17 minutes ago, Redleg said:

Agree with most of that. I probably used the wrong term when I referred to "bleeding " goals and really meant, allowing "easy uncontested goals."

However, it is clear, that when we had a turnover or loss of possession, or they gained a clearance, the Saints players were already running forward and even if we chased, which we did, we would not catch them and they would have loose men up forward inside their 50. 

The first thing that caused this was poor skill in handballing and kicking. The second was intensity at the ball and then the use of spread on gaining possession. The third was anticipation by the Saints that they would win the ball.

This is a high risk game strategy, I know and is so dependent on who gains possession and what you then do with the ball.

For those reasons I was so concerned about fresh legs and bringing in another strong clearance player, who with the loss of Brayshaw, to me was a fresh, young, Oliver.

I really question how long the fast paced game we are seeing this year will last, Not just for us but for most other sides as well. Attrition is bound to set in  and I doubt any team could play this way all season. We have shown if we are off our game we are anyone's [censored] and we can expect other sides to be off their game too. I predict more smarter defensive tactics will start to dominate once finals are near. We certainly need to find a better balance between attack and defence if we are going to finish the season on a high. 

18 minutes ago, Redleg said:

Agree with most of that. I probably used the wrong term when I referred to "bleeding " goals and really meant, allowing "easy uncontested goals."

However, it is clear, that when we had a turnover or loss of possession, or they gained a clearance, the Saints players were already running forward and even if we chased, which we did, we would not catch them and they would have loose men up forward inside their 50. 

The first thing that caused this was poor skill in handballing and kicking. The second was intensity at the ball and then the use of spread on gaining possession. The third was anticipation by the Saints that they would win the ball.

This is a high risk game strategy, I know and is so dependent on who gains possession and what you then do with the ball.

For those reasons I was so concerned about fresh legs and bringing in another strong clearance player, who with the loss of Brayshaw, to me was a fresh, young, Oliver.

Looks like we do agree then.

I think the FD wanted to reward the team who had brought us consecutive wins and who had been, generally speaking, doing everything right. Getting games into us as a unit, rather than with continued changes to personnel, has its benefits. But with the benefit of hindsight I think it's clear (or at least should be) to all that we need to rest and rotate our kids as we go to ensure that we bring the right level of intensity every week. That, fundamentally, is what led to the rest of our game falling down.

17 hours ago, bluey said:

Zone defence is a great idea, unless your Nev Jetta, Salem or Bug and Nick Reiwoldt or Joe Daniher or Rory Lobb decide to park themselves in the bit of land  you are minding.

 

If it is so vulnerable to mismatching then maybe it isn't a great idea after all.

39 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

Looks like we do agree then.

I think the FD wanted to reward the team who had brought us consecutive wins and who had been, generally speaking, doing everything right. Getting games into us as a unit, rather than with continued changes to personnel, has its benefits. But with the benefit of hindsight I think it's clear (or at least should be) to all that we need to rest and rotate our kids as we go to ensure that we bring the right level of intensity every week. That, fundamentally, is what led to the rest of our game falling down.

Yes tu I was all for no change. And got the result very wrong.

i got sucked into believing that a few kids were better than they are.

I also think we got beaten at the selection table. The Saints looked a lot bigger,heavier and faster than our guys.

one thing we learnt yesterday or at least I hope we learnt it. You cannot play two midgets in Kennedy and Garlett at the same time and particularly against a bigger side like the saints. 

We have this year got a lot of first use of the ball from Gawn but yesterday Tucker jumped all over him and they got a lot of first ball usage. Now everyone has a poor day but what annoyed was that Gawn did change his tactics. We all know that old saying about doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Why Gawn did not change or why he was not told to change is the second biggest mystery of 2016.

The first biggest mystery is why we played large parts of the game with Nev on Roo and why we gave him 20 meters start to every contest.

Having said all that we will still win 10 games and I still think we have a lot better list than last year.

4 hours ago, Bonkers said:

That's another aspect from yesterday that was frustrating. There seemed to be a lot of broken tackles which as you said lead to free players. If we had stuck some of those tackles it would have lead to goal scoring chances the other way.

Perhaps cheating was the wrong word, but it's definitely a large gamble committing numbers well forward of the ball when you're not in possession.

I counted at least three soft tackles from Frost alone that didn't properly impede St Kilda players, that lead directly to three St Kilda goals. Not good enough. He's 200cm and probably 100kg - he should be retarding those opposition players.

Here's an odd little note from all of this.  The last two weeks we have won and remained in the same spot on the ladder.  This week we lost and went up one place to ninth. 

11 hours ago, monoccular said:

Can someone please try to explain in simple terms how this defence zone works, in theory.   Like having Jetta in a marking contest vs Reiwoldt?  I really don't understand.

Zone defence works on the theory that you bloke prospective avenues from your attacking  50 by putting your forwards  and others as designated in outposts!

The idea is that you may not bloke the first chip kick but your can sometimes effectively stop the second kick out of defence thus shortcircuit the next attack.

I NEVER liked it in any form of footy and when I coached I always played man on man defense thus forcing a contest! The problems percieved in this is that if opposition get the ball a quick team just all roll forward and create various options of ball delivery.

My view is if you play man on man you force the first kick to a contest! I reckon that is much more preferable than an instant and cheap first possesion which then invites a swith and whammo you are on your way!!

3 hours ago, titan_uranus said:

Looks like we do agree then.

I think the FD wanted to reward the team who had brought us consecutive wins and who had been, generally speaking, doing everything right. Getting games into us as a unit, rather than with continued changes to personnel, has its benefits. But with the benefit of hindsight I think it's clear (or at least should be) to all that we need to rest and rotate our kids as we go to ensure that we bring the right level of intensity every week. That, fundamentally, is what led to the rest of our game falling down.

What a bulltish and unprofessional operation if true.

Ask Clarko.. it is always horses for courses! Faaark me we aren't pandering to flighty egos like in under 14s I hope!??

Oh hang on maybe we are!!

On the goalkicking front, Hogan has taken over the lead for our team and is now sixth overall on 16, while Watts has dropped to 11th overall with his tally of 14. 

You know, i dont think that zone defence per se is a problem.  The problem is when they all 'press' forward up the ground.  We haven't used the press up the ground in all our games.  Whether it was coaching to use it yesterday or player initiative who knows.

Either way we aren't good at using the 'press forward' and should stick more to zone defence until we get better at defence in all parts of the ground.  

Look at WCE 'web' for an effective zone defence which doesn't press forward.  Not saying we should copy it.  Just saying zone defence structures don't need the 'press forward' to be effective.

23 hours ago, Fork 'em said:

I watched them warm up pre-game aswell and saw them doing full pace leading and passing drills working up a sweat and then looked up the other end to us and we're wandering around having casual shots at goal like millionaires.

Surprise, surprise, just how the game panned out.

Yeah, it sure makes you wonder why we didn't warm up like that. I watched some of the individual warm ups before that and Jesse and Nathan Jones had a bit of intensity about them. But the whole saints team had a sharpness that we lacked. I hope the coaching team address this.

1 hour ago, RalphiusMaximus said:

On the goalkicking front, Hogan has taken over the lead for our team and is now sixth overall on 16, while Watts has dropped to 11th overall with his tally of 14. 

I was looking at this earlier today.

Meanwhile, Viney is 1st in the league for contested possessions, 2nd for clearances, 12th for overall disposals, 16th for tackles and 26th for score involvements (Hogan is 29th). Suffice to say he's having a bloody good season.

I think we're getting overly concerned here. 

2 out of 3 from that chunk of games is fine. Does anybody seriously think that 9th at this point isn't a great result for us? All of a sudden, we're looking ok to finish 9th-11th somewhere and people are screaming about how terrible it is. Have you not been watching for the last 10 years? 

We were always going to have ups and downs this season. Losing this game isn't the end of the world. We could have played better, we could have been coached better. But let's not go overboard - we're still learning and are still playing ok footy most of the way through.

And for all the negativity, what about celebrating wildly about the fact Hogan kicked SEVEN this week. 

Hellooo

We play man on man except that we have to push onto the ball carrier and rely on someone else to cover your man.

Which explains why tommy mac was running off nick r to go and stop the ball carrier and jetta or someone ended up on st nick.

Its [censored] stupid because you just end up piggy in the middle.

10 hours ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

You know, i dont think that zone defence per se is a problem.  The problem is when they all 'press' forward up the ground.  We haven't used the press up the ground in all our games.  Whether it was coaching to use it yesterday or player initiative who knows.

Either way we aren't good at using the 'press forward' and should stick more to zone defence until we get better at defence in all parts of the ground.  

Look at WCE 'web' for an effective zone defence which doesn't press forward.  Not saying we should copy it.  Just saying zone defence structures don't need the 'press forward' to be effective.

It breaks down when you can't hold the ball in your fwd line. That's what happened. Our tackles dodn't stick and they outran us wide and created overlap. I would love to see a stat for missed tackles - thta was a big difference from the week before.

Hold those tackles and all of a sudden they are not streaming down into an open fwd line..

10 hours ago, Undeeterred said:

I think we're getting overly concerned here. 

2 out of 3 from that chunk of games is fine. Does anybody seriously think that 9th at this point isn't a great result for us? All of a sudden, we're looking ok to finish 9th-11th somewhere and people are screaming about how terrible it is. Have you not been watching for the last 10 years? 

We were always going to have ups and downs this season. Losing this game isn't the end of the world. We could have played better, we could have been coached better. But let's not go overboard - we're still learning and are still playing ok footy most of the way through.

And for all the negativity, what about celebrating wildly about the fact Hogan kicked SEVEN this week. 

Thanks Pollyanna

On 4/30/2016 at 10:36 PM, DeeSpencer said:

Salem needs more time to handle teams who can run him up and down the ground. Wagner and Hunt have 5 games between them.

I know what they're trying to do with Salem and agree with the strategy to an extent, but I think it's time to free him up a bit and play him on a wing or forward flank. I think we're robbing Peter to pay Paul a little here and it's not really working. He is a great attacking and ferocious mid who can kick a goal but at the moment he's been run around by the opposition and has been only mildly effective.

On 4/30/2016 at 11:12 PM, AdamFarr said:

I maintain Lumumba will look like a headless chook when his team mates don't work on the spread for him. He is also learning to play with the vast majority of them. He's looked the goods when we have brought the work rate this year.

I also thought Salem was terrific in the first quarter and then unsighted afterwards. Did I read somewhere that he copped another concussion?

Concussed at the end of the 3rd after clashing heads with Viney - Salem looked away with the fairies on the bench while Viney was competing at the next centre bounce. Maybe another one for the "Viney made me cry" thread

On 4/30/2016 at 11:15 PM, stinga said:

Nothing to do with the footy.  I went today and prior to the game went into the Victory Room for Melbourne Members and had a coffee.  I am a Melbourne AFL member and had no trouble getting in.  Someone was interviewing a couple of the players from tomorrows VFL game which was interesting.  At half time I tried to return but was told I'm not a Melbourne Member I couldn't go in and there are rooms for AFL members.  There were other Melbourne AFL members also turned away ( the room is directly opposite the AFL members area behind the interchange gates).  I just wondered if anybody else had the same experience.

Thats rubbish, they should have let you in. You ARE a Melbourne member, albeit through the AFL with MFC club support.

13 hours ago, RalphiusMaximus said:

Here's an odd little note from all of this.  The last two weeks we have won and remained in the same spot on the ladder.  This week we lost and went up one place to ninth. 

We also went up a spot after our last loss. A new tactic.

Another Etihad whinge ...

It's terrible for buying a ticket and getting in. While I'm an MFC member and got straight in yesterday, previously I have bought tickets for non-home games. Buying a ticket at the ground is a lengthy, convoluted process. It seems to take, at best, up to a minute at the window for each customer, especially with a credit card.

So one booth can process, say, 80-90 customers per hour. If each customer bought 2 tickets, that's probably around 160-200 tickets per hour per booth, at best. So selling 10,000 tickets would take 50 booths at least an hour. Even with a smallish crowd of 27,000 on Saturday there were lengthy queues, and some didn't get in the ground until well into the first quarter. My advice is to go much earlier than you think.

Maybe it's a plot to get you to pay extra on-line.

On 4/30/2016 at 6:46 AM, Bring-Back-Powell said:

Prior to round 4, if we looked at the block of 3 games coming up (Collingwood, Richmond and St Kilda) most here would've been happy with 2 out of 3 wins I would've thought.

I predicted 2/3 and predicted we would beat Tiges/Pies and lose to Saints. Doen't mean I'm "happy" though.

After the Bombers game I said the only thing that could redeem that horrible effort was putting in a good showing against North and winning the 3 games after that. We came close, but we failed - so in my eyes we are still behind the 8 ball. We should be 4-2 now but we are 3-3. So somewhere along the line we still need to make up a game. Our next 4 games are GC (away) Dogs & Lions (both G) and Port (NT). We have to win 3 of those to be back to par for the season in my eyes.

I don't think the Saints game was a disaster - it was poor but it wasn't doomsday. I thought we would probably split our games with them so if we can beat them later in the season it would be about par.

It looked to me that our plan to play Riewoldt was that Tom Mc would play on him until Nick went past the centre square.  As soon as he crossed that line, I reckon Vince was meant to tag him.  As soon as McDonald "lost" Riewoldt, he (TMc) would drop back to about 30m out.  The problem was that Vince's direct opponent then dropped off him (Vince) and ran to the HFF, about 55m out.  Vince then had to decide if he went with his man, or went to Riewoldt (who was alone).  If he went to Riewoldt, then his former opponent would get the ball (as Tom was too far from him), but if Vince went to his former opponent, then the Saints played it through Riewoldt (hence why he had so many uncontested marks).

The issues was that too often Vince went chasing kicks rather than picking up either his former opponent or Riewoldt, leaving them with two free players, and our other defenders working their ass off trying to cover for their teammates.

It was as plain as day from the 1st minute in the first quarter, and continued on until the last quarter where McDonald was obviously instructed to run with Riewoldt wherever he went.  This is when we managed to shut him down, but it was too late she cried.

I would also question whether Tom Mc was 100% going in to the game.  At one stage he was leaning up against the goalpost sucking in the big ones, and looked in more discomfort than someone who had just sprinted his guts out.

Roos was out-coached by Riewoldt.  That's why we lost.  If I didn't barrack for the losing team, it would've been bloody impressive watching Riewoldt force us in to error after error, and totally break down our defence.  One of the best individual efforts I've seen for a long time.  And a lot more individual brilliance and influence than Hogan's 7.

 

On 30 April 2016 at 4:06 PM, Ricky P said:

I've never seen so many goals kicked with 3,4,5 forwards on 1 defender. I'm not sure whether there's something wrong with the plan or the application. I reckon it's probably the latter. 

Hopefully the boys bounce back next week. 

Plan?  There is a plan?

Apparently it wasn't just us supporters who could sense us getting a bit complacent and doing to much back-patting before Saturday's game...

“When you play a side it’s probably better to play them coming off a good win because naturally in footy you get pretty happy and all that sort of stuff,” Billings told foxsports.com.au.

“We knew they were probably expecting to win so we knew if we came out and just went hard at the ball, hard at the man we were a chance.”

http://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/jack-billings-says-st-kilda-was-ready-for-melbourne-following-39point-win-at-etihad-stadium/news-story/323eaeb606fc46dc351284586207f3ae