On 07/04/2016 at 23:17, bandicoot said:

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

I do believe a great deal of what he did at Sydney came on the back of a really good coaching team, a group with Lyon, Longmire, and co, pretty full up on coaching talent.

Roosy came in with some really clear goals in terms of turning the club around and getting them ready for a hand over, it seems a few of the doggies boys didn't like Macca and didn't think he was getting the best out of them, but he clearly did the right thing by the club and taught them contest and defense, and Bevo has layered it with attack and they look amazing. 

I think the MFC are attempting to do something similar, Roosy doesn't care about being liked, just wants the club in the best possible shape when Goody takes over, and it looks like we will be going okay.

Roos, after getting everything he wanted,doesnt appear to have made much of a difference

There is just no excuse for the continuing lack of effort and intensity from the playing group

There must be insummountable problems

Even Sh&* teams can play with desire and intensity 

Ours can't so whats the problem?

I reckon we do have a game plan. When there is a ball up, or transition through the corridor, you can see repeated running patterns from our midfielders etc... Our forward systems are not working well yet but wd are getting goals from general play rather than marks inside 50. 

The issue remains our basic kicking and handball skills. We win possession of the ball, the players begin spreading and running, and the kick misses the target, favours the opposition,  or the mainstay of MFC football - we handball behind the player who has to stop running to pick it up and he gets tackled. 

We have fixed the issue of getting the ball by recruiting heaps of inside players who can compete and win the ball, and I am glad we have done so. But our basic skiĺls, under pressure or free and running, remain the worst in the league. Grimes, Bail, and most of them are being moved on but the replacements haven't improved things. Tyson, Tmac, Viney, Harmes, Garland etc... And I can't see much scope for improvement at this stage. I hope 2016 proves me wrong. 

  On 06/04/2016 at 11:05, 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.

Solid post. And here was I thinking we were just a bit tired! o_O

  On 07/04/2016 at 10:41, 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. 

 

  On 07/04/2016 at 12:58, Allen Jakovich said:

Most ridiculous post I've ever read on demonland.

Hmm I cant agree with you AJ. Was quickly topped by this little gem :-D ... 

  On 07/04/2016 at 12:04, KingDingAling said:

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

Gotta love D'land!

  On 07/04/2016 at 23:21, bandicoot said:

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.

 

Thanks for the response. With all due respect the above quote is quite different in tone from the first.  

Knowing it is one player how as you say might have an axe to grind is important context and looking forward to Goodwin taking over doesn't equate to Roos not being liked by the playing group or that they are looking forward to see the back of him.

That the players are looking forward to Goodwin taking over reflects comments from Prodee who posted something similar recently. He also noted in that post that players still respect Roos. 

 

  On 07/04/2016 at 23:28, Peter Griffen said:

I do believe a great deal of what he did at Sydney came on the back of a really good coaching team, a group with Lyon, Longmire, and co, pretty full up on coaching talent.

Roosy came in with some really clear goals in terms of turning the club around and getting them ready for a hand over, it seems a few of the doggies boys didn't like Macca and didn't think he was getting the best out of them, but he clearly did the right thing by the club and taught them contest and defense, and Bevo has layered it with attack and they look amazing. 

I think the MFC are attempting to do something similar, Roosy doesn't care about being liked, just wants the club in the best possible shape when Goody takes over, and it looks like we will be going okay.

For a coach's 'gameplan' to work, he needs the cattle to execute it...

Do you really think that Bevo is the sole reason the Doggies are flying? 

The dogs have drafted extremely well. They had really solid and quality senior leaders for their young kids to learn from. And they're playing a brand of footy that is conducive to the skillset of their players. They run hard, they're fast and they're skilled. It's also relevant modern day football.

There are many reasons as to why they're now playing the way they are and I assure you it is not just because of Bevo.

 

  On 08/04/2016 at 02:35, stevethemanjordan said:

For a coach's 'gameplan' to work, he needs the cattle to execute it...

Do you really think that Bevo is the sole reason the Doggies are flying? 

The dogs have drafted extremely well. They had really solid and quality senior leaders for their young kids to learn from. And they're playing a brand of footy that is conducive to the skillset of their players. They run hard, they're fast and they're skilled. It's also relevant modern day football.

There are many reasons as to why they're now playing the way they are and I assure you it is not just because of Bevo.

 

Whilst your first point is valid, you're underselling the coach. Beveridge came in under the most difficult circumstances (lost captain (Griffin), best player (Libba), new CEO). If that happened at Melbourne, you'd give him a 3 year apprenticeship. What Beveridge has done is give the players belief that they can achieve from year one. The same applies to Simpson at WCE.

The easiest coaching job in the world is one where there is no expectation of winning. Bailey initally had it at Melbourne, McCartney thought he had it at the Dogs, as did Watters at the Saints, and Roos has now got it at Melbourne. 

IMO, player development and recruiting is why you have specific personnel in those roles. The coach's job  is developing a gameplan, and matchday coaching. Beveridge deserves all the credit he gets. As does Simpson at WCE.

 

  On 08/04/2016 at 02:25, binman said:

Thanks for the response. With all due respect the above quote is quite different in tone from the first.  

Knowing it is one player how as you say might have an axe to grind is important context and looking forward to Goodwin taking over doesn't equate to Roos not being liked by the playing group or that they are looking forward to see the back of him.

That the players are looking forward to Goodwin taking over reflects comments from Prodee who posted something similar recently. He also noted in that post that players still respect Roos. 

 

i can't speak on behalf of the whole playing group 

All I can do is pass on comments made to me from a player about the club. 

He specifically said that Roos isnt rated as high amongst the playing group as he is by the wider population.

results onfield reflect this sentiment 

  On 07/04/2016 at 12:58, Allen Jakovich said:

Most ridiculous post I've ever read on demonland.

This might be the most important post on demonland.

For a player to come out and say that the coach isn't rated highly amongst the playing group and they are awaiting for the replacement is massive news and explains why for 2.5 years this team has been below average.

if performances like last weekend keep getting dished up then Roos ongoing tenure at the club will need to come into question. 

  On 08/04/2016 at 03:02, bandicoot said:

i can't speak on behalf of the whole playing group 

All I can do is pass on comments made to me from a player about the club. 

He specifically said that Roos isnt rated as high amongst the playing group as he is by the wider population.

results onfield reflect this sentiment 

 

Does Greg Denham visit this forum? He said something similar to KB on SEN this morning, that there was some unrest amongst the players and they were not playing for the coach. When pressed he didn't have too any specifics, just general dislike of some training and pregame routines that Roosey insists on (mentioned the pregame meditation routine), then fell back to the "well just look at how they played last week, they couldn't be playing for the coach". Denham is an interesting commentator, he is very critical of MFC but most of what he has said over the past 3 or 4 years turned out to be accurate, and he knows quite a bit of detail of our players and administrators I sometimes wonder if he isn't a closet supporter.

 

 

  On 08/04/2016 at 03:19, Earl Hood said:

 

Does Greg Denham visit this forum? He said something similar to KB on SEN this morning, that there was some unrest amongst the players and they were not playing for the coach. When pressed he didn't have too any specifics, just general dislike of some training and pregame routines that Roosey insists on (mentioned the pregame meditation routine), then fell back to the "well just look at how they played last week, they couldn't be playing for the coach". Denham is an interesting commentator, he is very critical of MFC but most of what he has said over the past 3 or 4 years turned out to be accurate, and he knows quite a bit of detail of our players and administrators I sometimes wonder if he isn't a closet supporter.

 

 

It's not the first time news stories were started from demonland posts...

  On 08/04/2016 at 03:19, Earl Hood said:

 

Does Greg Denham visit this forum? He said something similar to KB on SEN this morning, that there was some unrest amongst the players and they were not playing for the coach. When pressed he didn't have too any specifics, just general dislike of some training and pregame routines that Roosey insists on (mentioned the pregame meditation routine), then fell back to the "well just look at how they played last week, they couldn't be playing for the coach". Denham is an interesting commentator, he is very critical of MFC but most of what he has said over the past 3 or 4 years turned out to be accurate, and he knows quite a bit of detail of our players and administrators I sometimes wonder if he isn't a closet supporter.

 

 

It's not the first time news stories were started from demonland posts...

  On 08/04/2016 at 03:15, bandicoot said:

This might be the most important post on demonland.

For a player to come out and say that the coach isn't rated highly amongst the playing group and they are awaiting for the replacement is massive news and explains why for 2.5 years this team has been below average.

if performances like last weekend keep getting dished up then Roos ongoing tenure at the club will need to come into question. 

When you explained that the player wasn't a regular, it reeks of a disgruntled employee.  Given the massive list turnover under Roos, it's not hard to narrow down who the player is.

I'm not a massive Roos fan, but I don't take much notice of these sorts  of rumours.

Surely this thread should be re-titled "The Melbourne game plan(s) - 2016"?

We look as confused out there as we've ever been, almost like we've been taught two different game plans and don't know which one to use...

  On 08/04/2016 at 02:35, stevethemanjordan said:

For a coach's 'gameplan' to work, he needs the cattle to execute it...

Do you really think that Bevo is the sole reason the Doggies are flying? 

The dogs have drafted extremely well. They had really solid and quality senior leaders for their young kids to learn from. And they're playing a brand of footy that is conducive to the skillset of their players. They run hard, they're fast and they're skilled. It's also relevant modern day football.

There are many reasons as to why they're now playing the way they are and I assure you it is not just because of Bevo.

 

I don't buy this argument at all. The start of last year the DOgs were a basket case. They had lost their coach, CEO, Captain, best player in Libba, senior player in Higgins and were around the bottom of the ladder. There was significant disharmony at the club, no-one wanted to coach, players dodn't want to go to the club and they were one of 3 teams vying for the wooden spoon in betting markets.

No-one forecast their stellar rise. No-one.

Bevo is a good coach and another solid protege of Clarkson. They play a system based game and some of their talent is starting to shine really well. He deserves a huge amount of the credit for their rise.

On the other hand we are 3 years into Roos. We have no idea what our game plan is. Nor, does it seem, do the players. We continually get belted by teams that we should beat and have a serious mental problem. Remember getting belted by Carlton North and the Dogs 3 weeks running in the first quarter last year?

Why does it take 3 years to implement a game plan? Bolton looks like he has already done it, Bevo has done it, Simpson did it at the Weagles and even St Kilda are showing what their game plan is. We still are floundering with what we are trying to do. It's a farce. And Roos has to take most of the blame. The 'consultant' just doesn't seem fully invested for mine. He has been flogged on game day, flogged at the selection tabel and is unable to get our team to bring the most basic of attributes - effort and desire.

There is something seriously wrong. Again.

 

 

 

  On 08/04/2016 at 03:25, bandicoot said:

It's not the first time news stories were started from demonland posts...

Absolutely true.

  On 08/04/2016 at 02:57, mo64 said:

Whilst your first point is valid, you're underselling the coach. Beveridge came in under the most difficult circumstances (lost captain (Griffin), best player (Libba), new CEO). If that happened at Melbourne, you'd give him a 3 year apprenticeship. What Beveridge has done is give the players belief that they can achieve from year one. The same applies to Simpson at WCE.

The easiest coaching job in the world is one where there is no expectation of winning. Bailey initally had it at Melbourne, McCartney thought he had it at the Dogs, as did Watters at the Saints, and Roos has now got it at Melbourne. 

IMO, player development and recruiting is why you have specific personnel in those roles. The coach's job  is developing a gameplan, and matchday coaching. Beveridge deserves all the credit he gets. As does Simpson at WCE.

 

How am I underselling him by stating the reason that the Dog's are playing so well is not just a result of Bevo's coaching skills?

I have said I think he's contributed. Do you think he'd take all the credit if asked?

The fact that the Doggies withstood the loss of their captain (Griffen) and best inside mid in (Libba), says as much about the strength of their leadership group, (Murphy, Boyd, Morris) and list. They have been building for quite sometime. You can't compare the state of our club to theirs. They're incomparable. Look at our history from the last near decade.

There are a myriad of factors that have contributed to the Dog's present gameday performance from the past few years and Bevo's coaching is one.

But it's not the only one.

 

 

  On 08/04/2016 at 03:49, stevethemanjordan said:

How am I underselling him by stating the reason that the Dog's are playing so well is not just a result of Bevo's coaching skills?

There are a myriad of factors from the last few years that have contributed to the Dog's gameday performance and Bevo's coaching is one.

But it's not the only one.

 

OK then - 80% Bevo, 20% everything else.

What bothers me more is that several coaches have decided what's the best game plan for 2016, and it's all pretty similar - conincidentally, not unlike we tried to play, with some success, in the NAB Challenge.

The only ones who seem to disagree are Roos & Ross Lyon.

  On 08/04/2016 at 03:47, jnrmac said:

I don't buy this argument at all. The start of last year the DOgs were a basket case. They had lost their coach, CEO, Captain, best player in Libba, senior player in Higgins and were around the bottom of the ladder. There was significant disharmony at the club, no-one wanted to coach, players dodn't want to go to the club and they were one of 3 teams vying for the wooden spoon in betting markets.

No-one forecast their stellar rise. No-one.

Bevo is a good coach and another solid protege of Clarkson. They play a system based game and some of their talent is starting to shine really well. He deserves a huge amount of the credit for their rise.

On the other hand we are 3 years into Roos. We have no idea what our game plan is. Nor, does it seem, do the players. We continually get belted by teams that we should beat and have a serious mental problem. Remember getting belted by Carlton North and the Dogs 3 weeks running in the first quarter last year?

Why does it take 3 years to implement a game plan? Bolton looks like he has already done it, Bevo has done it, Simpson did it at the Weagles and even St Kilda are showing what their game plan is. We still are floundering with what we are trying to do. It's a farce. And Roos has to take most of the blame. The 'consultant' just doesn't seem fully invested for mine. He has been flogged on game day, flogged at the selection tabel and is unable to get our team to bring the most basic of attributes - effort and desire.

There is something seriously wrong. Again.

 

 

 

If an individual has issues within a workplace, does it mean the workplace is a basket-case? How many other senior players had an issue?

I think the proof is in the pudding personally.

Both the Eagles and Dogs had terrible one-off years only to rebound strongly the following year. How does this occur?

To suggest that it is entirely a senior coach's doing is absurd. There were clearly strong foundations already in place at both clubs. Strong lists, strong leaders and strong at board-level.

Bevo has been a breath of fresh air and has obviously played a part in the way they're playing. But did he recruit and develop their list or inherit it? Did he groom the leaders at the club, or were they already really strong characters who have experienced finals success not too long ago?

It's a balance, nothing more and nothing less.

 

  On 08/04/2016 at 02:35, stevethemanjordan said:

For a coach's 'gameplan' to work, he needs the cattle to execute it...

Do you really think that Bevo is the sole reason the Doggies are flying? 

The dogs have drafted extremely well. They had really solid and quality senior leaders for their young kids to learn from. And they're playing a brand of footy that is conducive to the skillset of their players. They run hard, they're fast and they're skilled. It's also relevant modern day football.

There are many reasons as to why they're now playing the way they are and I assure you it is not just because of Bevo.

 

I wasn't suggesting he was the only reason, in fact i was suggesting Macca was very significant and doesn't get a heap of credit for what he did, sometimes teaching the basics means being firm and you won't always be liked, but it's what has to be done.

No doubt having imo the best development coach in the AFL as the senior coach at that time would have helped their progression a lot!

and as you say the recruiting has been amazing.

  On 08/04/2016 at 04:24, Peter Griffen said:

I wasn't suggesting he was the only reason, in fact i was suggesting Macca was very significant and doesn't get a heap of credit for what he did, sometimes teaching the basics means being firm and you won't always be liked, but it's what has to be done.

No doubt having imo the best development coach in the AFL as the senior coach at that time would have helped their progression a lot!

and as you say the recruiting has been amazing.

Sorry, I misread you.

Agree with what you say!

  On 08/04/2016 at 04:15, stevethemanjordan said:

If an individual has issues within a workplace, does it mean the workplace is a basket-case? How many other senior players had an issue?

I think the proof is in the pudding personally.

Both the Eagles and Dogs had terrible one-off years only to rebound strongly the following year. How does this occur?

To suggest that it is entirely a senior coach's doing is absurd. There were clearly strong foundations already in place at both clubs. Strong lists, strong leaders and strong at board-level.

Bevo has been a breath of fresh air and has obviously played a part in the way they're playing. But did he recruit and develop their list or inherit it? Did he groom the leaders at the club, or were they already really strong characters who have experienced finals success not too long ago?

It's a balance, nothing more and nothing less.

 

Sorry but I think you are completely wrong here. From memory they finished between 14th, 15th and 15th in the 3 years running before Bevo got there. It was no one-off dip in ladder position and a rise again.

  On 08/04/2016 at 05:11, jnrmac said:

Sorry but I think you are completely wrong here. From memory they finished between 14th, 15th and 15th in the 3 years running before Bevo got there. It was no one-off dip in ladder position and a rise again.

They did, you're right.

They had a normal 'drop-off' period after being right in the frame for a flag. Look at their years previous to the ones you've pointed out.

I shouldn't have said 'one-off'. I should have said 'dip-years' or 'drop-off' years. Or whatever term you like.

But the point still stands, which is that they clearly retained a strong core and group of senior figures and they drafted extremely well whilst they were shortly down the bottom which is what has undoubtedly helped them back up to where they are now.

Are you disputing that? 

  On 08/04/2016 at 07:00, stevethemanjordan said:

They did, you're right.

They had a normal 'drop-off' period after being right in the frame for a flag. Look at their years previous to the ones you've pointed out.

I shouldn't have said 'one-off'. I should have said 'dip-years' or 'drop-off' years. Or whatever term you like.

But the point still stands, which is that they clearly retained a strong core and group of senior figures and they drafted extremely well whilst they were shortly down the bottom which is what has undoubtedly helped them back up to where they are now.

Are you disputing that? 

Hardly anyone thought that at the time.

You can look back in retrospect and say they had a strong list. I certainly didn't think so at the time. Nor did the bookies or most of the AFL pundits. The were one of the 3 teams favoured for the spoon. I credit Beveridge with most of their success. Would love to have seen what he could have done with the Dees.

No doubt McCartney gets credit for some of it but he couldn't do it. We;ll never know what he might have done with the Dogs list in the end.