the Bombers, our gameplan is susceptible to be picked apart by a decent team. Roos has a gameplan in place, and clearly doesn't want to deviate, regardless of the opposition. I'm sure he'll put it down to "all part of the learning curve". 

I have always thought that teams have needed 3 tall, strong marking forwards. One for the release kick out of defense, The other for the next kick which puts the ball 60 to 80m away from goals then one more for the final froward entry. With each kick ideally there should be a group of ankle bitters at the contest for the spilled mark. Doesn't have to be the same group of ankle bitters, but might be the the mids at the first one then the flankers and wings for the next then the flankers and the pockets for the next. This also gives someone like Hogan who has a massive tank to be the first tall option out of defense, then work his player over to get back to forward line for the second inside fifty option. Also allows any mids with a massive tank to work their opponents over by getting to each marking contest.

 

Don't know whether this is too simple.

We have a game plan?

Can someone please tell the players? Because they were running around on the weekend like we didn't have one. Come to think of it it's Roos' 3rd year. You reckon we might have something by now. Bolton looks to have made early inroads at Carlton. Simpson did pretty well in one summer at the Weagles. Beveridge has been a revelation in one summer but our boys, well its a bit complicated for them. We need to teach them defence first. Then we move on to handballing. Then to kicking and marking. We have years to go before our game plan is settled. 

Of course the world will have moved on but we'll be ready to go in 2025...

Hard to see any real game plan in the crap dished up in both matches. Yes we had two excellent brief passages of play/skill and structure against the GWS that resulted in multiple goals while shutting the opposition out. But 2 out of 8 quarters is not enough.  We seemed to have a lot more inside 50's this year (so far) but it seems to be bouncing out just as quick and often back to the oppositions goals/points. We need stronger defensive pressure in our forward line and someone marking those bombs into the forward 50 that opposition players seem to have no trouble picking up and marking.

When I see no one in our forward line and loose men at the bounce I have no idea what our game plan is.

The game plan.

I'm not a believer in Roos' game plan.

Other sides with similar lists have catapulted up the ladder in a shorter time frame.

The current defensive game plan is that it essentially revolves around putting constant defensive pressure on the opposition. This then results on turnovers. 

The issue with this is that it requires the players to be on their game all the time. If they aren't then the game plan falls away. No player is 'on' every minute of every game.

im not too sure what or offensive plan is however if there is one then it's not obvious. 

Alister clarkson has totally changed the game. He is a genius and will go down as one of the greatest coaches in history. All the successful sides: dogs, Eagles, GWS even the tigers are all coached by his assistant. 

Its essentislly a game of keepings off (predominately by foot) which results in tiring out the opposition. 

Melbourne run around like headless chooks and these other sides wait for a Lois man and spread. Leaving us for dead. 

Lets hope Goodwin has his own plan, initiative and isn't a clone of Roos. 

9 minutes ago, bandicoot said:

The current defensive game plan is that it essentially revolves around putting constant defensive pressure on the opposition. This then results on turnovers. 

The issue with this is that it requires the players to be on their game all the time. If they aren't then the game plan falls away. No player is 'on' every minute of every game.

Which teams do you think don't aim for constant defensive pressure on the opposition and aiming to force turnovers?

They all do.

If that means they all need to be "on their game all the time", then the issue is that other clubs' players are able to be "on their game all the time" whilst Melbourne players are not.

The other teams utilize a zone d

9 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

Which teams do you think don't aim for constant defensive pressure on the opposition and aiming to force turnovers?

They all do.

If that means they all need to be "on their game all the time", then the issue is that other clubs' players are able to be "on their game all the time" whilst Melbourne players are not.

Clarkson and his past assistants use a zone defense. This means that you aren't playing man on man and you can preserve your energy. 

Less intensive defense. Why change a winning formula 

2 minutes ago, bandicoot said:

The other teams utilize a zone d

Clarkson and his past assistants use a zone defense. This means that you aren't playing man on man and you can preserve your energy. 

Less intensive defense. Why change a winning formula 

I'm confident we're using a zone defence, especially when the ball is in our forward line.

Regardless, whether it's a zone defence or some other form, the plan is to "aim for constant defensive pressure" and force turnovers.

The saints NAB challenge game was our best 4 quarter effort of our game plan. We defended and attacked very well with good balance.

Defending:

The forwards and midfield suck towards the player with the ball to trap them in their half and the backline push up and corridor side of their opponents. 
The risk is an opposition wingman can get free with a really good switch but if the side is awake as they were for a lot of the saints game they can spread over and cover that player and force the next kick to a contest. 

Attacking:

Turning the ball over in good places leads to instant attack. If you get the ball in the forward half then kick it straight to a forward. If you get the ball at half back there should be space to attack, generally out the other side before the other team is in place. Watts was receiving a tonne of switches in that Saints game getting out to the open wing/forward flank.

GWS opened us up from a lot of set plays. Particularly kick outs where they would stack one side of the field then run down the lines with run and carry. We simply weren't fast, smart or worked hard enough to counter this game plan. In some ways I wasn't too upset because GWS are a fantastic side at this plan. Their issue is plan B.

Essendon smashed us everywhere. They ran rings around us on the ground. Dominate the air up forward (Daniher) and stacked numbers behind the ball when we attacked slowly. They overloaded the switch and we just didn't have nearly enough numbers for it. They also then always had our switches walled off with an extra man. 

I'm hoping this was mostly just really poor effort. Otherwise some of it will be teething pains. When you spend 4 years (2 Neeld, 2 Roos) playing very uncreative football it's going to be hard to be bold and aim to open the game up. 

My major concerns with our attacking game plan is:

1. We don't create by hand enough yet. There's simply not enough players who can get on the end of handballs and link up to move the ball that way. So that means we'll be kicking a bit and we still aren't good at that. We need to work much harder to have options so a kick can be followed up by another quick kick before space closes up. 

2. Our forwards seem so keen to get the ball running back inside 50 and sitting deep when I'd love to see more leading up. Even if they start leading back to goal if they can turn and lead sideways or back to the ball carrier 

Otherwise it's work rate and skill that will cause the issues more than game plan. We simply have to cut out the unforced errors like long kicks down the line that go to a little guy instead of to Gawn or another talls advantage. The lack of mental application is staggering.

I think we should just attack, our boys know how to defend, now if they win the ball they should play on and move it as fast as possible, our aim should be to give Hogan and Garlett as many one out opportunities as possible per game because while Hogans form isn't great at the minute, any defender is going to be nervous one out against one of those two

 

 

Let's go back to the Neeld system where we were guarding the space. We used to be the best team in the AFL for guarding the space. No one guarded it better. Exactly when did we drop off from this particular skill????

3 hours ago, jnrmac said:

We have a game plan?

Can someone please tell the players? Because they were running around on the weekend like we didn't have one. Come to think of it it's Roos' 3rd year. You reckon we might have something by now. Bolton looks to have made early inroads at Carlton. Simpson did pretty well in one summer at the Weagles. Beveridge has been a revelation in one summer but our boys, well its a bit complicated for them. We need to teach them defence first. Then we move on to handballing. Then to kicking and marking. We have years to go before our game plan is settled. 

Of course the world will have moved on but we'll be ready to go in 2025...

Exactly, this is doing my head in. We have seen the Dogs, Port, now Carlton and dare we say The Bombers be able to get their sides playing to an obvious game plan within 3 months. Yes with various degrees of success but at least you can see what they are trying to do. 

what at are we doing? I have seen our system at training it looks like it could work  but come game day I have no idea what we are trying to do. Win the centre clearance and bomb it high into the forward line, press forward and clutter our forward half, then get caught when the opposition get possession and kick over our press and run forward? Alternatively if we get a turn over in our back half let's switch play To the opposite side but then we have no one on that flank so we have to hold the ball looking for other options. I just don't see the plan in action. Are our guys just dumb or is it our coaches! 

38 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

The saints NAB challenge game was our best 4 quarter effort of our game plan. We defended and attacked very well with good balance.

Defending:

The forwards and midfield suck towards the player with the ball to trap them in their half and the backline push up and corridor side of their opponents. 
The risk is an opposition wingman can get free with a really good switch but if the side is awake as they were for a lot of the saints game they can spread over and cover that player and force the next kick to a contest. 

Attacking:

Turning the ball over in good places leads to instant attack. If you get the ball in the forward half then kick it straight to a forward. If you get the ball at half back there should be space to attack, generally out the other side before the other team is in place. Watts was receiving a tonne of switches in that Saints game getting out to the open wing/forward flank.

GWS opened us up from a lot of set plays. Particularly kick outs where they would stack one side of the field then run down the lines with run and carry. We simply weren't fast, smart or worked hard enough to counter this game plan. In some ways I wasn't too upset because GWS are a fantastic side at this plan. Their issue is plan B.

Essendon smashed us everywhere. They ran rings around us on the ground. Dominate the air up forward (Daniher) and stacked numbers behind the ball when we attacked slowly. They overloaded the switch and we just didn't have nearly enough numbers for it. They also then always had our switches walled off with an extra man. 

I'm hoping this was mostly just really poor effort. Otherwise some of it will be teething pains. When you spend 4 years (2 Neeld, 2 Roos) playing very uncreative football it's going to be hard to be bold and aim to open the game up. 

My major concerns with our attacking game plan is:

1. We don't create by hand enough yet. There's simply not enough players who can get on the end of handballs and link up to move the ball that way. So that means we'll be kicking a bit and we still aren't good at that. We need to work much harder to have options so a kick can be followed up by another quick kick before space closes up. 

2. Our forwards seem so keen to get the ball running back inside 50 and sitting deep when I'd love to see more leading up. Even if they start leading back to goal if they can turn and lead sideways or back to the ball carrier 

Otherwise it's work rate and skill that will cause the issues more than game plan. We simply have to cut out the unforced errors like long kicks down the line that go to a little guy instead of to Gawn or another talls advantage. The lack of mental application is staggering.

Excellent summary... YOU must sit by me.  OUR POOR FOOTSKILLS is a killer