2 hours ago, titan_uranus said:

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.

Yep. It's very clear we're using a zone defence, which incorporates a high press, when the ball is in our offensive 50.

We sat on the wing in Round 1 and then in the pocket for Round 2. Week 2 gave us a really clear perspective of this at every kick in. But most times Essendon would kick to a contest 55m out. One of three things would happen. They'd manage to spoil it out and re-set for a throw in; they'd rove off the pack and break from half back by use of hands and then attacking kicks into the corridor or switching to the opposite wing; or they'd take the contested mark from the kick out or all our guys would set up down the southern wing and eventually Essendon would switch it across to the northern wing and it continued like this for four quarters.

Our kick out plan from full back is similar. We basically look for Gawn at every opportunity and occasionally go for Tommy or another player if they are in space, otherwise we kick to about 55m out most times. When we move the ball short from full back, it usually means we've got guys spreading off half back and it often results in quickly movement of the ball through the corridor. It doesn't happen enough though.

 

Edited April 6, 20169 yr by AdamFarr

Collingwood seemed to have switched to a new full zone set-up for the season proper and they're looking slow and unskilled also. Lost within the structures. I think if you don't get it perfectly right you end up chasing and flat-footed all day. We were always going to leak goals but I imagine we were backing ourselves in to come out on top with the speed and weight of numbers moving forward. The difference between GWS and Essendon it seems was GWS sliced us up much quicker through the middle while Essendon picked us apart on the switch and wore us down with us pushing more numbers into defense.

Still doesn't look like a coherent game plan to me watching from the wing

We were caught out of position all day and no body went to their man  especially on the wings

Kent stayed 30 metres off his man and put zero pressure on him and our talls pushed up to the centre and were caught in no mans land on the turn over

What ever our current game plan is it isn't working

I just don't think the team are playing for the coach.

I have it on good authority that Roos isn't liked within the playing group and they are looking forward to see the back of him. 

The guy who sits behind me thinks we should just kick it?

24 minutes ago, bandicoot said:

I just don't think the team are playing for the coach.

I have it on good authority that Roos isn't liked within the playing group and they are looking forward to see the back of him. 

If true, this worries me. I hope Goodwin isn't soft of them. What have you heard as a reasoning for why they don't like him? He pulls them up when they lack work rate? He points out other weaknesses in their game's? 

19 minutes ago, bandicoot said:

I just don't think the team are playing for the coach.

I have it on good authority that Roos isn't liked within the playing group and they are looking forward to see the back of him. 

If that were true, then this playing group can get stuffed.  One minute they don't like Neeld, the next minute they don't like Roos... even prior to that they were running rampant all over Dean Bailey and doing as they pleased.  

If, and it's a huge IF, this happened to be true, then it's highly disappointing.  The boys need to knuckle down, listen, learn and get on with the job and stop being a bunch of sooks.

20 minutes ago, bandicoot said:

I just don't think the team are playing for the coach.

I have it on good authority that Roos isn't liked within the playing group and they are looking forward to see the back of him. 

I personally doubt this. They may not like him but surely they respect him. However if as you say they aren't playing for him then you and me and other willing DLander volunteers need to head down to AAMI with some baseball bats and sort this playing group out. Roos played 300 plus games of VFL, and is a football legend then coached the Swans to a premiership in two grand finals but you are saying this group of under performing, overpaid turkeys has switched off! How many times can a group do this? The personnel have changed but our playing group went on strike for186 and stitched up Bailey, then they basically vacated the field when Neeld took over. Now Roos! 

27 minutes ago, Roost It said:

The guy who sits behind me thinks we should just kick it?

He is right a lot of the time. The problem is we don't kick very well. A similar problem to our handballing and also the effort we put into games against teams of similar or lesser ability.

On 6 April 2016 at 9:25 PM, pineapple dee said:

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????

And please remind me just how well did we score and how many games did we win with this AFL best KPI?

 

19 hours ago, bandicoot said:

I just don't think the team are playing for the coach.

I have it on good authority that Roos isn't liked within the playing group and they are looking forward to see the back of him. 

I am not surprised, I have had enough of him as well. At least they play for Goodwin.

On 4/7/2016 at 8:41 PM, bandicoot said:

I just don't think the team are playing for the coach.

I have it on good authority that Roos isn't liked within the playing group and they are looking forward to see the back of him. 

I always hate this not playing for the coach talk, i mean they might not like him but he's gone next year either way, it's not like they're going to get him sacked, they're professionals so it shouldn't have an impact on results.

1 hour ago, Wiseblood said:

If that were true, then this playing group can get stuffed.  One minute they don't like Neeld, the next minute they don't like Roos... even prior to that they were running rampant all over Dean Bailey and doing as they pleased.  

If, and it's a huge IF, this happened to be true, then it's highly disappointing.  The boys need to knuckle down, listen, learn and get on with the job and stop being a bunch of sooks.

This is not the same team that Neeld coached and it's certainly not the same team that Bailey coached.

But I'd be as [censored] off as the next bloke if there were an ounce of truth to that post. It's not the first time I've read it on Demonland though.

Edited April 7, 20169 yr by AdamFarr

2 hours ago, bandicoot said:

I just don't think the team are playing for the coach.

I have it on good authority that Roos isn't liked within the playing group and they are looking forward to see the back of him. 

Most ridiculous post I've ever read on demonland.

If what is written is true the players can get [censored]! Every year we hear about them not playing for the coach etc.

Bunch of pea hearts.

10 hours ago, bandicoot said:

I just don't think the team are playing for the coach.

I have it on good authority that Roos isn't liked within the playing group and they are looking forward to see the back of him. 

This sort of rubbish [censored] me. Unless you name your so called 'authority' you have zero credibility. 

if people named their sources, then they wouldn't be sources any more.

 

i've not heard anything like that, but i've watched us for a long time and the biggest issue still comes down to skills - our are deplorable, and have been for as long as i can remember. even when we were up and about under daniher we were very reliant upon the likes of johnstone and yze as they could actually hit targets.

 

so many of our players simply can't do it by foot. when we're also horrible on transition from attack to defence and vice-versa, we're already putting ourselves on the backfoot.

 

we don't play risky football because we can't - we can't execute it. we play a congested game of football but unfortunately we're not all that great at it either.

 

i don't know where we're at at the moment, as it's far too early in the season to tell.

 

i think we'll get an idea after the tigers game, but i'm pretty worried that we're going nowhere fast - i expect north to smash us, but we should be around the pies and the tigers, who've also looks deplorable so far this year. if we're a long way off both those sides in the coming weeks, then we're in big, big trouble.

Edited April 7, 20169 yr by DemonAndrew

All I can say is this:

The game plan in the NAB Challenge, when Goodwin had control, was far different to the game plan in the first 2 rounds, when Roos had control.

If we keep playing the same way as in the first two rounds, it'll be a long hard season. There's just no way that game plan is going to succeed in 2016. If we play to the NAB Challenge game plan, at least we've got some hope of things getting better.

Worst case scenario for Roos is that he hangs on for game after game, and then as soon as he hands over to Goodwin, we start playing exciting footy & winning games.

1 hour ago, DemonAndrew said:

...

so many of our players simply can't do it by foot. when we're also horrible on transition from attack to defence and vice-versa, we're already putting ourselves on the backfoot.

we don't play risky football because we can't - we can't execute it.

...

 

But we did execute it in the NAB Challenge, especially in the first & third matches. Yes, there's still a fair amount of adjusting, tightening, fine-tuning needed. But at least we took the game on.

11 hours ago, bandicoot said:

I just don't think the team are playing for the coach.

I have it on good authority that Roos isn't liked within the playing group and they are looking forward to see the back of him. 

Are you mates with Dean Terlich?

At least under Bailey we kicked goals. And lots of them. Unfortunately the team didn't run both ways and they also bled goals at the other end. I think that whoever is still at the club from that era is still part of the problem, as these are the "leaders" of the club.

No problem with Neeld or Roos' gameplan so long as you run hard in transition and get into space. We don't. Lazy + dumb footballers makes it difficult to execute ANY gameplay, whether it's attacking or defensive.

What we've seen under Roos is no different to Bailey or Neeld: complacency, lack of urgency, lack of consistency, inability to run both ways, shocking defensive awareness, shocking peripheral vision, hospital handpasses and kicks to teammates under pressure.

Melbourne is the quintessential career-killer.

17 minutes ago, praha said:

At least under Bailey we kicked goals. And lots of them. Unfortunately the team didn't run both ways and they also bled goals at the other end. I think that whoever is still at the club from that era is still part of the problem, as these are the "leaders" of the club.

No problem with Neeld or Roos' gameplan so long as you run hard in transition and get into space. We don't. Lazy + dumb footballers makes it difficult to execute ANY gameplay, whether it's attacking or defensive.

What we've seen under Roos is no different to Bailey or Neeld: complacency, lack of urgency, lack of consistency, inability to run both ways, shocking defensive awareness, shocking peripheral vision, hospital handpasses and kicks to teammates under pressure.

Melbourne is the quintessential career-killer.

I have thought for years that we are a dumb football team.

10 hours ago, Peter Griffen said:

I always hate this not playing for the coach talk, i mean they might not like him but he's gone next year either way, it's not like they're going to get him sacked, they're professionals so it shouldn't have an impact on results.

I dont believe it as much not playing for the coach rather that he doesn't get the best out of them... 

9 hours ago, binman said:

This sort of rubbish [censored] me. Unless you name your so called 'authority' you have zero credibility. 

The remarks regarding the coach also came to me as a surprise. 

The particular player has been on the outer (both omitted and injured) since Roos took the helm so it might just be sour grapes. 

The remarks were that the players are actually looking forward to Goodwin taking over.

 

On 6 April 2016 at 3:59 PM, 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.

 

I believe we were more impotent in those middle quarters than lacking intensity. They should've buried us late in the 3rd when we dropped off but they didn't and we made them pay the price. No way were those middle quarters as bad as the effort that the Dees put against the Bombers.