The Game Plan - It seems to be working

[ArtificialWisdom 4,045]

2 minutes ago, rjay said:

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.

Agreed his biggest task year 1 and 2 was to find a way to have a VFL team compete at AFL level and given the loses before that, i think he did a pretty good job. When we look back in a few years time i think we will really appreciate what he has done for this club. 

[Redlegs Too 106]

18 hours ago, jnrmac said:

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

Maybe by the end of this season you will be. 

[jnrmac 20,053]

12 hours ago, rjay said:

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...

Beveridge implemented a game plan in 1 summer. We have taken 3 years. Their list was not vastly different to ours. Even Bolton at Carlton has them playing in a style which is recognisable after 1 summer.

I don't buy McCartney did all the hard work. They were a basket case.

[Coup Cooper 610]

18 hours ago, jnrmac said:

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

It does when your list was so fragile and to be honest, pathetic..

Neeld hammers our club and the bulk of the players lost confidence , and for some even ruined their careers.. Only the best of our worst era are still on the list with probably more than half gone from 2013/12..

dawes was a lock back in 2014 for a start.. Now most on here would rather he isn't even an emergency..

Just remember how bad we were.. For 2 years! 

[Coup Cooper 610]

5 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

Beveridge implemented a game plan in 1 summer. We have taken 3 years. Their list was not vastly different to ours. Even Bolton at Carlton has them playing in a style which is recognisable after 1 summer.

I don't buy McCartney did all the hard work. They were a basket case.

The Bulldogs list was miles ahead of ours.. Granted it's early.. But maybe we'll see the same resurgence they did, this year? To do that though, we need to belt the bad teams! Like they did, aka us at Etihad last year..

[H_T 3,043]

8 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

I don't buy McCartney did all the hard work. They were a basket case.

I don't buy they were a basket case.

We indeed were and we were coming further back from where they were at.

[Go the Biff 3,414]

7 minutes ago, Coup Cooper said:

It does when your list was so fragile and to be honest, pathetic..

Neeld hammers our club and the bulk of the players lost confidence , and for some even ruined their careers.. Only the best of our worst era are still on the list with probably more than half gone from 2013/12..

dawes was a lock back in 2014 for a start.. Now most on here would rather he isn't even an emergency..

Just remember how bad we were.. For 2 years! 

People are either forgetting this or have understandably blocked it out

Take your pick - our 0-9 start to 2012 or if you want a shortened version, revisit rounds 1 & 2 of 2013

We were shite. Utter, utter shite. To think that could have been turned around in a year is laughable

It's a credit to Roos and Jackson that they were prepared to take the time to do a proper sustainable rebuild

And this is still nowhere near the finished product. It's just the first glimmer of light at what's been a long and farking horrible tunnel

[Chris 2,892]

5 minutes ago, Go the Biff said:

People are either forgetting this or have understandably blocked it out

Take your pick - our 0-9 start to 2012 or if you want a shortened version, revisit rounds 1 & 2 of 2013

We were shite. Utter, utter shite. To think that could have been turned around in a year is laughable

It's a credit to Roos and Jackson that they were prepared to take the time to do a proper sustainable rebuild

And this is still nowhere near the finished product. It's just the first glimmer of light at what's been a long and farking horrible tunnel

And for the first time I have some degree of confidence the light isn't an oncoming train!

[jackaub 1,402]

33 minutes ago, praha said:

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.

We started far too definsively against Essendon it was a mistake and we played catch up footy all afternoon

I hope we never do that again. It has in the past caused us to lose many games in the first 10 minutes

Against the Tiges manic attack on the ball and at the player and run the ball forward at all opportunities

They will fold like deck chairs on a windy after noon We must jump them!!

[H_T 3,043]

13 minutes ago, jackaub said:

We started far too definsively against Essendon it was a mistake and we played catch up footy all afternoon

I hope we never do that again. It has in the past caused us to lose many games in the first 10 minutes

Against the Tiges manic attack on the ball and at the player and run the ball forward at all opportunities

They will fold like deck chairs on a windy after noon We must jump them!!

Essendon were first to the ball and switched on. We weren't accountable enough and weren't up for the challenge. It may have looked defensive but that's because we were off our game and catching tail. 

[Its Time for Another 4,187]

18 minutes ago, H_T said:

Essendon were first to the ball and switched on. We weren't accountable enough and weren't up for the challenge. It may have looked defensive but that's because we were off our game and catching tail. 

It's clear from the Dons and Norf and parts of the Pies games that if we don't attack the ball with our maximum competitiveness we get beaten. It seems to start and finish there. You can't do much about a Game Plan if you don't have the ball. I have also noticed that we are getting way better at our defensive running. PIes had a couple of big breaks down the ground and we had enough numbers gut running back to stop them scoring. That's the other big step forward. 

[Slartibartfast 17,180]

2 hours ago, rjay said:

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.

What is frustrating, and I didn't think you were part of it, is the concept that we can't question Roos and the assumption that if Roos does anything it must be right.  I've not got a bee in my bonnet about Roos but I think it's arguable that Roos is an old style coach focusing on defence because that is what worked for him at Sydney.  I would present the same issue (a three year introduction of game plan) regardless of who our coach was. Daniher took a basket case, changed the game plan in one year and made a preliminary final. 

We've taken three years to progress this club from no workable game plan to a modern game plan.  Bolton is doing it in one.  Beverage did it in one.  Hinkley did it in one.  Leppa went the attacking route.  Richardson developed the whole and did not take an incremental approach.  Worsfold is not just concentrating on defence.  Roos is the odd man out. The time taken has cause a lot of pain to the MFC but has also provided benefits through low draft picks and that is impacting now.

I finished my other post by saying we'd never know, obviously this issue is moot.  But the argument that "we were worse than any other team"  is  a cop out to the issue.  Even if we were worst it doesn't mean the other approach wouldn't have been better. It's not been until we've introduced an attacking game plan this year that we've played AFL quality footy.   We won a few games last year but we were just terrible for long periods of the season.

After the Essendon game everyone here wanted Roos to step away and let Goodwin take over.  After a win against the Pies few want to question if Roos  took the right path.  It's inconsistent emotive thinking. I've raised this issue for months now, it's nothing more than an interesting discussion predicated on having taken a different path to all other clubs and has nothing to do with a "bee in my bonnet" about Roos.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Baghdad Bob said:

 

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. 

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

How is that going now?

You may have argued against yourself a little bit.

[Slartibartfast 17,180]

1 minute ago, Stretch Johnson said:

How is that going now?

You may have argued against yourself a little bit.

It depends on what is causing the PA decline.  If you think it's the methodology of introducing the full game plan in year one you have a point.  Personally I don't think footy is that simplistic.

[Guest]

Just now, Baghdad Bob said:

It depends on what is causing the PA decline.  If you think it's the methodology of introducing the full game plan in year one you have a point.  Personally I don't think footy is that simplistic.

Of course we are all just guessing, but of all the coaches that you reffered to (including Daniher) none has won a flag, Roos has, and he did it with a list that many considered ordinary bar a couple of champions.

Siding with Roosy's manifesto is the safe not the sexy option, and we were in no position to pick the sexy option.

Flags, not finals.

[rjay 24,852]

2 minutes ago, Baghdad Bob said:

What is frustrating, and I didn't think you were part of it, is the concept that we can't question Roos and the assumption that if Roos does anything it must be right.  I've not got a bee in my bonnet about Roos but I think it's arguable that Roos is an old style coach focusing on defence because that is what worked for him at Sydney.  I would present the same issue (a three year introduction of game plan) regardless of who our coach was. Daniher took a basket case, changed the game plan in one year and made a preliminary final. 

We've taken three years to progress this club from no workable game plan to a modern game plan.  Bolton is doing it in one.  Beverage did it in one.  Hinkley did it in one.  Leppa went the attacking route.  Richardson developed the whole and did not take an incremental approach.  Worsfold is not just concentrating on defence.  Roos is the odd man out. The time taken has cause a lot of pain to the MFC but has also provided benefits through low draft picks and that is impacting now.

I finished my other post by saying we'd never know, obviously this issue is moot.  But the argument that "we were worse than any other team"  is  a cop out to the issue.  Even if we were worst it doesn't mean the other approach wouldn't have been better. It's not been until we've introduced an attacking game plan this year that we've played AFL quality footy.   We won a few games last year but we were just terrible for long periods of the season.

After the Essendon game everyone here wanted Roos to step away and let Goodwin take over.  After a win against the Pies few want to question if Roos  took the right path.  It's inconsistent emotive thinking. I've raised this issue for months now, it's nothing more than an interesting discussion predicated on having taken a different path to all other clubs and has nothing to do with a "bee in my bonnet" about Roos.

Of course it's ok to question Roos 'Bob', I just think you are barking up the wrong tree on this one. 

We were far and away a much worse team than any other you have mentioned and any team since possibly the last Fitzroy team and even they would have given us a good run for our money. The others all have and had a good senior group to work from, and some exciting young talent. We had Jones who is not even rated a top 40 AFL player (Although that could be argued) and of the young talent most of it's gone.

Even the current EFC with Goddard, Zaha, Lewy, Daniher, Cooney & co, some of their pick ups like Crowley, Stokes & Kelly plus their younger brigade is streets ahead of where we were at the end of Neeld's time.

We didn't get enough of the ball to run an attacking game plan and when we did we gave it back. You would have seen more 186 scores and that would have been the end of bringing any talent into the club.

It's been a hard road but unfortunately for us it's one we had to take. We didn't have the option.

[DemonDave 1,089]

As much as I loathe him immensely, David King brought up an interesting scatter plot graph that Champion Data use to determine how close to  premiership standard teams are. It's based on scoring 100 points a game and conceding around 86.

This was from Round 21 last year I think, and as you can see by the legend 14 of last 15 premiers have met these criteria.

 Last year we were not scoring enough, nor defending well enough.

Now the updated graph for this year after 4 rounds has us much closer to somewhere near we need to be:

Both our points for and points conceded totals have improved a lot, and we compare favourable to some good teams such as the Hawks (who have obviously underperformed by their standards so far this year).

For the first time in a number of years, like a lot on here, I can genuinely see progress onfield on a more consistent basis, and now statisically that's backing up our reason for cautious optimism.

 

[hemingway 7,615]

The only interest in game plans is what I see on the field from week to week.  More concerned about skills, decision making, disposal, tackling, contested ball, run, spirit , support for team mates and sheer guts and determination. 

[Its Time for Another 4,187]

5 minutes ago, Baghdad Bob said:

What is frustrating, and I didn't think you were part of it, is the concept that we can't question Roos and the assumption that if Roos does anything it must be right.  I've not got a bee in my bonnet about Roos but I think it's arguable that Roos is an old style coach focusing on defence because that is what worked for him at Sydney.  I would present the same issue (a three year introduction of game plan) regardless of who our coach was. Daniher took a basket case, changed the game plan in one year and made a preliminary final. 

We've taken three years to progress this club from no workable game plan to a modern game plan.  Bolton is doing it in one.  Beverage did it in one.  Hinkley did it in one.  Leppa went the attacking route.  Richardson developed the whole and did not take an incremental approach.  Worsfold is not just concentrating on defence.  Roos is the odd man out. The time taken has cause a lot of pain to the MFC but has also provided benefits through low draft picks and that is impacting now.

I finished my other post by saying we'd never know, obviously this issue is moot.  But the argument that "we were worse than any other team"  is  a cop out to the issue.  Even if we were worst it doesn't mean the other approach wouldn't have been better. It's not been until we've introduced an attacking game plan this year that we've played AFL quality footy.   We won a few games last year but we were just terrible for long periods of the season.

After the Essendon game everyone here wanted Roos to step away and let Goodwin take over.  After a win against the Pies few want to question if Roos  took the right path.  It's inconsistent emotive thinking. I've raised this issue for months now, it's nothing more than an interesting discussion predicated on having taken a different path to all other clubs and has nothing to do with a "bee in my bonnet" about Roos.

You might be right, you might be wrong about whether Roos was too defensive in the first year. It's only ever going to be a matter of opinion, I don't think there will ever be a definitive answer. 

I don't agree with your comment that saying we didn't have the players is a cop out. It's a fact. It's also a fact that the players we had when Roos arrived weren't conditioned or mature enough to be capable of running both ways. It looks like it's taken until this season for them to be ready. If you can't run both ways you are in a lot of trouble. As someone else mentioned Hinkley came in with all out attack and a few years down the track they are in all sorts of trouble. It looks like Lyon is trying to change a very experienced group at Freo's Game Plan to be more attacking and they've lost 4 straight games. Fyfe said they are struggling with a new Game Plan. It takes time even with an experienced list.

Attack starts from defence. If you can't defend, you can't start your attack. It seems to be a fact that young players arriving in the AFL are naturally more attacking and in most cases it takes time to teach them the discipline of being defensive. Some never get it. Think Blease. I believe it's critical to develop the defensive mindset first. And it's starting to show if you don't have it, attacking footy will run out. If you look at the Bulldogs stats, they are one of the best defences and also concede one of the lowest scores from turnovers. Their attacks start from defence. The Lions have the least amount of turnovers of any team, yet the highest points scored against from turnovers of any team. They don't know how to defend and cough up the ball in their backline. 

When you turn 3/4's of the list over it means each year you have a whole new batch of players to teach the Game Plan to from scratch. All of this takes time. If you look at the player turnover at the Clubs that had very quick turnarounds like Port and the Bulldogs I guarantee you they had most of a list ready to go. Port were cruelled by injuries the year before Hinkley arrived. They had very few new players in his first season. I think you'll find the same at the Bulldogs who had been properly developed under McCarthy for several years before Beveridge arrived.

 

[Slartibartfast 17,180]

Quote

Of course it's ok to question Roos 'Bob', I just think you are barking up the wrong tree on this one. 

Then don't argue I've got "a bee in my bonnet" to support your argument.

Quote

It's been a hard road but unfortunately for us it's one we had to take. We didn't have the option.

Of course we had an option.  You think it would have been the wrong one and I accept that's your view.  It's not mine and we'll never know.

 

By the way, we haven't proved anything yet.  Beat GWS by 2 points, lost to Essendon and beat a terrible Collingwood team.  Like many I'm very optimistic but I think too many are going too hard too early.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Baghdad Bob said:

Then don't argue I've got "a bee in my bonnet" to support your argument.

Of course we had an option.  You think it would have been the wrong one and I accept that's your view.  It's not mine and we'll never know.

 

By the way, we haven't proved anything yet.  Beat GWS by 2 points, lost to Essendon and beat a terrible Collingwood team.  Like many I'm very optimistic but I think too many are going too hard too early.

It's hard to be Paul Roos, you start to go ok and all of a sudden people are wondering why it is that you didn't do that thing that you are doing now before...or attributing all the good stuff to Goodwin or McCartney.

 

[Wadda We Sing 10,685]

16 hours ago, jnrmac said:

It's footy. Not a science degree.

Yes indeed JM, but as MM used to say..."They are footy players after all"

[Its Time for Another 4,187]

19 minutes ago, hemingway said:

The only interest in game plans is what I see on the field from week to week.  More concerned about skills, decision making, disposal, tackling, contested ball, run, spirit , support for team mates and sheer guts and determination. 

Hemingway how do you separate them?  The Game Plan has a major impact on nearly all of these factors if not all.  Someone, it might have been Roosy, said the ultimate purpose of a Game Plan is predictability. It means players know what their teammates are going to do at any given situation on the field and can prepare and respond accordingly. I'm very confident in saying there were some very subtle demonstrations of this against the Pies where our players got the ball in defence and unsighted kicked it forward, sometimes over their heads and the kicks landed in a teammates hands. I used to see the Hawthorns and Geelongs do this and get peed off that the luck always runs their way whereas when we used to do that it would land in the oppositions hands and be a turnover. I've realised it's not luck. The reason it's changed is because our player knows if he gets the ball and kicks it to X spot in the ground a player down the ground knows that if he is kicking from Y, they need to get to X. So he blindly kicks it and it goes to the right players. That used to be a terrible turnover, it isn't anymore because someones there now. The same applies all over the ground. If you get the ball and know ahead of time where you are going to kick it then you don't make bad decisions that result in turnovers and you don't have the same skill errors. This happens because players down the field have created options for you because they know the Game Plan has taught them if you get the ball at X they have to present at Y.  

When all of this is happening it makes it a lot easier to play with intent and attack the game. 

All of that's what I'm seeing improved this year. And most of it is down to two things. The Game Plan and having players mature and conditioned enough to execute it.

Edited April 21, 2016 by It's Time

[binman 42,608]

21 minutes ago, Baghdad Bob said:

 

After the Essendon game everyone here wanted Roos to step away and let Goodwin take over.  After a win against the Pies few want to question if Roos  took the right path.  It's inconsistent emotive thinking. I've raised this issue for months now, it's nothing more than an interesting discussion predicated on having taken a different path to all other clubs and has nothing to do with a "bee in my bonnet" about Roos.

Not everyone, Bob - certainly not me.

I get the points you are making I disagree with much of what you say in the post the above quote is from (i don't mean that in confrontational lest have an argument way - perhaps its better to say i disagree with the thrust of your argument, or maybe the premise). 

Without dissecting your post a few points i'd make are:

• Roos stated early on that the critical element of his game plan is not defence but rather players are who are support competitive and attack each contest accordingly. he reiterated that after the NAB in a long article that i've referenced before, in which he pointed out that all the current MFC coaches share that philosophy
• He also stated at the start of his tenure was to set up the club for sustained success and a realistic shot at premierships (a la Hawthorn) He will be judged on that goal not how quickly or otherwise a modern game plan is implemented.
• None of your examples of coaches, with the exception of Beveridge really support an argument that implementing a game plan quickly assists setting up a culture of long term success or even short erms sucess for that matter. And you could mount an argument that Beveridge is building on the work done by Macca to bed down the defensive aspect of the game
• Yes Daniher did well to get that team to a prelim but it was frightening how quickly we fell away and have been in the abyss ever since, in large part because of our inability to stop teams smashing us 
• Hinkley? - well they might have implemented a shiny new attacking game plan but if the wheels have not falled off they are wobbly and that is at least partly because their defensive structures are falling down and there was no better example than last week when GWS opened them up like we used to be regularly opened up
• A better comparison might be Clarkson who developed his game plan over time and recruited the right players to fully  implement the attacking game plan that has become the modern templete
• Lastly you say that it is arguable that 'Roos is an old style coach focusing on defence because that is what worked for him at Sydney'. Well he might have been, once. And he did win a flag when a defensive style was the template for success. But taking in the NAB cup (yes, yes i know) we have scored over 100 points in 5 of the 7 games. Surely this is evidence that Roos has adapted his game plan to be much more attacking. Or does Goodwin get all the credit for that? Of course Roos should be open for criticism but surely also equlaly credit where credi is due and the proof is in the pudding. 

[Bossdog 2,002]

32 minutes ago, Stretch Johnson said:

How is that going now?

You may have argued against yourself a little bit.

Port are on the same points as us.......They beat Ess by 61 pts and St Kilda by 33    Had a couple of shockers against Adel (finals contender) by 58 and smashed last week against GWS (Finals contender) by 86.   The season is so even.   The media go on about how bad Coll  Rich and Port are, Wait until they win a couple and they will be world beaters and back in final contention.