"We feel like every week, we have the game plan that stacks up," Watts said.

Wattsy's comment got me thinking on a number of levels about Game Plans.

Firstly, seems to me Roosy has been taking a bit of a bum rap over what he's done with the Game Plan since he arrived. He made it pretty clear the first year was about fixing the defence and stopping the whopping loses. The second year was about fixing the midfield and clearly it follows that the third year was about fixing the final stage of the attack. Many commentators seem to only see the ultra defensive first year and are now only crediting Goodwin with the fast ball movement and improved attack in the third year. Lets not forget Roosy is still the Head Coach and ultimately he sets the Game Plan. Assistants in many Clubs are responsible for different parts of the Game Plan but you don't hear commentators saying it's their doing not the Head Coaches. It's Roosy's vision and he's put people in place to execute it. From what I've been reading Jennings sounds like a massive secret weapon with our ball movement and understanding how to stop the oppositions. 

Secondly I wonder how often a playing group as a whole decide a coach's Game Plan is a dud and is never going to work and they give up. Is this part of a coach losing the playing group. I spoke to Flash at the 2011 B & F and he told me that Bailey was trying to get them to play a Game Plan they couldn't execute. (By the way, this was essentially two way running. So probably the right Game Plan, he just didnt' have the players to execute it.) Roh Bail in a conversation with me after Neeld had left the building (a membership drive call) agreed that the players as a group probably were going into games thinking that they weren't going to win executing the Game Plan Neeld was getting them to play.

So how refreshing to hear the players now believe in the Game Plan. And its working.

Thirdly, the Pies and the Toigs both seem to be still playing Game Plans that are about getting possession and slowing the game down while other teams like us have moved on to getting the ball and doing very fast transitions into attack. I wonder if the playing groups at those Clubs have also lost confidence in their Game Plans and therefore their coaches. Fyfe mentioned Freo is struggling with a new Game Plan. Perhaps Lyon has them going through a transition to a more attacking Game Plan. That would run against the grain of what they've been doing since he arrived there. 

 

it works when we do it. So let's do it against Richmondm not like when we didn't do it against Essendon. 

I'm not sure it takes 3 years to implement.

21 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

I'm not sure it takes 3 years to implement.

That depends entirely on the cattle you have to work with. 

21 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

I'm not sure it takes 3 years to implement.

Why not? It takes 3 years to get a degree, and the concept is the same—learning a whole new way of doing things can be hard. In this case its just as much a physical hurdle to overcome as it is an education hurdle.

It's been incremental.

The balance between attack and defence is able to be implemented by a more capable playing list who are coached by a credible coaching staff.

 

38 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

I'm not sure it takes 3 years to implement.

It took 3 years to build a list capable of implementing it.

It also changes as time goes on.

Initially the team was taught all about defence,but we've added a real attacking element to It this off season,and now it's looking like we are playing real two way football , not to mention being much harder at the contest.

Good OP.

Importantly, let's look at some key indicators that have previously been letting us down.

In 2015 (and the years preceding) we defended too close to the opposition's goal and couldn't get the ball inside 50.  And when we got it there we couldn't keep it there.  This has changed in 2016.  It's a small sample size (4 games), but our new game-plan is starting to work.  We're pressing much harder and getting turnovers in much better positions.

Average I50's 2015 44.5 (16th) ~ Average 2016 54.3 (8th)

Centre clearances, which we've been hopeless at for years is now becoming a strength.  This is due to Gawn, Viney, Jones and the emerging Oliver.  General clearances are also improving, but not yet a strength (9th).

Average centre clearances 2015 10.6 (16th) ~ Average 2016 14.8 (4th)

In contested possessions we've gone from 12th in 2015 to 5th.  Uncontested possessions are still a work in progress, which means we're still not spreading hard enough with quality outside runners, but we've improved from 17th to 12th.

The only stat going backwards is tackles, but I put that down to getting in first to the ball more often.

Right now I reckon we're either the 9th or 10th best side in it (along with Gold Coast).  But we're trending in the right direction. 

Edited April 20, 20169 yr by ProDee

Roosy is the man

Those calling for him to step aside this year were being very Foolish. 

Round 2 falls on the players heads and i am sure it was Roos who made that clear. 

The players look to have resonded....

4 hours ago, Chook said:

Why not? It takes 3 years to get a degree, and the concept is the same—learning a whole new way of doing things can be hard. In this case its just as much a physical hurdle to overcome as it is an education hurdle.

It's footy. Not a science degree.

6 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

It's footy. Not a science degree.

Exactly. I don't see why you need 2 years to focus on defensive strategies before you start on the offence. The likes of Beveridge and Simpson were innovative from the start, and have achieved results within 1-2 years. In 3 years, all we've done is gone from a bottom team to a 10th - 13th team, but with a far superior list.

Our gameplan is just a mirror image of what the successful teams have been doing for the past 3 years. By the time we master it, the game will probably evolve again, and we'll be playing catch up. 

Maybe I'm loading a gun against myself here, but I think the speed of the rebuild is history - why don't we focus more on where we're going rather than how quickly it's taken us to get to where we are now?

19 minutes ago, mo64 said:

Exactly. I don't see why you need 2 years to focus on defensive strategies before you start on the offence. The likes of Beveridge and Simpson were innovative from the start, and have achieved results within 1-2 years. In 3 years, all we've done is gone from a bottom team to a 10th - 13th team, but with a far superior list.

Our gameplan is just a mirror image of what the successful teams have been doing for the past 3 years. By the time we master it, the game will probably evolve again, and we'll be playing catch up. 

Beveridge especially had the work of Macca to build from. Macca had developed the side and got in the talent and was moulding them the right way. While Beveridge has done good things with the team he started from a much higher base than Roos. We simply didnt have the talent to do it and to go with that we had a history of bad development of the talent we had. 

I disagree we have gone from the bottom to10-13th as well. To say we were only the bottom is flattering, we were a good VFL side a few years back. It took time to even get back to the bottom. 

33 minutes ago, mo64 said:

Exactly. I don't see why you need 2 years to focus on defensive strategies before you start on the offence. The likes of Beveridge and Simpson were innovative from the start, and have achieved results within 1-2 years. In 3 years, all we've done is gone from a bottom team to a 10th - 13th team, but with a far superior list.

Our gameplan is just a mirror image of what the successful teams have been doing for the past 3 years. By the time we master it, the game will probably evolve again, and we'll be playing catch up. 

Maybe that's the excuse Roos needed to keep the AFL at bay while he re built the list with high draft picks.

10 minutes ago, Chris said:

Beveridge especially had the work of Macca to build from. Macca had developed the side and got in the talent and was moulding them the right way. While Beveridge has done good things with the team he started from a much higher base than Roos. We simply didnt have the talent to do it and to go with that we had a history of bad development of the talent we had. 

I disagree we have gone from the bottom to10-13th as well. To say we were only the bottom is flattering, we were a good VFL side a few years back. It took time to even get back to the bottom. 

Please, let's not go over this again. It was Beveridge who got a team that was expected to finish bottom 3 into the finals, end of story. That's what coaches are measured by. If the Dogs thought that McCartney was on track, they wouldn't have sacked him.

6 hours ago, It's Time said:

"We feel like every week, we have the game plan that stacks up," Watts said.

Wattsy's comment got me thinking on a number of levels about Game Plans.

Firstly, seems to me Roosy has been taking a bit of a bum rap over what he's done with the Game Plan since he arrived. He made it pretty clear the first year was about fixing the defence and stopping the whopping loses. The second year was about fixing the midfield and clearly it follows that the third year was about fixing the final stage of the attack. Many commentators seem to only see the ultra defensive first year and are now only crediting Goodwin with the fast ball movement and improved attack in the third year. Lets not forget Roosy is still the Head Coach and ultimately he sets the Game Plan. Assistants in many Clubs are responsible for different parts of the Game Plan but you don't hear commentators saying it's their doing not the Head Coaches. It's Roosy's vision and he's put people in place to execute it. From what I've been reading Jennings sounds like a massive secret weapon with our ball movement and understanding how to stop the oppositions. 

Secondly I wonder how often a playing group as a whole decide a coach's Game Plan is a dud and is never going to work and they give up. Is this part of a coach losing the playing group. I spoke to Flash at the 2011 B & F and he told me that Bailey was trying to get them to play a Game Plan they couldn't execute. (By the way, this was essentially two way running. So probably the right Game Plan, he just didnt' have the players to execute it.) Roh Bail in a conversation with me after Neeld had left the building (a membership drive call) agreed that the players as a group probably were going into games thinking that they weren't going to win executing the Game Plan Neeld was getting them to play.

So how refreshing to hear the players now believe in the Game Plan. And its working.

Thirdly, the Pies and the Toigs both seem to be still playing Game Plans that are about getting possession and slowing the game down while other teams like us have moved on to getting the ball and doing very fast transitions into attack. I wonder if the playing groups at those Clubs have also lost confidence in their Game Plans and therefore their coaches. Fyfe mentioned Freo is struggling with a new Game Plan. Perhaps Lyon has them going through a transition to a more attacking Game Plan. That would run against the grain of what they've been doing since he arrived there. 

 

I agree with most of what you say here, IT, but I reckon Roos has allowed Goodwin to call the list decisions and devise much of the game plan and Roos has basically signed off on these things if he's agreed. So ultimately, you're right, the final decision would come down to Roos, but if I was Roos (and I think this is what he's done), I'd look for a deputy whose footballing philosophy aligned with mine, but also one that was moving with the modern game and prepared to. That's clearly what he saw in Goodwin and I'm sure they've each made decisions that the other has had to agree upon.

I find it a little fruitless reading too much into players comments in the media though. They are mostly fluff pieces and if the game plan question had been asked during Bailey's time or Neeld's, I'm sure players would have been compelled to back the game plan in the public domain. This time, however, the game plan does seem to have legs.

I'm just so grateful and glad that our football team is finally playing the modern game. Ever since Danners left our game style has always felt a bit behind the eight ball. At the crudest level, it seemed Bailey was trying to implement the outdated Geelong game plan and Neeld was trying to implement the outdated Collingwood game plan.

Roos and the FD have spent three years building the list. We now have an engine room of powerful, hard-nosed midfielders and are going about adding pace on the perifery. The list now possesses class and star potential across every line for the first time that I can recall. We have the cattle that has the ability and discipline to play that lock-down contested brand that wins you finals, but at the same time, we're now building flexibility in the way we play offensively, which is equally as important to win finals.

Most importantly, we finally have the cattle that can play modern footy, whichever way the game turns in the next 5 to 10 years. It's just a matter of getting games into them, developing them well by providing clear instruction and feedback, and eventually this team will be capable of implementing the 'Melbourne brand'.

Edited April 20, 20169 yr by AdamFarr

15 minutes ago, mo64 said:

Please, let's not go over this again. It was Beveridge who got a team that was expected to finish bottom 3 into the finals, end of story. That's what coaches are measured by. If the Dogs thought that McCartney was on track, they wouldn't have sacked him.

Go back and have a look at our list when Roos was hired and tell me Beveridge or even Clarkson could have done anything positive with it other than what Ross did, turn it over.

I don't go with the McCartney/Beveridge line either but they did have a list that could be worked by an astute coach. As usual many in the media looked around the edges and didn't have a decent understanding of the players and their upside.

Anyone who thinks Roos as the messiah could have come in and turned things around like Beveridge has as far as win/loss and implementing a winning game plan from day one just doesn't understand footy...

12 hours ago, mo64 said:

Please, let's not go over this again. It was Beveridge who got a team that was expected to finish bottom 3 into the finals, end of story. That's what coaches are measured by. If the Dogs thought that McCartney was on track, they wouldn't have sacked him.

Missed the point I was making by a mile and put words in my mouth, good going!

12 hours ago, AdamFarr said:

I agree with most of what you say here, IT, but I reckon Roos has allowed Goodwin to call the list decisions and devise much of the game plan and Roos has basically signed off on these things if he's agreed. So ultimately, you're right, the final decision would come down to Roos, but if I was Roos (and I think this is what he's done), I'd look for a deputy whose footballing philosophy aligned with mine, but also one that was moving with the modern game and prepared to. That's clearly what he saw in Goodwin and I'm sure they've each made decisions that the other has had to agree upon.

I find it a little fruitless reading too much into players comments in the media though. They are mostly fluff pieces and if the game plan question had been asked during Bailey's time or Neeld's, I'm sure players would have been compelled to back the game plan in the public domain. This time, however, the game plan does seem to have legs.

I'm just so grateful and glad that our football team is finally playing the modern game. Ever since Danners left our game style has always felt a bit behind the eight ball. At the crudest level, it seemed Bailey was trying to implement the outdated Geelong game plan and Neeld was trying to implement the outdated Collingwood game plan.

Roos and the FD have spent three years building the list. We now have an engine room of powerful, hard-nosed midfielders and are going about adding pace on the perifery. The list now possesses class and star potential across every line for the first time that I can recall. We have the cattle that has the ability and discipline to play that lock-down contested brand that wins you finals, but at the same time, we're now building flexibility in the way we play offensively, which is equally as important to win finals.

Most importantly, we finally have the cattle that can play modern footy, whichever way the game turns in the next 5 to 10 years. It's just a matter of getting games into them, developing them well by providing clear instruction and feedback, and eventually this team will be capable of implementing the 'Melbourne brand'.

One of the great things I heard in the video interview with Macca last year was when he spoke about the young coaches and the old coaches. What he basically said was that the young coaches bring great enthusiasm and a new understanding of the game to the table and that it was the older coaches (him and Roos) job to temper that enthusiasm and make sure things were being done that will lead to sustained success, not a flash in the pan good year followed by bad. It was all about habits, learning,  preparation, and getting the group to the point where they were coachable and could be molded as the coach wanted so they could be flexible and adjust to new game plans etc.

That to me is what Macca did for the dogs, he wasn't a success as a senior coach, but he was a success in teaching a young group the required basics, Beveridge then benefited from this as he had a group that was coachable. Roos simply didn't. 

12 hours ago, rjay said:

Anyone who thinks Roos as the messiah could have come in and turned things around like Beveridge has as far as win/loss and implementing a winning game plan from day one just doesn't understand footy...

I'm not sure anyone is suggesting Roos could have turned things around like Beveridge or Hinkley but I think the interesting debate is whether we needed the process we went through or whether we should have introduced the "final" game plan from day one.

People forget how poor PA were when Hinkley went there.  He decided that rather than going to Roos route of defence first he'd go all out attack.  He's probably the father of today's game plan in a sense.  He said that in order to get the best out of your players they need to have fun and that kicking goals was fun.  We went the other way.  We didn't kick goals and it's hard to argue with the fact that the players didn't enjoyed their footy.  You only need to look at the difference in the MFC players demeanour now compared to even last year.

Roos is an old style coach who had success 10 years ago with a particular game style.  Malthouse suffered the same fate and it will be interesting to see how Eade goes.  Lyon is now struggling but Longmire is adjusting.  Bolton has gone to a Carlton list that is arguably as bad as MFC was when Roos took over but has them playing the entire game plan now and they look much better for it.

Did Roos waste 2 years?  We'll never know.  

Edited April 21, 20169 yr by Baghdad Bob

We've been good defensively. The North game is difficult to gauge. At the MCG it might have only been 80-100 points each, we're currently 8th for points against (1st being best defense), and could be higher. We are very firmly in that 5th-12th range atm imo. Our attack struggled against Essendon and in patches against the Pies and GWS (excluding the 4th and 1st quarters, respectively).

Roos has them playing confident football and it all starts in defense. We just aren't bleeding goals like we used to, and when we do, we tend to balance it out with goals of our own.

2 minutes ago, Baghdad Bob said:

I'm not sure anyone is suggesting Roos could have turned things around like Beveridge or Hinkley but I think the interesting debate is whether we needed the process we went through or whether we should have introduced the "final" game plan from day one.

People forget how poor PA were when Hinkley went there.  He decided that rather than going to Roos route of defence first he'd go all out attack.  He's probably the father of today's game plan in a sense.  He said that in order to get the best out of your players they need to have fun and that kicking goals was fun.  We went the other way.  We didn't kick goals and it's hard to argue with the fact that the players didn't enjoyed their footy.  You only need to look at the difference in the MFC players demeanour now compared to even last year.

Roos is an old style coach who had success 10 years ago with a particular game style.  Malthouse suffered the same fate and it will be interesting to see how Eade goes.  Lyon is now struggling but Longmire is adjusting.  Bolton has gone to a Carlton list that is arguably as bad as MFC was when Roos took over but has them playing the entire game plan now and they look much better for it.

Did Roos waste 2 years?  We'll never know.  

Roos has always been about sustained success, I don't think you can say Hinkley has had that. In essence what has occurred is putting in the foundations for any game plan to be laid over the top of, I am not sure Port have that foundation, Roos may well have wasted 2 years, but Hinkley may be wasting more, we will never really know. 

5 minutes ago, Baghdad Bob said:

I'm not sure anyone is suggesting Roos could have turned things around like Beveridge or Hinkley but I think the interesting debate is whether we needed the process we went through or whether we should have introduced the "final" game plan from day one.

People forget how poor PA were when Hinkley went there.  He decided that rather than going to Roos route of defence first he'd go all out attack.  He's probably the father of today's game plan in a sense.  He said that in order to get the best out of your players they need to have fun and that kicking goals was fun.  We went the other way.  We didn't kick goals and it's hard to argue with the fact that the players didn't enjoyed their footy.  You only need to look at the difference in the MFC players demeanour now compared to even last year.

Roos is an old style coach who had success 10 years ago with a particular game style.  Malthouse suffered the same fate and it will be interesting to see how Eade goes.  Lyon is now struggling but Longmire is adjusting.  Bolton has gone to a Carlton list that is arguably as bad as MFC was when Roos took over but has them playing the entire game plan now and they look much better for it.

Did Roos waste 2 years?  We'll never know.  

What do we make of Hinkley and Port Adelaide now?

Arguably a stronger more experienced list than two years ago when they were on fire. Their defensive nature lately has been deplorable. Maybe it was worth addressing. The cyclic nature of developing new game plans to strategically dismantle teams may have caught up with Hinkley and his team.

Just now, Baghdad Bob said:

I'm not sure anyone is suggesting Roos could have turned things around like Beveridge or Hinkley but I think the interesting debate is whether we needed the process we went through or whether we should have introduced the "final" game plan from day one.

People forget how poor PA were when Hinkley went there.  He decided that rather than going to Roos route of defence first he'd go all out attack.  He's probably the father of today's game plan in a sense.  He said that in order to get the best out of your players they need to have fun and that kicking goals was fun.  We went the other way.  We didn't kick goals and it's hard to argue with the fact that the players enjoyed their footy.  You only need to look at the difference in the MFC players demeanour now compared to even last year.

Roos is an old style coach who had success 10 years ago with a particular game style.  Malthouse suffered the same fate and it will be interesting to see how Eade goes.  Lyon is now struggling but Longmire is adjusting.  Bolton has gone to a Carlton list that is arguably as bad as MFC was when Roos took over but has them playing the entire game plan now and they look much better for it.

Did Roos waste 2 years?  We'll never know.  

Despite poor performances under Primus, Hinkley had a list to work with. Roos didn't...

Carlton have no depth but they still have some top level players A grade or close to it Murphy, Gibbs, Cripps, Kruez etc...

Roos first job was to develop the list, not an A grader (Jones close) and many not better than VFL level on it when he took over.

I know you've got a bee in the bonnet about Roos and the game plan but I don't think we could have done it any other way. With Goodwin to take over at the end of the season we seem well placed and despite Roos being a dinosaur the game plan seems to be working ok.